Will there be speaking time for us today?
TB Eradication Programme: Discussion
An Cathaoirleach: Before we begin, I bring to the attention of the witnesses giving evidence that witnesses who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that they have full defence in any defamation action for anything said at the committee meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on the issue at the Chair's discretion. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as far as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity.
Witnesses who are to give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as those giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts, and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on the matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by them outside of the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.
Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticize or make charges against either a person outside the House or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to the utterances of members participating online in the committee meeting where their participation is from within the parliamentary precincts. Members may not participate online in a public meeting from outside the parliamentary precincts. Any attempt to do so will result in the member having their online access removed.
TB is a major concern for many farmers and for members. We want it to be one of the first topics we discussed. The agenda for the meeting is the examination of TB eradication. The committee is going to hear from officials from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine: Mr. Conor O'Mahony, principal officer, ERAD division and veterinary medicines and Dr. Damien Barrett, senior superintending veterinary inspector. The committee will also hear from Mr. Michael Cronin, chairman of the TB 2030 Stakeholder Forum.
There will.
How many minutes will we have?
We have 75 minutes between 14 members, and that will work out at approximately five minutes per member.
I propose four minutes per member to allow everyone to get in, in case members go over time.
I second that.
I will allow for four minutes, and that includes the question and the answer.
It includes the answer.
I will take names and I will follow the rota.
We have indicated already.
Bear with me a moment and we will get started.
Are we all guaranteed the chance to speak?
The aim is there will be time for everybody.
I ask for a guarantee.
The time is there for everybody to be able to speak.
I ask for a guarantee, that is all.
We will start with Mr. O’Mahony followed by Mr. Cronin. They have five minutes each to read their opening statements. They have been circulated. They can give a brief synopsis if they wish, and then we will proceed to the questions and answers.
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
I thank the Cathaoirleach, Deputies and Senators for inviting the Department to appear before them. I am joined by Dr. Damien Barrett, senior superintending veterinary inspector and together we are responsible for development of policy regarding implementation of the TB eradication programme. We are also joined by Mr. Michael Cronin, chairman of the TB forum. We welcome the opportunity to appear before the committee to discuss the eradication of bovine TB.
The Department is aware of the financial and emotional stress associated with a TB breakdown on farmers and their families and is committed to the objectives of the current TB eradication programme, which aims to reduce and, ultimately, eradicate this disease in Ireland.
From time to time, a narrative develops that our objective should be to control TB due to the failure, thus far, to eradicate it. It is important to stress that, aside from our EU obligation to have an eradication programme and the importance of this programme to our export partners throughout the world, the actions we need to focus on and implement are the same whether the goal is to control or eradicate this disease.
Unfortunately, the prevailing disease situation has not improved in recent years despite the best combined efforts of the Department and its stakeholders. As of 8 June, almost 6,500 herds had suffered a TB breakdown in the previous 12 months compared to just over 5,200 in the same period last year. Data analysis suggests the reasons underpinning this are the expansion of the dairy herd, resulting in increased levels of intensive cattle farming, and the increased movement of cattle. These conditions are associated with heightened susceptibility to disease, whether that be TB or any other infectious disease. We have also seen a substantial increase in the number of reactors, with just under 43,000 reactors being disclosed in the past 12 months in comparison to just under 32,000 in the previous 12 months, an increase of 35%. In addition, almost 10 million individual animal tests were carried out in the 12-month period up to 8 June 2025 compared to approximately 9.9 million tests in the previous 12-month period.
Tuberculosis is a challenging disease to control and eradicate due to several factors and the relative contribution of each of these factors will vary from farm to farm. The factors include: movement of cattle with undetected infection; residual or leftover infection in cattle previously exposed to TB; the inherent limitations of the tests; a reservoir of disease in a protected species, namely the badger; and inadequate biosecurity practices.
It is important that farmers be empowered to make the best choices for their own circumstances to protect their cattle from TB. It is critical that they be given practical advice based on scientific research about how they can reduce their own TB risk as well as relevant, useful information about their own herds and farming practices so that they can make any management changes that may be necessary if they wish to avoid the costs and stress of a TB breakdown. This includes making informed decisions about the purchase of cattle and maintaining good overall herd health. The advice on how to reduce TB risk in a herd has remained generally consistent over many years and we continue to encourage farmers to act on it, utilising a broader range of communication tools. Stakeholder endorsement of this advice is hugely important in encouraging farmers to take proactive steps to reduce their own TB risk.
Although wildlife plays a role in the spread of TB, there are more significant risks, including bovine-to-bovine transmission and residual infection. Nonetheless, the Department's wildlife programme is a critical part of the TB programme and comprises a combination of vaccination and culling, depending on the area and prevailing disease situation in that area. Vaccinating badgers is an important component of the programme, reduces the transmission of TB within the badger population and thereby reduces transmission to cattle. This protects cattle and reduces losses to farmers while at the same time safeguarding a native protected Irish wild species. Scientific research carried out in Ireland over many years has demonstrated the effectiveness of badger vaccination. The culling of badgers is carried out in areas of high disease incidence as well as areas where the source of an outbreak is attributed to badgers.
Using a range of means, the Department provides information and advice on the practical steps farmers can take to reduce the risk from badgers, including social media posts, SMS texts, videos, leaflets and farmer meetings. By combining these practical farmer-led risk reduction actions with the policy of vaccination to prevent breakdowns and targeted licensed badger removal where necessary in response to spillover from badgers to cattle, we can greatly mitigate the risk of TB at the wildlife-cattle interface.
The Irish deer management strategy group was established to develop a strategy for the sustainable management of deer in Ireland and published its report in December 2023. Following a public procurement competition, Farm Relief Services was awarded a contract for the role of programme manager to implement the recommendations of this group. The programme manager will help deliver 15 local deer management units, which is a key recommendation of the deer management strategy group report aimed at tackling the impact of deer in the areas of the country most vulnerable to the impact of overgrazing of deer and the consequences of this across a range of issues.
We are tight on time. Mr. O'Mahony's presentation will have been circulated to members. I call Mr. Cronin to make the second opening statement, for five minutes.
Mr. Michael Cronin
I thank the Chairman for inviting me to present at this session of the Oireachtas committee.
In 2018, the Government approved a proposal from the then Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Mr. Michael Creed, to commit to the eradication of TB by 2030. The stated ambition of the Government at the time was to eradicate bovine TB from the national herd by 2030. This was a lofty goal, but one that all felt strongly would be a great achievement if it were possible.
Part of the Government's enhanced commitment to eradication of TB by 2030 involved the establishment of a TB stakeholder's forum tasked with proposing policies to help achieve eradication within the timeframe as outlined. I was appointed chairman of the forum at that time. The TB forum is made up of representatives from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, farming organisations, the veterinary profession, the agrifood industry, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, and the farming and research communities of UCD and Teagasc. We first met in September 2018 and we had three consultative papers that included governance, policy, and cost and benefits. These papers were put forward by the Department to inform the forum's initial deliberations. During 2019 and early 2020, we considered many options for strengthening the TB programme. The policy analysis papers informed the discussions we had during that period. The work of the forum in this period resulted in a series of recommendations, which were central to the development of the strategy document that was launched by the then Minister, Deputy McConalogue, in early 2021.
The Covid event of 2020 and 2021 delayed our work. However, huge efforts were made to produce the document at the time.
