The vast increase in butter production has been referred to but I do not think the increase has yet reached the 1939 production level and certainly not the 1936 production level. The House has been told of the great increase in the poultry industry: that is a fact. Furthermore, we have been told of the great increase in the pig industry which also is a fact in so far as numbers are concerned. I understand that the target set by the Minister in 1948 for the poultry industry was that in the year 1950-51 at least 8,000,000 day-old chicks would be supplied to the poultry-keepers throughout the country. We had been getting on towards that figure over the years. I shall refer to the figures in this connection later. The figure for the export of eggs over the period 1st January to 30th April, 1947, was 614,699 hundred; from the 1st January to the 30th, April, 1948—1,144,052 hundred; from the 1st January to 30th April, 1949—1,848,747 hundred. From the 1st January to 30th April, 1950, the figure was down to 1,683,877 hundred. That was a drop from April, 1949, to April, 1950, of 164,870 hundred. Therefore, we appear to be going back rather than to be continuing in the direction in which we had been going.
I have picked up some figures with regard to day-old chicks. In the 194849 hatching season there were 3,830,000 day-old chicks hatched; in the hatching season just completed, 1949-50, that figure went down to 3,590,000, a drop of 240,000, so that, before we reached the half-way mark, 4,000,000 day-old chicks, half the target set in 1948, we began to go back. We should endeavour to find out dispassionately why that is the case. There was a great rush in production in 1948. Even in 1947 an effort was made to turn out from the hatcheries a considerable number of day-old chicks. That was even before the Department intervened. That encouragement was brought about, I understand—I am now speaking from memory—by a bargain made by the ex-Minister for Agriculture with the British Minister of Food.
A sum of £1,350,000 was made available by the British Ministry of Food to subsidise the price of Irish eggs in an effort to encourage Irish people to go in more for the production of eggs in order to supply the British market. I understand our own Government put up a similar sum, but the money put up by our Government was to be used for development work, such as the provision of new houses and other buildings for poultry on the farm, for the subsidisation of the price of day-old chicks and for other purposes, all in the effort to encourage our people to go into greater production. Out of that sum of £1,350,000, provided by the British Government, a subsidy of 6d. per dozen was paid and that put the price of eggs in the 1948 season up to 3/- a dozen. That was encouragement to the farmer's wife to develop the poultry industry, and she did.
There was every evidence of a great increase in production, but still it did not appear to be sufficient. We were assured at the time that the more eggs we produced, the more we would get for them, by arrangement with the British Ministry of Food. The sum of £1,350,000 was likely to be used up before the period it was intended to cover expired, because the farmers' wives, being anxious to avail of anything that would yield a reasonable profit, increased production considerably in order to gain as much as possible of that money while the going was good.
I foresaw some danger at the time, and I put down a question to the present Minister for Agriculture asking him for how long the 3/- a dozen was guaranteed, and his reply was "until further notice". I pressed him for a definite period, but I failed to get it. Later on I mentioned that it might become dangerous, when production would increase to a point where there would be a rather big exportable surplus, and the price might not be maintained. Within a year that took place. The sum provided by the British to subsidise eggs was likely to run short of the period it was intended from to cover, and the price was reduced from 3/- to 2/6. Now it appears that the period of the original bargain is running out and a new price has to be arranged, and that is 2/- a dozen for seven months and 3/6 for the remaining five months.
Before I go any farther, I want to point to the fact that, when the price was reduced from 3/- to 2/6, the demand for the day-old chicks slackened off, the number of hens decreased, and the export of eggs went down considerably. What will be the prospect when the price goes down to 2/-? In comparison with the present guaranteed price of 2/6 over the year, the price of 2/- for seven months and 3/6 for five months will hardly average more than 2/2 over the year. That is a considerable drop from the price the farming community has been getting in the present year.
Where is the encouragement to the farming community to develop production in any way? Has it not been their experience all their lives that the more they produce, the less they get for it? We were assured in 1948 that the more eggs we produced, the more we would get for them, but it had exactly the opposite effect. Therefore, if we go on producing in increasing quantities, producing to a point where there will be a rather big exportable surplus, where obviously we will have no bargaining power and where our prices will be influenced by the prices at which Britain can buy produce from other countries, what encouragement will there be for the farmers to increase production or even maintain the present low level of production?
