Vol. 146 No. 5
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £3,934,930 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Agriculture, and certain services administered by that Office, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and 20 Deputies being present,
It may be well that I should say an explanatory word on the Supplementary Estimate before dealing with the main Estimate. The Supplementary Estimate is required for the purpose of paying subsidies on creamery butter as from 23rd August, 1954, to enable the retail price to be reduced by 5d. per lb. as from that date. The total amount of the Supplementary Estimate is calculated as follows:—
|
(1) Estimated sales of butter by creameries from 23rd August, 1954 to mid- February, 1955 (the end of the period in respect of which it is practicable to make payments within the financial year). |
|
|
345,000 cwt. @ 46/8 per cwt. (5d. per lb.) |
£805,000 |
|
(2) Estimated stocks of cream ery butter held on 23rd August, 1954 by the Butter Marketing Committee, butter wholesalers and the larger retailers. |
|
|
125,000 cwt. @ 46/8 per cwt. |
£291,666 |
|
Total |
£1,096,666 |
|
say |
£1,100,000 |
A Statutory Order to come into operation on 23rd August, 1954, will be made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce reducing the maximum retail price of creamery butter by 5d. per lb. and corresponding Orders will be made by the Minister for Agriculture reducing the maximum wholesale prices of creamery butter by 46/8 per cwt. The reduction in the prices received by creameries on sales of butter on and after that date will be made good to the creameries by a subsidy, as above, paid by this Department on the creameries' sales of butter.
In addition, it is necessary to pay a subsidy on stocks of creamery butter held by the Butter Marketing Committee, wholesalers and the larger retailers, such as multiple shops, at the close of business on 22nd August, 1954, for the reason that the value of their butter stocks, on sale, will have been reduced overnight. Such subsidy or allowance on stocks is only paid where the quantity of butter held is 3 cwt. or over. In the case of retailers who normally hold smaller stocks, it would be administratively impracticable to pay them an allowance on their stocks. The adequate notice already given of the reduction in the retail price should safeguard the position of these traders who, in their own interest, will obviously reduce their butter stocks to a minimum before the 23rd August. It is not necessary to pay a stocks allowance to creameries because an allowance will be paid on the butter when it is sold in due course.
There is no money available in the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund out of which a contribution could be made to relieve the Exchequer of any portion of the cost of this subsidy.
The cost of a subsidy in a full year is estimated at £1,725,000 on the basis of a consumption of 740,000 cwt., which represents an increase of 15,000 cwt. on the actual figure of 724,782 cwt. consumed during the financial year 1953-54.
Now, Sir, in accordance with practice, I have circulated for the information of Deputies a White Paper which gives in succinct form notes on some of the activities of the Department during the last 12 months. I hope I do not trespass unduly on the indulgence of my predecessor, Deputy Walsh, if I say that I have circulated this White Paper subject to his correction as, naturally, it deals very largely with matters of administration arising out of the last 12 months, when he was responsible for the Department of Agriculture, and is more or less a report to the House of how the Department went on during that period. If anything appears in it which Deputy Walsh considers requires amendment, I would advise the House that I think his amendment should be accepted but I do not imagine that he will find anything in this White Paper which conflicts with his view of what transpired during the past 12 months.
I am presenting the Estimate prepared by my predecessor. It, therefore, does not behove me to dwell at length on the Estimate on this occasion. Deputies will recall that by the procedure and rules of this House we must discuss on the Estimates, not matters of policy, but matters of administration. However, it may be permitted to me briefly to inform the House of certain matters of which they will wish to have knowledge in respect of the immediate future.
The House is aware that the Department of Agriculture has been concerned for some time to eradicate bovine T.B. from the herds of this country. Accordingly, on the 1st of next September, we propose to initiate a scheme to that end. We will take the County of Clare and the County of Sligo as areas of intensive eradication. We will also take the area immediately adjoining the parish of Bansha in West Tipperary. The reason we elected to pursue the matter in that area, in addition to the two other counties I mentioned, is that we had a gratifying measure of success in a pilot scheme which was launched in that parish in the year 1949. I think we could claim that we reduced the incidence of T.B. in the herds of that parish from about 40 odd per cent. to below 18 per cent. and we think it would be a pity to abandon that degree of progress. Accordingly, we propose to extend the Bansha scheme to each parish adjoining the parish of Bansha and, in addition, to the parishes in East Limerick which adjoin these adjoining parishes. I hope before my statement is concluded to be in a position to furnish Deputies with the actual names of the parishes which will constitute this island area which will be an area of concentrated activity in the campaign for the elimination of bovine T.B.
I should mention for the information of Deputy Walsh, who has just come into the House, that we are dealing with the question of the eradication of bovine T.B. I have said that we propose to initiate a scheme on the 1st September in the Counties of Sligo and Clare and that we propose to deal with an area of the parishes adjoining the parish of Bansha and the parishes in East Limerick which adjoin these adjoining parishes, the names of which I hope to be able to give the House before I sit down.
In addition to these, we hope to provide facilities on a voluntary basis for individual farmers or groups of farmers anywhere in the country who would wish to collaborate with the Department of Agriculture in advancing their own farm or groups of farms to attested status. I am not in a position to announce to-day all the details of the scheme as it will apply but would hope that I will be in a position to publish these in ample time to inform the public generally of the details of the methods by which we propose to proceed.
I have asked the collaboration of all voluntary bodies in the area to help in doing the job. I have the assurance of Macra na Feirme and Muintir na Tíre that they will do all in their power to expedite the achievement of the purpose we have in mind. I want to say also how glad I am that I believe we have the enthusiastic and unqualified support of the veterinary profession in the country for the effective prosecution of this campaign. Without it, it would be virtually impossible to achieve success. With it, I do not doubt we shall be able to make rapid and effective progress towards the end we have in mind which is, ultimately, the complete eradication of bovine T.B. as an animal disease in this country.
As the House is aware, last week we initialled an agreement with the American Ambassador for the use of the Marshall Aid Grant Counterpart Fund, details of which were supplied in a parliamentary answer in this House last week and, as soon as that has received Congressional approval, we may proceed with the schemes to be financed under that head.
First amongst such schemes the Government would put the establishment of the Institute of Agricultural Science and Veterinary Science and this we hope to erect as the fountain head of agricultural education in future in this country. We believe that it can be made something worthy of Ireland and we plan over the years to make it as good an institute of its kind as is to be found in any country in the world. I believe that we may legitimately claim, though in comparison with other countries we may be looked upon as relatively poor in material riches, that in regard to ability and intellectual capacity we have as rich a store of it available as any country of our size in the world and we would hope, availing of that and providing an institute where the native ability of our people will have full scope, to build an educational and research institute that will command the admiration of agriculture all the world over.
The names of the parishes adjoining Bansha which will be joined with the Bansha area for the purpose of bovine T.B. eradication are Galbally, Lattin, Oola and Solohead, Tipperary, Golden, New Inn and Cahir.
We hope to see the land rehabilitation project developed and expedited in the performance of its work. How best to achieve that end will take some inquiry and examination of the situation as I find it, but the House may rest assured that every effort will be exhausted to make the land rehabilitation project operate as efficiently and as rapidly as all the circumstances will allow.
