Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Oct 1942

Vol. 88 No. 9

Private Deputies' Business. - Supplies of Food and Animal Feeding Stuffs—Motion.

Mr. Belton

I move:—

That Dáil Eireann is of opinion that the Government should inform the House of the present position with regard to food supplies for man and beast, and the steps now being taken to prevent the possibility of famine and the recurrence of the disaster of under-production of 1941.

It is fortunate that this motion, which has had many vicissitudes, should come before the House just now and that the House should be given an opportunity of debating the food position when there is ample time to prepare for the cropping season of 1943. Since the emergency arose in 1939, there have been spasmodic attempts to deal with the food position, but it was never dealt with properly and never dealt with in time. Every season, the Minister, whom we have caught here now in time, changed his opinion on his food plan for the following year several times, and his final plan was never available in time. It is well, so far as concerns the coming year, which in the order of things will be the most acute year of the emergency to date, that we have got this motion before the House in time and can get the Government's mind on it. It is necessary to know what exactly is the food position from last year. It is necessary to know what provision is being made for next year, and it is very important that those who apply themselves to the production of food should know the programme ahead and know what facilities and help there are available from the Government. I have no special knowledge of the food position. I can only judge it from its effects, and it is most important for the country to know how productivity will be maintained. We have no manures, and the land is getting poorer. Some land has been giving wheat for years and is now hardly able to give any wheat.

The want of manures is a very important factor in considering the food position. The people, especially the people in the towns—and I have met them constantly around Dublin—were ready to slaughter farmers down the country who are alleged to have given their corn to animals when it was wanted here for human food. The Government took action and prosecuted such farmers. I am not finding fault exactly with them for that, but I am finding fault with them because they did not make provision for feeding stuffs for the live stock. We have the repercussion to-day of that neglect. We have a shortage of butter, rationed at 2/- a lb. We have a scarcity of bacon, a scarcity of eggs, a scarcity of all animal products, and I am afraid we are confronted with a scarcity of milk—all because of the want of planning to provide animal food. The people in the cities are now beginning to realise that those who fed their inferior wheat to cows to produce milk and butter were, after all, not such criminals, that they were not criminals at all. I will go even further and say that they had more foresight than the Government, because they were providing us with the milk and butter that the Government have failed to provide for the country as a whole.

Now, I have heard—I am not speaking from my own experience because I have not threshed yet—that although we may have an increased area under wheat and oats this year the yield from it is not up to normal. I have no evidence of that, but I have heard it said. I expect, and my neighbours expect, that it will be as good as in previous years, but this is inevitable: we are taxing our wheat lands to produce wheat after wheat for a number of years, and that can have only one ending. Those lands will not be able to produce wheat—perhaps will not be able to produce anything—without the application of manures that we have not got.

With regard to the production of milk and milk products, butter, etc., what has the Minister in mind that we will feed milch cows on? Hay and roots, if we have enough of them, will not produce milk and will not produce milk of the required standard. Will the Minister say that the quality of the food has no bearing on the milk? I would suggest that the Minister should have a talk with Professor Drew. I suggest he should read some authority on milk production, if he has not done so already. Everybody who has experience knows that if you miss giving concentrated food to cows for even one meal there will be a reduction in the standard of the milk. Yesterday evening I was talking to a small dairyman. He did not know how he was going to carry on. He had nothing with which to feed his cows but some pitted grains, inferior hay and mangolds. It is a physical impossibility, with that feed, to produce milk with 3 per cent. fats—the minimum standard required by Local Government Order. That man in all honesty and sincerity is producing milk and contributing to the food supply, but if an inspector takes a sample of the milk produced under these conditions it will be found deficient in fats. In normal times the machinery, properly, is so arranged that no power can stop a prosecution in cases where milk is not up to the required minimum standard. A fine is imposed, but the fine is trivial compared with the exposure that the man is selling milk below standard. To the ordinary mind it at once appears that the man is diluting the milk. He is doing nothing of the kind. He is selling the milk as the cows gave it, and the cows cannot give better milk because they are not getting proper feeding stuffs, and the man cannot get proper feeding stuffs for them. It is all right to prosecute and persecute a producer when he does not do what he should, but when he is doing all he can why should he be penalised? The fault arises from the want of planning for the production of food.

The Minister is not responsible for the emergency. He is not responsible for all the shortage. Neither is the Government. If I offer criticism it is that I think they have not shown foresight enough. I speak in order to be helpful and I hope my criticism will be constructive. The Minister sees the difficulty and I am sure he has been worried about it. He realises that it would be very bad to reduce the standard required for milk, and I say the standard should not be reduced until every avenue is explored, but I put it to the Minister that milk of that standard cannot be produced on the food available. If there are such concentrated foods available for milch cows, what are these foods? I do not know that oats will be available for them. There may be a certain amount of small wheat, but there is none of the ordinary concentrated foods that we used to give to milch cows pre-war. I do not believe—I would be glad to know if the Minister has any hope— that we will have whiter flour. I am not now thinking of the texture, colour or quality of the flour so much as that whiter flour will make available a considerable amount of feeding stuffs. Personally, I always thought it was a grave mistake, a disastrous mistake, to have lowered the standard of flour by raising 70 per cent. extraction. We sacrificed in that way 200,000 tons of valuable feeding stuffs that could be used now to produce good quality milk and to fatten pigs. We have lost that.

