Reducing finishing age for beef cattle crucial to lowering GHG emissions
Dr. Paul Crosson said the key to achieving this revolves around increasing the live weight gain of beef cattle, which in turn he said also improves farm profitability.
According to Teagasc between 2010 and 2022 the average finishing age of prime beef cattle reduced from 27.9 to 25.6 months, but this trend stalled in 2023 and 2024.
It blamed challenging weather conditions combined with a reduction in the number of young bulls being produced which then increased the average finishing age to 26.5 months in 2024.
GHG emissions
But, reducing the finishing age for beef cattle is just one element that can contribute to lowering overall GHG emissions from agriculture.
The message from the Teagasc Climate Centre, which is headed up by Dr. Karl Richards, is that farmers in general need to actively reduce both nitrous oxide emissions and methane emissions.
Overall agriculture emissions decreased by 1.7% in 2024 according to a report published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) yesterday (Friday, July 4).
In Ireland's Provisional Greenhouse Gas Emissions report for 2024 the latest figures suggest there was a reduction in national emissions of 2% compared to 2023, with reductions in almost all sectors – except for heating of homes and buildings.
Agriculture emissions decreased by 1.7% or 0.3 MT CO 2 e in 2024 compared with 2023 which the EPA said was primarily due to a 2.9% reduction in cattle numbers.
According to scientists at Teagasc the three primary GHG emissions of concern for the agricultural sector are methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide.
They have highlighted that methane emissions have decreased by 2.9% since 2023, while nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide have increased by 1.2% and 2.8%, respectively.
Statistics show that agriculture contributed 38% of Ireland's GHG emissions in 2024. But compared to the 2018 baseline for the 2030 Climate Action Plan target, agriculture emissions have decreased by almost 1.0 MtCO2e (4.6%).
According to Dr. Richards farmers have reduced nitrogen fertiliser use, compared to 2018, but its usage increased in 2024, 'contributing to the increase in nitrous oxide emissions'.
'Protected urea use has increased rapidly from zero in 2018, to almost one third of straight nitrogen fertiliser sales in 2024.
'We need to continue to focus on technologies to both reduce our reliance on nitrogen fertiliser, while also switching to lower emission nitrogen products,' he added.
Teagasc has advised farmers now to keep the focus on 'maintaining reduced nitrogen (N) fertiliser use'.
It believes this is best achieved 'through nutrient management planning, following agronomic advice to ensure optimal soil fertility through lime application, recycling animal manures, application of chemical Phosphorus (P) and Potassium (K), clover and grassland management'.
According to Teagasc it is 'concerning' that less lime was spread in both 2023 and 2024 compared to previous years, and that the purchase of fertiliser P and K also declined in both 2023 and 2024.
The authority has highlighted that 'optimising soil fertility will support lower fertiliser N usage, while also optimising conditions for grass and clover performance'.
But it has also warned that Increasing the adoption of protected urea from the current 30% to over 80% is 'a challenge for the entire sector.'
Methane emissions
Latest research carried out at the Teagasc Climate Centre has also identified feed additives and slurry amendments that can 'significantly' reduce methane emissions on Irish farms.
According to Dr Richards 'they are both on the point of being commercially available for use by farmers'.
But he has warned that 'financial incentives, or subsidies' will be needed to incentivise farmers to use them.
'Business models are urgently needed to ensure timely adoption in the near future,' Dr. Richards said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
19 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
a day 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
a day 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.
