Farmer concerns over changes for organic meat

This is part 2 of a 2 parter on rule changes for organic meat and direct selling. Here is part one.

Significant concerns have been raised by farmers over changes in the procedures for butchering certified organic meat.

Primarily, this concerns farmers who use local butchers and direct sell their own meat.

Up until now, farmers maintained a record book with all relevant details of the animal and slaughter. This was inspected as part of his own inspection.

Now the onus is being transferred over to the butcher.

It was always technically possible for these butchers to be inspected, but in practice the inspection has sufficed.

Farmers will now have to use butchers' registered with an Organic Certification Body (OCB). Alternatively, their own butcher will have to open himself up to organic inspection and eventual registration. The farmer will pay the cost of this inspection.

Some farmers are concerned. While some methods to possibly reduce this increased cost burden have been cited, for many farmers they will simply be paying more for the same procedure.

This, coupled with a fee increase from IOFGA, the largest OCB, means a significant cost increase for many organic livestock farmers. (The fee increase, as it is proposed, specifically mitigates against farmers with larger holdings and poorer land, as it is incrementally area-based)

Noticeably, the record book these organic farmers have been using makes much of the fact that unnecessary additional bureaucracy is avoided.

While it is claimed that the butcher will not have any extra paperwork, rather an examination of his existing paperwork, there are concerns here too.

It is a rare creature who goes out of his way to add a layer of inspection onto his business. With few organic farmers on their books, some farmers are concerned that butchers will see this as an unnecessary additional imposition not worth the hassle.

Some organic farmers, both those converting and full symbol, are worried that they will also have fewer butchers to choose from. This in turn could lead to a change in the relationship between butcher and farmer. If the farmer has paid for the butcher's organic inspection costs, the farmer is less likely to engage in the healthy competition of shopping around for butchers, as each additional butcher carries an additional inspection cost.

This places the farmer in a negative relationship, as the butcher could be perceived as having an economic 'hold' over the farmer in this context.

At present there are few registered organic butchers, and not all other butchers will want to sign up to organic inspection and eventual organic registration. This, some farmers worry, will mean that they are not choosing from the widest possible range of butchers in the region. Rather, they will be choosing from a far smaller pool of technically available butchers. This reduces the likelihood of finding the most skilled.

Crucially, some organic farmers have very specific cutting and mincing requirements (especially for non-Continental beef animals) and long standing positive working relationships with their preferred local butchers: not all organic burgers are the same. Why jeopardize this relationship?

Others are concerned with an unnecessary increase in travel, with both economic costs and stress on the animal. If the farmer has to find a new butcher willing to adhere to these stipulations, this butcher may or may not be nearby. With fewer to choose from, the chances are that he will not be nearby.

The system until now was also an excellent entrypoint, for conventional farmers who direct sell, into organic: they could retain their working relationship with their preferred local butcher, rather than finding another one.

EU rules and regulations are being blamed. And yet, according to the EU regulation: "It might in some cases appear disproportionate to apply notification and control requirements to certain types of retail operators, such as those who sell products directly to the final consumer or user. It is therefore appropriate to allow Member States to exempt such operators from these requirements."

The rules also suggest both the �organic integrity and vital qualities of the product are maintained through all stages of the production chain�.

Isn't that expertly cut meat by the best available butcher, with the direct-selling farmer carrying more of the burden of inspection?

Changes afoot for organic meat direct sellers

A two parter - for the next part, see today's Examiner.

Significant changes for certified organic livestock farmers are coming into effect in 2011.

Butcher shops or large scale processors will no longer be allowed use producer specific abattoirs, due to the volume of stock going through them.

Producer specific abattoirs/butchers are abattoirs/butchers that organic operators (businesses or farmers) use but which are not registered with an organic certification body.

However, organic farmers who use local 'unregistered' butchers and direct sell their meat will also be effected.

These local producer specific abattoirs/butchers will now have to be inspected by the organic certification body. The cost for this will be borne by the licencee, i.e. the farmer.

