Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 May 1942

Vol. 26 No. 13

Dairying Industry—Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

"That, in order to avert the decline of the dairying industry, Seanad Eireann requests the Government to provide an increased price for butter."—(Senators O'Dwyer, Baxter and MacCabe.)

Mr. Baxter

When we were discussing this motion on the last occasion a number of things were said which one would have liked to have dealt with at the time and in the atmosphere created by the statements made on that particular occasion. I never like talking and controverting statements made by Senators when they are not present. I would much prefer that they were present so that they would know what exactly we think about the other side of the case. It is rather unfortunate that is not so in this case. In the matter of prices that farmers are to receive for their milk in the coming year we have reached really a critical stage. Many Senators, apparently, do not realise the gravity of the present situation in relation to the whole question of our milk production. Statements throughout the debate on the last occasion made on both sides of the House revealed, I think, rather considerable ignorance, to put it mildly, of what the factors are which are going to determine whether the farmers will continue in dairying for the purpose of producing milk or whether they will to a considerable extent get out of it. What rather depressed me in the case put forward by those who were in opposition to any increase in the price of butter was the failure of these Senators to meet the facts of the situation. No attempt, for instance, was made by any of the three speakers who appeared to oppose the motion to contest the case made by Senator MacCabe. If any particular member of this House who happened to be getting his living out of any type of industry, no matter what that may be, comes forward and proves that from one period to another the circumstances in this particular industry have considerably changed, inasmuch as the costs of production had considerably increased from what they had been a short time ago, I think he would be listened to with consideration, and an effort made to examine the statements made by him to see in how far they were in fact true. Some effort would be made to controvert or contradict these statements if it were found that there was a contrary case.

On the last occasion we had the statement of Senator MacCabe, who has considerable experience in this matter and should know very well what he is talking about. He is managing a creamery and is chairman of the federation of creameries, composed of at least a dozen small creameries, where people have come together to manage their business, to manufacture their butter to to sell it. A chairman of an institution like that should know the position, and he gave facts on the last occasion which were listened to, I presume, by people like Senator McGinley, Senator O'Connell and Senator O'Donovan. They could have asked themselves whether the statement made by Senator MacCabe, that costs of so many of the factors in the production of butter had increased, were true, or not. These things were passed over. That is not facing the facts. If these people who appear to speak for the consumers and only for the consumers in the narrow sense, make no effort to try to understand the other side of the case, I suggest that they are doing consumers the greatest disservice they possibly could do them. It is not physically possible for farmers, no matter what particular branch of industry they are engaged in, to continue under present conditions, when they are all the time faced with rising costs of production while being forced to sell their commodities at the old price. They will not do it.

Senator MacCabe pointed out, and it is a matter that should be carefully considered, that while in 1939 coal was 42/- a ton, in 1941 it was 90/-; salt cost 70/- in 1932, and in 1941 170/-; boxwood cost ? per box in 1929, and in 1941 2/10. All these increases are much more than 100 per cent., and you could go through the whole gamut of the farmer's cost of production to-day and find exactly the same thing. That is the situation which confronts you, and these are only a few of the figures. All these figures ought to be taken into account by Senators and by representative men everywhere before they can justifiably say that the line they are taking on this question of butter prices is a sound line. I argue that from the consumer's point of view it is a very short-sighted and very unwise line and that they will have cause to regret it.

I will give some other figures. In 1928 a Pierce mower cost £28 and in 1942 £34 5s.; hay forks that cost 3/6 in 1928 cost 5/- in 1942, and I do not think they can even be got at that price. Manure forks that cost 4/- now cost 6/6; buckets cost 3/3 in 1928 and if you could get one now for 10/- you would count yourself well off, as in fact they are not to be obtained. Plough breasts which cost 21/10 are now 27/- and all other plough parts have advanced by 25 per cent. There have been similar increases in the prices of swath-turners and steel rakes. Shoeing iron for horses which cost 32/8 per cwt. in 1938 now, if you can get it at all, would cost 65/- or 67/-, and ploughs that cost £7 10s. are now £9. When you get figures like those and see the prices which the farmer has to pay, how can people argue, as Senators did argue here, that the price which the farmer is getting is the highest price which can be paid to him? People who argue like that are either so blind that they will not see or they are deliberately standing in their own light and creating a situation whereby consumers in 12 months' time will not have anything like as much butter, at any price, as they have to-day.

There was another point made by Senator MacCabe on which Senator O'Connell joined issue. Senator MacCabe was arguing, and I think rightly so, that, from the point of view of labour costs, a great many farmers, due to the small prices for milk, were prepared to deal with the milk at home instead of sending it to creameries. They would use the milk on their farms, either by putting calves to suck the cows or handling it in some other way. Senators should have due regard to the dairying industry as we know it in the creamery areas as being the foundation of our live-stock industry. In fact, the Senator argued that counties in the West, like Roscommon, and elsewhere, were to a much greater extent the foundation on which our live stock was built. Here are some of the figures I have taken from those available to us, which give some picture of the ratio of cows to all live stock in some of those creamery areas, as against non-creamery areas like Roscommon. Before giving the figures, perhaps I may say that those of us who have been arguing for years that the price of butter is too low, and that dairying is the foundation of our live-stock industry, have never been understood properly by the non-creamery farmers in other parts, nor indeed do we seem to be understood at all by those responsible in our cities, judging by the case made by a couple of them here on the last occasion.

It will be agreed and accepted by this House that, if ever in the future we require imports for our sustenance which we cannot produce ourselves, we must have commodities available for exchange. If by some magician's wand we were able to make it possible to bring in the produce of another land for our people without producing anything here for export, we would be in a very happy state indeed, but I think that is an impossible proposition. Therefore, in view of the necessities of the future, we must try to develop an internal production which will make it possible for us to produce the essentials we require and at the same time make a surplus available to export for commodities which we cannot produce. I do not know whether or not that would be accepted as essential or as good national economy. There is not much we can produce in either town or country and have in abundance so that we may have some surplus for export: the only thing I can see which we could make available in that way is live stock. I cannot see any effort being made by people in towns or cities to provide an abundance of any commodities which would leave something for export. In the end, we have to fall back on the farmers, as in every other crisis.

If we accept that as the position confronting us, we must look around and see what we can provide for export. I see nothing to take the place of our live stock and I do not think Ministers see anything else. It is quite clear that the Minister for Agriculture has made up his mind that live stock is essential so that we may have something to exchange for commodities we need.

You cannot get calves or two or three-year old cattle without cows. And if you cannot get them you will not have the produce to exchange for petrol, cotton, steel or anything else we require to import which is not native to our soil or under it. Therefore, common sense dictates that we should set our faces towards a policy which will provide something to export by way of exchange. I know people will argue about this. Senator McGinley on the last occasion urged that we were stressing to too great a degree the importance of our cattle industry, and that we should concentrate on wheat.

Mr. Healy

The dairy farmer does not rear young cattle at all.

Mr. Baxter

I will deal with one Senator first. We might concentrate on wheat to a greater extent, and so all the perturbation arising over the dairy produce and cattle industry would not be a problem for us at all. A statement like that can only be made by somebody completely ignorant of the essentials of the soil for the production of wheat, or made thoughtlessly and without careful examination of the facts. The truth is that there can only be good wheat where there is soil fertility made available from the produce of our live stock to keep it vigorous and perfect. In another year or two people may realise that, by reducing the cattle population, at the same time you are reducing the capacity of your soil to produce wheat. If there is one thing essential to the production of wheat—even moderately successful wheat—it is the existence and possession of the live-stock industry, the way it is managed and the way the refuse is utilised.

Peadar Mac Fhionnlaoich

Sin adubhairt mise.

Mr. Baxter

Senator Mac Fhionnlaoich may accept that or not.

Peadar Mac Fhionnlaoich

Sin díreach an rud do mhol mise, go mbeidh an dá obair ar siubhal le chéile.

