Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine debate -
Wednesday, 6 Nov 2024

Following the agenda, the second session of today's meeting is on the examination of the TB eradication programme.

The witnesses are welcome. I will now read the notice on privilege. Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that witnesses have a full defence in any defamation action taken based on anything they say in the committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence by a direction of the Chair. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard. They are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, where reasonable and unless there is no alternative, no commentary should be made identifying a third person or entity. Witnesses giving evidence from outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same legal immunity as witnesses giving evidence from inside the parliamentary precincts and may consider taking legal advice on this matter. Privilege against any defamatory action does not apply to publication outside the precincts of the committee on any matters arising from these proceedings.

I now call Mr. Conor O'Mahony to read his opening statement and we will take questions then afterwards.

I begin by thanking the Cathaoirleach, Deputies and Senators for inviting the Department to appear before them today. I am principal officer in the Department and am joined by Dr. Damien Barrett, senior superintending veterinary inspector. We are responsible for the development of policy in relation to and the implementation of the bovine TB eradication programme. We welcome the opportunity to appear before the committee to discuss the bovine TB eradication strategy.

The Department is acutely aware of the financial and emotional stress associated with a TB breakdown. It causes significant hardship for farmers and farming families. This Department is committed to the objectives of the bovine TB eradication strategy and programme, which aims to reduce and ultimately eradicate this disease in Ireland. Unfortunately, since we were before the committee last year, the prevailing disease situation has not improved despite the efforts of stakeholders. The importance of Ireland’s TB eradication programme in underpinning farm family income should not be underestimated. As a country that exports 90% of our livestock produce, access to international trade markets is fundamental. It is a requirement of EU trade law to have an eradication programme. This enables Irish farmers to access the EU Single Market for our cattle, including calves, and their meat and milk. This is also a requirement for access to third country markets. Our export markets to third countries have grown substantially in value and volume in the last ten years, and it is notable that in several cases, TB is a significant consideration in the context of trade and certification requirements. A cost benefit analysis report of the TB programme carried out by Grant Thornton in 2021 estimated that in economic terms, 78% of the benefits of the bovine TB eradication programme relate to private goods while 22% accrues to public goods.

TB is a challenging disease to control and eradicate due to several factors. The relative contribution of each of these factors varies from farm to farm. They include movement of cattle with undetected infection; residual infection in cattle previously exposed to TB; the inherent limitations of the tests; a reservoir of disease in a protected species, namely, the badger; and inadequate biosecurity practices on farms. As such, it is important that farmers are empowered to make the best choices for their own circumstances to protect their cattle from TB. It is critical that they are given practical advice based on scientific research about how they can reduce their TB risk, as well as relevant and useful information about their own herds, their own cattle and their own farming practices in order that they can make any management changes which may be necessary if they wish to avoid the costs and stress of a TB breakdown. This includes making informed decisions about the purchase of cattle and maintaining good overall herd health. The advice on how to reduce TB risk in a herd has remained generally consistent over many years and we continue to encourage farmers to act on it utilising a broader range of communication tools. Stakeholder endorsement of this advice, through the TB Forum, is hugely important in encouraging farmers to take active steps to reduce their TB risk.

Vaccinating badgers reduces the transmission of TB within the badger population and thereby reduces transmission to cattle.

This protects cattle and reduces losses to farmers while safeguarding a native protected Irish wild species. Scientific research carried out in Ireland over many years has demonstrated the effectiveness of badger vaccination. We are providing information and advice on the practical steps farmers can take to reduce the risk from badgers by a range of means, including text messages, videos, leaflets and farmer meetings. By combining these practical farmer-led risk reduction actions with the policy of vaccination to prevent breakdowns and targeted licensed badger removal where necessary in response to spillover from badgers to cattle, we can greatly mitigate the risk of TB at the wildlife and cattle interface.

The bovine TB stakeholder forum, established in May 2018, in line with international best practice on the governance of animal health programmes has a mandate to develop evidence-informed policies that can control and ultimately eradicate TB. The Bovine TB Eradication Strategy 2021-2030 was published in January 2021 and identified the key actions necessary to eradicate TB. The key actions in the strategy are preventing spread from herds with a high risk of recurrence; enhanced actions to clear infection from extended breakdown herds; addressing the risk from inconclusive animals; action plans for areas with increased localised TB levels; aligning with changes in the EU animal health law TB regulations; reducing the risk posed by badgers and deer; tailored and simplified communications between the Department and herdowners; clearer messaging of the risks of TB transmission and how to address them; and biosecurity advice delivered to farmers, with a focus on practical, clear and effective actions to reduce risk and incentivise risk-lowering behaviour.

From time to time, a narrative develops that our objective should be to control TB due to the failure thus far to eradicate it. Aside from our EU obligation to have an eradication programme and the importance of this programme to our export partners throughout the world, I wish to be clear that the actions we need to focus on and implement are the same, whether the goal is to control or eradicate this disease.

