Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 May 1947

Vol. 33 No. 19

Slaughter of Calves: Motion (Resumed).

Professor Johnston

I approach this motion with mixed feelings. Generally I have a certain sympathy with the various policies advocated by Senator Counihan but, so far as this motion embodies a concrete recommendation, I, certainly, could not support it. At the same time, it does draw attention to certain important facts and to the existence of certain very real problems affecting our economy in a most important way. The first fact to be constantly kept in mind in this connection is that there are certain regions in the country which are relatively specialised in dairy production, especially the Limerick region. In those regions the farmers normally produce considerably more calves than they are in a position to mature. Consequently, they have to get rid of them fairly young in some shape or form. There are certain other areas in the country, with which Senator Counihan is more intimately associated than I—the dry stock farming regions—in which notoriously the farmers can and do mature considerably more young stock than they hitherto attempted, or than, they say, they would be in a position to rear. Consequently, there is a certain natural interdependence between the dry stock farming regions and the dairying regions and an important part of the raw material of the dry stock farming regions comes from the dairying districts. If, for any reason, that part of the raw material of the dry stock farming regions should cease to come, it would make a substantial difference to the total farming output in those regions and, if nothing were done to counteract it, it would make a difference to the total national income. Therefore, Senator Counihan does draw attention to a very real problem.

With regard to the dimensions of that problem, nearly half the cows of the country are cows the milk of which finds its way to a creamery, but there remain another 500,000 or 600,000 cows which are not associated with creameries. I imagine that the calf-slaughtering phenomenon has not yet affected those areas where the milk of the cows is not sent to a creamery. Consequently, the dry stock farming regions might reasonably hope to continue to get raw material, in the form of young cattle, from those parts of the country where creameries do not exist. At worst, half, but not more than half, the raw material of the dry stock regions might be cut off if every single calf produced in the dairying regions should have its throat cut soon after birth. I do not think that that is at all likely to happen. It is a case of a few thousand calves and I do not think it is likely to be a case of a few tens of thousands of calves. There, again, perhaps the Minister would give us some information to add to that which Senator Counihan has already given us. To what extent has the slaughter of calves actually proceeded in recent months. Is it a matter of 5,000 or 10,000 calves or is it a matter of 50,000? If it is a matter of only a few thousand, then it is a very trifling phenomenon and need not worry us unduly. But if it is a matter of 50,000 or 100,000, it would be a serious state of things, for which we might have to think out some policy which would have the effect of counteracting it. I should also like to know what kind of calves they are which are being slaughtered. If they are mainly calves of specifically dairying breeds which, in no conceivable circumstances, could be worth much as store cattle, then I think their death is inevitable and, from an economic point of view, not at all regrettable. If they are Friesian calves much the same consideration would apply.

I understand that, to some extent, farmers in the south-west have been going over to Friesian cattle. Perhaps the Minister would tell us to what extent dairying interests in the south-west are going into Friesian cattle and if it is the policy of his Department to encourage them to do so to the extent of discouraging the dual-purpose cow which, hitherto, has been characteristic of farming in practically every part of the country. If the policy is to be to encourage the dairying regions to specalise in Friesian or other specifically dairying cattle, then, to that extent, we have introduced a completely new factor in our whole agricultural economy. We shall have to think out the repercussions of that and recommend something which will enable the rest of the country to adapt itself to that very revolutionary change. If the 500,000 dual-purpose animals now in the creamery districts were, in the course of ten or 15 years, to become nothing but Friesian cattle and nothing else happened, to that extent we should lose several hundred thousand potential store or fat cattle in the year, because the progeny of these specifically dairying cattle are not worth a hoot from the point of view of people like Senator Counihan. The surplus males would have to be killed and the surplus females would have to be killed, or exported, as soon as the total number of Friesian cattle in the country had reached saturation point.

With regard to the policy suggested in this motion, I think it is quite impractical. There is no use in saying to the farmers: "You must not kill your calves, and if you do, we will penalise you", because there is the old proverb: "Thou shalt not kill but needest not strive officiously to keep alive." The farmer might perhaps not kill, but he certainly will not strive officiously to keep his calves alive, unless it is worth his while financially to do so. The real solution of the problem is to create, if we can, such a situation as will make it worth the while of the farmers to rear these calves, assuming that they are the kind of calves that would be of interest in the dry stock farming regions. In that connection, I believe it is true to say that the relative price of calves, of yearling calves, in the dairying regions, bears unfavourable comparision with the price of two-and three-years-old calves. The calves which somehow manage to survive to be about 12 months old in a mainly dairying region are not, apparently, in demand by people like Senator Counihan, and are picked up remarkably cheaply. They are then carried on for another year or so, and when they come within shouting distance of the relatively high price of stores exported to England, they suddenly leap up in value, and if they are any good at all, command very high prices at the two-and three-years-old age.

