JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, NATURAL RESOURCES AND AGRICULTURE debate -
Tuesday, 17 Jan 2012

Annual Report 2010: Discussion with Animal Health Ireland

Chairman

From Animal Health Ireland I welcome the following: Mr. Mike Magan, chairman; Mr. Joe O'Flaherty, chief executive officer; Mr. David Graham, project manager, bio-secure diseases; and Ms Finola McCoy, project manager, CellCheck. I understand Mr. Magan will have to leave before the end of the meeting. I propose to call on Mr. Flaherty first and allow spokespersons a question and answer session thereafter.

Before we start I am obliged to outline the issue of privilege. Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give this committee. If a witness is directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and the witness continues to so do, the witness is entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of his or her evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and witnesses are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

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.

Mr. Joe O’Flaherty

Animal Health Ireland, AHI, is an industry-led, Government supported not-for-profit company operating as a partnership between its members, which include livestock producers, processors, Government and service providers, including veterinarians and other professional advisers. AHI is mandated to provide the leadership, knowledge and co-ordination required to pursue effective control strategies for important non-regulated diseases of livestock.

AHI was formally established in January 2009 and registered as a company limited by guarantee in May that year. The company currently has 32 members representing farmer producers, processors, the Government and support and advisory services. The vision of the organisation is that Animal Health Ireland would be recognised as a world class resource, enabling Irish farmers and the agri-food industry to achieve and maintain the highest standards of animal health internationally, improve the profitability and sustainability of the enterprises and enhance the value and competitiveness of Irish products in the market. The mission statement is to enhance value for livestock farmers and the agrifood industry through superior animal health.

The key functions of AHI are: to provide leadership in the area of non-regulated animal disease, based on the mandate given to us by the Government and other funding members; facilitate the collation and adaptation of the most up-to-date expertise on specific aspects of prioritised diseases and programming to underpin all stages of our planning and implementation; identify research gaps and work with other agencies to close those gaps; design animal health programmes based on sound education principles, produce quality communications and keep with the needs of our target audiences; co-ordinate the efforts of all stakeholders and ensure relevant technical, scientific and commercial considerations are taken into account in the design and implementation of animal health programmes; and expertly manage each of our programmes by continuously assessing feedback from stakeholders, monitoring value-for-money indicators, reviewing effectiveness and reporting to all involved in a timely manner.

Over the course of 2008 and 2009, each stakeholder established the maximum amount of its future financial contribution to AHI in any given year. In determining these amounts, account was taken of the size of the organisation and of the nature of the business in which it is engaged. In the case of the largest single contributor, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the commitment to AHI is for a maximum of €500,000 per annum for a period of five years to the end of 2013, subject to the receipt of a matching contribution by non-State sources, and to the provisions made in the annual Estimates of public expenditure. The actual level of financial contribution to be sought from stakeholders is subject to the maximum committed amounts to which I have referred. For 2009-2010, total expenditure was €302,342, with a surplus of €25,269. For the financial year 2010-2011, expenditure was €625,535, with a surplus of €45,415. For 2011, the projected expenditure is €937,439.

The board of Animal Health Ireland nominally comprises seven non-executive directors, who were nominated by the Minister at the time of the creation of the organisation. There are currently six serving directors, following the recent retirement of one of the directors. The management team currently consists of me as the chief executive officer and the following individuals: Ms Nuala Morgan is the company secretary, Dr. David Graham is the programme manager for bio-secure diseases, Mr. Karol Harvey is the planning and operations manager and Ms Fionnuala Malone is the technical working group liaison. In addition to the staff directly employed by the company, AHI has entered into a collaboration agreement with Teagasc, under which Ms Finola McCoy has been assigned to the role of programme manager for the national mastitis control programme, CellCheck.

The technical working groups comprise experts and experienced practitioners from a variety of fields tasked with drawing up factual resources, the development of decision-making tools, and the identification of areas for further research and development. In areas in which AHI is developing disease control and eradication programmes of national scope, the technical working groups also provide the technical support necessary to underpin such programmes. These individuals give their time free of charge to Animal Health Ireland, thereby enabling AHI to access the technical resources required to develop its various programmes at a fraction of the true commercial cost of such expertise.

