Animal Health Ireland (AHI) was set up 15 years ago in January 2009. The objective was to take control of non-regulated animal health diseases using a collaborative approach.
Teagasc researchers, technical specialists and universities effectively allocate part of their work time to these AHI projects. In addition, AHI has a core team of about 20 that are responsible for leading and administering the various programmes.
Last week we learned that the relatively new head of Animal Health Ireland was stepping down. So now the board of AHI must go back to the drawing board to select another person to lead the organisation. The position is vital because the person leads the AHI programme leaders, and ultimately selects what AHI needs to invest in.
The board of AHI is chaired by James Lynch, the former chairman of Dairygold co-op. In one way, AHI has done more in 15 years than State -funded agencies and universities succeeded in doing for hundreds of cumulative years as individual institutions.
In another way, sometimes I wonder could less actually be more, and should AHI reduce what it is involved in?
The overall contribution of AHI programmes to date is clear. Economically, the progress made toward the goal of eradicating BVD is estimated to have benefited farmers by more than €150 million to date. Similarly, the improvement in national somatic cell count could be benefiting the farmers and processors by over €50m per year.
More generally, improved health as a result of AHI programmes has contributed to reduced antibiotic usage, contributing to the fight against antimicrobial resistance. All of these benefits feed into lower carbon and higher sustainability.
A key to this success has been the scientific input provided to each programme by their respective technical working groups and, where convened, the industry leadership provided by stakeholders through the relevant implementation groups.
AHI’s funding model is largely based on subscriptions provided by private sector organisations. The Department matches this industry money.
It all means AHI is highly vulnerable to the loss or withdrawal of funding by individual stakeholders. The loss of even relatively modest amounts of stakeholder income could have a dramatic impact on AHI’s ability to sustain current programmes and the viability of the organisation itself.
However, leaving aside funding, farmer confidence in AHI is vital if we are to look forward to the next 15 years of AHI. The key short-term success barometer remains attainment of BVD-free status.
The BVD national eradication programme has underpinned a major reduction in the prevalence of BVD at farm level since its mandatory introduction in 2013. However, with over 10 years of testing, farmers now need to see a defined end period. It can’t just keep rolling on.
BVD simply must get the chop before the next national programme kicks in.
IBR could jeopardise calf and weanling exports out of Ireland. Johne’s is currently costing farmers and the industry millions. Bluetongue could yet reap devastating effects like it has done in other European countries.
If resources are limited for AHI, I often ask myself why is it spending scarce resources on programmes that I’m going to suggest could be classified as more ‘routine’ at this stage.
I’m suggesting programmes like calf care, parasite management, and somatic cell count maybe should move back to being led by industry and the State funded institutions.
Essentially, I’m asking the question – should AHI prioritise the most important national programmes that could have a hugely significant impact on certain areas such as export or large scale national herd health vaccination programmes? Whatever happens, we can’t lose the benefits attained by these so-called ‘routine’ diseases and we must continue to monitor.
From its starting point, AHI has expanded from its original 14 industry stakeholders to almost 40, delivering a range of programmes.
The next three years could define the success or otherwise of AHI with farmers. It’s important we get it right.
SHARING OPTIONS: