40 March 2015
THE STATE OF THE STATE
A regular feature on national institutions
March 2015 41
T
EAGASC is the agriculture and
food development authority
in Ireland. Its mission is “to
support science-based inno-
vation in the agri-food sector
and the broader bio-economy that will
underpin profitability, competitive-
ness and sustainability”. In that order,
and there is no mention of quality.
Teagasc was established by an Act in
1988 with a task of overseeing the pro-
vision of research, training and advisory
services in the agriculture industry.
It subsumed the training functions
of the national advisory and training
body (ACOT) and the research functions
of An Foras Talúntais/The Agricultural
Institute (AFT). The rationale for this
amalgamation was that considerable
benefit could be derived from co-ordi-
nating and integrating training services
with research and advisory services.
Teagasc is funded by State Grant-in-
Aid; the National Development Plan;
fees for research, advisory and train-
ing services; income from national and
EU competitive research programmes;
and revenue from farming activities and
commodity levies.
Teagasc is the leading public-sector
organisation in the fields of agriculture
and food research in Ireland, undertak-
ing innovative activities in research,
knowledge dissemination and education
covering the following broad thematic
areas:
• Animal and Grassland
• Crops, Environment and Land Use
• Food
• Rural Economy and Development.
Its research portfolio comprises some
300 research projects carried out by
500 scientific and technical staff.
The main focus of its research is on
the rapid delivery of results with poten-
tial for economic and social impact. It
has developed a new focus on invest-
ment in the bio-sciences.
The main thrust of the Food Pro-
gramme is developing the base of
expertise and information in generic
technologies needed to assist the Irish
food industry to achieve consistent
quality and guaranteed safety, allied to
product and process innovations. The
programme covers the full spectrum of
the innovatory process, ranging from
market studies through to strategic
research to technology development
services and training programmes.
A key element of national strategy for
the food industry is to build a dynamic
‘foods for health’ or functional foods
sector. Teagasc works closely with the
enterprise-development agencies and
university partners in serving as an
attractor for high technology foreign
direct investment.
It h a s 1,10 0 e m pl oy ee s ov e r a l l , t ho u g h
numbers have reduced in accordance
with an ‘Employment Control Frame-
work’, and its 11-member Authority is
appointed by the Minister for Agricul-
ture, Food and the Marine comprising
representatives from the farming organ-
isations, the food industry, universities,
Teagasc
Profitability,
competitiveness and
sustainability – in
that order, with no
mention of quality.
By Frank Armstrong
Research and training for the
agricultural-industrial complex
farmers viewing
Teagasc research work
on low-input dairy-
bred beef systems at
Johnstown, Co Wexford
42 March 2015
the Department of Agriculture, Food
and the Marine and Teagasc staff. No
consumers or environmentalists.
The Authority meets on the first
Wednesday of every month except in
August. The Authority has the following
subcommittees: Audit, Remuneration,
Research, Advisory/Education and
Operations.
Perhaps the key to Teagasc is that it is
a client-based organisation. The stake-
holder-centredness is emphasised in
its ‘Statement of Values’: “to be profes-
sional, responsive, efficient, accountable
and independent, while endeavouring
to attain scientific excellence in all our
activities and working in partnership
with other organisations to meet the
needs of our stakeholders’.
The authority has a number of county
advisory centres, colleges and research
centres at 52 locations in which it
carries out its main business. Its head-
quarters are located in the Oak Park
Estate in Carlow. It has an annual oper-
ating budget greater than €160 million.
Around 75% of Teagasc’s yearly budget
comes from the Irish exchequer and EU
funding with the balance generated
from earned income. Some 40% of the
budget is devoted to research with the
remainder split half and half between
advisory and education services
It operates in partnership with all sec-
tors of the agriculture and food industry
and with rural development agencies.
It has developed close alliances with
research, advisory and training agen-
cies throughout the world.
In considering how Teagasc exercises
its remit, it is necessary to look at the
history of Irish agriculture.
The level of education among Irish
farmers has traditionally been low. In
her history of the Department of Agricul-
ture Mary Daly wrote: “The inadequate
state of agricultural education, partic-
ularly the education of men and women
who would remain on the land, was in
conflict with the commitments given by
successive governments to protect and
preserve rural Ireland”.