AHI has established implementation groups, drawn from relevant stakeholder groups to assist with the final design and rollout of the bovine viral diarrhoea and CellCheck programmes; an implementation group for the forthcoming Johne's disease programme will be established shortly.

Shortly after its establishment in January 2009, AHI undertook a major study to elicit opinion from industry experts and farmers on the non-regulatory animal health issues facing the Irish beef and dairy sectors. Diseases were prioritised based on factors including cost, impact, international perception and the impediment to international market access. AHI has established work programmes regarding the majority of the priorities identified in the study but not all of the identified priorities have to date been addressed, and some have been addressed much more comprehensively than others. Decisions determining which of the prioritised diseases and conditions to address in which order were based on factors such as the probability of achieving eradication or significant control of the disease within reasonable timeframes and given available resources.

The board and management of AHI are grateful for this opportunity to engage with the joint committee and we look forward to providing members with details of all aspects of the company's operation.

Deputy Michael Moynihan

I welcome the delegation, whose annual report and statement is almost self-explanatory. Nevertheless, there are a few items I would like to raise. Staff were mentioned in the statement but how many staff are there in Animal Health Ireland? Will the delegate give an account of the advice received and decisions made regarding the voluntary programme for BVD testing of calves? Will he do the same for the Johne's disease programme, as there are pockets around the country reputed to be particularly affected by this? How far down the road is the research on eliminating that disease?

Deputy Michael Colreavy

I also welcome the representatives of Animal Health Ireland and thank them for the statement. I am new to this job so some of my questions may come from a position of ignorance. I take animal welfare extremely seriously and see the need to ensure that we have the highest standards of animal welfare in the country. I am a little unclear on how Animal Health Ireland works, for example, with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine's veterinary inspection services and how its work informs inspections under the REPS or AEOS? Do the delegates deal only with the administration of programmes of surveillance or programmes of work? Can Animal Health Ireland influence policy in other areas of the Department pertaining to animal health? Has the link between animal health and animal welfare been explored by it?

I understand the vision outlined. Reference was made to the fact that Animal Health Ireland's work was subject to the receipt of a matching contribution from non-State sources. Will someone provide information on exactly what this means and what the sources are?

Unusually for services in my experience since I became involved with the committee, the outturn tripled between 2009-10 and 2011. What was the reason for this?

Deputy John O’Mahony

I thank the delegation for its presentation. It seems the budget outturn over the three years is increasing. Is this due to an increase in the range of activities undertaken? The amount has increased from €302,000 to €937,000. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has committed a sum of €500,000 per annum for a period of five years. When the funding comes to an end, will the programme be continued? Is it designed to start the programme and will it disappear after that? From where exactly does the matching funding come?

Senator Paschal Mooney

My question is of a general nature. Where do we fit internationally within the European Union and the wider international field in addressing the challenges posed by animal welfare issues? How close are we to total eradication of the diseases that have been creating enormous problems - financial and otherwise - through the decades, including brucellosis and TB? My late father used to say de Valera spent decades promising to drain the Shannon, which went on forever. In the same way the scheme for the eradication of TB seems to have been in place since I was a child or even when God was a boy.

Deputy Ann Phelan

My question is more an ideological one. It relates to vaccination versus the use of antibiotics in promoting animal health. What is the position across the world in that regard? I refer to TB, CJD and foot and mouth disease. In response to the threat posed by CJD many healthy animals were culled. Is vaccination on the horizon rather than culling and the overuse of antibiotics in dealing with other diseases such as mastitis?

Mr. Joe O’Flaherty

Some of the questions relate to the remit of the organisation, funding aspects, staffing and the specifics of some of the disease control programmes in which we are engaged. I will take the questions that relate more to the administrative-managerial side and will pass some of the others to my colleagues.

