August is a relatively quiet time on the farm. It’s the break month between completion of silage and preparing for weaning.

Dealing with a few cases of photosensitisation is a break from the norm. It tends to happen around this time and possibly occurs while the cattle’s immune systems are low as rumen fluke mature. We’re getting a handle on the issue slowly but surely.

The plan put together with the vet was to see what weather and ground conditions were like when the cattle went to this ground, and if it was wet to dose for rumen fluke three months later.

The reason for this is that rumen fluke’s life cycle is 10 to 12 weeks and they have to be mature to get a good clear out. All stock on this ground were dosed for rumen fluke, and it has been interesting to see that those who got a tougher doing from it are from one cow family, a weakness genetically perhaps?

I completed the carbon navigator as part of the BDGP scheme. I have completed a few carbon footprint surveys as part of the Bord Bia audit over the years, and the more of them I do, the less serious I take it. Maybe I’m too pedantic when it comes to measuring certain things but it seemed to me to be a paper exercise and far too general. I have no problem completing those audits, they’re a good help to keep the house in order, and are no doubt useful to those marketing beef on our behalf.

It shows that Irish beef is traceable at farm level, but I have a problem with the fact that farmers don’t have a guaranteed return on completing it.

All cattle that will be sold for slaughter from this farm in 2016, like the past few years, will have meat that is Bord Bia quality assured and will be sold on as such. But, for over one-third of these, whoever is selling the meat will be paid on the back of this and I won’t. Cows won’t get any bonus and neither will any other stock that might slip off the pricing grid spec. This to me, undermines the scheme and is a justified source of discontent at farm level.

traceability

While the audit is good in that it stands over the traceability of an animal, it has nothing to do with meat quality. We are way behind the curve in terms of meat eating quality. Meat and Livestock Australia have created Meat Standards Australia which provides a method of grading the meat quality including taste.

Their aim was to provide a standard measure of carcass eating quality. In simple terms, they set about increasing the eating experience of the consumer by reducing the risk of them picking up a poor cut of beef.

It’s well worth investigating over here too.

There’s a crowded protein market out there and the Aussies are trying to be a few steps ahead of the pack. They use 16 different grading inputs to grade the meat (the Americans and Japanese have nine and eight respectively both including meat texture and marbling).

On the EUROP grading system we use there are only three. Carcase weight and confirmation being the main two.

The family farm structure that we depend on for marketing will be wiped out by an insistence on industry aiming for commodity products without investigating niche beef markets.

If a global beef giant like Australia sees merit in guaranteeing how its beef tastes then we need to up our game.