As things are at present, there seems to be a lack of organisation in the cattle trade which causes too low a price to be offered for these young cattle between six months and a year old and which makes it not attractive to the producers to keep them to that age. An ordinary calf will consume from 40 to 50 gallons of milk in its early life which at 1/- per gallon means that it will cost the farmer at least £2 or £3 in the value of milk consumed before he has the calf weaned. And what will be the value of the calf to him at that stage? Unless it is worth a good deal more than £3 to him, the temptation to kill it rather than to feed it will be very strong. I think you will find that in the south-west, during last winter, anyway, a great many calves approaching a year old were not worth more than £5 or £6, and yet, possibly, these calves, if they had been well done and properly fed, might well have been worth £10 or £12 if only they had been able to get a market where they were in demand. I do not know why they do not get there—whether it is a transport problem or whether the cattle trading interests are not interested in buying calves so young; but whatever the nature of the problem may be, there is a case for trying to bring about a situation in which the demand for cattle at all ages will be better distributed, both regionally and temporally.

Another factor in the case which I hope is only temporary is the scarcity of feed for cattle of all ages which characterised the country, last winter especially. The grazing last year was bad, and the weather was bad, with the result that the grass had not the same nourishing quality as it had in a normal year, and consequently, milk, even in the summertime last year, was scarce, and it was possible to make hay into really first-class hay during only one fortnight in the year. Any hay made in any other fortnight was bound to be more or less lacking in nourishment and some of it was scarcely fit for bedding. Consequently, farmers, in the south-west especially, were faced with the certainty that they would be short of feeding supplies for their live stock all winter, and, that being so, it was a natural tendency to conserve that limited amount of feed for their more valuable animals and not to waste any of it on young stock of doubtful prospective value. That phenomenon is, I hope, only a temporary one, and the ultimate solution of the problem is to produce more feed for stock, both young and old, especially from more and better grass, and more and better hay and silage. If there were plenty of feed for stock, both young and old, I think the disposition to slaughter calves would be greatly reduced.

I hope the Minister will tell us whether, as a matter of fact, the dairying regions in the south-west are going over to Friesian cattle or not, and whether he is going to encourage them to abandon the dual purpose animal and go over to Friesian cattle or not. If it is public policy to go over to Friesian cattle, I think we shall have to encourage the dry stock farmers to replace these missing potential store animals by rearing a large number of calves of their own, which would mean a revolution in their economy. They would have to keep considerably more cows per 100 acres than they are now in the habit of keeping and perhaps do a great deal more mixed farming than they have recently been in the habit of doing. Maybe it would not be a bad thing for the country if they did mix their farming rather more than has hitherto been traditional, but, at all events, it would be desirable that the implications of a policy of going over to Friesians in the south-west should be faced and realised by the rest of the country and by the Government. In my own view, it would be a good thing if more calves were reared in the dry stock farming regions, especially as, in such regions, the calves reared would probably be of the beef breeds—more Herefords, more Polled-Angus and more beef Short-horns—and I think it is true to say that calves born, reared and finished in the rich east midland areas will produce younger and better beef in a shorter time than the kind of animal that originates in Limerick and is bandied about the country from fair to fair and ends up as a three-year-old beast somewhere in Meath or Kildare.

As a matter of fact, my own limited experience of these matters is altogether in favour of the animal born, reared and finished on an east-midland farm, and I am told by people in the trade that while they cannot very well do without the Limerick calves, they very much prefer calves from other parts of the country, where calves are treated with greater consideration and more kindness, and are better fed than the ordinary Limerick calf is fed during the first six months of its life, even when it manages to survive, so that if we could replace these Limerick animals, which frequently are no great catch when they reach the east-midland areas, with other calves of specifically beef quality reared in the east-midlands, it might not be a bad thing, from the long-term point of view, for the economy of the country; perhaps then, if this calf slaughtering phenomenon has come to stay, and if in any case it is inevitable by reason of a change-over to Friesian stock, the ultimate solution of the problem is more calves of specific beef breeds, reared in the east-midlands, and I should like to hear what Senator Counihan has to say about the possibility and the desirability of that policy and what the Minister's attitude would be to a policy of that kind.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I wonder if the Minister would excuse me if I asked a question, quite frankly, out of the depths of my ignorance? My only excuse would be that, out of the similar depths of their ignorance, a lot of people are asking the same question and looking for an answer, which no doubt the Minister will be able to give very simply and very clearly. When I and a lot of other people were young, this country was flowing with milk and butter. There was a superfluity of these commodities. Milk, butter and cheese were to be had almost for the asking, and we exported them. Now, we cannot get them for love or money. For a certain large amount of money, we can get a very small ration. There is a simple question to which, I assume, there is a perfectly simple answer, or perhaps several answers, but the answer to it has not yet percolated down to the townspeople of a similar depth of ignorance as myself.

I am sure from what Senator Johnston has said that a good deal of it can be accounted for by reason of the fact that we are short of artificial manures, and especially phosphates. I do not know whether that answers the whole question, but, if that is so and is likely to remain so, what are we doing about it? Are we making sufficient experiments with large-scale composting such as the Indore system which was quite successful in India? Are we utilising adequately the sewage resources of our great cities, remembering that the whole of Chinese agriculture through-out the centuries has depended upon the proper utilisation of human manure? Do we remember that the import of phosphate rock is a comparatively recent thing and that in the 18th century they were able nearly to double the weight of their beasts and of their products by applying their minds to improved farming?

