Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Chairman of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Cahill, intended to chair the meeting. It is an initiative that has been led by his committee. It is certainly a very welcome initiative for it and the Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action, which I chair, to work together. As I understand it, this is the first time the two committees have had a joint session. Although we have different remits, we are certainly looking at the broader challenge and both committees are working very hard in that effort. This is an initiative that will strengthen our understanding of the challenge in agriculture and the transition it is going through. At the outset, we wanted to frame this in a positive way and to look at the opportunities that exist in the sector that will help it to transition to a lower-carbon model.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Savage, who has just joined us, is very welcome. He is the co-founder and chairman of Moonsyst International.

Before we begin, I will read out the note on privilege. We will have other witnesses joining us online at a later stage. Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that a witness has full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed by the Chair to cease giving evidence on an issue. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who are giving evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses, outside the proceedings held by the committee, of any matter arising from the proceedings.

Members of both committees are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make any charges against any person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to utterances of members participating online in the committee meeting when their participation is within the parliamentary precincts. There can be no assurance in relation to participation online from outside the parliamentary precincts and members should be mindful of this when they are contributing.

I will be in the chair for our first session. I expect the Chairman, Deputy Cahill, may step in at that point. The first session is with Mr. Savage who joins us in the room. I invite him to make his opening statement.

Mr. Desmond Savage:

I thank the members of the joint committees for the opportunity to address them on the subject of exploring technologies and opportunities that may exist in the effort to reduce emissions in the agricultural sector. For the purpose of my submission, I shall focus on greenhouse gas, GHG, emissions from cattle. The principle points I wish to discuss today are, first, the importance of choosing the right metrics in advance of making decisions on the size of the national herd and, second, that technology has a key role to play in sustainable agriculture and its adoption should be incentivised.

I am the co-founder and chairman of Moonsyst International Ltd, an Irish company that was formed in partnership with Moonsyst Hungary in November 2020. Moonsyst International develops Internet of things cattle monitoring solutions, with particular focus on animal health and sustainability. The company is supported by the Cork north and west local enterprise office and, in September 2021, received the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council and Enterprise Ireland best newcomer award at the ploughing championships innovation arena. Prior to getting involved in the agricultural technology sector, I spent more than 20 years in manufacturing as a process improvement engineer and consultant, during which time I worked on teams deploying multi-million euro manufacturing IT systems into some of the world’s largest companies.

A lesson I learnt on my first job and carried through on every other assignment was that if you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it. Metrics really matter, so long as they are the right metrics. Rather than looking at the size of the national herd or national biogenic reductions, better metrics are required before decisions are made or legislation enacted. As part of the draft agrifood strategy 2030, Ireland should focus on efficiencies in producing high-quality animal protein, that is, milk and meat, rather than committing to national biogenic methane reductions or reducing the size of the national herd. There is no mention of how biogenic methane can cost-effectively be measured and I am deeply concerned that if the right metrics are not available, the wrong decisions will be made.

Global demand for milk and beef is expected to grow constantly for at least another 30 years, as more people around the world enter middle class and seek these high-quality animal proteins in their diets. Ireland has one of the best and most natural systems in the world for producing bovine milk and meat. If we do not serve this increasing global demand, countries in which animal welfare and sustainability lag Ireland’s record will do so, which will have a global negative net impact on sustainability and the global environment.

Article 2.1 of the Paris Agreement refers to the importance of protecting food production while reducing emissions. I strongly believe Ireland is best positioned to do this by being a world leader on sustainable bovine meat and dairy production through utilising our natural advantages, particularly our grass-fed system. This does not equate to reducing cattle numbers in Ireland but arguably means Ireland should increase its production of bovine dairy and meat, which would have a net benefit on global emissions. For this reason, I think the current metrics under consideration, that is, biogenic methane reduction or national herd size reductions, are wrong.

Focus should be placed on optimising animal efficiencies in the production of dairy and meat.

There is long list of factors that impact on these efficiencies, including genetics, breed, health, feed, seasonality, age, lactation cycle, sward types, use of feed additives, environmental factors, herdsmanship, supply chain factors and so forth. For example, cattle that eructate, that is, belch, excessively are cattle that have poor feed conversion, health issues and produce excessive greenhouse gas emissions. A healthy rumen equals a healthy cow and less greenhouse gas emissions.

Cattle, like cars, can vary extensively but not all cars are treated equally when it comes to greenhouse gases. A ten-year-old car with a 4 l engine will attract higher road taxes and fuel taxes than a new car with a 1 l engine, and rightly so. They will both do the same job, that is, getting you from A to B, but they have different impacts on the environment. Great advancements are being made in this industry to reduce greenhouse gases because each car can be measured for its impact on the environment and incentives applied to improve. The same cannot be said for the proposed metrics associated with the national herd even though emissions from cattle can also vary extensively. More attention needs to be placed on measuring and establishing the correct metrics before decisions are made at a national level. When cattle's rumen health is good, it helps farmers maximise feed conversion and minimise the amount of greenhouse gas produced by each animal. This has the potential to improve protein conversion yields in both meat and milk, which in turn represents a further gain for the farmer, without negatively impacting the environment. With such information to hand, Governments and large corporate entities such as retailers could incentivise progressive farmers to produce more sustainably, for example, by rewarding farmers for investments in genetics, new swards or methane-blocking feed additives. Moonsyst is working on providing a cost-effective method of monitoring the rumen of cattle in real time. With this information to hand, farmers can better understand the health of their animals and optimise the feed conversion rates, which in turn will minimise biogenic emissions, helping the environment. As I mentioned, if you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it.

At present there are no direct financial incentives to reward beef and dairy farmers who manage low biogenic emitting herds. Incentives should be considered to drive this progressive behaviour. For example, technologies that are deemed to enable more sustainable farming could be made exempt from VAT or classified as a capital expenditure. From discussions with farmers, we know that all they want to do is the right thing by the environment as it is crucial for their businesses going forward. However, they are not being incentivised sufficiently. As is called out in the draft agrifood strategy 2030, technology has a key role to play in the coming years and any incentives that can be put in place to expedite the adoption of these technologies have to be a good thing.

In summary, I ask this committee to consider the two principal points I presented today. The first is that, before decisions are made on biogenic emissions, we must ensure the right metrics are put in place to drive sustainability and ensure a net positive benefit in respect of global climate change. The second is that we should put in place simple incentives to encourage Irish farmers to adopt technologies that will enable them to become more sustainable. I thank all of the committee members for again allowing me the time and opportunity to express my views on this important matter for Irish farming, Ireland and the world.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Savage for coming in. We are basically looking for technologies or ways of reducing emissions. That is the idea of this meeting. Mr. Savage said that there is no proper system of measurement. Will he explain or back up that point?

Mr. Desmond Savage:

I said there is no cost-effective method of measurement. There are ways to measure. The likes of the Teagasc facility at Moorepark and UCD Lyons Farm in Kildare have invested in systems, including, for example, a green feed system which involves cattle going into a controlled environment and being monitored for four or five minutes. This is okay from the point of view of research and sampling but it is not a practical way of measuring methane emissions on a commercial beef or dairy farm.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What would be a practical way?

Mr. Desmond Savage:

That is the point I am making. There is not enough focus on it. Without measuring something, you cannot improve it. The Deputy mentioned that this committee is concentrating on ways of reducing emissions. From my experience in manufacturing - and I have worked in some of the largest multinationals in the world - I know that you have to get the metrics in place before you put can put improvement projects in place. I feel that is a gap in the approach that has been taken to methane emissions. I passionately believe we can reduce emissions and that this will have a net benefit in terms on the environment globally if we approach it in the right way. However, without having the right metrics in place, we will struggle to find the right methods to improve.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Savage used the analogy of the car with a 1 l engine and the 12-year-old car. If the statistics are available, what is the ideal animal for conversion? What animals have the best conversion rates? I presume Mr. Savage is talking about the beef animals that put on the most kilograms the most quickly between being a calf and being killed, that is, those that thrive most on the food given to them. On the dairy side, I know some work was being done but does Mr. Savage have the statistics to back up which types of animals and which types of feeding system allow animals to thrive the most or give the best return for the least emissions?

Mr. Desmond Savage:

There is an extremely long list of factors that can impact on how much methane-----

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How many of those factors is a normal farmer who is doing well considering at the moment?

Mr. Desmond Savage:

That is my point. The farmers do not know what animals are good and what animals are bad. They do not know if they are doing the right thing or the wrong thing in respect of methane. I refer to genetics, feed, the age of the animal, how the farm is managed and whether the cows are milked once a day or three times a day. There are a great many factors involved. If you ask farmers how much methane a given animal is emitting, they will not know. How can they improve if they do not know?

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Maybe I have picked Mr. Savage up wrong. The next group coming in has scientific data as to how it is reducing X, Y and Z in emissions. Is Mr. Savage telling me that someone else needs to measure methane emissions and do the research? Does Moonsyst do any of this?

Mr. Desmond Savage:

I can show Deputy Fitzmaurice what we provide. It is a sensor that is administered into the animal. It might look big but an animal-----

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Where is it put in? Is it put around the neck?

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry to interrupt Deputy Fitzmaurice and Mr. Savage but we are here to talk about the issue generally rather than any specific product. I know Mr. Savage represents a particular company but, as a committee, we do not want to-----

Mr. Desmond Savage:

I was just using an example based on the question I was asked.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know Mr. Savage was answering the question Deputy Fitzmaurice put to him.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry, Chair, but what I was trying to establish what farmers need to do. Mr. Savage talked about producing the right animal that can do the right conversion. I would love to know what farmers need to do in that regard. Has Moonsyst done research in that area? Is it available to read? Mr. Savage talked about methane. Has research been done that would make the output of the machinery for measuring methane emissions he has talked about more accessible to the farmer? Those are my two questions.

Mr. Desmond Savage:

I have provided a link to our company's website, where there is a detailed questions and answers section that describes how our technology can enable farmers to monitor their cattle better, especially with regard to rumen health. The rumen is the first stomach of cattle.

People describe the rumen as a kind of bioreactor. When cattle consume grass or feed, it goes into a pre-stomach known as the rumen. Within this, the feedstuff is broken down in a kind of bioreaction in nature. If that process is happening efficiently then we have a healthy animal. What we are doing is monitoring the rumen in real time, 24-7, and providing that information back to the farmer. If an animal has a healthy rumen, it is converting that feedstuff efficiently, which is what we want from feed conversion, from a farmer's point of view, but it is also the right thing for the environment. If an animal is belching excessively, for example, that means the energy that should be going into converting protein is going into converting methane.

There is a win-win here. It is a triple win, actually, because we have a healthy animal, which is good for welfare, a high feed conversion, which is good for the bottom line for the farmer, and it has also optimised the level of greenhouse gases being emitted, which is good for the environment. It all comes down to monitoring the rumen, in my opinion. Rather than saying at a herd level or even a national herd level, let us put metrics associated with that, I suggest that we monitor it at animal level and work up from there.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Savage. I am going to push things along because we have to finish the session at 10.30 a.m. We have half an hour and I have four members looking to come in. I propose that we take eight minutes for questions and answers for each of the members. I call Deputy Bruton.

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Savage for the presentation. I have three questions, the first of which is about all those methodologies he was talking about for improving herd performance. Are they not already embraced by the Teagasc list that covers genetics, feed, age, sward, animal health, slurry, fertilisers, early slaughter and all these matters? Teagasc has attempted to delineate what the policy ought to be and what the impact might be. Are we not already embracing those? That seems to be existing policy.

I can fully understand why Mr. Savage said we should focus on highest protein efficiency for those who can do it most efficiently. However, is it the case that this would have to be done at EU level? What we have at EU level are specific greenhouse gas targets for Ireland, which it must meet. The decision we have is how we allocate that between different gases and see what the knock-on effect is for different sectors. That is what we are trying to assess. It seems that we do not have the luxury of ignoring global GHG figures. We are tied in under Paris and the EU approach. One could argue that we ought to change the EU approach. That is a legitimate argument.

