The confirmation of a reduction of 200,000 cows in the suckler herd over the last decade is the equivalent of sacrificing an annual output of give or take €0.5bn.

Depending on how you measure it, total Irish annual farm income is roughly €3bn per year, so reducing output by the equivalent of about €0.5bn equates to one-sixth or 16% of annual farm income.

This reduction in stock numbers has been met with public satisfaction in some quarters on the basis that it reduces greenhouse gas emissions, which is true. But there are a few caveats before we continue down this road.

ADVERTISEMENT

First it is notable, as covered in last week’s Irish Farmers Journal, that the other major grass-based agricultural economy, New Zealand, with whom Ireland is co-operating scientifically, has adjusted its greenhouse gas reduction targets to a 24% reduction by 2050.

We are sticking to our 25% reduction for the agricultural sector by 2030.

We are also taking active steps, at farmers’ expense, to meet this target by imposing a number of conditions such as low-emission slurry spreading, for which it should be acknowledged there is aid under the TAMS scheme.

We are also banning the use of standard urea in favour of the protected variety, at an extra cost that can vary from as low as €40/t to as much as €100/t. Again the bill comes back to the farmer.

None of this would matter particularly if all the other players in the global food production business were operating under the same conditions, but even in the dairy sector we see US production exploding with cheap grain now that China is no longer a customer.

In addition, there are no limitations as a result of greenhouse gas or climate considerations. The same lack of controls apply to South America and Russia.

As farmers, we can respect the right of European policymakers to set conditions and standards that meet their objectives in climate and environmental matters, even if we disagree with some of the underlying assumptions.

The other side of the coin has to be that policies that raise costs or penalise competitiveness have to be accompanied by appropriate compensation.

That could be by direct cash compensation or by stricter controls on entry to EU markets to be worked out for each product.

First step

But the first step has to be to measure the cost of the reduced competitiveness and then set the appropriate policies.

With all the muddled thinking, it was refreshing to see a recent article in the Lancet – a widely read specialist scientific publication – pointing out that net zero emission targets for food production are utterly unrealistic.

The Lancet has not normally been regarded as looking favourably on agriculture and particularly on meat consumption, but in its latest report, while repeating its call for less red meat consumption, the wide range of authors have called for decarbonising of transport and electricity to be prioritised.

This echoes the often-quoted Paris climate accord, which agreed that food production should not be jeopordised.