Tuesday, 19 July 2011
New EBLEX blog
Following the departure of Dr Duncan, you can find the new EBLEX blog at http://beefandlambmatters.blogspot.com.
Wednesday, 18 May 2011
Heading off to pastures new
Apologies for the lack of blogging over the last few months. You may know that at the beginning of the year I began a secondment as director of DairyCo, a position which was recently made permanent.
Being on an extended period of secondment and then moving is a strange situation when it comes to finding the right time to say goodbye (sort of), so I have decided that now will have to do!
In my 13 years with EBLEX (and prior to that the MLC) we experienced evolution, devolution and revolution. Throughout all of that I was lucky enough to work with excellent people who are good at what they do, and who care deeply about their industry.
So I am now bidding farewell to the beef and sheep industry and heading for pastures new, of the dairy variety. I’ll be leaving the blog in the capable hands of my EBLEX colleagues, although I’ll still be keeping an eye on the latest developments in the beef and sheep sector and how we in the dairy sector can work closely with you on common issues.
Obviously I’ve not gone far and no doubt will see some of you around.
Being on an extended period of secondment and then moving is a strange situation when it comes to finding the right time to say goodbye (sort of), so I have decided that now will have to do!
In my 13 years with EBLEX (and prior to that the MLC) we experienced evolution, devolution and revolution. Throughout all of that I was lucky enough to work with excellent people who are good at what they do, and who care deeply about their industry.
So I am now bidding farewell to the beef and sheep industry and heading for pastures new, of the dairy variety. I’ll be leaving the blog in the capable hands of my EBLEX colleagues, although I’ll still be keeping an eye on the latest developments in the beef and sheep sector and how we in the dairy sector can work closely with you on common issues.
Obviously I’ve not gone far and no doubt will see some of you around.
Thursday, 23 December 2010
Testing the water
Livestock farmers have been a popular scapegoat in the press when it comes to climate change, but the second EBLEX roadmap shows that farmers should now be on the front foot when it comes to discussing a sustainable future for the industry.
We can now demonstrate that the most carbon efficient sheep and beef producers are also the most profitable. For every kg of CO2 eq reduction beef production margins improved by 50p per kg liveweight, and sheep farmers benefitted by 28p. The business case for low carbon livestock is better than ever.
In the industry we’ve always felt that the relationship between commercial performance and environmental performance was a good one, but for the first time we are able to back up our logic with numbers. After all it’s tricky to manage what you can’t measure! This quantification is one of the key areas of study in Testing the Water – The English Beef and Sheep Production Environmental Roadmap Phase 2, published by EBLEX.
It’s not just about emissions either. The report includes the first reliable water usage footprint for the beef and lamb production industry, estimates the industry’s contribution to the landscape and biodiversity in England, and takes a snapshot of the energy and waste performance of the processing sector. Key findings include the fact that it only takes 67 litres of blue water* to produce 1kg of beef, and that beef and sheep farming contributes an estimated £1.494 billion in value to our rural landscapes and £1.288 billion to biodiversity value.
The report makes it clear that there is real potential for a greener, more sustainable livestock industry in the UK and that ultimately this is going to be good for the bank balance too. The old ‘win-win’ or even ‘win-win-win’ line that seems to get readily rolled out these days springs to mind! However, this is by no means a closed book. The data on which these results are based is still limited and while we now have a better handle on what’s good, we need to get to a point where these results are good enough to start affecting future pathways in the development, rather than curtailment of the sector (in the UK). In particular much more needs to be done on establishing the baseline for our carbon footprint and the steps that can be taken to reduce it. Government is investing in research to improve the inventory assessment, but this will take a few years to come through.
With pressure mounting on the environmental performance of farming, at a time when the profitability of farming is stymieing re-investment in the efficiency of businesses and a new generation of farmers, this research should encourage farmers. Most importantly however it provides a unique climate change reference guide for those looking to question the future of livestock farming in the UK. We plan to complete the ‘trilogy’ through developing some future scenarios for livestock production in the UK, later next year.
* blue water is water that could reasonably be used for other purposes, e.g. taken from the piped supply
We can now demonstrate that the most carbon efficient sheep and beef producers are also the most profitable. For every kg of CO2 eq reduction beef production margins improved by 50p per kg liveweight, and sheep farmers benefitted by 28p. The business case for low carbon livestock is better than ever.
In the industry we’ve always felt that the relationship between commercial performance and environmental performance was a good one, but for the first time we are able to back up our logic with numbers. After all it’s tricky to manage what you can’t measure! This quantification is one of the key areas of study in Testing the Water – The English Beef and Sheep Production Environmental Roadmap Phase 2, published by EBLEX.