It is the same way with pigs. I heard Deputy Rooney say that in 1947 the price of bacon pigs was 135/- a cwt. I wonder is that a mistake? I think there was no difficulty in the midwinter and the early spring of 1947 in getting 220/- a cwt. The fact is that pigs increased until we had an exportable surplus, and then prices went down to £9 10/- a cwt.—for heavier pigs the price was as low as £7 10/-. The inevitable consequence of increased production of agricultural produce is lower prices.
So far as the agricultural producer is concerned, what is there to justify lower prices for his produce? Has the cost of labour gone down? Has the cost of raw materials gone down? Has the standard of his requirements in any way gone down? Agricultural machinery has increased in price in the past couple of months by 10 per cent. In spite of what Deputy Allen said, the cost of fertilisers came down last year. The main types of fertilisers, including nitrogenous manures and phosphates, have come down by 10 per cent. Apart from that, can anyone point to any decrease in the cost of production? Therefore, what is to justify lower prices for farms produce?
Is it not obviously exploitation to encourage people to increase production and then, when they have the stuff ready to market, they have to face the position when they must accept lower prices? Is it any wonder the members of the farmer's family leave the farm? In many cases, the heir apparent to the farm will go off to find other employment, will go into one of the sheltered industries, the industries where the incomes of those working there, the dividends secured by the investors, are guaranteed and protected by embargoes and tariffs against imports, so that the produce of those industries can be sold at an artificial level.
If that is so in relation to other sections of the community, why should it not apply to the agricultural section? The fact is that the farmers' agricultural and household requirements have increased to a great extent and the ironic part of it is that he gets little or no benefit from the national policy of protection; he gets a good deal of the disadvantages.
I assert that the prices of agricultural and household requirements are at an artificially high level. If the farmer has to sell his produce in competition on a foreign market and to sell his produce on the home market at the same price—Deputy Rooney mentioned to-day that at the moment lambs are unsaleable—then it follows inevitably that these prices must come down if there is not some method by which prices can be maintained.
Until there is some standard of justice introduced whereby the same yardstick will be used as a measure of protection for both the agricultural producer and the industrial producer, what prospect is there for even the present small population that is engaged in farming? Is it not obvious that in such a situation industry must have a great advantage over agriculture? Since the end of the war the numbers engaged in industry have increased by 43 per cent., while the numbers engaged in agriculture have been dwindling year by year.
I come now to discuss the land rehabilitation and water scheme. To my mind, this is a wise scheme that will benefit the nation as a whole. The money invested in it is in safe keeping. I say that because any improvements that we make on the land will remain, at least, for a considerable period. This is interesting, in view of the fact that the £3,100,000 to be invested in this scheme is money which, I understand, is being borrowed from the American Counterpart Fund. I think the Government were wise in putting such an amount of that money into the agricultural industry. If they were to put a big sum like that into the erection of buildings, no matter how laudable the purposes for which the buildings were erected, well in these dangerous days in which we are living, with the atomic bomb or even bombs of lesser power, one of them could wreck and do inestimable damage to these buildings, whereas if a bomb of any description is dropped on the land it will only cause a crater which will not extend over a very wide area. That crater can be filled in and use can be made of that land again. Not so, however, if buildings were hit because they would be wiped out altogether.
At the same time, I want to say that the scheme falls very far short even of justice. It is, to a large extent, a premium on laziness. My use of that word may cause resentment to some, but the point is that over the past half century since landlordism disappeared, there has been a steady effort by the farmer, with the aid of his unpaid family labour, to improve his land, to drain it, to ditch it and to fence it. The injustice to the farmer who did that —and this is the point which I want to make—is that his farm is now held not to need any of the expenditure of this £40,000,000 of borrowed money that is to be spent in the next ten years, whereas his less industrious neighbour who did nothing to improve his farm can now avail of a grant up to £20 an acre for the reclamation, improvement and fertilisation of his land. To my mind, at least, that is not justice. It is no encouragement to the thrifty or industrious farmer. Further, it is unjust, because of the fact that the land which that farmer and his family of unpaid labour drained and cultivated during the early years of this century —up to the period of the war when that land produced food to maintain our people during the years of emergency and when very little could be got from outside—was depleted seriously in its fertility by the production of the crops which we needed at that time. During that emergency period we had less than half a sufficiency of farm-yard manure and for a considerable period no fertilisers at all.
