It is interesting to realise that we seem to have found at least some basis for realism in our agricultural policy as between successor and predecessor. Certain facets of that policy having been withdrawn from the political arena. I think it is now the duty of the House to analyse the major problems underlying our agricultural development. I will not comment in any great detail on the activity or, maybe, the conspicuous lack of activity of the present occupant of the Ministry of agriculture. Rather will I address my mind to what I conceive to be the major issues and problems which must be resolved before we can increase agricultural production.
I do not mind who is to get the credit for what may be achieved: I want to see the achievement. I am glad that the Minister had sufficient tact, if nothing else, to pay tribute, not in a specific way but in the general tenor of his speech, to the work of his predecessor. Despite the fact that the alleged Independent Deputy from Wicklow has an obsession about Deputy Dillon, we must realise that his energy and effort in the Department of Agriculture did in fact sow seeds which have grown startlingly, as we must admit when we recall that in the first six months of this year the highest all-time figure for exports in this country was reached, about £46,000,000. It is now quite clear that before the end of this year exports will be over £100,000,000, and the maximum part will be agricultural produce. It shows that there is a really solid foundation on which to work. We must take the fundamental problems and try to right them.
There is no doubt at all that the problem which besets us might easily be divided into six parts. First of all we must rehabilitate and put back into heart abused land. We must remember the very simple maxim or law of nature that you cannot take out of the land any more than you put into it. I do not care who will ultimately get the credit for educating Irish farmers into the progressive and intelligent use of fertilisers, but I want to see that done, because, approaching this problem objectively, we realise that it is possible to step up in a short time the production of every acre of land in this country. I will have more to say on that from the tillage aspect later.
The second part of the problem is to improve the quality and type of grassland. There has been a lot of discussion here to-day, much of it disjointed, but the kernel of the problem where milk is concerned must be related to the problem of the feed of the cattle and in the ultimate analysis the yield of milk. Whether it is a good or a bad cow, if it is to be kept alive and do its best it must be properly fed. Therefore, it becomes essential, in dealing with the ordinary economics of the dairy herd, to improve the quality of grassland to such an extent that about four blades of grass will grow for every one now growing. The period at which grass will be available as feed should be extended at least a further month at both ends, thus reducing very substantially the problem of winter feeding. That is what I describe as the second facet of the problem.
After that, we must come inevitably to the problem of our general plan of agricultural husbandry. It was epitomised in his realistic way by the late Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Paddy Hogan — go ndéanfaidh Dia trochaire ar a anam — when he preached the simple three-pronged doctrine of: one more cow, one more sow, one more acre under the plough. Taking that as the central piece of the agricultural structure, the keystone of our agricultural policy, we must radiate from that to fill all the essentials that will go to the ultimate achievement. I am glad to see that the present Minister had the courage to repeat in his address to the House the theory and philosophy of his predecessor when he subscribed to the belief that it is essential for the Irish farmer to plan his tillage on the basis of producing the maximum possible amount of feeding stuffs for the maximum stock he rears on his farm and walk it off the land on the hoof. We are coming back to sanity when we face reality. I am glad that catchcries and catch-crops are leaving our economic purview as far as agriculture is concerned. The time has come to face it in a realistic way and to plan how best agriculture is going to expand and, having made the plan, to implement it.
There is another very serious facet of the problem to which, representing, as I do, a large creamery area, a milk and butter producing area, I will have to advert at length, that is, the general problem of milk and milk prices. I will be straightforward and honest. I think the Minister has made a complete and absolute cod of the milk situation. Whether he was forced into it in circumstances of political expediency or driven into it by the irresponsibles or by the lack of intelligence of some of his independent support, I do not know, but I feel that he has retarded the investigation and solution of that problem very seriously. Having said that, I hope, in the course of my remarks, to demonstrate in an impartial way where he went wrong and to give, as I am entitled to give, the approach that I feel would have been the more practical, the more honest and the more likely to succeed.
We talk of the wealth we export in the way of carcase beef or stores. In all the period that we have been developing that type of trade, we have allowed the continuation of ill-health in the body politic, in so far as we have not put right the fundamental system. We have not tried to analyse and secure in position the keystone and to set on a firm basis the corner-stone of all our cattle trade, namely, the dairying industry.
I do not think that the expediency of a penny a gallon increase in milk here or a penny a gallon increase there is the way to face that problem, nor do I think the present commission being set up by the Minister is the way to deal with the problem. Commissions or committees of this House or set up by Ministers have had an indeterminable way of acting, and often before they have reported on the problem they were set up to investigate, not only has the problem gone, but it probably has died in the interim for lack of attention. It is not in a year or two that we want to know what the costings of milk are. The problem is one of the immediate present.
