Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 Feb 1943

Vol. 27 No. 15

Artificial Fertilisers and Exports—Motion (Resumed).

Mr. Counihan

While I am sure we all agree with Senator Baxter, that it is most essential that everything possible should be done to maintain the fertility of our land, I am sorry I cannot support the motion in its present form. I am very much more alarmed at the prospect of not being able to secure sufficient tractor fuel to do our reaping and threshing and the prospect of not being able to secure binder twine, than I am at the loss of artificial manures at the present time. Many practical farmers contend that the artificial manures that are obtainable at the present time are of such poor quality that they are no worth the price and, with the exception of a limited quantity of those artificial manures to grow beet, potatoes and some roots, I think we should not bother much about looking for artificial manures until after the war.

The Taoiseach told us last week in Dublin that the Government were subsidising artificial manures to the extent of £800,000. I believe he said also that there would be about 28,000 tons of 30 per cent. superphosphates and 17,000 tons of special manures for distribution amongst the farmers this year at a price of £13 and £14 per ton. Surely it does not cost £800,000 to subsidise 45,000 tons of imported artificial manures while the farmers have to pay £13 and £14 a ton for it. I do not know what other stuff he is subsidising. I am sure the House would be glad to hear from the Minister what is the subsidy per ton of this manure and what is the amount available for distribution. I believe that very much better results could be obtained by subsidising the manures which we can produce ourselves rather than by paying an exorbitant price for the imported article. For example, lime, which is procurable in practically every county, produces excellent results in most lands. Seaweed is to be obtained all along the coast, and the best fertiliser of all is farmyard manure. We have thousands of tons of straw rotting in reeks which could be turned into farmyard manure if the Government would devise some scheme to encourage farmers to produce the manure.

The Government, according to the statement I have already quoted, is prepared to subsidise imported manures to the extent of £800,000. I feel that it would be much better to devise a scheme for the production of farmyard manure, and allocate to it some of that money. The Minister for Agriculture has a decided objection to the payment of a subsidy for stall-fed cattle. I do not know why that is so, but I am sure he realises that farmers cannot afford to stall-feed in order to produce farmyard manure at the price that we are getting on the other side for our beef cattle. Further, if these cattle are house-fed for export, they will not realise as much as the out-fed cattle which get a good deal less food. There is a difference of £7 10s. or £8 per beast in the prices which we obtain in the British market for our cattle and the price which the British farmer gets for the cattle we export after they have been in his possession for a couple of months. We cannot compete against that position. If the Minister still objects to the payment of a subsidy on stall-fed cattle, I suggest to him that he should think out a scheme under which he would pay so much per ton for farmyard manure, properly produced. If he did that I think it would meet the situation, and save his conscience with regard to the subsidising of beef for the British market.

Listening to Senator Baxter, one would imagine that we received nothing in return for the cattle, flax and beer that we export. The fact is that our trade balance with Great Britain has at all times been against us. The Senator, in his motion, says that we should get artificial manures in return for the beef, flax and beer which we export to England. Will the Senator specify what commodities we are importing from England that he thinks we should cut out and get instead of them artificial manures? If he were to do that the House could consider whether it would be better for the country to import artificial manures rather than the commodities which we are importing and which, I am asking him to specify, we should not import.

Senator The McGillycuddy said that our imports from England were £2,000,000 less than the value of our exports. I have here a quotation from the Cork Examiner dealing with the trade statistics of Éire for the 12 months ending November, 1942. The figures given indicate that in that period our imports increased from £30,390,551 to £34,654,846, and that our exports increased from £29,817,000 to £34,497,000. Therefore, the excess of imports over exports fell from £573,544 to £155,000. In 1938, the last pre-war year, the excess of imports over exports amounted to over £17,000,000. There is a big difference between that figure and the figure of £155,000. It is due to the fact that our exports increased by, roughly, £10,000,000, and that our imports decreased by £7,000,000. Even though at the present time that difference is not very much, it shows that we are still getting from England more than we are exporting to her.

Mr. Baxter

The point is that the land is not getting more.

Mr. Counihan

The country is getting it. As I said before the Minister came in, I am much more concerned about the supply of tractor fuel for our reaping and threshing and of binder twine for our harvest than I am about fertilisers. The harvest will be of very little use to us if we are not able to procure tractor fuel and binder twine, and I think the Minister should concern himself in trying to get increased supplies of both fuel and twine for us. I am sorry that I cannot support the Senator's motion as it stands.