Mr. Savage said there is a relentless rise in animal protein demand. The fundamental question I presume people would ask is whether that relentless growth is consistent with the Paris objectives. We cannot afford to assume just because the middle class is growing across the globe that we will be able to expand production to meet existing patterns of protein consumption. Do we not have to be a bit more sensitive to what is possible within the Paris context?

Mr. Desmond Savage:

I thank the Deputy. On the point about Teagasc and what it is doing, I have been to Moorepark a number of times and I have been talking to a number of people in Teagasc at Lyons farm and Grange. There is great work going on there. I am not going to try to describe all the work. There are hundreds of people doing great work in that space.

The point I wanted to make was around the metric and how we measure it. I am coming from a technology background. I have seen how these metrics can have a cost benefit analysis and improve the performance of manufacturing when used correctly. Ireland has one of the best manufacturing records in the world. It is true and simple - if you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it. All I would like to add to all the good work that is going on with the likes of Teagasc is to consider the importance of metrics. Metrics matter and they have to be the right metrics. That is what I am trying to contribute to all that really good work that is going on there.

The Deputy made a point about the EU and GHG targets. This actually feeds into my very point on metrics. I appreciate we are talking to people here who are legislating through Ireland and the EU but I am a citizen of the world. Greenhouse gases does not pay any attention to borders. We might meet our targets here in Ireland but that kind of net negative impact on the global environment is a really good example. That is an example of where metrics are actually having a net wrong effect. It is easy for me to say but when it comes to greenhouse gases, there should not be Ireland targets or EU targets; there should be world targets. I know it is not an easy one to solve but it makes my point that using the wrong metrics can have the wrong effect, even though people think they are doing the right thing. If I am concerned about the world environment, I think that Ireland, with its grass-fed system and efficient farming with good genetics, is best positioned to produce high-quality milk and protein, which is a requirement for the growing middle class globally.

That chimes perfectly with Article 2.1 of the Paris climate change agreement in that food security, which we are hearing a lot about at the moment, needs to be maintained. Should we risk a very successful industry in either restricting or reducing it and impacting on future food security because we are trying to meet targets that are linked to the EU or Ireland which, arguably, are not going to be that beneficial for a global environment? A rethink needs to be had on this before any legislation is enacted. My main point is that global GHGs are not restricted to borders whereas we are setting targets that are. That is a good example of how setting the wrong metrics can have the wrong effect.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Savage. I will move now to Deputy Whitmore.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Savage for coming in today and for his presentation, which was really interesting. I could not agree more with him when it comes to measuring metrics and making sure the right information is being used to inform decisions, and about incentivising farmers to do the right thing. That is an area in which we certainly have not been doing work over many years.

I have a couple of questions, the first of which is with regard to the system he was talking about. He said it is monitoring at an animal level. Is it monitoring at an animal level for the purpose of real-time reductions in emissions from particular cows or for the purposes of breeding future animals that will have lower reductions? Is it a bit of both? How long would that process take? My second question relates to the metrics. To be fair, Mr. Savage was asked to look at the efforts to reduce emissions but if we look at farming from an Irish context, it seems not to work for the environment or the farmer at the moment. If we just look at it very much from an emissions perspective, yes, then maybe just reducing animal emissions is the metric we would look at. However, surely we should look at it more broadly. There is river pollution, biodiversity loss and a continued intensification of the industry for people, which means there are lower incomes and more stress for farmers. It is really not working for farmers. Should we include metrics that are not just emissions but also look at farmers' lives, their incomes and the future of farming and maybe broaden them to use this as an opportunity to reform farming so that it works for farmers, the environment, the country, food security and all those things? Those are my two questions.

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.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Savage for his presentation. He is involved in the collection of the information. His sole focus is the application of the monitoring systems. With regard to research institutes or the Department, is Mr. Savage working with any of these organisations? Is his system being used by people who will be in a position to make decisions on where we go or by companies who may be in a position to develop food or inputs which will enhance or reduce the cattle's emissions based on information his product gathers? Is it something an efficient farmer will use to streamline his own operation or is Mr. Savage involved on a larger scale with research institutes, feed suppliers, the Department or Teagasc with a view to how the information Mr. Savage is collecting can be used to improve the output of our herd? I get Mr. Savage's argument about the carbon leakage and it is a gripe of mine. We have had the beef data and genomics programme, BDGP, schemes and are improving genomics. What input can Mr. Savage's system have in improving genomics, breeding and efficiency of our feed input to keep us ahead of the posse and avoid the necessary increase in the herds in places like Brazil where none of this efficiency is being incorporated?

Mr. Desmond Savage:

It is a good question. We provide a data set associated with individual animals. First you have data; when people start to look at them, those data become information; when you start to combine information, you develop knowledge and then wisdom. That is the progression. In accordance with our terms and conditions and the general data protection regulation, GDPR, all the data collected at farm level are owned by the farmer. I suspect in time farmers will look at this data as an asset and might be able to develop some revenue off the back of them. As you combine data sets, you can expedite the information and knowledge available. Right now, we are honouring our terms and conditions and farmers' data remain the property of farmers but in the future there may be an opportunity to farm the data and move from farming animals to farming data. When we start doing that and applying technology such as artificial intelligence, machine learning and the myriad of technologies out there, there are significant improvements to be made in the future. I see it going that way but we need to be careful to follow GDPR and ensure farmers' data are respected. I do not know if that answers the question. We have to honour GDPR before moving to the next stage. I suspect with the likes of research institutes, this is something we will do in the near future.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has there been any communication? Has that next potential stage commenced? Have any institutes, companies or the Department shown any interest in progressing the relationship with the company with a view to using its technology for the aforementioned purposes?

Mr. Desmond Savage:

A few initiatives have started. We have an innovative partnership approved with Lyons Farm in UCD, which is starting next month on a trial. We have spoken to Tyndall and Moorepark and have some ongoing trials with NUI Galway and Grange. We are networked but it is at an early stage. Going back to my experience of seeing this in manufacturing, you get data integrity and the structures right and, once that foundation is laid, you can progress and start to use those data sets correctly as you move up the data food chain towards information, knowledge and wisdom. We are engaging but are an early stage company and there are challenges when engaging with institutes in relation to intellectual property, IP. That can be a hindrance but it is part of commercial reality.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the fact this meeting is taking place. I apologise because I am at the Committee of Public Accounts as well, so I will be in and out of both. I thank Mr. Savage for his opening statement.

When we talk about greenhouse gas emissions, there are three strands to the discussion: the global targets and ambitions that are agreed; the national implementation of those targets; and, particularly in the context of agriculture, the on-farm basis on which those national targets are set. That third strand has been completely lost, despite the fact that, in reality, we will not and cannot effectively and fairly meet our national targets without getting the on-farm process right - in other words, without being able to measure and account for the level of sequestration, storage and emission that takes place on every farm in order that we can reward good behaviour and tackle negative behaviour as it becomes evident. It cannot become evident, however, unless we have some way of measuring it on an on-farm basis.

Mr. Savage's analogy of cattle being like cars is a good one. At present, extrapolating the position of one versus the other, if somebody were to go to the expense of purchasing an electric car, we would continue to penalise him or her because of somebody else driving the 4 l gas guzzler to which Mr. Savage referred. Therein lies the difficulty in getting large numbers of farmers to make the types of changes that are necessary. We are not properly incentivising them to make those moves and those investments.

As for comments that more attention needs to be paid to measuring and establishing the correct metrics, what precisely do we need to measure better? What are the correct metrics Mr. Savage has said we need to adopt? He touched on that, but could he elaborate further?

Members of both committees will be familiar with Teagasc. It has set out that existing technologies and evolving technologies and practices could be sufficient to get us to 18% of the emissions reductions required. We know that the 2020 sectoral targets require us to get to between 22% and 30%. In Mr. Savage's view, what is the scope and the capacity of technologies such as the ones his company uses, but others as well, to fill the gap between the 18% Teagasc says is achievable and the more ambitious target that is likely to be applied to the sector?

Mr. Desmond Savage:

To address the Deputy's last point first, I am very confident, being involved in the sector and seeing the work ongoing, that, through technology, changes to peat practices, etc., reductions will be achieved. However, going back to the Deputy's first point, we really need to flip the metrics on their head. Pushing down national or EU metrics at the farm level means nothing to farmers. If we were to reverse that and to come up with metrics at farm level that farmers could understand and achieve, we would achieve our national targets through osmosis, by working at the farm level rather than by pushing down. Going back to my industry experience, there is, typically, a pyramid of metrics. At the factory level, there is concern not about the top of the pyramid but about the metrics, yield, efficiency and so forth, that is, the stuff they can control. If you can control the stuff at the bottom of the pyramid, at the factory level or the farm level, you will naturally achieve the metrics higher up. I do not know how to go about fixing this. At present, we are pushing down high-level metrics onto a farm level. That simply will not work. There needs to be more of a pull from the bottom up. I do not have the answer as to how that can be achieved, but I am here to suggest the importance of metrics and that people know there are technologies out there that can enable this to happen. Technologies are improving all the time. I have no doubt that we can achieve these targets through technology without impacting national food security and while doing the right thing for the environment.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Carthy, if you wish to come in again, you have about a minute and a half left.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, thank you. The Co-Chair knows that I like to be brief.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Definitely only a lately got habit.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Co-Chairman, Deputy Cahill, has returned. I do not know if you heard his reaction to that, Deputy Carthy.

Before we finish this session of our meeting, I will add to Deputy Carthy's final question. A very interesting point has been made. Governments, not just in Ireland but all over the world, use the levers available to them to try to enact change across sectors in society. What I am hearing from you, Mr. Savage, is that a bottom-up approach using technology will help governments to achieve their objectives. I am very interested in the idea that if farmers know and understand the level of emissions associated with their farms and their herds, they will drive efficiencies at farm level. Do I hear you correctly in that regard, Mr. Savage?

Mr. Desmond Savage:

If every farmer were to approach this that way, we would achieve our national targets a lot more quickly.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For that we need very good technology and metrics at the farm level.

Mr. Desmond Savage:

As I said, we have to get the farmers to adopt these technologies. There will be natural resistance to that, so there is a change management element to this as well. In my experience of manufacturing, there is an 80-20 rule in that 80% of the effort is people, legislation and new ways of working. The technology is the easier part. There is no shortage of technologies out there. It is about getting the people focus right. Things like metrics are a people-focused aspect. If those are got right, the technological advancements are happening so fast that I would have no concern that that level of technology will not do its bit. If we focus on the people-related aspects, including metrics, we will achieve the results more quickly.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Savage would say that has not happened to date and that there is not enough focus on the farm level.

Mr. Desmond Savage:

I am just monitoring what I can see. We are all custodians of the land of the planet. We are passing it on to the next generation. I am just trying to do my bit and get things going in the right direction. I have seen that when this is done right from a manufacturing point of view, benefits in the millions of euro can be seen. Ireland is very good at it. We have some of the best quality records and some of the best efficiencies in manufacturing in the world. I went to University of Limerick and that is what I was taught there in the 1990s. It was Deming, I think, in the 1960s, who said that if you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it. Just because that was said in the 1960s does not mean it is wrong today. It stands the test of time.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As a fellow graduate of University of Limerick, I appreciate your noting its pedigree, Mr. Savage. It is a great institution. My time there goes back to the 1990s as well.

Mr. Desmond Savage:

I might have seen you in the Stables, Chairman.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We probably crossed paths in the Stables all right. That brings us to the end of the first session of the meeting. I will suspend the sitting for a moment to allow our guests to leave and to allow new guests to come in. I thank Mr. Savage for coming to share with us his insight and expertise.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am going to invite the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Cahill, to step in. I thank him for the opportunity to chair his august committee for an hour.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We need a comprehensive solution in respect of the issues we are facing. I hope that as a result of this series of meetings, we will be able to go to the various Ministers with concrete proposals for how we embrace the technology that is available and move things forward to ensure sustainable food production. That has become even more pertinent as a result of the war in Ukraine and the vulnerability of food supply.

I welcome everyone to the second session of the meeting. Witnesses giving evidence within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. That means a witness has a full defence against any defamation action from anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse the privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's direction. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in that regard. I remind them of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that as far as reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who are to give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts. They may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses outside of the proceedings held by the committee of any matter arising from the proceedings.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to the utterances of members participating online in a committee meeting when their participation is from within the parliamentary precincts. There can be no assurance relating to participation online from outside the parliamentary precincts, and members should be mindful of this when they are contributing.