Mr. Baxter

The Senator may have it his way or not. We come to the other position, where Senator O'Connell challenged the statement by Senator MacCabe and pointed out that the live-stock industry had its basis, not in the creamery counties at all, but in other counties. He is not like some other Senators; he recognises the importance and necessity of the live-stock trade in our whole national economy. He has gone a step further than some of the others. What are the facts? Take Roscommon, from which Senator O'Connell comes. I have gone back to the figures for 1851, but I have figures up to 1938, and they answer the question as well as those for 1851 or 1901 or 1918. Roscommon has altogether 608,000 acres, approximately. In 1938 they had 153,000 cattle, 155,000 sheep, 37,000 cows. Cavan has 457,000 acres—200,000 less than Roscommon; 119,000 cattle, compared with 153,000 in Roscommon; 45,000 cows, against 37,000 in Roscommon, where they had 200,000 more acres. On the whole their land is better than our land. Limerick has 663,000 acres, whereas Roscommon had 608,000. I am not comparing the soil in the two counties. Part of Roscommon is indeed very good, but on the whole we cannot compare it with Limerick. The total number of cattle in Limerick was 266,000 in 1938; 19,000 sheep and 117,000 cows—almost 50 per cent. of the cattle. Not a fourth of the cattle in Roscommon or in any other counties that are primarily dairying counties are cows, and it is in counties where you get cows that the mothers of our flocks and herds are to be found.

There is the territory that you must keep your eyes fixed on, and there is the basis of the industry which you must cultivate, nurture and keep strong and vigorous if you want to preserve a position whereby we will have some commodities that will be available, by way of exchange, for the things that we cannot produce. Those in this House who oppose a motion like this, are, on the whole, part of our community who, I think, want more of the imported commodities than the farmers in the dairying areas who have the basis on which our whole exchange position is built up. On the last day we had Senator McGinley, in his very unsympathetic way, making another statement with regard to the position that our farmers occupy in the possession of their land, which needs correction. It was rather striking that he made that statement with regard to how the farmers came into the possession of their land from the point of view that they held it from the community and were given it by the community. That is rather an astonishing line for a man of Senator McGinley's years who, one would have thought, was in touch with our fathers and grandfathers who went to prison and stood on platforms and defied the landlords.

The truth about it is that Senator McGinley's interpretation of the truth about the ownership of our land does not tally with the farmers' point of view, and even further, it is not the point of view of Catholic social teaching with regard to ownership of the land. It is rather interesting that just about the time that Senator McGinley made this rather striking declaration, we had a very distinguished Catholic sociologist and cleric, Dr. Lucey, an M.A. and D.D. from Maynooth, interpreting Catholic social principles. He said:—

"According to Catholic social principles the nation was not the sole owner of the land of Ireland; the farmers themselves were. Irish land might be said to be owned by the nation in so far as it was owned by Irish nationals individually, but in no other sense. The Government might specify how the farmer was to use his land provided it guaranteed him a fair price for his produce, but could not, in justice, abolish farm ownership as such, or abrogate the privileges which the farmer enjoyed. It might make tillage compulsory, but it could not, in justice, treat the farmer as a mere tenant at will or evict him without compensation."

Peadar Mac Fhionnlaoich

Dubhairt mé go mba ceart "compensation" do thabhairt dóibh acht tá cead ag an naisiún rud ar bith is mian leis do dhéanamh leis an talamh. Da mba rud é nach raibh an chomhacht san ag an naisiún ní mhairfeadh sé i bhfad.

Mr. Baxter

That may be the point of view—that the State can do what it likes—but there is Catholic social teaching on the point, and I prefer to accept that. Senator McGinley can challenge it in any place he likes. It is a rather peculiar mentality. To me it savours altogether too much of that sort of tyranny that the people experienced from the old landlords in the 'eighties, when our fathers and grandfathers were striving to establish the right to have their own holdings. If Senator McGinley or anybody else thinks that we have reached such a point of slavery now that we are going to accept from the State that superior ownership with regard to our holdings, he is sowing the seeds of a great deal of trouble and a more dangerous revolution than the one that our fathers passed through. I do not know who is going to lead it, but I suggest that Senator McGinley should not get too far into it.

When coming to deal with a problem like this, there should be an attempt to deal with it fairly; there ought to be an attitude and spirit of reasonableness, to look at the situation from the farmers' point of view. The farmer is not so impossible a man to deal with, but he feels, and with a great deal of justification, that he is getting the backwash. We know that he has got very little, and the strange thing about it is that he does not expect half enough. It is because farmers are like that that they get pushed into the corner, and it is possible for every kind of peculiar mentality to throw stones at them when they get them in the corner. A problem like this great problem of dairying must be faced with an entirely different attitude. We should recognise, if there is any basis of truth in what I said, that our dairying is the foundation of our live stock, and that without live stock in abundance we have got nothing to exchange for the things we want. There are no greater advocates of the things we cannot produce than those who are not farmers. If you could herd all our citizens together, and find out what they produce which could be sent out in exchange for the things they want, you would be astonished at how many of them would have to do without a great number of things we import.

Our case is that not alone is the maintenance of our live stock essential to the production of crops, whatever crops they may be, but it is essential for the existence of the people on the land, if the things we imported in the past are to be imported in the future. Until you can get something other than live stock, which you can exchange against the commodities which you require, then you must go on recognising that the live-stock industry and the basis of it must be assisted by whatever means are necessary to keep vigorous life in it. I know quite well that the Minister has been hearing a great deal recently about butter production. Over a number of years I was on a number of deputations to the Minister. I have always recognised that on this question the Minister has never shown anything but the fullest sympathy, but whether there is a recognition of the serious stage which we have reached in the dairying industry or not on the part of the Government generally, and on the part of the Minister—I will give him the opportunity to contradict me if I am not correct—I do not know.

The report of the co-operative movement tells us that the total turnover of the co-operative societies in 1940 was then more than £11,000,000. The turnover in 1941 would, probably, be about the same amount. If you find groups of responsible farmers in all the creameries declaiming against the low price of milk, you may make up your mind that the situation is serious in the extreme. Little wonder they are declaiming. The price which butter now is—1/9 per lb.—as was pointed out at one creamery meeting, is only the amount which the creamery societies pay for the grease they use to keep their machines running. That is the truth of the position. I do not think that Senators would be prepared to exchange the commodity on their breakfast table for that grease. That is the value which the community places on these two commodities.

Comparing the cost of other foodstuffs the people have been receiving for a number of years, the cheapest possible food is butter. They may be quite certain that that situation is not going to continue. The Minister has recently announced an increase which will bring the price of milk up to 7d. per gallon for the year. I have discussed this question with a number of creamery managers and farmers. The general impression is that this increase in the price of milk is equivalent to the 1/- increase in the price of wheat, when it was raised from 40/- to 41/-. The increase will have no effect in staying the decline in the dairying industry which has been proceeding for a number of years. Bad as the situation now is regarding the supply of butter, and bad as it has been for some time, in the coming 12 months it will be much worse. If we have reached the frame of mind in which it does not matter whether this commodity is available or not, no more need be said. If we have reached that stage, then we must be prepared to let this industry die. I do not know whether or not that is the Minister's view but, if it were, it would be a dreadful view. My opinion is that, in respect of any commodity we can produce, we should concentrate on greater and heavier production. I do not see what we can put our people to in the future, unless we can put more of them on the land and produce more from the land. That ought to be the first consideration, rather than taking the line that we shall have a continuous decline in the volume of production and the value of that production. We ought to be trying to spread ourselves into all sorts of new activities in which we can fruitfully employ our services while, at the same time, keeping hold of the old activities which we maintained through difficult times and against intense competition. I do not think that it is sound national policy or that the Minister should favour a policy of retreating from production such as this. If we do that, I prophesy that some successor of the Minister will try to get us back to increased production of the commodities from which we withdraw, and it will then be costly to do so.

