Earlier this week I attended, in Brussels, what has become the largest agricultural conference in the world.

When I first went, the event was organised by Franz Fischler in association with the European Landowners Association and Syngenta, the agri-chemicals company. They held it in a picturesque old library. This week, there were 1,800 delegates from all over the world. But before the main sessions there were a number of technical presentations. One was of critical importance to Ireland.

This was the question of whether the growth of livestock numbers in Europe should be curtailed in the interests of the broad environment. Broad involves the effects on soil and water as well as greenhouse gases. Nobody is calling for a large-scale abandonment of meat as a necessary food. As I mentioned last week the most reputable scientists and nutritionists have identified the lack of animal protein – milk and meat – as a critical factor in the physical and mental stunting of children in developing countries, a stunting from which they never recover. But where should this animal production be concentrated? The seminar question was, “what is the safe operating space”? For animals including bovines, already we see Irish livestock farmers, especially dairy farmers, subject to a nitrates limit of 250kg of organic nitrogen/ha.

While in the Netherlands, we see the compulsory reduction in pig numbers and in dairy cows where as well as nitrates, phosphate limits are also driving policy. All of these reductions have been stimulated by soil and water considerations but in my view, some kind of carbon/greenhouse gas emission limits are inevitably coming down the tracks. Because Irish agriculture is so bovine-based and because we have so little heavy carbon-generating industry, Ireland is uniquely exposed to policy developments in this area.

We need, among other things, to ascertain the value of our grassland and forestry in sequestering carbon.

At this stage, in Brussels, a major policy paper is being prepared on this whole area. While it is hoped to have the project finished in June, it is clear that something along these lines is going to form a basis for future agricultural policy.

Side by side with greenhouse gas worries on the livestock, I was really surprised to be told that urea was much less environmentally friendly than calcium ammonium nitrate (CAN) – up to now the opposite was the general assumption. This is an important side issue and we deserve a clear answer.