The clear divisions that are emerging between the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation (ICBF) and pedigree breeders is very unwelcome news for commercial suckler farmers.
The objective of the majority of suckler farmers is to breed the best stock bull they can source with an ever-improving suckler cow. The opinion on what represents a good cow varies between farmers depending on their production system. Some focus on easy calving, more on breeding replacements and others are chasing the €1,000 weanling. As an industry, we must aim for quality calves but cows must calve every year to pay their way. Therefore, we need to be clear on objectives to make progress.
The big difference with the dairy sector is that the majority of dairy farmers are spring milk producers so calving compactly in the spring and producing milk solids are clear and simple goals.
With clarity comes quick progress. We can see this on dairy genetics and output. The diversity of beef-production systems across Ireland – from weanling production to bull finishing – leaves room for those with a vested interest to exploit and confuse farmers, at the very least.
Unlike dairy farmers, AI usage is not as prevalent on suckler cows so genetic progress is slower and harder to make. Dairy farmers have come to accept EBI movement but the significant difference is that dairy farmers use a team of AI sires; if one or two sires drop or go up in EBI on a team of 10 sires, the overall impact on the herd is negligible.
Should commercial suckler farmers be using more AI and thereby reduce the unpredictability and uncertainty around stock bulls? For some, this is possible and working well. For others, land fragmentation and off-farm work make this more difficult, but as technology advances for heat detection and sexing, should commercial suckler farmers focus more on these advances?
The power of the breed societies to slow genetic gain is considerable. Without measurement, it is impossible to make progress
The up-and-down star debate continues, as Shane Murphy reports. However, we must remember that this will always be the case as more information is incorporated into proofs. We don’t need to see dramatic differences but we must accept that there will be changes.
Breed societies have a key role to play. Often, those representing breeders work in a very difficult space. They represent breeders who have a deep vested interest – given the level of investment in stock – and often a deep love for a particular breed. It is vital that those in key positions within breed societies manage relationships with breeders but also have a clear strategic long-term view on the future of the suckler herd and what will drive profitability at farm level.
As Teagasc researcher Donagh Berry suggests, the power of the breed societies to slow genetic gain is considerable. Without measurement, it is impossible to make progress, and pulling out of initiatives that improve the reliability and records in the long term is not good for improving genetic gain. Any reputable long-term plan should include background data and weight recording from pedigree and commercial herds. The suckler herd has made considerable gains on the terminal side but not as much on the maternal side. We are starting to see some gains with ICBF reporting calves per cow per year increasing from 0.79 to 0.85 calves – that’s 50,000 extra calves per year.
Some claim that more and more replacements for the suckler herd are coming from the “inferior” quality dairy herd. However, ICBF data suggests that the numbers sourced from the dairy herd has actually decreased from 26% to 22%.
We need leadership in ICBF, Teagasc research, advisory and breed societies to do what is best for suckler farmers and not get bogged down in politics and agendas that have poor foundations.
CAP 2020: another step towards CAP as proposal is presented
European Commissioner for Agriculture Phil Hogan.
While the CAP proposal won’t be formally presented until Friday, the ambitions have been well flagged and few surprises are expected.
European Commissioner for Agriculture Phil Hogan will formally present his proposals for the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) post-2020 on Friday 1 June. The Irish Farmers Journal obtained an early leaked draft of proposals in April and while Brussels sources have remained tight-lipped, we are confident that the proposals outlined in the edition of 28 April will be the basis for farm support after 2020.
The core themes of Hogan’s ambitions have been consistent since February 2017 when he first consulted on what shape the next CAP should take. He has sought to balance the interests of farmers with the powerful Brussels environmental lobby within the constraint of a reduced budget – in many ways an impossible tightrope to walk. As such, whatever he produces on Friday won’t please most stakeholders.
The Commissioner recognises the importance of farmers yet he had to accept a further cut to the CAP budget in the proposals published in May by European Commissioner for Budget and Human Resources Günther Oettinger. Under these, the proportion of the EU budget for farming will drop to 30% – the lowest ever – even though it remains one of the largest budget categories.
Hogan has worthy ambitions in attracting new blood into farming and getting farmers to do more for the environment yet there are likely to be a couple of headline-grabbers that will generate most debate.
