Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 29 Nov 1935

Vol. 59 No. 11

Private Deputies' Business. - Demonstration Farms—Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That the Dáil is of opinion that the Department of Agriculture should run several farms in each county under the direction and supervision of its agricultural instructors, independent of all other activities, on which decent wages would be paid, accounts kept and audited, balance sheets published with appropriate explanations of costings, profits, etc., for the purpose of demonstrating to farmers in a practical way how to make their industry pay.—(Deputies Patrick McGovern, Timothy J. O'Donovan.)

Mr. McGovern

On the last day this motion was before the House I put forward various reasons in favour of its adoption. One reason was that some of the methods by which the Department of Agriculture tries to educate the farming community were defective. For that reason I wish a change over to the system which I recommend. There are various defects in the Department's method. I could give many examples of that, but I merely took one to illustrate my point. I was dealing with the exhibition that was held at the Spring Show in 1934. Two lots of cattle were shown there. I gave the figures dealing with the ration that was recommended for them. The result appeared to be that there was a loss of 4d. per head on each animal without taking into account the cost of the hay, the crushed oats, and the silage fed to them over a period of 112 days. That worked out at 7 cwt. hay, 28 cwt. of silage and 2 cwt. crushed oats. When you add the loss of 4d. sustained on the best lot of cattle and the 5/4 loss on the other lot to the cost of all this food that was consumed —I leave it to any Deputy or to the Minister to put any value he likes upon 7 cwt. hay, 28 cwt. silage and 2 cwt. of crushed oats—you get some idea of the total loss on each animal. If you multiply that by 48 you get the loss for 112 days on a farm carrying 48 cattle. Again, if you multiply that by three, you get the annual loss approximately upon the running of the farm, according to the experiment.

Now, I propose to leave that subject. It may be said that the Department, perhaps, did not recommend that course, but there was nothing shown at that exhibition to say whether or not farmers should follow it. They were not told not to follow that course, so that any farmer who came along was entitled to assume that the course was recommended when the exhibition was held and the results given. I suggest that any farmer who would be foolish enough to put that course into practice would soon find himself in the bankruptcy court. No thinking farmer would be so foolish as to adopt that course without giving it a little thought. I think that any man who carefully considered it would come to the conclusion that there was no use any longer in following the instructions given by the Department. Even though the Department gave ten useful demonstrations, I think the good they might do could be nullified by one such as that.

If a farm such as I recommend were being run by the Department, I do not think that any one of its officers would be so incompetent or foolish as to adopt that method on it. Therefore, I recommend the adoption of practical education rather than education of that sort. It is hard to understand why money should be spent in giving that sort of education to farmers. It may be said that, if the course I recommend be adopted, the loss on the feeding of cattle, because you must have a mixed system of farming, will be counterbalanced by producing other commodities. It may be said, for instance, why not grow wheat? I agree that they would be entitled to grow wheat on these farms, but that they would not be entitled to grow more than what would be their proper quota. We know that in this country we have 12,000,000 acres of arable land, and that 600,000 acres of wheat will supply all our needs; that we have no market for any more.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We surely cannot discuss the Government's wheat policy on a motion to start experimental farms of this kind. The agricultural policy of the Government cannot be traversed on this motion.

Mr. McGovern

I do not propose to discuss the Government's wheat policy. What I mean is that the Department's experts will be entitled to grow wheat upon these farms for the purpose of giving demonstrations. Suppose that they grow all wheat, all beet or some other crop on one of these farms, the ordinary farmers of the country could not follow suit. They could not take that as their model, because then the farm would not be a model farm. If every farmer grew nothing but wheat on his land, there would be no market for the wheat. That is what I want to point out, and I think I am entitled to do that. What I have in view in proposing this motion is that these model farms must be confined, to a certain extent, to the production of certain classes of agricultural commodities. Now, they are not entitled to put more than 5 per cent. of the land under wheat, because 5 per cent. of the arable land of the country will produce all the wheat that the country can consume. Therefore, for the purposes of demonstration, these farms would be entitled to put only 5 per cent. of the land under wheat. That is the point that I want to make clear. They must grow what there is a market for. Every other farmer must do likewise. The object of the demonstration farms is to give every farmer a chance to do exactly the same thing.

The Minister is entitled to charge in the accounts the monopoly prices realised for special quality seeds, special breeds of cattle, and fowl. In that way, they would have an advantage over ordinary farmers for some years owing to the scarcity of these special seeds and breeds, and they might command a higher price than they would be justified in entering in the accounts. That might be called a monopoly price, or a scarcity price, but it should be followed by the commercial price that would be commanded by these commodities by every farmer who raised produce of the same standard set up by the model farms. I am mentioning that to show what is intended. Otherwise some people might be making extraordinary profits that would not be obtainable by other farmers who adopted the same methods. I wish to bring before the Minister some points that I think should not be lost sight of. At the end of the year the accounts would be more impressive than all the speeches from political platforms or lectures delivered by the most competent agricultural instructors. Such accounts would bring conviction to the farmers, and they would pay attention to them. The accounts for the farms that are being run by the Department are not very impressive in that respect. I have the accounts that are furnished to this House for runninug these farms. Year after year we are asked to vote money to meet the expenses incurred by the Department in that respect. I agree that there are many other activities on these farms and that they cannot be taken as a test. Nevertheless, a bad impression is created when we see, for instance, that £6,011 is voted to Athenry farm to run it and to pay expenses for the year 1935-36. On the other side of the account there is a sum of £3,375, an Appropriation-in-Aid received from students' fees, sale of live stock, farm produce and rents. Leaving out the item of students' fees, it is plain that the amount realised from the sale of farm stock and other produce was considerably less than £3,375. When £3,375 is deducted from £6,011 there is a difference of £2,636 on the working of that one farm. In other words, that £2,636 is a gift from the State for the running of that farm on up-to-date lines. For Ballyhaise farm in County Cavan £5,855 was voted.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think the Deputy is travelling very far from the motion. He must realise that he is now endeavouring to discuss the administration of the Department of Agriculture. That can only be done properly on the Estimate for that service.

Mr. McGovern

I am merely making a comparison.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It should not consist of comments and criticisms of the administration of the Department. That can only be done properly on the Estimate, as I indicated several times.

Mr. Dillon

On a point of order, surely we would be entitled to argue on this motion that the type of farms proposed to be set up would be more efficient than the type at present operated by the Department. It is because we are dissatisfied with the present system of demonstration farms that we are advocating the institution of the new system adumbrated in the motion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

A statement of that kind would be in order on an examination of the administration of other farms, but the administration of other farms would not be in order on this motion.

Mr. Dillon

We want to clear our minds so as to keep strictly within the ruling. How can we prove that the existing farms are unsatisfactory, and fail in their duty to the farmers, unless we explain to the House where they have failed? How can we prevail upon the House to order the institution of new farms, of a different character, and run on different lines, unless we can prove that the existing farms have failed owing to their inefficiency?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not for the Chair to indicate how a case can be made on any motion, but if I was to allow all the activities of the Department of Agriculture to be discussed, as against what is outlined here, we would discuss the whole administration of the Department on this motion. Clearly that was not what was intended, and could not be allowed.

Mr. Dillon

Our respectful submission is that we are not examining any branch of the administration of the Department of Agriculture but we are examining the administration of experimental farms. Our respectful submission is that we can examine that, with a view to discrediting the existing farms, that they are uneconomic, inefficient and ineffective, and we want to substitute them with other farms. We have no desire to trespass on your ruling, Sir, by wandering into other branches of the Department's activities, but we submit that we have a right to criticise the administration of the existing farms because we are advocating the establishment of new demonstration farms.

Mr. McGovern

I allow that there is justification for criticism of other activities and I wish to show by comparison what I mean by keeping accounts on these farms.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy spoke of demonstrations at the Royal Dublin Society's Show-grounds at Ballsbridge. Surely that was not a demonstration farm. I indicated then that he and other Deputies were likely to travel over other matters. Now he is going in another direction by dragging in the entire administration of the Department of Agriculture. I cannot allow that. The proper place to do that is on the Estimate for the Department.

Mr. McGovern

Very well. I think what I meant is understood, and I need not bother further in that respect. It is fairly well known that on all the farms run by the Department there is a loss. What I want is to have a profit shown on these farms at the end of the year. Otherwise they are a complete failure. There is no use in voting £1,000,000 to the Department for this work if they are not able to show by practical instruction and practical work that they are able to farm at a profit. That is my view. Unless they are able to make a profit, they are unable to teach agriculture because, after all, farming cannot go on unless there is a profit. No business can be conducted without a profit. Therefore, I am convinced that, unless there is a change in the method of teaching by the Department, they might as well scrap the whole machinery. I am confident that the Department's officers are well able to teach. They are quite competent to do this if they get a chance. This motion would give them a chance to put into practice the theories they have been teaching. If they got the chance and were able to set up a headline whereby every farmer could increase the value of the output of his farm by 10 per cent.— that, I think, would not be too much— by following the very best methods, Deputies can realise what that would mean to the country. I am sure that there is no farmer who would not be very glad to increase the value of the produce of his farm by 10 per cent., 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. Let us take it at the lowest figure. If it is true that the value of the produce of a farm can be increased by 10 per cent., what would that mean to the farmer and to the country? Taking the last three normal years, 1929, 1930 and 1931, we find that the average value of our agricultural exports was £31,816,421. That was the average value for the last three normal years. We have to add to that the value of the produce consumed at home. The figure for that would be about the same, so that the value of our agricultural produce over the last three normal years would be about £63,000,000.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that relevant to the motion before the House?

Mr. McGovern

I am going to show how it is relevant. If the value of our produce were increased by 10 per cent. it would mean that over £6,000,000 per annum would be put into the pockets of the farmers. That money would circulate throughout the country and every section of the people would benefit, while the nation as a whole would also benefit. It would increase the taxable capacity of the country and put money into circulation, because the people who would get this additional money would part with it again.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I must bring the Deputy back to a sense of reality. On the basis on which he is now proceeding, we could discuss almost anything on this motion. He must come down to realities and discuss the motion.

Mr. Dillon

May I inquire, with great respect, if the Chair is following Deputy McGovern's argument?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

He says: "We want demonstration farms because, through their medium, we can explain to the farmers how to improve their methods of husbandry. Even if we could extract, by these improved methods of husbandry, only 10 per cent. more from our farms than we get at present, that would mean £6,000,000 of increased wealth." Surely that is a relevant argument. It seems to me to be the most cogent argument that could be advanced in support of this motion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

In the same way, the Deputy could go on to deal with wheat, beet, and all those other things. Where will that line of argument lead?

Mr. Dillon

The argument made by Deputy McGovern is designed to show that the nation would benefit by these demonstration farms. He argues that, if the farmers can be shown better methods of husbandry, they will get a better return. He estimates that additional return at £6,000,000, and he argues that that will be to the advantage of the State as a whole. That, I submit, is a strictly relevant argument to the motion before the House.

Mr. McGovern

I am afraid that if you, a Leas-Chinn Comhairle, confine me so strictly, I may not, in dealing with these matters, be able to make a very good case.

Dr. Ryan

Hear, hear!

Mr. McGovern

I am not accustomed to rope-walking or wire-walking, and I am being confined within very narrow limits. I do not want to enlarge on the matter, but I have shown that if this motion were passed, it would benefit every section in the country and would increase the national wealth by over £6,000,000. That is on the basis of a 10 per cent. increase in production. It might result in a greater increase. This is a proposal well worth consideration in difficult times such as we are now passing through. If so much value attaches to a couple of hundred little factories set up in this State—I do not despise them; they are a benefit to the State—just imagine the benefit that would ensure to the country if the prosperity of 400,000 factories were increased. Every farm in the country is really a factory. Four hundred thousand thriving factories would put a couple of hundred little factories in the background. The Minister for Agriculture would have done the best day's work he has ever done for this country if, by adopting this scheme, he increased the production of these 400,000 factories by even 10 per cent. That would be the greatest achievement than any Minister for Agriculture could boast of. It would give an opportunity to the people, as a whole, to see whether agriculture was a paying proposition under present conditions or under any conditions. It would remove from this House one of the greatest causes of obstruction, because half the time since I came to this House has been wasted in discussing the conditions of agriculture, whether farmers are prosperous or not, and whether this policy or that policy is the better policy for farmers. If this motion were given effect, it would prove things in an unmistakable manner and would bring to an end all these discussions on undecided issues not only in this House but in every farmhouse and at every cross roads, dance and ceilidhe in the country. This proposal would decide the matter once and for all, and I hope the Minister and every member of the House will decide to give it a fair trial.

Mr. O'Donovan

I formally second the motion, and I reserve my right to speak later.

Mr. O'Leary

I have great pleasure in supporting this motion, which is a perfectly reasonable one. The Government have embarked during the last three or four years on a new policy for the farmers. I think that it is only reasonable that we should ask the Government by this motion, which is a very simple one, to show the people that agriculture can be made a paying proposition as a result of the change of policy. It is laid down in the motion that decent wages should be paid to the workers, that accounts should be kept and audited, and that balance sheets should be published, with appropriate explanations of costings, profits and so forth. I should like to ask that, in carrying out those experiments, the Government would take notice of the different kinds of farms in this country. The Government seem to be very much in favour of farmers who can grow wheat, beet and tobacco. I put down a question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce a few days ago, and in his reply he said that in 1934 there were 55,597 people who grew wheat in this country, and that in 1935 there were 75,321 people who grew wheat. Everybody knows, however, that there are 450,000 farmers in this country, and I say that a very big section of them are not in a position to grow wheat. In a great many cases they are hardly able to grow potatoes enough to maintain themselves, and I say that, in carrying out this, if the Government are prepared to accept it, they should take all those cases into consideration.

