Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 15 May 1941

Vol. 83 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Vote 30—Agriculture (resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That a sum, not exceeding £622,377, be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1942, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Agriculture, and of certain Services administered by that Office, including sundry Grants-in-Aid. — (Minister for Agriculture.)

Mr. Brennan

Some questions have been asked the Minister latterly in this House with regard to a census of wheat sown in the country and the provision that has been made for the future flour requirements of the country. I have had a good deal of sympathy with the Minister in his efforts to answer these questions, because I do not think that any reliable census has been taken, or is being taken, of the amount of wheat sown. In some districts it may be possible to get information from the seed merchants, but where wheat seed was sold in the open market, that is, exchanged between farmer and farmer, it is not easy for the Minister to obtain any indication as to the amount of wheat sown. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to another aspect of the question to which my attention has been drawn within the last week— that is, in regard to failures of wheat. I have before me a statement written by a very reliable person, setting out the very large number of people in his locality who had sown wheat which has failed, and who have had to plough up the land again. As a matter of fact, he sets out that within a radius of a mile of his home 42 Irish acres of wheat have had to be ploughed up. I am very glad to say that I have no information as regards wheat failures in my own locality, but I am afraid, if wheat has had to be ploughed up in this manner, a great deal of the blame must be laid at the door of the Minister and his advisers. When they started out on this wheat campaign, I remember raising the matter here in this House, and I expressed the view that I was afraid people might sow wheat on land that would not support wheat. I suggested that the people should be advised to grow whatever cereal crop they felt sure would give them the best results, because 30 cwt. of oats is much better than a ton of wheat. I pointed out that if we had oats and barley we should not be hungry. Yet the Minister and his advisers went out and asked for wheat, wheat, wheat. I am afraid that the facts given in this letter are the result of that. Unfortunately, it is now too late to sow any further cereals, and the tillage of these lands will be a total loss. I do not know to what extent this has happened, but, from the letter before me, the position seems to be pretty alarming. I should like the Minister to inquire into it, because it may be of great importance to the people. If wheat has been sown in impoverished land, which is not able to grow it, or in weak, lea land, the Minister will see that a mistake has been made, and that mistake ought to have a lesson for himself and his Department.

On the last occasion on which we debated this Estimate, I endeavoured to convince the Minister that a mistake was made in his Department, particularly during the past year, with regard to the supply of artificial manures. For some reason that I could not understand at the time or since, the Minister lost his temper pretty badly. I hope he is in better form to-day and that, if we tread on his corns to a justifiable extent, he will not squeal as he did last time. We are practically tied in a knot and will probably have to rely on our own resources for food. One thing that will bring success to the Minister's Department is the creation of a feeling of confidence amongst the people. If the Minister wants to establish confidence in himself and his Department, the best thing he can do is to face up to the situation. There is no use in endeavouring to hide plain facts or the misdeeds of the past. On the last night we debated this Estimate, I endeavoured to show that the Department made a great mistake with regard to artificial manures and I pointed to the grave and serious need for soil-fertility at the present time. I said that there was diminishing soil-fertility during the period of the economic war and that we did not use, during that period, the amount of artificial manures which we were accustomed to use. I should like to remind the Minister of the words I used on that occasion. I said that the position with regard to this matter was, that the land was starved from 1932 to 1937. The remainder of the debate, as reported, is as follows:—

"Dr. Ryan: Why did the Deputy's Party starve it? What about the ten years before 1932?

Mr. Brennan: No.... I can give the figures.

Dr. Ryan: I do not care what figures the Deputy gives.

Mr. Brennan: What amount of artificial manures was put into the land after 1932, as compared with what went in previously?

Dr. Ryan: The same amount as went in for the previous ten years."

The Minister for Agriculture, on the same occasion, accused me of saying things I knew to be absolutely without foundation or truth. I did not do that. Anything and everything I said on that occasion I believed to be perfectly true. If I were to accuse the Minister of making statements without foundation, and which he knew to be without foundation. I should have more justification on my side.

I have looked up the shipping statistics regarding the importation of artificial manures. We did not import even half the amount of raw materials for artificial manures after the economic war that we did previous to it. Our imports dropped from 222,000 tons to 94,000 or 95,000 tons. I can give the Minister the figures out of the trade and shipping statistics. When speaking the last night, I knew that there had been a considerable drop in the imports, because I had consulted these figures before. They are not prepared by me but by the Department of Industry and Commerce. It is not fair, particularly when the country is in a crisis, for the Minister to try to bluff through a situation of that sort. That is not good for the Minister and is not good for the country. If the country is to have any future, it must have soil-fertility and it is much better to face up to the fact that the soil was starved.

