The Australian Bureau of Statistics has radically altered its assessment of beef herd size in Australia, following changes in data collection and methodology.
ABS’s revised estimate released today for herd size at the end of June last year is 27.8 million head, whereas the Bureau’s previous estimate was 24.4 million – a massive difference of 3.4 million head, or 14 percent.
The adjustment comes after widespread and sustained criticism over the past two years about the accuracy and reliability of industry and government beef herd estimates.
The adjustments to official herd size numbers as released by ABS has significant implications for the beef industry – not the least of which is calculations of carbon and methane production by beef animals over time.
The new estimate, based on cattle inflows and outflows, is now within four percent of Meat & Livestock Australia’s own national 2023 herd estimates. There was recognition that the industry could not be processing 7-8 million head each year, based on the earlier, more moderate herd sizes being reported.
The reason for the change in measurement is the abandonment of beef producer surveys carried out previously (partly due to poor stakeholder responses), in favour of newer modelling techniques and data sources.
In addition, ABS surveys previously did not take into account cattle held by smaller producers whose ‘value of agricultural operations’ (ie turnover) did not reach $40,000 a year.
Click on table for a larger view
ABS started ’modernising’ the way official agricultural statistics are produced to “better support Australian agriculture” in early 2023.
A key part of that process has been the development of partnerships with industry and government to identify new data sources and develop new statistical methods, the Bureau said.
“This has reduced respondent burden on farmers, and created greater consistency between existing data sources which helps to build trust in the statistics,” it said.
The new estimates are still labelled as ‘experimental’, but only because the ABS intends to further refine the approach utilising additional data sources and further input from industry experts.
ABS’s revised estimates of a herd of 27.8 million beef cattle on holding at 30 June 2023, represents an an increase of 4.6pc from an adjusted figure for the previous 2022 year, following favourable seasonal conditions in most cattle regions.
“Herd rebuild occurred in Queensland, the largest contributing state to the Australian cattle population, where cattle numbers increased by 4.2pc for the year ending June 30 2023 to 13.2 million head.” ABS said.
Beef cattle numbers also increased in New South Wales by 6.2pc to 5.9 million and Victoria by 5pc to 2.9 million.
New methodology and sources
In a statement issued as part of today’s revised figures release, ABS said as a result of the introduction of new new sources and methods, both the beef cattle and total cattle herd estimates for the 2023 year were higher than estimates previously published by the ABS using farm surveys which did not include cattle held on smaller farms.
The new assessment methodology is now calculated using a similar approach to that of the ABS Estimated Resident Population (ERP), taking closing stock from the previous period, adding population inflows (using existing non-ABS data sources to estimate new calves), subtracting population exits (slaughter, live exports and on farm deaths), to arrive at closing stock in the current period, the Bureau said.
The five steps are:
- Opening stock of adult cattle and calves
- Inflows of new calves born to breeding cattle
- Compositional flows with existing calves growing to adult cattle
- Outflows which consists of cattle slaughter, exports and on-farm deaths
- Closing stock which consists adult cattle and calves and is inclusive of interstate transfers.
All commercial beef (grain and grass fed) and dairy cattle fall within the scope of the new ABS estimates. The population of calves, female cattle and other (male) cattle, form opening and closing stocks at the beginning and end of the financial year.
The main element of this adjustment was to re-calculate the calf population by aligning it to a level that would sustain overall cattle exits over the long term, the Bureau said. This was achieved by combining the historical ABS agricultural survey female cattle estimates with data from ABARES on calves marked (calving rates) and mating rates.
As a result of these two adjustments the beef cattle population increased by 4.3 million at 30 June 2019. The table above shows previously published cattle estimates and the modelled experimental estimates from 2019 through to 2022, for the purpose of demonstrating the impact of the modelling approach compared with previously published estimates.
“There are significant differences between the new experimental estimates and previously published data. Due to the significant differences, this publication includes adjusted estimates that align with new methods from 2019 to 2022 to help users interpret the 2023 estimates,” it said.
Understanding the accuracy of cattle herd estimates
“The ABS is modernising the way we collect agriculture data with an administrative data-first approach,” ABS said. “As a result, the cattle herd estimates are no longer calculated using a directly collected survey, rather they have been calculated using a new modelled approach that uses a range of new data sources.”
As part of the modelling process, the ABS engaged with external data providers and commonwealth, state and territory agricultural departments to help ensure the accuracy of estimates by identifying, investigating, and rectifying improbable calf numbers within the herd, it said.
