Teagasc director Gerry Boyle defended the proposals from the Climate Change Advisory Council, of which he is a member, regarding a reduction of up to 53% of the suckler herd.

He said that beef farmers may face the choice between becoming more intensive in search of additional market income or “becoming more extensive in order to receive additional support for delivering environmental goods”.

Boyle accepted that schemes such as the Suckler Cow Welfare Scheme, BEEP and BDGP lead to farmers maintaining numbers but stated that Teagasc does not set policy.

New departure

“I wouldn’t describe those schemes as truly headage payments, but accept that such schemes do not encourage a reduction in production. An extensification scheme, as mentioned in the report, would mark a new departure policy-wise.”

Boyle also emphasised that for many beef farmers prices for stock do not cover production costs, so reducing stock numbers should not lead to a fall in their income from the marketplace.

“That was a key selling point when the decoupling of payments was introduced back in 2005. Relatively few farmers have taken up that option.”

Defence

Boyle strongly defended Teagasc research on climate and denied that the easy option was taken by the Climate Change Advisory Council.

“Teagasc work has successfully identified technologies and changes in farm management practices that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, both per unit of product produced and on aggregate. The report’s authors are questioning whether it is in every suckler farmer’s interest to continue what they are doing, if that means that they are losing money and generating greenhouse gas emissions in the process.”

Read more

Farm organisations slam suckler reduction

Listen: large-scale suckler cull recommended by climate report

Paying farmers to exit beef: 'extensification' proposed for next CAP