Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Tuesday, 9 April 2019

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine

Future of the Beef Sector in the Context of Food Wise 2025: Discussion (Resumed)

Mr. Ian Lumley:

I will respond briefly to some of the more significant questions asked by members. Deputy Martin Kenny raised concerns about the forestry issue in Leitrim. We sympathise with him. He also raises a good question about what sort of markets we should develop and he quite rightly highlighted the bad experience that people have had with miscanthus. There is a question of what markets we should look for to grow food crops. It is clearly to substitute from those who are importing because there is an immediate market. That growth would clearly be concentrated in the more arable soils in the south and east of the country. North County Dublin has a tradition of market gardening but there has been a major decline in the level of market gardening in an area with the best mineral soils in the country. The areas with poorer soils and richer hedgerows should be involved in high nature value farming. We welcome the submission from the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association. This is where a premium value should be obtained for beef being produced in nature-compatible systems. We have heard clearly that the price being fetched on the market is simply not fair for the producers involved. In this respect, we are in complete sympathy with the suckler farmers.

Those are the areas where we want to see the sort of vegetation use seen in nature. We all want to see those rich hedgerows maintained. There is a major problem with hedgerows in that new mechanical cutting techniques use flat-topping, which is very bad for bird life, flowering pollination and fruit growth. We need to move to better hedgerow management strategies which sequester carbon and make those hedgerows more attractive for bees, birds and wildlife, from which we all benefit.

Deputy Martin Kenny also asked about the future of biogas and anaerobic digestion on farms. That is a potential part of the future energy mix. It has been talked up to a degree that may be exaggerated. There is also a worry about greenwashing. The amount of biogas that we will be able to sustainably produce is limited. If we start growing biogas from crops, what happens if there is a fodder crisis? Cropland grass will have to go into animal fodder instead, so there is a variability risk. The question should be as much about how much biogas we sustainably produce and the best way of using it. The current model being adopted for biogas is ill-advised.

What is being proposed is that biogas be injected into the fossil gas network so that fossil gas is thereby labelled as somehow being more green. However, that means we are all being locked into this whether it be in the transport sector in a move to gas vehicles or in housing in a move to maintaining gas boilers, when in fact the move should be towards the electrification of transport, reducing dependence on the private car and in terms of energy there in no justification for installing gas in new houses. The Tipperary Institute, which has appeared before Oireachtas committees previously, had made effective presentations in this respect. With the construction of new houses and apartments, higher insulation standards can be achieved and they can be serviced with heat pumps from renewable electricity. There is a gas lobby who wants us to continue to be dependent on gas. Public representatives need to be very wary of that and of the green-washing of gas, but that is a matter of Joint Committee on Climate Action, with which we are pleased to be involved.

Deputy McConalogue said there was a strong global demand for beef but taking account of the global constraints, that demand simply is not capable of being accommodated within the land limit, the carbon limit, the biodiversity limit and the fertiliser limit. We are not offering magic solutions. We fully admit that those people whom I would know who are struggling with trying to address their own sustainability are encountering major problems. I would point to soya production, biodiversity, the chemical impact on production in South America and the USA, almond milk production and water stress, whereas milk has a high carbon emission and nitrate impact in terms of the fertiliser required to grow the grass for milk production. It is not simply a matter of looking at the future of beef or animal agriculture, all agriculture has to follow a sustainable pathway in terms of carbon impact, land use and biodiversity in meeting the global constraints.

An interesting question was asked by Deputy Corcoran Kennedy about the parallels between the car industry and what happened in Europe. The largest element of the car industry in Europe is in Germany. The nature of any industry facing challenges ahead is to dig its heels in and continue with the production lines that are in place. A principle in the European car market and other market areas is that of "peak car". A car manufacturer would be worried about it because the younger generation who live in urban areas will wonder why should they bother having a car when they can use an electric scooter, of which we are seeing more in Dublin and other Irish cities, and hire an electric car when they need it now and again. The car industry dug its heels in and lobbied at European Commission and Parliament level against emission standards and electrification targets. The European car industry is now in serious trouble as a result because the Asian car industry is better geared towards the switch to electrification and the Asian car manufacturers have been working in co-operation with battery sourcing. The European car industry was also involved in green-washing in emissions cheating with the Volkswagen emissions scandal, which involved a declaration that cars met a particular emissions standard based on very arbitrary testing models that did not simply stand up to reality. That is a warning that Teagasc has delivered. If one claims to be meeting particular emissions standards and carbon efficiency and that is not the case, one can run into serious trouble.

On the subject of a just transition, the World Health Organization and the global nutrition and science community say that what is needed is a 90% reduction in red meat consumption in countries that have a high consumption of red meat. They are not saying "eat no red meat" but what they are saying involves a major reduction in consumption.

They say industrial produced red meat, and its ruminant trans fat content which is a particular concern, should be reduced to less than 1% of a total energy intake. That is a significant reduction in red meat consumption globally, on the advice of the health sector. That is why it is ill-advised to seek to develop new red meat markets in countries that historically did not have red meat consumption. Vegetarians face an equal dilemma. If one goes to any vegetarian food shop, one will note the labels indicate the food comes from all over the world. Countries will face farm stress. Let us work at a solution, as the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Climate Action recommends, where we have more diversification and put the effort first into substituting for those vegetables and other can based foods we import in such undesirable quantities. We mentioned a number of foods such as oats, milk and berries. The hazelnut is a native species and nuts have a high nutrition content.

Senator Paul Daly mentioned percentages, balances and phased figures but percentages are always confusing, particularly at this time of the night. He mentioned that while health recommendations and climate constraints propose a reduction in the consumption of particular foods in developed countries, he rightly highlighted there is a rising population. The question is how to match those considerations. That is why climate justice and food equity principles are important. We must take account of the 840 million people in the global population.

There is the issue of carbon neutrality. Senator Paul Daly asked a good question, namely, can carbon neutral beef be achieved. It is a similar question to power generation. Can carbon neutral power plants through using gas or coal be achieved? In theory, it can through carbon capture and storage but there is no viable option at present to have carbon neutral fossil fuel energy. Similarly, the research by Teagasc and internationally indicates there is no carbon neutral beef production. If we consider any of the bar charts for beef - we included one in the main document we circulated - the bar chart for beef is way up. Other animal sourced foods such as poultry and pigment are way down and the various pulses and bean based foods are lower still.

There is considerable confusion about carbon - carbon is methane and the whole nitrogen oxide, NOx, cycle. On the issue of beef production and its carbon impact, one aggregates nitrate and it is part of an overall calculation, but there is no remote prospect of there being carbon neutrality for beef. All Teagasc is showing are various models of marginal offsetting and abatement, which are only relatively small percentages. That is a tough message to communicate to people in the beef sector but equally the same message must be and is being confronted by the fossil fuel sector across the world.

Senator Mulherin's contribution focused largely on the vegan and balanced diet issue but I reiterate the Department of Health research indicates that a balanced diet does not necessarily require meat but can be achieved in protein from beans, peas and lentils.

My colleague has answered some of the overarching issues raised by Senator Mulherin with regard to the schools pack, which of course was approved by the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment, and had a page with an introduction by the Minister.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.