The proposals that were made to the forum and that were discussed included: provisions of biosecurity advice to farmers; integrated breakdown management and communication; risk-based categorisation of herds; enabling farmers to understand their own TB risk; high incidence action plans; increasing focus on high-risk herds; voluntary informed purchasing; mandatory informed purchasing; risk-based trading; supporting risk-lowering behaviours through incentives; and reducing risks posed by badgers and deer. Each of these proposals received considerable discussion over a number of meetings of the TB forum and the following ones were rejected: voluntary informed purchasing; mandatory informed purchasing; risk-based trading; and supporting risk-lowering behaviours through incentives.
The main elements of the strategy that was set out included working in partnership. The idea of the TB forum was that all stakeholders would work together to come up with strategies to support the goal of eradicating TB from the national herd. EU audits and research related to the TB programme highlighted a lack of stakeholder involvement as a key impediment to achieving eradication. Examples from other jurisdictions, that is, Australia and New Zealand, demonstrated the valuable contribution stakeholders could make to eradication efforts through formal collaborative structures. The TB forum was set up to ensure that the voices of all stakeholders would have a key influence in the TB programme.
The initial task of the forum was to bring forward proposals to develop the strategy. As part of the setting up of the strategy, the forum was supported by the setting up of three working groups: an implementation working group, which is chaired by Dr. Sean Brady; a financial working group chaired by Mr. Gerry Kiely; and a scientific working group, which is chaired by Dr. John Griffin.
Am I all right on time?
Yes.
Mr. Michael Cronin
The second element of the strategy was reducing cattle-to-cattle spread. A strengthening approach to cattle-to-cattle spread was facilitated by a number of new targeted risk-based policies that specifically addressed the risk of recurrence of herds experiencing a restriction significantly in access of the average. The third element was tackling disease transmission via wildlife, that is, badgers and deer, and biosecurity to prevent further spread. The fourth element was high-impact TB plans and specific stakeholders meeting with regional veterinary officers. The fifth element was improved communications. The final element was consideration of the financials around the TB scheme, and this was a major focus of the financial working group. Further to that, there was to be regular monitoring and evaluation of the policies carried out by the implementation working group.
Since the new strategy was set up in 2021, the TB forum has met approximately three times per year. The working groups work alongside the TB forum. Specifically, the scientific working group has carried out a number of very important and valuable scientific reports on behalf of the forum.
The deer forum was set up within the past two years. It has a remit to examine issues affecting sustainable management of wild deer. Part of this remit is the control of deer numbers necessary to prevent the spread of TB from deer to cattle and from cattle to deer. In this regard, the TB forum worked closely with the deer forum. This is now a matter primarily for the deer management forum.
Over the past few years, as the committee will be aware, we have seen a significant increase in TB levels. Over 41,600 reactors were disclosed in 2024, which was a 44 % increase on reactor numbers from 2023. Due to the dramatic increase in TB levels, a number of special meetings-----
I thank Mr. Cronin.
Mr. Michael Cronin
I will be just a couple of minutes, or one minute.
Those are dramatic figures and TB is a highly emotive issue. Members really want to come in.
Mr. Michael Cronin
I will just read the last sentence, if that is okay, because it is important in respect of where we are now.
Please do.
Mr. Michael Cronin
We have had many important meetings in recent times. Following these meetings, at the request of the forum, I wrote to the Minister. I explained the forum had been going through a process of getting agreement on additional measures that needed to be added to the TB programme. I explained there were several areas where agreement could be reached to enhance the programme, but there were also several other areas where there were considerable gaps between stakeholder views on the future direction required of the programme. In my letter to the Minister, I expressed the opinion that given the urgent need for change to the TB programme, I did not believe agreement on additional measures would be reached by the TB forum alone in the time required to address the continuing unprecedented levels of disease. Since then, the Minister has held a number of high-level meetings with the farming organisations and Department officials. I understand that deliberations on these meetings are expected to be announced shortly. I thank the Chair.
I thank Mr. Cronin. The opening statements have been circulated and will form part of the minutes of the meeting. TB is a hugely emotive issue for many people and members wish to get clarity on the different proposals and have a range of questions to pose. I will call the members in the order they indicated, starting with Senator Boyhan.
I welcome Mr. Michael Cronin, the chair of the TB forum, and Mr. O'Mahony from the Department of agriculture. We have read their statements and have them in front of us. We have had time to tease them out. If Mr. Cronin will forgive me, I will concentrate on directing one or two key questions to Mr. O'Mahony from the Department. I suppose there were really only two key takeaways from his statement. I am concentrating on his statement rather than on suggestions, speculations, media commentary or other commentary about TB. In Mr. O'Mahony's opening statement, he states, this is interesting in itself:
The Minister recognis[ed] the economic and emotional burden of TB on farmers their families and the impact on the output of the agri-food sector with lost production at farm and processor level and our rural economy [and] accepted the need for urgent and decisive action.
This is to be welcomed because it has a major emotional impact on people, families, incomes and a whole range of other issues. It is important that this has been put on the public record now. Mr. O'Mahony is quoted as stating the Minister accepted the need for urgent and decisive action and we need to see timelines in this regard. I will leave this with Mr. O'Mahony.
The second point is the overall cost to the Exchequer. This is an interesting issue. The overall cost to the Exchequer of the TB programme, excluding staff costs, has increased from a full-year cost of €57 million in 2023 to over €100 million in 2024 and is on track to increase further in 2025. We know a lot of this increase has been driven by the cost of the compensation package, but these are figures that awaken us. Ultimately, however, compensation has to be compensation and there has to be an acknowledgement of everybody's responsibility. This is an important point to put on the record.
The only thing that really jumped off the page for me, to again quote from Mr. O'Mahony's statement placed before this committee, was "The new proposals once agreed set out how the Department and stakeholders will continue to engage on the issues impacting on TB levels in Ireland, which will involve some difficult choices." I have a simple question. Will Mr. O'Mahony please outline what he has in mind there? He clearly committed those words to paper. What is he thinking about in this regard or what are the Department's thoughts in relation to this statement? I refer to "some difficult choices" having to be made. Can he share the thinking with the committee?
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
I thank the Senator. I will answer his questions but regarding the costs, the quickest way to reduce the cost to the Exchequer is to drive down disease levels. As the Senator said, the biggest driver of compensation is the number of reactor animals. In the choices referred to in terms of going forward, they are targeting reducing disease levels, which will impact not just the cost to the Exchequer but, as the Senator said, the economic impact to rural economies and the emotional impact our staff on the ground see every day when they are dealing with farmers unfortunate enough to have a TB breakdown.
Regarding the choices or what will be contained in this plan, the Minister has engaged significantly with farming organisations in recent weeks, including significant face-to-face engagement. He listened to feedback from the farmer organisations and other stakeholders on those days and he is now reflecting on considering how to move forward with proposals. While those considerations are still ongoing, it is fair to say the concentration of the measures will include supporting farmers free of TB to continue to be free of TB, supporting on-farm biosecurity actions and behaviours farmers can engage in and allowing them to see a path outwards for herds currently restricted. There is also a need to look again at how we use TB testing on farms to target residual infection, because we are seeing these residual infections, essentially left over after a test, crop up in future repeated breakdowns. How this manifests itself in terms of on-farm controls and the specifics of it are issues still being considered by the Minister. These are, however, the key areas. Essentially, this is about ensuring farmers are not put in a position where they go out to buy animals and inadvertently, through no fault of their own, buy in an animal considered to be at a higher risk of introducing TB than others.