The extraordinary circumstances have arisen that heifer beef is more valuable for slaughter and sale than for production to build up in a milch herd. It is the immediate urgency of the problem that tempts me to deal with it at length. The fantastic situation has arisen that if we have a denuding of the country of young heifer beef for slaughter purposes we are going to have not only an acute problem with regard to ultimate replacement of stock sold but we are going to have an acute problem in maintaining the milk supply for essential purposes, for human consumption as well as for keeping up the supply of milk for creameries.
The farmer is a realist — unfortunately, in many ways too much of a realist. When he can see and hold out his hand to grasp something of immediate value to himself, he does it, at times without realising the ultimate consequences.
Whether I was on the far side of the House or on this side, I have always advocated that there is no point in trying to deal with this problem on any basis other than the threefold one. First of all, we must get the feed problem right for our cows. Many of our farmers have to be taught that they are likely to get a more economical return in milk yield by a better feed for the cows. We all know and accept the point that it costs as much to feed a bad cow as to feed a good one. It even costs more to feed a bad one, so there is the duty of the Department to get about the task at once to improve the quality of the cow that is to be an integral part of recognised dairy effort in this country. At the same time an obligation will be thrown on the farming community to find the most economic and most expeditious way of turning milk into cash. Responsibility must be placed on the agricultural community to improve the method of dealing with milk, perhaps by milking larger herds by machinery, and certainly there will have to be an improvement in the method of handling milk and delivering it to creameries.
It is a threefold problem. It is not one of a penny here or a penny there. It is a question of State effort and advice in the initial stages in order to improve the quality, type and texture of grasslands. It is a question of aid, advice and help, again by the State, particularly in the present day when it is possible for the State to build up a reserve of good type heifers. They should be doing it now because any uneconomic cow or heifer that is taken from a farmer to-day will realise in the carcase meat trade or beef trade as much money as the Department will have to pay for the type of heifer they want to buy for the purpose of improving milk herds. That has been proved in a realistic and startling way in one parish in this country.
It is now a positive fact that every animal that was deemed uneconomic in the herds of Bansha has been eradicated and replaced by another animal without one halfpenny cost to the Exchequer. I cannot say, and nobody can say as yet, whether all the replacements will be successful, but there can be another weeding out without any cost to the Exchequer and gradually a herd can be built up that will be economic from the point of view of yield.
I do not want that type of herd to be the exclusive property of the man who has capital and can afford to be selective about the type of animal he buys. I want that type of herd to be within the right and the capacity of any small farmer.
That problem cannot be tackled by people who are anxious to remain in the dairying industry unless they get State assistance to the extent that in-calf heifers to the best type of milk-strain bull are made available for replacement purposes. The only people who can afford to build up that type of herd are the Department, and they should make such a bank available to the man who is anxious to improve the quality and class of his stock.
If the dairy farmers were approached in the right way, given the full facts of the problem and given State assistance in improving the quality of their cows, they would co-operate and the general approach to agriculture would be improved. In a very short period the farmer would get increased yields of milk which would make a reasonable price for milk an economic price to him.
A cow that would produce 600 gallons to 700 gallons, at present prices, is a far better proposition for the country than an increase in the price of milk to a level that might be uneconomic to the consumer and which would encourage the retention of uneconomic cows.
If the Minister had taken the Irish dairy farmer into his confidence and had produced a concrete, reasonable plan, allowing prices to be adjusted on a costs basis over a certain yield, he would have succeeded in making the dairying industry economic for its participants, and improving the quality of cattle and grasslands.
The second part of the problem is interwoven with that mixed type of husbandry that is essential on a small farm. The farmer must be made to realise that the judicious use of dung with artificial fertiliser can improve crop yields enormously.
The farmer must learn the fodder and the food that he must grow in order to be successful in the production of mixed stock. He must learn the value of the various feeding stuffs. I was pleased last night to hear the present Minister advocate, as was advocated by his predecessor, the intelligent use and development of fodder feed.
We must ask ourselves the question as to whether in modern conditions, the farmer is getting the advice, direction and aid that are necessary to enable him to make the most of, in many cases, a small holding. Is the farmer sufficiently well versed as to the value of ensilage, whether it be potatoes or green grass or any other crop? Has he yet learned that he can produce on his farm a balanced feeding that will compete with any imported feeding?