I was speaking to a man a couple of days ago from County Kildare and I said to him: "Did you grow wheat this year?" He said: "I did; I grew"—I forget how many acres he told me he grew, but he should have got about £115 out of it. He said that he would grow some more this year. I said: "What are you going to do with the land next year?" He said: "Oh, to hell with the land. It is no good anyway." I wanted to know how he was going to manure the land, because it is very necessary to manure the land so as to keep it in good condition, and I must say that it is to the credit of the farmers of this country that they always went in for a policy that would tend to improve the land rather than to reduce its value. The Government claim that their policy is a more profitable policy for the people than the policy that was in existence before they came into office. Deputy Corry told us a week or so ago that there was a great change in the views of the farmers in East Cork in the last six months. In carrying out these experiments, I say that, in order to make fair comparisons, instructors, in calculating the value of cattle, should put down what would be the value of the cattle in the British market without deducting the tariff. In order to have a fair experiment, I think it would be only right that that should be done.

It is just the same with regard to pork. I was speaking to a shopkeeper here within the last month, who had a shop in the North of Ireland and one outside the Border. He told me that the price of pork in Northern Ireland was 57/2 and that there was a higher grade for which the price was 60/2. On this side of the Border, I understand, the price is 8/- less. That would mean that, in every cwt. and a half, the people in the North have an advantage of 12/-. Take the case of indian meal mixture also. Across the Border it is £4 10s. and on our side of the Border the price is £7. That means that in every cwt. of feeding stuffs there is half-a-crown a cwt. of a difference. Dr. Ryan said in this House on one occasion that it took 6 cwts. of feeding stuffs to fatten a pig. That would be a difference of 15/- in the feeding stuffs, and taking with that the difference of 12/- in the price of the pig, it would mean that the farmer here is at a disadvantage of 27/- on every pig as compared with the farmer in the North of Ireland or Britain.

I am not trying to take any political advantage with regard to this question. I think it is only fair to the people of this country, when agriculture is the main industry in this country, that the Government, as I have often put it to them before, should set up a commission and find out the real position with regard to this question. Dr. Ryan seems to care for nobody except a man who is able to grow wheat or barley, but I myself think that, in justice to the people who have not land to grow these crops, they should not be fleeced. As the former Minister for Agriculture said in this House on several occasions, he did not stand for growing grain as a cash crop but for the purpose of feeding stock on the land and walking it off into the market. I think that is a perfectly reasonable and feasible proposition on our part. Last Saturday, I was in a fair in Ballyvourney and the people got a bit soft towards the evening, and one chap—a supporter of the Government—said: "Will you come along and discuss this situation now?" The other chap said: "Tell me, are you better-off now than you were two years ago?" He answered: "I admit I am not." I think it would be only reasonable for the Minister for Agriculture to consult that man and some more of his own supporters, who could not be accused of being prejudiced, and in that way he might be enabled to get some sense of justice.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy seems to be travelling away from the motion very widely.

Mr. O'Leary

I do not think I am going away from the motion, Sir, because, in order to have a fair comparison, I think it is only right that we should give the Minister our ideas as to what should be brought before him.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We should only give him our ideas as to why these demonstration farms should be set up.

Mr. O'Leary

I think I am within the terms of the motion, Sir. If I am not, I do not know where I stand. I do not know what I should say if I were to say anything except what I am saying. After all, the Minister for Agriculture should be delighted to get our views on this question.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am not concerned with what the Minister is delighted with, but with what this motion asks for.

Mr. O'Leary

I read the motion all right, but I do not think it is fair to take the position as it stands without taking the whole condition of the farming industry up and down the country into consideration. I think that the system before the Minister came into office should be considered also as compared with the present system in the country, and I think myself that, if the Minister does establish those farms, it is only reasonable that that should be taken into consideration, because there is no doubt that he is forcing his policy on the farmers of this country, and if he can show that farming under this policy can be made a paying proposition, there is nobody who will be more anxious to welcome it than your humble servant.

Mr. Holohan

I rise to support this motion standing on the Order Paper in the names of Deputies McGovern and O'Donovan. I do believe that demonstration farms of this sort would be of the greatest advantage to the farming community. First of all, I should like to see the work taken over by the agricultural instructors, or by somebody selected by the Minister for Agriculture, who, he thinks, would be in a position to give us information that would lead us to the position of being able to make our farms pay under present conditions. That is why I am in favour of these demonstration farms. In the past, I may say that we got a good deal of useful information and instruction from the agricultural instructors in the country, and farmers who gave special attention to the information and instruction given by those instructors got quite decent returns from their information. However, with regard to the manner in which demonstration plots have been run in the past, I do think a big improvement could be made in that direction by asking these instructors now to take over farms of their own and work them in such a way as would be an education to us from the point of view of improvement and in such a way as that at the end of the year they would be able to meet their liabilities and obligations. That is what we cannot do at present and that is our trouble. Even the best farmers in this country are complaining to me that they cannot pay their way or meet their obligations because of the present agricultural policy of the Government. We want a change, and the change is necessary. Therefore, I would ask the Minister to agree to this motion and to set up a number of farms in the different counties. I do not ask him to go into it in a large way; he could have one or two farms in each county worked and managed by agricultural instructors or some other person who he thinks might be able to enlighten us as to the best means of working our farms.

When he had taken over one of these farms, we would like to see how he would lay out that farm; how many acres he would till; how many he would meadow; and how many he would graze; what number of stock he could keep on the farm, with their breeding, feeding and keep, so that, at the end of the year, he could prove to us that his up-to-date methods would give such a return as would enable him to pay his way. We could do many things on our farms which would make them look more up to date, so that others looking at them would say: "This farm is well managed and well kept"; but on account of weather conditions and want of capital we cannot work our farms to the best advantage for ourselves and for our children and to the best advantage for this country.

I should like to see mixed farming carried out on these demonstration farms if the Minister decided to take them over, so that farmers who are more or less on tillage land, as well as those on the better class land, grazing and dairying land, would have an opportunity of seeing how to breed, and to feed and to get the best results from cattle, sheep and pigs and from tillage of the land. The rotation of crops is very important and, to begin with, I should like to see the agricultural instructor going into a field and marking it out and ploughing it so as to get the best results from the crop to be sown there. I should like to see the number of yards between the different furrows, the breadth of the furrows and the breadth of the centres, and how that would be done by some of the agricultural instructors and by some of the people who are fond of instructing us day after day on how to manage our farms.

The Minister himself might give us a demonstration on some of those farms whenever he got the opportunity. He comes from a farming community himself and I have no doubt that in his younger days, before he left his old home—I believe he still has a farm—he had a good deal of experience in the working of a farm, and I should like to see him giving a demonstration with the plough. We who were reared on the land and who have given all the attention we think necessary to farming to the best advantage to ourselves, would like to get further information which would enable us to carry out that work to the best advantage to ourselves and, at the same time, enable us to pay for the extra work done. In the ploughing and tilling of land and its preparation for the crop a good deal of skill is required, and I should like to see a demonstration of this by some of these agricultural instructors who could point out to us where in the past we have made mistakes.

