Submission on 2020 Strategy - Brian Wickham Chief Executive Irish Cattle Breeding Federation Society Limited (ICBF) Web: www.icbf.com Email: ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Submission on 2020 Strategy Brian Wickham Chief Executive Irish Cattle Breeding Federation Society Limited (ICBF) Web: www.icbf.com Email: bwickham@icbf.com Phone: +353 238 820 222 Draft 29 April 2010. © Irish Cattle Breeding Federation Soc. Ltd 2010.
Draft. Printed 29 April 2010.
Table of Contents
1 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................... 1
2 ECONOMIC AND INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT ................................................... 1
3 FOOD SECTOR............................................................................................................... 2
4 INNOVATION ................................................................................................................. 3
5 ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................................. 4
6 COMMODITIES.............................................................................................................. 4
7 OTHER ............................................................................................................................. 6
8 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 7
i
© Irish Cattle Breeding Federation Soc. Ltd 2010.1 Background
The purpose of this submission is to identify opportunities, based on ICBF’s1 experience
and knowledge, for improving the profitability and sustainability of Ireland’s Dairy, Beef
and Sheep producers in the period up to 2020. We recognize that a viable and
sustainable primary agriculture sector is a pre-requisite to a viable and profitable food
sector.
Our submission is made on the basis that: “all stakeholders must be both innovative and
at the same time demanding of themselves and others in framing policies and actions
that will ensure we create a sustainable high-value industry that will continue to be at
the forefront of premium food production2.”
Our submission is deliberately brief and to the point. Further elaboration is readily
available on request. It has been prepared on the basis of the five discussion papers and
nine background papers on the DAFF website on 28th April 2010.
In preparing this submission we have followed the guidelines for submission and
addressed the questions raised. We have only addressed the questions for which we
believe we have the knowledge and expertise to comment on. There are also number of
other areas that we believe are of strategic importance to Ireland and these have been
identified and addressed here in section 7.
2 Economic and International Context
2.1 What should be the contribution of the agriculture, food and fishing sector to the
national economy by 2020 and what employment and export targets should be set?
The dairy, beef and sheep production sectors combined should be achieving an annual
increase in gross economic output (at farm gate) of not less than the rate of growth in world
population. That is, Irish animal production should at least be maintaining its share of the
world market in economic terms. At a 1.5% annual growth in world population this
translates to a 16% increase in gross economic output from 2010 to 2020.
The labor cost of the dairy, beef, and sheep production sector (farmers, providers of farm
inputs, public sector employees, processing sector) must be reduced substantially in order to
ensure profitability for the sector based on market returns. Growth in employment can only
occur where the extra jobs create sufficient real value, in economic terms, to justify
employment costs.
Exports should grow to accommodate all the extra economic output. That is, export lead
growth into high-end markets.
1
ICBF is the trading name of the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation Society Ltd. ICBF is contracted by Sheep Database Ltd
(trading as Sheep Ireland) to provide the executive and technical resources it requires. In this submission the interests of
dairy, beef and sheep producers as addressed by ICBF.
2
Page five of discussion paper “Current Economic, Policy Context and Outlook”. Discussion Papers - Department of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food “Overall Context”.
1
© Irish Cattle Breeding Federation Soc. Ltd 2010.2.2 What is needed to fulfil the capacity of the agriculture, food and drinks, fishing and
forestry sector to contribute to the Smart Economy Framework and to the export
led economic recovery?
ICBF has demonstrated what is needed in the cattle breeding sector and this includes:
• A well defined and agreed mission for the sector.
• A team of suitably skilled people committed to the achievement of the mission.
• An information technology infrastructure that is state-of-the-art and a data collection
system that is a routine, minimally intrusive, part of good practice for farmers and
service providers.
• Research and commercial collaborators who are at the leading edge of the relevant
technologies and are focused on helping us deliver real value to Irish farmers.
• Sufficient investment funding to enable us to procure the resources required to pursue
“good ideas”. In our case these funds have come from a combination of NDP support
and retained earnings.
For cattle breeding we have, over a period of twelve years, gone from being a relatively poor
performer to being a world leader. The benefits will be felt throughout the cattle industry
and wider community for many years to come.
