Post on 06-Aug-2020
Organised by Teagasc and UCD In association with the Agricultural Science Association
ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE & TECHNOLOGIES FOR AGRICULTURECONFERENCE PROCEEDINGSWednesday, 10 June 2015 Tullamore Court Hotel, Co. Offaly
LIST OF ABSTRACTS
4 Using genomics to increase animal productivity
5 Timing of parturition in beef cattle - control and consequences
6 Evaluating by-products for inclusion in ruminant and monogastric diets
7 Advancing knowledge in soils and nutrients
8 Phosphorous and water quality in an intensive dairy catchment: managing for production and environmental outcomes
9 Fertiliser technologies for improved efficiency and reduced gaseous emissions
10 The potential for a precision agriculture approach to crop monitoring and management in an Irish Tillage context
11 Technologies to enhance data precision for and automation of grazing management
12 Updated approach to encourage farmer active participation in financial self-awareness
14 Risk and Resilience in the Irish Dairy Sector after Quota Abolition
SESSION 1: ANIMAL IMPROVEMENT Chairperson: Mr. Michael Berkery, Chair of National Agriculture, Research, Education and Innovation Partnership
09.50: Genomics to increase animal productivity Dr. Donagh Berry, Teagasc
10.15: Timing of parturition in beef cattle - control and consequences Dr. Marijke Beltman, UCD School of Veterinary Medicine
10.40: Evaluating by-products for inclusion in ruminant and monogastric diets Dr. Tommy Boland, UCD School of Agriculture and Food Science
11.05: Tea/Coffee
CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
SESSION 2: ENVIRONMENT & SOILS Chairperson: Dr. David Beehan, Chief Agricultural Inspector, Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine
11.35: Advancing knowledge in soils and nutrients Dr. Rachel Creamer, Teagasc
12.00: Phosphorous and water quality in an intensive dairy catchment: managing for production and environmental outcomes Dr. Paul Murphy, UCD School of Agriculture and Food Science
12.25: Fertiliser technologies for improved efficiency and reduced gaseous emissions Dr. Patrick Forrestal, Teagasc
12.50: Lunch
09.00: Registration
09.30: Opening address from Teagasc – Prof. Gerry Boyle, Director, Teagasc Opening address from UCD – Prof. Orla Feely, Vice-President for Research, Innovation and Impact, UCD
SESSION 3: ADVANCES IN MEASUREMENTS Chairperson: Mr. Jack Kennedy, Deputy Editor and Dairy Editor, Irish Farmer’s Journal
14.20: The potential for a precision agriculture approach to crop monitoring and management in an Irish tillage context Dr. Kevin McDonnell, UCD School of Agriculture and Food Science
14.45: Technologies to enhance data precision for and automation of grazing management Dr. Bernadette O’Brien, Teagasc
SESSION 4: COPING WITH CHANGE Chairperson: Mr. Eoin Lowry, President of Agricultural Science Association
15.10: Updated approach to encourage farmer active participation in financial self-awareness Mr. Kevin Connolly, Teagasc
15.40: Risk and Resilience in Milk Production Following Quota Abolition Prof. Alan Renwick, UCD School of Agriculture and Food Science
16.00: Summary/Close of Conference
Organised by Teagasc and UCD In association with the Agricultural Science Association
4 Advances in Knowledge & Technologies for Agriculture
Using genomics to increase animal productivity
Dr. Donagh Berry1 & Prof. David MacHugh2
1 Teagasc Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, 2UCD School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Dublin 4.
Genomics is the study of all the molecular information
contained in the DNA of biological cells and tissues. To a
greater or lesser extent, the majority of agriculturally-
relevant traits are under genetic control. In combination
with management therefore, DNA variations in animal
genomes contribute to differences in performance.
Genomic selection is the process of supplementing
pedigree information with DNA information.
Genomic selection was implemented for Irish Holstein-
Friesian cattle in 2009. Retrospective analysis reveals that
genomic predictions are up to 54% more accurate than
traditional pedigree-based evaluations. In 2014, 59% of
dairy semen used was from genomically tested sires and
access to genomic evaluations has caused a paradigm
shift in the national dairy breeding programme. Currently,
over 12,000 Holstein-Friesian bulls are genomically
evaluated annually; prior to genomic evaluations <70 bulls
were tested annually. Genetic gain has doubled since the
introduction of genomic selection in dairy cattle which
to-date has generated over €16m profit for Irish dairy
farmers.