I do not want the Minister to think that I am asking these questions in any heckling spirit. I am asking them because I really want to know the answer. If there is one question members of the Seanad are being continually asked by the man in the street, it is this: "What has become of our milk, of our butter, of our meat? They are all of a fantastic price and very little of them, yet we were brought up to regard ourselves as the greatest cattle breeding and dairying country in Europe". If the Minister can assist me to answer this question when I am next asked, which will probably be twice in the course of to-morrow, I will be under a great personal obligation to him. I can assure him that it is not an unreasonable question. The slaughter of calves may not have anything to do with it and may be only an excuse for asking the question, or it may have something to do with it. I say with perfect honesty and humility that I will be glad to escape from the embarrassment to which I might be put in not being able to answer such a very obvious question.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Smith)

I have really no idea of what I am going to say, for the very good reason that I had no idea as to what Senator Counihan was going to say until he said it. But before I say anything else, let us see what this problem is, if one may call it a problem. I take it we are talking not so much about the posers which Senator Kingsmill Moore has put to me as about the slaughter of calves. In the first place, there is nothing very alarming in what is taking place. I have the numbers here and it is better that we should know the extent to which it is going on before we proceed to give reasons why it is happening and before we ask ourselves if it is sufficiently serious to warrant our taking any action, whether along the lines suggested in the motion or in any other way.

The figures are fairly large, but they are not alarming. For 1942 the number was 11,000 odd; for 1943, 4,422; for 1944, 10,626; for 1945, 36,189; for 1946, 29,699; and for 1947 up to the end of April, 31,649. We must remember, of course, that these six months of 1947 cover the main portion of the year in which the slaughter policy is resorted to. I imagine that the figure for 1947 will not be much greater than that for 1945.

Mr. Counihan

Are those the numbers exported?

Mr. Smith

Yes.

Mr. Counihan

They do not take into account the numbers killed and the number used for greyhounds.

Mr. Smith

There are some slaughtered for home use, but I have not got those figures. In the Seanad recently, when discussing a motion dealing with the price of milk, I gave the number of cows. The cow population has consistently, over a number of years, remained fairly steady around the figure of 1,250,000. When you take that figure and the figure for our export of cattle in any one year, which is in the neighbourhood of 500,000, when you think of the number of cattle exported as dressed meat and the number converted into canned meat, when you think of the number used here at home, the total for last year will work out somewhere in the neighbourhood of 915,000 — something short of 1,000,000. After all, the slaughter of 36,000 calves is a very small matter where figures of those dimensions are concerned.

I do not propose to consider the motion seriously or take seriously the arguments advanced by Senator Counihan in favour of it. When we were discussing milk prices here some weeks ago, I moved into this field during the course of the discussion and referred to this problem. I invited Senator Counihan, who is interested in the cattle business, as we all are, and those who think like him in terms of the type of farming in which he is engaged, to apply their minds to a solution of the problems to which I referred. Somehow or other, no matter how keen or how genuine my invitation to take up the running along the lines I suggested, Senator Counihan and those for whom he speaks will always look for some other way out. They will always look for some way out that is not available to them or to me or to anybody else. In proof of what I am saying and challenging against them I would remind the Seanad that very recently, a few weeks in fact, after I came into office, I invited tenders for the supply of canned meat for Europe from the canning factories here. I received certain tenders which I decided to accept. The contract was distributed amongst canning concerns and they or their agents moved into the market to buy their cattle. The contract provided for the purchase of certain types of cattle but it had hardly reached the ear of the public that such contracts had been entered into than Senator Counihan and the Cattle Traders' Association came hot-foot to the Minister for Agriculture, just to tell him what he should do about it, just to warn him as to the harm, as to the injustice that he was likely to do the cattle trade and just to invite him to take counsel and advice from them and to move cautiously fearing that when Senator Counihan and his friends were proceeding to look for their store cattle in the month of March, when the storms had blown by, cattle would be there in abundance for them. They would then be able to walk through the fairs and see to what extent cattle carried the necessary condition on their backs and they would be free to accept and reject, after using their own excellent judgment. But there was never a word or a thought about what was going to happen to the farmers who had these small little cattle, not good enough in condition for the export trade, but carrying a certain amount of flesh that would now be, God knows where, if they had not been converted into tinned meat then and these cattle would have consumed a good deal of the food that, at least, kept alive some of the cattle that are still alive.

I told Senator Counihan and his friends who visited me exactly what the Senator from Kerry told him and us now, that there was here a problem that the midland farmers were just refusing to recognise, that there was no use in their talking or regretting here or in any other place because expressions of regret would not find a solution for the type of farmer to whom Senator Horan and Senator Corkery referred, all these men depending mainly on the production of milk whose farms are small and who do not want to slaughter a calf. I agree with those who say that it is the last thing in the world a farmer wants to do. I would even go so far as to say that a farmer would be inclined to incur reasonable losses rather than have to engage in the slaughter of a calf. But when those farmers who are confined to a limited area and are dependent upon the dairying industry for a living realise that they are going to lose substantially on the wintering and rear ing of calves, there is no use in our thinking there is any means by which we can compel them not to do what they have decided to do, nor would there be any justice in it if we could do it.

