DEAR SIR: Since 2009, genomic sires have gained an overbearing foothold in the Irish dairy AI market. Unfortunately, this has given a disservice to the dairy industry. Genomics has a role to play in the national breeding programme, but not the role the industry allowed it to lead. Concerns have been raised at meetings and conferences in the past.
DEAR SIR: Since 2009, genomic sires have gained an overbearing foothold in the Irish dairy AI market. Unfortunately, this has given a disservice to the dairy industry.
Genomics has a role to play in the national breeding programme, but not the role the industry allowed it to lead. Concerns have been raised at meetings and conferences in the past.
The appetite wasn’t there from farmers to address the concerns. It has been a race to the top for AI organisations, who can sell the highest EBI sire even if the reliability is low. It is also obvious in seeing the dams these bulls are being selected from, that high paper figures for EBI are the only interest. Therefore, selection criteria for these young bulls has not been robust enough. Those genomic sires, like their EBI figures, are then sold at inflated prices.
Farmers own most of the AI industry that has not served dairy farmers with a breeding programme to deliver
AI companies never had it better – they can now justify their other inefficiencies. Unfortunately, farmers have been sucked into this over-reliance on genomic sires.
Farmers own most of the AI industry that has not served dairy farmers with a breeding programme to deliver. Executive directors on the board of AI companies are on the board of ICBF. Conflict of interest springs to mind. The ICBF made tremendous progress in the initial 10-plus years – an introduction of the EBI system and providing a path for sires to deliver in Irish dairying. That excellent work is being eroded, now that the cracks have been made public for a second time thanks to Aidan Brennan.
It is essential that we prevent any unexpected adverse genetic changes in the future
Farmers must take control and insist on a better breeding programme with reliability.
To quote a professor: “DNA proven has the potential to bring about faster improvements in genetic traits, but there is also a risk that a crucial trait will deteriorate if it is not included in the monitored traits. It is essential that we prevent any unexpected adverse genetic changes in the future.”
Marketers have taken over the technology rather than scientists and geneticists.
The industry needs clarity in a defined breeding programme.
The overuse of genomics isn’t offering that as can now be seen most clearly.
This is a subscriber-only article
SHARING OPTIONS: