JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FOOD díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 18 May 2005

Conservation Agriculture Systems: Presentation.

Chairman

With us today to make a presentation on behalf of the conservation agricultural system are representatives of Conservation Agriculture Ireland. On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome Mr. Gerry Bird, chairman, Mr. John Geraghty, general secretary, Mr. Tony Fortune, Teagasc researcher, Mr. Jim McCarthy, tillage farmer, Mr. Bartie Cash, tillage farmer.

Before inviting Mr. Bird to commence his presentation, I draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege this does not extend to the delegation. I remind Members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. Bird to commence the presentation.

Mr. Gerry Bird

I will be assisted by Mr. John Geraghty.

Chairman

That is fine.

Mr. Bird

I thank the joint committee for the opportunity to put before it some of our organisation's ideas. To introduce our team, Mr. Tony Fortune is a researcher of note, having worked for the past 30 years in Teagasc, Oak Park, in the area of soil cultivation and tillage techniques. Bartie Cash is a part-time farmer who farms 200 acres in Wexford. He works part-time in metal engineering with FÁS. He got involved in this system of farming over the past few years to cope with his part-time status.

Jim McCarthy is a well-known farmer from Kildare. He is a commercial farmer who was a pioneer in that he was one of the first people to adopt this system. He farms approximately 2,000 acres of leased and rented land in Kildare, which of itself is quite unusual.

My colleague, John Geraghty, is a private consultant who has travelled widely and examined all aspects of conservation agriculture across a number of continents.

As for myself, I am a crop consultant working in the Leinster area. I am involved with advisory work on tillage on an ongoing basis. I also do some field research on fungicides, seed treatments, fertilizer, compost and so on. I have been involved with many of my clients over the past three or four years in moving towards this form of tillage. John Geraghty now will outline some of the important aspects of conservation agriculture, its position in Ireland and also in the European context.

Mr. John Geraghty

For the next ten to 15 minutes I will give the committee a background on conservation agriculture because there can be a degree of misunderstanding about what is involved in the system. I will outline to the committee the significance of this system of farming on a global basis and the extent to which we in Ireland have fallen behind somewhat in recent years with regard to uptake of this system. Huge benefits can accrue from conservation agriculture, not just to the farming community but also to rural populations and society in general.

Conservation Agriculture Ireland was established in late 2002. We are an independent voluntary, not for profit organisation and our remit is to improve awareness and education on conservation agriculture. We maintain at all times the goal of economic and environmental sustainability in farming, which is of crucial importance. Our organisation is affiliated to the European Conservation Agriculture Federation. That federation brings together a network of 14 different organisations, both from member states and outside member states in the EU. We interact with those people in terms of research, development and farmer to farmer experiences.

Conservation in agriculture is crop production with minimal soil disturbance. When I say "crops" members might assume I am talking about wheat, barley, oats, oilseed rape, triticale or linseed. That is the case but it is also involved in grass production because when we receive grassland to improve our productivity on grasses, we sometimes plough to re-establish a new sward but we do not need to do that with this system. There is no ploughing and we adopt constant soil cover, where possible.

Conservation agriculture is not organic farming because we believe in the judicious use of pesticides and other inputs like fertilizers to enhance the yield potential of our crops. That is important because we can achieve significant cost reduction at farm level and my two colleagues here, one a large-scale farmer and the other a part-time farmer, have enjoyed these cost reductions. As a system, conservation agriculture has very positive environmental impacts and it is a truly sustainable system. Part of the Department of Agriculture and Food's mission statement is to put in place a sustainable agriculture.

Since the late 1980s there has been ongoing and increasing uptake of the system worldwide. Recent figures compiled for 2004 suggest that 80 million hectares are being used for this system throughout the globe. In Europe the situation is very different. The percentage of arable area under conservation agriculture is very small. In most countries it is below 5% and in Ireland it is below 0.05%. If we consider the percentage of arable land under conservation agriculture and examine the top seven countries worldwide, we see that in excess of 30% of those lands on average are devoted to conservation agriculture, that is, the production of crops without recourse to the plough.

Another aspect members might notice about these various countries — Paraguay, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Australia, the USA and Canada — is that they do not have direct subsidies to farmers. Farmers adopt this system on a worldwide basis to remain viable and economically sustainable. More importantly, they have realised enormous environmental benefits.

Ireland's contribution to conservation agriculture development internationally comes in the guise of my colleague, Patrick Wall. He is now based in Harare, Zimbabwe. Last year he was based in Mexico where I visited him. He has received the order of merit from the Bolivian Government for his contribution to agriculture and environmental sustainability in that country. He is a colleague of Norman Borlaug, Nobel peace prize winner. In my discussion with Patrick Wall he told me that the subsidy system in Europe could be used to encourage farmers to change to conservation agriculture practices because everybody would benefit.

The story is different in Ireland. While we are increasing conservation agriculture in terms of uptake, the green bars on the submission refer to winter crops and the orange ones refer to spring crops. We have seen ongoing increases since the year 2000 up to this year but in terms of uptake we are still under 12,000 hectares. Our arable area is in excess of 375,000 hectares.

Teagasc has been researching the system in depth from 2000 to date. Tony Fortune will be able to provide the committee with details of that research should it wish to have further data. In 2000, it examined machinery performance, soil physical, chemical and biological properties, nutrient leaching and greenhouse gases. That research is continuing to date. In 2001, Teagasc introduced studies on fauna, earth worms, slugs and aphids and the impact of the system on those different species. With respect to flora, it examined weed species and populations. Those studies are ongoing.

In 2002, Teagasc started research on cover crops and interactions with spring crops. That is of vital importance because cover crops are hugely important in South America. In the state of Parana, in southern Brazil, an area greater than the size of Ireland is devoted to cover crop production annually, in conjunction with cash crops. They use the cover crops to build up fertility in the soil, reduce weeds and pest species and allow the soil be ready for the subsequent cash crop that is introduced.

Teagasc is looking at greenhouse gas fluxes, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane. It is also examining changes in soil carbon. That is extremely important because we are talking about carbon sequestration — the fixing of carbon in our soils. As members are aware, that is one of the goals and objectives under the Kyoto Protocol.

Thirty years of international research provides the following findings. For the farmer, and this is the case throughout the world, we see reduced costs, reduced labour, reduced diesel usage, reduced crop inputs and it is a simpler system to use once the skills are developed. More importantly for us, the public and public representatives, there are enormous benefits for the environment and society. These are the results of the research obtained.

