Before the adjournment, I was trying to point out that, up to the present, in our whole farming policy, we had not given sufficient consideration to the respective values of the various products we raise, from the point of view of nutrition. Our great weakness, right from the beginning—it was not our failing only; it is only now forcing itself on the minds of people in other countries—was that too little consideration was given to the question of how the people were to be fed, if they were to be properly fed. In fact, too little consideration was given in the world at large to the question whether the people were to be fed at all or not. Even in countries where ample food was available, there was too little knowledge as to how the population should be fed, if they were to be well fed. One might say that, in Britain, during the past few years, the knowledge accumulated by Sir John Orr and others has had practical application in the necessities of the times through the efforts of the Minister for Food, Lord Woolton. They have discovered many things in Britain which they might not have discovered for another generation but for the exigencies of war. I suppose that a fair amount of that information was available to us but, up to the present, we have not made use of the knowledge science has placed at our disposal in the way we should. The whole problem of feeding our people must get more attention in the future than it was given in the past. If nothing else will do it, outside forces will compel us to do it.
I have here the report of the United Nations Conference on food and agriculture. I shall quote a paragraph from that report:—
"(1) Malnutrition is responsible for widespread impairment of human efficiency and for an enormous amount of ill-health and disease, reduces the resistance of the body to tuberculosis, and enhances the general incidence and severity of familiar diseases. (2) Mortality rates in infants, children, and mothers are higher in ill-fed than in well-fed populations. (3) Food consumption at a level merely sufficient to prevent malnutrition is not enough to promote health and well-being."
That is the opinion expressed at a conference at which representatives of 44 nations assembled. More consideration ought to be, and must be, given in this country to every aspect of our existence. My motion reads:—
That Seanad Eireann is of opinion that a higher price to producers should be fixed for milk in order to encourage such production as is essential to ensure a proper standard of nutrition and maintain the health of the nation.
A number of Senators may think that that motion represents a contradiction in terms. However, when I ask for a higher price for milk to producers, I am thinking primarily of the people who are sending milk to creameries in the dairying counties, for which they are paid 9d. a gallon. At the beginning of next month, they will receive 1/-. After a period of four months, the price will be reduced to 10½d. a gallon. Of all the foods produced in this country or elsewhere, milk is the most valuable and is closest to being a perfect food. I shall quote from a book entitled Milk and Milk Products, by Professor Reilly. He tells us that a quart of milk is equal in food value to 1/2 lb. of lean meat. He goes on to say:—
"Milk is unique among natural foodstuffs in containing (1) carbohydrates, fats and proteins; (2) calcium and phosphorus compounds, and (3) vitamins A, B-complex, C and D. The major constituents, as well as some of the protective factors are present in fair proportion and in a form suitable for easy assimilation."
I ask the House to remember that a quart of milk is equivalent to 1/2 lb of lean meat. Dairy farmers calculate that practically 2½ gallons of milk go to the making of 1 lb. of butter. A half gallon of milk, according to Dr. Reilly, is equivalent to 1 lb. of lean meat. There are practically five half-gallons in 1 lb. of butter. Senators might try to calculate the difference in the payment for the meat and for the butter, and the food that is in five lbs. of meat as against the food in 1 lb. of butter. I concede that the 2½ gallons of milk are not wholly in the lb. of butter. There is separated milk which contains a certain amount of solids, but farmers themselves receiving that back from the creamery do not put a very high cash value on it. However, the 2/6 for 2½ gallons of milk as against the price of 5 lbs. of meat bears no relation whatever to the true values of the commodities. Of all the commodities produced on the land of this country to-day, there is no price as low in relation to food value as the price of the milk the farmer sends to the creamery. That is very unsound from the point of view of the proper feeding of our people, and all the more unsound since, in our butter, we have to-day a food which is practically unavailable to us in any other form.
It is very hard to make a case for increasing the price of food, and there are antagonisms from quarters one does not expect them to come from. When you compare the increase in the price of food with the increase in the price of other commodities, there is a revelation to all of us and our protestations are not very loud at all. The Irish Trade Journal for September, 1943, says:—
"As regards comparison with prewar, the index figure for all items at mid-August, 1943, is 111 points or 64 per cent. above that for mid-August, 1939, and the increases in the indexes for the various groups are as follows:—Food, 91 points or 58 per cent.; clothing, 202 points or 90 per cent.; fuel and light, 152 points or 84 per cent.; and sundries 125 points or 65 per cent."
