Seanad Éireann debate -
Friday, 23 Jan 1925

Vol. 4 No. 3

SEANAD IN COMMITTEE. - PROPOSED NEW SECTION.

Mr. COUNIHAN

I wish to move: Before Section 18 to insert a new section as follows:—

"On and after the appointed day it shall not be lawful for any person to have in his possession any calf more than twenty-one days old which has not been treated in the prescribed manner to prevent the horns from growing except such person is authorised by licence or permit under this Act to keep such calf."

I am not particularly in favour of this form of words, but if the principle is accepted I am satisfied to leave it to the Minister and his draftsman to construe the amendment in any form which would best meet the requirements. It would be well if the Seanad, in considering this amendment, would remember that at the present time it is against the law to dis-horn cattle, and except we are going to lose what is known in the trade as the polly trade, which is a very important one, we must either accept this amendment or do away with that particular trade. It is against the law to poll any mature cattle except under an anaesthetic. That being so, I wish to point out the advantage to the trade in polled cattle, and the advantage of having all cattle de-horned, which is a simple process. It could be done when the calf is from three days to three weeks old by the simple application of caustic. Two rubbings, I understand, are sufficient to prevent horns from growing. In the case of dis-horning mature cattle everybody admits that there is a certain amount of cruelty, as well as its being against the law. The polly trade is a very important branch of our store cattle industry. Thirty per cent. of the store cattle exported are pollies, and our best customers in England and, particularly, Scotland will not have horned animals owing to the way they feed these in the winter. Polled cattle are worth from £1 to £2, in some cases, a head more than cattle of the same quality and weight with horns. I may be permitted to read a few extracts from a letter received from the manager of Thomas Nelson and Sons, one of the biggest auctioneering and distributing firms in Scotland:—"I am very pleased to learn that there is a movement in hand to try and remedy the disastrous waste, both in money and worry, through the bruising of Irish cattle in transit from Ireland to here. I have always maintained that, with dehorning of all fat and store cattle being made compulsory, the solution of bruised cattle is practically solved. In conversation with several of the principal meat market buyers, and also some extensive country buyers, we find that they estimate the damage at about ½d. per lb., overhead, which works out roughly at £1 10s. per head, and that has to be deducted somehow off the price of an Irish animal. We ourselves handle round 45,000 Irish cattle and 6,000 Canadians per annum, so you can imagine the enormous wastage incurred through the bruising of Irish cattle. Some of our best buyers insist on buying Canadian cattle when available. Although about twelve days on the voyage they are landed in such good condition that it is unknown to have a bruised or damaged carcase. About ninety per cent. of the Canadians we have sold have been polled, which is also the principal reason for the farmers buying so many of them. About seventy per cent. of the cattle fed here are accommodated in courts or boxes, and farmers won't buy horned cattle for that purpose at any price. You will have done a great service to the Irish cattle trade if you succeed in influencing the carrying out of this most important project, and we will await with interest to hear from you." I could quote several instances on the same lines, but I think that that extract is sufficient, and that it explains to a great extent the argument in favour of dehorning. There are several other reasons why we should have all our cattle polled. A big percentage of our cattle are bred in the South, and they move around a good deal, even in Ireland. Many of these cattle from the South go to the West, and from the West to the Midlands, and about seventy-five per cent. are exported. Even for the purpose of transit, you can put one beast more in a waggon of polled cattle of the same size than of horned cattle. Again, if a polled beast falls down it will have a chance of righting itself, whereas in the case of horned cattle it will have to lie there, as it cannot get up, and in some case it will be much bruised. In the case of feeding animals in a field in the ordinary way with hay, anyone can notice a vicious beast, and see how it can upset a whole lot of cattle by going from one end of the place to the other, and horning every other beast away, and destroying the fodder. That proves that polled cattle thrive much better than horned cattle. I hope that I have said sufficient to secure the support of the Seanad for this amendment.

Mr. MacLYSAGHT

I have great sympathy with this amendment. We know that there is great cruelty in dehorning cattle and that it is being done, in spite of it being against the law. At the same time it is hardly possible that this amendment could be carried as it stands. Take the case of a dairy farmer. I use caustic potash on all the calves I possibly can, but I cannot use it in every case. The amendment refers to calves but to do it on all heifer calves would ruin the dairy trade. A person who goes in for breeding has a certain number of bull calves but he cannot say at first which of them he will keep. If it is made compulsory to dishorn all of them a man would have to decide, when they are dropped, which of them he will dishorn.