During that period, whether the volume of agricultural output fell or not, the price fell and the profit to the people engaged in agriculture fell accordingly. Land was not paying and the people had not the money to purchase artificial manures. Nevertheless, the Minister comes to the House and says he does not care what figures I give, that the same amount of artificial manures was imported during the economic war as previous to it. Not half the amount was imported in that period and we should face up to that situation. We have heard of wheat having to be ploughed up at the present time. Let us get to the root of that. If anything can be done to increase the import of raw materials for artificial manures, it ought to be done. We are endeavouring to establish a mercantile marine and I understand that we have purchased ships for the conveyance of wheat to this country. That is very important. I hope the ships arrive here safely and, when they do, I hope it will not be forgotten that we require rock phosphate from Africa, or wherever we can get it. There is no use in expecting to feed our people on the fruits of the soil unless the soil is able to grow what we want. Prior to the Minister assuming office, there was a feeling that the fertility of the soil should be maintained but, in the conflict referred to by Deputy Childers regarding live stock and tillage—a conflict that should never have arisen— that was completely forgotten. Peculiarly enough, the imports of raw materials for the manufacture of manures during the economic war and since were not, in the main, those required for the basis manures but for stimulants such as sulphate of ammonia, so that we have been using up, to a large extent, the fertility of the soil. We shall not get better results by denying that we have been doing this.

Looking back over the past year and immediately before it, the Minister has been very lackadaisical in telling the people what was expected of them. They were not told at the proper time. If we were to have a cereal scheme, it was very unfair that it was not thought well to go out and acquaint the people of the requirements until the beginning of 1941. That was a very bad mistake. Looking back on the activities of the Minister's Department, they give the appearance of a half-dead, half-alive Department. I should be very glad, indeed, to be able to congratulate the Department on having dealt with any particular matter in a very efficient way. I am afraid, from the growing of wheat to the foot-and-mouth disease, the Government has not shown that it can control either the one or the other.

Looking back, we find that there has been a decrease in the employment on farms. Certainly, that does not fit in with the Minister's explanation here the other night that this Government had made agriculture more prosperous than their predecessors had. If it was more prosperous, it appears extraordinary that there has been a drop even in the number of people employed on the farms. In the period 1934 to 1938, taking agricultural employment as shown in the statistical publications, there was a drop of 20,052 persons—members of families—on the land. In addition to that, there were 9,126 permanent workers less in agricultural work in 1938 than in 1934. That was in a period in which some people say the self-sufficiency policy was in operation—the policy which they say is saving this country now from starvation. I do not agree with that at all. We could have gone much further ahead in two years without such a self-sufficiency policy, if the matter had been properly pursued from the beginning of the war. In the matter of families and permanent and temporary employees under and over 18, we had 42,000 less on the land in 1938 than in 1934. I do not wish to make the Minister, in his present Estimate, responsible for that but it is a point which must not be lost sight of.

Deputy Childers appealed here the other night for planning ahead. I entirely agree with that, but do not agree that there has been any planning ahead by the Minister for Agriculture. I do not think there has been a live interest shown in his job by the Minister at any time. There is a very serious matter which will confront this country and for which no provision has been made in the Estimate, and I should like to have the Minister's views on it—in connection with planning ahead for agriculture, planning ahead for progress and for prosperity—and that is the matter of artificial manures and the after-effects of growing too much cereals. We may be compelled— as we are at the present time—to put cereals on land which, in my opinion, would yield a pretty poor crop. In the ordinary way, we would not put them down, but we have done it this year and we may be forced to do it next year and in later years. If our supplies of artificial manures are as meagre next year as they are this year, our land will suffer as a consequence.

In addition to that, there are people at the present time taking conacre all over the country. They are to be highly commended for doing that. I know men who have gone out with tractors in my district and have sown 40 and 50 acres of cereals on other men's land— on the land of men who could not afford the cost of the seed and other requirements. These men will, I hope, take a good crop of cereals this year, and similarly next year, if necessary; but, eventually, the time will come when those people who do not own the land will clear off it. Then we will be presented with a terrible situation, unless we have made provision for it, unless we are by that time in such a position that we will have artificial manures. The man who has been taking 50 or 60 acres in conacre and ploughing it with a tractor will not put in clover or grass seed in a few years when it is rid of nearly all its fertility. The owner will not be in a position to do it, either. That is not a very bright picture to draw, but there is no use in closing our eyes to it.

