 |
Rural Industries Research & Development Corporation |
|
|
Rural Industries Research & Development Corporation |
|
|
|
Contact the editor, Dr Laurence Denholm, at: PO Box 1564, ORANGE NSW 2800 Phone/fax 02 6365 5482, Mobile 0418 641957, email: denholml@bigpond.com |
|
In this issueReport by RIRDC Managing Director to DIAA Council
Other issues of this newsletter
Report by RIRDC Managing Director to DIAA Council
The Managing Director of RIRDC, Mr Peter Core, delivered a comprehensive report to a recent meeting of the Deer Industry Association of Australia Council in Melbourne on 25th March.Mr Core’s report covered issues from declining levy revenue to the current research program and the future agenda. An extract of his report is presented here. Mr Core said:
“My purpose in addressing the Council today is two-fold:
- the first, is that I want to bring Council members up to date on the Deer R&D Program; and
Movements in Levy Revenue
- the second, is that I want to touch on the longer-term directions of the Program and the inter-related issue of funding.
In 1998/99, total levy income was close to $220,000. Obviously the final figures for 1999/2000 are not in but, for the first eight months to end February, total receipts were nearly $127,000.
In presenting these figures for 1999/2000, you need to know that the Levies Management Unit in the Department (that collects the levies) has had problems with its records and the Corporation is waiting on advice on how to disaggregate a September payment of nearly $175,000 into the right industry sub-accounts. I can’t be sure but the September figure for deer is probably around $20,000 – bringing the end February figures in at around $150,000.
For the record, it is relevant to put these revenue figures into a longer-term context.
Levy Income
1995/96 $296,675
1996/97 $193,241
1997/98 $178,746
1998/99 $216,304
My estimate of levy income for 1999/2000 is $180,000, which could be conservative given the recent lift in velvet prices and an increase in animals killed in the first six months of this year.
The balance of the research and development program has shifted - from on-farm production research towards more market and product research. The balance of the R&D program is now much more “across the chain - from paddock to consumer”.
This rebalancing is not without its tensions, both for the industry and RIRDC. Clearly the market related research has potential ‘commercial-in-confidence’ considerations and can put pressure on other industry participants. These pressures are real and have to be recognised.
For my part, as the Program Manager, I will insist on a final report which is written in a way that can be published. In that way, all levy payers will have access to it. But there will be ‘commercial-in-confidence’ aspects that will be held back – as happens across a number of RIRDC programs.
In most of these cases, this information is held back for around two years before release. But to the maximum extent possible, I want transparency so that the benefits have the chance to spill across the levy payers and the broader community.
Balances in the Deer Industry Sub-Account
Industry will be aware that the Corporation accounts separately for deer transactions – just as it does for all industries where there is significant industry/outsider funds. I should also mention what I’m sure you already know. In 1999/2000 the Corporation put into the deer sub-account around $100,000 from core funds. In essence this allowed us to have a deer R&D program of $280,000 with levy revenues of $180,000, without hitting reserves too hard.
The 2000/01 deer budget is premised on a contribution from RIRDC core funds of just over $50,000. The ceiling on matching contributions of 0.5% of the industry’s Gross Value of Production is a real problem for a small levy based industry like deer where the matching contribution of $18,000 is next to nothing which means that industry contributions are about 10:1 in terms of matching – when most established industries are closer to 1:1.
The Future Agenda
We all know there is unease in the industry about the level of the R&D levies. A significant number of people want a lower rate, in part because deer has the highest statutory research levy under the current arrangements.
To this point, the Corporation has set itself to one side in this debate. We aren’t the defenders of what exists today. We don’t have any self interest in maximising the R&D dollar. Our interest is in trying to do a good job with whatever resources are allocated.
A few months ago I met with the DIAA President and Vice President and some industry people who want a rollback of the levy. The outcome of this meeting was that we would do three things:
prepare a new Five Year Plan for the Deer Program – given that our current Plan comes up for review in June this year;
prepare an information memorandum on various levy revenue scenarios; and
dialogue with all industry levy payers on the proposed Plan in the context of potential changes to the levy rates.
Copies of a draft Five Year Plan and Information Memorandum are being tabled here today and, in coming days, will be circulated to key industry stakeholders for comment and advice.My intention is to leave the draft Plan on the table until the DIAA AGM in August – and then finalise it once I have a better idea of the available revenue. In my mind, there is little point in having a Plan which seeks to do certain things if there are no resources to do it with. There is no point and, in fact, it would be misleading.
