JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD debate -
Wednesday, 20 Jan 2010

Livestock Diseases: Discussion with Animal Health Ireland.

Chairman

On behalf of the committee I welcome the representatives of Animal Health Ireland, who will give a presentation on its role and update the committee on the progress being made with diseases affecting livestock. The representatives are Mr. Mick Magan, chairman, and Mr. Joe O'Flaherty, chief executive officer. Before I call on them to make their presentation I draw to their attention the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House, or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I call on Mr. O' Flaherty to make his presentation.

Mr. Joe O’Flaherty

Thank you, Chairman. Animal Health Ireland, AHI, was formally launched on 28 January 2009 and was incorporated as a limited company under the Companies Acts 1963 to 2006 on 11 May 2009. It is an industry-led, not for profit partnership between livestock producers, processors, animal health advisers and Government. Its remit includes diseases and conditions of livestock which are endemic in Ireland, but which are not subject to regulation and co-ordinated programmes of control. Programmes for the control of animal diseases that are already subject to regulation, such as tuberculosis and brucellosis, continue to be administered by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

The goals of AHI are: to enhance the profitability and sustainability of individual livestock farms; to enhance the profitability of the food processing industry; and to enhance the quality, image and competitiveness of Irish livestock and food in the marketplace. AHI provides benefits to livestock producers and processors by providing the knowledge, education and coordination required to establish effective control programmes for non-regulated diseases of livestock. AHI will not become involved in the direct provision of services at farm level, which will continue to be supplied by existing providers of animal health services such as veterinarians, Teagasc advisers and others, nor will it sponsor or support the services provided to livestock farmers by any individual commercial entity.

AHI members are the representatives of the various organisations that set the overall strategic direction and provide financial and other resources to AHI. The current membership comprises 21 such organisations. Government is represented by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Processing and marketing are represented by AIBP, An Bord Bia, Carbery Group, Connacht Gold, Dairygold, Glanbia, Kerry Group and Lakeland Dairies. Representing farmers' associations and livestock marts are Cork Co-operative Marts Limited, Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association, ICSA, Irish Co-operative Organisation Society, ICOS, Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, ICMSA, Irish Farmers Association, IFA and Macra na Feirme. Representing service providers are the Irish Cattle Breeders Federation, ICBF, Teagasc, University College Dublin and Veterinary Ireland. Breed societies are represented by the-Irish Holstein Friesian Association and the Pedigree Cattle Breeders Council of Ireland.

AMI is managed by a board of seven non-executive, part-time directors, who, collectively, have expertise in and experience of the following areas: beef and dairy livestock production; industry processing and marketing; animal health services and their delivery; major export markets for livestock and their products; and agricultural policy development. The board is chaired by Mr. Mike Magan, a dairy farmer and the other directors are Mr. Gerard Brickley of An Bord Bia, Mr. Joe Collins of the Irish Dairy Board, Professor Michael Doherty from UCD School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, Ms Thia Hennessy of Teagasc, Mr. John O'Sullivan, a dairy farmer and Mr. Robin Talbot, a beef farmer.

The executive is responsible for developing policy options and for implementing the strategy determined by the members and the board. Pay costs are minimised by operating the organisation with the smallest possible number of permanent staff. The chief executive officer of AMI is currently the only full-time employee of the company although the process of recruiting a secretary- administrator has begun. Beyond this small permanent staff complement, the intention is that any additional staff will be employed through short-term contracts as the need arises. Overheads and programme cost will be reduced by entering into resource-sharing arrangements with a variety of member and external organisations.

AHI is a company limited by guarantee and does not have a share capital. Funding is provided by the various member organisations I have described. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has committed to provide a contribution comprising financial support, human resources and technical knowledge to the value of a maximum of €500,000 per annum for a period of five years, subject to a matching contribution being made by the industry stakeholders, and to the provisions made in the annual Estimates of public expenditure. The contributions of the remaining members range in value from €120,000 per annum to €3,000 per annum, account being taken in determining the amount of the contribution of the relative size of the various organisations within a given sector. As AHI is a not for profit organisation, unused funding in any given year is rolled forward to meet expenses arising in the following year thereby defraying costs to all stakeholders in that year.

AHI supports livestock farmers and the agri-food industry by increasing awareness of the diseases that fall under its remit, and by co-ordinating the responses of the various individuals and organisations that currently provide farmers with advice on animal health issues. The following examples offer an indication of the type of activities undertaken in support of these aims.

AHI is developing information guides for farmers, veterinarians and other farm advisers to facilitate a systematic and effective approach to tackling the prioritised diseases. In parallel with this, a web-based IT system to assist the management of these diseases is being developed in conjunction with the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation, ICBF.