The one thing that is inclined to rule me in a discussion of this nature, although I suppose it is meant in a harmless way and I should not take exception to it, is this talk about the desirability or undesirability of our feeding John Bull. I will feed any man: the farms of this country will feed any man, any men or any people. There is no objection to John Bull or to anybody else. It is a question for the farmers and especially for the type of farmers to whom Senator Counihan has been addressing himself. It is a question for them and they will do what pays them best. I say here that there is too much selfishness. If I did not use the expression on the occasion of the motion dealing with the milk prices I use it now and I say there is too much selfishness by far on the part of those who own the lands that are capable of converting aged cattle into beef in a short time. There has always been too much selfishness on their part.

When they talk about this subject, they have no thought for the very small man whose land was covered with cattle all winter for which he could not get a market while they, because they would not winter cattle, were free to take advantage of the high prices of hay and feeding-stuffs. They could put in their hay to the Dublin market and get most attractive prices for it because of the severity of the winter and at the same time have their land nicely covered by the month of April with not a hole or a puddle in it. There was no rush down to the store areas on St. Patrick's Day as there used to be because the weather had not cleared sufficiently to give them the kind of security that they would require.

I am not talking on this question because I am Minister for Agriculture. I should not have any prejudices, nor have I, but if I have shown in what I have said, or in the course of what I intend to say that I have a particular prejudice in favour of one type of farmer as against another, it is because I am prejudiced against the type of selfishness — I call it selfishness — displayed by Senator Counihan and those for whom he speaks. I say here in the most deliberate way that they are not serious in this, never have been, and that they should look around for a solution of this problem. That solution is not along the lines portrayed in the motion.

I do not know whether Senator McGee was seconding the motion or not. I do not know if he were speaking in favour of it. I do not know if the Senator was for or against the motion. His attitude was a sort of níl agus tá. Anyway, he put the motion in order as far as the Chair was concerned, and I suppose that was something. I think Senator McGee went on to talk — or was it Senator Counihan?—of the plight in which we find ourselves, with a scarcity of meat, a scarcity of bacon, a scarcity of milk, a scarcity of butter and of commodities to which Senator Kingsmill Moore referred. Senator McGee does not like compulsion: neither does Senator Counihan. They only like compulsion for a farmer down in Cork with 25 or 30 acres of land which is jammed up with milch cows, a bit of tillage as well as ducks, drakes and geese. It is a case of just a little bit of compulsion for that farmer, but at the same time Senator Counihan or Senator McGee do not like compulsion. In their view compulsion is bad, and a farmer should be allowed to do what he likes.

Senator Counihan and the people for whom he speaks in this House, and perhaps outside it, talk about the shortages. How were these shortages to be provided against for the last seven years? I suspect Senator Counihan knows, yet the class for whom he speaks, if they have a bloodstock mare roaming about their fields would, on that ground, want exemption from tillage for a couple of hundred acres. They do not like compulsion except when it applies to men who are jammed into small farms. At the same time they deplore the shortages of meat and butter, and talk about cattle coming across the Border to supply the Dublin market. How does Senator Counihan think we are going to have meat for the Dublin market when people with land were unable to get imported feeding stuffs for their animals or for human beings? How do they think we will have cattle for the Dublin market unless they till their land?

I think there has been a good deal of play-acting about this matter. We are told that we have 11,000,000 or 12,000,000 acres of land, and of the demands made for compulsory tillage. We had pleas to have the tillage Orders amended. These people avail of every conceivable excuse to seek exemption. They are the very people in this House who know that during the past seven years we could not get feeding stuffs for man or beast. They know that the only way in which we could provide for ourselves was by tilling our land. Yet these are the people who come here and complain that in this agricultural country there are shortages of bacon, butter and eggs. How are we going to get these things unless those for whom Senator Counihan speaks stand up and do their job? They complain of the injustice of having to till land and, in the same breath, complain of shortages.

Senator Counihan talked about a particular type of farmer, in whose welfare he is keenly interested, and complained that he is paying the major portion of the subsidy given to the dairying industry. The greatest shame of all is to have many of the farmers for whom Senator Counihan speaks lining up at their grocers to get their ration of butter across the counter, just the same as any ordinary labouring man, rather than keeping, at least, a sufficient number of cows to give milk and butter for themselves, their families and their workmen. A man in my position should not have any prejudices. Neither have I. But I dislike the kind of selfishness that I can detect, not only since I assumed office but for many years, in the frame of mind, in the sort of approach, the type of argument and the fear to which Senator Counihan and his friends give expression from time to time.

