Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Thursday, 2 July 2015
Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine
Beef Data and Genomics Programme: Discussion with Irish Cattle Breeding Federation
11:30 am
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I welcome Mr. Sean Coughlan, chief executive officer, and Dr. Andrew Cromie, technical director of the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation and I thank them for attending the committee to discuss with members some of the technical aspects of the beef data and genomics programme from a breeding perspective. I thank them for their indulgence with the delay in starting the meeting in order to accommodate another event which was arranged subsequent to our established arrangements.
I advise the witnesses that, by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given. They are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing ruling of the Chair to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or any official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
I invite Mr. Coughlan to make his opening statement.
Mr. Sean Coughlan:
I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for the invitation to come before it and I welcome the opportunity to provide some information to the committee on some of the technical aspects of the scheme from a breeding perspective. The ICBF is the independent industry-owned agency responsible for the generation of genetic evaluations for cattle in Ireland and it is licensed by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. We have attended the various farmer meetings around the country over the past couple of months and have fielded many queries and concerns in regard to the technical breeding and genomic-related aspects of the scheme. I am also aware that two weeks ago, Brendan Gleeson and his colleagues were in attendance at this committee. In that context, and in the context of the invitation to attend here today, I propose to cover some of those issues raised and my colleague, Dr. Andrew Cromie and I will be more than happy to answer any questions from members.
With regard to the core issue of genetic gain in the national suckler herd, the reality is that despite profitability gains in the terminal traits, namely the meat, these gains have been offset by continued decline in the maternal traits in suckler cows, that is, milk and fertility. While the dairy herd is pushing on with close to optimal gains of around €20 per replacement per year, the replacements in the suckler herd are going backwards. These are very different industries in terms of structure but the suckler beef sector cannot afford to let on the table the increased profitability available through the use of better genetics. The beef data and genomics scheme gives us a chance to help reverse that trend.
The majority of the data used in genetic evaluations, the ultimate purpose of which is for the Euro-Star system, comes from the individual farms themselves. The 2008 suckler scheme changed the landscape in terms of data for suckler cattle in Ireland and the culture of data recording on suckler farms the scheme has brought about has had a dramatic impact on the quantity and quality of data that is available for use in genetic evaluations. The participation of on-farm recording, in conjunction with the Department's aim linkages, has also facilitated the linking of mart and factory data, which are very powerful data for genetic evaluations. That is why the genetic evaluation system available to Irish farmers is as powerful as it is, because of the high levels of integration in the various industry data capture systems.
On the question of what are Euro-stars and how are they calculated, in order to make it easier for beef farmers to quickly evaluate the genetic merit of an animal, a star rating system was introduced in 2011. The idea was that the animals would be divided into quintiles based on their genetic evaluations.
The top 20% are five star; the top 40%, four star and so on. The system has been successful in terms of farmers quickly grasping the genetic merit of an animal and in recent years the use of the Euro-star ratings has been widespread as part of the purchasing decisions on stock bulls. This has been demonstrated by the number of individual searches using the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation bull search engine which provides public access to the star ratings.
How do we know that the Euro-star system works?
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Will Mr. Coughlan speak a little slower, please? This is an important document and we need to dwell on each word he is saying.
Mr. Sean Coughlan:
In any analysis one chooses to undertake, at a national level five-star animals consistently out-perform one-star animals, whether in terms of weight gain, carcass quality, calving difficulties, cow milk, cow fertility or any other trait. This should not be surprising. The basic genetic evaluation models being used have been well proved internationally and are used across species. If we combine this with good quantities and quality of data, we have a sound basis for confidence in the figures produced. Each evaluation is provided in conjunction with a reliability figure, which indicates the level of data and confidence in that evaluation and the likelihood of subsequent movement in it. The better the quantity and quality of data, the higher the reliability of the evaluation. Of course, there will be anomalies where one-star animals perform well - that will always be the case - but in building a more sustainable and profitable industry we need a strategy of pursuing the highest star ratings possible.
Are the evaluations trying to force a one-size-fits-all approach on participants in the scheme, despite the fact that they are operating in different farming environments, for example, land types and systems such as weanling or calf-to-beef systems? This is absolutely not the case. The economic model developed by Teagasc that underpins the calculation of the Euro-star rating means that animals with different characteristics can be profitable and, therefore, have high star ratings. Hence, we have animals from all breeds with high and low star ratings. There is often more variation within than across breeds.
What is genotyping and why is it useful? Why do we need a 60% genotyping figure? Genotyping is the process by which a tissue sample - in the context of the genomics scheme, it is an ear notch - taken from an animal is used to generate its DNA profile. This DNA profile can then be used to further enhance the accuracy of the genetic merit of an animal. For example, it can predict the genetic merit in terms of fertility when an animal is only a few days old at a level that would typically only be available at the end of its lifetime.
Why do we need to genotype 60% of the reference animals? To ensure we are making the most accurate selections possible in respect of replacement females, we need to genotype all female calves. This immediately takes us to a 50% genotyping requirement. We also need to ensure stock bulls coming onto farms are genotyped. We will want to continue to genotype cows on farms to ensure that where there are high performing cows, we get a picture of their DNA and build their records into the training population for genomic calculations. In a small number of cases some male animals may be genotyped. This will be useful in building further data on the terminal traits of animals.
Are there enough replacement bulls and heifers with the required star ratings? There are more than enough replacements to meet the requirements of the scheme. Typically, approximately 40% of the females born each year will be four and five star, of which less than half will be required as replacements. We are running a 16% replacement rate approximately, which figure has been reasonably consistent in recent years.
For those who wish to breed their own rather than buy replacements, there will be more of a challenge, especially where they cannot or do not wish to use artificial insemination. However, it is still possible. There are stock bulls in each of the breeds which can deliver four or five-star replacements. This is where pedigree breeders have a key role to play in delivering such animals to the industry.
What happens when the Euro-Star indexes move? I emphasise the word "when". The first thing to note is that the indexes will move. Some will move more than others, but they will move. That is the case for dairy animals, sheep, pigs and chickens. Beef will be no different. The key from a scheme perspective is that once an animal has a four or five-star index at the required time, in other words, when it is genotyped, it will be eligible, even if it subsequently drops to a three-star rating.
I wish to note a point about imported genetics. Imported genetics will continue to have an ongoing role in bringing new bloodlines to the national cattle population. In 2014, 60% of the imported artificial insemination bulls were of a four or five-star rating. We have made significant progress in recent months in having the ability to provide more accurate evaluations of animals being imported based on their genetic indexes in their country of origin, but there is more work to be done. The relevant breeding societies have a key role to play in securing data flows from their sister organisations in other countries. We are confident in the ability of genetics to deliver improved profitability for suckler cow farmers. As a result, we strongly believe the scheme has the capacity to deliver significant long-term benefits to the suckler cow industry, well beyond the six year timelines of the scheme.
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Mr. Coughlan for coming before the joint committee and making a presentation. It is a pity it did not happen before we got to where we are, that is to say, a position where we have a scheme with an incredibly low take-up, particularly among smaller herdowners. From the figures the Minister gave me yesterday, it seems that 52% of herds in the country are less than ten years old. One could say statistics do not count and that may be the case, but there are 198,000 cattle. Only 21% of farmers have sent in the forms and there will be an attrition rate of up to 50%, which leaves the figure at 10%.
We have to keep in mind that there is an income element. I realise the Minister has said this is not an income support scheme, but it was certainly sold to farmers that Pillar 2 would provide income support for poorer farmers, particularly those on marginal land. That is why they were asked to give all of the money that the Commissioner told us he was offering to big farmers on good land. The idea was that they would benefit under Pillar 2. Unfortunately, the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation, ICBF, is in the eye of the storm that has many complexities.
