Author: fiona-dunne

One of the biggest and most profitable sectors within Irish agriculture today is the dairy sector with over 18,000 dairy farmers and over 1.55 million dairy cows (Teagasc, 2022; Smyth, 2021). Ireland's temperate climate creates ideal conditions for grass growth which is fed to dairy cattle all year round usually in the form of silage or fresh pasture grass, one of the factors contributing to the sectors profitability (Teagasc, 2022; Smyth, 2021). In recent years this sector has been growing with data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) showing a 3.2% increase in 2020 alone in the number of dairy cows on farms. The 2020 rise was the 10th consecutive year of an increase in the number of dairy cows on Irish farms, with (Irish Farmers Association (IFA), 2020) stating that in the past 5 years there has seen an increase of 400,000 cows in Ireland (IFA, 2020; Smyth, 2021)

However, even though this sector generates huge amounts of income for a large proportion of the Irish population and economy this sector does come with a huge environmental price with its contribution to greenhouse gases (GHGs) and climate change (EPA, 2022). This Irish agricultural sector alone in 2020 was responsible for 37.1% of all GHG's produced in Ireland with it contributing to GHG's such as carbon dioxide (CO₂), nitrous oxide (N₂O) and most importantly in terms of climate change and the dairy sector, methane (CH₄) (Smyth, 2021; EPA, 2022).

From Figure 1 below we can see the sources of GHG's in Irish agriculture in 2020 with enteric fermentation coming out as the leading contributor which is very important in terms of dairying in Ireland and climate change (EPA, 2022). Enteric fermentation is a natural process in ruminants where bacteria breaks down organic matter producing hydrogen (H), carbon dioxide (CO₂) and methane (CH₄) (Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), 2022). In the fore-stomach of the rumen microbial fermentation breaks down food into soluble products that is used by the animal (Gibbs and Leng, 1993; USEPA, 1995). This microbial fermentation that occurs in the fore-stomach enables the rumen to digest rough and coarse plant material. The by-products of this microbial fermentation are H, CO₂ and CH₄ which are later excreted (Gibbs and Leng, 1993; USEPA, 1995). The methane produced from this process and methane coming from the 10.3% of GHGs produced by manure management is very important in terms of Ireland's GHG emissions. Methane is a very potent GHG, with it being 25 times greater than CO₂ over a 100 year period (Solomon et al., 2007). However, even though the gas is much more potent it only has an atmospheric lifespan of 10-12 years (Solomon et al., 2007), leaving it as our best chance to reduce GHG emissions in a shorter space of time.

Most of the N₂O emissions produced globally are coming from agricultural soils and an increased use of fertilisers and manure inputs (Mosier et al., 1998; Reay et al., 2012). With the increasing herd growth in recent years however, there has been an extra pressure to grow more grass encouraging more fertiliser use in Ireland and contributing to the 26.8% of agricultural soils emissions seen in Figure 1 below.

Finally, global CO₂, emissions from agriculture stem from deforestation and land use change (FAO, 2021). But, in Ireland this isn't as big a problem as it is in other regions around the world. Instead a lot of the CO₂ in Ireland comes from lime and urea application (2.4% in Figure 1 below). Other CO₂ emissions in agriculture in Ireland also come indirectly from fuel combustion (3.0% in Figure 1 below). 

However, in terms of the Irish dairy sector the first question we need to ask is what can be done to reduce and mitigate emissions especially methane emissions in order to have a big impact on climate change and emissions both nationally and globally. The second question we need to ask is are the ideas that are suggested for mitigation actually realistic and achievable for the Irish dairy system and farmer or are they just more dreams that people hope works ? Finally, we also need to ask as to whether the dairy farmer is being included in talk or discussions around dairy farming in Ireland and reducing the sectors emissions. 

There has been numerous suggestions to try and mitigate or even reduce emissions from the dairy sector. As discussed above the biggest GHG coming from the dairy sector is methane. Emmet-Booth et al., (2019) suggested methods such as extending the grazing season and improving genetic efficiency of dairy livestock in order to reduce GHG emissions.

Extending the grazing system for dairy cattle means that they will consume less lignin or cellulose as they will be spending more time out on fresh pasture rather than consuming conserved grass such as silage which is high in both lignin and cellulose, which is associated with higher levels of methane emissions (Emmet-Booth et al., 2019; Boadi et al., 2004). With cows consuming more outdoor fresh pasture it will see a reduction in livestock housing periods which in turn reduces the amount of manure which needs to be stored and therefore reduces methane emissions associated with the storage (Emmet-Booth et al., 2019). In terms of sustainability this idea works however, coming from a dairy farm myself one must question as to whether this will be viable for all farmers across Ireland. Ireland's climate can be very changeable and it can leave runways and fields in a hard to manage state and keeping cattle on it for longer could in fact cause more damage to the field. It's also important to note that bad conditions on foot for cows can actually injure cows badly and leave them unable to walk and no longer viable within the farms system. Finally, one must also question as to whether sufficient grass is available all year round for dairy cattle in Ireland with again weather conditions being so changeable especially in winter months (Reidy, 2016).

Genetic efficiency has improved drastically is the past 2 decades and is still developing in terms of reducing the dairy industries impact on climate change. Breeding indices such as the dairy Economic Breeding Index (EBI) can be used to choose genetic traits (for example, feed intake, methane emissions, daily live weight gain and animal health) in dairy cattle associated with reduced GHG emissions and improved production efficiency. EBI has a huge capacity to improve such traits. Cattle which have a higher EBI are more fertile reducing the farms replacement rate and calving unit therefore reducing methane emissions produced per unit of product. EBI also brings other benefits such as increased milk yield and composition, improving efficiency of production and decreasing emissions per unit of product. EBI has also brought an improved health status on farms with it reducing the incidence of disease, leading to higher production levels and lower replacement rates and overall lowering GHG emissions. Finally EBI has influenced feed intake of cows and therefore cows methane excretion. A smaller cow consumes less feed than a larger one therefore small cow traits are used in DNA which can produce a more sustainable cow breed that produces high yields (McDonnell, 2021). Breeding schemes such as that of EBI are a good way of developing more environmentally efficient livestock however, sometimes we must also note that this option is not always financially viable for some farmers (McDonnel, 2021) and therefore highlights the need to include farmers in designing schemes such as this in order to make it viable and successful for all. 

With strategies and ideas like these being developed and implemented it is clear that plans like these are definitely not viable for all farmers. When developing ideas and plans such as those above one must question as to whether farmers from all types of dairy farms are being included in talks and discussions in relation to these ideas. From the outside looking in the plan looks great and seems like not implementing such strategies would be a mistake however, when you delve in and start to look at issues arising from such ideas you have to wonder whether these plans are viable for all and who was included in talks and discussions when these strategies were being formulated. 

When looking at these mitigation strategies one must also ask as to whether farmers are actually aware of them. A survey carried out by Drennan, (Not Dated) examined the attitudes of dairy farmers in relation to the reduction of GHG emissions like methane. Findings from the survey showed that famers ‟ in general had a good understanding, awareness and willingness to adapt to mitigation strategies‟ to reduce GHG emissions. The findings also showed that farmers ‟ understanding of the impact of GHG emissions was quite good and there was a general acceptance that the dairy farming industry should contribute in helping to lower agricultural emissions". However, farmers did mention that awareness levels could be improved in relation to the implementation of such mitigation strategies such as those discussed above. Farmers surveyed also felt that in order to increase the uptake of such strategies "a high level of knowledge transfer is required showing credible and thoroughly tested results which have been carried out on comparable farms" (Drennan, Not Dated).

I think to encourage and see an uptake of schemes such as those mentioned above scientists, government parties, organisations along with other environmental and agricultural organisations and societies need to first provide knowledge regarding such schemes to all farmers across Ireland. To further encourage uptake some form of financial incentive should also be given whether it be funding towards installation or capital costs or funding in the form or grants or yearly/monthly payments. Overall, those who know best about these ideas and schemes must promote and incentivise such ideas in order to increase the uptake and see a reduction in the dairy sectors GHGs.

In conclusion it is undeniable that the Irish dairy industry is contributing to Ireland's GHG emissions. Research shows that there are ways to reduce these emissions however, they do come with their drawbacks which allows one to question as to whether farmers are being considered in discussions, talks and knowledge sharing of such schemes. Finally, such schemes need to be promoted by scientists, governments, agricultural and environmental organisations across Ireland through knowledge sharing and financial incentivisation.

Bibliogrphy

BOADI, D., BENCHAAR, C., CHIQUETTE, J. & MASSÉ, D. 2004. Mitigation strategies to reduce enteric methane emissions from dairy cows: Update review. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 84, 319-335.

DRENNAN, A. Not Dated. Dairy Farmers’ Attitudes to Reducing Methane Emissions through Changes in the Diets of Dairy Cows [Online]. Teagasc. Available: https://www.teagasc.ie/media/website/publications/2020/Abstract-Aoife-Drennan.pdf [Accessed 28/03/2022].

EMMET-BOOTH, J. P., DEKKER, S. & O’BRIEN, P. 2019. Climate Change Mitigation and the Irish Agriculture and Land Use Sector. Working Paper on Climate Change Advisory Council: Dublin, Ireland.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 2022. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG)- Agriculture [Online]. EPA. Available: https://www.epa.ie/our-services/monitoring--assessment/climate-change/ghg/agriculture/ [Accessed 28/03/2022].

FAO 2021. Emissions due to agriculture. Global, regional and country trends 2000–2018. FAOSTAT Analytical Brief Series No 18.

FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL ORGANISATION (FAO). 2022. Reduciing Enteric Methane for Improving Food Security and Livelioods- What is Enteric Methane? [Online]. FAO. Available: https://www.fao.org/in-action/enteric-methane/background/what-is-enteric-methane/en/ [Accessed 28/03/2022].

GIBBS, M. & LENG, R. Methane emissions from livestock.  Proceedings of the International Workshop on Methane and Nitrous Oxide. Methods for National Inventories and Options for Control. RIVM report, 1993. 73-79.

IRISH FARMERS ASSOCIATION (IFA). 2020. Dairy Fact Sheet [Online]. IFA. Available: https://www.ifa.ie/dairy-factsheet/ [Accessed 28/03/2022].

MCDONNELL, B. 2021. Reducing Emissions from your Dairy Herd through EBI [Online]. Agriland.ie. Available: https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/reducing-emissions-from-your-dairy-herd-through-ebi/ [Accessed 28/03/2022].

MOSIER, A., KROEZE, C., NEVISON, C., OENEMA, O., SEITZINGER, S. & VAN CLEEMPUT, O. 1998. Closing the global N2O budget: nitrous oxide emissions through the agricultural nitrogen cycle. Nutrient cycling in Agroecosystems, 52, 225-248.

REAY, D., DAVIDSON, E., SMITH, K., SMITH, P., MELILLO, J., DENTENER, F. & CRUTZEN, P. 2012. Global agriculture and nitrous oxide emissions. Nature Climate Change, 2, 410-416.

REIDY, B. 2016. Pros and Cons of this Year’s Extended Grazing Bonus [Online]. Irish Examiner. Available: https://www.irishexaminer.com/farming/arid-20431001.html [Accessed 25/08/2022].