Food, the most essential of all, shows the lowest increase of all the essentials necessary for life. I would beg the Seanad to recollect that the food is produced by the hardest work and, if there is oppression, the most oppressed section of the community is the farming community. I am not saying that in a derogatory sense at all: you are oppressed if you are confronted with a task which seems almost beyond you. As a farmer, I know that the problems we have been faced with this year looked to us, right from the beginning, as making an almost superhuman task. I do not know whether the Seanad will agree with me or not, but, in circumstances like ours, when the figures reveal increases in the commodities and services making up the cost of living and show that the increase in our food prices is lowest of all, I think we can fairly claim that we are not being overpaid.
Unless we are able to maintain the production of fats—in the form of butter manufactured at our creameries— at a higher level than for a number of years past, the whole nutritional position of our people will be very considerably worsened and the health of our people will be seriously impaired. Of all the essentials for health—I am speaking with the knowledge of the ordinary man—nothing is as valuable as an adequate supply of fats. I have raised this aspect of the question on previous occasions in this House, but I am going back to it again as I think the situation now is much more acute.
In 1940, we had available here, apparently, 123,000 cwts. of margarine, 60,792 cwts. of lard and 34,434 cwts. of dripping, making a total of fats in that form of over 218,000 cwts. That is exclusive of the butter available or the amount of butter consumed. I think it can roughly be taken that the figures for lard and dripping came from our pig production and that you can put down roughly nine or ten lbs. of lard per pig. In 1941, our pig killings were over 1,000,000, but at that time, so far as I can discover, we had no margarine available at all. In 1942, the number of pigs killed was 591,000 approximately. I calculate the amount of fat available from these to have been 52,776 cwts., as against the 218,000 in 1940. At the end of June, 1943, our pig killings had been reduced to 253,000 and, if you put the same yield of fat against those killings, we were reduced to the abnormal and extraordinarily low level of 22,600 cwts. of lard and dripping available, without any margarine.
Therefore, in 1943, we have only one-tenth the amount of fats in a particular form that we had in 1940. We must consider whether that is adequate, taking into account the availability of butter, for the maintenance of health. I submit it is not anything like adequate. If there were a close, scientific examination of the causes of the considerable increase in tuberculosis throughout the country, that examination would, I assert, show that the shortage of fats—which is not truly and fully revealed—is making a far greater contribution to that unhappy situation than anything else. We have not got into proper perspective the essentials necessary for the proper feeding of our people, and a disastrous and very costly situation is being brought about for the nation later on. That situation should not be permitted to continue, without examination and without satisfactory evidence that we are guarding ourselves against such dangers as this.
We cannot ignore the fact that a reduction in fats from 218,000 in 1940 to 97,000 in 1941, to 52,000 in 1942, and to 22,000 in 1943, is a most extraordinary reduction. I would like to see what is happening in the belligerent countries, and to see whether the reduction in this essential article of food is any greater in their case than it is in ours. There is no evidence so far— I do not think the Minister has any evidence—to indicate that we shall have available, from an increase in pig production, any greater quantity of fats than were available over the past year. I think the situation will be even worse before it is better— that is my opinion for what it is worth.
Let us look at the butter situation. Only from butter and milk can we make up these appalling deficiencies. I have here a paper that was read by Professor Lyons at the University College, Cork, some months ago—a valuable paper that contains a great deal of very interesting information. He gives us figures which are most revealing. He points out that in the last war our exports of butter averaged 718,000 cwts—that was for the period 1914-1918.
I want the House to get a grasp of the fall in our butter production and the complete change in our economy in this respect which is taking place before our eyes—and we do not appear to have any great regard for the consequences. For the period 1920-1925 our exports were in the region of 600,000 cwts. There was a fall to about 450,000 cwts. for the period 1930-1938. In 1942 the export trade had ceased. It is interesting to observe—this is what the Professor tells us—that for over 300 years we have had a butter export trade. We exported butter from various parts of this country to the Continent of Europe, but the exports went mainly from Cork. The countries to which we exported are now great butter-producing areas. Professor Lyons indicated, what we know to be a fact, that our cow population is practically the same to-day as it was in 1851 —it has continued at that level throughout.
We have now reached the stage when we have no butter for export, and we are rationed to 1/2 lb. of butter a week, 26 lbs. per head of the population per year, making a total consumption of 700,000 cwts. I think it would be quite impossible to ascertain exactly what amount of butter is consumed in farmers' houses. I think the total consumption is definitely more than 700,000 cwts.; perhaps it would be nearer 1,000,000 cwts. In 1938 the production of creamery butter was 766,460 cwts. and of farm butter 450,000 cwts., making a total of 1,216,460 cwts. On that production we could be given 14 ounces per week, or 45½ lbs. per head of the population each year. In 1938 we exported approximately 377,000 cwts. and that left sufficient to allow 31½ lbs. per head per year, or 5½ lbs. more than the present ration. If the present rate of production is only sufficient to provide 1/2 lb. per person per week, then production must have declined by 500,000 cwts. since 1938. I do not think it has declined by that amount, and Professor Lyons does not think that the situation is as bad as that. But there is evidence of a decline. I have not figures representing our butter consumption for 1940, or our butter production in the same year, but the picture presented by the whole situation is such that I greatly fear we have reached a stage with regard to our production and consumption of fats where we are far below what is essential for a reasonable standard of health for our people. I think that position will become more acute.
