Deputy Hughes said that, in all probability, the Committee on Post-War Agricultural Planning would consider this question. I believe it is one of the questions that committee will consider. They have undertaken to present a report on agricultural education in general and I know that this question of State farms, colleges and demonstration farms will be considered by it. I do not know what view the committee will take, but as they may present a report on the question, in which case I would be expected to have an open mind, Deputies perhaps will understand my difficulty if I do not come down on one side or the other. I am naturally anxious to give the points for and against.
With one argument put forward by a number of Deputies, I agree; that is, that, over the years, we have spent a good deal of time in the colleges and institutions on establishing certain facts. That knowledge is there, but it is not possible in many cases to get it down to the farmer. The difficulty has always existed, and I have recognised it, of getting the farmer to realise certain facts well known to agricultural experts and scientists. I think, however, that there is an improvement in that respect. As the years go on a bigger number of the younger men are attending the winter classes. The number who go to the agricultural colleges is comparatively small, but a larger number are certainly attending the winter classes, and these boys are becoming interested in trying to find out facts for themselves. There is a very marked increase in the demand for the leaflets issued by the Department, which goes to show that the rising generation of farmers and farmers' wives are more interested in matters of this kind. It is a very slow process. The increase in the dissemination of knowledge of that kind over the last 40 years is not phenomenal and it will be many more years before the farmers will have reached the standard of education which would be useful and which one would like to see them have.
I agree with Deputy Hughes on another point: that we must not come to the conclusion that the Irish farmer is worse than the farmer of other countries in that respect. We have, as Deputy Hughes said, some farmers who are as good as any in the world, and, on the whole, I think that the general body of farmers here would probably compare fairly favourably with the general body of farmers in most other countries. I spent holidays in at least two of the Continental countries in the last 12 years, and I made whatever observations I could amongst the ordinary farmers, and I do not think they were a bit better than ours. In fact, if we sent across an ordinary Irish farmer to see how they do things, he would be inclined to say that he had nothing to learn there. That does not mean, however, that we should not try to improve things. We certainly should, so far as we can.
I am not quite sure as to what exactly Deputy Cogan advocates. One could regard his proposal as a proposal for absolute State farms—the Department of Agriculture, on behalf of the State, purchasing a farm and equipping and stocking it, and, as I take it Deputy Cogan would say, keeping accounts so that those running it could see that on the running of the farm they were getting 5 per cent. on their capital, because if an ordinary man bought a farm and stocked it, he would have to pay 5 per cent. to the bank. I take it we would then go ahead with the appointment of a manager and tell him to farm on proper lines and get him to keep accounts.
Whether that is what is visualised or not, I do not know, but there is also the method of getting it done by the county committee of agriculture. If it has to be done, it would be easier to do it in that way, because the officers of the committee are available. They have a knowledge of agriculture and they have local knowledge. They know more about local opinion on agriculture and the type of agriculture being carried out locally than others and they see what mistakes, in their view, are being made by the farmers locally. There might be an advantage in putting these farms under the control of the local authority rather than under that of the central authority, but whether it should be done at all is another matter.
I saw a review—it was prepared for the Committee on Post-War Agricultural Planning by my Department—of the trend of agricultural education in other countries. I notice that this system of model farms is being departed from. Evidently they did not find that they were completely successful in Continental countries and they are moving towards what they call the "travelling school." That would correspond, more or less, with our winter classes. An intinerant instructor goes to a certain centre and holds a school there for a certain time for farmers' sons. In most cases, I think that the instructors bring them out to the farms around and demonstrate what they teach in the lecture room. After six weeks or two months they pass on to another centre and give a similar course. They found it necessary in those Continental countries to bring instruction to the door of the farmer. The farmer was not inclined to go to the model farm even when it was within a short distance. That point regarding model farms will be taken into consideration by the post-war agricultural committee.
