Last night I was impressing on the Minister the very great importance of drainage to the farming community, and, particularly, to the constituency I represent, where farms are so small and drainage is so essential. I can assure the Minister that the scheme he has in mind will meet with a good reception in the western counties and will be appreciated by the people as a whole. I was also pointing out that, with the special employment schemes and the new scheme of drainage about to be initiated by county councils, there will be an immense amount of overlapping of these three schemes unless the Departments concerned co-operate with one another. If that is done, these schemes will be much more successful. I have no doubt that the Minister has this in mind, and I am convinced that he will move along the right lines when this scheme of his comes to be put into operation.
Another matter I should like to impress upon the Minister is the enormous losses sustained by our farmers each year through young calves contracting disease and dying when they are from nine months to one year old. A veritable plague seems to have stricken the calf population of the country for a long time past. At the present price of calves, that means an immense loss to the farmers and to the country. For that reason, I suggest to the Minister that, if at all possible, he should institute a free veterinary service so that when calves contract disease or fail to thrive the farmers would have a veterinary surgeon to call on immediately for the treatment of the calves so as to put a stop to these immense losses. That would be of great benefit both to the agricultural community and to the country as a whole, because if one in ten or one in 20 of the calves die from some disease that means an immense loss in live stock every year over the Twenty-Six Counties. In the west, we blame the wet condition of the land for the prevalence of disease amongst young calves and the farming community have to take very great care in order to save their young stock. Despite their best efforts however, the losses are still pretty heavy, much more heavy than these people can afford. The loss of one or two calves out of 20 may not mean very much to a large farmer, but the loss of one out of three or four calves, which is all a small farmer can rear, is a very serious matter for him. I do not know what the intentions of the Minister are in regard to this matter, but if he could make a free veterinary service available for the treatment of younger stock he would be striking at the roots of disease and preventing great losses to our live-stock producers.
The people, of course, have to be taught to co-operate in regard to this matter. Unfortunately, the average farmer seems to be suspicious of any type of inspector or veterinary surgeon and prefers to rely on old methods he has learned and to treat his animals himself, methods which in many cases are not very successful. If there were a free veterinary service and the farmer called in a veterinary surgeon to treat his animals, it would pay a 100 per cent. dividend. If the Minister decides to establish this service, it would be one of the best that could possibly be introduced.
The next matter I want to refer to is the different ideas that people have with regard to the type of cattle most essential for the country. Unless we have a milk strain of cattle, of course we will not have butter for ourselves or for export. I intend, however, to deal only with the type of cattle suitable for my constituency and to allow those who are authorities on the different types of dairy herds and the 500-, 600- and 700-gallon cows to speak for themselves. In my part of the country beef cattle are much more important than dairy cattle. We rear and send on to the market what we call forward stores and in producing these we rely on the Aberdeen Angus and the Hereford or Hereford Crossbreeds.
We have not received the amount of encouragement that we should like from the Department of Agriculture. The Department has at all times given more premiums to the committees of agriculture for the dairy shorthorn or the beef shorthorn than they have for either the Hereford or the Aberdeen Angus. That may be all right in milk producing areas but, in the areas which concentrate mostly on the production of store cattle for which there is a ready market, I think the Minister would be wise if he gave to the committees of agriculture more premiums for those two breeds of cattle which are so essential for beef purposes, i.e. Aberdeen Angus and Hereford. The Minister told the committee of agriculture in County Mayo that this is a free country and that he had no objection to anybody purchasing any of those bulls who wished to do so. Acting on this advice several farmers who could not get premiums from the committee of agriculture went to the bull show last spring in Ballsbridge and failed entirely to purchase a bull of any description there. The prices were so high that the average small farmer could not afford to put £100 or £120 to the purchase of any of those cattle. I am only making a suggestion as a person who has a thorough knowledge of the cattle-rearing system which has been in existence for 300 years in my locality and which will continue because the efforts to establish creameries in our county about 14 or 15 years ago met with entire failure and financial loss both to the Government and to the farmers as a whole.
I suggest that the Minister should consider increasing the premiums in number and amount of money in the areas which prefer to produce beef cattle so that small farmers, in particular, would be able to purchase the necessary type of bull. I am one of those who, like the Minister, can never have any sympathy for the mongrel breed of cattle. If we do not get the pure stock we are not going to produce the pure article. In giving this concession he would be giving to the County Mayo something we have been crying out for and will accept with a great deal of thanks.
