Strategy does not
meet all three
sustainability measures
Sustainability is mentioned about 160 times in the strategy. Environmental sustainability is the focus, but are the three pillars of sustainability covered – economics, environment and social? Unfortunately, for this draft document, the answer has to be no.
If 10% of farmed area is dedicated to biodiversity, will farms be economically viable? A tillage farm growing cereals, beans and oilseed rape along with hedgerows and other habitats like woodlands or an extensive livestock farm with diverse swards and habitats are surely diverse.
Will 10% be set aside across all farms without any consideration of what is on the farm already? Will Irish agriculture store as much carbon with fewer animals in livestock systems?
The benefits of clover are clear on nitrogen reduction, but on-farm research and advice is needed to gain confidence in its establishment and persistence in swards. The strategy outlines?the aim to reduce pesticide use by 50% and to use new breeding techniques as a tool to do this, while suggesting an increase in the tillage area.
While there is room for improvement in pesticide efficiency, Ireland’s climate allows for high crop yields, but also high disease levels which call for plant protection products. Techniques like gene-editing are currently categorised as genetic modification and so cannot be used in the EU. Agriculture uses about 50% of the pesticides sold in Ireland. One wonders if the remaining 50% of non-farming use will also be cut.
Looking at the social pillar, the draft strategy pays little attention to what will happen rural Ireland if agricultural production is to be reduced. Who will employ the farmers and agricultural industry? Who will keep rural Ireland working when the mart closes down?
The great hope is that consumers will pay a premium for food produced in a sustainable manner, which Ireland already claims to do.
The draft document seems to raise more questions than answers. The strategy needs to be sustainable on all three counts, not just one.
– Siobhán Walsh, sustainability specialist
Beef sector well
positioned for challenges
We need to stop talking about our national herd and split our animals up into three different national herds – the dairy herd, the suckler herd and the dairy-beef herd.
At the moment, the suckler herd is contracting at 1% per annum so if this trend continues, meeting a target of 10% reduction in biogenic methane won’t be an issue on suckler farms.
This, coupled with progress being made in the genetic replacement index of suckler cows, puts the suckler herd on a sound footing to meet the challenges ahead. Increasing numbers of dairy-beef calves will be an issue but dealing with this problem should not fall solely to beef farmers.
There seems to be a greater emphasis in the strategy document on dairy-beef systems, including a Teagasc campaign on dairy beef and a Teagasc demonstration farm backed by dairy and beef processors, to demonstrate dairy beef as a viable alternative to suckler beef. The push for this is worrying, especially for more extensive farms.
Limiting fertiliser use while increasing habitat areas and low-emission slurry spreading won’t be an issue for the vast majority of suckler beef farms.
More intensively stocked beef farms and participants in the BEAM scheme will be watching with interest as to what year the reference year will be to meet the proposed 10% reduction target.
The 10% reduction could quickly turn into a 15% reduction for BEAM participants.
In terms of environmental and economic sustainability, bull beef, which is not mentioned at all in the strategy, is staring us in the face as an opportunity to make progress on Irish beef farms, yet beef processors have strangled the system into almost nonexistence. This is to the detriment of farmers’ income and farm efficiency.
– Adam Woods, beef editor
Strategy report short of
sheep-specific details
As already stressed by others, the draft agri-food strategy is sparse in terms of actual figures surrounding output, farm income etc.
When it comes to the sheep sector, the commentary specific to the sector is even more sparse, with sheep only referenced directly several times throughout.
An optimist might take from this that the sector does not have similar environmental concerns or constraints which are now raised for other sectors. The strong theme repeatedly mentioned is that farmers are being asked to deliver a great environmental good but we have yet to see confirmation that they will be rewarded in any tangible way.
From first glance, discussions on carbon sequestration/carbon farming delivering a potential new source of income and consideration being given to the development of a dedicated programme for high-nature-value (HNV) farmland is something that sheep farmers could benefit from.
The devil will be in the detail though, and a move away from supporting food production to agri-environmental schemes which are results-based will not address farm income concerns.
This will be compounded by further cuts to a farmer’s single farm payment, while talks of removing 10% of land from production and the possibility of further constraints on farming practices in HNV farmland is disconcerting.
Sheep farmers will be looking for some clarity and a clear direction in the final report this summer.
– Darren Carty, sheep and schemes editor
Measures will hit dairy
incomes but ultimately cost
the environment more
According to the UN, 690m people went to sleep hungry last night. That’s equivalent to the combined population of the EU and Brazil.
This new strategy document is an announcement to the world that Ireland no longer wants to help contribute to ending world hunger. Nor does it want to increase its supply of low-carbon-footprint meat and dairy on to the world market.
Rather than listening to international NGOs such as the UN, the authors of this report have acted upon the advice of local environmental NGOs who hate that Ireland exports food and who seem to believe Ireland has its own atmosphere, instead of being a part of planet Earth.
Their gripe is that farming contributes over 30% to Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions and so it must be curtailed.