As a result of land clearances during
and after the Famine, and the absence
of protection from cheap international
grain, the pastoral model became utterly
dominant over tillage, in Ireland. More
than most types of agricultural pro-
duction, raising cattle for beef tends
to result in only low employment: the
less the labour input the cheaper the
animal’s carcass becomes. Moreover,
overseeing cattle chew grass demands
negligible education in crop husbandry
or even knowledge of the biology of the
animals themselves.
Thus during the second half of the
nineteenth century Irish farmers aban-
doned subsistence production, instead
producing beef cattle for the imperial
market. Little food was produced for
local consumption and the popula-
tion, including the rural population,
embraced the standard British-working-
class diet of white bread and potatoes
and occasional cheap cuts of meat,
washed down with sugary tea.
The young and ambitious fled rural
Ireland in waves throughout the nine-
teenth and twentieth century. During
the 150 years from the censuses of 1801
to 1951 the percentage of the labour
force engaged in agriculture (and for-
estry and fishing) declined from about
35 percent to 5 percent.
Upon independence the direction of
national policy did not deviate substan-
tially, especially as the first Minister for
Agriculture Patrick Hogan was him-
self a cattle farmer. The export trade of
beef cattle, mainly to Britain, was seen
as the principal driver of the national
economy.
Especially after World War II Irish
farmers became increasingly depend-
ent on government price-supports to
remain competitive on the international
market. This led then-Agriculture Min-
ister Charles Haughey to claim in 1966
that: “agitation directed only to getting
higher prices may develop a kind of dole
mentality which would eventually make
agriculture subservient to the state”.
Writing in 1971 the economist James
Meenan claimed that “the small farmer
cannot profitably raise beef on his lim-
ited acreage”. He also contended that it
is: “...increasingly recognised that price
supports are of most benefit to the large
farmers who as a rule, are least in need
of them, and that such supports do noth-
ing to provide a lasting solution to the
problems of small farmers”.
The introduction of CAP payments
after accession to the European Commu-
nity in 1972 wa s beneficia l to t hose la rge
farmers and did not stem the decline in
agricultural employment. Rather the
pastoral model was reinforced as CAP
payments increased the cost of land and
made conversion to other forms of pro-
duction prohibitively expensive.
All of these issues are central to how
a body with Teagasc’s remit might be
expected to frame its vision and strat-
egy. But in fact, for political reasons,
including the recalcitrance of the
agricultural sector, it must be an arch-
defender of the status quo.
Today the majority of farmers rely on
subsidies for a large proportion of their
income: most would go out of business if
INSTITUTIONS TEAGASC
The significant
elephant in the
room is the
greenhouse-
gas emissions
of Irish
farming.
32% of total
emissions
come from
agriculture,
the highest
proportion
of any OECD
country apart
from New
Zealand
“
Chart 1: A profile of what Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions
might look like in 2050
Source: EPA
Source: OECD Employment Outlook 2014
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
0%
Energy
Residential
Industry/Commercial
Transport
Agriculture
Waste
March 2015 43
no indication that Teagasc is active in
promoting desperately needed biodi-
versity restoration on an island whose
landscape has been heavily scarred by
centuries of over-grazing. It effectively
considers this agenda the concern of
other agencies, but other agencies must
work within a context where the land-
scape is overwhelmingly devoted to
farming.
Teagasc take its cues from the in-ef-
fect neo-liberal Minister for Agriculture
Simon Coveney who has shown himself a
worthy heir to Patrick Hogan.
Its Statement of Strategy says it is:
“...committed to playing a key role in
embracing the ambitious targets iden-
tified for the food sector in Food Harvest
2020”, and therein is expressed the nub
of the folly.
A recent European Commission
‘Country Report Ireland 2015’ stated:
“Ireland is not on track to reach its
greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduc-
tion targets”. It notes that agricultural
emissions “are expected to remain
stable between 2005 and 2020”.
Though it is technically accurate, this
statement launders the reality that agri-
cultural greenhouse gas emissions had
fallen by 9% by 2011, yet they are now
strongly increasing again as a result of
Food Harvest 2020 – due to the expan-
sion of livestock numbers, especially in
dairy cattle, envisaged in that overarch-
ing Governmental policy document.
Emissions are already up 4% in two
years and the EPA project continued
emission rises until at least 2025. Given
the need to cut emissions, Food Harvest
2020 is clearly not delivering on the
spirit of our climate commitments.
