Professor Gerry Boyle:

I have met Deputy Fitzmaurice previously and we have discussed matters on a number of occasions.

I recall a discussion about hedgerows in particular. He raised this issue with me previously. At the moment, we have an estimation of the level of sequestration in our hedgerows. It is outlined in our submission, if memory serves me. There is quite a wide range and, obviously, the purpose of the research is to narrow that range. If we could have solved all the problems and addressed all the issues, we would be in a very good place, but we have to start somewhere. The Deputy will be aware that at the moment, in the context of the so-called effort-sharing agreement, there is a limit on the number of removals that can be included. Fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately, most of that is taken up by forestry. Even if, therefore, we could identify in a comprehensive and rigorous way the sequestration potential from hedgerows, we would not be able to get credit for it at the moment. There is no doubt that the situation is constantly changing, and we hope we will be well ahead of the curve by the time it is needed nationally to include sequestration from hedgerows.

The same applies to most of the other areas. Obviously, we have information from research but that is not the same as being able to state categorically that something will apply to every farm in the country. It gives us a good idea but it is not robust. It is certainly not sufficiently robust to be included as a credit in the so-called national inventory of greenhouse gases or, longer term, to be included part and parcel in a carbon farming or trading regime. Nevertheless, the Deputy is absolutely correct. The way in which the research is heading is to get firmer estimates of the sequestration potential of our farmlands, our mineral and organic soils, our grains and the contribution of different mixes of ryegrass and legumes, including multispecies swards and so on. We are putting major effort and resources into addressing that issue. The Deputy may say it is a bit late but we have had a considerable agenda over recent years and our production of marginal abatement cost curves was of tremendous benefit to the agricultural sector. I would like to think we are ahead of many European countries and, indeed, further afield in that respect, but there are many other areas we have to research, as the Deputy pointed out.

As always, and I acknowledge the Deputy is very conscious of this, farmers make up their own minds. They can be presented with technical information on the best outcome in any given number of situations but they will make up their own minds, and encouraging them to do so is often a greater challenge than producing the research results. For example, we have been carrying out research on clover for several years and some really important results are emerging from that work. In Clonakilty Agricultural College, for instance, we have demonstrated the significant potential that clover has to replace chemical nitrogen, but the greatest challenge now is persuading farmers that that will work in practice. The same applies to our research on alternatives for calcium ammonium nitrate. We have identified protected urea, as it is called, as an alternative that will substantially reduce greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions with the same efficacy in terms of dry matter production. Farmers have to come to that decision themselves, however, and that takes time and support from throughout the industry. It is another dimension that is as important as research.

I am glad the Deputy raised the issue of anaerobic digestion. It is a hobby horse of mine and I am a great supporter of it. It is the ultimate example in the agricultural system of the circular economy. I certainly think there are opportunities, although, like with everything else in this area, subsidisation is necessary in the early stages.

We do not have a regime that is similar to the one north of the Border. In any rural community north of the Border, one will notice the prevalence of anaerobic digesters, which is not the case south of the Border. We are doing a small amount in that respect. We are about to commission an anaerobic digester demonstration plant in Grange. It will demonstrate how one can use grass silage and slurry to produce biomethane. We plan to be able to sell that surplus biomethane into the national gas grid. In the future, that will be an alternative for farmers. Grass is a phenomenal source of energy that we convert into human and animal foods via animals. It has several other potential uses, not least, in terms of energy, in the production of electricity and biogas. Who knows what future research will show can be produced from this crop which we produce with such efficiency?

I will leave the question on topping straw to Professor O'Mara because it is not part of my competence.

On the point raised by Deputy Fitzmaurice about our vision in respect of uplands, wetlands and so forth, I have two perspectives. First and foremost, I go back to the point that we certainly see the ability of the farmer to generate a livelihood as being the critical element of sustainability. That extends to, and is a particular challenge in the context of, the areas of special natural beauty that we all value. We know from research that these areas are maintained in best order when there is agricultural activity. We have very good examples in that regard, not least through the Burren LIFE project which has demonstrated that time and again, as have many of the other LIFE programmes throughout the country. We are very supportive of those programmes.

I have a particular interest in uplands because I live in an upland area. The Deputy is absolutely right that in many cases there is no alternative to beef production in these areas. In my area, there is very little sheep production so it comes down to beef. Dairy tends not to be very suitable. In some cases, it is not possible to have forestry and so on because of restrictions relating to the hen harrier. There are very few alternatives for farmers in these areas. They need to maximise what they can produce off grass, given all the limitations of those areas, and they must have access to direct payments to support the preservation of farming in the areas. Our vision certainly is to promote those uplands in such a way that a combination of appropriately designed environmental supports maximise the income the farmer can obtain from farming activity and provide a decent standard of living. That is really the issue. It is what we try to do through our sheep programme in particular.

The Deputy mentioned rewetting peatlands and so on. I am always of the view that if farmers are to be presented with options, it should be for each farmer to make up his or her own mind. Obviously, farmers will not make decisions until they have done the sums, so to speak, and looked at competition between the alternatives. That is what everyone else would do and farmers are entitled to do that. Our view is that it is ultimately a decision for the farmer. I certainly hope that recognition will be given to the necessity of maintain farming in upland areas.

I visited Glenwherry farm, a fantastic farm in Northern Ireland which is being managed by the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise our counterpart on the adviser side in the North.

The college came up with the important insight that we need to farm our sheep and animals but also farm the environment. In other words, all of us, including Teagasc, must view the environment as another enterprise that farmers have to manage appropriately and they must be compensated appropriately for farming.

New technology was mentioned. Teagasc must always be ahead of the curve. Dr. O'Mara will talk about this issue, which we referred to in our statement. We are doing work on feed and slurry additives. We hope that some of those will come on the market and will do what they say they do on the tin. Sometimes there can be excessive optimism about the potential of these various additives, so one must guard against what I call optimism bias. We like to think that some of those that we are currently researching will come through in a positive way.

The issue of whether carbon footprint is measured appropriately was mentioned. I think what is being referred to is the difference between gross emissions, on the one hand, and the adequate accounting of removals, on the other hand, so that we get at the net figure. Clearly, that has been to the fore for Teagasc over the years, particularly concerning the national inventory and the target set for agriculture. Teagasc in its research always tries to identify opportunities that can improve the footprint. We certainly pursue them to the point that they are included in the national inventory. One practical example is the replacement of calcium ammonium nitrate by protected urea. Research was able to demonstrate the lower footprint that arises from using that source of nitrogen and the national inventory was amended. As we move forward in this area, particularly given that carbon farming may emerge on the agenda, more and more of that precise work will be required to establish a value for carbon at the individual farmer level. Dr. O'Mara may wish to pick up at this point.