It’s not just about emissions either. The report includes the first reliable water usage footprint for the beef and lamb production industry, estimates the industry’s contribution to the landscape and biodiversity in England, and takes a snapshot of the energy and waste performance of the processing sector. Key findings include the fact that it only takes 67 litres of blue water* to produce 1kg of beef, and that beef and sheep farming contributes an estimated £1.494 billion in value to our rural landscapes and £1.288 billion to biodiversity value.
The report makes it clear that there is real potential for a greener, more sustainable livestock industry in the UK and that ultimately this is going to be good for the bank balance too. The old ‘win-win’ or even ‘win-win-win’ line that seems to get readily rolled out these days springs to mind! However, this is by no means a closed book. The data on which these results are based is still limited and while we now have a better handle on what’s good, we need to get to a point where these results are good enough to start affecting future pathways in the development, rather than curtailment of the sector (in the UK). In particular much more needs to be done on establishing the baseline for our carbon footprint and the steps that can be taken to reduce it. Government is investing in research to improve the inventory assessment, but this will take a few years to come through.
With pressure mounting on the environmental performance of farming, at a time when the profitability of farming is stymieing re-investment in the efficiency of businesses and a new generation of farmers, this research should encourage farmers. Most importantly however it provides a unique climate change reference guide for those looking to question the future of livestock farming in the UK. We plan to complete the ‘trilogy’ through developing some future scenarios for livestock production in the UK, later next year.
* blue water is water that could reasonably be used for other purposes, e.g. taken from the piped supply
Tuesday, 16 November 2010
Countryside commentary
What is it about writers and commentators that make them suspend normal concepts of business and technical progress when they look at agriculture from the outside? A recent example came up when Alex James, the Blur bassist who now writes a column in a national broadsheet, was bemoaning the increased field sizes that are required for modern machinery, all “for a few quid extra” (Alex James:The rape of England - The Independent, 9th June 2010).
I could cast an equally uninformed eye over the music business and consider that it might all be better if we still had gramophone records rather than MP3s. I am pretty certain he would consider this a Luddite view, so perhaps he should invest a bit more effort in understanding how the farming industry works.
I guess the same sort of principle applies when food critics bemoan the effects of factory farming and mass production, completely ignoring the fact that eating quality and consistency of product has improved BECAUSE OF – not in spite of – improved methods and increased volumes. That is not to say that small-scale producers are not capable of producing a good product – many are. And many successful, small-scale producers are using the same methods and understanding that were originally researched for use in larger scale production.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I expect Mr James is a perfectly nice chap, but he must remember that English farming and food production is a business and for the countryside to thrive it must be economically sustainable. When we get that bit right, the beauty of the countryside will naturally follow.
However, what the countryside “should look like” is a matter for debate. Over the last 20-plus years, the countryside in lowland areas has continually changed as crops and farming methods alter. In upland areas, the rate of change is slower. But how do you define the perfect countryside? One expert – who was only half joking – once defined it as, “the views I saw that Sunday afternoon in 1976 when I went for a drive in the country with my grandparents”.
I could cast an equally uninformed eye over the music business and consider that it might all be better if we still had gramophone records rather than MP3s. I am pretty certain he would consider this a Luddite view, so perhaps he should invest a bit more effort in understanding how the farming industry works.
I guess the same sort of principle applies when food critics bemoan the effects of factory farming and mass production, completely ignoring the fact that eating quality and consistency of product has improved BECAUSE OF – not in spite of – improved methods and increased volumes. That is not to say that small-scale producers are not capable of producing a good product – many are. And many successful, small-scale producers are using the same methods and understanding that were originally researched for use in larger scale production.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I expect Mr James is a perfectly nice chap, but he must remember that English farming and food production is a business and for the countryside to thrive it must be economically sustainable. When we get that bit right, the beauty of the countryside will naturally follow.
However, what the countryside “should look like” is a matter for debate. Over the last 20-plus years, the countryside in lowland areas has continually changed as crops and farming methods alter. In upland areas, the rate of change is slower. But how do you define the perfect countryside? One expert – who was only half joking – once defined it as, “the views I saw that Sunday afternoon in 1976 when I went for a drive in the country with my grandparents”.
Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Putting knowledge into practice
I had the pleasure of visiting a vey well run beef unit the other day and seeing a fantastic example of someone who has translated existing knowledge into a very effective system. Simon Frost, who farms near Youlgreave in the Peak District, has put together a package that generates fast-growing store calves that are sold to single finishers.