In this second sessions we will deal with the same subject matter and will hear from representatives of EASYFIX Livestock Comfort. Those representatives are: Mr. Michael Earls, managing director; Mr. P.J. Burke, sales director; Mr. Niall Earls, director of production and planning; Mr. Michael Parker, adviser; and Mr. Ronan Boyle, director of business development. I call on a representative of EASYFIX to make an opening statement. You are very welcome, gentlemen.

Mr. Michael Earls:

We welcome the foresight of both committees to dedicate a hearing to see how technology can play a major role in reducing farm emissions. I am the managing director of EASYFIX. I am joined by my colleagues, Mr. Ronan Boyle, Mr. Niall Earls and Mr. P.J. Burke.

EASYFIX is a Galway-based company whose focus for the past 25 years has been to provide innovative products that improve animal welfare. Given the time of year, the committee may know us best for our horse-friendly fences that have significantly reduced injuries to horses and riders in horse racing. The committee may not know that we export a whole range of products to over 60 countries worldwide. We are proud of the fact that we are now the world's number one supplier of livestock comfort products.

There has been a lot of talk about how we can reduce emissions and I respectfully submit that much of this debate has generated more heat than light. We at EASYFIX believe this should not be a simplistic binary debate that centres on the need to cull the national herd to meet climate targets.

We are also concerned that there is an urgent need to focus on the here and now. Looking at improving genetics or the use of feed additives are great ideas, but there are solutions that are tried and tested and currently available that can cut emissions radically. We believe that technology can make an enormous contribution. We urge both committees to support the concept of a dedicated emissions reduction fund to be put in place for Irish agriculture that ring-fences funds and links them to emission reduction targets. We must act today if we are to make serious inroads to meet our emissions targets. Other countries actively support farmers with capital grants of up to 40%. It is our view that the Government needs to support farmers and help give them the tools to do the job.

When people talk about technology they often talk about the future potential of technology. My team and I will not do that. We will show members what is possible today. We will demonstrate that with two technologies, namely, slat rubber mats and EASYFIX slurry technology. The benefits of these two technologies have been proven in farm trials and using actual performance data by Wageningen University and Research and peer reviewed by Professor Gary Lanigan, National University of Ireland, NUI, Galway. The combined benefits of both technologies are worth outlining. They are: reduce on-farm emissions by 24%; a major reduction in artificial fertiliser of more than 25%; significantly reduces lameness and joint swelling in animals; a resultant fall of antibiotic use; a major gain in animal welfare that helps counter the reputational challenge to our green image from winter housing; and some 10% of farm deaths are slurry related - our system helps eliminate hydrogen sulphide, which will be safer for both farmers and their animals. I will ask my colleague, Mr. Ronan Boyle, to outline each system in turn.

Mr. Ronan Boyle:

I will explain to the members the two products we are here to speak about today.

Methane and ammonia present the greatest challenge for emissions reductions on farms, with 99% of national ammonia emissions coming from agriculture. The burden of reduction rests solely with agriculture. Some 48% of all ammonia comes from housing and manure storage. Our EASYFIX slat rubber product is a cushioned rubber covering that is applied to the top of a concrete slat in animal housing. A recent Teagasc trial confirmed a 13% increase in performance will equate to a 19% reduction in methane. The most recent trial by Teagasc on the benefits of slat mats showed a 17% increase in animal performance, which would equate to a 24% reduction in methane. One other significant benefit is that animals are much more comfortable on rubber and lameness and joint swelling is massively reduced. In one farm trial, the use of rubber slats reduced antibiotic use from 11% of the herd to 0.5%, with lameness levels down from 8% to 0.5% - a very significant reduction.

Members also may be aware of articles inEuropean Supermarket Magazineand farming publications that have called into question our animal welfare standards in winter housing. For more than ten years we have been working with Wageningen University and Research on how rubber slat mats reduce ammonia emissions. Slat mats reduce ammonia emissions by rapidly draining urine from the surface of the slat into the tanks below, preventing urine and faeces from mixing and thereby reducing urease activity that causes ammonia to be released. The research from Wageningen University and Research shows a very significant reduction of ammonia emissions of between 34% and 49%. We believe that between now and 2030 a planned and phased emissions reduction fund will achieve a 60% adoption rate by farmers, and this will play a significant part in Ireland achieving its target reductions between now and 2030.

I will play a short video to demonstrate the product.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will have to go into private session to show the video. It is an unusual departure for us to have videos at a committee meeting.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I invite Mr. Boyle to continue.

Mr. Ronan Boyle:

EASYFIX slurry technology is a system that was developed a number of years ago by a UK entrepreneur. We liked the system so much, as we could see its potential, that we bought the business in 2021. EASYFIX slurry technology is an installation that can be used in either existing or new slurry tanks. It deploys a network of pipes throughout the tank that injects oxygenated air that helps break down the slurry and keep it in a liquid state. This method of treatment is proven to reduce methane by an average of 54%. Trial data from Wageningen University and Research on this system also showed a 51% reduction in ammonia emissions. The system has the added benefit of increasing the nutrient values of the slurry. Given the current price of fertiliser coupled with Ireland's target of reducing the use of chemical fertiliser on farms, optimising the slurry is a must for all farmers. Equally important, the slurry stays in a liquid state and it eliminates the need for agitation, which provides a much safer environment for animals and farmers alike.

I will show the members a short video to demonstrate how the system has helped on farms in Ireland.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have to go into private session again.

Mr. Michael Earls:

We hope members have seen at first-hand how our technology can help to meet our emissions targets. I am sure they would like to know how an emissions fund might work and what it might cost. Our view is that we would need a commitment to fund emission reductions from now until 2030. We estimate that a fund of €30 million to €40 million per annum would be sufficient to ensure Irish farms will be the most sustainable farms in the world. Our simple view is to focus on what we can do today. We can reach our targets fully and more quickly through the mechanism proposed. Any delay in the implementation of a dedicated fund will leave Irish farmers with unachievable targets to reach. Decisions taken now can ensure that we will achieve our targets in a sustained manner. It will improve our soil and air quality, cut emissions substantially and improve animal welfare. It will also cut the number of farm fatalities and accidents and help support our reputation for producing great food in a sustainable and responsible manner. We therefore urge the committee to call on the Government to implement a dedicated emissions-reduction fund for Irish agriculture. This should be exclusively used to achieve emissions reductions and should not be part of any other capital support grants. It should be implemented without delay. We believe we could achieve our emissions targets through the use of technology without the need to cull the national herd.

Irish agriculture and Irish farmers are very innovative. We have shown an ability to adapt and develop new products and offerings. In this regard, consider how the dairy industry pioneered the development of cream liqueurs or how Ireland has become a global leader in protein-based nutrition. We have some of the best farmers in the world and a global reputation for quality. We now need to ensure that we are at the cutting edge of technology that will make our farms more sustainable and greener. I thank the members for their time and courtesy.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Earls. That was a very interesting opening statement.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses. I apologise, as I had to attend another meeting during the first part of this one.

I have seen the system in operation. It reduces methane emissions by 54%. That is a big number. The delegates are saying the system increases the nutrient value of slurry. Since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, we have all seen the price of fertiliser shoot up. Anything that reduces the dependency of farmers on chemical fertiliser has to be welcomed.

Mr. Earls gave a figure of €30 million to €40 million in respect of the dedicated emissions fund. Would this fund be based on performance alone or would it just be for installation and associated measures associated with the system?

Mr. Ronan Boyle:

I thank Deputy Browne for the question. He is correct in saying the system will reduce methane by 54%. There are enough scientific studies done to show the numbers stack up. The same is the case for ammonia.

With regard to fertiliser and the nutrient value of manure, when you reduce ammonia you lock in the nitrogen available to plants in the manure. Regarding on-farm performance, nutrient values were probably never more important. We see this demonstrated by the two farmers in the video. Mr. Trevor Crowley, who has been using the system for 17 years, has seen dramatic improvements in performance, particularly regarding soil health. He would state he has a very low chemical fertiliser bill annually. This is also the case for farmer Paddy Prendergast from Kilkenny, who has been using this system for about eight years. When we were doing due diligence work in the system, we carried out many on-farm measurements of the nutrient values of the slurry. There are variations from farm to farm depending on the diet of the animals etc., but we typically see a doubling of the nutrient values in the manure. A fund that would support technology like the system in question would be very welcome for Irish agriculture.

Mr. Michael Earls:

With regard to monitoring emissions and obtaining the numbers we are talking about, we have invested heavily in the state-of-the-art equipment that gives us those numbers. We are the only ones in the country other than Teagasc with equipment that can do this. We rely on the figures coming back from Wageningen University and Research, the Netherlands, with which we have been working for the past ten or 11 years. The figures we are giving are primarily independent, not ours, but we have the figures to back them up.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would the €30 million to €40 million, which is what EASYFIX proposes for a dedicated emissions fund, be based on performance alone or on installation and other measures associated with the system?

Mr. Michael Earls:

A fund of €30 million to €40 million per annum over the eight years would pretty much cover 70% of the farmers in Ireland by the end of 2030.

We have costed it. There are costings on the slat rubber and the aeration and this is the figure that is needed to install the products on that number of farms. This is not just an Easyfix fund or anything like that; there are other companies. For example, there is a company in Finglas, County Dublin, that has an excellent slat rubber product. It is our biggest competitor on the marketplace. Its product has the same accreditation as ours, which comes from Wageningen University. I have no doubt that in the future other technologies will come on board. A fund like that for 2030 would encourage other technologies to come to the fore.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have seen the rubber mats around the country. Do the witnesses know what percentage of farmers are using this system? Do they have a breakdown of that by county?

Mr. Michael Earls:

We have between 18% and 20% cover at this stage. That fund would complete another 50% of the farms in Ireland, which is around 53,000 farms. That is where we are getting our figures from.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome our guests and thank them for coming up to us to share their technology and understanding of the sector. It is appreciated and I welcome this science-led approach. The videos the witnesses showed us in the private session were interesting.

I want to ask about the 54% methane reduction. I accept that it is independently peer-reviewed but I want to get clarity. The witnesses are probably talking about methane associated with slurry waste as opposed to the other end, which is probably the bigger challenge in agriculture. Notwithstanding that, it is a fair point that methane is associated with the degradation of waste, which we should seek to reduce. I ask the witnesses to confirm that.

I agree with them in principle on having an emissions reduction fund. We should be investing to get emissions reductions now. Any fund the State would put in place would need to be robust, transparent and verifiable and would need to achieve what it sets out to achieve. The State should carefully consider that because we are talking about a large amount of money, between €30 million and €40 million per annum for eight years. If it could be shown to work there is a strong case for it.

I ask the witnesses to enlighten us on what funding is in place for this kind of technology development and research in the private sector. If there is no funding, that is remiss given the challenge we have. Are similar funds in place overseas and in other jurisdictions that Ireland can look at? In one of the videos we saw, a farmer from County Cork outlined that fertiliser costs on his farm had significantly reduced, which is positive. We frequently hear in this committee how farmers are struggling with input costs. It is welcome that there is a technology that can help them to reduce those costs and be economically sustainable.

This leads me to the question of environmental sustainability. Has any research been done by the witnesses or can they point to any research that would support the idea that this technology can reduce the local impacts of fertiliser on water courses and so on? We have a huge challenge in that regard also, notwithstanding the climate challenge we face. The rivers of Ireland have degraded significantly in recent decades and a lot of that is due to slurry run-off and increased use of nitrates related to fertiliser and so on. If there is research to show this technology can help the environment at local level, particularly with regard to water quality, I would like to hear about it.

Mr. Ronan Boyle:

I will address the points the Co-Chairman made in sequence. On methane and manure, the 54% reduction is coming from methane which is stored in manure as opposed to enteric methane from the animal.

The Co-Chairman asked if funding is in place to support private companies for research and development in technology such as this. Outside of Enterprise Ireland or local LEADER funding that private enterprises may avail of, I am not aware of any Irish funding we can tap into to support this. Our investments have been significant in recent years, both in Ireland and across Europe, including in the Netherlands where we have spent ten years working on environmental projects around rubber flooring in particular. That has all been self-funded by Easyfix.

From an environmental and sustainability point of view, the Co-Chairman referred to water courses, soil health, etc. The big advantage we would see with slurry technology systems is that they will allow farmers to better manage their slurry on-farm because the absence of technology on the farm makes the management of manure much more difficult. I probably need to explain the difficulties farmers face. If a tank is full of manure, it needs to be agitated to be spread. In order to agitate it a full tank is needed and Irish tanks are typically about 8 ft deep. When that is agitated there is a window of three days before it starts to return to a solid state so farmers are under time pressure to extract the slurry at that time and spread it on the land. Therefore, sometimes land gets a little more than it technically should get. With the use of a slurry technology system, slurry is effectively available on tap. Trevor Crowley is probably the ultimate example in that he has a dairy farm and runs a paddock system for his cows. His cows go in and graze out of paddock and he follows them with slurry. He probably puts out slurry two or three times per week so he is able to use it in the correct application rate and follow his cows, as opposed to applying chemical fertiliser. He is able to use the slurry on his terms, not on the basis of having it agitated and having to empty the tank. It is about the management of the slurry in that respect.

There is another important scientific point. The manure that is being applied to the land that has been treated in a system like Easyfix is an aerobic product, as opposed to an anaerobic product which is untreated. That has a whole host of implications for soil health and what happens thereafter on the land. Worm counts and so on are all linked to that. I hope that answers the Co-Chairman's question.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It certainly does. I thank Mr. Boyle for that. Is there research on the water quality point? That is what I am particularly interested in. It sounds like something that should be undertaken if we can show there is a link.

Mr. P.J. Burke:

On the earlier question about funding overseas, there are seven countries that provide subsidies for the installation of slat rubber. In Finland, for the past five years there has been a minimum 40% subsidy for the installation of rubber.

On top of that, the meat factories give 11 cent per kg deadweight to farmers, which equates to about 30% to 40%, depending on the kill-out and the price of the animal. Norway adopted the technology four years ago and it too gives a 40% minimum subsidy. In the Netherlands for the past four years, the Government has given a 40% subsidy for installing rubber under all bovine animals, be it veal, dairy or beef animals. In Germany, some of the biggest federal states, such as Schleswig-Holstein, Lower Saxony and Bavaria, have a minimum 40% subsidy. In addition, by the year 2024, it will be mandatory for all new builds in Germany to have slat rubber, be it our rubber or some other rubber on the marketplace. In Northern Ireland for the past seven years, slat rubber was on top of the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS, chosen product for subsidy. It had been adopted during that period by many farmers in the North of Ireland. Just this year in Cumbria, which is a sensitive area a bit like the Burren in Ireland, they have adopted a full 100% grant for the installation of our rubber that has a regulation on ammonia and livestock, RAV, number of a 30% reduction in ammonia in a sensitive area. These are all countries that have seen the need for the uptake of rubber and have stimulated farmers to take that on.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am very appreciative of that answer. It is very helpful. I am mindful the time. I know others want to get in but I am interested in that question. Mr. Burke might come back to it in further answers and perhaps show a correlation between improved water quality and the use of technology such as his.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming in. Mr. Boyle might me take me through something I am trying to get into my head. On slat mats, Mr. Boyle said the animal thrives quicker, but Teagasc did research that found it actually ends up that the animal is not as long on the farm, to put it simply.

Can Mr. Boyle explain where he was talking about the solid manure not mixing on the slat when it goes down and how it does not allow methane? I want to get my head around the aeration system. Is there an additive added to it that keeps it soft all the time? I know a small bit about contractors. We use 39 l an hour of diesel when we are agitating. That is the fact of having an agitator in a fairly big tractor and one is trying to get it agitated fairly quickly. Mr. Boyle said it avoids that.

I understand the point Mr. Boyle's made when talking to Deputy Leddin about how there are roughly two days for slurry, because I have often seen slurry after two days and you are going nowhere with it because it has become too thick. Mr. Boyle said that the farmer has the choice of picking good days to put it out and that two-day window is not forced. For my sins and being in machinery, will Mr. Boyle explain to me the mechanism that is involved? For example, is there a motor or is it a piped system? Will he explain to me, if he can, how it reduces this methane that is in the tank? Is it clear that when this is going on and it is soft all of the time that there are no emissions going up during the day or on a continuous basis? I am trying to get my head around that bit.

I was interested in what Mr. Burke said about the different countries. He referenced Ireland getting sort of a kick in the teeth from a journalist. Can he tell me more about that? I understand there was a journalist undercover or something.

If Mr. Boyle and Mr. Burke could go through those, I might have a couple more questions for them after that.

Mr. Ronan Boyle:

I will address the Deputy’s slat rubber question first. From a performance point of view, it is proven the world over in numerous trials that animals will thrive better on a rubber flooring where a slatted system is in use versus a concrete flooring. The most recent trial done by Teagasc, which was published in late 2021-----

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for interrupting Mr. Boyle. Is he talking about dairy, beef, a weanling, or is it all?

Mr. Ronan Boyle:

It can take all animals.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will it suit all parts of the country, such as the west of Ireland?

Mr. Ronan Boyle:

Absolutely. On that Teagasc trial, they got about a 17% increase in performance. Performance typically would equate to what you would anticipate getting off of a straw-based system. Concrete animals would not perform as well just because, I suppose, it is a comfort thing. They probably consume more energy when they are in housing and their feed conversion is poorer. Typically, to give it in numbers, animals on a finishing diet, for example, might put on about 1.1 kg per day. On a rubber slatted system, that could be increased to about 1.3 kg or 1.4 kg. That is where you get extra performance and reduced days to beef. Typically, on average, we would see the days to beef being reduced by anything from 21 to 28 days. That represents a significant savings in terms of emissions from the animal. It will also make farmers more efficient and profitable because animals are processed faster on the farm.

To explain what happens with the ammonia, if there was a concrete slat or flat surface, when urine and faeces mix, urease, it is like a chemical reaction takes place that basically forms ammonia and ammonia is released into the atmosphere. With the application of a rubber covering over the slat, our rubber has a curved profile on top so the urine drains into the tank pretty much instantly. Therefore, urease activity does not take place.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does it take place in the tank?

Mr. Ronan Boyle:

It will take place in the tank. However, from the point of the amount of ammonia emitted from housing and storage, typically two thirds, or close to 70%, of ammonia comes from the floor and one third comes from the tank. Therefore, it is significantly reduced. With the application of both technologies together, the ammonia from the tank can be reduced by 51% and from the floor by more than 30%.

On the Deputy’s question on the slurry technology system, there are no additives used to enhance the slurry or that a farmer has to manually add periodically to it, in the sense that some people put in slurry bugs and such, which need to be put in at a certain time and needs to be mixed and activated and stuff like that. There is no labour intervention, if you want to call it that, by the farmer. A system is set up to run and treat the slurry. It will eliminate the need for agitation.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Boyle said "treat". What does he mean by that?

Mr. Ronan Boyle:

We would always look at it as what one is trying to do is alter the microbiology of the manure. When manure leaves an animal and enters a tank, it is in an anaerobic state. From there, anaerobic activity typically is what causes emissions on farms. It is the reason why ammonia and methane are released. It is the microbiology that is happening down in the tank. When oxygenated air is injected through a network of pipes that are fixed to the floor of the tank, which is driven by a compressor, the oxygenated air being put in basically feeds the aerobic bacteria that are in what let us call a semi-dormant state. What you are trying to do is alter the levels and balance so that instead of the anaerobic being the dominant force in the tank doing the damage releasing methane and so on, the aerobic are awoken, they start to thrive and suppress the anaerobic. That is why you get ammonia locked in, that is, the nutrients are remaining in the slurry. It is why the methane is no longer volatilised off. It is all about the microbiology. With systems like this, it is not the case where, if I decided to put out slurry in a week’s time, I will turn on the system four days beforehand and it will be a nice liquid state.

The system is designed in order that as long there is manure in the tank that you want to utilise, you are treating the slurry. It is about getting the microbiology of the slurry correct. That is what our system achieves.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If you use a slurry agitator, the slurry is always thicker on the splash plate. The company has a low-emissions slurry-spreading system. Does water have to be added?

Mr. Ronan Boyle:

No.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can it be put out like digestate, where it would go out through a pump system, to put it in simple terms, which would be better for people with land that would be more difficult to cover? Are the pipes in the system along the floor? Mr. Boyle might explain that, because I am trying to get my head around it.

Mr. Ronan Boyle:

A network of pipes is fixed to the floor. They all run back to a compressor, which drives air through the network. Each area of the tank gets treated with air twice per day for roughly four and a half minutes for each location. That is the treatment of the manure. The system makes sure the manure is consistent as opposed to having solids at the bottom, water in the middle and a crusting on top. It will prevent crusting forming on the top where, typically, when one would go in with an agitator and break down the crust. It is like opening a bottle, one lifts the lid and suddenly hydrogen sulphide, nitrous oxide, N2O, and all the gases that, unfortunately, have claimed the lives of animals, are emitted.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have not commented on one aspect of this. Each of us would have had near scrapes. There is the danger associated with this. We should remember the people who lost their lives.

Mr. Ronan Boyle:

Absolutely.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When the crust is broken, gas is emitted. Many people have got caught out by it. The witnesses should cover that aspect. We have not touched on the safety element.

Mr. Ronan Boyle:

I concur with the Deputy. When you put an agitator into a tank, it can catch you out.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Not matter how good one is at it.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There can be a danger to animals, which is not as important as human lives. A significant number of animals have been lost as a result of agitation every year. I would like to get the figures on that. I would say there are two to three fatalities every year with slurry accidents on farms.

Mr. Ronan Boyle:

Some 10% of farm deaths from 2007 to 2018 were caused by slurry accidents. There is no warning with it. It is not a case that you get a warning and can move away. It happen instantly.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is like clapping your hands.

Mr. Ronan Boyle:

Absolutely. Safety is a major aspect of this. It will prevent deaths.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Reference was made to grants. Have the witnesses examined the percentage of farmers who have slatted sheds and the length of time cattle are housed in sheds? Farmers in the west would have cattle housed for way longer than their counterparts in the area from which the Chairman comes because the land quality there would be different. Farther south, cattle would be out grazing earlier, perhaps in February. What is the average length of time cattle are housed in sheds? From the witnesses' research, if they have done any, what number of slatted sheds are in the country? What would be the ballpark cost for farmers to go down this road? Would it be expensive to install this system in an average three-bay shed or a three-bay double shed with a suspended passage? I accept the cost would depend on the scale. Is the compressor an ordinary compressor that would be run on electricity?

Mr. Ronan Boyle:

I will take the last part of the Deputy's question and I will let Mr. Earls address the first part. The system is driven by a compressor, which is a specific model in terms of the volume and frequency of air that is used, and it is linked to a rotary valve that drives the air into the tank into each location for a specific volume of air for a specific amount of time. Those are the mechanics of the slurry technology system.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would have stop valves and all the rest of it.

Mr. Ronan Boyle:

It is a rotary valve. When it pushes air through the first one, it will go through and then it goes to the next port, and the sequence continues.

Mr. Niall Earls:

On the first part of the Deputy's question regarding the number of sheds in the country - and "ballpark" is the right word to use in this respect - we estimate that there are more than 100,000, with only 20% of them having rubber flooring currently. That brings us back to a previous question the Deputy asked, which has not been addressed, regarding an article by a Dutch journalist for a particular publication. The journalist, Wakker Dier, came to Ireland to do what could be called an undercover exposé on beef production here. He visited a number of sheds and found that our beef production is predominantly based on cold slippy concrete slats, as he described them, with little room for each animal, perhaps only up to 2.5 sq. m. That was quite an embarrassing article for Bord Bia, which was the target of this article due to the green, grass-fed image that we portray around the world. He decided that image needed to be exposed for what it was. For 60% of the year our cattle are outside grazing on grass but, in reality, for 40% of the year they are housed indoor because it is not feasible or practical to have cattle out all year round. Therefore, for 40% of the year animals are kept indoors. Only 20% of the floors they are on have soft rubber flooring. There is a great number of cattle on those slats, as that journalist mentioned. The article was embarrassing for Bord Bia. For food to get a stamp of quality, surely an animal having been in comfortable circumstances would be one of the main requirements.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept the importance of the comfort of the animal but our agenda is to discuss emissions reduction with respect to climate change. I accept the importance of the comfort of the animal, grass quality and quality assurance, but the topic we are discussing is the how the witnesses' technology can reduce emissions.

Mr. Ronan Boyle:

On top of the basic principle of comfort, there is the added benefit of reducing ammonia by getting urine into the tank quicker. I was answering the question the Deputy asked.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I referred to the three-bay sheds that farmers would have. What would the ballpark cost be of installing this gear in a three-bay shed to reduce emissions?

Mr. Ronan Boyle:

For a three-bay slatted shed, which would be typical of what we have in the west, the cost would be approximately €3,500.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thought it would be more. Does that include a compressor and everything else?

Mr. Ronan Boyle:

No, that is only the cost of the slatted floor underneath the tank for a tank of that size.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about the aeration system?

Mr. Ronan Boyle:

The aeration system would involve a cost of €5,000 to €7,000. For bigger sheds, that price is reduced due to the fact that the main gear would be the compressor-----

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Scale would be a factor.

Mr. Ronan Boyle:

-----which would service more of an area.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would you need a further compressor for a three-bay shed with double suspended passage or would one compressor cover it?

Mr. Ronan Boyle:

One compressor would cover it.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is good to know. I thank the witnesses. I will let the next speaker in.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the representatives from EASYFIX. As a farmer, I want to get my heard around this technology to figure out how it works. Deputy Fitzmaurice has covered much of that. To follow on from that, the witnesses spoke about their research and science and referred to Holland. In that vein, how widespread is this technology in other European countries? I am referring to the slurry aeration technology as opposed to the rubber mats. How well acknowledged is it by the respective governments or departments of those countries where it is used? Are there countries where having a slurry management system in place secures carbon credits for farms in those jurisdictions? I will start off with those points.

Mr. Ronan Boyle:

I thank the Senator for that question. Much of our effort, from a research point of view, has been concentrated in Holland over the past ten years primarily because Holland has probably led the way, in the world at this stage, in on-farm emission reductions. The slurry technology system we have has been available and sold in Holland for the past 12 or 14 years. Quite a large number of farms there currently use the system, along with rubber flooring. The Dutch Government has funding in place whereby technology or solutions that deliver reductions on farms from an emissions perspective are supported by a central fund.

On the carbon credits situation, no country is really trading credits on the back of this at present. It is probably something that will come down the line. We look to the US where this technology is relatively new. It is interesting that technology like this is mainly driven by Irish and UK companies. The same types of systems are not available from local companies in different parts of the world. For instance, we launched in America last year and were the first to market with this technology. We have seen very strong interest and growth in the application of the product in the US market. At this stage of the year, we already have quite a number of large installations ready to be fitted over the coming months. The US will probably be in a situation where it can trade carbon credits attached to farms, probably faster than we would be able to do it in Europe.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As regards Teagasc and the Department here at home, I have seen numerous studies Teagasc has been involved in, along with beef factories and individual farmers, with regard to the mat, where a comparison of the animal on concrete, on peat, on straw, on rubber and on concrete without rubber was done. Has EASYFIX had any dealings with Teagasc regarding the slurry aeration system? Has it had any previous contacts with the Department with regard to its efficiencies?

Where I am coming from is based on the figures EASYFIX has given me, especially as a farmer, and on eliminating the diesel, time and agitation, which are all pluses. Being able to put out slurry on the day that suits you, as opposed to the day after the day it has been agitated, has to improve water quality and air quality. Based on all those factors, has EASYFIX had any communication with the Department, or has any work been done with Teagasc on the Department's behalf, to possibly have this system included as a prerequisite in a TAMS-aided shed? The regulations of all grant jobs are changing on an ongoing basis. The Department will always change the grant standard based on safety etc. What are the possibilities? Have the representatives had any communication with the Department regarding making the mats and aeration systems mandatory as part of a TAMS grant-aided job?

Mr. Michael Earls:

I will take that question. We have had a lot of contact with the Department over the past nine months in particular. I remind the Senator we only acquired the technology approximately 18 months ago. Some eight months ago, the Minister visited EASYFIX and we briefed him on what we had. We brought him to some farms where the technology was working. He was very impressed at the time with what we were doing. Some months later, An Taoiseach was at EASYFIX to see how it worked and, again, to get more information on what we are doing etc. What we presented to both individuals was very well received because the proof and back-up are there. The independent back-up is there and all we are doing is relaying what we know are proven technologies. The Department is well aware of what we are doing; there is no question at all about that. We had a subsequent meeting with the Minister in Mayo at one of the mart visits he was doing at the time regarding it so I have no doubt the Department is very well versed on both technologies.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has Teagasc verified any of the tests? Has it been involved in the aeration system in any way?

Mr. Ronan Boyle:

We have not undertaken any research with Teagasc regarding our slurry technology system. Teagasc is in the process of looking at taking measurements on slat rubber from an emissions point of view but, to date, we have not engaged regarding our slurry technology.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are running behind schedule. Is that okay for Senator Daly?

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister having been to EASYFIX probably answers the TAMS question.

Mr. Ronan Boyle:

I would like to comment on TAMS, if I may. Currently, the slurry technology system is grant-aided under TAMS but, unfortunately, the uptake has been very poor. This is mainly because the fact it is in TAMS means people are using their grant funding towards the building of the structure of the shed. The way prices are means that it is not feasible to get it in as part of the building. That is why we advocate that technology like this needs to sit directly outside TAMS in an emissions reduction fund.

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Some of my questions have been touched on but I will clarify Senator Daly's point. Teagasc has had a look at various technologies and actions by farmers that could reduce emissions. It has shown what they cost and whether they have a positive benefit for farmers - in other words, whether they are a net gain for the farm, whether they are more efficient and whether everything is better - versus ones that have a positive cost. Am I to take it from Senator Daly's question that Teagasc or some similar research agency has not done a similar exercise, which means we do not know where this one stacks in the Teagasc marginal abatement cost, MAC, curve of the more efficient carbon abatement measures? Do we know where it stacks?

My second question is allied to that. What is the justification for the taxpayer paying more for this? If it is eligible under TAMS, why should the taxpayer step in to pay more rather than the sector, be it consumers of the product, producers, processors or whoever, because it is generating shorter cycles, better quality and all the rest of it? Those are two aspects. Any subsidy that will be given out for carbon efficiency will have to show that it washes its face in being one of the most effective ways of abating emissions.

Mr. Ronan Boyle:

I will address the first part of the Deputy's question relating to the MAC curve. The current MAC curve as done by Teagasc is mainly focused around feed additives and genetics. That is probably linked to where the research is focused at present. The Deputy may be aware that the MAC curve is currently under review and that new technologies and other abatement measures are being explored and quantified by Teagasc to determine what value they will deliver for farmers. We are fairly confident that slat mats will feature for sure on the revised MAC curve that will be produced. One of the main points that Teagasc has focused on in respect of abatement measures is performance, and performance that is linked to the insulation of slat mats would underpin that. I am more than confident we will see it feature on the revised MAC curve, which is not due for another 12 months.

Mr. Michael Earls:

I will take the next question. Regarding the cost of the scheme, right now we have a climate crisis and we do not have any answers to date. We have put forward some answers that will give some relief to farmers so that they now know if we take certain actions, we can achieve the targets set out by 2030. Not alone can they achieve those targets, but they can surpass those targets. The original aim was to decrease the emissions by 1% per annum. Based on the figures we have presented to the committee, we could achieve a 24% decrease by 2030. When it comes to money, is there anything more important than that right now? In addition are the added benefits of all this. We are talking about the slurry which is absolutely critical right now. This is more critical than ever. We know what it will mean to the farmer to have this extra benefit from the slurry in addition to the safety element of it and better animal husbandry. This €30 million to €40 million per annum is a win-win for everybody.

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The whole point of a MAC curve is to show the investments people could make that give the best returns. I do not quite see the logic of dismissing the MAC curve and saying this is automatically good value for money. We need to see the metrics. Our last presentation said it was all about metrics. We need to see what carbon credits, or whatever one likes to call them, this delivers, verified within the Teagasc MAC curve so that we can see that this is a better investment of €40 million than on other elements within the curve, such as anaerobic digestion and genetics. There are 29 items in that curve. The MAC curve was developed to guide policymakers on choices.

Mr. Michael Earls:

However, it is not our fault that Teagasc has done nothing in this field. We have gone ahead and invested in it ourselves. Can we wait another two or three years for Teagasc do what it may do in the next two or three years to get on to the MAC curve? In two or three years, farmers will be further down the line and their emissions will be even higher than they are now. We need to act now rather than continually waiting another while. We are saying now is the time to act.

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hear what Mr. Earls is saying. I think the solution is to accelerate Teagasc's work in order that we can make an informed decision but I hear what Mr. Earls is saying.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming today. I will not put questions to them now because we are under time pressure. I am delighted and I want to thank the Co-Chairman, Deputy Leddin, for accommodating this joint meeting with the Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action.

I want to hear about the technology that will allow for sustainable food production without affecting production. We are having a few meetings on this subject and I hope when we are finished, the two committees can make a joint proposal on a climate budget to go to Cabinet. Those of us who are farmers know that the TAMS ceiling is very restrictive, especially given the cost of materials now. The costs of building a shed are prohibitive. The maximum grant a farmer can claim is €80,000. This new technology will not be on the footprint when the farmer is doing the shed. When putting together a climate budget, there a valid argument to include this kind of modern technology which can reduce emissions and help us achieve sustainable food production, whether as proposed by EASYFIX or others - it should be open to everyone.

I attended a conference in Paris with officials from the secretariat on Monday. Sustainable food production and food security are very much back on the agenda. The war in Ukraine has very much brought that home. We still cannot ignore climate change. We definitely need to have food security. We need to accept that climate change is there. On numerous occasions, I have said that I am fed up with being told what farmers cannot do; I want to be told what we can do to achieve the targets that we need to achieve to protect our environment. Everybody wants to protect our environment. We also want to ensure we have a sustainable industry. I thank the witnesses for their very insightful presentations. They definitely gave us much food for thought.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am back in the Chair as Deputy Cahill had to leave to attend to some business. Mr. Paul Price, a research assistant at Dublin City University, has joined us. I apologise for keeping him waiting. The previous section of the session ran over time.

I will read the note on privilege before we begin.

The witness is attending from outside the parliamentary precincts so unlike witnesses present on the campus, he may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness who gives evidence from within the parliamentary precincts. He may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on that matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses, outside of the proceedings held by the committee, of any matters arising from the proceedings.

Members of both committees are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses of the Oireachtas or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to the utterance of members participating online in a committee meeting when their participation is from within the parliamentary precincts. There can be no such assurances when members are participating online from outside the parliamentary precincts and members should be mindful of that when they are contributing.

I call Mr. Price to deliver his opening statement.

Mr. Paul Price:

I thank the committees for the opportunity to provide evidence on the crucial subject of reducing Ireland’s agricultural emissions which will be essential in achieving Ireland’s first statutory carbon budget programme as set out in the 2021 climate Act. I am a research assistant in the faculty of engineering and computing at Dublin City University, DCU, researching climate science and low-carbon transition policy.

In my current research, I am funded as a carbon budgeting fellow through the Climate Change Advisory Council, CCAC, and have looked at agriculture, forestry and land use as they relate to Ireland’s climate action and sustainable development goal objectives. Previously, in climate change research projects funded by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and working with Professor Barry McMullin, I have looked at Ireland’s potential for negative emissions technologies and what is needed to achieve an effective economy-wide low-carbon transition aligned with our commitment to the Paris Agreement. I would like to make it clear that my opening statement and my responses today are mine alone and in no way do I speak for DCU or the CCAC.

