Before the Adjournment last night I was dealing with the position in regard to T.B. tested cattle and I am now suggesting to the Minister that under the present system what is happening is that a few cute people are quietly getting out. The number of T.B. cattle in this country is not decreasing by any manner of means. What I mean is that there is an exchange of T.B. reactors from one farm to another. That is what has been going on all over the country as far as I can learn from others whom I consulted in this matter.
Under this system a farmer can get his cattle tested free of charge: he brings in the veterinary surgeon, tests his cattle and so many of his cattle are reactors. There is nothing to prevent that man doing whatever he wishes with those reactors; he can do what he likes with them and naturally if a cow within a month or two of calving is found to be a reactor, the farmer waits until she is springing and he goes to the fair, sells the beast and somebody else is left holding the baby. The same applies in respect of heifers and of practically every other beast that is there and I suggest to the Minister that in my opinion the proper thing to do would be to bring in one scheme, not for a county but for the whole country at large.
If one is exporting cattle to-day the first thing asked about those heifers is if they have been T.B. heifers. That, of course, applies to heifers which the purchaser wants to keep as cows. But as I have said you have that kind of thing going on in this country and the Minister should make every effort to try and get rid of it. Under the Minister's present wheat policy what will become of the farmers that have mechanised their holdings, and what is going to happen to the machinery on those farms? In that respect the present Minister for Agriculture, on the 2nd April, 1952, when an increased tax was imposed on petrol, was very fluent on the matter and here was his statement as reported at column 1182, Volume 130 of the Official Report:
"How in the name of common sense can a Parliament, in one afternoon, declare that the economic survival of our people depends on reducing the cost of production and increasing the volume of production, and, in the case of production, declaring that, before the best farmer in Ireland will be allowed to catch up on the state in which he at present is, he must begin by contributing an additional 4d. per gallon on the fuel he uses in the only system of power and traction he now employs? He cannot draw back from his mechanisation because his capital investment is too substantial and is irrevocable."
That was the position then and it was ruining the farmers then according to the present Minister for Agriculture. We all know that for the one tractor in 1952 there are ten there now and that for the one combine there was in 1952 there are now 50. And now the Minister comes along here and says: "Oh, yes, you will get 2/6 a barrel extra if you hold your wheat until after November". In my part of the country at any rate we would consider that we were fairly late if we have not our harvest practically finished before the middle of August, and even when it is cut with the binder, drawn in and threshed, we would consider we were very late if we had not the threshing done by the first week in September.
But now the Minister proposes to ask the farmers to hold that wheat from September when they thresh it until the end of November in order to get an extra 2/6 per barrel and he advises the farmer that the proper way to do that is to cut it with the binder, stook it, rick it, and then thresh it. I think it is a very foolish thing even to dream of doing the job with the combine. I have heard various estimates given on this matter and I have heard that the difference in the returns between the combine and the reaper binder would be between one and a half and two barrels per acre. I do not think I am very far out in that: the man who combines his grain has from one and a half to two barrels per acre more than if he cuts with the binder, stooks it, stacks it and then threshes it. The estimate is that there is at least that much wastage. I should like that the Minister would consider that point in connection with his offer of an extra 2/6 a barrel. The farmer will get at least 75/- more per acre for his grain if he harvests it with the combine and sells it straight away than if he holds it until the end of November and does it with the ordinary thresher. What I cannot understand is the whole attitude of the Minister towards the tillage policy of the country.
What is the idea of endeavouring to wipe out by a penal tariff or a penal tax all the grain crops of this country? The only thing that has escaped up to the present is oats. There is £4 a ton on feeding barley; 12/6 a barrel on wheat. Yet, the Minister is very well aware that in his Department there are guarantees from farmers for the repayment of loans that were obtained for the purchase of farm machinery. What use has the farmer, who is put out of tillage by this penal tax, for a combine or for the reclamation machinery that he has bought for thousands of pounds and for which, in many cases, the whole future of the farmer and his farm is pledged? What will become of it? These are the things that I would like the Minister to consider.
I noticed that Deputy Donegan was kind enough here the other night to thank the Minister for, as he said, introducing the contract system. Deputy Donegan is very well acquainted with the firm of Arthur Guinness & Son.