We are confronted this year with an increase of our tillage area. There is no use arguing about it, and the matter is not open for discussion. We must strive to do it, impossible though it seems, or face appalling consequences. I have recently voiced the opinion that the danger of starvation in the world is becoming more real as the war drags on. My opinion has been reinforced by world-wide authorities who base their opinions on information from outside which we have no opportunity of getting. We must do everything we can to protect ourselves. We want protective foods in greater quantities than in the past. There has been a colossal fall in the production of these foods here. If we do not have certain foods, it will not be possible to absorb the benefit we would derive from other foods. The human system will not be able to absorb those other foods in the same way as if it were provided with a reasonably balanced article.
With the demand for increased tillage this year, farmers will have to choose between two types of agricultural production. I have here some figures which are rather interesting. We have what we call traditional tillage areas and dairying areas. I will take the Counties of Wexford and Limerick, and it is very interesting to observe how the farmers in these two counties distribute their activities from the point of view of production. The area of Wexford is smaller than that of Limerick, but I believe they will give us a reasonable picture. The area of Wexford is 512,000 acres, and of Limerick 591,000 acres—I am relying on statistics for the years 1939-1941. The cattle population of Wexford in 1941 was 134,704 and in Limerick 276,701. There were practically twice as many cattle in Limerick as in Wexford, but there is this further interesting point, that in the County Wexford with its 512,000 acres, there were 33,000 dairy cows, plus 3,000 heifers in half. In the County Limerick there were 109,000 dairy cows, plus approximately the same number of heifers in calf.
That is how I look on things at the moment. What is likely to happen in Limerick, Tipperary, North Cork and other dairying counties where they are not as well equipped for tillage as farmers are in the counties of Wexford, Carlow, Kildare, Louth and those other places where tillage has been carried on in the past? They have not the horses, the technique, the machines or the same kind of labour. The Limerick farmer to-day has to do what neither he nor his father did before. He was engaged doing something else and whether he got credit for doing it is another matter. At any rate those dairy men in the County Limerick provided food the superior of which was not to be found in any other part of the world. My belief is that when the Limerick man is confronted with this problem of greatly increasing his tillage area, coupled with the problem of poor equipment, shortage of labour and all the rest, he is going to make a choice between keeping milking cows and ploughing his fields.
Compare the position of the 200-acre Wexford farmer who keeps five or six cows and that of the 200-acre Limerick man who keeps 40 or 50 cows. I believe that what is going to happen is that the Limerick farmer with his 200 acres of land, 60 acres of which he will now have to till, will come to the conclusion that that can only be done by greatly cutting down the number of his dairy cows. That, I fear, will be his feeling after following the harrow and a pair of horses in the field for a week. If the Limerick man, after doing that, has to sit up with two, three or half a dozen calving cows in the week, he will not be very anxious to go out the following day after the harrow. To ask him to do that is asking a great deal. In the harvest time, after a man has been out in the wheat field, the oats field or the barley field all day, it is asking a great deal from him to come in and sit under ten cows, if that number happens to be his share of the 60 cows that are to be milked. I greatly fear it cannot be done. I believe that it is practically beyond the physical capacity and the mechanism available to those men to do it. In the circumstances, they are going to make a choice. The choice, I am afraid, will be that they will do the tillage, since they are being compelled by law to do it, and reduce the number of their dairy cows.
The Minister yesterday, in answer to a point that was put to him, said that the man who is doing tillage could have labour to save his crops, and that there was not much of a labour problem for him. I am not sure that the Minister put it that way, but he gave the impression that there was not much of a labour problem for the traditional tillage farmer. I have before me a statement which was made by the county surveyor at a county council meeting recently in my own county, where the great majority of the farms are in or about 20 acres or under. In that county one would think that there would be any amount of labour and no unemployment if people wanted to work. But the county surveyor when he was questioned about relief schemes or improvement schemes said that there was "a big shortage of labour, as far as he could see, and that there was not much hope of having employment schemes completed." That is the position in a county where we have always done a fair share of tillage, and where we have a fair amount of help. I ask Senators to try to picture to themselves the problem that will confront the men in the dairying counties who keep from 25 to 60 cows. I believe that it will be beyond them to continue to do what they have been doing in the dairying line, and their duty in the matter of tillage as well. In the physical sense it will be beyond their competence to do all that is being expected of them. If we permit that situation to develop, the results may very well be disastrous for the country.