I should also like to follow the rotation of crops. I should like to see the first crop put into the land—oats, barley, wheat or perhaps a root crop—and to follow that rotation so that decent results would be obtained year after year for a period of four or five years. It is the aim of every good farmer in this country to have his land, when that rotation is finished, in a better condition than it was in on the first day he put the plough in it, so that if he wants a second rotation he will get as good results as he got from the first. An experiment for one year or two years, to my mind, is useless. If a farmer gets into a fairly decently managed farm, a farm which has been well cared for over the past forty or fifty years, there is no doubt whatever that he can get good results for one, two and perhaps three years, while the land is able to stand up to the different crops one year after another without proper manuring, but, after the third year, I should like to see how the farm would be managed for another period of three or four years.

I know that, as things are at the moment, to wait for another five or six years would be rather long. I honestly tell the Minister that we cannot stand the strain for another five or six years, and the Minister will realise that if he makes any attempt to inquire from the farmers in his own constituency, County Wexford, which is a tillage county, where you have as good farmers as there are in any other part of the Free State. In Kilkenny, we are farmers who work our farms more or less on the mixed farming system, and I do think it is the best method of farming. We can get fairly decent results from it if we are given a chance to get these results, but the wages we can pay to our workers, in present conditions, and what we have for ourselves are not sufficient to keep ourselves and our families in any sort of decent standard of comfort.

I am strongly in favour of these demonstration farms. A good deal of useful information can be given by the instructors or by whomever the Minister might appoint to work those farms. Five or six years at least should be the shortest term, and, during that time, the different crops put into the land would form useful information for us and we could be shown that the up-to-date methods used by the instructors would provide a decent result financially for the extra labour entailed in turning out these crops in an up-to-date manner. We can grow a few more barrels of oats or barley or wheat by more attention and more manuring, but whether a couple of barrels to the acre would pay the extra cost for the extra attention and manuring is another matter for consideration. To carry out farming as I would like to see it carried out by the mixed farming system, I have no doubt this would be very instructive for the farmers, provided the instructor was able to prove at the end of the term that he was able to make the farm pay and give a fair return. Otherwise the demonstration, no matter what might be the good results of the crops turned out per acre, would be of very little use. It must be able to show a certain amount of profit over the cost of production.

Then there is the dairying side and the rearing of young stock, to which I know the Minister is somewhat opposed. I tell the Minister, as I told him before, that you cannot farm successfully without a considerable number of young stock and dairying cows on your farm, as well as manuring the land and caring your farm properly. Mixed farming, to my mind, is the best and most suitable method. To do that you must have a considerable number of young stock on the farm. While that particular branch of the industry is handicapped so much, I think it will be a problem even for the most skilled person to manage a farm and make it pay.

I ask the Minister to give his consideration to these matters. We would be glad if he would show us, through his instructors, how we can make our farms pay under present conditions. An effort in that direction would be very helpful to us. I do say to the Minister that under his agricultural policy we find it impossible to meet our obligations. He may be trying to help one particular branch of farming, such as the growing of wheat, but the growing of wheat on any farm is limited, if the condition of the farm is to be kept up to the standard required. If you had 100 acres of land, you could grow 40 or 50 acres of wheat for a few years, but then the question arises: what is to be done with that land; how are you to bring it back to any sort of decent condition, such as it was in before you started to plough? We farmers intend to live on our farms. It has always been our intention to improve our farms and hand them over in such condition to our children that they will be able to make a living out of them. We do not want to hand them over impoverished farms, but farms that are in fairly decent condition, so that they may be able to make a living out of them. We do not want to have our children handicapped when starting in life.

The tillage policy of the Government, to my mind, will lead many farmers, owing to want of capital, to run out their farms to a very great extent. The passage of time, of course, will put an end to that sort of management. I am not opposed to the growing of wheat or beet. I have been growing wheat since I was a boy and I know what it means. I know the extra labour that will have to be put into the growing of wheat, as compared with the growing of barley or oats or any other crop. I know what it will mean to prepare the ground for the following crops, especially after winter wheat, as compared with preparing the ground after either oats or barley. We have to be very careful as to the number of acres we will plough on our farms every year. I should like to see, by means of the farms taken over by the agricultural instructors, how we can till more and produce more and at the same time maintain our farms and keep them up to the same standard they were in before. Growing wheat and beet means growing the best of a bad lot. Growing a certain amount of wheat and beet, which a man can manure and grow with success is a good thing, but where a man is forced, because of the economic conditions, to grow more wheat than he is in a position to manure the land after, and bring it back into the same condition as it was in before he ploughed it, is a bad practice, because after some years that farm will be in such a condition that it will hardly pay anyone to try and make a living out of it.

I appeal to the Minister to give us an opportunity, through his instructors, of seeing what he could do in managing a farm at present so as to make it pay, and thus put the farmers in a position to meet their liabilities, which they are not able to do at the moment, largely due to the agricultural policy of the Minister. He may be able to help the growing of wheat and beet, but I can tell him that he has killed the one branch of farming worth catering for in this country and on which we depended most—the live-stock branch of our industry.

Mr. Anthony

I am supporting this motion. The farmer Deputies in this House, in my view, have not asked for anything unreasonable in this motion. In effect, it means that the Government are asked to prove to the satisfaction of the farmers that all that Government spokesmen have said is true in substance and in fact. We have had the opinion expressed in public and in private, both by Ministers and the rank and file of the Government Party, that, while there may be slight depression in this country, it is brought about by world conditions. In any case, according to one of the Government's spokesmen, the farmers are delighted to be fighting the economic war. In other words, farmers are doing so well that they are delighted with the condition of affairs in certain parts of the country. We have had it also from another Government Deputy that the farmers in East Cork are doing well. These opinions are all contrary to the facts.

The farmers with whom I come in contact have told me quite a different story. The case as presented here to-day by a farmer Deputy is one that the Minister, I think, must admit has been well presented. No hyperbole and no exaggeration have been indulged in. The position of the farmer has not been exaggerated in so far as it relates to the working farmers of this country. I am in almost daily contact with numbers of them. They are constantly complaining of the bad results of the Minister's policy on their lives and on their fortunes. If all that the Government spokesmen say is true, and if all that the Minister himself says is true, I cannot see any tangible or reasonable objection against putting into effect the terms of this motion. The one thing that may influence the Minister in not granting this reasonable request of the farmer Deputy is the fact that he asks the Minister to set up, not one experiment to have this thing tested, but that the Minister should run several farms for this purpose in each county. I feel that the Minister, knowing full well that he could not run one farm and make it pay, will be very slow to run several farms at a loss to the community in general.