We have reduced carbon dioxide emissions; less nitrate and phosphate leaching into waterways; less silt contamination of waterways; less pesticide run-off; reduced soil erosion; increased organic matter; improved soil structure; and increased biodiversity. Those last four points — soil erosion, organic matter, soil structure and biodiversity — come under Article 5 of an EU regulation and various directives. This is from work done in Kilkenny from 1989 by Michael Neill of Inland Waterways, now the Environmental Protection Agency. We are looking at five river catchment areas. Beginning in the bottom left hand corner is the Shannon. Moving up to the Burren area in the top right hand corner — that is Jim McCarthy's area. There is a direct correlation between the percentage of land area ploughed and the nitrogen lost to waterways.

With regard to conservation, agriculture and wild birds, environment directive 79/409/EEC provides that we must improve and maintain the habitats for wild birds in our agricultural communities and rural areas. This chart shows work done by Alastair Leek in the UK as part of the linking the environment and farming research project there. Across four species — the skylark, the tree sparrow, the chaffinch and the yellowhammer — there was a dramatic increase in numbers where conservation agriculture was practised in comparison with plough-based agriculture. Ours is an all-Ireland body and one of our members, Clive Weir, from County Down has recorded the highest number of yellowhammers in the British Isles on his farm. An ongoing research project has been taking place on that farm by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

The forest at the back of my house in Tipperary is a natural forest. Every year we see leaves fall from the trees and a flush of growth in the spring time when new leaves grow. There is no input or interference from man. At the base of the forest floor there is constant soil cover and there are high organic matter levels as exemplified by the fungus that is growing on the forest floor. What relevance has this to agriculture? In this picture we see a tillage field near Kildalkey in County Meath. This was previously a crop of oil seed rape. The plants members see growing are old rape seeds that fell out at harvest. However, members can also see mushrooms growing in the area, which are indicators of high organic matter.

What is the practical benefit for the farmer from this? He can drill his crop direct into the soil. He does not need to cultivate or to plough. This farmer has switched from plough based to reduced cultivations over a three-year period. Next year he will not plough any of his land. There is another net benefit of particular importance to society. This picture shows the same field two years apart. Members can see the haybarn in the background. On the left hand side, under water, there is a plough-based field. There was heavy rain in October and November 2002. Two weeks prior to that photograph being taken, there were 4.3 inches of rainfall. In November of last year there was an equal period of heavy rainfall when there were 4.1 inches in two weeks. Where is the lake of water in the photograph? As a result of improving the soil and its structure, we have improved the inter-relationship between rainfall, water infiltration and the build up of ground water supplies. It is clean water because it is sieved through the soil profile. In the left hand picture there is surface water run off and contamination of waterways.

The truth about ploughing, even though we are not prepared to face the fact at times, is that it is not necessary for crop production or weed control. It costs money and makes farming uncompetitive. It reduces organic matter in the soil and destroys soil structure. Ploughing can lead to soil erosion. This is a direct violation of good agricultural and environmental conditions as instanced by Article 5 of Council regulation EC 1782/2003.

Other member states have seen the light. I am now showing information from the Federal Republic of Germany. We are looking at subsidies for conservation agriculture in four federal states. Subsidies range from €25 to €115 per hectare to reduce sediment run off and soil erosion and to maintain constant soil cover through the use of cover crops over winter months. This funding comes from the national exchequer, not Europe. Local governments in these federal states see the environmental benefits of these systems and are prepared to put their taxpayers' money into promoting uptake and adoption of the system. This happens also in Portugal. Under different schemes there are subsidies, from the national exchequer, ranging from €26 to €69 per hectare. I can show similar slides for France, Switzerland and the Netherlands.

Our delegation is here today to ask the committee to consider the following. We can, through the judicious use of European subsidies, put in place arable grassland agriculture that is economically and environmentally sustainable. With regard to tillage, we could ring fence modulated funds from the tillage sector. We can promote economic and environmental sustainability at farm level. Farmers who practise or adopt conservation agriculture could be encouraged and supported using modulated funds. Graded support could be given for reincorporating straw to build organic matter in the soil; for direct drilling or no tillage as it is called; for reduced or minimum tillage, which over 100 farmers in Ireland are practising at present; for the use of cover crops in conjunction with spring crops — using cover crops over winter to protect the soil, reduce weed competition and pests attack and to keep the soil open in readiness for the subsequent sugar beet, spring oil seed rape, spring barley, spring oats or spring wheat crop.

Ireland's agricultural policy needs change. We do not need to simply give handouts to farmers but to put in place an agriculture that is sustainable economically for farmers such as Jim McCarthy, so he will be able to compete in 2010 and beyond, and Bartie Cash, who is a part-time farmer so he will be able to maintain his lifestyle of doing part-time work and engaging in tillage production. We must change our mindset. Members of the committee are free to ask questions about my presentation. I firmly believe that this is the way forward. We have seen it happen in other countries where farmers do not receive subsidies. We should try to get where the ball will be, rather than have to chase the ball all the time, like under-12 footballers.

Deputy Naughten

I welcome the delegation and thank its members for their colourful presentation. It was interesting and thought provoking. For several months this committee has been dealing with the nitrates directive. It appears from the presentation that this measure could significantly reduce run-off of nutrients, including nitrates, from tillage land, which is causing a huge problem. Can Mr. Fortune say if these proposals were put forward to the Department of Agriculture and Food and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in the context of the Teagasc submission to the Brosnan group on the implementation of the nitrates directive? Will Mr. Fortune also elaborate on whether it is the policy of Teagasc to try to develop and promote this type of farming?

In the context of the nitrates directive, a big issue for farmers will be the use of organic manure on tillage land. If land is not being ploughed, will it facilitate the use of organic manure later in the year, since farmers will not have the same type of run-off? That might not be feasible under a derogation from Brussels concerning ordinary tillage land.

What is the position regarding the use of genetically modified organisms? Do secondary crops, such as grass, which are there by the time barley or sugar beet are sown, give rise to so-called jumping genes? Is there a threat involved in that? What is CAIR's view of using genetically modified organisms?

What is the impact on yield of this type of tillage farming, compared to the traditional type? We have heard about the need for a subsidy to support and encourage this, yet it does not seem to be required in many other countries, such as the USA and those in South America. Has CAIR spoken to farming organisations about this and, if so, what is their view? Can we have some idea of the impact this has on fuel cost savings? Up to now I suppose it has not been an issue but it is at the forefront of everyone's mind currently, given the price of fuel and the effect that will have on production costs.

Deputy Ferris

I welcome the presentation, which was very thought provoking. I come from an agricultural background and as a child I learned about growing potatoes, beet, turnips and corn. I was taught that the ploughing process brought fresh soil to the top and, by extension, maximised yield, as well as resting land by achieving such a complete turnover. Therefore, the contents of the presentation goes against most of what I learned as a young man in Kerry.

Deputy Naughten

That was not today or yesterday.

Deputy Ferris

The practice of eco-tillage involves level fields, short stubble, shallow soil cultivation and soil consolidation. That may be alright in more level areas such as the midlands, but it is hard to find a level field in the south west and on the west coast generally. Is CAIR proposing a levelling off process first and then determining the type of farming sector one enters after that?

Deputy Naughten referred to yields, but the maximisation of yield through intensification farming involves the use of nitrates, constant fertilisation and, as we were told until very recently, soil rotation. Is it necessary to have a field levelled in order to practice this type of farming? Would it be viable for small farms? Reference was made to Canada and South American countries which have large holdings compared to Ireland. I am speaking in particular about small and medium-sized family farms, from 35 to 50 or 70 acres, which are struggling to survive. Is the proposed system a viable proposition for such farmers? I am referring to active farmers as opposed to part-time farmers. The trend, which I consider to be detrimental to rural Ireland, is that anyone with a holding of less than 70 acres is more or less a part-time farmer.

Deputy Hoctor

My apologies for being late. I welcome Mr. Bird and other members of Conservation Agriculture Ireland. Their presentation has certainly been enlightening. I would like to know about the group's relationship with the Department of Agriculture and Food. I read that CAIR considers the lack of encouragement and support from the Department to be a real problem for farmers. I would also like to know about CAIR's relationship with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. No doubt the issue of conservation arises when farmers seek forestry rights in areas of high amenity. How far has CAIR got with the Department of Agriculture and Food on this matter?

Senator Coonan

I welcome the delegation and thank its members for their enthusiastic and passionate presentation. I was touched when I heard a reference to a back garden in Tipperary town. If the same passion could be instilled into the Tipperary hurlers on Sunday we would not have any problems.

Deputy Naughten

The delegation could come to Roscommon after that.

Senator Coonan

I do not want to appear sceptical but part of the scepticism about conservation agriculture comes from experts. One of the slides in the presentation referred to 30 years of international research and the issue of cost reduction was also mentioned. The one point left out of the presentation was that it succeeded in reducing the number of farmers as well, or at least farm numbers. They might be as big as they were before but there are certainly fewer of them involved in the industry.

Some 30 years ago, I listened to experts from Teagasc and elsewhere advising farmers to clear ditches and put their lands into one big holding. People were talking about intensive agriculture and farmers were told that the more cows they had per acre the better off they would be. If they could not reach certain targets, they were told they should not be in farming. Now, however, we are going to the reverse end of the scale. The farming community must deal with that problem, so I would like to know the delegation's opinions. They seem to have gone from one extreme to the other. While it is easy for experts to draw up a plan and tell people what they should or should not be doing, farmers must change an entire enterprise to advance such a plan and conduct an agricultural enterprise as they are advised.

The delegation referred to other nations, such as Germany, taking on the idea of conservation agriculture, but Germany is primarily an industrial country. We have lost sight of the fact that Ireland is basically an agricultural economy, so instead of getting rid of farmers we should be trying to keep more of them active on the land. Perhaps that is CAIR's intention, but it did not come across to me that way. The group seems to be more concerned about wild birds' habitats than about preserving active farming in rural Ireland. I do not want to see farmers acting as caretaker managers of the land. We want them there as productive members of society who contribute handsomely to the economy.

The example was cited of woods in a back garden, which flourish without interference from man. Proposals in the past, although perhaps not from Conservation Agriculture Ireland, have interfered with man. For example, the petroleum companies savage the rain forests in the Amazon in Brazil but nobody says anything to them in the interest of oil. It is all about cash when it comes to conservation.

When Mr. Geraghty said ploughing was no longer necessary, the first thing which struck me was that farmers would be done out of a few days holidays. The National Ploughing Championships would be done away with as there would be no need for it anymore. There is bad news today for the farming community.

I would like to hear Conservation Agriculture Ireland's opinion on biofuels. There would certainly be room in the tillage sector to grow groups if the incentives were right. We could have clean, green energy in this country if there was some incentive for the farming community and if we could establish our own power structure. I would like to hear a little more about a ring-fenced modulated fund for tillage. What does Conservation Agriculture Ireland expect to be done with it?

Mr. Geraghty referred to ploughing based industries like corn and sugar beet. They are under severe threat at present. For example, the likelihood is that the sugar quota will end up in Germany. In my area of Tipperary, we no longer have a malting barley contract. The best producers, who won competition after competition for their production of high quality, high class malting barley no longer have contracts. The Goodmans of this world took them over. I could go on all afternoon about it but I do not propose to do so. Perhaps Conservation Agriculture Ireland would take up some of those topics.

Senator Callanan

Like everyone else, I am particularly pleased to meet this delegation. I compliment Mr. Geraghty on his excellent presentation but it is the other two gentlemen, Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Fortune, who will give many of the answers. They have dodged the issue so far, so we are not aware of their thinking. Is that not correct? Mr. McCarthy is from Kildare and is engaged in extensive tillage. He works up to 2,000 acres of conacre granted land without owning land. I would like to know from where Mr. Fortune comes and where he is based.

Chairman

Those questions will be answered in the replies.

Senator Callanan

It is nice to know where one is going but I do not know where I am going because the landmarks are not down.

I do a bit of farming and I was fascinated with the presentation. I have a number of serious questions but I would like a specific answer to the first one. What is the direct link with Monsanto? There was a reference to significant investment involving the purchase of suitable cultivation and sowing equipment in the presentation. I would like to know what that means. I am taking a somewhat different line to other members. I agree with many of the questions asked so there is no point repeating them.

Mr. Geraghty mentioned straw reincorporation. I think he was talking about chop straw and some system of cultivation to mix it into the soil. One is talking about a 10 cm. mix in. What is he talking about in terms of soil cover, for example? This is the kernel of the issue. Does the use, availability and direction of modulated funds encapsulate the presentation of the case? Mr. Geraghty talked about the environment and many things with which we all engage in our daily activities.

I suppose it might be fair to say that 30 to 35 years ago I did a small amount of that type of farming successfully enough. I did so again this year but, by God, I will not be doing so again for a long time to come. The plough is the oldest tool of the land dating back to prehistoric times. It is hard to see it being put aside. I have tried to work with the plough and without it. Some 30 to 35 years ago I was successful enough but this year, because of the weather conditions, it will be a disaster.

Reference was made to not getting good yields in the first few years of activity. Those of us engaged in tillage know there will be bad years come what may. There will also be good years and last year was one. Depending on rainfall and so on, what will be the impact of this on ground conditions? As a tillage farmer all my life, I cannot accept one gets better soil conditions without the plough than with it. There are no circumstances in which I would accept that, although I accept that some years the conditions could be as good.

Chairman

If the ground is not ploughed, is it sprayed prior to sowing the crop?