As of 27 October, 5,906 herds had suffered a TB breakdown in the previous 12 months in comparison with 4,914 in the same period last year. Data analysis suggests the reasons underpinning current levels of TB incidence are the expansion of the dairy herd and the resulting increased levels of intensive cattle farming and increased movement of cattle. These conditions are associated with heightened susceptibility to disease, whether that is TB or any other infectious disease. We have also seen a substantial increase in the number of reactors, with 39,339 being disclosed in the past 12 months in comparison with just over 26,500 in the previous 12 months, an increase of 12,758, or 48%. In addition, almost 9.89 million tests were carried out in the 12 months up to 27 October compared with around 9.66 million tests in the same period in 2023.

In driving strategic change in the bovine TB programme in Ireland, the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, has consistently highlighted the important role of stakeholder collaboration. Reflecting this, implementation of the TB strategy is being facilitated by a governance structure designed to ensure all perspectives are considered. The TB stakeholder forum is supported by three working groups, scientific, finance and implementation, each of which has an independent chair to deliver on its specific terms of reference. The working groups report back to the TB forum as required throughout the year.

In 2023, more than 9.8 million individual animal TB tests were completed in more than 100,000 herds. Delivering the TB programme in any given year represents a massive logistical operation achieved through the co-operation of farmers, private vets and Department officials right across the country. The overall cost to the Exchequer of the TB programme, excluding staff costs, has increased from full-year costs of €57 million in 2023 to €74 million as of the end of October, and it is on track to increase further in 2025. In this time, the primary driver of increased costs has been compensation. For many years, Ireland’s TB programme has been financially supported by the EU. However, EU support for the TB programme has ceased because of funding pressures for other emerging diseases throughout the EU. This funding gap will have to be addressed by the remaining stakeholders and is a potent reminder of the need for collaboration and urgency of action to decrease the disease levels.

The TB strategy sets out how the Department and stakeholders will continue to engage on the issues impacting on TB levels in Ireland, which will involve some difficult choices. By building our policies on a foundation of science and by providing practical science-based advice which farmers can act on to reduce their risks, we can together focus our efforts to protect cattle from infection and farmers from the stress, uncertainty and costs of a breakdown. Most actions set out under the current TB strategy have either been implemented or are advancing well towards implementation. However, we are at a point now where we have to consider whether we are, as a collective, prepared to make the difficult choices that may be required to make a step change. Some of these have been discussed at the TB forum. They include voluntary or mandatory informed purchasing; voluntary or mandatory risk-based trading; incentivising risk-lowering behaviours and disincentivising risk elevating behaviours; reducing spread between areas using contract rearing risk mitigation and restrictions on movements from high to low TB areas; dynamic risk estimation at herd and animal level; supporting quality TB testing using gamma interferon blood testing and spatial tools to identify each group of cattle; and reducing spread from high-risk herds by restricting older breeding cattle and confining TB exposed cattle to controlled finishing units. None of these options are easy for anyone but with stakeholder support, they have the potential to make a real difference.

From the Department’s point of view, we acknowledge the legitimate concerns of those whose businesses and lives are affected by this disease. Equally, we have an obligation to use the best scientific evidence to reduce the risk of infection for herds that are currently free of the disease and to help those with chronic or repeating problems to manage their way out of them. We can only make real progress together and the Department is committed to constructive and collaborative engagement on all of these matters.

We now have the building blocks in place to implement additional measures to the existing TB programme that can lower disease incidence and result in fewer farm families having to endure the challenges associated with a TB restriction. We are committed to constructive engagement with all stakeholders in helping the farming community. I hope that the next time we address the committee on bovine TB, we will be able to outline a positive picture of reducing TB incidence. I welcome any questions from members of the committee.

I thank Mr. O'Mahony and Dr. Barrett for coming before the committee this evening. This is something we have dealt with on a regular basis at the committee and on the field of play as farmers, which most of us here are. With the greatest respect to everybody involved, and there is no blame game here, as the opening statement relates, the situation is getting worse instead of better. I do not know where we go from here. Everything has been tried. The last time the witnesses came before the committee I spoke about vaccination. I heard a bit on Claire Byrne's radio programme the other morning and I know the Department is working in collaboration with the UK and monitoring its development of a vaccination. The issue is being able to tell the difference between a reactor and vaccinated animal.

It is probably an easy cliché, and this would not get the same determination, but we came up with the Covid vaccination for human beings in a matter of months. I know I am comparing apples with oranges and it is not a proper analogy to make. Given the amount of money we are spending and the lack of progress we are making, is there an argument to be made that we throw the proverbial kitchen sink at this with a pharmaceutical company, a scientific unit in a university or an expert in the field of science? Should we throw ten years' worth of TB money at this to come up with a vaccination? This will not be solved until we are vaccinating. I would like the opinions of the witnesses on that.

We are vaccinating badgers and it is very hit and miss. I get text messages about badger movement in my area but they are hit and miss. Some people will not respond to the text messages because they fear drawing the Department on top of them. This is human nature and it is a fact. Many of these things are ignored because someone thinks if they respond to say they saw a badger, they will have the whole Department down the following day. These measures are difficult to make work for many such reasons. What do the witnesses think about vaccination? Is there the potential to expedite it? This problem will not be solved until we are vaccinating.

