Using Sheep Improvement Limited (“SIL”) figures to buy Rams!!!

It’s that time of the year again, so I thought I would outline some of my thoughts on SIL performance figures and what to be aware of when buying rams!!

 Again I would point out that I am ram breeder with my own sale so I am not a neutral commentator, but as such I do think I have  a good practical understanding of the value, reliability and pitfalls of such figures.

 Dual Purpose Production (“DPP”) or Dual Purpose Overall (“DPO”) indexes

When you buy rams make sure you see the SIL printout as to how the indexes are calculated.    The reason this is important is there is no one format: a breeder can get certain sub indexes included or indeed what is more common at the moment excluded.   Accordingly if comparing indexes between breeders (which is not a good idea for lots of reasons) one of which is that you may not be comparing apples with apples, it could be apples with oranges.

 “Dual purpose Adult Size” index (“DPA”)

A number of breeders at present exclude the DPA from their DPP or DPO indexes.   The DPA is an index which in theory gives you an economic value of the genetic component of a animal’s size, the lower this figure (i.e. a high negative number) the worse the DPP or DPO as a high negative figure in theory means a ram will leave progeny that will have a high mature adult weight, which many argue we now do not want.   According many breeders exclude this figure as it significantly lifts the overall index of the ram, which is fine provided they advise you of this, not so fine if they don’t!!!   

 Some are genuine for excluding it as the index itself is, in my view, at present a complete waste of time.   Firstly if you don’t weigh your ewes (which is still the majority of breeders) SIL then calculates this DPA figure based on the rams early growth breeding values eg the weaning weight breeding value (‘Wwtbv”) and the live weight 8 (8 months old) breeding value (“lw8bv”): if a ram has a particularly high lw8bv, then SIL will give that ram a high negative DPA based on the assumption that such high early growth will mean bigger adult sheep.    This is true for some sheep, but not all; accordingly the DPA figure is a waste of time because it can’t be relied on.  I had a great example myself with one of my best breeding Romney rams in the last 10 years: he had phenomenal early growth (450 grams a day for 3 months), but he himself as an adult was not a big sheep nor in fact were the majority of his progeny (he actually reduced the size of our ewes), but he had a lousy DPA.   

Secondly many reading this will simply say weigh your ewes: but the problem with this is there is a big difference between a fat 65kg ewe and a skinny 65 kg ewe, which SIL does not differentiate between when such data is entered.     Clearly a big frame skinny ewe is not what we want, but it is treated the same as the fat one on a DPA index.    This is why I still don’t enter such data into SIL.  SIL acknowledges this and is looking at introducing some sort of system of body condition scoring at the time of weighing ewes, the problem of course being the subjectivity of the person scoring the ewe at the time.    

In my view still by far the most reliable way at present of assessing the adult size of ram’s progeny is to look at the ram himself, big ram (frame wise not necessarily simply heavy ram) probably big ewes.

Dual Purpose Meat Index (“DPM”) and Terminal Sire Meat Index (“TSM”)

It is defined as being calculated as an aggregate of hindquarter, forequarter and loin yield percentage.  

 

How do you get such data?  From Alliance viascan: so you have to get the data back on cull progeny and enter that into SIL.  Problem with this: firstly not a lot of breeders are doing this. Secondly, even if you do, you need a reasonable sample size to give you some credible data: this use to be 20 to 25 progeny of a sire (but it seems 15 is being more commonly talked about now).  If you only have a few then it could distort your results and reduce the accuracies.  

Without any Viascan data, the index is calculated by an extrapolation of an eye muscle scan, which may be correct or not as a good eye muscle does not necessarily mean a good hindquarter (in fact in my view because of the emphasis on eye muscle scanning in the last 10 years many breeders now have a sheep with a good eye muscle scan and poor or average hindquarters). 

If there is no other data then they somehow extract a DPM index from the growth figures (wwtbv and lw8bv). 

Accordingly I consider this DPM to be complete waste of time as it can be all to hell.  In fact surprisingly I recently found out that the SILACE analysis (that I get my figures from for my terminal rams) excludes the viascan data (apparently owing to a lack of such data). 