European Union requirment for deer transportation
The Australian Quarantine Inspection Service (AQIS) advised the Deer Industry Association of Australia (DIAA) in late January that the European Union had accepted the interpretation of its cleaning and disinfecting requirement for deer transport vehicles that is supported by the DIAA.The interpretation of this requirement for Australian conditions and animal disease status is that “the normal thorough cleaning of livestock vehicles (removal of all organic matter) by cold water hosing followed by air drying” meets the EU requirements.
The cleaning procedure must be undertaken before the start of the day’s livestock pick-ups, but does not have to be repeated at the end of the day.
To assist AQIS in its role of proving to the EU that the new EU requirements are being met in the Australian deer industry, all producers (deer farmers) must request that the Transport operator signs a DECLARATION FORM - before the deer are loaded!!
Transport operators must sign a similar declaration on delivery of the deer to an abattoir.
EU officials are expected to visit Australia from time to time to ensure that EU requirements for meat exports (including venison from farmed deer) are being met in the Australian industry.
The deer industry must be able to demonstrate that it is meeting the EU cleaning and disinfecting requirements by the availability of competed and signed farm and abattoir declaration forms.
Future access to high-value markets like the European Union is likely to increasingly depend on demonstrated compliance with quality assurance standards established by the importing country. Prices received by deer farmers for their products will depend on demonstrating compliance with these market demands.
Further developments in non-chemical velveting
For some time RIRDC has been supporting the development of a new method for pain-free removal of antlers in velvet which does not require the use of analgesic drugs.Following a trial at Orange NSW in late 1998, a supplementary trial funded by RIRDC was conducted by Dr Lindsay Matthews at the Animal Behaviour and Welfare Research Centre, Ruakura New Zealand, according to an experimental design first proposed by a member of the RIRDC Deer Industry Research Advisory Committee. The need for this small supplementary trial arose as a result of difficulties in interpreting results from the Orange trial.
Dr Matthews has now advised RIRDC that he has completed the supplementary trial according to the agreed protocol with the following results:
“The pain sensitivity of one (untreated) antler on spikers was assessed prior to and following application of either of two types of analgesia treatment (the new technique or local anaesthetic) applied to the second antler only. The noxious stimulus (used to assess the effectiveness of analgesia) was a mild electrical current.
There was no significant change in the pain sensitivity of the untreated antler before and after administration of the analgesic treatment to the other antler for either analgesic treatment. There was complete analgesia on the treated side for both treatments.
This demonstrates that the analgesia achieved with the new technique is not attributable to a generalised stress-induced or pain-induced analgesic response.
This small trial funded by RIRDC has now cleared the way for the new technique to be considered by state veterinary authorities in Australia as an approved alternative to current methods for antler harvesting which require the use of analgesic drugs.
Final Report - RIRDC Project FSA-1A
Eating qualities of venson from red and fallow deer
Principal Investigator - Frank Shaw,
Food Science Australia, BrisbaneMany Australian deer farmers are passionate about the eating qualities of venison from particular types of deer.But do these perceived differences in venison have any real commercial significance? Can the average Australian consumer detect any differences between the venison from different deer, and if so, does the consumer have a preference?
These were the questions that led to RIRDC Project FSA-1A.
The aim of this project was to evaluate the eating quality of venison from red and fallow deer produced under best practice commercial conditions.
In this study, the loin muscles of 20 fallow and 20 red deer were compared by an objective (Warner-Bratzler shear-force measurement) and a subjective (trained taste panel) method. Topside muscles were also assessed, but by the objective shear force measurement only.
Loin muscles of both species of deer were tender (mean shear force < 3 kg). However, the topside muscles of the red deer were significantly more tender than those of the fallow.
For the taste panel assessment, samples of loin steaks were cooked uniformly and consistently and presented to 12 trained panellists who assessed the meat for differences in tenderness, juiciness, flavour and overall quality attributes. (Subjective perceptions of tenderness and juiciness are major contributors to the overall eating quality of red meats.)
The taste panel found no significant differences in the eating quality of the loins from fallow and red deer. Loins were judged to be in the “tender” range and the overall quality of the products was in the “moderate to good” range.
For red and fallow deer from the same property, transported in the same vehicle and processed at the same abattoir on the same day, the mean ultimate pH of both loin and topside muscles was significantly higher in the fallow than the red deer, suggesting fallow deer are more susceptible to the effects of stress than red deer. (Pre-slaughter stress causes high ultimate pH in carcases.)
Higher ultimate pH was associated with lower tenderness scores by the taste panel, confirming that ultimate pH can affect the eating quality of venison.
It appears that ultimate pH values greater than 5.7 were sometimes associated with tough product. Ultimate pH may be a simple but effective measurement to assist in the elimination of tough venison product from the supply chain.
However, as work in New Zealand has shown, the findings of taste panels are specific only for the locations from which the panellists are derived. Failure of an Australian panel to express any preference for venison from a particular deer does not mean that such a preference does not exist in other countries.
