A new report has called for the environmental credentials of Irish grain used in animal feed to be quantified and for markets to be developed for Irish-grown products.

The report, entitled ‘Crops 2030– A strategic plan to deliver environmental and economic sustainability for the Irish Crops Sector’, was launched on Thursday 27 August.

Produced by the Teagasc Tillage Stakeholder Consultative Group, it provides a review of the current state of the industry, along with a set of actions to help both the sector itself and Irish agriculture in general.

Tackling GHG emissions and sustainability

One of the actions recommended in the report is the need to further develop and quantify the environmental credentials of Irish grain used in animal production systems.

This is seen as critical to support the displacement of imports with poorer greenhouse gas (GHG) and sustainability credentials.

The push towards improved sustainability credentials is a challenge across the industry

Acknowledging the fact that tillage, as a land use, has a good sustainability footprint, the push towards improved sustainability credentials is a challenge across the industry. This is coming both from consumers and EU policy initiatives.

While the report identifies that specialist Irish tillage farms emit an estimated 1.18t of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) per hectare, which is much lower than the output from livestock, it also implies that land lost from crop production leaves the livestock sector with an even greater task regarding emissions reduction.

Improvements

With improvements in sustainability credentials becoming an increasingly important requirement across the food chain, all agricultural producers are being asked to show how they are improving.

In this regard, we are beginning to see livestock products ask about the sustainability and emissions profile of the feed ingredients they use and this will become increasingly relevant for assurance schemes.

Native grains can carry a much lower environmental footprint than some imported equivalents or substitutes.

In this regard, it is interesting to read from the report that the equivalent CO2-e emissions figure for South American maize is put at 27t/ha.

While this is likely to be among the worst of the GHG emissions ratings (probably related to rain forest destruction), it also gives the equivalent figure for US maize at 4.0t/ha CO2-e.

As livestock producers strive to lower their emissions footprint, the origin of their feed ingredients will matter more. But we need a proven basis for all such emission values to make this work.

Using Irish

Another action point from the report suggests that the industry should work with Bord Bia and other stakeholders to develop a national approach to increase the use of Irish grown products (cereal foods, oats, cold pressed rape oil, etc) and to further develop markets, both nationally and internationally.

It is very much in the national interest to support, in as far as possible, the claims of being Irish associated with our exports.

Our increasing dependence on imports, for feeds, drinks, foods, etc, will, in time, undermine our credibility in export markets where consumers continue to ask more about all elements of provenance.

Irish cereals have not been part of livestock quality assurance schemes to date because Bord Bia says that the sector does itself not have a credible assurance scheme.

Origin

While there is a wish that Irish grains be part of the assurance systems, Bord Bia says that schemes cannot specify origin and so the question arises as to where the benefit of additional assurance cost would come from.

To have this issue actioned in this report may help to bring some clarity to the questions that lie around this issue.

A further action proposed suggests the development of ambitious targets for the inclusion of native cereals and proteins into existing meat and milk Quality Assurance schemes.

Any such initiative to encourage the use of Irish grains in livestock systems must really be driven by end users

This may be more challenging because of the inability to insist on native grain as part of the process. There may well be some anomaly here because our QA schemes would hardly allow imported meat or milk to be processed and go back out using a Bord Bia logo or a nation flag.

That said, any such initiative to encourage the use of Irish grains in livestock systems must really be driven by end users.

Do native grains provide additional assurance to livestock producers who must also meet increasing challenges and costs?

QA schemes may not be able to specify the use of native or EU grains, but they may be able to credit their use where livestock producers choose to use ‘local’ to help them meet sustainability objectives to which they are being increasingly exposed.

For more on the report, see next week's Irish Farmers Journal.