It is important to recognise that greenhouse gas, GHG, and ammonia emissions are accounted by the EPA in standardised national inventory data reporting to the UN and the EU. Mitigation policies and measures, including technologies and other opportunities, are only useful if they can be verifiably accounted in the national inventory, which requires any new technology or emissions measurement update to pass EPA and international peer review, a process that can take years. Mitigation action is needed now.

Anthropogenic GHG emissions, mostly due to the activities of wealthy nations, have increased global average surface temperature to 1.2°C above the pre-industrial level, resulting in damaging climate change impacts that are most immediately affecting the world’s poorest. The most important GHG is carbon dioxide, primarily from fossil fuel burning. However, the small remaining global GHG budget to stay within the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C guardrail threshold for dangerous climate change is now being depleted very rapidly. Therefore, non-CO₂emissions, especially methane, and other GHG emissions from agriculture, forestry and land use, must also be reduced as a matter of great urgency; otherwise the carbon budget for even rapid energy transition is unfeasibly small.

Reducing annual methane emissions is especially important because this can actually cut its warming impact to date, unlike carbon dioxide or nitrous oxide, which accumulate, increasing their warming impact even as emissions decrease. Research at DCU and University College Cork, UCC, indicates that meeting a fair share Irish GHG budget under Paris temperature goals requires a 50% reduction in methane emissions and a 50% reduction in nitrous oxide emissions, in addition to cutting CO₂to net zero before 2050. Some 93% of Irish emissions of both methane and nitrous oxide arise from agriculture, mostly from cattle through enteric fermentation and manure management. In per capitaterms, Ireland has the highest methane and nitrous oxide emissions in the EU.

This hearing is focused on opportunities to meet the requirement to reduce GHG and ammonia emissions in Ireland’s agriculture sector. It is, therefore, crucial to understand which previous combinations of policies and measures have reduced emissions and which have failed to do so. The recent past gives us a good guide. Agricultural sector GHG emissions peaked in 1998, then fell steadily to 2011, but since 2010 emissions have risen rapidly. Ongoing EU agricultural policies were in place for the period of falling emissions up to 2011, particularly the milk quota limit on total national dairy production. Based on EPA inventory data, the GHG and nitrogen-use efficiency of milk and beef production improved up to 2005 but has not improved significantly since then. Therefore, within Ireland's grass-based system, any increase in milk or beef production now results in more emissions. As soon as the milk quota started to be released from 2010 onwards, and especially from 2013 onwards, milk production increased rapidly and dairy methane emissions have increased just as quickly, as has nitrogen excretion from dairy cows. We know that a quota on production is an effective way to limit inventory emissions. We also now know that in Ireland removing the milk quota on dairy production has been an effective way to increaseemissions.

Has this emissions production linkage and quota effectiveness been well understood by experts? Literature review indicates that experts understand this very well. Teagasc noted that declining GHG and ammonia emissions since 2000 had been falling since then due to declining ruminant livestock numbers and fertiliser use. Specifically, looking at the large potential incoherence between Food Harvest 2020 and climate action, in modelling of dairy and suckler cow numbers in 2012, correctly projected that "achievement of the Food Harvest output targets would make the achievement of any reduction in emissions of GHG from Irish agriculture more difficult".

A second question arises. Compared to the milk quota period up to 2010, have any of the measures proposed or implemented since 2010 been as effective, or even somewhat effective, in curtailing sectoral emissions? The simple answer is that they have not. If anything,by targetingefficiency, measures have helped to increase emissions because there has been no effective limit on animal agriculture production or nitrogen usage. Efficiency measures can result in cost savings that can then be reinvested in more production, thereby increasing total national emissions. That is what has happened.

Modelling has consistently shown that a large decrease in beef cattle production would be required to compensate for emissions growth due to increase milk production from higher emitting dairy cows. However, no policy to ensure achievement of such a compensating reduction without fail has been seriously considered for implementation. Concerningly, recent media reports indicate that dairy cow numbers are anticipated to rise still further to reach 1.8 million by 2025, exceeding Teagasc roadmap projections and requiring more fertiliser and feed inputs.

My research, based on collated data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, FAO, and GWP analysis, shows that the methane warming impact of Ireland’s cattle and sheep has risen linearly since 1961, at first due to beef and sheep emissions rising up to 2010 and then with much increased dairy production since 2010. No other EU member state has maintained such a rapid increase in dairy cow numbers since 2010 in the way Ireland has done. As we have seen in repeated fodder crises and now with the impact of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Ireland's agricultural policy has resulted in a sector that lacks resilience and is highly vulnerable to climate and external price shocks. By contrast, Denmark’s intensive agriculture model has higher animal protein exports than Ireland yet has less than half the methane emissions because, since 1985, Danish agriculture has decreased the ruminant fraction of its animal protein production to below 35%, because there are more pigs and poultry, and has decreased its grass-feeding of ruminants to nearly zero, instead feeding animal indoors with domestically grown grain and protein cropping. I am not endorsing the Danish form of agricultural intensification but the comparison does indicate that by focusing on – and recently further intensifying – its grass-based and ruminant-dominated system, Ireland has chosen to persist with and further intensify a very high emissions form of agriculture that is heavily reliant on increased inputs of imported fertiliser and feed.

Nitrogen is the key element in the proteins essential for plant, animal and human growth but it is also a primary driver of damaging agricultural pollution by nitrous oxide, ammonia to air and nitrates to water. The critical importance of limiting nitrogen use is exhaustively addressed in the European nitrogen assessment, including clear messages in its summary for policymakers. Directing grass and feed inputs, increased by fertiliser use to ruminants, results in more carbohydrates being available for conversion to methane.

A milk or meat quota is effective in cutting emissions because it effectively limits nitrogen input usage so a more productive agrifood system responds to a quota with efficiency to produce the same amount from a reduced amount of nutrient input.

Since 1961, Ireland has increased nitrogen fertiliser use by a factor of 12, yet grass protein production has only doubled. UNFAO data shows that Ireland’s agrifood production system has a very low nitrogen use efficiency overall. The figure is 13%, the worst in Europe and far below the EU average, which was 34% in 2013. Ireland’s nitrogen use efficiency has reduced even further in the past decade due to the conversion from nitrogen-efficient tillage land to low nitrogen-efficient dairy production, which is far more polluting.

The opportunity to cut agricultural emissions and pollution in Ireland or the EU involves enforcing a policy limit on the total use of nitrogen fertiliser and feed inputs to animal agriculture and biology, via national nitrogen budgeting with subsidiary watershed level allocation to limit local pollution. Policy could further be aligned with the climate change science, which has repeatedly pointed out that dietary change toward reduced meat and milk production and consumption, particularly in developed countries, is now essential to align with the Paris Agreement temperature goals.

In summary, urgent mitigation is needed, starting today. That means cutting emissions now, by limiting high-GHG activities. As we have seen over the past decade, promises of mitigation tomorrow may well not be delivered. We should be very cautious, therefore, about misplaced optimism that effective mitigation can be achieved via alternatives, such as carbon farming, fertiliser substitution, biomethane via anaerobic digestion or other technology options. There is the danger that the focus on technical measures may result in a delay that would distract us from regulating when regulation is required. We can recognise what works and what does not. To limit agricultural emissions and pollution, production quotas have been shown to work in Ireland. System-wide changes away from ruminants and the unbalanced, over-reliance on nitrogen fertiliser and feed imports can cut emissions, while improving the national nitrogen balance. Following international experts’ recommendations, we can adopt decision-making based on national and local nitrogen budgeting. I thank the committee for its attention.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Price for his opening statement. I will now invite members to indicate their wish to ask questions. I will kick off with my questions. We had witnesses before us in the previous sessions. I do not know if Mr. Price watched those. The first witness spoke to the importance of metrics at the farm level to encourage farmers to drive efficiency and, ultimately, emissions reduction on their farms. He felt that was being missed in the current policy approach. Mr. Price might comment on that. The second witness spoke about a 54% reduction in methane through manure management, as opposed to the enteric methane, I think it was. I want to find where the balance is between in manure management and just how effective that kind of approach would be at reducing methane emissions on farms? Am I correct in using the word “enteric”?

Mr. Paul Price:

That is right. Enteric fermentation refers to the belching of cows.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Price. I am interested in his views on those. He cited the difference between Ireland's and Denmark's approaches over the past number of decades. Perhaps he could elaborate on that. I think he said that Denmark maintains protein output, while not increasing either emissions or fertiliser use. I do not quite recall which of the two it was. Could Mr. Price speak more about the comparison between Ireland and Denmark, as well as on what we can learn from Denmark that might help us to have a truly sustainable sector? I take his overarching point about numbers, which is well-articulated in his statement.

Mr. Paul Price:

I thank the Co-Chairman for three good questions. On metrics, we have a system whereby everything is set up towards climate action at a party level. Counties have to act. That means that we have climate targets that are based on our emissions under a GWP100 metric system. That is how things are going to stay. That is the way we should think about it because that metric even reflects for methane that if emissions are going down, then we will see that. What is important in Ireland’s action as a party to the UNFCCC is its action at that national level. We can only act on climate in the way that is reflected at the national level through UNFCCC accounting. If technologies and so forth come along to the extent that they are rolled out over a large area and are accepted, that may have an effect in the national accounting. However, until then, that is not the way things operate.

Moreover, when there were limits or policies that affected the total production, for example, when sheep numbers went down or when there was a dairy quota, farmers were smart. They worked within that limit. The efficient ones got more quota or more of the market within that limit. They were the ones who then produced more milk with less nitrogen. However, we have seen since taking up that nitrogen limit on the dairy quota that we are just making more milk with more nitrogen. That is not efficiency. If we were to make more milk with less nitrogen than we were using in 2010, that would be good, but that is not the situation. This has been the opposite of climate action, I am afraid.

The Co-Chairman is right about enteric fermentation. Ruminant enteric fermentation is the dominant emission from agriculture. That is from some sheep, but it is mostly from cattle. That has to be addressed in a big way. Addressing slurry might mean that more nitrogen is used on a pasture and, therefore, that more nitrogen ends up in the water. We therefore have to be very careful about pollution swapping. We might take action against one pollutant and potentially get more pollutant going out elsewhere. Putting a cap on the total amount of nitrogen going into the system would be an effective way to limit all pollution. However, if we let that cap off and go for a financially-based system, more nitrogen will be used because the nitrogen is cheap. Then farmers run into trouble if there is a cost increase.

On the point about Denmark, as I said, I am not at all recommending the way Denmark has gone about things. I am pointing out that Denmark also has animal-based agriculture. After 1985 in Denmark - and this happened commonly across Europe - there was a huge reduction in fertiliser use and a great increase in fertiliser efficiency. The same was true in Ireland in crop production. However, by maintaining a very high fraction of ruminants, especially if they are grass-based, unlike any other country in Europe, lots of nitrogen will be used on grass. Since 1961, we have approximately doubled the total production of grass but we are using 12 times as much nitrogen. That is not efficiency. That is degrading efficiency, even though we are producing more output. That is the trouble with the overall agrifood system in Ireland, in terms of nitrogen. Nitrogen is the essential element in protein. We are far less efficient as an agrifood system than other parts of Europe. That might not be a problem until problems arise, such as those we are now seeing with price impacts or climate shocks. We are therefore setting ourselves up to be less resilient, as well as not acting on climate.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Price for that. Deputy Cahill has returned. I will invite him to take the Chair again. I will have to leave the meeting shortly myself. I will bring in Senator Paul Daly, who was ahead of Deputy Bruton.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a couple of questions for Mr. Price based on his presentation this morning, for example with regard to carbon leakage and food security. I get what he has said about the Irish model, but it is proven to be one of the most efficient when it comes to emissions in production per kilogram of beef and per litre of milk. We have a growing population and we need to maintain food security. If we were to follow Mr. Price's advice and reintroduce quotas, etc., the void in the world food market would be filled by somebody else who is not, at present, as efficient as us. I would like to hear Mr. Price's comments on that view.

