Mr. John McHugh:

I thank the Chair and members. I am a dairy farmer who converted to organic in 2015. I was quite an intensive farmer and using the maximum amount of nitrogen permitted. I started off milking 35 cows in 2004, moved up to 160 cows in 2015 and then decided to go organic because I believe it is a huge step in the right direction in regard to climate change. A big part of the problem in Ireland is that we are far too dependent on the status quo. In the dairy and other sectors of agriculture we are trying to maintain things as they are, but that will not be possible because there will be constant pressure on farmers from outside sources and we will be fighting an uphill battle. We are going against the prevailing energy. The industry is looking at and being driven by CO₂emissions per kilo of food, which is a blinkered approach and takes no account of water pollution, soil degradation or biodiversity loss. Critics will say and are saying that to claim that we are the most efficient dairy or beef producer in this system is akin to saying we have the most efficient coal-producing stations. We are playing into the hands of those who say plant protein is a far more efficient way of producing protein. We are also playing into the hands of producers in North America who say that they are reducing their emissions per kilo of food through the use of hormones.

As mentioned earlier, when considered per euro of food, we are the least efficient. None of these hits the point. We can cherry-pick statistics but, ultimately, we will need to align ourselves with productivity. The last century was all about output. On my farm, we made dramatic increases in output. What is productivity? It is output per unit of input. Biodiversity loss and soil degradation are all real input costs. They are externalities at the moment; farmers are not paying for them. However, we will have to pay for them and we have to align ourselves with this. There is no point in fooling ourselves that it will be otherwise. The more we are aligned with this, the more successful we will be.

What have I done on my farm? Mr. Kent mentioned diverse pastures. In recent years, UCD carried out smart grass trials that produced a 90% reduction in methane emissions. While that has not been greatly publicised, it is absolutely massive. The concept of smart grass was devised over 100 years ago. It is all about putting more carbon into soils because they are deeper rooted plants. We are vastly underestimating the amount of carbon we can sequester into our soils because we are working from a limited point of view in not looking beyond a rye grass monoculture. We are in this box. This is constructive criticism. There is a massive lack of research into organic and biological farming and this is really holding the industry back. Diverse pastures have a huge role to play.

The issue of whether we can produce enough protein came up. I have no doubt that we can do so. It does not all have to be in grains. Dr. O'Mara mentioned that roughly 20% of the dairy diet is in concentrate form and approximately half of that is imported. If a cow eats 5.5 tonnes, more than 1 tonne of it is in concentrates. That can be vastly reduced by using good management practices as developed in Moorepark. It is much lower than that; it can be down at 250 kg or 300 kg. There is scope to produce all our food and become GM free. If we really want to go about this, we can do it.

There is a big misconception - it will be overcome in the next few years - that organic is low-output farming. However, to my mind it is more productive farming. Research on red clover by Teagasc in Grange produced 15 tonnes of dry matter per year over three-year trials. In Moorepark, plot trials on white clover produced over 13 tonnes. All of this was with zero nitrogen inputs. The same applies to smart grass. As a result of the fact that there are a lot of legumes in the sward, nitrogen will limit the production of the sward. We can do much more but, unfortunately, there is a major lack of research into this because there is no industry benefit. No one other than farmers will make money from this.

The real solutions to the issues of climate change lie in management and it will come from farmers. Unfortunately, it is not being promoted. Due to the fact that we are living in a world of information technology and the Internet, it is gathering pace and it will happen despite the lack of research being done and despite all of this. I am very positive that it will happen.

I meet farmers every day. I know many people who are moving towards biological organic farming even though there is no scheme in place. A good analogy is back in the 1990s when the Irish dairy industry was very cow-centred. We had a relative breeding index, RBI, system which rewarded just production or output. Everyone thought of 2,000-gallon cows. The whole system was going that way. I accept that Teagasc was also promoting that system. Eventually, pressure from farmers, including those who had come back from New Zealand and had seen a different, more grass-orientated approach, built up to the point where we changed how we managed dairy farming in Ireland and we took a more grass-centred approach.

An even bigger revolution is happening at the moment. We are taking a step further back and are looking at soil. It will be farmer driven because the research is stuck in a box and cannot see outside that box at the moment. I have no doubt they will come in line in the coming years. Most of the problems lie with nitrogen fertiliser. We can do without it if we start putting the proper research into it.

Slurry was mentioned a few times. On my farm, I am fermenting slurry. It is possible to add humates to slurry. Humates are binding up the nitrogen. It is possible to add humates to nitrogen fertiliser. Not enough is being done in promoting that. A lot of work is being done on nitrate inhibitors. These are all industry motivated; there is money to be made from them. However, the things that do not generate money are not happening. Humates with nitrogen-reduction programmes have been shown to be successful in America and Australia. There is a massive revolution of biological farmers in these countries where they are vastly reducing their nitrogen inputs and still out-producing the conventional farms in those countries.

The same applies to feed additives, in respect of which there is also much research. Again, it has been largely industry motivated. Seaweed minerals have been shown to reduce methane emissions by 100%. This is a natural resource that we have all around our shores. We are ignoring the obvious solutions.

Forestry is being greatly promoted as a way of offsetting. Again, I think this is a flawed approach. While it is not quite monoculture, it will lead to other problems. Trees are all growing at the same stage in close proximity and there is no undergrowth. We have seen phosphorus problems in water because we are just bleeding phosphorus from the soil where there is no understorey and trees at different stages. We are just creating the next problem if we do not take a balanced approach.

Organic farming and a biological approach to farming will be the biggest single biggest factor. It is what we have to do. Agriculture of this century is all about becoming efficient with our inputs while maintaining productivity. I have a very positive outlook if we embrace that.