Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 Dec 1942

Vol. 89 No. 2

Committee on Finance. - Vote 30—Agriculture.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim breise ná raghaidh thar £800,000 chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1943, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Talmhaidheachta, agus Seirbhísí áirithe atá fé riaradh na hOifige sin, maraon le hIldeontais-i-gCabhair.

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £800,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1943, 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.

This Estimate is concerned with subsidies on fertilisers. Deputies will remember that last year there was only one compound fertiliser obtainable. The amount distributed last year was about 28,000 tons, and it was distributed roughly on the basis of about one-quarter of what each firm had purchased the previous year. In the season 1938-39, to go back to normal times, it is estimated that 130,000 tons of superphosphate and 126,000 tons of other artificial fertilisers were used, so that the quantity of the artificial fertiliser available last season fell very far short of our normal requirements. At the close of the 1941-42 season all available stocks of imported phosphate were exhausted, and if no further importations are to take place the only superphosphate procurable in the 1942-43 season will be that manufactured from Clare phosphate. The quantity of Clare phosphate likely to be available in the 1942-43 season may amount to 20,000 tons.

To what?

20,000 tons. Pyrites are required for the manufacture of the sulphuric acid necessary for the production of superphosphate from raw phosphate. The stocks of pyrites in this country at the end of the 1941-42 season amounted to about 5,000 tons. That would be sufficient to process about half the Clare phosphate. We must, therefore, import a further quantity of 5,000 tons of pyrites for the treatment of the remainder of the Clare phosphate.

5,000 tons?

5,000 tons. The quantity of pyrites likely to be available this season from sources of supply in this country will be insufficient for this purpose. Next year we may have a better supply of native pyrites. If we had no import then of raw phosphate, we would be in a position to turn out about 40,000 tons of treated superphosphate. The prospect of obtaining any supplies of nitrogenous or potassic fertilisers is very remote.

The position, however, would be that we would find it very hard to maintain the yield of our essential crops, such as wheat, potatoes and beet. In the circumstances the problem of importing further quantities of phosphates and pyrites has been explored, but owing to the high existing rates for freights the importation of phosphate and pyrites for the manufacture of superphosphate could not be regarded as a commercial proposition. To give some idea of comparative prices, the pre-war average cost of imported phosphate was £1 11s. 0d. per ton, and of imported pyrites £1 3s. 0d. per ton. Last year, in the season 1941-42, imported phosphate had gone up to £7 15s. 6d. per ton, and imported pyrites to £3 3s. 0d. per ton. It is estimated that the cost of importing phosphate from Florida will be £30 a ton, and of importing pyrites from Spain £22 a ton.

Why did the Minister not bring them in when he could have got them in?

That is a question anybody might ask now.

Mr. Brennan

Had we not tariffs against their importation at that time?

It is a question that even a child could ask now: "Why did we not bring them in before the war?" But the clever people did not ask it before the war.

Mr. Brennan

I asked long before the war started why the tariffs were kept on.

The Fine Gael Party is the cleverest post factum party that I have ever met. In the ordinary way, the retail price of the resultant superphosphate would be altogether too high, having regard to the current price of agricultural produce. It is proposed to make arrangements for the importation of 24,000 tons of phosphates and the pyrites needed for the treatment of this quantity. It is intended to bring in about 24,000 tons of phosphates from Florida. I am not sure that it will be possible to get the raw phosphates from Florida now. That will mean another 12,000 tons of pyrites.

What would the two produce?

48,000 tons of superphosphates. The intention is to pay a State subsidy on these quantities.

How could 24,000 tons of rock and 12,000 tons of iron pyrites produce 48,000 tons of superphosphates?

It is a scientific fact, and I can assure the Deputy that it is true. It is proposed, as I have said, to pay a State subsidy sufficient to have the resultant superphosphate sold at a retail price of £15 a ton. That would be a superphosphate of 40 per cent. In addition, it is proposed to import the quantity of pyrites necessary for the treatment of Clare phosphate, and to pay a subsidy on the same basis. To provide for the expenditure that that will involve, and to meet contingencies, it is estimated that the sum of £800,000 shown in the Supplementary Estimate will be required. We are budgeting for the maximum amount of raw phosphates that can be got, but I am afraid we will not get that much at any time owing to transport difficulties. If we can get them, taking 20,000 raw phosphates from Clare and 24,000 tons of raw phosphates from Florida, we will have about 80,000 tons of superphosphates for distribution. That would be considerably more than we had last season, but still not nearly as much as we used in normal times.

Mr. Brennan

What is the content of the Clare phosphate as compared with the other?

You may take it that, roughly, the Clare phosphate is 20 per cent., and the other 40 per cent. Of the total phosphate, there will be a small amount of nitrogen, possibly I per cent., to include in the artificial for this year. Possibly there will also be 1 per cent. of potash.

What is the soluble phosphate content?

Mixing them half and half, the resultant mixture should come near 30 per cent. The Clare phosphate has a total of 20 per cent. It is not all soluble. When the Clare and Florida phosphates are mixed half and half, we will have a phosphate of almost 30 per cent. soluble. There will also be a small amount of nitrogen and a small amount of potash in the mixture. I cannot state definitely yet when this manure will be available. It is hoped to release it in two consignments this year, to release the first consignment to farmers in February, and the second consignment about the 1st of May in time for the later crops.

How much short of requirements does the Minister think we will be?

The total amount of manures used pre-war, of superphosphate and compounds, was about 250,000 tons.

Has the Minister considered rationing this manure for any particular crops?

That is being considered.

Has it found favour in the Minister's Department?

I could not answer that. There is an argument for releasing this manure to some extent, say, for the beet crop. Whatever we do we should not release all the manure on that basis. We should at least release some of it on the same basis as last year to farmers who purchased over a period.

The Minister is aware that merchants were precluded from selling artificials to the ordinary farmers during the last couple of years. They were reserved for the plotholders.

Mr. Brennan

That did not happen down the country.

There are no plot-holders down the country.

Every merchant was supposed to sell to his farmer-customer last year a quarter of what he sold to him the year before, and I think that was carried out by the merchants generally. At any rate, there were very few complaints.

Will the Minister say whether any inquiries were made with regard to the importation of phosphates from North Africa?

Yes, but, as Deputies are aware, there is a change in the situation there. As things were in North Africa, we found it impossible to get any phosphates released. I do not know whether, under the new régime, the position will be different, but we are negotiating to see if we can get some.

At the time when the Minister for Supplies said that the situation was indifferent, if not bad, it was announced on the B.B.C. that 1,000,000 tons of phosphates had been exported from North Africa to Marseilles.

The securing of artificial manures for agricultural purposes is a matter of very great importance, and the efforts of the Government in this direction so far have not shown any great measure of success. I appreciate the difficulty of the shortage of shipping and the fact that prices appear to a great extent to be prohibitive. But, when we consider this matter, we must take into account certain aspects of it. First of all, in some districts the lack of artificials is a far greater handicap than in other districts. In old tillage districts the lack of artificials, combined with a deficiency of humus matter in the soil, has seriously retarded production and it is likely to have a progressive effect on the production of the land. I suggest to the Minister that, if manure is available, some consideration ought to be given to that aspect when distribution schemes are being arranged. Where you have old grass lands with a good deal of humus matter and fertility stored up, obviously there is no necessity for a great use of artificials. In the richer lands, where you have sufficient fertility, there would not be any necessity for using artificials to any great extent.

In districts where you have had intensive cultivation over a period of years, particular attention should be devoted to the question of manures. Perhaps the Minister might examine into the possibility of securing a supply and ensuring, in the matter of distribution, that a greater proportion of artificial manure will go to those districts where the problem is more acute. Unfortunately, so far as we have been informed by the Minister, there appears to be no possible hope of getting a supply of nitrogenous manure. The ordinary farmer will realise that that is a very severe handicap, in some cases perhaps a greater handicap than the loss of phosphates. If we had a small supply of nitrogenous manure and sulphate of ammonia it would establish a crop, and often when you get a crop established it means half the battle. If a crop is not properly established in the early stages, the result will be that you will have a lot of misses and those misses will be eventually filled in by weeds. The weeds draw on the fertility of the soil and cause foulness in the land. Usually, the weeds are smothered where you have a full crop.

