The scheme had already been introduced in Europe. When it was being introduced here the Minister should have been fighting for a more suitable scheme for Irish conditions. In Europe there is more uniformity in farming and a higher percentage of farmers qualify for the scheme. I suggested a transitional scheme for nearly 80 per cent of our farmers. There should be a category for potential developers which would get the same grants. This would help to bring them into the development and commercial categories. We are depending on the development category to raise farming standards. There is no point in giving the main grant to 18 per cent of our farmers. Even at this late stage the farm modernisation scheme has need for streamlining.
When it was first introduced I asked the Minister a question and suggested that very few people would qualify for the scheme. The Minister said that the case I referred to was an isolated one; that he could not qualify because he had borrowed a certain amount of money. The Minister got a warning before the scheme was fully introduced but, of course, nothing was done about it. We have now reached the stage where a farmer with 50 to 100 acres can automatically enter the development category if he has not borrowed too much. A farmer who is trying to develop his farm with the aid of an overdraft has no hope of entering the scheme. Quite a number of farmers in the transitional category get the normal building grants.
The grants under the farm modernisation scheme are generous and have given people the incentive to do a good job and some forward planning. Agricultural planning is important. The Minister should produce a plan for the future. It is dangerous to try to foretell the future but it is much better to try with the help of the Department's experts.
We have not got a great export market for our sheep. We depend a lot on French trade which is harming our sheep industry. The Minister has been doing his best to help our sheep trade but some type of agreement is urgently needed because our sheep numbers are falling. Every year I visit a certain town to buy store lambs. In the last three years the lamb numbers have dropped from 14,000 to 7,000 in this one area. That is a serious drop in numbers in one area —Blessington. The old saying "Another sheep is a sheep's worst enemy" is still true today. Sheep numbers should not be increased too intensively. This is a wide field, particularly on mountains and in the west where a lot of work could be done in the matter of fertilising land and hillsides to get a little more grazing on the lower slopes. Sheep farmers in such areas should be given incentives to get their sheep down from the mountains in the winter. Then in the spring the mountains would be able to carry more sheep. I am not advocating that this should be done in any extensive way as applies to beef, pigs and poultry, but sheep farmers could be given encouragement to increase their numbers and to export more. We have trouble with absence of set markets and we want to give people hope that there will be a reasonable income for them from their investment and hard work.
The pig board have markets for a lot more than we are producing. A year and a half ago when pig numbers were falling some levy should have been arranged to tide the industry over until prices became economical and pig numbers increased. A number of people were forced out of the industry and people who were not engaged in agriculture came in and engaged in what is known as factory farming in pigs and poultry. In ten years about a million acres have been sold outside agriculture to professional and business people and to others who had come into the country at a time when our farmers needed more land to be able to maintain their standard of living. Co-operatives have taken over some of this business and in that way it has remained in the farmers' hands, from the sales end at least.
Then there is the development farmer. I can tell of a man in the development category who in his forward planning was getting to the peak of his production before the third and fourth years. It would have been difficult, therefore, to give him development status because his production would not increase in the third and fourth years. His wife happened to be trained in poultry and she asked: "Why do I not go into a poultry unit in a small way? That would give us forward planning status." That was accepted. A couple of Department people were sitting in on that forward planning and I felt that the initiative should have come from them rather than the farmer's wife. There should be more encouragement from the Department, more advice given to them which would render them unafraid to commit themselves. No business was ever built up on sitting tight: calculated risks must be taken and we need to be taking such risks to stand up to our competitors. This we can do comparatively safely because we have the best land and the most suitable climate in the world.
In Holland they are all right as far as irrigation is concerned but in Denmark, Germany and France they have 15 inches of rainfall per annum, all from snow and heavy rain in the winter. In the growing period from May to July there is no rainfall there. Therefore, we have the advantage over those people from the point of view of climate. We should be able to get better production and to stand up to them in world markets.
In those countries they have kept factory farming to themselves. In Denmark the farmer grows his grass for silage and his root crops for winter feed. He does this even though he has only an inch of rainfall in the growing period. They have fairly good pig units as well as dairying and they have their co-operatives behind them which a farmer owns. That is a country of similar size to us. Denmark is smaller but it has a larger population than we have and production there is much higher than it is here. Actually we have tremendous advantages as compared with Denmark and other European countries. We are not giving a lead where planning is concerned. The sad thing is that our beef herd, established by Deputy Smith and Deputy Gibbons, has been let decrease to an alarming extent as a result of inactivity in 1974. There is no encouragement to farmers to produce more beef cattle.
Deputy McDonald referred to AI. Artificial insemination is availed of for dairy cows. Where beef cattle are concerned the system is to let the bull run with the cows so there is really no criterion to lead us to believe we are increasing the numbers. I hope we are but I doubt it. Stores are not coming on the market in the same numbers. Farmers have not been encouraged or educated as to the type of cattle we need. Britain expects to be self-sufficient in beef by the end of this year or early next year and there will not then be the same market there for our stores. It is doubtful if Britain will take very much of our beef from the factories. We will need animals that are readily saleable all over the world and that will be the leaner type of animal. As I understand it, according to the AI people we are coming back to the Hereford. I prefer the Hereford myself. It is a quick developer. The housewife, however, is looking for lean meat and the Hereford is unfortunately, no so good from that point of view as some other breeds.