From time to time, AHI will issue consultation papers with the aim of establishing stakeholders' views on the desirability and feasibility of a national or regional approach to the control of certain endemic diseases of livestock. AHI held two major conferences in 2009, the most recent on the topic of bovine viral diarrhoea, BVD. It is envisaged that AHI will host at least two major conferences annually, in addition to a series of smaller seminars and workshops that will be delivered in partnership with the various member organisations. AHI will play a lead role in developing training courses for farmers, veterinarians and other farm advisers. The final year curriculum for veterinary students has already been adapted to reflect the disease priorities identified by AHI, and a graduate certificate in dairy herd health, to commence in 2010, will similarly reflect these priorities.

In primary research AHI has carried out a major study, the Delphi study, with the objective of prioritising the risks posed by the various diseases and conditions affecting Irish livestock. The technical working groups established by AHI to address each of the prioritised diseases will identify areas in which quality information is lacking and will make recommendations on how these deficiencies might be addressed by new research. These recommendations are expected to help shape research priorities at research institutions such as Teagasc and UCD. AHI has undertaken and will continue to undertake a limited number of study visits to observe and learn from best practice in other jurisdictions.

Prioritising the risks posed by the various diseases and conditions affecting Irish livestock is essential if funding for disease control programmes is to be allocated in the most cost-effective manner possible. To assist this process of prioritisation, AHI has completed a major study, the Delphi study, of the opinions of 85 national experts in fields such animal health, animal production, agricultural economics and international marketing. A separate survey of farmer opinion issued in parallel with the Delphi study indicated that farmers disease priorities closely match those of the experts.

The top seven disease priorities identified in the Delphi study include both specific infectious agents such as infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, IBR, BVD and Johne's disease and other multifactorial conditions of livestock such as infertility, udder health, lameness and diseases of young calves. The Delphi study provided strong evidence that all these diseases and conditions will have a far greater negative impact on the productivity and competitiveness of the agri-food industry in the future if measures to control them are not put in place now. It also provided a clear indication of the need for much greater co-ordination and education across the full range of prioritised diseases. Experts also indicated that AHI should allocate resources equally between the specific disease agents, on the one hand, and the various multifactorial conditions affecting livestock, on the other. A paper on the Delphi study has been submitted for publication in the international peer review journal, Preventive Veterinary Medicine.

Having identified the range of diseases to be prioritised, AHI has now embarked on the process of bringing together technical working groups consisting of experienced practitioners and other experts from a variety of fields tasked with drawing up nationally agreed protocols for the planning, investigation, control and monitoring of each of the prioritised diseases and conditions.

The technical working group on bovine viral diarrhoea, BVD, has been operative since September 2009. The initial focus of the group has been on the development of resources to assist farmers and veterinarians to tackle BVD at the level of the individual farm. AHI is developing a guide to BVD control that will assist the planning and execution of control programmes at farm level. The guide will be made available to farmers and veterinarians early this year. In conjunction with ICBF, AHI is developing a web-based IT resource to facilitate the control of BVD by co-ordinating relevant information from a variety of sources including farms, veterinary practices, diagnostic laboratories and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's animal identification and movement, AIM, system.

Once the resources to assist individual farmers and veterinarians with the control of BVD are in place the next step will be to examine the desirability and feasibility of an approach to BVD eradication that encompasses farms at the aggregate level, either regionally or nationally. Clearly, such an initiative would require the commitment of significant resources by all stakeholders over a sustained period. To elucidate the views of these stakeholders AHI is in the process of opening a national consultation on BVD control. To give some shape to this debate, the stakeholders will be presented with a consultation paper which will present a series of options for controlling BVD in Ireland. These options will draw on international examples of success in tackling BVD at the national or regional level.

Following the work pattern established for BVD, technical working groups for infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, IBR, and Johne's Disease will be convened over the course of 2010 and will be tasked with developing resources to facilitate control of the disease at individual farm level and with developing policy options for possible future national control programmes.

Chairman

I thank Mr. O'Flaherty. I call Deputy Creed.

Deputy Michael Creed

I welcome Animal Health Ireland, Mr. Joe O'Flaherty, chief executive officer, and Mr. Mike Magan. I appreciate that this is an organisation very much in its infancy but it has a critical role in terms of putting money in farmers' pockets. This is what it is all about. There is no doubt the status of the health of the national herd is critical to the viability of agriculture. For too long there has been, understandably, preoccupation with such issues as tuberculosis and brucellosis and we have made some progress. Our designation as a brucellosis-free country is vindication of the effort in this area throughout the years. However, to some extent it has been at a cost in respect of awareness and policy initiatives to tackle other diseases which are extracting money from agriculture in terms of the health of the national herd, the inefficiencies and loss of production, whether in the areas of dairying or poor trade in carcase in the beef sector.