One of our main problems in pig rearing has been the question of feed. When, in circumstances over which we had no control, there was an alarming and rapid increase in the price of maize, the general pig producer was up in arms and there was an outcry. Deputies representing agricultural communities must, in duty to our people, direct their attention to the fact that the only way to avoid the fluctuations in price that must arise in the case of imported feed is to produce at home a balanced ration for animals.
I want to see that advice made available to every farmer in this country. I realise, of course, that it will call for an enlargement of advisory services. However, I have always contended and still contend that if there is one bureau of reference that should know no limit where the indulgence of this House is concerned, it is the Department of Agriculture. We give lip service to our belief that our whole economy is fundamentally and completely tied up with agriculture. If it is, the best possible advice should be readily available to any farmer in this country with the problem arising out of the husbandry of his land, the best possible advice so as to help him to get over it. I have always felt that we would be doing the best possible service to this country if agriculture as such were taken out of the realm of politics altogether and if we got down to the establishment of machinery designed to give advice on agricultural matters. An agricultural policy should be established which should not be subjected to the capricious winds of political talk. We know how much land we have and how much of that land we can improve and reclaim. We know exactly, as a result of various types of analysis of soil, what the potential of farms can be brought up to. Knowing all that we should be able to go ahead with our task without political interference.
That is the task to which I intend to direct most of my observations on this occasion. I do not feel that our farmers are getting a return commensurate with the contribution they are making. From an analysis of statistics, we find that all facets of economic activity in this country ultimately revert to the land and to what is produced from the land. In that knowledge, we are entitled, representing a farming community, to come to this House and to make demands.
I want to impress on the Parliamentary Secretary my demand that every possible scientific aid the farmers may need should be readily and freely made available to them; it is only by the expansion of the volume of agricultural produce available for export that the economic salvation of this country can be achieved. We hear talk of trade depressions and trade recessions, but people seem to forget that the virility or otherwise of the home market for commodities other than agricultural produce depends on the economic success of the farmer. Lip service has been given to the theory that, unless the agricultural community is prosperous, nobody is prosperous. I maintain that we have reached the stage in this country now when we should be able to see the road along which agriculture should advance. We should have the courage to help the farmer along that road, because, by so doing, we are ensuring our own economic salvation. It is no use making appeals for increased agricultural production. Increased production can only be achieved as a result of a practical and sensible plan designed to refertilise, rehabilitate and, where necessary, drain the land. All possible technical advice should be readily and freely made available to farmers.
I would like to see the day arriving when the farmer, with the aid of the Department of Agriculture, is able to say without hesitation what peculiar features or soil conditions exist in fields or in portions of fields on his farm that would militate against any particular crop. With that knowledge, the farmer would be able to use every field to the best possible advantage. That is the service that the agricultural community have merited. We will not have an expansion in agriculture unless we make a progressive plan and advance gradually to our ultimate goal. I appreciate that it would take a capital investment, probably to the tune of £1,000,000,000, which is a tremendous amount of money, to put Irish land into top condition, by draining it as it should be drained, by clearing various types of headlands and by improving top soil and grass. All this cannot be achieved overnight, but I feel that we have reached the stage in agricultural policy in this country where we can provide a plan and, having provided it, gradually work to our goal, namely, to have every acre of land in this country producing its maximum. It is because the atmosphere of this debate has not got the usual acrimony of politics that I advocate, in such a positive way, that we should get down to the job.
Various sections of the agricultural community have their own problems. Apart from the major problems of bad quality grass, dehabilitated land and uneconomic cows, various people grow crops which cannot be consumed on their own farms and for which they must find a cash market. The time has come for the Department to be able to estimate, in a real way, what quantity of these particular types of cereal would be essential to prevent any danger of failure. On that basis, they should be able to advise the farmer of the extent to which any crop might be grown with reasonable security in a year. They should be able to cushion any farmer against economic shock caused by the collapse of any of his cash crops.
I do not care whether Deputy Dillon was wrong in bringing in 16,000 tons of oats from Australia or whether Deputy Tom Walsh, the present Minister for Agriculture, was wrong in bringing in barley from Poland, provided those errors have taught us a lesson. I think that the Department should be able to view the general problem in an objective way. They should be able to provide, by way of storage, against possible shortages at the end of the year or during the period before the next crop will be threshed.
It has been a difficult problem up to now. The moment a situation arose in one area that created a problem there was an outcry and a scare, whether it was the problem of oats in Donegal or the question of ware potatoes in Louth a couple of years ago. A scare, altogether out of proportion, was created in regard to the problem.