I thank Mr. O'Mahony. I am conscious of time and my key question is on timelines. What is the timeline for this process? Time is not on our side. What timelines does Mr. O'Mahony or the Minister have in mind? Can he share them with the committee?
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
In essence, the timeline for this to happen is as soon as possible.
When will that be? Can we get an indication of the timeline?
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
Until those measures are fully agreed and the Minister lays them out, it will not be possible to put a timeline on them because the final decisions have not been made. It is very much intended, however, that these measures will be implemented. As the Senator said himself, time is critical and of the essence here. It is not about launching a series of measures and then not having a plan behind them. It is very much envisaged, though, that once these measures are fully agreed, the timeline behind them will be put in place as soon as is practical. This will require some IT work in the Department, but it will be treated as a priority.
I thank Mr. O'Mahony.
Before I call Deputy Cleere, to clarify the timeline, is this for putting together the plan or for putting it into effect?
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
It is both-----
I ask this because 2030 is the original target and the Department is pretty much on the back foot in this regard already.
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
Yes, but I do not think we can with any degree of confidence state we are going to eradicate TB by 2030 given current disease levels. In terms of the timeline for the Minister to launch this plan and then concerning implementing it, the focus is immediate.
Okay. I call Deputy Cleere.
I am very conscious of time so I will be very specific and brief. Regarding Mr. Cronin's report, he did say there were a number of areas where the TB forum said it could come to agreement, but in what specific areas is there a considerable gap between the views of stakeholders on the future direction of the TB programme?
Mr. Michael Cronin
The gaps are really in the whole area of categorisation. This was one clear area there was difficulty around. It is the main one really. There was also a difficulty in relation to the periods of testing. These were the two main issues we had difficulties with. It was a difficult process to get agreement on all those kinds of things.
Does Mr. Cronin think it is not solvable?
Mr. Michael Cronin
I am not saying it is not solvable but it was not solvable for us as a TB forum in the way we were structured.
Okay. I thank Mr. Cronin for that response. When the initial task of the forum was brought up, three working groups were set up as part of it. There was an implementation working group, a financial working group and a scientific working group. Was consideration ever given to having a working group or something similar that might consider the mental health and anguish farmers might experience when an outbreak of TB hits their farms? It is great having financial and scientific working groups but at the heart and soul of this issue is a farm and a family and this can have a devastating impact.
Mr. Michael Cronin
Deputy Cleere is absolutely right. It was definitely mentioned every so often but there was not a particular focus on it from the perspective of a particular group having been set up to deal with it. It was, though, something that came up many times.
From the perspective of the Department, does it have any financial aspect in this regard? I see the costs concerned have significantly increased, from €57 million in 2023 to more than €100 million in 2024. Is any funding at all earmarked for mental health supports for farmers who experience an outbreak of TB?
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
In the context of the TB programme, our staff-----
I know there is the financial side but I am asking specifically on mental health.
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
We do not have expertise on mental health among our officials in the Department. While we are acutely aware of this and our staff on the ground every day see the impact it has on farmers, we are not mental health experts.
What Mr. O’Mahony is saying to me is that between the Department and the forum, mental health is an afterthought. It is not their area of expertise so they just pass the buck to somebody else.
Dr. Damien Barrett
We are not saying that.
What are you saying?
Dr. Damien Barrett
We are not saying that.
Is there any financial aid to help people get supports from a mental health perspective in the event of the TB outbreak? Yes or no.
Dr. Damien Barrett
Not from the Department of agriculture. The remit of mental health-----
They will have to fend for themselves.
Dr. Damien Barrett
The remit of mental health sits within another Department.
So the Department absolves itself of all responsibility.
Dr. Damien Barrett
We do not absolve ourselves of any responsibility.
It is hand-passed to a different Department.
Dr. Damien Barrett
No, we do not. That is their remit. Our job is to deal with disease in animals, in cattle. It would be quite dangerous for us to veer into that because we are not mental health professionals.
The Department does have a financial group, an implementation group and a scientific group.
Dr. Damien Barrett
We do.
There is nothing there at all.
Dr. Damien Barrett
That is not within our remit.
That is fine. We will pass the buck.
I am conscious of time. With regard to skin or blood tests, which is the more effective test?
Dr. Damien Barrett
It depends on the context. From the point of view of specificity and where testing has thrown up false positives, the skin test is superior. It has a specificity of about 99.95%, which means in reality that about one in every 5,000 is a false positive. The difficulty with the skin test is that the sensitivity is no better than 80%, which means that out of every ten infected cattle, it is not detecting two even when it is performed to a high standard. What we do in practice is that where we know there is cattle-to-cattle transmission, and where we know there is likely to be undetected infection, we then come in with the blood test to augment the sensitivity.
I am sorry for cutting across Dr. Barrett but I have only 30 seconds left. Which is more cost-effective, the skin test or the blood test?
Dr. Damien Barrett
It is not a question of either-or. They have to be used in combination.
Some €57 million was spent in 2023 and €100 million in 2024. What is the forecast cost for 2025 and what is the projection for 2026 and 2027? When discussing timelines earlier, it was indicated that it is not going to be eradicated. What kind of financial cost do we envisage?
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
For the rest of this year, if the current disease levels were to be maintained, we would be expecting approximately €130 million.
What is the estimate for next year?
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
With existing disease levels and existing controls, we would be talking about €170 million or €180 million.
By the end of this programme in 2030, in five years' time, what are we looking at? Is it €250 million?
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
We have not estimated that far in terms of the financial cost.
I welcome the witnesses and thank them for coming in. Of course, TB is a very serious matter. This testing has been going on for 46 years. Is that right?
Dr. Damien Barrett
It is 70 years.
We understand that other countries are now clear. Among the farmers in my neck of the woods, some are blaming deer and others are blaming badgers but, invariably, it is one or the other. It is they that started this thing going. There are some areas where deer are prevalent and other areas where badgers are prevalent. Do the witnesses agree with that?
Dr. Damien Barrett
No, we do not. We have TB in a multi-host system. For the most part, our evidence will show that badgers are the main reservoir of infection in wildlife but we have a multi-host system where it is a combination of infection in badgers and cattle, and we cannot cherry-pick between either. They are the main drivers. Given that we have about 7 million cattle in the country and about 120,000 to 150,000 badgers, based on those figures, the driver of infection is coming from cattle.
I am sorry but I do not agree with that. Certainly, badgers are the carriers.
Dr. Damien Barrett
You are entitled to your opinion, Deputy.
And you are entitled to yours too, of course. This is a very serious matter. The last Deputy referred to mental health and he is right, of course. It is an awful, traumatic experience for someone to have their herd taken, with no animal in the yard and everything gone down the road. It happened to people in the Glenflesk area last year. That was in October, the fall of the year, and the compensation they got in no way could have replaced the number of cows they had. They had to accept that they could only buy a lesser number because cows and all kinds of stock had increased in price. Subsequently, they were not compensated properly. Do the witnesses accept that?
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
The Deputy raised this point the last day when the Minister was here.
I did.
