Time for a new debate about food production

Producing enough food to feed a growing human population while protecting an environment under pressure will mean changes in lifestyle, diet and food production.

The Citizens’ Assembly recently voted in favour of introducing measures to reduce the impact of food production on the environment. 89 percent of the assembly members voted to recommend a tax on greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture with the revenue raised being invested in climate-friendly agriculture. This begs the question: what exactly is "climate-friendly agriculture"?

An overwhelming majority of 93 percent of assembly members also recommended the government take action to curb food waste throughout the food production and supply chain. This is a much needed intervention. Although major retailers have made moves to reduce food waste significantly, one study has estimated that 50 percent of all food produced globally never reaches a human mouth. Instead, it is lost on the farm, in processing, storage, distribution or in the back of fridges.

This is a staggering waste given that the secure access to food is a basic human right. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares it is "the right of every man, woman and child…to have physical and economic access at all times to adequate food". It’s a noble aspiration but it’s clear that we are struggling to make that a reality on a global scale. Figures just realised by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations tells us that 815 million people remain undernourished. A sobering figure.

It’s no surprise then that how we produce enough food to feed a growing human population (approximately eleven billion by 2100) while protecting an environment under pressure has never been higher on the agenda. Unfortunately, we can’t get away from the organic versus conventional debate when we discuss food production these days and evidence suggests that it is the wrong debate to be having

Research indicates that organic systems require anywhere between 25 and 110 percent more land than comparable conventional systems and cause more eutrophication of water bodies than conventional farming. When it comes to crop yields, it really depends on the type of crop you’re growing but, on average, organic yields are 25 percent below that of crops grown conventionally. There are other advantages of organic production though, such as increased soil quality and overall farm biodiversity.
But this is a debate that is going round in circles. There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems and we’ll need to use the best parts of all farming systems if we’re going to solve the global food security crisis.

We need to have a different discussion. It’s now well established that plant-based foods have the lowest environmental impacts and that meat production (especially cattle and sheep) has around 100 times the environmental impact of plant-based food. We need to discuss a dietary shift from beef to pork or from meat to plant-based food. That’s the debate we should be having. Going organic has some environmental benefits, but that’s negligible compared to the benefits of a dietary shift.

 Former president Mary Robinson suggested last year that adopting a vegan diet would reduce our carbon footprint (cue wailing and gnashing of teeth from farmers organisations). Pope Francis recently suggested a similar "change in lifestyle" when speaking at a World Food Day event.

We’ve also got to consider the potential role of genetically engineered crops and crops that have had their genome edited using such techniques as CRISPR. The technology is now available to make photosynthesis more efficient. As the driving force for life on earth, improving photosynthesis could be the key to improving crop yields in a sustainable manner.

CRISPR, a technology that that has far-reaching consequences beyond plant biotechnology, allows scientists to precisely engineer even single letter changes in a plant’s genetic code. This can be done without the need for transgenic DNA, making it radically different to the now conventional forms of genetic engineering which, though leading to huge advances in crop production worldwide, remain a controversial topic in Ireland and most of Europe as this recent Irish survey shows.

These tools join conventional and organic methods in a farmers tool-box. It seems unreasonable that with such challenges to overcome, we often opt to do so with one hand tied behind our back. We now need a new green revolution for the 21st century.

In 1708, the English cleric and economist Thomas Malthus wrote that the "premature death" of the human race was inevitable given the power of population increase over the ability to provide food for these new people. Despite his scaremongering, we’ve obviously overcome these challenges and seen dramatic increases in food production and human population over the last two centuries.

Much of the yield increase has been due to the adoption of (at the time) novel tools for plant breeding and cultivation - the so-called ‘green revolution’. We now need a new green revolution for the 21st century. A green revolution that is not limited by ideology but uses all proven and safe technologies available to boost yields while protecting the environment.

This article first appeared on RTE Brainstorm

Water, water, everywhere...

It takes over 17,000 litres of water to produce just 1 kg of chocolate.

That's one of the startling figures compiled in a new report on food waste by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in the UK.

The report: Global Food - Waste Not, Want Not; made the news last month because of the headline-grabbing figure of 50%. That's the proportion of food wasted worldwide without ever reaching a human stomach.

The figures for water usage in the report come from the Water Footprint Network and make for stark reading when tabulated (see below). For example, it takes 822 litres of water to produce 1 kg of apples.

On average, 1 kg of beef takes 15,415 litres of water to produce and one cup of tea takes 27 litres.

The various wasted inputs (water, energy, agrochemicals, etc.) associated with wasted food is often not considered by consumers but, as the report states: "[the 50% headline figure] does not reflect the fact that large amounts of land, energy, fertilisers and water have also been lost in the production of foodstuffs which simply end up as waste".

Water use in agriculture (Source: Global Food - Waste Not, Want Not)

According to a recent European Environment Agency (EEA) report on water use in Europe, agriculture accounts for 33% of total water use. That figure can go as far as 80% in parts of southern Europe where irrigation of crops is essential and accounts for almost all agricultural water use.

In the clamour for higher yielding varieties of crop plants for agriculture, it makes sense to stop and think about how current yields are squandered and how limiting resources such as water and energy and thrown in the bin.

You can read the food waste report here.

You can read the EEA report here.

I write more on the issue of food waste, the global future of crop production and precision agriculture in the Spring edition of Walton Magazine, which is out now.

Image: Watering Crops by Margaret W. Nea. Creative Commons

Why organic must turn to science to survive

According to a couple of recent news stories, organic food is no better for you or the environment than conventionally farmed food. While growers and consumers would do well to take a closer look at the findings before making up their minds, the organic sector needs to turn to science if it is to remain relevant.

The big organic story of the week is a Stanford University meta-analysis which has variously been reported as showing that "Organic food no healthier" (Irish Times), "Why organic food may not be healthier for you" (NPR), and "Organic food is 'not healthier'" (Telegraph).

According to the study published in Annals of Internal Medicine, there is little evidence from 237 existing studies that suggest organic foods are more nutritious than conventional alternatives. The authors do acknowledge that consumption of organic foods "can reduce the risk of pesticide exposure". Clearly the healthiness of a foodstuff is more than just its nutritional value, so the reduced pesticide use on organic foodstuffs is worth noting.

“Some believe that organic food is always healthier and more nutritious,” said Crystal Smith-Spangler, co-author of the report. “We were a little surprised that we didn’t find that.” Perhaps they shouldn't have been given that a 2009 analysis of 50-years of research showed similar results.

Some commentators have mentioned that they don't purchase organic because it is better for them, they shop organic because it is good for the environment. It seems, however, that this claim may not live up to further scrutiny.

The second, and less widely reported organic story of the week is a study by Oxford University scientists which suggests that while organic farming is good for biodiversity, it does not necessarily have a lower impact on the environment than conventional food production.

The Oxford study, published in the Journal of Environmental Management, is a meta-analysis of 71 peer-reviewed studies conducted in Europe. The authors report that "whilst organic farming almost always supports more biodiversity and generally has a positive wider environmental impact per unit of land, it does not necessarily have a positive impact per unit of production."

The study showed that organic production generally needed less energy, but more land than the same amount of conventional produce. While biodiversity was 30% higher on organic farms, the production of organic milk, cereals and pork all generated more greenhouse gases than the conventional alternative.

"Many people think that organic farming has intrinsically lower environmental impacts than conventional farming but the published literature tells us this is not the case," said Dr Hanna Tuomisto, who led the research at Oxford University's Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU). "Whilst some organic farming practices do have less environmental impact than conventional ones, the published evidence suggests that others are actually worse for some aspects of the environment. People need to realise that an "organic" label is not a straightforward guarantee of the most environmentally-friendly product".

an organic stamp should not be seen as the pinnacle of achievement in terms of sustainable food production What these two studies clearly show is that an organic stamp should not be seen as the pinnacle of achievement in terms of sustainable food production. On the other hand there are clearly some advantages of growing organically - increased biodiversity on farms and a decreased use and exposure to pesticides being just two highlighted in these studies. While these are positives, as conventional agriculture slowly moves away from the worst excesses of pesticide use, the importance of purely organic production may wane.

I've long argued for a third way - an agricultural system based on science where what works and is safe from all systems of agriculture can be used together to get the best results for growers, consumers and the environment.

If organic farming is to remain relevant in an era of growing food insecurity, it must be based on rigorous science and clear evidence. The organic sector must also begin to pick its battles. Organic is not the answer to all of the worlds problems. It does however have real contributions to make in terms of biodiversity and sustainable pest management.

The future of agriculture

A new report has highlighted the effect a rapidly growing human population is having on the world’s economy and environment. In the wide-ranging People and the Planet report, the Royal Society says that science and technology has a crucial role to play in offsetting these effects, including in the area of agricultural production.

According to the report, published this week, the global population will have reached 9.3 billion by the year 2050. While recognising the significant yield increases that have (and will be) achieved via the genetic improvement of crop plants, the authors also called for a focus on better crop management practices: “These include integrated pest control and inter-cropping systems, in addition to capital-intensive technologies such as precision agriculture which may offer large benefits in countries already practising intensive agriculture”.

The report recognises that technology will play “an increasing role” if more food is to be grown without requiring significantly more natural ecosystems to be turned over to farmland. 

So, if yield is so important, is there a future for organic agriculture? I’d argue yes, but as part of a new system which incorporates the best features of all agricultural ideals.

The Royal Society report comes as new research further confirmed the yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture but has shown that, given the right crop and growing conditions, organic can "nearly" match conventional yields.

Organic systems provide a number of tangible benefits over conventional agriculture, despite having generally lower yields. However, given the need for some crops, particularly cereals to keep pace with rapidly growing demand, the gap between that which can be provided by organic systems and which is required by a rapidly increasing global population is growing. 

In a paper published in the journal Nature this week, US and Canadian researchers used a meta-analysis of available information to conclude that, on average, organic yields are 25% lower than those produced in conventional agriculture. 

Depending on the type of crop examined, yield gaps varied significantly. For example, organic fruit production had, on average, just 3% lower yields than conventional fruit production. On the other hand, cereal production was seriously hampered by an organic system, with a yield reduction of 26% compared to conventional cereals, i.e. those produced with chemical pesticides and fertilisers.

The researchers showed that organic systems performed better in terms of yields, without matching conventional agriculture, when high levels of organic nitrogen were present, the organic system was well established and rain-fed irrigation systems were used.

Correct soil pH and the use of best management practices also influenced the yield gap, leading the authors to conclude that the results “suggest that today’s organic systems may nearly rival conventional yields in some cases—with particular crop types, growing conditions and management practices—but often they do not."

These new results support a study published earlier this year which also demonstrated a significant yield gap between organic and conventional. Researchers in The Netherlands used a meta-analysis to show that the yield gap was, on average, 20% in favour of conventional systems. 

These data should encourage further research in organic agricultural systems. The amount of research done on organic is tiny compared to conventional crop production. It is reasonable then to assume that, while perhaps never reaching the maximum yields possible with conventional systems, the advantages of organic, including biodiversity and soil conservation benefits should encourage us to look more closely at this type of agriculture.

the key will be to move away from the hard-line ideology of an organic versus conventional debate In my view, the key will be to move away from the hard-line ideology of an organic versus conventional debate and look to examine what features of all agricultural systems could be utilised in a multi-faceted approach, using complementary ideas from each camp. The importance of creating and maintaining high levels of soil biodiversity, such a crucial component of organic agriculture needs to be recognised in any new system. Conversely, the limiting factor that low levels of nitrogen in organic systems poses needs to be overcome. 

