Yes. We should always have some carry-over to meet any deficiencies which may turn up. As farmers know, these seeds are not any worse in germination or anything by being kept for the year in store. Rye grasses have always been produced here and we have had sufficient of them. We have sometimes to import some from the North of Ireland and sometimes we have a surplus to export but, on the whole, we grow a fairly adequate supply of rye grasses here. We have to import clover seeds and I am doubtful, from many reports I have seen so far, that we will ever be in a position to grow our own clover seeds because, so far as I can learn, you want an extremely dry climate to grow clover seeds properly and we certainly have not got that every year here; we might have it occasionally. We have to take in certain of the other grasses from other countries, too. We are probably on good lines with regard to the production of cocksfoot. We are in a position, at any time, to produce whatever cocksfoot we require.
Seed testing is becoming very much more popular as a result, perhaps, of the tillage campaign. It may be that we can claim that it is also a result of more advanced knowledge on the part of the farmers. The number of samples coming in is very much higher than some years ago. At the central station of the Department this year we tested 14,500 samples; that is about 1,000 more than the previous year. In addition to that about 8,000 samples were tested by the rural science instructors in vocational schools, under an arrangement made with the Minister for Education.
With regard to agricultural machinery, in 1944 we made arrangements for the importation of 50 threshing sets, 350 tractors and 350 reapers and binders. Some of these reapers and binders did not arrive in time for the last harvest, but they have arrived now and are being allocated to those to whom they were promised last year; at least they are being offered to them, because some are not now inclined to take them. They will not go to waste, anyway. This year it is hoped to import 620 tractors, 750 reapers and binders and 50 threshing sets. Some of the tractors have already arrived and are being distributed through the ordinary trade channels. We thought it well this year, on account of the large number coming in, more or less to withdraw the control we had and to allow the trade to go back to the ordinary trade channels. On the whole, I think it has worked satisfactorily. There are, of course, numbers of applicants disappointed but, even if we had the distribution of them in the Department, or if the distribution was through the county committees, there would still be some applicants disappointed. If the same number comes in next year. I think nearly every applicant should be satisfied.
I am sorry to say that the reapers and binders are not all likely to arrive in time for the harvest. I am afraid, after seeing the programme for shipping, that they will not all be in here; but the greater number of them will, I hope. They are being distributed under the same scheme as we had in operation last year; that is, that a local committee in each county, consisting of the chairman of the county committee, the county manager, and the chief agricultural officer or the secretary of the committee, as the case may be, will recommend to me the most desirable applicants for these machines. That scheme, I must say, has been working very satisfactorily. I have already mentioned that the binder twine position is all right and I think we should have no worry about that for the coming harvest.
Although the number of tractors is going up very steeply indeed compared with the number we had pre-war, which was very small, we still have succeeded in having enough fuel oil for these tractors, and I think the scheme for the distribution of that oil has worked very smoothly. Sometimes, I must admit, I get complaints from certain owners of tractors down the country, but almost always I find that the fault does not lie with the Department of Supplies, that it lies more with the owner of the tractor who has not, perhaps, sent in some return he was asked for, or has allowed his fuel oil to run out before asking for more and, if he is very busy, he dislikes being kept waiting for a few days. The position with regard to coal remains the same and, so far as agricultural operations, the burning of lime, and the driving of threshing machines are concerned, I am afraid we will have to carry on as we are for the present.
I am glad to say that there was a small increase in the number of pigs offered to the bacon factories in 1944, 9,480 more pigs being offered than in 1943. What is more heartening, I think, is that since May, 1944, there has been a considerable improvement in sow services. Of course, we do not get returns from everybody, but the returns we get have usually been a very good indication of the future of pig production. If it is as reliable on this particular occasion as it has been in the past, I think we should be coming to the time when there will be almost sufficient bacon for any prospective purchasers in this country.