The initiative to establish Animal Health Ireland is very welcome. I welcome the outline of what the delegation has provided today. The challenge is to move this matter up a gear now. We are in a very challenging environment for agriculture. Only those who embrace new technology and who take every possible advantage of available information in terms of productivity will survive in future. Bovine viral diarrhoea, IBR and Johne's disease are the three critical diseases. There are a host of other areas where individual farmers will need assistance and the role of their individual veterinary practitioner is critical in this regard. Animal Health Ireland should develop partnerships with veterinary practitioners and their clients such that we can bring best available advice and assistance to the farm gate level to bolster profitability.

I am interested in some matters raised in the last two sections of the presentation related to BVD. In particular, the delegation referred to the desirability and feasibility of an approach to BVD eradication that would encompass farms at the aggregate level, either regionally or nationally. What is the view of Animal Health Ireland? Is this desirable?

We must be cognisant with what is taking place at a European level as well because other countries are ahead of us, some significantly so. The danger is that some of these countries might take the step to declare their country disease free in terms of these unregulated diseases. The consequences for a country that exports 90% of its beef and 60% of its dairy products would be very significant. This is a very critical issue for us. We must be ahead of the curve and not play catch up, which is what we are doing at present. Animal Health Ireland has a critical role in this.

There is a danger that others will press the button to allow them a marketing advantage. This is why the work of AHI, Animal Health Ireland, is so critical. It is imperative to move the herd health status towards the top of the international league table faster than anyone else and we have ground to make up. I was not aware that AHI was effectively a sole operator and that it is recruiting for a secretary. It is good to see someone creating a job in the current climate, which is not easy. What is the overview of AHI, if it has had time to form one, in respect of where we stand relative to our trading partners in the EU, our largest market? What are the expectations of developments by other countries in respect of their disease free status as it applies to some of these critical diseases? That is the real challenge and danger. Someone may press a button to move for disease free status and only those with such a status, either nationally or on an individual herd basis, would be able to export into such markets. This is critical for us and this is why we must have the best national herd health.

Has consideration been given to offering farmers the option — if it is not on a compulsory basis — of a blood test for these diseases through the national herd test? Is the Department in a position to offer such a service? I requested the consultation with AHI and the committee agreed this is something we should do on an annual basis. We must see progress being made. Information is the key, especially getting information to farmers and to outline what they are losing. There are no better people to respond to a financial incentive than the farming community, especially if they see what they are losing by not having in place the optimum herd health.

In many respects these are hidden diseases. They confuse and baffle us and we do not know why we do not get the yield we should from our dairy herd, or why animals are not thriving. These diseases are hidden to the untrained eye and this is why information will be critically important. I welcome the presence of the delegation. AHI has a very significant job of work to do and I wish it well.

Deputy Seán Sherlock

I join in welcoming Animal Health Ireland to the committee. It is vital that we seek to maintain and improve upon the comparative advantage we hold in terms of beef and livestock exports. We have a particular comparative advantage. I am pleased to see the presence of an organisation that is not necessarily a statutory body, but an independent body involving all the stakeholders, including the scientific and commercial sectors, to deal with improving this comparative advantage. I welcome the work being done.

It seems the figure of €500,000 committed by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food over a five-year term, while welcome, appears to be a relatively modest sum, given that disease eradication is very pertinent to the whole issue of improving our export potential. I hope there will be scope, notwithstanding the current environment, for improvement on that figure to assist AHI with its work.

Does AHI agree that perhaps not every primary or livestock producer is adequately au fait with such diseases as BVD and IBR? There may be a dearth of knowledge in respect of these diseases and more work should be done. Is there widespread knowledge of all such diseases among livestock holders and primary producers? We all know about tuberculosis, for example, and we could quote the history, chapter and verse. Is there adequate knowledge among primary producers? Will the work of AHI inform their knowledge down the line? Will a stage be reached whereby every primary producer will know the range of diseases and will be in a position to have indicators for them in place? I will leave it at that for now.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

I welcome AHI to the committee. Anything that can improve the health of our animals and our food system must be welcomed. I see from the list of stakeholders that Animal Health Ireland is being supported by nearly every person and organisation involved in agriculture, which is welcome.

What was the general reason for setting up the AHI? Was it because of a lack of some authority to control diseases in our agricultural system?

I do not know much about BVD, IBR and Johne's disease. How does Ireland compare to other countries across the European Union in that regard? How has our system been put in place? What does the new body hope to achieve in the next four or five years?

Deputy P. J. Sheehan

I welcome Mr. O'Flaherty and Mr. Magan. This body is a step in the right direction and I wish it well. I understand this new body was inaugurated in September 2009. I hope it will have continued success.

