Farmers call for minister's resignation over cattle cull

Warning: This article contains an image of dead animals that some may find distressingAnimal welfare inspections on the farm dating back to 2022 identified serious concerns, including 33 animal carcasses, feed contaminated with urine and faeces, and emaciated animals.The farmer was found guilty of a number of animal welfare offences in May and disqualified from keeping animals for life.The offences included:• Thirteen charges of failure to dispose of an animal carcass.• One charge of failure to comply with an Animal By-Products notice.• Six charges of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal.• One charge of failure to produce medicine records.The court issued a deprivation order on 8 June - that the farmer must have the animals removed from his ownership.As is practice, he was given two weeks to appeal the sentence, or to transfer, sell or give away his stock.He was then given an extra week.On 29 June, when the extended grace period had lapsed, the departmental humane slaughter team arrived at the farm to begin destruction of the remaining 51 animals by shooting them.The operation was completed on 30 June.Some members of the public witnessed the operation in one of the three areas across the farm that the animals were in.Questions about how the operation was conducted were first raised by a local councillor, then concerns were expressed by politicians and farming leaders.The AERA committee was recalled to discuss the incident, and quiz the minister and veterinary officials.The committee heard that officials had been working with the farmer after "numerous" inspections, beginning in 2022.The agriculture minister Andrew Muir said those had revealed a "grotesque" situation and "a large number of animals were caused unnecessary suffering", leading to the deprivation order."That order legally required the department to deprive the individual of any livestock."The department had no choice."And so my officials took the necessary steps to fulfil this legal obligation."It emerged that a total of 21 animals had been removed during the grace period, but 51 remained on the farm.Officials said animals in two of the areas on the farm were disposed of by 13:30 on 29 June.The human slaughter operation in the final area was stopped when a local farmer offered to buy some of the remaining cattle.But the animals could not be rounded up, and escaped onto the road.They were eventually herded back and a vet recommended they be shot.One remaining animal was disposed of on 30 June.The carcasses were removed later that day.Questions have been asked about the weapons used, the amount of ammunition, and why slaughter in situ was chosen as the method of disposal.Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer Gemma Daly described the cattle as "semi-feral" and said staff had expressed concerns over the years about how to handle the animals without causing them stress, or risking injury to themselves.Senior Principal Veterinary Officer Elsie McGarvey said the department was "technically" potentially in breach of the court order by extending the grace period.She added that approximately half of the animals were not suitable for the food chain and others were too young.And she said officials were "always prepared" that the farmer would be disqualified and they "knew" removing the animals would present "significant issues".Agriculture and environment are uncomfortable but inseparable bedfellows under the department.And the relationship between Daera and the UFU has been fractious in the past.The UFU's Executive passed a vote of no confidence in the department - not the minister - in October last year.That came after an outcry over the initial consultation document for the Nutrients Action Programme.It has since been revised by a stakeholder group of farmers, agri-food representatives, conservationists and environmental groups.But the size of the protest on Monday about this incident shows farmers are not happy.The findings of Dr Blake's review will be closely scrutinised. The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) has tabled a motion of no confidence in Andrew Muir which requires 30 signatures to make it to the floor of the Assembly.But any change at the top of the department would have to come from the minister's party - or the minister himself.And there are just seven months left for this minister to get a substantial number of significant policies past the Executive.