Information from this project will be invaluable in the future development of a grading system for venison. However, further work may be necessary to determine whether the findings in this project for venison from young fallow and red deer are the same or quite different for older animals of one sex or the other.Copies of the final report of Project FSA-1A are now available from RIRDC (Tel. 02 6272 4539, Fax 02 6272 5877 or email rirdc@rirdc.gov.au). The report is also available on the RIRDC WebSite at http://www.rirdc.gov.au/eshop or http://www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/Index.htm
More Johne's Disease in red deer - this time in Victoria
Recent diagnosis of bovine Johne’s disease in two red deer on a farm in Victoria, following so soon on the first confirmed case of bovine JD in Australia last year, should be regarded with some concern by the deer industry in this country. It now seems likely that the future impact of this emerging disease problem will be similar in Australian deer to that seen in New Zealand, where many red deer herds have experienced serious mortality in young animals from JD in the last few years. (Fallow are also suceptible to JD.)In the recent incident in Victoria, an adult hind and a yearling stag were affected. Clinical signs in both animals were fairly severe - neither could have survived. Investigations to determine if the yearling stag was the progeny of the affected hind are continuing.
The source of the infection in these two animals also remains a matter of speculation. Johne’s disease had been reported in cattle on the property in the past, but there had not been a confirmed case in cattle on the farm for many years. The affected hind was born on another Victorian deer farm and had spent some time on a third Victorian deer farm. Whether she was infected on the farm where she ultimately died or elsewhere is a key question, with major implications for other red deer herds in Victoria and other states.
Victorian state veterinary authorities (Dept. of Natural Resources and Environment) are now investigating this incident. There is considerable interest and speculation within the deer industry about the actions and policies that authorities in Victoria and other states may adopt in response to this recent detection of JD in deer. There is also considerable interest in government about policy objectives the deer industry itself will adopt now that it has become clear that deer in Australia will be affected by this disease. It is likely that any action to be taken by veterinary authorities in relation to this and future cases of JD in deer will be determined in consultation between government agencies and the deer industry, represented by the DIAA. The authorities are looking to the industry for a lead - and probably for some money to fund it!
What then are the risks from JD and the policy options for the deer industry in Australia?
There are two types of risk from JD for deer farmers - one is biological, the other political. First, there is a risk that the disease will continue to spread between deer herds, with mortality steadily increasing from year to year in infected herds. Over time, there may be very significant on-farm production losses from JD for many affected deer farmers. Secondly, there is a risk that an increasing number of deer farms will be subjected to trading restrictions and other disease control measures. Finally, there is a longer term risk that the deer industry will be forced in the future to adopt a JD control program that is not cost-effective for the deer industry itself, but which is forced upon the deer industry by government as part of the disease control program adopted by a major grazing industry that is cost-effective for that industry. (That is, the deer industry may in the future be forced to accept a disease control program despite the obvious diseconomies of scale associated with that disease control program in a small industry.)
Whatever the future, one thing is certain. The cost of a disease control program for an industry is proportionate to the prevalence and distribution of infection at the time. The more widespread the infection has become, the more costly it will be to control.
At this stage there is very little information about the prevalence of JD infection in the Australian deer herd. How many herds are already infected? What is the level of infection in these herds? Are infected herds distributed across the country or concentrated in some areas only? In the absence of answers to these question it is very difficult for the industry to develop sound policies. Obviously the best strategies for managing the disease if the disease is limited to a few areas may be quite different to the best strategies if the disease is already widespread. But the absence of information on the distribution of infection in deer in Australia is a problem.
Several epidemiological scenarios are possible. If infection is mainly being picked up by deer from pastures that are heavily contaminated by another grazing animal such as dairy cattle, the distribution of infection in deer will reflect the distribution of the infection in that other species. But if infection is being transmitted from deer to deer, the distribution of infection in deer will reflect trading and movement patterns of deer from the original source of the infection. For example, one would expect quite a different distribution of infection in Australian deer if the original source was imported New Zealand deer rather than local dairy cattle.
At this stage there are two possible policy responses to the JD problem. The industry could just ignore the problem. But the problem won’t go away and if the disease is not already widespread in the national herd the opportunity to control further spread would be lost, possibly leading to significant future losses for the industry - production losses, future disease control costs or both.
Alternatively, the industry could attempt to determine the extent of current infection and adopt disease control strategies appropriate to this prevalence and distribution. However, this course of action is not without risk. If JD is already widespread, any survey will identify a number of infected herds and their owners will experience significant economic harm as a result.