Unless the Minister can take advantage of shipping in some shape or form, whenever he gets the opportunity, we will not have artificial manure. If we are to grow our foodstuffs, we must have manures. We cannot grow them otherwise. The land is supposed to feed the people of the country, and the Minister must see that the land itself also will be fed. There is no use in people here—particularly in a crisis like this—endeavouring to follow some particular policy for the sake of following a policy. Let us only follow a policy because it is good. There has been in the past too much of the idea that a certain policy is right and has been the policy which somebody has given to this country and one which we are to follow to a conclusion, whatever conclusion that may be. I do not think that is right. A policy should be followed because it is good and because it gives good results, and for no other reason.

In that respect, very little foresight has been shown. We must endeavour to increase the productivity of the soil and, as far as we possibly can, lower production costs. When the war is over the same conditions will prevail. We will have the same type of competition to deal with. We will be thrown on the world's markets again and the best competitor will win. It would appear, from listening to Deputy Childers last night, that the one thing we had to do was to produce a better article so that we would be prepared for the competition. I entirely agree that that must be done, but there must be judgment and foresight. It is of no use to produce an article unless it will sell.

People must not run away with the idea that you can do that in any market all over the world. We cannot —and we know it, to our cost. I know that it is pretty hard at the present time—that it is difficult and, in fact, impossible—to forecast the future and what it will bring us with regard to markets. The one outstanding thing is that this is an agricultural country and will remain so, that upon the productivity of the soil and upon its fertility will depend either the wealth or the poverty of the people here. The Minister should remember that, and should not close his eyes to the fact that our soil has been starved.

There was a period here in which farmers had no money and during which the land was not paying. During that time the fertility of the soil decreased very considerably. Taking slag as an instance, there was a fall of some 20,000 tons in imports compared with 1932, and 20,000 tons per annum would manure 60,000 acres of land. That meant a big loss to the country. When we look at these things it is no wonder that we despair at times whether the Minister is alive to the seriousness of the situation. I am afraid he has not been thinking of it. His Department is a very important one, and it will remain so, and I want to impress upon him that no matter what Department presses for consideration of its work, the Minister should do what his predecessor did, and that is, to insist on any legislation that came up being submitted for examination regarding its effects upon our main industry. That practice ought to continue. The Minister should take a note of that, and whether it was an industrial question or a financial question, its reactions should not be allowed to affect agriculture adversely. If it did it should be thrown aside. This country has to live by agriculture, and the Minister should see that it is not affected adversely by any legislative or financial arrangements.

Mr. Meaney

Everybody realises that these are exceptionally trying times for nations as well as individuals. Although we are lucky—and I trust that our luck will continue—to have escaped the ravages of war, we cannot avoid the repercussions of the conflict that is raging over Europe. In a time of emergency we have to fall back upon our own resources, and circumstances have compelled us to fall back on the land for the necessities of life as far as food and drink are concerned. Perhaps I overstated the case by mentioning the necessities of life, but in present events we can only expect food from outside sources on a very small scale. I avail of this opportunity to express my gratitude, and the gratitude of the nation, at the foresight and wisdom of the Government in having instituted a tillage policy when they took office. The people realise that it is that policy alone has saved them from hunger at the present time. Quite recently, in a debate on this Estimate, Deputy Dillon described the Government's wheat scheme as "codology" and as a failure. I wonder if Deputy Dillon seriously believes that the people of the country are living in a fool's paradise. Were it not for the wheat-growing policy of this Government our supplies would now be exhausted, and we would not have wheat from which to produce flour to bake bread.

Deputy Dillon also stated that he had put certain proposals before the Taoiseach, suggesting that we should grow barley instead of wheat, and exchange the barley with the British for wheat. Could a more ridiculous proposal be put up by a Deputy? As the British people are fighting for their very existence, is it likely that they would exchange human food, which is undoubtedly scarce with them, in order to get animal food? If Deputy Dillon's advice were carried out, or if the policy he preached here for the last seven years were put into operation, the only substitute we would have for wheat would be "codology". I am sure that even Deputy Dillon and his supporters would not get much comfort from "codology" for breakfast, "codology" for dinner, and "codology" for supper.

If the people had not experience of wheat growing within the past eight or nine years, or the experience of producing other cereal crops, which are essential to our economic life as long as this war continues, they could not have embarked upon such a widespread campaign of tillage this spring. In proof of that statement I need only point out that in the areas that ignored the Government's appeal in the last eight or nine years, you will find them trying to dodge the Emergency Powers Tillage Order. I mentioned some districts on a previous occasion, particularly in County Limerick, which contains some of the most fertile land in the world. Undoubtedly the traveller in the train notices that the position has improved, but still there is nothing like the area under tillage that is tilled in County Cork. The reason is that the people there do not really know how to till, as they followed the advice of Deputy Dillon and some of his friends. I want to give credit where it is due, and it pleases me to say that all the members of Deputy Dillon's Party are not in agreement with him as far as his "codology" scheme is concerned. They approve of wheat growing.

