Mr. Tomás Bourke:

I will pick up here. Senator Lombard mentioned the live valuation and agreed that there is a blind spot in the actual live valuation scheme for what we would call mid-production animals, third-fourth lactation, suckler or dairy cows because they are not offered for sale on the open market. Any of them that are offered for sale are offered for a reason and the market reflects that, so there is a huge blind spot for those animals that has to be addressed. We raised this with Grant Thornton in the review and it was recognised. One of the areas currently under active discussion is how to get an appropriate data-set for that cohort of animals. I anticipate that the main disappointment in any live valuation is with that category of animals which are the most productive and profitable animals on the farm but yet the market value does not reflect that.

Early pregnancy is a similar point. The system was changed a number of years ago whereby pregnancy diagnosis only takes place at a later stage in cows to address this huge shortcoming. The difficulty here is that maiden and served heifers are treated in the same category so there is not a price differential. The first point at which a price differential come in on the in-calf heifer is for the mid-term, from four to seven months. Obviously, those are the animals to which the Senator refers. While there is a market price for mid-term heifers, we argue that the pricing system should overcome this issue because there is no point giving the value of a mid-term heifer to put back in a mid-term heifer six months later when you are de-restricted. It is a springing heifer or a first-calf heifer that you need, which is of a higher value, to maintain your farming system. It is a huge issue and the Department continues to refuse to accept scanning certificates, which is somewhat offset by the fact that it is later in the gestation when the assessment takes place. We all know how factory lines work and the speed at which they work at. The issue is how to find a four-month old foetus. That can have a huge impact on the valuation. That is part of the live valuation review where categorisation changes are required. That is being discussed and will have to come through.

In regard to the blood test and the solution, it certainly has a role. If you look at why and where it is used, it is focused on breeding herds that have six or more reactors. It is far more sensitive than the skin test. The reason it is used is to identify reactors that the skin tests have not found, ideally sooner rather than later, and to try to get to the bottom of it. The flip side of that is, and the Department readily accepts this, that it is overly sensitive. False positives may be found. That is why it is used where there is confirmed TB. Has it a role beyond that? We would not support it being used outside cases where confirmed TB is on a farm because of those sensitivities.

Senator Lombard made the point that because we are at it 70 years we should not call it eradication. From a Mayo perspective, we are 70 years waiting to get the next one, but we will still go out this year to win it. From a farmer's point of view, and as Mr. Maher outlined it, it is incumbent on us and on the State that we pursue eradication and that, in the process, we reduce the impact on farms. That is why we make the point that this cannot be all about measures that will reduce disease. Throughout this process, because of the examples given, farmers have to be supported as a result of the impact. This will take time. The Department will make mistakes. Unless we are fully supported as a result of that, through the compensation scheme, we will carry the can.

Deputy Fitzmaurice raised the contiguous testing. It is covered in the Animal Health and Welfare Act. We must be brutally honest. If we outlined, which we have done in this committee today, our view that wildlife is the primary driver of TB, then we must expect that the TB is likely to be in the area and not confined to one farm because the badger and the deer do not recognise farm boundaries. That is the logic behind the contiguous herd testing programme. The figures show that farms contiguous to a high risk breakdown are more likely to have TB on them. From our perspective, we cannot argue on one hand that the badger and the deer are causing the TB but that it did not cross the ditch from my farm to your farm. That is why it closes out the loop.