Genomic evaluations for beef cattle will be launched in
autumn 2015 and research on genomic evaluations in
sheep has just begun. The reliability of genomic
evaluations in beef will increase by up to 100%. Genomic
evaluations are particularly useful for low heritability traits
(i.e., fertility and survival) or traits where information on
large populations is lacking (i.e., milk yield in beef); both
contribute to low reliability of the genetic evaluations. For
example, the reliability of fertility in beef cattle is expected
to increase from an average of 23% to 43%. This translates
to greater confidence among breeders and farmers in the
published genetic evaluations.
Genomics also provides benefits over-and-above that
which can be exploitable through breeding. For example,
genomics can be used for meat traceability, parentage
validation and assignment, precision mating, and to gain a
better understanding of the underlying biology of traits,
thus providing information to optimise management
strategies.
Research is underway on approaches to generate more
accurate genomic evaluations – this includes the statistical
algorithms used and the optimal amount of DNA
information required for genomic selection. Each animal
has approximately three billion units of DNA, but current
genomic evaluations consider only 54,000 units of this
information. It is now conceivable that in 3-5 years every
single calf born in Ireland will be genotyped at tagging.
Consequently, the resulting genomic evaluations will be
available for use in the herd breeding programme and can
be used to manage the animal accordingly; they can also
be used by the end purchaser (e.g., abattoirs, victuallers,
exporters, farmers) to better inform the appropriate
payment. Finally, genomic evaluations currently cost €30
but this cost has, and will continue to reduce.
Key points: � Genomic predictions are considerably more accurate
than traditional pedigree-based genetic evaluations.
� Genomic evaluations will be available for beef cattle in
autumn 2015.
� The precision of genomic evaluations has improved,
and will continue to improve with time as research
results are implemented.
5Conference Proceedings
Timing of parturition in beef cattle - control and consequences
Dr. Marijke BeltmanUCD School of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin 4
Dystocia, more commonly known as difficult calving, is a
problem most beef producers encounter and the incidence
of it can range from 5-25% (ICBF) depending on the breed
of cow used. Consequences of dystocia range from the
need for increased animal care, reduced reproductive
efficiency of the herd and economic losses due to days
open and, in the more extreme cases, animal deaths. The
most common cause of dystocia is foeto-maternal
disproportion, whereby the calf is relatively too large
compared to the dams reproductive tract. A calf can grow
up to one kg per day in the final days before birth.
Therefore the timing of parturition, relative to the actual
due date of the dam, to avoid dystocia from an oversized
calf is a key factor in its prevention Knowing the dams
calving date requires accurate and reliable service dates.
For cows that carry beyond their “due date”, parturition can
be induced using certain types of medication. Induction
can reduce the relative size of the calf which has knock on
effects for reducing the incidence of dystocia and the costs
of surgical intervention.
The objective of this research was to determine the effect
of induction treatment on interval to calving, calving ease
and post partum uterine health. Seventy eight cross bred
beef heifers received a pedigree embryo recovered from
Simmental cows with an average gestation length of 287
days. The heifers were assigned to 1 of 3 groups: 1)
Controls (CON); 2) Induction with corticosteroids at Day 285
of gestation (CORT) and 3) induction with corticosteroids
and prostaglandin on Day 285 of gestation (CORT+PG).
Interval to calving from time of induction and calving ease
(scale 1-5; 1 being no assistance and 5 being veterinary
intervention) were recorded. Reproductive examinations
were conducted at 21 (D21) and 42 (D42) days post calving.
The interval from treatment to calving was longer
(P<0.0001) for CON (161.9 ± 15.12 h) animals compared with
CORT (39.7 ± 11.64 h) or CORT+PG (32.6 ± 12.10 h).
Treatment did not affect calving difficulty score and there
was no difference in incidence of retained placenta
between the three groups. A higher proportion of CON had
resumed ovarian cyclicity by D21 postpartum compared
with both induced groups. By D42 postpartum there was
no difference in cyclicity between CON and CORT groups.
More animals were cycling in the CON (P=0.03) group
compared with CORT+PG and there was a tendency for
more animal cycling in the CORT (P=0.07) group compared
with the CORT+PG.