As it is at present.
We hope to do even a little better than my distinguished predecessor. I will not dwell on the unhappy days when my distinguished predecessor and some of his colleagues were apprehensive lest the operation of the land rehabilitation project would leave farmers open to the danger of an increase of rateable valuation or other damage to their land. It is a source of great satisfaction to me to discover today that we are vying with one another in the expedition with which we can put the land rehabilitation project on its way.
I think it right to inform the House that it is the intention of the inter-Party Government to provide a guaranteed price for wheat each year for the next five years. Our successors in office, be they ourselves or others, will no doubt answer in due course for what the Government's intention may be in the ensuing five years.
I think it right to direct the attention of the House to the fact that, in the changing circumstances of the world to-day, we are faced with the certainty that our export markets will grow more and more competitive every year. I think it places a peculiarly heavy burden on the Minister for Agriculture, whoever he may be, to ensure that the raw materials of the agricultural industry are secured to the agricultural community at the lowest possible penny at which they can be purchased so that our farmers may be placed in the most competitive position possible in comparison with those with whom they have to compete in their export markets. I think it is the duty of any Minister for Agriculture to do all in his power, not only to reduce the cost of their raw materials but to reduce all their costs of production in so far as within his power lies because should the costs of production of our farmers rise above those obtaining for their competitors in foreign markets there can be no escape from the ultimate disaster that our farmers would lose their foreign markets. If we lost those foreign markets or failed to be able to earn a profit in them, that would be a disaster not only for the farmers but for every other person who is earning a living in Ireland, for in the last analysis everybody in this country depends for his standard of living on the land.
If agricultural exports cease to be economically possible, the imports of raw materials for our industries would cease to be possible, too, for we would have no funds from which to pay for them. We purchase the raw materials of industry with which the bulk of our industrial employment is provided with the proceeds of our agricultural exports. We will continue to export agricultural produce only so long as the farmer who produces it gets a profit on what he is producing for export and the farmer's profit consists of the difference between the price he realises for his produce and what it has cost him to produce it. If we can indefinitely raise the price which the farmer gets for his produce, his costs of production cease to matter very much, but we cannot control price levels in foreign markets for our produce, and that will become more apparent with the passage of every month and year.
Therefore, if we wish to widen the gap between what the farmer gets for his produce and what it has cost him to produce it, and we are no longer able to raise the price he gets, we are forced back on the device of lowering his cost of production in order to widen the gap between the price he gets for his produce and his cost of production, which is his profit. Therefore I think it right to tell the House that I regard it as one of the principal charges committed to me to procure for the farmer the raw materials for his industry at the lowest possible price at which they can be found, so that he may be in the most competitive position possible to secure for himself and his family a fair margin of profit on what he produces for export now and hereafter.
I have dwelt on the competitive character of the markets in which we will have to trade in the future because I regard it as a very vital matter for every section of our community, but I think it right to add this: that I believe—and, mind you, my forecast is perhaps a little better than anybody else's—that there devolves on me a duty to say openly on an occasion such as this what my belief is, and my belief is that the market for cattle and for pigs has in it every prospect of stability, for the next two years in any case.
We told you that.
He is thinking up a good one.
No, I am trying to eschew a controversial note.
You will find it difficult.
I will, but I think it only fair, in view of the interjection by Deputy Walsh, to say that the degree of stability which he and I can reasonably prognosticate for the farmers in the pig trade very largely derives from the Pig, Pork and Bacon Agreement which was made in 1951.
The adjustments.
The ex-Minister confirms that that stability derives from that source and I think he will agree with me that that is a factor on which I may look back with satisfaction.
To the adjustments which we made.
The market for cattle and beef, sheep and lambs has in it the prospect of stability, begotten of the fact that there are 50,000,000 people in Great Britain eager to consume meat and that one of the most convenient and satisfactory sources of supply is Ireland. Inasmuch as we are now in a position to deliver into Great Britain live stock of incomparable quality, we are in a peculiarly strong position to meet competition from all quarters in that sphere.
Alive and dead.
Yes, alive and dead. Mind you, our pre-eminence in the one is not as great as our pre-eminence in the other. It would be folly for us to suggest that we enjoy the same degree of superiority in the dead meat trade as we enjoy in the live-stock trade. Our dead meat will bear comparison with the product of any other nation in the world: our live stock are superior to any live stock available to the British market from any other nation in the world. That is the only distinction I would make. However, we would make a great mistake indeed if we did not claim and assert that fact as being incapable of challenge, that the quality of our live stock has been built up to a point which makes us unquestionably the unique exporter in that field, in that we have better quality and better stuff to offer than any other exporting nation in the world. It is on that fact that the prospect of stability that I foresee rests at the present time and I think I should add that it is a pretty solid foundation. Will I be forgiven if, in rejoicing that that concrete fact is proved and that this prospect of stability rests soundly upon it, I say it is very largely due to the work of the Department of Agriculture, over which I have the honour to preside at the present time, which has consistently gone forward—from a period long before that in which either Deputy Walsh or I entered the public life of this country—and which is bearing fruit in our day to the great advantage of all our people?
Might I suggest to some of the more eloquent critics of the Department of Agriculture inside and outside this House that when they compare their circumstances to-day with that endured by their grandparents 50 or 60 years ago they ought to ask themselves what is the principal economic foundation of that change. I think they will find themselves constrained to admit that the principal economic foundation of that change is very largely the live-stock industry of Ireland. Then they may ask themselves what is it that changed the live-stock industry of Ireland from the somewhat mediocre thing it was three-quarters of a century ago to the uniquely excellent thing it is to-day; and I think they will be forced to answer that it is co-operation between the farmers of Ireland and their own Department of Agriculture. Those who reach that conclusion with me will listen in a somewhat more critical attitude than has been their wont heretofore to the ill-informed, ignorant, and often envious criticisms that are launched at the Department of Agriculture and all that it has done in the agricultural life of this country, by those who believe they could do better but who are quite unique in that conviction.
For some years I have forecast to the farmers that with the return of competitive conditions in the live-stock industry they would find that the traditional policy of the Department which has been urged on our people for many years would be vindicated by the event. That is especially so in so far as our live-stock export policy is concerned, where the Department recommended the special excellence of the shorthorn bullock and even more so of the Aberdeen Angus shorthorn cross. There were many wiseacres in this country who rejected this advice as antediluvian and obscurantist and assured our people that the Hereford bull was the proper cross with the shorthorn cow if the ideal export dry stock was to be evolved. They have got a great shock in the course of the last six months, and the result is that everybody now suddenly wants Aberdeen Angus bulls.
Four years ago no one would take Aberdeen Angus bulls: they wanted white-faced. Now everyone wants Aberdeen Angus and there are not enough to go around. We have bought all of them we could get—and my predecessor did the same while he was administering the Department—and with the best will in the world sought to provide Aberdeen Angus bulls of suitable quality to all applicants who fulfilled the necessary conditions. Despite our best endeavours, we were not able to get sufficient to meet the demand. I venture to say that if those people had listened more closely to the advice of the Department and those who spoke for it during the last five years, we would have been able to accommodate this demand much more easily, that is, if people had taken Aberdeen Angus bulls when advised to do so and had eschewed Hereford bulls.