Mr. O'Mahony spoke about the issues discussed at the TB forum which would be bitter pills to swallow but may have to be the next step. Whose decision would it be to move to this next level and introduce some of the measures he mentioned?

Senator Daly has made a very valid point on vaccination. Our modelling suggests if we had a vaccine available, it would be the single most effective intervention we could make. We do not have a vaccine on the market. As the Senator is aware, work is being done by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, DEFRA, in the UK and we are liaising with it. The biggest research funder in TB in the world is the Gates foundation. It is also looking at vaccination. It is looking at it as a public health measure in the developing world.

There is a significant body of research on TB vaccination. TB, by its nature, is one of those diseases where it is proven that developing a vaccine for a microbacterium, which is the type of bacteria that TB is, is significantly more complex than developing one for a virus like Covid. All things are possible, however. The crunch point here, as Senator Daly rightly pointed out, is differentiating between vaccinated cattle and infected cattle. That is being worked on.

On the other side of this, there are very significant legislative and trade implications to vaccinating animals. As a nation which exports a volume of bovine-derived product, be that beef, dairy or whatever, that would have massive implications for the export of that product. That is another front which needs to be addressed.

In simple terms, a vaccine would make this far more straightforward from a disease control point of view. The logistics of achieving that are complicated and the trade implications are probably more complicated.

The focus of the Gates foundation work is probably more in the public health sphere - people - but where there is research on TB, whether it is in people or in animals, there is probably a crossover and the technology may be shared. From the point of view of a product that would be ready to go, my understanding is that the DEFRA research is probably more advanced for something in the cattle sphere but it is not imminent.

It is not so much the vaccination. The studies suggest reasonable efficacy in cattle but it comes down to the differentiation between animals. We are obliged to continue to have an eradication programme under the animal health law. With the current test technology we have, we cannot differentiate between which animals have been vaccinated. An animal that has been vaccinated will give an immune reaction that is similar to that of an infected animal. That is the crux of it.

On the issues being discussed in the forum and who will make that decision, ultimately, the best policy is an agreed one. A couple of years ago, we saw significant farmer opposition to certain policies that the Department tried to implement. The forum is trying to bring everybody together by working collaboratively. We know where the issues are with regard to the risk of TB and further outbreaks of the disease. In the past couple of months the Department and the farmer organisations have been discussing how to address these key issues which we need to wrestle with. All farm organisations are aware that we just cannot stay with what we have been doing for the past number of years because it is clearly not working. Those conversations, as the Senator can imagine, are difficult and I do not want to breach the confidential nature of any of those conversations-----

I thank the witnesses for coming in. I have a couple of quick questions. I raised an eyebrow at the suggestion that the Gates foundation would be more into disease in humans. My understanding is that the foundation is buying up a great deal of land in America and leaving it idle. It is not a fan of cattle, in my understanding.

On the research, and I have looked into this a bit, it is a long way off. One vaccine was produced but it was not possible to distinguish between a positive and a negative. They are trying to perfect that. People are not living in a sort of Funderland - realistically, it is a while off. Would that be fair to say?

My next question come from a guy would did a fair bit of looking at TB; he was a Department person and he looked at different scenarios. Is it true to say that, no more than there could be a gene for cancer in a person and something will trigger it, all cattle have a gene for TB that could be triggered? Is that fair to say?

I would not say it is in all cattle. There are differences insofar as whether that come across it are more genetically susceptible or resistant to it. Coming up to breeding season this year, farmers received text messages advising them, when choosing bulls for the breeding season, to choose bulls with greater resistance. The Deputy has correctly pointed out that there will not be a vaccine on the horizon in the short term. In the absence of a vaccine, what is available in the short-term is breeding for resistance. This is essentially genetic resistance, rather than vaccine resistance.

I hope Dr. Barrett will be able to explain one thing to me which I can never understand. Many farmers have phoned me up to tell me a few animals had gone down. On the accuracy of the two stabs in the neck, when the animals go to the factory and the results come back, it is discovered that animals do not have the disease. That is causing a great deal of vexation among farmers.

It depends. It has better sensitivity and detects more but the specificity is not as good. That means there are more false positives. We use the blood test in circumstances where we are confident that there is cattle-to-cattle transmission going on. We generally do not use it in single reactors or where we do not believe on epidemiological grounds that cattle-to-cattle transmission is taking place because there is a risk that we would be taking out false positives.

We have the evidence and trial work, which has shown it is on a par with culling. One needs to bear in mind we need to get penetration of the badger population and have sufficient numbers of the badger population vaccinated. That is why we sent out those texts to which the Senator referred. We need to know where the badgers are to vaccinate them. That is the challenge. It is not a small body of work, going through the byroads of the country.

I know. This is probably a question for Mr. O’Mahony because, in fairness, Dr. Barrett is on the veterinary side. There seems to be a horrid shortage of people for culling badgers, testing and trapping them or whatever. You hear about farmers ringing up and about their awful frustration. Is it that there is not enough of a budget for that? What is wrong?

