Investment in agriculture and food research is by far one of the best ways to spend public monies.

The typical rate of return from such investment is in the 40%+ range.

There are simply no other uses of public funds that come even close to this level of return.

The reason for the exceptional returns is that a successful research investment generates a flow of future benefits that are cumulative and long-lasting.

But once that new technology becomes embedded in practice, it yields dividends for several years after its development, and in some cases these dividends are permanent

There’s an initial cost to develop a new technology that may involve the allocation of resources over several years.

But once that new technology becomes embedded in practice, it yields dividends for several years after its development, and in some cases these dividends are permanent.

Success

The ingredients for success are threefold. The technology itself will have an impact through, for example, improving yield per hectare or per animal. Second, the scale of the sector where this technology is adopted will affect its economic impact. And the rate of adoption of the technology within the sector is the third critical factor.

One of the best Irish examples of a research investment that has generated exceptional returns is the economic breeding index (EBI). In 2005/06, the relative profit per lactation was about €30.

The EBI has generated phenomenal cost-benefit returns because the three success factors were present

It’s grown by over 15% per year since then – boosted by the development of DNA selection in 2009 – to in excess of €300 today. The benefit-cost ratio on the investment in EBI has been estimated to be 17.

In other words, for every €1m invested in the EBI, the return has been €17m.

The EBI has generated phenomenal cost-benefit returns because the three success factors were present.

Research demonstrated that poor dairy cow fertility was a major inhibitor to profitability. The scale of the dairy sector is obvious. And the path towards adoption was assured through the use of AI.

A number of other factors also needed to be in place. The establishment of ICBF and the critical ownership of breeding data by farmers were essential enabling factors.

The role of advisers in promoting the EBI was also of critical importance.

Two challenges stand out: animal health and the production of biogenic methane

Most successful technologies in agriculture are embodied in the inputs that farmers use. Fertilisers and hybrid seeds are the classic examples and in the case of the EBI, the input is the semen straw. The pathway to adoption is clear and the decision rule for the farmer is simple.

Research can’t stand still however. Despite the successes to date in animal breeding, we face further challenges that require a renewed research effort and additional investment.

Two challenges stand out: animal health and the production of biogenic methane.

On both counts, the information that is available points to the potential for incorporating traits in breeding indices.

Heritability factors in animal health diseases like respiratory diseases, mastitis, lameness and Johne’s fall in the range 0.05 to 0.10. But as Donagh Berry points out, what’s really important in devising a breeding programme that selects for resistance is the variation to disease in the population.

It would appear that there is sufficient variation for the important diseases to provide a prima facie basis for incorporating health traits into our breeding indices.

Methane

In more recent times, selecting cattle that are low producers of methane has emerged as one possible strategy to mitigate climate change.

It’s stating the obvious that given the centrality of cattle enterprises to the agricultural economy, and the immense challenges for the sector to meet its climate change obligations, that a research programme on the topic has to be considered seriously and urgently.

Tully trials

Data from trials at Tully point to the potential benefits of a breeding programme that selects for low methane-producing sires. Based on a total slaughtered cattle population of 1.3m head, the gains in reduced CO2 equivalent could be of the order of 7,000t for a 120-day finishing system.

If the slaughtered cattle population were produced on a 28-month system, the gains could be around 25,000t.

While these gains might seem relatively small, when compared with the total amount of emissions that an animal produces, it should be remembered that the real value of genetic gains is that they are cumulative and persist for a long time.

An investment programme to incorporate carbon traits into the breeding indices will of course require additional public funds

In other words, after the initial investment to generate a robust breeding index that captures a low-emissions trait, the benefits in terms of reduced emissions will begin to flow in each subsequent year and persist for several years with insignificant annual costs.

And it should also be borne in mind that carbon has an economic value, albeit not realised yet in the agricultural sector.

An investment programme to incorporate carbon traits into the breeding indices will of course require additional public funds but a relatively modest investment now will more than pay for itself through the flow of reduced emissions into the future.

But even if the investment were made available, it needs to be noted that it could take eight to 10 years to see the outcomes reflected in the breeding indices.