For that reason, even if the State has to subsidise the importation of artificial manures, it might be well worth while. Taking the long view, I think it would be a good policy to vote a substantial sum in that direction. The Minister has not given the House any information as to the possibility of procuring Chilean nitrates, or what the price would be. The Minister must appreciate that if you have 1 cwt. of nitrogenous manure and 1 cwt. of nitrate of soda it will probably increase the production of an acre of grain by a barrel and a half. It would be almost equal to the value of 1½ cwts. of wheat, because it would have the effect of keeping the land in a clean condition, capable of giving a full crop. The farmer would have an opportunity of converting the straw into farmyard manure, which would go back into the soil. These are considerations that should not be overlooked. At first glance, the price of Chilean nitrates or any nitrogenous manure that can be procured might appear prohibitive, but we should try to realise the advantages that would result from the use of such artificials. I feel that even at a high figure the purchase of these artificial manures can be justified.

I do not know if efforts have been made by the Government to secure artificial manures from across the water. We are all aware that the chemical industries there are producing huge quantities of sulphate of ammonia, and that is the only artificial manure not rationed to the British farmer. They are to some extent limited in the amount of phosphates, but there is still a considerable quantity available for individual use, and they must take care to ensure that each individual will get a supply. As regards sulphate of ammonia, the supply is sufficient to leave the market uncontrolled and the farmers are in a position to buy all the sulphate of ammonia they require at £10 a ton.

I do not know if any attempt has been made by the Government to trade our commodities in exchange for sulphate of ammonia. The suggestion was made that we should exchange stout. It takes good land to produce good barley, and in exchanging stout for nitrogenous manure and sulphate of ammonia it would simply mean that we would be exchanging good barley for manure. If the manures increase our production, and enable us to create bigger surpluses, those surpluses will eventually go back to the country that releases the sulphate of ammonia and other manures. I am convinced that if an effort was made by the Government along the right lines, satisfactory results could be achieved, but I am afraid that the proper approach has not been made to this problem.

There are other weapons we might use in attempting to bargain for a supply of nitrogenous manures. The fact that Great Britain has a milk problem, and in this country we have any amount of useful stock for dairying purposes—and this is the only country where they can get that type of basic stock—could be used to our advantage. It might be indicated that we are willing to co-operate in that connection and are prepared to release maiden heifers and in-calf heifers suitable for dairying purposes. But if we are prepared to do that we are entitled to a quid pro quo. The lack of artificial manure is the greatest handicap the farmer has to suffer. That applies particularly to my constituency—Carlow and South Kildare—and to the Minister's constituency, where they have fairly intensive tillage operations. The Minister no doubt appreciates the difficulty of farming under those conditions. While we were lucky this year to get fairly decent results, we must realise that it was an abnormal year, and we cannot hope for that situation to continue.

There is bound to be a progressive reduction in the yield from these crops. As the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, the possibility of getting rock from North Africa, in the changing circumstances of the time, ought to be kept constantly under examination, because if it is possible to get it from North Africa it is bound to reduce considerably the cost of the raw phosphate. I suggest that the point be kept constantly under observation, with a view to securing some cargoes of rock from that country.

Is Deputy Hughes serious in suggesting that the Minister for Agriculture should go to General Eisenhower who is at present fighting for the very existence of the life of the United States of America, and ask him to arrange with Admiral Darlan, General De Gaulle notwithstanding, to release quantities of phosphate rock for conversion into superphosphate in Eire?

I hope the situation will lend itself to that in the near future.

If anybody in the Dáil believes that sort of thing, all I can say is that the effect of the censorship has been more dramatic than I ever suspected it was. However, if anybody wants to start on an embassy of that kind, if the Germans ever get there, I suppose it will provide an entertaining side-show.

It might be one of the advantages of being neutral.

If your neutrality protects you down to North Africa, and through the maze of Darlans, De Gaulles, and Eisenhowers, and out again with your rock phosphate, it is a more remarkable protection than I ever suspected. Deputy Hughes goes on to say that we ought to get Chilean nitrates. We would all get Chilean nitrates if the Germans would let us. Who sank the Irish Pine, do you imagine?

We do not know.

It may be that a seagull dropped a little manure and it sank under the burden.

Does the Deputy know?

Damned well I know, and Deputy Allen knows, too.

We do not.

Full well Deputy Hickey knows.

I do not know, and I would not make such an assertion as the Deputy has made.

The Germans sank it, and 37 Irish sailors with it.

We intended to go to Florida for phosphate rock.

Do you seriously imagine that you will get any substantial supplies from across the Atlantic or the South Pacific at present, with German submarines sinking everything they can lay their eyes on?

Does the Deputy suggest it is not worth trying?

Of course I suggest it is not worth trying. I would not dream of sending Irish sailors down through the maze of German submarines, on the odds-on chance——

On a point of order, I should like to know if the Deputy is in order in making allegations of that description against a country with which this nation is in friendly relations, without giving proof or referring to any official statement?

I think the Deputy may proceed.

I would not risk the lives of Irish sailors by sending them across waters in which German submarines are murderously operating for the purpose of bringing back Chilean nitrates to this country, for the simple reason that I do not believe the return on such a cargo would bear any proportion to the risk which would be run and that the probability of getting the cargo here at all would be so slight as to make it virtually criminal to send Irish sailors into such peril. It is bad enough that these very gallant men should be required to sail the North Atlantic to bring wheat and vital necessaries of the kind from the comparative—and I only say comparative— safety of the North American seaboard, but to send them down to the Caribbean or the South Atlantic, where the Germans are sinking everything they can see and where they sank one of our ships within the last fortnight——

There is a good deal less risk involved than in sending our young men out to fight in a war.

If they did that, they would be doing something worth while. However, I need not pursue that.

The Deputy did not go himself yet.

For people to imagine that it is purely a matter of money, of cost, to bring cargoes of stuff across waters infested by German submarines is the merest wishful thinking. It is not a question of money, but a question of the lives of Irish sailors, and on what things you are prepared to stake these lives. There are certain things so immediately essential that very valuable men are prepared to undertake risks in the merchant marine to bring them home, but we should not send them out on every chore and message that occurs to us. We have no right to risk their lives in matters of that kind.

But the Deputy is prepared to send them out to war.

I do not believe that neutrality is relevant to this debate, but, if it were, I should be glad to repeat to Deputy Hickey may attitude in regard to it.

We know the Deputy's attitude well.

Do not ever be in the slightest doubt about it. I want to pass on to the next matter now. When listening to Deputy Hughes, who I know to be one of the best farmers in the country and from whom I have learned a lot, I can never fully understand his attitude on the subject of humus and artificial manures. I always seem to gather that when he is speaking of these two things, he identifies them as the same thing.

I do not.

My understanding of the problem is that if you have an abundant supply of artificial manures, that is the time when you must be most apprehensive about a decrease in the humus content of the soil, and that in a time of shortage of artificial manures the strain upon the humus content of the soil is proportionately less. I listened to Deputy Hughes to-day speaking of the necessity of artificial manures in order to preserve the humus content of the soil of the intensively cultivated areas of Eastern Ireland.

I said no such thing.

I beg the Deputy's pardon; that is what I understood him to say. The very reverse, so far as I understand it, is the case. During this period when we have inadequate supplies of artificial manures, we may expect the humus content of the soil which has been subject to heavy artificial manuring in the past to recover somewhat, but it is perfectly true that the soil of intensively cultivated parts of Ireland must now be very materially deficient in potash, phosphate and nitrogen.

The Minister for Agriculture has the barefaced audacity to get up to-day and say that nobody in the House asked him to bring in phosphates in abundance before the present situation of absolute scarcity eventuated. Is it or is it not true that every year for the past eight years the Fine Gael Party has asked the Fianna Fáil Government to take the tariffs and quotas off artificial manures? Is it or is it not true that, year after year after year, we warned the Government that their policy of preventing the farmers from getting adequate supplies of superphosphate of lime would have a horrible result ultimately? Is it not true that, at the Ard Fheis of the Fine Gael organisation, a plank was inserted in the Fine Gael platform that artificial manures should be freely available to the farmers, without tariff or quota restrictions of any kind, and is it not true that Fianna Fáil consistently insisted that the manure manufacturers of this country must get their pound of flesh and that no farmer would be allowed to get an ounce of manure if he did not pay his toll and levy to the manure tariff racketeers in Ireland?

And they continued that after the war.

Yes they continued it up to about nine months ago. Is it not true that every farmer who wanted to buy a bag of manure over the past ten years had to pay his toll to the shareholders in the Irish manure factories here before he could get it? Is it not true that up to about nine months ago there were tariff restrictions on the importation of manures into this country? Is it not true that these manufacturers, who were piling up unprecedented riches, did little or nothing towards the accumulation of a stock of phosphate rock for use here? Would not one imagine that any other body of men, growing fat and rich and sleek on the plunder that they have taken during the last eight or nine years, would be prepared to take a little tithe of what they robbed the Irish people of and have invested it in the purchase of some large open space, then bring in, in whatever ships could be chartered, phosphate rock and dump it there so that, when the time of scarcity should come, they would be able to say: "Well, if we did rob and plunder and bleed you during the last ten years, at least, in some sort of self-justification, now, in a time of scarcity, we will return to you a tithe of what we stole from you and ask you to forgive us the rest?" Even if they had made that feeble gesture of restitution. I think the Irish people would have been glad to say: "Very well, die in peace! We forgive you nine-tenths of your robbery and are prepared to accept the tithe in redemption of your theft." But they would not even do that, and we are blandly informed now by the Minister for Agriculture that the cupboard is bare—there is nothing there—and that if we want to get any in now we shall have to pay £30 a ton for it and risk the lives of Irish seamen to fetch the phosphate rock across the seas.

But the Minister now says that nobody in Dáil Eireann ever thought that this thing could take place and that everybody, like himself, was amazed when it did take place—that nobody realised that this situation would materialise, and that he did not realise it until suddenly the revelation struck him and he told us all about it. Well, words must have lost their meaning if Dáil Eireann can sit in silence and listen to that. There must not be a single Deputy over there on the Fianna Fáil Benches who does not remember bawling like a bull for tariffs on the importation of artificial manures.

Is there one amongst the eight of them who are sitting over there now who did not do his share of bawling for tariffs on artificial manures? There is not a yap out of them now, however. I see over there Deputy O'Reilly of Meath, Deputy Corry of Cork, Deputy Allen, and so on. They are all sitting mumchance there now, but I remember the time when they were roaring throughout the country about the protection of Irish industries and asking that tariffs and quotas should be clapped on so as to prevent foreign manures from coming in. Now we are told blandly by Dr. Ryan, the Minister for Agriculture, that if they did so he never heard them. On the other hand, I see Deputy Hughes, Deputy McGilligan, the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Keating, and Deputy McGovern of Cavan, over there on the Fine Gael Benches, and I remember every one of these men warning the Government of the danger of preventing artificial manures from coming into this country, both from the point of view of the deterioration of the soil, the decline in its fertility, and also from the point of view of the danger that the day would come when it would be impossible to get these manures in at all.

You did a good deal of warning yourself.

Yes, I did, and when I was over there I did not have to shout so loud in order to make my voice heard. But the Minister tells us blandly that he never heard of it and that if he had he would have taken the necessary precautions. According to what he says, he never heard any representations on the matter and it is only now that he has woken up to this serious situation. Now, I do not attach too much importance to the brains or intelligence of the eight members sitting on the Fianna Fáil Benches at the moment, but if they can swallow that statement, then God help them.

They have more brains and intelligence than you have.

There they are! Look at them! Would any one of them get up and say that he shares the Minister for Agriculture's illusion that nobody protested against the restriction on the importation of artificial manures into this country during the last eight years? Were they all deaf, too? Apparently, they were, or else they are dumb now. Now, we were talking yesterday about unemployment and I said that one of the great crimes to be charged against this Government was that when large-scale schemes were required for the relief of unemployment it was discoverd that the preliminary work necessary to put the scheme into operation had not been done, and that when a scheme was urgently required for the relief of distress, our Government was prone to say: "Well, it will take about nine months to prepare, and the boys will have to starve while we are doing the preparatory work." Over the last three years, since the declaration of war in 1939, we have been at this Government to tell us whether there were phosphates in Clare and, if there were, to take all measures requisite to ensure that they would be placed at the disposal of the farming community of this country. The first difficulty was that the proprietor would not give the phosphate. The next difficulty was that there was no railway transport to get it out. The third difficulty was that there were no roads to get it to the railhead. All this while, however, we had 110,000 idle men in the country, wanting work and unable to get it, and as far as I can make out we are still without railways or roads to get out the phosphate. Is it true to say that one of the chief difficulties is that the transport facilities are not there, and that if the Minister could blast the rock out there still would be no means of carting it out? Perhaps the Minister will tell me that that is one of the main difficulties in connection with the Clare phosphate deposits at the present time? Is not the question of transport one of the main difficulties in the getting out of the rock?

Oh, yes, certainly.

We have all kinds of roads built all over the country. There are roads running through bogs which no human foot will ever tread, but it appears that nobody thought to build a road in Clare. There are thousands of unemployed men in County Clare, drawing the dole every week, and every one of them could be employed to make a road there, and I mean a real road that would carry heavy traffic to the railhead. This is the winter of 1942, and we are starting the fourth year of the war, but we did nothing to build a road there, and I suppose that if the war goes on for another 50 years the Minister will start to think of building a road there, and by that time, I suppose, there will be no explosives with which to blast the rock. I suppose we would all die at the thoughts of the Minister for Agriculture going into the Clare phosphate deposits with explosives. This is the man who has had the effrontery to get up here to-day and assail the Fine Gael Party as the greatest Party for ex-post facto statements that he has ever met. When I look back on all the abuse that I heaped on that poor man's head for his catastrophic bungling of the whole agricultural situation of this country, and especially with regard to artificial manures, which did not seem to make the slightest impression on him, I begin to wonder if representations made in Dáil Eireann are of any use at all. Has the Minister referred this question of phosphate rock and superphosphate to the Taoiseach's emergency Research Bureau? I understand that the iron pyrites system is the one that is universally practised, and doubtless the most economic process of reducing this rock to a soluble manure.

But I wonder is there no other chemical process, albeit it is more expensive, than the iron pyrites, sulphuric acid process to achieve this purpose. As iron pyrites have now reached the level of £15 a ton delivered here, that makes it one of the most expensive methods for the reduction of phosphate rock, and it brings under consideration alternative chemical methods that nobody might have bothered about when iron pyrites were available at £3 a ton. Does anybody seriously believe that if the iron pyrites deposits in the world were suddenly exhausted, humanity would get on without sulphuric acid? I do not believe it would. They would simply cast around and find some other method of procuring this essential commodity. It may be a great deal dearer than it used to be but they would get it. We have as good scientists on this Industrial Research Council as there are anywhere. Have they been consulted, or, when we learned that supplies of sulphuric acid were not available from the common source of supply, have we all sat back and said: "That's that, and there is no more we can do about it"? I believe at this moment that if adequate quantities of rock phosphates could be got out of the deposits in County Clare, ways and means could be found, albeit expensive, of reducing it to the condition of the superphosphate supplied for use on the land. I believe that the reason why more energetic measures are not taken by the Government is that they know they cannot get the deposits out because they were too lazy during the last five years to take the necessary preliminary steps to provide transport.

They do not want to get the phosphate rock in quantities in excess of what they can handle, and for that reason they are not going to get it— because they did not take time by the forelock and make the provision necessary for its reduction into a suitable form independent of the pyrites supplied from abroad. I venture to swear that, if that problem were put up to the council, we would get the answer that there is another chemical method of dealing with rock phosphate, a chemical method that would be within reach of our resources at the present time.