Our expenditure on the wildlife programme, which includes capturing for vaccination and culling, has almost doubled in the past four or five years. There is no lack of resources. Going back to the early 2000s when we started culling badgers, we have more or less consistently culled the same number over that entire period. Our culling level has not dropped. It might go up a couple of hundred-odd a year.

We are taking out about 6,000 a year. Since 2019, we have started capturing significant number of badgers for vaccination. Any increase in the population of badgers is associated with increased vaccination within that population. The ideal goal is to have a healthy wildlife population as well. It is not a question that there are not enough resources put into the wildlife programme. Our resources have almost doubled in the past couple of years.

Yes. Likewise, it could do so if it was harvested for silage but in the ensiling process, the pH level going down kills off the bacteria. It is a risk. We are highly concerned about it. We have tried to highlight it. Zero grazing has become more popular in the past few years, particularly last spring when fodder there was a shortage of fodder.

No. We have evidence from County Wicklow through whole-genome sequencing that the same strains of TB were present in deer, badgers and cattle. We do not have that evidence established in other parts of the country. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but we have good data there. Generally speaking, the level of TB in deer samples that have been submitted to regional veterinary labs for analysis is approximately 2%. In one particular study in County Wicklow, we found that to be about 16%. In low-incidence areas, the level of TB among badgers is about 15% and in high-incidence areas it could be between 30% or 40%.

To reiterate, there is an acceptance among all stakeholders that something different needs to happen across a number of areas. The risk of transmission from high-risk animals to other herds needs to be addressed and wrestled with. A number of years ago, proposals put forward by the Department were not accepted by other stakeholders. We have been discussing with them over the past few months potential measures that could be implemented to address that particular risk that can be acceptable to them, while at the same time reducing the transmission of TB from what we consider higher-risk animals and higher-risk herds. As I said to Senator Daly, those conversations with farm organisations are ongoing. I do not want to betray the nature of those conversations. Given the high levels of disease now relative to a couple of years ago, there is a chance of ultimately getting agreement on these new measures.

Correct me if I am wrong, but if there are younger animals, some of the feed lots have the right to buy and put them in. They could have animals that are clean. Dr. Barrett just said they could spread the disease. How does that operate? If I am a feed lot owner, my understanding – correct me if I am wrong – is that some cattle that have TB can be bought by feed lots.

They can. This was agreed with farming organisations in the context of the financial working group. The hardship grant conditions were amended to remove the off-farm income limit but it would only be paid in the event that the farmer had more animals this winter than last year as a result of the restriction.

Take the classic example of a suckler farmer who sells their weanlings in October or November. They often test a month or two beforehand. If they got locked up they will be left with the weanlings they would otherwise have sold over the winter. In agreement with the farm organisations the conditions were that farmers had to have more animals this winter than last winter as a result of their restriction, because the purpose of the hardship grant is to help people who must incur the additional cost of holding onto these animals over the winter.

I will ask just one more question because the Vice Chair is jumping. A few farmers have been on to me in the last few weeks. There is the assessment done on a dairy cow where the amount of milk she had is looked at to do the valuation and all that, but on the EBI something has changed over the last few weeks so there is between €50 and €80 less being got for the same cow than would have been got six months ago. Am I right in saying that?

There was an EBI top-up introduced ten to 15 years ago, or more, at the time of the introduction of the EBI. At that time EBI was new and when farmers were buying animals it was not really built into the market value of an animal. The Deputy might remember it was back in 2000 or 2001 that the EBI was originally introduced. In the intervening 20 years I think there has been an acceptance of EBI among dairy farmers. It is built into farmers' breeding decisions and also their purchasing decisions, so when you are selling an animal on the open market the EBI is taken into account when somebody decides what to bid on that animal. On the live market valuation, the last time there was an EBI revision was over ten years ago. It was €1.05 per unit EBI. That was for the last ten years. In the intervening time EBI is becoming more and more incorporated into the purchase price of dairy stock by farmers, therefore the necessity of an EBI, or more accurately the extent of the EBI top-up, was not really reflecting marketplace activity because it is almost built into people's everyday decisions when buying dairy cattle. That is why it was reduced. The financial working group has started to meet again lately on doing a review of the changes introduced two years ago and one of the changes is looking at how we can use EBI better in the context of incentivising people to-----

It has gone down. The reduction was 30 cent per unit EBI, but it is important to stress the original purpose of the EBI was to encourage uptake of EBI and to get people taking EBI into account when they purchase animals, because we are talking about calculating the market value of the animal. For the last 15 to 20 years the marketplace for dairy animals has incorporated EBI, so the previous rate-----

I thank the witnesses for their opening statement and the discussion in respect of the situation with TB eradication. It is something farmers across the country have had a somewhat jaundiced view of, in some cases. A lot of money has been spent on it and it is not really delivering. We can all say that pretty truthfully. We had the Minister in here yesterday and I raised this with him in the context of the budget that goes to TB eradication every year. I said that if a portion of that budget could have been put towards research into a vaccination programme ten, 15 or 20 years ago, we would be in a better place now. I want to tease that out a little with the witnesses.