In other industries, concern about the impact of detection on owners of infected herds or flocks has tended to cause some paralysis of decision-making. However, this approach tends to have a limited life and ultimately just exposes more farmers to the same harm as the disease is progressively reported on more and more farms. Nonetheless, without information on prevalence and distribution, meaningful cost-benefit analysis for disease control options is very difficult, creating a circular argument.
Deer farmers themselves will have to decide whether they want to know the extent of JD infection in their industry. If they do decide to support an investigation of JD in Australian deer, they will have to accept the possible consequences. However, should they decide not to support investigation, the consequences they may have to accept in the long term could be worse.
No easy decision!
If the industry does decide that it wants to know the extent of the problem, a further series of questions arises.
First, what are the most effective and cost-effective methods for disease surveillance? This question is now fairly easy to answer.
Examination of intestinal tracts of deer at slaughter is likely to be the best method for random surveillance. Forward and backward tracing of movements of known infected and in-contact animals, followed by herd testing, is the best direct form of surveillance.
Both methods are proven strategies for obtaining prevalence and distribution information on JD in other species. However, both require effective diagnostic tests. The second question therefore is whether there are effective testing regimes to support this disease surveillance.
Effective testing regimes have been developed other species. The JD infection status of herds and flocks can be determined reliably, although determining the status of individual animals is problematic. Like many diseases, detecting JD infection early in the course of the disease is difficult. Recently infected herds can therefore be difficult to detect, but herds that have been infected for two or three years are usually not a problem, particularly with the newer diagnostic tests. In deer, faecal culture is likely to be the most sensitive test. But JD tests have not yet been proven or calibrated for use in deer, although there is no reason to believe they would be any less effective in deer than in other species.
Determining reliability of these tests in deer however would be a necessary first step in any surveillance program for JD in deer and would involve at least several months research - if Australian deer farmers want to know the extent of their JD problem. That particular decision however is and must be one for the industry itself. You should make sure that you are well informed and have your say in this decision through the DIAA. (Editor)
A new five-year research and development
Chris Tuckwell, Deer Industry Development Manager
plan for the Australia deer industryIntroduction
During 1996 the Australian Deer Industry, in association with the Rural Industries Researchand Development Corporation (RIRDC) developed its first formal five-year research and development plan for the industry.
Since completion, the Plan was used by RIRDC’s Research and Advisory committee to guide ongoing R&D investments and ensure that all projects supported priorities identified within the Plan and met the Corporation’s charter as detailed in the Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act 1989.
The first five-year plan addressed R&D needs and priorities for the period July 1996 to July 2000.
A new five year plan is necessary to document R&D research needs and priorities for July 2000 to June 2005 developed in consultation with industry and in consideration of the Industry’s current status.
ObjectivesProject objectives were to develop a five year Research and Development Plan for the Australian Deer Industry and to provide advice on appropriate funding for the implementation of the Plan.
MethodsIn consultation with representatives of all stakeholders in the Australian Deer industry, develop a draft plan for consideration by the DIAA Council and representatives of other industry groups.
The draft plan has been submitted to nominated industry stakeholders for consideration and possible amendment before presentation to the DIAA annual general meeting in August 2000.
If any one wishes to view the draft plan please contact your state branch DIAA president for a copy of the plan.
ResultsIn an attempt to encourage industry input, a broad range of Australian deer industry stakeholders were contacted, (more than 90 individuals) for their views on the new Five-Year R&D Plan.
Draft Five Year Research and Development Plan
In discussions with those who provided constructive comments, a broad range of industry development issues were discussed. However, the only Industry issues considered and included in the plan are those that can be directly addressed by R&D programs that fit within the charter of the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC). Other issues can only be addressed by non R&D programs and rely directly on industry inputs for solutions. The two most discussed aspects of industry development related to funding of an industry executive officer and market related research.
2000 To 2005
Executive Officer FundingThe high priority of many people within the Deer Industry is to fund an executive officer to provide a person who can provide a 100% commitment to all issues of Industry development, management and marketing. Clearly, RIRDC’s charter prevents it from committing research funds for an industry executive officer.
Market ResearchThere is strong opposition from some industry interest groups to the use of any industry funds in any form of market development or market research. However, there is strong support for market-based research from other interest groups. In fact, some suggest that most of the available research funding should be spent in marketing areas. The draft plan attempts to take account of the strong views of each industry interest group.
Available Research Funds
Four industry levies contribute to funds for research. They are:
(i) venison levy of $0.18 per kilogram of hot standard carcase weight (HSCW);
(ii) velvet antler sales levy of 5% of the value of the velvet sold; (iii) velvet export levy of 5% of the value of velvet exported, and; (iv) live animal export levy of $10.00 per animal exported.
Although $0.025 of the venison levy is committed to the National Residue Scheme, (NRS) the venison levy contributes the largest percentage of the research funds and changes to the levy are likely to influence funds available for R&D programs.