Dr. GOGARTY

I strongly support the suggestion of Senator Counihan, and would ask the Minister to co-operate as much as possible in passing some legislation whereby no beast in this country should be allowed to develop horns. Apart altogether from the loss, estimated at £1,000,000 yearly, it means a further loss of condition on animals crossing the Channel. There is also the very important consideration of cruelty. A nation is more or less regarded as humane and advanced by its efforts to remove from the dumb animals the weight of suffering which we have to inflict on them on account of meat eating, which the climate that we live in necessitates. It is no evasion of suffering to give a mature animal an anaesthetic and then remove the horns. I would go further and suggest that some steps should be taken to prevent the castration of any bulls that have reached maturity. They should be slaughtered in preference. An anaesthetic is only an easy means to evade acute suffering, but nothing will evade the pain an animal will suffer for four or five weeks while the mucous of the horn is being absorbed. It is a very simple process to prevent the formation of horns in calves. The horn is only a form of the hair, and if chemicals or caustic were applied when the horn is undeveloped, and under the epidermis, it is no more painful that the pain many of us have suffered in removing warts from the skin. The necessity for preventing cruelty to the animals is, perhaps, in this country more evident than in the neighbouring one. If an animal is allowed to grow, its condition suffers from the process of dishorning. Evidently from what Senator Counihan has said, and from his experience, the future lies with dishorned cattle. Senator MacLysaght's point about cattle being allowed to develop horns I cannot follow. I suggest that the Ministry should co-operate in preventing the breeding of horned cattle, first of all to save money, and secondly, to save the nation's face as regards humanitarianism.

Sir NUGENT EVERARD

I am sure that we all appreciate the motives of Senator Gogarty in support of this amendment. Humanity, of course, enters into it, and the mover of the amendment has given expression to those views. I think his talk is mainly about bullocks. As far as heifers are concerned, as Senator MacLysaght has pointed out, it would ruin our springer trade. It would certainly injure it very considerably, because we must bear in mind that artificial dishorning, what you call "sculling," is looked upon with suspicion in England for one particular reason. In England they consider that it is used for the purpose of concealing the age of the animal. The age is generally known by rings on the horns, and if the horns are sawn off the test of age is gone. Of course people could look into the mouth of an animal, but it is not every farmer could tell the age of an animal by its teeth. It seems to be left out of account altogether that there are certain pedigree herds of horned cattle. If they were dishorned they would be put out of the show rings of the world, unless a general licence was given to the owners of pedigree herds that they need not consider themselves bound by this ordinance to dishorn their herds with caustic potash or caustic soda. It seems to me that you inflict great hardships on people who purchase calves if they have to dishorn them within twenty-one days. I presume that is the period during which you must use the caustic to remove the core of the horn. That means that you could not put this legislation into force without due notice, say, six months. I doubt very much if it would be wise to pass the amendment. With adequate safeguards it might, possibly, be provided under a new section, to be brought up on the Report Stage, but, as the Bill stands now. I do not think the amendment judicious.

Mr. BENNETT

I wish also to oppose the amendment. Horns were given to cattle for some purpose by nature and we should not attempt to meddle with the decrees of nature. Because the polly trade with England would be benefited is no reason why we should legislate to that effect. If the polly cattle are necessary we can produce them with absolute certainty by using a Polled-Angus bull. I should think that 95 or 98 per cent. of Polled-Angus cattle have no horns. If we require polled cattle let us go about it in an honest way and not by a back-door method. It is all very well to say that to poll cattle is wrong. I never had a polled beast, and I hope I never will, but, at the same time, I do not think it can be said to be child's play to take a baby calf and go around the horns applying caustic. I have known cases where sore heads followed, and in the hands of inexperienced persons there is a danger that sore heads would occur. To do that on a poor helpless calf seems grossly unfair. Instead of being a relief it is, I think, an infliction. For these reasons, and because I think we have inflicted enough compulsion under the Bill on the farmer, I oppose the amendment. If cattle traders say that the industry will go out of existence if every beast is not polled, then I am sure the experts will produce a type of cattle having no horns. I do not think we should resort to compulsion in this matter.