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
If I recall, the reactor animals were for compensation in October. If it is the same farmer as in the example the Deputy gave, he went out to replace them in March or April. We compensate farmers based on the market valuation at the time the animals are removed up to the limits of the scheme. In this case, it was in October and, in the meantime, the market for all animals had taken off. We could only compensate on the value of the animal that would have been received at the market rate at the time it was removed as a reactor, not on what it might cost to replace that animal at a future point in time.
What is the Department going to do? Will the TB injections be stronger? Will there be a stronger dose? Is that going to happen?
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
Is the Deputy talking about the cattle vaccination? I will hand over to my colleague.
Dr. Damien Barrett
We do not have a cattle vaccine available. Does the Deputy mean the tuberculin skin test?
I am referring to the way the Department detects it. Is the skin test going to be stricter or stronger? What is the plan?
Dr. Damien Barrett
There are a couple of different elements to our plan. One element would be maximising the quality of the testing and, running in parallel, where appropriate, the blood test. Where there are difficulties, we would look to increase the overall sensitivity of the test and to run the two in parallel where necessary.
The witnesses mentioned the cost to the Department and the Exchequer. It is also a cost to the farmer. We contend that the farmer did not create this problem. The Department says it will be a better test. What was wrong with the testing that was done all along?
Dr. Damien Barrett
We intend to roll out more gamma interferon blood testing in conjunction with the skin test.
Some farmers have gone down in recent months and they are being told that if they are selling cattle in future, as far away as three years down the line, their name will appear on the screen in the mart, which will reduce the number of people who will buy from them. Is that going to happen?
Dr. Damien Barrett
I think what the Deputy is talking about is a risk-based trading approach. One thing that is being considered is identifying high-risk animals so if people decide to buy them, they will know those animals carry a higher risk.
That would be after two clear tests. It is horrible.
I appreciate that. Before I call on the next speaker, Deputy Healy-Rae raised an interesting point about some countries having over the years been able to eradicate or nearly eradicate TB. What are they doing that we have not done, for example, in New Zealand?
Dr. Damien Barrett
New Zealand has an eradication programme that really kicked off substantially in the late 1980s and early 1990s and, at the moment, it is down to somewhere between 20 and 25 positive herds. That programme involved a couple of elements that we are also looking at.
The predominant one was the idea of risk-based trading and that herds could only trade with a herd of an equivalent or superior TB status. We also carried out interferon-gamma testing to quite a substantial level. That is the blood testing. They have a wildlife reservoir - possums - but they have a wildlife programme as well.
What makes it difficult for us to eradicate TB, particularly compared to our northern European neighbours, is the presence of wildlife reservoirs and the issues of spillover and spill back. That makes it particularly challenging.
I welcome the witnesses. I have a couple of half-statements, half-questions. Then I want to hear from the witnesses. I ran into time difficulties here the last time and I do not want that to happen again. I want clarification on what Dr. Barrett said about the difference between the skin test and the blood test. There is a belief out there about blood tests and people are asking why we do not do more blood tests. There are many reactors going to the factory and coming back as false positives. When they get to the factory, they are not reactors at all. That is very frustrating for farmers. Their opinion is they did it for brucellosis and, while it would be a tough pill to swallow and more labour intensive when the vet is in the yard, why not do blood tests across the board? That is the feeling out there. Will Dr. Barrett comment on that?
Farmers also have an issue with the delay in moving reactors. They are up for this and want it solved. Dr. Barrett is saying it is more bovine to bovine than it is the badger or the deer. Does he have science to back that up? If it is the case, why are we lackadaisical about removing reactors after tests? Should they not be nearly taken out? The vet should nearly have someone in the yard before he leaves, if they are the spreaders. Will Dr. Barrett comment on that? There are also issues with the valuation.
Mr. O'Mahony will not be surprised to hear this. The last day when I brought up vaccination, he was the man who jumped out of the chair and gave the Minister a bit of paper about our exports and how it might affect markets. How do we overcome that? Can we change our focus? If it was half-time at a football match after 70 years of this, we would not go out and do the same thing for the second half because what we have been doing is not working. We have to think outside the box. Can we invest some of the money we are spending in exploring a potential vaccination that would not affect the carcase and meat going forward for export? We have to look at something different.
That is my bit. I want to hear from the witnesses now.
Dr. Damien Barrett
I will start on the Senator's point about animals without lesions, the test sensitivity and specificity and why we do not do wide-scale blood tests. The specificity of the skin test is 99.5%, which means there is one in 5,000 false positives. The fact an animal shows up and lesions are not detected is good news because it means the animal was detected before the lesions had a chance to develop. Lesions are at the end stage of the disease and they are not a good sign. It gives people confidence that it really was TB but in reality a test where there are no lesions, or a minimal number of them, is a better outcome than many lesions.
Is a laboratory blood test not as close to 100% as we will get?
Dr. Damien Barrett
It is not. It has a sensitivity of over 90% and but it has a specificity of the same. The trouble is rolling that out over 7 million cattle will lead to an awful lot of false positives. The big issue with blood tests is the lack of specificity and false positives. If we deemed animals which fail blood tests to be reactors and if we carried out blood tests on a wide scale, it would mean reactor numbers would balloon.
On the removal of reactors, farmers are advised to isolate them. Reactor removal times, on average, are 15 days. It is two days from when all the agreements are signed off. It could be faster but it is relatively fast given the administrative issues to be addressed.
I am glad the Senator asked about the relative merits of cattle-to-cattle transmission versus badger-to-cattle transmission. One UK study showed cattle-to-cattle transmission is 17 times greater than badger-to-cattle transmission. It is well established that spread within species is far greater than spread between species.
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
The main issue in relation to vaccination is we export so much product in dairy and beef to the EU and third countries. It is an export requirement for us to be able to certify the TB status of animals. It will still be a barrier, unless importing nations decide to allow products from animals that have been vaccinated. Even the progress of the vaccination only brings us on a certain journey. The Deputy would have to roll in behind the whole trade discussion on that point.
I thank the witnesses for coming in. I will focus on the wildlife programme. How many TB vaccinations took place nationally in each of the past five years? Can the witnesses provide a breakdown by area? What analysis has been done on the outbreak of TB in herds? What work has been done in the wildlife programme, for example?
Dr. Damien Barrett
That is a broad question. We are capturing in the past few years about 14,000 badgers annually for a combination of culling and vaccination. Last year we culled over 7,000 and the remainder were vaccinated. Quite a body of research has gone into the efficacy of vaccination. A non-inferiority trial was published in about 2018 or 2020. I cannot remember but it showed vaccination is no worse than culling in terms of dealing with TB instances.
So, of 14,000 badgers, 7,000 are vaccinated and 7,000 culled. What percentage of the 7,000 vaccinated are recaptured for assessment of the efficacy of that vaccine?
Dr. Damien Barrett
We are not in a position to assess vaccine efficacy, as such. If a badger that has been vaccinated is captured, it is tagged and we know the barcode. It is released. We have no way of assessing that.
If there is no assessment whatsoever of how effective it is, that seems to me-----
Dr. Damien Barrett
Not on an individual animal level, but when we carried out the studies, it was shown that it is effective on a population level. We need to broaden our horizons, rather than focusing solely on the role of wildlife in the epidemiology of TB.
I only have a short time. I know there is serious focus in the Department on the proposals for the farmer, so I want to focus my time on the wildlife programme. I think it is a serious flaw that there is no attempt by the Department to recapture the badgers and assess the efficacy and effectiveness of the vaccine. Will the Department consider at least a pilot or trial? We are spending €100 million this year; it is set to rise next year to €130 million. It is important to have a trial to see how effective those vaccines are. Will the Department consider it?