It is with pleasure that I noted the wholehearted response of the farmers, and particularly the farmers in my constituency, to the appeal for increased food production. Deputy Brennan referred to failures of crops of wheat in certain areas, and said the cause was due to the land not being suitable. As a grower of wheat, and as one who has experience of some failures, I know that in a few places that was not because the land was not suitable, but because the proper seed was not sown as the people had not experience of the crop. In other cases it was because farmers were over zealous and put wheat on land invested with wire worm and the leather-jacket grub. In any cases where I have known failure the position was made good by sowing some other cereal crop, which would have a better chance of succeeding late rather than early in the spring.

On one point I was in agreement with Deputy Dillon. He referred to a certain creamery group in North Cork, under the control of the Dairy Disposals Board. About two years ago the farmers supplying milk to the creameries there formed a co-operative society, and since then negotiations have been proceeding with the Dairy Disposals Board for the taking over of these creameries. I have no hesitation in saying that the attitude of the Dairy Disposals Board in regard to these creameries is not the attitude of people who are inclined to sell an article at a fair price. The Minister has undoubtedly shown his sympathy to the farmers of that district in this regard, but another Government Department seems anxious to hamstring all efforts to get these creameries into the hands of the farmers. One would think from Deputy Dillon's statement that the farmers had the creameries before, but that is not correct. It must be recognised that it would be a good, a healthy and an economic thing to carry out this arrangement. I realise I am spurring a willing horse when I am asking the Minister to help to bring the negotiations to a conclusion, and so enable the creameries to be handed over to the farming community there. It would mean a great relief to the State and, of course, the agricultural community would benefit.

In the course of the debate on this Estimate on the 1st of May, Deputy Dillon, prompted, I presume, by the very highest motives and—I give him the credit for it—acting in the interests of the public, made an allegation against the members of a certain firm, namely, the Roscrea Meat Producers Company. He alleged that these people availed of the unfortunate position created by the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and mulcted the unfortunate farmers from whom they purchased cattle. I think he stated that they purchased Grade A cattle for the dressed meat export trade at the price of Grade C cattle. Any Deputy who draws public attention to sharp practice or to anything which would amount to taking a mean advantage of a certain section of the community, deserves credit, and I expect Deputy Dillon was prompted by the highest motives in saying what he said. At the same time, I am afraid he made a great mistake.

Colonel Ryan

I would not think so.

Mr. Meaney

The directors of this company, two of whom I know, are men of high repute. They have stated to me that Deputy Dillon's statement is untrue and they are prepared, if necessary, to furnish any documentary evidence that may be required to prove that during the time they were engaged in the dressed meat trade, from 10th March until 5th April, they did not take an undue advantage of any man having cattle for sale. They also stated that they had to purchase the cattle in competition with other firms. I think they purchased, during that period, about 1,086 cattle and the average price paid was £22 3s. 6d. They told me that they did not buy many by live-weight, but any they bought by live-weight were purchased at a price running from 50/- to 51/- a cwt.

Colonel Ryan

During what period did they buy them?

Mr. Meaney

From 10th March until 5th April.

Colonel Ryan

Did they not purchase cattle from November onwards?

Mr. Meaney

They buy Grade C cattle for canning in the month of November, and perhaps later. As one who has sold them cattle time and again, I must acknowledge that their price for cattle for canning purposes was reasonable. In view of their denial, I expect Deputy Dillon will go into the matter carefully. I can quite understand a man being anxious to serve the public by exposing certain things, but when he realises he has made a mistake I am sure he will do all he can to remedy the situation. The statements made here have caused a lot of mischief, apart from being unfair to the men concerned. These men have stated that they can give the names and addresses of the people from whom they purchased cattle in that period. I hope Deputy Dillon will submit to them the points which form the basis of his complaint. They are anxious to hear what Deputy Dillon has to complain of, and I do not expect that Deputy Dillon will shelter behind his privilege as a member of this House.

I should now like to deal with cow-testing associations. Cow-testing is very commendable and very useful, but there is too much pen-work attached to it, and for that reason it is not likely to become really popular among the farmers. It is confined to a limited number of farmers in every district, and only small numbers of cows are tested. I suggest to the Minister that, instead of carrying out cow-testing under the existing methods, the number of supervisors should be increased, and that the weighings should be made up by the supervisor once a month. If that is done, you will have a more correct return of the cows' milk yield than you will have if the arrangements are left in the hands of some of the farmers. I regret to say that in some cases farmers who may have stock for sale later on are not over scrupulous in adding a pound or two to the milk yield. I know it. I was connected with a cow-testing association one time, and I resigned from the job because of that kind of thing, and because I would not certify what was false. I put it to the Minister that something should be done to see that, if the supervisor goes around, things will be correct.