As the authors of this new research put it, there should not be winners and losers in this debate. The result should be a combination of what is best about organic and conventional crop production:

"There are many factors to consider in balancing the benefits of organic and conventional agriculture, and there are no simple ways to determine a clear ‘winner’ for all possible farming situations. However, instead of continuing the ideologically charged ‘organic versus conventional’ debate, we should systematically evaluate the costs and benefits of different management options. In the end, to achieve sustainable food security we will probably need many different techniques—including organic, conventional, and possible ‘hybrid’ systems—to produce more food at affordable prices, ensure livelihoods for farmers, and reduce the environmental costs of agriculture."

We need a new agriculture- one which is not limited by ideology but is informed by science and which is relevant for an era of a rapidly growing human population and an ever increasing demand for food and food security.

An edited version of this article appears on the Guardian's Notes and Theories blog. You can read it here.

"Plant Science has never been more important"

The work of Plant Scientists is crucial to our long-term survival, according to a hard-hitting letter by an international group of botanists and crop scientists published this week.

After an online consultation, the authors have drawn up a list of 100 important questions that urgently need to be addressed by the next generation of plant biologists.

"Plant science has never been more important" the authors state. Global challenges including the production of abundant safe and nutritious food, shelter, clothes, fibre and renewable energy can only be met, according to the authors, "in the context of a strong fundamental understanding of plant biology and ecology, and translation of this knowledge into field-based solutions".

In order to see what questions plant scientists should be considering, the authors compiled a list of 100 important questions facing plant science research.

The top-ten questions are:

• How do we feed our children's children?

• Which crops must be grown and which sacrificed, to feed the billions?

• How can we deliver higher yields but at the same time reduce environmental impact of agriculture?

• What are the best ways to control invasive species of plants, pests and pathogens?

• Should GM crops require special regulation?

• How can plants curb global warming?

• How do plants contribute to maintaining human life on earth?

• What will be the new scientific approaches central to plant biology in the coming century?

• How do we ensure that society appreciates the importance of plants and how can we attract the "best and brightest" into plant science?

• How do we make sure sound science informs policy decisions?

"Plant science is central to addressing many of the most important questions facing humanity", the authors conclude. The importance of plants also extends well beyond agriculture and horticulture as we "face declining  solid fuel reserves, climate change, and a need for more sustainable methods to produce fuel, fibre, wood and industrial feedstocks".

The authors note that training new plant scientists is essential given the central role they will play in the future:
"As plant science becomes increasingly important, we need to attract the brightest and best to careers in plant research. School education does not include the most interesting or relevant aspects of plant science, and discourages young people from studying the subject at university. This is indefensible in a world with such a strong requirement for outstanding plant scientists, and steps should be taken to put it right".

The authors are clear on the importance of plant science research and future plant scientists:
“Everyone knows that we need doctors, and the idea that our best and brightest should go into medicine is embedded in our culture.  However, even more important than medical care is the ability to survive from day to day; this requires food, shelter, clothes, and energy, all of which depend on plants.

“Plant scientists are tackling many of the most important challenges facing humanity in the twenty-first century, including climate change, food security, and fossil fuel replacement.  Making the best possible progress will require exceptional people.  We need to radically change our culture so that ‘plant scientist’ (or, if we can rehabilitate the term, ‘botanist’) can join ‘doctor’, ‘vet’ and ‘lawyer’ in the list of top professions to which our most capable young people aspire.”

You can read the letter, published in the New Phytologist here.

Government needs to fund agri-education properly

In the next seven weeks, politicians from all parties will turn up at your day looking for your vote. I know I'll be asking them all about their commitment to education.

It's worrying then, to see the effect that cutbacks are having on Ireland's agricultural development agency Teagasc and particularly on their educational remit.