Dr. Damien Barrett
Our main move now is from a blanket vaccination to test vaccination, and vaccinate and remove. In that instance, the need for what the Deputy has suggested may be superseded. If we test these badgers and find that a badger is infected, it will be culled there and then.
But the point I make is that we are not retesting them.
Dr. Damien Barrett
We would be testing them then, and if they are found to be positive they will be culled.
My next question is for the TB stakeholder forum. One of the strengths of the Australian model and the New Zealand model was the collaborative approach in working with farmers, farm organisations and the department. Is the forum happy with the level of collaboration and engagement it has had. If not, what key objectives would the forum like to get across today with regard to the proposals it has made that the stakeholders believe have been falling on deaf ears?
Mr. Michael Cronin
As a group we work very well together. It was collaborative. On the real difficulty, at the very start, we looked at the Australian and New Zealand models. That came up a lot during our discussions. There were a number of things like capitalisation and the risk-based trading that we just could not get across the line over last four to five years. They were the two main ones. There was also the period of deer restriction. Those two or three points were difficult to get across. They are central, from what I understand happened in New Zealand and Australia, to a good TB programme. This is one that we found difficult. Other than that, the rest was a very useful exercise for the industry, for farmers, and for everybody involved. Those three were difficult, however.
I thank the witnesses.
I thank the speakers. We are here to ask questions and we are all here for the common good to try to reduce TB in all the herds throughout the country. First of all, I sympathise with the financial stress and emotional stress on farming families when the farm is hit with TB. I know what it is like. I am a full-time farmer. I will take just a second to tell a little story. A man rang me one day. He was after having a major breakdown and was fierce upset about it and a lot of his cows were going. He asked me what he should do. I said, "I will tell you what to do. Go inside and if you believe say a few prayers, pull down the blinds, let the two lorries out and hope that you would be able to come out the door after it." That is how bad it is on farming families. I just wanted to tell the witnesses that. It is not only awful for the farmer but it is also awful for his sons and daughters and on the whole family.
This is a carryover from the last day but the witnesses will have to look at the top off price of €3,000 for cows. The price of stock is outdated and farmers cannot replace them.
I do not know what will happen with TB forum but at the moment it is losing the battle. Farmers are doing everything they can do. We are doing everything we are being asked to do but the stakeholders forum is losing the battle. It is getting worse. There are more outbreaks and the outbreaks are getting worse. We can talk about badgers and everything but the bottom line is that it is getting a lot worse. The breakdowns are getting worse.
It was said the cow spreads it, but the cow gets it from somewhere else and then she spreads it. They are blaming all sorts of things now like robot milking machines and all of that. I do not buy into that. I am sorry but there is something wrong.
I just have some quick-fire questions. How much has been spent on badger vaccination programmes and everything in last ten years? That is one quick-fire question. How much?
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
In terms of our spending on vaccination?
Yes. How much?
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
We look at the spend on the overall wildlife programme, which last year was over €9 million and that increased-----
All right. That was €9 million last year. How many badgers have been vaccinated against TB in Ireland in the last ten years?
Dr. Damien Barrett
It only kicked off in 2018 and only about 1,500 were done that year.
That is 1,500 in the first year.
Dr. Damien Barrett
That was the first year. Up to 7,000 were captured last year.
Can the Department outline the evidence it has gathered over the past ten years to support the effectiveness of moving from widespread badger culling to vaccination in relation to its impact on TB incidence rates in cattle herds? I have four more questions that I will put together.
Dr. Damien Barrett
Before that move was made the scientific evidence was gathered to support that move.
That is grand. How will the Department ensure the wildlife control programme is adequately resourced, both in staffing and budget, to meet the expanded demands for badger vaccination and the deer population management?
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
The resourcing of deer management is separate from the wildlife-----
They are all in the one budget.
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
No, the TB programme is a separate budget line. In the wildlife programme we spent over €9 million last year, up from €7.6 million the year before. We are continuing to resource that budget-----
What steps has the Department taken to address the increasing workload and retention challenges facing private vets involved in TB testing, and particularly in high incidence regions?
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
The retention of vets rural practices is a large issue. The Veterinary Council of Ireland workforce planning report identified it. Veterinary Ireland has identified it as well.
What is the Department doing?
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
If there was simple solution-----
Can I put down that it is nothing?
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
No. The Deputy can put down that the Department is engaging with Veterinary Ireland and the Veterinary Council of Ireland.
Okay. It is engaging with Veterinary Ireland. Are there plans to introduce a pilot cattle vaccination programme - the BCG one - alongside ongoing badger vaccination? How will the inability to distinguish vaccinated from infected animals be managed in the context of creating disease surveillance?
Dr. Damien Barrett
The ERAD division is supporting our colleagues in the Department and we will carry out a trial to support their work on that.
Great. That might be positive. That is grand. How will the cost sharing model for the programme be updated to balance Exchequer, EU and farmer contributions? This is a very serious one.
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
EU contributions are gone and are not coming back. The last time we received money was 2023. The EU budget was realigned in terms of animal health. On the cost contribution, the costs are going up and we acknowledge that the farmers' testing fees are going up. We have a financial working group within the TB forum. This is where we reached an agreement in 2023 on the revised income supplement, the hardship grant, and the depopulation grant scheme. There is an existing process there on how the cost contribution is examined. That will be the-----
And no restrictions. The Department has the money there to do it. I am just saying that-----
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
I just want to make the point because I do not-----
It was raised over there as well. It has been raised-----
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
There is not an unlimited financial resource. It is important that I state this here.
The farm working payment is a certainty. I am telling you here now.
I thank the witnesses for coming here today. I very much appreciate it. It would be good idea if we had the names of the people in front of us. What is your name again?
Mr. Michael Cronin
I am Michael Cronin.
Right. So are there two Michaels?
Dr. Damien Barrett
I am Damien.
Okay, that is good. I missed it at the start.
It was said there was a 44% increase in TB. Over what period of time?
Dr. Damien Barrett
That was over the past years from 2023 to 2025.
That was massive. What are the witnesses doing to try to stop the spread of TB? What are the main ways and what are they looking at to stop the spread of TB. An increase of 44% in that period of time is unbelievable. What do the witnesses believe are the main factors in spreading TB?
Dr. Damien Barrett
The main ways of addressing this is to identify infected animals and remove them as promptly as possible. That is the first element in this. Then, speaking more broadly, it is about the wildlife element and increasing our footfall in the wildlife programme. We are also looking at trying to empower farmers to protect their old herds. We have rolled out a TB targeted advisory service on animal health, TASAH, which is delivered by private vets. This advises farmers on what they can do in terms of stock and badger proofing their own yards. It advises them on how to purchase stock. There is another element residual infection, which the Deputy alluded to and what is driving this. This has become a bigger issue as herds get bigger. Our main way of driving this will be rolling out interferon-gamma blood testing on a wider basis. Risk-based trading also plays a part in this. That also is how we envisage this being addressed.
What is the main issue spreading infection? Wildlife was mentioned as one of the main issues.
Dr. Damien Barrett
It is one of them.
Is the Department more concerned about deer than about badgers?
Dr. Damien Barrett
No, the primary wildlife reservoir is badgers. There is evidence from Wicklow in particular, where there is full genome sequencing linking TB in cattle, deer and badgers in that area. We do not have that evidence in other parts of the country. We do not have enough samples to establish it. We are making the culture of plucks freely available to regional veterinary labs if people want to bring those in but we are not seeing the level of TB in deer that we saw in Wicklow. A lot of that has to do with the density of the deer population in County Wicklow. Populations are rising all over the country but the levels are particularly high in County Wicklow.
I really feel the deer are not helping the situation. What is the Department doing as regards culling deer?
Dr. Damien Barrett
That falls within the remit of the deer management strategy group. A report published at the end of 2023 recommended the establishment of a deer programme manager. After a procurement process in 2024, Farm Relief Services was appointed as the national deer programme manager. It is in the process of establishing 15 deer management units around the country. Recruitment for those positions is well advanced.
I have one final question. When a farmer's animals go down, how long does it take for him to get a payment from the Department? That concern has been raised with me a good bit.
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
It depends. When a reactor is disclosed, there is a process in respect of valuation and removal. Once everything is completed on time - the farmer has to submit forms to the Department of agriculture - as we previously reported, over 90% of payments are issued within the term agreed within the farmers' charter. Any delays may be due to farmers or the Department appealing valuations but payments of compensation are very timely. The story may be different in respect of particular individual cases.
I am hearing differently. The poor farmers are going through enough. The Department should get the payments out as quickly as possible.
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
We appreciate that.
I really appreciate the witnesses coming in here to give us their views because TB is an issue of serious concern. The most frightening thing is that, instead of the percentages going down, they are unfortunately getting worse. The committee, the officials and farmers should work together to curb it.
I thank all of the witnesses for their contributions. I read their opening statements. The key thing I get from the discussion is that there is a great focus on wildlife. Naturally, farmers are going to look to that as one of the key issues. However, from what I hear, the Department is saying that there are 50 times more cattle in the country than badgers. The number of cattle in which TB was detected is 42,970. If we assume some escape that, you are probably talking about 50,000 to 55,000 cattle so TB is detected in approximately 1% of the cattle population. Do a similar number of badgers carry TB? Would it be 1% to 2% of badgers? Does the Department have any idea?
Dr. Damien Barrett
In high-instance areas, the rate can be substantially higher. It could probably be up to 40%.
It could be 40% in some areas.
Dr. Damien Barrett
That could be the rate in high-instance areas.
That suggests that badgers are a carrier in those areas.
Dr. Damien Barrett
There is no doubt that badgers play a role. They may well introduce the disease to a herd but it has spilled over to them from cattle before being spread back to cattle. When it gets into a cattle herd, we can use the analogy that this transmission is a fire lighter. To get into the big numbers of reactors we have seen and which many of the members will be familiar with, cattle-to-cattle transmission is required. There is far more transmission within species than between species. It is probably a relatively rare event but, when you are talking about the number of animals we have in the country, it happens too often in reality.
The fact that we have a grass-fed system and free roaming animals, unlike in other countries where cattle are more housed, is probably one of the reasons wildlife is a bigger factor. We are not going to change that system.
Dr. Damien Barrett
No, we are not.
It is obviously not going to change. The result of the testing and all of the work that has been done up to now and the suggestions coming forward from the forum is that we should basically do more of the same in a more effective way. That is basically what the Department is talking about trying to do. I am interested in teasing out the evidence that this will work considering the particular model of farming we have.
Dr. Damien Barrett
As the Cathaoirleach has already alluded to, this approach has worked in New Zealand, which has a similar management system to ours. Indeed, herd sizes there are substantially greater than ours.
Is there the same level of movement of cattle from farm to farm in New Zealand?
Dr. Damien Barrett
That is probably the big difference.
There is not the model of farmers going to the marts to sell the cattle to another farmer. In general, everything is done within the same farm before the cattle go to the factory. That is the difference as I understand it.
Dr. Damien Barrett
The Deputy is correct; there is not the same level of trade.
That level of trade is one of the things the Department has mentioned. The movement of cattle with undetected infection is one of the big issues. One of the proposals that has been talked about, which Deputy Danny Healy-Rae has mentioned, is a screen up in the mart. Naturally enough, many farmers fear that this would label them as being a problem farmer. We need to recognise that. Many people here have mentioned the impact this has on a farmer, the stress and so on. We do not want to compound that by making a farmer feel labelled in some way.
Dr. Damien Barrett
It is not about labelling farmers. What we envisage is breeding animals being identified. The animals that are of biggest concern to us are breeding cows. Our residual infection modelling shows that the animals that are around for the long haul, the cows, carry a greater risk than the animals that are going to be slaughtered before they reach 30 months. If animals are to be categorised, it will be cows.
I have one final point. It was mentioned earlier that we are able to vaccinate cattle in the same way we vaccinate humans. I absolutely understand the issues with marketing the product abroad if that were to be done but are there any examples of models in other countries where animals are vaccinated but are still accepted to market? Has any scenario in which that could happen been worked out? The problem is basically how to identify animals that have TB because of vaccination as opposed to infection. Is there a way to place a marker to determine that which could be negotiated with the markets?
I ask Dr. Barrett to keep his answer short because I need to move on to Senator Brady.
Dr. Damien Barrett
The focus of the research is to develop a test that can differentiate between vaccine and infection.
I thank Mr. O'Mahony, Dr. Barrett and Mr. Cronin. They are very welcome to this forum. I will throw a couple of quick questions at them. Does the Department accept that mistakes were made in the vaccination programme? When vaccinating in the past, the Department vaccinated badgers that carried TB.
Dr. Damien Barrett
It was not set out as a mistake. The mobilisation of a vaccination programme in wildlife is pretty resource hungry and logistically challenging. It was felt that the best way to get a high level of penetration in the population was to blanket vaccinate.
We have changed that already.
Dr. Damien Barrett
No, we are about to-----
Dr. Barrett has stated that this is now being changed. Why would the Department change something if it is working? We have made mistakes and vaccinated badgers. Let us be truthful in this forum because truth is what is needed. We have vaccinated badgers that already carried TB.
If that is the case, that is the case. To answer the question, yes, we have, if they ask.
Dr. Damien Barrett
We have vaccinated badgers. I cannot say for sure, but on the balance of probability, some probably were.
Now we have changed and we are testing badgers on site at this moment to see whether they have TB. If they have TB and test positive, they are culled and, if they do not have TB on site, they are vaccinated and released. Is that correct?
Dr. Damien Barrett
Yes, that is the case.
On the cost of testing a badger, there is one person from the divisional veterinary office, DVO, one person from the farm services and someone else, so a total of three people on site. Is that correct?
Dr. Damien Barrett
Yes
It takes about six hours to do the test.
Dr. Damien Barrett
No, it does not.
When the badger is caught-----
Dr. Damien Barrett
It takes about ten minutes.
The Department is there every time a badger is caught. It is out on the sett.
Dr. Damien Barrett
A Department vet would be there to anaesthetise the badger. A blood sample is taken to test.
When the smear is checked that morning and the badger is caught, the Department vet is not there at that point.
Dr. Damien Barrett
No.
The vet is informed that a badger has been caught in a sett-----
Dr. Damien Barrett
Yes.
-----and has to come to the sett. When the vet comes to the sett - I am sure they are not on call 24-7 - the animal has to be tested. It takes 15 to 20 minutes to test the animal. Is that correct?
Dr. Damien Barrett
Yes, it is something like that.