Sir JOHN KEANE

This amendment, in its present form, is quite impracticable unless you are going to do injustice to pedigree breeders. If you are going to force them to dishorn their cattle you must compensate them, as you would ruin all their herds. I support the suggestion of Senator Sir Nugent Everard, that the matter might be considered before the Report Stage, by introducing some practical amendment. The most that can be done is to order the cauterising of half-bred stock. You could not force any person, even under the Department's dairying scheme, to cauterise either heifers or bull calves. What about all those calves and cattle that are running semi-wild? This amendment would be impracticable. You have got to realise facts and you have many practical difficulties to contend with. You have bulls running wild with heifers and you have all these calves born. I can quite understand that Senator Counihan feels strongly the injury that is being done to the cattle trade, and that Senator Gogarty appreciates the other point of view. But you have got to look at these things in a practical light, and the voluntary method of dealing with them is the only practical method. If people will not see the necessity for this, it is very little use for the Government to try to coerce them.

Mr. HOGAN

There can be no question of dishorning female calves— pedigree or non-pedigree—or calves which are to be kept as bulls. You would be free as regards them. There being no question of dishorning calves to be kept as bulls, that would exclude automatically all pedigree herds from the provision. I agree with Senator Counihan, subject to that qualification. It would, undoubtedly, be a big advantage—I do not like to put it in terms of money—to have all the bullocks of the country dishorned. Probably, it would be worth from 10/- to £1 per head. That would represent nearly £1,000,000 a year. That is my view at the moment, and I have given some consideration to the matter.

But can you introduce such a provision in a Bill of this sort? This is a Bill "to make a provision for the regulation and improvement of bulls and other live stock used for breeding." The purpose of this Bill is to improve stock for breeding purposes. In the Bill introduced, there is no provision for any other purpose. You can improve cattle by feeding them and in a number of other ways, but the sole purpose of this Bill is to improve the breeding qualities of cattle and other live stock. Hence, I am afraid the suggested amendment would be outside the scope of the Bill. You would not improve or disimprove the breeding qualities of stock by dishorning them. Dishorning has no more to do with their breeding qualities than the feeding of them. The question arises, whether it is sound procedure at this stage to widen the scope of the Bill. I think everybody will agree that it hardly is sound procedure.

Mr. COUNIHAN

I would not force any amendment that would be calculated to endanger the immediate passing into law of this Live Stock Breeding Bill, but I suggest that my provision could be enacted by changing the description of the Bill to "The Live Stock Breeding and General Improvement Bill," or words to that effect.

Mr. BROWN

"A Bill for the improvement of Live Stock Breeding and for other purposes."

Mr. COUNIHAN

Senator Bennett would not have any cattle dishorned. The horns, he says, were put on by nature for some useful purpose. I suppose that in the early days they were put on for fighting purposes or for the purposes of defence. But if the Senator's contention, that they must have some useful purpose at the present time, be true, why should thousands of cattle in the Free State be dishorned at a mature stage? There must be some advantage in dis-horning. It has been proved by every man who knows anything about the trade that store cattle, for export to England and Scotland, are worth from £1 to £2 more per head when dishorned. That is a consideration which the Minister for Agriculture should take into account.

Mr. HOGAN

I agree. My point is that this amendment is outside the scope of the Bill and that it would be unsound procedure at this stage to alter the scope of the Bill. This Bill was drafted, as all Bills must be drafted, very carefully and on the assumption that it was dealing with a special problem. On that assumption, the different portions hang together. If we were to alter the whole scope of the Bill at this stage, it would be slovenly legislation and it would be setting a very bad precedent.

Sir NUGENT EVERARD

May I suggest that the very reason which the Senator gave—that dishorning increases the value of the cattle—ought to be a sufficient inducement, without introducing legislation. The fact that the value of bullocks is increased by the removal of the horns, which cannot be done now by means of a saw, would impress itself, I think, on the mind of anybody having a calf that he desired to sell as a store beast, and he would remove the horns with caustic. I think that the mere publication of the enormous advantages of dishorning at an early age would probably accomplish the object which Senator Counihan has in view, which is to increase the value of our store cattle.