Despite the Irish food industry having a bumper year, Prof. Gerry Boyle, Teagasc Director, says that they have had turn away 250 young farmers because they don't have the staff to train them.

Speaking to the Irish Examiner, Prof. Boyle explains the effect the governments moratorium on recruitment is having: "We had around 150 contract advisors, but they have all been let go. We are down to around 240 advisors from our previous level of 400.

"As for teaching and lecturing staff, you can get by without staff in some areas, but not without teachers...Agri is being treated differently to other areas in education. For the life of me, I don't understand that.

"We have had to turn away about 250 students due to the moratorium. While I recognise that there is a need to reduce numbers in the public sector, there is a need to ring-fence specialist roles.

"We are under-resourced in beef where applied research is concerned. We need a stronger genetics input. Plant pathology is a crucial competence in managing disease resistance, but we don't even have one plant pathologist".

All this, when Bord Bia is reporting how huge an impact food and agriculture had on the Irish economy last year. Food and drink exports was worth €7.9 billion to Ireland in 2010 and that figure is set to grow again.

Aiden Cotter, Bord Bia Chief Executive was upbeat in his assessment: "In a year in which the world’s population will reach seven billion, growth in global demand is set to underpin food markets well into the future".

If this, or any government is committed to a national recovery, they must realise that food and agriculture is already at the centre of that recovery. While savings in the public sector must be made, it is not in our long term interest to stop training those farmers will be part of that recovery. Maybe mention that to the politicians when they call.

Agriculture: Here are the questions...now what are the answers?

A multidisciplinary team of 55 agricultural and food experts from 23 countries have come together to identify the 100 "Questions of Importance" to the Future of world agriculture.

Dr. Colin Sage, from UCC's Department of Geography was the sole contibutor from Ireland.

"We need to build greater resilience and adaptability into the global food system and that is likely to involve giving more serious attention to encouraging shifts in patterns of consumption as well as to finding ways of producing more food more sustainably" said Dr. Sage.

The authors began with an initial list of 618 questions before reducing them to the top 100 over a year long period. Thirteen themes were identified as priority to global agriculture and food production.

These themes include "Climate, watersheds, water resources and aquatic ecosystems" as well as a theme on "Crop genetic improvement" and "Consumption patterns and health".

The report was published in the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability and is free to download here.

Organic veg no more nutritious

New research from Denmark shows that there are no significant health benefits to be had from eating organic vegetable compared to conventionally-grown vegetables.

The researchers examined the nutritional contents of carrots, onions and potatoes grown under both regimes and in particular, they looked at the concentrations of polyphenol antioxidant compounds such as flavonoids and phenolic acids- compounds which are believed to reduce the risk of dementia, cardiovascular disease and some cancers.

The results of the study, published in The Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry show that in onions and carrots, there was no difference in the amount of these compounds between conventionally and organically grown crops; while in potatoes there was a small increase in organically grown potatoes.

The researchers point out that the slight increase in the potato samples may be due to these plants being grown on a different farm.

As reported in an interview in this morning's Irish Examiner, Grace Maher of the Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association claimed that this was "an isolated study" and that their research showed that people bought organic because "it is free from pesticides, free from GM materials...we also believe that organic food is more nutritious."

Despite what people might "believe", the evidence that organic food is no more nutritious has been shown previously.

A study in July 2009 by the UK Food Standards Agency showed that there was no significant differences in nutrition between organic and conventionally grown plants. So, the idea that this is an "isolated study" is incorrect.

The incorrect assumption that organically-grown produce tastes better than other foods has also been disproved by a team of Irish researchers.

As reported on this blog earlier this year, scientists based in Dublin Institute of Technology have shown that a panel of consumer tasters could find no significant difference between organic and non-organic potatoes.

As I've pointed out here in the past, while there may be some environmental benefits in "going organic" the effect on the food itself and on consumer health seems to be in some dispute.

