Third Year Review
Third Year Review - Beef CRC - Beef Genetic Technologies
| 19 June 2009 |
 The CRC for Beef Genetic Technologies (Beef CRC) was founded with, and continues to enjoy, very strong industry support and input. It has attracted substantial additional funding and has successfully incorporated the resultant new projects into its programs. The CRC’s performance to date has been challenged by unexpected results from DNA markers – a problem experienced globally. The CRC is showing commendable agility and international leadership in resolving this problem, to the extent that the review panel is confident that the CRC will be able to meet its revised outcomes, outputs and milestones, once these have been finally agreed. |
| A. General Issues |
| The review panel is very grateful to the CRC for the openness of the year-three review process, which has enabled the panel to receive frank feedback from the full spectrum of stakeholders (Commendation 1). The panel is also pleased to note that the CRC has assembled a team of high quality researchers and relevant partners to tackle issues that are, by their very nature, beyond the scope of single research organisations (Commendation 2). |
| A1. Is the CRC on track to delivering the proposed outputs and outcomes? |
| At the time of writing this report, DIISR is considering changes to outputs and outcomes proposed in 2008 by the CRC, primarily because of advances in understanding of the potential of DNA markers since the original Commonwealth Agreement was signed. These changed circumstances are a global phenomenon outside the control of the CRC. The panel commends the CRC for its responses to the new circumstances (Commendation 3), but encourages the CRC to reconsider its outcomes (Recommendation 1). Is the CRC’s ability to achieve its goals demonstrated by its performance to date? Performance against milestones to date has been very good. The panel is confident that the revised milestones will also be met. |
| A2. Is the CRC’s strategic direction in alignment with its end-user environment? Are any changes required? |
| The CRC’s strategic direction was set initially by extensive consultation with all relevant end-users during the preparation of the bid (Commendations 4 and 5); and there is continual extensive end-user involvement in the annual cycle of project review (Commendation 6). The strategic direction does not require any changes. It would, however, benefit from a revised vision statement (Recommendation 2) and a formalised holistic science strategy that could form the basis of future decision making (Recommendation 3). |
| A3. What is the extent to which the CRC’s research is seen by research users as value adding to their business? |
| The CRC has gone to great lengths to develop an annual cycle of project review that encourages input and feedback from research users (Commendation 6). Consequently, the research users are strongly of the view that the CRC is delivering research results that will add value to their businesses. There could be no better indication of this than the fact that the CRC has acquired additional $6.46 million cash funding since July 2005, and has successfully incorporated the resultant new projects via its annual review process (Commendation 7). Do end-users, in particular SMEs, have any issues in terms of access to or the quality of research? The review panel heard no criticism of the quality of research from end-users. There was, however, some criticism in relation to the CRC’s lack of involvement in certain extension programs, and in its perceived failure to adequately take account of the sensitivities of some end-users (to the detriment of the public perception of the CRC) (Recommendation 4). |
| B. Governance, management and collaboration. |
| The previous two Beef CRCs were structured as unincorporated entities with, largely, representational boards. The present Beef CRC is structured as an incorporated entity that is governed by a skills-based board. This transformation has been accomplished very effectively, and all governance systems within the present CRC appear to be operating smoothly. The clear majority of directors, whilst having some relevant knowledge of, and interest in, the beef industry, are independent of participants, and collectively bring a wide range of professional backgrounds to the board. There are procedures in place to create some turn-over in board membership, thereby ensuring a continual flow of new energy and ideas to the board processes. The board operates with the assistance of four board subcommittees which cover 1) finance, audit, risk, 2) intellectual property and commercialisation, 3) industry impact and adoption; and 4) remuneration. These committees appear to bring independent oversight and rigour to company decision-making. The transition from a representational board can sometimes lead to a risk of disengagement from the CRC by participants who are also major investors in, and research providers to, the CRC. In the case of the Beef CRC this risk appears to have been handled very sensitively. Both the Chair and Chief Executive maintain a close personal liaison with key participants on issues of importance. There is a bi-annual participants’ forum which is organised and chaired by a representative of a participant (MLA). The content and openness of debate at this forum were commented on favourably by many participants (Commendation 8). There are also regular reviews by industry of the programs which result in formal