Mr. Bird

The first point was on the nitrates element and the Teagasc view on why this system was not brought into play, so to speak, in the nitrates debate.

Mr. Tony Fortune

I will take Deputy Naughten's questions. I was not involved in the Teagasc submission. In regard to the nitrates episode, it became very much a grassland and animal presentation rather than a tillage one. Much of the effort was directed in that way. Since we are talking about 0.05% of the area in the country under reduced cultivation, minimum tillage or whatever, I imagine it was not included as being a serious enough contender in that area.

Deputy Naughten's second question was on whether this promotion favoured reduced cultivation or conservation tillage and whether that is Teagasc policy at present. The short answer is that it is not Teagasc policy countrywide. The work we are doing in Oak Park has been going on for five years. We have had four harvests in the fifth year. I do not think we have published a definitive statement on it. While it is not Teagasc policy at present, there is no policy against it.

Deputy Naughten

Does the research relate to a publication?

Mr. Fortune

The presentation refers to the findings published at the beginning of February this year. These are the results for the first four years. I expect there will be results for two more years before a definitive finding is issued by Teagasc.

GM foods is outside my remit. I do not envisage a situation where it would make a difference whether one is ploughing or using conservation tillage. I do not think this would have an effect on the transfer of pollen from plants to different varieties and species.

The presentation gives a summary of the yields at Oak Park over the four year period. The crops include winter wheat, winter barley, spring barley and sugar beet. At the Knockbeg site in Oak Park, which is a good wheat-growing field, we got an average yield of ten tonnes per hectare or four tonnes per acre of winter wheat. This was almost identical to the yield from ploughing. If anything, the yield was a little higher than the yield from ploughing.

At the initial stages, we got higher yields from winter barley. There was a problem with grass weeds, and sterile brome in particular. At the moment it is almost impossible to deal with this in winter barley. Winter barley is not generally an important crop. Last year, we got lower yields from the eco tillage or the reduced cultivation than we did from ploughing. We got the same yield from spring barley. The yields were in the order of three tonnes per acre or seven to eight tonnes per hectare. The yields from sugar beet have been lower in the eco tillage system.

Deputy Ferris

What about potatoes?

Chairman

We cannot take supplementary questions. We will allow supplementary questions later.

Mr. Bird

Deputy Naughten asked about the levels of organic matter relative to ploughing.

Mr. Fortune

The measurements indicate that there is very little difference so far in organic matter per se. We do not take samples every year because it is a slow process. The first measurement, which was carried out after two years, indicated that there was no difference in organic matter at that stage between ploughing and reduced cultivation. We took samples this year, which are currently in Johnstown Castle. We do not have these results but we expect there will be an increase in the top few inches. The important aspect is that there is organic matter in the top 10 cm, which is where the crop is seeded and where the soil conditions need to be very good. Because we are incorporating straw, one would expect an increase in organic matter. It is a very slow process in terms of the weight of straw. This may be three tonnes per acre compared to the weight of the soil. One is concentrating it in the top few inches.

I will leave the question on level fields to someone else.

Mr. Bird

To finish on Deputy Naughten's questions, Mr. McCarthy might comment on fuel savings.

Mr. Jim McCarthy

Fuel savings are significant. On a commercial basis, we are looking at fuel savings of 60%. Perhaps the biggest energy saving is in fields that have not been tilled since 1997. These fields are now receiving 20% less fertiliser nitrogen, with increasing yields.

In response to Senator Callanan, my wife and I are about to move into a new house. My wife is afraid because I told her that I bought a second-hand plough to put in the garden and I will get my local stonemason to carve a monument to the stupidity of Jim McCarthy, because of the amount of money I have spent on ploughing over the last 20 years. I am a first generation farmer who clawed his way into the game by being commercial. It is strictly about improving farm efficiency because the reduction in the cost is enormous.

A number of Deputies expressed concern about the loss of farms from the countryside. The loss of farms is strictly about money. In 1983, we sold our wheat for £180 a tonne. I recently sold the last of last year's harvest for €89 a tonne. This is why people are leaving the land. Those of us who remain must re-adjust to the circumstances in which we find ourselves. This is the only game in town. Either we are farmers or we are not. We must adjust to the game in town, try to increase our efficiencies and farm within the rules. In doing so, if we can improve the environment, it would be fantastic, but this is constantly being missed.

Mr. Bird

Realistically speaking, the tillage sector has been under pressure. Unfortunately, Deputy Ferris, for people from a certain area, 500 acres was mentioned to earn the same as the industrial wage last year. We must accept that people like Mr. Cash, who have approximately another 30 years in farming, will have to exist by farming on a part-time basis. He does not want to be a part-time farmer, but if he is married with children, he must go down that route.

Mr. Bartie Cash

This is true. I have been farming with my father and brother for the past ten years. I am also a qualified tradesman. However, I have witnessed the yield decreasing each year, even though I was using everything from fertilisers to sprays. My father was constantly saying that the yields he got 20 years ago were just as good as we are getting with extra sprays, fertilisers, fancy machinery and so on. In 2001, I realised that something would have to change. I decided it had to come down to soil structure, which was when I changed. My best year was 2001. I had a very poor quality farm but it had soil structure. When I got four tonnes of spring wheat, I thought it was due to my good work. However, it had nothing to do with the work I put in. The soil structure was in the farm.

Unfortunately, the following year, I took more land of continuous tillage ground, and yields decreased to 2.5 tonnes and 3 tonnes. That was when I decided there was no point in remaining in conventional farming. Unless I could maintain a soil structure in some shape or form, I would not have a future in farming. In order to maintain an average industrial wage, I cannot envisage becoming a full-time farmer. Given a profit from tillage farming of between €20 and €50 per acre, one would need a good few acres to maintain the average industrial wage. I embarked on a system to reduce my costs. The price we are receiving for our products is here to stay and I can only compete by reducing costs. Someone said that farmers are leaving the land but they are just trying to reduce their costs. The only way I can stay on the land is by reducing my costs and this is the road I have taken. This is my fourth year involved in conservation tillage. Probably 70% of my winter wheat is good and 30% poor and the same for my spring wheat. Every year I experiment further to try and reduce costs. I have made the same reductions as Mr. McCarthy, approximately a 50% to 60% reduction in diesel and time. All the reductions help to keep costs down.

Somebody asked if this affects yields. With those reductions we can afford to take a loss in yields, but from what I can see so far and based on the same practice in the same fields, there is no difference in yield whatsoever.

Mr. Fortune

I should have clarified a point at the start. Senator Callanan asked where I was from and my relationship with Monsanto.

Senator Callanan

I was not asking a personal question, but wanted to know about the group.

Mr. Fortune

I will tell the Senator where I am from, but he probably knows already.

