JK: The ICBF board has come in for criticism that the suckler sector is not properly represented at the board table. Should there always be non-representative commercial farmers on the board?

MD: “The objective of ICBF is to drive genetic gain in the national herd – dairy and beef.

“Whoever is on the board has to keep that at the core of any decision-making, and under my chairmanship (with 20 years suckler farming experience), I am confident that that is the case.”

Why didn’t this re-evaluation happen before the SCEP scheme details were finalised?

“We added carbon and finishing age to the dairy indexes in November 2022. If we had added those traits to the suckler animals before the dairy animals, suckler farmers may well have thought it was unfair to add the climate policy impacts to the suckler indexes before the dairy indexes. Once that was complete, focus turned to the suckler indexes.

“The SCEP scheme was not launched until the spring of 2023, and at that stage we were finalising the research on the suckler end. Ironically, if we had launched the indexes before the scheme was started, there would be less animals eligible than there is now.”

Are you comfortable with the communication structures within the ICBF?

“We have been having quarterly meetings with the various breed societies in order to communicate the various activities within ICBF. It is clear that we need to now broaden this out.

“Last week the chief executive announced the setting up of a broad stakeholder group to improve engagement in relation to genetic improvement on the beef side. That will happen early in 2024.”

Should there be a suckler herd implication study in advance of any changes?

“The Teagasc suckler farm systems model in Grange is what is driving the direction of travel with the indexes. The priority is identifying the weightings of performance traits that will address the changes in agriculture and best serve Irish suckler farmers and the suckler herd in that regard.

“The model is updated on a continuous basis as research data becomes available and as policy/sectoral circumstances evolve; for example, data on pasture finishing and greenhouse gas emissions have recently been incorporated into the model.”

Are you willing to engage with Department of Agriculture officials on your board to look for changes to the SCEP targets based on the issues some individuals are going to have as a result of these evaluation changes?

“In the SCEP terms and conditions, the Department has built-in accommodations for the fact that evaluations are constantly changing and evolving (we do six evaluation runs per year). For example, if an animal drops from four stars to three stars, it is still eligible as a qualifying animal in that herd for the duration of the scheme.

“We have had discussions with the Department in relation to the challenges that a small number of herds may face and will continue to engage with them on this. Ultimately, the scheme terms and conditions will be a matter for the Department.”

Could the timings of genetic and economic re-evalutions have been flagged further in advance?

“There is never any secret about changes to evaluations. The challenge is that as soon as we flag that changes are coming, people want to see what the impact is at the animal level, ie what bulls are going up, and what bulls are going down. This summer was a good example of that.

Suckler farmers are being hit hard on many fronts at the moment, and ICBF has become the lightning rod for that frustration

“The changes in economic values and the inclusion of carbon and three new traits were presented to the breed societies back in July, but it wasn’t until the impact at a breed/animal level was seen, that the changes really hit home.”

Why did it take eight years to change the economic model?

“The economic values were previously updated in 2015. According to the Central Statistics Office (CSO), in the period 2015 to 2020, input prices increased by only 2.2% as measured by the agricultural input price index and, therefore, the impact on economic values was unlikely to be significant.

“However, between 2020 and 2022, prices increased by 47% and therefore the need to update the economic values became much greater.”

What do you say when you hear a farmer saying you have lost the dressing room and ICBF is not listening?

“Certainly, there is frustration out there. Suckler farmers are being hit hard on many fronts at the moment, and ICBF has become the lightning rod for that frustration at the moment.

“What is clear, however, is that suckler farmers do value the independent source of information that ICBF provides in helping to guide their purchasing decisions (eg buying a stock bull). This applies to those not in SCEP also (where they don’t have a requirement to buy a bull with stars).

What do you say to those looking for an independent audit of the current index?

“The Grange farm systems model for sucklers has been the subject of many peer-reviewed papers. The indexes themselves are also are subject to ongoing independent peer review.

“There have been a number of published peer-reviewed papers over the past number of years on the indexes (Twomey et al 2020, Kelly et al 2021).

“Ultimately, ongoing validation of where the indexes are taking us is key. At the most basic level, any five-star versus one-star comparisons at the suckler herd level need to show us that we are heading in the right direction.”

You were asked to hold for six months – would this have helped relations? What’s another six months?

“Waiting for six months would only have prolonged the vacuum out there. People would want to see what the impact is at animal level, ie what bulls are going up and what bulls are going down.

It’s a decision for the AI companies to make in terms of which bulls they choose to include in the active bull list, in response to market demand

“Bull sales/purchases and breeding decisions for both commercial and pedigree farmers next spring would be impacted as no sooner would their decisions be made, than the indexes would change. To wait would be a disservice to all concerned.”

Are you comfortable with traditional breeds (Angus and Hereford) taking over 60% of the top sires for replacement index?

“The breed composition of the suckler herd has changed very little over the past 15 years. For example, in 2008, cows with a main breed of Angus or Hereford made up 20% of the cows that calved that year. In 2022, that figure was 19%.

“There have always been a significant number of Angus and Hereford bulls on the replacement bull list (well above their percentage breed representation in the national suckler herd) and it did not shift the breed profile.

“The reality is that the vast majority of suckler farmers will choose breed first, and then work from there. And that is perfectly fine. There is more than enough choice in each of the breeds for suckler farmers to continue to use their breed of choice.

“Ultimately, it’s a decision for the AI companies to make in terms of which bulls they choose to include in the active bull list, in response to market demand.”

How do you respond to the Roscommon IFA vote of no confidence and other western counties in the four IFA members on the ICBF board?

“I can appreciate that IFA members are frustrated. However, IFA members on the board work tirelessly to prioritise increasing the profitability of the broad suckler population through genetic improvement, as is their responsibility. It’s not for me to comment on motions sent to national council for consideration.”