I do not think the crops this year will give us a surplus of feeding stuffs and, with no fertilisers, thrown back entirely on farmyard manure, we will reach the stage inevitably when this country will not be able to feed us. People talk of practical farmers. I know only one kind of farmer, that is the practical farmer. There may be some armchair farmers in this country, but it is the practical farmer that I am concerned with. The Minister is a practical farmer. He knows that it is not the area under tillage that counts —in present circumstances it counts less than it ever did in our lives—but the area properly tilled and manured that counts. One acre well tilled and well manured is worth ten acres of badly manured land. Some townsfolk think that if 25 per cent. under tillage is not giving us all the food we want we should till 26 per cent. or 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. They believe food production will increase according as you increase the area under tillage. The cornerstone of our food production, of our very existence, is the manure available for the land. I am sure nobody will deny that. Accepting that as correct, it is all important that we should keep up the supply of manure.

Last year I was instrumental in making a deal for straw with paper mills. I think farmers should consider carefully whether even the big price now offered for straw should induce them to deprive their land of that straw. They should consider ways and means of rotting it and putting it back into the land in order to maintain the standard of production. I would ask the Minister to consider that suggestion. I suppose a farmer would get two tons of straw from one statute acre. Straw is now fetching £4 and £4 10s. a ton in the Dublin market. That is a great temptation to a farmer, but what is he going to do with his acres of stubbles if he does not rot the straw and put it back into the land? We are greatly cut away from the world now, and it looks as if we will be still further cut away. We have to rely on the fields of this country, and these fields require nourishment if they are to produce crops next year. Fertility must be restored to the soil in the same proportion as it was taken from the soil in producing this year's crops. We have to be very careful of our economy now. I would put it to the Minister that he should see to these details and should explore every avenue in order to conserve our fertilisers and manures. There is no use in increasing tillage unless we are in a position to manure the increased area under tillage. That is the only problem that I have. There is nothing in tilling land and producing crops. It is quite a simple routine job if you have manure to put into the land.

I am sure every farmer finds that is his problem at the present time. The Minister should make it a national problem and see what we are confronted with. I also think he should endeavour to co-ordinate effort in implements and, particularly, in threshing.

I understand that a lot of corn, in a bad way, is still out in stooks. A good deal of corn that is in is not in a very good way either. I am not satisfied that the threshing machinery we have at our disposal is being used to the best advantage. I do not know whether I should refer to a decision given in the courts last year about a threshing engagement in the County Dublin. Those people, of course, know their own business best, but I can say that that decision has been disastrous to farmers in the County Dublin because, since it was given, you will not get the owner of a threshing set to tell you the week that he will come to you. It was a pity that the case was ever let go to a decision. I suggest to the Minister that he should keep a watchful eye—perhaps he is doing so—on the use of the machinery at our disposal. I say that because the land in present circumstances must be at the disposal of the community. Whatever we may think of private ownership, that is for normal times, but in existing conditions the land must be at the service of the community. If we are asked to place it at the service of the community, then the community, speaking through the Minister for Agriculture and of the Government, whatever Government it may be, must see that we are helped out when we do our end of the job.

As regards the motion, I am anxious to here what the Minister has to say on the different views that have been expressed. This is not a matter of making criticism, or otherwise, against the Government or against anybody else. We are now starting our production for next year. We are ploughing for next year's crop, and now is the time for the Minister to put his cards on the table and tell us what he expects in the coming year. I have no doubt that if the Minister helps the farmers they will do their part in this emergency, whether they are supporters or otherwise of the Government. The farmers are supporters of a Government. It does not matter what Government is in, or who the Minister for Agriculture is, if he will help them out. They want to be helped out as regards manures, and on the question of stall feeding which is necessary to produce the manures they need. They want the Minister to advise them as to how they should conserve the by-products of their crops. If the Minister shows an interest in them, and co-operates with them, he will find that food will be produced by the agricultural community in the coming year to an extent to which it was never produced before.

Mr. Cogan

I second the motion. I think the Minister should be glad that an opportunity is being afforded to him of making a statement in regard to the agricultural position for the coming year. We are now at the beginning of the tillage year and it is time that the Minister's plans should be announced to farmers generally. Last year the farmers made a very substantial effort to meet the nation's demand for food. They increased their acreage under tillage by nearly 250,000 acres. They have brought the area under tillage to a higher level than it has reached for almost a century. That is an achievement of which the farmers should be proud.

The Minister has on several occasions congratulated them on it. One serious feature in regard to the area under crops last year was a decline in the area under root and green crops. There had been a very substantial increase in the area under green crops, but last year there was a very great and serious decrease. That is a matter which the Minister must view with grave concern. It is a matter which farmers and everybody who studies the food position in the country view with concern. If the area under root and green crops is allowed to continue to decline, then there is no future for an increase in the production of cereal crops. The only hope we have of maintaining and extending the area at present under tillage is by having a proper rotation of crops. If wheat or other grain crops are to be grown in succession in the same land, there is certain to be a complete breakdown.