2.3 What are the implications for our sector strategy from likely changes in EU
agriculture policy (CAP post-2013) and WTO?
We must become very good (better than any other country) at:
• Producing animal based products that command the top-end of the international market.
• Using the least possible amount of resource (labor, land, energy, CO2, methane,
fertilizer, capital) in producing, processing and distributing our products to our
customers.
3 Food Sector
3.1 How important is consolidation in dairy and beef processing and how can we
achieve it?
From an ICBF point of view:
• We need clear signals (in economic terms) consolidated across the processing (and
marketing) sector on the attributes of the product (milk, meat, hides …) that are of most
or least value. We use these signals in our indexes (EBI, €uro-Star) to help farmers
identify the most profitable animals for breeding. The resulting animals will result in
products (milk, meat …) being supplied across the entire processing sector.
• The signals we receive need to be consistent with the payments that farmers receive for
their production.
• The ICBF database is proving to be a very useful tool for comparing the productive
efficiency of farms (dairy and beef) and helping farmers improve the profitability of
their operations. It is important that there are no impediments to processors facilitating
ICBF in consolidating supply information for these purposes.
2
© Irish Cattle Breeding Federation Soc. Ltd 2010.• There are a range of milk and meat quality issues that originate on farms and impact on
the value of the processed product and its ability to compete in high-end markets. It is
important that there be consolidation of this information in a way that facilitates farmers
in solving these problems regardless of which company processes their product.
3.2 To what extent should food and drinks exports aim to deepen the focus on EU
market or to diversify more widely?
The key consideration for us is that the focus be on markets that give the best long term
returns (the high-end markets) and that we know and understand the way farm production
impacts on the suitability of Irish products for these markets. With this knowledge we can
help farmers supply the most desirable products.
3.3 What steps can be taken to ensure the further growth of international food product
companies in Ireland?
By ensuring:
• our milk and meat production meets or exceeds the requirements of those companies
focused on high-end market, and
• ensuring we have the technical infrastructure to provide the knowledge these companies
need to add most value to milk and meat produced on Irish farms.
We get no value from International Food product companies that are seeking a low-cost
product from Irish farms. Arguably, we do not want such companies in Ireland.
3.4 What should be the future strategic focus for developing prepared consumer foods
(pcf), ingredients, functional foods etc?
There are opportunities, and likely to be more in the future, to exploit genetic variation in
cattle (and sheep) to provide unique ingredients and foods. We believe there should be
active research to identify and exploit these opportunities.
3.5 How do we enhance our competitive position in high value markets?
By ensuring the milk and meat produced on our farms better meets the requirements of these
markets than farms in any other country.
4 Innovation
4.1 How can the State's return on public good research be maximized?
The state needs to clearly set out how it measures its return on public good research.
Any public good research should be conducted in close association with the industry
sector(s) it is expected to benefit.
4.2 What technology developments might significantly impact on the agri-food,
forestry and fisheries sector by 2020 ?
Genomic selection is already impacting dairy breeding and we expect it will also have a
dramatic impact on beef and sheep breeding by 2020.
3
© Irish Cattle Breeding Federation Soc. Ltd 2010.4.3 What should be the innovation and research priorities in the sector for the next ten
years?
Increasing the competitive position of high-end food products produced using milk and meat
from Irish farms.
Reducing the resources required to produce milk and meat on Irish farms.
Identifying and developing markets for new high-value products based on the milk and meat
produced on Irish farms.
4.4 What more can be done to improve the transfer of knowledge and best practice at
farm and factory floor level?
Achieving greater collaboration and co-operation between the institutions, organizations and
individuals providing advice, information and services to Irish farms. Good recent examples
of how this can be done are ICBF for breeding and AHI for animal health.
5 Environment
5.1 How best can Irish agriculture contribute to achieving the EU target reduction of
20/30% in GHG emissions, while maintaining a viable farming sector?
By focusing on reducing the resources (fuel, GHG emissions, etc) required to produce a unit
of milk or meat. This is not in conflict with ensuring a viable farming sector.
5.2 How should Ireland align increased food production for a growing global
population with the demands of climate change and the sustainable use of natural
resources?
Focus on the profitability of production. Efficient producers will have less impact on the
environment, will be more profitable and ultimately this will lead to more production as the
less efficient production systems are eliminated and replaced by the more efficient ones.