Chairman

I do not know why a member of the committee would want personal information.

Senator Callanan

As a Teagasc member, I wanted to know where the Teagasc group was from.

Mr. Fortune

I misinterpreted the Senator. He wanted to know our relationship with Monsanto. To clarify, I work in Oak Park. I have no relationship with Monsanto and it does not fund any of the work in Oak Park.

Chairman

Why is the Senator holding up a booklet?

Senator Callanan

I am trying to show the back of it. It is advertising for Monsanto.

Chairman

I will let the Senator ask a supplementary question later. Everybody got an opportunity to ask questions, so they should allow the delegates to reply. If there is time for supplementary questions later, I will allow them.

Mr. Fortune

I have no connection with Monsanto and neither am I a member of Conservation Agriculture Ireland. I was asked to come along, and I have no problem with that, to support the system these people advocate. That is as far as I am involved and the reason I am here.

Mr. McCarthy

In the early 1990s I tried to get into conservation agriculture and failed abysmally. In 1997 Monsanto offered me some help by promising it would get a consultant from the United Kingdom to help me, because there was nobody here prepared to do anything about the issue. Teagasc was not interested. Monsanto came on board and in 1998 it funded a site on one of our fields and paid for all the work in order to compare ploughing and men tilling side by side in the field. Many people came to see it work. Monsanto gave a commitment for five years. At the end of the five years it stopped the funding and that was it. That booklet was produced on the findings from that field and that experiment was funded by Monsanto. Our organisation, Conservation Agriculture Ireland, now has nothing to do with Monsanto.

Chairman

Thank you.

Mr. Bird

I will add to that. We indicated there are 14 member countries with individual organisations. Ours is a non-profit organisation but all those countries get support from fertilizer companies, seed companies and people generally involved with agriculture, which is a common practice with regard to voluntary organisations. We hold seminars, field days and similar information events. Similarly, publications such as that booklet may be sponsored, supported or helped by industry. This happens in universities and wherever there are seminars. Funding for our organisation is only from membership fees and is meagre. Like similar operations, if we run a conference we seek support from, for example, machinery, tyre or fertilizer suppliers. People involved in agriculture should put something back in. That is basically how that booklet came about and is common practice among all our sister organisations across Europe.

Mr Geraghty

I want to clarify a few issues with regard to Deputy Naughten's questions. With regard to GM and secondary crops, the principle of using cover crops with cash crops is based on the fact that different family species are used, for example, a member of the brassicae such as oil seed rape or mustard in conjunction with a cereal crop, the graminae. There is no viable pollen transfer between different families such as those and there is no issue in that regard. I agree with Mr. Fortune's observation that there is no difference between this system and a plough based system with regard to the use of GM crops.

Deputy Naughten also asked about organic manures. Many of the committee members are from rural backgrounds and would all have seen fencing posts. If a fencing post was in the ground for a number of years and someone tried to break it, where would it break? Would it break two inches above the ground or five inches below it? It would not. It would break at two to three inches below because that is the where we have all the biological activity and all the organic matter. Therefore, it is pointless putting organic manures or inputs onto land and ploughing it down to a depth where there is no biological activity or fauna species to break it down and no earthworm or millipede activity. If farmers want to derive benefit from using sewage sludges or organic manures with regard to boosting organic matter or fertilisation of a crop, it makes sense to surface spread them and leave them near the surface if possible. A shallow cultivation of the surface two inches is all that is required.

The matter of yields has been addressed by other speakers. On the question of farming organisations, the majority of Irish farmers practice a plough based system, even in grassland areas when grassland is receding. We are trying to get across the message that internationally farmers are changing their habits. They have been changing them for 30 years. Senator Callanan commented that he tried this system 30 years ago. We joined the European Economic Community in the early 1970s. Price supports then dictated that what we were doing, namely, trying to find a lower cost system of production, was no longer necessary because we had price supports for our products. However, in other parts of the world farmers had no such support system. They encountered problems similar to those we encountered, but they found solutions because they had to.

On the question of the farm organisations involved in CAIR, we have members of the IFA and Macra na Feirme who are members of CAIR. We have also collaborated with the IFA in terms of submissions. We have contact with the organisations. Some of their members support the work we are doing but some are opposed to our work as they do not want to change from the plough based system. However, as I said at the outset, we are in the business of raising education and awareness of the system. I hope this answers all of Deputy Naughten's questions.

Mr. McCarthy

Like Deputy Ferris, I come from the south west where the fields are small and hilly. The gradient of a field is not important. What is important is the surface level and that there is not more than a 3 in. or 4 in. difference in the height across 10 ft. While the gradient of a field may be very steep in conservation agriculture, what is important is having a level surface.

As an aside, I hope Senator Callanan will become a member of Conservation Agriculture Ireland and learn how to practise conservation agriculture properly. This is what the organisation is about.

Chairman

I was going to say something I should not say.

Mr. Bird

There were a few main questions. The concept of modulation funds was raised. I am also a tillage farmer. It is important to realise that modulation funds should be reoriented back towards agriculture. I would like to hear the views of members on where these funds might go. We are not sure what will happen to the percentages that are whittled off. Perhaps that decision has yet to be made.

I have met the IFA on the nitrates directive. Its representatives say that conservation agriculture is a very good news story to bring to the greater public because it concerns flood controls, silt movement, phosphates and habitat. I have been doing single farm payments for the past two weeks. None of the farmers could tell me much about the cross-compliance which came into law on 1 January and which deals with habitat, soil erosion and other areas. I will only be called upon in July — when they are hammered by a county council or a Department of Agriculture and Food agent — and informed that their single farm payments have been delayed.

The IFA response was that this is a good news story. We are trying to stop silt and erosion and trying to build up humus in the ground. The latter provides a sort of natural, organic kick-back which will restore to County Meath the type of natural fertility with which people there — I include the Chairman in this — are familiar.

People such as Mr. Cash and Mr. McCarthy have drilled through cheap diesel for the past ten or 15 years on the backs of good prices for grain but they cannot afford to do so any longer. We would love to grow biofuels. We will grow wheat for any purpose, as long as we get good prices which are sustainable. Mr. Cash and Mr. McCarthy have adopted a system which started out from an economic benefit but which, as an add-on, has been transformed into an environmental benefit. Both of them are commercial farmers who want to farm and leave a farming legacy. This has reduced costs, equal production with plough-based systems and, more importantly, they are doing something for the environment. They can stand up and be proud to be tillage farmers in the coming years and not be regarded as spongers taking money for production in recent times.