It happens this is a free country and any man in Ireland can do what he likes and if he does not want to take advice no one in the Department of Agriculture claims the right to thrust the advice upon him. The attitude of the Department to-day—as I hope it was under my predecessor—is that while we have no desire to thrust ourselves upon any farmer we are eager, willing and anxious to offer the best advice we have to give to any farmer who comes to us and asks for it. We will cross no farmer's threshold except on the invitation of the farmer to us to give advice. This is a free country and if people want to keep Friesians or Ayrshires or Herefords or Jerseys or Guernseys or anything else they like, they have a perfect right to keep them, so long as this country remains free. We have no ambition whatever to acquire any power to coerce them in any way. But if they ask me and, I believe, if they ask my predecessor, what, in our judgment, is the most suitable general purpose cow for the average small farmer of this country I would join with my predecessor in saying that, all things considered, the dual purpose shorthorn cow is the best for the average small farmer in this country. If the small farmer wants to breed them for the purpose of producing exportable dry stock, I say that if he crosses them with the Aberdeen Angus bull of the right quality he will not go far wrong.
The Department of Agriculture never claimed, do not claim and never want to become the custodian and the mentor of any farmer in this country who does not want their advice or counsel. Where a 1,000-acre farmer or a man with 100 cows takes the view that he knows better than the Department of Agriculture will ever know how to run his own farm, I welcome his spirit of independence and tell him to go forward on whatever lines he thinks best. There will be no hard feelings in the Department of Agriculture. If he believes he can do better for himself, his wife and his family out of his holding with some other breed of cattle then let him fire away, but if he wants any help from us we shall give it to him within the limits of our capacity. However, if we are asked our opinion we do not intend to allow ourselves to be intimidated, blackmailed or persuaded to advise the farmers of this country in any sense but in the sense which we believe to be right.
I want to reiterate what I have said. The best breed of cattle is the dual purpose shorthorn cow, and if a man wants to cross them for exportable dry stock and looks to a good quality Aberdeen Angus bull he will get as good a product as it is possible for our farmers to produce.
I am glad to inform the House that litter testing of pigs is now proceeding in most of the pedigree herds of pigs in the country. We are erecting, near the Munster Institute, an up-to-date progeny testing station to conduct fullscale progeny testing of pigs for the purpose of improving the stock of pigs we have in the country. In that connection, I want to remind people of this fact. We have in this country— and I think we are almost unique in the world in that we are in this happy situation—one breed of pigs, the large Irish white breed. We believe that that breed of pigs, by careful selection, can be made to produce as fine a type of bacon pig as is produced in the world to-day. We have a stock of pigs which is disease free. There is nothing so good that it cannot be improved. We have got the co-operation of 90 per cent. of the pedigree pig breeders in this country in the matter of litter testing. We propose to add to that effort the full resources of an up-to-date progeny testing station.
But will you not go outside the pedigree pig breeders?
For the litter testing——
Not the litter, the progeny.
Oh, yes, for the litter, which is an interim step. I endorse my predecessor's decision to confine that to pedigree pig breeders from whose herds we would mainly draw the boars and breeding sows. The progeny testing will be available to all who wish to avail of the service, but that is a project that will not be put in hand until the premises are available at the Munster Institute. If it can be put in hand any sooner at an alternative premises I am prepared to do so, but I am not satisfied that it can. However, I hope to have examined the question as to whether or not the existing installation at one of the agricultural schools might do, ad interim. In my view, what we have to do must be done the right way: it would be a mistake to do it the wrong way at the beginning.
We are told from time to time that we ought to get the Landrace pig. The British Government eventually gave way to that storm about the Landrace pig—and God help the British pig breeder now! They managed to import into the country atrophic rhinitis, and it will take them all their time to eradicate it. I venture to say that if they had to do again what they did— to bring in not only the Landrace pig but atrophic rhinitis—they would never have seen a Landrace pig in England. If we were faced with a situation in which we had some inferior breed of pig indigenous to this country, we should have to take some risks to improve it and even to contemplate bringing in a foreign blood. That is not the case. We have a first class breed of pigs. We are fully conscious of the necessity of improving strains so as to get pigs of better conformation and of a more consistently high capacity to produce and rear young. All this will be done. We are profoundly convinced that we have, within our own resources, the material wherewith to carry out these improvements—given the equipment and time wherein to do it. I shall be interested to hear from Deputies on all sides of this House whether or not they agree with me that, having a pure strain of pigs in this country, undiluted by any miscegenation of blood, we are right to maintain that position and concentrate on the improvement of the strain rather than breeding, as is our present intention.
With those relatively conciliatory and abbreviated observations, I propose to leave this Estimate confidently in the hands of the House. I do not invite protracted or acrimonious discussion but I need hardly say—occupying, as I do, the exalted position of servant of the people—that I am unreservedly at the disposal of Deputies who wish to address any question they think proper to me and to give the assurance that I will answer such questions as exhaustively as I know how.
I expect the Minister is surprised to see me standing up and talking on agriculture, immediately after his introduction of this Estimate. However, I want to raise now a matter which has been a hardy annual on the debate on the Estimate for Agriculture, that is, the milk supply to Cork City.
Hear, hear!
The present Minister made some very severe remarks about the supply of milk to Cork City a couple of years ago, when he was in opposition. He even went so far as to say that the producers were living on the corpses of their neighbours' children. I think that was a very harsh statement to make. While he was in Government——
Perhaps the Deputy would give the reference for that quotation
I have not got it but I am sure the Minister remembers it.
The reason the Deputy has not got the reference is that the Minister never made that statement.
If the Minister says he did not make the statement, I will withdraw what I have said, but I was listening to him. I think the Minister has a very good idea of the milk situation in Cork City. On a few occasions he has spoken to me about it in private conversation. I know that he did believe, at any rate, that it was not up to the best standard. I should like to say here that last year we had very little reason to complain about the milk supply to Cork City and one of the reasons for that was the county council appointed a veterinary officer to inspect the source of the milk supply to the city. The corporation had no power to do such previously. The veterinary officer was seconded from the corporation to the county council for a period of about 12 months. We were all satisfied that that was, at least, an improvement, and that there was a pretty good attempt made by the producers to improve their premises in order to give a good milk supply.
The particular man appointed was, in my opinion, one of the most suitable men to be had, because he went round and met the farmers and spoke to them. He asked for co-operation and said that if they would not give a good milk supply to the city, and if they did not get coolers, they would probably not be allowed to supply milk to the city. About the middle of last year, I was asked to meet a deputation from the milk producers. There were two veterinary surgeons from the county council and also one from the corporation present. The producers told me they believed that there was more improvement in the milk supply to Cork City during the previous six months than there had been for 20 years before. They realised, when it was brought to their attention, the necessity for those improvements. As a city representative, I can say that there were practically no complaints made last year.
Some months ago, the time of the man to whom I refer was up and he had to go back to his original post in the corporation and no appointment, temporary or permanent, has since been made. Requests were made for a permanent appointment but so far no sanction has come down for the making of this permanent appointment of a veterinary inspector to inspect the sources of supply to the city. I am aware that while this man was in office the cases of dirty milk were reduced by more than 50 per cent. and we were looking forward to a continuance of that improvement. Everybody, consumers, veterinary surgeons and public representatives, who met those people were quite satisfied that a good attempt was being made to improve the milk supply for Cork City.