We may have to go into continental breeds and here the question of our climate comes in. Some have thinner coats or thinner skins and cannot stand up to the cold and wet. A rough rule of thumb is the vet testing for TB. He can always take it that the Hereford will be around 10 to 12. The continental breed will be more likely to be around 7 or 8. We should be telling the people what type of cattle they should go in for in the future. The question of housing enters into the picture. If they must be housed during the winter, then incentives will have to be provided.
The dairy farmer is in the happy position of being able to see results immediately. Unfortunately, the farmer producing beef very rarely sees his beeves hanging up. He sees them going into the factory, nice round fat fellows, good and firm, and he gets his cheque, but he never sees the end result. The stand at the RDS was an excellent idea because the carcase was on display. We should have more of that type of thing. There is need for leadership here.
Farmers should be encouraged to develop co-operatives. I am surprised at the Minister agreeing with the Minister for Finance in the imposition of a tax on co-operatives. At the moment co-operatives are being asked by the banks to produce more share capital. The creamery co-operatives are not affected because they stop a certain amount off the milk cheque. Co-operatives which cannot do that have to find the share capital from their own members. Most co-operatives are under-capitalised. Admittedly, they can borrow seven, eight or ten times the amount of share capital which is something that could not be done by the farmer or businessman. He would need to have more share capital than the amount of borrowing he would have; it is very seldom a person would be allowed borrow more than his share capital. I believe that in the future farmers will be asked to put up more share capital for their co-operatives. We should be giving incentives in this direction, because this is the way to ensure that the farmer gets the largest part of the price of the commodity, instead of, as I have said, the proportion dropping from 58 per cent to 42 per cent.
The farmer should have an organisation, whether it is a factory or a creamery, that can sell right up to the supermarket counter. No individual farmer would be capable of that, and it is the co-operative organisation that can do it. There are many co-operatives that would need to take particular note of the word "co-operative"; it is co-operation. They should be co-operating in every aspect of the business, but unfortunately quite a number of them are in cut-throat competition with one another. The farming organisations should be able to give a strong lead, encouraged by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, so that all co-operatives would be working as a unit for the betterment of the farmer. One can often see in the saleyard one co-operative, in an effort to build a better and more effective organisation poaching on the area of another, not worrying whether they take the cattle numbers away from it so that it finds it hard to keep going.
The co-operatives could do a great deal in the marketing of the produce. Business people can do it even though they are in competition with one another. The farmers should, in the co-operative movement, be able to put their products on the supermarket counters and not have other people making good profits out of the farmers' hard work.
Cattle numbers increased from 1970 to 1973, to 7,250,000, and they have dropped now to about 6,500,000. That is a serious situation for any country, and bringing it down to the level of the ordinary farmer, it is on the road to bankruptcy. The time has come when we should be planning and setting targets. The land of Ireland can carry ten million cattle and somewhat increased numbers of sheep and pigs, because the export trade is there for them. There is not much room for expansion in the poultry business. Experts have told me that, taking every type of cattle from the calf to the fully matured cow, the land of Ireland can carry that number of ten million. It can also carry home-grown materials that are needed to feed all those animals particularly during the winter period. Too much maize and other such commodities are being imported. A certain amount of protein has to be imported because it is not possible to produce at home all that is needed. Nevertheless, the land can produce a great deal more. Not alone have animal numbers decreased but fertiliser consumption has also dropped. It is time to arrest the decline and secure increased production for the coming years. The increased production will lead to increased exports, which will benefit our balance of payments. I was amazed to hear the Government saying that, for the first time in about ten years, there was a surplus in our balance of payments last October. They should be hanging their heads in shame, because the reason given for the surplus in October was the dramatic increase in the sale of our livestock, which depleted our stocks. That is what gave us the surplus, but instead of taking the hint, we are bragging about it.
Therefore there are 560,000 fewer cattle in the country. At around £200 a head, that gives £112 million. That is a fair figure, having regard to the price being paid for reactors. It means there is £112 million less capital in the farmers' pockets or 560,000 fewer cattle on the farm. The reason the sales of fertilisers are down is that farmers do not need as much grass for cattle. It is necessary to take a good, hard look at that situation and increase the stock numbers to the maximum. If that is done our exports will increase dramatically. The factories will be able to give more employment and they may be able to regulate production throughout the year so that there will not be too many valley and peak periods. In addition, the farmers will get a greater return for their hard work throughout the year.
I am sorry that the veterinary surgeons and the Minister have not been able to come to an agreement. I do not think there is any point in reminding the Minister of the effect on the country of the non-testing of animals. The amount of money invested by the Department in tuberculosis and brucellosis testing has been wasted because there has been no checking on the incidence of those diseases. In the counties where some testing has been carried out there has been no improvement in the reactor herds and the situation is bound to be worse in areas where no testing whatever is being carried out. The Minister and the other people involved in the dispute should come to some agreement in the interests of the country. If the dispute continues for much longer it will not be possible to get one round of testing completed this year. When any dispute drags on for too long people become entrenched in their attitudes and it is more difficult to arrive at a solution. As there are negotiations proceeding in the present dispute I will say no more about the matter except to hope that a satisfactory solution is found.
I should like to see much more forward planning by the Government and the Department to increase production for the betterment of the farmers.
