Yes, but no part of the Act could remain. Everything in it is dependent on the commission. Such things as quotas to factories would also have to go. I was going to deal with the point that Senator Crosbie made about the factories in Cork. In my opinion the only way that these factories can get an equitable distribution of the pigs available is through the commission. The fact is that their request is not that the Pigs and Bacon Commission should be suspended, but that it should go further into the business and take over all pigs to see that they were equitably distributed. That matter is under consideration. We had figures quoted by Senators regarding the operation of individual factories. Senator Counihan corroborated some figures given by Senator Crosbie with regard to Cork. It would appear that some of the big factories that were dealing with 1,200 or 1,600 pigs a week are now dealing with only 100. The figures should not be as low as that. If every factory got a fair share, they should be getting one-third of the normal quota. The normal output of pigs pre-war and in 1940 was about 1,000,000 a year to the factories. The present weekly supply to the factories is about 6,000. It is not much under one-third. If the Cork factory got 1,500 weekly previously, they should now be getting 500. Whatever pigs are there should be equitably distributed amongst these factories in order to keep the employees working. I have agreed, at the request of some curers, to ask the Pigs and Bacon Commission if they are prepared to undertake the task of the nominal purchase of pigs, and then distribute them equally between the factories. There are objections to that. Those who listened to Senator Johnston's speech will know the objections. They are obvious. As Senator Johnston stated, if there were more pigs presented than the equitable fraction of the total, say to a factory in Monaghan, he would seriously object to the transfer of these pigs to Cork. There are also transport objections. It may not be necessary, actually, in working the scheme put up, to transfer pigs from Monaghan to Cork. It may be necessary to transfer pigs from Monaghan to Dundalk, and perhaps pigs from this side of Dundalk to Dublin, and pigs in the south to Roscrea, or from Roscrea to Cork. There may be some attempt at zoning supplies to factories.
I cannot say further now because the matter is being considered by the Pigs and Bacon Commission. If they can find a solution on the lines suggested by the factories we can, at least, do something then to meet the wishes of the factories. The motion suggests that in view of the reduction of the pig population the Seanad should ask that the operations of the Pigs and Bacon Commission be suspended. What is the diminution in the number of pigs due to? Many Senators expressed the opinion that it was entirely due to the shortage of feeding stuffs, others that it was due to the prices offered for fat pigs. I am inclined to think that it is almost entirely due to the scarcity of feeding stuffs. I admit that if a very much bigger price was offered for pigs, we might get more pigs, but as a result we might have greater evils. I do not see how these pigs could have been fed. Every bit of feeding stuff has been used up. No trader, no miller, and I believe very few farmers have feeding stuffs. If there had been more pigs to be fed it is fairly obvious that they would have been fed on cereal food that was required for humans. More pigs would mean less food for human beings. That would be a very much bigger evil than the evil we have to face of having a scarcity of bacon. Senator Crosbie says that we ought to secure more feeding stuffs for pigs. That is certainly a good suggestion. As far as we could we have tried to secure more cereals, and we have, to a certain extent, by compulsion, induced owners to till at least 25 per cent. of their land. We have gone in that direction, and have made appeals in every way possible, by advertisement, by Ministers and officials of my Department, and in every way urged farmers to do more than the quota required. We have got very good results. Of course we have not got sufficient cereals growing to supply the human population with all the bread necessary and, at the same time, maintain all the animals we had when the war commenced.
I should like Senators to keep in mind a few points regarding the cause of the decline in the number of pigs. To realise it Senators must go back and study the trend of prices of fat pigs since the war commenced, and also the number of pigs offered for sale during that period. They will be inclined then to come to the conclusion that the big factor was the supply of feeding stuffs. From the beginning of 1940, down to February, 1942, or for over two years, there were frequent increases in the price of fat pigs. There was never any decrease. There were about seven changes in prices, all upwards during that period. At the same time, all through that two years, the number of sows sent to service every month was less than the corresponding numbers in previous years. It is obvious that the farmer who had his sow and was making up his mind whether or not he should go on breeding pigs was not influenced by the price of fat pigs. Fat pigs were going up all the time in price and the number of sows going to service was getting smaller. It is only a coincidence, but it is very strange, that the first time the commission lowered the price of fat pigs was in February and that the first time we had an increase in sow services was the following month— March. I do not want Senators to take me as arguing that it took a decline in the price of fat pigs to get farmers to send sows to service but it just happened.