Mr. McGovern

Will the Minister admit that?

Mr. Anthony

He must, or else accept the motion. We have had very rosy pictures painted by the Minister as to the flourishing condition of agriculture. He has painted that rosy picture in this House and outside the House. Now, here is an opportunity for the Minister to demonstrate the truth of that to the working farmers of the country. He can do that under the most ideal conditions—under the direction of the agricultural instructors and under conditions laid down in the motion. It must be conceded that these agricultural instructors know their business. They would not be in the position they occupy if they were not capable agricultural instructors. This motion asks that they should be relieved from their other duties and put on to these experimental farms on which decent wages would be paid, accounts kept and audited and balance sheets published. In my view that is a very reasonable request. If the Minister and his Government stand for any reliance on their tillage policy, can any valid or reasonable objection be raised to the setting up of even one of these farms? I cannot see how there can.

If the Minister refuses this very reasonable request it is an admission on his part that the men with expert knowledge who were at his disposal and with the traditions of farming handed down to him could not, under the present economic circumstances, make farming pay. It is all very well for the Minister to adopt the rôle of the schoolmaster and the lecturer and say to the farmers: "Grow wheat, grow beet," and other things that we hear the Minister saying in this House in the course of speeches or in reply to criticisms of his policy. From time to time we have the Minister getting up and saying a whole lot about agriculture and, having said all this, he then just in the form of a schoolmaster says: "Q.E.D." Having said quod erat demonstrandum, he sits down. The Minister's attitude in this respect reminds me of the story about the conjurer whom many of us have gone to see. We have heard of the conjurer carrying out his sleight-of-hand tricks before an audience who did not know how it was done. The conjurer then told them that he would now show them how it was done. They were delighted with the prospect of learning that. But the conjurer having performed his tricks again, the audience were amazed when he merely said at the end: “That is how it is done.”

The Minister will adopt the same tactics to-morrow or the next day. When asked a question on his agricultural policy in this House he produces a whole lot of figures of prices from the world markets. He gives us world prices and cross-Channel prices, and he tells us how the sale of agricultural produce is governed by certain prices. But we have had it on the authority, of Deputy McGovern and other farmers who live on the Border of the Twenty-Six Counties that better prices are obtained at the various fairs and markets across the Border. Bigger prices are obtained there than can be obtained here in the Irish Free State.

Now the Minister has this motion before him and here is his opportunity to prove not alone to the farming community but to the remainder of the community that agriculture is a paying proposition, and that it is an avocation in which the persons engaged are able to maintain themselves and their families in decency and comfort. I am aware that it is a very big struggle at the present moment for many farmers in my area to maintain their families even in frugal comfort, and when I say frugal comfort I mean the barest minimum means of living. The men to whom I refer and their families are industrious people; thrifty people when they had something to put by. The day for thrift may not be over but the day when thrift would be of any use to those people is past and gone. Here now is an opportunity presented to the Minister to be able to say to all those people, after a demonstration on these farms worked by agricultural instructors, that they have not been as active as they ought to be, that they do not grow enough wheat, and so on. He has said that to the farmers already without regard to the experience of such farmers as Deputy Holohan. The Minister surely must have regard to the opinions expressed by such men and to the experience of those Deputies in this House who have time after time on the Agricultural Vote in this House explained to him the position of the agricultural industry in this country. I do not profess to be a practical farmer but I am a man of some common sense, and I learned something about farming when I was a boy. Everybody learned that the rotation of crops is a good thing. The Minister and the farmers of the country could learn something from this experiment.

It cannot be objected that there is not enough land in the country on which to establish these State farms. The Minister is himself aware that the Land Commission has several large farms and tracts of land upon which these experiments could be carried out. There is nothing to prevent his carrying them out. Surely if the Minister is so enamoured of his policy and if he feels that it is giving such good returns in the country, if he feels that hard-working, perfectly honest farmers cannot make a living for themselves and their families from working their little farms, it is for him in this manner to show them how they should work them properly. That is one of the functions of the Department—to come to the rescue of the farmers, who, because of obsolete methods or because of want of capital or want of machinery and other things that come into the economy of farming in this country, may not be able to make farming pay. It is for this Department to demonstrate to them how they could improve their farms and get a better living out of them by following the instructions of the Department. It would be also for the Department to demonstrate to them in a practical way —not in the theoretical way that we hear trotted out so often here—how farming should be made a paying proposition in this country. Everybody knows that farming is not a paying proposition in this country. Everybody is perfectly well aware that when the farming community in this country are suffering a loss, and when that cannot be changed, the remainder of the community suffers in proportion. That cannot be denied. The ordinary city or townsman, if he has not got sufficient interest in that great industry, should have, because it is essential that that industry should prosper if the man in the town or city is to prosper also. Therefore, this motion makes a larger and bigger appeal than many Deputies think. Otherwise there would have been a far bigger attendance on the Government Benches, and even on the Opposition Benches.

The Minister has a great opportunity of showing farmers that agriculture can be made pay. He has at his disposal all the requisite plant and machinery. He has experienced, enlightened, educated, technical instructors. Let him put his experts on a farm and prove that it is a paying proposition, and I can assure him we will have very little agitation in this House in future debates on agriculture. I think it is a fair challenge to the Minister. It is useless telling farmers that their industry can be made pay if the Minister and his Department cannot prove to the satisfaction of these farmers that it can be made pay. It is up to him to do the right thing. This is not asking anything unreasonable, and surely the Minister, who is a practical farmer himself, must see eye to eye with me. If he is not prepared to set up several demonstration farms he ought, at least, to set up one or two in the country.

Mr. Belton

The results sought by this motion might be useful if we had not them already. As a practical proposition I can hardly agree with it. Deputy McGovern wisely said that if such demonstration farms were run by the Government, to be of any use there should be at least one in every county. Perhaps better still would it be to have regional farms. There are many parts of different counties with similar kind of land, similar sized farms and a similar farming economy. If the size of the farms and the standard of economy were classified, and if demonstration farms were run to suit local needs, they might fill the bill; but to be of any practical utility you would require one farm in each county. Deputy McGovern suggested that the size of the farm and the type of land should bear a close relation to the average farm in a particular county. He suggested an area of 20 or 30 acres for County Cavan and he wants an instructor. It is news to me that they are Departmental instructors.

Dr. Ryan

They are not.

Mr. Belton

They are instructors under the county committees of agriculture. The county committees control and pay them, and there is a percentage of their salary put up from central funds.

Mr. Brennan

There are other instructors under the Department.

Mr. Belton

But I am talking of agricultural instructors.

Mr. Brennan

Yes, under the Department.

Mr. Belton

They would be inspectors who would wander around to meetings?

Mr. Brennan

Overseers.

Mr. Belton

An overseer is not an instructor. An overseer is an officer who instructs or supervises instructors.

Mr. Brennan

Not in this respect.