In view of that I hold that this State is under an obligation to take considerable steps to restore the fertility of that land. That could have been done through this land reclamation scheme. Rather than spend all the £40,000,000 on land that needs reclamation, I suggest to the Minister that a considerable portion of that money should be used in refertilising land which had been put in a proper condition by the industry of the farmer and his unpaid family labour in the years gone by. I suggest that, even now, the Minister should give serious consideration to that suggestion which I make— that he should make available a considerable amount of that £40,000,000 in the provision of fertilisers and lime for land that does not require drainage. I do not say that it is necessary to put out fertilisers on, say, the lands of Meath or in the Golden Vale of Limerick. But, there is a considerable amount of mediocre land that has always been, particularly since the emergency period, very much in need of both fertilisers and lime.
I suggest, as a measure of justice to begin with and in an effort towards a measure of self sufficiency, that a very considerable amount of this £40,000,000 should be utilised for the provision of fertilisers and lime for such land. There is no reason why a proportion of that money should not be a free grant or, at least, a big proportion of it. I suggest further, in view of the necessity for becoming as nearly as possible self-sufficient in regard to the production of foodstuffs, that it would be a sound policy to encourage that, so that the land may be made more fertile and that there would be an encouragement for the farmer to produce crops on his land. By reason of the low return which the farmer gets for the stuff which he turns of his farm, apart altogether from the crops which he grows for sale as cash crops, I think it would be wise to encourage him either by the provision of fertilisers or by price subsidisation for the finished article, especially in view of the serious situation that is confronting the world at the moment. I think it would be a very wise policy to do that.
There is next the question of farm buildings. I think it is a good sound investment to borrow money for this purpose. I understand that £350,000 from the American Counterpart Fund is to be devoted to this purpose in the present year. Anything that will improve farm buildings will certainly lead to a healthier and a more reproductive stock.
There again I think it is a good investment to spend money on farm buildings. En passant, I would like to mention the fact that the supervisors of this new scheme were the supervisors who administered the farm improvements scheme in the years gone by. Some of them have now gone over to the land reclamation project. The remainder were given bigger areas over which to operate. In some cases one man is now expected to do twice the area he previously covered and many of them have had to provide themselves with cars in order to carry out their duties. In all probability they have a mileage allowance for those cars but that allowance will not be sufficient to meet the cost of the running of the car over the year. Some of these men have as much as 11 years' service. They are unestablished. They have no rights. They can be dismissed on a week's notice. Many of them have families to support. Yet, they are paid a lower salary than a builder's labourer in the City of Dublin. It is remarkable that in practically every sphere of agriculture incomes generally are on a much lower level than they are in any other sphere of activity. These men have accumulated a considerable amount of technical knowledge through the operation of these schemes, some of which included the erection of farm buildings. It simply does not seem right that men of their intelligence, ability and experience should be paid a lower rate of wages than an unskilled builder's labourer in the City of Dublin.
During last February and March I dealt in extenso with milk prices and pig prices when speaking on the motions I had tabled at that time. I do not propose now to weary the House in recapitulating all the arguments I then advanced. May I remind the House, however, that when speaking in connection with pig production at that time I said that at the prices bacon pigs were making then, which was about £9 4s. od. or£9 5s. 0d. a cwt., I held the view that it was not possible to produce on the farm feeding stuffs to feed a pig to sell at that price. I said at the same time that I was well aware that one could use a ration composed largely of imported feeding stuffs and on that ration produce pigs to sell at £9 10s. per cwt. I held that view then. I hold that view to-day. Is it any wonder that the production of food on the farm for pig and poultry feeding has dwindled? The farmer who was employing labour and who had either credit or capital available could increase his pig population considerably, buy these imported feeding stuffs and neglect cultivating his farm. In that way he could do with less hired labour. That is exactly what the farmer did and no one can blame him. In the circumstances what else could he do?
Seemingly, it was necessary to impose a high tariff and quota restrictions against foreign boots, shoes and clothing in order to maintain the native industries. Why on earth should it not be necessary to give some protection to the agricultural producer? Why should it be made well-nigh impossible for the farmer to produce food on his farm because of the low prices he will get for that food when he feeds it to his pigs and walks it off his land? The same yardstick should be used to measure protection in the agricultural industry as is used to measure protection in other industries.