A few weeks ago, I was informed that there were advertisements in the paper regarding coolers for sale by some of those farmers. Whether that is through laxity of supervision or not I do not know, but we are again getting complaints about the milk supply. I spoke to the Minister when he was in office before asking if he could do anything to ensure a twice daily delivery to Cork. I thought that would at least help the people in regard to not having to drink sour milk. At that particular time he said he would do all he could and he was sure that the decent farmers of Cork would respond. I suppose the decent farmers of Cork did so but there are a good many who did not. Those people who are not making an honest attempt to give a good milk supply to the city, who are not prepared to give the twice daily delivery and who are not prepared to put in a cooling apparatus are getting the rest of the producers a bad name and getting the Cork City milk supply a very bad name, because if there were only three out of every ten refusing to co-operate you would get almost the same complaints.
The officials in the Department who are delaying sanction for the appointment of this permanent veterinary officer are doing a great injustice to the children and people of the City of Cork. There is no doubt that the man I mention did an awful lot to improve our milk supply. I would direct the Minister's attention to the state of the milk supply in Cork City. I know he was fully conversant with the whole position when he was in office before. I would sincerely ask him to improve the matter and do his best to find some means of ensuring that in the close heavy weather which we are having at present and which will probably be worse in July and August some steps would be taken to see that the citizens of Cork would get that supply, whether by pasteurisation I do not know. I was told by the ex-Minister that pasteurisation was coming without any doubt but the point is that there is a great deal of doubt in the minds of producers in Cork. They do not know whether or not it is coming——
It is.
——or when it is coming. They do not know whether it would be better for them to set about starting a pasteurisation plant or whether to procure coolers now. They do not know whether they ought to get out of producing milk altogether. In fact, they do not know where they are. I think it is about time that something was done to straighten out the matter and that we ought to know what is happening.
I hope that over the next couple of years every attention will be paid to this scheme of T.B. attestation which is about to commence because it is one of the most important things from the point of view of our cattle industry. Over and above that, it is most important where the health of our people is concerned and I think money should be made freely available for it. I am afraid, however, it is because very many areas in England are becoming what is known as T.B. attested areas that we are following in their footsteps. We are compelled by circumstances over there to get into this, but whatever has compelled us it is a good thing, and something that should be pushed ahead very quickly.
I am surprised, though, that some of the creamery areas have been chosen as the first areas to be tackled. My understanding of the position is that the West of Ireland in the main supplies the young cattle for the other parts of the country. In the creamery areas the farmers are compelled to go outside and purchase at least a good part of their cow population, and they go to the western counties for the young heifers. I think it is there that any scheme of T.B. attestation should be commenced, because it is more or less working against the tide to start in creamery areas.
How much further west can I go than Clare and Sligo unless I take to the sea?
I do not mean that. I mean that the creamery areas are the areas at the end of the cycle, that farmers in those areas are continually going outside to bring in heifers for the purpose of keeping their dairy stocks up, and it is wherever those heifers are supplied from that the start should be made in T.B. attestation. That is one of the reasons why I advocate that Donegal should be tackled, because large numbers of cattle are produced there and sent to those areas. Again, we have a special problem in Donegal, where instead of being shipped from Dublin our cattle are shipped from Six County ports, especially from Derry, so it would be a great advantage if we had that in Donegal. As a matter of fact, a number of farmers are at the moment doing it on their own. I was glad to note that some assistance would be given to those farmers or groups of farmers who hit out on their own and did that.
Another thing I would like to mention is the agricultural worker, because I am sure the Minister will admit that the agricultural worker is an important factor in the agricultural industry. He is in all respects an industrial worker, and the question of the fixing of wages for these people and of settling other disputes arising should be transferred from the Agricultural Wages Board to the Labour Court. I would urge the Minister to consider that the farm worker should be put on the same level as any other industrial worker, and where disputes arise or questions have to be settled in regard to wages, working hours or other matters, they should be decided by the Labour Court.
The Deputy has read the 12-point programme, of course?
I did not notice that that was one of them.
Oh, yes.
I am also glad to learn that the guaranteed price for wheat will be in operation for another five years. That is only one half of the story, of course. The price is important, because I did not like the tone of the Irish Independent editorial of two weeks ago which discussed the growing of wheat and among other things stated that there were wheat conacre racketeers. I think the conacre man who goes out and gets his hands on land that has not been cultivated for a long number of years, cuts away scrub and brings that field under the plough, does not, in the first place, make an unreasonable profit. In the second place, even if he is making a profit he is not a racketeer, and is doing a good job of work and helping to plough land which badly needs to be ploughed up, and also carrying out other operations like cleaning away scrub and so on. I do know that in Donegal where farmers and conacre farmers have availed of the advice of the Department in the growing of wheat they are producing excellent wheat. This year the crops of wheat are very good, just because they have learned what to do, and especially what not to do, and the Department's advice has been very sound. I hope that the guaranteed price which we are promised will be a price that will not cause any lessening of the area under wheat.
The Minister talked about our live cattle exports. I agree with what he said on that, but we have over the past few years begun to build up a dead meat trade which is very useful and should be encouraged because it has many advantages. It keeps the byproducts of the cattle at home, it gives employment here, and the price which this meat is sold at is as good as that received by the farmers for the live cattle exported.
Seeing that these are my Estimates which the Minister has introduced, I am sure that I am hardly expected to say very much in connection with them, but I would like to remind the Minister and the House that he has found agriculture in a flourishing condition compared with the condition in which we found it in 1951. I think I am also right in saying that the people who state that agriculture is stagnant in this country are wrong. We have been making progress.
Hear, hear!
The progress we have made over the past three years is indicated in the following statistics. From 1951 to 1953 the cattle population of this country increased by over 20,000.
Hear, hear!
Sheep by over 314,000; pigs by over 323,000 and poultry by 274,000.
Hear, hear!
The wheat area, from 1951 to 1953, increased by 72,000 acres, barley by 21,000 acres and sugar beet by 5,000. Total tillage was up by 35,000. Our agricultural exports, inclusive of commodities of high agricultural content, were £20,000,000 higher in value in 1953 than in 1951, an increase of 34 per cent. We have increased advisory services. The number of agricultural inspectors has been increased by 45 per cent. since 1950. We have doubled, trebled, quadrupled, multiplied by seven, the amount of money spent on land reclamation in 1950-51, so that I can say truthfully that agriculture has not been stagnant from 1951 to 1953, and let us hope that during the term of this Government stagnation will not again set in as it did from 1948 to 1951.
Question!
In connection with the T.B. scheme, the Minister and the House know that that scheme has been cut and dried for a long time.
Hear, hear—for a long, long time.
