Seòmar agus comataidhean

Is that right, John?

This conditionality was originally part of the thinking of the farmer-led groups that were chaired on the beef sector. As the committee will know, there were five farmer-led groups; one of the issues that was being examined was beef efficiency, and reducing the calving interval was, through work that the groups had carried out, designated as the best way of reducing emissions for the beef sector. A number of other areas were looked at, but this was the approach that was plumped for.

Reducing the calving interval means, in effect, that cows are in the system while producing beef but are not emitting emissions when they are, as it were, blank. If a cow is running for a year without a calf, she will produce a lot of methane without producing any beef for the food sector. That was the thinking behind it.

That depends on the fertility cycle of a particular cow. An Angus has a shorter gestation than a Limousin, Jerseys have a longer gestation than Friesians. You do not want to get into breeds—this is about simplicity. The median calving index, at the moment, is 400 days; we have set a relatively high threshold of 410 days. As time goes on, we will reduce the calving index as the national herd gets into that system.

We deliberately kept the threshold at 410 days for this year and next year to allow people to adapt—to get that mindset and thinking—and it will reduce over time. Rather than getting into the complications of what breed, what season, whether the cow calved early and so on, the idea is straightforward: a threshold of 410 days, which will be reduced to 400 days and then 390 days as the process goes on. We bring the national herd calving index down, which reduces emissions.

Well, I do not agree with the premises that small herds would be shut out of the scheme or that farmers will force a cow to get into calf. If a cow is not going to cycle, she is not going to cycle—you cannot force her to get into calf. Lots of consultation took place with lots of stakeholders right across the sector, and there was general agreement that the system would work.

As we get into the system, if we later need to look at particular issues for the smaller producers that you have talked about, we might be able to do so. However, there was general consensus that this is the system that would work and that we would go with.

Steven Thomson of Scotland’s Rural College—SRUC—did some work on whether native breeds had a longer gestation. They do not—Angus have a shorter gestation than Limousins do. I raised that point, because I was always under the impression that native-bred cattle had a longer gestation than other breeds, but that is not the case. Professor Thomson has done extensive work on the matter, and he has proven that point.

We would not look to put people out of business, and I am sure that Rhoda Grant accepts that that is not what we are trying to do. However, we need to start somewhere. We are starting at 410 days to allow everybody to get into the system and the ways of working with it.

I fully accept that there is potential for smaller herd sizes to be more directly impacted if a number of cows are not in calf for some reason. That is why I mentioned to the convener that we will look at potential force majeure issues. However, I will not sit here today and work through all the hypotheticals, because we will need to consider a number of factors. With regard to the smaller producers whom you talk to and represent, I absolutely take on board your point and note that we are thinking about that.

Yes, it is not disqualified from the scheme forever—it is only for that one slip.

Your point is well made and it has landed.

Do you want to answer that, Brian?

The farmer will decide whether they want to keep a barren cow, knowing that, even if she does get in calf the following year, they will not get a payment for that calf. I know from being a suckler herd owner in a past life that having a barren cow for a year was bad enough, but if I knew that I was not going to get a payment for her calf the following year, I would certainly have to consider whether I was going to keep her.

You might have reasons for wanting to keep a particular cow; they might have a particular genetic background that you want to hold on to, for example, or there might be some other mitigating rationale for why you would want to keep her—she might have stood on a calf or whatever—but it will not be our job to go around and check for barren cows. We will be making the payment on the calves that meet the eligibility criteria, which will encourage farmers to reduce the number of passengers that they keep in the herd, as it will affect their economic viability. Therefore, our job will be to ensure that we are making payments on the calves that are born into the scheme, as opposed to forcing people to cull cows that we think are inefficient.

Yes, work was done on seasonality, but I think that the consideration was more about the period between autumn calving and spring calving and whether those calves might drop out of the system.

I ask my officials whether any work was done specifically on autumn calving herds.