Recent comments by outgoing director of Teagasc Prof Gerry Boyle have shone a light on the whole area of dairy beef versus suckler beef. It has stirred up a lot of emotion among suckler farmers – confirming the view held by many that Teagasc is not committed to the future of the sector.

The lack of prominence of suckler beef research within the organisation’s overall research agenda and its almost omission from the Signpost programme is something that newly appointed director Frank O’Mara will need to address if he is to rebuild the connection between Teagasc and suckler farmers.

On the issue of dairy beef versus suckler beef, the role of Teagasc should be to inform the debate with the facts using relevant and replicable research. In this week's edition, Adam Woods looks at what the Teagasc sectoral roadmaps are showing in this regard. Ultimately, the difference in profit per hectare is marginal across the systems at €40 to €50. Therefore, technical efficiency and land type will have a much greater impact on profit than whether you are feeding a suckler cow or a dairy-beef animal.

But land type as a constraint of the system and profit generating capacity is one area that should not be overlooked in this debate.

Research on dairy-beef systems that are stocked at a rate requiring over 12 tonnes of grass dry matter to be utilised a year is fine in terms of showing the capacity of the system. But recommending this type of system to a suckler farmer with a six-month winter and a land base where grass utilisation is restricted is both flawed and dangerous.

Teagasc research and by extension the advice given to farmers must reflect the natural constraints that varying land type presents.

For some, a highly stocked dairy-beef option will offer potential to drive farm profit. But for those on marginal land, suckler cows and sheep will continue to be the most viable option.

This week's cartoon

\ Jim Cogan

Trouble in China?

Moves by banks and ratings agencies to lower growth forecasts for China this week came as investors are already concerned about rising inflation and the prospect that interest rate increases could come sooner than expected. The slowdown in China, related to a decline in construction and significant disruption to industrial activity due to coal shortages, is a worrying signal. It comes as global energy prices are soaring with oil reaching $80 a barrel on Tuesday for the first time in three years.

We may be entering a period of slower growth as economies continue to struggle with supply chain challenges, labour shortages and high energy prices. Input price inflation at farm level is already exerting a strain on farm margins. However, if combined with weaker demand we could be facing into a period of significant margin pressure at a time when on-farm investment, aligned to green transitioning, will be increasing.

Where is incentive to sequester carbon?

Comments by Minister McConalogue during our Around the Editor’s Table interview on the ownership of carbon credits have caused concern. It was said the credit for carbon sequestered from forestry belonged to the State rather than farmers. The IFA has sought legal advice and has vowed to challenge any attempt by Government to interfere with farmers’ rights to sell carbon removals. If farmers are excluded from offsetting carbon and locked out of carbon trading, where is the incentive to adopt farming practices that increase sequestration and maintain carbon stocks within soils?