The only change that has been made is that the area has been transferred from Limerick to Sligo. I wonder why. Limerick has the greatest cow population of any county and more calves are sold from County Limerick than from any other county. It is the replacement ground for most of the cattle areas and, in my opinion, that was the place to start. Deputy Cunningham has said that we get most of our replacements from the West of Ireland, but, in my opinion, we get most of them from Counties Kerry, Cork and Limerick. I understand that Clare is being reserved for the Marshall Aid moneys, although I am not too sure of it, together with portion of East Limerick, Bansha and Sligo. The suggestion I made was that we should start in Limerick, awaiting approval for the spending of the Grant Counterpart Fund, and, when we had got the approval, we were to go on into Clare. The scheme, however, was cut and dried and the only thing I regret is that the Minister has thought well to go from Limerick to Sligo, because it is not really a good change.
The Deputy will notice that we have not gone out of Limerick.
With regard to the Grant Counterpart Fund, in the course of a reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government, the different schemes which it was proposed to introduce on the basis of these moneys were cited. There has been no change whatever in the scheme put before the American authorities a year and a half ago and which was announced by me in this House over 12 months ago. I am glad of that, because, after giving it very careful consideration and going into it very minutely, we decided that these moneys could be allocated in this way to the best advantage of the country.
As regards land reclamation, it is unnecessary for me to say that we have made wonderful progress. We are now spending between £2,250,000 and £2,500,000 a year. If the country can continue to afford to spend that money, we are doing pretty well, and, in time, the land of the country will be fully reclaimed. I suggest to the Minister that, in respect of land reclamation, one thing is still necessary—an insistence that the land be put into cultivation after reclamation. That is the only way in which it can be kept clean. In connection with drainage, where there are open drains, there should be some compelling provision to compel farmers to clean drains at least once every two years. Otherwise, all the money spent will be wasted in a period of ten or 15 years. The scrub lands will have gone back into scrub, unless cultivated, and these drains will again be choked up. I suggest some clause be introduced to compel farmers who have availed of the generosity of the State to get their land reclaimed, on the basis of a gift of £30 per acre, to do this cleaning.
I was delighted to hear the Minister say we are to have a guaranteed price for wheat over a period of five years, but the Minister neglected a very important aspect of wheat-growing, in that he has not told us what size of market we are going to have. That is really the important question to be answered—what size is that market going to be and how much wheat is going to be grown at a guaranteed price. There is no use having a market for 20,000 acres or for 100,000 acres. We want to know the size of the market and then we will be very well satisfied with the guaranteed price. While I was Minister, we announced that we were guaranteeing a price for a market of 450,000 acres, and I am now asking the Minister if he is prepared to subscribe to our policy. Can the farmers be told here and now that they are going to get a guaranteed price for the produce of 450,000 acres over the next five years? That is the important point. Price is not half so important as the size of the market.
Does the price not control the market?
It may control the market, as it did before. It was the one thing that controlled the market from 1948 to 1951, because there was no increase in price and, consequently, there was a diminishing acreage. It certainly controlled the market, and it controlled the market over the past three years, because, with an increase in price, there was an increase in acreage. It did so then and will do so in the future.
The Minister spoke of the pig progeny testing station being erected at the Munster Institute, but he said that the pigs going into that testing station were to be taken from the pedigree breeders. I do not altogether agree that the Minister should confine himself to the pedigree breeders, because most of these people are breeding for show purposes and not for bacon. That has, I think, been pretty well proved. Of 50,000 pigs going to the factories last year, 55 per cent. had 16 ribs and they had also to commend them a uniform distribution of lean on the shoulders and a pretty good distribution on the bellies. That is the type of pig I would have put into the pig progeny testing station—the sows with 16 ribs, with uniform distribution of bacon on narrow shoulders and with a good distribution on the bellies, well-shaped animals, in order to give a high quality bacon. I would not confine myself to the pigs being produced for show purposes.
I am afraid I misled the Deputy. I think I said that the litter testing at present in progress was being confined to the pedigree breeders, but that no such restriction would apply when the progeny testing station was built and in operation.
I understood the Minister to be dealing with the pig progeny testing station at the Munster Institute which was designed for the purpose of testing progeny and not litter.
That is not built yet.
It is in course of erection.
Litter testing is proceeding.
Let the Minister not tell me that he has been sitting down on the work since I left. It should have been completed by now—in the past three weeks or month.
The Deputy expects a lot from us, of course.
The Minister should concentrate on that type of pig, if he wants high quality bacon. We have as good a bacon in this country as is produced in any part of the world and we can get that bacon from our Large White Yorks, which are as good as the Landrace. I have no hesitation in saying that. We have a better pig than the Landrace because I believe the Large White pig is better than it. For that reason, we should use every endeavour to give the Large White an opportunity of proving itself to be the best. There are pigs going into the factories, uniform in every respect, which are better in many respects than the Landrace pigs and we should concentrate on them, if we want the best quality bacon.
Somebody has referred—the Minister also mentioned it in his opening address—to competition in the beef trade. Seeing that we have a free market for our cattle, I think we should now adopt a policy of encouraging our factories and our meat producers to put up special cuts, to sell them at home and to export them in order to command the highest prices, by ensuring that there would be no restriction placed on them if they are anxious to engage in that trade. It is only in that way that we, with the superior quality beef we have going into the market, properly put up and made attractive for the public, can maintain our prices and enter into competition with other people producing beef.
There is one other matter to which I would like to refer and that is the statements which the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary has been making about a cattle tax. The Minister knows these statements are untrue.
What statements?
That there was a tax to be imposed on Irish cattle.
It was advocated by the Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party in Seanad Éireann.
It was not.
Yes, it was.
It was mentioned by Professor Johnston. And when did the Leader of the Government Party in Seanad Éireann decide policy?
It was endorsed by him.
When did the Leader in. Seanad Éireann, whoever he may be, decide policy for the Government or the Minister? Will the Minister not at some time give his Parliamentary Secretary a lugging in the ear and tell him to stop spreading untruths throughout the country?
I will give the Minister the reference.
This thing was fired around the country during the election campaign that the Department of Agriculture or the Government were planning to introduce a cattle tax. The Minister knows well that there was no such intention and he has access to all the files in his Department. All I want him to do is to tell his Parliamentary Secretary to cease repeating this untruth.
I shall repeat it and prove it in the course of this debate.
I want the evidence——
I will supply it.
——that any plans have been made or that this was even suggested in the Department of Agriculture. I will give him a week—I will not ask him to do it to-night—to answer my challenge and to produce a tittle of evidence that it was ever even suggested. It is one of the most untruthful statements that has been made in the country that there was any such suggestion of a cattle tax. It is untruthful; the Minister knows it is untruthful and the Parliamentary Secretary knows it is untruthful.
That is the second time the Deputy has said that the Minister knows it is untruthful and the Parliamentary Secretary knows it is untruthful. That is unparliamentary language and cannot be used. It is tantamount to saying that the Minister is telling a lie and the Parliamentary Secretary is telling a lie. To say the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary is making a statement he knows is untrue is charging him with telling lies.
I did not say the Minister made the untruthful statement but that he knows it is untrue.
He said that statements have been made by the Parliamentary Secretary and by the Minister——
Not by the Minister.
I am as much concerned for the character of the Parliamentary Secretary as for that of the Minister, and if he says the Parliamentary Secretary made a statement that it untrue, and knows it is untrue, it is saying the Parliamentary Secretary is telling a lie. That statement cannot be allowed to stand.