Were those on the board of the ICBF aware of the proposals that the federation had put to the Minister on the beef data and genomics scheme? Presumably, the ICBF was asked for proposals when the scheme was being put to the Commission in Brussels and that the federation made proposals on how a genomics scheme might work in an Irish context. Were those on the board of ICBF made aware of the federation's initial proposals? Were they made aware of the changes as the negotiations continued, including when it changed from an improvement to breed for productivity purposes scheme? This was ruled out of order in Brussels and it had to become an environmental scheme under it was changed from being a payment per head to a payment per hectare and so on. Were those on the board aware of this? Many of the farming organisations maintain that the scheme had major flaws. I understand they have representatives on the board of the ICB.
My second question is about data collection. My understanding is that this has worked well in the dairy herd. Perhaps Mr. Coughlan might set out whether all dairy farmers are involved in genomic recording? Am I right in thinking that in genomics much of the data for dairy herds, for example, for milk quality and so on are not qualitative but quantitative? In other words, they are data the federation receives from processors with the permission of farmers. Will Mr. Coughlan outline in more detail the nature of the data the federation will capture from farmers? Will he outlne the data which are qualitative such as whether it is easy to calve? There may be a temptation to say it was because if a farmer was to say it was not, it would be difficult to sell cattle. How much of it is subject to human decision, as opposed to being definitive figures received by way of an accurate measurement which is independently verified? How are the data collected? Will Mr. Coughlan explain how the federation separates qualitative data, as I put it, from purely quantitative data?
Mr. Coughlan said he would link the data with factory data. I can understand how the federation receives data for terminal traits. One could confirm the rating an animal receives in the factory on the eurostar scale. Will Mr. Coughlan explain the nature of the data the federation collects in marts, other than the fact that it records that an animal has passed through?
Are any data collected in the marts? As the delegates stated, participation in on-farm recording has also facilitated the linking up of mart and factory data. What are the mart data? Is anything recorded other than the fact that the animal has passed through? We need to understand this.
I take it that when Mr. Coughlan states the top 20% would be five-star and the top 40% would be four-star, he is really saying the top 20% would be five-star, the next 20% would be four-star and the next 20% would be three-star. Is that correct?
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The submission does not say that. I take it that is what is meant.
The federation states how the system is built. On the one hand, Mr. Coughlan refers to fertility. That is understandable because one wants as much fertility as possible. Mr. Coughlan also referred to milk quality, which is also understandable. He then said all types of land are factored in. He is the expert and I do not know that much about this but I do know that while lowland sheep, for example, tend to have much higher fertility and lambing rates than mountain sheep, there is not much point in putting a lowland sheep up on a mountain. The poor creature would not survive a wet week there. With cattle, if one wants a lot of milk one brings in Friesian breeds, dairy crosses and so on. However, how suitable are such breeds to very marginal land? How does one achieve the right milk and fertility while suiting all the different land types at the same time? How are all the calculations produced?
The delegates state that, on average, 50% of calves are male and 50% are female and, therefore, one has to genotype 50%. One should remember, however, the requirement is to genotype 50% every year, which presumes that one calf must be produced per 12-month cycle. I understand that farmers do not achieve this rate. The money is being paid on the number of female cattle one has. The witnesses might explain how the system will operate in practice.
This leads to another question. Even as we stand, the take-up under the scheme is low. The take-up on the previous genomic scheme, even at 15%, was low. There will be a high level of genotyping among those in the scheme. The delegates are the ones who produce the figures. If 50% of people join the scheme and 60% of the animals are genotyped, that is 30% of the total herd. On the other hand, if we could get 70% of the farmers to join the scheme and they had to genotype only 40%, it would result in a rate of 28%. There is not very much difference, give or take a percentage point here or there. Based on the figures the Minister gave me in the Dáil yesterday, there seems to be a drop in the interest in the scheme by comparison with last year, particularly among smaller farmers, although the payments are higher. This seems to suggest the high level of genotyping required and the associated cost are quite burdensome for the farmer. It is great for the federation because it will make a pile of money out of it. Perhaps if the federation had set the bar lower and attracted more farmers to the scheme, it would have got as many cattle genotyped and spread the money. It would be more expensive for the Minister but better for the farmers. The money would be spread a lot more fairly around the country.
Did the federation think of saying that in respect of small herds, of 20 or 30 cows, which comprise 78% of the herds in the country, it would accept genotyping at a rate of 30% or 40% because the farmers with small herds are the ones who find the process difficult? It would have got them into the habit of recording and so on, thus reducing the costs and increasing the profit. Did the federation think about that?
Did the federation discuss with the Minister and the Department the difficulty this scheme will cause on offshore islands such as the Aran Islands, Inishbofin, Tory Island, Clare Island, etc.? Bere Island does not pose such a difficulty as it might be possible to do artificial insemination there. There is a good boat service there, which takes ten minutes. On the real offshore islands, however, artificial insemination is not feasible. The difficulty now is that if the farmers do not want inbreeding among the cattle, their only practical option is to swap around the bulls. Is the scheme just not practical on an island at present? Would it impose an enormous cost on farmers? Even if a four-star or five-star bull were introduced and it were shared by all, it would have to be moved on fairly fast or there would be an awful genetic mess. Would the delegates be willing to propose to the Minister that he rethink the rules for islands because artificial insemination is not an option on an island? By the time the artificial insemination man or woman could get to the cow on the island, the cow would not be in heat anymore.
Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses for the presentation. From the presentation, it appears there is a low take-up on the suckler side as distinct from the dairy side. I can understand why. Deputy Ó Cuív has outlined many of the concerns of farmers, particularly the smaller, more marginal farmers. There are 198,000 cattle but 50% of herds have ten animals or fewer. Obviously, there is a cost factor. Consider also the perception that exists.
The federation states artificial insemination is probably the best approach to reach the required star rating. That being the case, there is obviously the associated cost. Mr. Coughlan said, however, there are stock bulls in each breed that can deliver four-star or five-star replacements. I take it they would be from four-star or five-star mothers.
Perhaps my next point has been missed by many. The witnesses said that once an animal has been genotyped, it will be eligible from a scheme perspective, even if it subsequently drops to a three-star rating. Will the witnesses elaborate on that? There is concern that if an animal drops below the intended four-star or five-star rating, the penalties will be quite severe. How is the six-year timeline factored in?
Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses for attending and giving us an explanation, which is very important. We certainly put the cart before the horse on this, and probably in terms of the scheme. I am interested in what Deputy Ó Cuív said because I have a similar question. I believe there were at least two or three farm organisation representatives on the board. Was this discussed at board level? Did those board members participate? Had they an opportunity to do so? If so, did they set out any views on why, for example, the 60% rate set out in the scheme would be extremely onerous, as opposed to the 50% rate that prevailed? There was a quadrupling.
The scheme should emphasise our suckler herd because that is the genesis of our beef industry. Targeted genetic and breed improvements are essential. If we do not secure such improvements, we are not achieving anything. The beef industry is essential. I come from an area where it is paramount.
I urge every farmer to participate in it because it is important to have it in place, ex-farm gate. Why was the 60% figure selected? It is quadruple the original. It is a significant amount. I am all in favour of improvement. I come from an area where the issue is critical. It is a fairly steep increase. It was one of the points all the farming organisations focused upon. I was a bit perplexed as to why they did not focus upon it before they got out on the pitch, when they were in the dressing room, rather than starting to roar and shout on the pitch, and then we become the focus of the discussion.
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That must be what Meath did in the dressing room last weekend.
Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
At least we changed. Meath could have had an opportunity to intervene at half time, in the way our manager did, and to make a few changes. My view is that everyone goes to the politicians to sort out issues, but people are sitting on boards. Was there a silence or did they have an opportunity to make their input, which they should have done? A board is not there to be dictated to. It is there to reach consensus based on erudite and informed contributions, which I am sure the farm organisations had. They certainly made plenty of noise outside. I wish to know whether they were making the noise inside. I am always very interested in that. That is my way of life. I am concerned about 60% genotyping.
We had a big list of issues, some of which would not involve the witnesses. I have some sympathy with what Deputy Ó Cuív said, although I do not live near an island, but some of the points he made in terms of trying to achieve the target are valid. Artificial insemination, AI, would not be a way to achieve it. It could be difficult for smaller farmers to purchase replacements or bring in bulls and that would not be profitable given the size of their enterprise. I am concerned about people who have 20 suckler cows or fewer. It cannot be all just for the big people. It is grand if one has 120 or 130 suckler cows but those who have 15 and 20 have been the backbone of the industry as well and we cannot disregard them or discard them. Has any thought been given to the practical application of the scheme for those people? First, the cost factor is fairly significant. It is one thing if the herd involves 100 cows but if it is a ten cow herd it is another thing in terms of the application.
Could the federation have a graded cost to ensure feasibility for a ten-cow or 12-cow herd? There would be very little left for the smaller producer, as opposed to a 100-cow herd. I was always of the view that when the star rating was selected initially and animals were classified as four-star or five-star and it was dropped two or three stars subsequently, the four-star or five-star prevailed. I never had any doubt about that. I do not know where that got into the discussion or who fed it out. It was mischievous in the extreme. I do not know much about those matters. I have a certain background in it, but I never had any view other than when one started off, as Magnus Magnusson used to say, “I’ve started, so I’ll finish”. What one starts with, one will finish with and therefore one will finish with the four star or five star. I do not know whether it was mischief or whether someone had a vested interest in perpetuating the myth but it did cause a lot of concern. I would love to know where that originated and why was it propagated because it was a huge negative according to the farmers with whom I mix.
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The facts are often hostages.
Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The truth gets mixed up when the facts are used to suit a particular situation.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I welcome the two gentlemen here today to discuss what has been a fairly contentious issue in recent weeks. I wish to follow on from the point made by Deputies Ó Cuív and Penrose on the consultation. The witnesses indicated in their presentation that they have travelled throughout the country informing people at meetings of farm organisations. They might have attended every one of them. It appears that farmers were more frustrated leaving the meetings than they were before the meetings. The witnesses gave us very little explanation for that today. It does seem strange that farmers were bemused and frustrated leaving the meeting and that they were not aware of how the process would work. Both previous speakers mentioned the consultation process. When were the witnesses asked to give their opinion on how the system would work, and were they brought along the entire way? When were they given the final document before it was approved?
The new scheme involves a lot more work for the federation. Do the witnesses believe they will be capable of handling the extra work? They have been successfully involved in the dairy sector for a number of years. A large number of animals will require to be tested in the future. Are they up for the game, as such? Will they be able for the challenge? The figure has risen from 15% previously. I would like to know how the figure was arrived at and what the reason is for the big increase. In terms of cost, who will pay for it? How will the cost be passed on? I wish to hear how the process will work.
There has been much talk about AI. From a practical point of view it is always more difficult to use AI with sucklers than using a bull because it is not as easy to identify when they are ready for that procedure. How will the system work? How will it be practical? Deputy Ó Cuív mentioned smaller suckler farmers might have alternative jobs, for example, and there is only a specific window of opportunity when AI will work. First, how will it work? In the event that it does work, once calves from an AI sire are born, will they all be five-star? Are there enough four-star and five-star bulls in the country to operate the scheme? That is a big question.
Reference was made in the presentation to the collection of data on sucklers from 2008. Is that correct?
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Did the federation begin to collect data on sucklers?
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
From 2008 or whenever it was, did the federation inform farmers of the type of animals they had or when will it start to do that? If farmers had been aware since 2008, 2009 or 2010 of their star rating and what they would have to do, they would have got more used to the system. When will they get the information and what kind of lead-in time will be allowed?
My next question relates to the data programme itself. Will farmers be able to access the data system itself over a period to examine whether they are up or down or if the situation has improved or disimproved?
How much will the testing cost? Various figures have been bandied about. There was speculation that it would cost €30 out of the payment per head. Is that a fictional figure or do the witnesses know what the cost will be? I understand a tender has been put out in that regard. Has the matter been resolved?
Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I wish to develop a little on what my colleagues, Deputies Willie Penrose and Pat Deering, asked. What exactly is the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation, ICBF? Who owns it? What is its structure? Is it a not-for-profit organisation or a charity, which would mean all assets have to be distributed to other non-profit organisations in the event of a dissolution?
While Mr. Coughlan stated there are farm bodies on the board, who owns it and what are its legal structures? Is it a co-operative, a private company or what is it? It is fair to state the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation will get a lot more business as a result of this programme. Is the ICBF the only outfit - I do not mean that in a pejorative way - or the only organisation in the country that will carry out this genotyping? If so, is there anything to prevent a monopoly in respect of increasing the prices? Do the federation's staff members, including the witnesses, have performance-related or profit-related pay, because obviously there will be a great deal more business coming its way as a result of this programme? To revert to the question asked by Deputy Deering, what was the ICBF's role in the design of the scheme? Was it consulted formally or informally at any point along the way and if so, when? Did the federation have input into the design of the scheme or into the tweaking of the scheme in any way? That is it from my side for the moment.
Pat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the two gentlemen for their presentation. First, members are meeting as an Oireachtas joint committee on agriculture and must acknowledge how improved genetics in the dairy industry have increased profitability in the milk industry. Members must be positive about the scheme although I acknowledge there have been some teething problems. While I heard members of the Opposition state the scheme is not being taken up, the scheme is full and 30,000 farmers have applied for it. While it will be their decision as to whether they remain in the scheme, the improved genetics within the dairy industry have been evident and Mr. Coughlan has made a point there. In respect of the earnings to be made, he stated it was €20 extra per replacement per year. Is he stating that if one is at a one-star animal rating but gets to a five-star animal rating, the animal in question will be €100 more profitable? Is that basically also his point in respect of the suckler industry, if one can achieve a five-star rating?
The data began to be collected in 2008, depending on whether people had participated in the previous scheme. As some farmers are entering this programme for the first time, I presume their data are on record and the federation will be able to access those. In respect of cows or bulls that have been in the scheme since 2008, does that mean those data will be available immediately to facilitate the rating of those animals? My third point pertains to the animals in the west in particular where, as Deputy Ó Cuív has noted, there are many small suckler farmers, many of whose animals are exported. What is the position regarding the genomics of an animal that is exported as a weanling calf? There is no record here if it is killed in France, Italy or Spain or wherever. Is the ICBF able to gain access to ascertain how that animal graded in respect of its weight and things like that? Would that be part of the scheme?
I note that 20 June 2019 is a key date because people will have until that time to increase their percentage of animals up to four stars. While it will be all right if one is using an artificial insemination five-star bull, many people in the suckler industry must use a stock bull because it is hard to detect heat in cows in a suckler herd. However, in the case of larger farmers and even some others who are obliged to run two stock bulls, how will the ICBF differentiate between the bulls they have used on the farm? Moreover, some purebred breeders are not even in genomic schemes and one may buy a bull without knowing whether it is a four or five-star animal, and until one starts to use that bull, it will not be rated. If one is filling out a registration form for a calf, one merely specifies the breed of bull as the form does not ask for the bull's tag number if one is running two bulls. Will this be taken into consideration and has the federation considered that it will be necessary to identify them? If one uses artificial insemination, one knows precisely what bull one has used but if someone is using two stock bulls, they may not keep records indicating what cows were with what stock bulls. How will that be solved or sorted on the ICBF's side of the scheme?