It is argued by many people that that fall in the price of fat pigs in February had a depressing effect. It had not. More sows were sent to service then, and, since then, more sows have been sent every month. There has been a turn of the tide. In the months of March, April and May—I have not yet the figures for June—the number of sows sent to service has been greater than during the corresponding months of the previous year. That is a turn of the tide after two years, so that there is some hope that the number of pigs will increase. If Senators ask me why farmers took that action in March, I answer by saying that they, probably, saw on their own farms and around them that there was an increase in tillage and the prospect of more feeding in the winter months. In the second place, they, probably, recognised that there was a fall in the number of pigs and that it was a good time to go back into production. They have done so. I think that the man with the sow is influenced by two things—the price of small pigs and whether he can feed the sow or not. If he can feed the sow, he is inclined to keep her. The fact that we had a big decline in the number of pigs in the two years of which I speak was entirely due to the want of feeding. Farmers thought that they could not go on rearing the sow and rearing the small pigs. The price of small pigs was extremely good for the past two years to any man who was selling the small pigs and not fattening them.
I come now to the man who bought small pigs to fatten them. He paid a good price. He would not have done so if he were losing on the fattening. If I were in the place of a farmer with a certain amount of feeding and if I thought that I would make very little by feeding from six to 12 pigs but that I would have the manure, I might feed them knowing that I would not have very much profit. That was, probably, the position of those who were paying high prices for small pigs and who had a small amount of feeding on hands. However, we discussed that point here before.
Senators will have to admit, at least, that the present position is not entirely due to price. The continuous rise in prices had not the effect of increasing pig production. As soon as prices went down, pig production increased. I should be prepared to argue that, even at present, fat pigs are paying, whatever certain Senators may think. I know very well that if I had to go to a shop and buy meal to feed the pigs they would not pay, but I would not get more than 1 cwt. or 2 cwts. of meal. I tried and I know. One cwt. or 2 cwts. of meal is all right to help out with whatever waste potatoes are available even if you pay £1 or 22/- a cwt. for the meal. But there is no use in talking about the cost of feeding pigs on purchased meals, because you cannot get them. What you must take into account are surplus potatoes.
The sort of ration that the farmer is giving to his pig to make a cwt. of pork is: 2 cwts. of oats, 8 or 10 cwts. of potatoes, and a 1/2 cwt. of meat-meal, if he has not skim-milk. It is a ration of that kind we should have in mind when we consider whether the present price of pigs is remunerative or not. Taking a ration of that kind, I think the present price of pigs is good. If any Senator cares to work the matter out, he will find that he can allow himself 2/- a stone for his oats, 4/- or 5/- a cwt. for his potatoes—small and big —which is very good, and 24/- a cwt. for the meat-meal which he buys. Feeding that ration to the pigs, he will have a profit—though not a big profit —as well as having the manure which has been so highly rated in this debate. In these circumstances, I do not think that any Senators can hold that pig-rearing is not remunerative at present prices.
It is another question whether prices should be increased or not. Sometimes, because of a certain psychology amongst farmers, it is advisable, though the price be a paying one, to raise it as an indication that pigs will be better and that it is a good time to go back into them. From that point of view, I am quite willing to ask the Pigs and Bacon Commission to reconsider the present prices. But I am more inclined to ask the commission to reconsider the present gradings, because I think that there is a good deal in what Senators have said with regard to the grading of pigs. We must remember what we had in mind when passing the first Pigs and Bacon Act. We had in mind that we had a surplus for export, and some of us may have had the hope of increasing that surplus and making a greater profit than we were making at the time on the foreign market. We saw, however, that we were up against a very keen competitor on the foreign market. We were told—with a great deal of truth —that that competitor had got her position on the British market by putting there the bacon the British consumer wanted—uniform size, uniform weight, and uniform in the amount of fat and lean.
When a retail merchant in England went to a wholesaler and asked for a side of Danish bacon, he knew exactly what he would get. If he asked for a side of Irish bacon, he would get good bacon, undoubtedly. We held here— and I think rightly—that it was the best bacon to be got, but the retailer was not sure whether he would get a side or 56 lbs. or 66 lbs. or whether it would have a great deal of fat or not so much fat. We were told that we could not compete very much longer on the English market unless we put a uniform side on the English market, as the Danes have done before us. We set out in that legislation to try to get some uniformity. We had been breeding a very good type of pig here for some years, but that was not enough; we had to induce the farmer to market his pig at a proper weight and we had to offer him a price to feed his pig properly, so that there would be the correct proportion of lean and fat on the side. All these regulations, which were made possible under the Pigs and Bacon Act, 1933, were designed to accomplish that.
I mention that in case Senators may forget and ask the object of all this legislation. It may seem very silly at the moment, but I think Senators desire that we should get back on the foreign market as soon as the war is over and it would not be desirable to drop all our regulations now. If we did that, and dropped the grading of bacon, we would leave the farmer to learn during the next year or two that he will get the very same price for a 20 stone pig per cwt. as he would get for a 12 stone pig per cwt. Naturally, he would come to the conclusion that he would make very much more on the 20 stone one than on the 12 stone one, and when the war is over it would take some years to convince him that he was doing the wrong thing by keeping to the 20 stone pig and get him back on to the 12 stone one. Therefore, I think we must keep the regulations, to some extent. I do not say that there need be as many, or that they need be as severe, as they were pre-war. In present circumstances, we should keep the grading, but perhaps the prices could be brought very much closer than if we were competing on the foreign market. Further, if by any chance a farmer's pig goes from grade I to grade II he should not suffer as a consequence. These are things that should be considered, and I am quite prepared to ask the commission to consider these matters and see if they could not be brought into line with present conditions.
With regard to manure, Senator Crosbie quoted from a very scientific article that when artificial manures— phosphates, I suppose—were £2 per ton, the manure from one pig the whole year round was worth about £4. If a person is fattening pigs and has three batches of them, one batch every four months, each pig in his four months would be worth 30/- or, at the present price of manure, about £2. There is no doubt that, when we were importing our foodstuffs, pigs were very valuable for the making of manure, but, under present circumstances, where the farmer is feeding his own grain and potatoes to animals, I do not think it makes very much difference, so far as manure is concerned, whether he feeds this grain and potatoes to pigs or cattle or any other animals.
There may be something in the point mentioned by Senator The McGillycuddy, to have the manure from a house-fed animal, as you can distribute where and how you wish, rather than from a grass-fed animal. Assuming that we have a certain amount of grain, roots, and so on, for winter feeding, I do not think it makes any difference whether that is fed to pigs or bullocks. It does make a difference whether it is fed to a mature animal or a young animal, but that applies to cattle as well as to pigs.
Senator Parkinson spoke of the development of other sources of manure. I will not deal with that now, as I dealt with it fully yesterday. Every source of native manure has been very fully examined by my Department and by other Departments, such as the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of Supplies, and the question also has been put to the Research Bureau. We have not got very far yet. Senator Parkinson mentioned in particular calcium cyanamide. I read a report on that some time ago. My recollection is that the machinery necessary to manufacture that fertiliser is just as elaborate—if not more so— and just as expensive and, under our circumstances, just as inaccessible, as the plant necessary for the manufacture of sulphate of ammonia from the air. We have been told definitely that the manufacture of sulphate of ammonia from the air is impossible while this war lasts, as we cannot get the equipment.
In dealing with pig production, we have three main points to consider. In the first place, we have the present position, how best to deal with the pigs that we have, to get the best possible price for the farmers and give the consumers the best possible value in bacon, while at the same time maintaining whatever employment is possible in the bacon factories. I think this point can be dealt with best by the equitable distribution of pigs between all the bacon factories. The factories feel they have a grievance if they do not get a fair share and they are inclined to say that they cannot keep persons employed otherwise. As I have said already, I am having that point examined and expect to make an announcement about it some time next week. If possible we will see that pigs are equitably distributed and we will make an appeal to the factories to do the best they can with regard to continuing employment.
The second point to be considered in this whole question is the possibility of increasing the supply of pigs to an extent sufficient to provide for our own needs in bacon. For some time past, I have been very hesitant to advocate greater pig production, or to induce it by requesting the Pigs and Bacon Commission to reconsider the prices. I feel that the commission will reconsider the prices whenever I make such a request to them. I was first of all waiting to learn the acreage under grain. We have got that now, and it has been published, so Senators will know what it is. I may say that it is very satisfactory. We get rather disquieting reports—not official reports—which come from various parts of the country, saying the oats crop is not so good, or the potato crop or barley crop is not so good. I must say that the reports regarding the wheat crop are much better, on the whole, than the reports with regard to the others. If we get less oats and barley than last year, even with the increased acreage, there is no possibility of feeding more pigs. If we get less potatoes, it also would militate against keeping more pigs. I am very hesitant about it at present. If I felt that the increased acreage, even though the yield may be a little less, would mean more oats, barley and potatoes in the country, I would then request the Pigs and Bacon Commission to reconsider the price. I think that at that stage, if I was fairly sure of that, I would request the Pigs and Bacon Commission to reconsider the prices, and even go so far as to say to them that I think the prospect of pig feeding will be a bit better this coming year than it was last year. We may, perhaps, be in a position within a week or two to get more reliable reports as to the yields of these crops, and, if so, we will be able to have this matter reconsidered.