Coveney has developed a spurious
left to a free market. The ‘dole mental-
ity’ identified by Charles Haughey might
be identified in the furious protests that
greet any prospect of a diminution in
subsidies or alterations to their terms.
Considering the difficulty farmers
experience in this era of free and unfet-
tered trade a degree of subsidisation
of farming should continue. But if the
wider population is to subsidise farm-
ing then they should have a say in what
is produced.
Teagasc certainly faces significant
challenges but it, almost systemically
does not do so head-on. Apart from the
immediate economic difficulties and the
continuing ageing of the farming popu-
lation, today the significant elephant in
the room is the greenhouse-gas emis-
sions of Irish farming (32% of total
emissions come from agriculture, the
highest proportion of any OECD country
apart from New Zealand). There is also
accumulating evidence that diets high
in animal products, especially red meat
but even dairy products, decrease life
expectancy and increase morbidity.
Thus from the perspective of rural
communities, environmental protection
and even human health a change in agri-
cultural priorities is desirable. We might
assume therefore that Teagasc would be
identifying how Irish agriculture can
change direction. Instead Teagasc is
perpetuating the present model.
Their research and training courses
dovetail with the demands of the mul-
tinationals that dictate the priorities of
Irish farming. Farming in the holistic
sense of environmental management
only appears to be a concern where
European or international obliga-
tions are identified. There is certainly
environmental argument that current
lines of production in Ireland should
continue and even be intensified, based
on research showing that Irish beef and
dairy have lower emission profiles than
many of their European competitors.
This assuages the consciences of envi-
ronmentally-conscientious consumers
and does nothing to shift consumer
preference to low-emission plant-based
alternatives. Of course Teagasc accepts
the imperative to address climate
change. Its statements and policies on
the matter, however, tend to be elusive.
For example a recent joint statement
with the Royal Irish Academy written
by Teagasc and synopsised in a shared
press-release accepts that reducing
emission from food production glo-
bally, and in Ireland, will not be easy.
Then it moves to the contradictory,
the unambitious, the insidious and the
diversionary:
“Food demand is tied to population
and income growth, which will both
continue to increase in the coming
decades. In addition, agricultural
GHG emissions are generated through
processes that are more complex than
in sectors such as transport, manu-
facturing or construction. Emissions
generated in the Irish beef and dairy
sector, which produces Ireland’s two
biggest food exports, are among the
lowest in Europe per unit of output.
While agriculture represents over 
percent of Ireland’s GHG emissions,
this is because food production in Ire-
land is high relative to our population,
with most of our main agricultural
products being exported. Meth-
ane from cattle, slurry or the use of
nitrogen fertilisers contribute to
Charles
Haughey
claimed in
1966 that
agitation
directed only
to getting
higher prices
may develop
a kind of dole
mentality
which would
eventually
make
agriculture
subservient to
the state
“
44 March 2015
GHG emissions in the food produc-
tion process.
However, not all of this food is
consumed. Food waste – food that is
throw n away by consumers, usua lly in
the developed world, and food losses
– food that spoils before it gets to the
consumer, usually in the developing
world, are issues to be addressed.
Some have advocated low intensity
agriculture as the way forward, but
while this might go some way towards
reducing the GHG emissions associ-
ated with agriculture, it would also
limit global food production capacity,
leading to greater food shortages and
rising food prices internationally”.
Teagasc is guilelessly optimistic
about emissions-reducing technology
and the possibilities of reducing waste:
“long-term solution requires that we
use science to develop technologies
that increase the amount of food pro-
duced from existing resources. Over
the shorter term, there should also
be a focus on reducing the fraction of
food that spoils before it is consumed
through the development of better
infrastructure and the promotion of
waste prevention”.
Teagasc embraces carbon neutral-
ity for agriculture by 2050 (eg in Shulte
and Donnellan, Carbon Neutrality for
Irish Farming, 2013) but only in the
grotesque NESC-mandated form of a
“horizon point”, not a target. It gleefully
welcomes the inclusion of agricultural
offsetting in the equation, of a refocus to
‘net’ figures, suggesting an infirmness
of purpose on ‘gross’ emissions.
It focuses on reducing emissions per
unit of an expanding beef and dairy pro-
duction, without ever considering that
simply reducing production is the fair-
est way to reduce emissions when all
other sectors and all other countries
are engaged in similar special pleading.
It never addresses the ethics of a rich
country claiming it cannot reduce emis-
sions from a carbon-spendthrift sector.