SMYTH, O. 2021. Farming- A Big Problem for Ireland’s Climate Goals? [Online]. RTE. Available: https://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2021/1026/1256029-farming-dairy-climate-change/ [Accessed 28/03/2022].

SOLOMON, S., QIN, D., MANNING, M., CHEN, Z., MARQUIS, M., AVERYT, K., TIGNOR, M. & MILLER, H. L. 2007. IPCC, 2007: Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. SD Solomon (Ed.).

TEAGASC. 2022. Dairy [Online]. Teagasc. Available: https://www.teagasc.ie/animals/dairy/ [Accessed 28/03/2022].

Central Statistics Office (CSO) (2016) measured 137,500 farms in Ireland in 2016 with a large proportion of these farms being used for livestock production. 88% of Ireland’s gross agricultural outputs are livestock based products (CSO, 2020). Ireland’s livestock production is mainly ruminant based livestock production (beef, dairy and sheep) which is largely grass fed (O′Mara et al., 2021). Pig and poultry production also takes place in Ireland however, not to the same output and extent as cattle, dairy and sheep based production (O′Mara et al., 2021). Based off The Teagasc National Farm Survey Data, O'Brien et al. (2018) stated that on average an Irish dairy cow diet consists of 81.8% of forage (60.2% being concerned with grazed pasture, 19.8% grass silage and 1.8% alternative forages) and the other 18.2% was concentrates. Teagasc (2020) and Earle et al. (2017) report similar or higher levels of forage being used in both beef and sheep production in Ireland.

Grass-fed livestock production has numerous advantages and disadvantages. Grass-fed livestock products are usually better for consumers who buy them, with research showing that grass fed beef is lower in overall fat and saturated fat, provides more omega-3 fats, has 3-5 times more conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) and is higher in vitamin E than those of grain fed livestock (WebMD Editorial Contributors, 2020). Research from the Environmental Research and Education shows that methane emissions from livestock production are actually being offset by grazing the pasture, with GHG’s being reduced through carbon sequestration (A Greener World, 2015). Research in Queensland Australia has shown that through carbon sequestration from the grass and its soil it has offset the GHG emissions from livestock farming operations (A Greener World, 2015). Grass-fed systems are also believed to produce healthier and more fertile livestock which have a long life span therefore reducing the wastage of animals on the farm (A Greener World, 2015). If stock on the farm are better and healthier the less need there is for replacement animals to maintain productivity which in turn has a positive effect on GHG emissions (A Greener World, 2015). However there is no denying that research has shown that ruminant animals are huge cause of methane and carbon dioxide agricultural emissions worldwide (Opio et al., 2013). However, this post aims to look at how we can reduce such emissions by looking at alternative feeds for livestock and the environmental advantages they bring to the Irish livestock sector which will help Ireland meet they’re climate targets without diminishing production levels. 

The Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (2022) list 3 methane- reducing feed additives and supplements;

1. Synthetic Chemicals
2. Natural Supplements and Compounds 
3. Fats and Oils 

Synthetic Chemicals

These include the use of antibiotics which have the ability to improve the efficiency of feed conversion in livestock (Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, 2022). However the use of these chemicals are usually not recommended due to laws around the use of such chemicals and the production of livestock related products as well as concern for human health when using these chemicals in food producing animals (Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, 2022). Such chemicals include vaccines (however a lot more research needs to be done in this area), reductive acetogenesis (McAllister and Newbold, 2008), bromochloromethane and chloroform (Tomkins et al., 2009), protozoa (McAllister and Newbold, 2008), and antibiotics such as monensin (Eckard et al., 2000).

Natural Supplements and Compounds 

Bovaer10

Bovaer10 is a new food additive to the market which contains 3-nitrooxypropanol which reduces methane emissions from dairy livestock (European Commission, 2022). EFSA Panel on Additives et al. (2021) researched the food additive showing that it is effective to reduce emissions at a recommended level in feed of 60mg 3-NOP/kg DM feed. The additive is able to do this while not causing any concerns or threats for consumers who may consume dairy livestock products (EFSA Panel on Additives et al., 2021). However, research still needs to be carried out to see if the additive is affective in other ruminant animals (EFSA Panel on Additives et al., 2021). European Commission (2022) mention that this additive has the potential to cut emissions in dairy cows by between 20-35% while not affecting production of the cow. 

Seaweed

Asparagopsis armata or more commonly known as seaweed have shown to be huge a contributor to the reduction of methane produced by enteric fermentation when included into livestock’s diets. Roque et al. (2021) and Roque et al. (2019) research found seaweed when included in livestock’s diet can be effective in reducing methane emissions. Roque et al. (2019) looks at the inclusion of seaweed into dairy livestock’s feed with research showing a that a 0.5% inclusion of seaweed seen a 26.4% decrease in methane production, a 20.5% decrease in methane yield and a 26.8% decrease in methane intensity. This 0.5% inclusion did not see an impact in milk yield or intake in dairy livestock. Roque et al. (2021) examined the introduction of seaweed into beef livestock diets in comparison to beef livestock diets fully resilient on forage. The study found methane emissions decreased by 33% depending on how much seaweed was consumed. The study also found that feed to body weight conversion was 20% more efficient with the introduction of seaweed into cattle’s diet than those cattle who consumed high-forage diets meaning less food needs to be produced or bought in by farmers and overall reducing production costs.

Nitrates

Nitrates are another option to reduce enteric fermentation emissions generated by livestock. Nitrates are chemicals which naturally occur in soils, plants and water which naturally combine with hydrogen rather than methanogens (Carrazco, 2021). van Zijderveld et al. (2011) research highlights that the introduction of nitrates into dairy livestock diets brought on average a 16% reduction in methane emissions caused by enteric fermentation while Lee et al. (2017) research found that the introduction of such nitrates into beef livestock’s diets brought a 12% reduction in methane emissions caused by enteric fermentation. However, one point to note is that too much nitrates included in a diet can cause nitrate poisoning in ruminant animals with cattle being the most affected by such poisoning (Thompson, 2021). Therefore the inclusion of nitrates into livestock’s diets needs to be monitored very closely to avoid this risk (Carrazco, 2021). 

Fats and Oils

Typically fats have been included in livestock’s diets to increase the energy density of the diet, to increase milk yield and to alter the fatty acid composition of milk fat (Murphy et al., 1995, Ashes et al., 1997). However, recent studies has shown that the inclusion of fats into livestock diets can reduce livestock’s methane emissions (Dong et al., 1997, Machmüller and Kreuzer, 1999, Dohme-Meier et al., 2000). Research by Dohme-Meier et al. (2000) have shown that the addition of 53 g kg–1 DM of palm kernel oil reduced emissions by 34%. The same amount of coconut oil seen a 21% reduction in methane emissions and the same amount of canola oil seen a 20% reduction in methane emissions. Research also showed that a 3.5% inclusion of coconut oil in sheep diets seen a 28% decrease in methane production while a 7% inclusion of coconut oil in sheep’s diets seen a 73% decreased in methane production (Machmueller and Kreuzer, 1999). These fats and oils may not always reduce methane emissions however, it may improve productivity per unit of methane produced, for example Johnson et al. (2002) found that supplementing 4% of oilseeds into dairy livestock’s diets increased the efficiency of milk produced per unit of methane produced. Another oil which has been useful in reducing enteric fermentation emissions is Agoilin (“a commercially available blend of coriander seed oil, and extracts from common nutmeg and wild carrot”) (Carrazco, 2021).

In conclusion livestock farming produce huge amount of methane however through the introduction of such methods discussed above we could reduce methane emissions and therefore seen an overall reduction in GHG emissions in a shorter period of time with methane only having a lifespan of 10-12 years within the atmosphere (NatureFood, 2021).

Bibliography

A GREENER WORLD 2015. The Grassfed Primer: Your Guide to the Benefits of Grassfed Beef. A Greener World.

ASHES, J. R., GULATI, S. K. & SCOTT, T. W. 1997. Potential to alter the content and composition of milk fat through nutrition. J Dairy Sci, 80, 2204-12.

CARRAZCO, A. 2021. How can Cattle Feed Additives Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions? [Online]. Available: https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/how-can-cattle-feed-additives-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions [Accessed 31/05/2022].

CENTRAL STATISTICS OFFICE (CSO). 2016. Farm Structure Survey 2016 [Online]. CSO. Available: https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-fss/farmstructuresurvey2016/da/fs/ [Accessed 31/05/2022].

CSO. 2020. Environmental Indicators Ireland 2020 [Online]. CSO. Available: https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-eii/environmentalindicatorsireland2020/ [Accessed 31/05/2022].

DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT. 2022. Carbon Farming: Reducing Methane Emissions from Cattle using Feed Additives [Online]. Available: https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/climate-change/carbon-farming-reducing-methane-emissions-cattle-using-feed-additives [Accessed 31/05/2022].

DOHME-MEIER, F., MACHMUELLER, A., WASSERFALLEN, A. & KREUZER, M. 2000. Comparative efficiency of various fats rich in medium-chain fatty acids to suppress ruminal methanogenesis as measured with RUSITEC. Canadian Journal of Animal Science - CAN J ANIM SCI, 80, 473-484.

DONG, Y., BAE, H. D., MCALLISTER, T. A., MATHISON, G. W. & CHENG, K.-J. 1997. Lipid-induced depression of methane production and digestibility in the artificial rumen system (RUSITEC). Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 77, 269-278.

EARLE, E., BOLAND, T. M., MCHUGH, N. & CREIGHTON, P. 2017. Measures of lamb production efficiency in a temperate grass-based system differing in ewe prolificacy potential and stocking rate. J Anim Sci, 95, 3504-3512.

ECKARD, R., DALLEY, D. & CRAWFORD, M. Impacts of potential management changes on greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration from dairy production systems in Australia.  Proceedings workshop: Management Options for Carbon Sequestration in Forest, Agricultural and Rangeland Ecosystems, 2000.

EFSA PANEL ON ADDITIVES, FEED, P. O. S. U. I. A., BAMPIDIS, V., AZIMONTI, G., BASTOS, M. D. L., CHRISTENSEN, H., DUSEMUND, B., FAŠMON DURJAVA, M., KOUBA, M., LÓPEZ‐ALONSO, M. & LÓPEZ PUENTE, S. 2021. Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of 3‐nitrooxypropanol (Bovaer® 10) for ruminants for milk production and reproduction (DSM Nutritional Products Ltd). EFSA Journal, 19, e06905.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION. 2022. Farm to Fork: Innovative Feed Additive will Reduce Methane Emissions from Dairy Cows in the EU [Online]. European Commission. Available: https://ireland.representation.ec.europa.eu/news-and-events/news/farm-fork-innovative-feed-additive-will-reduce-methane-emissions-dairy-cows-eu-2022-02-23_en[Accessed 31/05/2022].

JOHNSON, K. A., KINCAID, R. L., WESTBERG, H. H., GASKINS, C. T., LAMB, B. K. & CRONRATH, J. D. 2002. The Effect of Oilseeds in Diets of Lactating Cows on Milk Production and Methane Emissions. Journal of Dairy Science, 85, 1509-1515.

