Kieran Mailey’s article on pages 48 and 49 makes sobering reading for all those generating income on the back of the suckler cow. His figures show the cost of keeping a suckler in a spring-calving herd to average €750, increasing to €900 in an autumn herd. Land type could influence figures by €100 either way due to the subsequent variation in the duration of the housing period.

The article illustrates once again just how vulnerable our suckler herd is in the absence of coupled payments. It is little wonder that when we look across the EU, we see member states with significant suckler herds reintroducing coupled payments of up to €200 per cow.

As Prof Gerry Boyle of Teagasc highlights on page 52, there are a number of changes that can take place inside the farm gate to put some light between the cost of keeping the cow and the value of the weanling produced. This can take place through a reduction in costs or increasing the output value.

One area with the potential to yield dividends on either side of the equation is improved breeding strategies – calving ease, cow functionality, improved fertility, increased milk yield and better growth rates all either reduce costs or lift output.

Unfortunately, breeding strategy is one area where we are struggling. At best, the key breeding performance traits have been stagnant – and on occasions are actually declining. This is despite the foresight of some in the late 1990s to establish the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation (ICBF) – a move that ensured the national breeding database remained in the hands of an industry body. While the organisation has contributed hugely to the dairy sector, the same cannot be said for beef. We have to ask why.

The simple answer would be to compare the level of AI usage and data recording in dairying to that of suckling. Although valid, there is clearly something more fundamentally wrong in beef breeding. Despite numerous schemes to encourage data capture on breeding traits, going as far back as the Suckler Cow Welfare Scheme in 2007, we are no further forward. Reliability figures remain low and we continue to see pedigree bulls jump up and down the €uro-Star ratings.

To address the issue, we must put out the facts. We have talked around the flaws in our breeding strategy for too long while as the same time brushing the issue of data manipulation under the carpet. It is time for the ICBF to shrug off the political handcuffs and put important breeding information out to farmers, however unpalatable it may be.

In recent weeks, we have seen commercial farmers invest millions in buying 10- to 14-month-old bulls that have been pumped with meals. We all know the implications on functionality yet the practice is never challenged. What percentage of young bulls purchased by commercial farmers have 10 or less calves registered in their lifetime? How many make it to their third breeding season? The ICBF has all this data at its fingertips yet has not released it to farmers. If available, it might reduce farmers’ appetite for purchasing bulls so young.

The ICBF and herd books need to finally deal with data manipulation. Both parties have a duty to protect the breeders who record data accurately by exposing those who are found to be manipulating data for financial gain or simply not providing the necessary data.

While steps have been taken, they have not gone far enough. Given the financial impact of data manipulation on commercial suckler farmers, is it time to consider introducing a licensing system for anyone looking to sell pedigree animals?

A licence to sell a pedigree animal should extend beyond merely breeding a pedigree damn with a pedigree sire. Data recording along with a commitment to engaging in a transparent audit process should be fundamental to not only obtaining a pedigree licence but also obtaining a genetic evaluation. The option of a licensing system should at least be considered to protect breeders that want to do the job right.

Meanwhile, as Darren Carty reports on page 6, the ICBF has confirmed that genomic evaluations have once again been delayed and will not be available until August. This has serious consequences for those in the Beef Data and Genomics Programme (BDGP).

In the absence of official evaluations, four- or five- star animals selected on the €uro-Star index should be eligible in meeting scheme requirements in 2018. Suckler farmers fulfilled their requirements – it’s time for Teagasc and the ICBF to do the same.