It champions a sectoral exceptionalism
for agriculture within a national excep-
tionalism for Ireland.
Even on its own terms it ignores the
state of the science. For example, a
recent paper presented at a seminar in
Greece stated: “It is found that the cost
of some technical abatement measures
is prohibitive and that the control of
emissions via a reduction in the level of
agricultural activity may be a cheaper
option for society.”
Insofar as it addresses issues of quan-
tity and quality, the g uiding objective for
Teagasc’s research in relation to crops,
even those few varieties grown for
direct human consumption, as opposed
to animal fodder, is yield.
Among its voluminous research
some attention is paid to nutritional
trends but this is from the perspective
of the market. In its 2013 annual report
there is reference to the opportunity to
use probiotics to enhance the value of
powdered milk. It hardly matters that
powdered milk is a poor alternative to
breast milk and that Ireland has one
of the lowest rates of breast-feeding in
Europe.
Teagasc does offer courses in organic
farming, but since the supermarkets
moved in, organic farming has become
a moveable feast. The environmen-
tal impact of cattle farming changes
very little after conversion to organic
methods.
Research into mixed farming that
would provide Ireland with a degree
of diversity are virtually non-existent
despite a recent study which argues
that forthcoming changes in climate
will allow new crops to be grown in the
coming decades. There has been one
study on the wonder crop that is hemp
but that is from 2001.
It is lamentable that Teagasc has
done no research into the development
of agri-forestry or permaculture. These
are cutting edges pathways for agri-
culture to be integrated harmoniously
into the natural environment. It hardly
seems a controversial view that human
beings will need to find radically differ-
ent approaches to farming if we are to
survive the coming centuries. Exami-
nation of Teagasc’s body of research
reveals that forward planning of that
type is non-existent.
In terms of innovation the organi-
sation has set its stall out as favouring
genetic modification of crops, success-
fully conducting trials of GM potatoes
in 2012 despite widespread public dis-
quiet. Globally the successes of genetic
modification have been few despite huge
investment, and their ownership has
tended to be in the hands of large mul-
tinationals such as Monsonato.
Moreover, development of a late-
blight-resistant potato does not imply
indefinite resistance, as blight evolves
rapidly too. The real vulnerability comes
from mono-cropping.
D ue t o i nt en se ur ba n i sa ti on , h u ma n it y
will certainly need to continue, at least
in the short term, with large scale cul-
tivation of single-crop varieties (at
significant ecological cost) but a sparsely
populated country like Ireland should
surely focus on developing genetic vari-
ety among its crops which offers the best
form of resilience.
There has been some attention paid
to Ireland’s energy insecurity in recent
times and despite what we hear in the
propaganda about Ireland ‘the food
island’, as thing stand, there is also sig-
nificant food insecurity.
Ireland grows few crops for direct
human consumption and it would take
many years for us to convert our agri-
culture to satisfy the nutritional needs
of the population should there be sig-
nificant energy shocks that would
jeopardise the importation of the foods
we rely on.
Teagasc would serve the public inter-
est better by exploring agriculture from
the perspective of the nutritional needs
of the Irish population rather than the
interests of multinationals.
The lack of Irish-grown fruit and veg-
etables has long been apparent despite
consumer demand, and without price
support Irish growers can’t stay in
business.
Moreover development of tillage and
horticulture would create far more
employment opportunities in rural
Ireland and reverse the long-standing
impact of colonisation.
Research into healthy crops for direct
human consumption is hard to find in
Teagasc’s corpus of research.
It hardly seems to matter that Ireland
is set to have the highest rate of obesity
in the EU.
What our farms produce surely
plays a part in this and unwittingly we
essentially retain the standard British-
working-class diet.
One beneficial reform would be to give
Teagasc greater independence from the
whims of the Minister for Agriculture
and allow for long-term planning and
independent evaluation of the nutri-
tional requirements of the population.
But quality, environmental, consumer
and animal-welfare imperatives should
also be systematically enshrined.
Instead Teagasc, for the moment at
least, is the research and training wing
of the industrial agricultural complex.
If the judgement of history is to be
kind, it needs to define the public inter-
est and only ever act on it. •
Teagasc
focuses on
reducing
emissions
per unit of an
expanding
beef and dairy
production,
without ever
considering
that simply
reducing
production
is the fairest
way to reduce
emissions
“
INSTITUTIONS TEAGASC