How do the delegates propose to get across their message to every farmer concerned? Do they anticipate working closely with other farming bodies throughout the country because these are the people farmers look up to in terms of steering them on the right course? I refer to the Irish Farmers Association, the ICMSA and all the bodies that work closely with the farming community.

Will this organisation take a good deal of responsibility from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? I anticipate that as it appears to have the wholehearted support of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Smith. With that in mind it is vital that the delegates accelerate their efforts to contact every farmer involved in food production.

Having an independent organisation that will get across the right message is welcome. That will ensure that our Irish products will be in first class condition when they are exported.

Deputy Edward O’Keeffe

I welcome the delegation. This is a very important subject. This disease has been around for the past five to seven years or even longer. It was introduced because of our liberal approach to the importation of animals, mainly from the Continent.

On the control the new body will have over imports, because we continue to bring in imports without regulation, I am aware that the Single European Act changed things somewhat but the approach to imports was too liberal and it introduced every misfortune to our national herd. We have leptospirosis, leukosis, which is not mentioned in these documents, IBR, BVD, Johne's, which is a serious disease, and there may be others. That has greatly interfered with farmers' incomes. At a committee meeting five or six years ago I raised with Department officials the importance of tackling these diseases — I am not sure if the Chairman was chairman at the time — but I was shot down on the basis that they were not of importance. I knew they were of great importance because they greatly affected intensive dairying areas. If we continue to allow imports to come in unregulated we will never eradicate these diseases and this body will be like the quangos the Government set up — it will last forever without any change being brought about.

This measure will be very expensive for farmers. Many farmers are involved in vaccination programmes, and I am critical of the local veterinary practitioners who seem to have lost their way in terms of all the exotic diseases that have come into this country and have done nothing about them. TB and brucellosis testing is their forte. They are basically technicians and if one asks them about any of these diseases they do not appear to know about them. I single out one vet whom I know very well and admire greatly, Dr. Sexton, from Courtmacsherry, who is at the top of his job in this area. He is a friend of mine.

These are mainly respiratory diseases and they should be eradicated quickly if we do not have imports. There is a vaccine for BVD but what procedures will be put in place for testing, and what will be the cost to the farmer? If testing is done in the private laboratories, God help the agricultural community because they will be ripped off, as we have seen happen in the testing for BSE in the past. The competition is not good.

I did not hear the representatives refer to somatic cell count. I understand somatic cell count is very much associated with BVD. In chronic BVD farmers have found that the measurement can go to 700 millimetres in the milk test. There is a job to be done in that respect but it must be done quickly. The present system cannot continue. IBR and BVD go hand in hand. There is one vaccination for BVD. There are two vaccinations in the year for IBR. I understand from farmers who talk to me about it that the vaccine administered up the nose is the best way to do it. There is also a cost factor involved.

If there is to be a proper allocation it must be done on a professional basis. If we have an ad hoc arrangement, we will not go anywhere. We saw what happened in the TB and brucellosis eradication schemes where there was statutory authority involved. A great deal of blackguarding went on in that area in that people spread it and were getting paid for doing it. We saw court cases, convictions and people jailed. These diseases are unregulated but in terms of the national interest they are probably as important. This matter must be taken in hand quickly. I admire Mr. O’Flaherty, who is a veterinary surgeon with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for his knowledge in that area and what he is trying to achieve. I would like answers to my questions on the imports, the proposals, laboratories, and so on.

Deputy Andrew Doyle

I welcome Mr. Magan and Mr. O'Flaherty. As other speakers said, the notion of trying to work with a carrot as opposed to a stick is probably a good one.

I have three questions. First, have any other diseases been identified as potential threats because of climate change or the different migratory habits of birds which the AHI believes may be a threat to the animal herds here that have no natural in-built immunity? Avian flu and others are probably the ones that come to mind.

Second, Deputy O'Keeffe made the point about keeping down the costs. While there will be stakeholder buy-in into this, the danger is that all the costs will go back to the primary producer. Evaluation can be done on various diseases by group testing in herds where not every animal has to be tested at the start to mix the samples.

This may not be part of the AHI's remit but I will ask the question anyway. In terms of the sheep flock scrapie monitoring is causing a problem especially in our live exports to Northern Ireland, which has had a major effect in certain parts of the country. An electronic identification, EID, scheme has come in which is pointless but might have had limited use in scrapie monitoring in that flocks with a scrapie problem would have been identified and could have been tracked. Is that part of AHI's remit? It is not mentioned in any of the documents I have seen.

Chairman

I invite Mr. O'Flaherty or Mr. Mangan to respond to those contributions.