Number of Lambs Born Breeding value  (“nlbbv”)

Again you need to ask how this is calculated.  I personally base my figures on a SIL analysis where the Reproduction calculations includes LW8 (as I understand it, the science is clear that there is a correlation between such size and fecundity).  However some breeders don’t and specifically have nlb bvs based on analyses that exclude LW8 from Reproduction.    I reiterate it’s not wise to be comparing indexes between breeders (unless interalia there are strong linkages between the flock in questions) but if you are, ensure you are comparing apples with apples.    

The other important thing to remember is that the ram hogget or 2th you are looking at has nlbbvs which are a prediction of what genetically he may do.  Until that ram itself has progeny on the ground lambing themselves you don’t know what sort of fertility he is going to leave.  It’s purely an estimate based on his sire, dam, and siblings etc fertility performance.   

SIL Rankings

When looking at the figures check what their rankings are out of.   Generally most breeders put up rankings based all their male lambs or indeed all animals born that year.  However sometimes breeders put up rankings simply on those they have retained through the winter or indeed worse what they are offering for sale.    Some only give you rankings and not the actual breeding values.    I think if you are looking for something in particular to improve on perhaps fertility, wool, growth etc then you should ask to see the actual values, particularly if the ranking is based solely on what is being offered for sale as the ranking could suggest that its much better genetically than what it is.

My basic advice when buying rams, is first pick a breeder who has breeding policy in line with what you want to achieve, who you believe in and trust: if you don’t, don’t go there.  Secondly select two to three times as many rams that you want to buy of the type that you like i.e. if you want 4 rams pick out 8 to 12 that you like the look of.  Thirdly use the figures to whittle them down to the ones you purchase, focusing on the traits that are important to you.   This way you should get a consistent type with good figures. When using SIL I believe that you should focus more on breeding values and much less on indexes because as you can see from above, indexes can be pretty unreliable at times.   I always say if you know what the deficiencies are in SIL it is of use.

Are we having the wool levy being pulled over our eyes?

I have been reading the numerous article and letters, like most of us I suspect, on the pros and cons of another wool levy,  more pros as it would seem the wool levy group has a reasonable budget judging by the coverage in the farming magazines.

 I was certainly someone who was sitting on the fence on this. In theory it’s a great idea, we collectively contribute funding to a body that has our best interests at heart; such a body then makes intelligent prioritised and relevant decisions as to what is in our best interests.    In theory it’s fantastic!!!  Just like a cooperative for a meat company!

 The levy group make a number of blanket statements as to how the money will be used for Communication, Education and Innovation with a number of bullet points under each of these headings.    But again everything they say is generic statements for example one bullet point under the heading Communication: “provide industry leadership and a shared vision for the sector- industry direction, unity and alignment”.   It’s hard to disagree with such statement; the problem is how you achieve this goal, there is no detail as to how this maybe achieved.  We probably need such detail given we had a wool levy for many many years prior to 2009, which, despite it (which was considerably more in dollar terms than what is proposed now),  wool continued to decline to some very low levels in both price and demand, so how will the introduction of this wool levy be any different?

 Education:  again one bullet point under this heading: “provide funding for promoting awareness of wool to ensure that retailers, consumers and those that influence buying decisions have an understanding of wool and an incentive to use it”   Hard to disagree with such a goal, but realistically even if the whole $4.6 million proposed was used to achieve this one goal, would you make any traction?  Synthetic manufacturers of substitute products for wool (best example carpet), as I understand it, spend millions on promoting their product, including bigger margins and cash incentives for turnover of product, will 2.7 million (figure suggested) be anything but a drop in the bucket, unless its done comprehensively and properly is there any point in doing it all.  Not to mention the obvious; what indeed is the best way of educating these people when one considers you are competing against entities that have much deeper pockets than we ever will.  For example do you drive it from the consumer end or push it from the producer end, do you get celebrities or do you educate the young (possible in New Zealand perhaps, but in other countries with 2.7 million).  There are endless questions as to how you do this and whether you will achieve anything at all if you don’t have the budget to succeed.