I withdraw the statement. There is no evidence, the Minister knows, regarding any plan being made in connection with a tax on cattle. Professor Johnston mentioned it in the Seanad, and the Leader of the Government Party in the Seanad mentioned it afterwards. That is all. It was taken up and sent around that the Fianna Fáil Party were planning to impose such a tax, but there is no truth in it.
The next matter I would like to deal with is the parish plan. Much thought has been given to this, apparently, by the Minister over a number of years, and I would like to see it in operation, but I have pointed out time and time again that it is not feasible at the moment because of the want of personnel. We have not the technicians to put this scheme into operation, unless you select one small county at the present time. The number of graduates coming out of the university in 1954 is about 14. Other commercial interests may require some of these graduates, and all of them may not be available to the Department of Agriculture. Last year we were anxious to get more graduates for the Milk Costings Commission. Unfortunately, they were not available; but if they were, there is no doubt that we would have advocated, as I have done on every possible occasion, the provision of more technicians in the counties. The number has increased from something in the 80's to 130, but telling people that the parish plan is going to be introduced to the country is deceiving them. We have over 900 parishes and, on my calculations, having regard to the number of students that are now attending the university, it would take until 1957 before we could have sufficient personnel to provide every three parishes with a technician. There is nothing wrong with such a scheme, but it is wrong to say we can operate it overnight. The personnel is not there; if it were, there is no reason why we would not put the plan into operation.
I mentioned the Milk Costings Commission. I would be interested to know what is the Minister's and the Government's attitude to their report, which should be available within the next couple of weeks. That commission was set up over a year and a half ago to find out the cost of producing a gallon of milk. Possibly later on we will know what the Minister's attitude will be, but I just mention it here. However, I hope that when the report does become available and when it is to be considered by the Government it will be presented to the country then.
In any event the people who are compiling the report are independent of the Department of Agriculture. I saw to that when I was setting up the commission so that it could not at any time be said that there was any wrong done to the farmers, that the figures were cooked or anything else.
What is the Deputy's attitude towards the report?
I indicated my attitude in this House in reply to a question by the Minister. There was one matter about which I was very concerned when I was in the Department. I refer to the much-needed extension of veterinary services. I reckon we are losing from £10,000,000 to £15,000,000 worth of cattle every year through disease.
Every year?
Every year. We are losing between 70,000 and 80,000 calves, mainly through white scour. If one takes these calves to maturity that loss represents a loss of between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000. Experiments were carried out in County Limerick over the past two years and the incidence of the disease has now been reduced from 17 per cent. to 2 per cent. We are also losing cattle from parasitic diseases, such as husk, hoose, stomach worms, and so on. Of course, since the introduction of phenothiazal and hexachorathane these diseases have been reduced. Losses from aphosphorosis are considerable. The principal losses, however, are due to abortion.
I have studied this matter, and I reckon that, taking all these things into consideration, our losses are well over £10,000,000 in cattle. The only way in which we can stop these losses is by expanding our veterinary services and I hope that the Minister will give very careful consideration to that question in the near future. It is one of the really important aspects of agriculture which should be dealt with. We have, too, Johne's disease. We have oedema and other diseases in pigs. All these are causing considerable losses, and I hope the Minister will seriously consider expanding our veterinary services.
Seeing the favourable position the Minister is in in relation to the qualifications of his Parliamentary Secretary to produce money easily, I would like to give him a little work to do over the next five years. In case it might be said that we are sitting back as stagnant as agriculture was supposed to be, I would like to give him a few schemes that he should tackle. The first is an extension of the demonstration and advisory work in connection with lime and fertilisers. Last year I introduced a scheme at a cost of about £40,000, a mere bagatelle. There is, too, the question of buildings and equipment and the position of the existing schools at Clonakilty, Ballyhaise and Athenry. There are the private agricultural schools at Pallaskenry, Mount Bellew and Warrenstown. All these schools need money.
The Deputy would not rebuild them all?
Warrenstown should be rebuilt completely. It was suggested we should have a live-stock progeny testing station at Grange for cattle, and at Athenry for sheep. We want more research work done and bigger grants given to the universities in order to carry out this research work. We were caught because of money. If I had had money at my disposal, I would have gone ahead with this work; but I did not have the advantage the Minister has in having a monetary reform man for a Parliamentary Secretary.
With regard to the control station for eggs and poultry, our trouble here is that we must improve the quality of our exports. If we do not do that, we may lose the market. We have about 2 per cent. of the 15 per cent. of imports into Britain at the present time. Unless we are very careful in our exports and the quality of them, we may lose that. It is necessary, therefore, to have a proper control station set up.
The most important step at the moment is the provision of increased credit for farmers for the purchase of lime and fertilisers. The Minister will remember that last spring I introduced a scheme to enable farmers to obtain loans to buy fertilisers. There is an air of independence about a man who has the money with which to buy. We made the money available, but the amount at our disposal was not sufficient. I ask the Minister to make £1,000,000 available. If we are to increase production, there will have to be a greater use of lime and fertilisers. The only way to encourage the farmer to use lime and fertilisers is by making more credit available for him.
Another important scheme is the reclamation of marginal land and the improvement of hill grazing, particularly in the Gaeltacht and congested areas. Experiments are, as the Minister knows, still going on in that direction. It would be a good thing to have more work of that nature carried out.
With regard to improved facilities under the farm building schemes and the farm water supply scheme, the money available now is not sufficient to induce farmers to build. It does not cover a quarter of the cost of labour or a quarter of the cost of building materials. It was the Minister himself who introduced the water supply scheme to enable farmers to bring water into their houses. That scheme should be extended to make water available for cattle. Many farms are dependent upon rivers for watering their cattle but it does not always suit a farmer to reserve land bordering on rivers for grazing purposes. If he had a piped system it would be a great advantage to him.
Another matter is the disposal of sewerage from creameries. From the fishery point of view this is important because of the pollution of rivers. At the moment there is no proper system, in the case of many creameries—I do not say all—for the disposal of sewerage. The matter is very important having regard to our export trade. It is important that we should take every precaution to see that sewerage is properly disposed of and so eliminate the danger of pollution or contamination.
I would also suggest to the Minister that grants be made available for the purchase of machinery, for lime spreaders in particular, and manure distributors. Some years ago there was a scheme whereby grants were provided for lime distributors. That was done under the land reclamation scheme. I think, however, that the Minister should make grants available for lime spreaders, irrespective of whether they are engaged in delivering lime for land reclamation, for grass or tillage.
There is also the matter of providing facilities for the drying and the storage of onions. Last year, because we were unable to have proper drying facilities, considerable quantities of onions were lost in the County Kerry. If grants were made available for the erection of drying sheds and the provision of proper storage facilities, we might be able to avoid losses in that direction.
I should also like if the Minister would use his influence with other Ministers regarding the condition of cul-de-sac roads. It is necessary, if we are to have mechanisation on the land, that the old cul-de-sac roads be got rid of because, as the Minister knows, no machines can travel up the old laneways and boreens. I suggest to him that he should use his influence and see that grants are made available for the putting of these roadways into proper condition.
I think that is all I have to say on the Estimate. It is actually the Estimate that was prepared by me, with the exception of the one or two matters which I have raised in connection with the cattle tax and progeny testing. There is no other matter that I want to deal with at the moment. I do hope, however, that when the Estimate is placed before us in four or five years' time that we will not have the same stagnant position that we had in 1951. That is all I have to say to the Minister.