Profit is mentioned just 13 times in the 144-page document. Brought to its logical conclusion, the Government now wants livestock farmers in Ireland to become organic oat growers, simply because it is perceived to be the most benign thing they can do with their land while still farming it.
Not alone will the measures contained in this strategy document erode profit and reduce competitiveness among Irish dairy farmers, the insular policies will hasten global warming as the food that Ireland could produce will be produced elsewhere, at higher environmental cost.
– Aidan Brennan, dairy editor
Core income issues not addressed for tillage
This strategy document is the first to give any real recognition to the contribution of tillage and horticultural cropping. It recognises the carbon efficiency of the sectors and sets out aspirations to hold or increase current areas.
But at the same time, it commits to a 50% pesticide reduction – surely policy should aim to provide alternative solutions before committing to this as an objective.
Ultimately, the report fails to address the falling profitability that is forcing reductions in crop area and grower numbers as growers are being stripped of both profit and land.
Both sectors have markets that are dominated by imports, much of which do not have to adhere to high EU food production standards.
Many such products are exported at a loss to secure a market but they affect native prices. Yet there seems to be an acceptance that food prices will not rise, which makes the achievement of sustainability targets highly questionable.
There is nothing in this report that acknowledges the need to support native production through either food miles or carbon foot printing.
Ultimately, the current “system” has failed farmers and that has been supported by historic policy.
While it is totally devoid of specifics to help primary producers, many of the policy aspirations should still be welcomed. But reward for carbon capture is aspirational and may not yield income within the time span of this report. Increased nutrient integration across sectors is welcome but this is an old proposal and nothing has happened so far.
– Andy Doyle, tillage editor
The strategy sets out ambitions to scale-up renewable energy on farms, especially anaerobic digestion, solar and energy efficiency. It sets a target to reduce agricultural energy use by at least 20% and encourage at least 20% up-take of renewable energy technologies on farm by 2030.
It will achieve this primarily through the micro-generation scheme which is due to be introduced later this year. Farmers will be able to install renewable electricity technologies on to their farms to displace their imported energy usage. Excess electricity generated (max 30% of total capacity of system) will be able to be sold to the grid.
The documents also say that the role of anaerobic digestion in converting low-value material to higher-value material, treating waste and producing chemical building blocks, fuel or power and heating will be explored. The document doesn’t state how the sector will be supported, however.
The document outlines how this approach will help the green image of the agri-food sector both nationally and globally, reduce on-farm emissions helping to achieve the country’s climate neutrality objectives and produce diversification options for farmers.
– Stephen Robb,
renewables specialist
Strategy does not
meet all three
sustainability measures
Sustainability is mentioned about 160 times in the strategy. Environmental sustainability is the focus, but are the three pillars of sustainability covered – economics, environment and social? Unfortunately, for this draft document, the answer has to be no.
If 10% of farmed area is dedicated to biodiversity, will farms be economically viable? A tillage farm growing cereals, beans and oilseed rape along with hedgerows and other habitats like woodlands or an extensive livestock farm with diverse swards and habitats are surely diverse.
Will 10% be set aside across all farms without any consideration of what is on the farm already? Will Irish agriculture store as much carbon with fewer animals in livestock systems?
The benefits of clover are clear on nitrogen reduction, but on-farm research and advice is needed to gain confidence in its establishment and persistence in swards. The strategy outlines?the aim to reduce pesticide use by 50% and to use new breeding techniques as a tool to do this, while suggesting an increase in the tillage area.
While there is room for improvement in pesticide efficiency, Ireland’s climate allows for high crop yields, but also high disease levels which call for plant protection products. Techniques like gene-editing are currently categorised as genetic modification and so cannot be used in the EU. Agriculture uses about 50% of the pesticides sold in Ireland. One wonders if the remaining 50% of non-farming use will also be cut.
Looking at the social pillar, the draft strategy pays little attention to what will happen rural Ireland if agricultural production is to be reduced. Who will employ the farmers and agricultural industry? Who will keep rural Ireland working when the mart closes down?
The great hope is that consumers will pay a premium for food produced in a sustainable manner, which Ireland already claims to do.
The draft document seems to raise more questions than answers. The strategy needs to be sustainable on all three counts, not just one.
– Siobhán Walsh, sustainability specialist
Beef sector well
positioned for challenges
We need to stop talking about our national herd and split our animals up into three different national herds – the dairy herd, the suckler herd and the dairy-beef herd.
At the moment, the suckler herd is contracting at 1% per annum so if this trend continues, meeting a target of 10% reduction in biogenic methane won’t be an issue on suckler farms.
This, coupled with progress being made in the genetic replacement index of suckler cows, puts the suckler herd on a sound footing to meet the challenges ahead. Increasing numbers of dairy-beef calves will be an issue but dealing with this problem should not fall solely to beef farmers.
There seems to be a greater emphasis in the strategy document on dairy-beef systems, including a Teagasc campaign on dairy beef and a Teagasc demonstration farm backed by dairy and beef processors, to demonstrate dairy beef as a viable alternative to suckler beef. The push for this is worrying, especially for more extensive farms.
