I WAS bemused to read recent media reports of a disagreement between AWI and MLA in relation to mulesing policy.
AWI’s policy seems to have been based on the premise that if we don’t talk about mulesing, and focus on pain relief, the whole mulesing issue will go away.
By taking the stance that it does, AWI is effectively walking away from a small, but growing segment of the world wool market.
That is not in the interests of Australian woolgrowers now or in the future. AWI’s stance on mulesing is a producer-driven strategy in a world that is driven by consumers.
As a research and development corporation, AWI’s role should be to present information that allows woolgrowers to make informed decisions about how to manage their businesses, including whether to mules their sheep.
To my knowledge, the trials necessary to present such information in a a comprehensive and impartial manner have not been done.
The divergence in strategic approach between the two organisations is not new.
When both organisations were participants in the Sheep CRC from 2007 to 2014, MLA proved to be an effective collaborator, always open to impartial assessment of new technologies.
In contrast, AWI generally found it difficult to engage in a collaborative manner with other participants, preferring instead to adopt a “my way or the highway” approach.
Ultimately, AWI chose the highway and is not a participant in the current Sheep CRC, thereby leaving its levy-payers to forgo the benefits of what is arguably the most significant investment by any sheep industry in modern genetics.
Recent developments in genetics mean we can now breed and manage to optimise the sheep, rather than treat sheep meat and wool as distinct industries.
We should reflect this change in our industry organisations, particularly the R&D organisations.
Against this background, I believe it is time to consider merging AWI into MLA.
This would have a number of significant benefits for all participants in the broadacre livestock industries.
Firstly, there would be very significant potential savings in overhead costs, with reduced board and senior management expenses, reduced back office costs and elimination of duplicated overheads in program administration and communications.
I estimate the savings to be at least $5 million annually, possibly much more.
Secondly, sheep RD&E programs could be developed and implemented on a “whole of sheep” basis, with improved outcomes, and flow on benefits would be available from investment in genomics in both beef and sheep.
We may even develop a consistent policy across the sheep industry in relation to mulesing!
Thirdly, compared with AWI, MLA has a superior and formalised governance structure involving its peak industry bodies, and in relation to its director selection process.
In MLA, the peak bodies are formally integrated into planning processes.
AWI has no formal process, preferring to have multiple woolgrower groups informed through Woolgrower ICC, an approach that is more akin to a divide and conquer strategy than to any genuine collaborative approach.
Fourthly, a merger would increase the critical mass of research funds that are available to tackle major projects.
Such critical mass is needed to assemble the multi-disciplinary teams necessary to address major collaborative research programs.
- John Keniry was seven years chairman of the Co-operative Research Centre for Sheep Industry Innovation, a collaboration of 38 participants from industry, government and the commercial sector.