Why I don't believe Organic is always best

It's that time of year again. Fresh coats of paint are being applied to university walls and the place is being given a good polish to make sure it's spick and span before the undergraduate students return to the hallowed halls of academia.

While preparing some 2nd-year lectures for the coming term I was struck by an interesting trend which has emerged.

Every year, I begin a module on Plant Biotechnology by putting the raw facts on global hunger in front of the students. In large, bold lettering I display a figure representing the number of people worldwide who the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation say are suffering from hunger or are undernourished.

For the last 15 years (and I haven't been teaching that long!) this figure has grown steadily up to a record of 1.02 billion people last year (the highest number in four decades). So, every year I'd diligently delete the old number and put in the new one. It's such a quick task to take care of that it often fades into the background with all the other updates and changes that I'm making to the module.

However, perhaps we need to pause a little and think of the people behind the figures. Last year, for example, I changed the figure from around 800 million to that staggering 1 billion figure. When you really think about it, that is horrific. In the space of 12 months, 200 million MORE people slipped into such poverty that they were unable to feed themselves and their families properly.

The relatively good news is that this year's report, released this week shows the first decline in this headline figure for 15 years. Today, 925 million people are undernourished worldwide.

This week also marks National Organic Week 2010 and while I have no problem with buying organic as it has significant positive impacts on the agricultural environments; improving soil health and biodiversity, etc., one has to admit that it is a niche market which is a luxury of well-off, developed nations and does little to support those 925 million people on the UN list.

I'm not trying to apportion blame here, and global hunger has much to do with politics and warfare as well as agriculture. Organic food is, by and large, good, healthy, safely produced food, but so is non-organically prodced food. The difference is, yields with organic foods are so low that they must be more expensive and in limited supply.

If human undernourishment is to be tackled, it will be done by supporting farmers to produce food in developing countries using the best, most high-yielding technologies that are available to them. Yes, that will include such organic methods such as good crop rotation, incorporation of nutrient-rich organic matter and the maintenance of high levels of biodiversity to encourage natural biocontrol systems.

However, it may well also include the safe and controlled use of chemical herbicides and pesticides to control weeds and pest species and the use of improved plant varieties with high yields and the ability to grow under adverse conditions.

The onset of global climate change will require new plant varieties which can grow under different conditions: high temperature, high levels of moisture, high salt stress, etc. Some of these new varieties may well be genetically modified.

So, as I see it, one of the solutions to this problem is to use all available farming approaches from organic to GM. There is no reason why a combination of techniques shouldn't be used if that is what it takes to reduce that terrible figure even further.

Global Hunger 2010, Source: UN FAO

Poisoning hampers re-introduction efforts

In what has been described as the worst spate of poisoning in recent years, 10 protected birds of prey including three Red Kites, two White-tailed Eagles, a Golden Eagle, three Buzzards and a Peregrine Falcon have been confirmed poisoned in the Republic of Ireland.

Two Red Kites and a Peregrine were found dead in Co. Wicklow, a third Red Kite released in Northern Ireland was found dead in Co. Kildare, a Golden Eagle in Co. Leitrim, and Buzzards in west Waterford, east Cork and Donegal (one of which recovered from poisoning) . All of these were poisoned by ingesting meat baits laced with Alphachloralose.

Within the last few weeks two White-tailed Eagles were found dead near Beaufort, Co. Kerry. Toxicology analyses at the State Laboratory in Celbridge, Co. Kildare, and the SASA lab, Edinburgh, Scotland, confirmed that both eagles had been poisoned by Carbofuran, a substance previously used as a pesticide but now illegal in Ireland. Searches of land in the Beaufort area located a dead lamb, a raven also poisoned by Carbofuran, as well as other livestock in various stages of decomposition.