Table 1. Venison and velvet levies
Velvet Venison Total Received % of levy Total Received % of levy 1995/96 1995-96 $80,993 27.3% $181,676 62.6% 1996/97 $64,887 31.5% $114,364 60.0% 1997/98 $32,217 18.0% $121,438 68.0% 1998/99 $34,172 16.1% $173,322 80.0% R&D levy $0.155/kg HSCW The availability of research funds will strongly influence the size and scope of future research and industry development projects, undertaken on behalf of industry and managed by RIRDC.
The availability of R&D funds will be significantly influenced by, the number of deer processed and the HSCW levy applied to each deer carcase.
Fund management and operating costs (RIRDC and the Levies Management Unit) must be deducted from levy receipts to determine the net availability of research and development funds.
The contribution to research and development funds from velvet levies varies between years, (see table 1 above), and reflect the volatility of velvet antler markets.
However, the relative contribution of velvet levy receipts to R&D funds has declined from the 1995/96 season to only represent about 20% of total industry levy receipts in 1998/99, a value of about $34,000.
Annual fund management and operating costs are about $40,000 (RIRDC annual report 1999) and annual government contributions to industry R&D funds are about $18,000 (0.05% of the gross value of the industry’s production).
The average net effect of fund management and operating costs, estimated velvet antler receipts and government contributions is an additional $12,000 to be available for R&D projects.
However, given:
(i) the doubling of the average price of velvet antler sold in the 1999/2000 season, and;
(ii) the estimated increase in velvet antler production,
the net contribution (see above) of velvet antler receipts to levy estimates have been included in the Table 2 at an annual rate of $50,000. ($72,000 velvet levy plus $18,000 government contribution less $40,000 fund management costs).
Table 2 shows how the availability of R&D funds may change as the industry venison levy rate and venison production volumes change.
Annual R&D income shown includes venison income discounted by the NRS levy of $0.025 per kg from the levy rate shown.
Table 2 clearly shows how sensitive available R&D funds are to both volume of venison processed and levy collection rate.
Table 2. Potential funds available for R&D from levies at alternate venison production and levy rates
Production year Production estimates (tonnes processed)
Estimate 1 Estimate 2 Estimate 3 Estimate 4
1999/2000 1000 1400 1400 1000
2000/2001 1200 1400 1200 1000
2001/2002 1400 1400 1000 1000
2002/2003 1600 1400 1000 1000
2003/2004 1800 1400 1000 1000
Estimated Levy receipts with levy set at $0.18 per kg HSCW
1999/2000 $205,000$267,000$267,000$205,000
2000/2001 $236,000$267,000$236,000$205,000
2001/2002 $267,000$267,000$205,000$205,000
2002/2003 $298,000$267,000$205,000$205,000
2003/2004 $329,000$267,000$205,000$205,000
Estimated Levy receipts with levy set at $0.15 per kg HSCW
1999/2000 $175,000$225,000$225,000$175,000
2000/2001 $200,000$225,000$200,000$175,000
2001/2002 $225,000$225,000$175,000$175,000
2002/2003 $250,000$225,000$175,000$175,000
2003/2004 $275,000$225,000$175,000$175,000
Estimated Levy receipts with levy set at $0.10 per kg HSCW
1999/2000 $125,000$155,000$155,000$125,000
2000/2001 $140,000$155,000$140,000$125,000
2001/2002 $155,000$155,000$125,000$125,000
2002/2003 $170,000$155,000$125,000$125,000
2003/2004 $185,000$155,000$125,000$125,000
Estimated Levy receipts with levy set at $0.05 per kg HSCW
1999/2000 $75,000 $85,000 $85,000 $75,000
2000/2001 $80,000 $85,000 $80,000 $75,000
2001/2002 $85,000 $85,000 $75,000 $75,000
2002/2003 $90,000 $85,000 $75,000 $75,000
2003/2004 $95,000 $85,000 $75,000 $75,000
It is difficult to accurately estimate the volume of venison that will be processed during the next five years. The number of animals processed annually appears to be increasing, but so does the percentage of female animals included in venison production.
Industry population estimates produced in 1997/98 may have underestimated the total Australian deer population and on that basis, an increase in number of deer processed may be sustainable. However, processors report a significant increase in the number of female deer processed and in the number of herds that are selling all of their stock.
In reality, the increased number of deer processed is likely to result from a combination of these factors and so the increase in the number of deer processed recently is unlikely to be sustainable over the next two or three years. This suggests a reduction in levy receipts for venison sales for at least the next two or three years.
Proportional allocation of levies to priority R&D areasThe draft Plan describes (in Section 8 on the Allocation of R&D Resources) a proposed proportional allocation of resource funds based on industry R&D priorities.
Table 3 - Proposed funding allocation (from draft Plan)
National Herd size On-farm efficiency
Technology adoption
Non chemical velvet harvesting
Domestic market for deer antler
Speciality venison markets
Quality of processed stock
Confidence in representative groups
TOTAL10% 5%
20%
5%
10%
35%
10%
5%
100%
However, the allocation of funds to research must also consider realistic funding requirements for individual research projects that will allow them to provide meaningful, cost effective outcomes.
For example, an allocation of 40% of a total budget of $250,000 for an extension project to encourage adoption of known technologies and include the production of extension material (perhaps related to nutrition) would suggest an allocation of $100,000.
A project budget of $100,000 seems reasonable (depending on actual project goals and methods). However, if the total budget available is only $100,000, a 40% allocation to the same project could only be $40,000. Obviously, a project manager with a budget of $40,000 will be unable to undertake the same work and achieve the same outcomes as one with a budget of $100,000.
The proportional allocation of resources proposed in the draft Plan must not be considered unalterable as there may be a need to adjust allocations as levy revenue changes, in an effort to ensure meaningful projects with a high chance of achieving their aims.
Proposed funding allocations for the 2000/2001 yearOne of the highest priorities of the draft Plan is to improve the efficiency and profitability of Australian deer farmers by encouraging adoption of ideal management practices and techniques identified though research and development projects. Such programs could address R&D priority areas of National Herd Size, Technology Adoption, On Farm Efficiency, Quality of Processed Stock and Confidence in Representative Groups.
Extension projects that target all Australian deer farmers with a goal of encouraging the adoption of new technologies should consider accepted methods of extension practice that include:
(i) Production and dissemination of technical information sheets and booklets
(ii) Provision of regular workshops and training seminars for all Australian deer farmers
(iii) Field day demonstration of new techniques and practices
Funding for such projects must consider the spatial distribution of Australian deer farmers and the relatively high cost of travel-associated costs (time, fuel, airfares, car hire accommodation, etc.) that are inevitably associated with projects. Assuming that during a twelve-month project, a person would be required to visit each State three times and the major deer States four times, costs for travel associated with an extension project are likely to be more than $30,000. A reasonable contract fee for a person providing 20 hours/week for twelve months to undertake this work is $40,000 and an estimate for development and production of extension materials is $30,000. An estimated total project cost is $100,000.
Significant extension projects could be developed to include R&D priorities of National Herd Size, On-Farm Efficiency, Quality of Processed Stock and Confidence in Representative Groups, but project designs must ensure realistically achievable outcomes, relative to research budgets, are set. Similarly, projects to research and develop specialist markets for venison and velvet on behalf of industry, will also involve annual budgets of approx. $100,000 (as costs include interstate and international travel).
Summary funding allocation proposal
Summary allocation proposal is that to provide researchers with opportunities to undertake projects that are likely to significantly influence the development of the Australian Deer Industry during the 2000 to 2005 period, only two or three new projects (which may have several parts) should be commissioned each year.
Projects should concentrate on:
(i) The broad areas of extension and dissemination of new technology (including On Farm Efficiency, Quality of Processed Stock and Confidence in Representative Groups) and that budgets that realistically take account of the spatial nature of the Australian Deer industry should be considered.
(ii) Development of specialised market opportunities for Australia’s venison and velvet antler.
The success of all projects considered for funding by RIRDC depends on availability of reasonable funds for these projects. As funds available and subsequent investment in individual projects decrease, the likelihood of outcomes that significantly assist the development of the Australian Deer Industry will decrease.
For at least the next two years, R&D expenditure allocations can only be made as more accurate estimates of levy income (number of deer available for processing and venison levy rate) can be made.
Decision from the Deer R&D Advisory Committeee
The deer industry’s R&D advisory committee met in Melbourne on 3rd April to consider final R&D project proposals for the year 2000/01.The committee endorsed an R&D Budget for 2000/01 of $225,000. In view of the uncertainty of future levy revenue, the effects of the GST and current R&D commitments, the advisory committee considered it would be prudent to limit the budget for next year.
Only one new project was approved for 2000/01 - investigation of the tolerance of fallow and red deer to salt (see below).
Due to lack of funds for the coming year, the committee was forced to reject an application for a project to investigate nutrition and management of weaner fallow deer. The committee believes that this is a well-designed project that would provide some useful recommendations for deer farmers on management and nutrition of fallow weaners. Poor weaner nutrition and/or management often underlie later problems with unfinished animals at slaughter. The committee hopes that there will be sufficient funds available for this project next year.
