It’s a long time since Irish farming faced so many uncertainties. I was surprised that climate change and the need to reduce greenhouse gases featured so strongly at the excellent Department Day in Croke Park.

It and the environment were key parts of European Commissioner for Agriculture Phil Hogan’s address. It is at this stage clear that a significant number of things can be achieved to reduce the emissions of carbon and other greenhouse gases – better breeding and efficiencies in the suckler herd are clearly priorities and are readily attainable, along with more direct drilling and use of protected urea instead of CAN in the tillage sector.

Obviously, protected urea can also be used on grass instead of CAN and its use should not result in any loss of efficiency through volatilisation.

Forestry

Forestry has also been identified as a key sequester of carbon and this is true as long as we are actively increasing our forest acreage. But the most authoritative view is that once the proportion of the national forestry crop that is being harvested increases to beyond the level that is being planted, then forestry actually becomes a net emitter of carbon rather than a net sequester. So, it’s fairly clear that the forestry target of about 8,000ha (20,000 acres) needs to be met rather than being badly missed as at present.

In the runup to the last general election, the Fine Gael manifesto was very clear in stating that the obligation to replant land from which trees had been harvested would be removed. For some inexplicable reason, this commitment was reversed and the situation is now that there is a legal obligation that land that is in forestry has to stay in forestry and has to be replanted with no planting grant or premium payments. This strikes me as ludicrous – granted, very low yield class land does not have to be replanted but that kind of land is hopelessly uneconomic for forestry in any event. But the core principle of the compulsion to replant once a tree crop is harvested is in my view, and the view of many connected with the sector, the single main reason why we are so consistently missing out on our forestry targets. The original manifesto commitment was correct. Its reversal was a policy mistake and should be corrected, ideally with some kind of stump removal grant and a smaller annual premium payable at least until the thinning stage.

Carbon and crop yields

Meanwhile, I went, last week, to another interesting climate change lecture. Nobody is disputing that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing some global warming – the key question is how much and to what effect.

That evening, two interesting points emerged. The first question posed was: is the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere contributing to the record crop yields on a worldwide basis that we have seen for the last number of years? The second question raised and the main subject of the evening was the issue of the cosmic rays and the solar cycle of 11 years coinciding with predictable movements in temperature and climate.

Both issues should at least be borne in mind as we adapt to husbandry changes in farming.