I should like to impress on Seanad Éireann the necessity for accepting the motion in the names of Senator Prendergast, Senator Farrelly and myself. Many people in cities and in towns may not be aware of the ravages that fluke can cause in cattle and sheep. As Senator Farrelly has pointed out, the Department of Agriculture six years ago printed a pamphlet telling the people, the farmers, the story of the fluke and its ravages. They printed a press release which I have here, and this in its opening lines tells the story possibly in a better way than any farmer could tell it. The opening paragraph is:
The losses caused by liver fluke in cattle and sheep in this country have been estimated at approximately £10 million a year. Most of this is borne directly by the farmer as a result of deaths, abortions, loss of milk, loss of condition and loss of thrive arising from fluke infestation.
Most of this is borne directly by the farmer. Many urbanised and city-bred people might say, looking at statistics published from time to time, that the farmer is getting more than his share of the cake. But if in the past few years the Government and the Department of Agriculture have been taking steps to eradicate TB infestation, brucellosis and other diseases in cattle, this was not done solely for the farmer. It was done to ensure that not only the economy of the country would benefit but that our marketable yields in beef and other agricultural products would be of a high standard and would command a high price in the markets of the world.
If the Department of Agriculture found it necessary for the economy, for the benefit of our farming community and the people in general, to eradicate TB and brucellosis, I maintain that they should find it necessary to eradicate the fluke disease in cattle and sheep. Is this something that cannot be done? Many years ago in the farming areas of the west, when the advisory services were not up to the standard of today, you had the local agricultural adviser telling farmers to spray the wet patches in the land with bluestone. Many farmers did this. They did not know why because they were not aware of the life cycle of this fluke worm, but they did it because they knew that by spraying the wet patches with bluestone they eradicated the snail and, if the snail were eradicated, the life cycle of the fluke worm would be completely interfered with: it would have no force to carry on from one cycle to another and consequently it would die out. This would mean that the fluke disease, as we call it, would die out also.
To illustrate the point I am making, I will ask the Seanad to consider the life cycle of this fluke worm. The Minister knows all about this because he is a practical farmer. What I wish to impress upon the Seanad is the absolute necessity for action to be taken by the Government to eradicate the disease.
The figure of £10 million per year of loss as set out in the press release of the Department of Agriculture circular 120/68, could, I believe, be multiplied by two because prices of farm stock have gone up in the meantime and many things not taken into consideration in this circular could also be taken into account, such as the losses of wool from the sheep infected with fluke, the time involved by the farmer weeding out and in many cases burying the dead sheep. I say this to illustrate my point.
Sheep are mainly affected by the acute form of the disease. This is stated in the circular issued by the Department of Agriculture. Fluke affects cattle, horses, donkeys and pigs. Rabbits can spread the disease and it can also affect humans. I do not know if this has happened in this country, but I read where it did affect humans in America. However, this is a rare occurrence. In the chronic form of liver fluke disease, the affected sheep may show no evidence of illness. They gradually lose condition and become anaemic. These symptoms appear in the membranes of the gums and the eyes, which become pale in colour. The wool becomes dry and easily pulled out. In the very acute form of the disease the sheep is often found dead. In less acute cases, the sheep is dull and does not eat. Cattle affected by the chronic fluke disease do not thrive or put on weight, their coats lose lustre and the appetite is poor. There are other signs about which I will not speak now. Emaciation and death may follow. Milk yields are reduced and are sometimes halved. The acute disease is not common in cattle, but very heavy infestations of young fluke may cause sudden death.
Now, you have the picture with regard to cattle and sheep, and at this point the Seanad may be asking can any action be taken by the Department of Agriculture to eradicate the disease. It must be clear to everybody listening to me that this pest must be eradicated if we are to have thriving herds of cattle and sheep. We know that of all the agricultural products that will mean something in the coming years in the EEC our cattle will be one of the mainstays of our economy. We in the Seanad should urge the Government to do everything possible to encourage the growth of our agricultural industry as far as the export of beef, mutton and other such products are concerned. That is the reason we are here today advocating that the Government take action. I will not say immediate action because this would not really remedy this problem. We must look at it with foresight. We wish to see a situation arising where we will gradually eradicate the disease by the means the Department of Agriculture consider best.