I have no intention of discussing the Estimate at any length, except to say that agricultural conditions to-day are flourishing and are being handed over to the Minister in a very sound and good condition. We hope that he will maintain them so. There is only one matter that I want to deal with. The Minister asked Deputy Walsh, when he was speaking, a question in connection with milk costings. I would like to tell the Minister that the agricultural community expect this Government to give them the same treatment in regard to the findings of any commission on milk costings as they are now giving to the civil servants. If the tribunal on milk costings finds that the farmers are, and have been entitled to an increase in the price of milk, we expect that the Government will go back over the specified period in the same way as they are doing now at the expense of the taxpayers in connection with the £1,000,000 back pay to the civil servants. I expect that the tribunal will say how long the farmers have been underpaid on the question of milk prices. Therefore, we expect that the Government will go back over that period in the same way as they are doing in the case of the civil servants.
Agriculture is the principal industry of the country. The agricultural community are expecting the self-same treatment from this Government as they are now giving to other sections of the community. I do not think that is asking too much. There are many men engaged in tillage schemes to-day who at present have troubled minds, men who have, for example, their all invested in harvesting machinery. I hope that the Minister's guarantee in regard to a five year plan for wheat, and other grain crops, will be carried out in the knowledge based on this fact, that it is very nice for any Government to come along and say: "Yes, we will give you a price; we will give you a five year guarantee."
I remember the Minister's guarantee in respect of wheat the last time that he sat on that side of the House, and the tragic results which that guarantee had over a period. I also remember the Minister's guarantee as regards oats which was given in 1948, and the tragic position in which the agricultural community found themselves at harvest time in that year. These are things which farmers do not forget. They are present in their minds to-day when their crops are in the ground growing and, thank God, look very promising. But they are wondering and they are nervous. I am endeavouring to ease their minds as best I can, and I am sure that the Minister will help to ease their minds also.
As I have said, agriculture is our principal industry. If the Minister has any nervousness as regards price, I want to suggest to him that the agricultural community are at least entitled to as much protection for their industry as those in other industries are receiving. I do not think we are looking for too much in asking for that. We, in our time, paid, and we are continuing to-day to pay, a little more in order to give employment to our people in Wexford for the agricultural machinery which they produce. We are paying a little more for iron and steel. I take it, too, that we are paying a little more for our artificial manures in order to give employment to people in this country. Therefore, I say that the agricultural community are entitled to the same measure of protection for what they produce. I would suggest to the Minister that if he approaches the matter along that line, we will have a fairly happy time here. I also suggest to him that, within the next few weeks when the costings tribunal will report on milk prices, he will have the opportunity of seeing that the findings of that tribunal are put into force so that the farming community will, at least, get the back pay due to them in the same as this Government have decided to give back pay to the civil servants. I do not think that that is going beyond bounds and I do not think it is an unreasonable thing to look for. It is on that line as I said that I judge every Minister and every Department and I am sure that I shall have a pretty happy time here with the Minister while we agree.
I regret that I was not in the House when the Minister made his statement and I am glad to have an opportunity of putting in this House a viewpoint which I have put for a long time in the dairying end of the constituency which I represent. I would like to preface my remarks by quoting an extract from an interview given by Mr. David Gray, former American Minister to this State, on his return to Washington after he had relinquished his post here. He said a number of things which most members of this House, I am sure, resented but he did say one thing about our dairying industry. He said: "The standard of living among the rural community is very low. They have robber cows that eat much and give little". I think that in that short sentence he crystallised a statement of the truth of which anybody in the House who has made a study of the position in the dairying areas, is long ago convinced.
I want to say this: If that was the impression he had gathered with his fishing-rod on the banks of the Blackwater at Carysville what would have been his impression had he gone into the dairying recesses in the counties in the South? I have always maintained that our trouble began with the introduction of the Livestock Breeding Act away back in 1926. I never saw anything that was written of it to indicate that there was any particular demand ever made by the dairy farmers for the introduction of such an Act and I have no idea who conceived it but I do know that the Minister for Agriculture who reigned when the Act was introduced is on record as having said: "We can take this too far."
Dr. Hammond, who is a well-known geneticist, said down in Kilkenny some time ago that it was as logical for a farmer to go to a show to select a bull passed at a bull inspection to mate to his dairy cows as it would be for a bachelor to go to a beauty contest to select a domesticated wife.
I have seen peculiar things happen in the operation of this Act. The only basis on which the Act operated is contour. Calves are presented at the cross-roads and in the market squares of the towns and in post office centres all over the country and they are inspected purely from the contour angle. There is no reference whatever to the milking propensities of the dams of these bulls. As a matter of fact there is no record whatever in most cases of the dams. All that is required by the bull inspector is contour and formation. That business has been going on since 1926 and there has been promiscuous crossing of dairy herds by those animals and we have now reached the stage when, instead of dairy cows, we have a beef cow—a phenomenon. This phenomenon is known as the dual-purpose shorthorn. Some time ago one of those bulls bought at Reading, a bull with some repute, was seconded to Mitchelstown and was used in a breeding station there and the following spring some of the progeny of that bull appeared before the bull inspector and, as far as I am aware, four of them were rejected outright. When this anomaly was brought to the notice of the Department—what happened? An inspector was sent down and the bulls were passed—re-inspected and passed.
We have those bulls, and we have officers of the Department of Agriculture going, year after year, to the Reading bull sales and buying with the taxpayers' money those bulls. They are bought on repute. They are not proven and they are brought into this country and distributed to premium bullholders and now to the A1 stations. There is no record whatever kept. And it is still the same even in the A1 stations; there is no attempt to prove or progeny-test those bulls and it is only—now the Minister is disturbed, but I am not aware that we have in any station a progeny test. I am aware, in my own home area, we have a progeny-testing of the heifers but that is an incomplete type of test of heifers which are fed and kept under varying conditions. It is some indication, but not a true indication, and it is not worth a whole lot. All we have in the stations that used to be operated by the Department of Agriculture, the stations now operated by the Dairy Disposals Board, I think, is what I describe as purposeless, mechanised mating of cattle.
I am aware that to one other station in the South was sent a bull with the very formidable name of Napoleon. The noble emperor was sent south and we heard a lot of him. He was put into service there and a crop of heifers produced but of what they did nobody ever again heard. I doubt if the figures ever saw daylight. And so another one passed out.
Again I heard the Minister in University College, Dublin, last December—was it not?——
And a grand meeting it was.
——being cheered to the echo because in apologising for the Livestock Breeding Act he made use of the words Belsen and Buchenwald in describing the conditions under which cattle were housed in the spring. We all know that cows are kept in many places in conditions far from ideal but we also know of places where cows are kept under ideal conditions and we see very few figures produced from these institutions. I have not seen any, at any rate. One would think that these would be the places where figures would be compiled to defend the dual purpose shorthorn but we have no such figures. I have seen none.
Has the Deputy ever referred to the dairy shorthorn herd at the Albert Agricultural College?
