I will not confine my criticism in this respect to the present Executive. I do not care what Executive is in power, I would criticise it on the same grounds. I would say the job is big enough for the Minister to concentrate all his energies on it and that he should leave the political aspect of the question to be dealt with by the President, the Vice-President and the Minister for Justice of an Executive, no matter who they are. If we are going to make a success of the country from the farming point of view, we will have to achieve it by building up a closer co-operation amongst Irish farmers. The Minister has criticised Irish farmers for not coming together. I ask him, in Heaven's name, to lead the way. Let him take the attitude that Irish farmers can come together and that he will lead the way in this respect. I know Republican farmers in the country who would agree with much of the policy advocated by the Minister for Agriculture, but simply because their political feelings and his do not agree, no matter what he advocates agriculturally, they cannot agree to give that co-operation to his programme which otherwise would be forthcoming.
As an humble student of Irish agriculture and as a young farmer, I am anxious to see the Irish farmers come together and meet on the co-operative platform. They can meet and leave political discussions aside while engaged in the development of Irish agriculture. That need not prevent their entertaining honest differences of opinion on the national question and national aspirations, opinions that they should be allowed and permitted to hold. I hold my political opinions freely and I yield to no man in holding them. At the same time I am willing to concede to my fellow-farmers their right to hold theirs. In that spirit we have successfully come together for agricultural development in my native county. I would challenge contradiction on that point, that we have co-operated successfully there. So much for that point.
I am satisfied, whilst there may be matters of detail about which we would differ, that generally speaking the Department of Agriculture is doing a good deal for the development of Irish agriculture. I take this opportunity of saying to the farmers that they should take full advantage of the agricultural education available. Deputy Fahy spoke of the education of the average small farmer. I think a great deal could be done in that connection. There are many small farmers with from 50 acres downwards who, through stress of circumstances and the depression which has prevailed for the last few years, have not been able, no matter how willing, to provide for the proper education of their children. Unfortunately, it is true that in the past the brighter boys reared on the land have sought professions other than agriculture. The idea was prevalent that anyone could become a farmer and was good enough for carrying on that industry. That is the rock on which our farming industry has split. In order to cope with the modern trend of affairs, I believe our farmers must be educated as thoroughly as the farmers of other countries. There is no use talking of competing with Denmark, Belgium, or any other country, unless we go about it in the right way. We will have to see to it that a chance is given to our future farmers to be able to compete with their rivals all over the world. We will have to see to it that they get facilities to educate themselves for their occupation in life equal to those given in our universities to the young men who are about to enter other professions. Why should the taxpayers be called upon to pay for greater facilities for education for other branches than are given to the main industry of the country?
I speak from the farming point of view, and I hope always to advocate that point of view. I say to the Minister for Agriculture that it is the duty of his Department to advance more and more that point of view. I know that a good deal has been done for agricultural education. I have myself availed of it to some extent, and I appreciate the efforts that my teachers made on my behalf. At the same time, I know what is going on in the different counties. Is it not a fact that at present the total amount of agricultural education given in any county in any given year is one, two or three winter classes? As we know, these classes can only be conducted in one or two centres each winter. What about the rest of the county? If our future farmers cannot avail of the education provided when they are young, they will never get a chance of educating themselves. I, therefore, ask that the Department of Agriculture should give earnest consideration to this matter. I appreciate thoroughly the work that is being done for agriculture by the instructors in the various counties. On the whole, I find these instructors going about their work in a proper manner. It does not matter to them whether a man is a Republican or a Free Stater or a Unionist, or anything else. They are prepared to give him all the help and advice of which they are capable. That is the spirit we must encourage in agriculture. As a Deputy who has taken very little part in debates here, I was rather taken by surprise by this Vote being taken yesterday. I should have liked a little more time to consider what I have to say and to develop other points, but I felt that I could not let this opportunity go by without making a plea on behalf of our young farmers, whom many people criticise and deride and describe as a useless body. They are not given the attention which they deserve, especially as they have always been found in the forefront of the national struggle.
