Dr. Andrew Cromie:

To deal with the issue of indexes changing, one of the key aspects introduced to the scheme by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine at the very start is that once an animal is genotyped and has a genomic evaluation and once it is four or five stars, that animal is eligible for the purposes of the scheme, regardless of what happens to its stars afterwards. That provides at least a level of assurance to the farmer that he or she has purchased a bull or a replacement heifer which is now eligible as per the scheme. It should be remembered that three quarters of replacement females are bred within herds, so the farmer has brought this animal in. That was introduced because we knew that a genotype four and five-star animal would deliver this additional profitability. We must accept that there will be one or two females and at an extreme an animal could change by €70 or €80, but whenever we look at the number of animals that have fallen out of the four and five-star category since the scheme started, 75% are still four and five stars. Less than 1% have moved from this magical one to five stars, which we often hear about.

We talk about data not changing, but genotyping is helping us to address one of the big challenges we face in the context of the scheme, namely, that sires change. Simple mistakes are made in registrations and to AI straws and to bulls. There are significant data changes which happen in the pedigree of an animal which could result in its proof changing by €50, €60 or €70. There is another important point. The volume of data we are now collecting in the context of the scheme is absolutely world leading. France was referenced as a very good example. Of course, they have their traditional breeding programmes there which are very much based on within-breed breeding. The volume of data participants are providing on calf quality, calf docility, cow milk scores, and cow culling reasons is huge. That allows us to update the genetic and genomic evaluations for animals. Importantly, the animal a farmer bought or brought in that was genotyped on day 1 is still eligible. By updating the evaluations, we are trying to ensure that the next time a farmer goes back to make a decision on new AI sire or stock bull he is buying, he or she will have access to more accurate genetic and genomic evaluations from the large volume of data in the system.

ICBF exists to collect independent data from across the industry. It is absolutely natural that as the data accumulates, we will update the genetic and genomic evaluations for individual animals. I think that helps to answer Senator Lombard's question about why proofs of bulls change. It is because this year we have a great deal more data on that bull or cow than we had last year. If a farmer wants us to help him or her make a decision on whether to cull a cow or breed a replacement female from her or whether to buy a bull, it is critical that ICBF keeps updating that information. Fluctuations in proofs are a simple consequence of collecting data and carrying out genetic evaluations. What we are very clear about is that on average across many animals, there will be no change. If our index is right, while individuals will go up and down, we will take the industry in the direction of having, on average, more calves per cow per year, better weaning rates, lighter cows, higher carcass weights and younger ages of slaughter. That is the model applied in beef. The exact same principles have been applied in dairying and everyone in the room will acknowledge that the economic breeding index, or EBI, has helped to lead that sector in profitability gains and sustainability.