Let me pass on to potash. I used to be a member for Donegal, and I well remember that, at the very beginning of this war, when potash manure became hard to come by, my instinctive interest in my old friends of the west coast of Donegal who used to make an income out of kelp, and who lost that market, induced me to raise a question in Dáil Eireann as to whether seaweed should not be used on an unprecedented scale as manure in view of its potash content. Deputy Joseph Mongan and Deputy T.J. O'Donovan have both raised that question time and time again in this House. Deputy Mongan was able to point out that during the last war Mr. Martin McDonagh, of Galway, without any subsidy or anything else, bought the seaweed and converted it himself into some dehydrated commodity which was used as potash manure in the west of Ireland. The Minister for Agriculture informed us that his information was that it would be cheaper to cart it in a wet condition than to carry out any dehydration process upon it, but it is pure nonsense to suggest that it would be cheaper to cart seaweed from the Galway coast to the County Carlow in a wet condition, in the present state of our transport system, than to dehydrate it in Galway and ship it from Galway in a dehydrated condition to the centre where it is really required. At the present time we have to consider not only the matter of pounds, shillings and pence for freight charges; we have got to consider the capacity of the railway wagons. Seaweed consists of about 90 per cent. water. Does any man seriously suggest to me, in the present state of our transport, that we are to cart 9 parts of water and one part of weed, when, by dehydrating it on the Galway coast, we can ensure that we will be carrying nothing but pure potash seaweed?

We all know that the potash content of seaweed bears little relation to the potash content of sulphate of potash, but it would be something. The manure which the Minister provides for the country contains only about 1 per cent., and you might as well leave that out, because it is so microscopic that, by the time it is distributed over the soil, it will have no effect at all. If we initiated a big drive to employ some of those agricultural labourers that we are going to prevent from going to England on gathering seaweed during those periods of the year when they are not actively engaged upon the land, dehydrate that seaweed, and then distribute in the beet growing area the potash manure obtained from it, and reserve it for that area—I understand that potash is one of the most urgently necessary manures for the beet sugar crop—we would be doing something useful. It might very well be that, at the conclusion of the emergency, we would have to scrap the machinery and wipe the whole thing off, but at least at this time when turnips and mangels and beet are badly required for human and animal food we would be able to keep the wheel turning. It may be very much more difficult to do that now than it would have been two or three years ago, because to get any kind of machinery now is an extremely difficult business, but, if we can convert turf into charcoal, and can artificially dry turf, I suppose we should be able artificially to dry seaweed, and once you have got the seaweed dried I suppose the same machinery that would cut phosphate rock would cut seaweed.

I should like to know whether the Deputy is right in pursuing, on a Supplementary Estimate, all those subjects which he has been pursuing?

Of course he is.

Is he entitled, on a Supplementary Estimate, to go into the whole question of agricultural policy?

Deputy Allen is an interesting and harmless man.

I am very interested in the Deputy's lecture on all those things, but I should like to know whether he is in order.

This Estimate is for the provison of money to get manures, and Deputy Dillon is dealing with the provision of manures.

Deputy Allen may not recognise that, because the Deputy is talking so much about water, but that is in the manure.

I am not so empty-headed as Deputy McGilligan suggests.

The Deputy should sit down.

I will sit down when I wish. I am entitled to stand up. I want to know if Deputy Dillon is in order in discussing general agricultural policy on this Supplementary Estimate?

Seaweed is not agricultural policy; it relates exclusively to manures which grow on the seashore.

On a point of order, Deputy Allen did not put a point of order to you, Sir. He asked a question.

I am putting it as a point of order.

Deputy Dillon is quite in order.

I am satisfied.

I do not know if the Minister will do anything about the seaweed business, but he should. However, seaweed is not the only source of potash; bone is a very useful source of potash. Has any consideration been given to converting any available bones into bone manure? Bone manure used to be very popular in this country. It used to be very widely employed, but as far as I can see it has almost gone off the market in the last two or three years. I suppose the destruction of the pig population has rendered the supply of bones less abundant than it used to be; but there must still be a great deal of bone knocking about. Deputy Belton suggests that we should disinter all the calves that the Minister for Agriculture slaughtered, and that their skeletons might be turned to account now. However, I am not sure that the bones will be there. They would probably have disintegrated in the soil by this time. The use of bone manure ought to be present to our minds, and an energetic campaign for the collection of bone refuse should be organised for the purpose of converting it into manure.

The next matter I want to put to the Minister is this: he has pointed out that the available nitrogenous manure is sufficient only to put about 1 per cent. into the compound mixture. That is waste of good nitrogen. Surely it would be much more sensible to make up his mind what crops were most urgently in need of nitrogen, even if it had to be confined to a certain district, and put all the nitrogen out on those crops? For instance, I think we could probably use nitrogen most economically at the present time on wheat, if you want wheat, and I think probably a great many of the wheat crops in the next season will stand in urgent need of nitrogen if the yield is not to fall out of all sight. I would be inclined to go to the principal wheat producers in the country and give them whatever supply of nitrogen is available. Then we would know it would be used for the best possible purpose. I am not so familiar with beet growing. I do not know whether nitrogen has any effect on the sugar content of sugar beet or not but take some crops where you are satisfied that you will get a positive return for every lb. of nitrogenous manure put out and use it on that crop. Then you will get something for your nitrogen. Distributing nitrogen broadcast in a compound mixture is, I think, wasting it. You might as well throw it away, more especially when you have an alternative source of nitrogen for the mixed farm.

Why has not the Minister conducted a more vigorous propaganda during the last two years for the cultivation of clover? Clover is one of those mysterious plants which draw nitrogen from the earth and fix it in the soil. A crop of clover, instead of drawing nitrogen from the soil, implants nitrogen in the soil and it is a common experience of those who have seen a field too liberally endowed with clover receiving a normal application of artificial manure that the oats will lie down because the nitrogen content of the soil is too high, owing to the additional nitrogen induced by way of artificial manure. Why do not we try to make up the deficiency in nitrogenous manures in large areas of the country by planting clover? It could be done and had it been done we could, with a clear conscience, take the total available supply of nitrogenous manure and employ it exclusively on a very limited range of crops and even in a very limited area in the country. I do not doubt that some Deputies in this House will take the view that too intensive application of nitrogenous manures over a confined area may overburden the land and impoverish the humus content of the land, as has occurred in certain States of America.

That is not a view I share. I do not think there is the slightest danger of impoverishing the humus content of our soil in our lifetime, with our climate and general conditions and the mixed farming that goes on pretty generally throughout the country but there is very great danger that you may get very large areas of the country which would become virtually unfertile for the want of nitrogen, potash and phosphate. I want to emphasise that nobody can doubt that the employment of large quantities of nitrogen on our land at the present time is calculated dangerously to reduce the phosphate and potash content of the soil and to mitigate against the fertility of the land as a whole.

I have always taken the view that our fathers, since they acquired security of tenure in the land, put their money back into their land instead of putting it in the bank. They invested their savings in increasing the fertility of their soil so that they would have something to fall back upon on the rainy day or that their children or their grandchildren would. This is the rainy day. Now is the time to spend what was saved up to insulate our people against the shocks of war or emergencies of this kind. If we were to forbear from spending courageously the accumulated fertility of our soil at the present time, we would be like a miser who died of hunger in a garret and who was found to have £300 or £400 in the tick of his bed. It would be daft to forgo our essentials for the purpose of increasing the fertility of our soil at the present time. We should resolutely, cheerfully and courageously diminish the fertility of our soil at the present time. Now is the time to do that so that when the emergency is over we will be all in good fettle to proceed building up fresh reserves in good farming over the next ten or 20 years, so that if any future generation should stand in the same position as we stand now they will have the same reserve to fall back upon as was left to us by our fathers and grandfathers subsequent to the securing of fixity of tenure for them by better men than are in the public life of this country at the present time.

The last subject I want to mention is this. The way in which the subsidy is given is by handing over the whole thing to the manure manufacturers and they are supposed to abate the price of the manures by so much when they are distributing it. I want to tell Dáil Eireann what I know they did and it was a very tricky and very astute thing. Prior to the war, if you went to a manure manufacturer he produced his list and that list would be subject to certain discounts, if you paid in seven days or in 30 days or three months. Those were the list terms. When you were presented with that list you would say to him: "I will take the best discount you can offer. Make it up on the basis that I will pay in seven days and give me a net price. Do not be chopping and changing the discounts, interests, and so forth." He would eventually work it all out and say: "If you pay in seven days, I will deliver this manure to your station, say, at 3/8 per cwt." If it was superphosphates, you would say: "I will not give you 3/8. I will give you 3/6 net." In 99 cases out of 100 you got the manure at 3/6 and that enabled you to sell it for 3/9 to the farmer. The manure manufacturer prepared his list prices in the knowledge that, when he came down to tin tacks, he would have to make that allowance. What happened when the Government rebate came, supported by the tariffs and the quotas? The manure manufacturers of this country formed themselves into a close ring. They walked in, threw down their lists and said: "Take that or leave it. There will be no rebate of that list. You will get the Government 5/- a ton and that is all. There will be no 2d. or 3d. per cwt. knocked off the price for you. Take it or leave it." The net result of it was that the boys put the entire subsidy in their own pocket—every penny of it.