Then the animal is either tagged, vaccinated and let out, or slaughtered. That is correct.
Dr. Damien Barrett
Yes, that is correct.
This does not happen. There is a timeframe. The Department has to come from wherever it is to the site. There is a cost to this.
Dr. Damien Barrett
Yes, there is.
A previous speaker informed the witnesses that we understood from the last meeting we had that there would be a helpline in the Department for any farmer who went down with TB. I will come to Mr. O'Mahony with that question. Will there be a helpline in the Department?
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
Yes, that is one of the proposals in the Minister's proposed actions, that there will be a helpline farmers or anyone affected by TB can call.
I did not understand that from what Mr. O'Mahony said earlier, when someone asked about the mental health aspect.
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
Yes, I was asked a different question. I was asked a specific question.
Okay, I am just clarifying that. A helpline will be set up for farmers.
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
Yes, that is correct.
We are already proposing to close off the badger setts. Is that also correct? They will be wired up. Will that proposal be implemented?
Dr. Damien Barrett
People are advised to fence them off to keep cattle out.
If farmers have an outbreak on their farms, is there a compensation package to fence off the sett?
Dr. Damien Barrett
That will be part of the proposal.
On categorisation, can we accept that most outbreaks are in dairy herds?
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
Yes, 70% of reactors are in dairy herds.
Okay. In the categorisation, are we proposing that specific marts will be held for cattle with TB? Will people be bringing cattle that have TB to specific marts?
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
No.
That is not proposed.
Dr. Damien Barrett
No, that is not around categorisation.
Let us be clear on this. If farmers go down with TB-----
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
Right, sorry.
-----there will be a separate mart for them to sell their cattle within the co-ops. Is that the categorisation that will be implemented? I am not talking about the ordinary sales.
Quite quickly. We are under pressure on time.
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
There are discussions on facilitating farmers who are restricted and might have no other way of marketing culled cows, to see whether it could be done in the context of restricted sales.
It is for restricted sales
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
It is for certain categories from restricted herds, cows that tested negative from a restricted herd. Primarily we are talking about culled cows. It is to see if farmers can market those animals better. It is only a proposal, but it is one of the areas we discussed.
Just to be clear-----
We need to move on to Deputy Fitzmaurice.
I thank the witnesses for coming in. They talked about vaccinating badgers and cattle. We know from English trials that vaccinating cattle has not worked. They were showing as positive when tested a second time. How does the Department know it is working for badgers?
Dr. Damien Barrett
Based on the science-----
Forget about the science. It was said that when an animal is tested, if we put the vaccine for a bullock or heifer onto them, we cannot know - the English are going back again and redoing it - because they are showing as having TB. We have said we are not testing badgers. How do we know this is working and is not a charade of a test?
Dr. Damien Barrett
We take out the positive ones. Does the Deputy mean the blood test on them?
The witnesses said they are not testing the badgers that were vaccinated. Is that right?
Dr. Damien Barrett
We are testing badgers to be vaccinated.
Yes, but the vaccinated badgers are not tested.
Dr. Damien Barrett
Not routinely, no.
How does the Department know it is working then?
Dr. Damien Barrett
Based on the non-inferiority episodes-----
Dr. Barrett is talking about science that someone else did. The Department has not done it on the ground.
Dr. Damien Barrett
They are our trials.
The Department does not test badgers that have been vaccinated. Is it yes or no?
Dr. Damien Barrett
No, we do not because-----
The Department says, on movements of cattle, that the next farmer that gets an animal will have to test it again. Is that right or wrong? Is this going on at the forum?
Mr. Michael Cronin
No.
Is there no problem about that?
Mr. Michael Cronin
No, not as I understand it.
If I buy a cow and she had not been tested for six months, am I not right that I have to test her again?
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
That is the current animal record. That is an EU law requirement for certain categories of cow.
At the moment if a herd breaks down, to get rid of cattle, they can be sent to feed lots. Is that right?
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
That is the current situation.
My understanding is that a feed lot is not always a shed. It is where there is double fencing on either side. What is to stop a badger from roaming in there to them and roaming out?
Dr. Damien Barrett
There is nothing, but-----
There is more stipulation on an ordinary farmer than on a feed lot. Am I right or wrong?
Dr. Damien Barrett
There are additional requirements on feed lots. They do not-----
Yes, there are, a fence each side. That is the stipulation.
Dr. Damien Barrett
For cattle. We are also asking them to fence off setts to-----
Farmers are also being asked to fence off setts.
Dr. Damien Barrett
The feed lot operators, yes.
And farmers.
Everyone thinks a feed lot is a shed. It is not. It is also land with double fencing each side. That is the regulation and that is what they do. I am not saying a word to them. Badgers cannot be stopped from travelling there and travelling somewhere else, but the Department says infected cattle can go there, but nowhere else.
Dr. Damien Barrett
They are not necessarily infected. They are cattle that have passed the TB test and our whole-genome sequencing studies suggest that feed lots are not a factor in the spread.
This clock has gone arseways altogether, because I had four minutes a while ago and now I have 58 seconds.
Time flies, does it not?
No, fair is fair.
In the line of proposals, I have heard this from a few people. Are the paddocks where a lot of cows are together showing more infections? A "Yes" or "No", please, because my time is running out.
Dr. Damien Barrett
That is an impossible question to answer.
It is an impossible question. Dr. Barrett cannot answer it.
Dr. Damien Barrett
Stocking rate is a factor, but paddock-----
We are hearing from different Department officials that where there are a lot of cattle together, they are breathing-----
Dr. Damien Barrett
Where there is stocking density, there is more potential for nose-to-nose transmission.
That is all I wanted to know.
Farmers are getting sick of this. When there is a breakdown in an area, we hear about a severe or less severe interpretation. We put the gear into them and it shows they have gone down or not. Why, then, are there so many false positives on this blood test? My understanding is that there are asymptomatic cattle that never show up, but there is a UCD test. Why are we not using that to rapidly nail down if there is one cow infecting the herd but not showing up on the test?
Dr. Damien Barrett
It is not that simple to identify those animals. There is no UCD test that will do that. There are tests-----
Someone from UCD came out to a farmer near me and said to the farmer that the person was doing this test.
Dr. Damien Barrett
There are some of these anergic animals that the gamma interferon test does not pick up. It definitely enhances the chances of detecting them but there is no guarantee that the test will pick them all up.
Is it true to say that the blood test is giving a lot of false positives?
Deputy Fitzmaurice, I need to move on to Deputy Newsome Drennan.
I am sorry I was late for the start of the meeting. Wildlife testing cost €9 million last year. Was that for deer and badgers?
Dr. Conor O'Mahony
That is the wildlife programme in the context of the badgers.
Altogether? Just badgers?
Dr. Conor O'Mahony
Yes.
That cost €9 million.
Dr. Conor O'Mahony
Yes.
There were 14,000 captured in the past couple of years since the beginning.
Dr. Damien Barrett
There were almost 14,000 in 2023.
Seven thousand of those were culled, so that is 50%. Did every one of those test positive for TB?
Dr. Damien Barrett
No.
Why were they culled? What was the story there?
Dr. Damien Barrett
Some of those were culled from what we call cull areas and some were culled from vaccine areas. It was not-----
Just in case.
Dr. Damien Barrett
The ones in the vaccine areas tested positive. They were culled. The ones in the cull area were culled. These areas have not been turned over to vaccination. The default in those areas is culling.