I appreciate the discussion we have had up to now. I am aware of some of the work that has been done by various companies and laboratories on this. I would like to ask about a situation where a vaccination was developed and was given to calves when they are born. This is one of the things I want to find out. If a cow has TB and a calf is born, does the TB carry through to the calf? If we had a vaccination programme and we started with the calves, how quickly do the witnesses think we would be in a situation where we would have the herd vaccinated across the State? Is it possible to put some kind of marker in? I get the point that the test for an infected animal and a vaccinated animal will produce the same result as things stand. Could a marker be put in to distinguish between vaccinated and infected animals?

That is where the research is probably working on at the moment. There are tests called DIVA tests which can identify infected antibodies from natural infection antibodies. That is where that is at. As I said earlier, the technical side of it is challenging, but ultimately it will be addressed and gotten over. The trade implications of this are even more challenging. It is going to depend on agreement at EU Commission level and World Organisation for Animal Health level and that is not a straightforward task.

The Deputy asked whether the disease can be transferred from dam to calf. It can be transferred via milk and on occasion we see that happening.

On the research into vaccination, there has been a lot of commentary in the last while about a vaccine. I am sorry, the question was how long would it take us to get it to the population. We would get it done in a year because we get the national population tuberculin tested once a year and it would be a similar type of procedure.

I asked the question because we are all aware of the experience with Covid and how quickly a number of vaccines were developed when backs were to the wall. If the same level or even a percentage of that level of dedication was put into finding a solution here, we could be in a different place.

There is another point I want to tease out with Dr. Barrett a little. He mentioned how it is about getting not just the vaccination but also all the approvals that have to be secured because we export so much of what we produce and we export some of our cattle live as well. As a natural result, we would have to have international agreements around whatever is going to be happening here. Even if we had the vaccine and everything in place and we were confident it would work, we would have to have all that international approval. I assume that would probably take longer than rolling the vaccine out across the herd.

It is interesting that the UK is probably the leader in this as it is a country that is not self-sufficient in livestock produce. It could consume all its livestock produce, whereas we could not. I would not underestimate the challenge of getting international agreement to this because our competitors would be only too glad to put a stick in the spokes of our bicycle.

There was a list provided of things that have been discussed and what they are. Included is voluntary or mandatory informed purchasing and voluntary or mandatory risk-based trading. Much of that is about movement of animals. In a reply to Deputy Fitzmaurice, Dr. Barrett mentioned these restricted farms, fattening units or whatever. The animals that go in there do not move or leave. There is no movement and from that perspective they get a different set of standards or a different regime from other animals being traded on the open market. Is restricting movement of animals part of the solution here? Is that the direction of travel Dr. Barrett is going in?

I want to get my head around some stuff here. We have probably one of the best pharmaceutical industries in the world here in Ireland. We have top class scientists. We have top class laboratory technicians. The TB programme started around 1954. It is a bacteria. One can be a little bit cynical about the pharmaceutical companies. How much does a human test cost?

There are 9.89 million of them per year; that is a lot. I am not a conspiracy theorist or anything but it seems to me that from 1954 to now, we could not solve it. We did all that stuff with other bacteria like chickenpox and everything else but we cannot seem to get a vaccine in that length of time.

Dr. Barrett spoke about the badgers. How is that detail gathered? Is there a specific programme from gathering the detail of the badgers such as where they are exactly, how many have been done and so forth?

The cost of the bovine TB eradication programme was €57 million in 2023 and it is €74 million at the end of October and the projection is that it will go even higher. It is worrying that the funding has been ceased by the European Union. Is there a plan in place to fill that gap or who fills the gap?

As for the research on this, in the context of northern Europe the countries that are affected most by bovine TB are Ireland, Wales and the south-west of England. The market for this, relatively speaking, compared to the market for Covid vaccines is very small. There is probably not the same level of research and development going into this although there is research on it. The other thing about a bacteria is that we should not underestimate it. We are all afraid of viruses like Covid and foot and mouth disease and they are considered to be relatively fast moving pathogens. TB is slow moving but it is tough and it has a couple of different complications that makes it very difficult to deal with it. It persists in the environment for several weeks and months compared to a virus that exists for two weeks.

Some animals that are infected by it may go undetected as the disease advances. The tests we have available for it may not be able to detect it. It is not an insignificant body of work to develop this vaccine. The BCG vaccine that a lot of us may have received as children is 100 years old. Most of the modern vaccines we deal with are either that or a variation of that. TB is a particularly difficult nut to crack. I understand why people may be cynical but we also need to understand that while it costs this sum, it supports the export industry. We would not have those exports if we did not have a programme.

The EU funding has ceased. In essence, the shortfall and the increased cost is met by the Exchequer through direct funds. Farmers pay disease levies as well. The quickest way we can reduce the cost of that is to reduce the disease levels in the herd by reducing the number of herds that are restricted and reduce the number of reactors.

The countries we can learn most from are probably Australia and particularly New Zealand. Our pasture based system is not unlike the system in New Zealand. They have embarked on these controls around animal movements which we are talking about here. That is a key element. In New Zealand, they have a wildlife reservoir like ourselves but their wildlife reservoir is a possum, which is not a protected species. They also make more aggressive use of the gamma interferon blood testing. The experience there is the curtailment of the movement of high-risk animals from high-risk herds is probably the single most effective thing which we are not applying to the same extent.