Liam O Buachalla

I have just a few comments to make on the terms of the motion and on some of the speeches that have been made, so far, on it. I do not intend to take up much of the time of the House in discussing it, for one reason that it is a discussion that might tempt one to go rather too far. One could easily overstep the bounds of prudence and say things that had better be left unsaid. As I have followed the debate so far, it might be divided into two parts, firstly, that Senator Baxter is anxious to convey to the British Government and to the British public that they might run their business much more efficiently, and that the manner in which they are running it may be fraught with very severe consequences for them. The other section of the debate concerned itself with an appeal to the Government to negotiate with the British Government for an adequate supply of artificial fertilisers. As I have said, I am not going to concern myself with the first part. With regard to the second part, there are a few remarks which I would like to make.

Senator Baxter and the other speakers are a long time in public life and it must have occurred to them that, before getting up in this House or in any other responsible quarter to make a speech, they should acquaint themselves with all the facts of the position that they are to discuss. Had that been done in this case, they would have discovered that, since the beginning of the war, this country has been operating on a priority system, so far as imports are concerned. In other words, the approach of the Department of Supplies to this whole problem of imports is that of putting first things first. If inquiry had been made, it would have been found that artificial manures are very high up on that list.

I gather that Senator Baxter feels that it is the lack of money which prevents us from getting these essential imports, as he remarked that some of our external assets should be used, if necessary, to make them available. If he examined that point carefully, he would have found that there is nothing in it. Something more than a lack of money prevents us from getting these supplies. If we had no sterling assets, if our assets were in the form of francs, marks or dollars, we would be in the same position. There is some other factor, of which he must be aware—other than the lack of money or, perhaps, other than the lack of good will on the part of Britain. Had these two points been carefully considered, Senator Baxter would not have put this motion down at all. It occurred to me, when listening to him, that he was adopting tactics quite common elsewhere—by-passing a certain objective. If he did not by-pass, there would have been nothing left for him to talk about and he would not have been able to make the speech he did.

With regard to some of the comments about the decline in yields, I am sure there is something in them. Some time ago, when it became known that all was not well with the production of beet, it occurred to me that I should find out something about it. I went to a very practical farmer, a distinguished member of the other House who has been producing beet himself from the word "go." He gave a very reasonable explanation for the apparent decline: it was that many of the people who had recently been going in for beet should not have been allowed to do so at all, as it requires a fair amount of experience to produce it satisfactorily. Owing to the price offered, many people without experience came into production and their yields were not up to standard, with the result that they influenced the total.

Mr. Baxter

The total average?

Liam O Buachalla

Yes.

Mr. Baxter

They still gave a bigger bulk than would have been the case if they had not come in.

Liam O Buachalla

As far as the average—the nine tons mentioned by Senator Baxter—is concerned, they influenced it to the extent that it showed a reduction. I am not saying that we should not watch carefully anything in the nature of a report that crop yields are declining. At the same time, I cannot help recalling some very gloomy debates in this House last year on the question of wheat. When the harvest came, we were astonished that some of the people who made those very gloomy speeches came forward and claimed publicly that they had achieved records in their yields. That announcement drew forth a spate of letters from other people claiming higher yields still.

Mr. Baxter

I am afraid they were not average yields.

Liam O Buachalla

I am not saying we should not watch this carefully, but we should not take fright to the extent that some people would like to frighten us with regard to this crop.

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

With all due respect to the Senator, it is the Minister who is frightening us, asking for further yields. I do not see how the Senator can base a case on individual instances.

Liam O Buachalla

If Senator Baxter and those who agree with him were in downright earnest and if this were to be pushed to its logical conclusion, they should have added to this motion, or have put down another motion immediately: "That, if the British Government does not make available to us what we consider an adequate supply of artificial manures, we should cease to trade with Britain."

Mr. Baxter

That would be the Senator's line. He would not have anything to sell—not like us.

Liam O Buachalla

I am very serious about it. I wonder if the Senator would be able to induce some of his friends in the other House to put down a motion to that effect, as that is the only logical conclusion: that in the event of Britain refusing to give us what we consider an adequate supply of manures, we should refuse to trade with her. We might as well face the implications of this question.

In its way, the motion is a harmless one. (Motion read.) If Senator Baxter is told that negotiations are being carried on continuously for supplies of fertilisers as well as of other commodities, what reply will he make? It is quite obvious that negotiations are being carried on continuously for an ever-increasing supply of artificial manures.

Mr. Baxter

How is it obvious? I cannot see that it is obvious.

The McGillycuddy

How is it obvious?

Liam O Buachalla

If the Senators had taken the trouble to make inquiries, they would find that that is the case. It occurs to me, however, that that would not suit Senator Baxter as, if he had discovered that, he would not have any case and would have no motion here.

Mr. Baxter

We will answer that later.

Liam O Buachalla

These people who presume to speak for the farmers —properly, I suppose—cannot agree with one another. Senator The McGillycuddy is not so sure that there is a surplus of manures in the Six Counties or in Great Britain.

The McGillycuddy

With all due respect to the Senator, I did not say I was not so sure. I said I should like to know definitely from the Minister whether they are there. I do not want to be misquoted.

Liam O Buachalla

We know from the records of court proceedings that everything is not moving as smoothly as it might in Great Britain in regard to many things; that there have been wastage and fraud. Possibly, there is wastage and fraud in connection with this matter of the distribution of manures. I think Senator Baxter will have rendered a service to agriculture here as well as to agriculture elsewhere in bringing that matter to the notice of the British Government, because I am sure that whatever he has said in that regard will, in due course, be brought to their notice.

There is just one other point which occurs to me, and that is with regard to Senator Counihan's suggestion about the production of more farmyard manure. I noticed in a certain area which I visit from time to time that the farmers—they are undoubtedly amongst the very best tillage farmers in Ireland—have adopted a scheme of carrying the straw from the fields and throwing it around the gates. They tell me that they are able to accumulate a great deal of farmyard manure in that way. I think it is just as well to pass that suggestion on. There seems to be something in it as far as those farmers are concerned, and there might be something in it for farmers all over the country.

I am not at all impressed by the motion as it is down, because I believe—as a matter of fact I am pretty sure—that there are continual negotiations going on with the British in regard to this particular matter, as well as in regard to other matters. I am also pretty sure that the whole approach to this question of supplies is through that system which I have described as priorities, and that artificial manures are very high on the list. Another reason why I am not at all impressed by the motion is that the Senator who put it down did not push it to its logical conclusion and declare that we should refuse to trade with the British Government in the event of their refusing to give us what we consider an adequate supply of artificial manures in all the circumstances.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

I think I should like to intervene at this stage because it might be well to deal with some of the points that have been raised and to give whatever information I can. I may not be able to supply certain information that was asked for, but I think I have taken a note of all the points raised, and I hope to give the information as far as it is available. I think that Senator Baxter according to his speech as reported the last day, is, first of all, somewhat misinformed. He is basing his arguments on a false premise, and even where he bases them on a sound premise I do not agree with him very often. First of all, he says here early in his speech that, when Ministers go down to the various counties and talk about increased production, what they should think of are the difficulties which the farmers are up against this year. Is not that exactly what brings Ministers to those meetings? Is it not quite obvious that, if there were no difficulties at all, if the farmers were getting very attractive prices for wheat, beet, barley and oats, if they had any amount of artificials at their disposal and any amount of machinery to get in their crops, there would be no necessity for us to go down and talk to them? The very fact that we go to those farmers and talk and listen to them is proof in itself that Ministers realise the existence of difficulties. I think Senator Baxter might have realised that.

Again, he said: "I hope the Minister will tell us what quantity we have in the way of artificial manures; that is something which should not be kept secret." I certainly have made no secret of it. I have addressed a great number of those meetings and have also spoken in the Dáil on a number of occasions in the last two or three months, and I do not think I ever omitted to mention what I thought would be the amount of artificial manures that we are likely to have for the coming year. I have stated over and over again that, in the first place, the farmers were to get the amount of artificial manures that they got in 1942 from their own merchants. The merchants will get the same as they got last year, and the farmers, in turn, should get the same as they got last year. In addition to that, this year we hope to be in a position to give a special mixture for certain crops. One of the crops for which artificials will be supplied is the beet crop, for instance. They will also be supplied to persons growing seed under an approved scheme, for instance those who grow beet seed under a scheme inaugurated by the sugar company, those who grow, say, other root seeds under a scheme by approved merchants, those who grow certified seed potatoes and allotment holders will also get some artificial manures. All those approved schemes of seed growing will be recognised in that way by an allocation of artificial manures. That is as far as I can go at the moment.

Mr. Baxter

Would the Minister say what will be the total quantity?