In conclusion, the use of corticosteroid based treatments is
an effective strategy to control the timing of parturition
without a negative effect on calving progress or dam
health. Using a combined corticosteroids and prostaglandin
treatment gives the shortest window between injection
and calving. When prostaglandin is also included in the
protocol, the treatment may lead to a slower resumption
of ovarian cyclicity.
Organised by Teagasc and UCD In association with the Agricultural Science Association
6 Advances in Knowledge & Technologies for Agriculture
Evaluating by-products for inclusion in ruminant and monogastric diets
Dr. Tommy Boland1, Dr. Mark McGee2, Prof. J O’Doherty1, Dr. Aidan Moloney2, Dr. Alan Kelly1, and Dr. Karina Pierce1
1UCD School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Dublin 4. 2 Teagasc Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath
Increasing world population and economic prosperity are
driving increased demand for food, including animal
products. This increased demand is set against a backdrop
of reduced resource availability and legislation to minimise
the environmental impact of agricultural systems. At the
centre of this conundrum is the issue of efficient nutrient
utilisation by the animal, a major driver of sustainable
animal production systems. Irish ruminant animal
production systems are based on grazed grass and to a
lesser extent concentrate feeds while concentrate feeds
comprise the total diet in pig systems. There is a lack of
accurate information on the nutrient content of these
feeds in a number of instances. This leads to major
difficulties in accurately formulating diets for optimum
animal production. The increased demand for food is
placing pressure on the inclusion of cereal grains in animal
diets. The potential of cereal by-products to provide a
source of nutrients in animal diets is of particular interest.
The Feed Evaluation For Accurate Nutrition project (FEFAN)
is designed to improve the characterisation of the nutritive
value of feeds to allow better diet formulation for
improved animal productivity, product quality and reduced
nutrient excretion. This project has a particular focus on
the assessment and dietary inclusion of by-product feeds
in both ruminant and monogastric diets.
A series of studies are underway including the chemical
analysis of dietary ingredients with a particular focus on
by-product feeds, the impact of dietary inclusion of maize
dried distillers grains (DDG), soya hulls (SH) and palm kernel
meal (PKM) in pig, dairy and beef finishing diets on animal
performance and nutrient excretion and the impact of
cereal grain quality on the performance of grower and
finisher pigs. Additional meat and quality analysis is
pending on a number of these studies.
Initial results indicate � That cereals can be replaced with by-products (DDG,
PKE and SH) in the diet of grazing dairy cows without
any adverse effects on production, digestibility or
nitrogen excretion
� The maximum inclusion level of SH in a barley-based
beef ration is ca. 200g/kg when offered as a
supplement to grass silage of moderate nutritive value,
and similarly when in a high concentrate diet.
� The optimum inclusion level of DDG in the concentrate
when offered as a supplement to moderate digestibility
grass silage is up to 800g/kg and up to 200g/kg when
offered as a high concentrate diet to finishing beef
cattle.
� Maize DDG has a superior feeding value to wheat DDG
both during the growing phase and the finishing phase
of beef cattle.
� PK can be included in the concentrate of finishing beef
cattle up to 400g/kg when offered as a supplement to
grass silage and up to 100g/kg when offered as a high
concentrate diet. Meat quality traits did not seem to be
influenced by PK inclusion in the diet.
� Replacing barley and soyabean meal with
combinations of maize DDG and rapeseed meal in
grower-finisher pig diets is possible without affecting
pig performance or meat quality
� The hectolitre weight of barley did not accurately
predict pig performance
The findings of this work provide new data on dietary
inclusion levels of by-product feeds which support high
levels of animal performance and present the opportunity
to reduce feed costs, one of the main contributors to on
farm variable costs.
7Conference Proceedings
Advancing knowledge in soils and nutrients
Dr. Rachel Creamer1, Dr. David Wall1 , Mark Plunkett1, Pat Murphy1, Dr. Olaf Schmidt2, Prof. Nick Holden2, Dr. Evelyn Doyle2
1Teagasc Crops, Environment and Land Use Centre, Johnstown Castle, Wexford 2UCD School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Dublin 4.
