The herd in question was restricted on 2 August 2014 arising from the detection of 4 TB reactors during a routine round herd test conducted under my Departments TB Eradication Programme. In keeping with normal protocols in such cases, the herd concerned was subject to 2 further tests at 60 day intervals to determine if the restriction could be lifted. While the first of these two 60-day tests disclosed no further reactors, the second test on 20 December 2014 gave an indeterminate result for two animals (i.e. the reactions by these animals to the TB skin test were not within the defined norms such that they could be determined to be either positive or negative). The normal procedure for such situations was followed and the animals were subject to two follow-up blood tests (Gamma Interferon) on 5 and 12 January 2015, both of which were negative (it is normal practice by the Department, where there is an absence of correlation between the skin and the initial blood test, to conduct a second blood test). Having fully complied with the normal procedures, the herd concerned was de-restricted on 14 January.
As the regulatory authority with responsibility for implementing the bovine TB eradication programme, my Department was centrally involved in the decision making process in this case. In this context, and in accordance with normal practice, communications take place as necessary between relevant officials, including a meeting on 9 January 2015 (but not on 7 January as stated in the Question). However, a decision on de-restriction had to await the final outcome of the blood testing phase referred to in the preceding paragraph and, as stated, this decision was not taken until 14 January 2015. In summary, I am satisfied that no decisions were taken in haste and that my Department acted appropriately in this matter and that all of the appropriate procedures were followed with a view to the elimination of TB from the herd and to prevent any spread to other herds. I am not aware of conflict of interest in the management of this issue.
In relation to the second matter raised which, I should emphasise, has no bearing on the management of the disease incident referred to above, as I have stated in response to recent questions on this issue, following stakeholder representations over a number of years, Teagasc proposes to establish a ‘suckler’ demonstration farm in Athenry to serve farmers in the West of Ireland. The project is modelled on the well known Greenfield dairy demonstration farm in Kilkenny, which annually attracts large numbers of farmers and discussion groups. The Greenfield model is very highly regarded, and provides a public good demonstration service to all farmers in the dairy sector. It is envisaged that the Athenry suckler project would operate along similar lines with the aim of demonstrating to farmers the profit that can be obtained from a well run suckler beef farm.
The operation of the demonstration farm and the dissemination of research from this farm is an ‘operational’ matter for Teagasc and its governing Authority, which comprises representatives of the main stakeholder groups in the agri-food sector including the farm organisations.