Take the matter of technical education. A good deal, no doubt, is being done in that direction, but is sufficient being done? In connection with the manual instruction classes, for instance, if the instructor was to go to each centre in a county, by the time he would be able to give a second or third course —the most useful course—in a certain centre, he would be a grey-headed man and his pupils would be scattered. The essence of technical instruction as it affects agriculture is the continuity of the training. The efforts of any of us who try to introduce modern methods and promote technical education in our districts are defeated owing to lack of continuity. If you succeed in getting together a number of the sons of farmers and agricultural labourers to go through a course, by the time you can secure a second course for them you find your work has been in vain, because they have been dispersed or have lost interest in the matter. These are points which should be looked into. I want to get the continuity which is necessary to enable our young people to take advantage of the education which is essential for their industry.
I think that there is a tendency in this country to belittle the noble profession of agriculture. I want to eradicate the idea which is so prevalent that agriculture is something to be ignored or despised, that dirty hands or soiled clothes are something to be sneered at. The prosperity of this country depends on the success or failure of agriculture. Our farmers are the main producers in this country. The produce of our fields and farmyards comprises the bulk of our exports. The largest part of the taxation in this country is derived from the farming community, and they have to shoulder the largest part of the burden. Our railways and other transport companies would not be able to carry on were it not for the agricultural produce which they carry. We have long debates here on various aspects of this question, while too little attention is given to the main problem. That is why I try in all sincerity to put forward constructive criticism.
I do not tackle the Minister for Agriculture simply for the sake of scoring a point. It is not my policy to score a point over anybody in this debate, because I believe the farming industry is far too serious a matter simply to score a political point over. I am honest in this matter and I wish to be taken as being honest. I believe the supporters of the Minister will agree with me that in the coming year a good start could be made by the Department of Agriculture taking a tip from what I am telling them. I believe if the Minister would turn over a new leaf in the coming year and say to himself: "I have indulged perhaps too freely in controversial matters which I could leave to the Minister for Justice or the Minister for Defence or the Vice-President or the President, but I shall tackle my job in the coming year free from acrimony and without over-much interest in political problems"—if he said that, I say in all sincerity he would find that his words on many phases of agriculture would be welcomed by the farmers of this country. If the Minister wants to get genuine co-operation between the farmers of the country, then I think that he, as Minister for Agriculture, should lead the way. The same might apply to the heads of other Government Departments. I put it to Ministers that it is the duty of the heads of Government Departments to lead the way. It is not their duty to hit the hardest in debate. Coming to another point, it is undoubtedly a fact that our farmers, taking them as a whole, are in a difficult position. We know there are certain farmers financially well off, who have stood the brunt of the depression that occurred and who do not feel perhaps the effects of that depression. On the other hand, we know there are genuine cases of hardship amongst farmers throughout the country.
There are numerous farmers who would not be in arrears with their annuities or their rates at the present time had they the wherewithal to pay them, as well as to support their families and keep their farms going. We know there are farmers who are financially in low water and who have gone down in the last few years—honest men who would pay twenty shillings in the pound if they had it to pay. We know well that the wheels of Government control have ruthlessly steam-rolled them. I am not blaming Government Departments for carrying out their statutory obligations, but something needs to be done to put a check upon these operations. If anyone goes to the country with an impartial mind he will find farmers trying to rear families on incomes too small to enable them to do so. He will find numberless people suffering in their efforts to keep a good face to the world and carrying their own burdens and as well find them paying relief in taxation for other people in distress in various counties.
There is one point that I would like to stress as a student of agriculture, and that is whether some moratorium system could not be established in this country to give deserving farmers a chance to make good. We all know at the moment that there is a lack of the necessary finance to enable farmers to follow out consistently even the policy which the Minister for Agriculture asks them to follow. Take, for instance, the very vexed question of barley growing. I come from the Midlands, and barley growing is being carried on of necessity in the districts there. "Rome was not built in a day." Neither can the farmers of the country change overnight from one system of farming to another; they have not the necessary capital. The Minister for Agriculture said, in a debate on this matter, it was better for the Irish farmer to feed more and more of his produce to live stock. I agree with him, but what percentage of the owners of average holdings or the small farmers can afford to do that? That is the question. I am satisfied if the farmers could get away from looking to Messrs. Guinness and others to buy their barley, and if they could use that barley on the farm and turn it into beef or bacon products it would be to their benefit. But is it not a fact that numberless farmers are waiting, from the present month until October or November, to thresh their grain crop to pay bills owing to merchants and others? These are matters worthy of consideration.