I have, but I have never seen any figures which would give any reliable guide on the economics of the thing—I mean something that would give us a record of what is put in at one end and extracted at the other, and the profit accruing from the transaction. That is what the dairy farmer is concerned with. If the Minister or his Department has any figures of the nature suggested, I should like to be provided with a copy of these figures.
Again Dr. Hammond said as far back as 1946:—"A cow to be a dual purpose animal to-day must produce in the region of 1,000 gallons and, at the same time, a good steer." The Minister objects to the word "steer" so I shall say "bullock". I say that we have not had a chance. We have tried, down through the years, to get something approaching that figure but so far as I can see—and I hope to prove it before I conclude—it is an impossibility. I can see one hope and that is from the introduction here of Dutch Friesian bulls. The Minister, I believe—I was not in the House— made reference to the use of the Aberdeen Angus. When we have a national average in Holland of between 800 and 900 gallons, why not now think in terms of black and white? Why not remove the black and white spots from our eyes and cross these cows with Aberdeen Angus bulls? That is my suggestion.
Again, up to 1947 there was being imported into this country, by officers of the Minister's Department, Scotch beef bulls. I think the greatest crime committed on the dairy farmers of this country was committed through the importation of these Scotch beef bulls. I have seen myself instances where these Scotch beef bulls were distributed in the dairying areas. They found their way in there and there was no effort made to control their progeny. What happened? Unscrupulous people came along and they put heifers in calf to these bulls and they sold these heifers in the fairs of Munster to small dairymen. When the unfortunate people expected to be provided with milk from them, they got as much milk as you might get from an Angora goat. That was the position that went on, I believe, up to 1947, when the then Minister for Agriculture —I think it was Deputy Smith—with-drew the premiums on the Scotch beef bulls. Then we had a voice raised in protest from the vested interests. In Seanad Éireann we had a motion by Senator Counihan indicating the then Minister for this embargo, but few knew that Senator Counihan was one of three brothers who were Kerry cattle dealers. I trust I am within the rules of the House.
De mortuis nil nisi bonum.
I believe that was one of the first documents signed by the present Minister—the restoration of these premiums—when he became Minister away back in 1948. At least I accuse him of it. I have seen some records somewhere that the present Minister did sign a document very early on in his previous term of office restoring these premiums. I think the greatest menace, while we have the dual-purpose shorthorns, is these Scotch beef bulls. It would be all right if these bulls were brought in and their progeny controlled but unfortunately they do not colour mark like the Hereford or the Aberdeen-Angus. I would say to the Minister that as long as we trick about with the dual-purpose shorthorn, one thing we should ensure is that these bulls are not distributed in the dairying areas of Munster.
On a point of information, may I ask a question?
Not unless the Deputy in possession gives way.
Who brought in the beef shorthorn bulls?
Deputy Moher must be allowed to speak without interruption.
I did not mention any specific Minister. I do not know what Minister was in office when these bulls were first imported, but I am making the very case now I would have made if a Fianna Fáil Minister was sitting where the present Minister is now sitting. It is a viewpoint I have expressed irrespective of what Government was in office. It is a viewpoint which I am glad to have an opportunity of putting to this House.
Again I want to make reference to the system by which the record of a dam here is assessed. So far as I am aware, all you need here is the record of a registered cow for one year. If I am wrong I should like to be corrected, but that is the impression I have got from various statements I have seen. I think that is all wrong. Surely we are all aware of the racket carried on by vested interests who call themselves breeders. I know there are breeders who are extremely honest people but I know that there is a very big percentage who have racketeered in this matter. It is one of the reasons why I object to shows. I have stated in another place that I have a strong objection to shows. The show serves a double purpose. The show is the unholy temple where these racketeers ring the changes and pass over their shoddy goods on these small dairymen. I know how the records are assembled. I am sure the Minister knows. The cows are fed. There is no reference at all to the law of economics, no reference to the law of diminishing returns. It is a case of feed, feed, feed, produce that label at any price.
A certain farm manager visited a certain breeder at milking time. He was astounded when he saw the yield of each cow being weighed meticulously and then passed up to the cow's head, passed back to the cow. That is how, in many instances, those bogus labels are produced. When some of our honest people read a catalogue and see the yield of a dam, they buy the progeny and put the progeny into operation on their herd. A relation of mine, who had been tricking about with these for years and years, had a herd of 24 cows. After about ten or 12 years he got an average yield of 650 gallons. Then he went to a Cork show and bought a labelled bull. He bred from this bull and the yields of the heifers collapsed. There was a sudden collapse and he was back where he began. He threw up his hands in despair. Do not we all know that that is the reason why people just nod their heads when you suggest their joining a cow-testing society?
I have not many cows. I have five shorthorns and six Friesian crosses. I make a record. It is very useful to me. It is one of the ways by which I can know which one to eliminate. In some cases there may be a flush period of five weeks and a particular cow may fill the pail for those few weeks and then they say that she is a good milker. It is amazing how deceptive that can be. It is the animal that milks over the lactation period, not in a spectacular way, but in an even way, that gives you the decent figure and in many instances the animal that has a flush period of a few weeks may be at the end of the list at the end of the lactation period.
Lush, the American geneticist, says:—
"Forty per cent. better progress is made in breeding for milk when selections are made on the result of four or five lactations."
We are aware that the Dutch system insists on four or five lactations, insists on double inspection, insists that, when the bulls have been in service for two years, if they show any mal-development or mis-confirmation, they are removed. Why could not the Minister here examine this whole position and try to seal off the loopholes? It is not outside the bounds of possibility to have a thorough examination of this system and the Minister would have the praise of every dairyman in the country if he were to do something to eliminate the racketeers who have got in on this thing.
It is not the only place in Ireland where we have racketeers.
I am urging the Minister to use all the forces at his disposal to discover and root them out.
I have been trying to do that for 20 years now.
I want to quote an extract from the report of the commission which was set up to report on our dairying industry, which expresses an extraordinary view for what I consider an assembly of very able men:—
"There is no evidence pointing to incompatibility between reasonably high milk inheritance and good beefing qualities in the shorthorn."
Notice the vagueness—"reasonably high". What do they mean? What did they mean? Are they not being purposely ambiguous? What did they mean by "reasonably high"?
Six hundred to 800 gallons.
They were given a certain task. Why did they run away from stating a figure? Was not it extremely vague? I have a table here that is more specific, for three breeds, under the following heads: breed, yield per cow; food units consumed per lb. of butter fat produced; butter fat per acre produced. That is specific and I hope this table will give an indication of the three breeds, by comparison. The first breed is the Dutch Friesian: yield of butter fat per cow, 310 lb.; food units consumed, per lb. of butter fat produced, 21.1; butter fat per acre produced, 105 lb. The second breed is the New Zealand Jersey: yield of butter fat per cow, 250 lb.; food units consumed per lb. of butter fat produced, 18.7; butter fat per acre produced, 119. The third breed is the Danish Jersey: yield of butter fat per cow, 270 lb.; food units consumed per lb. of butter fat produced, 19.8; butter fat per acre produced, 112 lb. Now we come to the Irish shorthorn.
May I ask the Deputy the source of his quotation?
I cannot give the Minister the exact source. It is a table which I particularly noted and kept because it gave comparative figures but I will provide the Minister with the source.
It was purely for information.
I move to report progress.