5.3 Does climate change adaptation offer new possibilities for Irish agriculture?
Our indexes for selecting cattle and sheep are being routinely updated as new knowledge
becomes available. We are part of an FP7 funded project to incorporate the latest findings
on greenhouse gas emissions and the use of genomics into Irish breeding programs. Ireland
will be one of the first countries to adopt this knowledge. Our expectation is that by 2020
this will be a routine element of cattle and sheep breeding in Ireland.
6 Commodities
6.1 What should be the scale of our ambition on dairy for 2020? What would be a
realistic but ambitious level of production after quotas are abolished? What is the
best balance between added value / functional foods etc, and commodity
production based on low-cost but seasonal production ?
Growth is potentially limited by a number of factors including:
• The number of cows available – an annual growth of 3 to 4% is achievable providing
dairy farmers keep enough dairy replacements.
4
© Irish Cattle Breeding Federation Soc. Ltd 2010.• The EBI of the replacements – a 1% per annum increase in milk solids per cow from
better genetics is achievable.
• The amount of pasture available – we are not best equipped to comment on this. It is
our expectation that dairy farmers will get access to land that is currently used for
cereals, beef and to a lesser extent sheep. We also expect that more pasture will be
produced on the land currently devoted to dairy production as a consequence of
improvements in varieties and pasture management.
• Assuming there is enough pasture available (a 50% increase from current levels), an
annual increases in cow numbers and production per cow (from genetics) of 3% and 1%
respectively, the total output of the dairy industry could increase by 50% by 2020. This
projection needs to be refined as the transition from the higher cost production systems
(less profitable) to lower cost systems which are more profitable may result in reduced
production per cow. This may have a short term impact on the growth in milk output
• The key drivers will be milk price and farm production costs.
6.2 What is the best path to profitability at farm level for beef and sheep production,
given poor returns in recent years? Does the trend in international and EU demand
offer realistic opportunities; how should we capitalise on them and at what scale?
The best path to profitability at farm level is a combination of a number of factors including:
Improved genetics:
• Dairy – current rates of gain in replacements are sub-optimal. While the rates of gain for
active bulls is near optimal these are not sustainable unless major improvements to the
breeding scheme are implemented in the near future. These issues are currently being
discussed with the breeding industry. Implementation of the agreed changes needs to be
strongly supported. Even at current rates of gain the contribution of improved genetics
to dairy farm profitability is projected to be some €220 million by 2020 relative to 2010.
• Beef – current rates of gain are much less that the theoretical maximum. However, the
potential rates of gain that are achievable (Cromie et al 2010) can contribute some €200
million extra profit from the suckler herd by 2020.
• Sheep – the new infrastructure for sheep breeding in currently being established. It is
imperative that this initiative be fully supported for a least the next five years to give it
the chance it needs to succeed along similar lines to that achieved for dairy and
potentially for beef. Refer to Byrne et al 2008 for cost benefit study conducted by them
for Sheep Ireland.
Improved management. The ICBF database holds data which is being used by farmers,
Teagasc, Discussion Groups and farm advisors to measure and monitor a range of
performance indicators. These facilities provided as part of our HerdPlus® service are
essential to improving farm management and must be enhanced and coverage extended to all
farms.
Improved animal health. ICBF is working closely with and is strongly supporting AHI.
ICBF is developing as an integral element of its database the information infrastructure
required to support management of the full range of non-regulatory diseases in beef and
dairy herds. Priorities are determined by AHI
5
© Irish Cattle Breeding Federation Soc. Ltd 2010.Increased scale. The cost of providing breeding and information services to farmers
includes a mix of fixed and variable costs. As a consequence larger herds are generally less
expensive to service on a per animal basis.
Ireland’s favorable climate gives it a natural advantage over much of continental Europe by
enabling lower cost pasture based production. This is a major strategic advantage which
needs to be fully exploited. That milk and meat can be produced profitably even at current
world market prices has been amply demonstrated. The challenge is to ensure all of our
farms are able to reach these levels of profitability. This will require farm consolidation,
changes in land use and the adoption of lower cost production systems.
