The recent full page advertisement taken by a group of Australia’s leading Poll Dorset Stud Sheep Breeders publicly announcing their dissatisfaction with ASBVs commonly known as Lambplan struck a chord with me.  Anyone who has ever spoken with me or read any of my writings will be clear that I passionately believe the heavy use on CGBVs have done much damage to the economic functionality of our beef and dairy cattle.  Whether we are speaking of EBVs in beef cattle, APRs in Australian dairy cattle or BWs in New Zealand dairy cattle – the disconnect between the continuing improvement of the figures not being reflected in the ensuing progenys’ performance (in commercial) herds is consistent.  Most Countries in the World are using CGBVs for genetic evaluation.

I am all for the collection and accurate analysis of actual raw data. Problems occur when academics apply assumptions and weightings to the raw data values and convert them into (usually) a single numbered index value. Commercial producers are urged to use these values when making their genetic selections. These CGBVs have turned into marketing tools and the weight put behind the promotion of these systems versus any accurate evaluation of their affect is very unbalanced.

And as these Poll Dorset Breeders rightly pointed out – designed and monitored by people who have never bred or fed an animal in their life.

Let’s look at the Angus breed which has been viewed by all other breeds as the most successful as it had the most EBVs across the most traits first. If this system is as good as those which espouse it say, why now are there paddocks of commercial Angus cows (in good grass) with little meat on them? In a breed which once stood alone in its ability to maintain good body condition, rear a good calf and rebreed in nutritional environments where many other breeds would die!

The problem in the Angus Breed is that the Society and the ‘big’ seed stock players are so entrenched in this system they cannot even contemplate that it is not doing what it is marketed as doing.

When one steps back and takes a look the picture is clear – as the figures get better the cattle get worse. Paper cattle when commercial producers (who pay all the bills of seed stock suppliers and those behind these figures) require paddock cattle.

The serious problem in the industry is that the ability to accurately assess livestock by visual physical appraisal has disappeared and very inferior animals are being ‘carried’ by very questionable numbers.

So many bad cattle with excuses continually being made for them – it has been dry, wet, hot or cold. Good cattle deal with whatever Mother Nature dishes out. The paper cattle do not/cannot.

And the Dairy Industry in Australia urging farmers to use APRs – Australian Profit Rankings – whose weightings are very far away from commercial reality. If these number evaluations are working for the end user (the commercial farmer) why – in Victoria in the past 13 years – has the actual real production per cow lifted by only 9% when the concentrates fed per cow gone up by 100%?

And the New Zealand Dairy Industry – there were that many complaints about how the BWs ranked animals that the control was finally taken away from those in charge. Say no more except the question begs – how many good cattle were crucified and how many bad cattle promoted?

Conceived as a tool to assist commercial breeders to make better genetic decisions and evolved as a marketing tool working for everyone for everyone accept the commercial producer who actually pays for it.

Well done to these Poll Dorset Breeders for having the courage and conviction to challenge this very, very questionable system and those behind it

You would not have to be a dairy farmer to know that over the past 18 months the prices dairy farmers have been receiving for their milk are very close – if not below – cost of production. There have been many farms (and farmers) under financial administration or very tight Bank control. Many farm supply agencies have been carrying large debts for long periods of time. Even though it was well publicized that Australia was (and still is) receiving unprecedented demand for dairy products from China, Milk Processors could/would not pay farmers any more. So we hear the excuses the AUD is too high etc, etc. And yet the Chinese clearly wanted more Australian dairy products and China is the most lucrative milk product retail market in the World. So the high AUD excuse does not apply. Enormous demand and farmers being paid little more than cost of production with some actually going into liquidation. I am confused!

And now we see large Milk Processors:

1. 1. Mooted to be partnering the Chinese in a major dairy farm acquisition and expansion in Tasmania
2. 2. Spending $120 ml building milk processing plants
3. 3. Offering over $500 ml to purchase a rival factory

So this is all to get more throughput – yet they could not pay the farmers and extra 5 cents a litre 12 months ago when many were in – and have not survived – dire financial straits.

Maybe Australian farmers should take a lesson from their European counterparts in showing their dissatisfaction with prices they are being paid.