Last week, I mentioned the difference in the traceability requirements of Brazilian versus Irish beef. I had a few calls questioning my version, in particular, questioning whether Brazilian beef farms were eligible to send their beef to Europe when they could provide traceability for their cattle for just the last 70 days of life versus the full-lifetime traceability that exists in the Irish cattle industry.

The short answer is yes. The facts as given last week are correct and it is these differences in standards that must provide the core of the EU case in discussing a Mercosur agreement between Europe and the South American countries.

The IFA is right to protest but it is not just in the Mercosur discussion that farmers are in the firing line. There seems to be a growing and unhealthy view developing that Irish agriculture and Irish farmers are somehow holding back the country from contributing its “fair share” towards being “a leader in the fight against climate change”.

It seems too politically incorrect to even enquire as to why Ireland should aspire to be a leader in combatting climate change. Certainly we must fulfil our legal obligations but I fail to see why our farming and food industry should not lobby and argue for the best possible national outcome. This best national outcome can only be based on two approaches:

1. Getting our actual production of ruminant products as efficient as possible. In other words, that each litre of milk or kilogramme of beef takes place with as small a carbon footprint as possible. Genetics and husbandry practices are the key elements here and we are already well up the European and world league but more progress is always possible.

2. The second approach is mitigation – in other words, through research and technology, reducing the amount of greenhouse gases produced or increasing the amount of carbon that is captured. Here again we can look forward to real progress.

The use of protected urea can dramatically reduce emissions, as can reduced tillage technology as well as increased forestry.

There are also promising signs that some additives to feedstuffs can reduce the output of methane.

We are also only at the beginning of using technologies that can trap and use gasses from cattle, especially when housed over the winter. We have been subjected to an endless tirade of how agriculture is the guilty party in this climate change debate.

It’s time more balanced voices were raised and heeded.