Mr. Belton

I was for ten years Chairman of the Dublin County Committee of Agriculture and it is news to me that there are any instructors outside the instructors employed by the county committees and paid by them.

Mr. Brennan

There are; they were originally appointed by the Congested Districts Board and taken over by the Department.

Mr. Belton

They are not the people who are on the spot, at the farmer's elbow.

Mr. Brennan

They are. There is one in my locality.

Mr. Belton

They must be in Congested Districts Board areas with which I am not acquainted.

Mr. Brennan

That is true, they are.

Mr. Belton

Well, I cannot speak about them because I do not know anything about them. I know instructors getting £400 or £500 a year, and does any sane man suggest that a person with that salary should be sent down to supervise a farm of 20 or 30 acres and to ascertain what results? Whether farming on 20 or 30 acres under present economic conditions will pay. There is not a man outside a lunatic asylum but knows it does not pay under present economic conditions.

Mr. Brennan

The Minister says it does.

Mr. Belton

If you want to get at the case the Minister is putting up, that farming is paying, get a farmer who says his farm is paying and check him up. Is there a farmer supporting the Fianna Fáil Party who can say his farming is paying? If there is will he be prepared to prove it by putting up figures? Will you not get at it that way? If they do not come forward, then you have proved your case. I do not know whether Deputy Holohan's speech was entirely in order, but whether it was or not it was a most interesting statement.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair thinks it was the most relevant of all the speeches.

Mr. Belton

The most relevant? That was my opinion, too. It certainly was the most interesting and it hit the nail on the head every time. What you get out of a farm is not so much the £ s. d. at the end of one year. Deputy Holohan said you would want to demonstrate a farm for four or five years. Under present circumstances, you would want to demonstrate a farm for a generation because if you grow wheat four or five years in succession it will take a generation to bring that farm into good heart again. It is not the 26/- you get for a barrel of wheat that you must reckon. How much fertility have you stolen out of the land, and to what extent is it represented by the money income of 26/-? We all remember that in normal times when a farm would be put up for sale there was one thing prospective purchasers looked for and sellers never omitted to insert in boosting the farm—that it had been well-farmed and was in good heart. That phrase of being in good heart is understood by every man in this House who knows anything about land, and the farming that Deputy Holohan visualised was farming that would keep the land in good heart; in other words, that when you had finished a rotation of four, five or six years the land was better than you found it.

I do not think there is any need for demonstration farms. I submit, while this discussion is useful, that if the Minister was willing to demonstrate as asked for in this motion it would give no practical results. It would be better if the Minister would concede this. I do not know if the county committees have the power to run demonstration farms. They may have, but I never heard it discussed, or tried out. I suppose the way the Minister would demonstrate, if that principle was adopted by him and his Department, would be to administer those demonstration farms through county committees. How many county committees in the Free State would be prepared to take on that responsibility? If the Minister would leave it open to the county committees to take on these demonstrations, he would meet the claim made, and throw the responsibility on the people themselves. Otherwise I do not think it is practical. The farmer has a lot of latent knowledge— knowledge which he does not know he has himself—it has grown up with him. He knows the land, and he knows what each field can produce. Nobody knows the land better than the man working it and his neighbour who has grown up there. Take a stranger who comes in, qualified in a scientific way as an instructor in agriculture. You cannot expect him to walk into a farm and work it as well as the hard-headed farmer who has grown up on it, and fought for years to make a living on that land.

Deputy McGovern was, I think, a bit hard upon Government institutions such as Glasnevin and Ballyhaise and the like. I do not think it was ever the intention that these should be paying concerns. I do not know how the Glasnevin Model Farm is working recently, but I know that three or four years ago they were losing anything from £4,000 in a year. But that farm is being run not to make money but to gain knowledge. I know the farm in Glasnevin put produce on the Dublin market, and we, farmers in County Dublin, objected, and rightly so, because it was a subsidised farm. We held that it was a self-contained institution and should not sell produce on the Dublin market in competition with us, who had to pay our way and got no subsidy from anyone. I would be sorry to see a farm like that in Glasnevin run on any lines except educational lines. I appeal to those Deputies who have spoken upon this motion to consider it very carefully before they press it too far. If we are looking to get information through a model farm it cannot be made to pay in a way that an ordinary farm should. Do we not know that if we got £20,000 as a present to take up a farm of this size, and show a profit at the end of a year, even with that bribe, we could not do it? How then could the Minister do it? Such a farm does not produce for our greatest market; it has no live stock. It is immaterial whether you sell that produce here in the home market, or whether you sell it in an external market. The price you get for agricultural produce is regularised and standardised by the price you get for live stock. No farm economy can give economic results unless the selling price of live stock reaches such a level as to leave a margin of profit on the whole farm economy. Now, while live stock has to carry such a tax as it has had to carry for some years, it means a tax on the market for agriculture. That tax is something that has to be taken out of the general pool of money received for agricultural produce. It has to be taken out, and, as far as this country is concerned, not only does it have to bear the direct loss of that money being taken out of the agricultural purse, but it has to bear the economic loss sustained by the whole Irish community in losing that money which is taken out of circulation, and the business that money, if in circulation, would do. In all these circumstances I cannot see how demonstration farms would be of any use. They would be still-born. No man could take up such a farm and say: "I will make it pay."

If Deputy Holohan had 100 acres he would advocate, and rightly so, mixed farming, for no other farming will maintain and fertilise the land. Let us take an arable farm where you grow wheat. I know farmers with a considerable amount of wheat down for the coming year. On some of these farms this is the fourth year of wheat in succession. If an analysis of that soil was taken four years ago, and again when that crop will be harvested next year, I think every farmer here will agree that there would be no comparison between the commercial value of that land four years ago and what it will be next October. I agree it will take generations to get that land back again to its former condition. The Minister will know from local gossip, if he goes around the country, that that is so. I know tracts of land in parts of Roscommon and Galway, and I was informed by local people that it was good fattening land 40 years ago. It has not been robbed to the extent that wheat would rob it, but it has been robbed in this way, that it has raised young stock and fattened none, with the result that that land has ceased to be fattening land to-day. Everybody in the scientific agricultural world—to which I do not belong but which I touch now and again—will tell you that one of the secrets of the fertility of County Meath is that it has for ages been a finishing county, and that it has not been robbed of the bone ash and other things that are used up by growing cattle. It has retained its fertility, but the raising of store cattle will take the fertility out of the land. The same applies to growing crops on land without the proper scientific rotation. Everybody who knows anything about land knows that all crops take something out of land, but they also give something back, and by a scientific rotation and a dovetailing of one crop into another what is taken out by one is given back by another. There will, of course, be a wastage in the aggregate, and there is the place where scientific manuring comes in.