Deputy Moynihan inquired about the number of staff. Five staff, including me, are employed by the company. I am on secondment from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine for three years since the beginning of 2010. The other staff members have been directly employed by the company and are all on short-term contracts. Ms Finola McCoy is a member of staff of Teagasc, but through a collaboration agreement with Teagasc, she has been assigned to manage CellCheck, the mastitis control programme, for the period of her contract. It is not a direct cost to Animal Health Ireland.

The funding comes from two sources. It comes from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine which has committed up to a ceiling of €500,000 in any one year. When one looks at the figures I presented, the actual level of expenditure has been considerably lower than this figure in the three years in which we have been in operation. The level of departmental expenditure is exactly half the amounts listed. For example, in 2009-2010 when the total outturn was €302,000, the expenditure incurred by the Department was €151,000. Similarly, for the other years 50% of the total amount was expended.

The reason for the increase in expenditure is precisely that suggested by the Deputy, the level of activity has increased. In theory, in 2009 and 2010 we could have sought the total contribution from both the Department and private sector sources from the beginning, but we chose a different route. We chose to prepare budgets from the beginning and calculate the amounts we would seeking from both the Government and the private sector based on our projected expenditure. Hence, the surplus is minimal and probably consistent with maintaining a prudent level of working capital.

The funding from the private sector comes from a variety of organisations, principally from dairy processors. In the case of non-State funding, probably 75% or more than 80% comes from dairy processors. We also receive contributions from the beef processing sector, the farm and veterinary representative organisations. We have 32 members in total.

In terms of the remit, it should be clear that what Animal Health Ireland deals with is the non-regulated diseases of cattle. Our remit is exclusive. It is distinct from those diseases for which the Department is responsible, the regulated diseases, to which reference was made, including TB, BSE and brucellosis. Animal Health Ireland has no remit covering the regulated diseases. Our remit covers diseases that are non-regulated which are important by virtue of their economic impact on the sector. To illustrate their importance, Animal Health Ireland commissioned a cost-benefit analysis of BVD control which shows that the annual financial impact of the disease is in excess of €100 million to farmers. Our modus operandi has been to identify where cost savings can be effected for farmers, where profitability can be increased for them and tackle these diseases first.

I am not sure whether I have answered the general questions, but I am happy to come back to them. I will hand over to Mr. Graham to reply to Deputy Moynihan's questions on BVD and outline the background to our research on it. He will also respond to the questions on Johne's disease.

Mr. David Graham

As the Deputy correctly stated, the voluntary phase of the national programme to tackle BVD began on 1 January. It takes us back to the start of Animal Health Ireland and the prioritisation exercise conducted at that stage through farmer and disease expert surveys to build a list of prioritised diseases for inclusion in the business plan. One of those was BVD. The two others were the bio-secure diseases, Johne's disease and IBR which is another primarily respiratory disease of cattle. Those three, along with other conditions, are within the business plan. BVD was the first one to be included. Technical working groups, which are a collection of experts on the particular topics were referred to earlier. The BVD technical working group initially brought forward a standardised means of dealing with the problem at individual farm level, which was collated into an information leaflet and various other information resources which were then communicated through a variety of media. Following on that, the next question was whether there was potential to move that from individual farm level to a national level programme.

Over the end of 2010 and early 2011 an extensive consultation exercise was conducted by Animal Health Ireland and there was also significant discussion with stakeholders. In particular, visits were made to almost all of the county executives of the IFA and presentations given to them. Arising from that, we asked several straightforward questions to gauge the appetite for what might come. It was clear that there was, first of all, an appetite for an industry-led national programme which should have a relatively short timescale and clearly laid out goals and in respect of BVD, the primary means of the sampling should be through tissue tag samples, which could then be tested for the virus. An implementation group for that programme was assembled in May of last year and it has met regularly since then every three weeks and sometimes more frequently. It has taken forward the development and implementation of the programme, which started officially on 1 January.

