He asked why should we subsidise wheat? Why should we not subsidise a crop that would pay better than wheat? He went on to say that practically every crop would pay the farmer better; that oats, barley, potatoes, etc., were paying the farmer better than wheat, as was evidenced by the number of acres under these crops. Again, taking the theoretical side of it, the figures supplied by the Department of Agriculture show that there is a bigger profit on the growing of wheat than from oats or barley as a cash crop. It is true that there is a bigger acreage under oats and barley. But the circumstances of all these things must be taken into account. Far the bigger proportion of oats grown is grown for consumption on the farm. A proportion of it, of course, is grown as a cash crop. There may be various reasons for that. Some farmers prefer to sow corn in the spring rather than in the autumn, and, therefore, oats is more suitable for them than wheat. Some may have land more suitable for oats and wheat, and some may have other reasons. There are various other reasons that could be given as to why they grow oats in preference to wheat. The acreage of barley, however, has gone down. Thirty or forty years ago it was very high when the brewing industry was at its height in this country, and when the farmers who grew barley were able to get a ready market for it. It is possible—I do not know if there is anything in this argument—that with the growth of the brewing industry the farmers turned from wheat to barley, and now that the conditions are different they are turning from barley mostly to grass and not to tillage crops. The figures supplied to us by the Department of Agriculture, obtained from the experience of a number of years in the growing of wheat, barley and oats prove that as a cash crop wheat is superior to oats or barley. But one of the biggest difficulties about wheat, as a cash crop, is that it is practically impossible to get a market for it.
A Deputy on these benches grew wheat last year as a cash crop. I myself bought some of that wheat from him, and I know it was only in the last week that he succeded in selling the remainder of that wheat at 25/- a barrel—that is 10/- per cwt. Now, that Deputy had a yield of two tons of wheat per statute acre. It was a remarkably good crop. We do not say that that was anything like an average crop. But selling it even at 25/- per barrel, and selling the straw, he realised £111 7s. 6d. on four statute acres. I say that is not an average crop, and the price was only 25/- a barrel. The yield in his case was extraordinary, and we could not base our calculations upon that, but when Deputy Brennan tells us about a patch he sowed, and assures us that if we saw it we would never talk about wheat-growing again, are we not entitled to quote the instance of an extraordinarily good crop as against Deputy Brennan's failure, putting one against the other, and take the average crop again.
The Minister for Agriculture, in speaking against this motion, said he was not impressed by the argument that we should stop imports amounting to £7,000,000. He said he would be more impressed by increased imports and exports provided you got increased production. No one is going to object to that argument as to increased production, and it is because we believe by growing our own wheat we would be making for increased production that we have put down this motion. We believe that it is possible to produce what we require. It would require 860,000 acres of land but would not decrease any of our present production in any way. No one will say our land is so well cared for and managed that it is quite incapable of producing another ounce. It is capable of producing twice as much as it produces at present. Our opponents say if that is so, produce more butter, eggs, bacon and beef, and send them to the British market. We say it is safer, if you want more production, to produce for our own market. We can control our own market. We have power to deal with Customs and Excise as we think fit, and we can reserve the whole home market for our own wheat and flour. But if we increase our exports of butter we have no control, only open competition in the British market. We do not know but that the people in New Zealand or in Denmark may at the same time decide to increase their exports of butter to the British market, and then there would be a fall in prices, and we would have to look for alternative markets where we might find the same conditions. If it was our own market we have nothing to fear.
The only safe way, therefore, to increase production—you cannot get producers to produce unless they have a market—is to secure our home market and, therefore, if there is to be an increase in production it should be on the lines of some article that we produce for ourselves but which we are not producing at the present time. We might say that the land is capable of carrying twice or three times the amount of livestock it is carrying at present. There is no doubt that farms, in certain areas, if properly manured, are capable of carrying twice or three times as much stock. But we never know when we may be told from the British side that there is foot-and-mouth disease, that they cannot take our cattle and, then, we will have to keep them until we get an alternative market or until Britain lets them go in again. We may increase the production of bacon and pork, but then we may have an ultimatum from the British market to say that foot-and-mouth disease has been carried in in the packing, as they said to Holland, and we would have to shut down that particular trade. The same would apply to any other exports. But if we were producing for our own home market we would be in the position then to say to the Argentine, or to Russia, or to anywhere else, "We do not want any more from you; we can grow our own wheat." They would have no redress against that.