I think that a good many farmers acted on the advice of the Minister and his Department to try to provide themselves with ample supplies of vegetable and farm seeds for next season. I am not an expert, and I do not know whether it is already getting too late for planting mangolds. I know that, at any rate, it is too late for swedes, but there is the real danger of a scarcity of all seeds next year, and I should prefer to see as many people as possible planting their own seeds. I think that an appeal from the Minister and his Department to the farmers, asking them to do more in that direction, would get good results.

Before I finish, there is another matter to which I want to draw the Minister's attention. It is a matter which concerns another Department as well as his own. As we are all aware, there is a big national drive on to procure as much turf as possible for fuel for the coming winter. That, of course, is of vital importance, as I suppose we shall have to depend very largely on our own fuel. I am wholeheartedly in favour of that scheme, but I do not want fuel or turf to be produced to the detriment of the harvesting of the cereal crops which are now planted. I think there should be some cohesion or some arrangement between the Minister's Department and those responsible for the production of turf to prevent men, who are ordinarily and regularly employed by farmers, from leaving their employment to go on the bogs to cut turf. That is happening in some districts, and happening in districts where farmers have put far more of their land under tillage than was required of them under the Tillage Order. It would be rather disastrous if the drive for one type of necessity of life should cause a loss in another necessity. I would ask the Minister to go into the matter carefully. Cases have come to my notice within the past week. I know of men of that type who are trying to leave the land and go on the bog, although to my mind the conditions of employment on the land, taking the whole year around, are probably better than those of employment on the bog. Still, however, the danger exists, and I think it is the duty of the responsible Departments concerned to make some arrangement which will enable us to have the maximum production of human food and animal food, as well as the maximum production of fuel.

Mr. O'Donovan

Before I deal with the Estimate I should like to refer to the present position in the country with regard to foot-and-mouth disease. There is a very serious danger of the disease spreading to the southern counties. In the Dublin area, at the commencement of the outbreak of this disease, the Minister thought it wise to allow horse racing, dog racing, and so forth to go on as usual—to allow "pleasure as usual", in other words. In the course of time, when it got serious, after a week or a fortnight, the Minister then found out that, possibly, it would be wise to put a stop to this "pleasure as usual", and he did so, with the result that the disease has gone out of this area. Now, I hope he will do the same in the areas where it is at the moment and where it is very much felt, and that any sort of congregation of people, whether for horse-racing or anything else, will be prevented until the Minister has the discase completely cleared out of the country.

With regard to the Estimate itself, I do not want to go back on the mistakes of the past year or two years. Rather would I desire that my remarks would be more concentrated on something constructive for the future. Before I do that, however, I have a few "grouses," and one is with regard to cow testing. The Minister, in his opening statement, said that cow testing, after all the allurements that were offered to the farmers, had resulted in only 4 per cent. —I think he said—of the cow population being under test. There is less than 4 per cent. at the moment, because I had an experience within the past couple of months of a case where there had been an excellent cow-testing association in my area. In the opinion of the members of that cow-testing society, they had a very good supervisor. I was interested in this case, and I knew the circumstances pretty well. The supervisor had been ill for some time; he had been suffering from frequent illnesses continuing over, perhaps, a year. He neglected to report the matter, with the result that the weighings were not regularly carried out, but still there was no grumbling from the members of the association, and when the inspector from the Department went down, I think everything was satisfactorily explained. However, before that happened the Department made up their minds that they should get a new supervisor and that this man should go. He had been 20 years working and was as interested in cow testing as any member of the Department of Agriculture. He was interested in keeping that society going and was naturally interested, seeing that it was his job and that he had very little else to live on, and if he did make a few mistakes, still, he was a very capable man. I approached the Secretary of the Department and I wrote specially to the Minister, and the chairman and every member of that association signed a memorial, which was sent up to the Minister, asking for the reinstatement of that man. He has not been reinstated, and that association has gone flop.

Now, I want to compare that case with that of another appointment, which was made at that time under another section of the Department. This was the appointment of a man who had been dismissed from the Department a good many years ago. I was also interested in the case of that man when he was dismissed, and I thought it was terribly drastic of the Department to dismiss him. I held that some other action could have been taken besides dismissing him, and I made representations to the powers-that-be at that time but they could not see their way to do anything to prevent him from being dismissed. Time and again, representations were made to the Department to have this man brought back. I hold that he should never have been dismissed. Now we have the case of the cow-testing supervisor being dismissed from office, and this other man taken back 18 years after his dismissal, and given a job. If the Department was wrong in dismissing the man in the first case then I think that man should get back his original job, but if they were right in dismissing him, then he should not have been taken back at all. They must have been wrong, I hold, or he would not have been taken back. In like manner, I hold that they are wrong in dismissing this cow-testing supervisor. As I have pointed out, there was an appeal from the chairman and members of the association to get him reinstated and I hope the appeal will succeed. He is a good man, and this cow-testing association itself is as good a one as is to be found in County Cork, and if he is reinstated it will carry on in the old tradition which it has had for the past 20 years.

Another little "grouse" I have is with regard to the way in which manures were distributed this year and the prices at which they were sold. I think the Minister should have had some control over the prices at which the manufacturers sent out the manures for distribution. There is no good in my talking of it now, but I hope it will not occur in the future. There is another matter to which I want to refer. The Minister and his officials have for years back been preaching that you cannot produce beet successfully without the addition of potash to the artificial mixture, that you cannot grow a good table potato without the addition of potash and that you cannot grow wheat successfully without potash. Those are three items of food for our people, but what did we find? We had no potash for potatoes and no potash for beet, but, at the time of the flax growing, there was a notice in the papers that there was so much muriate of potash in stock —it would require about six to eight stone to the acre—which the Department had reserved for the area to be sown in flax this year. Flax is not used in this country at all. Every ounce of flax grown or scutched here is sent away for purchase by the foreigner. Apart from the money value of it, it is of no advantage to us. Furthermore, very little of the land of our flax-growing counties is flax sick because for a number of years flax was not grown. In fact, the people there had practically gone out of flax production and it is only where flax is intensively grown, that is, where it is produced on the same land once in five or six years and that continues for a generation or two, that the land becomes flax sick and needs potash. Whether that is so or not, the first thing the Minister should have done was to see that the potash in the country was given to people producing food. I think it was very short-sighted to reserve the potash for flax growers, whose product goes to the foreigner.

Now I want to deal with this planning ahead about which we hear so much, and to see if there is anything constructive we can do to tide us over the difficult period before us. I am not as optimistic as some people who think that we are going to have artificial manures while this trouble lasts. I cannot see any coming at all. I have stressed this matter so often that I am tired of it, but I should like the Minister, in co-operation with any other Departments who are interested, to take cognisance of the fact that along our seaboard there is seaweed for the manufacture of kelp, and I hope that now, at the eleventh hour, they will rise to the occasion and ensure that whatever quantity of kelp can be manufactured in this country will be manufactured. The Department should also carry out experiments with regard to the dried weed. Along the seaboard, we are not so badly off, but it is certainly wanted inland, and there is no use in people saying, as Deputy Corry said last night, that there is no fear of our being unable to continue to grow wheat for the next 20 years. There is no such thing as that. You are not going to produce wheat or other foodstuffs, unless you have the manures to manure the land. The Department should experiment on the dried weed and see what manurial value it has after drying and, if it is worth anything at the end of six months, it could be packed in bales and sent inland. I believe that it would have a manurial value, and it is worth a trial, because we should take advantage of this natural stuff that we have available to us. It would perhaps give us some of the self-sufficiency which is so much talked of, and it is one of the lessons we might learn that we should depend more on what we have than on phosphates from Africa and such imports.

A further point in connection with the matter of manures is the value of liquid manure. Discussing this Estimate last year, I suggested that one of the things money should be spent on was the erection of liquid manure tanks in every farmyard. Anybody who has any knowledge of agriculture knows that liquid manure is as valuable as the solid manure, and, if it were available in a dry season like this and if a man could cart the liquid manure and put it over his beet or his corn, we would not have so many complaints of wire-worms and of corn dying. It is a very valuable asset, and the Minister should make every effort to ensure that not an ounce of it goes to waste. A good deal of it can be absorbed by a bedding of sand or bog stuff. Bog stuff is not as good as sand, but a good deal of it could be absorbed by it. Straw or other bedding, however, does not absorb the liquid manure, and it goes to waste.

In regard to this matter of liquid manure and the possible necessity of having it in the future, I would suggest the adoption of the continental system. The sewage from our cities and towns at present is washed down to pollute the rivers, in some places, and the harbours in others. An amount of valuable stuff could be got from it by the erection of big reservoirs, and, personally, I should prefer to see them being built than the silos which are at present going up. It is a pity to see the waste involved in the polluting of the rivers by this valuable substance. It is one aspect of this planning-ahead campaign which may save us in the future. The cost involved in erecting the tanks and saving a good deal of the sewage would not be very much, but it might save us millions later on. It is again a case of utilising the stuff available to us, but then many of us prefer the things from far away—is mór-thaibhseach iad adharcanna na mbó thar lear—instead of concentrating on such a matter as this and seeing what could be done in saving the liquid manure.