Dr. Ryan

I think that will total up to about 45,000 tons, or somewhere between 45,000 and 50,000 tons.

Mr. Counihan

Will the system prevail that was adopted for the last two years, so that a person who got no artificial manures in 1940 would get none this year?

Dr. Ryan

We will have to deal with individual cases if we can. As far as we could last year we dealt with individuals who, for one reason or another, did not come under the allocation; perhaps they were temporarily indisposed or temporarily out of farming for that particular year. Those individual cases can be dealt with.

The McGillycuddy

I take it an instruction will be issued to that effect. What will be the position of those who are doing increased tillage in exceptional circumstances?

Dr. Ryan

I should not like to say that a person who is tilling now and was not tilling in 1940 would come under that particular exception. I was thinking more of a person who was temporarily removed from active farming either through indisposition or some other cause; perhaps the farm was bought since, or something of that kind.

The McGillycuddy

Would the Minister deal with a person who is going a long way above the 25 per cent.?

Dr. Ryan

I am afraid we would not have enough to enable us to deal with a large number of exceptions. But I was going to say this, that that disposes of the amount of artificials we have in sight at the moment. We are trying to get more. If we do, personally I should be inclined, as far as I have examined the position, to favour two further lines. One is to go a little bit further in dealing with exceptions, but I think the main line of procedure, if we got more artificials, would be to deal with the smaller farmers in the congested districts. I do not want to dwell on that because I am afraid we may not have the extra supply, but, if we have, I think that would be a very useful thing to do. I am sure every Senator, even though he is not from the congested districts, has at least seen the conditions there, and knows how easy it would be to have famine conditions if there should be a failure of the potato crop. It is, therefore, most important to try to do something special for the congested districts if we get a little more artificials than we have in sight at the moment.

Mr. Baxter

I do not like to interrupt the Minister but I should like to be clear on this point. Do I understand that the 45,000 tons or 50,000 tons of artificials which he has mentioned refer rather to nitrogenous manures and phosphates?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. The total weight, of course, is very small. The manure will be issued in two categories. The first will comprise ordinary super-phosphate of 30 per cent. That will be issued to farmers on the same conditions that they got artificial fertilisers last year. Then there will be a mixture containing a small percentage —I am not in a position yet to say what that percentage will be—of potash and nitrogen which will be issued to those various people I have mentioned, such as beet seed growers and allotment holders.

Mr. Counihan

Will all these manures be guaranteed?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

What will be the price of these manures? Of course, the Minister is aware that the price of the manures at present is out of all relation to the price of the produce.

Dr. Ryan

The price is fixed. It was fixed originally at the beginning of the season at £15 per ton for 40 per cent. superphosphate, which is a very high percentage. The manure to be distributed will not have anything like 40 per cent., but there will be a grading down in price according to the percentage of soluble phosphates. The next point in Senator Baxter's speech dealt with the decline in crops. He mentioned the decline in crops in 1942 and in the same paragraph he talked about the very poor return in the North of Ireland.

He made it plain in that particular instance that it was due to the very bad weather. We have not got the official returns yet, either from here or from England, but so far as I have seen reports in the British farming papers, I think everybody is agreed in England that they had a rather poor crop last year, generally speaking. The wheat crop was not as good as it might be and the beet crop was certainly not as good as it might be. That is what I gathered, reading the reports in these papers, but I have not seen anything official yet. That was evidently due to the very bad year. I remember an expert stating on an occasion some time ago that unless you have a good deal of sun in the autumn, and particularly in the month of September, you cannot have a sugar content in beet. I think it is also held by those who are in a position to speak on wheat crops that you are not likely to have a very good yield of wheat unless you have a good aggregate of sunshine in the year, whether it comes in May, June, July or August. We had not quite a lot of sun last year, and that may account for at least some of the trouble and for the fact that the yield from some of our crops was worse than in previous years. On the whole, I do not think that the wheat crop was very bad. Most farmers I met were quite pleased with the wheat crop. In fact the general consensus of opinion amongst farmers in my own county was that it was the best wheat crop they had for many years. I do not say that that was general, but in that particular county it was held to be very good. I do not want Senators to gather from what I am saying now that one can expect to have quite as good a yield without artificials. I am sure we cannot and that we are going to have a decline in yields certainly, but it may not be so disastrous as was suggested in some of the speeches here.

Mr. Baxter

I should like to ask the Minister if we have any check-up ourselves of what the yields were like.

Dr. Ryan

We have not yet, but we shall. We shall have that figure of yields early in the year. It comes from three sources. I cannot recollect one source but I know that the county instructors give their estimate. Then there is a number of farmers throughout the country—it runs into hundreds —who have always communicated with the Department of Agriculture since the Department was set up away back in 1900, and they give their estimate of yields every year.

Mr. Baxter

Would these be the yields on their own farms?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. Baxter

These would hardly be the average.

Dr. Ryan

It is recognised that these farmers are well above the average. Of the three returns they usually show the highest yields. The county instructor is asked to give an average for his county and he goes to quite a lot of trouble to ascertain that average. Then, as I say, there is a third source from which we receive returns—I think it is the dealers in wheat seeds. The average for the country is struck in that way. I do not say it is absolutely correct. It is not possible to get a really scientific return of yields, as everybody knows. All you can do is to get the opinions of certain people.

With regard to one point which Senator Baxter raised, I must say that I came to the same conclusion as Senator O Buachalla. It looked to me at one stage as if Senator Baxter were going to say that if we did not get satisfaction from the British Government we should, well, issue an ultimatum immediately. The Senator said:

"I feel that we have reached the stage now in relation to our farming policy when the Government, backed up by the people, will have to say to the British Government that the farmers of this country are being forced in these circumstances to take so much out of their land that, unless they can get in exchange for what they take out something which can be put back into it, the national position will be so worsened as to demand probably the complete overhaul of our present agricultural policy."

In that context, I take it that Senator Baxter in talking of agricultural policy to-day had in mind the particular item of exporting our surplus to Britain. I thought he was coming to the point of saying that we would have to change that policy and to stop that particular export. He did not develop the point, however, so I suppose we may look forward to the Senator's summing up at the end of the debate to ascertain whether he had really intended to go so far or not. The big point that Senator Baxter made was that he did not think that such a big question should be handled by servants of the Minister, but should be tackled by the Minister himself or by the head of the Government. That, of course, is a very big question. I am sure that Senator Baxter did not mean to put the matter in a contentious way in order to make the position awkward, but I think it must be accepted by any Dáil or any Seanad at any time, that the Government of the day is in the best position to make up its mind on a question like that. I think it might also be accepted by either the Dáil or the Seanad that no Government would refuse to send Ministers across if they thought it was the best thing to do. I think it might be accepted, therefore, that the fact that Ministers are not going across is proof in itself that it is considered that Ministers could not do any more than is being done by officials or, as Senator Baxter calls them, servants of the Minister. That is another point to which I must return.

I think, on this question of fertilisers, before we go on to the point about negotiations, that the good farmer always seems to get on fairly well, in spite of all difficulties. I am aware that farmers—I know them to be good farmers—have succeeded in keeping up their yields. They are carrying out their obligations so far as the tillage Order is concerned. Some of the farmers I have in mind are tilling even more than 25 per cent. of their land and they seem to be able to keep up the yields of their crops by making plenty of good farmyard manure, manuring their root crops with it and then following up with a cereal crop, generally wheat. At any rate, they seem to be carrying out their obligations and getting quite good yields from their crops.

We are not confined to a rotation of this kind for our supplies of wheat. We have been appealing, as every Senator is aware, to the owners of very fertile land in Meath and the midlands, generally—land that has not been broken up for many years—to break up some of that very good land and sow wheat in it. I think the returns have been very good. Officially, I should say I have no fault to find with the Meath farmers. They have done well and are producing good crops. In that land in Meath, which has been grazed for so many years and where the fertility has been stored away, we probably will not do very much harm by getting three or four crops in succession and, when the war is over, the fertility can be quickly built up again.

We are, undoubtedly, using up our soil-fertility—I will not argue that with any Senator—but I do not think we need be so very anxious about the position as some Senators appear to be. We should be able to go on for many years without reaching a critical position. We are asking for 700,000 acres of wheat this year. That is on the assumption that there will be a lower yield than there was last year. But 700,000 acres of wheat out of a possible 10,000,000 or 12,000,000 acres— nobody appears to know what the arable acreage of this country is——

Professor Johnston

Surely the Minister does not suggest that every acre is capable of growing wheat?

Dr. Ryan

I am talking of the arable land that will grow wheat and it would probably be 10,000,000 acres.

Mr. Baxter

A good deal of that is not fresh land.