The big thing on that, which the Deputy's constituents may have heard about, related to adult cows and bulls over 36 months. After that age, they need to be within a six month window of getting tested. That has been the main alignment with the animal health law. Our legislation was fairly closely aligned apart from that.

I question the conclusion about the building blocks being put in place and the prediction that there will be a lower disease level. I look at my own part of the world, that is, south Cork and south-west Cork. I argue that we are on the verge of an epidemic of TB in the next few months there. Cattle will be housed within the next few days. There are exceptionally high levels of TB at that moment in that part of the world. When they are housed, the potential for the disease to spread through the herds is quite obvious. I know from my own experience on our farm that when cattle go in with a high level of TB and when we do our TB tests, we have chaos. What could happen here next January, February and March is something we will never again see. I genuinely think we are at epidemic levels in our part of the world.

I compliment the staff we have in Clonakilty. Ed Myers and his team are doing an amazing job there and they are dealing with huge outbreaks and vast numbers.

The days of going into a farmyard and having one or two reactors is gone. There are now multiples. It could be 24, 25 or 52. The number we are dealing with are unheard of. The level of infection in the community is at the highest level I have ever seen in my part of the world. The majority if not all of these herds are closed herds. That is an issue where the movement of animals is going to have an effect. I do not know if it will. These are dairy herds in particular. Some 70% of the national herd comprises dairy herds with animals that have been found to have TB. I have a great worry about what will happen.

I want to raise a number of issues with the officials. What is the logic in having doubtfuls in the system? Why do we have TB tests for doubtfuls every six months after they are doubtful? That is the logic we have in the system. Were one to get rid of the doubtful, one would have to dispose but one cannot go through mart. There is then a knock-on implication that there is a value loss as a consequence. I do not understand why we have doubtfuls. This is coming from a farmer who has had doubtfuls. I have been involved in a TB test scenario where every six months we were TB testing the animal. When I realised that an animal was doubtful, I moved it on very quickly. Have we a pattern or policy for what we will do with the doubtfuls in our herds? It should be pass or fail. The farmer needs to have a financial reward if there is a fail. Otherwise, he will be caught in the middle and he is going nowhere. That issue has to be looked at.

On the wildlife issue, Dr. Barrett said the budget has doubled. We have heard that there are not enough wildlife officers on the ground and that we are looking at a scenario where farm-relief services are involved and Department staff are not available. We have heard that there may be eight wildlife officers missing nationally. How many gaps are in the service and where are those gaps? We need to know where the gaps in the service are.

On the potential for farmers' animals to go down next January, February and March, they will be stuck in a scenario where they have calves they cannot move. The percentage of those calves which will go down at 42 days is very limited. One might argue how can they get the infection unless they are getting the milk. If they are getting the milk, maybe there is a way around this. The welfare issue for the farmer and for the animals in a herd that is potentially locked up in springtime is enormous. It is frightening. I was there three years ago, and we still talk about it. We did not sell a calf until 2 July. It was chaotic. We got through that period, but it cost us a fortune. We need a solution for it. We have nobody who will take a Friesian bull calf. Therefore there are two options: one rears that animal or one does the disastrous job which is to slaughter the animal, which none of us wants to do as farmers. We have to find a solution for the 42-day-old calf. We have to see a proposal because the only avenues are to rear it or it will be slaughtered. We do not slaughter them. The stress caused by that is frightening.

Take the high-incidence herd that the Department is saying could be the issue we need to look at. If a herd is then categorised as being high incidence, there is a financial impact immediately in respect of that herd. How will we then deal with that herd? Look at my part of the world. If you go to Ballinhassig, Barryroe, Caheragh or Drimoleague vast herds are all locked up. Parishes are locked up. We are potentially saying that trading from parishes could be stopped if that was to happen. How can that happen and what could the solution be?

On the badger population, one veterinary surgeon told me last week that we have a housing issue in respect of badgers because there are so many there at the moment. Instead of having two to a sett, there are seven or eight. That is one of the key issues. We have such large numbers in some areas. Has the vaccination programme increased the number of badgers and, in turn, also increased the volume of TB because there are not enough setts and there is not enough habitat? What have we considered around those issues?

The main issue here is the stress on the family farm and the farmer. I would also mention the stress on the vet coming into the yard and putting down 30, 40 or 50 animals. He goes back the next week and he has to look at that farmer. He has to deal with those issues. It is a tough game. We all know the suicide rate among vets. There are issues there as well. However, this entire thing is at epidemic levels in my part of the world. I am fearful of what will happen next January, February and March when animals are housed for six, eight or ten weeks when they are going in with levels of infection. The officials might correct me, but I am of the view that the levels of infection in south and west Cork are at an all-time high.