The cows are Limousin crosses from one dairy herd and they are mated to carefully selected Charolais bulls with very high EBVs for growth and muscling. Simon’s knowledge of the pedigrees and EBVs of the Charolais breed is encyclopaedic. This means he has picked up some excellent stock bulls over the years and has a good idea of where the next good ones will be coming from.
We spent a few hours walking through the cattle on a gloriously sunny day a week or so before the calves were due to be weaned and sent to the finishing farm near Derby. Simon’s relationship with the finishing unit means he gets high-quality feedback about growth rates and carcase classification, which he can use to tweak his system further. He frequently goes to the abattoir to see them on the hook and discuss with the classifiers how he can make improvements.
Simon has the happy knack of seeing the key issues to be addressed and then finding a solution. He has also stuck to his mantra of “growth is king”, so all his management decisions are designed to drive growth.
Following on from my previous thoughts on progressive farming, I was struck by the appetite for progress and how a successful business had been made through the bringing together and exploitation of sound technical information. It is businesses like his which help define what is possible.
Plans are afoot to hold an EBLEX event on the farm in 2011. I think it should be an excellent day. Until then I leave you with a couple of pictures to whet your appetite.
The cows are Limousin crosses from one dairy herd and they are mated to carefully selected Charolais bulls with very high EBVs for growth and muscling. Simon’s knowledge of the pedigrees and EBVs of the Charolais breed is encyclopaedic. This means he has picked up some excellent stock bulls over the years and has a good idea of where the next good ones will be coming from.
We spent a few hours walking through the cattle on a gloriously sunny day a week or so before the calves were due to be weaned and sent to the finishing farm near Derby. Simon’s relationship with the finishing unit means he gets high-quality feedback about growth rates and carcase classification, which he can use to tweak his system further. He frequently goes to the abattoir to see them on the hook and discuss with the classifiers how he can make improvements.
Simon has the happy knack of seeing the key issues to be addressed and then finding a solution. He has also stuck to his mantra of “growth is king”, so all his management decisions are designed to drive growth.Following on from my previous thoughts on progressive farming, I was struck by the appetite for progress and how a successful business had been made through the bringing together and exploitation of sound technical information. It is businesses like his which help define what is possible.
Plans are afoot to hold an EBLEX event on the farm in 2011. I think it should be an excellent day. Until then I leave you with a couple of pictures to whet your appetite.
Wednesday, 13 October 2010
Progressive farming is vital
Let’s be clear – big livestock units are not bound to be bad. It depends, as with small units, how well designed they are and how well run they are. The vast majority of the UK public enjoys eating livestock products and values them as an important part of their life. They also expect, in the main, these products to be produced sustainably. As global demand increases, farming practice will have to develop and progress further. If getting bigger enables progress, then let’s not stop it.
The Sustainable Livestock Bill, backed by Friends of the Earth and a cross-party group of MPs, will ask the Government to implement a strategy that will improve the sustainability of livestock farming and consumption of livestock produce. Having such a strategy is not a bad thing, but over-simplifying complicated issues like equating soya imports with an immediate solution to deforestation in South America simply won’t work and has little relevance to domestic beef and sheep farmers.
The pessimists in the industry make the assumption that the answers the Bill could come up with on production will diminish the UK livestock farmers’ ability to produce products that are in demand. I don’t think that will necessarily be the outcome. Not if the separation between production policy and consumption management is clearly made. We trade with other countries and that means production and consumption at home have a looser relationship than many “campaigners” think. We are net importers of food and livestock products are no different.
We are 74% self-sufficient for beef and 88% for lamb, yet we trade about a third of our lamb to EU countries, principally France. And there is growing demand for English beef in the EU and further afield. Latest export figures show that beef exports are up 31% compared to the same period last year. This export trade makes good sense for English producers because it makes for a more competitive home market and so improves economic sustainability. Economic sustainability encourages the environmental sustainability that we all know is an essential component of managing climate change and supplying enough food to meet world demands.
This call for Government intervention in the food system may well stimulate great technical input into farming because further efficiency gains are imperative. They should be adopted to make the most of available resources and if that means bigger units, then why not? The welfare and health considerations of the livestock must be met and the Farm Animal Welfare Council already recognises that a large dairy, pig or beef unit may offer some advantages for animals because the size will allow the employment of full-time veterinary services, expert nutritionists and stockmen.
This gain in enterprise size does not do away with the concept of the benefits of mixed farming. On the contrary, one of the reasons for placing a large dairy unit in Lincolnshire is to integrate with the huge areas of arable production that will produce feed and benefit from the manure produced. The mixed nature will continue, it’s just it may be that the different bits of the mix are run and owned by different people. The nature of food production means that a well-integrated network of interdependent businesses will continue to develop and support one another.
So can we just think about the bigger picture and look at the benefits of big as well as the cons of small?
The Sustainable Livestock Bill, backed by Friends of the Earth and a cross-party group of MPs, will ask the Government to implement a strategy that will improve the sustainability of livestock farming and consumption of livestock produce. Having such a strategy is not a bad thing, but over-simplifying complicated issues like equating soya imports with an immediate solution to deforestation in South America simply won’t work and has little relevance to domestic beef and sheep farmers.
The pessimists in the industry make the assumption that the answers the Bill could come up with on production will diminish the UK livestock farmers’ ability to produce products that are in demand. I don’t think that will necessarily be the outcome. Not if the separation between production policy and consumption management is clearly made. We trade with other countries and that means production and consumption at home have a looser relationship than many “campaigners” think. We are net importers of food and livestock products are no different.
We are 74% self-sufficient for beef and 88% for lamb, yet we trade about a third of our lamb to EU countries, principally France. And there is growing demand for English beef in the EU and further afield. Latest export figures show that beef exports are up 31% compared to the same period last year. This export trade makes good sense for English producers because it makes for a more competitive home market and so improves economic sustainability. Economic sustainability encourages the environmental sustainability that we all know is an essential component of managing climate change and supplying enough food to meet world demands.
This call for Government intervention in the food system may well stimulate great technical input into farming because further efficiency gains are imperative. They should be adopted to make the most of available resources and if that means bigger units, then why not? The welfare and health considerations of the livestock must be met and the Farm Animal Welfare Council already recognises that a large dairy, pig or beef unit may offer some advantages for animals because the size will allow the employment of full-time veterinary services, expert nutritionists and stockmen.
This gain in enterprise size does not do away with the concept of the benefits of mixed farming. On the contrary, one of the reasons for placing a large dairy unit in Lincolnshire is to integrate with the huge areas of arable production that will produce feed and benefit from the manure produced. The mixed nature will continue, it’s just it may be that the different bits of the mix are run and owned by different people. The nature of food production means that a well-integrated network of interdependent businesses will continue to develop and support one another.
So can we just think about the bigger picture and look at the benefits of big as well as the cons of small?
Wednesday, 22 September 2010
Beef breeding – past, present and future
Two or three times a year I give a lecture to university students as a guest speaker. One of these invitations is to talk about beef breeding and genetic developments. To give some depth to the presentation, I go back 200 years and talk about how breeds were established in the UK from local “mongrels”. This work was often done by one or two passionate individuals who set about “fixing” the characteristics of the breed. Some of these programmes were impressively ambitious in their scale. Some of the well-known and well-documented examples include Hugh Watson and William McCombie working to establish the Aberdeen Angus from 1808, and Charles and Robert Colling who established the Shorthorn as a breed.
The point of this was really to try and make an association between breed and expected performance, an early form of branding if you like. Modern brands of all sorts are trying to get buyers to make an association between the brand and some special qualities. You don’t have to think long before you can come up with a few, VW cars for reliability, Volvo for safety etc.
Like other brands, beef cattle breeds have not stood still. When you plot a path from the breed fixing stage to today, you can quickly see how breeds have changed and developed. South Devons have gone from being dual-purpose milkers to a beef breed. Hereford and Angus have shrunk and then grown again in mature body weight as the market demands have changed.
The changing demands of the market and, if we are honest, fashions shaped in the show ring, have had their influence on cattle breeding and genetic development. In the early days, by which I mean the 1850s through to say early 1900s, showing of livestock had a very positive development on breeds and breeding. County and national shows encouraged the pursuit of commercial traits and gave a profile to the successful breeders which increased the value and demand for the best stock.
However, that was then and today it’s a different story. I think the value of livestock shows for breed development has passed. As a fun competition between like-minded friends and neighbours, there is no harm in showing cattle, in a similar way to dogs or canaries. The livestock show is also a great way of engaging with the non-farming public — there is nothing like a good show of cattle to get discussion and interest going in food production and matters agricultural.
But times change and the availability and accuracy of Estimated Breeding Values (EBVs) means that showing has no place as a means of identifying the best genetics for commercial production. For many years now, commercial pig and poultry breeders have been driven by well-planned and controlled genetic selection programmes. Dairy breeding is not far behind. So why has beef and sheep breeding not moved in the same direction at the same speed?
I think there are a number of factors at play. Firstly, the structure of the beef industry is one where many small pedigree herds service lots of smallish beef breeding herds (averaging 29 breeding cows). This means that bulls have a limited number of animals to serve, which in turn restricts the price paid for them. Secondly, the low number of offspring from cattle means that selection pressure is limited. You can increase production from the best cows by embryo transfer (ET), but that has associated risk and costs. Thirdly, the extensive nature of beef breeding means that artificial insemination (AI) use has been limited, leading to restricted access to the best bulls and again limiting stock bull value.
Around the world, and here in the UK, there are signs of a change in breeding practice. Producing EBVs through quantitative assessment is now simple and good value through Signet or ABRI systems. The increasing impact of molecular markers means that genetic progress can be accelerated and applied to some previously difficult-to-measure traits (provided the in-depth background work has been — and continues to be — done). EBLEX is working to integrate the existing EBVs with molecular EBVs so that breeders can interpret the result in one common “language”.
Having spent a couple of centuries stabilising breeds (although they have since altered quite a bit), the most adventurous breeders are now creating composites by picking the best genetics from several breeds. The idea is that you create a commercial animal that can be adapted to changing market requirements by changing the breed mix – a more responsive approach. Current genetic understanding and computing make these more complex systems workable. Other breeders look around the world for breeding stock that has been developed for a market and can be “parachuted in” to the UK market, as market demands and production conditions change.
All in all, beef breeding and beef breeders are on the cusp of a revolution, and the speed of development will be similar to the change that occurred when Charolais and Limousin arrived in the early 1960s. And the same things are happening in sheep breeding too.
1927
2004
The point of this was really to try and make an association between breed and expected performance, an early form of branding if you like. Modern brands of all sorts are trying to get buyers to make an association between the brand and some special qualities. You don’t have to think long before you can come up with a few, VW cars for reliability, Volvo for safety etc.
Like other brands, beef cattle breeds have not stood still. When you plot a path from the breed fixing stage to today, you can quickly see how breeds have changed and developed. South Devons have gone from being dual-purpose milkers to a beef breed. Hereford and Angus have shrunk and then grown again in mature body weight as the market demands have changed.
The changing demands of the market and, if we are honest, fashions shaped in the show ring, have had their influence on cattle breeding and genetic development. In the early days, by which I mean the 1850s through to say early 1900s, showing of livestock had a very positive development on breeds and breeding. County and national shows encouraged the pursuit of commercial traits and gave a profile to the successful breeders which increased the value and demand for the best stock.
However, that was then and today it’s a different story. I think the value of livestock shows for breed development has passed. As a fun competition between like-minded friends and neighbours, there is no harm in showing cattle, in a similar way to dogs or canaries. The livestock show is also a great way of engaging with the non-farming public — there is nothing like a good show of cattle to get discussion and interest going in food production and matters agricultural.
But times change and the availability and accuracy of Estimated Breeding Values (EBVs) means that showing has no place as a means of identifying the best genetics for commercial production. For many years now, commercial pig and poultry breeders have been driven by well-planned and controlled genetic selection programmes. Dairy breeding is not far behind. So why has beef and sheep breeding not moved in the same direction at the same speed?
I think there are a number of factors at play. Firstly, the structure of the beef industry is one where many small pedigree herds service lots of smallish beef breeding herds (averaging 29 breeding cows). This means that bulls have a limited number of animals to serve, which in turn restricts the price paid for them. Secondly, the low number of offspring from cattle means that selection pressure is limited. You can increase production from the best cows by embryo transfer (ET), but that has associated risk and costs. Thirdly, the extensive nature of beef breeding means that artificial insemination (AI) use has been limited, leading to restricted access to the best bulls and again limiting stock bull value.
Around the world, and here in the UK, there are signs of a change in breeding practice. Producing EBVs through quantitative assessment is now simple and good value through Signet or ABRI systems. The increasing impact of molecular markers means that genetic progress can be accelerated and applied to some previously difficult-to-measure traits (provided the in-depth background work has been — and continues to be — done). EBLEX is working to integrate the existing EBVs with molecular EBVs so that breeders can interpret the result in one common “language”.
Having spent a couple of centuries stabilising breeds (although they have since altered quite a bit), the most adventurous breeders are now creating composites by picking the best genetics from several breeds. The idea is that you create a commercial animal that can be adapted to changing market requirements by changing the breed mix – a more responsive approach. Current genetic understanding and computing make these more complex systems workable. Other breeders look around the world for breeding stock that has been developed for a market and can be “parachuted in” to the UK market, as market demands and production conditions change.
All in all, beef breeding and beef breeders are on the cusp of a revolution, and the speed of development will be similar to the change that occurred when Charolais and Limousin arrived in the early 1960s. And the same things are happening in sheep breeding too.
1927
2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)