DAFM announces €5.9m in research funding
The financial support will enable Irish researchers to be involved in the EU Agroecology Partnership Call, the Green ERAHUB Joint Call, the ICT-AGRI-FOOD Call, and the US-Ireland R&D Partnership.
The department outlined that it 'makes sense' for international collaboration on research projects, given the challenges currently facing the sector.
The Agroecology Partnership, which is funded by Horizion Europe, brings together the European Commission and 72 partners across 26 EU member states, associated countries, and third countries.
Its aim is to support an agriculture sector that is fit to meet climate targets, and deal with challenges surrounding biodiversity loss, food security, and the environment, while ensuring profitable and attractive activity for farmers.
DAFM's funding will also be involved in the ICT-AGRI-FOOD project. This project is run by the European Research Area Network (ERANET) and is focused on underpinning the transition towards more sustainable and resilient agri-food systems with digital technology.
The aim of the project is to address the challenges faced around the world by agricultural and food systems. It hopes that this would emphasise the role these systems play in mitigating issues such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and food security.
Recipients attending DAFM offices. Back row l-r: Dr Ian Short, Professor Fiona Doohan, Dr Gary Gillespie, Dr Samuel Browett, Professor Alan O'Riordan, Dr Achim Schmalenberger, Dr Ciaran Hearn. Front row l-r: Dr Mahjabin Siddique, Dr Tamíris Da Costa, Dr Adriana Cunha Neve, Minister of State Noel Grealish, Dr Yuansong Qiao, Dr Aine Macken-Walsh, Dr Laura Boyle, Dr Saorla Kavanagh.
Research funding
Another research project DAFM is funding is the Green ERAHUB (GEH) research initiative.
This project aims to provide information, communication, cooperation, networking, and joint transnational funding in the agri-food and biotechnology sector for national funders and researchers.
The second call on sustainable and resilient agri-food systems under the GEH was focused on the improved resilience and health of crops and livestock production.
Finally, DAFM will give funding to the US – Ireland R&D Partnership. This is a tri-jurisdictional alliance between Ireland, Northern Ireland, and the US.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
5 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Sun, sea and a slippery slope: what your sunscreen isn't telling you
Ah, the Irish summer. That fleeting, magical few weeks when we lose the run of ourselves. Armed with floppy hats and an overzealous application of SPF50, we hit the beaches in pursuit of vitamin D and something resembling relaxation. We're a pale-skinned nation with a proud tradition of getting sunburnt in 16°C weather, so sunscreen is non-negotiable. But while we're busy slathering it on like mayonnaise at a summer BBQ, it turns out that what's good for your epidermis might not be so good for the environment. So, before you dive headfirst into the sea this summer, it might be worth asking: what exactly are you leaving behind in the water? The problem beneath the surface Most commercial sunscreens contain chemical UV filters, such as synthetic compounds like oxybenzone, octinoxate, octocrylene, avobenzone, and homosalate. These ingredients work by absorbing UV radiation and converting it into harmless heat. Sounds harmless enough, until you learn what happens when they wash off your body and into the sea. Sunscreen doesn't just wash off at the beach. It also rinses off in the shower — entering our wastewater systems and, eventually, rivers, lakes, and estuaries. Wastewater treatment plants aren't always equipped to filter out synthetic UV filters, meaning these pollutants end up affecting freshwater organisms, too And wash off they do. Studies have shown that up to 25% of sunscreen applied to the skin can be released into the water within just 20 minutes of swimming. While that sounds like a small price to pay for preventing sunburn, marine ecosystems disagree. Coral bleaching and chemical filters Chemical UV filters, especially oxybenzone and octinoxate, have been shown to bleach coral by damaging their symbiotic algae. This relationship is essential for coral survival, when the algae die, the coral loses its colour, starves, and eventually crumbles. Oxybenzone, in particular, is toxic to juvenile corals even at concentrations as low as 62 parts per trillion. This is the equivalent to a single drop in six and a half Olympic-sized swimming pools. But it's not just coral that's affected. These chemicals have been linked to developmental deformities in fish, DNA damage in marine invertebrates, and hormonal disruption in sea urchins and molluscs. For already stressed ecosystems grappling with warming seas, pollution, and overfishing, sunscreen pollution is yet another layer of existential dread. Not just a reef problem But I'm not holidaying in the tropics, you might say. Surely my SPF doesn't matter in Bundoran or Clonakilty? I'm sorry to say, no. Sunscreen doesn't just wash off at the beach. It also rinses off in the shower — entering our wastewater systems and, eventually, rivers, lakes, and estuaries. Wastewater treatment plants aren't always equipped to filter out synthetic UV filters, meaning these pollutants end up affecting freshwater organisms, too. Chemical filters have been found in tap water, sewage sludge, and even in human blood, urine, and breast milk. Some studies suggest they can act as endocrine disruptors, interfering with hormones in both humans and wildlife. One particularly persistent compound, octocrylene, has been detected in fish tissue and shown to accumulate up the food chain. What can we do? The good news is you don't have to choose between skin cancer and coral collapse. There are plenty of ways to protect yourself from UV damage while also minimising your impact on the planet. Here's what to look for: Choose physical (mineral) sunscreens. These use zinc oxide or titanium dioxide to physically block UV rays by reflecting them off the skin. Crucially, make sure the label says 'non-nano', which means the particles are large enough that they're not absorbed by marine organisms (or by your own skin). However, nanoparticles can still pose a risk to aquatic life, depending on how they're formulated. Avoid harmful chemical filters. Scan the ingredient list and steer clear of oxybenzone, octinoxate, homosalate, avobenzone, and octocrylene. These are the most notorious for environmental toxicity, but research is ongoing, and new concerns are emerging regularly. Ditch the fragrance and spray. Fragrance additives can irritate sensitive marine organisms and are often undisclosed. Aerosol sprays, meanwhile, create a fine mist of sunscreen particles that often end up in the sand, not your skin. These particles are easily washed into the ocean with the tide. Look for sustainable packaging. While the contents of the bottle matter most, the packaging isn't irrelevant. Seek out sunscreens that use recycled materials, avoid single-use plastics, or offer refill options. Conscious consumer Sunscreen pollution isn't the biggest problem our oceans face. But it is one we can do something about easily. You don't need to become a marine biologist, move off-grid, or wear a hazmat suit to the beach. Most commercial sunscreens contain chemical UV filters, such as synthetic compounds like oxybenzone, octinoxate, octocrylene, avobenzone, and homosalate. These ingredients work by absorbing UV radiation and converting it into harmless heat Just make more informed choices at the chemist. Swapping out chemical sunscreens for non-nano mineral options or lounging under a shady umbrella can keep both your skin and the seas happier. No sunscreen is a saint... even mineral-based ones leave a footprint from mining to plastic tubes. So yes, wear sunscreen. Always. A simple switch in your beach bag can help protect both your skin and reduce the chemical impact on marine life. And that's a glow-up we can all feel good about.