LEE, C., ARAUJO, R. C., KOENIG, K. M. & BEAUCHEMIN, K. A. 2017. Effects of encapsulated nitrate on growth performance, nitrate toxicity, and enteric methane emissions in beef steers: Backgrounding phase1,2. Journal of Animal Science, 95, 3700-3711.

MACHMUELLER, A. & KREUZER, M. 1999. Methane suppression by coconut oil and associated effects on nutrient and energy in sheep. Canadian Journal of Animal Science - CAN J ANIM SCI, 79, 65-72.

MACHMÜLLER, A. & KREUZER, M. 1999. Methane suppression by coconut oil and associated effects on nutrient and energy balance in sheep. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 79, 65-72.

MCALLISTER, T. A. & NEWBOLD, C. J. 2008. Redirecting rumen fermentation to reduce methanogenesis. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 48, 7-13.

MURPHY, J. J., CONNOLLY, J. F. & MCNEILL, G. P. 1995. Effects on milk fat composition and cow performance of feeding concentrates containing full fat rapeseed and maize distillers grains on grass-silage based diets. Livestock Production Science, 44, 1-11.

NATUREFOOD 2021. Control methane to slow global warming - fast. Nature, 596, 461.

O'BRIEN, D., MORAN, B. & SHALLOO, L. 2018. A national methodology to quantify the diet of grazing dairy cows. J Dairy Sci, 101, 8595-8604.

O′MARA, F., RICHARDS, K. G., SHALLOO, L., DONNELLAN, T., FINN, J. A. & LANIGAN, G. 2021. Sustainability of ruminant livestock production in Ireland. Animal Frontiers, 11, 32-43.

OPIO, C., GERBER, P., MOTTET, A., FALCUCCI, A., TEMPIO, G., MACLEOD, M., VELLINGA, T., HENDERSON, B. & STEINFELD, H. 2013. Greenhouse gas emissions from ruminant supply chains–A global life cycle assessment, Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations.

ROQUE, B. M., SALWEN, J. K., KINLEY, R. & KEBREAB, E. 2019. Inclusion of Asparagopsis armata in lactating dairy cows’ diet reduces enteric methane emission by over 50 percent. Journal of Cleaner Production, 234, 132-138.

ROQUE, B. M., VENEGAS, M., KINLEY, R. D., DE NYS, R., DUARTE, T. L., YANG, X. & KEBREAB, E. 2021. Red seaweed (Asparagopsis taxiformis) supplementation reduces enteric methane by over 80 percent in beef steers. PLOS ONE, 16, e0247820.

TEAGASC. 2020. Teagasc Sectoral Roadmaps 2027 [Online]. Teagasc. Available: https://www.teagasc.ie/publications/2020/teagasc-sectoral-roadmaps-2027.php [Accessed 31/05/2022].

THOMPSON, L. J. 2021. Nitrate and Nitrite Poisoning in Animals [Online]. Available: https://www.msdvetmanual.com/toxicology/nitrate-and-nitrite-poisoning/nitrate-and-nitrite-poisoning-in-animals#v53753221 [Accessed 31/05/2022].

TOMKINS, N. W., COLEGATE, S. M. & HUNTER, R. A. 2009. A bromochloromethane formulation reduces enteric methanogenesis in cattle fed grain-based diets. Animal Production Science, 49, 1053-1058.

VAN ZIJDERVELD, S. M., GERRITS, W. J. J., DIJKSTRA, J., NEWBOLD, J. R., HULSHOF, R. B. A. & PERDOK, H. B. 2011. Persistency of methane mitigation by dietary nitrate supplementation in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 94, 4028-4038.

WEBMD EDITORIAL CONTRIBUTORS. 2020. Grass-Fed Beef: Is it Good for You? [Online]. WebMD Editorial Contributors. Available: https://www.webmd.com/diet/grass-fed-beef-good-for-you [Accessed 30/08/2022].

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), (2021) defines food waste “as food and the associated inedible parts removed from the human food supply chain” in the retail food service and household sectors. UNEP, (2021) reported that in 2019, 932 million tonnes of food was wasted with 61% being generated by households, 26% from food service and 13% from retail. 17% of global food production is wasted (11% from households, 5% from food service and 2% in retail) (UNEP, 2021).

This food waste comes with an environmental price with 6% of global greenhouse gas emissions being produced by food waste (Figure 1) (Ritchie and Roser, 2020). This waste also comes with a financial cost of on average 990 billion US Dollars (US$) annually (UNEP, 2022). The food with the highest wastage rates are fruit and vegetables including roots and tubers with on average 40-50% of these being wasted annually (UNEP, 2022). Figure 2 below shows an estimate of countries with the highest rates of food waste by sector. 

Food waste varies between countries with it being influenced by factors such as level of income, urbanisation and economic growth (Chalak et al., 2016, Ishangulyyev et al., 2019). Developing countries produce a lot less food waste (44% of global food loss and waste). Waste in developing countries is generated mainly in post-harvest and processing due poor practice, technological limitations, labour and financial restrictions and lack of infrastructure (Gustavsson et al., 2011, Ishangulyyev et al., 2019). Waste in developed countries (56% of global food loss and waste) mainly comes from the consumption stage of the supply chain (Gustavsson et al., 2011, Ishangulyyev et al., 2019). A large proportion of food is wasted after preparation, cooking or serving. Another huge contributor to food waste in developed countries is as a result of food not being consumed before the expiration date (Bond et al., 2013, Priefer et al., 2013, Ishangulyyev et al., 2019).

With such a high percentage of food wasted globally this blog post aims to look at the environmental impact of this food waste and what measures are in place in order to reduce this impact. 

Environmental Impact of Food Waste; 

The FAO estimates that food waste contributes to 3.3 billion tonnes of CO₂eq (carbon dioxide equivalent) every year (Scialabba et al., 2013). Often enough when food is wasted it goes to landfill where it produces large amounts of methane emissions (World Wildlife Fund (WWF), 2022). Methane is a much more potent GHG with it being 80 times more powerful than CO₂ in terms of its ability to absorb the suns radiation which overall causes our atmosphere to warm (NatureFood, 2021). However, this gas does have a shorter atmospheric lifespan of 10 years which means that methane reduction is our greatest potential to reduce GHG emissions in a short span of time (NatureFood, 2021). Therefore by reducing our global food waste we have the potential to cut these associated methane emissions which will have a big impact over a shorter period of time. 

Food production is responsible for 26% of global GHG emissions (Hannah Ritchie, 2019). When we waste food we also waste the energy and inputs used to harvest, transport, produce and package each product and these all come with an environmental cost and contribute even further to increasing GHG emissions and environmental degradation (Ritchie and Roser, 2020). This means that when we waste food we also waste these inputs and produce unnecessary emissions which contributes to our warming and changing climate. 

In terms of environmental footprints associated with global average per capita per day food waste, Chen et al. (2020) calculated them to be 124g CO₂eq., 58 litres of freshwater use, and 0.32m²  of cropland use. This means by reducing our food waste we can reduce these daily environmental impacts. 

How to Reduce Food Waste;

FAO (2022) suggest to only buy what is needed to in order to reduce food waste. This can be done by making a meal plan, checking what is there before going shopping and by writing a shopping list (Environmnetal Protection Agency (EPA), 2022). Another way to reduce food waste is to save your leftovers by using them in another meal or freezing them saving them for another time instead of storing them and letting them go stale and throwing them out (EPA, 2022, FAO, 2022, Lipinski, 2013). More effective ways to reduce food waste is to cut portion sizes and understand food labelling (For example the difference between best-before and use-by dates) (FAO, 2022, Lipinski, 2013). 

Another way to reduce the GHG impact of food and food waste is by buying local (this will reduce the distances the food needs to travel in order to get to the consumer and therefore reduce associated emissions with long journeys (van Goeverden et al., 2016, FAO, 2022).

Hanson et al. (2019) suggests three different approaches which have interventions to reduce food waste, the whole supply chain approach, specific hotspots approach and an enabling conditions approach. Under the supply chain approach Hanson et al. (2019) proposes 3 interventions under the whole supply chain approach;

1. To develop national strategies to reduce food loss and waste.
2. To create national public and private partnerships.
3. To launch a “10x20x30” supply chain initiative where at least 10 leading players commit to a target-measure act to engage with large suppliers to see a 50% reduction in food loss and waste by 2030. 

Hanson et al. (2019) suggests 4 interventions under the specific hotspots approach;

1. Push efforts to strengthen value chains to reduce smallholder losses
2. Launch a “Decade of storage solutions” 
3. Shift social norms and behaviour
4. Reduce GHG emissions

Finally under the enabling conditions approach Hanson et al. (2019) recommended 3 interventions; 

1. To scale up financing
2. To overcome the data deficit
3. To advance the research agenda. 

The European Commission (2022) aim to set out legally binding targets in the EU by the end of 2023 in order to reduce food waste. By the end of 2022 they also aim on revising the EU rules on date marking in relation to ‘use by’ and ‘best before’ dates. 

Certain plans and strategies have food loss and waste prevention included in their aims. These include the EU commissions farm to fork strategy, certain national food waste strategies such as Italy's and Ireland's (Azzurro and GaianiS, 2016, Department of the Environment, 2022).

In 2016, France seen the introduction of a law to reduce food waste which saw French supermarkets banned from destroying unsold food products and instead have to donate it (Zero Waste Europe). We also see new innovations such as the “Too good to go App” which sees food from cafes, restaurants, hotels, shops and manufacturers being sold at the end of the day for a discounted price instead of before out the food (Too Good To Go, 2022).

In conclusion food waste contributes to the environmental problems and degradation we are experiencing in today’s world. There is initiatives and plans set up to address this however, tons of food gets wasted on a daily basis. In order to eliminate food waste more needs to be done on both the consumer and governmental level to reduce this waste and associated GHG emissions. 

AZZURRO, P. & GAIANIS, V. M. 2016. Italy-Country report on national food waste policy. Food policy, 46, 129-39.

BOND, M., MEACHAM, T., BHUNNOO, R. & BENTON, T. 2013. Food waste within global food systems, Global Food Security Swindon, UK.

CHALAK, A., ABOU-DAHER, C., CHAABAN, J. & ABIAD, M. G. 2016. The global economic and regulatory determinants of household food waste generation: A cross-country analysis. Waste Manag, 48, 418-422.

CHEN, C., CHAUDHARY, A. & MATHYS, A. 2020. Nutritional and environmental losses embedded in global food waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 160, 104912.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT, C. A. C. 2022. Ireland’s National Food Wste Prevention Roadmap.

ENVIRONMNETAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 2022. Preventing Food Waste [Online]. EPA. Available: https://www.epa.ie/take-action/in-the-home/circular-economy-/food-waste-prevention/ [Accessed 24/08/2022].

EUROPEAN COMMISION. 2022. EU Actions Against Food Waste [Online]. European Commission. Available: https://food.ec.europa.eu/safety/food-waste/eu-actions-against-food-waste_en [Accessed 25/08/2022].

FAO. 2022. 15 Quick Tips for Reducing Food Waste and Becoming a Food Hero [Online]. FAO. Available: https://www.fao.org/fao-stories/article/en/c/1309609/ [Accessed 24/08/2022].

GUSTAVSSON, J., CEDERBERG, C., SONESSON, U., VAN OTTERDIJK, R. & MEYBECK, A. 2011. Global food losses and food waste. FAO Rome.