I never paid the list price. In 20 years' dealing I never failed to get 2d. or 2½d. off per cwt. That represents practically 5/- a ton. When the Government subsidy came along, they said: "You will get the Government subsidy. Take that or leave it, if you do not want it. There is a tariff and you cannot bring it in. If you do not take what we offer, you will get none." In that circumstance, I remember going to the Minister for Agriculture and saying: "Give me a licence and I will bring in a cargo of manure." Personally, in my little tin-pot shop I could not sell a cargo of manure, but I could get a few merchants to share the liability of the cargo, and we would have broken the ring. I was told: "No; these boys must have their pound of flesh. That was the bargain. They were to be entitled to bleed every farmer in Ireland. There was to be no exception. They were to get their blood from every individual farmer, large and small, and we cannot stop the farmers in Ballaghaderreen and that district from being bled with the rest. You must act as their leech. Bleed your neighbours and send in the blood." That Minister there made that answer, and I here assert that every penny of the manure subsidy that was given by this House for the reduction of the price of manures in this country went into the pockets of the manure manufacturers in Ireland, and perhaps a farthing out of every 3d. was passed on to the farmer. There was no means of proving that, because the official lists are there, but there is not a single Deputy in this House who dealt in artificial manures who does not know that what I am saying is true.

Whom did you buy your manures from?

I do not think it is right to mention the name.

That is the point.

Did the Deputy never get a discount off manure?

Not in the way you say.

Deputy Dillon should address the Chair.

I do not think it would be becoming for Deputy O'Loghlen and myself to be comparing our respective business methods. I am giving my experience of what happened in the country over a long term and I want the House to know this. I trespass on the time of the House, but I think it is right that the House should know it. Sulphate of lime is a thing that is always sold for no profit, the same as Indian meal. The average profit taken on a cwt. was 3d. The great objective was to get supplies at an even figure, at 4/-, 3/9, or 3/6, so that you could charge 3/9, 4/-, or 4/3 for it. I have had long experience of the trade. If the list price worked out at 3/7½d., they came down to 3/6, so that you could sell it at 3/9. If the list price was 3/5, you could get them to come down to 3/3, so that you could sell it at 3/6. The day the subsidy, quota and tariff were introduced, that vanished. The net result of it was that the entire subsidy went into the pockets of the manure manufacturers and the farmers got perhaps one-sixth or one-eighth. It is right Dáil Eireann should know.

I warn Dáil Eireann now that, so long as we have the system whereby competition with the domestic manure ring is prohibited, that ring will rob the farmers and, by hook or by crook, will get the bulk of any subsidy paid by this House for a reduction in the price of manures into their own pockets. The farmers will get none of it. There is no means of securing manures to our farmers at a fair price except by the establishment of a manure monopoly to be controlled, run and operated by the Government, the accounts of which should be laid before this House annually, or, alternatively —and this, in my opinion, would be the better way—to have full free trade in manures, and let us buy them wherever we can get them at the most advantageous price. The system of having the Government as the sole monopolist is, I think, a very much second best, but it would still be better than having those blood-suckers operating. I could buy manures on the markets of the world 20 per cent. cheaper than the Government would ever be able to produce them.

I acknowledge that, at the present time, the opening of the ports to free imports will not avail us much, because supplies are not available from abroad. In that situation, I say deliberately that the manure industry here should be a State industry. For the duration of this crisis it should be operated by the Government on a non-profit basis. Any subsidy voted by this House for artificial manures should be applied exclusively to a reduction in the price of the manures to the farmer who uses them. No part of this subsidy should find its way into the pockets of the manufacturers. The only way to ensure that is to have the manures which we are going to produce produced by a State monopoly for the duration of this crisis. At the conclusion of that period there should be open, free trade to buy manures, wherever we can get them, in the cheapest market in which they can be procured. In default of that, the best plan would be that there should be a State monopoly which would manufacture and distribute the artificial manures required by the country. These are urgent matters, and I am going to ask the Minister to give an assurance to the House that, in some measure at any rate, he is not going to make as big a mess of this business in the months to come as he has made of it in the last three years.

To judge by their statements, Deputy Dillon and Deputy Hughes are not going to give much help to the House in this crisis. Deputy Hughes' cure is that we should go now to North Africa for rock phosphates. I think it would pay the Irish nation to send Deputy Dillon away as a one-man deputation to bring them over here. Deputy Dillon said that this Government had no foresight. He should be the last member of the House to stand up and tell us what we ought to have done. When he sat on the benches opposite, beside Deputy Cosgrave, he outlined the terms on which he was prepared to assist this Government during the emergency. His first proposal was to blow up all the beet factories, and his second, the abandonment of wheat growing. The last suggestion was made five months after the war had started; and he is the gentleman who now gets up to talk about lack of foresight. The Deputy has learned a lot since then. He seems to be fine and strong, although he now has to eat flour made from the mildewed wheat that he spoke about three years ago. He talked then of the mildewed rotten wheat grown in this country.

A debate of three years ago has little relation to this Vote.

For the last two hours we have been listening to Deputy Dillon telling us what we should have done in 1934 and all that was in order.

I was in the Chair an hour ago and did not hear it.

You missed a lot. When I questioned the Leas-Cheann Comhairle——

Rulings given in my absence may not be quoted to me. Each occupant of the Chair rules according to his judgment.

Very well. Deputy Dillon definitely attacked the Minister for Agriculture for not having foresight enough to pile up here rock phosphate. I remember before the war started, and, in fact, some months after it had started, this same Deputy suggested that we should grow no more wheat but, instead, should bring in shiploads of it from Britain. Deputy Hughes suggested to-night that we should now go over to Britain for nitrogen. The position is that during last season the British Government only gave farmers in Northern Ireland one-sixth of the nitrogenous manures given to them in the year previous. They had only the same quantity for their own farmers. These are the cures which are being propounded by Deputy Dillon and by Deputy Hughes. I do not agree for a moment with the arguments which were put up by Deputy Dillon in regard to the manufacturers. I may say that I do not hold any brief for the manufacturers or for the retailers either. So far I have not heard of Deputy Dillon's firm going bankrupt between the manufacturers and the consumers.

That has nothing to do with the Estimate.

I have not found retailers anyway generous especially in regard to the profits they are prepared to take. I think that both manufacturers and retailers are birds of a feather.

Will the Deputy take the wholesale price for manures last year and the retail price, and tell us what the difference was?

The Deputy examined all prices, and the Deputy was alone when he stood up here to complain of some prices. I missed the great assistance that Deputy Linehan could give me on that occasion.

I could tell the Deputy the difference in the prices—he did not know them.

When I got up here to talk about prices, Deputy Linehan did not help me. The whole of this matter can be very easily controlled, if the Government are prepared to control it. They should control it. There is too much of the middleman drifting into this game. There is so much material going out and it should be distributed.

How should it be distributed?

I must pay some tribute to the amount of education we have given Deputy Dillon, the Deputy who, in 1939 and 1940, opposed beet factories and who is now anxious that a definite amount of this manure should be set aside for growing beet. He is progressing a lot in his education. I say that it must be reserved for beet and wheat—practically the whole of it.

Do you suggest that?

Yes, very definitely. Let the quantity that is required for beet be distributed by the sugar company on the basis of the acreage of beet contracted for.

I knew that was coming.

The Deputy can know it is coming. The Deputy would rather see the merchants drawing their whack. The balance required for wheat could be distributed on the guaranteed acreage of wheat grown and take it out of the hands of the sharks—and I cannot describe them as anything else. I am glad that this step has been taken towards securing artificial manures, and I am anxious that the Minister should further investigate the possibilities in regard to sea sand and seaweed. I believe there are possibilities in regard to both.

