Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Mar 1955

Vol. 148 No. 7

Fertilisers, Feeding Stuffs and Mineral Mixtures Bill, 1955— Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Walsh

When I moved the adjournment of the debate on Thursday evening, I was speaking about lime. Under Section 4 the Minister is reserving the right "to prohibit the sale or manufacture for sale of any specified fertiliser, feeding stuff, compound feeding stuff or mineral mixture or of any specified class of fertilisers, feeding stuffs, compound feeding stuffs or mineral mixtures".

In the case of ground limestone, there is still a great difference of opinion as regards which type is the most suitable, whether it is the really fine lime or the coarse lime. If we have a really fine limestone produced, there is the danger of loss from bleaching and also because it is airholed. One need only go through the country when lime is being spread by one of the ordinary spinner spreaders to see clouds of lime all over the place like a fog. There is a very considerable quantity of very fine lime lost in that way. In the other case, where fine lime is spread on old pastures. much of it is carried away with surface waters, and, even in cases where drainage works have been carried out recently under land reclamation, there has been a considerable quantity of lime washed out in the drainage.

As I have said, there is a difference of opinion as regards what standard of fineness we should have. In my opinion, the Minister should consult with lime producers and with the agricultural advisers in the different counties because, as we know, you have various types of land not only in different counties but even within a county. The Minister should also consult with farmers' representatives as regards what standard should be maintained. It might be possible for the Minister to make regulations under which he would allow producers to produce a standard lime if they wish or if it suited a district better to have a coarser lime produced. He should also, I suggest, issue advertisements giving the fineness and in that way let the farmer purchase whatever lime he thought was best for his land, on the advice, of course, of the agricultural adviser.

We have had in the past various types of mills producing lime, the ball mill and the hammer mill. As a rule the mill will depend on the type of limestone that is in a district. In one particular district people may be producing the finer class of lime so that in that area there may be no coarse lime available. That is a matter that should get consideration and I suggest that there should be no hard and fast rule made with regard to standards.

As regards fertilisers. I mentioned the other evening that in many cases, particularly of compounds, there is a very ambiguous way of presenting the analysis. You have special potato manures, swede manures and oat manures. All these have been in existence for many years. The analysis given in some cases of nitrogen content of a particular manure, and of the potassic content is of very little value to the farmer because in the mixture the nitrogen varies according to the quantity of the manures that are put into the mixture. For instance, in the case of a special potato manure, what is recommended is about 6 cwt. per statute acre; 1 cwt. of sulphate of ammonia, 2 cwt. of potash and 3 cwt. of super. In that way a certain figure is arrived at. If it is an oat manure the content has a higher nitrogenous percentage than the other, and the total quantity per acre may be 8 cwt.

I have one example here of a special potato manure. According to the percentage given on the bag, the farmer believes that he has 1 cwt. of sulphate of ammonia, 20 per cent. nitrogen, 4 cwt. of super, 35 per cent., and 1 cwt. of muriate of potash, 48 per cent., whereas what he has really got in that case is 3? per cent. nitrogen, 23? of soluble phosphate and 8 per cent. potash. He may be misled and possibly would be misled when he sees in the analysis 20 per cent. nitrogen of sulphate of ammonia, and 35 per cent. super. I think that, in order to make it perfectly clear to the farmer who is buying manures, he should be given an analysis of the nitrogen, the phosphates and the potash. The analysis should be distinctly set out on the sack.

Mr. Dillon

Is the farmer not entitled to have that under the existing law? Is he not entitled to have the analysis if he asks for it?

Mr. Walsh

That is the point, if he asks for it. The farmer does not do that. Possibly he does not know that he is entitled to do that, due to lack of education. I know, of course, that the 1906 law prescribes that the analysis must be given. This, as I have said, is not always given in such a distinctive way that the farmer knows exactly what he is getting. I am asking the Minister now to ensure that there will be no ambiguity in the analysis so that the farmer will know what he is buying; he should know the potassic, the nitrogenous and the phosphatic content. So much for the straight manures.

I come then to what might be described as the compound manures. The position in relation to the compounds is much more serious because it is vital that the farmer should know whether or not he is getting a whole manure and what the percentages are. The analysis should be such that he will know the quantity of nitrogen, potash and phosphate in the compound he is purchasing.

With regard to feeding stuffs, I mentioned the other night that details of the albuminoids, the oils and the fats would probably be sufficient. Under the Act carbohydrates need not be given. Now I think that position is an unsatisfactory one. I think the carbohydrates should be given particularly nowadays when so many new meals and new compounds are coming on the market. With the exception of straight maize, linseed cake or cotton cake, the others are all concoctions of one kind or another. There are special pig meals and special calf meals. Many of these are not up to the standard that one would expect them to be. In some cases spurious meals have been put on the market. We had examples of that in the past, particularly during the war years. At one stage the Government had to intervene and prohibit the sale of a special meal which was being advertised.

Mr. Dillon

Before the Deputy passes from that, would he be good enough to give me his opinion as to the desirability of an open formula; that is to say, a formula which sets out so much oats, so much barley, so much meat meal and so forth, seriatim?

Mr. Walsh

That would be quite satisfactory.

Mr. Dillon

I have the feeling that open formulae are preferable to the common formula referring to albuminoids and so forth.

Mr. Walsh

I would be prepared to accept that as being even better than the technical term. The difficulty the Minister might be in would be that there are so many ingredients going into some of these meals to-day there probably would not be enough room on the sack for all of them. You have oat meal, oat husks, pulp and all the other ingredients which are put in in order to fill the sacks. I would be prepared to accept the Minister's suggestion because the farmer will then know what he is getting. In the case of oats he probably has no difficulty in knowing whether or not they have a good carbohydrate, oil or protein value.

Under the Minister's suggestion he will know in the other cases what the ingredients are and I will be prepared to accept that as sufficient to meet the farmers' requirements. Another point to which I wish to refer is the Minister taking power to prohibit or restrict the manufacture of any meals. With whom will he consult before he makes a decision? Will he consult with anybody in the case of maize? Will it be on the ground that the ingredients are not of the proper standard or feeding value that he will prohibit them? Is there any particular reason why he should prohibit the manufacture of any particular meal? Has the Minister anything in mind?

Mr. Dillon

I take it the Minister would have power where he knows a meal to be valueless, for instance, to prohibit its manufacture.

Mr. Walsh

There is no objection to that.

Mr. Dillon

Suppose it emerged that the compounder was putting in turf mould or sawdust, it should be open to the Minister in such a case to say that he will not allow that formula. I think that is the point.

Mr. Walsh

Nothing more than that?

Mr. Dillon

No.

Mr. Walsh

That meets the case. This Bill is badly needed, but one point has struck me in connection with it. The fibre in meal is very important. Is there any way in which the Minister can deal with that situation so that farmers would have a complete analysis of the quantity of fibre in the meals offered for sale?

Mr. Dillon

Fibre is something to which particular regard is had.

Mr. Walsh

Oat husks are most indigestible and highly unsuitable for pig feeding and it would be as well if the Minister had power to prohibit the manufacture of pig meal containing an excess quantity of husks. I welcome this Bill, but I thought that the Minister when introducing it would make provision also in relation to certain proprietary medicines and reliefs that farmers are asked to purchase from "cure-alls". The Minister understands what I mean. These are being circulated all over the country and I thought he would have taken some powers, or included some provision, prohibiting or restricting the sale of some of these.

Mr. Dillon

There are certain types of legislation which it is a pleasure to steer through this House because they evoke the kind of discussion which one feels is not a waste of time. This House, if I may say so, with respect, is never better than when its members are offering the contribution of their special experience for the improvement of legislation. I value highly Deputy Walsh's contribution at this stage because he has directed our attention to certain aspects of this legislation which certainly require careful consideration.

If I may deal with the specific points raised by Deputy Walsh, backwards rather than forwards, I shall refer first of all to the last observation he made in which he regretted that no reference is made in this Bill to patent medicines. To tell the truth, that had not occurred to me. I certainly think that if we have not got, we should acquire, power to prohibit the offer for sale of preparations which we have satisfactory reason to believe are calculated to be harmful. When one comes down, however, to the right of somebody in authority to forbid a farmer to buy a remedy which one cannot actually say is harmful, but which one may believe to be worthless, I think one has got to be a bit circumspect. If I ask the Deputy to cross his heart and swear to die, has he never bought a bottle or a pill or some favourite patent medicine, which his physician has told him is no damn good but which he in his personal experience has found to be most salubrious?