Senator Kingsmill Moore wanted to know why it was that people were asking him every day in the week why there was a shortage of butter in a butter and milk-producing country. That, of course, has been explained very often. I do not suppose that even another explanation is likely to sink into the minds of those people. Butter is scarce and short in this country because more butter is being consumed here than previously. All that Senators have to do is to go back for ten years and look at the figures for production. Let them take, on the one hand, the quantity of butter produced from 1936 to 1946, and on the other, the figures for consumption. When other fats went off the market in 1939, the consumption of butter gradually reached the point that, as far as creamery butter is concerned, we were capable of using it all, and more if we had it. If bacon had been more plentiful that scarcity, of course, would not have shown itself to the same extent.

Professor Johnston

Has there not been some reduction in the output of creamery butter?

Mr. Smith

It was not very significant — nothing of a size sufficient to make any serious difference.

Professor Johnston

I thought it was about 100,000 cwts. I am speaking from memory.

Mr. Smith

It is not that much. Anyway, it would not have made that serious difference.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

Does the same apply to farmers' butter?

Mr. Smith

No, but we cannot control that. I do not want to go into a discussion on that. I hope I could give a lucid explanation of it. It is a long and tedious sort of history. All that I can say is that the actual production of butter, both farmers' and creamery butter, has not declined to any appreciable extent. Because of the price of butter, because of the unavailability of other fats, of the scarcity of margarine and of bacon, of the price of mutton and a number of other factors, because butter is a valuable food and because of Govern ment policy to peg butter prices down — all these made it an attractive pro position from the consumer's point of view.

If Senator Counihan and the farmers and land owners whom he represents, had shown a keener tendency to cooperate without the introduction of compulsion to the extent to which it had to be introduced in order to pro duce the necessary feedings stuffs to enable us to increase the pig population, they would have made a very substantial contribution indeed. One would think, listening to Senator Counihan and Senator McGee, that one could feed a pig on air. Of course, they do not want to understand these things. In the main, all they want is to have a brood mare roaming their lands. She may happen to produce a winner. I have no objection to that type of industry, but I object to have it followed for the purpose of evading one's responsibilities in a time of crisis such as this. I object, if those people engage in that kind of business and at the same time come into this House and complain about these shortages.

As long as I am in my present office — be it long or short — I want to be of the greatest possible assistance to the farming community. I want to do everything I can to help the agricultural industry. I know what the farmer's mind is, and what his attitude is. I know what his desires are. I know the things that are distasteful to him. I know the farmers who, because of their geographical position or of the nature of the soils they own, have to work hardest. I want to say here in the most deliberate fashion that I have no prejudices. I am just as fond of the cattle trade as Senator Counihan. It is the greatest nonsense for Senator Counihan or Senator McGee or other Senators to say that I want to feed John Bull. My heart is as much in the cattle trade as is Senator Counihan's, and I will feed anybody.

I will feed those who pay me best after I have first fed my own. While I have no prejudices, my tendency, as long as I am Minister, must be to help to put in the forefront, by whatever encouragement or guidance I can give, those who have to work hardest. They are the people Senator Counihan would compel to do something that they do not want to do, and that they do not find it a paying proposition to do.

Senator Counihan would ask the Exchequer to give a bounty of £1,500,000 in the shape of 30/- per calf. I am assuming that about 1,000,000 calves are born every year, and that of that number about 35,000 are being slaughtered. Senator Counihan, in order that he and those for whom he speaks, could go to bed and sleep quietly, knowing that the markets in March and April would be chock full of store cattle jumping out of their hides with feeding, in order that there would be an abundant supply of those cattle, wants the Exchequer to give a bounty of 30/- per calf on 1,000,000 calves, so that 35,000 of them would not be slaughtered in the winter months. That is the agricultural policy of Senator Counihan, and it is the agricultural policy—or is it?—of the Party with which he is associated. I would love to know.

Senator Johnston put me a question which I was put in the Irish Times. It is very seldom they take any notice of me in the Irish Times, but once in a while they do. I have been challenged in other places, more or less, to follow up a statement which I made in this House and outside. I have no intention whatever of letting the matter rest where I left it when I last spoke on this subject here. I shall not do anything hasty or hastily. I intend to bring together the representatives of a number of interests in the form of a consultative council to give me what advice they can as to the best means of solving a problem which I believe exists, though other people may not agree with me. I refer to the problem of helping the dairy farmers — in the main, the farmers of Munster and Kilkenny — to get a cow that will give them the best possible return. That is a long-term affair. It is a matter of policy and one which, no matter what the decision, you cannot change in a short period. However, I should like to have the advice of a number of those concerned.

I intend to make the scope of the council which I propose to bring into existence very wide, so that we shall have the widest possible view on this matter. Notwithstanding the protests of Senator Counihan and Senator McGee, I do think that these dairying districts have, to some extent, been burdened by our breeding policy. It may have been a wise policy; I cannot say. I am not prepared, until somebody produces very convincing reasons, to admit that it is a just policy. All I can say to Senator Johnston is that I have not given encouragement to one side or the other. I have made a statement and I have expressed my doubts. I feel those doubts even more strongly since I gave expression to them.

Professor Johnston

Is that in relation to the dual purpose cow?

