The beef data scheme is far from the finished article, but it is focusing farmers’ minds on some of the core values of beef production, writes

both of these years,” he says.

However, according to Mr McGoldrick, given the pressure put on farmers by factories during this reference period to reduce carcass weight policed by what he calls ‘ridiculous penalties’ it’s surprising this has not dropped considerably.

Carcass weight & conformation

Carcass weight increased by 6kg from 2015 to 2019 and carcass conformation has remained unchanged with an average grade of R=.

“Animal conformation is often used as the main indicator of animal ‘quality’ by farmers. The fact that it has remained unchanged since 2015 shows that animal ‘quality’ has not deteriorated in recent years,” says Mr Daly.

However, the Charolais Society claim “it is simply not true” that the carcass weight has increased by 6kg.

“The average carcass weight over the five years is 391.8kg which is actually 0.2kg below where it started. The fact that 2019 showed an increase can be largely attributed to the fact that factories were closed for long periods of time due to strikes,” says Mr McGoldrick.

Steer numbers

Mr Daly says a number of factors drove the reduction in the number of steers killed from the BDGP herds over the five years.

“One reason perhaps is a move towards young bulls on the back of increased profitability,” he says. “Another reason was the beef protests which saw a significant delay in slaughtering, while an increase in cattle exported was also a factor.”

But Mr McGoldrick says this is the “most alarming figure” in the analysis: “It’s a drop of 36,638 steers slaughtered between 2015 and 2019.

“That equates to 21.3pc and I would assume it is mainly as a result of the decline in suckler cow numbers.

“I am not here to simply knock ICBF they are the body entrusted with the future but I do believe that they need to reassess where we, as an industry are going.

“As a society, we are fully behind progress, but our general opinion is that the implementation of the BDGP scheme has not been of benefit to the quality of stock produced.”

Mr Daly counters that one of the key reasons the BDGP was introduced was to get farmers to focus more on cow efficiency rather than just focusing on carcass quality.

“Prior to the BDGP, weaned animals off the suckler herd were performing quite well because they had strong terminal genetics. However, there was a cost in the system too. There are a million suckler cows in the system, and if they are getting more and more inefficient, there is a cost to the farmer,” he says.

“If calving interval is getting longer, if cows are getting bigger and bigger they are going to be eating more, and if they have less milk they are producing lighter calves. That is not a sustainable model really.”

Farmers in the mart buying cattle are still going to do a certain amount of judgement with their eye, but science and data need to also be included, Mr Daly says.

“We are not trying to say it’s all about looking at figures on a sheet of paper, but there are certain things you can’t see, and that is where science needs to be brought in particularly with breeding females,” he says.

“Which ones will have more milk? Which ones will be more fertile? That’s the value of the replacement index.”

Progeny efficiencies

He also says that as the index of the national suckler herd increases, improvements will be seen not just in cow efficiencies through better fertility and improved weaning performance, but also in progeny efficiencies such as age at slaughter, feed intake and carcass weight for age.

But the sceptics will remain unconvinced about the merits of the scheme. For many farmers, what they see with their eyes and not what it says on a mart board will still determine how they judge an animal.

Despite this, maybe the principal benefit of the scheme has been to encourage farmers to question what ‘quality’ really means in terms of judging cattle and if traits such as fertility and milk need more priority.

Perhaps there’s more to a heifer than meets the eye?

WHEN the BDGP was launched, we first signed up for it, then withdrew. This was because we thought the six-year commitment was too onerous.

Also, I felt that it was foisted on us without adequate discussion. I attended two information meetings that the Department weren’t represented at, though they should have been, which really annoyed me.

As it turns out, with the benefit of hindsight, we would not have had to do anything different to what we already do, to draw down the full payment.

From what I’ve seen of the scheme, it has definitely focused suckler farmers’ minds on some of the core values of beef production that we may have needed to be reminded of: conception rates, calving interval, calving difficulty etc.

While it could be argued that it has increased the output of the herd, because, for example, an extra calf or two has survived, it hasn’t really increased the output of the cow.

There has been no significant change in age of slaughter, carcass weight, grade etc.

My feeling is that the BDGP has not been a failure but nor has it been an overwhelming success.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s where we go from here that matters.

The first thing is that the concept of improving efficiency through management and improving genetics needs to continue.

From what I can see from the last programme, it was certainly a start in identifying the most efficient suckler cows.

But this needs to be taken a step further, by identifying the genetics that leads to an increase in the average daily weight gain in the progeny of these cows.

Looking at our own herd, at weaning time, we could easily see a range of 70kg in calves of similar age. Some calves are doing 1kg/day from birth while others in the same group are doing up to 1.4kg/day.

They are all being managed the same, so the difference must be genetic.

So what we need is for every calf in the country to be genetically profiled.

Surely, in the 21st century, the science exists for this to be done at tagging time?

We are already taking a tissue sample to test for BVD. Surely the same sample could be used for genotying?

Certainly, if there was a lab that had this facility, that is where we would be sending our samples.

Someone just needs to take control of this and make it happen.

The last thing that suckler farmers need is another couple of years being spent arguing over who is going to pay for genotyping.

‘We are not trying to say it’s all about looking at figures on a sheet of paper, but there are certain things you can’t see, and that is where science needs to be brought in, particularly with breeding females’

We need every calf in the country to be genetically profiled surely the science exists for this to be done at tagging time?