Mr. COUNIHAN

Against the argument that has been used as regards dis-horning of calves, I desire to point out that the cattle do not come into the possession of the people concerned until they are matured—at 1½ years or 2 years old. It would be impossible for those to have a stock of polly cattle except they used the saw, as the case stands at present. For the last 20 years the Department has been circulating pamphlets advocating the dis-horning of calves and a great percentage of the cattle of the country are treated in that way. That, I think, answers the argument about propaganda. If the Minister will consider the matter and bring it up again on the Report Stage, I will be satisfied. Even if he would provide only for the compulsory dishorning of all male calves, I would be satisfied to accept that. There would, of course, be exceptions, and these could be provided for by licences or permits from the Department.

Mr. HOGAN

Look at what that involves ! The intention is to dishorn all the calves of the country, with certain exceptions. Senators will agree that it would be necessary to define very carefully what these exceptions would be. It is a very big question. Personally, I think it would be a sound proceeding, subject to certain limitations and subject to getting over certain administrative difficulties. But it is a very big step. There is a considerable volume of opinion in favour of it. It would have to be consulted. There would have to be a number of conferences before any such step could be taken. You would have to discuss the matter with every interest affected, and you would have to discuss the machinery. You would be doing something that would have very serious results if you did it wrongly. There can be no doubt about that. What I protest against is introducing a question like that at this stage and in connection with a Bill with which it has nothing to do. If a Bill dealing with the treatment of cattle generally were introduced in the Dáil, such a provision as that proposed would get three or four days' debate—it would be entitled to that—and the Seanad I am sure would also devote three or four days to it. The various interests throughout the country would have had notice of the intention, and they would have got busy in connection with their own interests and sent up suggestions to the Department of Agriculture and to Deputies. It is too important a matter to be dealt with casually at the end of a Bill which really has nothing to do with it. In addition, there is the technical objection that it is outside the scope of the Bill, and I submit that it would be slovenly legislation to bring it within the scope of the Bill by changing the title.

I dare say it will be necessary soon to introduce legislation in regard to the treatment of cattle generally. There is a conference being called of the railway companies, the shipping companies, and traders with regard to the treatment of cattle in transit and in regard to their condition when they reach England. It may be necessary to introduce legislation as a result of that conference. If such legislation were introduced, we could consider this matter, and we would have the advantage of the views of the conference as to whether such a clause was necessary. If necessary, a clause could be carefully prepared and the necessary exemptions and exceptions and administrative arrangements could be settled.

Mr. COUNIHAN

If the Minister would say that the matter will be considered I would be satisfied, with the leave of the House, to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. HOGAN

Undoubtedly the question will be considered.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. COUNIHAN

In view of the Minister's reception of the previous amendment, I ask leave to withdraw the next amendment on the Order Paper.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question:—"That section 19 stand part of the Bill"—put, and agreed to.

SECTION 20.

(1) This Act shall apply to all bulls of such age as shall be prescribed for that purpose by regulations made under this Act.

(2) The Minister may at any time after the appointed day by order apply the provisions of this Act with such modifications as may be specified in such order to boars or rams or to both boars and rams, and any such order shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, but may be varied or revoked by any subsequent order of the Minister.

The EARL of MAYO

I move:—

Section 20, sub-section (2), line 32 —to delete all after the word "specified" to the end of the sub-section.

This Bill, as the Minister has just pointed out, makes provision for the regulation and improvement of bulls and other live-stock used for breeding. I am told that the Government is responsible for the introduction of the provision dealing with boars and rams. Of course the Bill would give power to bring in mules, donkeys, or guinea-pigs, and I cannot understand why, when we are dealing with cattle—

Mr. HOGAN

Live stock.

The EARL of MAYO

Yes, live stock. You can bring in mules, donkeys, or guinea-pigs if you like, but I do not understand why you should put in rams or boars. Let us see for an instant what will happen with regard to boars and rams. Under section 11 an inspector or member of the Dublin Metropolitan Police or the Civic Guard can inspect and examine at all reasonable times any boar or ram in the Free State. Well, you are asking them to do a great deal. As I said on the Second Reading, you expect our Civic Guard, who have to discharge numerous duties, under great difficulties in some parts, to poke their noses into every stye in Ireland, and to perambulate our fields seeing that the proper rams are running with the right kind of ewes. I have the greatest respect for the Government and our young Ministers, but I really wish they would moderate their zeal a little bit. There has been a flood of domestic legislation. I knew it was coming. We have had to deal with a flood of domestic legislation, and I wish they would stick to the cattle. There is a penalty with regard to this section because this question of boars and rams has to be dealt with, mutatis mutandis, in the same way as the cattle are dealt with. Any person who shall obstruct or impede an inspector or member of the Dublin Metropolitan Police or the Civic Guard in the discharge of these duties may be mulcted in the sum of £10.