One of the issues the group had to deal with towards the end of last year related to the sampling method. It had been envisaged that the Department would run a tender process - which it did - to provide official identity tags which would also be able to take the tissue punch sample which forms the basis of the testing. With regard to prevalence of disease, the key to controlling or eradicating BVD is to identify and remove persistently infected animals. These are animals which have been infected with the virus in utero during the early stages of pregnancy and are then born with persistent infection. They produce high levels of virus for life and are the main means of transmission and introduction of the virus into herds. The goal of tissue sampling is to take those samples early in the animal’s life, screen them to identify the persistently infected animals and allow them to be removed. International surveys suggest that in the absence of control, somewhere between 0.5% and 2% of a population will contain these animals. We estimate, based on the limited data we have, a population of approximately 0.75%. With regard to herd level exposure to the virus, it approaches 100% in the dairy and the beef side.

Unfortunately, the Department was unable to award the tender to any of the applicants. The interim solution put in place for this year - the voluntary year - is what we refer to as a "third" or "button" tag. It is key that this still bears the official identity number of the animal being tested. It was quite a challenge for the implementation group to work through this, but it got there in the end. With regard to uptake, the current feedback in terms of tags ordered comes to approximately 280,000, but there are also still many orders to be processed. There will be a natural check on this with the spring focus on the calving pattern, but nonetheless we will certainly reach 300,000 and may, by the end of the year and by bringing in autumn-calving herds head towards 400,000. The figure of 300,000 would bring us to 15%, based on a 2 million calf crop. It would be approximately 15% of the calves in the national herd. This will give us a strong road test of the programme during the voluntary year. We have initiated discussions with the Department on the legislation that will be required to transfer this to a compulsory programme for 2012, but we are still in the early stages of shaping that. The number of tags ordered now will allow us to identify any weaknesses and shortcomings in the programme and will allow us address those as we move forward.

With regard to Johne's disease, BVD has been the trailblazer that has established the template to some extent in the context of infection. In a number of different ways, Johne's disease is very much at the other end of the spectrum. For example, diagnostic tests for BVD are very robust and accurate, but unfortunately that does not hold true for Johne's disease. With an individual animal test, even if the animal returns a negative result, we can only have limited confidence at best that the animal is genuinely negative. Therefore, to be able to say with any degree of confidence and certainty that an individual herd is clear requires multiple rounds of negative testing to assign that status .

The question was asked regarding international prevalence. There have been two blood based surveys for Johne's disease conducted in Ireland. The results of these show a prevalence of approximately 20% to 30% in dairy herds and 10% in suckler herds, with one or more animals testing positive to a blood sample. There is certainly evidence of infection. Evidence would suggest that post 1992, increased introductions of animals has contributed to that. If we look at other European competitors and more broadly afield, that puts us in a relatively good position. It is difficult to compare directly country to country, because the methods that have been used and the assumptions that have been made tend to vary. Nonetheless, we feel we are in a relatively good position. The goal would be to identify negative herds and protect this status. Equally, we would aim to identify positive herds and to put in place programmes that will help them to drive down the prevalence. It is feasible to talk about eradication with BVD, but that is a word we would use much more cautiously in terms of Johne's disease, given the complexities. For example, the conventional wisdom is that typically an animal would become infected with Johne's disease in the weeks after birth, or possibly congenitally before birth, but before it would test positive, it could be three, four or five years of age. There is a long latent period which complicates the interpretation.

To return to Animal Health Ireland activity specifically relating to Johne's disease, a technical working group has been working on this. A meeting took place approximately 12 months ago with the dairy board which has given us the authority to go ahead and bring forward recommendations for a national programme. The technical working group is now more or less at the point where those recommendations are in place in broad outline. As Mr. O'Flaherty mentioned, the next step will be a meeting with industry to present that thinking with a view to putting in place an implementation group. Marked progress will be slow. Were we to rank the three diseases in terms of the timescales for progress, the shortest would be for BVD, the medium for IBR and the longest for Johne's disease.

Mr. Mike Magan

I thank the committee for accommodating an earlier start.

I will pick up on a number of general points raised. While we do not specifically have a welfare brief, by improving the health of the national herd animal welfare will improve indirectly. We have some influence on policy when we prove that some of what we do benefits the State.

Regarding funding, I will elaborate on Mr. O'Flaherty's explanation. When we were set up, six dairy processors were prepared to fund us. A further four dairy processors and three major beef processors have since agreed to fund us on the basis of our programmes and their impact. We are pleased with the industry's buy-in.

Recently we published an overall mastitis control programme, CellCheck, which we will roll out this year. This issue must be tackled nationally. Every dairy processor and service provider to the industry is involved in the programme. What we are developing is unique, in that the industry supports us and is involved in our work.

In order that we do not waste reasonably finite resources, we check best international practice before embarking on any programme. All of our programmes are guided by what other countries have been doing successfully. For example, quite a few countries have national BVD programmes. While it is important that we help farmers to get rid of the disease, we would also be disadvantaged in the international marketplace if we did not achieve a status that was the same as or better than that enjoyed by other countries running programmes. This forms part of our motivation, in that we do not want to be left behind. We will eventually become better than many of our market competitors and Ireland will be shown to be a source of top quality food production.

Deputy Pat Deering

Most local authorities employ veterinary surgeons. Does Animal Health Ireland tie in with surgeons and have an input into farm health investigations?

Senator Paschal Mooney

Perhaps I did not put the question properly. I was trying to establish the international perception of Ireland in terms of animal welfare. Our guests touched on this matter, but where does Ireland stand in the pantheon? Are we a leader, or are we playing catch-up? Are we focusing on animal welfare issues that have not been focused on by other countries, for example, measures that could enhance our commercial potential, as mentioned?

Mr. O'Flaherty referred to non-regulated diseases. I am sure this discussion has been ongoing, but, according to the specific figures, Animal Health Ireland has available to it some 58 experts across a wide range of technical working groups. They comprise a significant resource, as our guests have acknowledged. Does the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine have similar resources in terms of regulated diseases? Do Animal Health Ireland and the working groups liaise with the Department? I am coming to this issue semi-ignorant. Why has the Department taken it upon itself to handle one set of regulated diseases and given Animal Health Ireland the job of handling others? It does not seem logical, given that Ireland is a small country and our guests have considerable expertise available to them.

Mr. Joe O’Flaherty

I will try to answer the questions in the order in which they were asked.

We do not liaise with local authority veterinary surgeons specifically, but they fall under the umbrella of their profession's representative body, Veterinary Ireland, which encompasses vets from local authorities, the Department, private practices, etc. We have close liaison with it but not specifically local authority vets.

We attempt to ensure veterinary expertise and practitioners are represented on our technical working groups in addition to academics in order that there can be a balance between the academic and practical points of view. It is important that our programmes are not only robust and scientifically sound but can also be implemented. The point of view of the local authority vet is important in this respect.

Regarding the Department's expertise, it interacts closely with Animal Health Ireland on non-regulated diseases. Departmental veterinary experts sit on our technical working groups and the Department has worked hand in hand with us on the BVD programme. There is good interaction, but it is clear to us from our memo and articles that our remit specifically covers those diseases that are not regulated.

To some degree, the thinking is that the Department has become involved in issues of disease control where there is either a genuine risk to human health, a strong animal welfare component or a genuine threat to international market access. These could be called public good diseases, whereas the diseases with which we deal with are essentially private good diseases, in that the cost of the disease falls on the producer or processor, not society to the same extent. An extension of Animal Health Ireland's remit in the other direction is improbable. Given our significant workload and the level of resources available to us, we are already stretched. We acknowledge the good co-operation we receive from the Department in financial and human resource terms.

As to our international standing and the initiatives that have been taken internationally, I will hand over to Ms McCoy whose specific remit covers milk quality and mastitis control and Mr. Graham who will discuss the position on other diseases.

Ms Finola McCoy

The Animal Health Ireland milk quality programme is called CellCheck. Many European countries, for example, the United Kingdom and the Scandinavian countries, are well advanced and further ahead of Ireland in having a structured, co-ordinated approach to improving udder health, milk quality and mastitis levels. They have achieved this aim in various ways. For example, the United Kingdom's approach started as a commercial venture without the industry's support, but that support is now forthcoming. The United Kingdom is dealing with the challenge by providing the information and training people to take control and improve mastitis levels on farms.

