Right metrics needed or wrong policy decisions will be made on cutting agriculture emissions

The chairman of an agri-technology firm insisted that "Ireland should potentially increase its production of bovine dairy and meat, which would have a net benefit on global emissions"

'Ireland has one of the most natural and best systems for producing bovine milk and meat in the world'

If the right metrics are not available, wrong policy decisions will be made for reducing emissions in the agriculture sector, an industry expert has warned.

Metrics matter, “once they are the right metrics”, said Desmond Savage, co-founder and chairman of agri-technology firm Moonsyst.

It is his opinion, rather than looking at the size of the national herd, "better metrics" are required, he told a meeting of the Oireachtas joint committee on agriculture, food and the marine and the joint committee on environment and climate action.

“Ireland has one of the most natural and best systems for producing bovine milk and meat in the world,” he said, and that if Ireland does not serve increasing global demand, other countries will, where animal welfare and sustainability lags.

"In accordance to the Paris Climate Agreement, Article 2.1 of the Agreement mentions the importance of protecting food production, while reducing emissions, I strongly feel Ireland is best positioned to do this, by being a world leader on sustainable bovine meat and dairy production, through utilising our natural advantages, in particular our grass-fed system. 

This does not equate to reducing cattle numbers in Ireland, but arguably means Ireland should potentially 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 i.e. biogenic methane reduction or national herd size reductions are wrong," he said.

Mr Savage told the meeting focus should be placed on improving animal efficiencies in the production of dairy and meat.

“There is a long list of factors that impact these efficiencies, including: genetics; breed; health; feed; seasonality; age; lactation cycle; sward types; use of feed additives; herdsmanship; supply chain; and so forth," he said, explaining that 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 the biogenic emissions, helping the environment,” he added.

“This has the potential to improve protein conversion yields in both meat and milk, which in turn is a further gain for the farmer, without negatively impacting the environment,” he continued.

“With such information to hand, Governments and/or large corporate entities could incentivise progressive farmers to produce more sustainably; by rewarding farmers for investments in genetics, new swards and/or methane blocking feed additives.

Incentives

“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, make technologies that are deemed enabling more sustainable farming VAT exempt or classified as a capital expenditure.” 

He said that farmers “want to do the right thing for the environment” – but that they must be incentivised sufficiently.

“Technology, as called out in the draft agri-food strategy 2030, does have 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 has to be a good thing,” he continued.

“I would be very confident that through technology, through changing feed practices, [emissions] reductions will be achieved.” 

He added that there is a “pyramid of metrics”, and that at the moment, there are “high-level metrics” being pushed down to farm level “and that’s simply not going to work”.

Emission reduction fund

Michael Earls, managing director of Easyfix, told the committees that much of the debate around reducing agriculture-related emissions has “generated more heat than light”.

Like Mr Savage, Mr Earls said there should not be a “simplistic, binary debate" that centres on the need to cull the national herd in order to meet climate targets. “We are also concerned that there is an urgent need to focus on the here and now,” Mr Earls told the committees.

“Looking at improving genetics or the use of feed additives are great ideas but there are solutions that are tried and tested and are currently available that can cut emissions radically.

“We believe that technology can make an enormous contribution.” 

He asked the Oireachtas committees to support the concept of a “dedicated emission reduction fund” to be put in place for Irish agriculture, that would ringfence funds and link them to emissions reduction targets, he explained.

“We need to act today if we are to make serious inroads to meet our emissions targets,” Mr Earls continued.

“Other countries actively support farmers with capital grants of upwards of 40%.

“It is our view that the Government needs to support farmers and help give them the tools to do the job.” 

He recommended that there be a commitment to fund emission reduction technology from now until 2030.

“We estimate that a fund of €30m to €40m per annum would be sufficient to ensure that Irish farms are the most sustainable farms in the world,” he explained.

“Any delay in implementation of a dedicated fund will leave Irish farmers with unachievable targets to reach, whereby decisions taken now can ensure we achieve our targets in a sustained manner.

“It will improve our soil and air quality; it will cut emissions substantially; it will improve animal welfare.

“It will cut the number of farm fatalities and accidents; it will help support our reputation for producing great food in a sustainable and responsible manner.

“We would therefore urge your committees to call on the Government to implement a dedicated emissions reduction fund for Irish agriculture.” He added that the industry is “very innovative”.

“We have shown an ability to adapt, to develop new products and new offerings,” he said.

“We have some of the best farmers in the world and a global reputation for quality.

“We now need to ensure that we are the cutting edge of technology that will make our farms more sustainable and greener.” 

Emissions

Paul R Price, a research assistant at Dublin City University, noted the importance of recognising that GHG and ammonia emissions are accounted by the Environmental Protection Agency in standardised national inventory data reporting to the UN and the EU.

“Therefore, policies and measures 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 whereas mitigation action is needed now,” he explained.

He also said that there is “danger” that a focus on technical measures may result in a delay that “distracts us from regulating when regulation is needed”.

“We do need to recognise what works and what does not,” he said.

“To limit emissions and pollution, production quotas have been shown to work in Ireland, and international experts recommend nitrogen budgeting to cut emissions and environmental pollution.

“We need to consider these options seriously along with aligned policies on farm supports and consumer pricing to deliver a far more nitrogen-efficient agri-food system for Ireland that can also better support global food security.”

CLIMATE & SUSTAINABILITY HUB