There is one aspect of farming which has particular reference to the conditions now being produced in farming economy and, quite apart from present conditions, it is something which our Department of Agriculture should have developed ten years ago at least. I am not blaming the Minister for it, but I would direct his attention to its importance, and also to the fact that it is being done in other countries. It has particular application to the condition in which agriculture, and the land particularly, finds itself to-day. In other countries, when a farmer is about to break up a field all he has to do is telephone to the Department of Agriculture or drop a postcard to one of their instructors, and the instructor will call on him. He can go over that field and tell the farmer what manure would be best to apply to that land for the particular crop which he contemplates growing on it.

That is done in other countries. I do not think it has ever been thought of by the Department of Agriculture here. I remember mentioning it once to an official of the Department, a friend of mine whom I met one Sunday. We went out for a walk, and I pointed out to him a field of about 30 acres which I was breaking, and I told him that I thought the Department of Agriculture should do what I have just described. He said: "It would be very desirable, but I am afraid you are very far away from it." It was only about a week or a fortnight afterwards that representatives of a Franco-Belgian fertilising company called on me to look for an order. I showed them a field where I had a certain crop —it was a market garden crop—and asked them could they tell me what would be the best manure for it. I asked them to help me to a knowledge of the manures that were used by the market gardeners around Paris. They took away some of the soil and analysed it. They sent me a copy of the analysis, and also a copy of the analysis of the manure which they proposed to sell me for that particular crop. I used the manure, and it had good results. I did not check up on them as to whether their analysis of the soil was correct, or whether the analysis of the manure was correct, or whether it was the best possible manure to use.

I give that instance in order to illustrate the idea. The idea is a perfect one if everything is carried out properly, and if there is a checking up on it. The Department should take up that line of investigation and scientific research. If it did, I do not think any Minister for Agriculture would dare to get up in this House or outside it and advocate or be responsible for an agricultural economy which would rob the fertility of the land year by year, even though a farmer who takes a short-sighted view of the matter would say: "Well, I made only £100 on that piece of land last year; by growing wheat or something else for three or four years in succession I can make a couple of hundred pounds." The farmer would say that was better farming, but was it, when you analyse the condition of the land as well as the condition of the farmer's profit? That farmer might go on in that way for a few years, and then he would find that he was able to grow nothing.

If that happened even in the case of a hundred, two hundred or a thousand farmers, it would cause a serious problem and be quite a serious matter for the Government. It would be something similar to the fluke epidemic we had a few years ago. But if the whole nation adopts that method, and the fertility of the land is destroyed, what will be the position of agriculture? Everybody admits that agriculture is the pillar of our nation. If the fertility of the land is destroyed, where does agriculture come in? Are you not up against privation and want, perhaps famine? With people who spend their time working on a farm a money return is a big consideration, but the Minister for Agriculture and his Department should attach at least as much, if not more importance, to maintaining and increasing the fertility of the soil in this country. It is their job, and they alone can look after it. Those of us who are on the land are not there through natural love and affection for the land. We are there to make the most we can out of our time, and it would be pardonable in us to rob the soil in order to make money, but it is not pardonable in the case of the Minister for Agriculture, who is the trustee of the land of this country for the nation. It should be his major concern to see that the fertility of the land is not only maintained but improved. That was the strongest reason in favour of the growing of beet in this country. In Germany, the value of land went up in the areas where beet had been cultivated for years, not because of the money return that could be got out of the land there, but because of the improved condition of the land itself.

We all know that in no country in the world has the production of sugar from beet been made an economic proposition, nor will it be made an economic proposition in any country until we get a sugar content of about 25 per cent. I am not speaking for or against the production of sugar beet. I am speaking on the necessity of maintaining the fertility of the soil. If the Department is going in the direction of scientific manuring by an analysis of the soil, filling into the soil the fertilising ingredients that are absent from it—if they have been doing any research in that direction, it must have been limited. If they started on it at all it must have been in very recent times, but it would be the greatest check on the robbery of the soil that is now going on and that is actually boosted here in this House. Everybody here connected with farming will admit that money has been made out of certain things on a farm. A couple of years ago money was made out of tobacco, money for nothing. But at whose expense? The expense of the Exchequer. The Exchequer could not afford it. The fertilisation of the soil and the robbery of the soil are operations that cannot be seen, but nevertheless they go on. Comparatively speaking, there is money in wheat at the present time, but at what price? The robbery of the fertility of the soil. I think nobody over there will get up and say that the farmer who produces 20 barrels of wheat to the Irish acre, bushelling 60 lbs., and who gets 26/- or 27/- per barrel, is not paid, but what does that take out of the soil?

Mr. O'Donovan

The poor man has to pay for it.

Mr. Belton

We are entitled to ask the poor man to pay for bread made from wheat grown in this country. On that question I differ with my friends over here, but the Minister should not forget that there is also a question of taking the fertility out of the soil. I should like to know how much farmyard manure would be required to restore the fertility of an acre of average land on which wheat had been grown. We cannot, unfortunately, keep cattle for the sake of their manure. That would be very dear manure. We can only keep cattle if they show a margin of profit. I wonder is it a paying proposition to keep bullocks for three years and sell them then at £10 per head, no matter how valuable their manure is? Just think of what we are up against. The proposer of the motion, and I am sure the seconder, would be the two first Deputies in the House to sit back and say: "Well, the Minister can go on with the demonstration farms, but we know the result before he starts." They are farmers themselves, but of course this is only a way of putting it up to the Minister. I do not think it is necessary to waste a year or two on these demonstration farms. Will the Minister produce in this House an analysis of the soil before and after the growing of wheat, signed by a reputable soil analyst, showing the condition of the soil before and after the growing of that wheat for one, two and three years? If that analyst proves that there has been no wastage or robbery of the soil, then our case falls; but I submit that no analyst can produce such a certificate.

In conclusion, I must say that I do not see that the setting up of these demonstration farms in the present circumstances will do any good. If times were normal and we wanted to use instructors to the best advantage it might be a good idea to have competitions and to make selections from those competitions the following year, to take one or two of the best in a county or district—you might have three or four in a county—and offer premiums for running farms on the lines suggested in the motion. I do not think that any Minister, or even a county committee of agriculture, could run a demonstration farm that would be of any use. Speaking for myself, if I were a Minister or if I were a county instructor, and I were given this job, I would not put the work into it that I would put into my own farm, nor would any man in Ireland. It would not be giving the farm a fair chance.

Mr. McGovern

You would if you got a share of the profits.

Mr. Belton

If we have an instructor, he must be an instructor. He should not have an interest in the profits of the farm if we were paying him as an instructor during that time.

Mr. McGovern

But he would be giving practical instruction.

Mr. Belton

You cannot have a man a farmer and a public servant at the one time. Though I acted in both capacities simultaneously at one time, it was not known that I did it.

Mr. Smith

Whom did you serve best?