Ireland, like all other EU Member States, faces the
contemporary challenge of meeting a range of agri-
environmental objectives in the context of the increasing
food production in a post-quota environment. Examples
include the need to obtain ‘good quality’ status for all
waterbodies, as specified by the Water Framework
Directive, the potential for offsetting agricultural GHG
emissions through carbon sequestration and the need for
sustainable recycling of nutrients under the Nitrates and
Sewage Sludge Directives. It has been well documented
that the capacity of land to deliver on each of these
requirements depends primarily on soil properties and
hence soil type and is termed soil functions. The main
functions we consider in agricultural systems are
1) primary productivity
2) nutrient cycling
3) water purification and quantification
4) providing a habitat for biodiversity
5) carbon sequestration.
Plant production and nutrient cycling are two of the key
functions that intensively farmed soils must perform.
Farmers regularly manage the fertility of the soils on their
farms by applying fertilisers and organic manures to
build-up or maintain the supply of nutrients required for
the grass or crop types they produce. However,
experienced farmers will know that not all soils (or fields)
have the same production potential (or suitability for
certain crop types) or respond in terms of their soil
fertility status to the nutrients that are applied. This poses
a challenge for individual farmers and their advisors
when planning nutrient and fertiliser management
strategies for their farms. A blanket approach, where all
fields, even with similar soil test results, receive and “are
perceived to respond” to similar nutrient application rates
may not happen in reality. This is because different soil
types possess different characteristics and qualities.
Some of the main characteristics related to soil fertility
and nutrient cycling are parent material and its nutrient
composition (rock type, glacial till) that the soil is derived
from, soil texture (i.e. proportions of sand, silt & clay
present), soil organic matter level, water holding capacity
and drainage class (i.e. free draining vs. poorly draining),
etc. A soil classification system can provide a summary of
these characteristics in a simplified form, by combining
key diagnostic information about a soil from its
description in the field.
A future application will be to provide farmers/advisors
with more soil specific nutrient advice. In 2014 Teagasc
finalised the 3rd edition National Soil Map of Ireland, which
provides an overview of soil types found across the
country at a scale of 1:250,000. This gives a good
summary of the type of soils to be found within a
catchment area. In 2015, Teagasc will launch the N&P
online web-based management system for providing
nutrient management planning advice to farmers. This
system is based on detailed crop response trials to
establish the key relationships between soil nutrient tests
and crop production requirements. The combination of
the data used in both these systems could be utilised to
derive nutrient management advice, which combines the
knowledge on nutrient requirements in agricultural
production systems with the major characteristics
defining the variability in soils.
Organised by Teagasc and UCD In association with the Agricultural Science Association
8 Advances in Knowledge & Technologies for Agriculture
Phosphorous and water quality in an intensive dairy catchment: managing for production and environmental outcomes
Dr. Paul Murphy1, Dr. Per-Erik Mellander2, Dr. Alice Melland3, Dr. Cathal Buckley2, Dr. Mairead Shore2, Ger Shortle2, Dr. David Wall4, Mark Treacy2, Oliver Shine2, Sarah Mechan4, Prof. Phil Jordan5
1 Environment and Sustainable Resource Management Section, School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland. 2 Agricultural Catchments Programme, Teagasc, Johnstown Castle, Wexford. 3 National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia. 4 Teagasc Crops Environment and Land Use Programme, Johnstown Castle, Wexford. 5 School of Environmental Sciences, University of Ulster, Coleraine, N. Ireland.
Water quality is a major issue in Ireland and phosphorus (P)
loss from agricultural soils to water can be a major threat
(P source pressure). Under the EU Water Framework
Directive Ireland, like all member states, must strive to
improve water quality. This is also important to the “green”
image of Irish agriculture. The EU Nitrates Directive
Regulations aim to minimise these losses through the
implementation of best management practices for P
on-farm. At the same time, P in fertiliser or animal feed is
an expensive farm input and efforts to improve P
management should have the dual benefit of improving
efficiency and profitability while also minimising losses of P.
