New decade needs new thinking

Irish and indeed global agriculture enters the third decade of the 21st century with what appears to b an impossible challenge of producing more to meet global demand, while at the same time seriously reducing the carbon footprint of the sector.

It also enters this decade with a dangerously oversimplified and misleading message based around the principle that reduction in consumption of meat from ruminant livestock would make a huge contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The fact that even the elimination of ruminant livestock would only make a small contribution is lost in the noise and, in any case, this sector, like all others in society, has to make improvements.

Debate is oversimplified

Part of the problem in Ireland is that a narrative has developed that suggests dairy production is good because it has been shown to be more profitable, while beef production is bad because it has been less profitable, if indeed profitable at all.

The simple view is that beef production should cease or at lease reduce significantly, with the corresponding reduction in GHG emissions to enable dairy production to continue and even expand.

Such a simplistic view overlooks the fact that dairy farming simply isn’t an option in many areas, especially along the western seaboard where land is usually less productive and there are large numbers of very small holdings.

We need to establish what works best for Irish agriculture, ideally on a farm-by-farm basis

Even larger farmers often have a collection of smaller parcels of land that are scattered over a wide area. Small farmers with small areas of land may be extremely active in producing cattle and sheep, but won’t have the volume to sustain a full-time labour unit.

These farmers typically work off-farm in employment that can be anything from building sites and lorry driving to professions such as teaching and accountancy.

This type of farmer won’t have the land base to even contemplate switching to dairy production. They are also unlikely to want the career choice of trying to secure consolidated land parcels to facilitate full-time dairy farming as an alternative to their present career combined with part-time beef and sheep farming.

Solutions

It is counterproductive from a global climate change management perspective to have targets of reduction by sector on a national basis.

For example, in the case of livestock, it is pointless if a relatively small global producer like Ireland gives up its production capability from grass, while growing global demand is supplied from elsewhere in the world that doesn’t have the resources already in place and in use.

In Brazil, potential for livestock production is immense from its favourable climate in many regions of the country and also the fact that it has a huge area of productive land still under natural forest and vegetation.

Dealing with climate has to be global, not national

Also does it really make sense for arid countries with extremely hot temperatures to develop their livestock-based agriculture industries of beef and dairy?

They have to import all the feed, bore wells for scarce water supplies and artificially create cooler temperatures for livestock to service and be productive.

Surely it would make more sense to concentrate livestock production in the natural grassland areas of the world that have the ideal temperature and abundance of water supplies

Surely it would make more sense to concentrate livestock production in the natural grassland areas of the world that have the ideal temperature and abundance of water supplies?

Irrespective of the need for our Government to sell this logic globally and indeed domestically, farmers too have to do more to reduce the impact of livestock farming on the environment.

We can no longer use a haphazard approach to livestock production in either beef, dairy or sheepmeat. For years, pigmeat and poultry production has been driven for commercial reasons to achieve maximum output with minimum input, achieving huge growth in productivity along the way.

Improvements have been made in dairy, but it has been much slower in the beef sector. There has been plenty of debate for the past two decades, but now we have to have a national plan that identifies what performs best both economically and environmentally in Irish livestock production.

That means beef, like poultry, has to devise and implement a strategy that gets the maximum beef output at the lowest cost in the shortest time period possible to deliver both economic and environmental sustainability.

Action plan

Matching economic activity with the most suitable environment has to be achieved by Government in the international forums that address climate change issues. However, dealing with improvements domestically is very much something for farmers and industry, as well as Government and the EU.

We need to establish what works best for Irish agriculture, ideally on a farm-by-farm basis, and progress from there to develop a farming type and model that delivers maximum return for minimal environmental impact.

This should have the core aim of sustaining rural communities, so depopulation and uncontrolled forestry aren’t a solution - though some forestry and indeed wind farms can contribute.

The EU also has to get real in terms of support for the type of agriculture it is advocating through the green deal. If the ambition is to forsake the production tools of fertiliser and pesticides, which the rest of world continues with their use, then a suitable level of support through an enhanced CAP is necessary.

The CAP may, by now, have achieved its original ambition of food security, but in a world where droughts and political instability prevail, we need to make sure we maintain our production capability as well.

Read more

Farming must play its part in climate battle - ITLUS conference