Mr. Desmond Savage:

We are quite aligned in our thought process. On the Deputy's first point, the technology enables both health monitoring and breeding. You could argue that successful and efficient breeding has a positive impact because you are producing cattle more efficiently, reproducing and getting back into a milking cycle quicker and, therefore, producing protein off the feed inputs quicker. The technology is an enabler. It will only be as good as the person using it but will enable the farmer to improve the health of his or her animals and to maximise breeding efficiency.

Sexed semen will give a higher probability of a calf being born female but a sexed semen straw used for insemination is fragile. There is an optimal time to use the straw. It is difficult for farmers to know when that time is unless they are monitoring the cattle 24-7. A high level of herdsmanship is required. My cousin, for example, has a farm and during lockdown had a very efficient breeding season because his two teenage kids monitored the cattle. That system worked perfectly for him but now that the kids have gone back to school, he is thinking he needs to invest in a system because he has realised the value of what his kids were doing. Technology is there to help.

On the second point, we offer just one part of the circular economy here. There is the welfare of the farm, getting the kids involved and being tech-savvy, but there are also factors like safety. If you can use the technology efficiently, there might not be a need for as many bulls on the farm. Bulls on farms with small animals constitute a safety concern so that is a positive.

Going back to my experience in manufacturing, when anything new is introduced, change management is typically the biggest challenge. The technology is typically 15% to 20% of the project, while 80% of the effort goes into change management and getting people to understand that these technologies are here to help move things on and make things more cost effective. That is through education, example and incentivisation. If a farmer is 50:50 on whether to invest in the technology, a simple measure like taking the VAT off it could be taken. One could ask why a farmer should pay VAT on a technology which has the potential to enable that farmer to improve the environment. Simple legislation to remove VAT or make these technologies capital expenditure could be the difference between a farmer going or not going for it.

Technology has impacted all our lives. The agricultural sector is lagging and change management is a factor, so whatever can be done to encourage and expedite change management is a good thing.