If you have been following the series over the past month or so, you will know there is a clear division between farmers and industry suckler leaders on many different levels.

Most farmers are hurting from months of successive price cuts and many are uncertain about the future. Many are not convinced that the systems they have deployed for years will be what the market requires in the future.

The industry leaders have all been singing from the same hymn sheet. They wants the sector to continue to progress and they see a clear and strong future for the suckler herd in its current form. However, they have not been dealing with falling profits.

As John Shirley said in week two of the series: “The suckler cow is a national asset.” The beef sector is worth in excess of €2bn to the Irish economy, and it would appear that a lot of stakeholders are making money from the suckler cow, except the suckler farmer.

Teagasc has been praised in recent weeks for offering leadership to farmers on breeding. It has also laid out the terms of what an efficient beef farmer needs to do to make profit – central to this is achieving a minimum of €4/kg for beef. It did sound caution with the impending increase of dairy animals coming on stream in coming years.

Joe Burke of Bord Bia has clearly stated that its consumers in Britain and mainland Europe have a preference for the type of animal we have been producing. Burke said cattle bred from the suckler herd are “significantly more” valuable than dairy or beef-crosses out of the dairy herd.

The beef processors, too, say the future of the suckler herd is “fundamentally sound” but stress the need for increased use of improved breeding and genetics for better cattle. This is what the Department of Agriculture also set about to achieve under the Beef Technology Adoption Programme (BTAP) and the Beef Genomics Scheme (BGS).

The efforts of the Department of Agriculture to improve the genetics of the herd are admirable and necessary, but how successful have they been?

It is true that farmers could and, perhaps, should do more with regard to improving breeding on-farm, and the 50% sign-up to the BGS shows that not everyone is committed to improving the genetics of the national herd.

However, farmers need to see a future in the beef sector before they invest in such systems. For that, it is important to look at the gross profit margin trend for the suckler sector over the past decade or so. Teagasc National Farm Surveys have consistently shown that suckler farmers generate significantly less than their dairy or tillage counterparts.

From 1999 to the present day, the gross profit margin for most dairy farmers has been approximately €1,200 to €1,500/ha, while suckler farmers have a return of just €200 to €500/ha.

It is evident that suckling will continue to be the backbone of the Irish beef sector. Its importance – not only to the €2bn beef trade, but also to the wider economy – cannot be underestimated. It calls to mind the old adage “too big to fail”. However, it raises the question – have policy makers become complacent with regard to the suckler farmer?

Perhaps, but there needs to be an admission of guilt from both sides.

Most farmers need to be more proactive regarding grass management, correct breeding and cost watching.

The industry needs to stop assuming that the suckler farmer, in his/her current guise, will be forever. The impending abolition of dairy quotas is going to play an enormous role in the suckler/beef sector and most of us are unsure as to what that will be.

Guidance is needed. Financial and advisory support is required.

As Trevor Boland said in week three of the series, we are just a few weeks away from the critical autumn weanling trade and most farmers still don’t know what animal they need produce for the ring.

Overall, the main conclusion we would draw from the series is that farmers want to farm and the industry wants farmers to farm. There is a financially sustainable future, but only if everyone pulls together.