According to organic certification body IOFGA's Mary Lynch �it was always the case that the producer specific abattoirs/butchers could be inspected by IOFGA inspectors and that cost must be borne by the producers using the facility�.

However, IOFGA still felt it necessary to send a notification to farmers about the need for inspections of unregistered butchers.

Thus far, as well as adhering to the rules and procedures for livestock and processing in the Standards, these farmers maintained a record keeping book which was assessed as part of their inspection. They also informed the certification body of all necessary details of the animal and its processing. There were also procedures in place such as as the slaughter of certified organic animals first thing in the morning before any other animals. However there was no standardised regime of inspection of butchers not registered with an organic certification body.

According to Angela Clarke, certification manager of IOFGA:

�This should have been carried out over the past number of year(s) however it was not implemented by IOFGA. This is to ensure the integrity of the organic product. The whole process from the farmer to the end consumer must be inspected to ensure this integrity.�

She also pointed out that �DAFF (The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) are adamant that this must take place.... this issue was discussed in great detail at the Forum meetings with all certification bodies so this is not just an IOFGA decision.�

Direct selling farmers who currently work with their preferred local but unregistered butcher will have some decisions to make. They will have to either convince their butcher to accept this new regime, or they will have to change to a butcher registered with an organic certification body.

The literature recently sent to IOFGA members states that the farmer will have to carry the cost of the inspection. However according to Mary Lynch, there may be ways to minimise the costs to the farmer: �If both IOFGA and Organic Trust members are using the facility, then the premises would be inspected every second year by each OCB (organic certification body). Therefore, the cost to the producer can be reduced if they use a facility that another organic producer is also using.�

She also points out that the paperwork requirements are not onerous: �butchers/abattoirs are well used to the paper work that is involved with slaughtering livestock and the inspector will be checking existing paperwork and not asking for any new paperwork to (be) generated�.

She continues: �They are mainly checking that the animals from the producer was killed at the premises and the weight of meat processed for the organic producer, so that can be checked against the sales details of the producer�.

Beyond inspections, discussions are currently underway between the Organic Certification Bodies and the Department to establish �at what stage a producer specific abattoir/butcher should become registered in their own right. This will probably depend on the number of animals being processed by the facility or the number of producers using any one facility,� according to Mary Lynch.

�If a large number of animals are being processed by a facility, records for the organic producers should be kept and made available to the inspector and then the cost should be borne by the owners of the facility not the producer.�

Sheep and beef farmers I have spoken to, both in conversion and fully certified, have voiced concerns about this new situation. Next week, these concerns will be outlined.

REALLY - WHERE'S THE (ORGANIC) BEEF JOHN?

Part two of my beef interview session with John Brennan. This one discusses the beef grade, and also features a different perspective to John's, that of Teagasc Organic Farming Advisor James McDonnell.

How should quality be defined in organic beef? There are two schools of thought.

(Pic: some of Joe Condon's galloway cattle)

One school suggests that organic cattle should be graded along the same lines as conventional, using the EU R O P system.

For non-farmer readers: This grid or grade system scores cattle carcass shape and muscle development from the top (E) to the bottom (P). Numbers 1 to 5 denote degree of fat on the carcass, with 1 having the least and 5 the most. Thus, in conventional farming, top price achieving animals are up at the U or (rarely) E levels, with a fat score of 1 or 2.

In organic farming in Ireland, a flat price is used instead of this grade system. However, it, or a modified version, is used in other EU countries for organic beef animals.

It could be argued that organic farming does not reward the highest achievers, producing, in conventional terms, the best animals. According to James McDonnell, organic advisor with Teagasc:

�The flat price doesn't do anything for the (organic) sector: in conventional, its all about quality. Good quality cattle and good carcass with better overall cuts are not being rewarded.�

�A Belgian Blue has more fillets, round roast and so on; but it could be argued that, in organic, poor animals are overpaid for, and visa versa. The factories would also prefer quality as they make more.�

He continues: �When factories were paying flat, there were beef blockages in the conventional sector�, pointing out that the flat price may also be mitigating against finishers in organic.