Mr. Belton

I know what I gave most attention to and it paid me best in the long run. However, I think I have said sufficient on the motion.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

When I first saw this motion on the Order Paper—I think it must be six or seven months ago—I thought it was a joke. I did not think that there were any Deputies seriously behind it, but it does appear that Deputy McGovern is seriously behind it as he made a speech lasting an hour and a half on it. He did not, I will admit, supply any strong reasons as to why the motion should be adopted, but he at least spoke as if he were in earnest about the motion. All I can say is that I under-estimated the folly of some Deputies when I thought they were putting down this motion as a joke. No Deputy could be in favour of the motion if he had any regard for the work that the agricultural instructor is doing. If there are men who are prejudiced against the work of instructors and against the work the county committees are carrying out, men who, perhaps, are more inclined to take an interest in politics than in agriculture in their own counties, I know Deputies of that kind will vote for the motion. No Deputy who has a real interest in agriculture in his county, and who knows the value of the advice that these county instructors give from time to time, would consider a motion like this.

It is quite all right, of course, to take the opportunity of making the usual economic war speech. Motions are put down from time to time to give Deputies that opportunity, but they ought not to play politics so far as to forget whatever advantages there are from having county instructors in their own counties. There are young farmers, progressive farmers, still left in the country who are not too interested in politics but who are interested in agriculture, and are prepared to take advantage of the instruction that these instructors give. Deputies ought not to play politics to the extent of trying to deprive these young men of that instruction.

Mr. Holohan

Does the Minister think that those of us who spoke on this motion are more interested in politics than we are in our own business?

Dr. Ryan

I am quite sure that you are.

Mr. Holohan

That is a very wrong statement to make and the Minister should not have made it.

Dr. Ryan

I think that anyone who reads the speeches that have been made on this motion will come to the conclusion that I reached. The Deputies' speeches were not made on the motion at all, but on the economic war.

Mr. Holohan

Will the Minister leave it to the farmers of the country to decide?

Dr. Ryan

We left it to them on three occasions to decide, and they gave the decision that we wanted. I want to impress this on Deputies, that while they may be out of touch with the honest farmers of the country, still we have honest farmers who want to pay their way and are doing so. We have farmers who want to benefit by the instruction that these agricultural instructors are giving them. I put it to the Deputies sitting up there: "Let these honest farmers continue to have the instruction that they have been getting, let them continue their farming and do not interfere with them any more."

Mr. Holohan

In my opinion these instructors are at the present moment giving very useful information to farmers, and, therefore, I do not think the Minister should have made the statement that he has just made.

Dr. Ryan

I now propose to deal with the motion. None of the previous speakers did that. In the first place, I want to point out that these agricultural instructors are not under the Department at all. One would imagine that the Deputies who put the motion would, at least, be interested to know that the agricultural instructors are under the control of the county committees and not of the Department. But, of course, the Deputies who have spoken do not take enough interest in the matter to understand that. They are only interested in the usual talk about the economic war. They simply put down a motion like this to get the opportunity of talking about the economic war. Deputy McGovern has suggested that several farms should be taken over in each county and run by the agricultural instructors. In most counties there is only the one agricultural instructor. The Deputy, perhaps, does not know that. He does not take sufficient interest in this matter to know that much.

Deputies who do know something about farming will admit that the management of one farm is nearly a full time job for any man. You might, possibly, put an instructor to manage two farms, but that is about the most he could do. The idea of an instructor in each county taking over several farms and running them is ridiculous, and, again, shows that the Deputy who put down the motion gave no thought whatever to what is practicable. All that he is interested in is propaganda. If the Deputy was genuine in putting down this motion he might, possibly, have asked that two farms in each county should be taken over under this system. If we did that, what would be the result? It would be this: that the instructor would have to confine all his attention practically to the running of these farms. The County Cavan is a fairly big county. Suppose two farms were taken over, they would have to be located in different districts. You cannot move farms about. Therefore, it is only the people living in the immediate neighbourhood of these farms who would derive any advantage from the county instructor's work. That reminds me that there is an agricultural college in the County Cavan, and I am just wondering whether Deputy McGovern was ever there.

Mr. McGovern

Certainly.

Mr. Smith

When?

Mr. O'Leary

Do they make that farm pay?

Dr. Ryan

No. Teachers have to be employed there and, of course, they could not make it pay. I wonder does Deputy McGovern go to Ballyhaise farm once every quarter to see what is going on there. I know very well that he does not. Therefore, he is not serious about this motion, which he has simply put down for propaganda purposes. He knows very well that the farmers all over the County Cavan would not go to see the model farms that he asks us to have set up. The Deputy pretends to be interested in agriculture, but he does not go to Ballyhaise farm to see how it is being run. That is a farm that is being run on experimental lines.

Mr. Holohan

Does it pay?

Dr. Ryan

No.

Mr. Holohan

It would be a lot of good then for the ordinary farmer to go there.

Dr. Ryan

They are doing experiments there, and it would be useful to any farmer to see them and study them. If Deputy McGovern was more interested in farming than he is in politics he would visit Ballyhaise farm occasionally and try to learn something. Deputy Holohan has been paid the compliment of being a good, experienced farmer. I am sure he is, but Deputy Holohan will admit that there is no farmer in this country so experienced that he could not learn a little more.

Mr. Holohan

Exactly.

Dr. Ryan

We could all learn a little more, even Deputy McGovern, and I would advise him to go to Ballyhaise farm occasionally and try to get a little knowledge on farming—not, mind you, on propaganda, but on farming.

Mr. Fagan

Will the Minister show us how to make a little money out of farming.

Dr. Ryan

I will come to that later but I may not reach it to-day. I say again that it would be very unfair to the honest, hard-working farmers in the County Cavan, who are not interested in Deputy McGovern's propaganda, to take the county instructor away from them and put him into one farm in order to carry on some work that Deputy McGovern wants done.

Mr. O'Leary

On a point of explanation. The Minister has associated us with politics on this question. I would ask him to consult some of his own followers about this. It is not long since I asked a follower of his if he was better off now than he was two years ago and he said that he was not.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a point of explanation.

Dr. Ryan

It was because the farmers found in 1932 that they were so badly off under Cumann na nGaedheal that they came over to us. Is not that the reason why they turned?

Mr. Fagan

They backed two wrong horses.

Dr. Ryan

At any rate, they do not intend to go back to the first horse again. They made that fairly clear at the elections. Suppose we did what the motion asks, I am quite sure that no matter how good the results were— even if you were able to show that the farms were paying—you could not convince either Deputy McGovern or Deputy O'Leary of that. If the results showed that the farms were paying they would tell you that there was some trickery in it. The fact is that I do not think they want to be convinced. I do not think it would be worth while departing from our present system of agricultural instruction in order to embark on an experiment such as has been suggested. Supposing that we did agree to what is being asked, it might be necessary to change the law. I am not going to deal with that, because we could change the law if we thought there was anything in this. What I want to put before the House is this, that if we were to do what is proposed here it would mean depriving every county in the Free State of the benefit of the agricultural classes held during the winter months and of the instruction given by means of experiments on individual farms and plots. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned to Wednesday, 4th December.

The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. until Wednesday, 4th December, at 3 p.m.