Further afield, Australia and New Zealand are good examples of countries with well co-ordinated, structured national mastitis control programmes. The genesis of the CellCheck programme saw a great deal of collaboration with Dairy Australia. As Mr. Magan mentioned, we have examined international best practice to determine what other countries have done successfully and applied what we have learned to make our programmes as successful and efficient as possible. As well as Irish research, the Australia Countdown Downunder programme has been a useful template and guide in developing CellCheck. When it comes to mastitis control, we are lagging behind somewhat in terms of what has been done in a co-ordinated format to date. We are not the only country in which this is the case. However, by taking these steps towards improving udder health, we are putting ourselves ahead of other countries and improving our potential.

Deputy Ann Phelan asked about alternatives to antibiotic treatment and expensive culling of animals in terms of controlling disease. There are certainly alternatives. A mastitis control programme does not mean treating or culling our way out of the problem. Rather, it involves a focus on preventative practices rather than cures. It may be a cliché but it is nevertheless true that with any disease, prevention is better than cure. We want to reduce the on-farm incidence of disease by empowering farmers and their service providers to control and prevent the incidence of those diseases in the first place.

Vaccination is a potential option. The challenge with vaccination in regard to mastitis is that there are several risk factors for mastitis and several bacteria that can cause it. This poses a practical difficulty in that there is no one product or vaccine that will protect against all of the bacteria. However, there are proven simple, straightforward management practices which can reduce the incidence of mastitis on farms. We are already learning through the CellCheck programme that while this information is out there, it is often forgotten or parked; there is a tendency for people to forget about the basics. However, we have evidence and science to show that these methods work. The first step - what we have done for starters - is to put that information together. Everything contained in our recently published CellCheck farm guidelines is science-based. There is a reference to alternatives such as vaccination, but at this point there is limited science behind it. More science will become available as more research is done in Ireland and internationally. Such methods will become part of the ammunition in time, but for now, we have other proven practices which are already being forgotten about. That is what we need to focus on.

Deputy Michael Colreavy

I have several follow-up questions. I understand AHI deals only with non-regulated diseases. Is there a discussion to be had in terms of some of those diseases joining the regulated diseases? Is there a process by which incidents of non-regulated diseases must be notified to AHI or some other body? Given that animal disease does not recognise any borders, does AHI have discussions with its counterpart in the Stormont Executive in regard to border controls and the impact on animal health of such controls?

Senator Pat O’Neill

I apologise for missing the start of the meeting. My question is very similar to Deputy Colreavy's. In AHI's annual report there is reference to all of the non-regulated diseases, but no reference to regulated diseases such as brucellosis and TB. In regard to the new bovine viral diarrhoea, BVD, programme, will AHI be unable to make observations in regard to BVD or Johne's disease if they become regulated diseases in this country? AHI is an independent body, able to call upon expertise in every facet of animal health. Food here has consistently been proved to be the safest in Europe, and animal health is part of that. It is important that an independent body such as AHI should be allowed to pass comment on the regulated diseases.

Unfortunately, we are not yet free of some of the regulated diseases. We are almost brucellosis free, for example, but I do not know if we ever will be free of TB. In regard to BVD or Johne's disease, I would hate to think they would suddenly become - I will not use the phrase "gravy train", but that there might be an ulterior motive in keeping these schemes. I hope AHI will still be allowed to pass comment on these matters. Is it the case that if BVD and Johne's disease become regulated diseases, AHI will not be allowed to comment on them?

Deputy Pat Deering

Returning to the mastitis issue, as somebody who has been involved in the dairy industry for some time, I too know there is no doubt that prevention is better than cure. The most significant issue in this regard is somatic cell count. To what type of research does AHI have access in this regard? Prevention is certainly better than cure from a mastitis point of view but the somatic cell count issue is more detailed and requires even more research.