Indeed, top organic producers can sell into the conventional sector for the higher grade prices.

However, both the Good Herdsman and the Leitrim Co-op prefer to pay a flat rate.

For John Brennan of the Leitrim Co-op � we want to improve quality and confirmation, but this factory system isn't the answer�.

He points to a breed renowned for its eating quality: �Take the Aberdeen Angus � that is often graded as an O. It has a natural genetic merit in its confirmation, and for many consumers, the breed produces a superior meat. The grading system does not take organoleptic factors into account - so its about efficiency, not quality of meat. I won't accept anything but a flat rate.�

He continues �You need minimum of a 2 for fat cover � in Scotland R4 is ideal for organic. They have a lot of work done there on the Angus, where they are fed mostly on grass and silage, and finishing at 300 to 320 kg deadweight. Some oats and peas produced on the farm are also used as feed � really its a great system. Plus, they have managed to get PGI status for Scotch beef�.

Levels of grass feeding is another issue again: native breeds are more suited to a grass-based diet. Research suggests that increasing the grass content of the animal's diet increases the levels of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), which is thought to help protect against cancer, diabetes and heart disease, without using external inputs (e.g. imported oils) to achieve this.

�If we had the conventional grading system in organic, it would penalise the native breeds�, breeds that, in a nutshell are more suited to the terrain and climate in Ireland, can finish off grass and have tasty marbling.

There is another element to this: �increasingly, supermarket buyers, especially abroad, don't want continental animals from Ireland�. In other words, they want breeds traditionally associated with Ireland and Britain.

�We need to look at low input animals, animals that are carbon footprint friendly. There should be a good conversion of feed into meat, from silage and grass, with just a a small amount of supplements�.

Increasingly, science, through the use of stable isotope tests, can test the meat itself to differentiate beef based on diet.

Research in Ireland by Professor Frank Monaghan and others has now clearly demarked grass fed from other meat, and organic from conventional.

So, in the final analysis, is it about the consumer or the factory?

WHERE'S THE (ORGANIC) BEEF? ASK JOHN.

Beef remains the strongest sector within organics. While there are also significant numbers of sheep farmers, sheep meat has struggled to gain a price premium.

Beef on the other hand, has both numbers and, by and large, something of a price premium. While there are preferable times of the year to sell to gain the premium, the largest organic meat processor in Ireland or Britain, Good Herdsman, recently let it be known that there is a shortage of about 11,000 beef animals in the system.

(Pic: Joe Condon's Galloways with room to roam)

From humble local beginnings in 1998, the Leitrim Organic Farmers Co-op now has a membership of over 100 beef and sheep farmers, from many counties across Ireland. The main areas it focuses on for its members are in finding markets, orgnaising for training and education, advice and lobbying.

A number of organic cattle marts have just finished up. I spoke to John Brennan of the Leitrim Co-op about how the trade has been.

�Confidence has returned to the sales� he tells me. �We had two in Drumcollagher, there were 137 sales at the first and 290 at the second.�

�Prices have improved - typically 2E per kg for heifers, E2.30 per kilo for good weanlings, while forward stores are also meeting good trade.�

�The numbers of organic cattle moved weekly is nearly at record levels - here and in the UK � and while the price is not at the record 2007 levels, it is nonetheless strong and giving confidence� .

Regarding export markets, there are some positive signs. �Tescos in the UK are buying a lot more organic meat again now. They seemed to panic a bit at the start of the downturn, and whipped organic off the shelves. While some customers did trade down to discounters, some of these in turn returned to their preferred supermarkets. So Waitrose, for example, have regained market share.�

Indeed, according to a report earlier in the year from the UK's Soil Association, among the three supermarkets with the biggest shares of the organic market � Sainsbury�s, Tesco and Waitrose � it was Waitrose that proved the most resilient in the recession. Its organic sales fell by only 3.5% in 2009 and it is predicting growth of 3-5% in 2010.

�There have also been increases in the market in Holland, especially for forequarter meat. This leaves other options with rear quarter meat�.

