Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 1644: To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the position regarding farmers who have two or more holdings up to 20 miles away from their home holding; if these farmers will have to secure a second herd number; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32471/10]

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The position in relation to herd numbers is that, under Irish and EU rules relating to disease control and intra-Community trade in live animals, the herd number identifies a herd as a defined "epidemiological" unit and separate epidemiological units must be allocated separate herd numbers. Being in one "epidemiological" unit means that the animals in the herd/flock on a holding share the same likelihood of exposure to a disease. This is the reason why, for example, when a herd is restricted for TB, all the animals recorded in the herd number for the holding, even if located in different land fragments, are movement 'restricted'.

My Department's policy, for many years, has been that, where lands are further than 20 miles/32 kilometres from the primary or 'home' fragment, they should be assessed to determine if it is appropriate to allocate a separate herd number for the distant land fragment(s). The main objective of this policy is to ensure that, in the event of a disease outbreak, the movement of animals can be easily traced and those holdings affected by the outbreak identified so that trade restrictions can be limited to these holdings. It should be emphasised, however, that the 20 mile/32 kilometres "threshold" is used as an indicator to trigger this assessment and, consequently, it is not automatically obligatory to obtain a separate herd number in all such instances.

The assessment for a separate herd number is carried out on a case-by- case basis and takes account of the level of association between livestock on the home fragments and distant land fragments. In general terms, a separate herd number will not be required if any of the following circumstances apply: there are no cattle listed under this herd number on the distant fragments e.g. the land is used for Forestry/Tillage/Fodder or it is rented to or used by another farmer with a different herd number, there are cattle listed under the herd number located on the distant fragment(s) and the keeper visits/inspects the animals frequently; animals on the different land fragments mix frequently as a result of moving between the various fragments such that all animals share the same disease risk.

I want to stress that, in the event of a second herd number being required, it will not have any impact on Single Farm Payment (SFP) entitlements and farmers can continue to claim all of the land fragments farmed declared on their SFP application using their existing claim herd number. The records available to my Department indicate that there are less than 2,500 farmers whose entire holding is registered under one herd number where parts of the holding are located more than 20 miles from the home farm. The position is that, in such cases, movements of animals between the home farm and the distant lands are not recorded on the animal movement database because this is not required where all the land is associated under the same herd number. Therefore, in the event of a disease outbreak, as it is not clear if animals were located on the distant fragments or home farm, the entire holding must be restricted and all the animals recorded in the herd number are movement 'restricted'. Furthermore, any holdings neighbouring both the home farm and the distant lands may, depending on the particular disease, be subject to movement restriction and herd culling and, in the case of TB, are assessed for testing. In certain cases, even though animals located in some of the lands on the holding may not have been exposed to the disease risk, my Department has no option but to treat them as a single herd as there is no record of the movement of activity between the land parcels.

On the other hand, where a second herd number has been allocated to a farm which is some distance from the home farm, any restriction can, in many cases, be confined to the particular farm where the disease has been detected and trading can continue from the disease free herd (under its own herd number). In addition, any restriction or additional testing can be confined to the holdings which are contiguous to the farm where disease has been detected.

My Department has been engaged in consultations with the farming organisations on this issue and the policy will be implemented as outlined above.