The auction of a bull in 2015 was found to not have the sire claimed in the pedigree published in the on-property sale catalogue.

The civil matter is set to have far reaching implications for the stud livestock breeding industry given the fact monetary value directly relates to the depth and accuracy of a pedigree. 

Ireland's Angus Stud of "Ivydale" Wagga was ordered to pay $200,191.88 to bull buyer William Graham of Bongongo Angus Stud, Coolac. Parentage of the bull in question was found to be incorrect during subsequent DNA testing. 

District Court judge Margaret Sidis said the matter involved the question of whether the plaintiff was misled by representations made by the defendants concerning a bull that was listed for sale at auction in a catalogue in August 2015.

Evidence for the plaintiff was given by Mr Graham. Evidence for the defendants, Ireland's Angus was given by stud principal, Corey Ireland. The dispute concerned the sale on September, 11, 2015 of a bull identified in the sale catalogue as Ireland's Kelleher K34 for the sum of $18,000.

Information presented in court on Tuesday showed that K34 was listed in the auction catalogue as the progeny of the sire SJKF223 Granite Ridge Thomas F223 and of the dam VICB107 Ireland's Lowan B107.

DNA testing undertaken at the request of the plaintiff after the sale established that Granite Ridge Thomas was not the sire of K34.

Mr Graham told the court K34 was purchased for breeding purposes because he fitted well in to the program.

"Of great significance to his decision to proceed with the purchase was the representation that K34 was listed as HBR because he was the progeny of Granite Ridge Thomas and B107." 

This indicated that, if joined with registered breeding females, his progeny would be registered as stud cattle and therefore of higher market value than commercial cattle. In order to sell K34's progeny as breeding cattle, it was necessary for the plaintiff to establish parentage.

The Angus Society undertook DNA testing of a sample of tail hair taken from K34 on October 22, 2015. The Angus Society advised that Granite Ridge Thomas was not K34's sire.

Mr Ireland advised the court that he was confident the records he maintained of his breeding stock were accurate and in good order. He explained that, at this time practices concerning DNA testing were developing and the industry was working towards embracing this technology.

He personally did not take the samples. This was done by his employees but he was confident that due care was taken to ensure each sample was properly marked and identified to the bull from which it was taken.

Mr Ireland was unable to explain how the error in relation to K34 occurred. Although he initially stated the Angus Society provided the information contained in the auction catalogue concerning the parentage of each individual animal, it became apparent that the defendants were the source of the society's information. Mr Ireland said he checked and confirmed the correctness of the information that was supplied.

The mistake could not therefore be attributed to the Angus Society.

The Angus Society undertook further DNA testing of two samples. One was taken independently of the plaintiff from K34 and the other from samples of tail hair taken by Mr Ireland of a calf, said to be K34, at the time of vaccination in May 2014.

The Angus Society advised the plaintiff and the defendants by email dated December 16, 2015 that the sample provided by the plaintiff excluded Granite Ridge Thomas as the sire. The sample provided by the defendants confirmed Granite Ridge Thomas as the sire however, both profiles were completely different, therefore the two samples submitted are not from the same animal.

Angus Society chief executive officer Peter Parnell gave evidence in court that K34 remained on the breed register.

This was a mistake, he said, that would be rectified by his exclusion. There was no doubt in Mr Parnell's mind that, without a registered sire, neither K34 nor his progeny was eligible for registration as stud or breeding cattle.