The fallout from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report last week was deeply frustrating for farmers. The agricultural sector was again presented as the villain in relation to the battle against climate change. Environmental commentators were quick to latch on to the fact that agricultural emissions in Ireland in 2018 increased by 1.9% with the finger of blame firmly pointed at the growth in dairy cow numbers.

The argument totally ignores the fact that had the milk produced from the extra cows in the national herd been produced in any other part of the world, an additional 4m tonnes of CO2 equivalent per annum would have been released into the atmosphere. It is an inconvenient truth for some that all the dairy products produced from this increased flow of milk were consumed in a global market where demand for dairy is increasing.

This is perhaps the best example of where national emissions targets are completely flawed. Those who suggest that reducing the size of our national herd would contribute to reducing global emissions from food – which is the only real meaningful target – fail to understand or choose to ignore the complexity of the problem.

The agriculture industry cannot stand by and allow its future to be shaped by a debate that is largely irrelevant

In simple terms, recommending the curtailment of one of the most carbon-efficient food production systems in the world as a solution to reducing emissions from global agriculture is akin to suggesting that a ban on buses is part of the solution to reducing emissions from transport. Both seem appropriate responses if looking at the problem through the narrowest of lenses. But the reality is very different.

Curtailing carbon-efficient food production models in a global environment where demand for food is forecast to increase by 60% will only see less carbon-efficient systems respond to market demand – in the same way banning buses would see commuters return to their cars.

It is unfortunate that the debate which followed the EPA report was dominated by an environmental lobby solely focused on the need for Ireland to achieve national emissions targets. There was no regard given to the impact many of the proposed measures would have in tackling the real problem: the level of emissions from global food production.

Had the voice of the environmental groups currently fighting against the rapid deforestation of the Amazon rainforest featured in the debate, would the recommendations have differed?

Ultimately, the battle these groups face is in response to developing countries adopting a policy of outsourcing their agricultural emissions in a bid to achieve national targets. The fact that such a policy approach has created the economic incentive for Brazil to accelerate the rate of deforestation in the Amazon, as it responds to increased global demand for meat and grains, is ignored.

Spotlight on agriculture

Accounting for 34% of national emissions, our agricultural sector is always going to come under the spotlight when discussing national greenhouse gas emissions targets. But in an EU context, Irish agriculture accounts for less than 5% of total agricultural emissions and 0.3% globally.

The industry cannot be allowed to shirk its responsibility in adopting new technologies and practices that further reduce emissions.

But the same time, farmers cannot allow their future to be shaped by a debate that is largely irrelevant when it comes to actually tackling the problem at hand.

In the context of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from global food production, Ireland has a responsibility to ensure it maximises its contribution as one of the most carbon-efficient food producing countries in the world.

Beef: what is the advice from Teagasc on dairy-bred beef?

The provision of almost €150m per annum to fund Teagasc represents one of the biggest commitments from the State to Irish agriculture. The model, designed to provide independent research free from commercial bias, is the envy of farmers across the world.

With such a major investment into independent research, farmers expect the Teagasc advisory service to provide fact-based advice across the range of disciplines – farmer trust in Teagasc advice is key to uptake of technical information at farm level. The rift within Teagasc on the profitability of dairy-beef systems has the potential to seriously undermine this trust. At one level, we are seeing presentations to farmers indicating that, in certain cases, they should actually be paid to take calves from dairy farms.

Meanwhile, as Jack Kennedy reports, we see those at the highest level in the organisation clearly advising farmers that dairy-beef systems can be profitable and recommending a switch out of suckling.

This is not a credible position for Teagasc. It is now exposed to the accusation that it has allowed advice in relation to the economics of dairy beef become politicised. The role of Teagasc is simply too important for this to be allowed happen.

No room for ambiguity

On such a critical issue, which could see farmers switching from a production system in which they have invested for generations, Teagasc advice must be unambiguous. It should only be based on research that is applicable to what is achievable on the farms where the system is likely to be practised and all economic comparisons with other sectors must also be presented on a like-for-like basis.

Robust interaction between researchers and advisers is to be welcomed but debates should happen internally with consensus presented in public. The current situation where Teagasc is not speaking with one voice on dairy beef does not serve farmers well and has the potential to damage farmer trust in research and advice coming from the organisation.

Exports: China beef boost

There no shortage of pork in Shanghai's more affluent shops. Irish farmers will hope demand for beef is just as high.

Also this week, Adam Woods looks at the economics of winter finishing. At €2.17/kg, our MartWatch data shows the typical 550kg continental steer to be back just 3c/kg on last year despite the drop in beef price – largely reflecting the tighter supply of these better quality animals. Based on a high level of technical performance, the base price required next spring for the system to break even is €4.16/kg, increasing to €4.54/kg to return a €100 margin. The question is will it be returned in the market.

Now that 21 Irish beef factories are approved for exports to China, farmers will be looking for a quick return in farmgate prices. As Phelim O’Neill reported last week, it will quickly become one of our top export markets.

This success is a tribute to the collaboration of Irish farmers, beef factories, Bord Bia and the Department of Agriculture, who have delivered access to what has been the fastest growing beef market in the world over the past decade. It is also the market that is underpinning a 20-year high pig price for Irish farmers and the cornerstone of dairy success.

The challenge is to make it deliver for farmers – not just factories. It is currently the highest value market available for many forequarter cuts. When exporting at full capacity, this should give a badly needed boost.

This has been a horrendous year for Irish beef farmers. It is no exaggeration to say that these farmers are in the last-chance saloon and desperately need a strong beef price as sheds are filled for winter.

If gaining access to China does not deliver a boost to beef in the same way it has for dairy and pigmeat, then we have to ask what will.

Agribusiness: transition plan needed for Ornua future

In our AgriBusiness coverage, Eoin Lowry highlights the lack of progress in dealing with identified conflicts of interest around the Ornua board table. It is now almost 12 months since the co-op was forced to cancel its board meeting because of tensions among its directors. While board meetings have resumed, we understand that management updates are being redacted to protect commercially sensitive information.

At top level, the questions are simple: how should the board be structured, what level of representation is appropriate and what percentage of directors should be independent?

When these have been answered, the next phase is to agree a clear transition period. While there is no need to change everything overnight, simply maintaining the status quo should not be seen as a viable option.

Read more

Farmers' €1bn Kerrygold brand at risk

Ornua board fails to reach agreement