The Minister, in speaking about the distribution of the wheat areas, said that whatever experts in the Dáil might say wheat cannot be produced in the poorer counties. I merely mention that in order to say that so far as I know there is no expert in the Dáil who said that except on the authority of an expert who was trained under the Department of Agriculture. Mr. Caffrey, who is now a lecturer in the National University, said that the new variety of Red Stettin greatly impressed, and, judging from its appearance, was very likely to solve the problem of winter wheat varieties best suited to our climate, soil and conditions. He said, later on, "Some millers have stated that this wheat is worth from five to six shillings per barrel more than ordinary wheats grown in Ireland. The best sample of wheat grown in Ireland was grown last year, and some of the best lots came from Kerry and Clare."
The Minister went on to say that it would be better for us to devote our energies and our arguments towards inducing farmers in general to follow the example of the minority of farmers who are producing their own feeding stuffs, feeding them to their own stock, and are doing well as a result. I agree that the farmers who are doing that are doing well, but it is because they can afford to do it that they are doing well. The Minister says that the farmers who are not doing that at present should be induced to till more. That is a thing we would welcome on this side. The big majority of farmers are not doing that at present. If proposals were introduced by the Minister to induce them to till more, to produce more of their own feeding stuffs, and feed them to the stock on their own farms. I believe such proposals would meet with the unanimous approval of the House.
On the question as to whether wheat is a more suitable crop to subsidise than barley, oats, or beet, the position is that we have not a great choice at the present time. If we had every man in the country in employment, if we had men, say, working at the growing of potatoes, and that a subsidy were to take them away from that work to the growing of wheat, then, of course, we would have to try to find out which was the more profitable crop for the country. But, where you have men idle I think any work that you can provide for them, whether it be growing wheat, barley, oats or potatoes, is all to the good. The price that was mentioned was criticised. We were told it would be impossible to get farmers to grow wheat for 30/- per barrel. I remind the House of what I said when proposing this motion, that the Minister for Agriculture himself, in 1925, when the cost of farming was higher than it is at present, said that 30/- per barrel was quite sufficient and should induce farmers to grow wheat. Why they should require more now is rather a puzzle, because the cost of farming in general is lower than it was then. It is no part of our proposals that the price of home-grown wheat should be 30/- to the farmer. That was the figure that was suggested as possibly sufficient to get the farmer to grow sufficient wheat. The Wheat Control Board would be there to deal with the matter of prices. That Board might not even start at 30/-. They might start with 27/-, or if they did not think that sufficient, they might go to 28/-, to 30/- or to 32/-. What I want to make clear is that it is no part of my motion that the price should be 30/-. The price will be determined by the Wheat Control Board, and determined by experience and experiment.