“The revised estimates are consistent with related data sources on cattle fertility, slaughter and herd age structure. Externally sourced data has been used only where accuracy can be reasonably measured and verified as part of the quality assurance processes. As a result, the estimates can be considered fit for use,” the Bureau said.
“The experimental estimate of the number of cattle in Australia provides a more complete estimate of total cattle in Australia compared with past survey estimates which did not include cattle on smaller farms,” it said.
A red meat statistics working group comprised of industry and government experts supported the development of the experimental estimates of cattle numbers, it said.
The ABS was continuing to work with the red meat statistics working group to further refine the estimate of the number of cattle in Australia as it gains access to additional data sources over the next 18 months.
A similar process is being used to develop an estimate of the number of sheep in Australia for the Australian Agriculture: Livestock 2023-24 release.
More importantly, can a Federal Government agency provide the amount of money that short term overseas and immigrant workers send overseas?
The questions and statements by Peter Williams are interesting and deserve an answer. In terms of why the ABS needs the numbers, who needs to know and what it changes, as someone who has worked in the agricultural sector for over 20 years, the yearly agricultural commodity statistics (beef cattle numbers etc) have been integral to my job.
These statistics provide detailed information on agricultural production, including beef cattle numbers, which help track the agriculture sector’s performance and productivity. Government bodies, including the Department of Agriculture and state agricultural departments, use this data to formulate policies, plan farm programs, and allocate resources effectively. Researchers, agricultural economists, and policy analysts use these statistics to study trends, assess economic impacts, and conduct various analyses related to the farm sector. The data supports agribusinesses, farmers, and industry associations in making informed production, marketing, and investment decisions.
The National Accounts branch in the ABS also utilises the agricultural commodity statistics (beef cattle numbers) to compile Australia’s national accounts statistics. Livestock numbers and other agricultural data are integral to calculating the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and other economic indicators. These statistics provide essential inputs for understanding the agricultural sector’s contribution to the overall economy, analysing sectoral performance, and ensuring accurate and comprehensive national accounts.
On top of that, in identifying new data sources and new statistical methods, the new modernized agricultural statistics program has brought about stronger partnerships with industry and government, leading to a reduced reporting burden on farmers. Imagine that, fewer forms to fill out.
Readers are reminded that real names are required for comments to be considered for publication on Beef Central. In this case, we accept that the only way the reader could make informed comment, given his employment circumstances, was anonymously. Editor
Australian farmers are heading down the path of becoming tax collectors for The ATO similar to what Bob Carr did to our Hoteliers. Brace yourself and put your hands in your wallets.
ABS role as shown on Treasury website “The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) provides independent and trusted official statistics on a range of economic, social, population and environmental matters of importance to governments, industry, and the wider Australian community.”
This amendment in herd size can only be summed up as a monumental stuff up, as Mike Introvigne states below.
Some serious questions need to be asked and not have this matter swept under the carpet as minor.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics is guessing at the number of bovines for what reason? Who needs to know? Knowing will change little. Even the cattle owners are at a loss to give an accurate number most of the time. (Counting out the gate does not take into account missed cattle or cattle jumping the fence) The level of trust in our Canberra bureaucrats is low as per the last census which was poorly answered. Why the good ol boys of the ABS need to know every last detail escapes me and points toward a psychopathic mind set in our public service which serves nobody but themselves.
I call BS. The numbers are politicized, but always not in the farmer’s favour. Whenever food inflation becomes a problem, they ban live exports or revise stock numbers upwards. Or give some trading partner lip which results in having trade suspended (Russia in the 00’s, China 2020). It is a bad situation when your own Gov and bureaucrats are the terrorists you must fight.
This is just a monumental stuff up and I agree with Peter Lawrence’s assessment.
Time and time again we hear of way-out predictions by ABS, no wonder our Ag industries never get clear signals as to what the outcome for our commodities might be in the near future.
We may as well go to the pub and come up with estimates amongst our colleges.
In other words they have gone from a partially flawed system to a guestimate ! Reading both sets of figures I see no drop in numbers during the frantic selling drought periods when people even had to sell of their breeding herds by more than half . There was also no recognition that it takes at least three breeding cycle’s to regain breeding numbers again based on 50/50 M/F calving rate . To me this indicates flawed numbers being used , thus flawed outcomes that can be manipulated!