It might be well for the Minister to ask himself what is the cause of the serious decline in the area under root and green crops generally. I notice that the area under potatoes did not decrease very much. There was, nevertheless, an unwelcome decrease which was due to the fact that the potato crop for the previous year could not be turned to remunerative advantage. The prices fixed for pigs—the potato crop is mainly used to produce pigs— offered no encouragement to the farmer to grow potatoes for the purpose of feeding pigs. There has been not only a decline in the area under potatoes, but an even more marked decline in the number of pigs fattened, and in the amount of bacon produced. This decline has had the disastrous results which are now being felt by every section in the community. The decline in the area under green crops, in the number of pigs produced and in the amount of bacon available for human consumption would not have occurred if there had been careful planning away back in 1941, and if farmers had been provided with an economic price for their pigs. If that had been done, it would enable them to keep in production and to cultivate the crops necessary to produce pigs. What is true of potatoes is also true of mangolds and turnips. The return to farmers from the feeding of root crops to cattle, particularly for the stall feeding of cattle, was not sufficient to induce them to grow those crops, having regard to the very much increased cost of their production. Because of the serious increase in the price of seeds, and the difficulty in obtaining suitable seeds, we had a very serious decline in potatoes and root crops generally.

Now we come to another problem which has been brought home to every citizen. I refer to the decline in the acreage under sugar beet, which has resulted in sugar being so difficult to obtain. It is quite obvious to everyone, and I think it was pointed out by the organisation representing the beet growers, the Beet Growers' Association, that the price offered for beet last year was not sufficient to induce the farmers to grow an adequate acreage. I think the Minister made a very serious mistake in not giving 10/- a ton more for sugar beet. A slight increase in the price of sugar would not have been very seriously felt by the community; at least, it would not have been so seriously felt as the complete inability to obtain adequate supplies. There is no reason why this country should be short of sugar, having regard to the fact that we can produce the raw materials, even the seed.

The position in regard to sugar beet is serious. We know that this year there is a decline in the acreage of over 20,000 acres and the yield per acre promises to be low because of the shortage of artificial manures. I think the Minister should make up his mind that the price of beet for the coming year ought to be substantially increased and he should also give attention to a very practical suggestion put forward by the Beet Growers' Association, namely, that an extra allowance of sugar should be made available to growers of sugar beet. It seems an intolerable situation that people growing sugar beet and supplying it to the factory at a rather low price are unable to obtain an adequate quantity of sugar for themselves and their families.

There is a more practical reason why an allowance of sugar should be made to those people. We know that the serious decline in the acreage under sugar beet is due to the fact that the larger growers have had to cut down their acreage because artificial manures were not available. Those larger growers had drastically to reduce their acreage when the artificial manures could not be procured. The Minister must know that outside, and even inside, the beet-growing areas there are large numbers of farmers who are not growing beet, but who could grow it on a small scale, with satisfaction to themselves and to the factories. The Minister's duty should be to induce those people to go in for the beet production. An increase in the price is desirable and necessary, particularly for those who have been growing beet and have experience of the cost of growing it, but an increase in the price alone will not be sufficient to bring new growers into production.

An added inducement should be offered, and a very effective inducement, I think, would be a small allowance of sugar for every acre of beet grown or every ton of beet delivered to the factory. That would be far more attractive to the new growers than an increase in the price. I think the Minister will, on consideration, see the wisdom of that suggestion. He will see that those people who have not been growing beet, particularly small farmers, have a fair amount of farmyard manure and also have land which has not been sickened by continually growing beet and which is new to beet growing and which will give good results for a number of years. To get these new growers in is the Minister's problem. He will get them by offering this inducement, which has been suggested by the Beet Growers' Association. I think when beet growers have an organisation representative of their interests and when those practical growers of beet put up a reasonable suggestion, the Minister should be very slow to turn it down.

I am not concerned at the moment as to the exact amount of extra sugar which might be allowed to growers. I am not prepared to advocate that there should be a flat rate allowance for every ton of beet delivered to the factory or every acre grown. If you were to follow that line it would mean that the grower of 20 acres, or a man supplying 200 or 300 tons of beet, would get too large an allowance of sugar and that extra allowance might simply go on the black market and become a source of trouble. If a reasonable allowance per acre or ton were made, with a maximum fixed, I think that difficulty would be got over. I believe the making of such an allowance would have good results. Indeed it might not be required at all, because we might have enough sugar for everybody and we might be able to increase the sugar ration.

After sugar beet, the problem of manuring land is one to which the Minister's most serious attention should be directed. We know that the number of pigs in this country has gone down enormously. It has gone down to such an extent that the industry is facing complete collapse. So far as the Department of Statistics can be relied upon, the number of sows this year as compared with last year has declined by over 20,000. That is a very serious matter. If the number of sows continues to decline, the industry will be brought to a standstill. The time is opportune for the Minister to revise the policy pursued by the Pigs and Bacon Commission that has been acting under his Department for a number of years. Last winter the Pigs and Bacon Commission seemed to be under the impression that there were too many pigs fed in this country. I was told by officials of that commission that there was an absolute glut in the bacon factories last February and for that reason it was considered unwise to increase the price of pigs.

We also had the position last winter in which farmers found it impossible to get a market for their pigs. We had an unfair discrimination as regards pigs which were slightly over the regulation weights. Anyone with common sense should have realised that in a time of war, in a time of national emergency such as this, there was no need for discrimination between first quality and second quality pigs. The farmer suffered a cut of 12/- per cwt.—and I have seen cases of 16/- and more—for pigs which were overweight; but when the farmer or any other consumer went into the retail shop to purchase bacon, there was no distinction between the price of the pig which happened to be over weight and the pig which was graded as first class. They were all sold at the same price.