Dr. Ryan

There would be something like 16,000,000 acres, if we take in all tillage and pasture. Of course, there is a lot of it mountain pasture that we would not regard as arable. We might take 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 acres off for that. It does mean, however, even if we come down to 8,000,000 acres and take them as capable of growing wheat, that it is not necessary to put the same land, the same fields, under wheat more than once every six or seven or ten years. I think it will take quite a long time at that rate to exhaust the fertility of our land to any alarming extent.

The McGillycuddy

May I interrupt the Minister? Let us suppose you have a farm and that certain fields on that farm will grow cereals, the remainder being looked upon as not being properly arable. In that case, you have to follow the usual circle.

Dr. Ryan

I am talking of the arable portion of a man's land. It is very hard to know what the extent of our arable land is, but, even cutting off 33? per cent. of our total tillage and pasture, we have a fairly substantial amount of arable land still left. Another thing we must remember is that nature will not permit us to exhaust the fertility of our soil very rapidly, because nature has a very peculiar and, perhaps, a very praiseworthy way of doing things. The fertility goes down very slowly and the yield goes down very slowly. If we keep on growing cereals, as has been done by way of experiment, it will be found that the fertility after each year is very little changed. It takes many years to make a big difference in the fertility of the soil, and it takes a good many years to make a big difference in the yields. From that point of view, we should not be alarmed about the question of fertility. We should, on the other hand, at the first opportunity, try to restore the fertility.

Senator Baxter talked about exporting so much of what is produced on the land and not getting very much in return. I have not tried to work out—of course, it should be possible and scientists could do it—how much in the way of phosphates, potash and nitrogen is going out of the country, in the form of cattle and other agricultural products, and how much is coming back in the way of artificials. I dare say the result of such an investigation would be that we are losing instead of gaining fertility, though I do not know to what extent. Senators have asked whether we have been trying to get artificial manures. We have been trying to get them. We have pointed out to the British Government on many occasions that we could grow much more food here if we had an abundance of artificials and that whatever we might grow here in excess of our requirements would in all probability go to England. If we can increase our production, all that is surplus to our requirements is likely to go to Great Britain. I think they accept that argument all right, but, on the other hand, they say: "We have no artificial manures to spare." We cannot, short of the type of ultimatum I have referred to already, do anything more about it. We tried to persuade them, but we failed. You cannot press too hard in a case like that.

We have argued, both from their point of view and our point of view, as best we could on this question of artificial manures and we cannot do any more. They were very anxious to get bacon from us, but when we said that we wanted all the bacon for ourselves and had none to spare, they did not question us further. They did not question our wisdom as far as the control of our own house is concerned.

Mr. Baxter

What about our flax?

Dr. Ryan

I shall come to that. I was over there in 1941 and I met Ministers and discussed this question with them. So far as I know, the British Government has no interest in our cereal production. I take it they feel that we want to grow more cereals and that we will require them for our own use. We will want more wheat, barley and oats and, naturally, they do not see that there is any great use in giving us artificial manures to grow more cereals when they are not going to benefit by it.

Professor Johnston

What about potatoes? If we could produce more potatoes, we could produce more poultry and pigs.

Dr. Ryan

Yes. It was pointed out that if we could produce more barley and oats, then we could produce more pigs, poultry, eggs and bacon, and so on, which they wanted, but they were not very encouraging in offering prices for these commodities. In 1941, when we were over there, I think most of our time was spent in arguing as to the price they would offer for bacon and butter. Now, the price they would offer for bacon, if we had any bacon to spare, was 131/2 per cwt., which would enable the factories to pay the producers 100/- per cwt. deadweight.

Professor Johnston

What is the deadweight price they pay for pigs in Northern Ireland?

Dr. Ryan

I think it is 135/-.

Professor Johnston

A differential price?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, but when we pointed out to them that they were paying more in Northern Ireland, they told us that the price they paid in Canada was much less than what they paid us.

Mr. Baxter

They have advanced that price since.

Dr. Ryan

As a matter of fact, at that time we had an exportable surplus here, but they insisted that they would not give us any more than I have mentioned. These were some of the things that we were up against at that time, and they go to show that it is not so easy to get the British Government to see things from our point of view.

Professor Johnston

They do not seem to want it.

Dr. Ryan

No.

The McGillycuddy

Would it not be a wise thing to subsidise those prices so as to ensure the carrying on of these things until the crisis ends?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, but take the case of butter. When we had a surplus, the price they were giving then—and we were paying a subsidy at that time— was only sufficient to pay our producers 5d. per gallon for milk, and I believe it would be the same now, if we had a surplus. As you know, we are now paying 9d. a gallon to the producers, and I think I can say that the producers do not think it is too much; but at their price, if we were to produce a surplus of butter over and above our own requirements, we would have to sell it to the British Food Controller at the rate of 5d. a gallon.