It is important to measure the impact of these practices to
assess their effectiveness for farmers, policy makers and
the public. To do this, we need to monitor P losses in water
and P management on farms in agricultural stream
catchments. This study measured the effects of P
management under the Nitrate Regulations on P loss from
soils to water and subsequent water quality and
agronomic impacts in a dairy-dominated, highly stocked
and intensively monitored 7.6 km2 grassland catchment in
Co. Cork over three years. Monitoring included farm P
management, surface soil P concentrations, ground- and
stream-water concentrations and stream flow. Reduced P
source pressure compared to previous studies was
indicated by:
a) lower farm-gate P balances (2.4 kg ha-1 yr-1), higher P
use efficiencies (89%) and lower inorganic fertiliser P
use (5.2 kg ha-1 yr-1),
b) almost no P application during the winter closed period
to avoid winter losses, and
c) decreased proportions of soils with excessive P
concentrations (Index 4) (32% to 24%) and a
convergence on the agronomic optimum (Index 3).
These farms also compare favourably to other grass-based
dairy farms in Northwest Europe, with lower feed and
fertiliser P imports, indicating that they may be exerting less
of a P source pressure. Milk outputs of 14,585 l ha-1 and
gross margins of €3,130 ha-1 indicated that production and
profitability remained comparable with the top 10% of dairy
farmers nationally. The range in P balance and use efficiency
indicated potential to decrease P surpluses and improve
efficiency on dairy farms further while maintaining, or even
increasing, production through improved management. In
many cases, P was not distributed optimally at field level,
highlighting potential for further improvement to match P
application to P requirement at the field/paddock scale.
Declines in P concentrations in some water flow pathways
during the winter months indicated some positive response
in stream water P. However, there were no clear trends in
stream biological water quality. This suggests that the
impact of these management practices may be felt sooner
closer to the P sources on-farm, in soil P concentrations, for
example, and that resulting improvements in stream water
quality may be significantly delayed. This has implications for
all those interested in improving water quality and how
quickly they can expect water quality to improve following
adoption of better practices by farmers.
� It would seem likely that the nitrates regulations have
been effective in achieving improvements in P
management on dairy farms. Farmers should focus on
implementing these measures as best they can and, in
particular, on optimising P management at the field/
paddock scale.
� These improvements may be slow to convert to
definite improvements in stream water quality; the
message is to stick with the established measures in
the Nitrate Regulations and water quality improvements
should follow in time.
9Conference Proceedings
Fertiliser technologies for improved efficiency and reduced gaseous emissions
Dr. Patrick Forrestal, Mary Harty, Dr. Gary Lanigan, Dr. Karl RichardsTeagasc Crops Environment and Land Use Programme, Johnstown Castle, Wexford
Ireland’s climate and land resource lends itself to sustainable
food production. Our green credentials, which are
emphasised by the Origin Green initiative, are important for
our expanding agri-food industry because they aid in
differentiating our food exports. National commitments to
reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) and ammonia emissions form
part of our green image but these commitments represent a
significant challenge for our expanding agriculture sector.
Nitrogen input to agricultural soils increases the emission of
the potent greenhouse gas nitrous oxide. This is problematic
as addition of supplemental inorganic N is a cornerstone of
many agricultural systems including our growing dairy sector.
Our challenge is to expand the agri-food industry while
mitigating environmental loss including nitrous oxide loss.
Teagasc is striving to develop smart solutions to meet this
challenge. One such potential solution is N source and N
stabiliser/inhibitor technology choice. The agronomic
performance and nitrous oxide loss from calcium ammonium
nitrate and urea along with urea in combination with urease
and/ or nitrification inhibitor technologies was evaluated at
grassland sites. The ammonia loss risk associated with each
fertiliser option was also evaluated. The fertiliser treatments
were applied throughout the entire spring and summer
growing season applied in five split applications. Analysis of
the results, which is on-going, indicates that urea, particularly
when used with a urease inhibitor provides a viable alternative
to CAN in terms of both yield and N use efficiency. Urea,
particularly when stabilised with a urease and a nitrification
inhibitor reduced nitrous oxide emissions compared to CAN.
Over a series of applications in spring and summer 2014 the
urease inhibitor N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide reduced
ammonia loss from urea significantly and to levels
comparable to CAN. The selection of fertiliser N and N
stabiliser technologies presents an opportunity to decrease
nitrous oxide and manage ammonia loss all while maintaining
the current N rates, which underpin crop productivity.
� Fertiliser N and N stabiliser technology selection provide
options for an agriculture sector striving to grow while
maintaining its green credentials by meeting the
challenge of mitigating emissions of GHGs and also of
managing the ammonia loss risk associated with urea.