Mr. Geraghty

In answer to Deputy Ferris's questions on root crops, the standard practice in Switzerland is not to plough at all for the production of root crops such as mangles, sugar beet, etc. The Swiss use the cover crop during the autumn to keep the soil open and friable and they direct drill the sugar beet, mangles or whatever they want to grow into the standing cover crop the subsequent spring. One does not need to turn soil or put air into it in order to produce a root crop.

I detect that a number of members seem to feel we are solely supporting a large scale farming system. I began my professional career in west Africa in 1995 and I worked the system in place there. The largest farm in the region was two acres. We achieved economic, social and environmental benefits for the farmers operating on farms of that size.

Senator Coonan referred to South America, where I spent four months last year. I visited farms from five hectares in size up to those encompassing 385,000 hectares. One farm in the Mato Grosso region in mid-Brazil was larger than the entire arable area in Ireland. However, the research and the practical benefits derived by farmers show that farmers are gaining benefit from farms of five hectares in size and upwards. Obviously the benefits will be greater for a larger scale operator but we must be realistic.

Tillage farmers in Ireland are facing difficulties in terms of the economy of production. They also face huge labour problems because workers are migrating to the construction industry. They need to be able to produce their crops at lower cost and with limited labour availability and the system to which I refer allows them to do so.

A small, part-time tillage farmer dependent on his off-farm income would need to own 100 acres. Some of the farmers in Deputy Ferris's constituency could derive benefit from grassland reseeding. Last year I worked with Kerry Co-Op over four days to demonstrate to farmers in the field how to re-establish grassland without recourse to the plough. The savings in grass re-establishment over the conventional plough-based system are in the region of 30%. This is of practical benefit to farmers in Deputy Ferris's constituency. I have a comment for Deputy Hoctor, if she returns.

In reply to Senator Coonan, I have dealt with large scale farms. We are not in the business of putting farmers out of business. I am a private consultant and farmers are my clients so I am dependent on keeping farmers in business. This focuses my mind.

Germany is an industrial country and Ireland is an agricultural country but EU rules, regulations and directives are commonplace throughout the member states. The nitrates directive caused us embarrassment in recent years. At present, through our contact with ECAF, there are similar moves on the implementation of a soils directive. We are trying to put in place a system to avoid embarrassment in 2010 and beyond. We do not want to see our Government or the Department of Agriculture and Food being brought before the court again for not fulfilling the directive obligations of another EU regulation.

I work with Wexford farmers who are producing biofuels and oilseed rape for rapoleum production. Their big challenge is to produce oilseed rape at an economic level. The plough-based system increases costs in that regard. It is in their interests to establish oilseed rape using a minimum cultivation system to reduce costs and to make rapoleum more viable for both farmer producer and consumer.

In answer to a question about ring-fenced modulation funds, it will not be possible to maintain a tillage industry in this country if subsidies are taken away form tillage farmers and moved elsewhere. If we want to improve tillage production and the nature thereof, we need to retain modulation funds that originate from the tillage sector and make tillage or arable farming better for everybody. This is common sense.

I will now deal with Deputy Hoctor's question about encouragement from the Departments of Agriculture and Food and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I returned to Ireland in 2000 and I have been working on this system since. We have made submissions, individually and as an organisation, on nitrates and cross-compliance and to the OPW about flood relief and modulated funds.

Public representatives often talk in the media about the public consultation process. Like them, we all work very hard. Public consultation is advertised in the national broadsheets. Very often, the only time I can read a newspaper is after dinner on Sundays. We spend much time compiling our submissions and we have submitted them to the Departments of Agriculture and Food and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and other State agencies.

On the question of the mitigation of flood relief, Gerry Bird and I produced scientific evidence which we submitted to the OPW. Our names were included in the list of people consulted which appeared at the end of the document. Not one word of our submission appeared in the body of the document. I do not regard this as consultation.

More than 35 submissions have been made about modulated funds by farmers, Conservation Agriculture Ireland and consultants. These highlighted what farmers are doing to ensure the viability of their farms, part-time or full-time, and to protect the environment. In numerical terms, these 35 submissions probably exceed the number of submissions received by the Department of Agriculture and Food from other bodies. I wonder how those submissions will be taken on board. These people are at the bottom and can be empowered. They could quite quickly become apathetic about the political system. However, they sat down to write submissions because they believe in what they are doing, in viability and in returning something to society so that it can benefit. I hope that deals with the Deputy's questions.

Senator Callanan asked about the Monsanto link, which also relates to encouragement from the Departments of Agriculture and Food and Environment, Heritage and Local Government. As we cannot get funding from the State, we approach commercial companies and ask them to assist us in what we are doing. Very often those commercial companies represent our only recourse to funding to produce documents such as that before the committee. As Mr. McCarthy said, prior to the arrival of Monsanto on his farm he did not have technical support to deal with some of his problems. While we can denigrate commercial companies, it must be remembered that their main consumers are also farmers. These companies have a vested interest in securing the futures of farmers so that they will have a viable consumer base for their products.

The Senator asked about straw incorporation, which is of vital importance. Through straw incorporation, Walter Furlong, a farmer in Wexford, has reduced the nitrogen fertiliser input on his farm by 30%. Is that not desirable and good for the waterways around Wexford and Enniscorthy? We try to maintain soil cover; we want to protect soil. Under EU regulations, we need to eliminate soil erosion. Many of the members are under the impression that no soil erosion occurs in Ireland. On a farm in west County Cork last year, the top four inches of soil on a sloping field flowed downhill through the back door of a restaurant and pub and out through the front door. The insurance payment was €225,000. This arose as a result of loose soil and a plough-based system. It would not have happened if the farmer had been incorporating straw to prevent this form of soil erosion.

The Senator also asked about weather conditions. To avoid problems with weather conditions, we sow our crops earlier and in better weather conditions. We do not wait until November or December, when soils are too wet to handle traffic and can become damaged. The Senator referred to ground conditions in the midlands. Ireland's largest tillage farmer is based in Mullingar.

In answer to the question of whether farmers should spray, this should be done in certain situations when it might be necessary. A total herbicide — a benign spray — is used. This knocks down weeds and reduces or can reduce the in-crop herbicide requirement in the succeeding cash crop, for example, wheat, oilseed rape or barley, being grown.

Chairman

Some members from west County Cork might be able to enlighten us on the landslide later. I thank all the witnesses for their responses. Some members wish to ask supplementary questions.

Deputy Naughten

In the context of loose soil and soil erosion, in the midlands we have a particular difficulty with loose peat, which is also caused by ploughing on a number of bogs. Have representatives of CAIR asked the Department about the ring-fencing of the modulation fund and, if so, what response did they receive? Have representatives put forward their proposals to the IFA and, if so, what response did they receive? I know the IFA made its own proposals on the use of that fund to the Department.

