The call for a single national animal evaluation breeding index that incorporates genetics is causing friction among the dairy sector's key players.
Farmer-owned co-operative LIC and industry-good organisation DairyNZ are at loggerheads as a public consultation gets underway.
DairyNZ - through subsidiary New Zealand Animal Evaluation Ltd (NZAEL) - believes that creating one animal evaluation index would ensure breeding decisions are made consistently.
It proposes that a single evaluation will be co-ordinated by NZAEL - as an industry good, credible source of data available to everyone to use.
The sector is currently using three Breeding Worth animal evaluation indexes. DairyNZ chair Jim van der Poel says this creates confusion in the sector - and sub-optimal outcomes.
"We believe the best way to help dairy farmers achieve the highest rate of genetic gain in their herd is to have one independent Breeding Worth (BW), including genomics and involving all the industry players."
But LIC disagrees. In a letter to LIC shareholders, chief executive David Chin says the co-operative doesn't endorse the proposal that has been suggested.
"We agree in principle to a single index, however, where our views divereg is around the actual value that this would unlock for New Zealand dairy farmers with the model that has been proposed
"There are two key things for you to note as an LIC shareholder - we're already getting higher rates of genetic gain.
"Long-term users of LIC genetics have almost doubled the rate of genetic gain in their herds over the last 10 years - now at 18gBW per annum.
"This surpasses the industry average of 10BW, as stated by DairyNZ. In fact, we have already surpsassed the DairyNZ proposal's goal of 15BW. Genomics has been a key contributor to this success."
Peter Gatley, a former head of LIC's genetics business, says NZAEL's proposal is counterproductive.
Gatley told Dairy News that the New Zealand industry has been well served by LIC and CRV, two of the leading genetics companies worldwide. The competitive tension that exists between two companies is exactly what has driven them to invest heavily in genetic improvement by both traditional methods and the use of genomic technology.
"What is proposed by NZAEL is entirely counterproductive because it would diminish or remove the incentive to invest," he says.
"Claims made by NZAEL regarding the comparative rates of genetic gain in New Zealand vs. overseas are erroneous and quite misleading.
"Firstly, the annual rate of gain in recent ears is far higher than 10BW units, so that claim is erroneous. Reference to the relative rate of gain is misleading because it fails to recognise the fact that genomic tools must be developed using data derived in the relevant farm system. Because New Zealand is an outlier in respect of its seasonal pasture-based farm system, its genomic tools are unique.
"Development of these tools has been further complicated by the multi-breed and cross-breeding situation in New Zealand where most cows do not have four white feed and a white switch. Taking these factors into account, the fact that so much progress has been made on genomics demonstrates how well the competitive model is working for NZ dairy farmers."
Gatley says the attempt by NZAEL to requisition the IP belonging to two independent companies threatens to kill the golden goose.
"New Zealanders do not need reminding that removal of the incentive to get out of bed in the morning and add value results in a death spiral. There is no market failure in genetic improvement NZAEL is now threatening just that."
Public consultation closes 5pm on June 27.