Mr. Joe O’Flaherty

Deputy Creed's first point related to progress being made in other countries. He was correct in saying that good progress is being made, particularly in the Scandinavian countries, Austria and Germany and a national programme of BVD eradication is being introduced in regions such as Brittany, the Orkney Islands and Shetland Islands off Scotland, and in parts of Italy. He was also correct in saying that other countries are moving ahead and that we cannot rest on our laurels. We must be very much aware that the ability to trade into European countries and into third countries is inherently tied up with our animal health status. As the Deputy rightly said, we should be ahead of the curve; we should be moving ahead of our competitors where possible. I fully concur with his observations that Ireland cannot be left behind in this.

Deputy Creed queried whether blood testing would be offered by the Department. It is important to point out that Animal Health Ireland is not the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food but the Department has been consulted on the use of the brucellosis testing laboratory in Cork. I understand there are some issues around that. Nonetheless, we will continue to pursue that with the Department. Our philosophy is that testing from as many sources as possible, be they private laboratories or the Department's laboratories, should be available to farmers and there should be the greatest possible transparency in terms of pricing, quality and the turnaround time of testing. Animal Health Ireland proposes to identify a list of laboratories here that provide testing for BVD and to identify the standards to which those tests are being carried out as an initial step.

The economic cost of disease is a critical driver of changing a farmer's or anybody's behaviour. One does not change unless one has a clear idea that the changed behaviour impacts on the bottom line. A great deal of what we are involved in is trying to understand the economic cost of diseases for farmers and explaining that to them. If one reads the literature on BVD, one will note that the range of costs involved is anything from €16 up to €106 per cow. It very much depends on the virulence of the strain that comes into a herd whether a farmer vaccinates his herd. There is a multiplicity of factors around that. The average cost in beef herds over the years has been shown to be of the order of €47 per cow. There is a substantial economic impact on herds where farmers do not take steps to control BVD.

Nonetheless, there is a great deal of work to be done. I envisage Animal Health Ireland would have a very limited role in terms of primary research but there are two areas where we could usefully contribute to the body of research knowledge. This is in regard to the economics of disease and the social sciences. In terms of many of these diseases here, scientific knowledge is available and it is a matter of getting that knowledge from the scientists, academics and veterinary profession to the farmers where it will be acted upon. Those are two areas in which we would usefully engage in further research. I hope I have not omitted to respond to any of the Deputy's questions.

Mr. Mike Magan

I thank the members for their kind best wishes for Animal Health Ireland. Our approach that the industry will work in conjunction with the Government and the State on issues such as this is a new one. It has been tried and is succeeding in other countries. The experience of our TB and brucellosis schemes has effectively set in train how we think about these matters. When we take control of the diseases here, we will tend to have better success. Deputy Creed is correct about what he said is happening internationally. Some countries have moved ahead of us in this respect. Our concern is that some of these measures, as the Deputy said, would become market access issues. We need to move quickly. Some members made the point about the haste with which we need to move. We take that point very much on board but we have been lucky in developing a partnership arrangement with the organisations such as the ICBF, Veterinary Ireland, Teagasc and the Department. We will not be able to do this by ourselves and will need to work in a partnership structure. We will need to be a co-ordinating body, effectively. As Mr. O'Flaherty said, the knowledge exists but, in many cases, getting it across to the farmer is the issue. Some members raised the point of how we intend to ensure farmers get this information. We intend to develop a system over a period under which we will continuously feed information to farmers across a range of the diseases we have been asked to tackle. This would enable farmers to develop a dossier of the diseases that would be easy to understand. This is an approach of which the farmer's vet would be aware because we cannot deliver this unless the vet is part of the solution.

One step we have taken, which probably has not been taken previously, is to get agreement from all the experts on how to tackle some of the diseases. In the past there was a tendency for people to have a different view or opinion on how to tackle a disease such as BVD and as a result farmers get confused. Their view is that if the experts cannot agree, how can they hope to tackle it. We get everybody to come to one place and agree on a common output, which we then feed back to the farmer, the veterinary practitioner and the adviser. We want to use a partnership approach to ensure we get this consistent message across in an easily understandable format. Hopefully, in that way we will raise awareness among farmers on the need to act.

Another issue is the cost involved. There is the cost involved in testing and the cost involved in preventing or vaccinating but, equally, there is a significant cost involved for the farmer in not doing that. We have to find that balance. In the past the State tended to look after the cost of eradicating the disease and that has incurred its own high cost. Equally, however, we would need to show farmers that there is a significant benefit for them in removing a diseased animal from their herd and that, ultimately, their farms will be more profitable. For example, if they identify a persistent infector in the case of BVD and remove it early, they will not incur the cost of raising an animal that may ultimately die or pass on the infection. In that way, hopefully, we can get success.