There are of course concerns: �the cost of feed is still an issue. The Sterling differential is helping, but some farmers are now growing their own feed. Some grow for Flahavans, and keep a portion for animal feed. Red clover is also coming strong earlier, and there was an earlier cutting date this year too�

Another issue is the age of slaughter. While there is a preference in the factories for animals slaughtered under 30 months, this comes with various costs and concerns for organic farmers.

According to John Brennan, as finishing under 30 months is difficult with vontinentals, �why not go to 33 or 35 months? Some cattle only reach their full desirable carcass weight at this age, especially the bigger animals like Charlois. But some processors, Slaney excluded, don't want animals that size.�

�A lot of it comes down to breed. With an Aberdeen Angus, they might be close to 280 kg at 20 to 24 months. But to push to and past 300 kg, or to try to get close to 350kg, is very difficult. You'd need another 10 to 12 months.�

�With the bigger continental animals, the Limosins or Belgian Blues, its very difficult without a lot of grain feeding, and feed is very expensive in organic.�

The discussion turned to paying by the grade. In organic, farmers are not paid by the grade for beef in Ireland, though they are in other countries, including the UK. He was especially animated about this issue. As you will see in my next posting on this topic.

The Organic Farming Scheme 2010:who will join, and why will they do it?

Perhaps the most stark thing about the article below is the fact that 2/3 of certified organic sheep meat gets sold as conventional. What a waste!

There is a solution to this, for at least some farmers willing to grasp the nettle: direct selling 100% grass fed extra mature organic lamb (extra mature means about 15-18 months) .

My other blog, here, is all about this (as well as other hill farmed organic products)

See, I don't just write about food, I try to change it too!

For now, here's the state of play for the new crop of organic potentials, 2010........

The May 15th deadline for signing up to the Organic Farming Scheme is fast approaching and the last of the compulsory Teagasc Organic training courses are finishing up.

With these in mind, I spoke to Teagasc organic advisor Pat Barry about this years crop of organic hopefuls.

�I don't think all of the 400 or so who have done the course will sign up for the Organic Farming Scheme this year�, he tell me. �Some will take their time - its a big decision to convert a holding, and those who have done the course this year now see what's involved. They can make a more informed decision for next year, which is probably better for the longer term sustainability of the organic sector�.

In organic tillage, while there has been some interest due to the green manure payment, poor returns in conventional, and the availability of conventional slurry to organic farmers, nonetheless take up of stockless tillage remains weak.

In the main �farmers are bringing balance into their own organic units: tillage is being incorporated into livestock farms�.

Numbers converting are strong for sheep and beef. The diet of organic cattle has to be 60% grass, so the variable price of feeds is not as much an issue fas it is for conventional beef farmers.

That said, �the price of organic concentrates is back significantly, but then again, so is the price of beef� according to Pat Barry.

As has been the case, finding markets for organic lamb remains difficult: �2/3 of raw lamb in organic goes into the conventional sector: For every 20,000 ewes only 8,000 lambs are sold as organic. That's a conservative estimate�.

Out of season lamb production is one way to try to access an organic price premium, according to Barry.

One of the most significant changes in organic horticulture and tillage will be the effect of an Grainan, the operation run by Donegal Creameries.

They will be providing �80 acres of carrots and spuds, and a couple of hundred of wheat.�

320 acres of this massive holding, called an Grainan, went fully organic on 1st March. Currently, it produces arable crops, beef, beetroot, cabbage, carrots, potatoes and milk.

In diary, he points out that five are coming on stream this year, and another 3 to 4 next year. This represents a significant increase: �there will be a 20% increase in cow numbers: it will be important for the sector and the market to be fully in tune�.

However, Donegal Creameries again will exert major influence on dairy dynamics.

According to Ian Ireland, Managing Director, Donegal Creameries, they recently invested a significant amount of money in the building of an organic yogurt production plant at their Killygordon site where the company has been processing milk for over a century.

This has allowed the company to supply ALDI's 74 stores nationwide with an organic yogurt range.

