I move:—
That Dáil Eireann is of opinion that demonstration farms of various sizes and of different degrees of fertility should be established by the Department of Agriculture in each county for the purpose of demonstrating (a) the most efficient methods of tillage and live stock improvement, and (b) the costings in each branch of the industry.
I was not expecting that this motion would be taken to-night, so I am at a disadvantage and, possibly, the Minister is at a similar disadvantage. The issues raised in this motion are very clear and very simple. All that we ask is that the Department of Agriculture, which sets out to teach and advise farmers in the business of carrying on their industry, should undertake to demonstrate, in the most effective manner possible, the effectiveness of that teaching. There is an old saying in this country: "Do what I tell you, not what you see me doing."
In regard to agriculture, we have had this Department in operation for years. It has set out to advise the farmer, and a great deal of the advice given by it has been sound and reasonable. We should honestly admit, first of all, that there is a wide gap between the science of agriculture as known to the Department and agriculture as practised throughout the country. The Department has acquired a very advanced knowledge of the science of agriculture, and compares favourably with any similar Department in any other country; yet we have complaints —very justifiable complaints—that all that knowledge has not been translated into practice.
I cannot imagine a more effective means of putting across to the farming community the information which the Department possesses than that of establishing in each county a farm run directly by the Department. It might be asked what exactly is the type of experiment envisaged in this motion. What we envisage is that the Department, through its county committees, would acquire in each county, at least one, but better still, two farms.
I would suggest that one of these farms be fairly large and typical of the fairly large farms in that county— particularly if it is a county in which there are many such farms; the other would be a small farm typical of the small farms in the county. These two farms would be run under the supervision of the local agricultural officer who, of course, would need to appoint a manager in charge of each farm to carry out the operating work.
It might be asked what type of manager is suggested. I would suggest that the best type of manager would be a young man, a man who has been trained in various agricultural colleges or schools. I know there are many such young men, farmers' sons, who have gone through various agricultural schools, and who are seeking work at the present time. Every vacancy for a tillage inspector or farm improvement inspector results in an inundation of applications from this type of applicant. Now, those young men would take over the management, under the supervision of the agricultural officer, and their job would be to demonstrate to all the public, and to the farmers in particular, that the teaching of the Department is sound.
If those farms are established, we can easily understand the amount of attention that would be given to them by the farmers in each county where they are in operation. We can easily imagine that, practically every Sunday of the year, young men from all parts of the county would visit these farms to see how they were being operated. Of course, it would be absolutely necessary, in connection with such demonstration farms, to have very complete accounts and balance sheets published in the local Press, showing every item of expenditure and income on the farms and the amount of profit made.
I cannot see any reason why the Minister should reject a proposal of this kind, when everything seems to be in its favour. If the Minister should decide to reject it, it seems that he would have only one ground for doing so—that he is afraid the farm would not pay. If that is the position he intends to take up, that the Department of Agriculture cannot make a farm of this kind pay, he will have some difficulty in defending his position.
If those farms did not pay it would be for either of two reasons, the first being that the Department of Agriculture is so inefficient that it is incapable of running a demonstration farm on ordinary lines. In this connection I might point out, as I am unfortunately speaking without notes, that I intended to make the point also that in connection with those farms it is necessary that the type of farming carried on should be the ordinary commercial type of farming and that the Department should not go in for any specialised lines such as the raising of pedigree stock or any business of that kind which would not be open to every farmer in the country. Naturally, if you are going to have a demonstration farm you must demonstrate the system of farming which any farmer in the county could undertake and you must rule out specialised lines such as the breeding of specialised seeds, plants or stock. If the Minister is going to take up the position that he is afraid these farms would not pay, he has a choice of two horns of the dilemma upon either of which he can impale himself. He must either admit that the Department of Agriculture is not sufficiently efficient to run a demonstration farm or, alternatively, he must admit that the margin of profit in agriculture— that is the difference between agricultural prices and agricultural costs of production—is so narrow that it would be absolutely impossible for the Department to make such a farm pay.
I shall deal first of all with the assumption that the Minister takes up the position that the Department could not manage such a farm efficiently. The Department have behind them 50 years of experience in studying every branch of farming. The Minister may say: "Well, that is all right but we have not the same tradition of farming as the ordinary peasant proprietor, and we might not be able to compete with the ordinary peasant proprietor for that reason". He might also take up the position that the State, as a rule, cannot make its operations pay as well as a private individual.