There is no money in this Vote for sand or seaweed.

That was questioned by a Deputy when the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was in the Chair, and he said——

I am not concerned with that. No money is asked for sea sand.

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle gave the Deputy to understand he was in order in talking on the matter.

That remark is disorderly.

Deputy Corry stated that the contributions of Deputy Hughes and Deputy Dillon to this debate were of no value. I might equally describe Deputy Corry's contribution to it as not being so very valuable either. If there is anything that I deprecate—and I do not care whether it comes from Deputy Dillon or Deputy Corry—it is the type of language that is used in this House about certain sections of the community, let them be wholesalers or retailers or anyone else. It is very easy to describe people as racketeers and sharks. Now, Deputy Corry must have had at his disposal, so far as the retail and wholesale prices of artificial manures are concerned, all the information that one could desire. He could have had from the Department of Agriculture exact details of the wholesale and the fixed retail price of any article. If the Deputy goes to the trouble of looking up that information—taking into account the cost of transport, the breaking up of large quantities, and the subsequent distribution, with the people handling and distributing these things on the basis that the Minister asked them to; I think there was hardly any compulsion in it, and the Minister was satisfied that the scheme was handled well—I do not think he will find any justification for describing people as racketeers or sharks. I may have misinterpreted the Minister, and I wonder was I right in understanding him when he mentioned 24,000 tons of phosphate rock from the United States, and when he said he did not think it was possible to get that now?

I shall be grateful to have some indication from the Minister of how much he hopes to get now. I understood that the amount of superphosphate we will have in the coming season was based on the 24,000 tons from America, together with what could be supplied from County Clare. If the Minister does not hope to get any supplies from America, then that puts a different complexion on the matter. What does he expect to get?

There is one matter to which I wish to make reference. It relates to pyrites. I understand that, so far as the Irish supply is concerned, it comes from Wicklow, but I think the Minister must be aware that there are other places in the country where supplies of that material are available. I do not know whether his Department has ever made a survey of other parts of the country where that material would be available. I have a recollection of sending a sample of rock some years ago to the laboratory of one of the university colleges and they indicated that it contained a certain content of pyrites and sulphur. At the time there was not any particular demand for it, but, if it would be of any assistance to the Minister now, I can give him as much information on the subject as I possess. My technical knowledge of the matter is absolutely nil, but, if it would be of any use to the Minister, I shall give him the area where the discovery was made.

I wish the Deputy would do so.

I might be in a position to give him details of the analysis. Until this Vote came under consideration, I did not quite realise the importance of the matter. My information was that at the end of the Boggeragh Mountains, on the Cork and Kerry border, an out-crop gave some indications of pyrites and sulphur. It may not be very valuable, but yet it may be of considerable use in the present emergency. I shall be glad to give the Minister details in regard to that place to-morrow.

Last year there was a composite manure prepared and I understand there was a price fixed of £10 a ton. In certain parts of my county, particularly in the intensive tillage areas, it was not possible for a number of people to get any of that composite manure at £10 a ton, plus freight charges.

They had to purchase manure, which I believe was something similar to the composite manure, at prices of from £20 to £25 per ton. They were very dissatisfied, but I suppose the Minister could not do anything in that respect, as it appeared that the merchants who supplied this manure were getting their supplies from outside. It was not home-manufactured manure.

In the coming year, if it is at all possible, the people should get uniform treatment, and, whatever price is fixed by the Department, a fair share of the manure should be made available to people in the districts I have in mind. Their whole difficulty seems to be that they were for a number of years dealing with merchants who got their supplies from outside, and consequently had to go to the same merchants last year for their ration of manure, and had to pay the extra price. That occurred in the Athenry, Monivea and Menlough districts of the County Galway, which comprise part of the most intensive tillage district in the county. As I have said, the people who were fortunate enough to get the composite manure informed me that the results from the home-manufactured manure were very much better than the manure purchased at the higher price of £20 to £25 per ton.

I understood the Minister to say that the amount of superphosphate or compound manure, or an aggregate of both, which he hoped to have available, was 50,000 tons.

I said that the maximum would be 80,000 tons, but that I was afraid we could not reach that now. Let us say 60,000 tons.

There will be about 1 per cent. of potash and 30 per cent. of phosphates in that?

I do not know what that will be worth, and I do not know if anybody knows what it will be worth.

It is not worth that price, anyway.

If it is not worth that price to us, we need not use it, but I am very sceptical as to whether it is any good at all at any price. That is my great concern. If it was an article I could measure by some standard and know exactly what I was getting, I could decide whether it was worth buying or not. Can we get a guaranteed analysis of it?

There will be an analysis.

If it does not come up to sample, the guaranteed analysis will not be much good when we have bought and used it. We shall have 80,000 tons as against 250,000 tons of phosphate in ordinary times.

250,000 tons between super and compound.

The Minister gave us enough to draw up a balance sheet and it is well that the country should know that balance sheet and should know exactly where we stand. People who use this cry—I will not say they are people who should know better; they are people who do know better— that if 25 per cent. tillage will not give us food, we must have 30 per cent. and so on, cannot be honestly using it. The controlling factor in our tillage system is manure. To get a crop, you must have adequate manure, and I submit this to the Minister or to any man with practical experience or theoretical knowledge, once you scatter the available manure over a wider area than that manure is able to nourish reasonably well, you get a lesser return. The lesson for us to learn—those of us who have not learned it long ago, and it is time the country was made wise on the point—is that our food supply is governed by our available manure. I have not got the statistics to enable me to deal with our artificial manures in normal times and I do not know if the 250,000 tons mentioned by the Minister represent 250,000 tons pre-war. Does that represent our total consumption of artificial manures?

Yes, superphosphate and compound.

It does not include slag?

Let us take it that it includes our fertilisers.

Yes, it includes slag.

The Minister will admit that our fertilisers then were much stronger and better than the compound fertiliser he has to offer us now. There is no question about that. In addition, we had three times as much. Had we much more than half the land to manure that we have to manure now, in order to provide food for man and beast? Have we not less farmyard manure now? Is there not less stall feeding? Are there not fewer pigs raised? One of the best factories for manure is the pig sty, and has not the gentleman who paid the rent——

The Deputy is departing from this Vote. The whole position of crops cannot be discussed on this. It is a matter of whether the Deputy wants this or not. The Minister's Department is not under review —it is just whether the Deputy supports this Vote for supplies of artificials or not.

I thought the position was very closely related to manures which are fundamental to our very existence, and I thought there would be sufficient latitude in a general way to stress its importance.

That is not permissible on a Supplementary Estimate. Deputies are confined to what is in this Supplementary Vote, which does not include manures generally.

I know, but in deciding whether we should spend this sum of £800,000 on subsidising these fertilisers ——

On that, the Deputy would be quite in order.

I was relating it to alternative manures.

I am afraid the relationship does not arise.

Well, if I say: "Yes, we should pay this price for those fertilisers," how do I arrive at that? You will have to relate it to something, and we are now confined to these 80,000 tons of farmyard manure. We have no other source of supply, and on those two supplies depends the amount of food that can be grown. I think that it would be better to spend that £800,000 in subsidising, if you like, the growing of more food for live stock, feeding the live stock here, and producing good manure, because we know what it consists of and what it can do.

The Minister did not explain—or at least I did not understand him to explain—where this £800,000 would be eaten up. Why did he not put up that £800,000 to subsidise barley, oats and wheat for animal food, so that we should have bacon and manure, so that we should have butter and manure? We are short of bacon and butter, and we are short of the manures that would be good and useful in giving us our food supplies. I think it would be much better to spend this £800,000 in helping to grow more crops for animal food.