I pointed out in February and March the increase in the cost of milk production. I drew attention to the increased production that had taken place as a result of more favourable weather conditions. The cows were yielding more. The price was inadequate. I gave figures to show that in the creamery area close to where I live the total income from the milk of the average cow, even allowing that 25 per cent. of her milk was retained for use at home, was only £20 per annum. To that must be added on the value of the calf and of the skimmed milk returned. That would probably bring the income from the cow up about £27 per annum. Owing to more favourable weather conditions the milk supply has been steadily increasing. But the turning-point may come in that even as it has come in poultry production. It may come in pig production, too. The farmer cannot change his economy overnight. He cannot even change it successfully in a year. Because a good crop in one year leaves him carrying on successfully in the following year, the farmer does not see results immediately. The prospects at the, moment are not bright. We are facing a reduced price for eggs, a reduced price for milk supplied to the creameries, and our bacon cannot be exported without a subsidy of 8/- per cwt. Is there any prospect, then, of employing more people on the land? It is possible that because of the increased imports of fertilisers a fillip may be given to home production. When we reach a stage where imported feeding stuffs are not so cheap the farmer may then be compelled to use the feeding stuffs he grows on his own land. He may get a higher price for his animals and his agricultural produce and that will be some encouragement to him to increase his production of cereals and root crops. So far as one can see at the moment there is no stability. The more industrious the farmer is and the more he produces the less of a future there is for him. He has no protection. The smaller farmers in the community, are in a state of unrest. They are labouring under a heavy sense of frustration. They do not know what to turn to next.
The industrial population is protected to such a degree that—apart altogether from the numbers available for employment, that is the numbers on the unemployment register—the wages of the workers are kept up and, through protection, the price of the finished article is such as to maintain the dividends paid to investors at a high level.
The Minister should make an effort to fix prices for the main items of agricultural produce for a period of years, to give the farmers some stability and encouragement. I know it would not be possible to fix the price of store cattle, as we produce so much that our own people do not require and which must be exported. No one will say that those prices are not very satisfactory at the moment, due not to our own efforts but largely to the fact that Britain cannot get from the Argentine the supplies she would like to purchase—she is able to buy at the moment there only a quarter of what she wants—with the result that she is driven to rely on the Irish supply, the price of which is very high. That is a great help to the farming community in Ireland and it is being availed of. It has led to the point where calves which used to be slaughtered as uneconomic are being reared, thus increasing the cattle population and giving a good return to anyone who has not to employ much labour. That does not operate with the small farmer, who cannot go in for extensive stock raising. He is confined, at least in my area, largely to the pig, the cow and the hen and if the income from these is small he is in a very low position.
I have come across some suggestions in the White Paper of an attempt to improve the dairy herds and I am glad to see that. The Minister suggests providing artificial insemination centres in the areas where there is a considerable number of dairy cows, as in the creamery districts, and to provide proven dairy bulls so as to give good milk and dairy stock. Good luck to his efforts. I am glad that it is being done. I made a request two years ago to him to provide these proven dairy bulls for the creamery area of Killeshandra in my own county and after two years' waiting I am glad to see that notification has come to that creamery committee that they will be provided with an insemination centre and with proven dairy bulls and the services of a veterinary surgeon to conduct it. We may hope that an improvement will take place, but not much earlier than in ten years. How is the farming community to exist for those ten years?
I have given the average milk yields for that creamery in 1949, which provided an income of only £20 per cow for the milk supplied to the creamery and used on the farm. That state of affairs, as I pointed out on the Milk Prices Motion on the 3rd March, has been brought about through the Live Stock Breeding Act of 1925. There has been a steady decline in milk yields year by year since that Act was brought into force, by reason of the fact that the official policy of the Department seems to have been during all the years from 1925 to 1948 to encourage the beef bull. If it has taken 25 years to bring down the yields of the cows to such an extent, what hope may we have for an increase in two, five or ten years? Would it not be a long time before we get back to the point we left at that time?