Let us contrast the position as between the two. First of all, there will be only one or two of these demonstration farms in each county. That means that there will be only a very limited number, and for those farms the Minister has a very wide choice from which to select proper managers. He can select the most efficient farmer's son in the country and appoint him to manage one of these farms. Contrast that with the position of the ordinary farmer. Farms, as we know, generally pass from parents to children. We know that, in the ordinary course of events, you have many farms owned by people who are handicapped by some physical or mental deficiency. Again, the management of some farms is very seriously affected by the fact that there is a large family living together and perhaps not agreeing too well. If you deduct the number of farms on which management is obstructed or interfered with for some reason of that kind from the total number, you will find that there is a serious diminution so far as the average efficiency of farming is concerned.
On the other hand, in the case of those farms which I suggest should be carried on by the Department, you will have one thing certain, namely, you will have the most efficient manager appointed, and if he is not satisfactory the local agricultural officer can remove him at a week's notice. That is one advantage which the Departmental farm will have over the ordinary farm, and it outweighs or offsets whatever advantage the ordinary farmer might have arising from a sense of ownership or the freedom which the ordinary farmer enjoys. For that reason I think the Minister cannot dare to put the plea that it is impossible for his Department to run a farm as efficiently as the ordinary farmer. He has therefore only the other means of escape, namely, to claim that the margin of profit in agriculture is so low that he cannot make these farms pay. If the Minister takes up that attitude, he is publicly admitting that he and his Department have failed ignominiously in their duty because it is the first duty of the State, acting through the Minister and his Department, to ensure that the margin of profit in agriculture is sufficient to enable every farmer to make a profit. If he admits that his Department cannot make these demonstration farms pay, he is admitting that he is imposing what can only be described as a criminal injustice on the farming community.
Let us bear this fact in mind. The fundamental principle which ought to govern agricultural policy is that there is a duty on the farmer to secure from his land the highest possible annual output and that there is at the same time a duty on the State to ensure that the primary producer on the land is adequately rewarded for his labour and risk. If the Minister accepts these two fundamental principles he must accept this motion because the motion, first of all, will ensure that the most efficient method of farming will be put into operation and that a real effort will be made to secure that the maximum output will be obtained from the land.
This motion will also be the first step to ensure that the margin of profit in agriculture is sufficient to enable the industry to continue, because it would be absolutely impossible for any Government, the Minister or his Department to fix what is an adequate reward for the farmer unless they, first of all, take the necessary steps to find out what are the costings of production in agriculture. This motion will enable the Minister to find out exactly what are the farmer's costs of production. We know that whenever the question of the price of an agricultural commodity is raised in this House, there is always a dispute about what it costs to produce a given commodity whether it be wheat, beet or anything else. We know that the farmers, through their various organisations, will put up one set of figures as the costs of production. The Minister will usually dispute these figures, but there has never been any effective official investigation of costs of production. During the last war an attempt was made by the Department of Agriculture to find out the cost of production in regard to various agricultural activities on various farms. But that system of investigating costings was only continued until 1922, I think, when agricultural prices fell. The Department then decided that it would not be wise to continue investigating costings in agriculture because their figures would show a very substantial loss. I believe that this motion, particularly if it is considered with one eye on another motion further down on the Order Paper advocating a long-term policy in regard to price fixing, will go a long way towards putting agriculture in a sound position. Once we can induce the Department of Agriculture to take up and work those farms in each county, I think we will have set our feet on the road that will lead to inducing or compelling the Department to see that the margin of profit in agriculture is never allowed to dwindle to vanishing point, as happened in recent years.
It may be asked what would be the net result of these demonstration farms in regard to agriculture. One result, of course, would be, as I have pointed out, that farmers would take a keen and active interest in what was being done and would learn probably more from these practical demonstrations than they would ever learn from lectures given by the various agricultural officers. The fact that the local agricultural instructor would have such a farm under his control would give weight and punch to the arguments and suggestions that he would put before farmers. The local agricultural instructor could stand up at any meeting and say: "Such and such is the best policy. If you dispute my words, you can go and see that policy in practice on the farm which I am running in this county and which is within easy reach of you."
The Minister may at some time or another have heard of a person named Will Hay. Will Hay achieved fame for his portrayal of an absolutely illiterate professor running a very high-class school. Let the Minister for Agriculture be careful that his Department will not be described as a Will Hay Department, a Department that is endeavouring to teach what it does not know. No matter how much the Department of Agriculture, through their officers, may learn from experiments and from the study of the theory and practice of farming, they will never be able to speak with authority on agriculture until they are able to say: "We have run farms exactly similar to the average farm in the country and have made them pay." We of the Farmers' Party in this motion are issuing a challenge to the Department of Agriculture to come down off the fence. The hurler on the ditch may claim to be a better hurler than the hurlers on the field, but he will never convince anybody of that until he gets down into the arena and shows that he is able to do the work as well as the players on the field. I recommend this motion very strongly to the House and I feel that the Minister cannot reject it.
