Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the ICBF for its statement, and it has furnished us with a huge volume of information. The witnesses heard the earlier presentation from the Irish Charolais Cattle Society, ICCS. It is like the seventh secret of Fatima trying to get information out of the ICBF. It has furnished us with a lot of information and all of the key metrics on the impact of the beef data genomics programme and productivity. The ICCS was looking for some information and, fortuitously, it got it today or yesterday, as it was about to arrive here, because the ICBF knew bloody well we were going to ask that question. The ICCS was looking for an explanation as to how genomics were included in these indices. Surely to God this is something the ICBF should have had at its fingertips. It should not be a begging job. It should be furnished. Surely that is what the ICBF is there for.

I am confused. I have a brother who is a suckler farmer but I am totally confused by the Euro-Star indices, although I am supposed to have studied this back in the 1970s. I am very strongly committed, more than the ICCS, to the beef data and genomics programme. I have always thought it is an excellent scheme but, again, it was loaded down with bureaucracy and, typical of anything brought in by bureaucrats, they know how to collapse a scheme before it gets off the ground by tying it up at so many regulations.

With regard to genome typing and the Euro-Star indices, changing them three times a year has a significant impact because things can collapse. People pay a lot of money and then they find the genome type or the replacement index changes. We have to have some respect for the input and cost involved. The ICCS mentioned a case where the sire was brought down and is safely ensconced out in Gigginstown, but be that as it may, it is down approximately €130 over three years on the replacement index. We want a full explanation on that.

The ICCS made a good point in asking why are the indices linked to the scheme. Pedigree breeders use very reliable bulls but why are they linked to them in this way? I read Mr. Coughlan's presentation and there is a background to it. He said the direct opposite to the ICCS. The ICCS stated there is a decline in the quality of beef cattle and Mr. Coughlan said the opposite, that beef cattle have improved. I come from a beef area and good beef cattle cannot be produced on the basis of a milking cow breed. It just cannot be done, no matter what anyone says. If people want to get to the top they just cannot do it.

It cannot be done in Ireland in any case because the dairy cow will have an input. As Deputy Fitzmaurice stated, there are two separate strands, one for milk and one for beef. To do the right job in beef, a background in beef genetic input is needed. I am totally confused about the way that is being linked to the scheme and I want an explanation for that.

The Irish Charolais Cattle Society was clear that the beef data genomics programme is narrowing the gene pool, which has resulted in decline in the quality of the pedigree herds. Suckler farmers are dependent on the dairy herd for replacement females to meet requirements. The ICCS argues there will be increased numbers of olfactory marker proteins, OMPs, which is the direct opposite of where we wanted to go. Some 20 years ago, I spoke about our inability to penetrate any of the high quality markets. We were only doing one in four of our animals and we wanted to turn that figure on its head and achieve at least three out of four or more. That is a big question where the RNUs were falling away and the OMPs were in the ascendancy.

Senator Paul Daly raised the issue of cross-bred bulls qualifying as stock bulls within the BDGP. I am talking about cross-breds after the initial breeding and there is an issue of genetic vigour which some of my colleagues mentioned as a result of cross-breeding. What are the statistics on that? A host of factors have been listed that I thought were important but these were not given to our friends. If they had been given this material, it would answer some of the questions that have been raised about docility.

Food conversion efficiency and food intake are two different things. Could that be linked up with the question that was raised by one of the witnesses who made a good point on that?

It is not for us to dictate to the witnesses what to do but I will raise the matter of corporate governance, an issue that has been very much in the news of late in connection with various organisations that appear before committees of this House. The board looks lopsided. I say that with respect because I am not familiar with it and do not purport to be familiar with it. Pedigree cattle breeders, who make a significant contribution to upgrading the national herd, have only one representative among the 15 or 16 different beef breeding societies. This appears to be disproportionately low, if I am to use the kindest language I can. I would like to know, as the cattle breeders would, how the directors of the board are elected. Is it on the basis of the shares that each organisation has? Is it correct that the board make-up and constitution have not changed since the organisation came into being back in 1998? If they have changed, why do Progressive Genetics, Munster AI and the National Cattle Breeding Centre, NCBC, have six members on the board? Why is the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association, ICSA, an important organisation that I strongly and unashamedly support and that has a big input in the farming industry, not on it? It represents people that I represent in the farming industry and I do not see any representation for it. Surely to God, it should be fitted in and pedigree breeders should have at least one more member representing them on the board. Is the number of representatives an organisation has on the board related to its shareholding? I remember the time the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine did not recognise the ICSA. I sat here as a lone wolf shouting on its behalf and some of its sister or big brother organisations-----