Mr. Joe O’Flaherty

I will make some initial comments before handing back to my colleagues. Senator O'Neill's point in regard to regulated diseases and the remit of Animal Health Ireland is well made. My understanding is that its remit extends to those diseases which were unregulated at the time of its creation but that logic would dictate that we continue to be the steering body and the body in charge of the implementation of the control programmes for those diseases even at such time as they become scheduled diseases. In the case of BVD, it could be scheduled under the Diseases of Animals Act 1966 or perhaps under the forthcoming animal health and welfare Bill, whenever that is enacted. In either case, the disease will then be de facto regulated, but my understanding is that Animal Health Ireland will continue to be the co-ordinating body in respect of the control programme for those diseases and we will continue to take responsibility in that capacity.

It is important to draw something of a distinction between Animal Health Ireland and the implementation group which is charged with delivering the BVD control programme. AHI is one of several parties to that implementation group which also includes representatives of the farm organisations, the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. As a small organisation, AHI cannot physically deliver an eradication programme but we can equip veterinary practitioners and farmers to eradicate the disease, as is our intention. In regard to future legislation on BVD and the existing legislation for Johne's disease, which is already a scheduled disease under the Diseases in Animals Act, such legislative developments will not preclude us from continuing to carry out the co-ordination and leadership role we have played to date.

Chairman

If I might interject briefly, there seems to be a consensus among members that it would be desirable for AHI, when it has the rest of its work done, to review some of the regulated diseases. This is a policy matter for Government in the first place. Representatives of AHI came before the previous committee when the organisation was less than a year old and was only developing a vision of its role. BVD has shown clearly how valuable a small entity such as AHI can be in developing a programme and getting it off the ground. Animal health equals animal welfare equals farm profitability; they are all linked. The only way the BVD programme was ever going to get primed was for such a programme to be put in place, after which it would become obvious to farmers that it is in their own interest to have BVD eradicated from their herds, an outcome which can only be achieved through co-ordinated effort.

On the issue of regulated versus unregulated, Mr. O'Flaherty has just said that if and when they become regulated Animal Health Ireland will continue to have an advisory role within its management, which crosses over the line somewhat. While I am not trying to answer for Mr. O'Flaherty, that is my interpretation.

Mr. Joe O’Flaherty

Two important questions were raised, one on interaction with Northern Ireland and the other on the importance of the somatic cell count. I will ask Mr. Graham and Ms McCoy to deal with them respectively.

Mr. David Graham

Our primary interaction with Northern Ireland has been not with the Stormont Assembly, but with various other bodies in Northern Ireland, which are seeking to develop similar strategies. The Ulster Farmers' Union, in particular, has been co-ordinating a cattle health group there. We have met its representatives a number of times to discuss how best to interact. When we focus on specifics such as BVD, for example, there is great merit in being able to address the issue. We are keen to work with them as closely as possible to facilitate that. We have also had a number of very constructive meetings with the chief veterinary officer and some of his deputies in Northern Ireland to at least give them some view of the direction of travel in terms of some of the AHI programmes. They have found that very useful in flagging issues. While those are still non-regulated conditions in Northern Ireland they can see there is benefit on the Government side dealing with them.

The general question of surveillance was raised. In the past 12 months, outside AHI, the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute and the Veterinary Laboratory Service now publish a joint annual surveillance report primarily focusing on endemic diseases on both sides of the Border drawn from the surveillance data which they generate. We have been keen to work with the ICBF and we have been making headway in that regard. The ICBF is a fabulous resource for collating information on the industry here. For example, in the BVD programme, all the test data flow through the ICBF and then back to the farmer. One of the key things we need to be able to do is to monitor uptake progress and identify issues. That, on the BVD front, gives us a great opportunity. Equally we would like to see that becoming the repository of choice for Johne's testing information and IBR. I am sure Ms McCoy will comment on that when discussing cell count. While there is probably no such thing as being almost unique, I believe it is an almost unique resource in terms of animal health and offers us great opportunities in the years ahead.