Of the 7,000 that were culled, how many tested positive for TB?
Dr. Damien Barrett
I would not be able to tell the Deputy that just now.
Does Dr. Barrett have a rough idea of the average? Was it half of them?
Dr. Damien Barrett
No. I would say it was somewhere between 20% and 30%.
We have all had our TB tests. If we were to vaccinate cattle, what would be the human risk? What is the risk to us if we are eating that beef?
Dr. Damien Barrett
There would be no risk.
At all?
Dr. Damien Barrett
As it stands, it is the same vaccine that many of us would have received as babies.
Dr. Barrett said that other countries would not take it. It has been asked already, but what is the likelihood of us vaccinating cattle? The other animals we are discussing are wild and it is very hard to contain them, but our cattle are in pens and sheds. They are not wild animals, as such. Vaccinating them would be the easier thing to do. Why are we not pushing that more?
Mr. Michael Cronin
I am not the scientist here but I can absolutely guarantee that every effort is being made in that regard. If it was possible, it would certainly be happening at the moment. It just that it is not possible. That is not to say that efforts are not being made. Particular efforts are being made in the UK-----
It is the simpler thing to do.
Dr. Damien Barrett
It definitely is and our modelling suggests that a vaccine would be the single biggest thing that would eradicate TB but we do not have that tool available to us.
Each animal is just vaccinated once. A cow would be there-----
Dr. Damien Barrett
It might have to be done every year. I do not know. It would depend on the vaccine. We do not have a product on the market at this moment. Even if we did, we are an exporting country and we could have a whole lot of product that no one would buy. There are a lot of complications here.
Have the witnesses spoken to representatives from other countries that have the same issue and who are thinking along the same lines?
Dr. Damien Barrett
The main country that is thinking like that is the UK. The big difference between the UK and us is that it is a nation of importers of livestock produce and we are net exporters. The UK is probably pushing on with this knowing full well that it does not need to export the way we need to export.
Regarding the delay with the money, I have had farmers from north Kilkenny whose herds have come down with TB. It is devastating for the whole family. We have high suicide rates among farmers as well. Even when farmers are getting their animals tested, they are waiting for the next few days and hoping to God it will not be them. It is a massive worry for people. When cattle come down with TB, the vet is there with the farmer and gives the farmer the news, although the farmer would know himself or herself anyway. That vet knows the farmer and how many are in the herd. The vet knows what the cost is to the farmer. Why is that money not issued immediately so that the farmer has the money in his or her pocket to try and get his or her livelihood back up and running? It should be quick. Whatever Dr. O'Mahony is going to tell me, it is not quick enough. It needs to be almost immediate.
Dr. Conor O'Mahony
We understand the need for payment. The main issue is the farmer is entitled to have that animal live valued to get a compensation value put on it. That is the primary reason. To be fair to the farmer, he or she is entitled to have that animal independently valued, which is what we have in place. That process is key to ensuring that the farmer gets compensation that is of a market value to allow him or her to deal with the financial impact of the outbreak. I accept that the emotional impact of an outbreak is something different. In individual cases, we work with local farming organisation representatives when there are particularly hard cases around the country through all the DVOs and our front-line staff.
When the farmer gives the Department the figure, how quickly is there payment?
I need to move on to Senator Lynch.
In terms of sending out reports to farmers of their test results, will this be done to show them which animals have higher or lower levels? At the moment, it is most unsatisfactory that it is not being done. When we are looking at a whole new raft of restrictions, I do not think it is satisfactory.
Dr. Damien Barrett
One of the proposals that we are planning on putting forward is that historical readings will be available and people will be informed of what animals may be at a higher risk and that they may cull them if they wish.
That will become effective with these new measures, so almost immediately.
Dr. Damien Barrett
That is what we intend.
My apologies if the witnesses have gone through this already - the joys of having double committees - but when are these new measures going to be formally published, identified, finalised and put into action?
Dr. Conor O'Mahony
The Minister has had a lot of intensive engagement with many farm organisations and stakeholders over the past weeks and months. He has very much taken on board what they have said. We presented some proposals that we wanted to implement. Farm organisations also presented proposals to the Minister and he is currently considering and reflecting on those. In terms of moving to the next step forward, he hopes to be in a position to do that as soon as possible. If the Senator is asking for-----
We do not actually have a time. I am just conscious that we are a month out from the recess.
Dr. Conor O'Mahony
I appreciate that but at the same time, that is the position with the Minister at the moment.
Dr. Barrett referred to stocking density. This is obviously something more prevalent with dairy cows, but do we have stats in terms of organic farms, their positivity levels and the positivity levels among farms that are in derogation? Dr. Barrett mentioned that he did not believe that this was something transmitted in high-density housing. Is diet feeding a problem out in the field? Is zero-grazing being brought in if badgers have been on it and so forth? Is this just a result of the extra stress and pressure that is on the dairy cow and of the increased number of animals on the same grazing platform?
Dr. Damien Barrett
This is a reflection of herd size. When you have bigger herds, you have more susceptible animals that can acquire infection. That is really the driver. Do we have concerns about zero-grazing? I would like to address that in particular. Yes, we do. Our concern is that, if a farmer is zero-grazing, the grass is being fed fresh. If that grass happens to have been contaminated by a badger, it does not go through the ensiling process that harvested silage does.
We would have a concern around that. There is no concern around diet feeding or anything like that. On susceptibility or organic, there is no reason to suggest that organic cattle are any more or less susceptible than conventional.
To come back to the importance of the wildlife element, surely there should be a higher rate of organics because it is wilder land and more peripheral land.
Dr. Damien Barrett
A lot of it comes down to the numbers over the area. It is a combination of those.
I have many issues on the proposals around marts and transfers. On factories and the prices, what are the proposals for compensating the farmer? At the moment, we are experiencing a high price of beef. The compensation that can be paid by the Department is capped. Ultimately, farmers are losing out as a result of this. What will be done to resolve that?
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
There are caps or ceilings on the amount that can be paid on the market evaluation-----
At the moment, it is essentially allowing for free beef to be provided to factories.
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
It is approximately 20,000, but I could be wrong on the figure. Up until 31 May, out of all of the animals valued, only 106 have exceeded the ceiling. It is either 15,000 or 20,000. Not many animals are exceeding the ceiling in practice. That is the reality; that is what our figures show.
Relating to Deputy Newsome Drennan's previous question, would it not be possible to just vaccinate the dairy herd? Is there an issue with the cross-contamination of milk?
Dr. Damien Barrett
No. The issue is our produce. It is not confined to beef that these certificates object to vaccination. It is any livestock product.
There are a great deal of questions on the topic. It is highly emotive. I thank the witnesses for coming in and for answering the questions. I feel that we have further questions and we will be returning to this matter. I thank the witnesses for the information.
To clarify, on the transfer of the disease from cow to cow versus badger to cow, did Dr. Barrett reference say something about the likelihood of it being 17 times more likely?
Dr. Damien Barrett
Yes, it is 17.
It is 17 times more likely to transfer from cow to cow.
Dr. Damien Barrett
Yes.
I thank the witnesses for answering the questions. The committee plans to meet in private session next Tuesday at 3 p.m. As there are no more further matters to discuss, we will conclude this meeting.
The joint committee adjourned at 5.03 p.m. until 3.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 25 June 2025.