The Leas-Chathaoirleach raised a number of issues. There is no doubt that in his part of the world we are looking at very high levels of TB. Herd incidences have reached very high levels. The fact the disease has been identified and the numbers he has spoken about indicate high levels of cattle-to-cattle transmission. We cannot say for certain how it was introduced to those herds but when one sees numbers like that there have been large levels of calf to cattle transmission. We would hope the efforts to remove the reactors has removed the focus of infection from those herds. However, it is worth bearing in mind that since 2019, from our analysis of what we call the healthy slaughters, that is slaughters from unrestricted herds, the levels of TB in that population rose 13% year on year between 2019 and 2023. That also increased the transmission to the badgers. There has been a rise. The detection of that rise really kicked in from mid-2023. It seems to have been surging ahead from mid-2023.

To return to the point about whether housing will be the risk, I do not have a crystal ball. I cannot be sure. I would be confident that the level of removal of reactors should reduce that risk substantially. As I say, I do not have a crystal ball but I am very hopeful. I hope those herds have seen their worst.

On the doubtfuls, this has been the interpretation of the test and the standards. Doubtfuls carry a risk. When we mention herd incidence, the herd was not restricted as a doubtful but those animals were at higher risk. What we have been trying to do is encourage people to take those animals out voluntarily.

I understand that.

We must get to a situation where we treat this as a disease eradication programme rather than asking the State to fund it without rooting out disease. These are one or two animals in large operations. There is a risk–reward aspect here in respect of the reward to be gained by taking these animals out versus the consequences of leaving them behind, which will lead to bigger breakdowns. People need to make these business decisions.

It is a business decision, but from a risk point of view in respect of the Department, having doubtful animals in the system is a risk. Have we looked at the policy element of having such doubtfuls? We are not talking about the financial element, because we can talk about that and argue the point in that regard. There is, though, a risk element to having doubtfuls in a system. In some cases, when we have doubtfuls in a system and then a reactor, the doubtfuls are automatically taken out after.

This calls into question the doubtfuls and whether, realistically, they should be looked at differently now when we consider where we are now with the figures regarding TB. We are looking at having a supplementary budget. If I am right, that is going to be increased by 71%, with another €40 million going into it. It is a huge amount of money.

Yes, but we have scenarios here where we have flying herds being encouraged. What must be borne in mind here is that an individual farmer could have his herd 100% closed. If he has a flying herd beside him, however, that may introduce disease to badgers. That farmer, then, through no fault of his own, may see his herd infected. If there is a flying herd beside him, that may be a source of infection for the badgers. That may, in turn, be a source of infection for that farmer's herd. I feel very sorry for those people with closed herds where, through no fault of their own, the disease may be introduced.

It depends on the outbreak. We have had some outbreaks in the recent past where we have had big numbers of calves. When we come across an outbreak, we cannot determine what way it is going to go. We need to adopt a precautionary principle there. They are not a zero risk at all. I do, however, fully accept that they create considerable difficulties for dairy farmers at a time in the year when labour is short and accommodation is lacking. We are considering a way of addressing this issue in such a manner as to mitigate the risk. On the badger management, as Mr. O'Mahony said already, the levels of culling have been relatively consistent over the past 20 years.

We need to refocus on how we break down the transmission pathway or block the transmission pathway between cattle and badgers. It is unrealistic to think that vaccination is going to deliver that outcome on its own. We captured around 9,000 badgers last year for vaccination. That figure has doubled since 2019. We conducted some modelling research and it suggests that vaccination on its own and our current controls are insufficient to eradicate TB. This also suggests we need to break the link. We need to prevent the opportunities for badger-to-cattle interactions. This involves fencing off badger setts, raising water troughs and fencing off yards. Beet and maize in yards are two foodstuffs badgers are very fond of. They will need to be fenced off so the badgers cannot access those resources. The Department oversees the vaccinations but there is also an onus on farmers to break this transmission link themselves.

To be clear on this, we are talking about high-risk herds plus high-risk animals within high-risk herds. Without breaking confidences, this revolves around animals that are cohorts of reactors. These are the high-risk animals. In effect, they are cows. If the cows are the high-risk animals, the calves would not be considered as high risk. We could see a scenario where there are controls on the movement of cows out of herds but not controls on the movement of calves.

I am thankful for the opportunity to contribute. I have a few questions. Reference was made to the limitations of the test. I would like the witnesses to provide some background to that for my benefit. I represent County Clare and I wonder if the witnesses have any indication of the level of infection in the county. That would be great. I engaged with a few farmers in County Clare and they told me about a few of their concerns. Even reading the opening statement, it is quite bleak in respect of the increases reported as well as the funding gap that is now going to be present from the EU.

With the levels of increases we have seen and the possibility of more projected increases, the question arises of animal welfare. If we are going to continue to see increases, when it comes to the removal of reactors, first of all, from a farmyard, how can we ensure regulations are going to be adhered to there? My other question concerns contamination. Mention was made of the risk posed by badgers and deer. This may be a stupid question, but should we have any other contamination concerns in this regard? I refer especially to removal methods. Is there any risk of contamination to members of the public, for example? I would like some clarity on this issue. My last question concerns what would happen if something goes wrong. Why would there ever be a situation where a batch of reactors may be left in a dairy complex? It is something that can occur, so why would it occur?

