Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Jul 1985

Vol. 108 No. 13

Control of Bulls for Breeding Bill, 1985: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a second Time."

I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments on this Bill. I welcome the Bill in parts but, as I see it as a lay person, if we are to legislate on a national basis and if our prime consideration in the legislation is with particular groups, and we are catering very essentially for groups in such an area, particularly the disadvantaged areas, we are embarking on poor legislation at the outset. I have to make that remark in general.

I welcome the idea that we are registering bulls again on a national basis. That is very important. The Minister, the Department, the law enforcement agencies, the Garda Síochána are conscious at all times that we have many unregistered, unlicensed animals in the breeding herds. While the Bill will endeavour to combat part of that, we must be conscious that at all times, as in all professions, there will be within the farming community the rogue element which will at all times maintain certain numbers of those in certain areas, be they isolated or not.

Isolation is not a criterion for the location and distribution of unlicensed, unregistered animals. At this point the importance of the Bill must be seen in the fact that quality consciousness should be of apparent importance especially in our national herd. I have no brief indeed for the breeding societies. I have the greatest sympathy for them should this Bill pass in its present form through these Houses. I say so for many reasons, not because they are unprotected by this Bill but because it essentially means that their work and dedication to the improvement of the standards, breeding qualities and characteristics of the respective breeds over the years has been undermined very seriously.

We will take the proposal to license three-quarter bred animals for breeding. Many people might think that at present they have three-quarter bred animals for breeding purposes in their herd but, in fact there is nothing to say that they are actually three quarter-bred. If they are retained within the herd as the years go by the quality is deteriorating very seriously. We might think that we can safeguard this quality by inspection as was done in the past by Department officials. I have the greatest respect for the Department officials but when the nature of that inspection was visual in the past — I mentioned this in this House about 12 months ago — this was very inadequate. I instanced several times when a Department inspector went into any location where these inspections were due to take place under the instructions of the Department of Agriculture and visually inspected the animals there was actually a disaster in regard to breeding. It has to be said that many of them have proven themselves to be incapable of breeding at all. If such a structure of inspection is allowed to continue within the Department of Agriculture and animals are inspected visually without any further tests as to their proven ability to breed, such inspections will be totally inadequate. They are in urgent need of investigation with a view to establishing a more thorough inspection which would prove that they are animals capable of breeding as well as good animals.

Very seldom has it ever been taken to court and successfully proven that animals presented for sale or otherwise following inspection and being certified by the Department were suitable breeding animals. If that is the case we are allowing legislation to go through here which cannot stand up in court if such a situation arises. It is time to call for a more thorough examination of the stocks that are allowed to go into the breeding herds particularly those that are allowed for sale. Most of these animals going through these inspections are in fact registered as pedigree animals in various breeding society books. While that may be so, the point I am trying to make is that registration in a book alone is of no importance if the inspection that was carried out was just a visual one.

Some Senators mentioned this morning that in the past various organisations and breeders societies might have rings for sale purposes of their animals, having them registered, and a particular group can monopolise the whole situation. I do not accept that at present. It might have been the case in a few instances in the past but it would not be accepted by the farming community and the purchasers today nor could it even happen in present circumstances. The point I am making is that if we permit the situation, as proposed in this Bill, that three quarter-bred animals are to be licensed for breeding purposes in disadvantaged areas we will be effectively giving a licence to allow our breeding stocks to deteriorate very substantially. If non-pedigree animals are allowed into the breeding herd to produce we will ruin our herds. We are lucky to have outlets in North Africa and the Far East for those types of animals. They are not top class animals. We are lucky. If our competitiveness deteriorates where will we turn for markets to sell our inferior quality carcases?

When we take into account that it is widely known and established, particuarly in the west where we are well known for our store cattle production, that many of the cattle bred in the dairying areas of Munster are bred with the idea that if a cow has a calf that calf can be shifted, regardless of the quality, to the store breeding areas of the country. By and large the quality of the animal we get from the present dairying area in a lot of cases is not a good animal. The reason for it not being good for beef production is simply because the animal siring those calves was not suitable for beef production. I believe we are putting in jeopardy the whole breeding stock and a very important sector of our agricultural income if we allow substandard animals to go into the breeding herds.

I do not believe that there is any such thing as a three quarter-bred continental bull because how do we determine the quality or lack of it in those animals? AI over the years has enabled particularly high standards in breeding stock for dairy purposes and for beef breeding to be built up. While the maintenance of the standards within those breeds is in some way monitored loosely by the Department of Agriculture it has always remained within the hands of the breeding societies. If we take from here the idea that these breeding societies will be undermined, indirectly we are allowing for the deterioration of our stocks and the quality of animals. The idea that has been put forward by some speakers with regard to the cost, particularly to the suckler herds in the west, does not stand up at all in regard to the provision of full pedigree licensed animals.

Let us take any time when pedigree bulls are offered for sale, particularly from January onwards, in any of the renowned centres for marketing of breeding stocks like Limerick, Carrickon-Shannon or Roscommon. At the last 1984 sales, on average, it could be said that any ordinary commercial animal could fetch higher prices than pedigree animals could at that time. It was recorded in The Farmers Journal, following one of those sales, that many of the animals shown for sale as breeding stock at some of those sales centres were actually brought immediately to the factories for slaughter. There is no justification for anybody to oppose the Bill in the light of that fact. The cost to many small breeders does not justify the purchase of a pedigree animal as against some other substandard quality animal.

It has been said by the Sneem group, who are particuarly vociferous with regard to this Bill, that the conditions along the west coast were unsuitable or too severe for the real thoroughbred or pure bred animal, whether of a continental type or otherwise. I could not accept that as being a reason for the unsuitability of pedigree animals being maintained in these outlying herds along the west coast. I will probably contradict myself by saying that if we are providing legislation essentially for disadvantaged areas and allowing this, we are doing a bad day's work for the national herd. If we are to have legislation it must be legislation in the national sense rather than for smaller communities. While many people would give statistics to prove that what I am saying is incorrect, many of the herds are small but they are certainly numerous.

The important thing is that people can afford and are allowed by the Department to acquire proper breeding animals. I agree with many Senators, particularly those representing areas along the west coast, that there is the facility for the Department to adequately compensate farmers without undue cost, particularly in disadvantaged areas, and provide an incentive for herd owners to purchase proper, high quality animals for breeding purposes. I urge the Minister before he finalises this Bill to consider the difficulties expressed in this House and if there is a difficulty where finance is concerned, it is more important in the national interest for the Department of Agriculture to subsidise in some way the proper breeding of animals rather than to allow the national herd to deteriorate because of bad or poor breeding animals in the herd.

Profit margins are very low in some cases and losses have been incurred by beef producers during the winter period. They must be taken into account because what they will have to acquire for the feeding and housing of animals in the autumn will be presented basically in the store areas of the markets. Many of those animals will have come off suckler herds and when they go into the feeding lots they will melt away in agricultural terms. The feeder will be unable to maintain them. In addition to the actual loss in production there is a delayed output which is also important. Inferior quality takes longer to finish than the good quality animals which produce and grow at a constant and fast rate as is the normal case for pedigree animals.

We should have learned by our mistakes in the past within the Department of Agriculture. We have the record and we have our failure as shown during the period when the first beef heifer scheme was introduced. I do not know the actual date, but it was in the early seventies when many very poor quality heifers were allowed to breed. Like the sheep flocks in mountainous areas most of those animals are bred more for disadvantaged headage payments than they are for real quality animals.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share