EU holds the key to solving our tillage income crisis

THE solution to the current income predicament on tillage farms lies with our EU regulators – either enable an increase in grain prices by stopping the importation of products that are not grown to EU standards or allow us to use the same technologies that the rest of the world can use.

Yield increases from genetically modified (GM) wheat crops of up to 40pc have been found in glasshouse pot trials.

While that is unlikely to be delivered in the field it provides an indication of the potential denied to us but widely used in North and South America, the source of most of our protein for animal feeds.

Until such time as those imports are restricted for not meeting EU standards there is little incentive for the researcher to develop high protein crops for production in Europe.

With Brexit we may soon find our nearest neighbour and most important market adopting GM.

If they chose to do so and achieve a significant yield increase their cost per tonne produced will decrease enabling lower costs on British farms which will decrease our competiveness further.

Up to recently much of the discussion on GM benefits were on the ability to produce varieties that were resistant to herbicides – mainly glyphosate – and/or less susceptible to disease and insect pests.

Current developments are on making plant photosynthesis more efficient.

An enzyme SBPase, found in stiff brome, a relation of one of our most serious grass weeds, sterile brome, has been found to be one of the most limiting factors for photosynthesis.

By introducing that enzyme into wheat with the use of GM technologies plants will be able to assimilate carbon dioxide better and enable cereal production to overcome our current yield plateau.

Would such varieties have overcome our dull weather in 2016?

Crop genetic modification is a technology whereby genes from totally unrelated species can be introduced into a plant.

Research is therefore focused on identifying genes which enable plants to grow faster or more efficiently in more difficult situations (drought, acidic or saline soils etc).

It will enable favourable characteristics to be transmitted from any species to another species.

Given the short time frame under which such significant changes can be introduced regulators have been very cautious.

Current EU labelling is a requirement to give the consumer a clear choice between GM and non-GM products and to give reassurance that all products placed on the market are safe.

Despite that I recently saw food items for sale in an Irish shop labelled EU/non EU. I still don’t know how that label could be deemed to be giving me any information as to source/safety.

Conventional plant breeding may achieve the same results as GM but over a considerably longer timeframe and at greater costs.

While all crops are showing an increase in yields over time the rate of yield increase is not adequate to meet increasing production costs.

Premium

After two relatively good years, 2016 really brought us back to reality.

Faced with depressed world market prices and our high cost systems the European cereal producers need either substantially higher yields or a premium for producing crops to standards which are not being met by imports.

GM cereal varieties should give us an immediate yield increase of 10–20pc with a possible reduction of 30pc in pesticide usage.

Reduced pesticide usage would take the pressure off disease and insect resistance to chemicals and reduce the need for regulations.

More efficient use of carbon dioxide might also contribute to our battle against climate change.

If we do not get access to GM technology we must get a significant premium for our cereals over GM imports. The EU regulator can do that for us and failing that or better still pre-empting that Board Bia Quality Assurance/ Origin Green needs to take action on our behalf.

SIGNIFICANT PREMIUM FOR OUR CERALS OVER GM IMPORTS