It is by now a ritual to have a debate on active farmers and putting a ceiling in place for payments. This time round, the figure of a €60,000 upper limit per farm is widely mentioned, with any money saved by this measure going into the national pot to offset some of the cuts that would be caused by a smaller budget. How effective this will be remains to be seen, as past experience has shown remarkable ingenuity by large farm and feedlot businesses in protecting their CAP payment.
The other area that will be contentious – and generated plenty of debate last time round – is getting resources targeted at people who earn their living from farming: active farmers, as they became known. Depending on interpretation, the leaked draft suggests farmers who obtained the majority of their income off farm could be excluded. Greening will give way to an environmental scheme separate from the basic payment and the expected young farmer scheme will slice further money from the basic payment.
It is clear that the CAP proposals will be limited by financial constraints with no indication so far that members will up their contributions to offset the UK departure.
This, along with presenting the challenge of design and implementation to the member states, means that Dublin more than Brussels will shape the next CAP.
Finance: innovation
in taxation
Given the swings in output prices, particularly in the dairy sector, we need to see the development of a mechanism that would allow farmers park a portion of receipts in a secure fund that is available to the farmer in years when income crashes down.
We clearly see that there can be up to a 50% swing in dairy commodity prices and the effects at farm level are hugely significant.
Last week we reported that the average dairy farm incomes lifted from €34,000 to €86,000 in 2017, when measured by the Teagasc National Farm Survey.
These figures are surely evidence enough to allow for some innovative thinking on tax charges per dairy farm. The deferred receipts could be taxed when drawn down in years of lower income.
Farm safety: staying vigilant
Field work is at a peak in the livestock and tillage sectors. Silage fields are being cleared, slurry spreading and reseeding is progressing, and spraying continues on winter crops. With increased workload comes the increased risk of farmer injury as a result of longer hours. Irrespective of weather forecasts, keep the safety basics front and centre: eat well, drink plenty of water and be ultra careful of young people around the farmyard.
Read more
Charolais Society and ICBF lock horns on BDGP
The clear divisions that are emerging between the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation (ICBF) and pedigree breeders is very unwelcome news for commercial suckler farmers.
The objective of the majority of suckler farmers is to breed the best stock bull they can source with an ever-improving suckler cow. The opinion on what represents a good cow varies between farmers depending on their production system. Some focus on easy calving, more on breeding replacements and others are chasing the €1,000 weanling. As an industry, we must aim for quality calves but cows must calve every year to pay their way. Therefore, we need to be clear on objectives to make progress.
The big difference with the dairy sector is that the majority of dairy farmers are spring milk producers so calving compactly in the spring and producing milk solids are clear and simple goals.
With clarity comes quick progress. We can see this on dairy genetics and output. The diversity of beef-production systems across Ireland – from weanling production to bull finishing – leaves room for those with a vested interest to exploit and confuse farmers, at the very least.
Unlike dairy farmers, AI usage is not as prevalent on suckler cows so genetic progress is slower and harder to make. Dairy farmers have come to accept EBI movement but the significant difference is that dairy farmers use a team of AI sires; if one or two sires drop or go up in EBI on a team of 10 sires, the overall impact on the herd is negligible.
Should commercial suckler farmers be using more AI and thereby reduce the unpredictability and uncertainty around stock bulls? For some, this is possible and working well. For others, land fragmentation and off-farm work make this more difficult, but as technology advances for heat detection and sexing, should commercial suckler farmers focus more on these advances?
The power of the breed societies to slow genetic gain is considerable. Without measurement, it is impossible to make progress
The up-and-down star debate continues, as Shane Murphy reports. However, we must remember that this will always be the case as more information is incorporated into proofs. We don’t need to see dramatic differences but we must accept that there will be changes.
Breed societies have a key role to play. Often, those representing breeders work in a very difficult space. They represent breeders who have a deep vested interest – given the level of investment in stock – and often a deep love for a particular breed. It is vital that those in key positions within breed societies manage relationships with breeders but also have a clear strategic long-term view on the future of the suckler herd and what will drive profitability at farm level.
