This Estimate is a very important one. One does not have to look very closely at it to understand the impact agriculture has on the Irish economy. If agriculture is not developed to its full potential it must necessarily interfere with the development of other social and economic pursuits. Agriculture must become increasingly efficient, forward-looking and capable of rapid adjustment, particularly in these changing times and changing circumstances. However, when we think of the variable resources in land, labour and capital, the difference in the degree of competence and skill of our farmers, the variation in the size of farms and in the soil, we begin to think of what a complex problem this is for the Government.
The development of agriculture presents at this time major problems not only for this country but for all developing nations of the world. Basic to any development programme and basic to the interests of individual farmers and the nation as a whole is the underpinning of research. We have been fortunate in the progress made by An Foras Talúntais in assessing the resources of our land, in outlining development programmes, in introducing new techniques and in the data and scientific knowledge they have put at the disposal of agriculturalists. Any moneys voted in this direction are in the national interest.
The necessity for farmers to be more efficient, for production costs to be cut down, raises the question of farmer education. The drive for the education of farmers must be pursued with greater intensity. Great strides have been made in this direction in recent times. However, the number of young men going into agriculture each year is between 3,000 and 4,000; the number of places in agricultural colleges for young boys who can be trained in agriculture through one year courses is between 500 and 600, and only a quarter of that number eventually return to farming. Therefore, the facilities for agricultural education are not adequate.
While more investment must be put into the land, the greatest single resource, the one which can give the best return, is the human resource. Our advisory services need to be even further strengthened so that our farmers can avail of the services of these men more than once or twice a year as is the case at present because of the huge number of farmers with whom instructors have to get in touch.
In regard to agricultural education I am delighted to note that in the new curricula for primary education this area is being more adequately covered than heretofore. Certainly one must advocate majoring in chemistry, physics, biology and other allied agricultural subjects so that the farmers of the future will be geared for the competitive field they will be entering. All the indications are that farming is becoming more scientific and more businesslike.
Farm output must bring a greater income to farmers. In the last year alone the 6 or 7 per cent increase in farm incomes compared to the 13 or 14 per cent increase in other incomes shows that the farmers' income must be significantly increased now and in the years ahead if those farmers with potentially viable farms are to remain on the land and the rural character, as we know it, is to be maintained. There must be higher yields per acre and more capital must be put into agriculture. Farmers can meet and solve these problems only if they have the requisite basic training. More people enter farming than any other type of work with little or no preparation for it. The days when a son could carry on and intensify a farming business on what he has seen and learned as a child are gone.
Winter farm schools and nightly lectures are being organised by the various committees of agriculture. Young people are anxious to equip themselves for the farming world of tomorrow. Education is important in every walk of life including farming. Nowhere is education needed more than in the case of the farmer with a small or medium size potentially viable farm. All of us want to see this type of farm maintained but international indicators show that it may not be possible for as many of them to survive as one would like. Whatever the indicators are individual farmers can gear their farms to tackle these problems, with special aids from the State, so that they will receive an equitable return for their work compared with those employed in other walks of life.
While significant improvements have been made so far as the development of our farms are concerned, the degree of competence that one can expect from older age groups make development somewhat piecemeal. While improvement in farm incomes has been significant it has been well surpassed by other sectors. A scant look at the statistics shows that the more vital age groups are not available to work the land. State aid should be geared at giving people a fair wage for the job because as long as industry can accommodate the surplus manpower they will draw farmers, even people with viable farms, away from the land.
One of the basic things the Government should do is to equalise incomes as far as possible. I do not agree with economists and others who advocate the extinction of small and mediumsize farms. It is neither practical nor socially desirable. These people should be given every opportunity to develop their farms to the full. Sixteen per cent of our farms are less than 14 or 15 acres and they will be unable to survive unless they engage in horticultural enterprises and enterprises of a very intensive nature. Until alternative employment is provided in industries established in provincial towns, it is practical for farmers to continue along these lines.
Deputy Keating described the two-tier price on milk as a wicked scheme and Deputy Bruton advocated its total abolition. People who advocate the paying of subsidies at a flat rate must think we are living in some kind of paradise where money grows on trees. If we had unlimited resources we could consider paying a flat rate subsidy. I have nothing against the larger producer who has developed his farm by purchasing land, using the credit facilities available, and has pushed himself and his family to the limit in order to develop and increase milk production on his farm. It does, at times, appear as if this system might interfere with further expansion. I want to say here that every farmer in milk production up to 30,000 gallons, which accounts for 85 or 90 per cent of our milk producers, get paid at the same rate, that is to say every single penny given to the smaller producer is also given to the larger producer up to 30,000 gallons.
This brings us to the question of whether people who advocate the abolition of the tier system are being really fair to the smaller producer who needs to be helped to bring his unit of production to an economically viable level in the future. Anybody who looks at this must accept that he needs greater help. I believe that this scaling down of milk prices does not interfere with expansion. An examination of the economics shows that the larger the production the lower the cost per unit of production. Inevitably the smaller producers' costs per unit of production are much higher than those of the larger producer and, therefore, in the long run it could be that even the 60,000-gallon producer getting on average 10d per gallon has, in fact on each unit of production a greater rate of profit than the smaller producer.
The question of the scaling down of milk prices, of special aids given to the smaller and medium sized farmers, must touch on fairly serious questions for all of us not alone in this House but right through the country. Any social structure which preserves human values to the extent that rural life has done deserves to be retained. That is not to say that I advocate uneconomic units because sooner or later one must come to grips with this kind of situation but it is that I believe in special incentive aids given to the small and medium producer, helping him to become efficient and enabling him to develop his enterprise to the fullest by education, by the application of scientific knowledge and by subsidy to intensify the drive for rural renewal.
Mention has been made of the low marriage rate, the size of farms, the lack of capital and the predominance of the young and the old. These are all factors which cannot easily be overcome. Another thing one sees in many rural areas is the splintered farm unit where if all the land were together, it would be a viable unit but because it is broken up into two or three parts it is difficult for a farmer to work it. Although it is not relevant to this debate I should like to refer to the restructuring of farms of this nature. I wonder whether the Land Commission could take on parishes or areas and, with the co-operation of farmers, exchange and acquire land to put production units together rather than having them disjointed as they often are. This is a matter which could be pursued on another Estimate later on.
Some of my remarks in connection with small farms might lead to my being criticised as being conservative. I do not think I have any blind attachment to the traditions of rural life, farm life, but I honestly believe that with the measures undertaken by the Government intensified and increased, the better application of scientific knowledge and the increasing of farm enterprises, even smaller units can be made viable. Indeed we have on average larger farms than they have in Europe. This should be an encouragement to our smaller and medium sized farmer and we should not, as is sometimes the case, undermine the confidence of farmers who by their efforts and using the knowledge available to them can succeed in agriculture in the future. We should not be discouraged either by relative failure in the past. This cannot be used as a yardstick because with the information they have now and with better adaptability farmers can grapple with their problems and in the long run can achieve viability of their holdings.
An area which has been in many ways untapped is that of co-operation. Many organisations such as Muintir na Tíre and farming organisations have advocated co-operation and in some cases have brought people together to work in this way. Smaller units with a build up in commercial ability and working together can have great strength. Efforts that have succeeded in some areas are not copied sufficiently. Perhaps it is that we do not appreciate the value of the co-operative movement, that we have not worked out the formula by which syndicates could be made operative. There has always been a townland tradition of co-operation dating back for generations. This can be recultivated. Not alone do I think it can but I think it must be, because it is one way we can cut production costs. We just cannot afford waste. We see waste every day of money which is scarce. In fact not enough money is put into agriculture. Whatever is being poured into agriculture must be used to gear towards efficiency and towards cutting production costs.
I have some experience of one or two machinery syndicates, pig fattening co-operatives, and I feel that their intelligent operation with goodwill between farmers could make a major contribution towards helping the farmers in question. There is no use in exploring external markets or in subsidising boards to find more markets if the reason why we cannot hold our ground and penetrate those markets is that our production costs are too high.
The rise in prices for agricultural produce right across the world has been slow and there is no indication that it will escalate. One way in which a profit can be made more readily than in many other ways is by cutting production costs. I should like to see more rural organisations and, indeed, all of us pushing this idea home and helping that notion to be crystallised. It should be given the fullest backing with incentive grants and it should get our co-operation in every other way.
This type of co-operation with smaller units facilitates bigger production units and, particularly where we have a reasonable number of farmers living close to one another, it can be introduced in the field of dairying and in allied farm work. The farm incentive scheme is a well-conceived plan for encouraging development on the small farms as well. Even though one would like to see the gross income qualification limit increased to possibly £1,000, or thereabouts, nevertheless this scheme, since it encourages planning and the setting up of targets, can act as a base to help the smaller producer to become more alive to and accustomed to the business-like demands of the farming profession today.
I do not think we have been sufficiently credit conscious. I have not got the figures with me, but I remember reading some time ago that the ratio of indebtedness to total assets is quite low in this country by international standards. I suppose there are many historical reasons why farmers are not as credit-conscious as they should be but that is no reason why we should ignore them. I should like to see the Agricultural Credit Corporation pursuing farm credit to the utmost. It is not possible by any stretch of the imagination to give the kind of subsidies to farmers which would enable them to get into bigger units, so credit must come into it. There is no way in which a small farmer who is potentially viable can really get off the ground unless he is able to get credit and utilise the money on an acceptable farm plan. He must get all the co-operation possible from his agricultural adviser and from the ACC. The fact that our ratio of indebtedness to total assets is so low should be an indicator which would encourage the giving of more credit to our farmers.
The production of cattle and the development of the capacity of our breeding stock are other areas in agriculture which interest me for many reasons, and in which I think greater efforts could be made. By international standards our milk yield per cow is quite low. Thinking in terms of efficiency and low production costs, the capacity of our stock to breed the best kind of dairy cow and beef with the best conversion rate must be aimed at, and in this field higher investment is essential. In our AI societies the service of the AI bulls has now gone over the 1,000,000 mark. The 260 or so bulls operating in the AI centres will have the greatest effect on this industry, naturally.
I was delighted to note that the central performance testing station is getting under way, where young bulls can be recruited and leased out to the AI societies and the pedigree breeders. I was also delighted to note that in our AI societies the intake of bulls has increased and that, having used younger stock for a short time, they were able to withdraw them from the service so that these animals could be assessed in terms of their capacity in relation to the production of milk and the conversion to beef. The AI service enables farmers to be selective in their breeding. It is available at reasonable cost.
I also welcome the development in the laboratory research stations, and I speak particularly of the one in Limerick which is closest to my constituency. I should also like to express welcome for the establishment of the Horse Board.
Internationally speaking, we can be quite happy in the matter of disease eradication. Nevertheless, on the matter of the bovine tuberculosis scheme which has been so successful in this country during the years, it is alarming that the Estimate for its continuation has increased to such an extent. It might help if the annual testing of cattle could be carried out on all animals in the same area simultaneously. At the moment testing is done in disjointed farm units. Very often, as I mentioned earlier, cattle are tested on one farm in an intensified dairying area at one time of the year and those on another farm are not tested until six months later. An attempt should be made to carry out annual testing on an area by area basis so that this kind of thing would not happen.
The advance in the eradication of brucellosis is heartening and those of us in the south are anxiously awaiting the day when we will be rid of this disease which erodes so heavily the income of farmers. It is a disease which is responsible for a mortality rate of anything up to 50,000 or 60,000 calves annually. It is a disease we cannot be rid of too quickly.
I was disappointed that the scheme for warble fly eradication fell down last year. The Department must share responsibility for this. One farming organisation was totally against the scheme as it was envisaged. A scheme which is so necessary and which could eradicate the warble fly completely should have been carried through and any difficulties which arose with a farming organisation should have been ironed out. I do not agree that the scheme should now be conducted entirely on a voluntary basis. I should like to see another attempt made to operate the scheme on a compulsory basis. I do not say that a voluntary scheme could not be successful, and I should like to think it would be, but I am not so certain of this. An intensive effort should be made to get this scheme taken properly in hand. Farmers in general, realising the value of the scheme, would welcome such an effort.
In relation to pig production, a great deal of pessimism has been expressed about it. The consumption of pigs in this country has increased by 9 per cent, during the past year the home consumption arm of the industry taking about 25,000 pigs annually and the export taking 22,000. I do not have the same fears for the industry in the circumstances of EEC membership as many people have. One eminent man, well-known in research into pig production, stated recently that if the same conditions operate here when we enter the EEC as now operate in EEC, the profit per pig will be in the region of £2 10s. I realise that some of our factories inevitably will tend to be larger but we must appreciate that the volume of our trade with our nearest neighbour will continue for a long time.