A male White-tailed Eagle released in Killarney National Park in 2008 was found in the River Laune near Beaufort by Stewart Stephens, Laune Angling Club, on 4 April and recovered the following day. A second male White-tailed Eagle, released in 2007 was found on land in Beaufort on 12 April. Both eagles were in excellent condition and had been surviving well in the wild for 2-3 years until poisoned. One eagle had been feeding on the carcass of a sheep when it died as wool was found in the crop along with meat. An investigation is ongoing by the Department of Agriculture and Gardaí in Killarney.

"The older male could have been one of the first birds to breed in the wild in Ireland in over 100 years""The loss of a further two White-tailed Eagles at this time is devastating", said Dr. Allan Mee, Manager of the White-tailed Eagle Reintroduction Project in Kerry. "The older male could have been one of the first birds to breed in the wild in Ireland in over 100 years had it survived. That it was in such good condition at the time of its death makes its loss even more tragic. We know that eagles can thrive in Kerry if given the chance but indiscriminate poisoning is literally killing our chances of re-establishing a population here" he added.

The deaths of these two birds brings to 13 the total number of White-tailed Eagles found dead, seven of which have now been confirmed poisoned, all in Co. Kerry. Fifty-five birds have been released in Kerry since 2007. "The loss of the older male is particularly hard to take because we have now lost 7 of the 15 eagles released in 2007. Year by year we are losing most of the oldest birds that could be breeding in a few years. Many of the birds have been finding sources of fish in the rivers and lakes for the first time this year which is a really positive sign. Unfortunately even birds that are intent on fishing along our rivers don't escape the threat of poisoning. If there is a carcass laced with poison in fields nearby eventually one of the eagles will be drawn to it. We can't fully protect these birds unless we stop indiscriminate poisoning" Mee added.

Despite this threat many eagles have travelled the length and breadth of the country, including at least three birds that travelled to Scotland and back, without being harmed. "One male White-tailed Eagle travelled to the Orkney Islands off the north coast of Scotland and back over an eight month period. Another satellite tracked eagles called Fiadhna (after 9 year old Fiadhna Tangney in the Black Valley) left Killarney after release in August 2009 and has now visited 28 of the 32 counties in Ireland" Mee commented.

"The future for the reintroduction is cooperation and mutual respect"After spending the winter in the Antrim hills, Fiadhna moved west into Donegal then back east to the Sperrin Mountains, travelled on to the Cooley peninsula in Louth, before crossing west to the midlands. She then headed south to Kerry but then crossed into Clare and on to Connemara before heading east to Wicklow. In the last few weeks she returned to Northern Ireland and is now back in the Antrim Hills. "It is heartening to know that Fiadhna can cross the country and roost and feed on literally hundreds of farms in many counties without coming to any harm. To my mind this shows that the vast majority of farmers respect nature and do not use poisons. Just the other day we had a phone call from a farmer in Antrim who was happy to report that Fiadhna was back on the same farm she left months ago. The future for the reintroduction is cooperation and mutual respect between ourselves and the farming communities that eagles inhabit" Mee added.

Cooperation and support from the donor country, Norway, has been critical to the success of the White-tailed Eagle reintroduction in Kerry. However, the continuing loss of eagles to poisoning has cast a shadow over the future of this ambitious programme. The Directorate for Nature Management in Norway has supported the reintroduction programme to reestablish the White-tailed Eagle as a breeding bird in Ireland. Permits to collect up to 20 fledglings per year from Norway during 2007-2009 have been issued given that the population in Norway is a healthy and growing population, and based on the reports on Ireland still being a well suited area for the species. The Directorate of Nature Management is concerned to learn about the casualties caused by illegal poisoning. In Norway there is no evidence that White-tailed eagle predates on livestock.

The Directorate believes that the Irish authorities will take the necessary steps to correct this situation, and give the White-tailed eagle a future in Ireland.

Of three poisoned Red Kites found in the last month, a female found in Kildare had been released in Co. Down in 2008 as part of a reintroduction programme in Northern Ireland managed by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The RoI Reintroduction in Co. Wicklow is managed by the Golden Eagle Trust in partnership with the Department of the Environment, Heritage, and Local Government. Although some Red Kites from Wicklow and Co. Down have crossed the border in past years, this is the first kite from Northern Ireland to be found poisoned in the Republic.