The Department of Agriculture will have to take responsibility for advising farmers as to what the market potentialities are in regard to such crops as oats, barley, fodder beet, potatoes or other root crops grown for feeding. That, having been done, the farmer, by using his intelligence, will be able to assess what he should do in regard to his own immediate problem.
The farmer in this country should learn quickly that it would be infinitely better for him, where possible, to grow a mixed type of crop on the land he is now putting under the plough, a crop which will be sufficient to feed at least the type of stock he keeps himself. In the ultimate analysis, there is real truth in the statement that the best price he will get for those cereals is the return he will get from the bullock, the heifer, the pig, or the hens that are walked off the land. By doing this he will exclude the various problems in relation to the sale of cash crops etc. At the same time, he will exclude much of the loss that can be occasioned as between the primary producer and the ultimate consumer, when the middle man comes in.
We will have to get the Department of Agriculture to adopt, as quickly as possible, a practical policy for the farmers in their separate areas. Having done that, we should press him to allow that development to take place to the maximum.
Before the Minister returned, I was dealing with the problem of milk and I said that I would have to come back and deal with it at length. I will be honest with the Minister and recount for a moment what I said in his absence. I feel that he went the wrong way about this problem. I will not deny him whatever solace he might get from the difficulties he was in but expediency, in the form of a slight increase in the price of milk, was not a desirable way to deal with the problem nor, indeed, was it desirable to submit the problem to a commission who may report some 12 or 18 months hence. The problem is one which exists in the immediate present.
I would suggest to the Minister that this was a matter in relation to which he could have used his courage. He could have gone direct to the dairy farmer with the full magnitude of the problem. He could have taken him into his confidence, and he could have avoided irksome commissions that may report too late to give any practical remedy to present problems.
I would not for a moment suggest that the Minister could solve this problem by waving a wand, but I think he will have to get the farmers working on the basis that there is more to the problem than price. I quite seriously suggest to the Minister that he should go to the dairy industry and explain that over a period he has to achieve three separate things. Initially, he will have to achieve a considerable improvement in the quality of grass and grasslands on which the cattle are fed. He will have to achieve a considerable improvement in the quality and type of cow that is in the dairy herd. He will have to step up the yield of that cow and lastly, he will have to make the price of milk economic as between the producer and the consumer in relation to what the average yield of his cow is.
That problem was shelved. I want the Minister to tell me, when he is replying, how he is going to counteract the extraordinary phenomenon that exists where heifer beef is more profitable to the farmers to be sold for the beef trade now than it is for the replacement of stock in milch herds. That is why the problem is of such immediate and pressing importance.
Will the Minister, by some action of his, arrest the danger that, when somebody comes back with a report that milk should be whatever price it should be per gallon, there will not be sufficient strength in the dairy industry of Ireland to carry on the dairying industry at all?
Another one of the Minister's difficulties is that milk for purposes other than butter production is making a better price. I do not know what the Minister proposes to do in the interim, but I will tell him straight from the shoulder that there is gross dissatisfaction because he has cast the problem into the melting pot of some commission. Confidence must be restored in that industry.
It is easy for the Minister to say that there are unprecedented quantities of milk being sent to the creameries at present. We are glad of that. It has been an unusual type of season and I suppose, just as in the past when the Minister as a Deputy in opposition tried to blame Deputy Dillon for the bad weather, he will take credit for the good weather which has improved the milk supply to the creameries. The fact remains, however, that in view of the clash between the price of heifers sold for meat and the price of heifers sold for milk production, Professor Murphy may be bringing in his report at a time when the saving of the industry will require drastic action far in excess of an adjustment of prices. I ask the Minister seriously to deal with the problem as it exists now. No matter what Party is in office, those who are producing the milk and butter which the people require should get proper service from the Department of Agriculture. But the agricultural community which is carrying the greater share of the burdens in this State is not getting the service or the attention which it deserves.
I have heard criticism in this debate of an indirect nature, and in many cases of a poisonous nature, against a colleague of mine on these benches in connection with the question of beet. No matter how the Minister tries to malign Deputy Hughes for his stand in connection with the Carlow beet problem, it was not Deputy Hughes who made the mess of the problem. The Minister, instead of making veiled references to individuals, would serve a better purpose if he had ensured that all the play-acting, misrepresentation and codology that went on in the Beet Growers' Association was not allowed to arise.