The Pigs and Bacon Commission have recently put into operation a scheme for the distribution of a limited number of pure-bred sows to farmers on special terms. The number, of course, is small, because it is not easy to get good sows at present, but it will have a good effect in time, because the idea is that these sows will become the source of further breeding sows as time goes on. They are about six months old and the object, as I say, is to improve the breed generally in the country. The recipient is required to undertake to sell for breeding purposes the female young of the sows to pig breeders in the locality. Each applicant is required to pay £5 when his application is accepted. Of course, the applications at first are only filed but, if the application is accepted, he pays £5. Then he pays another £5 after the first year. He is liable for a third £5 after the second year, but the Commission will forego the third £5 instalment if they find that the recipient has been carrying out the conditions faithfully and, especially, is distributing the progeny to neighbouring farmers for brood sows. These sows will be distributed to the various counties in the order in which the applications were received. But, again, it is a case where all applicants cannot be satisfied because it is a slow job getting these sows at the moment. It may be that we will get them as time goes on.
The total quantity of canned meat, that is in the form of stewed steak and ox tongue, exported to the British Ministry of Food in 1944 was 8,300 tons. This was expected to reach 10,000 tons, but there were various snags which cropped up last year. For a good part of the year it was impossible to get the necessary cans from the British Ministry of Supplies, and the business could not be carried on without the cans. For the year ended 31st March, 1945, the quota was 10,000 tons, and the British Ministry of Food have intimated their willingness to accept a similar quantity for the year ending 31st March, 1946. The price payable last year for canned stewed steak was 14/5¾d. per dozen 1 lb. cans, ex quay in Great Britain, and that was based on the price of cans as at the time when the agreement was made. If the price of cans should increase, this price will go up, and, I presume, if the British Ministry can give the cans for a smaller price, we may expect the price to go down. The same price is being offered for the coming year.
Dressed beef, including veal, went cut to the extent of 60,235 cwts., and mutton and lamb to the extent of 9,550 cwts. Though the quantity was considerably higher than last year, it is still small. The increased export in 1944 was due to the poor price on the home market for second-rate cattle at the end of the year, and they were slaughtered and sent out as dressed beef instead of going alive. The number of live cattle exported in 1944 was considerably less than normal, but the weights were still above the average. The severe drought in the spring was an important factor, there were emergency restrictions against travel, and shipping was very scarce. These things militated against the export of cattle for some time, but probably the main cause of the drop in exports was the limited capacity in Britain for the feeding of the beef types of cattle. There is a very big increase in the number of dairy cattle there. They had a year something like ours, when feeding was very scarce both in the form of autumn grass and hay and straw for the winter. The result was that our best cattle went out and younger cattle did not go to any great extent, and that means that we have a big carry over commencing this year.
Towards the end of the year a number of second-rate cattle went out as dressed beef and also a number of second-rate cattle went out as fat cattle. About 20,000 cattle went out as fat cattle that would not have gone if prices had been better for stores. The home consumption of beef was up also. The general result is that we have a good many more cattle in the country than we had some few years ago. The export of cows was down also as against 1943. Over the year about 25 per cent. of the licences were not used. Cows and springer heifers go out under licence and a number of the licences were not taken up. We exported 47,000 sheep and this is higher than in 1943, when the number was 26,000. These sheep went over the Border and were mostly breeding ewes.
As regards eggs and poultry, there was undoubtedly an increase in production in 1944 and there was also an increase in exports. The increase in exports was probably not so high as the increase in production. It is estimated by those whose business it is to make these calculations that the home consumption of eggs has increased by 50 per cent. since pre-war days. The number of fowl went up by 1,000,000 since 1943. The production of eggs would have been better were it not for the rather severe weather that came in the autumn, and then the frost came in January, frost which has hit us in so many ways.
I mentioned last year that we meant to do everything possible to increase poultry and egg production and I think the House agreed that the best inducement was an increase in price. We introduced that increase in price. During the flush season of production last year the price given was 5d. per dozen higher than in the previous year and, taking the whole year round from 1st February, 1944, until 31st January, 1945, the average price of eggs was increased for the producer by 3½d. per dozen, which was a very substantial increase.
We also offered other inducements. We offered a very high price for cockerels that might be killed during the spring months. We went as high as 2/6 per lb. The intention was to induce producers to bring out early chickens. The early pullets are the layers we require, because they will lay during the scarce season in October, November and December. As we all know, when we bring out chickens early, at least half of them are cockerels, perhaps sometimes more than half, and in order that they might not be too much of a nuisance to the producer we offered that high price of 2/6 per lb. All these things have to be balanced. We found that during the year exports were limited and we are regulating these prices by giving so much to the producer for the eggs and so much for the cockerels. The production towards the end of the year was not sufficient; the production of eggs and the exports were not sufficient to make up for losses and we had to retrench. There was something taken off turkeys, but in spite of that there were 1,000,000 more turkeys exported, or about 18 per cent. more than in 1943. The increase in production would be about the same.
