Mr. Patrick Kent:

I thank the Chairman and members for their questions. First of all, we must think about what we are producing. We are actually producing a very high-grade product. I spoke to some Dutch people during the week about the restaurant experience of eating Irish beef. It is in a different league and it is not possible to emulate that in continental Europe except in parts of France with grass feeding. We produce grass-fed beef, which includes the highest-priced product in restaurants. Irish beef is generally found right throughout the major cities in Europe. Unfortunately, our product is not being marketed adequately. I think it is actually being dumped. I would question a lot of the funding that is going into some of these so-called Government agencies. Perhaps some of these people could be decommissioned and new people put on board to actually carry out the marketing because I do not believe it is being done properly. Instead of putting in the money, the Government should put those people on a farm assist-type wage for a couple of years and let them think about what they have been doing, which involved sending farmers down the road of increasing production while they have not been providing the markets for it. That needs to be done. Some of these Government organisations need to be sidelined and shelved and that funding used to back up even the likes of Lidl and Aldi, which have done a great job of marketing here. I am not sure about what it is like on the continent. We need to promote grass-fed beef. Being GMO-free is another issue. We are being highjacked by some Government agencies but 100% of farmers do not grow GMO products. Small amounts of them are used in our pig, poultry and dairy industry. That can be changed. In general, it is too expensive to use soya in the beef industry so it is not used. Grass-fed beef has zero GMO and we need to get a high price for it. We need to market it as such and we need to get a price back to the primary producer for that. Of course, we need protected geographical indication, PGI, status for it.

Our organisation has given the red card to the grid system because it is only a vertical integration system to force farmers into vertical integration, weak selling and trying to comply with a range of regulations that are not actually required by the market. I have seen the results of some recent testing. It has involved testing 14-year-old cows off grass, seven-year-olds and young beef. The 14-year-old was the most flavoursome. Some of it involves with complying with 20 months. Some of this is very questionable. Perhaps it might be different with intensive indoor bulls but I would still have questions about all of that.

Regarding the price in the UK versus the price here, it makes no sense at all that we are taking a lower price than the UK. Our market is right next door. We need to focus the minds of these agri-vultures. They have been getting levies off us. We are funding them and are getting nothing in return. The fifth quarter is another issue. I agree completely that it is worth at least €200 per head. We have never been paid for that and it is about time a farmer got a payment for that.

Regarding the grid system, the actual grid machines constitute a quandary. They seem to be inefficient and at least 20% out of line with what is supposed to be there. Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, DEXA, scanning is similar to airport scanning. Work is being done on it in Australia and it is very promising. The DEXA machine works on edible meat yield to determine the exact amount of edible meat on a particular carcase. We need to work very quickly on that because it is very efficient and provides 100% accuracy or near enough to it as opposed to 60% to 80% with the conventional machines on edible meat yield depending on light, shape and all the rest - very variable things. Light levels in factories can change grid results. In addition, farmers could have a load of 15 cattle going to a meat plant and have 15 different prices. Two farmers could be arguing between themselves about whether they got one or two above a particular level instead of arguing with the factory for getting such a bad price so it is taking the focus off the factories using that system to pay farmers a very poor price.

A war on meat is being funded by large multinational corporations and being funded through quangos and NGOs. The war on meat is a question of education. There was a question in schools recently connected to a chewing gum manufacturer owned by a chocolate manufacturer that is owned by multinational corporations that already heavily invest in fake meat or in skewing the narrative in that regard but the reality is that if children eat quality Irish beef rather than a lot of sugary concoctions such as fake meat-type products, they are actually healthier, smarter and better-looking; are not obese; and do not have diabetes. These fake meat-type products will probably be tasty enough but the health of the person is another factor. If these big multinational corporations also invest in pharmaceuticals, of course, they will push these quangos that get far too much airplay and media coverage. We need to follow the money trail in any of these so-called quangos that are supposed to represent the environment.

Regarding the environment and sequestering carbon, we have an extensively, rather than an intensively, stocked system that involves outdoor grazing whereby each acre can sequester up to five tonnes of carbon. Regarding emissions, the output per animal is only 50 kg so it is a no-brainer to have grassland farming using cattle, sheep and so on. We should be getting paid for carbon sequestration rather than listening to the load of tripe coming from some media outlets and quangos. I could go on all night but I will pass on to Mr. Punch and Mr. Graham.