Mary White (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 821: To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food her intentions in relation to undertaking the digestibility studies, post-mortems and liver biopsies which her Department promised in 2006 on the farm animals on a farm (details supplied) in County Kilkenny when a downturn in their growth occurred, which happened in July 2007. [1036/08]

Mary White (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 822: To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if her departmental officials will carry out the digestibility studies, post-mortems and liver biopsies on the farm animals (details supplied) in County Kilkenny, as her Department promised would happen when a downturn occurred in the growth of their animals, as happened in 2007; and the reason the tests have not happened already. [1037/08]

Mary White (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 823: To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if her attention has been drawn to the fact that any tests to be carried out on animals on a farm (details supplied) in County Kilkenny, which are expected to happen in the next few months are likely to coincide with the closure of a local industry implicated in the problems on the farm according to a European Parliament Petitions' Committee report, and for that reason is likely to make the tests redundant. [1038/08]

Mary White (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 824: To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she has taken on board the findings of the European Parliament Petitions' Committee findings regarding a farm (details supplied) in County Kilkenny, in particular regarding the environmental damage mentioned and the possible violation of EU law in relation to air pollution and contamination, and the importance of this issue in relation to protecting the name of Irish agriculture. [1039/08]

Mary Coughlan (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 821 to 824, inclusive, together.

My Department and a number of other relevant State agencies have invested very considerable public resources in terms of personnel and laboratory analysis on the farm in question, and continue to do so. The farm has been the subject of investigation over a number of years and is currently the subject of a further thorough and comprehensive investigation, which I commissioned the Centre for Veterinary Epidemiology and Risk Analysis (CVERA) at UCD to undertake, at an estimated cost of up to €0.5 million. In 2004, my Department's Veterinary Laboratory Service arranged for a wide-ranging study to be undertaken into the problems on the farm. A report was produced in June 2006, at which stage I met a delegation of interests, including the farmer in question, and confirmed my Department's willingness to continue to seek to establish the root cause of the on-farm problems and to which end I commissioned the current CVERA investigation.

The earlier report outlined the range of investigations conducted and concluded that, while there were obvious animal health problems on the farm, they had failed to establish that the environmental impact of emissions from a neighbouring factory, particularly fluoride, was sufficient to cause significant pollution or the animal health problems on the farm. During the earlier studies, my Department carried out a number of elective and general post-mortem examinations on a number of animals from the farm and the results were provided in the 2006 Report. In December 2007 two further elective post-mortems were carried out and the results of these will be included in the report to be completed following the current investigation. During the course of the CVERA study of the animals on the farm apparent damage to the foliage in some of the hedgerows was observed. My officials reported this to the EPA and the matter was investigated by them. I understand that their findings will be included in the CVERA report currently in preparation, though the Deputy will appreciate that issues of environmental damage and any suggestions of a violation of EU law in relation to air pollution and contamination are not the responsibility of my Department.

The CVERA study, which commenced in late 2006, is designed to complement much of the work done to date and applies some different approaches to investigate the production problems on the farm. Among the elements of this robust, scientific study is a major sampling and testing programme, as well as epidemiological studies and investigations into the competency of different metabolic pathways. In addition, it includes a comprehensive and detailed soil survey.

While the application of live biopsies and the possibility of digestibility studies had been discussed with the farmer concerned and before the current study had been formulated, the scientists concluded that the liver biopsies could add nothing further to our knowledge above and beyond what was already being provided by the exhaustive blood analysis programme and post-mortem examinations. The digestibility studies were intended to be undertaken during a downturn in the winter feeding trial (when inputs and outputs could be carefully monitored). In the event no downturn arose during this period and the animals performed normally.

A considerable amount of the sampling and testing has already been carried out and, as the study is being conducted to the highest scientific standards, there can be no question of its timescale for its completion being dictated by any other events. I hope that, when the full range of test results have been collated and analysed and the appropriate scientific conclusions drawn, further light will be shed on the problems experienced on that farm. Pending that conclusion, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to speculate on its outcome.