Mr. Walsh

Psychologically.

Mr. Dillon

Psychologically or objectively we are revolting against the Minister for Health claiming that on many occasions I should not buy a bottle of my favourite patent medicine and soothe myself psychologically or objectively, because the Minister for Health for the time being is advised by his experts that it is not very good. I agree that where a preparation is offered which is demonstratively harmful, authority must have the right to intervene and say: "No matter how much people want to buy that, they cannot be permitted to buy it, because it is calculated to do very serious injury if used."

Mr. Walsh

It is only under the lack of education and knowledge of the ineffectiveness of this remedy or this medicine.

Mr. Dillon

When I acquire these powers, as I hope to do with the assistance of the Deputy, I will ask him to endorse my view that we should set the Minister for Health an example, and warn him off any interference with the Deputy or myself. If we have some favourite liniment that relieves our ache or pain, which he thinks, on the advice of his technical advisers, is no better than spring water, I want the Deputy to help me in telling him to lay off our liniment. On the other hand, if either of us threatened to develop cocaine or drug addiction we will have to concede that authority is entitled to intervene and say: "Whether you like cocaine or not, you cannot buy it".

In the administration of purveyors of veterinary medicines, I think we must try to draw the line between the type of preparation which claims on the label to do extravagant things which it cannot do. I think that must be corrected, and the manufacturer must be required to make no claim on the label which cannot be fully substantiated. I think the manufacturer or purveyor must be restricted from purveying anything which demonstrably could do serious harm if mischievously used. Over and above that, if somebody produces Mrs. Maggot's maggot remedy, and somebody else used that remedy, I do not think it behoves us to intervene.

I am very conscious of the fact that old people in rural Ireland had lots of cures on which veterinary officials looked down their noses, only to discover that modern research had vindicated the pragmatic practice of the old people in the past. If the old people had not continued using these cures when antibiotics were not available they would in fact have been bereft of a good many precious things.

May we leave that question in abeyance for the present, because there will be a Bill before the House in the reasonably near future dealing with that specific matter? Then we can discuss it in greater detail.

In regard to the question of the grinding of limestone, the present position is that the Bureau of Standards, I think, has laid down a standard for ground limestone. It is that 100 per cent. shall pass through a one-eighth of an inch mesh, and the 35 per cent. will pass through a one-hundredth of an inch standard sieve. That standard was arrived at by the Industrial Bureau of Standards after consultation with all interests, including the producers.

Mr. Walsh

Including?

Mr. Dillon

The producers. The technicians were also consulted. I would be powerfully interested if the Deputy expressed the view that we should require the Bureau of Standards to review this matter, and to prescribe fresh standards, one being known as limestone flour, for instance, and the other being known as being No. 1 or No. 2 ground limestone. I think there is a great deal of advantage in securing some kind of standard. The only trouble is that the present standard applies to ground limestone, and the universal practice is that it cannot be charged for at a price in excess of 16/- per ton; in fact, it is being sold for 15/-, 14/- and 13/- per ton, according to quantity. If you have, say, three standards—limestone flour, No. 1 limestone and No. 2 limestone— you may easily get the situation in which the standard price will obtain for the No. 2 ground limestone, and a supplement charged for No. 1 limestone flour, or vice versa. There is a great deal of advantage in having a uniform standard so that any load in the process of delivery can be sampled, and the producer has to stand or fall by the uniform standard fixed by the bureau. There is no question of his being able to say: “This is only No. 2 ground limestone,” and then there is a long inquiry into whether or not he was carrying No. 1 grade, No. 2 grade or limestone flour. However, we will look into that question which is always open to review. There are two sides to the question as to whether you ought to have more than one Bureau of Standards standard for a commodity like ground limestone.

In regard to compound fertilisers the present law, as the Deputy was saying, is that there must be set forth on the invoice the nitrogen, potash, and phosphate content. I am not sure, but I think a label must be attached to or endorsed on the bag. I am not certain of that. If that is not the case, I think we ought to consider requiring a compound fertiliser manufacturer to attach to or stamp on the bag a statement of its nitrogen, phosphate and potash content. So far as I know, everybody in the country buys super, which is described as 35 per cent., 36 per cent. or 40 per cent., or triple super which is anything above 40 per cent. I do not know of anybody in rural Ireland who would buy super, and not familiarise himself with the total phosphate content. Has the Deputy come across any case where farmers have been misled as to the total phosphate content of the super they bought?