Agriland
11 hours ago
- Agriland
Combatting potato blight fungicide resistance key focus for researchers
The continuing work of Teagasc scientists to successfully confront the challenge of potato blight has been highlighted. This work is taking place against the backdrop of the fast-evolving blight populations that now impact on Irish potato crops. Details of this research input are contained in the recently published Teagasc Research Impact Highlights in 2024. In late autumn 2023, a single sample of Phytophthora infestans with resistance to the carboxylic acid amide group of fungicides was detected in Ireland. Currently, the control of potato late blight caused by P. infestans is almost exclusively reliant on the application of fungicides. This highlights the immediate and significant threat the detection of this strain posed to the Irish potato industry. To prevent such devastating impacts, it is essential to be able to rapidly detect this strain, devise control strategies to prevent its spread, and effectively communicate this to the industry. The Teagasc report outlined how a coordinated approach was taken between crops researchers and specialists to develop detection tools, and devise and disseminate field control strategies. To detect resistance, the team developed a digital droplet polymerase chain reaction (PCR) capable of detecting P. infestans and associated fungicide resistance in a variety of matrices including potato leaves, FTA preservation cards, and spore samples. This allowed for the rapid and extremely sensitive detection of resistance. In parallel, control strategies were devised which ensured both the mixing and alternation of fungicides at each application, guaranteeing field control whilst limiting potential selection for the resistant strain. These strategies were communicated to the industry throughout the season via dedicated workshops, crop walks, and a trials tour. Whilst the strain was again detected in 2024, its impact on late blight control has been contained. Potato growers attending a recent Teagasc farm walk in Co. Meath were told that the threat of blight remains very real. And this despite a continuing spell of dry weather, during which humidity levels remains very low. Testing carried out last year confirmed that 36A2 was the main strain of blight circulating in Ireland at that time, a strain that is not strongly associated with mutations that bring about resistance to specific fungicide chemistries. But according to Teagasc plant disease specialist, Dr. Steven Kildea, potato growers should not be lulled into any form of false security. He explained: 'Last year's survey work tells us one fundamental thing: 36A2 is a very active form of blight. It has imposed itself relative to other blight strains known to be in Ireland. 'This means that A36 has the potential to create serious damage within Irish potato crops if farmers do not take the required preventative steps.' As was the case last year, Teagasc agronomists have compiled a comprehensive blight spraying programme for 2025.
Agriland
12 hours ago
- Agriland
Study: 'Critical relationship' between peat soil drainage and rainfall
A study led by Teagasc has highlighted the "critical relationship" between the drainage status of peat soils, and localised rainfall in water table management. According to Teagasc, these findings will be critical in identifying and targeting suitable sites for carbon water table management, and ultimately maximising carbon storage potential in agricultural grassland in peat soils. Actively managing the water table of peat soils is an important tool to reach the EU target of climate neutrality by 2050. As the water table of peat soils drop, carbon dioxide emissions increase, due to the introduction of oxygen to the system and the breakdown of organic matter. During the ReWet project, researchers monitored six Irish peatland sites, four fens and two raised bogs between September 2023 and August 2024. Using 30 monitored dip wells and hourly precipitation measurements, Teagasc investigated the relationship between water table rise, event rainfall and the water storage capacity of the soil. Findings from Teagasc also revealed that fen peat sites were significantly more deeply drained than raised bogs, despite similar drainage system designs. The sites also varied in water storage capacity. The water table in the raised bogs were less reactive to rainfall, drought, and artificial drainage. On the other hand, fen peat sites were more deeply drained, and the water table was more reactive to rainfall inputs and seasonal variability. Teagasc believes that this outcome reinforces previous endeavours to highlight the variability of drainage status within peat soils under grassland, of which there are approximately 340,000ha, 141,000ha of which are considered to be effectively drained, with an average water table greater than 30cm below the soil surface. A proportion of grassland peat soils are being targeted for active water table management to reduce the average water table depth to within 30cm of the soil surface. Head of Teagasc's climate centre, Karl Richards said: "This research underscores the need for site-specific peatland water management strategies that reflect the water table behaviour of different peat types. "Such tailored approaches are essential for maximising carbon storage potential and supporting climate action across European grassland landscapes," Richards added.