The export of rabbits declined, and it is perhaps a good sign that there are less rabbits in the country. That is a thing we all desire. Whatever we might want in the way of increased production in other things, we would all like to see rabbits decreasing in numbers.
There was talk recently about agricultural education. It is no harm to see how we stand with regard to agricultural institutions. I have already mentioned that the higher education is done in the university colleges; that is, agricultural science and horticultural science in University College, Dublin, and dairy science in University College, Cork. There are a number of scholarships—I mentioned 20— tenable at these colleges. These scholarships are provided by the Department. We have three Departmental schools, at Ballyhaise, County Cavan; Athenry, County Galway, and Clonakilty, County Cork. These schools are intended mainly for the instruction of farmers' sons in the best principles of husbandry. Schools somewhat like these, but not owned by the Department, and run by religious orders, are situated one at Mount Bellew, County Galway, conducted by the Franciscan Brothers; two at Warrenstown, County Meath, and Pallaskenry, County Limerick, conducted by the Salesian Fathers; and one at St. Patrick's, County Monaghan, conducted by the diocesan clergy. The courses provided are something the same as in our own colleges, but these outside colleges receive financial assistance in the way of teachers' salaries and capitation grants for the students who attend. As I mentioned earlier, some alterations have been carried out at Pallaskenry which will enable them to accommodate about 70 students. The ordinary number in any of these colleges was about 40 or 50, but we have not had enough room. We have more applicants than we can provide for at the moment in colleges of this kind. There has been a very big demand in recent years and the problem of catering for it has been under consideration for some time. We have tried to meet it to some extent, by sanctioning these extensions to some of the colleges, although personally I do not like to see the numbers growing too large, as I fear that, if it goes beyond 40 or 50, the students cannot get the same individual attention.
We also intend to open as soon as possible the college which is projected for Johnstown Castle, County Wexford, but owing to the difficulty of getting certain supplies it is not easy to make the alterations necessary. Deputies will realise that a castle is scarcely a suitable building for a college, and that to provide for the residence of students and for class-rooms we must make some alterations. It is not easy to make them, but we hope to start there in September with a small number of students. I am afraid the number will be very small at the beginning, but we will make a start.
On the girls' side, we have the Munster Institute in Cork, which is conducted by the Department. It is a residential school for rural domestic economy, and there is a farm attached. Provision is made for instruction in poultry-keeping, dairying and rural domestic economy, for farmers' daughters who intend to go back to the farm. There are advanced courses, to enable students to take up positions as instructresses in poultry-keeping and butter-making under the Committees of Agriculture. There are also nine domestic economy schools run by religious orders, in which there is a one-year course for girls who want to go back to their own farms or who are ambitious to get into the Munster Institute.
The Committee of Inquiry into Post-emergency Agricultural Policy, which was set up some time ago, has presented three interim reports—one on dairying, one on poultry and one on animal diseases and veterinary services. Regarding those reports in general, I would like to say that the recommendations are very practicable and that there is good commonsense behind them. I would almost be inclined to say to certain Deputies who condemned this committee in the beginning: "I told you so," but I had better wait until I get further reports before I say that definitely. I think I can say that these three reports will be adopted in the main, though there may be some slight deviations here and there. I hope that the main recommendations will be adopted, and, if I can get the necessary agreements of the Minister for Finance in some cases and the Minister for Education in others, the recommendations probably will come into operation eventually.
I am expecting a main report from that committee which will decide some of the bigger issues we are up against, now that the war is over. I am also expecting a report in the very near future on pigs and bacon. We have had at least two commissions already on that very difficult subject, but I think it is only fair to give this committee an opportunity to make its observations before we proceed to do anything definite. I expect that report in the very near future, and then I may be in a position to put certain proposals before the Government, after which the matter may reach the Dáil. I believe the committee also intends to report on marketing, on farm buildings, on education and on the policy of finance and credit.
As soon as the main report I have referred to reaches me—I expect it in a few weeks' time—I hope to be able to advise the Government on some of the big problems in front of us and on some of the big decisions we have to make. For instance, there is the whole problem of feeding stuffs— whether it is advisable that we should, for all time, produce our own feeding stuffs or go back to complete freedom of trade, throwing the gates open and letting them come in from other countries, or whether there should be some compromise between the two extremes. That decision will govern our attitude to compulsory tillage and to such schemes as the wheat scheme and the beet scheme. We may not have long to wait for that main report and I may be able to give some indication to the Dáil before we adjourn as to the Government attitude to some of these questions.
For the immediate future, of course, there can be no change. As has been pointed out already, the food situation in the world has not changed, nor is it likely to change. For some few years, there will be a food shortage, and the least we should do in order to ease the world shortage is to feed ourselves. If possible, we might hope to do a little more, but we must do at least that much. I feel that Deputies will be anxious to know what our policy is in regard to certain things which we will have to deal with in the more distant future to which we must be looking forward. I take it that the main report of the committee will contain advice regarding the future production of agriculture, whether we should try to direct agriculture to a certain form of production or leave the farmer free to produce whatever he thinks best. If there is a recommendation to interfere in any way, we have to consider what that interference will be.
I take it that the best way to influence the farmer to produce a certain thing is to tell him that, if he does so, we will guarantee a market and a fixed price. That leads us to the old question of the guaranteed market and the fixed price, and I would say straight off that I am in favour of that, so I do not want Deputies to waste time in trying to convince me that that policy is right. I am in favour of it, but I must add, "as far as practicable", and I think every Deputy would agree with that addition. For instance, before bringing any commodity into the category of commodities that can be dealt with in this way, you must have a home market. We cannot control either the market or the price unless the commodity has a home market. I suppose we may succeed in making trade agreements with other countries, but they would be unstable even at the best, as we could not expect another country to make an agreement—even though that was done during the war—to last over a very long term, and guarantee a price or a market for all of our exportable surplus, whatever it may be. Therefore, the first condition would have to be the existence of a home market. I do not think we need say it is out of the question if there is only a small surplus for export. For instance, if butter could come under this scheme of guaranteed price and guaranteed market, and if, after three or four years, 5 per cent. of our butter became surplus and had to be exported, that could be dealt with and would be only a small matter, but when it comes to a question of a big proportion being surplus and due for export, it is difficult to work a scheme of this kind.
In addition to having the home market, there must be some uniformity of standard. Butter would fit into that easily, as creamery butter is a uniform commodity. There are very few consumers in this country who could say, if they got butter from five different creameries at random, that one was definitely better than another. The quality is practically uniform, though the experts may be able to say that one is better than another. Uniformity is a necessary quality, and so you could not bring cattle or dogs under the scheme, as you could not value cattle either by age, by weight, or by volume. Two cattle of the same weight may be of quite different values, and as there is not uniformity in that way, they could not come under this scheme.
The commodity, also, must be economic to produce because you might have an article that could be produced on the home market and that would be uniform and yet would be uneconomic to produce here at home. For instance, you could produce oranges here, under glass, which would be quite uniform, but which would be uneconomic to produce and, therefore, could not be brought under our scheme. It is advisable also under this scheme to have marketing through some recognised channel. That, of course, is not absolutely essential, but it would be advisable in a scheme of the kind. The principal thing to be borne in mind is the use of such commodities for human food. If such a commodity were to be used partly for animal consumption, the scheme would not work because, as in the case of potatoes, let us say, the price would come down to the price the farmer was willing to pay. Therefore, in connection with such commodities, we come down to the question of the commodities for which a price could be guaranteed to the farmers. I think that dairy produce comes under all those headings and that we could guarantee the farmer a certain price for all the commodities coming under those headings. I think that that could be done, and perhaps it could be done in the case of bacon also, since that is also uniform. Of course, in the case of bacon there is the possibility that if we get back to bacon production on a proper basis, there would be a very big surplus for export, and therefore that commodity could not come under this scheme. The same applies in connection with wheat, beet and other commodities, but I do not think it is likely that we would ever have a surplus for export in connection with these. As a matter of fact, the range of such products is not very big. Of course, horses, cattle, and so on, could not come under this scheme, and then the next point is the matter of the price to be fixed, and the difficulty arises there, of course, as to how the price should be fixed. Everybody will agree that the price should be such as to give a fair return to the producer and a fair value to the consumer, but it is not always easy to reconcile those two things, and we should all try to see how that can be done: to see whether it could be done properly and, as far as possible, to do justice as between the two parties concerned.