Mr. Smith

Yes. I have, as the result of that statement, focused attention on the question of releasing those in the business of milk production from the entanglements in which they found themselves over a long number of years. As a result of that, I am more confirmed now in the belief which I held when I made that statement than I was then. I have not since taken any action other than that of having a conference with my own live-stock inspectors. I have now decided to bring this other body together and to be guided by the combined wisdom and advice which such a body can give on the matter.

Professor Johnston

Has the Minister made up his mind on the question of the Friesian versus the dual purpose cow?

Mr. Smith

I have an open mind on the matter.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

That is the question on which he is to call the consultative council.

Mr. Smith

Yes. That is the matter upon which I want them to assist me. I have the belief that, since our farmers have been accustomed to short-horn cattle, they will be inclined to stick with them. I do not want to do anything that would seem to suggest that I was compelling them to take this road or that road. If the belief which I hold is true — that these hard-working farmers have been burdened with a breeding policy—then my attitude is that I should do what I can to release them from those chains of bondage, without outraging their own feelings.

Professor Johnston

A perfectly proper attitude, in my humble opinion.

Mr. Smith

Those who expect me to go rushing around making dramatic decisions on matters that are vital can be assured that I have no intention of doing so for the sake of being dramatic. I want to do what is right. I came into this House without any notion as to the line I should take. As I said at the outset, I came in rather sore because I could almost make the kind of case that was made for the motion, understanding the mentality behind it. Because I understood the mentality behind the motion, I knew the arguments to which we should be called upon to listen, if one can describe them as arguments. I may be a bit aggressive but, while I am here, I do not intend to let off anybody in whose mind I suspect there are lurking the sort of ideas I know are housed in the mind of Senator Counihan, without giving him a bit of my mind. As I have said here on a previous occasion, they are entitled to use their land in whatever way they like. They have been accustomed to using it in that particular way. They dislike having to do any winter feeding — they feel it breaks the surface of their good grazing lands. They have a number of excellent reasons, according to their own reckoning, for the course they are pursuing, and they can have these reasons as long as they wish, but they need not come to me and expect sympathy from me with the kind of agricultural policy which they, in their wisdom, pursue, because I believe in work. I have been accustomed to work and I know what hard work is. I know that the majority of our farmers who are giving us whatever milk and butter we have — let it be too little or too much, or let it be short or otherwise — work hard, and it is on them we must depend. It is they who have done this job for us, and they are the people who are engaged in the type of farming which is most beneficial, in my opinion. They are the type of people who must not, and will not, be interfered with by me while I am Minister, except when it is in the national interest to ask them and, where necessary, to force them, to undertake a certain job.

The strange thing about it is that these are the very farmers whom it is never necessary to force to do national work. It is the type of farmer who is represented by Senator Counihan whom you must always be after. If there is any compulsion, you must have the fields full of officials and you must have tractors, ploughs and everything else. They are the type of people who talk about uneconomic farms, about small farms. They seem to scoff at the idea of the farm of 25 or 30 acres, or even down as low as 15 acres. They talk about mechanisation. They have the only land that is capable of being mechanised, but the only mechanisation on it is the mechanisation of my Department — the mechanisation of officials breaking in through the gates to till their land. The small farmer down in Cork, in Kerry, in Clare, the small farmer in Munster and Connaught who is feeding the cow and carrying on feeding the whole winter round, bringing the cans, the milk and the butter and keeping us going — it is this type of farmer that Senator Counihan talks about and invites me to compel to feed calves, so that, as I say, from 17th March to 14th May, the fairs will be brimful of store cattle which they can buy at will, and when the months of August, September and October come, the man with the small year-and-a-half or two-year-old beast will not be recognised and will have to go around pulling their coats and asking: "Will you not buy this off me, and will you not buy that off me?" only to get the reply: "No, they are too young."

If I have lost my patience to some extent, it is because I know there lurks there a selfishness which I will attack everywhere I see it. I invite Senator Counihan and all those who profess to be interested, and who are no more interested than I am in the cattle trade, not to be gallivanting around looking for a little publicity about the danger of the slaughter of calves, a danger which in fact does not exist and which does not exist not because of any exertions on their part. It does not exist because of the industry, because of the habits, because of the desire and the thrift, of these small, hardworking people who, as I said, often fed and reared these calves, even at times when they knew they were not a paying proposition, rather than slaughter them. Let Senator Counihan, then, go out and get his Cattle Traders' Association and his farmers together and see what they can do, if there is a problem. It does not exist yet, but a time may come when it could exist. A time may come when the Munster farmers will say to themselves: "We will produce milk because it pays us. It is on milk we must live and we will get after the breed of cattle that will give the highest yield." The time may come when they may make that decision and who is it who, in my position, would say: "You shall not take that course"?

Professor Johnston

Will the Minister say whether he would approve of a policy of more beef cows and more calves bred and reared in the Midlands?