The next thing the Minister is very interested in is mechanised farming. We hear complaints and talk for and against mechanised farming. As an individual who has lived all my life on a very small holding of land—so small indeed that it cannot be called a farm at all—I still believe that mechanised farming can be advanced a great deal by the introduction of the smaller type of tractor and the other instruments which are labour-saving and would take the drudgery and the heavy work out of the farmer's life, such as the ordinary reaper and binder and the haymaking machinery which are now on the market. Those can be used on the smallest farm. It is no use saying that a farmer would need a five, six or ten acre field to use a reaper and binder. I saw them brought in last year to the smallest field of an acre or even half an acre. I have seen it cut down work to a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes when the same work would be a day's hard labour for the poor farmer with all the help he would have. The tractor is most valuable because the speed at which work can be done by the smaller type is in itself progress, and a source of greater agricultural production.
However, with all these devices which will tend to take the hard work and the drudgery out of the farmer's life we again find a big fault. The people who would have to purchase them cannot afford to do so. Very few people who live on a holding of a valuation of less than £20 can afford to buy a tractor. The prices are so high at the present moment that it is impossible for those people to put their money, their life earnings, into the buying of such an article. They would like to do so and, indeed, they are anxious to do so. The age of mechanisation will push out the old methods, whether the people of this country like it or not. Even those who are most hostile and who have tried in every way to discourage mechanised farming must now admit that they are definitely behind the times if they try to stand in the path of progress and pretend that horses can carry out as much work as any of those machines. At all times and on all lands the horse will have its place. There is work on the farm which can be done by tractors and mechanised force, but there is also work which can and must be done by the ordinary humble horse. Each of those, having its own place on the farm, can help in its own way to bring production up to what the Minister and people want. I would, however, point out to the Minister that it would be useful if some scheme could be devised whereby long-term loans or credit facilities of some kind could be given to farmers who are anxious to purchase machinery. It would repay itself by the greater production that would be achieved. Otherwise, people must go on wishing that they had this or that but cannot afford to buy it. Eventually they will turn round and say: "Why does the Department of Agriculture not help us? We have millions to spend on many things. Why can we not have millions to help us out by loans for the purchase of machinery"?
I would never advocate giving free grants of any description to farmers for the purchase of machinery. A loan, however, will repay itself. What better can any Government do than give loans at a low rate of interest to the agricultural community in order to help these people to produce more for export and contribute to the nation's wealth? This matter has been treated rather too lightly and the financial facilities offered by the Agricultural Credit Corporation are not sufficient. I had hoped that the Minister, in his sincere efforts to bring mechanised farming to the smallest farmer, would have introduced some loan scheme giving better terms and concessions to the people, particularly the small type of farmer of, say, a £20 valuation, in order to purchase these machines. I had expected that that would have come in this year. I know the Minister is asked to do almost the impossible. I know that his interest in those people is, perhaps, more than my own because he must have practically the same ideas living, as he did, most of his life on the borders of the constituency which I represent. In his own business 19 out of 20 people who come into his place at Ballaghaderreen are of the smaller valuation type of farmer. His knowledge of these people must give him an understanding of exactly what they want. I hope he will take into consideration what I have spoken about and give those people the financial help they need in this matter.
One of the faults we have to find with the Minister is the fact that the subsidies are to be taken off fertilisers. It is no use saying the price of fertilisers is something which the ordinary farmer can touch. The price of fertilisers at the present time is entirely too high. Where is the man who can purchase a ton or two tons of fertilisers or artificial manure of any description at the price it is now?
We admit that the people are purchasing more of them than ever before. They have adopted the suggestion to buy superphosphates and to mix them with ammonia on their own premises. We have been carrying out that system in Mayo for years. In fact, in my own locality I have never seen any other mixture used. It has given us the finest results. Despite all that, I would say that the price of these manures is too high. I am not a great believer in subsidising the farmer in everything. The general opinion is that the price of fertilisers has jumped a little too much this year to leave the farmers satisfied. I will accept, as I have accepted time and again, the Minister's explanation of the cause of that. While I agree that the people who mix their own artificial manures can have them at a cheaper rate, have them of as good a quality as the imported fertilisers and get as good results, I still maintain that artificial manures should be available at a cheaper rate for farmers, both big and small. If that were done, you would be giving something to the farmers which was going to go back into the land, something that would help to increase productivity. Any money spent that way can never be said to be wasted.
