Research and the real world are far apart
It is the truth. However, away from the classroom is it possible that some “education” can be manipulative? The answer, of course, is yes.
At the extreme end of the spectrum, nations have been “educated” in ideologies by politicians that in time have led to conflict and war.
At the other end is the use of research to create models of farm production for beef finishers that address the practicalities of production — but don’t offer any real assurances on the economics.
I mention this because I have seen a great deal in print from the Teagasc National Beef Conference held recently in Kilkenny. Advice and research that shows how to improve grass growth, farm management and animal performance, is all well and good — but surely the biggest single problem for beef finishers isn’t that we don’t understand the mechanics of growing grass; it’s turning that grass into profitable beef.
The research is not flawed — far from it, I suspect. It’s just that in the real world, when you apply the science and sink your money into the system, six months afterwards, you are faced with the reality that whatever the market price is, you’re going to have to take it, good or bad.
Over the years, at beef conferences, there was a tendency to paint a rosy picture at the start of the year, with speakers pointing out where savings and improvements can be made inside the farm gate, while not meaningfully addressing the issue of viable pricing at year’s end.
Teagasc can say that pricing is not their remit, which it isn’t — but isn’t it cynical to give advice, however correct, on the practicalities of beef production, while knowing that the farmer are at the mercy of processors and supermarkets, when trying to work out the profitability of following advice?
What assurances do we ever get from any of the state agencies that when we attempt to modernise or push the boundaries of production, the resulting savings or increased production won’t end up in someone else’s pocket? In my time, none!
I chose the Teagasc conference as an example, but I could just as easily level the same question at Bord Bia. Both state agencies appear to comfort themselves with the thought that their remit is limited, one to production advice, the other to product promotion.
Where is the research on creating market brands that would make Irish beef instantly recognisable on supermarket shelves overseas, in the way Kerrygold is?
Seven years ago I did an interview with a journalist from this paper on what I thought was needed to make beef farming in Ireland truly viable. What I said then was we needed to create a proper branding system that would make our beef instantly recognisable and desirable to the supermarket shopper. That is what we still need, and in the seven years since, we haven’t developed it.
If you watch the ads on the TV, a very large proportion are promoting branded foods. Why hasn’t the Irish beef industry developed in this area? Maybe our researchers and promoters have become too comfortable with the system the way it is!
If we ever develop branded beef products, we should consider doubling them up with Bord Failte advertising. Using their skills at portraying Ireland as a green and pleasant land, they could add a branded food logo to their brochures and ads.
The aim should be a premium, “green” product in the minds of shoppers, for which Irish farmers are paid a premium, in a production model which starts at the supermarket end.
To me as a farmer, state agencies sometimes appear to be part of the system, part of the problem. While I take nothing away from their research, I question who benefits.