Mr. Smith

Of course, I would, but I know quite well that Senator Counihan and his friends will toss that over in their minds for a long time before they engage in it. It is along these lines rather than along the lines on which they are inviting me to travel that they would find a better solution. If I have not said enough, there is always another chance, so long as a man lives, and I am sure I will get it.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

The Minister has given me the answer on the subject of butter. Does the same apply to milk? Is it that milk consumption has gone up, while the supply has remained comparatively steady? I have to pass on these answers and I want to get them right.

Mr. Smith

The Senator must, first of all, look at the cow population. Everything is in order, so far as the cow population is concerned. There has been no falling off, although there might be a change to the extent of 4,000, 5,000 or 6,000. I have here the figures back as far as 1911, before this country was partitioned. I have the figures for the whole country and I find that we had more cows in 1941-42 in the Twenty-Six Counties than we had in 1911 in the Thirty-Two Counties. That being the case, the shortages have not arisen from a falling off in the cow population. Let us look then at the creamery butter production figures. We have here about 1,250,000 cows. The milk of about 600,000 — I am giving round figures — of that number is being sent to creameries. Therefore, we can only control the butter produced from the milk of these 600,000 cows, out of 1,250,000.

The production of butter in 1941-42 was 658,283 cwts.; in 1943-44, it was 603,265 cwts.; in 1944-45 it was 576,575 cwts.; in 1945-46 it was 605,949 cwts. In 1927 the home consumption of creamery butter was 232,271 cwts.; in 1943-44 it was 605,238 cwts. In 1927 the export of butter was 419,000 cwts. odd; in 1943-44 it was nil. If you look at those tables and take the number of cows for 20 years, the production of butter from the creameries for 20 years, the home consumption for 20 years and the export of butter for 20 years, the explanation is quite simple.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

Then there is the question of milk. I am satisfied about the butter. There is also a shortage of milk and I want to know whether the answer is the same — that the consumption of milk has gone up.

Mr. Smith

The consumption of milk in Dublin has increased by 50 per cent. in the last 5 or 6 years.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

And the supply is relatively stable?

Mr. Smith

Yes. As a matter of fact, the supply has gone up. Of course, last winter those who were engaged——

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I know, it was tragic.

Mr. Smith

It is all very well for people here to talk, but the men engaged in the production of milk and trying to keep up the supply, with contracts to fill, experienced difficulties no one can fully realise. There is a great deal of loose talk here in relation to a number of matters. Some of it is quite innocent, some of it rather deliberate. There is to be found a legitimate explanation for everything and that explanation has its roots in the simple problem which I have set here — that is, the amount of land under the plough and what it gives us, the amount that it takes to feed ourselves, to give us sugar, potatoes, and so on. It is on that we must depend for everything and those who in one breath talk about shortages and in the next talk about compulsion — but only when it is being applied to the tilling of their land — are the people who put up a case for which I have no respect and they are the people for whom I have no sympathy.

Mr. S. O'Donovan

While Senator Counihan is feeling whether he has any bone that is not broken or collecting his senses after the lacerating he got from the Minister — it is fair to say he has got it on the chin—I would like to refer to a few items mentioned in the debate previous to the Minister's speech and mentioned by the Minister also. We have the fact that there are 1,250,000 milch cows in the country and that we had only 1,000,000 calves per year. The aims and objects of the profession to which I belong are to have 1,250,000 calves per year. We want to have a calf per cow per year. That would mean, in our present economy, another 250,000 calves to slaughter. That is the correct way to have it. Otherwise, we should be able to feed these extra 250,000 calves. I agree entirely that Senator Counihan's motion is a most selfish one. He wants the people who produce the 1,000,000 calves at present, or the optimum of 1,250,000, to feed them for one or two years, until they are at the age to be placed on the rich lands of Meath, to put the last cwt. of flesh on them for sale in the export market. I am delighted to find that I agree with what Senator Johnston has said. I have often disagreed with him up to this, but he has pointed out to Senator Counihan one of the ways to remove this problem — by producing more of the type of stock he requires on the land of Meath itself, or else bring the calves from Cork, Limerick and Kerry and rear them until they are ready to be sold. He can do that from, say, three to four weeks old. I have seen the trade of selling dropped calves, but it is not the proper thing to sell dropped calves. A calf must get whole milk for three weeks and a portion of whole milk for a further five or six weeks. The selling of dropped calves means further casualties, but from three weeks on, farmers like Senator Counihan could to some extent provide for rearing them away from the land where they are produced, which is not sufficient to feed the remainder of the dairy cows.

The production of milk per cow has been at an average of 400 to 500 gallons. We get various estimates of that. Taking what is consumed at home and fed to calves, it is up to an average of 500 gallons per cow, which is a low production for the country as a whole. Limerick is the county, with its short milking periods produced on grass, that gives the highest milk production. If the cows in Limerick and the cows generally in the country were properly fed during the winter period, that production would be up 100 gallons per cow per year. That would mean that we would get 100 gallons extra with the same cow population. Otherwise, people will say we should have more cows. There should be no necessity for more cows, if we increase the production per cow by 100 gallons.