It might have been justifiable in normal times, when we would have a big export trade, to have this discrimination between first and second grade pigs with a view to improving the quality of bacon, but in a time of emergency such as this, all these other considerations should have been swept aside and the object of the Pigs and Bacon Commission and of the Department should have been to get the maximum amount of bacon produced, particularly in view of the fact that you get more bacon out of the food fed to pigs when the pigs are over weight. They produce bacon much more economically when they are over a certain weight and have come to a certain age.

These considerations were completely overlooked. The industry was surrounded by restrictions and inconveniences of every kind. The result was that the farmer went out of production and we are facing that disastrous position to-day. To get the farmer back into production, it will be necessary to make a very substantial increase in the price of pigs, and that increase should apply to all pigs, irrespective of weight. The time has come to sweep away petty restrictions which might be desirable in normal times, but which are completely out of place in a situation such as the present.

It is in view of the fact that the industry has been reduced to such an extent that I believe it will be necessary for the Pigs and Bacon Commission and the Department to raise the price of pigs much higher than would have been necessary if the industry had not been allowed to decline. I believe also that there should be a firm offer to producers in respect of the price of pigs. The price should be fixed, not for one month or a few months, but for at least 12 months in advance, so that the farmer keeping a sow and producing pigs would know that he was sure of getting a profit, and would also know that it would be possible for him to go in more extensively for the cultivation of potatoes and roots for the feeding of pigs.

There is at present an almost universal demand for the abolition of the Pigs and Bacon Commission. I have never publicly supported that demand, because I have felt that it is in the best interests of the industry to have some central control. I quite agree that a system of control through Government officials or civil servants is not the best that could be obtained. It has certainly given very bad results, but until we are able to establish a body representative of the producers to control the industry centrally, I think we must retain some form of central control.

The main question, however, so far as the producer is concerned, is the question of price. If the price is right, and if the farmer can get a market for his produce, he will not be very much concerned as to who exercises control, or whether or not any control is exercised. The main thing is to get a remunerative price, and, until that is guaranteed, we cannot look forward to anything but a continuance of the disastrous situation in which we find ourselves at present.

We are in the middle of the threshing season, and I think it is a little unsatisfactory to find that the provision of equipment for farmers to get their threshing work done is very inadequate and is becoming more inadequate every day. There is over a very large area of the country a very serious shortage of threshing sets. I should like the Minister to say whether it is possible that any threshing sets or threshing mills are going out of the Twenty-Six Counties. I am not sure whether they are or not, but I know that mills are being purchased down the country at very high prices and being taken away, with the result that in many areas people are finding it impossible to get their threshing done. It is a very serious matter for the farmers, and particularly for those farmers who have not very good storage accommodation for their grain because it means a very serious loss. I am not sure if there is anything the Minister can do, but I am certain that if any mills are being taken out of the country by any means, he will prevent it.

I find that there is also beginning to emerge a serious shortage of corn sacks. This, I am told, is due to the restrictions on the movement of grain and particularly the movement of wheat which entail keeping the wheat in sacks for a very considerable time in the merchants' stores, with the result that most of the sacks are taken up and farmers are finding it impossible to obtain them and so are unable, even where threshing sets are available, to get their threshing done. That is one question to which the Minister should direct his attention.

As I have said, we are starting the wheat-growing season and one big question to which the Minister should direct his attention is that of seed wheat. Owing to the fact that it is very difficult to import any new pedigree seed, the quality of seed wheat is beginning to show signs of declining and the wheat is deteriorating, and it is getting more difficult to obtain seed wheat, pure as to name. For that reason, I think the Minister should, for the coming season, make arrangements to have good wheat crops inspected, while growing, and to have a higher price paid for crops which, on inspection, are certified true to name and unmixed.

Lastly, I noticed that we farmers have been attacked by some people engaged in industry and business here in the city, on the ground that we are seeking and have succeeded in obtaining a price for our wheat which is excessive. In this connection, comparisons are made with the price of wheat in Great Britain, and we are told the price of wheat there is somewhat lower; but these people who attack us on these lines completely ignore the fact that in Great Britain practically every other crop grown on the land is either fetching a higher price than the farmer here is getting for his crops, or carries a very substantial acreage subsidy which completely offsets any disadvantage he may suffer in respect of the price of wheat. The farmers are entitled to obtain a price for wheat which will cover the cost of production and leave a margin of profit. I think it would be in the interests of the agricultural industry in the long run if there was an acreage subsidy paid for crops which are used for animal feeding stuffs, such as potatoes and root crops. A subsidy, perhaps not so generous as that which is paid in Great Britain, but sufficient to encourage the farmer to take all the risks involved in growing root crops at present, should be provided for in next year's plan of operations for tillage. With these few suggestions, I will wait and see what the Minister has to say.