The new Liskeel organic yogurt range in ALDI is made by Donegal Creameries. The 500ml pots retail at E1.39 � considerably cheaper than many competitors.

As LIDL and ALDI try to tempt different shoppers in with more diverse products, consumers are shopping around more than just a few short years ago.

Recent research in Ireland suggests that the number of retail outlets people visit regularly has gone from 2.2 to 2.8.

The race to the bottom in price terms is, in many ways, the conventionalisation of the organic sector.

Barry, like many others, suggests �cutting out the middle man� i.e. direct selling, primarily at farmers' markets, as a way to add to, or at least maintain, a price premium.

Along with this, many producers are finding that organic alone is no longer enough. Adding extra meanings - such as health, taste, locale, breed/variety, environment, production methods - to your product, along with organic, is a way forward.

Soon, we will feature here a beef farmer in conversion to organic who has secured an interesting route to market with an interesting breed of animal.

Good Herdsman secure contracts for Irish organic beef in Germany

Good Herdsmen, Ireland�s largest dedicated organic meat processor, recently secured sales of � milion Euro at the BioFach organic trade fair in Germany.

Three of the four new companies new customers are mainly in the Eurozone, thereby accessing vital new, non-sterling markets.

Dennree, a German wholesaler who supply 1500 natural food shops are the major coup for the Cahir based company.

The retail market in Germany differs from that of Ireland or the UK: natural food stores, which are more like wholefood delis than Irish health food shops, are quite prominent. Global supermarket chains are less dominant than in Ireland. Dennree also supply Austria and northern Italy.

In Denmark, Calu, who supply the niche sections of mainstream supermarkets will be taking Irish meat products from Good Herdsman.

Both Denmark and Germany have very strong organic sectors (Denmark was named organic country of the year at Biofach this year) and neither are suffering from the recession to the same extent as Ireland.

In Holland, an organic supermarket chain called Ecoplaza, while in France, an internet company called Vitafris are the new customers.

A combination of an innovative new style of packaging and premium cuts from a country with a clean green image seems to have been the winner for Good Herdsman at BioFach.

�We had more competitors taking pictures than customers� according to Josef Finke of the Good Herdsman. �The packaging and presentation went down very well.�

Good Herdsman have developed a new style of packaging which allows for their own retail packs to be made in Ireland and exported. This too is better for the Irish economy: previously Good Herdsman's meat was exported to be cut and packaged on the Continent.

With production, slaughter, processing and packaging done in Ireland, more mark up revenue is retained in Ireland.

Initially matured for 21 days, the new skin or film packaging Good Herdsman have developed allows for further maturing of the meat in the pack. �The meat is on a tray and has a film put around it in a way which prevents any air from getting in between� Finke tells me. �This allows for an extra 21 days of shelf life�.

The tray for the packaging is compostable, while the film is biodegradable: �a retail product on the continental market needs this level now�. They are also looking into making the tray biodegradable in the near future.

Stylistically, as well as visible meat, the packaging has a very striking black and white image of Ireland, which allows it to stand out from the multi coloured crowd. This packaging also allows for fixed weights to be sold, which internet sellers in particular are attracted to.

The new range is called Organic Steakhouse. �This we feel has the right associations. Steakhouses are known for good quality steaks at an affordable price. Also the word 'steakhouse' can be read and easily understood in many languages.�

According to Finke, along with Ireland's clean green image, and of course the economic situation, Irish cattle breeds proved to be of interest to these new customers:

�Breed actually came second after price� he tells me. �They loved the fact that the traditional breeds, Herefords and Angus, are used as mothers, with the Continental bull on top�.

Four beef and two lamb cuts have been introduced into these new markets. In lamb noisettes and leg steaks, while in beef striplion, sirlion, ribeye, and minute steak are being supplied.

I spoke to a farmer recently who visited a farm shop near Munich during BioFach. He found that, despite food in general being cheaper in Germany than Ireland, conventional Charolais beef from the farm was achieving 50E per kilo at the farm shop.

