PQ 728
728. Deputy Paul Lawless asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to list the peer-reviewed scientific papers relied upon when designing and justifying the sheep improvement scheme genotyped ram action, particularly where the supporting evidence was derived from organisations (details supplied); if his Department assessed the limitations and risk of bias inherent in such internal analyses where independent studies with greater ecological validity that is, real-farm outcomes rather than controlled or index-derived models have shown no consistent or meaningful differences between 1-star and 5-star rams for traits; the reason the national scrapie monitoring scrapie surveillance unit within his Department the competent section with statutory responsibility for scrapie surveillance and risk evaluation did not lead the design, justification or scientific assessment of this task, and why an organisation, rather than the relevant Departmental epidemiological authority, acted as the primary technical source. [65531/25]
Introduced
25 November 2025
Last action
—
Status
written
Sponsors
—
Subjects
Discovery layer
Source updated
25 November 2025
Summary
728. Deputy Paul Lawless asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to list the peer-reviewed scientific papers relied upon when designing and justifying the sheep improvement scheme genotyped ram action, particularly where the supporting evidence was derived from organisations (details supplied); if his Department assessed the limitations and risk of bias inherent in such internal analyses where independent studies with greater ecological validity that is, real-farm outcomes rather than controlled or index-derived models have shown no consistent or meaningful differences between 1-star and 5-star rams for traits; the reason the national scrapie monitoring scrapie surveillance unit within his Department the competent section with statutory responsibility for scrapie surveillance and risk evaluation did not lead the design, justification or scientific assessment of this task, and why an organisation, rather than the relevant Departmental epidemiological authority, acted as the primary technical source. [65531/25]
This text is taken from the official record. PoliticalRepo does not editorialize.
Timeline
No timeline events have been ingested for this record yet.
Votes
No vote records are attached yet.
Versions
No version snapshots stored. Document URLs remain at the source.
Documents
1 official file
Common Agricultural Policy
Common Agricultural Policy
xml · EN · 25 November 2025
Sponsors
No sponsors or actors listed by the source.
Related records
No cross-record relationships stored yet.
Sources
PoliticalRepo is an index and interpretation layer, not the authoritative legal source.
- Official source: https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2025-11-25/728/
- Open data entity: https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/question/2025-11-25/pq_728