Mr. Padraig Brennan:

Deputy Cahill asked about targets for live exports. We view the livestock sector as vitally important to the viability of the beef sector in Ireland. I accept that we do not have definitive number targets for the rest of 2019, as the Deputy suggested, but we are focusing on targets for how many buyers we can attract into Ireland to look at Irish cattle and livestock in the context of potential business opportunities down the track. Whether they are from Spain, the Netherlands, Italy Turkey or Algeria, it is about how we undertake activities on the ground locally and how we make these people aware of the capability of the Irish livestock industry to supply the category and type of animal they are looking for. Some of that work can sound a little bit distant but it is very important because in many of these markets there are many competitors and we have to tell them what is different about Irish livestock.

There is a lot of focus on calves, and rightly so, particularly in spring, but a lot of focus is on growing other categories as well, such as weanlings and store cattle. We need all categories of animal to have a number of outlets, whether they are live or dead. We may have expected a more rapid increase in the numbers of live cattle exports over the past year or so, but there was a 20% increase last year, and this year to date we are up by 36% in numbers, which shows we are making progress despite the challenges the Chairman highlighted at the outset. It is hoped we will continue to make progress in conjunction with the livestock exporters.

Irish young bull prices are 104% of the EU 15 average. There is a viability issue across the European Union, though some producers have a slightly lower cost of production than we have with more proximity, greater availability of feed and their young bull system. All we can do is deliver the best price we can to the markets and to the customers we are trying to find. In six of the past eight years of this decade, we have been at or above the European average, while in the 2000s, we were only at or above the European average for one year. We are making some progress in this area, though there is a lot more to be done. There are signs that we are moving in the right direction.

There was a question about the family farm structure and a discussion around feedlots. The data in our quality assurance database show that there are 580 farms that slaughter more than 300 cattle per year.

Based on the audit information we receive, it is clear that the vast majority of those farms do not have feedlots under the international definition or anything close to it because there is a strong outdoor production process and a long grazing season in most cases. In many instances, a farm only has feedlot status or a slaughter-only policy because of the herd's TB status, so it is difficult to know the exact number of what are defined as feedlots, but our information suggests that the majority of farms that might be classified as such are actually representative of the production system found on farms that are classified otherwise.

Deputy Cahill was involved in the discussions on the grid from the outset, so he knows that its purpose was to be a reward for quality and to reflect what the market was looking for at the time. As with every other area, things move on and markets change and evolve. The grid is now more than ten years old, and I welcome the recent discussions on the possible need to review it. That has been raised in a number of quarters. Perhaps now is a good and opportune time, particularly in view of the changing dynamic in the industry in terms of where our beef is coming from.

Looking outside Europe, the Deputy rightly highlighted the growing importance of Asia to us as a market. The figure of 20% is import demand rather than overall consumption. We are likely to see at least that level of increase between now and 2027. The Deputy raised a valid point about Asia's taste requirements or appetite for the cuts that we typically export. In China, for example, a different set of cuts are more popular. We view this in two ways. First, a market like China offers an opportunity to deliver a better return for some cuts that garner a low return in the European market. This adds overall value to the animal. Second, the demand for higher quality cuts in markets such as China is increasing, evidence of which we saw as recently as last week. Next month, we will be in Japan and Korea and will see exactly the same trend. There is a high-value part to those markets. We are probably in the early stages. The first product from Ireland only arrived in China last September, meaning that we are still only six or eight months into developing trade in that market.

We have all heard much about African swine fever in recent months. It is a grave issue for China. Something that struck me in China last week was that it would have a structural impact on that market for a prolonged period. The people that I spoke to locally were considering structural impacts for the next five or seven years at the very least. This year alone, the most recent forecast suggests that 18 million tonnes less pigmeat will be produced in China. This means that China will need to find the equivalent in imports. Whether it is chicken, pork or beef, though, that volume of product does not exist anywhere else in the world. As such, there will be a strong demand in China for beef and pigmeat. Granted, we are in the early stages of developing these markets, but it presents an opportunity for us to establish ourselves there in the way we would like. As the markets evolve and grow, they have the potential to deliver a better overall return for the animals that are produced. That return goes to the primary producer in the form of the price that he or she can achieve.

I will turn to the other questions. Ms McCarthy might also contribute. Regarding price levels, Deputy Martin Kenny is correct about our grass-fed and outdoor production systems. They are unique strengths, and we rely on the sustainable beef and lamb assurance scheme, SBLAS, to provide us with the figures to back that up. In any market that we enter, we are an import supplier and it can take time for us to make the most of these strengths, so we need the facts and figures at our fingertips to demonstrate that it is not just a photograph or statement and that we can back up everything we are telling the customer.

A question was asked about our relationship with the customer and whether we just put the processor and the customer together and walked away. That would be the direct opposite of what we do. Ms McCarthy outlined our revised marketing strategy for beef. It is all about how we get close, and stay close, to our key customers and how we build and secure for Irish beef a profile and position with each of them. One might start at a certain level with a customer, but there is the potential to grow the volume and value of the business over time. More and more of our investment will go towards working with individual customers and trying to increase and improve the profile and position of Irish beef with them. It is not a question of securing or facilitating the business and walking away.

Deputy Martin Kenny asked a valid question about whether we need to reduce output. Consider the dynamics of the global market - there will be an increased demand for beef globally. Obviously, we will have a more mature market closer to home in Europe, but where we focus and how we export our beef will change. In terms of managing Ireland's output, Bord Bia's focus is on ensuring that we have as many markets and customers as we can open to and consistently buying beef from Ireland. That helps to minimise or, as it were, reduce the risk that we have seen in recent months of a higher output.

Senator Lombard asked about the strategy for livestock exports. I will leave those to my colleague, Mr. Burke.