responses by the CRC board. Industry representatives commented favourably on the responses by management and board to these reviews, particularly in more recent years. A potential challenge to the board has been provided by the recent decision of the participant Meat & Wool New Zealand to decrease its contribution and yet apparently retain its status and benefits. The panel notes the board’s awareness of the implications of this development (Recommendation 5). At management level, the CEO, Heather Burrow, has earned universal praise throughout the review, for her energy, leadership, drive and vision. These favourable comments have come from staff, program managers, participants and external collaborators. The review panel concurs with these assessments, and adds its appreciation of Heather’s openness in dealing with the review process (Commendation 9). Noting that no-one could accuse the CRC of having top-heavy management (Commendation 10), the panel can see the need for a deputy CEO (Recommendation 6), preferably someone who can also fill the role of commercialisation manager (see below; Recommendation 7). Collaborations appear to be now working effectively overall and some earlier issues around coordination of science strategy appear to have been resolved. In a CRC with such a large number of projects and such a large number of collaborators, continuing strong and diligent management of science strategy and collaboration efficiency will be required. With strong leadership from the top, at both board and executive level, the review panel has concluded that the Beef CRC is well-governed and well-managed. This is a particular achievement when one considers the series of unexpected developments that have occurred in the evolution of the core genomic technologies since the inception of the Centre. For reasons explained elsewhere in this report, it now seems unlikely that the CRC will be successful in meeting its core objective of identifying by 2012 a limited number of gene markers capable of explaining 50% of genetic variation in a number of key traits. This has been caused by unexpected developments in the science, and is a world-wide issue for people in the field, not unique to, nor the responsibility of, the Beef CRC. The issue for the CRC is how to respond to this adverse development. In this regard, the review panel has been particularly impressed that the CRC has been pro-active in taking the initiative to establish an international collaboration among Australia, Canada and USA to add human and financial resources, as well as to greatly increase the animal data-base, to the overall effort on marker discovery and validation. The review panel received much favourable and appreciative comment from those international collaborators about the initiative of Beef CRC in establishing the collaboration, and about their contribution to its on-going operation. Taking the initiative to establish this collaboration is clear testimony to the commitment of the board and management to the achievement of outcomes in the gene marker work (Commendations 3 and 9). |
| C. Commercialisation – Utilisation |
| Commercialisation and adoption are key CRC programs, and successful outcomes of these activities form a very large part of the value that will accrue to the industry from the investment in CRC research. The panel’s view is that these activities are well managed at both management and board level. There are three particular matters on which the panel wishes to make comment. Delivery of the range of phenotype predictors is positive and appears to be laying the foundation for producers to make management decisions on how to differentially farm animals with different characteristics. The deployment of the prediction software is laying the foundation for the addition of maternal productivity information and also genetic markers to further assist producers. Commercialisation resource: There is currently a vacancy for a commercialisation manager.This is an increasingly important position, which we recommend be filled as soon as practicable by a full-time, experienced person (Recommendation 7), preferably someone who can also fill the role of deputy CEO (Recommendation 6). Commercialisation of markers: The development of marker technology has been seen to have great potential to increase the rate of genetic gain in beef cattle, by adding to the already well-established effectiveness of estimated breeding values (EBVs). The potential of such markers has attracted interest from both private sector companies and public research organisations, and has led to inevitable debate (and some tension) about the balance of public and private good outcomes from such work. In a complex area such as DNA marker technology, especially one characterised it seems by unexpected developments in the science, the path to commercialisation is bound to be also complex. (For example: in principle, marker information should be treated just like any other information source and be integrated into the EBV calculation and be reported as an EBV rather than as a differentiated EBVm. On the other hand, the panel recognises that practical and commercial realities may drive some form of differentiation.) The key issue is that funds are being invested and it is not a viable option to sit on one’s hands until uncertainty is clarified. Against this background, the CRC, in conjunction with MLA, is implementing a strategy for the commercialisation of genetic markers in beef (Commendation 