I hope these proven dairy bulls will be really proven dairy bulls and not the type we were accustomed to under the schemes of the Department in the past. My own experience during the late 20's was that from a 630 gallon cow, and a dual-purpose bull sent out by the Department of Agriculture, I got a 212 gallon heifer. That was no encouragement and I hope it will not take place again. I hope these bulls will be really reliable and will produce the milking stock that we so much desire and which it is difficult to get at the moment. It was right to provide this scheme to cow-keepers through cow-testing associations. Cow testing is the only means by which we can ascertain whether a cow is worth her keep or worth breeding from; and it would be only a waste of time if these bulls are not of the best type, as the progeny would show no improvement. The Minister's proposal to have cow-testing associations in connection with the scheme is a good one. Although the scheme is good on paper, when it comes down to practical application it will provide many serious problems for the Department.
The suggestions for milk recording were sent out from the Department to the creamery committees with a covering letter of the 24th February, 1950, as follows:—
"Sir,
I am directed by the Minister for Agriculture to state that, with a view to improving the general level of the milk yield of dairy cows and the elimination of those which are uneconomic, he has under consideration the introduction of a milk recording scheme on new lines which would replace the existing cow testing scheme. The broad outlines of the proposed new scheme are indicated in the enclosed memorandum.
The Minister will be glad if, when this matter has been considered by your society, you will indicate whether the society is prepared to cooperate with him in putting the new scheme into operation as early as may be found practicable. If your society has any suggestions to offer in connection with the proposals, the Minister will be glad to consider them.
I am, sir,
Your obedient servant,
M.H.HEELAN,
Assistant Secretary."
The summary of the proposed conditions is as follows:—
1. All milk suppliers to creameries to become members of local milk recording associations.
2. Weighing and recording of the milk to be carried out by a supervisor employed on a part-time basis. Milk yields to be estimated as a result of weighings made not less frequently than once every four weeks.
3. Supervisors to visit two herds per day, to take samples of the milk and to send these samples to the local creamery for calculation of butter-fat content.
4. Certificates of the milk yield of each cow in a supplier's herd to be furnished monthly to the local creamery by the supervisor.
5. Suppliers whose herds give a yield exceeding 400 gallons per cow to receive the standard guaranteed price for their milk, those whose herds include cows giving a yield of less than 400 gallons to receive 2d. per gallon less than the standard price, if, without any attempt on a supplier's part to improve his herd, such cows are retained in the next lactation period. The lower price to be paid also to suppliers who do not participate in the scheme.
6. Remuneration of supervisors to be at the rate of £3 10s. a week, rising by annual increments of 5/- to a maximum of £5 per week.
7. Suppliers participating in the scheme to make a contribution towards the cost at the rate of7/6 per cow per year. Payment to be made by deduction from suppliers' monthly cheques. A contribution of an equivalent amount to be made from State funds.
As I said, the desirability of milk recording in connection with an attempt to prove the milking properties of cows, is very desirable but to my mind the implementation of that scheme will be much more difficult than the Minister thinks. Take the question of supervisors alone. Number 3 says: "Supervisors to visit two herds per day, to take samples of the milk and to send these samples to the local creamery for calculation of butter fat content." I have been making some rough and ready calculations as to what that would cost in a creamery area and I confine myself to the creamery in regard to which I have an opportunity of knowing the facts. The supervisor is to get £3 10s. a week and he can visit only two herds per day. I do not believe that he will be able to do more than five days a week, that is starting off on Monday evening, because the difficulty is that if he wants to test two herds a day, he will require to make arrangements the previous day as to what herds are to be delayed in the milking period so as to give him an opportunity of being present at the milking of each herd. He can only make these arrangements on Monday morning, get to work on Monday evening and finish on Saturday morning. He has, therefore, only five days in the week. That means that he can only do ten herds in the week and in the particular instance that I am aware of —the Killeshandra creamery area—the average number of cows to each supplier, although they have something more than 15,000 cows altogether, is about four cows per herd. There are some big herds but not many, and there is a very considerable number of small herds. A big number of suppliers would have only three cows per herd and that would reduce the average down to four cows per herd. Even making some allowance for the bigger herds, you would require a very large number of supervisors. Say that we take the total number of cows as 14,000 —that will leave a floating number of 1,000—you would require 88 supervisors at £3 10s. per week or £182 per annum for each supervisor. That means that with 88 supervisors, the annual charge on the creamery would be £16,016.