We reached a stage within the past couple of months when fats were almost unprocurable. I have repeatedly opposed the policy regarding pig production which was mainly responsible for this shortage of fats. We have reached such a position in regard to dairying and pig production that, during next winter and the following spring, it will be practically impossible to maintain a reasonable ration of fat for our people. To permit a situation such as that to develop, with our knowledge, is a serious matter. I do not think that the farmer will, in that event, be worse off, but I do not think that patriotic and intelligent farmers can regard calmly a situation in which the poorer people in the cities and towns will be very badly served.

The farmer has not been able considerably to increase the number of hands he employs on his farm, despite the new activities in which he has been compelled to engage. I do not know that it will be argued that the farmer's income has increased to any extent since the outbreak of war. Certain figures show that agricultural prices have risen, but the rise in agricultural prices in no way compensates for the rise in price of other commodities in which the farmer has to trade and deal as part of his productive machinery. For a considerable time past, and at present, farmers have been cashing their cows as they come along into the season when the greatest amount of cash can be got for them. By that means, they are reducing their labour costs. Labour costs are a considerable factor in the farmer's economy. Many farmers are cashing their cows either because there is a good price for them or because of the difficulty of getting men to do the milking. The dairy farmer is making up his mind that life will be much simpler for him by changing his methods and carrying on his work with his own family if other labour is not available. He will be in the position, as Deputy Gorey used to say, that when he has his land ploughed, he can close his gate and leave it until the crop is ready for reaping the following harvest.

A great many farmers are changing over, as the Minister knows, because of the tremendous attraction of the high price of dairy cows, and it is not going to be lower for a considerable period. It is quite obvious that the demand for dairy cows now, and going on towards next harvest, will be a tremendous draw on our dairy stock. Along with that fact we have others. Senator O'Donovan made a number of statements on the last occasion. I would prefer if he were in the House, because I wish to say that some of them remind one of the old saying that it is an evil bird which fouls its own nest. His statement with regard to the farmers who were his neighbours, or who would be his neighbours if he had stayed at home, are not of the kind that ought to be made by a Senator or a farmer in this House. It is true that he called attention to some problems with regard to live stock which deserve examination, but I think he failed to face up to many of the real problems which confront our dairy farmers.

One may say that not the smallest problem in dairying is the spread of various diseases amongst dairy herds, in respect of which our veterinary science and veterinary departments are doing very little, either by way of mitigation of the hardship, by way of inoculation against them, or cure. In fact, one can see very little improvement at all through veterinary science in the helping of dairy farmers out of their difficulties. We have abortion, mastitis and diseases of that kind becoming more widespread and deadly every day. From my personal experience veterinary science is doing nothing for us about trying to find a cure.

On previous occasions in this House, I quoted from a paper compiled by Mr. Michael Murphy, who is lecturer in Dairy Accountancy in University College, Cork. I had hoped for a sympathetic approach to the facts given in the paper on the part of Senators who apparently chose to be very glib, and sycophantic—if I might say so—in the arguments used in opposition to it, but refused really to face the issues raised in the paper. Within the last ten days, another paper has come to hand from Mr. Murphy. This was read at a recent meeting of the Statistical Society. In the year 1940-41, Mr. Murphy investigated conditions on 61 farms in West Cork. Whatever Senator O'Donovan might say about the lazy sort of farming carried on by the Limerick men— I do not know whether he put it as mildly as that—I am sure he will be prepared to challenge anyone who would say that the farmers of West Cork were lazy. You would not stay very long in West Cork if you were lazy, and while I realise that a great many of the West Cork people get away from West Cork and stay away from it, a great many stay there, and this paper clearly demonstrates the versatility of their particular kind of farming. Mr. Murphy visited 61 farms in this area, which is west of Clonakilty, and I think it would be a good idea if every Senator interested in these problems studied this paper. Mr. Murphy's figures reveal a position where farms range in size from 10 acres to 50 acres. There were no 200-or even 100-acre farms. Fourteen farms were between 10 and 20 acres; 22 farms between 20 and 30 acres; 14 farms between 30 and 40 acres, and 11 farms between 40 and 50 acres. The paper gives a number of very interesting tables, and it is rather extraordinary to see how the activities of the farmers were broken up and divided among milk, skim and new, crops and cattle, sheep and wool, horses, pigs, poultry, and eggs and crops of all sorts. Every farmer, I think, grew wheat. One or two grew oats, others grew barley, and others grew beans, while some grew flax. On practically every farm they had pigs, while on every farm over 20 acres, they had sows also These fellows work.

What did Mr. Murphy find in the year 1940-41? He found that, in the first place, the farmers might be paid the same wage for their labour as the agricultural worker is paid if they received on the average 8.60d. per gallon for their milk at the creamery. One might say that that is just the sum total of what Mr. Murphy discovered, that they could get the same wage as an agricultural worker if they were paid about 8½d. per gallon for milk. What do they get for it? They get around 6d. or less than 6d. a gallon on the average. Senators can then see what their income was, because where there was labour it had to be paid for at the full statutory wage. They had to tighten their belts to the extent by which the price of the gallon of milk was reduced from 8½d. to around 6d. Apparently that is the position in which we are going to keep our farmers. Whatever consumers may think about it, there is one thing as certain as we are sitting here, that farmers are not going to produce milk at those figures any more. I do not want to attempt to look at the consequences if farmers will not do that, but, if the view is that the consumer is paying too much and cannot afford to pay any more, I would say that there are a great many farmers who have to pay more than they are able. I realise that the consumers of other commodities have to pay more than they are really able to pay, and that a great many of them are not able, as a result, to get these commodities in sufficient quantity to maintain a reasonable standard of nutrition. If these people are to have the commodities they require for consumption, the community must not expect to have them supplied at the expense of the farmer, and you may be quite certain that the community are not going to have them any longer on that basis.

I quoted arguments here at some length as to the necessity for some organisation which would enable us to determine reasonably accurately whether or not the figures with regard to the cost of production of milk given in the name of the farmers are accurate or not. I did not get much support for that point of view, especially from some of the people from whom I expected it. Senator O Buachalla, in various ways, was attempting to meet me, I think, with arguments that were either badly-informed or deliberately misleading. I suggest that if we had some institution which would enable the Minister and this House and the farmers and consumers to discover approximately the cost of production of milk, there would not be this conflict which we experience every time we come up against a proposition for an increased price. I suggest that if Senator McGinley, Senator Healy, or Senator O'Connell feel inclined to oppose the motion, there ought to be some basis for the argument they make, which will prove that the farmer is really getting sufficient for the work he is doing.

The figures which you get from a man like Mr. Murphy, should, I suggest be treated with considerable respect. Mr. Murphy has gone to very considerable pains to arrive at these figures. Not alone is he a man of very considerable capacity but he is a man of reputation. He is a lecturer in dairying accountancy in Cork and he visited 61 farms and made himself fully acquainted with the facts on each farm. Facilities were also afforded to him by the local creameries to which the farmers brought their milk and where they procured most of their commodities. With all those data at his disposal the net result of his inquiries was that the farmers were not getting as much as would enable them to pay themselves for their labour as much as they are paying their agricultural labourers. I know that somebody will say: "Look at what they are getting in other ways, for beet and in reduction of rates." What are the farmers getting for beet? That is the kind of dishonest argument that is always made when the farmer asks for his rights. There is a fixed price for beet and there is a scheme which makes it possible to give that fixed price to the farmer. It does not matter whether the whole lot is put on the consumer or whether you have a plan worked out between the Sugar Company, the consumers and the Government, to enable that price to be paid to the farmer, the fact is that if you take the beet grower—and I challenge contradiction on this—and go into all his costs, you will find that, high as the price apparently is and much as the beet grower appears to be getting from the consumers, there is very little profit left. I question whether, when all is said and done, he is getting enough to maintain his land up to the necessary standard of fertility that will enable him to say that he has got healthy land that will feed healthy stock or give healthy crops.

Senator McGinley suggested that we should consider the assistance which the farmers are getting in rates. What assistance are they getting in rates? The assistance which the Exchequer gives with regard to rates to-day is not anything like, not within 50 per cent., what the position was in the old days when the landlord paid half and the ténant paid half. Any relief that comes from the Exchequer is supposed to balance the out-goings of the farmer in the same way as if the old position had been maintained. But the State is doing nothing of the kind. If you go through the whole gamut of compensations which it is alleged the farmer is getting from the State, the fact is that the farmer is not getting anything like a fair cost of production for some crops and anything he is getting otherwise is not a concession. If all these things were such marvellous benefits to the farmer, I ask why are so few people prepared to be farmers?

Peadar MacFhionnlaoich

Goidé an fá go bhfuil luach comh hárd sin ar thalamh?

Mr. Baxter

The fact is that every other activity in this country is more attractive than that of the farmer. There is more money apparently for the people on the turf bogs than there is for the farm workers or the son of the farmer. I am not contesting the wisdom of paying that money. I am just pointing out the position in which farmers find themselves under our present scheme of economy, when the average farmer on a 40-acre farm does not receive as much for his labour as the agricultural worker. That is the position. I think that the whole situation in agriculture is endangered because of that. I see a continued decline in our butter production. It would not, perhaps, from the point of view of our live stock, be so disastrous if this decline were not caused by the loss of our dairy stock. If men were merely changing over from the production of butter to the production of live stock and were feeding their milk to live stock, that would be another story, but that is not so. It is a question of reducing herds and by the reduction of the mothers of our flocks, we are reducing our total live-stock population to an extent which apparently we are not prepared to face up to or to calculate.

The Minister some time ago addressed himself to this whole question of dairying in a speech in Cork. I am not going to join issue with the Minister on that here now, but in my view—and I confess I was rather alarmed by the line which he took—he did seem to commit himself to a situation where he was prepared to accept a decline in butter production in this country. I think that for our Ministry of Agriculture and for our Minister for Agriculture to commit themselves to any such situation as the basis of our policy, because I regard dairying as the basis of our whole agricultural policy, is really alarming. I think Senator Crosbie made a reference to that speech in Cork earlier. I am not going to go over the same ground now, but I should like to have more enlightenment from the Minister in regard to the position. If we have over a period of years built up a dairying industry, invested a considerable amount of capital in it, and accumulated a certain amount of reserves; if we have a big trade turnover, a trained personnel and equipment of all kinds in our creameries with a desire to improve the standard of the product —if all these things are to be discounted as being of very little value and we are to look forward to a continuous decline in the industry, I think that is a very bad line indeed. As an inevitable consequence of that attitude towards the decay of dairying you have the selling off and the cutting down of all our good herds all over the country. I think that must be stopped.

Even though you have increased the price of milk somewhat, I doubt whether the increase which you have given will reach the farmers to the full extent to which it has been given, because in all our creameries we are going to have a considerable drop in the quantity of milk dealt with. The overheads are going to go up in consequence and the net benefit is going to be smaller. These are all factors which have to be gravely and seriously considered. The shortage of butter this year was brought about by the bad price of butter two years ago. I think that the increase in the price of milk will not considerably increase the quantity of butter that will be produced this year. It is going to steadily decline, and could very well be a disastrous decline. It should be remembered, too, that we have built up, and made a great effort to build—an effort to which the Department of Agriculture has made its contribution—a fine stock of dairy cattle. Are we going now to get away from that, because the farmer cannot get a decent living for the labour which he has put into it? I think that that is a frightful discouragement to men who have put a great deal of capital and a great deal of money during many years into the improvement of the breed of our dairy cattle.

With all the considerations that are present to the minds of our dairy farmers and to the people connected with farming, I urge on the Minister what a short-sighted policy that would be. It is going to be paid for dearly by the people, especially by the consumers. Whatever steps can be taken ought to be taken to keep the dairying industry going, because without dairying our pig production, our whole production in regard to fats, will be considerably impoverished. If the dairying industry is to go down now we will have a food situation confronting us in 12 months' time which, to say the least of it, I do not like to contemplate. While there has been a considerable drift, we have now reached the stage when vigorous methods must be employed. We must think quickly to see if the burden of improving conditions for dairy farmers is a matter for the Exchequer or the community, or for both combined. Even if we are to have food at a higher price, surely it is better to have it at that price than to have none at all. Unless that consideration is brought home to the minds of the Government we are going to be short of fats, a most essential commodity in our whole plan of nutrition.

I think the defenders of the consumers of butter who tell the Minister that the price of butter is too high, and that the people cannot pay any more for it, should look at the consequences of such a statement on the whole position of butter production, as I believe they are doing a great national disservice. I have on occasions urged various lines of conduct in relation to the dairying industry which if they had been adopted in time would have altered the situation. I think the decision which the Minister has taken in regard to this increase in the price of milk is something equivalent to the increase of 1/-, from 40/- to 41/- in the price of wheat, but it is time now to do something more for butter. I would like to see the Minister more appreciative of the necessity for doing more for the dairying industry.

Mr. Tunney

I am absolutely opposed to this motion despite all that Senator Baxter has said. While I am in sympathy with the farmer, with the people on the land and the people who have cows, I feel that this motion should not be passed by this House until we see that our own people are able to purchase butter at a higher price. I am sorry that at the outset Senator Baxter did not go into that point at all. His case was that we should have a foreign market in order to be able to exchange goods.

Mr. Baxter

No. I did not relate that to butter. I was referring to live stock.

Mr. Tunney

You put up a case more for the foreign market than for the home one.

Mr. Baxter

I would not like Senator Tunney to be labouring under a misunderstanding. In my reference to producing conditions for a foreign market I was speaking mainly of producing live stock. Senator Tunney knows that you cannot have cows producing calves unless the calves have milk also.

Mr. Tunney

I accept the Senator's explanation, but I cannot understand why he should propose this motion. Every motion that came before this House for the benefit of the workers, in any shape or form, has been opposed by Senator Baxter.

Mr. Baxter

That is news to me.

Mr. Tunney

Yes. The Senator was not even in sympathy with the motion concerning family allowances. He more or less sneered at it, and said that it was encouraging pauperism. I would like to see some little consistency in this respect. If he expects the standard for the farmers to go up, then he must give some purchasing power to the workers. I cannot understand why there should be any increase in the price of butter. I wish the Minister would give some explanation of the statement I heard from Senator Baxter, namely, that the farmers are only receiving 6½d. per gallon for milk they produce, but that next winter the workers in this city will have to pay 9d. a quart for milk. Surely there is something wrong there. I am satisfied that there is something wrong also about the price of butter. We see bread queues in the city and we can understand the reason. We see queues for tobacco and cigarettes and we know that is because we do not produce all the tobacco here, but it is astonishing in a nation which produces so much butter to see people queueing up to get it. It is too bad that our own people would not be thought of first. I believe, of course, that something has happened and that the Minister could not help it, but I hope it will not occur again.

Despite the fact that there is a surplus of milk, which is sold at 6½d. a gallon, there are thousands of children of the working classes in this city whose parents could never afford to give them one pint of milk. That is the position, although they could not get a better food. There should be no preference in this matter. I say that although I live in County Dublin. There is something wrong when milk sold at 6½d. a gallon is sold later on to the workers at 9d. a quart. I intend to oppose this motion and, if there is a vote, to vote against it. My reason for that is that there has been no increased remuneration given to consumers which would justify any increase in the cost of butter. Senator Baxter should be the last person to suggest an increase on the worker. I would like to hear the Minister on the extraordinary difference there is in the price of milk in the country and in the City of Dublin.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

I was interested in Senator Baxter's speech, although I think it was entirely too pessimistic—he accused me of that—and it struck me that the Senator might almost be accused of suffering from a persecution complex on behalf of the farmers. Things cannot be as bad as Senator Baxter says they are. He proved absolutely that the farmer could not live on the price he is getting and that, unless he gets considerably more for everything, he must live entirely below the standard of living of an ordinary labouring man. I am sure Senator Baxter will not claim that the agricultural labourer has a whole lot to spare—he cannot throw away half his wages and bring up his wife and family in a healthy state; but, according to the Senator, that is how the farmer stands at the moment. He has painted a terrible picture of the conditions of farming at the present time.

