I have been reading the various
promo articles (and in particular the recent one in the Farmers weekly of 28
October by Gerard Hall) as to why the proposed merger of Ovita, SIL (sheep
improvement Limited) and Beef and Lamb should go ahead and I have also attended
a coupler road show meetings on it.
Let me say at the outset that I
do support such a merger. However I do
think the various advocates of this merger tend to significantly overstate not
only its significance in the development of the sheep industry to date, but
also I think its contribution to it in the future. An example of such a statement:
The above entities are “the glue
that holds together sheep genetics research and development in NZ and supports
industry improvement. These are the key
ingredients in the profitability and competitive positioning of sheep and beef
farming”
The claim is made that for a $100
lamb SIL has been responsible for contributing an extra $14 more profit
compared to the animals 20 years ago. I
am not saying the SIL hasn’t contributed something or been used as one of many
tools to get there, but in my view the introduction of composites containing
breeds of Fin etc with the resulting high lambing percentages made all other breeds focus on fertility
to the point now for example the Romney breed, which is still the dominant
breed in NZ, their lambing percentages and in particular number of lambs
to weaning (i.e. high survivability
rates) must be well in excess of $14 per
lamb more than 20 years ago.
People need to remember that
genetics are one component of sheep farming, I would suggest it contributes
around 10%, others (i.e. beef and lamb) may argue around 20%. The
balance, 80 to 90% is stockmanship, which is not only knowing what a good sheep
looks like, but includes how you manage your stock, which in turn includes a
basic judgment as to when you should shift them through to what pasture
species, farming systems, fencing etc, all these things as a sheep or beef
farmer you hone to try and maximum production out of your stock. You assess the value of what you do by how
your animals perform; it is your subjective assessment that makes the
difference!
I believe it is the stockmanship aspect
that is increasingly becoming a lost skill and accordingly as much attention,
if not more, than the smaller genetic component, needs to be put on this to
educate all of us and in particular those who we hope to continue with the
industry into the future. Ideally such
education needs to be taught in tandem with SIL and sheep genomics etc and taught
in high schools and Universities. Some
basic examples of what I mean;
·
I use a rough tool to measure dry matter in a
paddock to determine how big a break I need to feed x amount of ewes or
hoggets, but whatever the figure I get its only a really rough guide, if the
weather is warm your stock need less, if its wet and cold they need more, if
its been very wet for a while they need a bigger break still, these are
judgements you should make every day.
The drymatter measurement tool is useful guide but ultimately the
important judgement is the daily assessment of your stock; and
·
Making an assessment as to how subdivide your
farm, a fence in the right place can make a huge difference to the utilisation
of the pasture, i.e. if it’s a shady area or wet area etc. I consider this a stockmanship assessment
that has major impact on your production; and
·
An assessment of an animal’s structure, i.e. the
phenotypic look of the animal is something that impacts on productivity down
the track. Simplistically an overshot
or undershot sheep can’t eat enough to perform. Dark skin, black spots on ears and face will
ultimately affect productivity as not culling for it will mean that the black
becomes so prevalent that you end up with inferior wool with loads of black in
it. Poor shoulder conformation if not
culled for will have a significant effect on ease of lambing in future
generations; this being one of my concerns about Alliance’s Viascan yield
assessment, you need a good shoulder to get the premium but this maybe at the
expense of lambing ease in future generations of sheep. I could go on for ages about the various
phenotypic traits of an animal and how if not culled for will ultimately affect
the productivity of the flock in the future.
There are loads more examples
because it obviously comprises 90% of what we do. Objective measurements or breeding values
from SIL or indeed sheep genomic chips don’t or at best provide us with a rough
guide on these decisions.
The same article mentioned above talks
about Shepherd plus, Sheep 50K, Sheep 5k etc.
I like many ram breeders provide DNA samples from sires to the present
entity and presumably to the future entity to develop gene markers and refine
the present ones so the accuracy of these tests can be significantly higher,
but one of the major stumbling blocks to the use of them is cost and accuracy. I would argue that unless you are an entity
subsidised by the rest of us, then any breeder who utilises such tests on the
scale advocated would, based on a cost benefit analysis, simply disregard the
use of them. Some presently use such
science more as a marketing tool than as mechanism to improve their
genetics. Take the Shepherd plus, I
can’t remember the exact pricing for this, but the cost to simply sort out sire
parentage (let alone sire and dam) is ridiculous and, if you are good breeder,
you still have to record and identify the mother in the normal manner, so what’s
the point!!!! Two things need to happen
before such science can truly contribute to the development of the industry; the
accuracy needs to continually climb and the cost of utilising such tests needs
to keep coming down, there will be a point that it makes economic sense, but I
am pretty sure we are not there yet.
As stated above I am not against
the merger and the continuing development into genetic markers etc, but I do
believe that it’s not the panacea as some people seem to be portraying it in
the media. I do believe it can
contribute, but as much emphasis needs to be placed on educating all of us on
what I consider the basics of stockmanship, it’s a vital aspect of being a good
farmer that can never be replaced by one or many objective tests, it is an art
that needs to be learnt and as such it’s the new entity’s responsibility to
also ensure that this aspect is also taught in high schools, universities and
any other forum (i.e. field days) that farmers may attend or more importantly
those who will be farmers of the future.
