Maybe it’s just me but it seems every year and sometimes twice a year we have a new vision, roadmap, or pathway for how Irish farmers can meet a new environmental target, vision or legally binding target.

What should farmers read?

The AgClimatise document from the Department, the Climate Action Plan from the Government, the MACC from Teagasc? I certainly don’t think the Marginal Abatement Cost Curve (MACC) should be top of the list.

For the last 10 years, we have had three versions of the exercise and, honestly, I think it serves to confuse more than clear up where the industry and farm sectors need to go.

In 2012 and 2019, we were told that reduced stock numbers were a potential quick-fix to emissions reduction but that shouldn’t be entertained because of what is termed ‘carbon leakage’.

Leakage essentially means the world would be worse off environmentally because the efficient Irish beef and milk would be produced elsewhere at a higher environmental cost.

Ironically, in the 2023 version of MACC, it is the reducing suckler numbers that save the industry and allow the agri sector hit the required environmental target – the one part of the 2012 and 2019 MACC presentations we are told that paradoxically could increase global emissions.

Not to mention the fact that it is primarily sheep and sucklers in all the counties along the west coast so the economic impact on rural Ireland is huge.

While it ticks the climate box, the west-coast farmers are left with few alternatives.

In the 2012 MACC, the big technologies discussed were improving daily liveweight gain, more extended grazing, better manure management, more clover and nitrogen inhibitors. On the crops side, there was min till, cover crops, miscanthus and anaerobic digestion of pig slurry listed as big players.

Outside of direct agri, it was forestry that was listed as the game-changer with a vision that over 8,000ha per year would be planted to displace between 2m and 5m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.

As regards the technology uptake, I’ve searched for progress on all of the points listed and it’s fair to say the last 10 years haven’t delivered a lot.

Min till is carried out on maybe 30% of the tillage area, cover crops, despite the big push at various stages, will hit 50,000 of a total 300,000ha, miscanthus has left broken merchants all over the country and is practically extinct, while anaerobic digestion of any kind of slurry is still in its infancy.

Needless to say, just over 2,000ha of forestry was planted last year – a far cry from 8,000ha.

The need for adoption has never been greater

So, while the Government will love the idea of meeting the climate target, suckler and sheep farmers are left swinging in the wind. There is no new technology or indeed compensation that can effectively allow them keep producing excellent quality food or a pathway into alternatives in whatever sector they choose.

We have touched on this topic numerous times on this page – a stock cull in everything but name as policy drives numbers down while no technology is good enough or is not adopted in significant numbers by farmers.

Yes, slurry management has improved; yes, there are more farmers on the clover train and better breeding is happening, but all at too slow a pace.

For me, the Teagasc strength is in creating tools like the 12 steps challenge and the Signpost climate measures clearly quantified and measurable. In research, it’s the new understanding of the 15% reduced methane emissions from modern cows, or the results of trials recently that showed that only 30% of deep-drained peat soils actually exist compared to what is in the inventory. Hence, emissions from these soils is only 60% of what was predicted.

The need for adoption has never been greater. If resources are limited, then Teagasc would do well to focus on getting adoption rates up for clover, dairy EBI, protected urea usage and grass management.

All items that have been on the MACC list for over 10 years, but still linger at a fraction of where adoption rates need to be.