HANNAH RITCHIE. 2019. Food Production is Responsible for One-Quarter of the World’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions. [Online]. OurWorldinData.org. Available: https://ourworldindata.org/food-ghg-emissions[Accessed 24/08/2022].

HANSON, C., FLANAGAN, K., ROBERTSON, K., AXMANN, H., BOS-BROUWERS, H., BROEZE, J., KNELLER, C., MAIER, D., MCGEE, C. & O’CONNOR, C. 2019. Reducing Food Loss and Waste: Ten Interventions to Scale Impact.

ISHANGULYYEV, R., KIM, S. & LEE, S. H. 2019. Understanding Food Loss and Waste-Why Are We Losing and Wasting Food? Foods, 8.

LIPINSKI, B. 2013. 10 Ways to Cut Global Food Loss and Waste [Online]. World Resources Institute (WRI). Available: https://www.wri.org/insights/10-ways-cut-global-food-loss-and-waste [Accessed 25/08/2022].

NATUREFOOD 2021. Control methane to slow global warming - fast. Nature, 596, 461.

PRIEFER, C., JÖRISSEN, J. & BRÄUTIGAM, K. 2013. Technology options for feeding 10 billion people. Options for Cutting Food Waste. Science and Technology Options Assessment, European Parliament, Brussels, Belgium.

RITCHIE, H. & ROSER, M. 2020. Environmental Impacts of Food Production [Online]. OurWorldInData.org. Available: https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food#citation [Accessed 24/08/2022].

SCIALABBA, N., JAN, O., TOSTIVINT, C., TURBÉ, A., O’CONNOR, C., LAVELLE, P., FLAMMINI, A., HOOGEVEEN, J., IWEINS, M., TUBIELLO, F., PEISER, L. & BATELLO, C. 2013. Food Wastage Footprint: Impacts on Natural Resources. Summary Report.

TOO GOOD TO GO. 2022. Too Good To Go, [Online]. Available: https://toogoodtogo.ie/en-ie [Accessed 24/08/2022].

UNEP. 2022. Think-Eat- sAve Reduce your Footprint; Worldwide Food Waste [Online]. UNEP. Available: https://www.unep.org/thinkeatsave/get-informed/worldwide-food-waste [Accessed 24/08/2022].

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME (UNEP) 2021. Food Waste Index Report 2021.

VAN GOEVERDEN, K., VAN AREM, B. & VAN NES, R. 2016. Volume and GHG emissions of long-distance travelling by Western Europeans. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 45, 28-47.

WORLD WILDLIFE FUND (WWF). 2022. Fight Climate Change by Preventing Food Waste [Online]. WWF. Available: https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/fight-climate-change-by-preventing-food-waste[Accessed 24/08/2022].

ZERO WASTE EUROPE. U/D. France’s Law for Fighting Food Waste; Food Waste Prevention Legislation [Online]. Zero Waste Europe. Available: https://zerowasteeurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/zwe_11_2020_factsheet_france_en.pdf [Accessed 25/08/2022].

How many there is ?

Central Statistics Office (CSO) (2020) reported that in 2020 Ireland had 1,686 organic farm holdings which overall represented 1.3% of total farm holdings. Francis (2005) defines organic farming “as production of crop, animal, and other products without the use of synthetic chemical fertilizers and pesticides, transgenic species or antibiotics and growth-enhancing steroids, or other chemicals”. Table 1 below shows us the breakdown of organic farms in Ireland in 2020 with 1,540 being fully converted organic farms and 146 farms under conversion to organic farms. Table 1 also shows us land use for organic farms in 2020, with a total of 73,798.8 hectares (ha) of agricultural area utilised being registered under organic farms which represents a mere 1.6% of total agricultural area utilised in Ireland. 

Figure 1 shows the percentage of organic farms by farm type in Ireland in 2020. From this figure we can see that the largest proportion of registered organic farms were specialist beef production. This was followed by specialised sheep, mixed grazing livestock and mixed crops and livestock.

Benefits of Organic Farming and Organic Produce

One of the leading causes of the current climate crises is increasing GHG emissions (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2022). Organic farming has the potential to reduce these emissions (Nejadkoorki, 2012). Organic farming will mean farms will no longer be dependent on high emissions inputs such as fertilisers and pesticides and instead will rely on establishing closed nutrient cycles and minimizing nitrogen losses which will overall reduce GHG emissions such as carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. Organic agriculture also sees improved manure management with the implementation of methods such as manure composting which again reduces nitrous oxide and methane emissions. Organic farming also sees an improved efficiency per every ha of land. This type of farming also sequesters and stores more organic carbon through the introduction of legumes or reduced tillage which also brings added benefits of improved soil quality and fertility. Organic farming can also act as form of resilience by reducing erosion, supporting plant health enhancing biodiversity all which contributes towards stable yields during extreme weather conditions and acts as form of resilience (IFOAM, 2022).

Other benefits to organic farming include its ability to enhance biological diversity within a system, recycle the wastes of plants and animals to return nutrients to the land, improve and maintain soil fertility and reduce energy losses and crop failures (Sartaj et al., 2013). Organic farming will also be vital in providing sustainability in the long term by producing food with an environmental balance (Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 2022). 

Teagasc (2022) note that organic farming can be profitable with them maintaining high output levels with lower production costs and premium market prices. Similarly enough Nierenberg (2005) and Marais and Eiselen (2016) mentions that the method of farming is profitable even though they have lower yields. Mendoza (2004)highlights that organic production is cheaper due to lower cash expenses, a higher net revenue and a lower breakeven point. Inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides are not needed which keeps production costs lower (Lotter, 2003, Marais and Eiselen, 2016). This is especially true now, with the rising costs of inputs such as fertilizers (Blaney, 2022).

With organic food production bringing such environmental benefits this blog post further examines what schemes or incentives are in place to encourage the conversion to organic farming in Ireland and if more needs to be done.

1. Organic Farming Scheme 

This is a scheme set up by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine which aims to financially support farmers in the production of organic foods. Payments of the scheme have different rates based on the area farmed and the type of farming which is conducted.

In order to qualify the farer must;

• Produce livestock or crop products in accordance to European Union organic standards.
• Complete an approved training course.
• Farm and manage the land in which you have listed.
• Register and be approved as an organic operator by a private inspection body. 
• Have a minimum farm area of 3ha. For horticulture this minimum farm area required is 1ha. 

(Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine, 2020a)

• Organic Capital Investment Scheme (OCIS)

This is another scheme set up by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine which seeks to provide financial support to farmers who regularly produce a supply of high quality organic produce for the market. Again there are certain terms and conditions which need to be met in order to qualify for the scheme (Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine, 2020b).

• Organic Processing Investment Grant Scheme

This scheme aims to provide financial assistance to improve the organic sector by providing producers with the opportunity to enhance their income, to help guide future production with market trends, to encourage the development of new agricultural outlets and products, to improve production, handling and preparation of organic produce, encourage the development and instalment of new technologies and to develop facilities for preparation, grading, packing, storage, distribution, or the sale of organic products (Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine, 2021).

Even though there is options there for farmers from research done for this blog there still seems to be very little encouragement to switch to organic farming. More help both in terms of finance and knowledge sharing needs to be provided to farmers in order to educate them of the benefits of organic farming and the options which are available to them in order to aid their conversion from conventional farming. 

In conclusion organic farming can provide huge environmental advantages in a time where the world is facing a global climate crisis while also providing financial benefits. However, in Ireland there is a very small uptake of organic farming and in order to encourage this governments, environmental and agricultural organisations need to promote the switch from conventional to organic farming through knowledge sharing and financial support. 

Bibliography

BLANEY, A. 2022. Price of Fertiliser Doubles for Farmers with Knock on Anticipated in Food Prices [Online]. The Irish Times. Available: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/price-of-fertiliser-doubles-for-farmers-with-knock-on-anticipated-in-food-prices-1.4827498 [Accessed 23/08/2022].

CENTRAL STATISTICS OFFICE (CSO). 2020. Census of Agriculture 2020 Detailed Results- Organics [Online]. CSO. Available: https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-coa/censusofagriculture2020detailedresults/organics/ [Accessed 23/08/2022].

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOOD AND THE MARINE. 2020a. Organic Farming Scheme [Online]. Gov.ie. Available: https://www.gov.ie/en/service/d46aec-organic-farming-scheme/ [Accessed 23/08/2022].

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOOD AND THE MARINE. 2020b. Terms and Conditions of the organic Capital Investment Scheme (OCIS) [Online]. Gov.ie. Available: https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/24875-terms-and-conditions-of-the-organic-capital-investment-scheme-ocis/ [Accessed 23/08/2022].

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOOD AND THE MARINE. 2021. Organic Processing Investment Grant Scheme [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.ie/en/service/51e8d-organic-processing-investment-grant-scheme/?referrer=http://www.gov.ie/organic-processing-investment-grant-scheme/ [Accessed 23/08/2022].

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANISATION (FAO). 2022. Organic Agriculture; What are the Environmental Benefits of Organic Agriculture? [Online]. FAO. Available: https://www.fao.org/organicag/oa-faq/oa-faq6/en/ [Accessed 23/08/2022].

FRANCIS, C. A. 2005. ORGANIC FARMING. In: HILLEL, D. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Soils in the Environment.Oxford: Elsevier.

IFOAM 2022. Organic Agriculture and its Benefits for Climate and Biodiversity.

IPCC 2022. Global Warming of 1.5°C: IPCC Special Report on Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C above Pre-industrial Levels in Context of Strengthening Response to Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

LOTTER, D. W. 2003. Organic Agriculture. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 21, 59-128.

MARAIS, J.-J. & EISELEN, R. 2016. Organic agriculture : the trade-off between financial and non-financial benefits. Journal of Economic and Financial Sciences, 9, 106-119.

MENDOZA, T. C. 2004. Evaluating the Benefits of Organic Farming in Rice Agroecosystems in the Philippines. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 24, 93-115.

NEJADKOORKI, F. 2012. International Conference on Applied Life Sciences (ICALS2012).

NIERENBERG, D. 2005. Organic Agriculture Boosts Biodiversity. World Watch, 18.

SARTAJ, A. W., CHAND, S., NAJAR, G. & TELI, M. 2013. Organic farming: As a climate change adaptation and mitigation strategy. Current Agriculture Research Journal, 1, 45.

TEAGASC. 2022. Organics- Freqently Asked Questions [Online]. Teagasc. Available: https://www.teagasc.ie/rural-economy/organics/frequently-asked-questions/ [Accessed 23/08/2022].

As a person who participates in sports such as GAA and athletics, I always see my nutrition leading up to and after games or runs a vital component of my performance. This interest led me investigate and question sports nutrition and its link to climate change. In this article I look at sports nutrition in terms of the GAA and its contribution towards climate change as well as looking at small changes which can be made in a players diet in order to allow them to achieve maximum performance however, in a more sustainable manner.

From research it is evident that food production and processing have one of the biggest impacts on climate change, generating 26% of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Globally we use 61% of fresh water and 38% of ice-free land for food production and processing which contributes to these GHG emissions (Poore and Nemecek, 2018; Notarnicola et al., 2017; Reguant-Closa et al., 2020). Sources of these emissions along the food supply chain come from agricultural inputs, agricultural production and food processing as well as distribution, retail and waste of such food products (Notarnicola et al., 2017; Ridoutt et al., 2017; Vermeulen et al., 2012; Reguant-Closa et al., 2020). Foods have a varying environmental impact with some foods such as animal proteins like red meat producing more GHGs and using a larger proportion of water and land than plant-based proteins such as chickpeas etc. (Gerber et al., 2013; Sranacharoenpong et al., 2015; Reguant-Closa et al., 2020). Therefore not only the athlete but the average consumer needs to be more conscious in relation to their daily food choices and their environmental impact (Reguant-Closa et al., 2020).

Gaelic football and hurling is apart of the GAA organisation and are invasion-based team sports indigenous to Ireland (Cassidy et al., 2018; Reilly et al., 2015; Ó Catháin et al., 2020). It is considered an amateur sport however, there is a high level of competition, and players often have similar physiological characteristics and demands of elite professionals in other sports with them attending high volume periodised training where skills and drills are practiced to emanate games as well as playing a high intensity games once every 1-2 weeks (Cassidy et al., 2018; Beasley, 2015; Reilly et al., 2002; Ó Catháin et al., 2020).

Sport nutrition recommendations are often different for athletes in comparison to the general population and they're are numerous guidelines around sports nutrition in relation to micro and macro nutrients before and after training loads (Thomas et al., 2016; Reguant-Closa et al., 2020). This is also true for GAA players. Pre-match nutrition is always considered very important in terms of the GAA and needs to reflect the energy expenditure a player uses during a match in order to maximise performance (Burke et al., 2011; Ó Catháin et al., 2020). In terms of fueling before a match or training typical recommendations are that the meal should contain 30-50g of carbohydrate and 5-10g of protein. Fueling after games or training is also very important to aid muscle recovery post match. In terms of fueling post-match it is recommended that players eat 80-120g of carbohydrates and 20-40g of protein post-match (Building Champions Through Innovation).

A good way of looking at how a GAA player or any athlete or active person fuels themselves is by looking at the Athletes Plate (AP) concept (Reguant-Closa et al., 2020). The AP concept is a nutrition tool designed for athletes and active people to help themselves adjust food intake in accordance to changes in training volume and intensity or training load (Foster et al., 2001; Reguant-Closa et al., 2020). This food tool differs from those which is given to the general population as it adjusts the composition of major food groups on the plate in accordance to the players training load as seen in figures 1-3 below. Training loads are broken up into 3 categories and the players nutrition is then designed around the type or training/ how much training load they have on that particular day (Reguant-Closa et al., 2020).

We can see carbohydrates and and fat intakes vary in relation to training loads under this concept (Reguant-Closa et al., 2020). In terms of protein it is recommended that athletes consumes between 150-250% higher than what is recommended for the average person (Thomas et al., 2016; Moore et al., 2014; Phillips and Van Loon, 2011; Reguant-Closa et al., 2020). In terms of these recommended proteins, sports nutritionists often recommend those that contain amino acids especially leucine, to encourage muscle protein synthesis and repair. For this reason animal and dairy proteins are often promoted in terms of sports nutrition especially post-exercise (Burd et al., 2015; Reguant-Closa et al., 2020). However, with these proteins being discriminated against because of their environmental impact we now need to look at how the GAA player can achieve optimal nutrition pre and post match and training in a somewhat environmentally sustainable manner.

From the evidence provided above we can say that generally athletes diets are higher in protein than that which is recommended in the average daily diet (Parnell et al., 2016; Gillen et al., 2017; Meyer and Reguant-Closa, 2017). Thomas et al. (2016) states that in recent years the athletes protein recommendation has increased with Churchward-Venne et al., (2013) suggesting than on average an athlete should be consuming 1.2-2g/kg of body weight of protein on a daily basis. However, even with this increase Meyer and Reguant-Closa, (2017) mentions that its not the increase which is the problem but rather the sources of protein in which the athlete is consuming. Therefore, in order to reduce the environmental impact of the GAA players diet or any athletes diet in the case one must examine their protein sources and instead of getting a large amount of protein from animal sources such as red meat, dairy and eggs they should instead consider switching some of these protein sources for plant based protein sources.

Aiking (2014) recommended that an athlete could cut one third of their meat protein (especially red meat) and replace it with a plant based protein (beans including soy, grain, nuts, seeds). The meat they do consume should be grass-fed or pasture fed animal protein sources which are a higher quality meat which has higher levels of omega 3, carry acids and antioxidants and additionally require less agricultural chemicals and antibiotic residues in production (Aiking, 2014; Meyer and Reguant-Closa, 2017; Daley et al., 2010). It is also recommend by Aiking (2014) that protein can come from cleaner animal sources such as chicken, pork and eggs as they have less of an environmental impact as red meat.

Another alternative GHG friendly protein alternative suggested by Meyer and Reguant-Closa, (2017) is insects. They are very nutritious with numerous vitamins and minerals with similar amounts of protein as livestock meat as well as being a good source of fatty acids (Meyer and Reguant-Closa, 2017). They have a high efficient feed to protein conversion rate and require very little water allowing them to have a lower GHG impact (Van Huis et al., 2013; Meyer and Reguant-Closa, 2017). They have become a viable option for post exercise recovery however, we must note that are hard to access in the Irish market which makes them somewhat unsuitable for a GAA players sustainable diet.

A huge amount of food waste comes from the consumer level because aesthetically the product no longer meets the consumers want, because of the sell-by date (Gustavsson et al., 2011; Meyer and Reguant-Closa, 2017) or simply because too much food was either bought or cooked and uneaten (Parfitt et al., 2010; Meyer and Reguant-Closa, 2017). Globally, about a third of food goes to waste meaning the production and transportation has also gone to waste (Jeremy Plaster, 2021). This global waste issue is contributing to 8-10% of global GHG's (Jeremy Plaster, 2021). In terms of the GAA player (but can also be applied to everyone) we can cut their food waste through simple planning and preparation. Meyer and Reguant-Closa, (2017) suggests that if athletes are thought how to cook and prepare food in advance and then store in (for example freeze it) in a safe manner then it could cut down on a lot of food waste. Their nutritionist can help in terms of planning the players week ahead of time in terms of shopping and cooking so the player knows when, what and how much to cook for the week in relation to their training and match schedule. With it being planned in advance it means first of all their meals are all prepared for them and second ensures they are just buying what groceries they need for the week and no extras which could contribute to the food waste. This cooking and planning ahead of time is identified as crucial for reducing food waste not only for athletes such as GAA players but also for the general population (Parfitt et al., 2010; Meyer and Reguant-Closa, 2017).

In conclusion in terms of GAA nutrition there are small changes which could be made to make the players diet more sustainable while still achieving maxim performance potential and maximum recovery post match or training.

Bibliography

AIKING, H. 2014. Protein production: planet, profit, plus people? The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,100, 483S-489S.

BEASLEY, K. J. 2015. Nutrition and Gaelic Football: Review, Recommendations, and Future Considerations. International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 25, 1-13.

BUILDING CHAMPIONS THROUGH INNOVATION Undated. Gaelic Performance Ntritional Resource Manual 

BURD, N. A., GORISSEN, S. H., VAN VLIET, S., SNIJDERS, T. & VAN LOON, L. J. 2015. Differences in postprandial protein handling after beef compared with milk ingestion during postexercise recovery: a randomized controlled trial. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 102, 828-836.

BURKE, L. M., HAWLEY, J. A., WONG, S. H. S. & JEUKENDRUP, A. E. 2011. Carbohydrates for training and competition. Journal of Sports Sciences, 29, S17-S27.

CASSIDY, C., COLLINS, K. & SHORTALL, M. 2018. The Precompetition Macronutrient Intake of Elite Gaelic Football Players. International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 28, 574-579.

CHURCHWARD-VENNE, T. A., MURPHY, C. H., LONGLAND, T. M. & PHILLIPS, S. M. 2013. Role of protein and amino acids in promoting lean mass accretion with resistance exercise and attenuating lean mass loss during energy deficit in humans. Amino Acids, 45, 231-240.

DALEY, C. A., ABBOTT, A., DOYLE, P. S., NADER, G. A. & LARSON, S. 2010. A review of fatty acid profiles and antioxidant content in grass-fed and grain-fed beef. Nutrition Journal, 9, 10.

FOSTER, C., FLORHAUG, J. A., FRANKLIN, J., GOTTSCHALL, L., HROVATIN, L. A., PARKER, S., DOLESHAL, P. & DODGE, C. 2001. A new approach to monitoring exercise training. J Strength Cond Res, 15, 109-15.

GERBER, P. J., STEINFELD, H., HENDERSON, B., MOTTET, A., OPIO, C., DIJKMAN, J., FALCUCCI, A. & TEMPIO, G. 2013. Tackling climate change through livestock: a global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

GILLEN, J. B., TROMMELEN, J., WARDENAAR, F. C., BRINKMANS, N. Y. J., VERSTEEGEN, J. J., JONVIK, K. L., KAPP, C., DE VRIES, J., VAN DEN BORNE, J. J. G. C., GIBALA, M. J. & VAN LOON, L. J. C. 2017. Dietary Protein Intake and Distribution Patterns of Well-Trained Dutch Athletes. International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 27, 105-114.

GUSTAVSSON, J., CEDERBERG, C., SONESSON, U., OTTERDIJK, R. & MEYBECK, A. 2011. Global Food Losses and Food Waste- Extent, Causes and Prevention.

JEREMY PLASTER. 2021. How Food Waste is Huge Contributor to Climate Change [Online]. The Guardian. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/sep/04/how-food-waste-is-huge-contributor-to-climate-change [Accessed 05/04/2022].

MEYER, N. & REGUANT-CLOSA, A. 2017. "Eat as If You Could Save the Planet and Win!" Sustainability Integration into Nutrition for Exercise and Sport. Nutrients, 9, 412.

MOORE, D. R., CHURCHWARD-VENNE, T. A., WITARD, O., BREEN, L., BURD, N. A., TIPTON, K. D. & PHILLIPS, S. M. 2014. Protein Ingestion to Stimulate Myofibrillar Protein Synthesis Requires Greater Relative Protein Intakes in Healthy Older Versus Younger Men. The Journals of Gerontology: Series A,70, 57-62.

NOTARNICOLA, B., SALA, S., ANTON, A., MCLAREN, S. J., SAOUTER, E. & SONESSON, U. 2017. The role of life cycle assessment in supporting sustainable agri-food systems: A review of the challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 399-409.

Ó CATHÁIN, C., FLEMING, J., RENARD, M. & KELLY, D. 2020. Dietary Intake of Gaelic Football Players during Game Preparation and Recovery. Sports (Basel, Switzerland), 8, 62.

PARFITT, J., BARTHEL, M. & MACNAUGHTON, S. 2010. Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 365, 3065-81.

PARNELL, J. A., WIENS, K. P. & ERDMAN, K. A. 2016. Dietary Intakes and Supplement Use in Pre-Adolescent and Adolescent Canadian Athletes. Nutrients, 8, 526.

PHILLIPS, S. M. & VAN LOON, L. J. C. 2011. Dietary protein for athletes: From requirements to optimum adaptation. Journal of Sports Sciences, 29, S29-S38.

POORE, J. & NEMECEK, T. 2018. Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360, 987-992.

REGUANT-CLOSA, A., ROESCH, A., LANSCHE, J., NEMECEK, T., LOHMAN, T. G. & MEYER, N. L. 2020. The Environmental Impact of the Athlete's Plate Nutrition Education Tool. Nutrients, 12, 2484.

REILLY, B., AKUBAT, I., LYONS, M. & COLLINS, D. K. 2015. Match-Play Demands of Elite Youth Gaelic Football Using Global Positioning System Tracking. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research,29, 989-996.

REILLY, T., SPINKS, W. & MURPHY, A. 2002. Science and Football IV: Proceedings of the Fourth World Congress of Science and Football, Sydney, Australia, 22-26 February 1999, Routledge.

RIDOUTT, B. G., HENDRIE, G. A. & NOAKES, M. 2017. Dietary Strategies to Reduce Environmental Impact: A Critical Review of the Evidence Base. Advances in Nutrition, 8, 933-946.

SRANACHAROENPONG, K., SORET, S., HARWATT, H., WIEN, M. & SABATÉ, J. 2015. The environmental cost of protein food choices. Public Health Nutr, 18, 2067-73.

THOMAS, D. T., ERDMAN, K. A. & BURKE, L. M. 2016. American College of Sports Medicine Joint Position Statement. Nutrition and Athletic Performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 48, 543-68.

VAN HUIS, A., VAN ITTERBEECK, J., KLUNDER, H., MERTENS, E., HALLORAN, A., MUIR, G. & VANTOMME, P. 2013. Edible insects: future prospects for food and feed security, Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations.

VERMEULEN, S. J., CAMPBELL, B. M. & INGRAM, J. S. I. 2012. Climate Change and Food Systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, 195-222.

What is a Just Transition?

Just transition is a new framework which brings together climate, energy and environmental justice scholarships (McCauley and Heffron, 2018). It has become an established conceptual framework to transition economies and industries toward a low-carbon and climate resilient future (Blattner, 2020). As of late the concept increasingly features in policy and politics in order to push society towards a low carbon future in a way which takes issues of equity and justice into consideration (Newell and Mulvaney, 2013). The Paris Agreement highlighted that globally a rapid transition is needed in order to avoid disastrous consequences (McCauley and Heffron, 2018). To responded to this climate, energy and environmental crisis, justice scholarships must unite in assessing where injustices will emerge and how they will be dealt with (McCauley and Heffron, 2018). The just transition concept is a forward-looking, action oriented framework that identifies opportunities for public and private investment in economic development that is both sustainable and inclusive (CARO, 2022). The concept helps to connect activities across numerous organisations who will be affected most by the transition framework (CARO, 2022). It is a global agenda for everyone, inclusive of developed and developing countries and economies which aims to address decarbonisation and resilience factors of the transition (CARO, 2022).

It is a global agenda for everyone, inclusive of developed and developing countries and economies which aims to address decarbonisation and resilience factors of the transition (CARO, 2022).

Just Transition in Irish Agriculture

There are 3 areas of Irish agriculture which highlight the necessity of a just transition ti allow for the sustainable development of the Irish agricultural sector. These areas are;

1. Irish Agriculture as a huge contributor to GHG emissions

Agriculture is the largest contributor to GHG emissions in Ireland with it accounting for 37.1% of Ireland’s total GHG emissions which is only set to increase in the future. Figure 1 below shows the largest contributors to Ireland's agricultural GHG emissions. Figure 1 highlights that the main sources of Ireland's agricultural GHG emissions. From image 1 below the largest contributors to these emissions were enteric fermentation, agricultural soils and manure management. 2020 seen an increased amount of emissions coming from fertiliser use and liming. The increase in the size of the dairy herd also seen an increase in total national milk production for the tenth consecutive year in a row (Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2021).

• Income inequality in Irish Agriculture 

Irish agriculture has a huge problem in relation to income inequality. The sector is hugely reliant on unskilled workers employed by farm owners. There is a huge difference in income between small farms and large farms as well as income differences based on different types of produce, for example the difference between an income-rich dairy farm and an income-poor sheep farm. From this questions are asked in relation to who gets government funding or who gets the largest amount of government funding, i.e. will it be the higher income dairy farm of the lower income sheep farm? A just transition will ensure all farmers will get an equal amount of assistance in relation to climate change and a just transition in order to address such inequalities (Sweeney and Wilson, 2019, McCabe, 2019).

• Irish Agriculture being severely impacted by climate change if nothing is done to address the issue.

Ireland agriculture will experience both direct and indirect impacts of climate change (Gornall et al., 2010). Direct impacts include change in climate variables like an increase in mean temperature, weather variability and extreme events. Indirect effects include changes in the range and prevalence of agricultural pests and diseases and changes in water availability (Gornall et al., 2010). A just transition will ensure all are included in the planning and development of adaptation and mitigation climate action plans which should improve resilience and reduce vulnerabilities exposed by the impacts of climate change on Irish agriculture for all.

How to Incorporate a Just Transition into Irish Agriculture

A just transition framework has largely been associated with the fossil fuel industry. However, there is a growing need for it to be associated with high emissions industry such as agriculture in order to give farmers, communities and others involved in the industry ownership over climate action and allowing them to get involved in the development process of plans. These actions include just transition measures which can allow decision makers of sustainable development plans to prevent opposition and provide a future for farmers which is sustainable and profitable (McCabe, 2019).

A just transition for agriculture will not entail a phasing out of production and switching to an entirely new product like with changing from fossil fuels to sustainable energy or changing from petrol and diesel cars to electrical cars. Instead, it will involve adopting ecologically sustainable forms of food production which can entail numerous adjustments to farm management some even being quite radical however, for the better (Institute for the European Environmental Policy, 2022).

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is a very important EU agricultural policy which is a partnership between agriculture and society and between Europe and its farmers. The aim of the CAP is to support farmers and improve agricultural productivity to ensure a stable supply of affordable food, to safeguard EU farmers to make a good living, to help tackle climate change, to ensure a sustainable management of natural resources, to maintain rural areas and landscapes across the EU, and finally to keep rural economies alive through the promotion of jobs in farming and agri-food industries. CAP was established in 1962 and is a common policy for all EU countries (European Comission, 2022a).

CAP was reformed in 2021 to form a new legislation which is set to be put in place at the start of 2023. This reformed policy allows the CAP to be fairer, greener and more performance based as well as ensuring a sustainable future for EU farmers by providing more targeted support to smaller farmers and allowing all EU countries to adapt measures to local conditions (European Comission, 2022c). 

In order to see a greener future for farmers the CAP aims to support agriculture in its contribution towards the goals of the European Green Deal (A set of proposals adopted by The European Commission to make the EU’s climate, energy, transport and taxation policies fit in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels (European Comission, 2022b)). There a number of ways the reformed CAP targets this;

1. Higher Green Ambitions: CAP will be in line with environmental and climate legislation by making each EU country display a higher ambition on the previous promised environmental and climate actions.
2. Contribute to the Green Deal Targets: Developed national strategic plans will need to contribute to Green Deal targets with CAP recommendations being set out as to what contribution is expected from each plan.
3. Enhanced Conditionality: Beneficiaries of the CAP will have their payments linked to a stronger set of requirements, for example, on every farm at least 3% of arable land will be dedicated to biodiversity and non-productive elements.
4. Eco-Schemes: 25% of the CAP budget will be allocated to eco-schemes which provide a stronger incentive for climate and environmentally friendly farming practices and approaches for example organic farming.
5. Rural Development: At least 35% of CAP funding will be allocated to measures which support climate, biodiversity, environment and animal welfare. 
6. Operational Programmes: Operation programmes in the fruit and vegetables sectors will allocate at least 15% of their expenditure towards the environment.
7. Climate and Biodiversity: 40% of the CAP budget will go towards climate. 

(European Comission, 2022c)

The CAP will also be seen to be fairer to all farmers through;

1. Redistribution of Income Support: At least 10% of EU countries direct payments will have to be given to their redistributive income support tool to address the income needs of small and medium sized farmers
2. Active Farmers: A new definition is given of active farmers and their activities undertaken and these farmers may receive certain EU support.
3. Social Conditionality: CAP payments will be linked to certain EU labour standards and beneficiaries in order to encourage improved farm work conditions.
4. Convergence of Payments: Levels of income supports will converge more within individual EU countries as well as between EU countries. 
5. Supporting Young Farmers: 3% of the EU countries direct payments budget will be distributed to young farmers through income, investment support or start-up aid. 
6. Improving the Gender Balance: Gender equality and participation of women in agriculture are part of an objective for CAP strategic plans with EU countries having to assess and address such issues.  

(European Comission, 2022c)

Finally, the reformed CAP improves the competitiveness of EU agriculture by strengthening the position of farmers in the supply chain and boost the competitiveness of the agri-food sector through; 

1. Improved Bargaining Power: New rules will ensure producer cooperation and ensure farmers work together to enable them to create countervailing power in the market. 
2. Market Orientation: The overall market orientation is maintained from previous reformed CAP which encourages EU farms to align supply with demand worldwide.
3. Crisis Reverse: A new financial resource is set up in the reformed CAP worth 450 million euro per year to deal with future crises.
4. Support for the Wine Sector: New rules have been agreed to improve support for the wine sector. 

(European Comission, 2022c)

The new CAP encourages environmentally friendly and emission cutting farming practices to address Ireland's emissions issues. These actions will also encourage emission reduction so that climate change will not affect Ireland’s agricultural sector to the extent which is projected. The reformed CAP also addresses issues of inequalities such as those mentioned above. As well as that it aims to introduce and encourage more women to contribute and work under the agricultural sector. The reformed CAP contributes to Irelands agricultural sectors just transition which allows us to switch to more sustainable practices in a way that is inclusive and profitable for all. 

Bibliography

BLATTNER, C. 2020. Just transition for agriculture? A critical step in tackling climate change. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 9, 53-58.

CARO. 2022. Just Transition [Online]. CARO. Available: https://www.caro.ie/knowledge-hub/general-information/just-transition-(1) [Accessed 12/04/2022].

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) 2021. Ireland’s Provisional Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

EUROPEAN COMISSION. 2022a. The Common Agricultural Policy at a Glance [Online]. European Commision Available: https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/cap-glance_en [Accessed 20/04/2022].

EUROPEAN COMISSION. 2022b. A European Green Deal [Online]. European Comission Available: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en [Accessed 20/04/2022].

EUROPEAN COMISSION. 2022c. The New Common Agricultural Policy: 2023-2027 [Online]. European Comission Available: https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/new-cap-2023-27_en#knowledge [Accessed 20/04/2022].

GORNALL, J., BETTS, R., BURKE, E., CLARK, R., CAMP, J., WILLETT, K. & WILTSHIRE, A. 2010. Implications of climate change for agricultural productivity in the early twenty-first century. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 365, 2973-89.

INSTITUTE FOR THE EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY 2022. The Time has come for a Just Transition in Agriculture.

MCCABE, S. 2019. Ireland: Agriculture as part of a Just Transition.

MCCAULEY, D. & HEFFRON, R. 2018. Just transition: Integrating climate, energy and environmental justice. Energy Policy, 119, 1-7.