I put it to Josef Finke that the price the German consumer is willing to pay for quality organic beef should benefit Irish farmers:

�We managed to get the prices in Germany, France and Denmark that we need. This means that we do not have to put as much pressure on the other end: we want to try maintain the farmer's price. This strategy may or may not work, but so far looking good.�

farming's future sustainability

Here's an interview I did with Richard Douthwaite (right) of FEASTA. It appeared in last week's Farming Examiner as the front page and centre page spread.

Oliver Moore: Can you outline the overall situation with regard to the sustainability of farming, as you see it Richard?

Richard Douthwaite: Modern industrialised farming, particularly tillage, has been described as a way of converting fossil energy into food energy. There�s a lot of energy used in the application of fertilizer, in tractors, in sprays, then in packing and getting the food to the customer. The whole process is not sustainable. In traditional forms of farming, it took 4 units of energy to produce each unit of energy in food. Most of that energy was directly from the sun, and all from renewable sources. Now there are 40 units of energy going into the production of food in the Europe, and perhaps up to 90 in the US. Most of that is from fossil fuels. That can�t continue.

OM: Within this broad picture, what is the key problem?

RD: The problem is that we�re not recycling the nutrients. Quite a lot of the nitrogenous fertilizer breaks down in the soil and becomes nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas (GHG), and one of the main sources of GHGs in farming. A lot of energy is used in the production of those nitrogenous fertilizers and most of it is wasted because the nitrogen is not taken up by the plants. There's more waste when the crops leave the farm because the nutrients they contain aren�t recycled: There�s nitrogen in the proteins that go off, and there�s phospates going off too. They are consumed by whoever eats the food and go into the sewage system, and don�t get back onto the land. As a consequence of this, we need to apply more artificial fertilizers. There is a growing problem with phosphorous. There�s a finite supply: rock phosphate is getting scarcer and scarcer, and that then means that more and more energy is needed to make it available to us and to transport it from places like Morocco.

So we need to think of how fertilizer can be better retained in the soil, so that if you are putting nitrogen on, it stays there. We need to minimise the use of artificial nitrogen, and to start replacing it with organic sources, such as legumes which fix nitrogen. Then, we need to make sure that any that escapes is recycled.

OM: What are the future implications for farming?

RD: Agriculture is likely to become more labour intensive again. The trend towards the larger farms will be reversed as the cost of food and fuel rises in real terms and takes a higher proportion of non-farmers' incomes. Farmers won't just be growing food. They will be producing fuel, chemicals, fibres and building materials as well. A whole new category of multi-purpose crops will emerge.

OM: How do you envision these multi purpose crops being utilized most efficiently?

RD: It may emerge in a way similar to the co-op creamery structure of a century ago, where the co-op would take the milk and the farmer would take back the whey. I envisage a co-op bio-refinery in each community to which farmers would deliver crops like miscanthus, which would be refined to give protein powder, biogas, diesel fuel, plastics like nylon, pesticides and soil improvers. The farmers would take the improvers back to their farms to recycle the nutrients that were in the crop they delivered to the refinery. Because transport will become more expensive, the plants' bulk will be reduced in rural areas and there will be centralised refineries regionally that take the valuable bits and process them further. At the bioenergy show in Tullamore this year, miscanthus was being sold in compressed blocks for people's fires, just like the wood blocks made from compressed sawdust. But 20% of dried grass is plant protein � that�s too valuable to burn. Quite simply, we should be taking out the valuable bits before burning any biomass.

OM: So the biorefineries would produce biofuels like biodiesel?

RD: Yes, but I should emphasise that these would be second-generation biofuels, produced by breaking down the cellulose found in all plants. Feasta is very much against the production of most first-generation biofuels, such as ethanol from maize and wheat and biodiesel from oilseed rape. These make no sense from an energy or a climate point of view. Their production is entirely driven by tax-breaks and the net result has been to increase hunger around the world. The only first generation biofuel that is acceptable is ethanol from sugar cane in Brazil.

OM: If farmers go in this direction in the near future, what�s in it for them?