Mr. Curran

I wish to endorse the demand made by Deputy Cogan, and I think by the Beet Growers' Association, that a certain amount of sugar should be given to the farmer who grows beet. I know the demand is not very popular even amongst farmers themselves, but I see no reason why the farmer who grows beet should be helping to supply sugar for his neighbour whose land is equally suitable for growing beet. This would not be creating any precedent because, if I remember rightly, the farmer is allowed to retain 20 stone of wheat per head of his family and also a barrel of oats per head. I think that the demand which has been made by the Beet Growers' Association that a certain amount of sugar should be granted is a fair one. I am not saying how much should be granted, but I make the demand that a certain amount should be granted. This demand has been put up by county committees of agriculture in various parts of the country. I agree with Deputy Cogan that it would be one of the greatest incentives to an increased production of beet to tell a farmer that if he grows beet he will get a certain amount of sugar, according to his acreage under beet. I think the demand is justified and I hope the Government will accede to the request.

Reference has been made to artificial manures, and I should like the Minister to make a statement on that matter and also on the position as regards the supply of binder twine for the coming year. During the last harvest the position with regard to binder twine was very difficult. I had to come to Dublin myself with a couple of representatives of co-operative societies in order to get a supply for the members of these societies. However, it was managed, I do not know of any farmer being short of binder twine last harvest. I should, however, like to hear from the Minister what the prospects are likely to be for the next harvest.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

I was rather disappointed that Deputy Belton did not develop this matter a little more and suggest what better planning might have been done to meet this emergency. I suppose Deputy Belton has the privilege, being in Opposition, of asking the Government what plans they have got. But, if he thinks the plans which the Government have been following are not right or sufficient, for the sake of the country we should at least have the benefit of any plan that Deputy Belton has in mind. However, in discussing some of the points raised by Deputy Belton and Deputy Cogan we will see what information we can give to Deputies which they have not already got. First of all, the question of manures has been stressed very much by those who spoke. I think everybody knows that we are not likely to get very much artificial manures for the coming year. I agree with Deputy Belton that farmers should do everything possible to provide all the manure they can themselves. I think there has been a big increase in that respect. I know some fairly big farms where I used to see two or three wheaten straw ricks carried over from year to year, and I notice that they disappeared during the last year or so. These farmers have managed somehow or other to turn the surplus straw into manure.

Mr. Belton

They did not turn it into money.

Dr. Ryan

Manure means money and the farmers know that. I do not know how all of these farmers did it, but some of them I know have been in the habit of confining store cattle either to yards or houses instead of feeding them in the open as they did previously. In that way they have produced quite a quantity of farmyard manure. In fact I know of a few cases where the farmyard manure produced was more than sufficient to deal with the root crops, so that they could afford to put a slight dressing of farmyard manure on the wheat crop as well. If that could be done all over the country we would, to some extent anyway, be able to meet the deficiency in artificial manures which we were able to import before the war. We got very little artificial manures for the 1942 crop. We may have as much for 1943, but I do not think we will have very much more. We can bring in some raw phosphates. We are producing all the raw phosphates we can at home, as much as we can possibly produce having regard to the physical difficulties of mining and the difficulties of transport. We can also import a certain amount of raw phosphates, but at a terrific cost. They will be frightfully dear. There is no doubt that when these phosphates are prepared and converted into super-phosphates, after also importing the necessary pyrites, the State will have to pay at least half the cost. In other words, the subsidy will be as much as the farmers will give for the phosphates when they are turned out. It is very doubtful whether they are worth that to the country.

I could not give an exact figure at present, but those Deputies who are working farms can make up their own minds as to what a ton of phosphates is worth to the country. In other words, if they had a ton of phosphates, how much extra wheat that will give, or how much extra oats or potatoes or any other crop. In that way I suppose we can make a fair statement of what a ton of phosphates is worth to the country. If it is worth to the country a bit more than it is worth to the farmer, then I see no objection to the State providing the necessary money by way of subsidy and the Government will not see any objection either. On the other hand, I am sure Deputies will agree that if these phosphates cost so much that, between the subsidy and what the farmer pays, they will actually cost more than we can produce against them at home, then we should not bring them in at all.

Mr. Belton

Are we not facing a food shortage?

Dr. Ryan

I ask the Deputy to consider whether, in certain circumstances, it might not be better for the ships which are bringing in the phosphates to bring in the foodstuffs instead.

Mr. Belton

What did that cost last year?

Dr. Ryan

It cost a lot, but the phosphates may be more costly. No matter what estimate you may get in regard to these matters at the present time, with world conditions so uncertain, it is hard to decide. We have decided anyway to try a couple of boat loads of these raw phosphates and see how they will work out. Then we can make up our minds whether it is worth while continuing to import them. That is as far as manures are concerned. We have also been trying to see if there is any possibility of getting potash, but the possibility there is even more remote. I do not know if potash can be got at all at any price. We can get phosphates at a price, but I do not know whether potash can be got at any price. We have been making inquiries for months past but, so far, have got no positive results. As regards nitrogenous manures, the position is almost as bad. We could get some nitrogenous manures from South America, but it also would be terribly costly—very much more costly than the sulphate of ammonia that was sold on the black market here last year, and Deputies have an idea of what that was.

Now, that is as far as manures are concerned, but while I am on the subject of supplies I might as well deal with other matters that were raised also. For instance, the matter of machinery was raised by Deputies. We carried a fairly substantial stock of farm machinery when the war began, but it is very hard to carry more than a couple of years' supply. As far as horse-drawn machinery is concerned, I think it is true to say that there was sufficient, in practically all lines, to meet the demand up to this year, but there certainly will be a scarcity in new and horse-drawn machinery from now on.