The Minister for Education pointed out that the subsidy amounted to five shillings per acre. He asked if any sane man believed that farmers who refused to grow wheat at the present time would, if given another five shillings, grow it. I submit that is not a sound argument. The subsidy, according to our calculations, would cost the State five shillings per acre. A Deputy on these benches sold wheat for 25/- per barrel. That is 10/- per cwt. He had two tons of wheat to the acre, that is sixteen barrels. If that Deputy had got this subsidy he would have received £4 an acre for his wheat, but the cost to the State would only be 10/-. Part of our scheme is to induce the millers to pay for Irish wheat the equivalent of what they are paying for foreign wheat. We want to compensate the millers for the extra moisture in home-grown wheat and for the cost of extracting it. We say to the Irish millers, when you reduce the moisture in Irish wheat from 18 per cent. to 12 per cent., the latter figure being the percentage for foreign wheat, we will pay you the cost of extraction. The Irish wheat will then be as good an article to you as the foreign, and you will have to pay the same for it. It was on that basis that our calculations were made. In Deputy Brennan's case he would have got nothing because he had no wheat. Provided that this motion is passed, and that a number of farmers who do not know anything about the growing of wheat were to start to do so and therefore did not grow it successfully, no subsidy would be paid to them. It is only the farmers who grow wheat of good milling quality who will get the subsidy. The State will bear no share of the loss in the case of wheat that is not of good quality. In the course of the debate we were also told that we had made our calculations on a false basis because we had taken the price of foreign wheat at 31/3. We were told that the price of foreign wheat had gone down a good deal since. If anyone looks up figures relating to wheat prices he will see that it is absolutely ridiculous to take the price of wheat at any particular time and base your calculations on that. Our calculations were based on the price of foreign wheat over a period of a year. To take the price of foreign wheat to-day and to make a calculation on that would be of no use whatever. In the year 1929, from February to the 1st June, the price of foreign wheat fell by 8/6 per quarter, while from the 1st June to the middle of July it increased by 13/- per quarter.
At the time the motion was introduced the Minister for Agriculture pointed out the terrible slump there was in the price of foreign wheat. He accused us of being false prophets when we stated in our report that wheat would probably rise in price. I do not know if the Minister prophesied that foreign wheat was going to remain down. I do not think he did. At any rate it did not. I find in the "Evening Herald"—I do not know whether it is reliable or not—of last Wednesday the following dealing with the Canadian wheat supply. It is dated from Winnipeg:
Advices suggesting united action by the Canadian Wheat Pool and the Federal Farm Board of the United States with the object of ensuring the orderly marketing of all wheat from the North American Continent acted as a tonic on the grain exchange here to-day. Prices of export wheat increased by 1½ to 1¾ cents per bushel in spite of the light export demand.
It goes on to say that there is an agreement in the North American continent to hold up the wheat supply until the price improves. I believe the buyers in Britain and other places are not buying wheat as they say they have a sufficient supply on hands for three months, so that there is a sort of battle going on between the two. If the Canadian wheat pool and the Federal Farm Board of the United States were to have a pool with Australia and Russia becomes the only agent of the wheat, if we have a combination of four or five of the largest sellers of wheat in the world, there is not much prospect that wheat is going to fall much lower than at present. There would be little object in the wheat-growers of Canada, the United States, Australia and Russia organising for any other purpose than the getting of a better price for their wheat. It is quite likely they will get a better price when they do organise. Deputy Hennessy made a very honest speech against the growing of wheat. He was the only Deputy who spoke against the growing of wheat who favoured grass. In one of his arguments he said it is quite easy to see that grass seeds develop the first, second, and third year after wheat, in the strip in which the wheat is grown. He says if you go to a field where wheat, oats and barley have been grown and you look at the meadow you will see where the wheat has been grown. Deputy Brennan said that if I went down to look at the place where his experiments were carried on I would not come back to the House and repeat my statement —that wheat is a good nurse crop for grass.
Deputy Hennessy and Deputy Brennan may be right in their experience, but my experience is not exactly the same. I experimented on my own farm last year at my own expense. I sowed barley, oats, wheat and grass seeds, and I defy Deputy Hennessy or Deputy Brennan to come down and show me, except they are told by people with local knowledge, where the wheat was grown. Why should people who saw Deputy Brennan's patch say they would never grow wheat again? Let them see my patch and they will change their minds, and they might be able to give a little advice to Deputy Brennan. I had a note here of the Minister's contention that wheat ought not to be sown on lea except after one year's grass. Deputy Allen has already dealt with that, and I do not want to refer to it again. The Minister for Education when speaking here said that this proposal of ours was the biggest advance ever made in State control. I do not mind if it is personally. I have no objection to that. But I believe the State interfered very much more in their own proposals. For instance, the 1923 Land Act gives them power to take land and to keep it or to do what they like with it. Taking a farm from a man, even though you are going to pay him for it, is a much more serious thing than compelling a miller to use Irish wheat as well as foreign wheat.