11). The present plan essentially aims to release Beef CRC data into the public domain, where it may be used to assist both private and public sector organisations to develop and validate new markers. The CRC is presently committed also to use its data to validate markers that are released to the Australian market, and to publish the results on its web-site to better inform producers about the validity of the markers. The review panel understands this strategy as being appropriate to the present state of marker development and commercialisation, whilst recognising that full public disclosure of information could be an impediment to private sector investment in the technology and, ultimately, could act to slow down the rate of commercial adoption of marker technology. It is clearly a matter for a watching brief. Another important issue that was raised with the review panel was the on-going role of breed societies in particular, and the seedstock industry in general, in the validation and utilisation/commercialisation of markers. The panel notes that the sector recognises the potential for gene markers to enhance the EBVs derived from phenotypic and pedigree data, and therefore is supportive of investment in marker technology. The sector recognises also that some markers released so far are less than efficacious, possibly because of geographic and interbreed differences. Poor performance of some of the markers being commercialized to date reflects poorly on the present Beef CRC, especially those markers being marketed by what started originally as a spinoff company from a previous Beef CRC, even if the markers have not been developed by the either CRC. The panel commends the Beef CRC for continuing to speak with and to work with the DNA Third companies, despite the many difficulties involved. This dialogue and interaction must continue (Commendation 11). The seedstock sector considers that it has a role, in support of its members and users of their seedstock, in the validation and, as appropriate, promotion of the technology. The panel supports this view, particularly in the present early stages of the development and commercialisation of the technology. Continued goodwill and involvement of the seedstock sector may be fundamentally important to the establishment and maintenance of Australian beef information nucleus herds that will be essential to the ongoing development of the marker technology (Recommendation 4). The panel commends the CRC for providing leadership in the development of a strategy for marker evaluation, validation and utilisation/ commercialisation that will continue to be implemented following the cessation of CRC funding (Commendations 11 and 12). Beef Profit Partnerships (BPPs):These partnerships are a key element of the CRC’s value creation because they are aimed at increasing the proportion of producers that rapidly up-take technology that is/has been developed by the CRC or other parties. The panel spoke to several producer participants and other parties with knowledge of BPPs. All were universally supportive and enthusiastic of BPPs (Commendation 13). However, the panel considers that an objective evaluation needs to be undertaken of the extent to which the BPPs are delivering benefits to the target group, that is, those producers who would not usually classify themselves as “early adopters” (Recommendation 8). |
| D. Research |
| In hindsight it would appear that the goals set by the Beef CRC, of identifying DNA markers for 50% of the genetic variation for a number of traits were extremely optimistic and now are highly unlikely to be met. This is not due to mismanagement of the science program but the underlying biology of the traits. The research that the Beef CRC and other organizations have undertaken in the past 2-3 years has revealed that the underlying genetic model is predominantly a large number of loci with small effects. Rather than explaining 50% of the genetic variation for the traits, it appears that one could expect 10-25% could be explained. To identify this proportion of variation will heavily rely on collaboration with North American partners. The North American collaboration brings larger numbers of animals for gene discovery as well as collaboration around statistical tool development and joint funding of new tools such as a denser marker panel. This collaboration, as well as the creation of information nucleus herds, will form the basis of ongoing marker/gene discovery for beef cattle. However, much of this discovery will occur after the conclusion of the CRC. The panel commends the Beef CRC for providing leadership in the development of strategies and organisational structures that will enable this work to proceed beyond the life of the Beef CRC (Commendations 9, 11 and 12). Further marker/gene discovery from within the Beef CRC program is uncertain at this time, as the number of animals that will be genotyped in the future is being currently determined. The results from the 2000 animals that have been genotyped have identified some genomic regions of interest, a result which is leading to some candidate regions being pursued. However, neither the strategy for deciding how many regions to investigate nor the processes for deciding which regions to investigate and how long to pursue these regions, was evident to the panel. There is a need to identify a clear science strategy, covering the remainder of the Beef CRC’s term, which provides clear guidelines for deciding the balance between additional genotyping and investigating particular regions. Among other things, this strategy will be very helpful in guiding a critical evaluation of the gene expression studies that have remained in the program after the science review in 2007 strongly challenged their usefulness (Recommendation 3). The role of the CSO as a highly skilled technical expert requires the program managers and the CEO to have a greater overall understanding of the science of the different programs, to ensure that there is an overall integrated strategy. The panel can see benefits from the development and use of a holistic integrated science strategy (Recommendation 3). The polled project has high commercial interest and appears to be making good progress with limited resources. Experimental design of the genome-wide association study should be undertaken. For the success of this project, collaboration with other research organizations should be initiated sooner rather than later. Research on identifying candidates for the tick vaccine appears to be making good progress. However, it has to be acknowledged that this program still remains a high-risk project. Despite this, the project is valuable for the industry as it is unlikely that others will invest and undertake research to address this issue. Projects on rumen micro-flora and in the animal welfare area seem to be add-ons rather than integral parts of the overall program. Both programs will continue to benefit from integration with other CRC research areas. |
| E. Skills development |
| The Beef CRC has a strong focus on skills development through postgraduate research, student training and through “distillation" events directed at extension officers and commercial service providers to the Beef industry. Interviews with post-graduate students revealed a high level of satisfaction with their experience and in particular their access to a network of experienced and skilled individuals and to the resources of CRC partners. Students expressed enthusiasm for annual conferences and training programs which gave them an appreciation of the range of work being undertaken in the CRC and their role in the knowledge being generated. These also provide a valued opportunity for networking and skills acquisition. Students particularly valued the review of their work by the expert panel and the constructive feedback provided (Commendation 14). It was, however, observed that students would benefit from a more structured initial induction to the CRC – perhaps through provision of an information pack at the time of enrolment (Recommendation 9d). The level of industry involvement in supervision was not clear; although a number of students interviewed were undertaking their projects in partner laboratories – CSIRO and Qld Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Postgraduate student numbers have reached the number (35) targeted in the Commonwealth Agreement one year earlier than planned (Commendation 15). The CRC has made good use of a strategy that encourages students to apply for non-CRC scholarship stipends (e.g. APA, AusAid) and subsequently provides top-ups to successful students. Funds for research work resides in Program/Project accounts, as would be expected. Students are encouraged to publish and present at national/international conferences, although no systematic support is provided for this by the CRC. Students are encouraged to apply for support from conference organisers, this being an experience in competitive application valued by the students. The CRC appears to have no current direct involvement in development and delivery of undergraduate university education programs, although such materials were developed by previous Beef CRCs. The CRC does appear to have a role in Vocational Education and Training (VET) programs through Armidale TAFE which was cited as being responsible for the National Competencies in Agriculture, for which the present CRC is making available course materials. Non-credentialed skills development is delivered through “distillation” events. These perform a dual purpose – raising awareness of the CRC (and allied) activities and serving to train other personnel to work with industry end-users (train the trainers). This process is also needed as an essential component of the future pathway to adoption of future CRC outputs. The CRC has produced a range of different publications to support this area of activity as well as a revised website, and has expressed the intention to develop on-line learning resources. At present, however, the main deliverables appear to be those generated by previous CRCs and other agencies. This is reflected in the program’s KPIs (half of which relate to EBVs). As a consequence, there also appears to be considerable overlap and potential for conflict with other operators in this space who also run training programs. Feedback from the seedstock sector revealed a level of discontent with the perceived reluctance of the CRC to engage in existing extension programs specifically addressing EBVs and the future incorporation of marker genotypes into EBVs. It is recommended that the CRC, as a matter of urgency, review their strategy for relationship management and for collaboration in dissemination and training in tools/techniques that have or will arise from the CRC and which could be of value to the industry (Recommendation 4). With the exception just noted, end-users and industry endorsed the level of communication with the CRC. However, the review panel received some feedback reflecting concern over the glossiness of some publications, in contrast to the perceived lack of major outputs from the present CRC. Whilst these participants fully support the CRCs activities and intent, this further suggests a communications strategy is needed to more clearly explain the high risk/slow-progress nature of the CRC’s research. It may be of benefit for the CRC to convene a working party to review its education/dissemination strategies. Such a working party should include end-users. Consideration should be given to: |