7 Other
7.1 Risks in Cattle Breeding
In a recent study of the Irish cattle breeding infrastructure we identified a number of risks
that need to be considered and steps taken to minimize. These include:
• Disease – Our breeding programs have suffered a substantial set-back due to a disease
outbreak on two occasions in recent times. An outbreak of IBR at NCBC resulted in the
loss of some 50 elite dairy and beef bulls early in 2010. A not dissimilar incident
resulted in some 190 elite beef bulls being lost at Tully in 2007. Our view is that the
current focus on a small number of larger AI studs is a strategy that carries a high risk of
a substantial loss. Proposals for establishing multiple smaller units to reduce both
risk and loss potential are under development.
• Breeding objectives – cattle breeding is a long term and comparatively slow process. If
the breeding objectives used today based on current market forecasts turn out to be
inappropriate then there is the potential for losses. This situation is potentially
exacerbated with the availability of genomic selection which enables more rapid
changes. It is imperative that our strategies for minimizing this risk be maintained.
• Traits – cattle breeding can only monitor those traits that are being measured. There is a
risk that a trait that is not measured will be moved in an undesirable direction by
selection. This happened with fertility in the period us to 2001 when fertility became
part of the current genetic evaluation system. It is imperative our strategies for
identifying such trends remain in place for Irish cattle and sheep breeding.
• Genetic Diversity – as farmers respond more aggressively to the potential of genetics to
improve farm profitability there is a risk that all will want to use the same one or small
number of elite bulls. This can result in short term gains being offset by reduced gains
in the future. A strategy for ensuring that genetic diversity in maintained has been
put in place on a pilot scale in 2010 for dairy. Something similar is needed for beef
and sheep.
7.2 Breeding to reduce disease risks
There is evidence that cattle (and sheep) contain genetic variation in their susceptibility to a
wide range of diseases. The availability of new genomic tools hold the promise of ensuring
future populations of animals are selected for resistance to diseases that they might be
exposed to in the future. It is important that Ireland maintains a research capability in
6
© Irish Cattle Breeding Federation Soc. Ltd 2010.the area of genetic resistance to disease and is able to exploit any relevant findings at
the appropriate time.
7.3 Information Infrastructure
One of the main lessons from ICBF’s experience is that its database is, in many ways, one of
the Agri-Industries greatest assets. Not only does it facilitate a wide range of information
services to farmers and the wider industry but is also the main source of data for a wide
range of research. Further, it has proven to be particularly adaptable and able to support an
increasing array of new services at little extra cost.
It is recommended that steps be taken to ensure the ICBF database is retained as a national
resource for the benefit of current and future farmers and the wider industry in both the short
and long term.
7.4 Laboratory Services Infrastructure
We believe that the current laboratory services infrastructure servicing animal health,
product quality and genetic improvement in Ireland should be the subject of a detailed and
major review to ensure that Irish farmers, and the wider industry, have access to a very
efficient, responsive and low cost service for meeting their testing needs for animal health,
product quality and genetics purposes. It is important that the laboratory infrastructure be
proactive in dealing with issues that affect the ability of Irish products to compete in top-end
markets.
8 References
Byrne, Tim and Peter Amer. Cost Benefit Analysis: Genetic Improvement in the Irish
Sheep Industry. 23rd Oct 2008. [http://www.sheep.ie/publications/files/Cost_Benefit_Analysis_231008.pdf]
Cromie, Andrew & Brian Wickham. Potential for Beef Breeding – Some thoughts from
Irish Cattle Breeding Federation (ICBF). 19th April 2010.
Reference: \\Icbf-server1a\data\Shared\Company\DOAF&F\Vision2020\ICBF Submission 28 04 2010 v0.doc
7
© Irish Cattle Breeding Federation Soc. Ltd 2010.Vision 2020 19th April 2010
Potential for Beef Breeding
Some thoughts from Irish Cattle Breeding Federation Society Limited (ICBF).
Andrew Cromie & Brian Wickham
19th April 2010
Background.
Recent trends from the ICBF database have indicated a 6% drop in the number of Suckler Beef
Births in 2009, down from 994,261 in 2008, to 932,218 in 2009, a drop of some 6.2% (ICBF Update,
18 Dec 09). However, more recent analysis, would suggest a reduction in this rate of decline, with
total suckler beef births for the year to date being 326,547, compared to 336,386 for the same period
last year, a drop of some 2.9% in overall terms (ICBF Update, 17 Apr 10). Addressing this rate of
decline and ensuring a profitable suckler beef industry is one of the key objectives of ICBF.