Deputy Cogan made the case, more or less—I do not want to wrong him because there is a "for" and an "against" in all these questions—that unless I could turn down the idea, the Dáil should accept it. I do not think that Deputy Cogan gave very strong reasons for the adoption of his proposal. He did not argue very much on the positive side. He put it up to me to argue against it and said that there was only one ground on which I could reject it —fear that it might not pay. I should not be afraid of that. I do not think that it would be very difficult to make a farm pay at present. The great majority of farmers are, I think, making their farms pay. As a Deputy said here last night, any farm that is put up for sale fetches £30, £50, £70, or even as high as £100 an acre. In many parts, land for conacre—grazing, meadowing or tillage—is let at from £5 to £14 an acre. If competition amongst farmers is so keen that they pay such a high price for land, when sold, or so high a rent for conacre, it is fairly obvious that farming is paying. I should have no great fear that it would be impossible to make those farms pay at the moment.
Deputy Cogan went on to say that, if I were afraid the farms would not pay, it proved either that the Department was incompetent in the management of farms or that the margin of profit was so small that it might not be possible to make anything out of them. That is a point on which I should like the members of Clann na Talmhan to give me information. I should like Deputy Cogan and Deputy Blowick to tell me and the Dáil whether or not they can make their farms pay. I think that they are evading that question. I imagine that, if I were ever to have the ambition to stand as a farmers' candidate, the first thing I should say to farmers, in appealing for their votes, would be: "I am a farmer and I am able to make my farm pay. I am a competent and efficient farmer and the man for whom you should vote". Clann na Talmhan do not believe in that and they give the impression that it is impossible at present to make farming pay. I may be doing them an injustice. If I am, I should like them to take advantage of the occasion to tell me that I am wrong, that they are able to make their farms pay but that they would like the farmers to be better treated. I agree with Deputy Cogan that it is the duty of a farmer to get the maximum amount out of his land and that it is the duty of the State to see that he gets a fair return for his labour and produce. That is the basis on which we have regulated beet prices, wheat prices and other prices fixed during the emergency or regulated in some way before the emergency. But I should like to assure Deputy Cogan that we did not proceed on the basis of maximum output. Again, I may say that, if I were leader of a farmers' Party, I should not like to advocate the fixing of prices on the basis of maximum output. Only a percentage of the farming community could reach the figure which would be fixed in that way. Only a percentage could make their farms pay. We must be somewhat more lenient to the farmers and we must not base our prices on maximum output. We must assume that the great majority are not able to get the maximum output but only a fair output.
Deputy Cogan wants demonstration farms established to show farmers, in the first place, how to improve their methods and, secondly, to ascertain the costings of farming. I admit that costings would be very useful. Deputy Cogan said that the Department of Agriculture decided about 20 years ago that it was unwise to continue the collection of costings because the costings were, more or less, going against them in the Department. My predecessor continued that scheme for collecting costings for many years after coming into office, and he and I pressed very hard for a costings section of the Department. The Minister for Finance would not agree; he could not afford to pay the necessary staff. Since the emergency, we dropped that question because there would be no use in building up such an organisation under the present abnormal conditions. When the war is over, I think that it will be necessary to have some organisation of that type. I have expressed the view elsewhere in public—I do not see why I should not express it here—that I should like, from a personal standpoint, to see some outside authority set up to fix and regulate the prices of agricultural produce when the war is over, because it is very difficult for a Minister or for the Government to do that. If some effective authority could be set up—it would not be easy to get an authority which would do it —that would hear the farmers' case and the consumers' case and fix or regulate the prices impartially, we would be better off all round than we are under the present system. That would, of course, necessitate the keeping of costings.
To revert for a moment to the question of the model farm; if a model farm were being set up, it would, probably, be well to have it under the local authority. If the post-war agricultural committee advise that it is not wise to go ahead with this question of model farms, then we could go back to a modified form of the scheme of costings which operated before 1923 or 1924. At that time there was a number of farmers who kept accounts. Books, which were drawn up in a certain way, were supplied to them. The farmers made entries of certain information that they were asked to supply with regard to their farming activities. At the end of the year the books were examined by competent officers, and costings were made out fairly scientifically from the returns furnished. I think that system could be revived and, perhaps, even amplified or improved to the extent, perhaps, of getting a number of individual farmers in each county who would leave their affairs open to scrutiny by some officials of the local committee of agriculture in consideration, of course, of some slight payment to the farmer for doing that, because there would be a certain amount of trouble in keeping the accounts up to date. The point that I want to get at is this: that we can get over the question of costings without model farms. We can get them almost as efficiently done. I think that, on the whole, they would be just as reliable.