|
|
| Annual conference, professional development programs are made available to and appreciated by postgraduate research students. There does not appear to be similar mechanisms for staff-interaction and development. An annual conference would do much to create a greater feeling of cohesion between researchers in different programs and project areas. At present there is a risk of a siloed view of research directions and lost opportunity for more collegial appraisal of progress and direction (Recommendation 10). |
| COMMENDATIONS |
| 1. The CRC is commended for the openness of the year three review process, which enabled the panel to receive a full spectrum of feedback from stakeholders. 2. Much of what the CRC is doing could not have been done by any single organisation; it has assembled a team of high quality researchers and relevant partners to tackle issues that are, by their very nature, beyond the scope of single research organisations. 3. The CRC has shown commendable flexibility in responding constructively to the disappointing results from their genome scans with the 10k and 50k genotyping chips by: a. initiating and driving an international collaboration that will increase the number of phenotypes for estimation and validation, and will lead to the international development of a genotyping chip with many more markers; b. revising outcomes, outputs and milestones in the light of the changed circumstances. 4. The CRC is to be commended for its extensive engagement with industry, from the planning of the CRC onwards; especially in view of the extensive and fragmented nature of the industry. 5. The CRC is to be commended for undertaking high-quality industry-relevant science with targets aligned to industry needs. 6. The annual review process is transparent and has strong support. 7. The CRC has acquired $6.46 million additional cash funding since July 2005, and has successfully incorporated the resultant new projects via its annual review process. 8. Participants are happy with the Centre Forum as an effective means for their voices to be heard by the skills-based board on which they do not have representation. 9. The CEO is doing an excellent job in management, in scientific leadership within the CRC, and in establishing and driving the international collaborations that are essential to enable the CRC to fulfil its revised mission and to enable the fruits of the CRC to be harvested in a post-CRC world. 10. Management is very transparent and not top-heavy. 11. The CRC is commended for its leadership in the continual development of a feasible DNA marker commercialisation strategy, including its determination to continue talking and working with DNA marker companies. 12. The CRC is commended for its leadership in the development of an integrated sustainable strategy involving extensive phenotyping (including traits that are expensive to measure) largely in the context of an Information Nucleus, matched with DNA sampling, and the storage of all relevant information in a national database. 13. Enthusiastic feedback was received from Beef Profit Partnerships (BPP) participants. 14. The CRC is commended for its annual postgraduate conference, held in conjunction with Sheep CRC, including constructive and detailed feedback from a panel of CRC scientists. 15. The CRC is commended for meeting its original target number of postgraduate research students a year early. |
| RECOMMENDATIONS AND BOARD RESPONSE (in italics) |
| 1. The CRC should reconsider whether there is a need to adjust further the outcomes in the proposed revised Schedule 1, in the light of the proposed changes to outputs and milestone dates, e.g. the proposed change in DNA marker outcomes from “50%” to “up to 50%” does not reflect well on the CRC’s aspirations; one possible improvement would be to replace “up to 50%” with “at least x%”, where x is a realistic number based on the CRC’s present results from its extensive analyses of genome wide scans. |
| Beef CRC requests that Schedule 1 of the Commonwealth Agreement be changed so the amount of genetic variation accounted for by DNA marker tests in each of Programs 1, 2, 3 and 4 is changed from “up to 50%” to “at least 15%”. Based on the Year 3 Economic Impact analysis and the Review Panel’s report, an achievement of even 15% still represents a very good return on investment of CRC Commonwealth funds. |
| 2. The CRC should consider developing a revised vision that encapsulates new technology, adoption and profit. |
| Beef CRC will develop a revised vision that encapsulates new technology, industry uptake and improved profitability and will test that revised vision with partner organisations at its June 2009 Centre Forum. |
| 3. The CRC should consider developing a formalised holistic science strategy, incorporating guidelines/criteria for future decision making. |
| Beef CRC has been following a Board-approved science strategy for its gene discovery and gene expression research, which incorporates guidelines and criteria for future decision making. However results that became available from the international genome wide association studies in December 2008 suggest the strategy needs to be updated to reflect the changed science environment. A revised science and investment strategy will be considered initially by the CRC’s Management Committee in April 2009 before it is reviewed by the CRC’s Annual Scientific and Industry Review in May 2009. The Board will formally consider the revised strategy at its meeting in June 2009. |
| 4. In relation to the seedstock sector, the CRC should do everything possible to: a. present DNA markers as an opportunity for the sector; b. counter the perception that DNA markers pose a threat to the sector; c. enable the sector to feel that it is actively involved in the development of the DNA marker commercialisation strategy; d. enable the sector to feel that it is in partnership with the CRC in relation to: |
|
| It appears the Review Panel may not have received a complete briefing on Beef CRC’s DNA marker commercialisation activities during the Review process. a, b & c) As part of its DNA marker commercialisation strategy, Beef CRC has previously stated it will do everything possible to actively engage with, and fully include, the seedstock sector by presenting DNA markers as an opportunity rather than a threat. This engagement will primarily be through formation and conduct of a biannual “Coordination Forum” comprising key stakeholders from the seedstock and commercial production sectors, feedlotters and the DNA companies. The first “Coordination Forum” is scheduled for late May or early June 2009. d - i) As part of Beef CRC’s DNA marker commercialisation strategy, the seedstock sector will be involved with Beef CRC, MLA and the DNA marker commercialisation companies through a National Database Advisory Committee, to be convened following the initial “Coordination Forum”. The sector will be represented by ABRI/ARCBA on that Committee. d - ii) Through its DNA marker commercialisation strategy, Beef CRC and MLA are actively engaging the seedstock sector in relation to development of Beef Information Nucleus herds which will provide data and DNA samples for the national database and DNA bank respectively. Beef CRC engaged a consultant to commence working with individual breed societies and other industry stakeholders in September 2008. That consultant has prepared several reports outlining good progress in this regard with both temperate and tropical breed societies. The first collective meeting of several southern Australian breed societies is scheduled for 1 April 2009, with a collective meeting of tropical breed societies and the northern pastoral companies to follow. Beef CRC will be closely monitoring the effectiveness of this activity as it is critical to the success of the Beef Information Nucleus. |
| 5. The CRC should do everything possible to ensure that its Australian participants are aware of the reasons for, and the value in, retaining MWNZ with a lower level of financial participation but with apparently retaining the same benefits and status as before. |
| Any change to the terms and conditions of M&WNZ’s participation in Beef CRC is a decision for Beef CRC Participants. As soon as M&WNZ formally advises details of its proposed revised levels and areas of coinvestment, a teleconference with all Participants is planned. Beef CRC will do everything possible to ensure its Australian participants are aware of the reasons for, and value in, retaining Meat and Wool New Zealand (M&WNZ) as a full Participant of Beef CRC. |
| 6. The CRC should continue to investigate the possible avenues by which someone can take on the role of Deputy CEO. |
| As part of its management planning, the Beef CRC Board has formally approved Dr Drewe Ferguson’s nomination as Deputy CEO (DCEO) in addition to his position as Program Manager. Dr Ferguson will be responsible for day-to-day management in the CEO’s absence and represent Beef CRC at partner and industry forums. |
| 7. The CRC should proceed with the appointment of a commercialisation manager as soon as possible. |
| Beef CRC will be appointing a fulltime commercialisation manager as soon as possible. The position was advertised nationally in February 2009 and short-listed applicants will be interviewed in early April. The new appointee will also assume line management responsibility of four CRC industry delivery projects previously managed by Professor John Thompson and Dr Heather Burrow. Professor Thompson will retire over coming months and it is therefore appropriate and timely to have the new Commercialisation Manager assume responsibility for all the CRC’s industry-delivery projects. Dr Graham Gardner from Murdoch University should now be named in the revised Commonwealth Agreement as Beef CRC’s Education Program Manager and the new Commercialisation Manager as Beef CRC’s Manager of Commercialisation / Utilisation. |
| 8. The CRC’s involvement with Beef Profit Partnerships (BPPs) should be critically evaluated against the stated purpose, namely to increase the participation of those producers who would not usually classify themselves as “early adopters”. |