As Teagasc researcher Donagh Berry suggests, the power of the breed societies to slow genetic gain is considerable. Without measurement, it is impossible to make progress, and pulling out of initiatives that improve the reliability and records in the long term is not good for improving genetic gain. Any reputable long-term plan should include background data and weight recording from pedigree and commercial herds. The suckler herd has made considerable gains on the terminal side but not as much on the maternal side. We are starting to see some gains with ICBF reporting calves per cow per year increasing from 0.79 to 0.85 calves – that’s 50,000 extra calves per year.
Some claim that more and more replacements for the suckler herd are coming from the “inferior” quality dairy herd. However, ICBF data suggests that the numbers sourced from the dairy herd has actually decreased from 26% to 22%.
We need leadership in ICBF, Teagasc research, advisory and breed societies to do what is best for suckler farmers and not get bogged down in politics and agendas that have poor foundations.
CAP 2020: another step towards CAP as proposal is presented
European Commissioner for Agriculture Phil Hogan.
While the CAP proposal won’t be formally presented until Friday, the ambitions have been well flagged and few surprises are expected.
European Commissioner for Agriculture Phil Hogan will formally present his proposals for the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) post-2020 on Friday 1 June. The Irish Farmers Journal obtained an early leaked draft of proposals in April and while Brussels sources have remained tight-lipped, we are confident that the proposals outlined in the edition of 28 April will be the basis for farm support after 2020.
The core themes of Hogan’s ambitions have been consistent since February 2017 when he first consulted on what shape the next CAP should take. He has sought to balance the interests of farmers with the powerful Brussels environmental lobby within the constraint of a reduced budget – in many ways an impossible tightrope to walk. As such, whatever he produces on Friday won’t please most stakeholders.
The Commissioner recognises the importance of farmers yet he had to accept a further cut to the CAP budget in the proposals published in May by European Commissioner for Budget and Human Resources Günther Oettinger. Under these, the proportion of the EU budget for farming will drop to 30% – the lowest ever – even though it remains one of the largest budget categories.
Hogan has worthy ambitions in attracting new blood into farming and getting farmers to do more for the environment yet there are likely to be a couple of headline-grabbers that will generate most debate.
It is by now a ritual to have a debate on active farmers and putting a ceiling in place for payments. This time round, the figure of a €60,000 upper limit per farm is widely mentioned, with any money saved by this measure going into the national pot to offset some of the cuts that would be caused by a smaller budget. How effective this will be remains to be seen, as past experience has shown remarkable ingenuity by large farm and feedlot businesses in protecting their CAP payment.
The other area that will be contentious – and generated plenty of debate last time round – is getting resources targeted at people who earn their living from farming: active farmers, as they became known. Depending on interpretation, the leaked draft suggests farmers who obtained the majority of their income off farm could be excluded. Greening will give way to an environmental scheme separate from the basic payment and the expected young farmer scheme will slice further money from the basic payment.
It is clear that the CAP proposals will be limited by financial constraints with no indication so far that members will up their contributions to offset the UK departure.
This, along with presenting the challenge of design and implementation to the member states, means that Dublin more than Brussels will shape the next CAP.
Finance: innovation
in taxation
Given the swings in output prices, particularly in the dairy sector, we need to see the development of a mechanism that would allow farmers park a portion of receipts in a secure fund that is available to the farmer in years when income crashes down.
We clearly see that there can be up to a 50% swing in dairy commodity prices and the effects at farm level are hugely significant.
Last week we reported that the average dairy farm incomes lifted from €34,000 to €86,000 in 2017, when measured by the Teagasc National Farm Survey.
These figures are surely evidence enough to allow for some innovative thinking on tax charges per dairy farm. The deferred receipts could be taxed when drawn down in years of lower income.
Farm safety: staying vigilant
Field work is at a peak in the livestock and tillage sectors. Silage fields are being cleared, slurry spreading and reseeding is progressing, and spraying continues on winter crops. With increased workload comes the increased risk of farmer injury as a result of longer hours. Irrespective of weather forecasts, keep the safety basics front and centre: eat well, drink plenty of water and be ultra careful of young people around the farmyard.
Read more
Charolais Society and ICBF lock horns on BDGP
This is a subscriber-only article
SHARING OPTIONS: