SIR, – The introduction of the Beef Efficiency Scheme underlined the Scottish Government’s commitment to the beef sector and its determination to drive progress despite the risks of an innovative approach.

In signing off the new funding stream, both the Cabinet Secretary and the First Minister identified the value of mapping the performance of Scottish herds and linking that to the genetic profile – thus creating an industry baseline which, in conjunction with processing data, could signpost how genetics and systems interact to deliver performance, quality and value.

The challenges of developing the scheme were, perhaps, inevitable given the tensions driven by the divergent priorities of geneticists, cattle managers and European auditors. The stuttering delivery of the scheme and low levels of communication are not.

The two-stage tissue tag testing of calves (genotyping) has resulted in a second tranche of tags arriving on many farms after the winter genotyping and weighing programmes were complete, requiring further handling of the same groups of cattle.

Further handling over the spring period when lambing, calving and sowing are key priorities. That delay in identifying cattle for genotyping may be a teething problem or it may be linked to a methodology which is not fit for purpose.

Problems do happen, but there is no excuse for a lack of communication. The delay and the reasons for delay should have been shared with producers.

With turn-out close on many units, the timescales for genotyping autumn-born calves should be clear at this stage.

Requiring the tissue tagging of stock bulls without providing other options is, at best, inappropriate. Utilising existing genotype records when available must make sense.

Providing the option to use hair samples is a clear welfare-friendly route, especially in mature animals where ear cartilage is thickened.

These issues could have been avoided if delivery was sense tested by a stakeholder group or managed by a steering group involving industry representatives.

However, a deeper partnership with industry can offer more.

In reality the government has taken the big steps of initiating and funding the programme. To make it a success, delivery should be a partnership with industry.

The beef efficiency scheme is not a convoluted support scheme to trickle money into the beef sector underpinned by rigid compliance standards. It is a tool to drive development and its management and delivery needs to reflect this.

The programme is still evolving and is complex, requiring the buy-in from producers, a strong sense of direction and identifiable leadership.

A partnership steering group, with serious input from industry, can check the delivery approach and ensure good communication. An industry partnership can create an open culture which streams information to producers, but also through creating a pathway for feedback can re-focus the efficiency programme where required.

Scheme geneticists should be speaking to farmers participating in the efficiency scheme to outline and test the methodology for selecting animals for genotyping and the potential outputs from on-farm recording.

An open approach is vital to maintain the focus of the scheme on key performance areas.

Data is starting to accumulate. Some information is basic performance benchmarks, but measures of calf vitality and cow behaviour which have not been routinely captured, should also be available.

Representatives of the scheme must share early performance and behaviour indicators with partner farms, and test the recording approach with participating herd managers.

Industry, scientists and government need to work together if we are to create a new culture and an elite beef industry.

Government must now have the courage to change track and accept the industry as a partner and share responsibility.

Nigel Miller

Stagehall,

Stow,

Galashiels.