I will start by discussing the limitations. At best, the skin test has a sensitivity of 80%. We use the test because it has a specificity of over 99%. The test has very few false positives and that is important in a national screening programme. We increase the sensitivity of our programme by using the blood test where we know there is cattle-to-cattle transmission, which raises sensitivity to between 90% and 95%. The inherent problem relates to the skin test and that imperfection.

On contamination and risk to the public, the big thing that protects the public is the pasteurisation of milk. That is one of the main reasons tuberculosis in people is not the issue that it was prior to pasteurisation. By the same token, we recommend that people, and farmers in particular, do not consume their own milk, but instead use pasteurised milk to avoid that risk. There may be some unpasteurised products and we have additional controls and testing on herds that supply milk for those products. Abattoir workers are at greater risk but they are given PPE to wear when reactor animals are being slaughtered.

On the question about animals being left, generally speaking, animals are removed from farms within two days of valuations being accepted. There may be the odd exceptional case but, generally speaking, our average removal time is less than two days.

The current herd incidence in County Clare is approximately 4%. Last year it was approximately 3.5% and the year before that it was around 2.5%.

I wish to mention a few more scenarios to our guests. I have seen the following happen in the west. Let us say a contract rearer takes in calves that will be kept as weanlings for the first year and later returned if they are dairy stock. The contract rearer is caught in the middle of an awful situation. How can that be resolved? Let us say I take in calves, rear them, bring them on and next they are impregnated using AI or a bull. Contract rearers are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. A person could have cattle but not have facilities to cubicle train them or calf them down. How does that work out?

We try to adopt a pragmatic approach in those scenarios because there is no point in having heifers calf down where there is no facilities to calve or milk them. In that scenario we would restrict both herds, which would have to get two clear tests to become de-restricted. We want to avoid animal welfare situations like that.

I am trying to fathom the following. If the animals are tested for TB coming in and the farmer's animals had tested clear down through the years, what would be the cause of TB the following year? There are people who never had TB on their lands but, all of a sudden, even if animals were tested coming in as sucklers, next thing there is a TB outbreak. Perhaps I picked up wrong what Dr. Barrett said in response to the Leas-Chathaoirleach. Did Dr. Barrett mention a fly or something like that going across?

A flying herd is one that is assembled to milk cows. Essentially, it could be a herd of animals were sold as culled cows and milked down. Those are higher-risk animals. That is the worst case scenario. Some people may be forced to purchase animals to keep their numbers up, especially if they lose reactors. We have seen several scenarios where those animals have come from high-risk herds.

That comes back to the point I made earlier on the persistence of this bacteria. We reckon it can persist in the environment for up to six months. Therefore, we insist on a cleaning and disinfection programme. This is a braces and belt cleaning and disinfection. Places are left fallow for that length of time to reduce the chance of a new herd being infected.

In terms of the on-farm market valuation, we can only pay that once we get all of the paperwork returned on time from farmers. The farmer accepts the valuation and may have to help the valuer formulate a market valuation and may have to provide him with paperwork such as milk records or anything else. I do not have the exact figure off the top of my head. We have well over 90% compliance in terms of paying compensation, which is in line with our commitments as per the farmers' charter. Some delays may be caused by missing paperwork or something like that. Generally speaking, we endeavour to pay farmers as quickly as possible because we are very conscious of the financial impact on farmers.

The international element was discussed earlier. Let us say Wales has an issue.

What is the wildlife implication in that part of the world?

Possums are considered vermin in New Zealand. As they are quite prolific breeders, getting a handle on numbers or reducing the population is challenging. The country has a multifaceted approach to controlling TB in wildlife and controlling it through a more aggressive testing regime. It has a more aggressive approach to the movement of high-risk animals from high-risk herds.

If we were to look at a model is that the one that would be most closely aligned to us? Ireland is damp and humid. If there is going to be TB, Ireland is the most likely location in the world to have it. It can spread because the prevailing temperature is not cold or too hot and we have a moist climate. It ticks every box when it comes to the spread of TB.

As there are no other contributions and this is potentially the last meeting of the committee - if the witnesses have been listening to the news, they will know a general election will be called on Friday - I wish to acknowledge the Chairman, who is not here at the moment, Jackie Cahill. He has been a fantastic Chairman of this group for the past four or more years. He was very diligent and capable and did a fantastic job and was dedicated to making sure that everybody got time to speak. He was also very fair when it came to witnesses. I wish to acknowledge Jackie. I know he is not running for re-election. His ability to chair a meeting and his commitment to the agricultural industry need to be acknowledged here this evening.

I thank Christy Haughton and his team, who have been great ambassadors for the Civil Service and done a fantastic job in making sure this committee has worked efficiently and capably. They deal with correspondence coming in and out, witnesses, the publication of reports and thorny issues from nitrates to TB to ash dieback. They are a very competent team. I wish to acknowledge all of the work they have done and I wish them the very best for when this committee is re-established. This is the last meeting of this committee. I thank Christy and his team and I wish every member of the committee the best of luck in their endeavours, whatever they intend to do in the next few weeks. Whenever this committee meets again, I hope it will be successful in its work.