The Minister made what, I think, was a terrible mistake last year in regard to the marketing of onions. The growing of onions has taken on in this country. They are being pretty successfully grown, and they are a great asset in the poorer districts amongst the smaller people, farmers and cottiers, who cannot take advantage of the guaranteed prices for wheat, beet, or any of the other products.

The way the marketing of onions was handled last year was a scandal. I remember putting a question to the Minister asking if he would remove the prohibition on the export of onions at a time when £60 or £65 per ton could be obtained for them in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Minister would not remove the prohibition at that time when onions were selling in this country from £12 to £14 per ton. The Minister did not remove the prohibition until he realised that the smugglers were at work. But before that the smugglers had been buying onions in Kerry and Cork and selling them for £60 per ton across the Border. It was only then that the Minister took off the embargo.

Dr. Ryan

I never took it off.

Mr. O'Donovan

The Minister allowed them to be exported.

Dr. Ryan

We allowed a certain quantity to be exported.

Mr. O'Donovan

That was only when we had lost on the transaction. Then the price was fixed at £25. I hope a similar mistake will not be made in connection with the marketing of onions this year. While I am speaking of onions, I should like if the Minister would tell us if there are any protective measures which can be taken against the mildew which attacks onions. It is a pity to see fine crops of onions, which have been treated well and which have grown up to a certain point, destroyed because there is no remedy to prevent them from being attacked by mildew. I have heard of a dressing of calomel powder and other things, but I do not know of any effective dressing. It would be a great help if the Minister knows of any proper dressing to prevent this disease if he would make it known to the onion growers.

Another matter that affects my area and, indeed, all the south of Ireland, is the closing of the port of Cork for the shipment of cattle. I understand that the Cork cattle traders have written to the Minister asking him to have the port of Cork opened for the shipment of cattle for immediate slaughter. I do not know what the difficulties may be, but I know that the farmers in the south are very hard hit by the closing of the port. I appeal to the Minister to respond to the appeal of the Cork cattle traders to open the port, if it is at all possible.

While I am on the cattle question, I should like to point out to the Minister that the hard-working farmers of County Cork, especially West Cork, who have practically all the land they have available under tillage at present, are depending on their cheques for milk to keep them going during the summer. In County Cork we have certainly good creameries and good cattle and every farm is stocked to capacity with milch cows. It is a great blow to these farmers that Great Britain will not now take their yearling cattle. The farmers of West Cork and other parts of the county, as well as County Waterford, have to dispose of their yearlings in April, May and June. Farmers who prepared cattle for the market at this time find that they are now left on their hands. With the increased tillage there is no grazing available for these cattle, with the result that they will be without their cheque for the store cattle as well as for milk this year. I would ask the Minister to get in touch with the British Minister to see if there is any possibility of getting a market for these yearlings. If not, the farmers of West Cork will be in a very bad position this year.

We have heard a lot about the growing of wheat and other crops, but I want to say in connection with wheat, potatoes, oats, or any other crop, that if we have not manure we cannot produce these crops. I think that the demand of the Government that the people should plough land and produce crops irrespective of whether the land was fit for such production was nonsense, to say the least of it. I would rather have one acre of potatoes which was properly treated and cared for, than three acres which were not properly cared for and manured. The same thing holds good with regard to oats or wheat. One acre properly treated would be much better than three acres which were not properly treated. Asking farmers to plough 20 or 30 or 50 acres of land which will not produce a good crop is madness. The cost of labour and of seeding that land will be lost. It would be better to concentrate on what can be done and do it well by manuring the land and treating it properly. Land that is not fit for crop production can be used for something else. I do not think it is wise to be asking people to increase production to that extent if you will not provide the manure in some shape or form to help them to produce the crops. I hope the suggestions I have put forward with regard to seaweed, sand, kelp, liquid manure, etc., will be considered by the Minister, and that the Minister will do all he can to help us to tide over this difficult time by taking advantage of these things which we have available, and thereby providing us with the necessaries of life.

Mr. Bennett

One thing that strikes me in connection with this Estimate is the limited amount of money provided for the service of agriculture. When speaking on the Budget I referred to the fact that when we are proposing to spend a sum of £41,000,000, which will probably be increased within the next six or seven months to £50,000,000 by Supplementary Estimates, one would have expected that the amount of money devoted to the chief industry of agriculture would have been very much increased. However, I suppose that is a matter over which the Minister for Agriculture has not any great control, and that he has to make the best of the amount given to him.