As regards eggs, I think they are all right and that, on the whole, the producers are satisfied; but with regard to the other two commodities, the prices are very unsatisfactory. It was considered—in fact, it was put up to us—by the Food Controller in England that as we paid a subsidy for butter and bacon before the war, we should continue to do so while the war was on. The way I looked upon it was this: that we had done that in the hope that the world price for butter would continue to rise to such an extent that the producers here could carry on, but that has not been the case. I do not think that anybody in this country, whether a Deputy, Senator or anybody else, would like to contemplate paying a subsidy for all time, and after all, if we cannot get an economic price from the British Food Controller in a time of war, I think it is very unlikely that we will get it when the war is over. So I do not think there is very much use in subsidising butter now to keep it going until the war is over.

The McGillycuddy

When the war is over, will the position be that we will have no exports at all except cattle and pigs?

Dr. Ryan

Possibly.

Professor Johnston

And when the lease-lend supplies arrangement comes to an end, they might have to pay an economic price for butter.

Dr. Ryan

Yes. Now, with regard to this question of barter, I suppose that in times like this money is not so important as supplies, and there was an urge even before the war to try to get rid of as much of our goods as possible, and to take as little as possible in return. Since the war, that has been completely reversed, and we are trying to get everything we can, because we want the goods rather than the money. Now, I should say that I do not think there has ever been a definite signed agreement between the two countries as regards barter. The general understanding, I think, was that the old trade should remain; that we should try to send them what we sent to them in the past and that they should try to send us what they sent us in the past, so far as it was reasonably possible to do so. I think it will be agreed that they fell down more than we did in that respect. For instance, they fell down in the matter of coal more than we did in the case of bacon and butter. Our cattle, of course, continue to be sent, but that had a kind of association with coal, and we are not sending them bacon and butter now.

Professor Johnston

How about eggs?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, we are sending eggs. We are sending more or less the same amount as we sent before, but my point is that the British fell down on their part of the agreement more than we did. As regards artificial manures, I am sure they would admit that there was an agreement to send them. The only argument is the argument made here by Senators, that if they send us artificial manures, we will send them things that they want.

Mr. Baxter

Surely, they sent us sulphate of ammonia?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, they did, but that has been cut down to almost nothing. Now, with regard to the three things mentioned by Senator Baxter: cattle, flax and beer; we do think that we should get something in return, and last year we got something in return for our flax and beer. After all, I think it was better for us to put wheat into our bread instead of the barley that we had, and to let that barley go into beer for export to Great Britain, because it did facilitate us here in keeping certain farms going, and in every way I think it was an advantage for us to keep to that exchange. That is one thing. For this coming year there is no agreement yet as to any barter arrangement for beer, but that agreement will have to be made in the very near future.

As regards flax, I think that flax is one of the most important crops we have from the point of view of barter, because it is the only crop we grow here with a fibre content, and fibre is of great importance in every household, in every shop and in particular to the fishermen and to the farmers. The fisherman depends entirely on his nets—if he has not got nets he cannot get along—while the bigger farmer depends very much on binder twine. If we did not grow flax, I am afraid we would have very little bargaining power for these things. We can always make an attempt to use our own flax for making fibre, but so far we have been lucky enough to get the fibre we want in exchange for flax and I think we will get a fair exchange this year.

Mr. Baxter

Surely it would not take all the flax we grow to pay for what fibre we got?

Dr. Ryan

It would.

Mr. Baxter

It would be interesting to have the figures.

Dr. Ryan

The acreage required to produce our own binder twine, if we had to produce it, would be very big. Probably the greater part of the flax we grow would be required for binder twine alone, if we had to make, or could make, binder twine out of flax. That is one item alone which would take the greater part of the crop. I am speaking now of weight for weight; I could not speak about values, and I do not think that values matter very much.

Professor Johnston

Could the Minister say what the acreage of flax last year was?

Mr. Baxter

18,000 acres.

Dr. Ryan

The point is that we have never lost sight of the point made by Senators that we should get in return the things we want, so far as is reasonably possible. We do not want to be unreasonable by any means. Butter is scarce here, but we certainly would not think of asking the British for it because it is scarcer still with them, but, so far as is reasonably possible, we want something in exchange for what we send across. To Senator Baxter, who mentioned flax in particular, I should like to say that flax is one of the crops which has been most helpful to us in getting what we want.