� CAN is produced in vastly lesser quantities than urea,
this along with a higher cost of production and higher
per unit N transport cost for CAN is reflected in its
higher cost to the farmer relative to urea.
� The use of appropriate stabiliser technologies in
conjunction with N source selection provides
opportunities to sustain yield and N use efficiency while
reducing GHG and curtailing ammonia emissions in a
practical manner and potentially at a cost which
compares favourably to CAN.
Organised by Teagasc and UCD In association with the Agricultural Science Association
10 Advances in Knowledge & Technologies for Agriculture
The potential for a precision agriculture approach to crop monitoring and management in an Irish Tillage context
Dr. Kevin McDonnell1, Dermot Forristal2, Mark Ward2
1 UCD School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Dublin 4. 2Teagasc Crops Environment and Land Use Research Centre, Oak Park, Carlow
In the years to 2020, an increase in the demand for food
will be led by the surging global population growth.
WHO, and UN estimate that the world population will
reach 8 billion by 2025 and 10 billion by 2050. In parallel
with this – the rapid economic development in countries
in Asia and South America is creating sophisticated
consumer audiences demanding new and diverse food
solutions. In addition, in the more established EU and US
markets consumers will increasingly seek out and pay a
premium for foods with clear and credible sustainable
production strategies.
Precision agriculture is based on the management of
agricultural systems using resources such as mapping the
factors of production, using decision support tools, and
localised application of fertilisers and disease control
through the use of sensing and actuation technology. In
economic terms, the use of these technologies enables
the prioritisation of investment in areas where the
production potential is higher. From an environmental
point of view, streamlining and reducing the use of
pesticides and fertilisers is an additional benefit from
precision agriculture.
While growers must squeeze as much food out of the land
to meet the growing population demands, they are also
being required to reduce their impact on the environment.
All of this requires a rethinking of how agriculture is
practiced and the taking automation to a new level.
Agricultural management in the future will be based on
precision – why treat a whole field with chemicals if you
can just apply them exactly where they are needed? Why
have a consistent seeding rate across the entire field if not
all the soil in that field can bring the seeds to their potential
yield? This is where sensing and automation are the key
factors in precision farming.
Taking Nitrogen as an example, research suggests that
there is a strong positive correlation between N content in
leaves, vegetation index (NDVI), and yield in cereals at
certain growth stages. However, basing a variable N rate
solely on historic whole field yield data/maps is not suitable
because it results in no overall yield or economic
advantages. Therefore, real-time canopy sensing
technology in combination historical yield and soil maps, to
account for soil variability and seasonal differences in
growing conditions, may be a viable option for predicting
N-rate and yield in Ireland. While post season yield
monitoring/mapping is well developed, the within season
yield monitoring is not well developed. Most within season
techniques are based on yield predictions from hand held
devices measuring leaf area index, chlorophyll content,
nitrogen leaf content etc. The use of automated sensing
technology via drones or machine mounted sensors will
enable a wider source of field data to be collected and the
combination of that data into crop specific algorithms can
enable growers to be provide with better predications of
crop health and potential yield and hence facilitate the
decision making process for crop management.
11Conference Proceedings
Technologies to enhance data precision for and automation of grazing management
Dr. Bernadette O’Brien, Dr. Cathriona Foley and Diarmuid McSweeneyTeagasc Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork
The development of technology for precision feeding of
animals within a pasture-based system is critical and the
development and use of ICT within pasture management
has the potential to significantly increase the efficiency and
sustainability of milk production.
ICT tool to capture data automatically from a ‘rising plate meter’Current research at Teagasc Moorepark is focusing on the
development of an ICT tool to capture data automatically
from a ‘rising plate meter’ with global positioning system
(GPS) technology and mapping capabilities. This rising plate
meter device known as the ‘GrassHopper’ has an ultra-
sonic sensor to accurately and precisely measure
compressed grass height, with recorded GPS coordinates,
and is integrated with the capacity to transfer generated
data automatically to a SMART device and then to the
internet cloud. The ultra-sonic sensor is placed on the
shaft of the plate meter and this device measures the
height of the grass (or plate) by recording the time for the
sonic transmission from the ‘Grasshopper’ unit on the
shaft and its reflective return from the circular plate. This
work is being conducted at Teagasc Moorepark as part of
an EU project namely ‘ICTGRAZINGTOOLS’, with a focus to
optimise the competitiveness of grass based milk
production. There are four partners involved in the project
three research organisations in Ireland (Teagasc), France
(Institute de l’Elevage) and Switzerland (Agroscope) and
one small, medium enterprise (SME) from Ireland
(TrueNorth Technologies) based in Shannon, Co. Clare. This
‘GrassHopper’ is now developed and calibrated for
measurement of grass height against the New Zealand
plate meter, the Jenquip. The next stage of this work
focuses on prediction of grass dry matter yield (DMY) in a
paddock using the grass height measurement. This is
currently in progress (grass growth season of 2015) and
aims to develop an equation to predict grass DMY for any
given set of conditions across the parameters of season,
variety, and DM content.