In response to my questions, Mr. Fortune made the point that Teagasc, in drafting a response to the Brosnan report on the nitrates issue, focused on grassland. Is it not the case that we have a significant problem with nitrates leeching, particularly in respect of tillage land? While this type of farming represents only 0.05% of the total landholding, if, for argument's sake, 50% of the total tillage land in the country went down this route, would it not make a significant difference to the percentage of nitrate leeching affecting our watercourses?

Is it not the case that farmers must use herbicides in respect of GMO crops they are using year on year, particularly if no cover crops are introduced? Residue plants will remain from the previous year and unless a complete herbicide is used, some of the residue crop from the previous year will grow again, which could cause problems.

Senator Callanan

My comment was not intended to be personal and should not be taken in that light by Mr. Fortune. I merely wanted to establish his function and I am now clear that he is a researcher. I did not know what he was researching. I deeply regret if my words gave any offence. I would be delighted if what the witnesses have discussed today is a success. I would be extremely pleased if we could give support for the modulation funds remaining in the tillage sector rather than having farmers from other sectors trying to claim them. I am delighted with CAIR's approach on that matter.

However, I have a concern. Once Monsanto is mentioned, I do not like it. I hope I do not need to explain myself on that matter. I could call to Mr. McCarthy to discuss that matter over tea some evening. Monsanto is referred to on several pages of the Irish Farmer's Guide to ECOtillage. It is not appropriate to link farmers nationally to a system of farming that is aided, supported and guided by a company such as Monsanto. I disapprove of what is happening nationally and internationally, whereby Monsanto has taken over the stock breeding of seed. I have been at the game for a long time — longer than Mr. McCarthy — and I have seen seed production. I am conscious of the role Monsanto plays in the world and I do not like it.

Deputy Callanan

I apologise for having to leave the meeting earlier. However, I watched proceedings on the monitor. What I have learnt today is that to plough down sludge is a waste of time. The point the witnesses made is that this must remain within two inches of the top of the soil. In other words, ploughing down sludge or slurry more or less buries it. The latter is no good for the crop.

The Chairman asked about spraying. I would be concerned about farmers spraying all the time. Has any research been done on soil to ascertain whether there are too many chemicals in it after a certain number of years? If one does a great deal of driving without ploughing, does one, particularly if the weather is not great, compact the soil too much? I see a great future for direct drilling such as, for example, in stubble ground and areas of that nature. The spray-off on grassland would have to be quite heavy. Is it difficult to get enough soil on grassland without ploughing? I think it is more suitable for grain than beet or potatoes. One nearly has to go down for such crops because they go down in the soil. I would like to hear the delegation's comments on that.

I was delighted with the delegation's remark about sludge. Even though I have been farming all my life, it was something new as far as I was concerned.

Mr. Bird

I will respond to Deputy Naughten's questions about the IFA and the Department of Agriculture and Food. Conservation Agriculture Ireland has not had direct links with the Department, other than by means of the submissions it has made. It has not met officials from the Department. I hope the organisation's submission will ignite the debate we should be having. I work with the IFA's grain and industrial committees, although not specifically on modulation. That is probably next in line when we are given some sort of date or when we are informed of where it might be going. I have no idea when the decision must actually be made. I do not think any of the members of the CAIR delegation know when the process will be set in train.

I was interested in members' comments about compaction. I work with the grower in Mullingar who was mentioned. He has 3,500 acres of minimum tillage. He runs across those tram lines with machines which weigh 16 or 17 tonnes. He was spraying yesterday with an eight-tonne tractor and a four and a half-tonne sprayer. Mr. McCarthy can vouch for the fact that we have an incredible ability to travel on land and plan in work. I do a great deal of recycling of organic materials, which is absolutely ideal on the type of ground in question because we have the ability to travel.

Some of the people to whom I refer have machines which have tyres with low ground pressure. The ethos of such people when choosing machines is to ensure they do not damage the soil. They are literally working in the top three or four inches — that is their seed bed every year. They cannot afford to damage it. Some of the slides shown to the committee by Mr. Geraghty alluded to a big change that has been made by many people in this sector. I have no idea of the weight of the machine he showed going across a field in Kildalkey, which is near Trim, but I am sure the committee appreciates that it was quite heavy. One would not even see a print on the tram lines, which is an incredible development from a practical management perspective.

I will respond to members who asked about root crops. Mr. McCarthy and others have been growing sugar beet successfully for many years under a minimum tillage system. They have planted long tap root cover crops, which keep the ground open during the winter. Mr. Cash has planted such crops as part of his spring crop this year. The crops absorb and pick up the phosphate and nitrate that has been applied. They mill or cultivate through the breakdown of the previous year's stubble, so that the farmer can then sow his crop. The drills are direct drills. They do not operate with power harrows or power tools. They have the ability to place the seed consistently. I accept that potatoes would be a fair challenge under this system. We have successfully grown beet and maize under it.

I was also asked about the risk of too much spraying. If one examines conventional agriculture — Mr. Fortune can speak about this — one will learn that aphid numbers, which are sprayed for with insecticides in the autumn, have been reduced. Slug numbers can be affected because we are not turning the whole show upside down. Predators can attack slug eggs, for example, in the top two inches of soil. We do not, therefore, need to put out slug pellets to the same extent.

Certain people have spent many years developing the best management system. This is a serious technical development — it is not a matter of scuffing the ground and hoping for the best. One can wear out one's weed bank, for example, if one does not continuously turn soil and raise wild oat and other weeds year in and year out. One's number of weeds will start to decrease after a few years because one is not overturning the same ten inches of soil every year.

I was also asked why sludge breaks down. When one turns the land in places such as Ashbourne and Kells in County Meath, it is wet and cold. Many worms and other bugs do not operate in such areas because very little air gets down there. Those who work with potatoes will confirm that one can turn up straw from one year to the next. This system is slightly in keeping with Mr. Geraghty's idyllic notion of having a forest at the back of his house. Everything happens in the top three or four inches of soil.

I have made the point that the system under discussion involves a minimum level of invasion in grassland areas. One does not have ground that is not covered. Deputy Ferris referred to hilly areas where the soil can run down to the drain at the end of the field after an inch of rain. As he said, one often ends up with brown drains and rivers in such circumstances. This system stabilises the soil. That is done by organic matter, particularly in areas in which there is a reasonably high clay content. The issue of silt and clay movement is of major significance.

Mr. Cash

I am probably one of the youngest farmers in Ireland who is using the conservation agriculture system. Many young farmers want to try it but if they are working on the family farm, their fathers might not allow them to do so. When one considers that we are, in effect, turning the conventional system upside down, one can understand why a farmer might not be keen to allow his son to experiment with the new system, which has huge environmental benefits. Every farmer is concerned about the environment. If modulation funds were used to incentivise people to adopt the new system, more older farmers would consider allowing their sons to bring about change.