Genetic Trends.
The mission statement of ICBF is focused on genetic gain (in profit terms) for Irish dairy and beef
farmers and its related industries. Recent genetic trends from ICBF have indicated major
improvements in the profitability of our National dairy herd, with the average EBI having increased
from €45 for females born in 2005, to €94 for females born in 2010, an increase of some €49. In
cumulative terms these improvements are expected to deliver some €345 million to dairy farmers
over the next 10-15 years (profit predictions having been independently verified by Teagasc using
herd EBI and Teagasc profit monitor data (Ramsbottom et al., 2009).
Figure 1. Genetic Trend for our National Dairy and Beef Herds in Dairy Economic Breeding Index
(EBI) and Suckler Beef Value (SBV) from 2000 to 2020*.
Year of Dairy Beef
Birth Dairy EBI Cum Gain* Beef SBV Cum Gain* €250
2001 €46 €51
2002 €44 -€5.4 €52 €0.6
2003 €46 -€0.9 €53 €3.4 €200
2004 €45 -€2.2 €52 €1.2
2005 €52 €11.5 €53 €3.2
2006 €57 €21.9 €53 €3.4
Profit/progeny
€150 Dairy EBI
2007 €62 €32.4 €54 €5.2
Beef SBV
2008 €65 €38.3 €54 €5.4
2009 €75 €57.1 €55 €6.7
€100
2010 €94 €94.5 €59 €15.7
2011 €111 €129.4 €64 €25.3
2012 €123 €153.4 €69 €35.3
2013 €135 €177.4 €74 €45.3 €50
2014 €147 €201.4 €79 €55.3
2015 €159 €225.4 €91 €79.3
2016 €171 €249.4 €103 €103.3 €0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2017 €183 €273.4 €115 €127.3
2018 €195 €297.4 €127 €151.3
Year of Birth
2019 €207 €321.4 €139 €175.3
2020 €219 €345.4 €151 €199.3
*Cumulative gain is calculated as difference in gain from current year compared to previous year, summed over all
years. Note cumulative gain figure is doubled, as EBI and SBV reflect only genes passed on to the progeny, with the
other half coming from the mate at conception.
Page 1 of 4.Vision 2020 19th April 2010
The reasons for these increases in dairy EBI are linked to three industry initiatives over the past 10
years, including; (i) the introduction of the EBI in 2001, with widespread user acceptance/uptake by
2004, (ii) the establishment of the G€N€ IR€LAND dairy breeding program in 2005, which
increased the scale and EBI of our progeny testing program from 25 average EBI bulls/year to 70
high EBI bulls/year, and (iii) the introduction of genomics in 2009. From a scenario of zero profit
from breeding (prior to 2005 profit gains in milk production were being cancelled out by losses due
to infertility), this is a remarkable turn-around and reflects the real long-term value of investment in
cattle breeding.
Looking at genetic trends in Suckler Beef Value (Figure 1) indicates similar profit potential for beef
cattle. For example, the SBV was first introduced in 2006, with only limited uptake. However, that
would appear to have changed this year (SBV of commercial females has increased from €55 for
females born in 2009 to €64 for females born in 2010). Assuming that this increase is maintained
into the future, then, coupled with ongoing developments in our beef breeding programs (ICBF is
currently in discussion with the industry regarding developments in beef G€N€ IR€LAND program
and genomic evaluations), then a target of €200 million from beef breeding is achievable by 2020.
Changes in Individual Traits.
Assuming our goal is to maximise SBV gain (along the lines outlined in Figure 1), the next most
relevant question is what level of gain (or loss) can we expect in the individual traits that are
important to our beef industry. Answers to this question are given in Table 1, and are based on
progeny performance from 1807 AI sires (some 756k records in total).
Page 2 of 4.Vision 2020 19th April 2010
Table 1. Comparison of progeny performance for AI Sires, for SBV and key profit traits.
Traits 1 Star 2 Star 3 Star 4 Star 5 Star Difference. Description*
€uro-Star Indexes
Suckler Beef Value €30.9 €65.1 €77.4 €87.4 €115.1 €84.2 €168 more profit/progeny.