We have not tried to establish a base line for the prevalence of the disease in the country because we were afraid to add a competitive advantage to the people with whom we compete in the marketplace. We did not want to put up a banner headline, "BVD costs farmers €100 million a year", because we thought that would highlight it as a major problem and as a result our competitors in the international marketplace would seize on this as an opportunity to denigrate Irish product. We wanted to avoid that sensationalism and at the same time get the message across to the farmer that this is a very serious problem. We have tended to concentrate on telling the farmer the cost to him rather than aggregate that up into the cost to the industry because that would have a negative impact on Ireland's image internationally and we want to avoid that. That balance is the one with which we are trying to work.

Deputy Edward O'Keeffe's comment on somatic cell count was well made. There is a correlation between BVD and somatic cell count but, equally, there are many other reasons somatic cell counts are high. We have an issue with somatic cell count with mastitis in the national herd, which we, as an industry, have to tackle. That is the next issue on which we will work closely with the milk processors and Teagasc, hopefully in the next year or two. It is a major issue that we need to tackle. It, in turn, will become a market access issue if we do not do not tackle it. It is costing farmers a great deal of money each year on their farms.

They are just a few general remarks I wanted to make and I will be happy to go into more detail on the specific questions.

Deputy Edward O’Keeffe

Mr. O'Flaherty mentioned there are eradication programmes in the Nordic countries and probably in countries south of them. Is there a danger that reactors could find their way into our country, as has happened in many other areas? That is the reason I asked the representatives about the control the body has over imports, because if some regulation is not put in place this will be an ongoing saga. That was the point I made.

The representatives spoke about having a choice in terms of laboratories but that became a rip-off in the BSE testing. I have no doubt about that. Farmers were the victims of that because the bill was passed on to them. Is there a possibility that the same will happen in this case? We frequently criticise the State and the public service but we are dependent on them and we often get better value from them than we do from the private sector, which is more profit oriented. There must be some control in terms of the laboratories because farmers, by and large, cannot afford this additional expense at a time when agriculture is going through a major crisis. The position with IBR is equally bad. It all affects the reproductive system of the animals. The representatives made the point that they did not want to identify the part of the country it is in but if they come south they will find a good deal of it, especially in the Cork area. I have spoken about imports and IBR is very much sourced in imports in that area. Johne's disease is prevalent in that area, mainly in the centre of Cork.

There is a job of work to be done but we cannot allow the problem to drag on. In the 1960s, the late Neil Blaney declared Ireland free of TB but it was never free of TB. He printed a bulletin on it which had a red cover, a copy of which I have at home. I got it in my father's time. It never materialised but he was far-seeing in that area, although the disciplines were not in place. Discipline is very important in this area and veterinary surgeons must undergo refresher courses in this area because they do not know the first thing about it. I am clear on that because I have experience of vets, with all due respect to Mr. O'Flaherty. Vets must be more co-operative. If they intend to put their hands deeper into farmers' pockets, I can tell Mr. Magan that the body will be going nowhere.

Chairman

Deputy Doyle asked a question——

Deputy Andrew Doyle

My question was on sheep. Mr. O'Flaherty was to come back on it.

Mr. Joe O’Flaherty

If I may respond to Deputy O'Keeffe's questions I will then come to the question on sheep.

Chairman

Yes.

Mr. Joe O’Flaherty

The Deputy is right in saying that the finger of blame in respect of our current status in regard to BVD, IBR and so on can be traced back to imports in the early 1990s with the advent of the Single European Act. He will be well aware that we were not in a position to prevent imports coming into this country and in any case I would imagine the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would take the primary role in that regard.

Nonetheless, Animal Health Ireland has a positive role to play in regard to farm biosecurity. We can make general statements about farm biosecurity that would apply to a farm whether the animal that someone is bringing on to their farm is coming from north Cork or from Holland. Within the next few months Animal Health Ireland will be generating a biosecurity statement which we would like to publicise to farmers through our website, in leaflets and so on. That will caution farmers in terms of the sources of animals they buy in and the kind of testing practices they should apply to those animals before they buy them in. That will apply equally whether the animal is coming from Cork or from Holland.

