Fivemiletown: Weaknesses found in management practice during cattle cull leading to 'further operational and reputational risks'
The much anticipated review of the Fivemiletown cattle cull in June has found “a clear difference between the technical competence and the administrative governance of the operation”.
The report from Dr Martin Blake said that:
- from an animal welfare and veterinary science standpoint, the choice of in-situ culling of livestock at pasture using free bullets was an appropriate method.
- But while the field operation was delivered in accordance with recognised technical protocols by trained marksmen, the subsequent tracking and accounting of livestock across sites identified a significant operational gap in site clearance protocols.
- The review acknowledged the visual and emotional upset felt by individuals witnessing the sight of animal carcases left exposed in open fields. Hearing about farm animals being culled instinctively triggers a sense of disbelief, sadness, and public concern.
- The operation’s planning gave insufficient consideration to this human and community impact.
The report adds that “pre-operational planning processes relied heavily on unwritten historical custom and practice rather than formalised policy”.
"A check of the 2020 – 2026 period confirmed that of the four other deprivation orders in the period, one resulted in a keeper self-disposing of
the animals, whilst the other three required direct intervention which involved on-farm culling,” adds the report.
"The review identified a post-conviction procedural gap, characterised by a lack of specific guidelines for implementing deprivation orders and divided management oversight of the Humane Slaughter Team (HST)".
The report added “a disconnect in understanding led to carcases being left in open fields, contributing to much public disquiet”.
"A well-intentioned mid-operation decision on 29 June to suspend culling—to facilitate an ad hoc private sale—introduced unintended operational complication,” it added.
"This deliberate change of plan by management introduced secondary risks that should have been formally assessed before the alteration was authorised.
"While routine tactical hazards like boundary breaches are handled immediately by field teams, a deliberate administrative deviation from an approved plan requires a structured risk update.
"The decision introduced further operational and reputational risks which materialised later that evening when efforts by third parties to corral the animals failed in public view and animals escaped onto the roadway.
"The field operation suffered from several inconsistencies in contemporaneous datarecording.
"Not all ear-tag numbers were recorded at the time of confirmation of death and secondary confirmation shots were not recorded.
"Furthermore, due to reasons the review was unable to conclusively establish, three animals were culled on Site 1 after the decision
was taken to allow the sale of the remaining animals, pointing to miscommunication or an undocumented tactical decision.
"Weaknesses in field tracking and site-clearance protocols also resulted in a third, previously unaccounted for, calf being discovered on the
roadway on 4 July, with a neck wound.
"The review was unable to establish conclusively how the injury occurred although the available evidence suggests that the calf was most
likely present on Site 2, which had been declared clear of stock but was not subject to a follow up check”.
The report added that “Finally, the Department’s traditional, reactive communication protocol did not anticipate a fast-moving conventional and digital media response.
"By maintaining the traditional privacy-first messaging approach to protect individual privacy, the Department left a space for a public narrative to form in the absence of official factual information.
"The inaccuracies in some of the reporting, alongside some emotive language, went uncontested and heightened public anxiety”.