We should, however, be able to meet the demands for parts, as far as horse-drawn machinery is concerned. As regards power machinery, such as tractors, reapers and binders, and so on, the difficulty is that they are not made here, even though some of these machines might be horse-drawn. We had a good stock of reapers and binders when the war began but, of course, with the greatly increased demand for such machines, as a result of the increased tillage, there were only a few on hands before the last harvest, which meant that in many cases there was a shortage of reapers and binders. On the other hand, personally, I have not heard of any crops being left uncut for want of a reaper and binder. In other words, even if a farmer could not get one for his own use, he was able to hire one from a neighbour. I know of one case where a farmer wanted to buy one and could not get it, but he did succeed in hiring one from a neighbouring farmer. So that, on the whole, I think that throughout the country there were sufficient reapers and binders to deal with whatever crops were there. Tractors and tractor machinery have also got very scarce, and all we can say is that, so far, tractor parts have been kept in supply. I think that, probably, for this coming year, we will still have parts for most of these machines—at any rate, for reapers and binders and tractor machinery. They may be in short supply, but we will have some at any rate, but I wish to say that a time may come when it will be extremely difficult to get them at all.

With regard to binder twine, there is no doubt that during the last season we had barely sufficient with which to carry on, and at one stage, when inquiries were coming in rapidly to the Department—many coming in every day from both farmers and traders— asking could they get some binder twine, it did look as if there would be trouble for the want of binder twine at the end of the season. However, personally, I must say that I did not hear of any farmer being left stranded absolutely for the want of binder twine, and I think that if there had been any number of such cases I would have heard about the matter afterwards.

There may have been one or two cases, but I did not hear of any such case, and it would appear that the farmers managed to get it somehow or other. With regard to the coming year, I am not in a position yet to make a definite announcement, but we have great hopes of getting this twine in sufficient quantities. We are not in a position to manufacture at home more than a fraction of what we require, but what we do manufacture at home will be manufactured largely from flax, and it will be a thinner twine. In that connection, I am advised by the technicians who are dealing with this matter—not in my Department, but the technicians of the manufacturers—that every farmer who has an old reaper and binder will have to have his machine adjusted to deal with this very thin twine. We mean to warn farmers about that in the very near future—as soon as the threshing is over—so that they can get their binders adjusted as soon as possible after the threshing, and not wait until it is too late. I am informed that this adjustment can be done quite easily by a good mechanic. No raw material is required, and it is only a matter of adjustment, but it will take a mechanic to make the adjustment or to show another mechanic how it should be done. However, we will see that farmers are warned of this matter in time, so that they will not take out their binders next August and then find that when they start to cut their wheat or oats the binder is not gripping as it should.

Mr. Cogan

Would it not be possible to send mechanics around to the farms to demonstrate how the machines would work with this twine?

Dr. Ryan

Some such scheme has been suggested to me, and if that could be done I think it would be a good thing for the manufacturers and agents to send a mechanic down to the farms.

Mr. Belton

That is not exactly the point. Is there a sample of the twine available?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, I think so.

Mr. Belton

Have the traders got it?

Dr. Ryan

No, but these mechanics will certainly have it to try out. The next point that was raised by Deputy Belton, I think, was that there was a scarcity of many things. Undoubtedly, there is, but I should like Deputies here to realise that we are really in a very different position from that in which we were in the last war. A remark was made by a gentleman some time ago that he did not see why we should not produce 1,000,000 pigs here, as we did in the last war, and that remark induced me to look up some figures. I do not want to bother the House with figures now, but if Deputies would care to examine the year 1917, which was the comparable year in the last war to this year in this war, they will find that we were importing a good deal of wheat in the Twenty-Six Counties, and that we were grinding a fair amount of wheat and taking some offals off. I do not know exactly how much offals came off, because I have not the figures, but most of us remember the last war, and although the flour was not of 70 per cent. extraction, it was a bit black, and probably about 15 per cent. of offals came off the wheat. Of course, there were other things put in, such as maize meal. At any rate, we can take it that about 15 per cent. came off in offals. We only ground about half our requirements of wheat. We imported about half the flour and ground the other half. So that we can take it, then, that about 40,000 or 50,000 tons of wheat offals came off in the year, and that would be available for feeding here. Now we have nothing against that at all.

There is another figure I want Deputies to realise. In 1917 we had, I believe, in the Twenty-Six Counties something like 135,000 acres of wheat. This year we have 584,000 acres. So that we have about 450,000 acres more wheat now than we had in 1917 in the Twenty-Six Counties. We had practically the same amount of tillage in 1917 as in 1942. So that 450,000 acres of our land which is now under wheat was under other crops at that time.

All of that 450,000 acres was not under cereals. We had more roots then—much more; we had, as it happens, exactly the same quantity of potatoes at that time, almost exactly the same quantity of mangolds and, in the case of turnips, we had very much more then than we have now. The increased acreage of cereals, that is, barley and oats, at that time compared with now, would have given us 250,000 acres of feeding stuffs more than we have now. In addition to that, for the whole of Ireland—there are no separate returns for the Twenty-Six Counties—we imported 640,000 tons of feeding stuffs under the heading of barley, oats, maize, whole maize, maize meal; large quantities of offals and other meals of various kinds. So that you have three items there. We had at that time 40,000 or 50,000 tons of wheat offals, about 250,000 tons of cereals other than wheat more than we have now, and we imported into the whole of Ireland 640,000 tons of feeding stuffs and, if you take the Twenty-Six Counties as using 70 per cent., which is a fair proportion, about 430,000 tons of that would have been used in the Twenty-Six Counties. So that in 1917 we had available here about 730,000 tons of feeding stuffs more than we have here this year.