So far as beer is concerned, we got our grain last year and, within the next few weeks, we shall have to make up our minds as to what we will get next year, if that trade is to be carried on. I think that 1st March, for some peculiar reason, is regarded as the beginning of the year in that particular trade.

Mr. Baxter

Why not try to get sulphate of ammonia for it? We got 31,000 tons in 1938, and if we had it this year it would be of immense value.

Dr. Ryan

I told the Senator already that the British Government said they had none to spare.

Mr. Baxter

You might make them change their tune.

Dr. Ryan

Senator The McGillycuddy said that Ministers were unduly optimistic about yields. I must confess that I agree with Senators that we shall have declining yields, but, as I said already, I do not think that decline will be disastrous. It will be a slow process.

The McGillycuddy

I never suggested that.

Mr. Baxter

We cannot afford to let the decline be disastrous.

Dr. Ryan

Perhaps it might satisfy the Senator to know that in asking for 700,000 acres of wheat, we are budgeting for a lower yield next year than last year. I was asked also if any progress had been made in the manufacture of artificials from home sources. The only source, I suppose, is in the Clare phosphates. There is a small amount of potash to be got from kelp and that, so far as I know, is being done. We do get a certain amount of sulphate of ammonia from our gas works. I do not think anything is allowed to go to waste there, and we get what is available.

I have not been in Clare myself, and, even if I were, I would not know as much as the engineers, but, so far as I can gather from the reports, there are grave difficulties and obstacles to be got over in getting any increased supply out of Clare. There will, however, probably be an increase as time goes on, and if the war continues for very long we shall get an increased quantity. Next year, we may have some artificials because certain boats have been allocated to that particular business, and if these boats are spared, we may have more brought in from foreign sources for next year than for this year. I do not think it would be practicable to give a subsidy on farmyard manure.

When you give a subsidy on an article, there are two things you must always keep in mind: first, that you will give it to everybody who is entitled to it and, secondly, that you will not give it to anybody who is not entitled to it, and it would tax the ingenuity of any Administration to give a subsidy on farmyard manure under these two headings. I do not know how it could be done. Senator Counihan is concerned about the kerosene position and the position in relation to binder twine. I have already mentioned binder twine. I did not go into any great detail on the point and I am not in a position to do so. I think we shall have—and I emphasise the word "think"—a fair supply of binder twine, but I am not sure yet. With regard to kerosene, I think we should have as much kerosene for agricultural purposes as we had last year.

The McGillycuddy

Has the Minister any information as to the amount of tyings saved after the last harvest and sent into Irish Ropes, Ltd.?

Dr. Ryan

Very little. I happened to be in the factory some few months ago and the manager showed me the amount he had got in up to that date. I do not think there was sufficient to make a good car rope in the whole of it.

The McGillycuddy

The price was very low and the problem of keeping all the tyings was very difficult.

Dr. Ryan

I think every farmer I asked—and I had the same experience myself—said it was nearly impossible to get those on the threshing machine to keep collecting the twine. They would do it while you watched them for about five minutes, but would then stop collecting it.

I have tried to answer as well as I could the questions which have been put to me. It is, of course, impossible to answer some of the questions in any detail. There are some questions, such as an exchange for our exports of beer this year and the prospects of getting a good supply of binder twine—to give two examples—which I am not yet in a position to answer with any exactitude but, so far as I could, I have dealt with them.

The McGillycuddy

There is one question which the Minister definitely did not deal with.

I asked him whether he could tell us if, having regard to the British programme of agriculture, they have artificial manures which they could give us?

Dr. Ryan

I did answer it in this way, that I said that the British Government tell us they have none to spare. We may have our own opinions on that.

Mr. Baxter

Exactly, and it is a good thing to have them.

Mr. Counihan

Would the Minister say definitely whether it is the policy of the Department to continue as they did for the last two years on the basis that no farmer who did not get artificial manures in 1940 will get them in the future? I think that is quite unfair to a number of farmers. I do not mind the Minister's Department making regulations in respect of the growing of beet and root crops, but the farmers pay their contribution to this £800,000, like everybody else, and to select a number who bought artificial manures in 1940 as against those who did not is quite unfair.

Professor Johnston

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.

The Seanad adjourned at 9 p.m. until Wednesday, 17th February.