Robert Straughan, Red Kite Project Officer commented "The RSPB are seeking a coordinated approach between all relevant statutory and non-statutory organisations to tackling crimes against birds of prey in Northern Ireland. The death of one of our red kites in the Republic also highlights the need for us to co-ordinate our efforts cross-border.

In NI, the new Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill will introduce tougher fines and custodial sentences for those committing crimes against wildlife, and we are also seeking an amendment to the Bill to make it an offence to possess certain pesticides. This would close a legal loophole which allows an individual to possess highly toxic chemicals for which they could have no legitimate use other than to commit an offence of poisoning animals or birds.

Political support has been demonstrated by MLAs, including Environment Minister Edwin Poots, who signed our pledge to stop illegal killing of birds of prey, which gathered over 200,000 signatures as part of RSPB's Birds of Prey campaign. The Ulster Farmers' Union have also demonstrated their support for our Red Kite project by including a red kite in their newly re-designed logo".

"All the evidence points to Alphachloralose being the poison of choice"Two Red Kites were found also dead in Co. Wicklow in mid-March. One was found floating in the sea off Wicklow Head by members of the RNLI. A second bird was found by a member of the public on a road in west Wicklow. Initially both birds were thought to have died from natural causes but tests revealed toxic levels of Alphachloralose, a narcotic used to target crows and foxes. "All the evidence we have points to Alphachloralose being the number one poison of choice in use today and the most prevalent toxin threatening the viability of the Red Kite reintroduction in Wicklow", said Damian Clarke, Project Manager for the Golden Eagle Trust. "Despite the fact that it has been banned for some years in the UK we still continue to allow its production and use in Ireland. This is unsustainable and we have a duty to afford Kites from Northern Ireland the same protection as in the UK", Clarke added.

Although the use of poison on meat baits for the control of crows was banned in 2008, the use of meat baits to kill foxes is still permitted under current regulations (Protection of Animals Act 1965). This loophole has allowed the continued use of poison and continue to pose a huge threat to our native birds of prey. However, an amendment to the Wildlife Act which will outlaw all use of poison on meat baits is imminent. In addition, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food fails to ensure that farmers, who are in receipt of direct payments (Single Farm Payment and Rural Environmental Protection Scheme) under the EU Common Agricultural Policy, comply with the Cross Compliance Policy and that they duly implement the Statutory Management Requirements in respect of the obligation not to harm Annex 1 birds of prey (which are protected under the Birds Directive). The Golden Eagle Trust is calling on the Department of Agriculture to initiate immediate farm inspections where poisoning is found to occur.

The ongoing use of toxins in the Irish Agri-Food industry will in time begin to tarnish the very valuable image of natural clean Irish food products especially in foreign markets. The Irish farming sector quite rightly highlights the very highest environmental standards our farmers follow. But the growing evidence of illegal use of poison by a tiny minority of sheep farmers is a gross contradiction of this valuable marketing tool used by an Bord Bia and others. Using poisons tarnishes the clean, green image that the Irish agri-food sector has built its reputation on.

The fact that the vast majority of farmers successfully produce food without recourse to poisons begs the question why a small minority can undermine the good image of Irish food production and rural development by using poison. Likewise, poisoning does nothing to enhance the image of the Irish countryside which is important to the tourism industry. On the contrary, ecotourism including wildlife tourism and eagle watching safaris bring in over 2 million pounds annually to the economy of Mull in western Scotland and have the potential to be an important additional selling point in Kerry where eagle tourism is just taking off. Visitor numbers at Glenveagh National Park have increased over the past few years and the resident Golden Eagles have proved to be an important attraction to the public

This report originally appeared on the website of the Golden Eagle Thrust.