Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The issue of the total cost involves a mindset people need to grasp. An old concept which might have been used by ACOT was that of standard man days. Using it, one could very easily calculate the amount of time involved and extrapolate from it the actual cost of production, even on mixed-use farms, irrespective of the set-up. It may be an old principle, but it is certainly applicable.

I thank both Professor Boyle and Dr. O'Dwyer. The key to the biggest indigenous industry is knowledge. It is matter of knowledge transfer. We sometimes tend to forget that Teagasc is a rare breed, particularly in terms of research. It draws almost all of its funding from independent sources. Certainly, if it is funded by industry, it is done in such a way as to ensure it remains completely independent. The approach to the dairy herd is typical in this regard. Any organisation involved in research, giving advice, training and education in what is our biggest indigenous industry has to be a key to everything that happens in the industry.

The committee might have focused a little on carbon and greenhouse gas emissions. We produced a land use report, to which both Teagasc and the EPA contributed. Last week I presented it to Commissioner Hogan. It forms the basis of many of the arguments made. Soil science, farm management and animal herd health status are keys, as is the efficiency of food production. It is exactly as Professor Boyle said on the basis of emissions per kilo of product produced. There is no point in giving up on this simply because it reduces the overall percentage.

If one were to be flippant about it, if German car manufacturers moved here, we could reduce the percentage in a simpler way and achieve the same target. However, that is too simplistic for this serious matter.

Members will have found today's meeting refreshing. Teagasc, alongside policy-makers, is important in terms of changing the mindset. Collectively, we point the ship in a particular direction. We have spent far too long, and still do, concentrating on what the best outcome from payment schemes might be as opposed to having better before bigger, skill before scale and improving behind-the-gate efficiencies. The only way we will fulfil all the aspirations for rural development is to have a healthy agricultural community that makes money from what it produces. Otherwise, this will not work. We are too dependent on fighting a battle every five or six years on a Common Agricultural Policy that will inevitably change into a public good policy. We need a land use policy that goes beyond CAP. The Commission for the Economic Development of Rural Areas goes a good way towards this. In a countryside like ours, agriculture has been key but overlooked in recent times because of industries that appreciated land values in other ways that proved a folly. We should revert to the original principle. I hope that our committee will keep this issue in the public domain. Teagasc's contributions by way of its annual report and its presentation today are important.

I was going to ask one or two questions on the issue of schemes. Teagasc should be consulted by departmental officials on the design of the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, as it will be Teagasc that will implement it. This is not a criticism of anyone, but doing this would streamline the process so that, when the closing date arrives, people will be able to meet it. As the key planner, it is important that Teagasc be involved with departmental officials throughout.

That is my piece. We will adjourn for a fortnight. We will have no meeting next week because it happens to be our national day, so I wish everyone an enjoyable day, but not too enjoyable.