Calls for review of dribble bar exclusion in TAMS 3
Following the confirmation that the dribble bar will not be aided under (Targeted Agriculture Modernisation Schemes) TAMS 3, Minister for Agriculture, Food and Marine Charlie McConalogue has been called upon to review this decision.
This call has come from the Irish Farmers' Association (IFA) national rural development chair John Curran, who stated that the association has been seeking for the dribble bar to be re-instated as an eligible investment item under TAMS 3 since before it was launched.
"It was there in TAMS 2, and was very popular among farmers,” Curran said.
In response to a parliamentary question from Sinn Féin TD Matt Carthy, Minister McConalogue confirmed that dribble bars will not be included in the current TAMS programme (TAMS 3) due to apparent differences between how much emissions are saved versus the alternative trailing shoe technology.
The minister told Carthy: “Due to the emissions reduction differential between dribble bars and trailing shoes, and the need to meet Ireland’s national ammonia ceiling under the national emissions ceiling directive, I have decided that the dribble bar will not be available for grant aid under TAMS 3.”
The IFA national rural development chair said: “We all know the ammonia and emissions challenges we face as a sector, so not having the full complement of technologies grant-aided under TAMS 3 is baffling. The trailing shoe just isn’t suitable for all farms, most especially those on heavy or hilly farms.”
"It’s an own-goal not having the dribble bar and others such as the Moscha swivel spout grant-aided. We need to be offering more and a range of innovative options here, not restricting them.
“Many lower stocked and smaller-scale farms will need to use LESS [Low Emission Slurry Spreading] from January 1, yet the department is grant-aiding the trailing shoe only, discounting the dribble bar and the 30% reduction in emissions it brings relative to the traditional splash-plate.
“The dribble bar costs less, suits more farmers, and is safer for many, while also delivering emission reductions, so the decision to omit it is illogical and Minister McConalogue must review this decision,” he added.
“Otherwise, the minister and his department officials need to come to the table with other forms of grant-aid support for the smaller scaled or upland farmer.
"What they have at the minute simply isn’t fit for purpose. It’s cost-prohibitive. Being forced to rely on agricultural contractors isn’t a sustainable solution either, for either party,” Curran added.