There are, undoubtedly, advantages to be got from a model farm in the way of demonstrating how things might be done, but then these advantages are not there unless farmers go and see what is being done. The experience of Continental countries would appear to be to the effect that knowledge has to be brought to the doors of the farmers rather than that farmers should go and look for it. You will always have in every county a small percentage of farmers who will go a long way looking for knowledge. We all know of such men. If they hear, for instance, of demonstration plots of wheat they will go a certain distance to have a look at them, and will make inquiries as to how the wheat was sown, manured and so on. If they hear of a model cow house being built, they will go and see it to try to find out if they can improve their own cow houses. You will find farmers who will do that, but on the other hand you will find many who will not do it. It is the latter type that you want to convince because they are so sceptical about the whole thing. If you have a model farm and try to prove to them by every way possible, by books and everything else, that the model farm is paying, their comment will be: "It is easy to make a farm like that pay with the whole State behind it". But suppose you have a failure with a crop of potatoes or a crop of turnips on that model farm they will say: "How could we make farming pay when the Department of Agriculture cannot make this model farm pay?" You will have that disadvantage in the case of the very people to whose notice you want to bring knowledge.
Again, it is not so easy to get the same efficiency or, let us say, the same hard work on a model farm as you will get on a farm owned by a man himself. If, say, there is a 100-acre farm you will first of all have to appoint a manager. I suppose Deputies will agree that a 100-acre farm could not pay a very high salary to a manager. Let us say that he is paid £4 or £5 a week. He will have to employ three, four or five men. The manager is getting a salary, and will be inclined to go away a few evenings a week to enjoy himself. He will want to go away on Sundays. He will not be like the owner of a farm. In the case of the owner of a farm, if there is something essential or extra to be done in the evening, or if there is some animal to be watched on a Sunday, he will stay at home, but the manager may not stay. I am not saying that employees are not very good in their own way, but the point is that they have not the same inducement to stay and watch things as an owner has. In that way, you might not get the same efficiency on a farm of that kind as you would get in the case of a privately-owned farm. Another thing is that the manager must be, more or less, at the disposal of visitors, since the object of the model farm is that farmers can come there and have a look at things and see how they are being done. That cannot be done unless there is someone to show them around, to show them how the crops are sown, manured and so on. Therefore, the manager must be, to a great extent, at the disposal of callers. When you take that into account, he cannot give his whole time to the management of the farm. These are points that must be kept in mind.
Deputy O'Donnell told us that for some years he kept accounts on his own farm but that he gave it up because they almost drove him daft. I suppose a man's own accounts sometimes do have a disturbing effect on him. The Deputy seemed to be under the impression that the Agricultural Wages Board fixes certain hours. They do not. They fix a certain wages against a certain number of hours, but there is nothing to prevent an employee agreeing with a farmer to work 12 hours a day, if he likes. There is nothing to prevent a farmer making an agreement with his employees to have his cows milked at much more even intervals than the 15 hours, and nine hours mentioned by Deputy O'Donnell.
Deputy Giles started his speech by saying that the farmers know their own business best. I do not altogether agree with that. I do not think there is any body of men, whether farmers, business men, tradesmen or any other class, who are so knowledgeable that they cannot learn more, and if we can teach farmers some little more it is all to the good. As a matter of fact, what you will find is that it is the best farmers who are anxious to learn. They are the men who will be anxious to go to a model farm to see if they can learn a little more. What Deputy Giles said later is probably true, that a lot could be done to help farmers in the way of co-operation and so on.
With regard to another point that was made, I do not think it is possible to say that one part of the country is dairying, another part tillage and another part suitable for grazing or store cattle. We have not any such uniformity here. Take any county that you may go into, in a few parishes you may have a good deal of grazing, in other parishes you may have very intensive tillage, while in other parts you may have as intensive dairying as they have in the County Limerick. Some other Deputies said that probably the best system of farming was to try to do mixed farming as far as possible: that is to say that every farmer should try to do a bit of tillage to provide for his own stock, that he should try to do some dairying by keeping some dairy cows to supply the country with dairy products, and have other farmers with the minimum amount of land for grazing. Deputy Hughes agrees, I think, with that because he talked about a balanced agriculture being the best system. I take it he meant by that that we should have no such thing as one line agriculture. I think it is wise that there should be no such thing.