From the point of view of the decision taken by the Minister, I believe that the psychological reactions to it, in regard to the price for milk at the creameries, are going to be very bad. We have been getting 9d. a gallon for milk all the year, and for the next few months that is going to be increased by 3d. In my opinion there is going to be very little milk available for a period. But, when the milk begins to come in again about the end of March, the price is to be reduced. I think that that, psychologically, will be disastrous. When a critical point was reached in pig production, a similar decision to reduce prices was taken. I think that if the Minister were to cast his mind back to that period, he could attribute the present reduction in our pig population to that decision more than to anything else. I think that if the price of milk is to be reduced next March, it is going to have reactions that will leave a lasting mark on our economy for a long time.
I put it to the Minister that he should take into account the difficulties of those farmers who have been trying to maintain the same number of cows on a considerably decreased acreage of grass land, since the tillage campaign was inaugurated. Those who know anything about the matter must be well aware that our cows are not, and cannot be, as well fed as they were before. From my own experience I can say that over the last few years our milk yields have fallen considerably. Our new fresh grasses are not yet available for feeding. They may be available to a limited number of farmers this year, but the actual position is that a great many men are tilling their best land in the hope of getting a crop out of it, leaving the poorer land for the feeding of their stock. The net result of that is lower milk yields. My own opinion is that 10½d. a gallon for milk this year will not bring in any greater income per cow than 9d. per gallon did last year. I think that will be the position. Faced with a situation like that, I feel strongly that the necessities of the position demand a reconsideration of the Minister's policy on this matter. The maintenance of our production of milk and butter is, I think, the most essential agricultural activity that our people could engage in.
I think that, from the point of view of our own future, the result of our tillage policy will be to bring about an improvement in our grasses after a little while, with a demand for more stock. I believe that we can make our fields more fruitful in their carrying capacity, but if we are going to be confronted with a situation in which we have a reduction in the number of our dairy cows and breeding stock, the problem of restocking the land afterwards is going to be all the more difficult.
That, generally, is my approach to this problem. It is in no sense a political problem. It is a problem of health, nutrition, and a better understanding of what is a balanced feeding. It is a problem which demands also an understanding of the payments for the different kinds of food which we ask our farmers to produce. Of all the commodities which the farmer is producing on the land, milk is the lowest paid. Meat, since the economic war, has increased three times in price, while milk has increased only twice. I have a distinct recollection of standing over heifers ready to calve at fairs last year. They had their young inside and they had milk for feeding in liquid form or for use in the manufacture of butter. Had these heifers not been in calf and had they been sold for beef, they would have been worth £5 more than they were worth for the production of milk and the manufacture of butter.
That, in my judgment, is terribly unsound. It is a situation which has to be rectified, no matter who pays for it and no matter how it is paid for. The Minister has to aim at ensuring that we get enough of the right sort of food, and neither the Minister nor anybody else can expect the producer to provide that food unless he is paid for it. Men are to be compelled now to turn from dairying to another type of farming. As the late Deputy Gorey used to say, and as I say again, with all respect to the Minister's opinion: "You can close the gate on your wheat field when you sow it, and need not go back to it until the following August, but you cannot do that with dairy cows." They have to be looked after Sunday and Monday, and if the fellows will not come back from the hurling or football matches, the farmer and his wife must look after them themselves. The problem with which we are confronted with regard to labour, both male and female, in dairying is almost insuperable, and I feel that this is a situation which is serious and grave and on which a balanced opinion ought to be expressed by this House.
I know that there are many who fear that the demand I am making is one which will add to the burden of the already overtaxed poor, and that it will raise the price of a food commodity to a level at which they will not be able to buy it. I took pains to warn the House that if they did not pay more for their pigs, a time would come when they would not get a lb. of bacon for a £1 note. There are people here who will recollect that I used that phrase, and they saw that day. I do not want to see the same situation—and it is not very far off— arising with regard to our butter. If there are people with incomes which do not enable them to buy enough food to maintain themselves in reasonable health, that is another problem, and you will not get the food for those people, if you think the farmer will continue at one type of production for which he is paid at a level which does not justify him in continuing in that production. He has to make his choice. He has to decide whether he will continue in dairying or get out of it and take up another type of production.
It may be asked whether money will keep him in it. It is amazing what superhuman efforts the farmer will make if there is money in it, and I believe that if the Minister decided to keep the price level at 1/-, it would have a remarkable psychological reaction. If the Minister did that, the nation would have a compensation in the matter of better health and in the matter of a sounder basis for our agricultural economy in the future than could be measured in terms of actual cash. The matter is of major importance, and I hope that the discussion by the House of the motion will be approached in a reasonable way. There is no political aspect involved at all, and it is with doing the best for the nation and with how we can get the most and the best food for the nation that I am mainly concerned in moving the motion.