That was an enormous quantity of stuff, and it accounted, of course, for the ease with which we could feed any amount of pigs in 1917 and any amount of cattle, sheep and so on. We did our best here, I think—when I say that, I mean the country; I am not talking about the Government—as an agricultural community, we did our best to produce the feeding stuffs that were necessary in this war. We have about 800,000 acres more under cereals than we had in 1939, before the war commenced. That is a good achievement. At the beginning of the war I remember saying at any meetings of farmers that I attended that we wanted 1,000,000 acres. That was, of course, a nice figure to put before the farmer, say, roughly 500,000 acres more wheat than we had at that time, and roughly 500,000 acres more oats and barley, to make up for the maize that had been coming in. We have not got the 1,000,000 acres. We got 800,000— which is a very fair proportion of it. Undoubtedly, farmers have had their difficulties as have been outlined here already, such as lack of artificial manures, the difficulty of getting extra machinery, the great difficulty of getting fuel, where they were using power machinery, and so on—many difficulties, not to speak of the weather which did not favour us so much this year as it did in other years.

Mr. Belton

How are you to meet the deficiency in animal feeding stuffs? That is your problem. It is the big problem.

Dr. Ryan

Of course, we cannot expect the yields to remain as they are if the war goes on for years, but with careful planning by the farmer on his own farm, by rotating tillage, by saving all the manure he possibly can, he may maintain the yields on his land for another three or four years at any rate. If he does, and if we take it roughly at one ton for the acre between oats, barley and wheat, it means another 700,000 acres, which I am afraid is more than we will get— whether we should expect it or not is another matter.

Mr. Belton

Does the Minister not see that the yield will contract if we have not the feeding stuffs to keep up the live-stock population to give us the manures?

Dr. Ryan

I do not agree with Deputy Belton in this—although it is commonly stated by others as well— that we cannot go on producing wheat after wheat in the same field for many years. It is not that statement that I do not agree with, but what I do say is that it is not necessary and I think we should in every way possible try to get farmers to change their crops as they go along and to let part of their tillage return into grass and break up new land each year. As far as we can in any tillage regulations that we have been making we have tried to induce farmers to do that. This year, for instance, we have taken power to indicate to any farmer the land that he must till. Deputies may not realise perhaps what we have in mind by that. We have in mind the case of certain farmers who do not like tillage, who have tilled their quota under compulsion but who have gone on, and who mean to go on, tilling that same acreage year after year as long as the emergency lasts and maintaining the other 75 per cent. of their land under grass. In cases of that kind I have taken power in the Order that the inspector can go and say to the man: "This 30 acres—if it is 30 acres—that you have been tilling for the last two or three years are not the 30 acres that I am going to accept this year. You must till another ten."

Mr. Belton

Does the Minister contemplate that for the coming year?

Dr. Ryan

That can be done this season.

Mr. Belton

It is time you had it known so that people would know where they were.

Dr. Ryan

That is for this season and admittedly it can only be done in a limited number of cases, but every inspector probably has on his list a certain number of cases where he means to apply that power. We have also announced that for the year 1943-44 we mean to increase the quota 33? per cent. but that we will accept first crop meadows. The object there is that a man who has a certain amount, say, 30 acres under tillage, next year, will have to make it 40 acres, but we will accept first crop meadows.

Mr. Belton

That will be practically the same thing.

Dr. Ryan

Yes, it is.

Mr. Belton

I agree with the principle.

Dr. Ryan

There is an inducement to that man to put grass seeds into ten acres and have that included in his 40 acres next year.

Mr. Belton

That is an improvement.

Dr. Ryan

So that any inducement that we can give, or any compulsion we could use to make farmers rotate their tillage, we are employing under the Orders.

Mr. Belton

Is the Minister satisfied about the position in regard to grass seeds?

Dr. Ryan

I think we have enough grass seeds, yes. Deputy Belton and Deputy Cogan are not satisfied that we did sufficient planning or showed sufficient foresight. I do not think Deputy Belton meant to be unfair, but I do not think it is fair to make that very wide statement without some qualification or, alternatively, without showing some justification for the accusation. Take beet, for instance, that was mentioned by Deputy Cogan. I think this Government did as much planning about beet-growing as any Government could be expected to do. Were it not for the policy of this Government, there would not be four factories in existence at the moment. There are four factories there now, sufficient to deal with all the beet that is required to give us sugar. There may not have been enough beet grown this year—we will deal with that point later—but, at any rate, we have the factories and we all know that if these factories were not there no factory could be built at the present time.

We had many years planning to see that, as regards sugar, we were self-sufficient in times of emergency. Deputy Cogan mentioned seed. I would like to remind him that I was very keen on producing our own beet seed. Were it not that we had succeeded for at least a few years before the war in growing a good proportion of our beet seed we could never have got going on the growing of it when the emergency came.

Mr. Belton

We advised the Minister to do that ten years ago.

Dr. Ryan

We went on with it anyway. I would not like to say that we always adopt the Deputy's advice.

Mr. Belton

That is where you make the mistake.