I would also suggest that the Research Branch of the Department of Agriculture should concentrate all their efforts on this question. I suggest to the Department that they could pick out some of the best of their students and give them facilities to carry on research work in the marketing of produce by farmers and helping to find alternative markets for them. I ask the Minister to consider that matter seriously. I would agree to accept his dictum that it would be better to turn barley into feeding stuffs, but the money is not there and the marketing facilities are not so constant or so regular as to permit farmers to gamble too much in feeding stuffs. Sometimes it happened that farmers started winter feeding, but they found when the animals were ready for market they had to be sold at a loss. The same thing has happened in the case of pig feeding. At present prices are fairly steady, but are they always steady? Can the farmer rely upon it that by the time his batch of pigs are fattened and ready for sale he will get satisfactory prices? I think it would be worth while for the Minister of Agriculture to go seriously into this barley question and as quickly as he can before the coming harvest and to try to find out some alternative method of dealing with it. It would be a great boon to Irish farmers if in the coming harvest some remedies could be found for the appalling state of affairs that occurs year after year in the principal market centres of the barley-growing areas in the Midlands.
What I refer to is this: that instead of the farmer, in the same way as any other producer, having the right to go and offer his products at a fair price and what would yield him a living wage, he has more or less to go on his knees and hat in hand to the maltsters and merchants, asking them to take his produce at their price, and not at his price. There is one remedy that I think could be developed so as to deal with this matter. I think the Department of Agriculture and that other body with which I have fairly close association— the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society—could jointly, between this and the harvest time, usefully tackle this question of the marketing of our grain crops. I am prepared in my district to help in the matter. I know numerous farmers who are interested in this, and I can speak on behalf of a creamery committee down the country which is composed of men of all shades of politics and men professing different creeds. All these men are prepared to co-operate, and would co-operate, in a movement of that kind.
I believe there is a useful field there in which the Department of Agriculture and the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society could work and co-operate in looking for alternative markets for the barley that is produced in the Midlands and other parts of the country. They could make arrangements to transfer the barley grown in Leix by the farmers of the adjoining counties to farmers of other counties where barley is not grown. By so doing, we could cut off a good deal of that expenditure that goes in payment for imported maize. The imports of maize last year amounted in value to a sum of £4,000,000. It is admitted by the men who are studying this question of the feeding of farm animals thoroughly, that of the various classes of grain fed to animals, barley and maize are approximately equal in value as foodstuffs. There is a difference of about 6d. per barrel in the price.
I would not advocate the whole hog exclusion of maize from this country, but I do think that we could reduce the importation of maize by half and that we could give the grain growers of this country a chance of disposing of their grain to filling the gap thus caused if this question were examined on its merits and only on its merits. I do believe that the Minister for Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture would be well-advised to concentrate during the next couple of months almost entirely on this question. I believe that the farmers of the barley-growing counties will be grateful to the Minister if he will take this matter up and, if I am here next autumn, I will pay a tribute to him if he does so and comes forward here with his policy for carrying out that particular work. I ask Deputies irrespective of Party affiliations to consider that matter in their own minds. This is a question that should be, as the Minister himself said yesterday, divorced from politics. I believe that the Party Whips should be taken off a question of this kind and that we in this House should be free to give an expression of our opinions in a case of this kind. I believe it would be to the best interests of the farmers of the country if this could be done.
I would like to call the attention of the heads of the Department and of the Minister for agriculture to the necessity of doing more in the cow-testing sphere. The Department, no doubt, are doing a lot of work in the matter and are encouraging our farmers to go in for cow-testing. I mean, of course, they are encouraging the farmers who are engaged in milk production to go in for the grading of their herds and to keep cows that would be more profitable. I think that while the scheme of the Department for the establishment of cow-testing associations and for assisting this useful work is fairly generous, extra money would be well spent on this side of the Department's work. I say that because it is not realised by the farmers how much gain could be brought to themselves and to the Irish creamery industry and to farming generally by this method of cow-testing.
