Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentation. The first issue I will address is hedgerows. Professor Boyle and others met me on this issue a while ago. The information we have at the moment, based on the Department's statements to the Joint Committee on Climate Action, is that there is a possibility that agricultural emissions could be reduced by between 8% and 10% throughout the country. The Department's officials say they hope to reach a figure of 20% or 30%, whatever they mean by that. Perhaps Professor Boyle is up to speed on that.

There are 137,000 farmers throughout the country. The witnesses have said that Teagasc has 43,000 members. Are they worried that only one farmer in three is engaging with Teagasc, looking at new technology and so on?

There are not enough private companies and there may be people who are not engaging with anybody at all. Is that a worry?

Turning to Dr Kelly, and to follow up on Deputy Pringle's question on trying to get farmers to do things better with new technology, programmes and research, on the €165 million or whatever part of that, 60% or 70%, is Government funding, would it be worthwhile to ensure that there is a tie-in with private planners around the country? FRS Farm Relief Services, the private planners, did the GLAS programme for Teagasc, because the agency would not have had these resources. Would it be worthwhile to form some relationship and to talk to these companies in order that when any new technology arrives, be it carbon navigators or whatever, we are working together to make things better, even if it is State-funded and the price involved is the cost involved in keeping the programme going? Dr. Kelly mentioned that there is a problem with the yearly period. Did he suggest that a three-year period might work better? It is not about us and them but it would be better for the country as a whole that the information is out there, be it for a planner on his or her own, Teagasc or the SEAI, as has been talked about. This might be helpful.

A second question, possibly to Professor Boyle, is that, at the moment, farmers are under pressure and getting the living daylights kicked both of them day in and day out by the media at the moment. A farmer now will nearly put his or her head down, which is the way it has gone if one is producing food. Like everyone else we all realise we need food to live, and if we do not have it, we are going nowhere. Has Teagasc done any research as to the big vegan debate where we put our chest out and hit back at those who want to be alarmist and are pumping a lot of money into putting out messages that might not be altogether the greatest message in the world for human health?

A third question concerns our importation of soya and such produce. Is there are any research programme on whether we might be able to do more - we do not have an ideal climate and I would be the first to say that - to grow more protein crops here to reduce our requirement to bring in such produce from abroad? Professor Boyle mentioned the big beef farmer is making some money but the reality is that we have to deal with family farms regardless of whether we like it because that is the composition of most farms. Have we done any research on seeing if a cow could work two calves profitably with enough milk, that is, her own calf and another one along with that. I was looking at the breed of Fleckvieh cows in Austria, and they look acceptable to both sides in the type of animal that it is.

I agree with Deputy Cahill that Teagasc must show leadership in the whole dairy sector. Maybe I am incorrect, but a statement went to the media that Teagasc had not thought about the calves issue. We have to cut to the chase on this because we cannot be breeding calves as things stand. Every farmer, be they a dairy, beef, sheep or pig farmer, is brought up to stay up all night when an animal is born to ensure that animal lives. We cannot have a situation where calves are being born with a worthless value. I do not care if it offends some people but we must cut to the chase on some of these cross-bred or Jersey animals because it will not do anything for our image. We want the very best in animal welfare and these breeds will not do anything for the image we require.

Does Teagasc still believe in derogations when one discusses climate change? Does it look at maximum stocking rates? I am hearing that it is 3.6 to 3.7 cows to the hectare. In normal circumstances that would be a little outlandish. We need to bring things back to normality. In fairness to the British or Holstein Friesian breeds, we need to start producing a calf if we are going to be in a working relationship. At one time in my neck of the woods a farmer might have had ten cows. Every farmer would then go down to the south, as it was called at that time, and buy five, six or ten calves, but they were right calves in that they were proper animals. Some were Herefords but they made good cattle. We have gone away from that now and Teagasc needs to show leadership to see if we can haul that back.

What are Teagasc's views on the single farm payment for the future? Will it be more focused on environmental matters?

I am aware that Teagasc has done work on anaerobic digestion. Certain things like forestry have been mentioned. What involvement has Teagasc or does it have an input in clear-fell or planting, which is at a standstill? Environmentally, we have gone mad as a country as everyone is objecting to everything now.

Can Teagasc place more of an emphasis on land, from Donegal down to Clare, out to the River Shannon, and maybe including a bit of Monaghan and west Cork, which is more marginal land that is not ideally suited for dairy farming? Parts of it will be but on the whole it is not. Is an emphasis being put on how some parts of these lands can be made sustainable for beef or sheep farmers?

Also on the environmental side, there is no point in saying that beef farmers should be rearing the calves from the dairy farmer because that will only drive the beef farmers mad. Can something be worked out, whereby having looked at different types of cows, it could be ensured that the second calf was reared and there was enough milk but not too much milk? That might be a way forward that would also help the dairyman, if the right product was being produced.

The other thing is that at one time when Teagasc would issue a statement, it was virtually the gospel. Many farmers went down the bull beef route as they had been told it was a new thing to do and that it was way forward. Many people were left with a lot of stuff. We have to be very careful as to where people are steered. What are Teagasc's views? Is it involved in the task force and has it done research on the 36 months or on all of the different criteria that these farmers are looking for?