A question was raised by Senator Tunney and others, regarding milk prices, and I will deal with it first. These statements, of course, are taken at the extremes. One Senator says the farmer gets 6d. a gallon for milk, while another says the consumer is paying 9d. a quart. In the first place, it is not the same milk, and neither statement is generally true. Ninepence a quart would only hold for tuberculin-free milk, delivered in bottles at the door of the person who wanted it, in winter time. You could not have a more extreme case. For instance, at the present time, if a person wants a quart of milk, and goes to a shop in town and buys it over the counter, it would be 4½d. and not 9d. That shows the difference there is in the price of milk, even to consumers here in Dublin. If you take an extreme case of 9d. a quart, you have the other case of 4½d. a quart, being the price in the city; then you can take the 6½d. a gallon for milk delivered to the creamery.

It is calculated, on the new price of 180/- or thereabouts for butter at the creamery, that the creameries pay about 7d. a gallon for the whole year on the average. The creamery only keeps the fat and sends back the skim milk, so the creameries will be paying for the fat alone and returning the skim milk. I do not know at what price the individual farmer would value the skim milk. If we are to have experts quoted here with regard to costings—and I am not finding any fault whatever with the experts quoted; I am sure they are very able men and have done their work honestly and well—we must also quote experts on the value of skim milk. I think no expert on dietetics will value the skim milk at less than 2d. a gallon, so that the farmer who brings his milk to the creamery would get 9d. a gallon for his milk this year. Now, take the lowest price at which milk is sold in the City of Dublin over the counter—4½d. per quart, that is 1/6 per gallon. At any rate, there is only 9d. per gallon in the difference, which we can deal with further, but in the extreme case quoted by Senator Tunney there was 2/6 per gallon in the difference.

In discussing this matter with people who produce milk for the creameries and people who produce for the towns, I have found that the producers for the towns say they are not as well off, comparatively speaking, as the producers for the creameries; while the producers for the creameries hold the opposite view. It is very hard to decide, but I am inclined to think that one is just about as well off as the other. If I were a big farmer and had the choice of producing at present prices for the creamery or for Dublin, I would be inclined to support the creamery, as there would be this great advantage: the farmer producing for the creamery can produce as much as he likes in May, June, July, August and September, at the time when it is cheap to produce milk on grass; and need not produce a gallon during the winter months. He gets his price. If he does that for the town supply, he is just cut out and not allowed to continue any further, as nobody will take his milk unless he is prepared to give an even quantity the whole year round. The producer for the towns must give the even quantity, so he must feed his cows very well in the winter, in order to keep up the supply.

Frequently during the year he must buy new cows, as he is getting slack at certain parts of the year, and he must pay the full price for new milch cows. As he cannot keep buying cows all the time without getting rid of any, he must sell those of no use to him at a most uneconomic price, as he would be getting rid of them when they are in the stripper or dry position. Therefore the person who supplies to the town has very big expense during the winter. He is renewing the stock at a high price for milch cows, and getting rid of others at low prices, and so on. Even if he is getting double on the average the whole year round for milk, I do not believe he is better off than the suppliers to the creamery. That is one point.

Another point was raised by Senator Tunney. It is very hard for a person living in the City of Dublin, and harder for a person living in the city who has not been living in the country like Senator Tunney, to understand if there is milk going at 7d. or 9d. a gallon, why the City of Dublin does not get a cheaper supply. We will have to take the summer and winter separately. In the summer time the farmers around Dublin who supply to the city get between 11d. and 1/- per gallon—in May, June and July. The creamery down the country takes in milk from the farmer at 9d. They would have to pasteurise that milk if they were sending it to Dublin, pay the rail charges and so on. They could not do it any more cheaply than the farmer round the city during those months when milk is plentiful. In the winter time, on the other hand, that farmer around the city gets 1/4½. That was last winter's price, I think, and next winter he will get 4d. more, making 1/8½.

Last winter there was not enough milk in the city, and many creameries were supplying milk who were registered to supply it to Dublin, but they were not able to fill the deficiency. They were given the full price, 1/4½, delivered here in Dublin, and were able to give a very good price to the farmer producer in the country. Yet we had to suspend certain regulations and allow every creamery which had milk to send it on to Dublin. Even then, we were a bit short during one month—in February, I think. The position really is that, in the winter time you have not got this cheap milk at 7d. per gallon to send to Dublin. In fact, the City of Dublin would take nearly all the surplus milk in the country during the winter, that is, the surplus when the other towns would have been supplied. That milk has to come in at a very high price.

The creameries must equip themselves properly for this Dublin supply and put in proper pasteurisers, and so on. Some of them did that and were equipped properly for the winter supply, and they got good quotas from September to the following April. Those which were not properly equipped to supply the milk, as I explained already, were even called on last winter. Milk was taken to Dublin and pasteurised here. There is no guarantee, of course, to those creameries that they will be permitted or asked to supply milk in winters to come. Anyway, I want Senators to realise—especially those who may not have given any deep thought to this subject before—that the whole problem is not as simple as it would appear at first. The farmer is selling his milk at 7d. a gallon down the country, while the people are paying 7d., 8d. and 9d. a quart here in Dublin, but there are a lot of steps in between and a great many qualifications must be added to those figures before you can work them out properly.

Again, if we take the price of butter for the coming year—the price would be somewhere about 180/- to the creamery—the wholesaler in Dublin pays a rail charge on it and is allowed a certain amount under the Orders issued, and it passes on to the retailer who sells it at 1/9 per lb. It is very hard to know what is a fair price for milk and butter. I know that Mr. Murphy, who is a lecturer in dairy accountancy in Cork, has arrived at certain figures and published them, but Mr. Murphy is an expert in that business, and while I am sure that he has done his research in an expert way, and has given his figures as any disinterested expert person like him would present them, where you have an expert dealing with such figures, I think it takes an expert to explain them, and it is very easy sometimes to draw wrong deductions. I remember reading his first figures, and I saw there that there were farmers who were making a good living and other farmers who were not. I am sure any sociologist investigating, say, ten carpenters' houses here in Dublin would find that, if all were on the same wage, in some houses the families would be much better off than in others.

Mrs. Concannon

It depends on the wives.

Dr. Ryan

Yes, it does. If you went into one of these houses and saw how one of the wives would spend money if she had it, you would probably have to report that that woman would require £1,000 a year to live properly. That does not say that every farmer should get £1,000 a year. If among 61 farmers you have some living well because they are good farmers, and if at the bottom of the scale you have farmers doing badly because they keep, say, 10 or 12 cows with yields of 450 gallons, have no pigs or poultry, do not make much use of grain, and if they have it, it is a poor crop, and have to hire a man to milk the cows and a boy to bring the milk to the creamery, there is no doubt that that man, when he pays the hired man, the boy, and possibly a maid servant, will not have as much for himself as he would have to pay an agricultural labourer. Neither does he deserve to have it. In that way when you take figures like those, they have to be examined carefully and proper deductions drawn from them.

Another observation by Senator Baxter was that the price of butter was almost as low as grease used in the creameries for greasing the machines. I do not think that brings us anywhere at all. It is quite possible that it might happen, under certain circumstances, that a ton of gold would not buy a ton of steel, but, even so, it would be due to peculiar circumstances if it did happen; and this now is due to peculiar circumstances. Butter is not as good, probably, as grease for machinery. Grease is very scarce, and in two or three years' time it may come to pass that you will have to give five pounds of butter for one pound of grease, because grease is better for the purpose. With regard to fats in general, there is a serious shortage, there is no margin practically, and lard is down by 60 or 70 per cent. because we are not killing so many pigs. There is also less dripping for some reason— there should be sufficient; and the result is that people are greatly in need of fats of various kinds. Senator Baxter argued that we should be careful not to deprive people of fat completely, but we should take another view—that if people are depending on butter entirely to supply their needs of fat, then you will have to have some regard for the price. For instance, if we could say to the people at the moment that there is any amount of margarine at 6d. or 7d. a pound and lard at 6d. a pound, and you have a great need of fats and cannot afford the price for butter, we are only depriving you of a luxury; and we could then, perhaps, deal, with a certain amount of equanimity, with butter as a luxury. But it is not a luxury now; it is a necessity; and everybody must buy butter if they want fat, and we must have serious regard for the price.

Mr. Baxter

I was also thinking of the necessity of skimmed milk for pig production. Pigs are essential for fats too.

Dr. Ryan

I am, of course, dealing with the point that butter is the only fat available. We might argue, as Senator Baxter argues—put up the price so that we will have enough butter, because if the butter is less we will have no fat at all. But you could equally argue that as we have no fat, we must be careful about the price, because if a family, rich or poor, is depending on it, we cannot make it too difficult for them to get enough butter.

Supposing that we did put up the price 2d. or 3d. per lb., I think that people's incomes are limited now, and there is no great opportunity of going out and trying to collar more money. You must put up with what you have, and with these limited incomes that we have at the moment, if you put up the price of butter I think a good many families will have to decide whether they would continue to spend the same amount on butter. If they have been buying, say 7 lb. of butter for a big family at 1/7, say 11/- per week and you put it up to 2/- per lb., they will probably have to come down to 5½ lb., because they cannot afford to spend the extra money. If that should occur we would have a surplus, and that would have to be exported at 131/-. Taking it in the aggregate, I do not know if the producer on the whole would get more for his butter. If we can consume it all at home at 1/9, they are probably better off than if we had to export a certain quantity of it at 131/- per cwt. and consume the rest at 225/- to the creamery.

Professor Johnston

Does the Minister know what they pay for New Zealand butter?

Dr. Ryan

Less, I believe.

Professor Johnston

I do not know how they do it.

Mr. Baxter

They are probably getting none now.

Dr. Ryan

I could not answer the Senator as to the position now, but I know that three years ago they were paying less. That was about a year after the war had commenced and they were paying less for New Zealand than for Irish. At that time, they were paying us 126/-, and I do not believe they are paying the New Zealand Government more than 131/- now—what they are offering us now. The New Zealand people seem to be satisfied enough at that price. They have different conditions there. I dealt with that point in the speech in Cork to which Senator Baxter referred. New Zealand farmers are, I pointed out, generally speaking, in a different position from our farmers. They have large, mechanised farms and they do most of their milking by machinery. They do their own separating and deliver their cream to the creamery.

Roughly speaking, you might take it that the new Zealand farm is virtually in the same position as an auxiliary creamery. It is almost as big as those of all the suppliers to an auxiliary. They do their own milking by machinery. They do their own separating and they deliver the cream to the central creamery. In that way, their costs are very much lowered. Still, 188/- to our creameries is a considerable increase on their 131/-, and if New Zealand, no matter how well-organised and mechanised it may be, can deliver butter in Great Britain at 131/-, it is extraordinary that we cannot continue with 180/-.

I do not know what Senator Baxter had in mind when he said that our policy was responsible for the decrease in pig production. There is no doubt that the decrease is due to the want of feeding stuffs. I cannot understand how any responsible Senator—I do not say that Senator Baxter did this— could advocate an increase in pig production, because pigs can be fed only in competition with human beings. The food used for pigs is mostly grain.

Professor Johnston

Would the Minister recommend potato silage for pigs?

Dr. Ryan

I would.

Mr. Baxter

Or potatoes and skimmed milk? We have thousands of tons of potatoes, and pigs are hardly procurable.

Dr. Ryan

Farmers who have small pigs have said to me: "How am I to feed them?" I said: "Have you not some potatoes and skimmed milk?" They said that they had not enough to feed the pigs. In any event, the pigs can only be kept going on that food until the grain comes in to fatten them. We have not the grain at the moment. If the coming harvest turns out well and we have grain to spare, I have no doubt that pig production will increase, but we have to wait for the feeding to come first. Senator Baxter said that the increase in agricultural prices was more than offset by the prices farmers have to pay. I always like to separate farmers' costs into two categories—those that enter into the cost of living, such as groceries and clothing, and, in the other category, farm requisites, like manures and seeds, and wages, rates, and so forth.

Mr. Baxter

I gave a list of those before the Minister came in.

Dr. Ryan

I am sorry I was not here for that. If Senator Baxter draws a rough graph of the farm index price and the cost of living, he will find that they have tended to converge more and more during the past four or five years. That is to say, the farm index price is going up more all the time than the cost of living. Indeed, that is why the cost of living is going up—because the price of food is going up. The farmer is getting a slight advantage there all the time. The cost of living does not affect him as much as it affects the townsman because he has a great deal of the food he requires on his farm, though he has to buy clothes and boots. To the extent that it does affect him, he has an increasing advantage over the past four or five years.

Take, then, the question of farm requisites. Artificials have gone up but the farmer cannot get very much of them. He may have a complaint there, because he may say that he would like to get more artificials even at a high price and so get a greater yield from his land. That is a rather difficult point to discuss because it is hypothetical. We would, I think, all admit that it would be better for him to get more artificials, because he would get more from his crops. Wages have gone up since the war commenced by 3/- on two occasions. That is to say, by about 20 per cent. There is no doubt that farm prices have gone up by more than 20 per cent. Rates in 1941/42 were up by 10 per cent. as compared with pre-war, taking all the counties into consideration. The increase may be a little more this year. Putting wages, rates, seeds, and manures on one side and the cost of living—clothes, groceries and so on —on the other side, Senators will find that, having regard to the price index, the farmer is better off than he was pre-war, on the assumption that the volume of his output is the same. If it is not as large as it was, that would operate against him. Except in the case of pigs, I think it is as large as it was. Cattle have remained constant and his output of tillage crops is higher than it was.

It is rather unfair for Senator Baxter to use the argument, which he knows is untrue, that the tillage farmer can sow his crop in the spring, shut his gate and not trouble about it until he goes back to reap it in the harvest. We all know that, in practice, the tillage farmer's men are engaged all the year round. A tillage farmer does not take on four or five men for a month in the spring and then tell them that he will want them again in the middle of August. Everybody knows that they work all the year round. It has been said about the graziers in the midlands that their sole occupation consists in opening and shutting their gates which is, of course, also somewhat of an exaggeration. These exaggerations do not get us any closer to a conclusion.

Another matter raised by Senator Baxter was unfair to our veterinary profession here. Our veterinary profession have been blamed because they have not done something about abortion and mastitis. That is unfair. They have been doing their best, although they have not succeeded. The whole world is working on these diseases. America is working on them. They have millions to spend on enormous laboratories, but they have not succeeded in getting a cure. A number of continental countries are also working in the same interest. This allegation has been made in the Dáil and Seanad on a number of occasions, and I do not think that it is fair. Senators might as well say that the medical profession is hopeless because they have not discovered a cure for cancer. We have as much right to expect the medical profession here to discover a cure for cancer, which the rest of the world cannot do, as we have to expect the veterinary profession here to discover a cure for mastitis, abortion or any of those diseases. I think our veterinary profession compares very favourably with the veterinary profession of any other country. They have made certain discoveries which rank as world-wide additions to veterinary knowledge and they have added to the store of veterinary knowledge in general. But, it is too much to expect that we should be the discoverers of a cure for any of those diseases which would practically revolutionise dairying in this, as well as in every other, country.

Senator Baxter, in order to prove his point that farming was badly off, asked at the end: "Why are so many people running away from the land?" I do not think there is any proof in that at all. You might as well say: "Why does not a doctor's son become a doctor?" Many of them do not, and that does not prove that doctors are not fairly well off on the whole. Here is the proof of it. Does Senator Baxter know of any estate being divided, in any part of this country, where the Land Commission had any difficulty in getting a sufficient number of applicants? I have never known one yet. If the Land Commission takes over an estate they always have more applicants than they can satisfy. In fact, they have very serious trouble about trying to satisfy them sometimes, and I think, after all, that if the position was as dark as Senator Baxter painted it here, about people running from the country, the Land Commission would find difficulty in getting applicants for the land. But there is no such thing.