The committee also spent some time discussing a request from an industry participant for a copy of the R&D Newsletter mailing list. This list was compiled from two other lists, one provided by another government agency which has expressed concern about its own privacy responsibilities in relation to additional uses of the information in the list it has provided to RIRDC.
The committee members also considered an application from the University of Western Sydney for project funding support for a post-graduate student.
This represents a good opportunity for the industry to establish a new R&D project at little cost. All salary/stipend funding for the researcher would be paid by a RIRDC post-graduate scholarship. Expenditure from industry funds in the deer R&D sub-account would only be required for the operational costs of the project.
Prof. John Thonard had expected to retire from the advisory committee after this meeting, but he has now agreed to remain until a suitable replacement nominated by industry is appointed.
Deer Industry gets an extra $100,000 from RIRDC for R&D this year Industry representatives to the Deer Research and Development Advisory Committee attending the recent Melbourne meeting took the opportunity to express their thanks to Mr Peter Core, the RIRDC Deer Research Manager, for his successful efforts in obtaining approval from the RIRDC Board to use an extra $100,000 of RIRDC core funding for the deer industry’s R&D program in 1999/2000. Ms Nola Anderson, chair of the committee, told other industry members that without this additional government funding a severe cutback in deer R&D during 1999/2000 would have been unavoidable.
Salt tolerance and production losses in deer
The deer advisory committee has recommended that RIRDC should fund a project on salt tolerance of fallow and red deer.This project will determine the impact of different levels of salt intake on fallow and red deer production in Australia.
n the typical Mediterranean environment of southern Australia, the evaporation rate varies significantly in summer, resulting in high salinity in the drinking water provided for many animals grazing pastures in medium and lower rainfall areas. Moreover, the salt content of pasture plants (on a dry matter basis) increases significantly as the plants mature in late spring and summer.
Lactating animals, particularly lactating animals grazing mature pastures in summer, are very susceptible to salt overload. Where groundwater sources are used for stock watering, salinity can be a particular problem. Some bore water is very saline - about 10,000 mg/l total salt - and this very high level can be increased by evaporation during storage in tanks or troughs. Salt levels in drinking water above 7,000 mg/l can be toxic for livestock in some environmental situations, depending for example on the daily temperature, the type of feed available and the age and species of animal. In Victoria, the recommended maximum salt level of drinking water for weaner sheep is 4,500 mg/l and 6,000 mg/l for dairy cattle and lactating ewes.
In addition, a significant proportion of land in many areas of Australia is now affected by salt. Plants that are salt-tolerant and possibly salt-accumulating are increasingly grown in these areas to improve soil conditions and provide feed for grazing livestock.
Animals grazing in these areas often take in excessive amounts of salt in their forage, drinking water and the soil unavoidably consumed by animals during grazing. This can reduce their feed intake, increase their water requirement, depress their growth and affect their body composition.
Increased intake of sodium in feed and/or ingested soil may lead to a higher requirement for water and a lower tolerance to saline drinking water. It is the total salt intake in feed, soil and water that is important. Young growing animals are less tolerant to high salt intake than adults. Growth is reduced, presumably as a result of the observed reduction in feed intake.
There are now many deer farms in areas where salt tolerance is an issue for grazing livestock. However, the potential impact of excess salt intake on deer production and reproduction and the level of salt intake at which a production-limiting effect occurs in each deer species are unknown.
Considerable variation has been reported in the salt tolerance of other grazing animals, even between breeds of the same species. It is quite likely that there are differences in the salt tolerance of different deer species.
Salt overload could be a contributing factor or even a major cause in failure to grow and “ill-thrift” of young farmed deer in salt-affected areas.
So what can Australian deer farmers expect from this project?
First, some idea of whether total salt overload is likely to be an important production limiting problem in Australian farmed deer.
Secondly, a description of the signs of salt overload in deer that can assist farmers to recognise the possibility of salt intolerance in their deer. Thirdly, some methodical basis for investigating cases of suspected salt intolerance in deer. Fourthly, estimates of the levels of total salt intake in young growing fallow and red deer at which production limiting effects might be expected. Fifthly, some description of the situations in which salt overload is likely to be a practical problem in farmed deer. And finally, perhaps, an indication of the salt tolerance of lactating fallow and red deer and the impact of maternal salt intake on pre-weaning and subsequent post-weaning growth of young deer. (This last aim is not yet part of the project design but may be added later.)Members of the R&D committee would welcome comments about this project from deer farmers in salt-affected areas.