I take the Deputy's point that the veterinary profession, like all other professions, probably needs updating on a constant basis through continuing education and so on. I note he referenced Dr. Sexton, and he will be aware that Michael Sexton collaborated closely with Animal Health Ireland and the development of our protocol on BVD. Veterinary Ireland is one of our stakeholder organisations. We believe we have close connections both with the farming community and with the veterinary profession and if the veterinary profession looks into itself it will see that it needs to show farmers how it can add value to farming enterprises by improving profitability. Veterinary surgeons do not have a God-given right to a living. They live on the basis that they improve the profitability of farms and that is the case that vets must make clearly over time. Animal Health Ireland can point to the importance of herd health initiatives and of prevention rather than the type of fire brigade service that has been traditionally offered by veterinary surgeons. Obviously, there is room for both but the current crop of veterinary surgeons coming through college are well versed in herd health issues. The fact that we are having some impact on the curriculum within the veterinary college will mean that they are coming out educated in these priority areas.

Deputy Edward O’Keeffe

What about my question on the laboratories and the cost factor? I do not want to differ with Mr. O'Flaherty but if there is to be no control and only some regulation on imports——

Deputy Michael Creed

Deputy O'Keeffe would want to be cognisant that if we raise the issue of imports and put a barrier in place on the basis of the status of the animal importer, we are cutting a stick to beat ourselves with. We would want to be careful that we get our own house in order first.

Deputy Edward O’Keeffe

If the imports are bringing in the disease and infecting the herds there must be some control on imports. We do not have to advertise it in the newspapers but there must be some regulation. Where did it all come from? Ireland should have no disease because we are an island nation.

Chairman

We will leave it at that and allow Mr. O'Flaherty or Mr. Magan to continue.

Mr. Mike Magan

I want to make a point on imports. All we can do is strongly advise farmers. Farmers are now aware that we brought in more problems than they believed they were getting at the time. They thought they were getting a good animal to milk but found they got other problems with it. We must create an awareness among them that there are problems and we will give them a list of the diseases for which they need to check, regardless of from where they are buying the animal. That is a new advice that will go out. For example, there is a new farm development in Kilkenny that is testing every animal to a standard to which we have all agreed, regardless of from where they come.

Deputy O'Keeffe asked about the laboratories. We need to establish if some of the commercial laboratories are offering a service that is worthy of the cost. Equally, the State has a facility for testing which may need to be utilised more fully than is currently the case. That is something that may need discussion beyond this forum but there is a capacity to test in the country for everything that we need to test for, and it is a matter of organising that in a way that gives best value to farmers. It is important that we do that, and that may be a combination of using the State facilities and also commercial laboratories.

Deputy Michael Creed

Are the commercial private laboratories certified to ISO 9000 standards, or whatever?

Mr. Mike Magan

Some are but some are not, and we need to get that standard. We should use the State Laboratory to set an accreditation standard that the others would then achieve. Following that, we cannot say where one should test but we should establish that they are to a standard capable of doing the test that is needed to the international standard the Deputy mentioned.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

How prevalent are BVD and IVR in our herds? Do the representatives have any statistics on that or the areas of the country affected? I do not want an area identified but is it more prevalent in one part of the country than in others? Is it in dairy herds or suckler herds? What is the position in that regard?

Mr. Joe O’Flaherty

BVD is highly prevalent. One would get antibodies to BVD in perhaps 60% or 70% of the herds. Looking at the more critical issue, which is the prevalence of persistently affected animals, the studies would show it is of the order of 1% to 2% but that is the significant figure when one considers that it is the persistently infected animal that is doing all of the damage to the remainder of the herd.

The prevalence of IBR is equally high, at 60% or 70% in terms of antibodies. That of itself is not necessarily a reason to say we cannot make progress. If we consider what has been done in other countries, particularly Denmark, it started off with high levels of prevalence of BVD and was able to make progress. It took ten to 15 years to eradicate but made strong progress in the first few years of the eradication programme.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

Through vaccination.

Mr. Joe O’Flaherty

In Denmark in particular there was not any vaccination; it was eradication. In Germany, for instance, where they are embarking on a federal programme of eradication, there has been vaccination. The decision as to whether to go with a programme of vaccination plus control or just control depends on many factors. In Ireland, unfortunately, our high cattle density, the high level of fragmentation of holdings and the high level of movement of cattle through marts would run counter to an approach that does not involve vaccination. Realistically, therefore, vaccination will play a part in the beginning of any programme but the hope a national approach holds out is that eventually we can dispense with vaccination. If good farm biosecurity is established, and particularly if farms in a region collaborate, the possibility over time is that vaccination can be dispensed with and we can control biosecurity at group level. I hope that answers the Deputy's question.

Chairman

What progress is being made on Johne's disease, which has been a serious problem in my county? At what stage is the eradication process?

Mr. Joe O’Flaherty

Very little progress has been made. A prevalence study has been done, but I am not aware of the results. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been involved in a study of the prevalence of Johne's disease here. In the UK, a prevalence study was published recently which showed that about 40% of the herds are infected with Johne's disease. That may be an under estimation. I would not like to speculate on the level of prevalence here.

