Farmers attending the Moorepark open days this week expecting to see some new shiny piece of technology that would boost profitability and address environmental challenges were left disappointed.

Instead, researchers and advisers doubled-down on the importance of getting the basics right in developing a dairy industry that is both economically and environmentally sustainable.

While often viewed as conflicting objectives, the research proves otherwise. Since the abolition of quota, profitability has increased from €773/ha to €1,429/ha. It is still far short of what Teagasc believes is achievable, while at the same time reducing the environmental footprint of the sector.

As Aidan Brennan reports this week, Dr Padraig French presented figures showing how a target figure of €2,452/ha net profit could be delivered – at the same time as reducing chemical nitrogen (N) use by 18% and concentrate fed per cow, from the current figure of 1.176t to less than 500kg. This reduction in concentrate feeding would, according to Dr Laurence Shalloo, reduce methane output nationally by 4%.

The Teagasc drive to dramatically reduce concentrate use on dairy farms will be met with criticism from some circles. At individual farm level, there will be those who are able to point out the economic benefits specific to their farm. But at national level, the Teagasc research in this area is well developed. Driving up stocking rate on the basis of increased concentrate feeding increases financial risk and erodes margin at farm level. At the same time, French argues that the environmental footprint is increased, sustainability credentials undermined and market value eroded as “grass-fed” opportunities are lost.

The Teagasc message remains consistent: match stocking rate to grass utilisation on the farm

Regardless of where you sit on the debate, the challenge put by French to justify a dairy model reliant on importing feed from all over the world to produce milk only to export it back out to the rest of the world is difficult – from an environmental and economic perspective.

So, rather than present a silver bullet, the Teagasc message remains consistent: match stocking rate to grass utilisation on the farm. Grass utilisation was identified as the main driver of farm profitability, accounting for 50-60% of the profit differential between farms. In contrast, litres of milk accounted for just 10% of the differential.

Where the grass message has been tweaked to reflect the environmental challenges is with a much greater focus on nitrogen use efficiency (NUE). But again, the advice on how to improve NUE has been well rehearsed. Increased soil fertility, better utilisation of on-farm nutrients through LESS (low-emission slurry spreading) and the incorporation of clover are all identified as measures that will drive environmental sustainability while increasing farm profit.

The role of white clover is undoubtedly where Teagasc is betting big in terms of environmental wins: the ability to reduce N fertiliser by 50-100kg/ha in swards with clover content of 20-25%, justifying the target of increasing grass utilisation by 60%, while reducing chemical N use by 18%.

High N sward at 42 days after grazing, clover at 26%, cover of 3250 kg DM/ha.

Achieving and sustaining this level of clover content at a national level will be a challenge. But with grass utilisation now clearly identified as a driver of economic and environmental suitability, we should look at how funding under eco-schemes can be targeted to incentivise the uptake of these technologies. We should no longer just look at environmental grants being focused on building tanks to increase slurry storage and improved spreading techniques.

The scope should be expanded to incentivise additional measures that will improve NUE and increase grass utilisation on farms. Any strategy must be built on driving improved soil fertility. The Government’s €10m soil sampling programme, due to be rolled out this month, is a step in the right direction. But real change could be delivered if identifying and correcting nutrient deficiencies were incentivised under the next five-year CAP as part of measures contained within eco-schemes. The same argument is valid for incentivising farmers to improve grazing infrastructure to increase grass utilisation and maintain clover content. It equally applies to the adoption of improved breeding programmes.

Environmental challenges

Despite the image sometimes portrayed, it is clear Irish dairy farmers recognise and are prepared to respond to the environmental challenges. There was no sugar-coating of the message from Teagasc, whether in relation to water quality, animal welfare or climate change.

The Moorepark open day reinforces the opportunity that exists for Ireland’s sustainable grass-based dairy model to further develop in a global market where others face real constraints. Yes, action is required, but the science-led tools are available to develop a dairy industry that is more economically and environmentally sustainable. While farmers have a responsibility to adopt these tools, policymakers have a responsibility to develop science-led policy that supports their uptake.