I know it is usual for farmers down the country to deride new methods, and it is common to find the middle-aged farmer saying, "Oh, the cows of the previous generation got on all right," and so on. But we want to start out on a policy of waking up our farmers, so that we may get them to realise that if we are to compete successfully in the modern world we will have to compete along modern lines. I will give you an illustration from a report of a cow-testing association in my own county and of the work done there on this point alone, and it is work that can be tackled everywhere if we can get our farmers to realise what is going on. I have here before me the report of a single cow-testing association established last year. In this report I find that the value of the produce of the five best cows there, that is including the butter fat and skim milk, totalled together would work out at £32 18s. 11d. per cow. Now, in the same association, taking the five worst cows, we find that the value of their produce per head worked out at the low figure of £8 14s. 10d. There we have a contrast between the five best cows, £32 18s. 11d. per head, as against £8 14s. 10d. per head for the five worst cows. Farmers will find in that report food for reflection. If we give this important Estimate the attention it deserves we will say to the Department to go ahead with their work in cow-testing, to extend that work and to do more of it.
I believe that in the initial stages in any given area it would be necessary even to spoon-feed financially the schemes in order to get the farmers to adopt that system, and I believe that if you get a group of farmers to adopt that system you will find that when they themselves meet at the end of the year, and have the figures before them as made up by their own supervisors, they will be so convinced of the utility of the work that you will find that none of these farmers will afterwards be breaking away from their cow-testing association. On this question of cow-testing associations and on the development of dairy herds, I am not advocating going in for crack cows that would produce more than 1,000 gallons a year. I would prefer that we make haste slowly, and if we could get up our cows from the 400 gallon grade to the 600 gallon cow and the 800 gallon cow I believe we would be doing good work, and that the results would redound to the benefit of our farmers and to the benefit and credit of our country.
Again, I would like to advert for a moment to the question of barley-growing and the grain question in general. Recently a report appeared in the "Daily Mail" from Messrs. Spiller, Ltd., Flour Millers. I will give you an extract from it, and that extract reads as follows:—
"In feeding-stuffs the company were making a new departure in putting on the market under open formulæ what are known as balanced rations; that is to say, mill offals, meals derived from barley and maize and other products all compounded under scientific direction with a view to meeting the special requirements of different varieties of stock. The results so far obtained by stock breeders from the company's balanced rations had been remarkable."
This is a matter that is worthy of notice, and I think it is wise to call the attention of the Department to that extract. Possibly they have already got it themselves. I believe it is well worthy of attention. If experiments in the admixture of our grain crops with maize products brought into this country could be carried on, the result would be there would be a ready market found for a large proportion of our grain crops.
If we are to have success in this matter, I think we will have to get away from the atmosphere of mere political discussions. I say that no political party can solve this question alone. It will take the closest co-operation between all the parties in the State to solve it successfully. This question is big enough to demand that co-operation; it is worthy of the attention of the whole House in an effort to find a solution. No matter what our vocations in life may be, whether we are business men, professional men, or otherwise, I believe if we can confer the benefit of a better market for the grain produced in this country next harvest on our agriculturists, we will have done a good day's work for the farmers, agricultural workers and the country in general. There is plenty of time to go into this matter. I think it would be advisable to read for the Dáil a resolution passed at a meeting of the Athy grain-growers. That resolution is as follows:—
"That we, the tillage farmers of Leix and Kildare, in meeting assembled, call on the Government to formulate a scheme before the advent of next harvest for the purchase of barley at a price remunerative to the producer."
The Government have received another resolution as regards the admixture of barley with maize. I know there are difficulties in the way, but when we have a firm like Spillers thinking it worth while seriously to go into that matter, it is certainly a subject well worthy of being taken up by the Department as a national question of importance.
I hope I have succeeded in getting the farming members of the Dáil, irrespective of party considerations, to realise that they represent a profession which can hold its own against any other profession in the land. There would be something gained if I have even got other people whose professions are different from that of farmers, to realise the difficulties of the farmers and to recognise that it is their duty to help them in the difficult task of improving conditions, and honestly and conscientiously to think out what is the best method of bringing about improvement. If what I have said helps in any way to bring that about, then something will have been gained and my little contribution to this debate will have served a useful purpose. I am anxious to approach this question sincerely; I am anxious to put forward points in the nature of constructive criticism. I sincerely hope that my suggestions will be accepted in the spirit in which they are given. I am anxious that they would be taken to heart and examined if they are considered worthy of attention. I leave it to the fair-minded people of this House to say whether what I am advocating here is right or wrong. If I have taken up the time of the House in asking Deputies to consider these questions carefully, perhaps there are Deputies who will agree that they have often sat here and listened to other points being raised—