There are other factors, but the Cathaoirleach might rule me out of order if I refer to the elimination of disease and the prevention of sterility. That is the reason why a certain number do not produce every year. The slaughter of calves is natural when the material is not there to feed them, unless they are taken by the people who have the material elsewhere to feed them. I do not know whether they had a whole lot this year. The fact is that they must rear these calves when the producers cannot do so themselves. They want to feed the milch cows to produce, and you cannot rear calves without milk, and when the farmer who is producing milk is getting a better price for it and must try to give every gallon into the creameries or produce butter on his own farm to feed the community, it is up to somebody else to try to help to rear the calves and fatten them for the stock market. Senator Counihan talked about hating compulsion, but this means compelling the farmer to feed his calves to the State when they would be suitable for his trade.

In the portion of Cork from which I come, it is not the practice to slaughter calves. The farmer, no matter how he manages it, will feed them in some way or other—and the Leas-Chathaoirleach can verify that. The slaughter of dropped calves and calves a couple of weeks old is not practised at all. The gentleman whom Senator Ó Corcora referred to, Mr. Kelleher of Macroom, has a factory in which these calves are slaughtered under supervision of the Minister's officials. The trade is perfectly legitimate and beneficial to the farmers of that district and the district of Limerick generally, when it is not economical to keep all the calves and rear them until the time at which the gentlemen who want to feed them on the grass lands of Meath has arrived. There is no other outlet but to slaughter them at an early age or get somebody else to feed them, to bring them to the age at which they are suitable for the type of trade that Senator Counihan represents. It is selfishness for these people to consider themselves all the time and I think I will conclude with that.

Mr. Counihan

With the Minister in his present frame of mind I think there is not much use in my speaking or putting forward any suggestions on behalf of the cattle trade. I would like to remind the Minister that we in the cattle trade have had dealings with his two predecessors, the late Mr. Paddy Hogan and Dr. Ryan. They were always anxious to have our advice on anything in connection with the cattle trade but when the Minister comes to the House and attributes selfishness to my motion I must say that he is under a grave misapprehension. The cattle trade is the most honourable and unselfish body of people in the whole country. They are giving their time and their money trying to forward the interest of the trade and the country which means the interests of the nation. When I put down this motion I did so not from a selfish point of view but from a national point of view. We could see from our own experience and from reports from all over the country what was happening; the fairs are only a quarter in size of what they used to be and the numbers of cattle are declining. We could see our cattle which were recognised as the best live stock in the world declining to vanishing point. When we put this up to the Minister he showers all the abuse he can on the trade.

It is most undignified for a Minister to use the expressions he used here this evening. I was not at the last interview but I understand that the cattle trade will not trouble him very much in the future because of his attitude. I think the cattle trade will leave the Minister and his Department severely alone in the future. He accuses the cattle trade of coming to him last November to put forward pleas in regard to the canning of cattle for export as a gift to the Continent but their sole and only object in going to him was to point out the position of the beef trade and what was likely to develop and to ask him to stagger the contract or postpone it for a short time. That was the only suggestion they made to him. I told my colleagues in the cattle trade that the Minister appeared more abrupt in his manner than he really is and does not mean all he says.

Mr. Hayes

The most unkindest cut of all.

Mr. Counihan

At the same time I want to remind the Minister that the organisation which I represent has been complimented by the Vocational Organisation Commission which heard evidence from the different vocations. The comment of the Most Rev. Dr. Browne, Bishop of Galway, was that what we were doing for the cattle trade was an example for other organisations and vocations to follow. The Minister does not think much of that but that statement of Dr. Browne's is on record. The Minister is going to do a lot of things for the cattle trade. He is going to wipe out a section of it. The only thing I suggest and I believe it should be done as a matter of policy is that the creameries should not be allowed to sell skimmed milk for manufacturing purposes. It should go back to the farmers. If one did not take it there would be many others who would and use it for the purpose of rearing calves, pigs and poultry. Separated milk is a most useful food and instead of allowing it to go for manufacturing purposes it should be diverted back to the farmers for feeding purposes. I think I am justified in that and the Minister will change his mind about it later on when he sees that it would be in the interests of the country that this milk should not be used for powdering and for making chocolate. The Minister has his back up against the cattle trade and there is no use in my saying anything about it now. He may change his opinion about it later on and I hope he will.

Senator Horan and Senator McCabe spoke about the small demand for young stock. I admit there is very little demand for young stock. The Minister wants the graziers to use the good fattening land for rearing calves and year-and-a-halves. To my mind that is a silly proposal to make. These calves usually went round in a cycle. First they went up to Tipperary and perhaps back to Galway and Clare and finally after being reared and fed on the land that is not suitable for fattening and on land on which they would never get fat even if left on it for one and a half or two years they came along to the good land. And it is well to realise that the proportion of land we have fit to fatten cattle is limited. If the Minister thinks that it would be in the national interest that this limited quantity should be used for rearing calves and producing milk I think his policy is "boloney". I may be able to induce the cattle trade and the Minister to come together some day because I think it would be in the national interest. We can give the Minister and his Department some advice still, but if the Minister wants to put his head in the air and say that he does not want the cattle trade he can have it that way.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

The Seanad adjourned at 8.50 p.m.sine die.