| Beef CRC’s involvement with the Beef Profit Partnerships is regularly and critically evaluated by the Board against the stated purpose, namely to increase the participation of those producers who would not usually classify themselves as “early adopters”. This is readily done by comparing the production and business performance of BPP businesses at the start of their involvement in BPPs, relative to the performance of the top 20% of businesses in the same regional areas (where the data are available), or the average production and business performance for similar businesses in regional areas across Australia and also relative to independent regional ABARE figures. This type of comparison has already been undertaken for several BPP groups. The comparison indicates that for five specific production and business performance measures, few businesses performed as well at the start of their involvement in BPPs as the average of the top 20% of producers in the relevant region for any of the five measures. None of the BPP businesses performed as well as the average of the top 20% of producers in the relevant region for three or more of the measures. Other preliminary, albeit subjective, feedback from the BPPs suggests there are some individual “early adopters” in the BPP network. However there are no entire teams (comprising 6-15 individual businesses) of “early adopters”, with the greatest majority of individual businesses involved in BPPs unlikely to have classified themselves at the beginning of their involvement in BPPs as “early adopters”. |
| 9. The CRC should consider establishing an education working party to: a. Engage with the VET sector in refreshing training packages pertinent to gene/marker technology b. Engage with the ABRI/MLA extension program for EBVs (especially in light of the CRC’s stated adoption KPIs) c. Use existing community partnerships to have input into undergraduate curricula in Agriculture and Veterinary Science courses, particularly with respect to industry-relevant approaches developed by past and present CRCs and allied entities d. Develop induction materials for new postgraduate students |
| As outlined in response 4, it appears the Panel may not have received a complete briefing on Beef CRC’s DNA marker commercialisation activities during the Review process. a & b) Through the DNA marker commercialisation committee, Beef CRC has already established a working party (including endusers such as MLA, Southern Beef Technology Services - SBTS and breed society representatives) to collate a wide range of existing genetics/genomics resource materials from undergraduate through to vocational level and, where necessary, to develop new resources for a broad range of users, including the VET sector, ABRI/MLA (SBTS/Tropical Beef Technology Services) extension programs, MLA “More Beef from Pastures” and EDGEnetwork Breeding courses, Australian Association of Cattle Veterinarians, cattle breed societies, DNA companies and beef industry consultants. The intent is to make the resource materials freely available to any organisation or individual that wishes to use them. All materials will be available freely from Beef CRC’s website or in CD/DVD form. Beef CRC will also offer ‘train-the-trainer’ courses, if interest exists, to ensure those wishing to use the materials for their own purposes have the capacity to do so. Beef CRC clearly recognises that a very wide range of genetics/genomics service providers already exist in the Australian beef industry and it has no plans to conflict with other operators in that space. Rather, Beef CRC believes that, in conjunction with MLA, it can very effectively develop new resource materials that those genetics/genomics service providers can then use in their own businesses for their own purposes, to ensure a consistent message across the Australian and New Zealand beef industries. c) Beef CRC routinely uses existing community partnerships (e.g. Animal Health Australia’s “Animal Health in Australia” initiative and Australian Animal Welfare Strategy Working Group activities) to provide input to undergraduate curricula in Agriculture and Veterinary Science courses, particularly with respect to industry relevant approaches developed by past and present CRCs and allied entities. d) Beef CRC accepts that post-graduate students would benefit from a more structured initial induction to the CRC through provision of an information pack at the time of enrolment. Currently Beef CRC does not anticipate recruiting additional post-graduate students through its education program, as new students are unlikely to complete their post-graduate studies within Beef CRC’s term. If additional students are recruited by CRC projects though, this recommendation will be implemented as a valuable suggestion to improve student knowledge of Beef CRC’s programs and strategies. |
| 10. The CRC should consider an annual CRC conference, perhaps coupled with the annual Operational Planning Meeting, to create a greater feeling of cohesion between researchers in different programs and project areas, and to provide additional opportunities for a more collegial appraisal of progress and direction. |
| Beef CRC will re-consider holding an annual conference for CRC staff at its next budget meeting in June 2009. It is also planning a major international livestock genomics conference in the 2010/11 financial year that will involve a large number of Beef CRC staff. |
| The Beef CRC Board would like to thank the Review Panel for their very thorough and valuable report and would like to assure them that their recommendations will be acted on over coming weeks and months. |
| For further information about the survey or the results, contact Alison Betts, Communications Manager, (02) 6773 3795 or 0439 405 077 |