Dr. Ryan

In connection with beet, I think that Deputy Cogan first of all said that the price was not sufficient, that he thought we could have given a better price last year. I must say that I did not hear very many complaints from growers when the price was announced last year. I did hear very serious complaints from them about the lack of manures. A great many of them said that they could not possibly grow beet at any price if they had not artificial manures. We know that the very big growers—men growing 20, 25 and 30 acres—had to come down to an acreage that they could bring into their ordinary rotation by using farmyard manure. That meant that practically all these big growers were cut out, and brought into the position of being medium or small growers. It was that, I think, that was responsible for the reduction in the acreage last year. Deputy Cogan also said that he thought a higher price would get the increase we wanted, together with the return of sugar to the growers. I am glad to be able to say that I have no function as regards the latter, which is more a matter for the Department of Supplies. There may be something in it. In all probability, if it were announced that sugar would be given to the beet growers the woman of the house would have a big influence with the man of the house in making him grow beet for the coming year. A lot, of course, would depend on the quantity he expected back. The point, however, is that we cannot turn the beet factories into commission factories by giving sugar and pulp back to the farmer. I suppose the next he would be asking for would be the molasses so that the factory would have nothing left when all that was done. Quantity is a very important matter so far as that goes.

Deputy Cogan also spoke about pigs. I would ask him to consider the statement he made. He said that the price of pigs was not sufficient to induce farmers to grow potatoes to feed the pigs. I do not agree with that. I am sure the Deputy will agree with me when I say that about one ton of potatoes will produce one cwt. of pork. I know that it is not easy to produce pork on potatoes alone. But, take potatoes mixed with a little oats or barley, a little skim milk or meat meal, you can fatten a pig on that ration. On a ration of so much barley and so much potatoes one may take it roughly that a ton of potatoes will be equivalent to one cwt. of pork. If you get £5 12s. per cwt. for pork, that is £5 12s. for a ton of potatoes. I think many farmers will be prepared to grow potatoes for £5 12s. a ton. I do not think it is a good thing to state publicly that farmers are not prepared to grow potatoes at that price. Deputy Cogan complained about the townsman saying that the farmer is getting too much for his wheat. I do not agree that the townsman need be troubled very much about it because as long as the farmer is getting his 50/- he is all right. I am afraid, however, you will have the townsman saying that the farmer should not expect to get more than £5 12s. per ton for his potatoes, whether they are fed to pigs or used for any other purpose.

Mr. Cogan

Is not the British farmer getting more than that per ton, plus £10 per acre of a subsidy?

Dr. Ryan

The British farmer may be getting more.

Mr. Brennan

Does not the £5 12s. per cwt. for the pork include the cost of meal?

Dr. Ryan

No. Suppose you want one cwt. of pork and you take a half ton of potatoes and two cwts. of barley with some meat meal. A half ton of potatoes will produce a half cwt. of pork, and the two cwts. of barley will produce the other half cwt. Deputy Cogan believes that if we had announced good prices last year for pigs and cattle there would be more tillage, while Deputy Belton said that we were tillage more than we could manage under present conditions. Deputy Cogan thinks that if we want more pigs we should have a better price. He thinks that criticism of the Pigs Marketing Board would not amount to very much if the farmer was getting more for his pigs. There may be something in that. As far as the Pigs Marketing Board is concerned, I would like to say that there is no use, in fact there is no justification, for criticising the members of that board.

To the best of their ability they are carrying out the provisions of an Act passed by this House, so that if anybody is to blame we here are to blame. They cannot change their way of working unless we change the Act, so that at any rate we should not criticise these men. They cannot do anything else except what they are doing unless they act illegally. The question is whether or not we should alter the legislation that was passed by this House. Perhaps a case could be made for amending it. I think it is quite possible that proposals may be brought before the Dáil in that connection in due time. When I hear Deputies talk about the necessity for having more pigs, I think we should remember that we must have more feeding to give them. We must have that feeding before we can have more pigs. Personally I do not know of any farmer in the country who has grain on his loft since last year and cannot find a pig or other animal to give it to. That certainly is not the position. The fact is that we had no feeding to spare, and if we had more pigs, what were we going to do with them? We could not feed them, so that the position really is that we will have to appeal to the farmers again this year to grow more, to grow not only enough wheat and potatoes for human consumption, but over and above that, to do a little but better in providing us with feeding stuffs. If the farmer grows an extra half acre of potatoes or an extra acre in barley or oats he will be able to produce three or four more pigs. That, I think, is the only way in which the problem can be solved.

Mr. Belton

The manure is the trouble.

Dr. Ryan

He would have to start with the feeding. There was one other point with regard to a shortage of sacks which was raised by Deputy Cogan. I have not heard any complaint about that. If there has been a shortage it cannot be due to any regulation that we made. The regulations that we made with regard to the milling of wheat were all aimed at getting the wheat as quickly as possible to the stores where it was going to lie until it was used by the miller. Therefore, as far as that order is concerned it created the greatest possible economy in sacks. Once the wheat reached the stores, the sacks were released for further use. We have cut down the number of dealers. The number of dealers that can take wheat on to their premises is very much lower this year than last, so that when the dealer pours out the grain the sacks are again available for use. It may be that transport is slower this year than last, and that because of that the sacks may be longer in transit. There may be that in it. I will look into it.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.30. p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 15th October, 1942.