Although it has teething problems, this scheme is welcome. If the benefit is €20 per star rating or €100 per animal, that is a lot of money to put into farmers' pockets. As sucklers and the beef industry have been under pressure in recent years with regard to profitability, it is to be hoped the scheme will improve our herd in order that it will become more profitable.
Michael Comiskey (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the gentlemen for appearing before the joint committee to go through this with members and I apologise for arriving a little late. Senator O'Neill has outlined benefits of €20 per star, which certainly is welcome, and I note that 30,000 people are participating in the scheme at present. Many people are stating they might pull out, particularly the smaller farmers, which would be worrying and members should ensure such farmers do not pull out and that the scheme is made somewhat easier. At a meeting last night, the Minister assured members that 50% of farmers already are or almost are where they need to be in 2018 or 2019. This is important because if they are at that point, it takes the star worry out of it.
When will farmers know the star rating on their herd? Speaking personally, I have only one cow in my herd of 24 or 25 cows that is a five-star animal. I have kept daughters from that cow. She is from a dairy herd and is a Belgian Blue from a Friesian cow. When will farmers know the star rating of their herd?
As for the cost of genotyping, it is important, especially in respect of smaller farmers, that the cost be kept as low as possible as one does not wish to have farmers forking out a lot of money. It is desirable to try to keep costs as low as possible and if that cost can be reduced, it will be highly positive. While many of the areas have been covered, I revert to the point made by Deputy Ó Cuív about a five-star bull not being able to survive on the sides of the hills. I am sure one could use a five-star Angus bull and he would survive for a number of months in difficult conditions. Those are my comments for the time being.
Martin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the gentlemen for their attendance and it is good to have this discussion. I definitely welcome the scheme in general, in that it will mean a payment of €52 million per year to beef farmers and more than €300 million over the lifetime of the scheme. I have a couple of specific questions without repeating what has been said earlier. If a bull that is bought this year or next has a four-star rating and that star rating drops to two or three stars, I understand that it will be accepted that the farmer bought it in good faith and, consequently, it will still be taken as a four-star down the line and the farmer will not be penalised. However, what about the progeny? If that bull ends up having heifer calves, they will end up with three or three and a half stars. I acknowledge there will be a mid-term review and it will be important to keep an eye on this but are members satisfied there is a sufficient number of safeguards in place to avoid ending up in a position in the final year or two whereby farmers will go mad trying to outbid each other in marts to fight for the last few four and five-star cows? This is to ensure an environment is not created in which all the money farmers get probably ends up being spent on cows simply to avoid running into penalties in such a situation.
As for the rule specifying that 50% of the maternal animals cannot be born before 2013, is the date of 2013 rigid or is there flexibility in this regard? Why will cows then be tested that will not be counted as part of the 50%, if cows are now being tested that will not be counted at the end because, obviously, they were born before 2013? Seven years is quite young and while one does not want cows that are 20 years old, one could have a good cow that is eight, nine or ten years of age. Why was the age of seven years picked?
Bobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I welcome the two representatives from the ICBF to the meeting. I understand that 30,000 farmers have signed up to the scheme thus far. However, having spoken to many farmers, I am afraid that many people still are wary of this proposal and do not know enough about it. While people may have signed up, they are thinking of pulling out and may not go ahead with the full plan, which is a worry. The Minister told me in a reply to a parliamentary question that in respect of the stock bull replacement requirement, he does not consider there to be any risk of inbreeding as a result of the requirements and that the majority of stock bulls on reference year herds are already four or five stars. Can the witnesses give members a guarantee that this will be the case two or three years down the line? This is why I worry about inbreeding, especially in respect of artificial insemination, where I am told there are only one or two Charolais in the entire AI system that are four or five-star at present. If there are only one or two bulls, will we have inbreeding within a couple of years because only one bull is available at present?
A wide range of four-star and five-star bulls are available for pedigree beef breeding on the replacement and terminal index. How many of these could be given to a pedigree Charolais breeder to produce four-star or five-star animals? I have put this question to the Minister, Deputy Coveney, because I know of a Charolais breeder who got best price for a heifer in the Tullamore show last year based on a three-star rating. He has been building that herd for the past 20 years but he is being told that the best animal he produced last year only has a three-star rating.
The ICBF recently completed a listing of recommended sires for bull breeders involved in a gene Ireland maternal beef breeding programme. It found that 92% of animals on the replacement or terminal index were rated four or five stars, which again brings the rating system into question. Many farmers have concerns about these young and unproven bulls. The case of the sire Cottage Devon springs to mind. He nearly broke many farmers because they found him impossible to calf. The only people who made money off him were the veterinarians. Farmers will not be happy to put pedigree heifers under an unproven bull in something that resembles a lucky dip system. What assurances can the witnesses give in that regard?
I also have concerns about the export of animals, which I previously raised with departmental officials. The Minister has stated that under the new scheme all herdowners will be required to record data on calf quality and docility. What farmer in his right mind will record an animal as poor quality or hostile? I have never seen a farmer advertise animals for sale in such a manner. How will we be able to record accurate information? The Minister has noted in reply to a parliamentary question that the ICBF collects data on the weights and prices recorded for a large volume of animals sold through livestock marts prior to export. This additional data help to improve the accuracy of indexes. A considerable number of calves for export are simply weighed in a group of five to ten animals. How can the mother of those animals be credited if they are weighed as a group? This bulk weighing does not reflect the value of an individual animal given that a super May calf might be weighed alongside a September calf which obviously varies in age and weight. How does the cow get the appropriate star rating for producing a top quality weaning calf?
Last year pedigree breeders had to wait six months to receive their certification to export animals. Some simply got rid of their calves without the data. What will happen now that there are 25,000 to 30,000 farmers? Are there sufficient advisers in Teagasc to manage the scheme?
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In regard to the requirement on four and five stars for bulls and replacements, am I correct to say it only has to be on either the terminal or maternal side?
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
On heifers it is on replacement, not terminal.
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In regard to Deputy Aylward's comments, the Charolais needs a strong maternal trait.
Mr. Sean Coughlan:
In regard to members' questions on our involvement in the scheme, in terms of policy this scheme is under the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It is not an ICBF scheme but we provided technical input into it. We previously provided technical input into a genomic scheme in 2014 and we were asked for technical advice on the design of the current scheme. The question of signing off or approving the scheme was not in our remit. The discussions between the Department and the European Commission were confidential, as were our discussions with the Department on technical issues. The ICBF board did not discuss the confidential or technical aspects of the scheme.
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is a very peculiar arrangement. The ICBF is the only player in this market. Its board was about to get its biggest contract for the largest amount of money ever but Mr. Coughlan claims it was not involved.
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It might be useful if Mr. Coughlan could clarify how the scheme works.
Mr. Sean Coughlan:
I will take a step back to address the governance aspects of the matter. ICBF is an independent agency which was established as a co-operative and a not-for-profit registered charity. No profit will be made out of this. It is a cost recovery exercise. The board has 16 members and 46% of our shares are owned by farmers and held in trust by the farming organisations, with the remaining 56% owned by service providers, that is, artificial insemination companies, milk recording organisations and pedigree breed societies. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has a seat on the board even though it does not hold shares in the organisation. It also provides significant funding to the ICBF on an annual basis. What members refer to as a gig or a big contract actually makes no difference to the ICBF's bottom line. The exercise will be cost and profit neutral. The notion that it will be a gravy train is not true.
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have been dealing professionally with charities for a long time. When I was Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, I dealt with a wide range of not-for-profit bodies. I never saw one which did not try to build an empire, particularly when a Government contract was coming down the road. Human nature is human nature.
