Tom Barry (Cork East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

It is good to get this information into the public domain. The scheme has been fraught with confusion. It was introduced in rather a hurry and many people contacted us to say they were not sure whether to participate. The scheme is a good idea and down the road will prove valuable. We need to be very cautious and aware of the best way to implement it.

Mr. Gleeson mentioned the low carbon footprint throughout his document and to a great extent it is the basis of the scheme. He stated: “The agriculture sector accounts for a high percentage of our overall emissions." I hope the savings in carbon emissions will be passed on to the other sectors of agriculture, rather than to industry. Does that make sense? The number of dairy herds will increase and I hope that any benefits achieved at the expense of beef farmers will be kept in farming in general. I would like an assurance on that.

I understand the aim is to produce more beef efficiently, and Mr. Gleeson outlined other efficiencies, for example, eight calves for every ten cows, which would give a 20% efficiency. A total of 54 days out of every 365 are missing where another 14% or 15% could be picked up, giving a total of 35%. The stocking rate varies by 100%. There could be more benefit for farmers in examining their efficiencies within holdings rather than this scheme. I would be conscious of that because the profitability of most agricultural commodities is low.

Mr. Gleeson said the information on BDGP will help farmers retain their best animals but most farmers who rear sucklers professionally would know their best animals.

The benefit arises when farmers sell their animals at a mart or into the public domain, where people have a reference. It is similar to milk recording data in the case of cows in that one knows exactly what one is buying. The same principle should apply to leased land, as many people farming leased land do not have a clue about the fertility of the land they have leased.

There is a six-year commitment to this scheme. It is good to know that the Department is committed to it. Many people have contacted me about this scheme. In one case a retiring farmer wanted to reduce his herd from 60 to 30, but that would preclude him from participating in the scheme. He will continue into his older age to produce 30 fine animals at a high rate and the land he would have leased will go to a young, active farmer. Therefore, there will be a net benefit to agriculture in that case. However, under this scheme, he would be precluded from reducing his herd to that extent. I understand the threshold under the scheme is 20%, although I might be wrong on that percentage. We should examine that point, because we must realise that our farming population is elderly. Many of those farmers who have suckler herds will not commit to the workload involved in this for six years, and we should not expect them to do so. Rather, we should expect them to commit to what they can manage. Also, if these animals are being recorded under the scheme, there is no reason they cannot continue to be recorded if they are sold to somebody else. Flexibility is needed here, because behind all of this is a fear of penalties. We have seen farmers penalised for small items for which they feel hard done by. There is a lack of trust, and that is the source of the fear. If we could say that this would be dealt with in a very practical way, that would be an important factor.

There are cases in which a farmer wants to reduce his suckler herd because of profitability concerns. We had a serious incident last week, and if the profitability of Irish beef dropped substantially, it would be unfair to expect farmers to continue in production in this sector for five years, making a loss. God knows farmers are making very little as it is. Profitability is a very important factor and that aspect needs to be examined. Nobody stays in farming unless they can make a profit, and we would not expect them to do so. Those two points need to be examined.

There has been a lack of communication about this, and I am glad it has been set out in more detail here. Every farmer who is involved in this programme should get a pack setting out the detail of it and possibly more meetings on it should be held around the country.

Farmers have also expressed concern regarding the speed of genotyping to date. Can the witnesses give assurances that this will be done in a speedy and reliable fashion and that there will not be any inconsistencies in the results that come through?

It was stated that the stock must be of four-star or five-star quality. We all know that there are incidents on farms in which, for example, bullocks are not castrated properly, there are break-out episodes, or animals are put in calf and those calves will not be four-star or five-star quality. Are there methods whereby such incidents can be reported without incurring a penalty? These are the practicalities of farming. The witnesses might comment on those points.