One of the matters I should like to refer to is dairying. Dairy farmers will have a particularly bad time this year; everything appears to be against them. The dry season, as Deputy O'Donovan pointed out, has retarded the growth of pastures and, at the moment, the supply of milk on most of the farms is very limited. Unless we have some rain in the near future the pastures are likely to be very poor this year and, as a result, the cheques for milk will be very small. Deputy O'Donovan also referred to another difficulty under which dairy farmers are labouring, and that is the difficulty of getting rid of their young stock. It is almost impossible at the moment to sell any beast under one and a half years. I have seen beasts sold recently at practically "giving-away" prices. As I have often said in this House, it was mainly on the cattle end of his business that the dairy farmer made his profits.

Milk production has ceased for a good many seasons to be an economic proposition. Were it not for what the farmer makes on the turnover of his cattle, dairying would, I am afraid, have collapsed many seasons ago. On the face of it, this is going to be a very bad year for dairy farmers. No doubt the Minister has had that brought to his notice by the various dairy societies. As he knows, there has been a consistent demand for an increased price for butter and milk. I should like to support that demand as strongly as I can in the Dáil. There are, as I have said, dangerous times ahead for the dairy farmer, and anything that the Government or this House can do to help him ought to be done. We are expending huge sums of money this year, some of it on essential things, such as defence, but even so it should not be impossible to make available enough money to safeguard our main industry.

The spread of foot-and-mouth disease within the last couple of months has added to the difficulties of farmers in the dairying districts. The position in East Limerick and Tipperary, at the moment, is almost terrifying. In the last few weeks the disease has spread rapidly from Kilkenny to Tipperary. Within a week or ten days it spread from Tullaroan to Ballingarry, on to Mullinahone and close to Thurles. If it continues to spread at the same rate in the next few weeks, the position will be truly alarming. The conditions in the dairying counties are going to be indescribable. While I do not want to criticise the Department I am at the same time not at all satisfied that everything was done that could have been done to stop the spread of the disease. I am sure the Minister's advisers and the officials in his Department did everything they could to prevent its spread. At the same time, I am not satisfied that from the start the situation was properly handled. In the speech I made at the outbreak of the disease I suggested that with the material at our disposal—the Army and other forms of Defence Force which fortunately are not required for the purpose for which they have been primarily established—it should have been possible to arrange that the farm or district infected with the disease was isolated and that people would not be allowed to leave or enter without being properly disinfected. I am not satisfied that was done. I have heard that people got into these infected farms and out again, that they travelled distances and carried the disease with them. The infected areas should, if necessary, have been surrounded by the military, even though that might be a very drastic course to take. A cordon should be drawn around them, and people should not be allowed to leave or enter an infected farm. The human factor entered a lot into the spread of the disease. I believe the Department are satisfied that, from the first, it was the human carrier that was the most dangerous.

There is another dangerous practice and I am not at all satisfied that it occurred to the officials of the Department to take steps to guard against it. Farmers were cautioned over the wireless, and in other ways, and very properly so, with regard to the importance of reporting suspected outbreaks. I think the Department might have gone a step further, and told them the things they should do to stop the infection spreading.

I wonder did it occur to anybody that the man reporting the disease might himself be a carrier of it, and be the means of spreading it. The first thing that the ordinary farmer, who has not been properly instructed, will do if he suspects the disease is manifesting itself amongst his stock is to rush off to the Guards and make a report. In doing that he may carry the disease to the Guards, and they, in turn, may spread it amongst other people. In my opinion instructions should have been given over the wireless by the Department's officials to such people to disinfect themselves before leaving the infected farm. In my parish a week ago a scare was raised. It was reported that an outbreak had occurred at a certain place. Fortunately it did not turn out to be true. What I have said happened there. If there had been an outbreak on that land it is 100 to 1 that the disease would have been spread all over the district and through the adjoining districts. Therefore, I say that people going to report the disease should first of all disinfect themselves so as not to become carriers of it. As a matter of fact that point did not occur to me until about a week ago, and it may not have occurred to the officials of the Department.

The outbreak of this disease is the greatest disaster that could have come upon this country, and it is the duty of everyone to help to try to stop the spread of it. If it gets a proper hold on the dairying districts, I do not know how it is going to be stopped. The most drastic measures that the Department could conceive for the purpose of stopping the spread of it would, I think, be readily accepted by the people of the dairying districts. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again later.