ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE & TECHNOLOGIES FOR AGRICULTURE · 2016-06-13 · 4 Advances in Knowledge & Technologies for Agriculture Using genomics to increase animal productivity Dr. Donagh

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


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.



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.


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.



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.


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.



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.


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



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


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



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: [email protected]

www.asaireland.ie

Documents

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE & TECHNOLOGIES FOR AGRICULTURE · 2016-06-13 · 4 Advances in Knowledge & Technologies for Agriculture Using genomics to increase animal productivity Dr. Donagh