Predicted performnace - Genetics
Calving Difficulty % 6.5 6.7 6.2 6.3 6.2 -0.3 Less difficult calvings (-0.6%)
Gestation Length Days 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.6 0.0 No change in gestation length
Mortality % 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 -0.1 Less calf mortality (-0.2%)
Weaning Weight Kg -0.6 5.4 7.3 8.8 12.9 13.5 Greater weanling weight for age (+27.0 kg)
Calf Quality (cents/kg) 12.4 13.3 13.5 14.0 15.1 2.7 Greater weanling value for age (+5.4cents/kg)
Carcass weight Kg 8.4 13.8 16.4 18.1 22.6 14.2 Greater carcass weight for age (+28.4 kg)
Carcass conformation (1-15) 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 0.3 Greater carcass conformation (+0.6 points)
Carcass Fat (1-5) -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.4 -0.3 Less carcass fat (-0.6 points)
Age at 1st Calving Days 2.7 -2.5 -1.3 -2.0 -5.7 -8.4 Younger age at first calving (-16.8 days)
Calving Difficulty % - Maternal 7.6 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.2 -0.4 Less difficult calvings on cows (-0.8 days)
Weaning Weight Kg - Maternal 1.4 2.9 2.7 3.1 3.6 2.2 Greater milk in daughters (+4.4 kg)
Calving Interval Days -1.5 -1.6 -1.7 -1.8 -2.0 -0.5 Reduced calving interval (-1 day)
Cow Survival (% 1-2 lactation) -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 Greater cow survival (+0.8% from 1st to 2nd parity)
Cull Cow Weight Kg 9.9 14.4 16.4 18.0 21.5 11.6 Greater cull cow weight for age (+23.2 kg)
Actual performance - Phenotypes.
Calving Difficulty % 8.9 7.5 6.2 6.1 5.9 -3.1 Less difficult calvings (-6.2%)
Gestation Length Days 286.5 287.4 287.1 287.7 287.5 1.0 Greater gestation length (+2 days)
Mortality % 2.0 1.8 2.7 1.7 2.1 0.1 Increase in calf mortality (+0.2%)
Weaning Weight Kg 285.3 303.2 311.1 313.0 323.1 37.8 Greater weanling weight for age (+75.6 kg)
- Age at weanling days 233.1 233.6 231.9 230.4 233.0 -0.1 - Similar age at sale
Calf Quality (cents/kg) 175.6 174.9 176.8 176.6 181.3 5.7 Greater weanling value for age (+11.4 cents/kg)
Carcass weight Kg 338.1 352.4 354.5 363.6 371.6 33.5 Greater carcass weight for age (+67.0 kg)
- Age at slaughter 762.1 740.0 739.0 737.1 716.0 -46.1 - Slaughtered 92 days younger.
Carcass conformation (1-15) 7.3 7.9 8.1 8.2 8.5 1.2 Greater carcass conformation (+2.4 points)
Carcass Fat (1-5) 2.8 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 0.1 Increase in carcass fat score (+0.2)
Age at 1st Calving Days 907.1 909.0 919.2 918.0 920.4 13.3 Increase in age at first calving (+26.6 days)
Calving Difficulty % - Maternal 8.8 6.9 7.8 6.5 8.0 -0.8 Less difficult calvings on cows (-1.6%)
Weaning Weight Kg - Maternal 297.5 310.0 317.1 313.8 313.4 15.9 Greater milk in daughters (+31.8 kg)
Calving Interval Days 394.5 398.3 403.2 395.1 397.5 3.0 Greater calving interval (+6.0 days)
Cow Survival (% 1-2 lactation) 76.2 74.2 74.4 74.9 74.0 -2.2 Decrease in cow survival (-4.4%)
Cull Cow Weight Kg 258.3 265.4 280.3 274.8 285.0 26.7 Greater cull cow weight for age (+53.4 kg)
* Note. Differences must be multiplied by a factor of 2, as these only reflect differences between sires. Similar differences
exist between 1 star and 5 star cows.