According to Senator Baxter, my speech in Cork showed that I rather acquiesced in facing a decline in dairying, and he deplores that. I did, I suppose, to some extent. I thought that it might come, and I think that it is the easiest thing in the world to go to Cork, or anywhere else, and say: "I don't think that will come—something will turn up to stop it." That, however, does not help the position very much. What I went to Cork to say was that I had been thinking over the position and that back in 1932 we came to the State, on behalf of the dairy farmers, to ask for a subsidy to keep them going. That continued for ten years, and at that time, as every Senator will agree, we provided that subsidy only as a temporary measure.

Nobody ever thought that we were going to continue it for all time. We thought that a time would come when dairy farming could be put on an economic basis to compete against the world. Well, the war came, and it was most disappointing to find the result of it. If Britain at war was not prepared to give us an economic price for our butter, it is not very likely that she will do it when the war is over. I went on to say: "Suppose she does not, surely we are not going to go on subsidising the export of butter until the next war comes along?" I said we would have to face reality. We would have to consume what we can at home, and I went on to say that it was not such a disastrous thing as people might think at first sight, because if we were to reduce our cows by 8 per cent. we would be down to what we wanted ourselves. I think that was true at the time, but the position now is that we are down practically to what we want without reducing the number of cows by 8 per cent. My object was to put people thinking that we might have to change our system when the war is over, and I made it plain that it was when the war was over. I made it plain that we must carry on for the present because we do not know what will happen after the war. We should be in a position of having the thing thought out so that we may see what we may do then about the problem. Senator Baxter has made the statement that even a big increase in the price of milk would not bring an increase in production. That is rather disturbing——

Mr. Baxter

Not this year, but it would stop the decline. That is what I meant. That is the gravity of it, really.

Dr. Ryan

There may be something in that. There were other points raised here on the last occasion, but I think they have been practically covered by what has been said. What we were discussing previously was mostly the point about prices in the city and prices in the creamery. That matter was gone into in great detail, especially by the speakers who opposed the motion, and I do not want these speakers to vote on the motion under a sense of prejudice, if you like. I think we should understand the position fully, that as far as the price of milk is concerned, it is not possible, even if we took the milk to the city to have it sold much cheaper here, either in summer or in winter. At the same time, we have passed certain laws regulating the cleanliness of milk in the city and we must have regard to these laws too.

Senator Tunney made a statement with which I do not agree. He said that there are thousands in this city who cannot afford to drink milk. There may be thousands—a thousand is not a big figure in a way—but there are not many people in this city who cannot get milk, because various classes like the unemployed, those receiving home assistance, widows and orphans of the same family, old age pensioners, and those who are getting benefit under the National Health Insurance Acts—all these various classes are given free milk on the voucher. In addition milk is being given out through the Infant Aid Society to various classes, and a certain amount is going out as free meals in the schools. It is very hard to see what classes could be missed in all these schemes, except the person who is at work earning a wage or salary of some kind, and I think, therefore, that if Senator Tunney's statement is true that there are thousands in this city who cannot afford to drink milk, at any rate they cannot blame the State, or the local authority, or the various charitable organisations in the city. They must blame some other circumstance for it, and I do not think there can be very many who cannot afford to drink milk. That is all I can say on the motion. I have no opinion to offer on whether the Seanad should vote for or against it. It is a matter of opinion entirely, whether they think farmers should get more for their butter or not.

Mr. Corkery

Most of us are agreed that if the dairying industry is to be maintained something must be done. We were in the position last year in which I suppose we were the one country in the world able to supply our own needs in butter for 11½ months. If we find ourselves in the position next year that we can only supply ourselves for nine months, we will probably have butter sold in the black market at double or treble the price it is at present. We must produce enough to supply ourselves for 12 months. After that, well—it is hard to see what will be the better policy at present—if we are to export any we will probably have to subsidise it. Whether we should do that or not would require serious consideration. I think the Minister should have the whole question of the dairying industry carefully examined. We had a motion here some months ago asking to hand the creameries over to the co-operative societies. We have had co-operative societies here for a large number of years, but a great many of them, especially in the south, have treated the dairying industry more or less as a Cinderella. They have done very little to improve the milk yield of our cattle. At least, we are informed that we have many more uneconomic cows than we should have.

In the Minister's own constituency, I think the co-operative societies have done away altogether with the dairying industry as regards the creamery end of it. In most of the other large societies in the south, the dairying industry has been more or less neglected by the co-operative societies, who are paying more attention to what is, I suppose, the more lucrative part of their business. I think it is time that the whole question should be carefully examined, and that some body like the Dairy Disposals Board should be put in charge of the dairying industry, at least, in the counties where it has been neglected—some body that will increase the yield per cow and devote all its time, not a small portion of it, to the improvement of the dairying industry.

Liam O Buachalla

I doubt if I would have risen on this occasion to speak at all were it not that I heard my name mentioned by Senator Baxter, and that I heard some rather unusual adjectives used in my connection. I only want to say in regard to Mr. Murphy's work that I have not in any way attempted to disparage it or to make little of it. As a matter of fact, as I explained when I was speaking on the paper in question, I doubt if there are many who appreciate as much as I do the value of that work. I doubt if there is anyone more ready to pay tribute to the pioneering work the author has done in the matter of farm costings than I am. On that occasion, I asked Senator Baxter who introduced a discussion on the paper, one or two questions. The first question I asked was whether that report was a costings report or not, and I think the opening lines of the report state that it is. Secondly, I proceeded to mention what are understood by accountants generally as being the objects of costings. I pointed out that Mr. Murphy's report fulfilled the functions of a costings investigation. I mentioned that there were certain lessons which might be drawn from that report and I indicated that it was on these lessons that stress should be laid.

A further reason why I rise now is because once again the ability of professional Irishmen has again been called in question. I have been studying for some time a very important work entitled British Agriculture, the result of an agricultural investigation undertaken by Viscount Astor and another very competent investigator, Mr. Rowntree. I find on page 198 this statement:—

"A higher proportion of Irish store cattle are earning the quality subsidy than of British, and also a far larger proportion of Scottish than of English or Welsh cattle reach the standard."

I think that one of the lessons that may be learned from that quotation, as far as the question of the adequacy of the price of butter is concerned, is that the farmer who goes in for butter production may not be doing himself justice, that he is doing a very unwise thing in sending out his good cattle and retaining those which he might very well let go. I am not competent to say whether he is doing that or not but I think this paragraph from this very important report raises a question that might very well be examined. I can quite understand how ridiculous it would be for a tradesman, a carpenter for instance, to dispose of the better tools in his kit and to try to work with inferior tools. From my experience of trade, I would call that man a fool. I am inclined to doubt whether, on the whole, the farmer is doing himself justice in the matter of the type of cattle of which he is disposing. He cannot normally, at any rate, dispose of his good cattle, retain bad ones in their stead and then expect to make money on the bad ones while also making money on the good ones.

Mr. Baxter

I do not want to interrupt the Senator, but I should like to be clear exactly as to what his point is. I take it that this report of Viscount Astor's has to do with the bullocks we sent out as beef. That is why they were classified as high grade. Perhaps the Senator would elucidate the point further. I know of the report, but I have not read it.

Liam O Buachalla

The Senator is probably aware that Britain requires somewhere in the region of 1,000,000 head of cattle for replacement of foundation stock—dairy and breeding herds—and that she takes a certain proportion of these from this country.

Mr. Baxter

What proportion?