RD: If farmers can increase the carbon content of their soils, or the semi-permanent biomass that�s growing on them, they need to be rewarded in some way for doing this because they would be helping prevent climate change. Part of their reward would be that they made their soil much better. It is however, very difficult to measure the carbon content of soils to pay farmers a set amount per tonne for the carbon that they have taken in. Feasta is therefore setting up a working party to develop a new concept of best practice - to develop a better understanding of the types of farming that involve sequestering more and more carbon in the soil or in the plants growing on the soil. It needs to become financially beneficial to follow best practice. There could be payments through REPS, or the price of the crops could be subsidised in some sort of way. We�re going to need people in the working party with expertise in this area, and we�re getting very good co-operation from the universities and from Teagasc on this.

OM: Are there any new developments that might help with soil performance and quality?

RD: Feasta has become particularly interested in the inclusion of charcoal in the soil. It has recently been discovered that the pre Columbian Indians put charcoal into the soil because it held the nutrients there. Also, there was an increase in microbial and fungal activity which made the soil more fertile. These soils still exist in the Amazon basin where they are called terra preta, which means dark earth. What happens, it seems, is that the fungi feed on sugars sent down by the plants, and they in turn send up nutrients to the plants. So the plant sequesters carbon too. Terra Preta promises to do three things: 1 sequester more carbon in the soil; 2 hold nutrients there more efficiently; 3 give bigger crops.

OM: Where does Feasta stand on the cows vs cars debate?

RD: We don't think there should be a debate at all. Some civil servants seem to think that because cows' digestive systems give off methane, a GHG, Ireland should reduce its greenhouse emissions by cutting the number of either cars or cows. This is, we think, a total misconception. We've tried to get the IFA to make the case that cows are very different because the methane they release is not adding fossil carbon to the air but it just doesn�t seem to be bothered. It seems to hope that its political muscle will shield its members from any herd-reduction measures the government might introduce. The ICMSA has a very much better attitude.

OM: But isn�t methane a serious GHG?

RD: Methane is a very serious GHG. It�s probably 60 times worse than CO2. Official figures suggest that it is 23 times more, but that�s over a 100 year period. However, all its heating effect is concentrated in the first few years before it is broken down. But - and this is crucial - the carbon in the methane released by cows comes from natural sources. It is not adding continuously to the carbon in the air, because the plants that the cows grazed on picked up the carbon from the air. So the cows are part of the natural carbon cycle. They are not leading to a net increase in the warming effect. If you increase the size of the national herd, you get a once off increase in methane; you don�t get a continuous increase in CO2 levels, as you do if you are burning fossil fuels in a car. So there is no comparison at all between cars and cows.

OM: I presume you are talking about grass-fed animals, where the grass gets its nitrogen from legumes? And surely processing, distribution and so on need to be taken into account before you can presume diary and beef will be acceptable in sustainability terms?

RD: If meat and milk is to be produced anywhere in the world, Ireland should be one of the places producing them because the fossil fuel emissions from producing them here are lower than they would be almost anywhere else. You've also got to consider the carbon emissions if forest is cleared for beef production in places like Brazil. And, because Ireland is close to a lot of people who need meat and milk products, it should not take a lot of energy to get the food to them, although more of it will go by sea in future rather than by truck.

OM: So, in certain relatively easy to attain circumstances, we can keep our beef and dairy industries.

RD: Yes, I think so. But many more cattle will be kept indoors so that the slurry can be turned into biogas. This will be used for heating, for electricity and compressed to run vehicles. Farmers have been very slow to realise that the energy content of a bullock's dung is worth more than its meat.

OM: What's the biggest challenge facing Irish farmers?

RD: They, in common with farmers around the world, have got to find ways of turning their sector from being a source of greenhouse emissions into a sink which removes them. At present, about a quarter of the world's greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture and changes in land use, such as forest clearance. Those emissions not only have to stop but, because the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is already above the safe limit, CO2 needs to be removed from the air quickly, before it has set off a disastrous uncontrollable global warming process. We might have thirty years to do this. There's no high-tech solution. Only the world's farmers can respond in time.