Last year, I think I was alone in this House in opposing the prosecution of people because they fed live stock with any of the food that they grow. I still maintain that position, and I think it would be better to spend the £800,000 in a special subsidy for growing wheat to feed the live stock, and let that wheat be used for the feeding of live stock so that we can have bacon and butter and also manure—manure that we all know and we all know what it can do. With regard to this stuff that is to be put up, I know that I would not depend on it for a crop, and I would chance my arm on a crop with any man in this country. I might experiment with it, but I would not chance my main crop with it, and I do not think that any farmer in this country would do it or could afford to do it. I am sure the Minister has done his best. I could go back and ask why did he not bring in phosphatic rock when it could be brought in, and he will never be forgiven for not doing so, but I realise that he must deal with the position as it is now, and there is no use in talking of what might have been done or what should have been done. We can tell him all about that on another occasion. Here, however, we come to this matter of the £800,000. I think it is a waste of time to be making a deal with Britain about some other products and getting in artificial manure in exchange. I do not think anything will come of that. Britain is fighting for her life, standing on her own two legs, and I do not see that we can get anything from her by any bargaining powers that we may have. When it comes, however, to talking about bringing in phosphatic rock from North Africa it seems ridiculous to a man who is facing his cropping year now. That happens to be the greatest centre of hostilities in this world war at the moment, and if I were to get all the phosphate rock that is in North Africa, merely for going out there and bringing it home, well, I would not go out there, and neither would anybody here. If he did, I do not think he would bring home very much, not what would fill his waistcoat pocket, and if he brought home his life he would be very lucky.

It is all right talking about percentages of phosphates, soluble and all that, but we all know that these things do not always work out to specification. They may not act when you want them. The weather may be severe on your crop—it may get stunted—and all the phosphates in North Africa will not stimulate that crop even when it does get moisture afterwards. I do not agree with all the criticism of manure manufacturers. Where our manufacturers have been lax is that I think they depend too much upon potash, phosphates and nitrates—too much of each kind being available at the same time. They do not refine it sufficiently as they do on the Continent so as to have a delayed action, so to speak, in all these ingredients so that they will act at different times, and that when one is dying there is another coming up. I know that a company that started here and was doing that was crushed out. They were the best manures that were ever distributed in this country. All you had to do was to send for these people and they came and looked at you soil, drew up a prescription, much as a doctor does for a patient who hands it to the chemist, and they applied the manures accordingly and gave a detailed analysis. We are a long way from that in this country, but we shall have to arrive at it some day. I wonder was what Deputy Dillon put up to the Minister true with regard to these manures? The Minister told us that we are only getting 20,000 tons from the Clare phosphates. Where would 20,000 tons go in supplying the nation? If that is true, what effort is being made to develop these deposits? Is it also true that there is no road?

That problem was discussed yesterday on another Vote. There is no money for Clare phosphates in this Vote.

But we are dealing with phosphates.

Yes, imported phosphates.

But we are mixing this with the Clare phosphates, and why not have all phosphates developed here instead of spending this money on the imported stuff? I was interested in the Clare phosphates years ago. As a matter of fact, I placed an order—I could not say now whether it was for 100 tons or 10 tons—but that was 20 years ago, and I am still waiting for that order to be executed. Apparently they had no road then, and it would seem that they have no road now. We would all be very glad to give them a trial, but why are they not developed? Why take the risk of importing foreign phosphates at a big price and paying a big State subsidy for them?

I do not know what is their strength, or what is their availability. You can have a manure with a fine analysis on paper, but you may find that it just is not the manure which the soil will assimilate when it wants to feed the plant. It is a very dangerous thing to make too big an experiment with ingredients to which we have not been accustomed. I can speak with a little practical experience of this. Deputy Dillon asked me, by way of poking fun, I suppose, how much of this had I used to grow wheat. Well, if you are going to grow wheat successfully, you are not going to grow it mysteriously; you want to know what you are putting in to nourish it before you can count on getting a good crop. It would be very difficult for any Deputy here to say whether or not you should spend this money. Although I do not believe in placing ourselves in the hands of civil servants, I think that in this particular case we will have to place the matter in the hands of the civil servants and the Minister, because they alone have all the references and can sit down and study this question. Personally, I feel that we have to trust them. None of us here has the time or the opportunity to sit down and consider the matter.

I should like to suggest to the Minister that he ought to consider what are the products most needed by the nation, products that those artificial manures are required to nourish. The quantity is too small to try to scatter it over too many crops. Deputy Corry suggested wheat and beet. I have no practical experience of growing beet commercially. I grew it only once, and that was in 1925, in the experimental year when it was tried out in every one of the 26 counties. I have no commercial interest in it, but from the national point of view, I would support Deputy Corry's suggestion. I understand that beet is mostly grown with artificial manures, and that the shrinkage in the beet crop is largely due to the shortage of those manures. Therefore, I think that the beet crop should get a good ration of whatever artificial manure is available. The wheat crop is one that this country is called upon to produce to a very increased extent during the emergency. Consequently, it needs a greater amount of manure than any other crop, because a lot of our land is being called upon to grow wheat so intensively that it wants special nourishment. I think there is a very good case for distributing this artificial manure between the wheat and beet crops. I have not sufficient knowledge of the requirements of both crops to say in what ratio it should be distributed, but I would appeal to the Minister, as a matter of first rate national importance, to ration this manure between wheat and beet in the proportion that he and his advisers consider best. While I have not a lot of faith in this manure, and this is a lot of money to spend on something which may be of very little use, still when it comes to a question of feeding the nation, you cannot measure the difference between want and a sufficiency of food in terms of money.

I agree with Deputy Belton that we cannot measure in money what this manure might be worth. If we were living in normal times I would say that its value is negligible. This is principally a phosphatic manure. I think the Minister told us that the percentage of phosphate was about 1 per cent., and of nitrogen less than 1 per cent. That means that it is simply a phosphatic manure. The cheapest ingredient in any complete manure is phosphate. It is suitable for certain crops and for certain lands. For instance, it would be suitable manure for grass, but not for potatoes. I would ask the Minister whether there is any alternative to expending this money on phosphates? For instance, would it not be possible to get a complete manure from any part of the world? Some time ago, we used to import a great deal of guano from Peru. That is a complete manure.

No matter what it cost, it would be a valuable manure. The small farmer would prefer to get an article which would give good results, no matter what the price may be, especially for use on the potato crop, the most important crop grown here. I do not know exactly what manure suits the beet crop. If we cannot get a complete manure, and if there is any other alternative to the manure that the Minister has in view, I suggest that we should get a nitrogenous manure. The advantage of a nitrogenous manure is that it is most suitable, as some Deputy remarked, to force the crop in the early stages, and keep down the weeds. That is an important matter which we should not lose sight of at the present time, because the weeds are eating up the fertility of the soil, and the pulling of the weeds wastes a lot of valuable time. I find, in County Cavan at any rate, that if we have to run short of any ingredients for manure it would be better to run short of phosphates rather than nitrogen. Nitrogen is the most important element. Another point that is worthy of consideration is whether nitrogen is procurable in any part of the world, no matter how distant. One cwt. of nitrogen is equal to 400 cwt. of phosphatic manure, whether you get it in the form of nitrogen or sulphate of ammonia. Nitrogen is less in bulk and weight and therefore would be more economical in shipping, but I do not know whether it is possible to get it or not. If it is not possible to get it, there is no use in discussing it. If there is none to be procured abroad, I suggest there are sources of nitrogen at home, for instance, soot. I do not know what becomes of the soot in the cities and other places. There is a great deal of nitrogen going to waste, I am afraid, in soot. I do not know whether the manure manufacturers are using it or not, but a lot of it is wasted. Even in the country districts people do not make the best possible use of it. If it was spread thinly over fields that are under tillage it would be valuable. It would be no harm if leaflets were sent out in regard to this matter.

The quantity of phosphate that the Minister proposes to import amounts to, I think he said, about 60,000 tons. The amount that was used in normal times was 250,000 tons. That is exclusive of slag, which was another phosphatic manure. Slag, we know, was used principally for grass. It was also used largely for turnips. We have to bear in mind that there is at least double the crop to be manured now. Instead of having 250,000 tons of phosphate, we have, at most, 60,000 tons, or about 30 per cent. Taking 1 per cent. of a ton as a unit, we find it would represent a reduction of from 10,000,000 units to 1,800,000 units. That has to go twice as far, because we have twice, perhaps three times, as much crops. We have one-fifth of the amount of manure to cover two or three times the amount of land. I think the amount is negligible but, nevertheless, if there is no alternative and if you cannot get the nitrogen or some other form of manures, then I suppose it is well not to turn down the idea, but I would support any alternative, if there is an alternative, to expending all the money upon this phosphatic manure because I do not think it is a good manure.