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Mr. Coughlan explained how the system works. The scheme was designed by the Department as an initiative under the rural development programme. I am not trying to defend anybody but the ICBF was the entity asked to provide advice on the technical details of the scheme.
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It was giving technical advice but an increase in the number cattle being tested would mean it gets more business. I understand each test costs €30. The more people employed, the bigger the organisation and the greater its input. That is just human nature. Any of us who have dealt with the not-for-profit sector has had to guard against such behaviour. It is not realistic to claim that the ICBF's board is immune to the normal human reaction to these matters.
The reality is that if it had been 30% it was only half the work. I find it strange in respect of the broad aspects of the scheme that the board knew nothing and, particularly, that it did not know about the scope of the scheme in terms of the number of cattle that would have to be tested which is one of the major issues that is annoying the farmer.
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That question has not been addressed yet. We will come to that in a minute.
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In the wider context in terms of the board-----
Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am quite relieved by what has been said that it is a not-for-profit body but is a co-operative structure, and it is a charity so that in the event of a disposal any assets built up would have to go to other charities. That is a very important safeguard but staff-----
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Will the Deputy wait for a second? We have not got to that issue yet. The other thing is that we are talking about the scheme.
Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes, I know that.
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We have not got to the questions. I asked for the overall structure of the scheme to be explained and the composition of the shareholding and ownership so that we can get to the rest of the answers. I will allow Mr. Sean Coughlan continue before any further questions are put. The nub of the issue is the technical detail, the 60% requirement into which he probably had an input, to see why that was seen fit as being the necessary requirement. Perhaps he would clarify the issue.
Pat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Chairman, I think in the interests of clarifying the 60% requirement because I think-----
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Senator, I have just made that point. I ask the Senator to leave it for a second.
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am going to allow Mr. Coughlan continue to explain the technical requirement for the 60% because that is one of the main questions. The other issue is on the costing. Unless I am mistaken, the testing is done on behalf of the ICBF-----
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
-----as it does not have the technical expertise, in the same way that the BVD testing is carried out by the Irish Equine Centre.
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Inadvertently I was putting the tissue samples into a 68 cent envelope, not knowing it was meant to be a €1.20 envelope, and was wondering why my credit had run out so quickly. In the case of BVD, the company that retrieves the money from the testing is the Irish Equine Laboratory not the Department or the ICBF. Perhaps he would make the point on the cost recovery.
Bobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Vótáil. We will not even hear the reply.
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Can we suspend?
Bobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I presume we will come back.
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Of course we will come back. Has the vote just been called?
Bobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes, a minute ago.
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Sorry, I did not see it. We will have to suspend for a few minutes.
Bobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We will have to get the reply.
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The Deputy will get a reply. I have just said I am suspending. Of course, we are coming back to hear the replies.
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What time are we coming back? Can we put a time limit on it?
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
On conclusion of the vote. To be fair it will probably be 25 minutes.
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I ask Mr. Coughlan to continue his responses to the questions posed by members.
Mr. Sean Coughlan:
As I mentioned, ours is a not-for-profit organisation. There are no revenue or profit targets, as one would expect in a non-profit organisation. The currency is genetic data and the gain for farmers. Ours is the only show in town, but it is not unusual for countries to have only one national genetic evaluation body; it is normal for that to be the case. The organisation is licensed and audited on an annual basis by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.
On the point raised by the Chairman about the testing issue, we will not engage in any genotyping; all of that work will be done by independent labs. The procurement process is ongoing and not yet complete. They are going through the full public procurement process which is completely transparent. The cost of genotyping last year was €30 per sample, but we expect the cost to be less than that this year. The cost is €30 per sample, not per animal. If we end up with a 60% genotyping rate, we will genotype 60% of an animal, which means that the cost would be €18.
Therefore, it will be less than €18 per animal. Last year, on the 2014 scheme, the percentage cost of genotyping was approximately 15% of the payment and it is expected it will be around the same for the 2015 scheme.
A number of queries were raised in regard to why it is 60% genotyping. I will ask my colleague, Dr. Cromie, to cover that issue.
Dr. Andrew Cromie:
The question has come up a number of times as to why there was an increase to 60% from the 15% last year. This change has a strong scientific basis and I will now elaborate on the science behind it. Last year, the scheme was based on an atypical 20-cow herd and we would have genotyped three cows and a stock bull. That was done with the objective of collecting the relevant data under which to develop the genomic prediction equations. The scheme for 2015 to 2020 is all about rolling out genomics to the industry. It is new technology that integrates both the pedigree information, which is what we would have used conventionally in cattle breeding in the past, and the data collected with additional DNA data.
I will try to provide a sense of the potential value of the DNA data. In the dairying sector, genomics have been rolled out since 2009 and this year about 65% of all of the AI or dairy semen that was used by farmers was from young genomic bulls. The consequential effect of genomics has been to double the rate of genetic gain. Mr. Coughlan alluded earlier to the fact that the ICBF is all about genetic gain. Therefore, when people ask why there has been a big increase in the level of genotyping, it is with the clear objective of increasing the level of genetic gain, because we know that with the use of the DNA data, we can double the rate of genetic gain that can be achieved within a relevant population, the relevant population in this case being suckler cows.
I will give a specific example of what I am talking about in terms of the potential of the science. The research work is being done in conjunction with Dr. Donagh Berry of Teagasc and we are working our way through the research work currently, taking the 2014 data to develop the genomic predictions. The work we have done to date indicates the value of the DNA, in the context of getting a handle on a trait such as female fertility, a trait that has very low heritability. In other words, it is a trait that is difficult to breed for. With the additional DNA data, we can predict with a level of accuracy, on a young calf, a bull or heifer calf, at three or four days of age, the equivalent of that animal having 70 calvings through the use of the DNA data. Therefore, it is like looking at that calf, but at having 70 calving intervals on that animal, based on the knowledge from its DNA. We can take a hair sample, look at its DNA and then use the research work done last year to develop the genomic prediction equations from known patterns in the training population. In terms of the DNA from the training population, we know that whenever we see these patterns within the animal's DNA, that conveys, for example in this case, more fertility. In the context of female fertility, a trait such as that is the sort of level of gain we want.
This knowledge is critical, because calving interval is currently at 415 days in the suckler herd and going in the wrong direction. Calves per cow per year, a very relevant female fertility trait, is at 0.79 calves per cow per year, and going in the wrong direction. It is that increase in accuracy of our ability to identify the more profitable animals that the DNA brings. It gives us the logic or scientific reasoning behind why we now want to take the research and apply it widely to all candidate animals. As Mr. Coughlan highlighted, all candidate animals are the potential females being born in the scheme herds. Every year, the average size of the scheme herds is approximately 20 cows and on average eight or nine heifer calves are born. Our goal is to genotype all of those heifer calves on an annual basis. There are additional benefits in this from an operational perspective in that we move to a system where, with tissue tagging at birth - we already mentioned BVD in that context - there is the opportunity to tag the animal, take the tissue and generate the genomic evaluation on all of those calves at birth. Therefore, from an operational or procedural perspective, there are many additional benefits to the farmer.
However, our goal there is to identify quickly and at an early stage the most profitable calves for the farmer. Therefore, if he has eight or nine calves, we can say at that stage, for example, that five, eight or nine are eligible for the scheme. In some cases, none will be eligible. We accept that and this is part of the replacement strategy discussion.
Bobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is Dr. Cromie saying that when we tag a calf in the beginning for BVD, we could also test for the genomes with the one sample?
Bobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is good news. It is very welcome
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
This is getting to the nub of the mechanics of all of this. Dr. Cromie gave calving percentages, calving intervals and so on. He seems to indicate that about 40% of calves born to a herd would be females, that there is not a calf per cow per annum and that calving intervals are longer. Now, he says from year 1, the percentage will be 60%. That puts a very high bar.
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is only 40%. It is 50% of the animals, because -----
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What I am saying is that 20 cows produce eight heifer calves-----
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is half of the animals.
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Eight out of 20 is 40%.
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If we look at calving fertility and interval dates, we only come up with eight. Sixteen calves is all 20 cows will yield in a year. That is it.
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Can the witnesses clarify the requirement of 60%? Is that 60% based on the number of calves?
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Will he will only get paid on calved cows?
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Any scheme is like that.
Dr. Andrew Cromie:
I will go back to the logic behind the 60%. In the herd with 20 cows that is generating eight or nine heifer calves per year, we want to do genotyping on all of those heifer calves. We will then pick up additional animals on the farm and gain information which will be valuable on an ongoing basis in regard to, for example, yearling heifers that he may have purchased. In the case of some farmers, we know approximately 40% of the replacements coming onto suckler farms are purchased-in replacements. We would pick those up as additional animals or we would also prioritise additional cows, in the context of ongoing research and development around supporting the training population work.
Some people have asked whether we will run out of females. We expect that in a small proportion of cases, perhaps towards the end of the scheme, we may find ourselves genotyping some male calves, but they are not valueless in the context of the scheme, because the scheme is also focused on beef traits and carcass traits. Therefore, in the case of any male calf that gets genotyped, we will pick up all of the carcass data subsequently. I will revisit that question of the data, carcass, weanling and weight data. Any male calf that is genotyped in the context of the scheme will also add value to the scheme.
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
May I ask a question? This is getting interesting.
Suppose one asked farmers whether they wanted to join this scheme, particularly in terms of record keeping and noting the star ratings of their animals, but they said they wanted to keep doing things their own way. Suppose one said we will pay €30 per calf to cover the cost of genotyping all female calves and there would be no further obligations on a farmer to do anything else. Would such genotype or DNA information be of any use to the federation? What if farmers did not have to record calving difficulties, etc? Does it have to be both?
Dr. Andrew Cromie:
Yes, it has to be both and I will outline the rationale for this. On an ongoing basis one trains one's genotype or DNA against the data to ensure that every year one gets the most accurate picture and constantly updates one's predictions equations. If we want to do such work, and if we develop the research project in 2014, and then ask farmers to genotype their animals, by the time we reach 2020 we would be providing genomic predictions that are based on data that was collected six or seven years earlier. Therefore, the accuracy of one's prediction equations is reduced. Genomics is all about how do we, with confidence, identify the most profitable animals for farmers for breeding, whether that breeding be males or females. That is why the scheme has been designed to marry the genotyping with the data recording element on the farm.
The second part of the scheme, in the context of the 60%, is that we must ensure that all potential candidate animals that will enter the breeding herd are genotyped. Quality has been one of the major challenges in the industry. I mean by this that we have not brought enough four and five-star animals into the herd and we have been too focused on output and determining traits. Invariably, the wrong types of females are coming into the suckler herd and that is why the maternal traits are moving in the wrong direction. Having said all that one could argue that it is as much value to genotype one and two-star animals - the poor animals - because it would ensure that they get pushed out of the system and do not come back into the suckler herd. Also, genotyping helps us to identify the genes that relate to poor performance because those are the genes that we want to push out of the suckler herd.
Let me explain the strategy and rationale for having a 60% rate. Some people have suggested that the scheme was an opportunity to increase the percentage or whatever. The percentage was based on the research work done in 2014 and on the understanding of what this science or technology can deliver.
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have always had an issue with science. I remember one occasion when I was in a certain Department and had to listen to the same things being said about science. I did not realise that the particular official present was a very fast driver and my comment was not meant to be a dig at him. However, I said that if I decided to apply pure science to a human issue such as road safety then the simple scientific fact is that if one limited the ability of a car to travel no more than 5 mph then there would be virtually no car accidents. There is a human factor and it was unacceptable to a great mass of human beings that we would limit every vehicle in the country to just 5 mph.
I am all for science as I studied it at university. Policy is the art of trying to marry science with human elements. Is the federation concerned that so many farmers have indicated they will remain outside of the scheme? Every calf will be included in the scheme but it seems only a minority of herds will be included. Would a slightly less percentage be better? Would four fifths of the female calves, in a higher number of herds, not generate the same amount of genotyping in total? My proposal would bring more people into the scheme and ensure that more areas of the country are covered by the technology. It seems to me that there will be large swathes of the country where very few farmers will participate in the scheme.
Bobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Would it have been easier to simplify the scheme as outlined and in the same way that was done for BVD? Would it be better to have every female calf in every herd from year 1, which is this year, tested for genomics and to work form there? All calves must be tagged. A genomics test could be carried out when a female calf is tagged and we could use the same system as we do for BVD at present. All of this would be a simpler way to administer the scheme and every farmer would participate.
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Tissue samples are wanted. If we can do both tests then one can do the whole lot required.
Pat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I remind Deputy Aylward that his suggestion might be simpler but we are debating an environmental scheme which is where we are headed.
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is meant to be a piece.
Bobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is the same principle.
Pat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
No, it is not the same principle.
Bobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is.
Pat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The delegation mentioned that we may run out of maternal-----
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Female animals.
Pat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The maternal part has been ignored for years. I seek some advice. The delegation has said that the maternal part is milk output which means the information comes from the dairy herd, whether from a Friesian cross. Can the delegation recommend two or three steps? Some of the parts of the herd do not produce enough milk so one has got to include dairy in the scheme. Is half-bred, three quarter bred or quarter bred dairy stock the ideal suckler replacement? The delegation has said that we may run out of replacement heifers with a four and five-star rating, especially on the maternal side.
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does that exclude pedigree breeds?
Dr. Andrew Cromie:
I shall clarify the last point because a clarification is required. When I said run out I meant we would run out of animals for genotyping. We will not run out of potential four and five-star females. In fact, the objective of the scheme is to genotype all of the potential candidate animals and to generate more four and five-star females. It would mean farmers could either breed-in or purchase and then the animals would be traded through the mart system. Therefore, the data such as their eligibility and four and five-star status, etc., would be indicated at the mart. When I said there was potential to run out I meant just in that context.
Pat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes. I took it up wrong.
Mr. Sean Coughlan:
There is a technical issue in terms of using the same tissue sample for both tests. At the moment the tests interfere with each other but we are working through the technical aspects to ensure that we resolve the matter as quickly as possible. At farm level it makes a huge difference to just take one sample for use in both tests. Resolving the matter is work in progress.
Bobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
One could take the sample from the opposite ear used for the BVD test.
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That would mean one tag.
Bobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The use of one tag would simplify the scheme.
Dr. Andrew Cromie:
Yes.
I would like to return to the issue of being confident that we have enough animals. Deputy Ó Cuív made a point about the level of uptake and asked whether farmers will fall out of the scheme. It is important for everyone to grasp the data from our latest analysis of the 30,000 herds that are now in the scheme, which showed that 80% of the bulls in 20,000 herds have stock or breeding bulls which means they are eligible, as per the requirements of this scheme. That means 20,000 herds are using breeding bulls and the remaining 10,000 use AI, which is generally used by smaller herds. That data shows a positive message.
Senator Comiskey raised the issue of communicating statistics. I can tell him that 80% of the bulls are eligible as per the current terms and conditions of the scheme. Let us look at the replacement strategy which has left a lot of farmers feeling nervous. Earlier the Senator said his herd report showed that he had only one four or five-star cow out of 24 cows. The comparable figures for the 30,000 herds that are now in the scheme is that 61% of them are eligible and meet the 2018 requirement of having 20% of the herd comprised of four and five-star females. In addition, approximately 38% of herds are already compliant with the 2020 requirement.