I have always maintained that money spent, for example, on the roads or on other non-productive works can never be of any real help to the country. Why then should not fertilisers be made available at the lowest possible price to those who are willing and anxious to use them? The cheaper they are the more of them that will be used, especially on land that is barren and infertile and that has not had a dressing of fertiliser for possibly 40 or 50 years. If the fertilisers were made available at a cheaper rate, poor land of that kind would get a substantial dressing of it. Any farmer who has an interest in his land would do that. It can be said, I think, of most farmers that they have a sort of pride in being able to produce the maximum amount from any crop they put into their land.
The Minister has had to bear a lot of abuse because, it is said, he is entirely a grass farmer. He has been assailed on that from all sides. He has had to listen to a barrage of talk to the effect that his one ambition is to produce beef for the British market. That is entirely untrue. Time and again the Minister has declared that his policy is one of mixed farming and that the safest market any man can have for what he produces on his land is the one which will take what he can walk off his farm. A scheme such as that is being put into operation by the present Minister. Therefore, it cannot be said of him that he is entirely in favour of grass farming and of the raising of beef for the British market only. We know that you must have feeding for cattle. In order to have it during the winter you must have tillage. The last war taught the people of this country better than any Department of Agriculture or any Minister could teach them that, it is not only essential, but in many cases better for farmers to produce on their own land the feeding they require for their live stock than to depend on imported feeding stuffs. We realise, of course, that we must import maize meal for the production of pigs, but for the feeding of live stock during the winter, and for the feeding of cattle which are sold in the Spring as forward stores, the produce from the farmer's own land is equally as good, and in many cases better than the imported feeding stuffs, and, what is more important, can be made available at a much cheaper price.
The Minister has said, and it is true, that the market which the farmer creates for the consumption of what he produces on his own land will, in the long run, be of more benefit to him than any other method of farming. Cattle pay better during the months from November to March and April than at any other period of the year. Everyone realises the truth of that, especially those of us who are engaged in the production of forward store cattle. We find that, when we feed the cattle during these months from the produce of our own land, they leave us more money than at any other time of the year. It is important also to remember that under that system the farmer makes available a great amount of farm-yard manure which goes back again to the land and which is far superior to any artificial manure that can be produced. There is nothing that will help more to restore the fertility of the soil of the country than the use of plenty of farm-yard manure.
I can assure the Minister that, in my constituency, we look with very great satisfaction on the efforts that he has made since he became Minister for Agriculture. We realise, of course, that things have been getting a little bit easier in the world, but we also realise that unless encouragement was given, as it has been given, by the Department of Agriculture and by the present Minister, that the little extra production which is being secured at the present time could not possibly be obtained. Therefore, I think the Minister should be given the chance and the opportunity to carry on in the way that he has been doing. He has shown that he is giving close personal attention to the work that he has undertaken. I want to assure him that, even though we have chalked up a few black marks against him as regards the fall in the price of eggs and the taking away of the subsidy on fertilisers, nevertheless, the good things that have happened since he became Minister and the efforts that he is making in his Department, outweigh by far some little failures which may be beyond his control.
Despite the drop in the price of eggs, poultry and egg production are on the increase. Of course, we can never convince the people that 2/6 is as good a price as 3/- a dozen for eggs, but we can convince them that the long-term policy of holding the price at 2/6 for a greater number of years is a sound and a good one. It is far better for the people to have a guarantee of 2/6 a dozen for their eggs for two years longer than to get 3/- a dozen for them for three or six months at most. We know that the poultry producers will accept the Minister's statement that the 3/- a dozen. or the 5/- a score, would have ceased towards the end of this year, when eggs would have dropped in price by 1/6 or 2/- a dozen. The Minister, by extending the period for two years, has ensured that the poultry keepers will have a guaranteed price of 2/6 for the next two years. That, in the long run, will prove more beneficial to them than 3/- a dozen for a few months. When that has been explained to the people they can have no quarrel and no grievance with the Minister. They would, of course, like to get more for their eggs if they possibly could. If the Minister succeeds in keeping this guaranteed price for the producers for the next two years, I can assure him that he will have the whole-hearted support of the Party that I represent and of the farming community as a whole.
The efforts of the Minister to lift the farmers and the agricultural workers to a place in the sun in this nation is something that no previous Government that we have had since this State was established 27 years ago attempted to do. We owe a debt of gratitude to the present Minister for Agriculture for attempting that. If we can produce for him the commodities which he requires for the export markets which are ready to take them, we will be doing our duty, and he will be doing his if he continues with the good work that he has been doing since he became Minister.