IP changes to AI contracts are not OK!

We believe this to be an intrusion on farmers’ property rights. We contacted the European Intellectual Property Office for their opinion on the claim that IP could apply. The response from that office was speedy and indicates that it is highly doubtful whether the AI companies have the legal right to apply IP on farmers’ animals based on conventional breeding practices.

The ICMSA publicised the response of the European Intellectual Property Office and we asked the AI companies concerned to publish their own legal advice or basis for their claim that AI can apply. At the time of writing, no such legal basis has been produced. No one disputes that the fundamental changes in terms and conditions involved in purchasing AI in the fashion proposed by the AI companies must necessitate changes in the actual ownership of the stock resulting from that AI. Indeed, that is the whole point of the introduction of IP with its ‘transfer’ of some dimension of property rights to the AI co-ops.  What ICMSA has asked for – publicly and on behalf of farmers – is the publication of the legal basis on which this change is being implemented. We repeat this because it is supremely important: this change was introduced without consultation, much less agreement, and ‘communications’ were in the form of emails to affected farmers at peak calving period.

Significant changes

The changes in AI contracts represent a very significant change of position on the part of the AI companies and farmers must be fully aware of the implications for the ownership rights of their animals. ICMSA is categorically not satisfied that the farmer-customers of these AI companies have been made fully aware of the implications of the changes to AI contracts. We feel strongly that the onus is on the AI companies to explain the changes and explain why they feel the need to make those changes. The introduction of these changes by the AI companies will allow the AI companies to exercise control over the offspring of animals fertilised with these AI companies’ straws. Those are the facts, no one denies that, and we think that this amounts to a very, very serious change in the full ownership of that offspring that heretofore was the absolute property of the farmer. 

Effectively, the farmer no longer has full ownership of his or her animal where an IP bull is used, and ICMSA thinks that there is a clear onus on the AI companies to inform farmers of this new arrangement, the reasons why they believe it is a good idea, and the full implications for the farmer concerned.  We do acknowledge that there had been some communications from the AI companies, but it has been wholly inadequate and untimely.    

Better communication

We shouldn’t have to tell AI companies that having a few articles in agricultural media or sending email correspondence at peak calving and within weeks of the 2025 breeding season is not the optimum way of communicating with your farmer-customers. If the AI companies are convinced that the introduction of this IP is the correct course of action, they should press ‘pause’ and suspend the introduction of IP for 2025. They should then ensure that farmers are fully informed of the reasoning behind the move, are made of the implications (legal and otherwise), and are given the facility to actually sign up to it going forward – if that is their choice. 

On matters as fundamental as the possible infringement on the property rights of a farmer to his or her own stock, ICMSA does not believe in mincing words. It is completely unacceptable to arrive at a situation where a farmer could find in spring 2026 that he or she is not allowed to sell their animal's offspring to another AI company without the permission of the IP bull AI company. There is no point in pretending that this is not a huge change, and farmers are absolutely justified in wondering where this change in practice is going and whether this is just the first step in a journey to control Irish cattle breeding by four companies. 

One other point to note: Ireland’s superb breeding today is down to the work of the farmers themselves, along with the work of these AI companies. This decision warrants real discussion and ICMSA is calling on the AI companies – three of which are farmer-owned – to immediately suspend their proposal and enter a period of discussion with the relevant parties in the industry to 

chart our future direction together. It is not up to these four companies to take this enormously significant decision for us. The growth year-on-year of sexed semen is going to inevitably lead to our bovine genetic base becoming smaller, and we need to work together, as opposed to one partner in the process unilaterally taking full control.