The misrepresentation was not on the side of the decent farmer who, having grown very extensive quantities of beet, knew that people were being herded in to grow beet at an uneconomic price. When a responsible Deputy in this House who gives advice to his constituents can be hounded by impractical, useless farmers such as some of the Independent Deputies, Irish public life must be in a sorry state.
It is amusing to find such a spirited defence of beet-growing being made by the Government Party. We all remember the sneers and jeers which were cast at the establishment of the beet factory about which the Minister is now so perturbed. The Minister can rest assured that when an increase in the acreage under crops is necessary he will get the full support of this Party as long as he gives the farmer a price commensurate with the cost of the labour entailed in producing these crops. He will get that support without hesitation from Deputies on this side of the House.
Deputy Corry last year styled himself as the barley king who had done a great job. The price of barley had been stepped up to an unprecedented height. Why was it let go down this year and the Iron Curtain pierced to bring in barley at 30/- a barrel in excess of the Irish price? I heard Deputy Corry here giving a display of vitriolic abuse with bags of this and that on the bench before him. I did not, however, see him coming in here with samples of Polish barley to fight even for the re-establishment of the price paid last year. I do not propose to rail against the Minister for that. If that mistake can be of value to the Minister to improve his approach and his Department's approach to the question of the quantities necessary to be produced, then, perhaps, in the long run, it was a cheap mistake. But Deputy Corry cannot have it both ways by exhibiting bags of what he called Formosan sugar and then forgetting about the barley brought from behind the Iron Curtain and landed here at a cost of 103/- a bag. Farmers in Deputy Corry's constituency and in my constituency who produce barley would be delighted to get 103/- per barrel for it. In fact, they would be quite satisfied if Deputy Corry had been as vociferous in trying to maintain the price of 85/- as he has been in his condemnation of some of the things done by the former Minister for Agriculture.
The present Minister for Agriculture was reasonably and fairly described by Deputy Cogan this morning as a conscientious plodder. If the Minister is a consistent plodder he can achieve a lot. I am sure it is gall to Deputy Corry that the Minister has followed so closely the policy of his predecessor. We must give credit to the present Minister, however, for the fact that when he saw the fruits of the efforts of his predecessor exhibited in a realistic way by the increased figure for exports this year, like a sensible man he said, "I will get what kudos this expansion will give me but I shall not stop progress."
I do not know what battle went on between Deputy Tom Walsh, Deputy Corry and Deputy Allen as to who would be Minister for Agriculture but I think it is fortunate for this House that the least harmful of the three has emerged in the office. I will say this in fairness to the present occupant, that at least he has the will to see the scientific side and the advisory side of the job of his Department improved. I think that if the Minister for Agriculture perseveres in the line of giving an improved service to the agricultural community, in giving the best possible technical assistance to the farmer and making technical assistance and help available in his Department for the farmer, he will be doing a good job. So long as he does not set himself up to be master of all, so long as he does not continue with veiled threats of compulsion or does not adopt some of the fantastic statements made by the alleged agricultural experts who are his colleagues, the Department will carry on successfully.
I ask the Minister seriously to come out into the open. There have been veiled threats and positive threats by some of his minions, some of his potential successors that there will be compulsory tillage. I want to know from the Minister, does he really think he can achieve his object by compulsion or is he going to persevere, as he commenced, in the idea of encouragement and leadership to the farmers as distinct from bullying and driving? I make an earnest appeal to the Minister to persevere in the line of encouragement and leadership because the Irish people, no matter what section of the community they belong to, are not very easy to drive and it is impossible to bully them.
There is an uneasiness, particularly among the farmers who are trying to get the quality and standard of their land improved. Where they have fields that have been over-used, they are trying to give them a rest, and the Minister knows perfectly well that they badly need that rest. Therefore I would suggest to the Minister that he leaves the problem of what must be produced to the farmer, to his loyal co-operation, as distinct from trying to bully him.
I do not want to put a tooth in it. I think compulsory tillage is wrong. I think it is the duty of this House and the duty of every Deputy to fight for that principle, and to establish firmly the principle that the farmer is master in his own farm, that he is entitled to run that little farm as an industrial unit, according to his judgment, so long as he owns it. I do feel that if the Minister clears the air once and for all of the threat of compulsory tillage, and comes out then with an appeal to the farmer to support him in whatever acreage of A, B, C or D crop he wants, he will get that support. I am recommending that to the Minister very seriously. He is a new man in office. His tenure of office has been to date rather undistinguished. Maybe that is a slightly unfair criticism in so far as his predecessor was slightly more flamboyant and certainly more often heard.