If it is at all practicable to get the Clare phosphate working, an effort should be made to have it in working order next year. Twenty per cent. is not bad, if we can get it at home. The money would not all be lost in initial outlay. Seeing that money is being paid to so many unemployed people for doing nothing, it would be well spent on developing and opening up mines. It would be serviceable even in normal times; during the present emergency it would be invaluable. Therefore, I hope the Minister will give that aspect of the problem careful consideration.

Deputy Hughes raised a few points about certain districts having more claims for artificial manures than others. As I explained in my opening statement, all these aspects of the problem are being examined and considered but, as I said, although we may try to show some preference to a particular crop or a particular class of farmer, I feel that at least half the manure, at any rate, ought to be distributed on the same basis as last year, that is, on the basis of the use of manure by the farmer previously.

That will ensure that the tillage districts will get more than the non-tillage districts, because they were the best buyers in previous years.

That is true. In regard to nitrogen, we have, as a matter of fact, made various attempts, I need hardly assure the House, to get nitrogenous manures from Great Britain, but without any success, except in regard to a small quantity which would be negligible. We have also tried Chile—which was raised by Deputy Hughes, and we have an option on some nitrates there. They would be extremely costly by the time they reached here. We could not be sure when they would reach here, if at all, because shipping is difficult; it is a very long way around, and it would take a long time to get them here. As far as we can calculate now, I think it may be taken that nitrate of soda would be between £60 and £70 a ton by the time it would arrive here. Even if Deputy Hughes is right in saying that one cwt. of nitrate of soda might give three cwt. of wheat, it is hardly worth that. If it costs 65/-, and gives three cwt. of wheat in return, it is questionable whether it is worth bringing in at all.

There is no loss on it in pounds, shillings and pence, and there are other advantages.

I do not know if it is going to serve any good purpose in going back to what happened before the war, but all I can say is that I said here that I was not aware there was any demand before the war to bring in raw phosphates and store them here for a war period. There was naturally a demand from everybody— the Fine Gael Party and every other Party—to try to get more artificial manures used before the war, but that was merely, I think, that we should try to get the farmers to use more artificial manures and to get them at a cheaper rate, and so on. It is quite true that we were asked on various occasions to take off the tariffs, quotas, and so on, but that was asked indiscriminately with regard to every industry, as well as the manure industry. I think it was wise in a way to keep those factories working, because small as our supplies are now we could not even have those supplies if the factories were gone out of business. It was necessary to maintain those factories. It is not true to say either that the farmers had to pay more for their fertilisers before the war because of that protection, because against the protection a subsidy scheme was introduced.

A strong case was made to import the rock in advance.

I do not remember that being made.

Deputy Dillon made a big point about that.

To have a big store of rock phosphate?

Yes, in advance of requirements, for our own factories to work.

I would like very much to have that looked up to see if that case was ever made before the war.

No; Deputy Dillon made it here to-day—that it should have been done before the war.

I quite agree that he says that now, but I do not think he said it before the war.

He wanted to close down the factories.

The principal difficulty, as far as I understand, with regard to Clare is not so much that there is no good road into it. I think I heard the Minister for Supplies pointing out the difficulties about Clare phosphates with regard to the mining of the phosphate and the quarrying of the phosphate— because it is done in the two ways. Then there is afterwards the rail transport which, as we all know, is fairly difficult all round. I think that whatever phosphates are there that can be quarried and mined, they can be got out as far as the road is concerned.

Have you any boring machine working there?

The new company will deal with that.

What is limiting the mining operations? You would get 20,000 tons out with a hand jumper.

Mr. Brennan

There is a whole mountainside of rock to be worked.

That is doubtful. Some people estimate that there are millions of tons there. That is disputed. Others say that if we succeed in getting the 20,000 tons a year that it will only last for a few years. Deputy Dillon raised a question about the bringing in of pyrites, and asked why we did not develop some alternative. That has been referred to the Emergency Research Bureau. They have not given us any better alternative yet. Kelp was also spoken of as an alternative. I did not mean what Deputy Dillon said. I never meant that it would be cheaper to bring the seaweed from Galway to Carlow and have it disposed of in the form of kelp. What I say is that the seaweed is being used at present within ten miles of the coast, and that it is cheaper to allow the farmers to draw the seaweed with their horses and cars than attempt to limit the amount given to them by turning it into potash and kelp, and then selling the kelp to them and to others.

All the seaweed that can be got along the coast is being saved.

As far as I know it is all being used. If farmers within ten miles of the coast can get a good supply of seaweed, and if others can get none, well, after all, they have the right to get the seaweed first. It was always their privilege.

Along the coast in the County Dublin people are out gathering the seaweed before daylight.

Deputy Dillon also asked about bone and blood manure. I do not think there is anything going to waste in that way. He also wanted to know why we did not conduct a vigorous campaign for clover. It is true that clover would give us nitrogen, but neither the clover seed nor the seaweed is going to waste. I certainly would long ago have advocated the advantages of putting in clover and ploughing the crop up again after a year or two, but for the fact that I knew we would not attempt that since we have only barely enough clover seed to carry on with. We cannot make it compulsory on farmers to put in clover when we have not got the seed to give them.

Deputy Dillon made a rather unfair attack, I think, on the manufacturers of phosphates. He said they were putting the subsidy in their pockets. The Prices Commission looked after the manufacturers' costs and fixed the price of the manures. I do not know whether the Deputy has any fault to find with the efficiency of the Prices Commission, but if we recognise its efficiency then we must be satisfied with the prices it has fixed. Deputy Linehan said that he thought that I had put in some reservation about the amount of phosphates that might come from Florida. I said the Estimate was brought in on the basis of 24,000 tons of phosphates from Florida and the necessary amount of pyrites. I do not think, however, that it will be possible during this season at any rate to get in that amount. Of course, we will probably go on bringing it in even though it may be too late for this season. Probably we will have it in time for next season.

Deputy Belton thought that this money that we are asking might be better spent in another way. I want to say this to the Deputy—it may be a case of great minds thinking alike— that when I saw the Estimate first it did occur to me to ask myself whether we could not spend this £800,000 in another way that would give us better results. I looked at the matter in somewhat the same way as the Deputy. Could we use it by encouraging, say, the stall-feeding industry or the pig industry, and in that way get manure as well? I found, however, that the £800,000 is a very small amount when you think of applying it in that way. You will get very little results, if any, in fact.

You could control those results, but you cannot control imports in present circumstances.

As far as the manure position is concerned, you will get ten times more this way from the £800,000 than you would from the way the Deputy suggests. If he examines the matter I think he will find that to be so.

What about the rationing of this manure?

It will be rationed. As I explained in the beginning, we are examining various schemes as to whether we will give so much to a particular crop or, as Deputy Hughes suggested, so much to a particular type of farmer. In the end we may allocate a certain amount of it to a particular crop, but a certain amount will also be allocated on the same basis as last year —that is on the purchases a farmer made over previous years.

Were any practical tests carried out as to whether the Clare phosphate is soluble, and what were the results?

I am not able to say what the results were.

Were they satisfactory?

Experiments were carried out, long term and short term. They showed that it was a phosphate manure.

Suppose the Clare phosphate is not very soluble and available over a long period, is it immediately available as a plant food?

Some of it.

How did it show on the tests that were carried out this year?

We did experiment with the Clare phosphate as a raw phosphate as well as a treated phosphate. As a raw phosphate insoluble it is only good as a long distance manure. When treated with pyrites it is about 20 per cent. a soluble phosphate. It would compare, about half its weight, to, say, the Florida phosphate.

There are some people who are rather sceptical about the quality of the compound. They felt it was very expensive and they did not get much results from it. I think it would be wrong that they should labour under any misapprehension. It is soluble and there would be 20 per cent. of phosphates immediately available. It has been suggested the analyses are not correct.

They are quite correct.

Has it been the experience of the Department that it takes a long time for the soil to assimilate the Clare phosphates?

As a raw phosphate, certainly it does, but it is particularly suitable for forestry.

Does it take much longer than in the case of the old phosphates?

No; it is exactly like the soluble phosphate anywhere else.

I can tell the Minister it does take longer.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share