 Another heading is “Innovation”: half a million for essentially research and development purposes.    Again great, but if you have a good idea, is there not numerous ways to get funding for this now.   There seem to be a number of government funding avenues now if the idea you want to research and develop is credible: why will another half million all of sudden make such a difference to wool innovation.  Perhaps it will but I have my doubts.

 It seems to be the norm in our industry that generic statements are made without providing the detail as to how you achieve these goals.  The Meat Industry Excellence Group, the Red Meat Sector report and now this wool levy.    To be credible and get people on your side you need detail as to how one intends to achieve such goals, particularly in light of the fact that all these issues are not new, in fact they continually come up on a regular basis with seemingly no solution.

 I have no doubt that those who are pushing for the reintroduction of the wool levy and well meaning in their intent, but if introduced its success depends on the people driving it.  I understand that entities like these take up a lot of time and often the people you want to be running it are simply too busy running their own operation to put their hand up and those who do have the time and make themselves available are not always the best people for the job.

 As you can tell from what I have written I am probably going to vote no, as firstly I think the amount of the levy is simply not enough to achieve anything: if you don’t have enough money to do something comprehensively and properly then realistically attempting to do something on half hearted basis is a waste of time (which I think the budget proposed is far from enough).  Secondly, like everything it’s only as good as the people running it, and I need more detail as to who this would be and how they intend to go about achieving these goals as in my experience history shows that when its not your money one is spending its easy to spend the money on the wrong things in the wrong way.

 

 

New Meat Industry group Started “MIANG”

MIANG stands for “Meat Industry Advanced Nothing Group” and it has a massive membership as many of us are members by default!!!   I have been saying this as a joke for a few months, but unfortunately it is fast becoming or already is the reality of what is happening. 

It’s been over since 6 months since I last wrote anything, but a phone survey call one evening a week or so ago incensed me enough to start again. 

It was some farming survey and the second question was along the lines:  if you were to get an extra $25 for a lamb would you be prepared to pay $10 per lamb for the next two years to consolidate the industry?  My immediate reply was what a stupid loaded question: is this survey being carried out on behalf of the Meat Industry Excellence Group (“MIEG”)?  To which I was finally advised it was.   It was an unbelievably ridiculous question in my eyes, of course if you simply answer the question you would have to answer yes, $25 more for each lamb, and invest $20 to get it.  However the real question is how is the extra $25 achieved, where are the arguments and data that backs up the rationale that consolidation will achieve this and will that extra $25 continue long term beyond consolidation; or will it as being suggested, by the two coops at least, with the present market conditions prevailing, what we will get extra in two years time anyway.  This question simply assumes that the $25 is reality.    

It seems to me that MIEG through such a survey is endeavouring to get statistical data to say x percentage of farmers are in favour of consolidating the industry, which based on such questions, if you answer without questioning any of the assumptions behind,  should be 100%.   The above was not the only loaded question like this I was asked.

I personally think consolidation and the merging of the coops is probably required and have argued why previously, but I know there are many more people out there who are much better informed than I as to the pro and cons of doing this.    But what really continues to bug me is why can’t everyone be upfront and transparent about it all, treat all of us with respect and detail the pro and cons, don’t just feed us with generic unjustified statements “Consolidation will result in greater returns blah blah blah….” without any detailed argument as to why it will or indeed the details as to how we go about it. 

 

Again, we are told that we need to take greater ownership in the process to reap higher returns for our lamb, but again I personally have not seen any detail as to how and why this statement will result in us receiving more money for our lamb.    These are the questions and statements that have been made for decades now and again are being asserted now, but what we are never told is the detail of how we go and about it and why it will achieve this amazing generic conclusions we are constantly fed.  I am not saying that consolidation should not happen, but treat us with some respect and detail how, why and the costings associated with it.   After all if we are making a major change on our farm, don’t we all try to get the best information before making a change that is essentially irreversible?  We don’t just take some consultant’s assertion that is what we should do: now that I think of it, there are people out there that probably do this, but not me! 

The former MIEG members who were elected to the SFF and Alliance cooperatives in the last elections: I felt that was always going to be waste of time. It was déjà vous as that’s exactly what the Meat Industry Action Group did and what did they achieve?  I understand there is still one member of that group on a board.   The problem is no matter how well intentioned you are, if you in the minority on such a board you are pushing the proverbial uphill from the get go.   

I also believe that given those new directors were put forward by MIEG and asked to be supported by farmers on a clear mandate; they have been very conspicuous by their lack of public comment on the whole situation.   The argument for not doing so, namely commercial sensitivity and confidentiality does not cut the mustard for me; in my view Directors of both Coops should be keeping us more informed than they do on these issues, with detail, it’s their duty to shareholders.    

We as shareholders want to know what are the difficulties; its their duty to inform us beyond the generic statements made (Mr Young recently stated in the Farmers weekly that “the complexity of the Market surprises MIE founder” but he doesn’t tell us anything about what these complexities are?)   Surely they could tell us why things are more complex than first thought, or why it doesn’t make sense economically, why it will take time, why other members of the board are not interested in a merger?  I want things to be transparent, I want to be informed, and I want to know what the true situation is.  If we are all transparent about what we are trying to achieve, which means detail about why this should happen and how, then we can be trust what is being said and et everyone on board and actually move forward as opposed to the same old.

Just a quick comment on the upcoming vote on the Wool levy, much of the above apply to this issue also.   Same old generic statements and claims with no detail as to how it’s achieved.   The cynic in me looks at the fact that we had a Wool levy for many many years prior to it being voted out and looked what happened to wool.  Now miraculously if it’s reinstated its going to save the industry?   There is something to be said for the fact that if it’s your money you are playing with you tend to utilise it much better!

Genetics Merger- beef and lamb etc

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.

Some thoughts on some common ram marketing claims

As we are coming into the ram selling season, I thought it might be of interest to sheep farmers to give my thoughts on the merits or otherwise of some of the claims that are often used to suggest one’s rams are better than someone else’s.

I would like to make it clear that I am a passionate ram breeder and as such I am not a neutral independent commentator on the following; however I would like to think my opinion is a well informed and an objective view

Firstly, you do need to cast a cynical eye over what is often being claimed as sometimes it’s nothing more than marketing dribble used to sell rams and adds little (being polite here) or no genetic value to the rams. 

Myomax:   This is a Texel specific gene test only, so if someone is advertising Romneys or any non Texel breed (e.g. suffolks) with a single and/or double copy of this gene, then they are not pure, they are crossbreds: e.g. a Romney that has had a Texel put through them; it could be ½  Romney, ¾ Romney etc.  If it has a double copy it would have to of had a Texel put through the flock at least twice.   Good luck to anyone who wants to do this, but be aware of what you are buying.  If you buy any rams with a myomax gene, then check that the breeder is also testing for the blind gene that is associated with Texels to ensure you don’t bring that into your flock.   One other point about myomax is that one copy gives you roughly a 10% gain in the eye muscle area, but what needs to remembered if you buy a ram with a lousy eye muscle, 10% more of a crap eye muscle may not be as good as a ram with a good eye muscle and no myomax gene. 

Worm Star test:  This is approximately 80% about growth and 20% about worms.  So I personally consider the name of this to be somewhat misleading as it’s principally about growth rates, simplistically it could be renamed the growth star test. A scientist has advised me on more than one occasion, if a sheep does have good growth rates then logically it is probably handling any worm burden better than those that don’t.  The most reliable data you get from SIL is in fact ebvs on growth rates (young stock at least), so this test adds little, if not nothing, in my view. 

CT Scanning:   For CT Scanning to add genetic value to the rams you buy, the breeder needs to be scanning a sufficient sample size of each sire they use, say 20 to 25 sons (some may argue a few less) and if they do, then they are providing you with good information.  However I am personally unaware of anyone scanning these sorts of numbers per sire.  The reason being is because of cost, but unfortunately CT scanning only a few rams simply provides you with phenotypic information, i.e. what the animal looks like as opposed to genotypic information (the genetic makeup of the animal).  In other words genetically you don’t know whether the ram at issue has the genes to provide you with more meat or not, it may do but it may not. You need to find out how many rams per sire the breeder is scanning before assessing whether it adds any genetic value to the rams you are considering buying. 