We see these as very positive figures. At the end of the day, responsibility lies with the ICBF now and in the next few weeks. There has been some discussion about the reports and the pack that will be sent to the 30,000 herdowners; we will communicate a picture of their herds, including their stock bulls, cows, young stock and the Euro-Star status of the animals, directly to them.
One of the challenges - probably the biggest one we faced in the context of the scheme - was the lack of knowledge of many participants on the current status of their herds. That they were entering a scheme with incomplete knowledge created nervousness among farmers. When we look at the number of herds on the ICBF HerdPlus system, the genetic evaluation or report service we use, about 10,000 of the 30,000 herd owners are receiving these data.
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There were 73,000-----
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is one third of one third.
Dr. Andrew Cromie:
-----approximately 10,000 are currently knowledgeable of or have reports that indicate to them the status of their herds, which means that there are 20,000 who do not have that information. One of the commitments we gave to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine was we would get this information to those herdowners and they will be receiving it in the next few weeks. They will then be able to assess the information and decide whether they should proceed in the scheme. Our very clear objective, as part of that communication, is that we want all 30,000 herdowners to remain in the scheme.
Pat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have a supplementary question. In my original question I asked about people who were not been in the original scheme or the HerdPlus system but who are now in the scheme. Will they receive the same information?
Pat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The other question relates to stock bulls. Is there a solution available where someone is using two stock bulls?
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am glad that Mr. Coughlan clarified that point. He spoke about the lack of communication in the past. How well equipped is the federation to communicate the message now, given that a lot of communication is required in speaking to individual farmers and going through their pack with them and explaining it?
Mr. Sean Coughlan:
The packs will be relatively straightforward, which is the beauty of the Euro-Star system. The reality is the vast majority of beef farmers use the system when buying bulls. They are familiar with the star ratings. They might not be overly familiar with the star ratings of their own cows, but when buying a bull, they know that he is a four or five-star bull. The star ratings are quite straightforward. We are working with Teagasc and there will be a significant training component in the scheme. As we understand it, it is being tendered for.
Deputy Pat Deering is absolutely right. Communication will be key, but we are well equipped and our systems are robust. On whether we will be able to handle the extra work and the extra genotyping involved, as I mentioned, we will not be engaged in the genotyping but will contract external laboratories to do the work. We have made investments in IT infrastructure and so on to ensure we can handle it, obtain the reports out and process the information and so on. We are confident we will be able to handle it.
Bobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What will be the turnaround time for results once a sample is taken and sent in?
Mr. Sean Coughlan:
On the dairy side, during the spring season when farmers are having bulls genotyped, the turnaround time is approximately three weeks. Given the volumes that will be involved, the turnaround time will not be three weeks. I think it was Deputy Bobby Aylward who mentioned waiting for the results on a bull. Where the sire and the dam of a calf are genotyped, one can very quickly match and verify the ancestry. Where the parents' genotypes are not available, there is another extensive process. That is the situation to which the Deputy was presumably referring. It is probably related to a pedigree animal. A pedigree certificate was needed and it took a while to get it because there was the imputing of microsatellites. It is an extensive process, but as we go through it and have more and more animals genotyped, the turnaround time will drop dramatically.
Dr. Andrew Cromie:
There is an important lead-on point. There was a question about tissue tagging at birth. When one thinks about how this scheme is going to unfold, at any point in time towards the end of the scheme, all dams in herds will be genotyped, as will the stock bulls. The process of parentage identification or verification will be undertaken automatically at birth. One might be running two, three or four stock bulls in a large holding, but all one has to do is submit the tissue samples and the sire's and the dam's DNA will be disentangled with 100% accuracy. This is an example of the benefits the technology will ultimately bring to the industry.
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
A lot of information is coming out. Is it the case that the federation will be sending the packs in four or five weeks time?
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I understand from the reply to a parliamentary question tabled yesterday that there will be a wait of five months before the genotyping is undertaking on the calf. Is that the case?
Dr. Andrew Cromie:
The sequence of events will be that the packs will be sent at the end of July or in August. Farmers will look through them. Our goal is to have the tags on farms during September in order that farmers can start to tag animals and return the tags. We will then start the process of genotyping with the laboratories which is being tendered for in a public procurement process. That will start in October and we will start to genotype approximately 20,000 animals per week. That is our target level in genotyping. We will work through all animals in the period of three or four months.
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That covers October, November and December. Is that correct? I asked a question yesterday, but I did not receive a clear answer to it. Is it the case that the payment will be made once all of that is done?
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is it anything to do with the federation that the payment for last year is only being made now?
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is what I am saying. It takes four or five months-----
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I accept that there is a figure of 25% or so.
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In blunt and simple terms, is Mr. Coughlan confident all of the money will be paid by Christmas on all spring calves?
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I ask Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív to be fair to everyone else.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
A significant element of training was mentioned. Who will pay for it?
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
This will be a top-up payment, if I may put it as such.
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Perhaps that is a question for the Department.
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Will it be a requirement of every participant to attend the training session?
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Do the delegates foresee a problem in this part of the year, before the scheme starts, in keeping all of the data back on the calves born in the spring?
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Not all farmers have that good practice. If they had, they would would be doing it and there would be no need for the scheme.
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is the same number involved in the scheme as was involved in the suckler cow welfare scheme? Is the trend the same?
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We are talking about giving a farmer the genotype of an animal, but that is only possible for the guys who were in the scheme before. There will be farmers in it for the first time.
Pat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
He answered that question.
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Can the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation give them a star rating without ever having had them genotyped before?
Dr. Andrew Cromie:
Yes. To get a genetic evaluation one needs to have the sire and the calf. In some circumstances the farmer may not have both the sire and the calf. If that calf is a heifer and comes into the herd as a replacement, once the heifer is in calf and becomes a cow, we evaluate the cow based on herself and her calf. Automatically she starts to get a genetic evaluation.
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Most farmers whom I deal with breed their own calves. When Dr. Cromie referred to a heifer coming into the herd as a replacement, is he talking about replacing them within the herd or outside the herd?
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The farmer has to get an outside sire. The farmer can choose a bull or artificial insemination, so that genotype has been traced already.
May I have a point clarified? The packs are being sent out but am I correct that the farmer does not have to opt in before receiving the packs?
Pat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I apologise for my absence because of votes in the Seanad. Did the witnesses deal with the exports?
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
No, they have yet to deal with that question. Will the witnesses finish out the questions?
Dr. Andrew Cromie:
I will pick up on the exports issue in the context of the question on the wider data, which Deputy Ó Cuív also asked. Exports are not a cause of concern primarily because we get data on the exported calves. As part of the scheme, participants are required to record calf docility and calf quality. At the end of the day we find a very high correlation between the farmer's recorded calf quality and price per kilo in the mart. For the calves traded through marts that are exported, we get the weights. In circumstances where the exporters are buying them in a sale. we get the price per kilo. We have a lot of data on exported calves and it is certainly not a concern that where a farmer or suckler herd owner is exporting his calves, the value of his cows are undervalued or undermined in any way.. I hope that answers that question.
Deputy Ó Cuív sought clarification as to the data we get from marts. The central cattle breeding database has a live link with the 70 or so marts throughout the county. With the co-operation of the marts, in addition to the mart movements, we also get information on the weights and prices per kilo of all animals traded. Those data are used directly in genetic evaluations. We run evaluations about three times a year based on the data from marts. We would have about 3 million records of the weight of animals.