The Deer Industry Company Report
Quality Assurance: DIC has submitted applications for registration of Venison and Velvet QA marks to IP Australia however there is an expected delay of at least seven months before the registration is complete. There has been little new activity in the QA program over the last three months. Progress with the industry QA program continues albeit slowly. Since December, two new farm manuals and two new transport manuals were purchasedVenison Sales: Average venison prices continued to rise during January and February. Hot carcase weight (HCW) prices for fallow deer venison have risen from an average of $2.51 in December 1999 to $2.53 at the end of February 1999. During the same period, the average price for red and red hybrid venison (price per kg HCW, less industry levy, delivered to the abattoir) rose from $2.37 to $2.47 per kg HCW. For the eight months ending February 2000, more than 37,000 deer were processed by cooperating processors, while during the same period last year, only about 23,430 were processed (approximately 58% increase). The percentage of stock within weight ranges and the average HCW of stock processed is similar to that recorded for the same period last year. However, total volume of venison processed from July to February increased from about 854.5 tonnes to about 1241.4 tonnes, up 45%, between the two years.
Velvet Pools: The Australian Deer Horn and Co-products Company (ADH) sold about 14.3 tonnes of velvet through its pools during the 1999/2000 season. Total value of velvet antler sold was $1.24 million with the average value for the total volume sold of $86.70/kg. The average value of red deer velvet sold through the pools was $93.41/kg (maximum $132.00/kg), the average value of Wapiti/Elk velvet sold was $110.26/kg (maximum $132.00/kg) and the average value of fallow velvet sold was $20.97/kg (maximum $60.00/kg). The volume of fallow deer manufacturing grade velvet and hard horn submitted to the pools significantly reduced the average value of fallow deer velvet and the average value for all velvet sold by the pools. However the average value received for all velvet sold by ADH and in particular red deer velvet sold by ADH, was higher this year than the value received for any pool sales overseen by ADH or its predecessors since 1993/94 (see page 8).
Chris Tuckwell, Deer Industry Development Manager
FALLOW
RUSA RED Weight Category
NOV 99 DEC 99
JAN 00
FEB 00
Weight Category
NOV 99 DEC 99
JAN 00
FEB 00
Weight Category
NOV 99 DEC 99
JAN 00
FEB 00
less than 20 $2.19 $2.00 $1.94 $2.41 less than 20 $2.92 less than 30 $2.20 $2.02 $2.26 20 to 22.9 $2.43 $2.28 $2.31 $2.53 20 to 24.9 $2.92 30 to 34.9 $182 $2.31 $2.01 $2.24 23 to 25.9 $2.57 $2.55 $2.53 $2.63 25 to 29.9 $1.62 $2.90 35 to 39.9 $1.53 $1.54 $1.85 $1.85 26 to 28.9 $2.78 $2.64 $2.70 $2.83 30 to 34.9 $2.02 $2.90 40 to 44.9 $2.22 $2.11 $2.02 $2.19 29 to 31.9 $2.76 $2.72 $2.71 $2.62 35 to 39.9 $2.32 $2.81 45 to 49.9 $2.62 $2.45 $2.33 $2.36 32 and over $2.72 $2.72 $2.42 $2.26 40 to 44.9 $2.42 $2.84 50 to 54.9 $2.92 $2.70 $2.75 $2.65 Maximum $2.92 $2.82 $2.82 $2.92 45 to 49.9 $2.42 $2.84 55 to 59.9 $3.16 $2.83 $2.81 $2.82 Minimum $1.80 $1.52 $1.92 $1.92 50 to 54.9 $2.77 60 to 64.9 $3.14 $2.77 $2.81 $2.76 Average $2.62 $2.52 $2.41 $2.53 55 to 59.9 $2.68 65 to 69.9 $3.02 $2.57 $2.89 $2.60 60 and over $2.92 70 to 74.9 $2.69 $2.40 $2.58 $2.43 Maximum $2.42 no no $2.92 75 to 79.9 $2.52 $2.11 $2.45 $2.37 Minimum $1.62 prices prices $2.32 80 to 84.9 $2.25 $2.26 $2.25 $2.28 Average $2.12 quoted quoted $2.85 85 to 89.9 $2.52 $2.52 $2.12 $2.14 90 to 94.9 $2.17 $2.52 $2.25 $2.28 95 to 99.9 $2.52 $2.28 $2.29 100 and over $2.01 $2.08 Maximum $3.32 $3.02 $3.02 $3.22 Minimum $1.40 $1.32 $1.62 $1.62 Average $2.72 $2.37 $2.48 $2.47 Graph 1 below demonstrates the change in average prices for all venison sold by the cooperating processors and the average price of venison for Red (and hybrid), Fallow and Rusa deer. Graph 2 shows the variation in volume of venison processed by the processors providing data to the Deer Industry Company.
Last updated: 10 May 2000
Copyright © RIRDC
http://www.rirdc.gov.au/pub/deer/feb-april00.html