Deputy Hughes spoke about the stagnation of production. Unfortunately, there has been very little change for many years in production here. There has been very little change in the number of cattle and there has been very little change, compartively speaking, in the output from tillage. There has been, of course, a substantial increase during the emergency, but, taking the position over the last 30 or 40 years, there has been no great change in the amount of land under tillage or in the number of cattle. Apart from some reduction in the number of pigs, due to the emergency, there has been no great change.
Deputy Hughes wants to know if anything is being done, as far as this post-war agricultural committee is concerned, regarding this matter. I think it will be a very big problem for them, naturally, as to what recommendation they are going to make for future production—whether we should continue as we are or change our system slightly by giving it a bent in some other direction. I do not see that the committee can hold out any other objective but the future production policy of the country, whatever that may be. I am quite sure that the committee will give practically all its attention to the question of production and what the future trend of production should be.
Deputy Hughes spoke of the travelling instructors and I have already dealt with that point by saying that, on the whole, I think they are on the right lines at present. I do not want any Deputy to say that I am complacent or satisfied with the present system—I am not—but I say that, possibly and probably, our present line with regard to this aspect of education here is about the best one. We have the local technical staff, who go around more or less demonstrating for the farmers by means of demonstration plots showing what should be done, and who help the farmers sons by teaching them in winter classes, and so on; and that is probably just as sound as the demonstration farm idea. It may be that, if we were to elaborate and extend the present system a bit, we might be doing more than we would by turning to this idea of a model farm.
Deputy Bennett talked about the necessity for disseminating knowledge to the dairy farmers, as to how they could improve their output and he spoke about cow-testing. As he says, it is very extraordinary that the number of farmers who undertake to test their cows has not gone up. There are undoubted advantages in cow-testing: in fact, if any Deputy looks at the figures, he will find that the average yield per cow of all the cows under bodies having their cows under test, is a good deal higher than the average yield of all cows in the country. So it is evident that it has done something to improve the milk yield. Deputy Bennett says that, of course, it is not much use to a man, unless he can afford to get rid of the bad cow and get a good one. I think any farmer who is doing cow-testing, if he has a bad cow, will get rid of it. He may have to wait a year or two and take on a heifer in its place; but in that way he will gradually improve the average milk yield. A man who is not testing very often does not know he has a bad cow and may often be deceived—as those who are doing cow-testing know—by a big flush of milk in the beginning, whereas when the cow goes into a milk test, it is found to be not nearly as good as it was thought to be. In fact, the cow which is not milking well in the beginning, but is a good stayer, is more profitable to keep, as it gives the better yield in the end. The man who is not doing cow-testing does not know that and, therefore, may be inclined to breed from the wrong cow.
Deputy Bennett also referred to what is being done in the County Limerick and said that if you take all the cows in the County Limerick they have a better average yield than the cows in the rest of the country. I believe that is a well-known and well-established fact, statistically, at any rate. He says that that is true, even though cow-testing is done only to the extent of 4 per cent. in that county. I think that 4 per cent. is the figure for the whole country also, so evidently the farmers in County Limerick are up to the average in the matter of cow-testing, as compared with the rest of the country. I do not think we can come to any conclusion on that fact, which was given to us by Deputy Bennett. We cannot conclude from it that cow-testing is not doing any good, neither can it prove that cow-testing is doing a whole lot of good. However, we may leave that aside for the present.
The last point Deputy Bennett made was with regard to breeding. He said he thought the shorthorn was decadent or nondescript. There is a very well-known institution in County Limerick where they go to a lot of trouble on this point—I have not the authority of the principal to quote it, although I do not think he will object —and where they have a heard of shorthorns and a herd of Holsteins; and the average yield from the shorthorns is just as good as that from the Holsteins. Deputies will agree that, if the shorthorn is as good for milk as the Holstein, we should stick to them, because from the shorthorns we have very much better type of store.