Deputy Edward O’Keeffe

I have a couple of questions.

Chairman

Deputy Doyle's questions have not been answered yet. I will allow Deputy O'Keeffe to put supplementary questions later.

Mr. Mike Magan

I will take Deputy Doyle's question. I know he has a background in sheep farming. It is obvious that we would love to be in a position to tackle all the animal diseases here. At the moment, however, our brief is exclusively for bovines. I hope that in future we will see significant progress across that area. Perhaps our brief will be extended, but currently it is only for bovines.

Deputy Andrew Doyle

Are there any other diseases that may have come in? Is Mr. Magan trying to identify any other diseases that might emerge because of changing weather patterns and climate change generally?

Mr. Mike Magan

The obvious one is bluetongue. So far, we have stayed clear of it. It is incumbent on us to make a strong statement on the need to have protocols in place to ensure that bluetongue does not get here. It is an midge-borne disease and we can do nothing about that. However, we can ensure that cattle do not come from an area in which bluetongue is prevalent. We need to act forcefully on that. We hope to be in a position to make a strong statement on that in conjunction with the industry and farm organisations. It would be devastating to our economy if that comes here. We need to do whatever we can to prevent it. We may not stop the midge, but we can certainly stop the cattle.

The Chairman's point on Johne's disease is well made. Where Johne's is in a herd it can really affect the profitability. Currently, it is a notifiable disease. If the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is to be the controlling agency for Johne's we are back into a costly exercise in controlling it. We want to identify the affected herds and give farmers the tools to reduce the incidence of the disease when they have it, and keep it out when they do not have it. That is the approach we wish to adopt in the short term concerning Johne's disease.

Chairman

The big problem I have come across is that farmers cannot sell breeding stock or in-calf heifers with Johne's in public markets. They have to be slaughtered.

Mr. Mike Magan

Yes.

Chairman

If farmers bring the disease in they would be held responsible, unless they notify the buyer. If the potential buyers are notified of the presence of the disease, however, they will not buy the animals. That is a problem.

Deputy Edward O’Keeffe

I am aware that many farmers are now vaccinating in my area as a precaution, even though the animals may not have the disease. I understand, however, that they are getting better performance and conception rates. They are doing the same for IBR. Mr. Magan failed to mention leptospirosis, which is identified with breeding, bad conception rates and abortions. Is he going to tackle that?

The Danes have found that Johne's disease has an effect on human beings. At a conference in Denmark several years ago, they identified it in the human gut. Ireland is an exporting nation and it has been identified in milk. Mr. O'Flaherty has knowledge of this matter, although I do not want to speak too loudly about it. Much work remains to be done in this area, which is a minefield. It may not be good enough to take one disease in isolation.

I am not boasting, but I come from one of the most intensive dairying areas in this country. There are substantial herds comprising thousands of cows there. While biosecurity is grand, there is plenty of security in Mountjoy and Portlaoise prisons but they still get the drugs in. If people want to do something they will do it and new technology helps them. There must be some discipline in imports otherwise this committee and the others may as well be wound up.

Chairman

I ask Mr. O' Flaherty to respond to those points.

Mr. Joe O’Flaherty

Leptospirosis is a very important issue. It is taken account of in our infertility programme. I will revert to our priorities. We have identified three specific infectious agents, which are IBR, BVD and Johne's disease. We have also identified several production conditions which would include infertility, milk quality, lameness and diseases of young calves. Leptospirosis is certainly a major contributor to infertility. When that group comes together they will certainly look at the issue of leptospirosis among the range of factors that contributes to infertility.

The Deputy mentioned Johne's disease and referred to a conference he attended in that regard, but the jury is out on that. In fact, there is no proven scientific link between Johne's disease and disease in humans.

Deputy Edward O’Keeffe

The Danes have it on the record.

Mr. Joe O’Flaherty

It is a very contested area. There are scientific papers on both sides, but as it currently stands there is no proven link between Johne's disease and disease in human beings.

I fully agree with the Deputy that biosecurity is a major problem. We need to raise consciousness about biosecurity perhaps by branding it or having a national campaign. As the Deputy rightly said, one can spend a great deal of money on vaccination and taking out persistently infected animals, but if one does not have regard to cattle nosing other cattle across the fence, or the bull one is buying or taking into a farm, one will achieve nothing. I fully support the Deputy's views on that.

Chairman

On behalf of the committee, I thank Mr. Magan and Mr. O'Flaherty for their presentations and for answering the questions raised. I am glad they have indicated that they will update us on any reports or concerns that might be relevant to this committee's work. I thank them for giving that commitment. If it is necessary for them to attend the committee again over the next 12 months we would be delighted to welcome them back here.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.50 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 27 January 2010.