The Deputy asked about qualitative versus quantitative data. On the question of quantitative data, we would be dealing with the meat processors who provide us with data on every animal that is slaughtered. There are approximately 5.5 million to 6 million carcass records and genetic evaluations and 3 million live weight records. We have quantitative data on the calving interval, which is based on the cow calving dates and cow survival. We have about 3 million calving interval records. We have a very good handle on female traits.
In terms of some of the qualitative data, which is from the farmer's recorded data, we have about 12 million calving survey records. We have data on calf docility, calf quality, cow milk score and cow docility. These data have been recorded through the beef data programme originating in the suckler herd. We have a couple of million records for each of those traits.
An interesting observation in the context of the traits and heritability is that an issue that is a constant cause of concern for people is that farmers record just anything. If that were the case, there is no way we could estimate genetic evaluations or pick up heritabilities. Heritabilities are based on consistency. Deputy Aylward used the example of the breed Cottage Devon, but the bottom line is that every farmer finds those calves difficult to calve. That generates a heritability, because one knows that a certain breed of sire is easier than another and there is a difference which is known as variation. That genetic variation expressed as a proportion of the total is heritability. The farmer recorded data generate very good heritabilities. As a consequence we see it as a key component of the scheme. In terms of our objectives, we can get farmers to record data for traits such as cow docility. Can one image how one would collect data on cow docility if one had to put staff on the road to collect those data? These are critical data in the context of health and safety on farms. We also collect data on stock bull docility. We could not put people on the road to collect that information from 30,000 farms. Roughly speaking it would cost €80 to send an official to a farm to collect data. The objective of the scheme is to get the farmers to record the data. Another aspect is that the farmers are part of the scheme because they are recording data on their animals and they buy in to the scheme.
Mr. Sean Coughlan:
I will deal with the other points. Members expressed concerns around the smaller herd sizes. The reality is that artificial insemination is used in the smaller herds. While only 20% of the progeny in last year's scheme were from AI, 50% of the herds were using some AI. There is potential in that regard.
In terms of the herds on offshore islands, the actual profile in terms of star ratings is not dramatically different and there are four and five-star cows on the island farms as well. I do not see that being a significant issue.
I think Deputy Aylward raised the query on untested bulls. We have the same issue with the dairy herd. The key is that if one has a herd of 20 cows, it is best practice to use AI from a panel of bulls and spread the risk in terms of calving difficulty and the evaluations going up and down. That is just good practice. That is what the dairy farmers are doing. That is what we would expect beef farmers to do as well.
To respond to a question on the star ratings, if the star rating of the bull goes down, it may affect some of the offspring which may not then be eligible. That will be a challenge for some farmers. It would be remiss to have data on an animal that was no longer as good as it was and whose stars were dropping and not give that information to the farmers and have them as informed as possible.
Dr. Andrew Cromie:
It is important to clarify that the animal is still eligible in the context of the scheme. The animal is eligible, but we will continue to report to the farmer the up-to-date genetic evaluations. The farmer can make a decision. If the star rating of his stock bull is diminishing, he may make a decision to cull the bull. The bull may be eligible but the farmer may decide to back another bull.
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Will Mr. Coughlan confirm that if one does not use the pack, there will be no charge?
Pat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
On a point of information, Dr. Cromie referred to farmers being part of the scheme because they are recording data on their animals and they buy in to the scheme. I presume the farmers can decide to provide the information online or those who may not be used to computers can provide the data in hard copy. Will both options be open to farmers to record data?
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Are there any other questions?
Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses for the reassuring answers to the questions, but there were two or three specific questions to which I would like a response. Was the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation privy to the negotiations between the Department and the Commission?
Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Not in any detail?
Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Mr. Coughlan mentioned his organisation's not-for-profit, registered charity status and so on. Do any of its staff members, including the witnesses, enjoy pay based on the number of customers, performance or profit?
Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Or incentives based on customer numbers?
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We have given it a good hearing and I think everyone will agree it has been a very useful engagement.
Bobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Can I just ask one question?
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Hold on a minute. The members should let me summarise and let this flow. We have had a good exchange of information where there had been a dearth of it. This scheme was under pressure because it changed its focus from being a health scheme, in the way suckler welfare was, to an environmental scheme. It had to refocus itself to be accepted as such. There may be lessons to be learned in the way in information was disseminated to the farmers. It might have been better to have more of a front lead from the Department, Bord Bia, Teagasc and the ICBF.
The discussion groups are the key to this, as always. Knowledge transfer is what it is all about; success in the new breed of dairy farmer has been built around discussion groups. There was minimal payment in the initial stages with the dairy group, except out-of-pocket expenses, which were actually to generate profit from behind the farm gate, not outside it.
There has been some interesting discussion on the technical details of how the data can be collected. Ultimately, if we get it right, every animal can be tested. It will be much more cost efficient if one sample does both, and whether it is 60%, 40% or 100% will not matter. We will have a comprehensive, detailed pack profile on every animal and will be able to predict the trends. There are other, more lucrative sectors that engage in this all the time, namely the thoroughbred and sport horse industries. It is possible to do it and genetics and genotyping are key.
I am afraid we have to wrap it up. If I open the floor to Deputy Ó Cuív I will have to open it up to the other Deputies and Senators. I will allow them one minute each.
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is there a political issue here in respect of what farmers were told two years ago? We will park that question as it is political.
In terms of improving the whole suckler cow herd, if we get about 50% of the animals into the scheme, it will lift all of the animals right across the country. Is that right, based on what Mr. Coughlan said about stock bulls, artificial insemination, AI, and so on? The non-participants benefit but do not get the payment. Is that the logic in genomics terms?
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
From a genomics point of view, therefore, the rising tide will lift all boats. The ICBF has a big enough representative sample in half the animals to affect all the animals.
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am going to go around the table.
Bobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Because of the rating on each bull, would it matter whether a farmer has a purebred bull? If a farmer has what we used to call a scrub bull years ago, once the bull has a rating of four or five, does it matter if he is only half bred, quarter bred or whatever?
If I was back here as the Minister, I would start with all the heifer calves and build them all up. Then we would get every animal and every farmer would be in the system, whether he has five, ten or 100 cows. All the farmers would get a fair crack at the whip and would get a few bob out of it.
Michael Comiskey (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is it possible for a group of small farmers on commonages or, as Deputy Ó Cuív has said, on islands, to share a bull if they were unable to get AI?
Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
To be clear, is it correct that ICBF management and staff have no financial gain out of this, and are working only for the common good in improving genetic merit?
Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Coming from the dairy sector, I know the benefits that have come from developing dairy. The key to this will be communication and knowledge transfer. As much information as possible should be distributed to the farmers as efficiently as possible.
Pat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank both gentlemen. It has been a fabulous meeting although it is a pity this information was not out there before. We learned a lot here today.
The issue of exports was mentioned. If a weaning bull or a heifer is exported at ten to 12 months, it really stops there. We do not have any record after it leaves the country. If the market is fluctuating and animals are sold, say, in January, at a different price per kilo from animals sold in June or August, is there a model to work that out?
Dr. Andrew Cromie:
In the genetic evaluations, we are comparing like with like on the day. It is based on the average on the day. The average calving interval is 400 days, but there could be an animal at 430 days and another at 370. Deputy Aylward's herd might be at 370 days but the point is the genetic differences for individual bulls. We could see progeny from a particular bull in Deputy Aylward's herd at 390 days compared to his herd average of 370. That is how genetic evaluation works.
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
A vote has been called so we have to wrap up. I am usually last to speak but I gave everyone else a minute each. I thank Mr. Coughlan and Dr. Cromie for coming in. It was very useful and members have got a greater insight. It is regrettable that we did not have this discussion when the scheme was first announced, for everybody's sake, notwithstanding the last four weeks.