Mr. Paul Price:

In terms of carbon leakage, if we want to make the claim that we are acting on climate and other people are not and therefore, we will leak greenhouse gas emissions to those countries, the first prerequisite for that argument is that we are actually meeting our own targets. The targets are absolute. They are not efficiency or intensity targets. Absolute emissions in agriculture have gone up and, most importantly, aggregate methane emissions have gone up.

Emitting more methane is seriously bad for climate. What one must do is decrease methane emissions in every sector. This is not just about agriculture. In every sector in every country, methane emissions and all other emissions had better go down, especially CO₂from fossil fuels, Definitely, methane emissions from any source had better go down. If we are making any argument for carbon leakage, we have to be meeting our climate targets. In pro rataterms, we have done the opposite.

What I was pointing out was that until 2011, Ireland was doing very well. Teagasc reports at the time and Government and departmental reporting were good. We were on track. One of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine's leads, looking back from 2020 on the Teagasc signpost videos, recently said that there was genuine sustainable intensification but we completely threw that out the window.

In 2011, policy was reversed. We had Food Harvest 2020 which was completely incoherent with climate targets. Although it was said that it might only increase emissions by 7%, one of the stated ambitions was that if we did lots of work, such as with the Teagasc MAC curve, at the time, we could keep emissions stable. Even that was not enough. We were supposed to reduce emissions towards the 2020 targets. If one wants to make a carbon leakage claim, one has to at least say we are reducing emissions and then we can start talking about carbon leakage.

One also has to think about what kinds of food production have high greenhouse gas emissions. I am afraid ruminant production from grass has very high greenhouse gas emissions intensity, in terms of the amount of protein produced in output, compared to other forms of production. Denmark has far lower emissions, even though it has an animal-based system, than Ireland. Its system is far more efficient than Ireland's system.

Unfortunately, in a way we have been fooling ourselves. We should think that absolute emissions must go down. If they are not going down, we should be seriously worried. They have not been going down. Methane emissions are up by 17%, and overall by 12% on a CO₂basis, since 2010-11. That is not good. In global terms, the IPCC modelling looks at reducing emissions very quickly compared to 2010. We have gone up since 2010. We cannot make any carbon leakage argument if we cannot stand on our laurels, and our laurels are not there yet. That is poor.

In terms of food security, we are looking at a global food crisis. We need people to be fed, especially the poorest people around the world. They will not be fed, I am afraid, on milk and beef. They need grain and legumes. That is the kind of balanced diet to get people through what is coming over the next year. This is very troubling.

In terms of the natural response by farmers to this situation, fertiliser prices are going up. Farmers respond to that situation like a business looking at the optimal economic return. The optimal return goes down in this situation and they will grow less grain. That is what will happen because of their response. We should support tillage and arable farming and support that production. At the same time, if we care about global food security and really want to support it, we would be very wise to lower limits on animal-derived food production in order to direct our food production and that of the world - and encourage the same thing to happen in Europe - towards producing food at the maximum amount of nourishment per hectare with the lowest emissions too.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will follow on from Deputy Leddin with reference to the two previous submissions this morning and indeed on a broader scale. Does Mr. Price not give any consideration to the possibility of technological improvements, sequestration, farming habits and land-use improvements? We all have to accept that agricultural emissions will be largest in Ireland, considering we did not have an industrial revolution, as such.

Agriculture is our largest indigenous industry. It has developed over the years and decades and it is the only form and source of income in many rural areas. To put quotas and a limit on that is not a possibility for many of the smaller-sized family model farms. However, there is significant potential, with correct land use, for them to incorporate sequestration and carbon capture through forestry and change of land use.

Does Mr. Price give any consideration to the use of technologies and our natural resources? The farmer producing beef and milk is the custodian of the environment. He has his hedgerows, forestry and grassland. Where does Mr. Price see that when it comes to balancing? We are, at the end of the day, trying to approach net zero. We will not eliminate emissions. We just need to cut our emissions and try to equal them with sequestration or carbon capture and storage.

Mr. Paul Price:

By all means, we should look at technology and explore opportunities but we should avoid misplaced optimism that they will work out. Unfortunately, we have seen emissions rise. The idea of having technology is that maybe we could produce more milk with less emissions than we did in 2011. If one wants to increase the amount of milk production and emissions keep going down, as they were from 1998 to 2011, that is fine. Knock yourself out. However, that is not what has happened. Instead, emissions have gone up, especially emissions of methane, which is a very serious and potent greenhouse gas, and nitrous oxide. The trouble with technologies that have been talked about, such as urea swapping and protected urea instead of calcium ammonium nitrate, CAN, is that if we use more urea, we will get more ammonia emissions. That will happen in these circumstances unless we take straight urea out of the market, which will not happen. It is supposed to be out of here by 2023. There is supposed to be a ban on straight urea use. That is in the climate action plan. That is what is supposed to happen with regard to ammonia. Well, that is not happening either.

It is very dangerous to say that we can avail of a certain technology or a certain opportunity if that discussion stops us or distracts us from cutting emissions now. We should be cutting emissions every year in every sector. We need to limit the highest GHG activities, because that is what we are about. We are in a situation where we do not have time to develop more research, more metrics or whatever. We need to act right now. We needed to act in 2010 to keep going the way we were. Sustainability may be about maintaining an activity or changing the activity to make sure we have less emissions. We have done the reverse, unfortunately, and that is pretty tragic. That is not the fault of farmers. Farmers are responding to the policy and market that was set up by all those policy decisions that, for example, led to the removal of the milk quota.

That is the level we must look at. We certainly should not be looking at farmers as the problem.

Carbon farming is yet another scheme we have had for a long time now, with much hand waving, and it has generally been a disaster around the world. There are financial operations trying to steer things in the wrong way. We have had carbon markets failing in guaranteeing credits. There is no way to really have good measuring, reporting and verification, which is a serious problem. One must guarantee additionality and that carbon is not being lost. If public money is to be put towards an investment that really is not guaranteed, we should be very careful about doing it. We have seen carbon markets really collapsing or being played and gamed in all sorts of ways. It is particularly the case with small farmers in the US and Australia that when the carbon markets collapse, there is a huge problem especially for those smaller farmers.

With carbon farming, a really good farmer may have great hedgerows in place and grass carbon in the soil, so if the carbon markets only pay for additional carbon savings, it is the people who have done the worst farming who will be paid. They will have carbon-depleted soils, for example, so why should they be paid? We must be careful about whom we reward and why. It is a very poor policy to connect soil quality to climate policy. It basically confuses and undermines the accuracy of carbon accounting and it also produces really perverse outcomes in soil management. Good farmers make sure there is more carbon in their soil and guarantee themselves good soil for a resilient future.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Price. He mentioned other countries so is it correct that he is more in favour of farmers with cattle in sheds, or they produced fewer emissions? That is when compared to farmers with cattle in a field. Did I pick that up wrong?

Mr. Paul Price:

I am definitely not advocating that. All I am saying is that if we are talking about GHGs, we can look at a country such as Denmark, which is focused on animal agriculture and provides a comparator. Ireland is focused on animal agriculture. What did Denmark do? Denmark had high nitrogen inputs and high rates of nitrogen fertiliser use. It had a fair volume of grass in its system in terms of feeding improvements. That was the case back until approximately 1985. Denmark has since dropped its fertiliser use and basically abandoned grass and they have gone into sheds. That is what one can say about that. It is what they have done and the result is far lower nitrogen excretion affecting water and so forth, although Denmark still has water problems. It also has far lower methane emissions. In agriculture here we have approximately double the methane emissions of Denmark but Denmark has greater animal protein output.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Some professors I have spoken to have said that basically eliminating methane emissions would lead only to a reductive effect of hundredths of 1°C. What would Mr. Price say to the people from different countries that have researched this?

Mr. Paul Price:

Every country is responsible for a different-----

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am just wondering what Mr. Price thinks of their views.

Mr. Paul Price:

Every country has different proportions of different GHGs. Ireland has particular high emissions of methane and CO2.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am just asking the question about elimination of methane and the effect it would have on the global temperature. It is not my view but I have been told the change would be minimal compared with what could be done by bringing down CO2 emissions. What is Mr. Price's view on that?

Mr. Paul Price:

My view is we have signed the Paris Agreement and it requires us to do things in an equitable way. If we are higher emitters, per capita, of greenhouse gases such as methane, and we are inequitably producing more of them, we must look to produce less. That is what we have signed up to do and what our climate change targets that we have missed look to meet. It is what we have agreed to do. We should remember that Ireland is part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and this is what we have signed up to do.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Leaving aside what we have signed up, does Mr. Price agree that if we eliminate methane completely, it would have a fraction of the effect of eliminating CO2 from other sources?

Mr. Paul Price:

No. In terms of the greenhouse gases in Ireland and their warming effect, if we cut methane it would be a very big mitigation opportunity. We do not have to cut all of it. We and UCC have looked at meeting the Paris goal equitably for Ireland, and that involves a 50% reduction in methane from Ireland. It is a very big mitigation opportunity.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What would be the worldwide effect?

Mr. Paul Price:

At the same time, if CO2 emissions are not cut, they will be accumulated. If we cut methane emissions, we will reduce the volume of methane, which has a very big temperature effect. This can be seen in the Climate Change Advisory Council, CCAC, report and its Paris test indicates the biggest effect is by cutting methane. The biggest contribution to that in Ireland is agricultural methane.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Should methane not be treated in a totally different way to CO2? Should it be counted in a totally different way? One is counted in parts per million, for example.

Mr. Paul Price:

They may be counted in the same way in considering their temperature effects. The Paris test section of the CCAC's report has charts for temperature difference-----

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps Mr. Price will educate me on this point. One is counted in parts per million and the other is counted in parts per billion. Will Mr. Price tell me how that works?

Mr. Paul Price:

What matters is the temperature effect. The biggest mitigation opportunity right now is cutting CO2 for sure. We must absolutely cut CO2. There would be a bigger temperature effect by cutting methane.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was just trying to remember. Mr. Price mentioned fertiliser. Would he be an admirer of mixed species grasses? We have visited Dowth and we have looked at how fertiliser use can be reduced by something like 50% with mixed species grasses. Is he in favour of this to reduce fertiliser use?

Mr. Paul Price:

It clearly has some effect. When fertiliser is spread, we get N2O and ammonia emissions and we do not get that if a farmer does multispecies swards. However, if the same amount of nitrogen is put through the ruminants, we would get the same amount of methane over a certain amount of production. That will lead to a certain amount of water pollution and ammonia, if not more, because the nitrogen would have been saved to go through there. This is what happened at the Teagasc Solohead farm and Mr. James Humphreys showed this in the Teagasc Signpost series. There was no reduction in water pollution and methane continues, especially in the A modelling, where it is linked to the amount of milk produced. If methane is the number one consideration and we just have multispecies swards without reducing the total amount of milk production, we will get the same amount of methane, which is a huge problem.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What was that last sentence?

Mr. Paul Price:

If we put in the same amount of nitrogen - if the same amount of feed goes through the animal in dry matter terms even from multispecies swards - the same amount of carbohydrate will go through digestion and produce the same methane. As I have pointed out, cutting methane is really important. One of the unfortunate elements of the MACC is that it concentrates on CO2 emissions. It is suggested there will be a large reduction in methane but I have spoken with the experts at the EPA and so forth, and I do not get any sense that this is justified by physical reality. It seems to be just a residual from saying we want an amount of reduction, we will do something with CO2 and what is left over will be a reduction in methane.

We have to be very clear if that is actually going to occur.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Price talked about some countries that grow their own grain. At the moment, some countries are in difficulty, while the likes of vegetable growers in north County Dublin are going out of business because they could not sell their vegetables. With regard to EU food policy, does Mr. Price believe countries need to have more self-sufficiency? What is his view on that? Countries were probably self-sufficient years ago. We should not be relying on carrots coming from Spain or wherever, which is how the large stores drive cheap food prices. Does Mr. Price think that is a problem?

Mr. Paul Price:

Yes. I totally agree with the Deputy. It is a problem. We should be making sure we do not have below-cost selling. I am certainly not advocating going to a Danish system and producing grain and feeding it to animals. Overall, it would be better to be producing more grain and legumes directly for human food. That would be better for local food security as well. Ireland is in a good position to do that, as well as producing its own vegetables.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. Price not believe people should eat meat? Is that what he is saying? Does he think we should be using the grain to eat and not giving it to animals?

Mr. Paul Price:

As I said in my statement, studies on how to reach the Paris targets show that part of that is dietary change. That does not mean having no animals but it means balancing the system. We have unbalanced the system, particularly over the last ten years, by disconnecting animals and producing more slurry than can go to crops. Growing grass rather than grains seems to be a mistake. Looking at the modelling on a better system for the EU, the idea is to get to zero inputs of chemical fertiliser but also to have much more of a direct connection between any animals and the crops. It is more about grain growing, human food and recycling nitrogen back to the land. We have arrived at this situation because of the way the economics have gone. Farmers have made good decisions within the system we have but it is an unbalanced system. If farmers are paid with more certainty to have an unbalanced system, then that is what they will do. That is because the policy has been set in a certain direction, which is unsustainable. We are seeing that with the repeated fodder crises and, as the Deputy mentioned, the difficulties for vegetable and tillage farmers in particular. We should be supporting tillage farmers. Tillage, vegetables and horticulture are the core of any agricultural system but in Ireland that system has been unbalanced and has become even more unbalanced and less efficient since 2010. That is a problem.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Carthy said earlier he is always brief so I hope he will be consistent in that regard.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am brief for the other Chairman. I will also be brief now because I have to run to the Chamber. My apologies to Mr. Price if I am not here for his full response but I will look back on it. I have found the meeting very interesting and I thank Mr. Price for taking the time to speak to us. The subject of this meeting is exploring technological opportunities to reduce emissions. Am I correct in deducing that Mr. Price is not bringing any proposals regarding technological solutions? Instead, he is looking for two things, the first of which is quotas for beef and dairy production. How does he envisage quotas would work? How would they be applied and determined? Would there be a new market for the quotas themselves, as much as for the food as a commodity? How would that work in practice? The second thing Mr. Price is seeking, if I have deduced it properly, is for people to eat fewer meat and dairy products. Does he see a role for red meat and dairy as part of a healthy balanced diet or would it be satisfactory if people did not eat those products at all?

The Danish model is essentially a very intensive factory farming model. Mr. Price said he would not recommend that. A number of us are members of the agriculture committee and we have a view of what precise model of agriculture will be in place if his vision were to materialise. Does Mr. Price accept that, as has been laid out, what is being proposed would be an end to the family farm model as it has traditionally applied in Ireland? What is his vision for Irish agriculture and how would it affect food production, community development and the make-up of our rural communities?

Mr. Paul Price:

The Deputy is right that I am not bringing technologies to the table but this meeting is about opportunities. I am afraid the opportunity is, basically, to go back to 2010 and look at where we were then because we were heading in the right direction. We had promises of technologies that would help us to continue moving in the right direction with Food Harvest and that was continued with Food Wise and Food Vision. That is the vision we have had and the result has been more emissions, more methane and greater use of nitrogen. The amount of nitrogen fertiliser being used each year has increased from 300,000 tonnes in 2010-11 to 400,000 tonnes today. That is an increase of one third. It is not doing more production with the same or less. It is just doing more production with more and producing more emissions with more. That is the vision we have been given. I am saying we have an opportunity to rethink that vision. However, I am not going to offer the committee a particular vision. It is up to the members to decide, as policymakers and so forth. I am just trying to explain what the science says.

I used Denmark as an example because it produces a lot of animal agriculture. Overall, there is more crop production in Europe generally. We should think about food security and pollution and so forth by using less nitrogen fertiliser than we were using in 2010. Right now, according to our targets, we will still be using more fertiliser in 20230 than we were in 2010. I am suggesting that is a bad vision. It is unacceptable in view of everything we are talking about and the need to reduce emissions. The opportunity is to return to where we were. We have gone along this road and put ourselves in a more difficult position than we needed to be in. That is resulting in all the things we are talking about. There is talk in the news today about offering retirement to dairy farmers. Why did we have to get to this point? We did not need even more milk production and now we will have to retire dairy farmers. That does not seem to have been a very sensible way to go about this.

On the family farm, what we see all over Europe, and are seeing in Ireland, is fewer family farms. The vision has been to have more dairy on top of beef farming. That is what actually happened but we were told by the experts and the science that, in order to keep emissions at the same level, we would have to have far fewer beef cattle, far less beef cattle farming and far fewer small family farms. What has happened in Europe with milk production is that it has become a big commodity. All over Europe, there are fewer farms producing the milk. There is a film on Netflix called "The Milk System". Members can watch that film and see what has happened elsewhere, such as in the USA with carbon credits and so forth. Small farmers are being taken advantage of and they lose control of their carbon credits. All these systems have been hugely problematic and that is the history of them. There has been a collapse in the carbon credit system in Australia as well. These are technologies and ideas that are not actually achieving what we want them to do and they also endanger clear carbon accounting. The way we have gone is a threat to the family farm but it is also a threat to carbon accounting. Having these kinds of technology discussions without saying what we are actually about here is a problem.

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Price very much for the presentation. He is saying that what is happening now is wrong and that it is up to us, as policymakers, to create a new vision. It seems, however, that if we are to deliver the Paris commitments, the political challenge will be to bring communities on board. He seems to be saying that we must set a target to cut the herd, but he is not saying that we should set a target to cut oil straight away or set a quota for oil in other sectors. People know that if a quota for oil was set tomorrow, there would be a lot of vulnerable families that would not be able to heat their homes and there would be a lot of industry that would not be able to continue. Mr. Price is proposing that farmers cut their herds while rejecting carbon farming, which would reward them for reducing methane, nitrous oxides or other emissions, but he cannot have it both ways if he wants to contribute to a political solution.

One way or another, we have a large sector that we need to bring on a journey to a better endpoint. Mr. Price is offering a very abrupt solution. As politicians and as member of this committee, we are trying to find a way to meet our Paris commitments while bringing communities with us because we know we cannot deliver without them. I am struggling to see how Mr. Price can sell his approach to a family farm unit at the moment. He is telling them to stop doing a whole lot of things, but he is not going to reward them with an income for providing the better environmental services that would come from a carbon farming model. I know it has challenges and he is right to say that there are measurement and verification issues but surely that has to be the way to provide a pathway so that in ten year's time we will still see prosperous family farms. That is what we need to get to. It is a little bit of a cop out for Mr. Price to present the science and then hand the problem over to the politicians to fix.

I am looking for a bit more guidance because Mr. Price seems to be holding Denmark up as a country that has done it, but then he said that it has done it in the wrong way. He seems to be saying that what the Danes are doing is wrong and that we should not follow them. I am struggling to understand Mr. Price's pathway as one upon which we can bring the farming community.

Mr. Paul Price:

As the Deputy says, I am not a politician and the situation we are in is very difficult for politicians. It is immensely problematic but from the science side of things, scientists have been talking about this for a long time. They have been saying that we need to cut emissions of all of the main greenhouse gases in every sector. The AR5 report from the IPCC in 2014 talks about substantial and sustained emissions reductions. That was the guidance from science but that has not happened. The science was saying that if we do not do this, we will face having to implement abrupt solutions. Politicians are now saying to scientists that we face abrupt solutions and asking us what is our vision. Our vision was ignored and we now face more abrupt solutions involving higher costs. We would not be in the situation of having to pay dairy farmers to retire if we had followed that IPCC advice. Right now, we are in a situation of abrupt solutions because of that journey.

Scientists can only say what they say; it is up to politicians and leaders in communities to say what we actually face. When our negotiators came back from these UN climate change conferences, they should have been on the television explaining what needed to happen. That communication did not happen, however,. We need to see a high level of communication of where we are and the urgency of what we are about or what we need to be about if we are going to align our actions with our commitments. Our commitment is to align our actions with achieving the Paris goals equitably. That is our commitment, but we have gone in the opposite direction in agriculture. Even in the area of energy, emissions have stayed the same. As the Deputy stated, it is about balancing agricultural sector reductions and land-use emissions reductions against reductions in the energy sector, but all of those things have to go down and very quickly. That is what the CCAC is saying with its carbon budgets. If one looks at the council's core scenarios, it is saying just what I am saying; it is saying that we have to cut emissions in all sectors, quite seriously, by 2030.

The work that Dr. Hannah Daly at UCC has done demonstrates that in the four scenarios, if we only reduce agricultural emissions by the lesser amount, we will have to do much more on the energy side. As the Deputy says, we have to balance these out. Methane reduction has a huge impact. In that context, it would be better to be reducing our methane emissions. The most recent thing that has happened is the increase in dairy, on top of beef. Dairy cows are much more emissions intense and the land they are on has been hugely intensified. That is not a sensible system and that is how we have ended up in this situation, where we have to cut beef cattle and reduce family farms much more in order to allow for that dairy increase. That is the situation we are in, but scientists have been saying this for a long time. Attention was not paid to them and now we face higher costs because of that delay.

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The short-term impact of methane is very high. In that context, is there not a strong argument for paying a premium for methane reduction? I accept that there is an issue around verification, but is it not a valid vision to suggest that we should pay farmers for methane reductions and that they should decide how they want to achieve them? I accept that farmers who have already engaged in very good soil management will not be rewarded and that it will be those whose management heretofore was not good who will be rewarded by some of these incentive schemes. Surely, however, it is a vision for the sector to suggest that we pay for what we want to reduce. What we want to reduce is methane emissions, nitrogen emissions and so on. Why is Mr. Price so opposed to a vision that proposes the creation of a new incentive structure? It seems to me that Europe has, to some degree, frustrated the emergence of same because it does not envisage paying for methane reductions. The EU has set targets that do not have that sort of structure within them, even though there are those sorts of payment structures in other sectors.

I admit that it is a challenge in terms of metrics and verification development to do that, but surely this is a good way of delivering our primary objective, which is to see methane levels go down. If we pay for it and if Europe recognises that because it has very strong short-term temperature-raising effects, there is merit in paying a premium now to get those early reductions in methane because farmers will then see a viable future in managing their farms in order to balance food production with methane management. I do not see why Mr. Price is opposing the evolution of that. Surely if something went wrong in the Australian market, we can learn from that and seek to correct it.

Mr. Paul Price:

I am afraid that we have had lots of carbon markets over the years, in America, Australia and other parts of the world, through the clean development mechanism and so forth. We have repeatedly seen carbon credits being gained, but usually is the small farmers who lose out.

Big landowners and corporations are all over this. That is surely against the family farm, if you like. That is the evidence. I am not advocating one way or the other. I am trying to report to the committee what I see in the research. I am trying to accept what is in the science and to give my best, fair review of the science. I am not advocating for any particular vision. I am trying to report to the committee the evidence as it pertains to the subject of this discussion.

It is misleading to describe methane as a short-lived gas in the sense of climate targets. It does not matter if it is a short-term gas. If you maintain it, it will maintain roughly the same temperature contribution, and that can be large. In Ireland, the temperature contribution of methane is large. Right now, when it is sustained, it is large even compared to the total emissions from pre-industrial CO2 in Ireland. The methane contribution is large. Cutting methane presents a huge mitigation opportunity. That is what you see in the CCAC’s Paris test. There would be a big hit in terms of a mitigation opportunity from that reduction so maybe, as was said, that says that we as society should pay for that reduction. I would also point out that we would then pay for what has been a big increase in methane emissions. We could start paying from when we get back. However, it seems a bit odd that we have committed to a system. As I said, it is not the farmers’ fault. Policy has been directed to do this. It has resulted in this big increase in methane emissions. The public directed all of its energies and supports for doing that and it is now being told that it has to pay for it when it is on the way down again. That seems to be an odd way go about that policy. However, as was said, maybe we are in a situation where we have to do that. I am not advocating for what we have to do. That is up to politicians, to society and to discussion to work out.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Price for his strong views and for giving us a different perspective on the issues we are addressing. I thank him for his contribution, which was extremely interesting.

The next public meeting of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine will take place at 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 31 March 2022. The joint committee will continue exploring technologies and opportunities that may exist in the effort to reduce emissions in the agricultural sector. As there is no further business, the meeting stands adjourned.