Liam O Buachalla

I cannot say how many, but she certainly takes in a certain proportion. The figures I have quoted—and ordinarily I am very uneasy about quoting figures—are those given in Astor and Rowntree's work. They reach a grade in England—why not in Ireland—or do they? Another of the lessons that I think might be learned from Mr. Murphy's work was the need for stepping up milk yields. It may not be possible to do it. I do not know but it is interesting to note that in Britain, yields have risen from 550 gallons to 774 gallons, that is in 1935. As far as agriculture is concerned, I am entitled, as a layman, to ask that seeing that such strides can be made in Britain why something similar cannot be done here.

Mr. Baxter

Would the Senator be surprised to know that in a cow-testing association of which I am a members, the average was down by 50 gallons over the whole association, and there were no 1,000-gallon cows in the association either?

Liam O Buachalla

The Senator took me to task because I asked certain questions in regard to a certain report and because I pointed out what I thought were the lessons to be learned from that report. I am entitled to look for information on these things and when the Senator gets time perhaps he will enlighten me and the rest of the country on them.

In regard to the incidence of disease I pointed out that another of the lessons to be learned from the report in question is that a good deal has to be done in the matter of eradicating it. If we eradicated disease from among our stock then, as that report shows, we could increase considerably the rewards accruing to the farmer for his products. I do not think, however, that we are very much worse than they are in Great Britain, and I do not think our veterinary authorities deserve the censure they received. I have culled a few figures from the Astor-Rowntree report, which deals with the position in Britain. Various investigations have been made with different kinds of herds. Here are two. Of 59 self-contained herds, 22 showed abortion and 8 per cent. of the calves were stillborn. They spend a lot of money over there on veterinary research and yet the figures I have given show the position. In another case of 118 herds not self-contained which were examined 61 showed abortion and 12 per cent. of the calves were born prematurely. Stillborn calves were considered to be just as numerous. I am not quarrelling with Senator Baxter or anyone else in regard to the fact that disease is somewhat extensive, but I do take exception to any endeavour to cast reflection on a profession which we know has for many years worked tooth and nail to eradicate disease in this country and has succeeded as well as has been done anywhere else. I do not think that exaggeration is any substitute for argument.

There is just one other matter I want to mention. I have never claimed to be a farmer. All I can do is study the findings and recommendations as given by the farming experts. If sometimes I doubt what they say, I am entitled to ask for information in regard to the points they have raised. This report which I have already mentioned, "British Agriculture", contains this paragraph:—

"Since milk is likely in the future to be of still greater importance to agriculture than it is now it is vital that the technique and methods of the most progressive producers should be disseminated as rapidly as possible amongst the rank and file, too many of whom are still producing at inexcusably high costs per gallon."

That statement has been made by men who are undoubtedly experts, practical and academic, and I do not think I should be blamed if I come along and say: Here are the opinions of the authorities and experts and I think we ought to pay attention to them.

As a matter of fact, from all I have seen and read and heard I believe that the salvation of our agricultural industry depends on the application of higher technique; it depends on more advanced study and an appreciation of the importance of up-to-date methods in every branch of the industry. If we were to debate the matter further, as we may later on another motion, I might be able to draw Senator Baxter's attention to some points from the annual report of an organisation of which he himself is a pillar that would bear out pretty fully my contention in this regard.

Mr. O'Dwyer

I am sorry that the debate has shown that there seems to be misunderstanding in the House regarding the whole position of the industry, a misunderstanding which I am afraid cannot be cleared up. Some points have been made which I would like to deal with. Some criticisms have been made regarding the technical conduct of the industry, for which I confess there might seem to be some justification but the reasons for which do not seem to be understood. Senator Buckley has spoken about the increased yield of dairy cattle in England, and asked why a similarly increased yield was not obtained here. Those who made the points seem to forget that from 1929 until 1933-34 the price for milk at the creameries was 4d. per gallon. Farmers could barely produce milk at that price, not to think of undertaking additional expense in the way of increasing yields. There is a decline to-day because the best dairy cattle are leaving the country. In Limerick a shipper will readily pay £40 or more for a dairy cow to be shipped to England. The dairying industry could not stand up to or compete with that competition. There has also been a policy of exporting live stock for years past and that applies to the whole cattle industry.

On the question of increased yield it is of course much easier to increase the yield where milk is sold for human consumption directly and where a high price is paid for it than in the case of milk produced for the creamery. People who keep dairy cattle for the production of milk for human consumption can afford to feed them. That consideration applies to liquid milk. Cattle producing liquid milk for human consumption are usually far better milkers than those producing for the creameries because their owners can afford to feed them better. I am glad the Minister has seen his way to accept the motion, even in part, but I think he could have gone further. Nearly 80 per cent. of separated milk is returned to the farmers to whom it is of value for pigs or calves. The value placed on separated milk by the Dairy Disposals Board last year and this year has been 1½d. per gallon. Farmers who self that separated milk to the Dairy Disposals Board get that 1½d. a gallon. At the very outside the price the farmer would get for his milk, including that separated milk, is 8d. per gallon.

We must not forget there has been a great increase in the expenses of dairy farmers. It would pay them far better to sell dairy cows and stock the land with dry cattle, as they would get twice the profit without any trouble. On account of the emigration and the public works carried on, there has been an exodus of labour from dairying districts. Young men and women do not want to spend long hours in dairying, with extra work and no holidays, and it is especially difficult to get labour for milking cows on the larger farms. Dairy cows are disappearing and their place is being taken by young cattle. It would be well if the townspeople realised the seriousness of the decline. It will be all right until it comes to the point where it affects the supply of milk to the towns; no one minds when it affects the export of butter. Dairy cows are being reduced to a point where there will be a shortage of butter, and that shortage threatens very much this year. I doubt if there will be enough butter to carry on until next year. We have seen the decline in dairy cattle in Limerick and other counties. That has been going on for years past, on account of the competition of the dry cattle and the scarcity of labour. If they decline further, there will be a scarcity of butter next winter and, if not, in the following winter.

Therefore, the Government would be well advised to examine this whole question seriously, as I am sure they will find it necessary to increase still further the price of butter. The price of wheat looked very good, but in comparison with the price of butter it seemed low, and the Government found it necessary to increase the price. I hope the same thing will not occur as regards butter. Had the present increase been announced earlier during the winter, it would have had the effect of arresting the decline this year. If it is to be increased, it would be well to have it announced beforehand. It should be recognised that butter at 1/9 is probably the cheapest food on the market. Urban consumers should not complain about the price, but be satisfied to pay a reasonable price and be sure of sufficient quantities, rather than keep down the price by force until such time as there is a decline in consumption, followed by a scarcity, and then an increased price on the market. That is what everybody knows happened in other cases, and it will happen to butter if it is scarce. It cannot be produced at the price that has been paid, and I doubt if it can be produced at the present price. It would be better, before people go out of the business—and when they go out of it, it is difficult to get back again—to increase the price. There should be a still greater increase, if not at present, at least very soon. That price should go on to the urban consumers as much as it should go to those who are responsible for production. I hope the Minister will see his way to make an increase, in addition to that already announced.

Question put.

The Seanad divided:— Tá, 12; Níl, 19.

Tá.

• Baxter, Patrick F.
• Butler, John.
• Colbert, Michael.
• Conlon, Martin.
• Counihan, John J.
• Crosbie, James.
• Doyle, Patrick.
• MacCabe, Dominick.
• McGee, James T.
• McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The
• Magennis, William.
• O'Dwyer, Martin.

Níl.

• Blaney, Neal.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Campbell, Seán P.
• Corkery, Daniel.
• Cummins, William.
• Goulding, Seán.
• Hawkins, Frederick.
• O'Neill, Laurence.
• Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.
• Quirke, William.
• Healy, Denis D.
• Johnston, James.
• Kennedy, Margaret L.
• Mac Fhionnlaoich, Peadar
• (Cú Uladh).
• O Buachalla, Liam.
• O'Connell, Thomas G.
• Ruane, Thomas.
• Stafford, Matthew.
• Tunney, James.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators MacCabe and O'Dwyer; Níl: Senators Hawkins and Tunney.

Motion declared lost.

The Seanad adjourned at 6 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 20th May.