Paddock mapping and precise allocation of grass A package to survey paddocks and display paddock maps
with real-world coordinates in real time is also developed,
so a specific paddock map may be displayed on the
SMART phone. The grass height and/or yield data of that
paddock may then interact with data such as grass DM,
number of cows and grass DM to be allocated /cow. The
resultant calculations will indicate the fence line position on
the phone screen, which would provide the intended grass
allocation for the cow herd.
Virtual fence technologyThis technology provides the advantage of not requiring
any physical fencing components to contain animals in a
specific area. In place of fencing, GPS localisation, wireless
networking and motion planning are combined to create
an invisible fence line.
Key messages � Accurate and efficient pasture management is critical
from optimal milk production
� An automated grass height measurement device
(‘Grasshopper’) has been developed that will assist
accurate and precise grass allocation
� Current research is focusing on (i) an automated
objective method of predicting grass DMY, and (ii)
adapting virtual fence technology for operation within
intensive grazing systems
Organised by Teagasc and UCD In association with the Agricultural Science Association
12 Advances in Knowledge & Technologies for Agriculture
Updated approach to encourage farmer active participation in financial self-awareness
Kevin ConnollyTeagasc Financial Management Specialist, Farm Management & Rural Development Dept., Monaghan
Stimulating interest, followed by action in “hands-on”
financial management among farmers and farm
households has proven to be difficult for organisations
engaged in knowledge transfer. This is despite the fact that
there are a good range of useful tools to give assistance to
those wanting to get to grips with the financials. Teagasc
has its own toolkit for financial analysis as outlined in the
Figure 1 below.
Many useful tools are also available from other knowledge
transfer agencies as well as the financial institutions and
other agencies who are dealing with the public on financial
and consumer issues.
However there is an increasing recognition that it is not
about just developing and publicising the availability of
useful tools. There is a general acceptance that to better
“anchor” best practice in financial management it is vitally
important to first raise awareness that this is an
important skillset to both learn and practice regularly. Of all
the skills and concepts that a farm business owner must
grapple with, financial management is, I would contend
probably one of the skills that requires the biggest
investment in time and attention. The first phase in the
transmission of financial management practices very often
involves more formalised, indoor based and due to the
sensitivities around financial discussions, one-to-one
contact with the client than most technology transfer
tasks. For this reason and in the context of ever increasing
staff workloads Teagasc feel that it is increasingly
important that interested agencies work together to
achieve sustainable impact in this area.
Annual eProfitMonitor Analysis
My Farm –My Plan
FarmFinancial Plan
Regular CashFlow Recording
Annual CashFlow Budget
Monitor Analyse Plan
Farm HouseholdBudget Calculator
Figure 1: Teagasc Financial
Management Toolkit
13Conference Proceedings
A successful knowledge transfer of financial management
skills involves the steps shown in Figure 2 above.
Teagasc have adjusted their approach to knowledge
transfer in this area and the main features of our financial
management skills knowledge transfer include
� Increased focus on building alliances with other
agencies to promote the message that financial
self-awareness is important.
� Share resources among these stakeholders that could
be used by farmers to enhance their awareness of their
financial situation.
� Development of reflection-focused workbooks targeted
at key areas such as farm planning and farm transfer
and succession.
� Development of short tightly focused courses,
facilitated by advisers, to focus on a particular aspect of
financial management during which active use of the
tools and resources is encouraged.