NEWELL, P. & MULVANEY, D. 2013. The political economy of the ‘just transition’. The Geographical Journal,179, 132-140.

SWEENEY, R. & WILSON, R. 2019. Cherishing All Equally 2019: Inequality in Europe and Ireland.

The Irish government announced their sectoral emissions ceilings to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In this different sectors have different targets to reduce their GHG emissions to move towards a cleaner future (RTE, 2022).

Minister Eamon Ryan states that it builds on the already existing climate law which was introduced in 2021 as well as backing up EU legislation while moving Ireland towards a future low carbon economy. Minister Ryan explains that if climate targets are not met that we could be left in a unsecure and unstable world which is no longer fit for living and that these sectoral cuts needs to be ambitious and bold in order to improve the quality of life as well as cut GHG emissions. 

Minister for Agriculture Charlie McConalogue has said the decision to agree a 25% target for emissions reductions in the agriculture sector reflects a 'very challenging but ultimately achievable ambition for the sector' | Read more: https://t.co/lSeM86elvw pic.twitter.com/gprvkOal3y

— RTÉ News (@rtenews) July 28, 2022

However, not all are happy with the governments decisions with agricultural organisations and farmers themselves expressing their opinions on the matter. IFA president Tim Cullinan stated that the new deal is "all about the survival of the Government rather than survival of rural Ireland". Cullinan has also mentioned that the targets has been set without a pathway or budget in place for farmers to follow in order to reach the target. He highlighted the impact this decision will have on farmers across the country and stated that "any attempt to undermine farmers livelihoods or the viability of sector, in order to achieve these targets, will be opposed vigorously by the IFA”.

Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association (ICMSA) also highlighted their concerns with the government’s decision saying that it is "very disappointing" and that it “undermine(s) the viability” of the family farm structure and believes that “the level of achievability (is) gone out of these targets" and will “effect the momentum of rural Ireland". The ICMSA leader also discussed knock on effects of the decision for the consumer such as further increasing prices of animal-based products and warning of huge job losses within the rural community. 

Many people such as People Before Profit/ Solidarity TD Paul Murphy and Social Democrats climate spokesperson Jennifer Whitmore has described the governments decision as a failure. Whitmore believes that the government "have chosen to ignore the independent advice and this deal has fallen far short of the target needed for us to meet our climate targets"

When I questioned farmers around my local area about the plans most people agreed that without a plan in place that this will not be possible. One particular farmer said "we are not scientists we are farmers, we have not studied this for years, we need guidance and financing to do this and to make it achievable”. Other farmers expressed their anger at the government decision as for years they feel like they have been pushed to expand however now they have been told the complete opposite.

"The science says that it had to be 30% in order for us to meet our targets."

Can Ireland reach its 2030 climate targets with a reduction in agriculture emissions of 25%? @RitaOReilly explains | #rtept | #ClimateCrisis | Read more: https://t.co/AQ1xsoGBTO pic.twitter.com/dcutOXvQgP

— RTÉ Prime Time (@RTE_PrimeTime) July 28, 2022

There are very opposing views of the governments decision in recent weeks and it is obvious that if the government want this cut to happen. However, support and finance must be provided by government in order to help farmers and get them on board with this vital environmental decision.

Bibliography

DEPARTMENT OF THE TAOISEACH. 2022. Government Announces Sectoral Emissions Ceilings, Setting Ireland on a Pathway to Turn the Tode on Climate Change. [Online]. Gov.ie. Available: https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/dab6d-government-announces-sectoral-emissions-ceilings-setting-ireland-on-a-pathway-to-turn-the-tide-on-climate-change/ [Accessed 28/08/2022].

RTE. 2022. Got Reveals Emissions Cut Targets Across All Sectors [Online]. RTE. Available: https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2022/0728/1312823-carbon-emissions-ireland/ [Accessed 25/08/2022].

Irish supermarkets are set to be facing fruit and vegetable shortages in the coming months as growers cut back on production due to rising input costs says the Irish Farmers Association (IFA) (Sheehan, 2022).

https://t.co/jW1SH36T6G

— Irish Farmers' Association (@IFAmedia) August 3, 2022

A report released in March 2022 by the IFA discussed different challenges the sector faced. These included COVID which reduced the demand for a lot of fruit and veg due to the closure of the hospitality sector, businesses and even garden centres. One very good point made in the report was the decline in the day to day football required by the horticulture sector because of people working from home. This meant that there was no longer the same amount of fruit and vegetables needed on a daily basis for work canteens etc. COVID-19 also contributed to the rising costs the sector is now facing (Irish Farmers Association (IFA) and Jim Power Economics, 2022).

Recently the horticulture sector has seen a huge decline in growers with the The Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine and Bord Bia, (2016) stating that produce growers have fell by 56% from 377 growers in 1999 to 165 growers in 2014. Teagasc estimate that there are around 1000 growers in Ireland however about 250 of these are top growers and producers which supply 85% of the output and deal with consolidators and The Supermarket Central Distribution Centres Directly. These growers are responsible for over 90% of all the fresh produce supplied to retail in Ireland (IFA and Jim Power Economics, 2022).

Finally, and probably the hardest hit impact of all is the huge hike in input increases for growers in comparison to sale price of horticulture products. IFA and Jim Power Economics, (2022) highlights that profit margins are being "squeezed" with the rising input prices (fertilisers, energy etc). These prices are only due to soar especially with the continuing conflict between Russian and Ukraine (The World Bank, 2022). As we can see in figure 1 below since March 2020 inputs such as labour packaging, fertiliser and energy for all products listed have risen.

The IFA horticulture vice-president highlighted that “Farmers had to cut temperatures and conserve energy which then slowed production but caused a flush in a tighter window, meaning a later start to the harvest. It was very difficult because production was lower but costs were increasing,”

Harvests were down by a quarter in April, when they should be at their peak, IFA horticulture vice-president Martin Flynn said, adding that growers were forced to cut temperatures which harmed production and led to a “delayed harvest”. He particularly noted shortages in tomatoes throughout the next couple of months as a result of delayed harvesting from early April to late April.

Michael Gaffney of Teagsc warns growers to not rely on imports to make up for shortages as these shortages and price hikes are being faced globally and not just in Ireland.

IFA horticulture president warns that these rising prices “could see more and more growers go out of business” unless retailers also increase their prices as profit margins are no longer viable to meet the demand of the rising input costs. Brennan also mentions that the The Government’s Exceptional Payment Scheme will not help growers stay in business in the long term.

Again we see that without the support from government and horticultural organisations we could run risk of shortages for retail and consumers. It is evident that price hikes for consumers need to happen in order to somewhat cover the rising input costs for horticulture growers in Ireland. However, as seen in trends elsewhere this is not just an Irish problem but a global problem which could in the future hamper our global food security status.

Bibliography

IRISH FARMERS ASSOCIATION (IFA) & JIM POWER ECONOMICS 2022. Retail Price Consumption Threatens the Viability of Irish Horticulture.

SHEEHAN, C. 2022. Glasshouse Fruit and Vegetable Growers Cut Back on Production as Prices Rise [Online]. The Irish Times. Available: https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2022/08/03/glasshouse-fruit-and-vegetable-growers-cut-back-on-production-as-prices-rise/ [Accessed 25/08/2022].

TEAGASC 2021. Horticulture Input Costs 2021- Impact Assessment.

THE WORLD BANK 2022. Food and Energy Price Shocks from Ukraine War could Last for Years. The World Bank.

A war broke out between Russia and Ukraine in February 2022. The outbreak of the war has caused disruptions worldwide especially for agriculture and food security and has exposed populations to shocks and vulnerabilities (The European Commission, 2022). This war has brought serious consequences worldwide such as price hikes, stalled exports from Ukraine, staled harvests and has caused the disruption of markets (Welsh, 2022). These consequences have affected agriculture and has led to a massive deterioration in global food security resulting in huge disruptions in livelihoods for populations globally and leaving them exposed to shocks and vulnerabilities (Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 2022). The war has especially affected those who were already vulnerable to poor food security and shocks and with the crisis ongoing this is only expected to worsen (Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 2022, Welsh, 2022). This article looks at some of the main impacts of the war on global agriculture and food security such as price hikes and deteriorating food supplies.

Shortages

Historically, wars cause huge shortages and especially food shortages (Untied Nations University, U/D) and this war is no different. Before the war Russia and the Ukraine were huge producers and exporters of important foodstuffs as seen in figure 1 below. In 2021 either Russia or Ukraine ranked as one of the highest exporters of wheat, maize, rapeseed, sunflower seeds and sunflower oil (Figure 1). From figure 1 we can see that on average the two countries accounted for 19% of the global output of barely, 14% of the global output of wheat and 4% of the global output of maize. Before the war Ukraine alone exported on average 6 million tons of agricultural commodities every month to the developing countries of the Middle East, Asia and Africa (Strubenhoff, 2022). However the war has resulted in huge supply chain shortages of important agricultural inputs and commodities (Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 2022, Strubenhoff, 2022). The war has disrupted livelihoods and agriculture especially in Ukraine. The ongoing conflict has resulted in constraints in terms of physical access to agricultural land and transport systems and infrastructure. For example the war has led to port closures, suspension of oilseed crushing operations, the introduction if export licensing restrictions and bans for some crops and food products. Impacts such as these is causing huge food shortages across the world and this is affecting food security and unfortunately is affecting those who are most vulnerable to food insecurity even before the war started (FAO, 2022a).

Before the war there was already a huge food crisis however with Russia and Ukraine being responsible for the growth and exportation of huge amounts of staple foods its believed that this war is pushing the already existing global food crisis into a worse state (Bankova et al., 2022). FAO, 2022b and The European Parliament, 2022 predicts that the war is set to increase the number of people facing chronic hunger to 13.1 million with countries such as Jordan, Yemen, Israel and Lebanon being the country’s most at risk to this chronic hunger. Our global import dependency reliance on Russia and Ukraine for important food imports has left us with food shortages globally which is affecting those who need it most and is accelerating the already existing global food crisis (Bankova et al., 2022, FAO, 2022b, The European Parliament, 2022).

Price Hikes

Before the war prices were already rising due to shocks like the COVID-19 pandemic however, since the war started prices have soared even further to record levels (FAO, 2022). The Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) food price index in Feburary 2022 had seen a 21% increase in prices in comparison to February 2021. This was an increase of 2.2% on the previous peak in February 2011 (FAO, 2022, FAO, 2022a).

Figure 2 below shows the ever increasing prices of oil since 2020 and we can see that since the war it has ballooned to levels close to those of price booms in 2008. Rises in fuel prices have also reached a record high (Capplis, 2022). These rising fuels are as a result of sanction put in place during the war in order to reduce the exportation of good from Russia however, with Russia being one of the leading fuel providers these sanctions and shortages have caused huge price hikes for the consumers (Jones, 2022, European Parliament, 2022).