Limiting fertiliser use while increasing habitat areas and low-emission slurry spreading won’t be an issue for the vast majority of suckler beef farms.
More intensively stocked beef farms and participants in the BEAM scheme will be watching with interest as to what year the reference year will be to meet the proposed 10% reduction target.
The 10% reduction could quickly turn into a 15% reduction for BEAM participants.
In terms of environmental and economic sustainability, bull beef, which is not mentioned at all in the strategy, is staring us in the face as an opportunity to make progress on Irish beef farms, yet beef processors have strangled the system into almost nonexistence. This is to the detriment of farmers’ income and farm efficiency.
– Adam Woods, beef editor
Strategy report short of
sheep-specific details
As already stressed by others, the draft agri-food strategy is sparse in terms of actual figures surrounding output, farm income etc.
When it comes to the sheep sector, the commentary specific to the sector is even more sparse, with sheep only referenced directly several times throughout.
An optimist might take from this that the sector does not have similar environmental concerns or constraints which are now raised for other sectors. The strong theme repeatedly mentioned is that farmers are being asked to deliver a great environmental good but we have yet to see confirmation that they will be rewarded in any tangible way.
From first glance, discussions on carbon sequestration/carbon farming delivering a potential new source of income and consideration being given to the development of a dedicated programme for high-nature-value (HNV) farmland is something that sheep farmers could benefit from.
The devil will be in the detail though, and a move away from supporting food production to agri-environmental schemes which are results-based will not address farm income concerns.
This will be compounded by further cuts to a farmer’s single farm payment, while talks of removing 10% of land from production and the possibility of further constraints on farming practices in HNV farmland is disconcerting.
Sheep farmers will be looking for some clarity and a clear direction in the final report this summer.
– Darren Carty, sheep and schemes editor
Measures will hit dairy
incomes but ultimately cost
the environment more
According to the UN, 690m people went to sleep hungry last night. That’s equivalent to the combined population of the EU and Brazil.
This new strategy document is an announcement to the world that Ireland no longer wants to help contribute to ending world hunger. Nor does it want to increase its supply of low-carbon-footprint meat and dairy on to the world market.
Rather than listening to international NGOs such as the UN, the authors of this report have acted upon the advice of local environmental NGOs who hate that Ireland exports food and who seem to believe Ireland has its own atmosphere, instead of being a part of planet Earth.
Their gripe is that farming contributes over 30% to Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions and so it must be curtailed.
Profit is mentioned just 13 times in the 144-page document. Brought to its logical conclusion, the Government now wants livestock farmers in Ireland to become organic oat growers, simply because it is perceived to be the most benign thing they can do with their land while still farming it.
Not alone will the measures contained in this strategy document erode profit and reduce competitiveness among Irish dairy farmers, the insular policies will hasten global warming as the food that Ireland could produce will be produced elsewhere, at higher environmental cost.
– Aidan Brennan, dairy editor
Core income issues not addressed for tillage
This strategy document is the first to give any real recognition to the contribution of tillage and horticultural cropping. It recognises the carbon efficiency of the sectors and sets out aspirations to hold or increase current areas.
But at the same time, it commits to a 50% pesticide reduction – surely policy should aim to provide alternative solutions before committing to this as an objective.
Ultimately, the report fails to address the falling profitability that is forcing reductions in crop area and grower numbers as growers are being stripped of both profit and land.
Both sectors have markets that are dominated by imports, much of which do not have to adhere to high EU food production standards.
Many such products are exported at a loss to secure a market but they affect native prices. Yet there seems to be an acceptance that food prices will not rise, which makes the achievement of sustainability targets highly questionable.
There is nothing in this report that acknowledges the need to support native production through either food miles or carbon foot printing.
Ultimately, the current “system” has failed farmers and that has been supported by historic policy.
While it is totally devoid of specifics to help primary producers, many of the policy aspirations should still be welcomed. But reward for carbon capture is aspirational and may not yield income within the time span of this report. Increased nutrient integration across sectors is welcome but this is an old proposal and nothing has happened so far.
– Andy Doyle, tillage editor
The strategy sets out ambitions to scale-up renewable energy on farms, especially anaerobic digestion, solar and energy efficiency. It sets a target to reduce agricultural energy use by at least 20% and encourage at least 20% up-take of renewable energy technologies on farm by 2030.
It will achieve this primarily through the micro-generation scheme which is due to be introduced later this year. Farmers will be able to install renewable electricity technologies on to their farms to displace their imported energy usage. Excess electricity generated (max 30% of total capacity of system) will be able to be sold to the grid.
The documents also say that the role of anaerobic digestion in converting low-value material to higher-value material, treating waste and producing chemical building blocks, fuel or power and heating will be explored. The document doesn’t state how the sector will be supported, however.
The document outlines how this approach will help the green image of the agri-food sector both nationally and globally, reduce on-farm emissions helping to achieve the country’s climate neutrality objectives and produce diversification options for farmers.
– Stephen Robb,
renewables specialist
This is a subscriber-only article
SHARING OPTIONS: