asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries whether he accepts that the fertiliser value of all the faeces and urine from beef and dairy cattle during the winter months and from pigs and poultry throughout the year has a value of £30 million per annum and that if all the nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium in this manure were used efficiently to replace chemical fertilisers for crop production, considerable savings could be effected; and, if so, if he will make grants and technological assistance available to farmers to use such manure as fertiliser.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Fertiliser Production.
17.
In terms of chemical fertiliser nutrients the total quantities of farmyard manure and slurry could possibly be valued, perhaps optimistically, at about £30 million per year.
In accordance with good farming practice much of this material is used efficiently by farmers as fertiliser. Grants are available to farmers for the construction of slurry pits or similar farmyard installations, while technical advice on problems of disposal and utilisation of farmyard manure and slurry is freely available from the agricultural advisory services.
My Department's policy is to encourage as far as possible the efficient and economic utilisation of farmyard manure and slurry, but I do not at present see the need for additional grants for this purpose.
Taking into account the increase in fertiliser prices would the Minister consider reintroducing the grants for slurry equipment?
No, it makes the spreading of slurry all the more attractive because fertiliser prices are that much higher. It makes it all the more valuable also.
In view of the cost of providing this equipment would the Minister not consider reintroducing those grants?
That is a separate matter.
18.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries his policy regarding the usage of fertiliser; and if he is aware of the growing apprehension of farmers concerning their inability to afford this product.
I am of course aware of the steep rise in fertiliser prices.
The price of phosphate fertilisers continues to be subsidised in order to reduce the cost to farmers. I consider that it would be economic for farmers, and in their own best interests, to continue the steady application of fertilisers even at present prices.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he, and his colleagues in the Government, have any intention of reducing the subsidy on fertilisers?
These subsidies are provided on a year to year basis and I am not going to give any long-term guarantees.
Can the Minister give any guarantee for the coming financial year, 1975?
The Deputy will know the answer to that when he hears the budget.
Am I to take it that the Minister is not prepared at this stage to give a guarantee that the existing subsidies on fertilisers will be continued in 1975?
No guarantee has ever been given in this House about the subsidies on a year to year basis. They have been provided on a year to year basis and that is it.
So the rumours are true?
If the Deputy assumes that this is going to happen I cannot prevent him from doing so.
The Minister, knowing the price of fertiliser, should insist that the Government keep the subsidy. The farmers cannot afford to pay any more.
Collective cabinet responsibility, and that is what I believe in.
Has the Minister lost the battle?
Has the Minister surrendered?
Are Deputies expecting that this will be removed?
We are looking for an increase in the subsidy.
We have heard rumours that it will be removed.
The Deputies seem anxious to have this subsidy removed.