I was about to say, when progress was reported at 7 o'clock, that the most important decision given here in recent months by the Minister was the decision to reestablish the export trade in live pigs. I think that decision is welcomed by the country. It should give a great stimulus to the bacon industry here and it should help to stabilise bacon prices—prices that have been fluctuating so much in recent months. It may not give all the help we anticipate it will, but at least the Minister must be congratulated on his efforts to restore our export trade in live pigs.
The grading system has been criticised very considerably here. I have no doubt that much of the criticism is justified, but the Minister has provided for the producers an officer in each bacon factory to supervise the grading of bacon pigs. He was co-operative to that extent. If it has not given the desired result, at least he made an effort to give the producers what they wanted. I think it is not so much the type of pig that is at fault as the actual feeding. The change-over to different cereals and rations in recent years has been such that some people have not become fully accustomed to it. I respectfully suggest to the Minister that the Department should, in a series of advertisements, publish alternative rations for the production of lean bacon. The fatty bacon is not the fault of the producers. The fault lies in their want of knowledge and experience in the handling of rations to which they were not accustomed.
The National Farmers' Association has been mentioned. It is well that, at last, the farmers have been organised into a vocational body empowered and competent to speak for their own vocation, just as all other vocations in this country are organised. It is gratifying that the Minister has been willing to meet and consult with them already on matters of vital importance affecting farming. I hope he will persevere in that attitude and that there will be mutual confidence between the executive of the National Farmers' Association and the Minister and his Department on matters that are very vital to agriculture.
Deputy Hughes spoke about wheat. I agree with him that the gap in bushel weight and price in the present system is too great—that the prices should be regulated on a pound basis each way up or down. I assume, from what I have heard, that the Minister has recently had talks with the National Farmers' Association and that something will eventuate from the talks.
I was glad to hear the Minister say we should produce our own requirements of feeding barley. The present Minister for Agriculture must get credit for having introduced feeding barley into this country. Apart from its value as a cash crop, if we turned over to the production of feeding barley toi meet our requirements it would save us considerable dollar expenditure and reduce our balance of payments. There is no reason why we should not produce our full requirements of cereals and coarse grains in this country.
The Minister referred to seeds for export. Again, the Minister and his Department are to be congratulated in that matter. If we have seeds which are being sought abroad it is a very good sign that our management and harvesting conditions are satisfactory.
Several Deputies referred to ground limestone. It is a very important factor in the production of cereal crops and particularly in the production of feeding barley and malting barley. However, I must concur in what Deputy Corry said. I cannot understand why C.I.E. rake off a certain percentage on every load of lime hauled from the limestone quarries. It is enough to kill initiative and competition.
Credits have been mentioned. Our production is low for the want of capital. For generations, the average farmer has had to struggle for existence. He never seems to be able to reach the point that would make him independent of fluctuations, the point that would give him so much independence that he could afford to put a part, or a great part, of his capital into increased production. In a country where agriculture is the predominant industry, I see no reason why there should not be some system of credits to aid people who find the capital system difficult. The Agricultural Credit Corporation was set up, but ordinary people will get better terms from the commercial banks than from the Agricultural Credit Corporation, where the conditions are very exacting and the rate of interest very high. In an agricultural country, there should be at least cheap credits to aid the basic industry.
There has been much talk of production in this debate. I agree with the Minister that our only hope of increased production lies in cattle, sheep and pigs. I am afraid, however, the factor that will most adversely affect our production in the coming year and in the years that lie ahead will be the high rates on agricultural land. Our farmers have to compete with their confrères over the Border, where they have derating of agricultural land.
They have to compete with farmers in Great Britain, where agricultural land is derated. I know the Minister has no responsibility for this. I think there should be collective Cabinet responsibility. The fact that we have had Rate Relief Bills passed in this House shows that rates on agricultural land are unjustifiably high and that some effort has been made to give relief.