Mr. HOGAN

A sum not exceeding £10.

The EARL of MAYO

He may be fined in any sum up to £10. If a man finds an inspector in plain clothes poking about his premises and says: "What in earth are you doing here interfering with my business; get out of it"; the inspector may take that very badly and complain of the fellow and have him up. He is quite liable to be fined, because he is impeding and obstructing, and he may use strong language, and that might be put into the summons, too. Then the Minister may order the slaughter and castration of rams and boars, too. I consider that our Ministers had much better stick to the cattle, that we have been discussing in this Bill. I cannot make out why on earth they put in boars or rams. I cannot make out what is the object of, as the Minister just said, widening the scope of the Bill. I think this is a tremendous widening of the scope of the Bill and that it was an afterthought. They said: "Now we have got an excellent Bill. Let us chuck in the sheep and pigs." The same regulations that are applied to cattle are going to apply to the boars and rams. I can see that they will have great difficulty. We heard yesterday a great deal about the Kerry bull and the Kerry cow. They have become almost as sacred in the Minister's eyes as cattle are in the Hindoo religion. The County Limerick is also a sacred district, but I think there are some disbelievers down there, from what I heard yesterday. I, therefore, beg to move this amendment, and I shall be very anxious to hear what the Minister has to say in regard to the inclusion of these two very useful creatures in his cattle Bill.

Mr. HOGAN

There are obvious advantages in extending, at least some of the provisions of the Bill, to boars. We export about seven or eight million pounds worth of bacon and live pigs annually, and I hope we will export twice as much. We will probably have to rely on our bacon trade in the future more than we have had in the past and it will be an advantage, I am sure, to be in a position to licence boars. There are not many boars in the country. It would be almost as easy to administer that part of the Bill as to administer the part dealing with the licensing of bulls. At the same time there is a large number of scrub boars in the country, though not as high a percentage as of scrub bulls. Still they are there in great numbers, particularly in the poorer districts. We are always making arrangements by which we buy boars at a fairly considerable price and sell them at a small, or a reasonable price, within the reach of any poor man. In that way we can avoid any hardship which might be caused by reason of insisting on boars up to a certain standard. We can supply them at reasonable prices. If that can be done, with very little hardship, and if the bacon trade is so important, why should we not improve it with the aid of this Bill as we are improving our cattle industry? I do not see any particular reason why it should be exclusively confined to cattle.

I do agree it does not appear very plain as to how we can apply it to sheep or rams, but no one can answer for six or seven years hence. There may be sections which the Consultative Council, and everybody concerned in fact, would think could be very usefully applied to rams. It would be a pity to have to introduce a new Bill to meet that contingency. I think all the arguments are in favour of giving us an opportunity of doing for the bacon trade and for the sheep trade, what in fact we are able to do under the Bill for the cattle trade.

The EARL of MAYO

The Minister asked why we should not improve the bacon trade. The Department of Agriculture are quite capable of dealing with that matter. He said there were not many boars in the country but there were scrub boars. We have got an excellent Department of Agriculture, a Department that can, without contradiction, be said to be the best in the world. I have been told so on the other side. You have got a Department you should be proud of and they are quite capable of dealing with that matter. The Minister has already admitted there is a difficulty with regard to rams. I quite agree with him. I myself think that it is a pity that he should have introduced boars and rams into this Bill, because there are penalties, there are inspections, and there are also great duties imposed on the Civic Guard. A number of inspectors have to be paid and their duties will be quite onerous enough to deal with the cattle trade which is a most important industry. I do not know what the Seanad thinks about the matter and I should like to hear some other Senator who is a bigger farmer than myself say a word on this matter.

Amendment put, and declared lost.

Question—"That Sections 21, 22 and 23 stand part of the Bill"—put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be reported with amendments.