That is so far as regards the home market, but then, when it comes to the question of an export market, it must be remembered that the nation requires to have exports, if only to pay for the necessary imports, and, of course, naturally, the farmer would like to have an outside market to take his surplus produce over and above what he can produce for the home market. Accordingly, I think that we can assume that an export market is desirable, and the question then is how to tackle that problem. It may be necessary to increase exports if we want to import certain articles in order to have a certain standard of living here and, from past experience, it looks as if the greater part of our exports—in fact, any increase in our exports that might be expected—must come from agriculture. If you look, for instance, at the years from 1924 to 1939—taking 1924 as the last year when things were fairly normal, and 1939 as the year when the war commenced—we find that agriculture accounted for 71.2 per cent. of the visible exports and industry for 17.6 per cent. That is the relationship which our exports and imports bore to one another. Of course, certain re-imports have to be taken into consideration in connection with that, and there are also certain commodities which are not classed as either industry or agriculture, such as fish, to give one example. Now these are the figures: agriculture 71.2 per cent. of the visible exports and industry 17.6 per cent. during those years, and during the war years agriculture had even a bigger share. It went up to 74 per cent., while industry was 17.6 per cent.
Another thing that we have to take into consideration is that from 1931 to 1939 agricultural exports fell. In connection with all these matters we want, if possible, to get at the real fact and truth of the situation, because we cannot do any good in the future unless we get at the foundation of all these things. As a matter of fact, the volume of output during that period—I am not speaking of the value, but of the volume of output— was as high as ever it had been, but still the volume of exports went down, and we want to know why. First of all, of course, certain imports were stopped. We had been importing, say, bacon, butter and some other commodities of that kind. We stopped them coming in and, therefore, had to fill the void by production at home. We stopped the import of bacon, butter, and so on, and had to fill the void from our own resources. Besides that, during those years, a bigger proportion of our land was, devoted to the production of wheat and beet, and other commodities that formerly had to be imported. Then, again, there was an increased consumption of such things as beef, mutton, wheat, butter, and even bacon.
During the same years, 1931-39, industrial output increased—remember that agricultural output remained stationary—but the export of industrial goods did not increase. The industrial output was more in the line of commodities which had previously been imported. There was no increase in industrial exports, and, if we keep these two facts in mind, the inevitable conclusion is that if we want increased export when this war is over, from the point of view of the nation as a whole in order to pay for more imports, that increased export will have to come from agricultural production. That, of course, means that our agricultural production will have to be increased, because we cannot increase exports and, as it were, leave our own people short. All the indications, therefore, point to agriculture, because even if there is, as I believe there will be, increased industrial production, it will be more in the nature of the production of goods to supply home needs and not for export.
That brings us to almost the final point, that is, how to compete in the foreign market, because if we want to get a foothold in the foreign market, we must compete there against other countries. We shall have to improve our methods of processing and marketing and, if possible, to reduce our costs if we want to do business on the foreign market. When I speak of reducing costs, I do not want anybody to jump to the conclusion that I would suggest that wages should be reduced. I should like very much if they could be increased, but I think costs could be reduced in other ways and, in fact, there are certain reductions which we may expect. For instance, in the years to come, I think the price of artificial manures will be on the downward grade for a long time and these manures will be purchasable at a much lower price than at present. They should go down to at least half what we are paying at present and, as well, there may be an improvement in quality. We shall have a big reduction, I expect, in artificial manures and to the extent to which we import feeding stuffs, they also will be cheaper. As I mentioned already, I am not in a position to say what the policy in that regard may be because we must at least extent to the committee which is considering that matter the courtesy of waiting for their report.
There are other factors like better equipment. Undoubtedly better equipment is a big factor, and I mean equipment in a very wide sense. For instance, the first report of this post-war advisory committee was on dairying, and they reported principally on a possible improvement of the dairy cow. There is no equipment which requires as much improvement as that for dairy cows. It will be a slow process, I admit, and we will not put the farmer in a position next year or the year after to compete by improving his cow, but at least let us try by every means in our power to improve his equipment so far as we can. We hope that, by adopting the recommendations of that committee, we may in time improve the dairy cow. The same applies to the sow. The Pigs and Bacon Commission have gone out on a scheme of picking up the best young breeding sows they can get and giving them to farmers, on condition that the farmers in turn sell the female progeny for breeding purposes again. It is a very good scheme, and, in that connection again, I say that equipment in the form of the sow is very important.
There is, then, equipment in the form of machinery. That is a very big problem, because in this respect we are up against a sort of contest as between the social and the economic aim. The social aim is to put as many people as we can on the land, and the economic aim is to give the farmer a better living. It is doubtful if we can get the two policies to coincide. There is probably some conflict between them, but we must keep both in mind. However, even leaving that big question of how far we should go in the breaking up of big farms aside for the moment, everybody, I think, will admit that the medium-sized farm is not as well equipped with machinery as it should be. Many a farmer with 50, 60 or 70 acres has to wait for perhaps a few days for the corn drill from his neighbour, or three or four days for the reaper and binder. In the first case, he may lose a very good season for sowing his corn, which may make a terrible difference later on, and, in the second case, the opportunity of harvesting his corn properly, and he may lose a good deal of his crop in that way. We should do everything in our power to enable farmers to get into more machinery, even though their farms are small, when the war is over. So far as I am concerned, I am quite prepared to consider and recommend anything practical in that respect.
There is then the question of better technique which, of course, means bringing scientific and up-to-date methods into operation to a greater extent. I have mentioned before that we have at our disposal in the Department a great deal of knowledge from experiments, literature on what has been done in other countries and so on, but it is not so easy to get that knowledge across to every farmer. I think we have in this country probably a fairer proportion of farmers who are as good as any in the world, but we have not been able to get it across to all farmers. It is, however, something which we must try to do, and how to do it is a problem which we must try to solve.
Then there are farm buildings. As I said already, this post-war committee is going to present a report on farm buildings. I am personally very keen on the subject, because I think that one of the greatest causes of the discontent and drudgery associated with agriculture in this country is the very bad farmyard and very poor buildings we find in many places. If we could by any means help farmers to have nice, clean farmyards, with well laid-out and well-lighted houses, the drudgery of farming would to a great extent be removed, but there again we must await the report of this committee. I can say, however, that personally I should be only too glad to do everything possible to help farmers in that regard.
Then there is the question of credit, which has often been raised. Credit is a very dangerous weapon and one which must be used very cautiously. We all know amongst our own acquaintances cases in which credit was too lavish. It came perhaps from a relative, from a bank or from some other source, but many a farmer was ruined by too much credit, and we must always keep in mind, when talking of credit, that money which a farmer gets, if he gets it as a loan, must be paid back both as to the principal and interest. We must see that money of this kind is useful to the farmer and can be put to such use that he is well able to repay both interest and capital out of the profits he secures from its use.
Last, but by no means least, we should perhaps be in a position every year from now on to improve the fertility of our land. I say that because, I presume, we will now be in a position to get more artificial manure and at a lower price, and good seeds as well. In my opinion anyway, there is no panacea for agriculture. You often hear people say that what is wrong with agriculture is one particular thing. I do not think that one thing is going to better it. There is no panacea for agriculture, as far as I can see. I think there are numbers of palliatives that could be applied to it. All these, when taken together, will come to a big thing. We must apply them all if we are going to improve the position of the farmer so that he will be able, without such a thing as an export subsidy—even if it were necessary to go so far to help the farmer out of State funds or in other ways to put him on his feet—to compete against the world for all time, once he is put in that position. I think we are all agreed here on the fundamentals, and that is on the things I have mentioned: the fertility of the land, the best possible equipment in the way of livestock, machinery, buildings, knowledge, and so on. We are all agreed that all these things are necessary. We are all agreed on a just price for what the farmer may sell. We are all agreed that the farmer should be put in a position to process and market his products in the best possible way. But where we differ, I think, is that we do not agree to the extent to which these conditions have been achieved, or how they may be fully achieved in the time to come. I expect, however, that the debate will disclose what our differences are in that regard.
