The new economic impact assessment of the tillage sector, commissioned by Tillage Industry Ireland and launched this week, provides a long-awaited evaluation of the contribution of tillage farming to Irish agriculture.

The tillage sector could be classed as the long-forgotten child. However, it is very much part of Irish agriculture and is particularly important in the rural regions where it occupies a significant area.

While tillage is mainly concentrated in counties in the east and south, it provides a range of products to most other areas of the country. Unfortunately, some of these tillage areas are being badly affected again this year following the combination of winter wet and summer drought.

The report, prepared by Prof Michael Wallace of the UCD School of Agriculture and Food Science, puts the economic output value of the tillage sector at €1.3bn. This is made up of €636.6m in farmgate value, plus an additional multiplier effect based on a coefficient of 1.05 for the crops in question. This adds an additional €670m to the value of the output.

The fact that tillage has long been ignored by Government policy and agricultural leaders has contributed to its decline over the past few decades. Also this week, Andy Doyle reports that the overall tillage crop area has decreased by 42% over the past 40 years. Despite this area reduction, the sector has still managed to hold cereal output levels at around 2.3m tonnes and this is testament to its ability to take on new technology for improved efficiency. Technology continues to drive increased output, reduced costs – or increased throughput.

In recent years, there has been an increasing appreciation of the value of rotations, of soil health, of soil structure and of the need to give something back to the soil if output is to be increased. This process is really only beginning and it leaves old tillage land with low organic matter in a good position to store carbon as this new potential income source evolves. It also provides an opportunity to utilise nutrients from housed livestock sectors.

The area of land in tillage farming has dropped by 57,400ha in the past decade – or 14,200 acres per year on average ... with most of it lost to dairying

The tillage area could also provide a pressure relief valve for the expanding livestock sector as continued pressure is applied to the nitrates derogation stocking rate threshold.

While this country is mainly in grass, the growing of crops is an essential part of our overall biodiversity. Having more crop options, especially protein-producing break crops that reduce overall farm nitrogen requirement, can only help the national cause. Every effort must be made to protect water and air quality.

The area of land in tillage farming has dropped by 57,400ha in the past decade – or 14,200 acres per year on average. This was partly driven by weather difficulties and the expansion in dairying but mostly by the erosion in profitability by having to compete with cheap imports.

It would seem that most of the lost area went to dairying as rented land changed use and a number of tillage farms changed enterprise. If this trend continues, there will not be adequate tillage land to provide an outlet for animal manures, to help provide that diversity in our landscape and to provide that essential habitat for a number of our bird species.

Biodiversity, lower emissions and a strong potential for carbon storage are all good reasons why we need a strong and vibrant tillage sector. Our nationally branded livestock-based exports would benefit from having native feed sources sitting alongside our grass-based brands and all Protected Geographical Indications (PGI) should include native grain in the specifications.

All farming sectors need to support one another but as tillage shrinks the environmental challenges facing other sectors increase.

The tillage sector can help greatly in the national effort to capture and store carbon, still has a huge potential to displace imports, is essential to supplement exports and it must have considerable potential to increase its premium product level above the current 20% with industry and Government backing.

Dairy: transparency remains crucial

Following last week’s open letter to milk suppliers, we have been inundated with queries from Aurivo and Arrabawn dairy farmers as to why both have pulled out of the manufacturing milk price review.

Four members of an outer representative committee of Arrabawn rang on Thursday last week as it was the first they had heard or seen of Arrabawn taking this position. Surely the views of these farmers are important to consider in advance of making such a decision? A young farmer who might not know how, what or why such a change is happening has every right to express a view or comment without fear or recrimination.

The long and short of this is that Aurivo and Arrabawn want to include the pot of money that goes to liquid milk farmers into a manufacturing milk price review. They claim the current definition – of manufacturing milk purchased and used in the manufacturing process – is old fashioned, not comparable to European benchmarks and allows some processors too much leeway for including other bonuses while discriminating against liquid milk suppliers.

The reality is the authors of the review have no issue with premiums received by liquid milk farmers – they deserve all they get and more. Liquid milk farmers only have access to a restricted volume of liquid premiums. While including this money in a milk price review may make the business look better, it will reduce the accuracy of what the majority of milk suppliers are being paid. Any exercise must aim to reflect accuracy of the objective.

Following last week’s letter, Arrabawn chair Edward Carr sent out a letter to suppliers suggesting they want clarity on transparency. However, by pulling out of the milk price review, it would appear that they have pulled a veil down over transparency and comparability, which could leave their suppliers in the dark.

CAP: IFA submission

Whatever schemes are developed for Pillar 2 funding, they must work for all farmers – extensive or more intensive. One point of interest which is very clear from the IFA pre-budget submission is its carbon tax policy.

The submission claims that as there is no viable alternative to using agri-diesel and other agri-fuels, the application of the carbon tax cannot incentivise behavioural change, and therefore these fuels should be exempt from the carbon tax.

Also in the submission, the other item that could have very big consequences for some farmers is the classification of farmland as commercial.

In Budget 2020, stamp duty was increased from 6% to 7.5% for commercial property, which included farms. Agriculture is a low-margin, highly capital-intensive business, which requires investment in its primary asset: land. IFA claims agriculture must be removed from the commercial definition and revised in line with the residential stamp duty charge of 1% up to €1m, and 2% thereafter.

EU: what is EU doing on farm retirement?

In this week’s edition, Barry Cassidy reports on farm retirement initiatives across Europe. We understand the European Commission still sees a place for payment top-ups and installation aid in CAP, but also sees the need to fund greater co-operation.

It is fair to say the concept of real partnerships have struggled in Ireland – especially of late. Unless these partnerships are matched with changes to taxation and incentives by Revenue, they will struggle to be established.

Bogs: Land-use proposals

Taking the draft proposals from the National Parks and Wildlife Service and IFA concerns on rewetting bogs, it is clear consultation is needed on how to manage high-value nature areas. Farmers need to be central in this and rushing any plan or designation will only hamper long-term success.

Read more

Pressure to get a deal sees EU commitment to CAP reduced

Being part of a family farm is something special but it’s not worth dying for