There is one aspect of progeny testing and performance in this industry which I should like to see explored. It relates to the number of bonhams per litter. This primarily can be a management factor but I suggest that our breeding stock and progeny testing need to be intensified in an effort to find out how we can gain a bigger number of bonhams per sow. In this we are behind the Danes and there is no reason why we should be. Therefore, I should like to see an all-out effort to increase our litters. This, in turn, would lead to greater profitability for the farmer engaged in pig production.
I should like to see pig rearing by small farmers encouraged more and more. It does not matter whether the land is good or bad: all a farmer needs is enough to service the unit. It is an industry which ties in well with the economy of smaller farmers and there is a reasonable profit potential.
Again in relation to smaller farmers, the re-scaling of some farm building grants may be necessary. Investment in farm building returns a small income and smaller farmers are not able to meet the commitment involved. I should like therefore to ask the Minister to see whether these grants can be made more effective as far as this kind of producer is concerned.
The intensification of smaller farms has been given as one of the reasons for the drop in sheep production. We are running considerably below the number of sheep projected in the Second Programme. It is hard to understand the reason for this. It appears that the industry could have a good financial return.
There have been some problems in relation to the sale of wool. Apart from encouraging sheep production, efforts should be made to improve the fertility rate of ewes. In general the rate is not as high as it should be. We must ensure that the minimum number of ewes are carried over the winter and that the maximum number of spring lambs are sold. This necessitates a greater drive towards higher fertility in ewes. All possible research should be directed towards this aspect of sheep production.
In relation to land drainage and reclamation, the £6 million spent annually and the £45 per acre grant towards land reclamation is well worth while. We still face some major problems in relation to drainage but, of course, it would not be feasible economically to deal with them all at once. A greater effort will have to be made on the part of farmers towards the maintenance of rivers that have been drained already. Unless these rivers are maintained properly the amount of money spent on draining them initially will not result in the maximum benefits. Farmers should be encouraged in this regard; otherwise, land that has been very well drained may revert to its original condition after a period of five or six years. This should not be allowed to happen.
I welcome the increase in the farm buildings grants. The increased grants for water supply schemes must be welcomed also. I have often wondered why some farmers are reluctant to avail of running water especially when these grants are available to them. Not only would a running water supply help domestically but it would also make possible a high standard of hygiene. In relation to the production of milk, one cannot overemphasise the importance of running water in so far as hygiene is concerned.
There is one aspect in relation to the payment of these grants which seems to be causing some concern. The payment of this grant is tied, and rightly so, to domestic water supply grants. A common cost certificate is necessary before either grant can be paid. However, it seems to me, from investigations I have made, that communication between the two Departments concerned is not as close as it might be. In saying this, I am not in any way being critical of the people concerned because I know of the interest and efforts that are made in this regard. Nevertheless, the operation of the schemes could be a little less cumbersome if there was a little more streamlining.
Reference was made earlier in the debate to the drop in the potato yield. It is likely that this is nothing more than an indication that people can afford to be more selective nowadays in that they can buy foods in more variety. Therefore, there is not very much that can be done about this matter except, perhaps, that stabilising the price of potatoes might help a little. Potatoes have always fluctuated in price.
The question of dwelling houses for farmers has been mentioned also. In this respect, State aid has been very generous. Driving through our countryside, one can observe the many new homes that have been built in recent times. This is very heartening and it is to be encouraged even further since there is still overcrowded conditions in the homes of some farmers.
Another matter I wish to refer to is the question of personal injuries to farmers. Most of our farmers do not insure themselves against personal accidents with the result that, when serious injuries are sustained, they may find themselves in a very difficult situation because of financial loss and also because of the loss of man days on farms. Therefore, personal accident insurance is to be encouraged.
In relation to our joining the EEC I notice that during the past ten years figures show that the prosperity per head of people within the Community has increased by more than 100 per cent. I think anybody would be anxious to get into that kind of market which consists of almost 300 million people. Any Government should be anxious to explore the full potential of these markets and every effort should be made in this direction.
When we compare the prices obtaining in the EEC we readily see that producers there do significantly better than we do and, from that point of view alone, access to the Common Market should benefit our farmers but to gain the maximum benefit every necessary preparatory step must be taken in the interim to gear our farmers for entry. There are some attributes in our agriculture that not even the Labour Party can take away from it. We have good pasture land, a good climate, on the whole freedom from disease, and a longer grass growing season; the combination of all these makes ideal conditions for the potential of Irish agriculture in circumstances of free trade.
