Ms Catherine McAloon:

To respond to Senator Lombard, there can be unanimous agreement on the need for milk recording. That has been shown in other countries which have moved towards selected dry cow therapy where it is a mainstay. Unfortunately, I cannot comment on who will pay for it but it is something that must be done. We are operating at about 50% of the national herd represented by milk recording and the larger farms are over-represented in that. In a recent Teagasc survey among farmers to understand the barriers to milk recording, cost and time were mentioned least. Infrastructure, supports and not understanding its benefits were the reasons they did not engage in it. In addition to having a meaningful campaign around the issue and joined-up thinking, we need to be unanimous on the message of milk recording, delivered by whatever means are necessary.

On the cluster flush, as someone who does a lot of mastitis investigations, and I regularly recommend it, I am pleased to hear about the engagement in understanding the epidemiology of the farm problem and the meaning for change that was turned out as a result. It is a fundamental principle that must be adhered to in delivering this regulation. It is about tackling those problems in a bespoke manner that focuses on the individual farm so that change can be achieved.

A meaningful campaign and joined-up thinking are essential, along with a collaborative approach in the industry so that we get the communication right. There is a fear among farmers about the move away from blanket dry cow therapy. For years, we advised that was the correct thing to do and now, since we understand antimicrobial resistance, we are moving away from that. It requires a monumental sea change in opinion to do this. Even for things such as milk recording, our survey data shows that the understanding of the link between milk recording and antimicrobial resistance is not there at farm level, that milk recording is a necessity in figuring out what cows to treat and which cows are safe to use an alternative such as a teat sealant. A campaign on this and getting the communication right is a necessity. The motivation should not be solely regulation, it is an approach and requirement that is necessary to address the global public health threat of antimicrobial resistance which in no other time has been so well understood by the public and consumer, given the pandemic.

On Deputy Ring's points on regulation, there is scientific evidence that supports the need to move away from blanket dry cow therapy and overhaul our approach to antibiotic use in agriculture. There are also societal pressures. This discussion is coming from the legislative pressure that is there and has put a timeline on it. Yes, the regulation will be difficult and a challenge but ultimately it is a huge opportunity to improve milk quality and up our game in that and to improve our use of antimicrobial stewardship as an industry. That is something which we can promote internationally as part of our brand. There is a significant responsibility on vets as well as farmers to deliver this properly. There will have to be upskilling among vets and industry-wide so that everyone is brought into line and up to scratch to deliver this safely. Benchmarking antimicrobial usage at farmer user and prescriber level usage has been key to the success of the delivery of this internationally.

The idea on benchmarking and whether it will leave us open to an independent audit will be key to ensuring there will not be over-prescribing regarding the issues raised.

I thank Deputy Nolan for her comments. I have a couple of points to make. In terms of the North and the UK system, there are some significant differences. Recent figures indicate about 70% of UK herds engage in milk recording. Their pathogen and profile of mastitis is largely not contagious mastitis, which is what we deal with in Ireland, and which makes dry cow decisions quite different. In addition, there are certain milk supply contracts in the UK in which milk recording and engaging in selective dry cow therapy is something which must be done to sell the milk out the farm gate. It is a condition of supply. Ultimately, the issue of prescribing by a vet is largely similar. In terms of those few changes, we need to be aware we are not necessarily always comparing like with like.

On the final comment made by Deputy Nolan, and I again thank her for her contribution, the key for us is changing the approach to prescribing and prudent usage of antimicrobials which if done properly can only be a positive for the sector. I thank members for their questions and affording me the opportunity to speak.