I have been training for the past eight or ten years. I appreciate that education is the key to the use of this system. If my father and brother, who are working at home on the family farm, asked me whether they should change to the system, I would tell them not to do so unless they are prepared to change their mindsets totally. It would be a waste of time and money in the absence of such a change of mindset.

We are learning from the good and bad fields which we have every year. I understand Senator Peter Callanan's point that some farmers would never try the system again if they had a bad year. We have learnt a great deal in the past three or four years. One is tempted to laugh the first time one hears about certain aspects of the system. I would have laughed on the first occasion I heard Mr. Geraghty talking about the system if I had not known that a great deal of thought had gone into it. I imagine that 90% of people thought he was bonkers. When one is involved in the system, however, one sees it as a black and white issue. I know people who have damaged their fields by ploughing them for many years. The fields to which I refer may have lost headlands and developed wet spots here and there.

The system under discussion offers significant benefits but one needs to have a certain level of knowledge before deciding to adopt it. A scheme of funding should be put in place to help young farmers to change to the system. They need to be given the financial resources to allow them to accept losses here and there. Having used this system for four or five years, one would not dream of going back to the plough system.

Deputy Hoctor

I apologise for being absent again. Ten years from now we will say that the men who have made a presentation to the committee today were before their time. We will wonder why so few people gave them a hearing. Mr. Cash has highlighted that education is the key to the success of the conservation agriculture system. Are university courses bringing the system to the fore? I refer to the future farmers of this country. Have the members of CAIR had an opportunity to meet the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, yet?

Mr. Geraghty

Two years ago, I sent a submission to the dean of the faculty of agriculture at University College Dublin, which is my alma mater. The submission included a proposed curriculum for the training of instructors of agriculture for future years. I received a letter in response thanking me for my interesting proposal, but nothing has developed from that since then. I hope to work with some of the institutes of technology. Approximately ten postgraduate students have contacted me to ask where they can obtain advice, direction and information about their studies.

I can give the committee a copy of a research document by Mr. Clive Bowers from Mullingar about soil and water relations. It is a pity that Deputy Ferris is not here because the document states that when the system is used, there is an increase of 36% in infiltration on ground with a 10% slope. As a result, there is no soil-water run-off. There are reductions of 97% in run-off and 99% in sediment loss. On land with a 25% slope, there are increases of 32% in infiltration, 71% in run-off and 97% in sediment loss. While his paper is publishable material, lack of interest from his superiors means it will never see the light of day. The headline in the newsletter states "Student's research backs international findings". What Clive Bowers has done is no more than what was conducted, ten to 15 years ago, by students and researchers in South America, Australia, the United States of America and Canada.

Deputy Hoctor

Has Mr. Geraghty met the Minister?

Mr. Geraghty

On 13 December 2004, I approached the chairman of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy Hogan, to inform him about what we were doing and to explain the necessity to move Irish farmers to a point their international counterparts have already reached. In ten years it will be too late, which is why we are here today. We must put measures in place now. Deputy Hogan made representations to the Minister and I was contacted two weeks ago. I was told that while a promise had been made to guarantee us an audience with the Minister, there had been a failure to set a date in January, February, March and April. It is now May. I contacted Gina Long directly two weeks ago and we submitted a letter to the Chairman of the committee, Deputy Johnny Brady. We are delighted to have the opportunity to attend the committee as this meeting represents our first formal contact with agents or representatives of the State. We have spoken about our work and research findings for five years with senior civil servants.

Mr. McCarthy

Mr. Geraghty and I have both been recipients of Nuffield scholarships, which provide one with funding for a subject requiring study in one's sector of agriculture. We have been funded to travel the world to carry out research, which is how we picked up on conservation agriculture. Sadly, conservation is always driven by farmers first. Academia comes to deal with such matters ten years later. Due to the existence in academia of the accepted standards, it takes someone to ask the unreasonable question. Mr. Geraghty will agree that this form of agriculture is farmer driven worldwide.

Mr. Geraghty

Absolutely.

Mr. McCarthy

It takes ten years to make any progress.

Deputy Hoctor

I thank the witnesses for their comments. I propose that the committee should call on the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, to meet the deputation.

Chairman

I was about to say that. We will send the submission, correspondence and a report of today's proceedings to the Minister and ask her to reply directly to the clerk of the committee on the contribution of the delegation. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Naughten

We should go a step further and get officials to meet with the witnesses to discuss the matter.

Chairman

That is no problem.

Deputy Hoctor

It is my understanding that the Minister's officials will be with her. She will not meet a group in the absence of officials.

Deputy Naughten

The Chairman's proposal is different to Deputy Hoctor's.

Chairman

I will accept Deputy Hoctor's proposal also. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On behalf of the committee, I thank the witnesses for today's presentation. When Deputy Hogan approached me some weeks ago to tell me about the organisation, I was confused. I thought it was a matter for the Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government rather than the Committee on Agriculture and Food. I realised how wrong I was when I heard the very interesting presentation which was made to the committee today. I am flabbergasted by what Conservation Agriculture Ireland has done. A great deal of change is required in agriculture and the changes the witnesses intend to bring about will be welcomed by every member of the committee. We are more than willing to do whatever we can to progress the matter.

Mr. Cash

I thank the committee for its response. As a young farmer, I see that we are almost being forgotten. Anyone who hears about the system outlined by Conservation Agriculture Ireland will be amazed. While farmers are also generally amazed by it, they will not take the risk involved in changing. If they were given a push in the right direction, everyone would benefit.

Chairman

A namesake of mine near home, Joe Brady, used to carry out direct seeding. He was the only person in that part of the country who did and I am sure he is still at it. It was very successful some years ago. For Senator Peter Callanan's benefit, I do not know if it was 30 years ago.

Mr. Bird

Can the Chairman remember when the one-pass system was introduced and a drill was put on top of a power harrow in County Meath which transformed the approach there? People should see how they destone for potatoes.

Chairman

That is correct.

Mr. Bird

They are nearly vacuum packing there now. We must take change on board. On behalf of my committee, I express our gratitude for this opportunity. I appreciated greatly the spot-on questioning of members. It made us think. I hope we can enlighten and update the committee at some later stage.

Chairman

Conservation Agriculture Ireland is more than welcome to return to the committee. We will try to facilitate the delegates.

Deputy Naughten

Can Mr. Geraghty e-mail members a copy of his presentation?

Mr. Geraghty

We have left a CD copy of the presentation with the clerk.

Chairman

We will suspend while the delegation withdraws and conclude with some short business in private session.

Sitting suspended at 4.45 p.m., resumed in private session at 4.50 p.m. and the joint committee adjourned at 4.55 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 1 June 2005.