Letter to the Editor: experience with farmer buyers influenced by star ratings

DEAR EDITOR,

As a suckler farmer carrying around 40 cows over 20 years, I have developed a pedigree Limousin herd based on the business notion that it costs as much to feed a good one as a bad one, and that I had both a breeding and factory outlet for my stock, with increasing demand from the expanding dairy herd for quality breeding bulls.

Somewhat persuaded by the rationale of the ICBF and the SCEP requirements of farmer buyers influenced by star ratings, I began to select bulls with weighted scores for ease of calving, terminal slaughter weights and milkiness.

This has been a disastrous decision on my part and has left my previously five-star cows and offspring re-graded downwards, based on limited information and a very narrow selection criteria.

To the extent that super beef-breeding cows producing quality, visually impressive bulls are now relegated to one- and two-star animals as the index criteria continues to change, seemingly now based solely on the carcase weight under 24 months.

For instance, a five-star cow five years ago is now a three-star and bred to a five-star AI bull two years ago that has since had his stars slashed and downgraded, has somehow left me with a visually super, two-star bull unsuitable for SCEP breeders, that hung E+ at 22 months in the factory.

I support the withdrawal, as proposed by the breed societies, as ICBF is arrogantly and doggedly pursuing an agenda that is fundamentally changing how we breed and what we breed, without serious industry engagement.

The challenge that the ICBF hierarchy is not meeting is reconciling its limited green agenda and making it relevant, and restoring confidence with the beef-breeding societies. This is a divide that is proving difficult to bridge, but respectful engagement and communication between all parties would be a start.