The publication of the Food Vision beef and sheep report is the first time a report stated a reduction in animal numbers is required to meet our climate change targets. Thia Hennessy deserves a lot of credit for this unpalatable inclusion. She has delivered an honest and succinct summation of the options available in the face of a legally binding commitment to reduce agricultural emissions by 25%. It is now up to the Government to formulate the suckler exit plan and how that will be funded.

We shouldn’t kid ourselves when we see farm organisations opt to reserve judgement on the report. This merely translates into a reluctance to accept the consequences of a legally binding commitment which they have effectively signed up to. The dogs on the street knew we couldn’t meet the 25% target without reducing animal numbers. The Irish Farmers Journal KPMG report outlined that 18% was as far as we could go without reduced animal numbers. Farm organisations knew this but so far have danced around it, avoiding dealing with the hard questions. Reserving judgement on the Food Vision beef and sheep report is another jig in the dance.

The dairy lobby have had their say. They have the tools and financial power to make a compelling argument for no restrictions to be placed on dairy cow numbers. They also have the profitability to invest in emissions reduction technologies. The economic argument has swayed the policymakers to look at the struggling suckler sector as their prey of choice in meeting our emissions targets.