Mr. Walsh

Slightly, in compound.

Mr. Dillon

I think the Deputy referred to the problem of buying super. To the best of my knowledge, most muriate of potash is 50 per cent. potash.

Mr. Walsh

Maybe it is 48 per cent.

Mr. Dillon

I doubt if anybody buys it without inquiring. I do not know what more we can do than to require some appropriate description to be attached or branded on the bag. If that is not being done, I should certainly favourably consider regulations requiring it to be done.

In regard to compound feeding stuffs, of course, I agree with the Deputy that the excessive introduction of fibre into a compound feeding stuff could constitute a very real danger to the live stock to be fed. I gave the Deputy the extreme case of where we would be concerned to prevent the compounder introducing sawdust or turf mould into a compound, but in fact the commonest cause for animadverting on a formula proposed to us is the proposal to introduce oat hulls into a compound. We think we ought to have power to say that we will not allow any compounder to go beyond the point of introducing crushed oats as distinct from oatmeal or oat flour, but we will not sanction any compound into which it is proposed to introduce oat hulls just to increase bulk. That is the kind of practice which these powers would be used to control and regulate.

I think the all important thing is to let the farmer know what he is buying. We have then, I think, to leave it to the farmer very largely to determine for himself whether he is getting value for the money he is asked to pay. I quite agree that we must try by education and advice to increase the farmer's own capacity to be a judge of these matters, but I think it is carrying paternalism a little too far if, in addition to fixing the farmer with notice of precisely what he is being offered in the bag, we go on to say "and furthermore we propose to compel you to accept our view as to what is good and what is not good for you".

There are two methods of indicating to the intending purchaser what is in the bag. One is the ordinary formula which deals with albuminoids, carbohydrates—which I think is the modern name for albuminoids—fibre and so forth. The other procedure is the open formula in which the compounder is obliged to declare that there is so much oats, so much barley, so much cotton seed meal, so much meat meal, the specific ingredients which he has incorporated in the mixture. I have a profound belief in the open formula procedure and possibly the Deputy is aware that the Sugar Company recently approached me for leave to manufacture compounds in which beet pulp would be incorporated. I know of the Deputy's reservations on that particular matter, which I fully understand and with which I have a good deal of sympathy, but beet pulp is beet pulp and if the people want to mix it they can mix it themselves.

On the other hand, I was influenced by the offer of the Sugar Company to present a cattle cube with an open formula. I do not know if the Deputy has seen any of the cubes now manufactured in which it is set out, so much sugar pulp, so much oats, so much wheat, so much cotton seed meal. Each constituent is described by name and percentage. I regarded that as an example so valuable, if other compound feed manufacturers would follow it, that I felt I would not be justified in further withholding from the Sugar Company the licence to offer this product in so far as farmers wished to purchase it. I am bound to say that I have tried a sample of it on my own cows, although I do not ordinarily feed concentrates to my cows. I believe, if I can, in feeding them on grass, growing, in silo and in hay but, out of curiosity, I tried this compound and there is no doubt whatever that the cows appear to take kindly to it and it does seem to deliver the goods in that there was an undoubted increase in the milking yield of the cows while they were taking that compound. I am not now saying that it is better than all other compounds. What I am saying is that that compound, based on sugar pulp, is far from valueless and it has for me the great attraction of carrying an open formula. Perhaps I am unduly prejudiced in that direction but I feel it is a wonderful safeguard.

Mr. Walsh

It is one of the best feeds you can give to cows. Our slogan should be "grow more beet" so as to have more pulp.

Mr. Dillon

I have been so grateful to the Deputy for his objective and co-operative contribution to this discussion so far that I would greatly deplore the introduction by him of any note of controversy into our discussion.

Mr. Walsh

There is nothing wrong in that.

Mr. Dillon

I think the Deputy and I are in substantial agreement about this Bill and probably about the way in which it should be implemented. All I can say to him is that I am grateful for the considerations he has raised to-day and I need hardly assure him that if at any time anything occurs to his mind which would assist me in the administration of this legislation, if and when the Oireachtas passes it, his advice on such matters will always be warmly welcomed by myself and by the Department.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 15th March, 1955.