Key conclusions in the Ruddock Report include:

• The presence of alpha-notestosterone in injured, but not in healthy animals, in the absence of any evidence of illegal administration is therefore now generally accepted as proof beyond reasonable doubt that this compound can occur naturally in the urine of injured animals;
  
• The cumulative impact of the perceived sense of wrongdoing, and the intrusive nature of the farm searches, combined with the disruption of herd restrictions, and ultimately the fact that no illegal administration was detected, served to deepen the sense of annoyance for those subject to surprise searches;
  
• It is recommended that a detailed examination of on-site visits is undertaken to develop options which would reduce such adverse reactions;
  
• In order to speed up policy change and reduce disruption to business as evidence emerges, consideration should be given to adopting a project management approach in DARD. This might offer a possible means of speedier co-ordination of differing interests should a similar issue arise again.

UFU President Kenneth Sharkey said; “The farmers involved in this issue are totally vindicated and their reputations have been upheld. DARD's initial response that these casualty animals had the hormone alpha-nortestosterone illegally administered have been proven to be unfounded. The fact that at the time no illegal substances were found on the farms involved, no animals in associated herds tested positive for the hormone, and the hormone was shown to not be occurring in healthy animals, were glaring pointers that the hormone must be occurring naturally in animals which had been injured in some way. The subsequent events were deeply regrettable and led to significant anger in the farming community about the way DARD had dealt with the issue”.

The UFU however said the Ruddock Report had failed to address a key issue: how farmers who suffered additional losses should be compensated.

Kenneth Sharkey said; "The report records that some of the farmers involved suffered because they were restricted from selling livestock, and some farmers were left deeply traumatised by the farm searches conducted. For some of the farmers and families concerned, who still feel aggrieved about the trauma and damage to their reputations at the time, or who lost income because their herds were closed, these issues have not been addressed".

TheCattleSite News Desk