We only keep twin ewes and use twin rams:  Where you have a stud breeder who records all the information they should do and are on SIL, then this is just a crap marketing statement that adds no value to the rams you buy, in particular in terms of fecundity.  Simplistically the easiest way to demonstrate why is:  you have two rams, one a single, the other a twin, the single is out of ewe that has had 6 sets of twins and then this single ram, while the twin is out of ewe that has had 6 singles in a row, then has this set of twins (note in reality I would hope that most breeders would have culled such a ewe after two singles in a row, if it’s not a terminal breed).   Accordingly if you are looking for the ram that is likely to provide you with most fecund progeny (i.e. more multiples), then clearly the single ram is the one you would take hands down.   SIL’s ebvs for number of lambs of born would also back this up.  Accordingly such a policy in a stud programme is likely limiting that stud’s progress.   Note hypothetically  if two rams are exactly the same with one being a twin, the other a single, then I too would take the twin every time. 

All rams for sale from top 35% born, or 25% born:  This always makes me laugh, without more information how is this impressive!.  In reality on its own this simply means they have retained 25 or 35% of what was born, for sale.  If from top 25%, then  based on what: that their still alive, which makes them better than the others or top 35% on SIL which means that they will be selling some awful rams that have good figures.  I don’t know anyone who is culling their best ones and selling their bottom 25%.   Personally I would be more impressed with someone selling 50% of their rams born, if when you go and look at them, they are impressive with good consistent figures, which would suggest to me such rams are more likely to pass on the characteristics and performance I am looking for because of the depth of quality in the stud.

We only retain ewe hoggets that get in lamb:  On the surface this sounds impressive, but you need to ask how long is the ram put out with them.  I, for instance, only put ram lambs out with them for 17/18 days and usually get around 60% in lamb, if I put them out for two rounds I am pretty confident a very high percentage would get in lamb.  I don’t, because I don’t want to lamb for months and I want to wean my hogget lambs the same time as the ewes.  Accordingly you need to ask more questions about this before determining whether this is something that is impressive and is of value to you. 

Sheep 50k and sheep 5K:  I don’t intend to go into the merits and economics of these genetic tests in this article, however please note the fact someone advertises that they have or are using such tests means nothing on its own.  If they have, then ask to see the results of these tests to see that they are using sires or selling rams that are coming up well on the traits and performance that you are looking to improve on in your flock.   The cynic in me is of the opinion that there are some breeders using science to market their rams as opposed to improving their genetics.  

 

There are a lot more things I could talk about but this is supposed to be an article not a book.

Agresearch: Should I stay or should I go?

I have been reading the various articles on the pros and cons of the proposed AgResearch restructuring which intends to centralise most of it’s’ capabilities to Lincoln and Palmerston North.

Centralisation and then decentralisation is something that seems to go in cycles, governments, banks and significant businesses have all done it.  You get someone new at the top and they want to make a change.  Centralisation tends to be economically rationalised by lower admin costs, more cost effective use of physical assets (in theory at least), scale efficiencies and so on.   Then 10 years later decentralisation is rationalised and justified on better client service, we need to be where our customers are, personal contact is what makes the difference, I am sure there are many more ways of justifying both actions.

 The reality for me is I deal with people, if you deal with someone you like and trust, and they shift to another entity in the same business then I find I tend to follow them.   My loyalty is to the person and not the business, so if they leave the industry I am looking for someone else who I trust to deal with.   Most business is all about relationships.  I would suggest the importance of this is being overlooked at the moment and/or immensely undervalued in the proposed restructure.   

 These relationships are even more important when carrying out industry good research as you need to have good solid direct working relationship with those you are in theory developing the science for, you need people with a foot in both camps who understand the practicalities of what is happening and what the industry is wanting. 