The war has also brought rising prices for important agricultural inputs such as fertilizer (FAO, 2022c). Russia is one of the leading exporters and suppliers of phosphorous and nitrogen fertilizer’s which are important for the optimisation of crop yields around the world (Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 2022). The war has brought huge sanctions for Russia in the hope that it would stop their invasion of Ukraine however, in terms of the purchasing of fertilizers the war and sanctions has caused fertilizer prices to rise even further (Domm, 2022). Domm (2022) reports that some fertilizers have doubled if not tripled in prices. Price hikes of such imports is causing the overall price of food to increase. If the farmer uses the fertilizer it means the overall costs of production is increased and therefore the price of the final product is set to increase. However, if the farmer chooses not to use the fertilizer the cost of production goes down however, production is not optimal as yields suffer and decrease causing even more food shortages. With such food shortages comes even more price hikes so either way the consumer pays the price (Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 2022). This is having a huge effect on food security worldwide as inevitably food prices are set to increase. Price hike and especially food price hikes again exposes the most vulnerable and increases and pushes the number of people facing chronic hunger up even further.

In conclusion the Ukraine and Russian war is having a huge impact on agriculture globally by directly affecting growth of food and indirectly by contributing to the rising price of important agricultural inputs. This impact on growth is in turn causing food shortages globally which is contributing to the an price rises of food commodities. Before the war began, for some food was already unaffordable and left people vulnerable in terms of food security. However, the war has accelerated this vulnerability and has worsened the food security status worldwide.

This war shows us that we are further away than ever from reaching our sustainable development goals and with the climate crisis and further inflation bringing even more expected shocks and changes to our global systems one must question what progress has been made in the achievement of the SDG’s and a sustainable working world. 

Bibliography

BANKOVA, D., DUTTA, P. K. & OVASKA, M. 2022. The War in Ukraine is Fuelling a Global Food Crisis [Online]. Available: https://graphics.reuters.com/UKRAINE-CRISIS/FOOD/zjvqkgomjvx/ [Accessed 28/08/2022].

CAPPLIS, C. 2022. Fuel Prices at Record Highs as Hauliers Demand ‘Wartime-Like’ Supports from Government. [Online]. The Irish Examiner. Available: https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40887929.html [Accessed 28/08/2022].

DOMM, P. 2022. A Fertilizer Shortage, Worsened by War in Ukraine, is Driving up Global Food Prices and Scarcity. [Online]. CNBC. Available: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/06/a-fertilizer-shortage-worsened-by-war-in-ukraine-is-driving-up-global-food-prices-and-scarcity.html [Accessed 28/08/2022].

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT. 2022. Russia’s War on Ukraine: Impact on Food Security and EU Response [Online]. European Parliament. Available: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2022/729367/EPRS_ATA(2022)729367_EN.pdf[Accessed 28/08/2022].

FAO. 2022a. FAO Food Price Index [Online]. FAO. Available: https://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/foodpricesindex/en/ [Accessed 28/08/2022].

FAO. 2022b. The Importance of Ukraine and the Russian Federation for Global Agricultural Markets and the Risks Associated with the Current Conflict [Online]. FAO. Available: https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/faoweb/2022/Info-Note-Ukraine-Russian-Federation.pdf[Accessed 28/08/2022].

FAO 2022c. Note on the Impact of the War on Food Security in Ukraine.

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANISATION (FAO) 2022. Impact of the Ukraine-Russia Conflict on Global Food Security and Related Matters under the Mandate of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

JONES, L. 2022. Five Ways the Ukraine War could Push up Prices [Online]. BBC. Available: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60509453 [Accessed 28/08/2022].

STRUBENHOFF, H. 2022. The War in Ukrain Triggered a Global Food Shortage [Online]. Brookings. Available: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2022/06/14/the-war-in-ukraine-triggered-a-global-food-shortage/ [Accessed 28/08/2022].

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2022. The Impact of Russia’s War against Ukraine on Global Food Security .

UNTIED NATIONS UNIVERSITY. U/D. Conflict as a cause of hunger [Online]. United Nations University Available: https://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu22we/uu22we0j.htm [Accessed 25/08/2022].

WELSH, C. 2022. The Russia-Ukraine War annd Global Food Security: A Seven- Week Assessment, and the Way Forward for Policymakers [Online]. Cnter for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Available: https://www.csis.org/analysis/russia-ukraine-war-and-global-food-security-seven-week-assessment-and-way-forward [Accessed 27/08/2022].

For this blog post I wanted to interview farmers both young and old and get their perspectives on the climate crises and agricultures contribution towards climate change. I also wanted to get their views in relation to what the Irish government and the agricultural sector is doing, what they should be doing or what they would like to see done in order to reduce the agricultural sectors environmental impact.

The two farmers I interviewed both had a mixed dairy and beef farm where dairy was the main production on the farm while beef occupied a smaller proportion of the farm and was often just made up of Holstein Frisian or Angus bull calves which were born on the farm from the dairy cows. The two farmers also only used artificial insemination on the farm and had no stock bull. 

The first farmer I interviewed is a young farmer based in Westmeath. He inherited the farm off his dad where it has been passed down through 3 generations. He expanded the farm slightly since taking it over by building new housing for cows and buying land to allow for a slight increase in stocking rate on the farm. 

The second farmer I interviewed is an older farmer who’s farm is also located in Westmeath and who took over the farm from his father before him. This farm would be similar to the first farm with just a slightly smaller stocking rate. He plans on passing down his farm to his son in years to come. 

The first section of the interview was about how they think farming and the climate has changed over the years. They both said that they think farming and climate has changed in the past 30 years. The young farmer answered this question from an economics perspective, noting that farmers are getting the same, if not slightly higher prices for their produce as 30 years ago yet input and workload is higher. The young farmer also believed that weather and climatic conditions are changing. Since he took over the farm he has seen an increase in winter storms and participation while summers are warmer. The older farmer described similar weather and climatic changes however, he also mentioned that throughout his farming career he has seen some the predicted climatic changes under warming conditions occur such as “heavy rainfall during a warm summers day” and believes it has always been there. In terms of changes to farming the older farmer believes that farming now is a lot more rigid in terms of paperwork and meeting quality standards. He also mentioned that farming has grown in terms of technology and thinking, that farming methods now are different to 30 years ago and that there is a lot more technology involved now such as “phones and laptops”. However, he believes this change is for the better with the quality of foodstuff being reflected in the market. Similar to the young farmer however, he believes for the work, inputs and high standards for the high quality products farmers produce they are still paid very little.

I then looked into their knowledge around climate change and low emission farming techniques. When asked if they know how climate change occurred both answered no and when asked do they know how agriculture contributes to climate change they both answered similarly and talked about excrement from cattle, fumes from machinery and the spreading of fertilizers. I then discussed with the farmers about low emission farming techniques and both named techniques such as dribble bar spreading or low emission slurry spreading.  The younger farmer also mentioned the use of protected nitrogen as a low emission technique however his use is very limited as it is very expensive. I then questioned them about their decision making on the farm and if they take the environmental consequences into consideration when making decisions on the farm in which both responded no. They both mentioned that when considering decisions like this and they end up choosing the more ‘environmentally friendly’ option it is usually because of other benefits such as financial benefits. The examples the young farmer gave was that he always watches his spreading of nitrogen and makes sure not to overspread however, this is because of the rising prices of nitrogen and not for environmental reasons. The older farmer also said that when spreading manure he always keeps away from water sources such as rivers but his reasoning behind this is that the river is one of the main water sources for his livestock and he doesn’t want it contaminated. I then asked the two farmers about what would incentivise them to implement small changes or low emissions techniques to their farms which would benefit the environment and emissions, to which they both answered financial awards for doing so. I questioned the farmers about their use of low emission feeds and the changing of breeding management, for example the use of EBI and the use of low emission fertilisers. The older farmer said he has heard of these but has not tried them as they were too expensive and the younger farmer said that when he used EBI or low emission feeds that they were not producing the same output as those of the high emission techniques and also the price for such techniques were a lot higher. When asked about low emissions fertilizers the younger farmer said that they are too expensive to even try and when I proposed that if the financial difference was subsidised would he consider trying them he said yes. Similarly enough I asked the older farmers his opinions on the subsidisation of price difference and he thought it was a great idea as then farmers are producing the same produce for the same price with the intended end result of lower emissions. 

I wanted to examine farmers education and training around climate change and low emission farming techniques. I asked for both farmers opinions on whether they think education around agriculture, climate change and different low emissions techniques is needed in Ireland. The younger farmer answered no while the older farmer answered yes. When quizzed about their awareness of any training or education in such areas both were not aware of any courses or training days as such however, they mentioned that they receive a lot of post in regards to such areas. Both mentioned that a lot of this stuff is seen as junk mail and is rarely read and that a lot of paper or card is being wasted sending this stuff out when it could be done electronically. The older farmer mentioned that in the past he has done training days for the REPS scheme however, this was over 10 years ago now and at the time he doesn’t recall much discussion around climate change or low emissions techniques.

I asked both farmers again as to what would incentivise them to take part in such training or education and they both mentioned they would do such training or education if there was financial benefits at the end of it. They mentioned that there would have to be in order to incentivise farmers as they will be giving up their own time to do such courses and training. When quizzed about what financial benefits they would like to see both mentioned better paying grants, increase in product prices and increase in subsidies such as the young person’s subsidies. The older farmer also mentioned that when doing such courses there should be flexibilities to times in which they are on, i.e not just night time courses and that everyone’s abilities should be took into consideration i.e their reading and writing abilities as he felt before this was not considered, again referring to the REPS scheme. 

When I interviewed the two farmers about legislation in Ireland around climate change and agriculture they were both very unaware of Ireland’s climate targets and legislation, the economic, environmental and social implications of not meeting such targets and the mitigation and adaptation measures the Irish government want to implement in agriculture until 2050 (bar the low emission techniques that was discussed above). Both farmers knew that there were targets to meet however, were very much unaware of what they were and how exactly they were going to be achieved. 

Finally, I asked both farmers opinions on what they believe needed to be done in relation to Irish agriculture and climate change. The younger farmer replied that he feels like there is a huge onus on the farmers in the supply chain. He felt the government and the environmental bodies should be looking to the other producers and suppliers within the food supply chain and start putting some onus on them. He suggested that if something has say a higher footprint then it should be dearer than those of a lower footprint. He has also noticed that in his weekly shop there is huge amounts of unnecessary plastic and packaging used and that this should all tried to be reduced instead of trying to put all the onus on farmers.

The older farmer said that the biggest change he’s noticed in his shopping in the past 30 years is the switch to the larger supply chains for food. He talked about his memories of when he was a child where everyone went to their local small supermarket and butcher for their food shop with the bare minimum being bought. Now he believes people are buying so much because the produce has gotten so cheap in bigger supermarket chains to which lots goes to waste. He also believes that again there is a huge blame put on farmers for climate change in comparison to other sectors such as energy and transport and that he would like to see more change in these sectors as well as the agricultural sector. 

Overall these interviews proved to be successful in giving an insight as to where farmers knowledge is around climate change and agriculture in Ireland. It is evident that at the core of it all finance is the deciding factor and in order to encourage this wanted and needed ‘low carbon farming’ governments, environmental and financial organisations such as Teagasc need to start giving farmers more financial incentives to make the switch, otherwise change will not happen. I also feel like education of farmers around what actually needs to be done is important and especially education in the right way such as an interactive demonstration session rather than a classroom session (or a combination of both) to really highlight to farmers how their decisions can help us work towards low emission farming.