This analysis clearly indicates the value of moving our Suckler beef herd from, on average, 1 or 2
star animals (the current genetic level of our National beef herd) to 5 star animals. For example, data
from Figure 1 would indicate a SBV difference of €84 per progeny, between progeny of 1 star and 5
AI sires, with the majority of this improvement coming from; (i) better weaning weight for age
(+13.5 kg), (iii) better carcass weight for age (+14.2 kg), and (iii) better maternal traits, especially
maternal milk and fertility. The fact that these traits have the highest response is not surprising, as
these are the traits with the highest weighting in the SBV. It is also important to note that the
improvements outlined in Table 1, only reflect sire progeny differences. To get a full picture of the
potential benefits of breeding, we must multiply each of the changes by a factor of 2, reflecting the
improvements from both the sire (i.e., AI sire or stock bull sire) and the dam. Thus the difference in
overall profit terms between the 1 and 5 star animals from Table 1, would be €168/progeny.
Looking more closely at actual performance (Table 1) indicates even larger difference than predicted
based on genetic index alone. For example, whilst the ICBF indexes would indicate a difference of
14.2 kg in terms of weight for age at slaughter between progeny of 1 and 5 star AI sires, actual
progeny performance indicates a difference of 33.5 kg at an even younger age (-46 days). These
additional gains reflect the benefits of improved technical performance in other areas, such as
Page 3 of 4.Vision 2020 19th April 2010
feeding and animal husbandry, which are both strongly linked to improvements in genetic index (as
farmers become technically better at breeding they also improve in other areas of farm and business
management).
Implications for 2020 Vision document.
Results presented in this document indicate the huge potential of beef breeding over the next 10
years. Genetic predictions would indicate that each of the following is achievable;
• Sucker Beef Value. An increase in SBV from current level of €50 (for cows in the National herd)
to €150 (for cows to be born in 2020). Expressing this in terms of progeny value, indicates an
increase in profit of €200/animal for animals born in 2020 (based on €100 gain on both the sire
and dam side). Extrapolating data from Table 1 (where difference in SBV was €84 between 1 star
and 5 star AI sires) suggests that this increase in profit will come from a combination of;
o Increased Weaning weight. An extra 27.0 kg weaning weight, at the same age.
o Increased Carcass weight. An extra 28.4 kg carcass weight, at the same age. Also,
phenotypic performance indicates that these animals are being finished at younger ages (-
46 days on average).
o Increased weanling and carcass quality. An extra 5.4 cents/kg on weight at weaning and
0.6 points on carcass conformation score.
o Increased cull cow weight. An extra 23.2 kg at slaughter.
o Better maternal milk. An extra 4.4 kg milk at weanling.
o Better fertility traits. An extra 16.8 days age at first calving, 1 day shorter calving interval
and 0.8 % animals surviving between 1st and 2nd parity. However, unlike other traits
outlined above, these improvements have not yet been borne out in terms of phenotypic
performance, perhaps reflecting the lower level of data currently available for maternal
traits in the ICBF database.
• Improved phenotypic performance. In addition to the genetic predictions outlined in Table 1,
this analysis would also indicate major opportunities for improvement in other areas of technical
performance. This is reflected in the larger than expected observed performances for each of the
traits, indicating the strong association there is between increasing genetic merit and increasing
technical performance in other areas.
• Development of G€N€ IR€LAND and Implementation of Genomics. As with the success of the
dairy breeding program, the genetic predictions outlined above are based on the successful
implementation of 3 major projects within the Irish beef industry; (i) Uptake and acceptance of
SBV, (ii) the scaling up of our G€N€ IR€LAND beef program from the current 20 beef bulls
with good SBV’s (top 20%) to a target of 100 bulls with exceptional SBV’s (top 2%), and (iii)
the establishment of a research, development and implementation project, looking at genomics in
beef cattle. The latter two initiatives are projects of major importance for the Irish beef industry
and ones that we would urge the 2020 vision group to support, as we are confident that the
implementation of these projects will successfully deliver increased output, at lower cost (i.e.,
profit) for our beef industry. A prize of €200 million is potentially available for beef farmers,
with levels of gain similar to that which can be established from dairying. Given the strategic
importance of our National Suckler herd, ICBF would urge the 2020 group, to consider these
projects as it develops its strategy for our agri-industry.
…
Page 4 of 4.You can also read