 What do I mean by this, two people I deal with at AgResearch at Invermay with regards to sheep genetics, are both married to farmers and live on farms, they understand the challenges and the realities of what is going on and I would suggest empathise with the industry.  Will they relocate, the odds must be against it.  People like them are important to ensure research is followed to its logical conclusion or further developed if required.    The cynic in me believes that sometimes funding is sort for projects which is more about keeping someone in paid employment than attaining industry good objectives, because when the funding runs out, the project is shelved and they move onto something else.  

 It’s important to have people in all regions that are easily accessible to the farmer, the better the relationship I suggest the better the science being undertaken and of course the better the buy in to the research by the farmer.  Centralising AgResearch’s capabilities will severely impact on this as it would be inevitable that there would be many more scientists undertaking research who would have little or no contact with the actual farmer themselves.  In other words centralising scientists at Lincoln and Palmerston North I believe will create a greater disconnect with the farmer.  I often cheekily say when describing a scientist I have some time for, they could probably almost succeed as a farmer if they wanted to (this is because they understand the practicalities and realities facing farmers, not all scientists do, they only way they can get an inkling is by forming good relationships with farmers and similarly for farmers to understand the science). 

 On top of this to create the relationships I am talking about you need to be where the subject of the research is: if it’s about sheep then pick an area where there are considerable sheep, Canterbury as we all know has a huge dairy presence now, so centralising to Lincoln, doesn’t really stack up that well for sheep research.

 

 

Closed door talks insult Farmer suppliers

Who decides the future of the sheep industry?

I didn’t want to write about this anymore, but the recent article in the farmers weekly “Meat talks near end” incensed me to write about it again.  

I know I can only speak for myself but I have to say I have been disgusted with the arrogance, I guess you would call it (perhaps even ignorance, or condescension or all these things) of the meat companies.  They are treating us as if we are kids who should be seen and not heard: you just wait there and we shall talk amongst ourselves and once we have agreed on what is best for you and us, we shall then tell you what is going to change!!!!!.  No, it’s alright farmers and shareholder suppliers we don’t want your input as to how things should change or care exactly what you want, we are the experts, we know!!!!   I am afraid this is how I feel and especially so about the two cooperatives, all of them must answer to their shareholders, but the cooperative shareholders are also their suppliers, who in theory they are supposed to work in the best interests of.  Private companies can do what they like, but cooperatives?

At the very least you would think that you would invite the current executives of the Meat Industry Excellence Group “MIEG” to partake in the discussions given their recent road show meetings around the country, but from what I have read they are not part of it and have no idea of what the Meat companies have been talking about.

The stock response for justifying private, confidential closed door discussions is the information is commercially sensitive, which occasionally rings true, but more often than not in my experience it’s simply an excuse to exclude the public or other interested parties.   I doubt very much they are discussing balance sheets, debt loadings etc, most of which is freely available anyway.   I am sure if there was some commercial sensitivity (which I doubt) they could have had the MIEG involved on the basis that all such discussions are to remain confidential, at least you would then have some input from our defacto representation.

The reason I write these articles is to hopefully make others think seriously about it all and perhaps do something, not sure if I am succeeding in this regard!  But I also believe that expressing your ideas in public as opposed to a mate or neighbour provides more chance of someone developing that idea or tweaking it or coming up with something altogether better because they have turned their mind to it.  Who knows what might come from it, but this is a lot less likely with private closed door discussions.

One final thing; the tradable slaughter rights that people keep talking about was an idea developed decades ago to address capacity issues.  I have the original 70 or 80 page report and have admittedly only read the executive summary, but its purpose was to address and discourage the development of excess processing capacity, it does not address procurement issues at all, in fact the report actually promotes competition at the gate.    Deciding the correct level is apparently incredibly difficult, if too high or too low it has no effect whatsoever and as I said moreover it does nothing to solve the procurement problem we have.   Procurement and in particular the way it is done is admittedly just one problem we have, but I believe it is the first one that must be remedied if we are to turn things around, the eternal optimist (which incidentally is not me at the moment) would like to think that if we can sort out the meat industry, we actually may grow sheep numbers again as it will be profitable and accordingly in years to come we may need the current excess capacity!