Recent Initiatives demonstrating this new approach
� Transferring the Family Farm Clinics – 12 clinics held
in 2014 with approx. 3,000 attendees. Hosted by
Teagasc in partnership with accountancy, legal and
other professionals
� Get Farm Financially Fit Campaign – Five regional
events held in March which showcased the support
available from a diverse group of stakeholders
� Development of “My Farm – My Plan” – farm
planning workbook to assist farmers considering a
significant change or investment in their business
� Succession & Inheritance Manual – Currently in
development. For use by farmers and their advisers to
navigate the succession & inheritance process.
� Cash Plan 2014 Programme – Short targeted course
covering cash flow recording and budgeting targeted at
recent entrants to dairying.
RaisingAwareness
Exposure to“User-focused”
Concepts & Tools
Skills “anchoring” through immediate,
active use
Figure 2: Steps in improving financial management skills adoption
Organised by Teagasc and UCD In association with the Agricultural Science Association
14 Advances in Knowledge & Technologies for Agriculture
Risk and Resilience in the Irish Dairy Sector after Quota Abolition
Prof. Alan RenwickUCD School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Dublin 4
BackgroundThe abolition of quotas in Ireland in April 2015 after 31
years in operation has dramatically altered the agricultural
landscape. Ireland has ambitious growth targets, but of
course it is the decisions made by individual businesses
that will determine the extent of this growth. These
decisions will be undertaken within a climate of uncertainty
and risk and will be a key determinant of the overall
resilience of the Irish dairy sector. Technology adoption will
play an ever increasing role in this new dairy environment,
but this paper argues that it is important that the
development and adoption of new technologies is
undertaken in such a way that it increases rather than
undermines the resilience of the dairy sector.
AnalysisThe risks faced by agricultural producers have been well
documented. For example, Hardaker et al (1997) classify
these risks into the following: Human and Personal Risk;
Production Risk; Price and Market Risk; Institutional Risk and
Financial Risk. However, factors such as the abolition of
quotas will change the relative importance of these risks. In
addition, we need to take account of ‘emerging risks’ (IPCC,
2014). Robison and Barry (1987) undertook a
comprehensive examination of the options available to
farmers for the strategic management of risks. Based on
their work, Hardaker et al (op. cit) identified two categories
namely: on farm risk-management strategies and;
strategies to share risks with others. Included in the on
farm strategy category is the selection of less risky
technologies (the others are collecting information,
avoiding or reducing exposure to risks, contracting out
some activities, diversification and improving flexibility).
Technology adoption may therefore be seen both as a
source of risk to businesses, but also as a risk management
strategy. Technologies need therefore to be evaluated not
just in terms of how they increase average performance
and profitability, but also how they perform in a climate of
uncertainty as a risk reduction strategy. It is important
given the level of uncertainty surrounding, for example,
future market developments or climate change, that we
do not ‘lock-in’ our dairy sector to systems that actually
reduce their ability to withstand shocks.
Drawing on more general research into adaptation to
climate change we can gain insights into how such
evaluation may be undertaken and how strategies can be
developed. For example, the flood defence plan for the
Thames Estuary in England up to 2100 implicitly takes into
account the uncertainty of sea level rise and allows for
different options to be taken as more information is
obtained (Met Office, 2009).
ConclusionThe abolition of quotas will change the risk profile of Irish
dairy farming. Technology has a key role to play in
enhancing the competitiveness of the Irish dairy sector and
it can also act as a risk management strategy. It is argued
that a framework is needed that enables new technologies
to be robustly evaluated in terms of their ability to allow
dairy farms to deal with uncertainty thereby enhancing the
resilience of the dairy sector.
ReferencesHardaker, J.B.; R.B.M. Huirne and J. R. Anderson (1997)
Coping with Risk in Agriculture CABI publishing
Met Office (2009) UK Climate Projections science report:
Marine & coastal projections — Chapter 7
Oppenheimer, M., M. Campos, R. Warren, J. Birkmann, G.
Luber, B. O’Neill, and K. Takahashi, 2014: Emergent risks
and key vulnerabilities. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts,
Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral
Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1039-1099.
Robison, L.J and P.J. Barry (1987) The Competitive Firm’s
response to Risk. Macmillan: New York
Agricultural Science Association Irish Farm Centre, Bluebell,
Dublin 12, Ireland
Tel: 01 460 3682
Email: info@asaireland.ie
www.asaireland.ie