Senator O'Neill asked about testing. One of the terms we have heard about BVD and some other diseases in recent times, is gravy train of testing. There is no desire on the part of any representatives in the implementation group to see that happen. On the BVD programme there is a very clear steer that what is wanted is a short sharp programme. The goal is three years of tag testing and then potentially another three years of lower-intensity testing thereafter. While AHI is giving this shape, it is ultimately an industry-led programme and it will be down to industry to deliver on that. There is a very clear understanding, even when BVD is compared with TB, that the diagnostics are there and the pattern of spread of disease is well understood and can be addressed. We are all united in seeking to avoid the spread of the disease.

Ms Finola McCoy

Deputy Deering asked about somatic cell count. He identified a very real everyday challenge for farmers and the industry. I will not get into great detail about the science, which may not fascinate everybody as much as it does me. Somatic cell count internationally is a measure of the quality of milk. Somatic cells are there from cows with mastitis infections. We need to get the message across, particularly to farmers, that mastitis is an umbrella term. When we talk about mastitis we mean both clinical cases of mastitis and also sub-clinical cases, which have no other symptom or sign other than a high somatic cell count. It is almost a disease with an unseen presence. Very often when we feel we are dealing with mastitis, they are the cases in which we can see change. However, they only represent the tip of the iceberg. It is the sub-clinical cases that have the biggest effect for the farmer, for the bulk tank and for the industry when they are working with that raw product. We know that technical knowledge and science is not a constraint. We have a huge amount of information. The recommendations we apply are the recommendations we make to deal with clinical cases of mastitis and are applicable to sub-clinical cases also - it is important and relevant for both.

We need to start using the information and technical knowledge we have now rather than feeling it is old and redundant, and that we need a silver bullet or something new - we need to apply what we already know. The technical knowledge is not the constraint, but there is a disconnect between that knowledge and its application or implementation and sometimes even its understanding on a day-to-day farming level. This also applies to service providers helping those farmers. It is as much a culture change as anything, but if we can increase the awareness of what we are dealing with and that it is not necessary to simply put up with it and tolerate it, we can make considerable progress.

Chairman

That has been an informative session.

Mr. Mike Magan

Contributors referred to the amount of expertise available to us. I acknowledge that we could not operate without the level of expertise that comes from various organisations. It comes pro bono to us on the basis that parent organisations lend it to us for the good of the industry. It is a unique and rare resource. It is right to acknowledge that this is why we can succeed. We could not buy the expertise that is made available to us. It is a great template for co-operation and integration of ideas and concepts for the good of the entire industry. I acknowledge that in this forum. It allows us to operate considerably beyond what we would be able to resource in any other way.

Senator Paschal Mooney

I am glad Mr. Magan has reiterated that - it was why I raised the issue about the amount. With the media obsessed with travel expenses and other expenses for semi-State organisations, here are 58 true patriots who are giving their time and expertise to the State in the interest of the State for nothing. That is a story that should be highlighted.

Mr. Mike Magan

I thank the Senator.

Chairman

On the basis that Animal Health Ireland has been able to enrol the support of initially six and now ten plus three beef processors, who are not known to be overly generous with giving away money unless they see value in it, it is an endorsement of what Animal Health Ireland stands for in an industry that is worth between €8 billion and €10 billion a year, accounting for up to 20% of the workforce if all aspects are included. When the delegates last appeared before the committee in 2009 or 2010, it was probably not recognised as being quite as important by all the gurus as it is today. Animal Health Ireland's mission statement, vision and functions clearly explain what it is about. That the processors use the entity for their gains shows how one entity can perform efficiently. We cannot separate animal health, animal welfare and profitability issues. From a reputational and efficiency point of view, whether in terms of the somatic cell count or BVD reducing profitability, Animal Health Ireland is a model for an industry of critical importance to the nation. It was important that members heard from the delegates today and had the issues explained. This has been a useful exercise, as we are all aware of the role Animal Health Ireland plays. In terms of the cost benefit, as Senator Mooney stated, it has 58 or 60 support personnel in its technical working group which provides a model of how best to support such an important industry.

I wish the delegates well. We appreciate their taking the time early in the year to give us an insight into their operations. If there is anything on which committee members can help them in any way, they should feel free to revert to us.

The joint committee went into private session at 2.45 p.m. and resumed in public session at 3.55 p.m.