In order to illustrate the fact that this fluke pest can be eradicated by various methods I will give you a few more facts relating to the life cycle of this fluke worm. I quote from the Department leaflet:
The liver fluke, called fasciola hepatica is a flat parasitic worm, shaped like a leaf and greyish in colour. It is about 1¼ inches long and ½ inch broad. It can easily be seen on affected livers.
Apropros of that, anybody who has ordered liver in a hotel at some time or another must have looked askance at what should be a beautiful dark brown colour having patches of grey and white in it, and must have been perturbed to hear a grinding or grating sound when it is put in the mouth. This is proof that the liver was infected with fluke. I do not wish to interfere with the digestion of any Seanadóirí but, just to illustrate the point, let me give some more information about the parasite.
The fluke worm does not increase in numbers inside affected animals but lays its eggs which are passed in the manure. They hatch out in the grass if the temperature is right, about 10 degrees ceiling. Eggs can survive in the grass throughout the winter. A tiny immature fluke hatches out. It will die unless it passes through the tiny mud snail, and that is why I am telling the Seanad about the eradication of the mud snail. Limnia trunculata is the name of this beautiful little snail. Unless it passes through the tiny mud snail within 24 hours, it dies and this is a vital point in controlling the disease. Within the snail it grows and multiplies for six weeks, and longer.
This results in hundreds of immature fluke which later leave the snail and attach themselves to the blades of grass. They can survive like this on grass for several weeks in summer, and several months in winter. When eaten by cattle or sheep they reach the bowel. They burrow through the bowel wall and reach the liver. This can happen within 48 hours of being eaten on the grass. This is the most dangerous time for the animals, and large numbers of these parasites entering together can cause the death of animals from acute fluke disease. About six weeks later the fluke worms enter the bile ducts, they feed on bile and blood and cause chronic fluke disease and anaemia. They are fully grown in 8-11 weeks and start laying eggs at the rate of up to 20,000 daily. Fluke usually live about nine months before being passed out by the animal but sometimes they live as long as the affected animal.
This tiny mud snail is the vital link in the fluke's fight for survival. As the name suggests, the snail needs wet land or it dies. It thrives in poorly drained land, shallow boundary ditches or even in deep, wet tractor marks, and near patches of shallow stagnant water. Choked or broken drains and blocked streams provide ideal areas for them. Without wet patches without stagnant water and waterlogged and choked drains, the mud snail could not survive. Without the snail the life cycle of the fluke would be broken and we would not have the problem at all.
This brings me to two factors. I know that the Minister can claim that he has not the overall responsibility for arterial drainage, or indeed for drainage at all except in small farm works. However, I wish to point out to the Seanad that the fact that you have waterlogged land is, first and foremost, one of the things that must come to your mind. If you are to eradicate fluke, the first objective is drainage. If because of money shortages and other reasons drainage cannot be carried out, there are still methods by which this pest can be attacked. Cattle and sheep can be fenced off from wet lands at the time of year in which infestation takes place. To do this, the farmer has to accept losses, because he may have to put his cattle and sheep into land that is not able to carry them in grass. He may have to utilise other foods for them.
Again, he can dose the cattle as a preventative measure and as a curative measure, but this is very expensive and the drugs used today to control the infestation are very expensive. For that reason it is beyond the power of the farmers themselves to deal with this problem.
I would bore the Seanad by giving other facts relating to it, telling about what farmers have been doing, telling about the various types of preparations that are on the market for the control of the disease. However, I have said enough to illustrate the necessity for dealing with this at Departmental level. For the reasons I have pointed out, farmers themselves do not find it possible to use the drugs. An individual farmer is possibly unable to recognise the fact that he has on his hands flukey sheep and cattle until the disease has advanced.
The Minister knows, and everybody here who knows farmers will agree with me that a farmer says: "Well, if we have not something, we will not go looking for it." He feels that if he uses preventative measures, he is inviting the disease—that the disease may come due to the fact that he went looking for it. Urbanised people may smile at that, but I know farmers and I know their attitude to it.
For the reasons that I have stated, the Department should at once embark on some method and have some policy for the eradication of this disease which is causing untold hardship and untold loss to the farming community and to the economy as a whole.
