Rather than pay tribute to or support this motion, I rise to pay tribute to the good effect the 1925 Act had on our live stock generally. Very few people can dispute the fact that it was a very wise precaution to do away with scrub bulls generally and make the people realise that, if they were to improve the stock, it would be necessary to improve the standard and the type of bull used. Everyone will agree without hesitation that live stock generally shows an improvement here in recent years. The improvement would be more marked but for the fact that, in the autumn of each year, thousands of the prime heifers are exported—heifers that in shape, appearance and colour are suitable as choice heifers for first class milkers, and which command a very attractive price. Unfortunately, they leave none of their progeny here at all, so that the position is that we generally breed from second rate heifers, as those are the only ones left with us.
I have suggested to the Minister before that a subsidy should be paid to encourage farmers to reserve these heifers, or at least to arrange that they should leave one calf after them before exportation. Surely it could be arranged to pay a subsidy of £2 per head on selected heifers. If there were heifer shows, as there are bull shows and meetings for the licensing of bulls, it should be possible to select suitable heifers for breeding—heifers of good shape and quality and giving every indication of proper milking qualities. A premium of, say, £2, would encourage the farmer to breed from the heifer rather than to export it as a maiden heifer, and would thus leave at least one calf.
I think that in the long run it would be money very well spent in the interests of the live stock of this country. I have suggested it before, and, as far as I can see, it is the only solution. It would be a hardship, and, perhaps, a misfortune, to prevent the export in any particular year; I mean, until a heifer breeds. It might be a real hardship on a man who had only a small amount of stock to compel him to do that, but you could induce him or attract him to do so by putting a premium on prize heifers to breed here for at least one year before export.
It seems to me to be rather silly for Deputies to suggest that where abortion or sterility in cows is present the suspension of the 1925 Act is going to improve matters. For the life of me, speaking as a practical farmer, I cannot see how that would improve the position at all. I know that some of the county committees of agriculture recently have invited some eminent professors from town here to give lectures on this matter: notably Professor Kearney, who is an authority on this particular disease. I, personally, have listened to a most interesting lecture from Professor Kearney on that particular subject, and I suggest that if you want to attack this problem properly in County Cavan you should get Professor Kearney down there to give a lecture on the matter. That would be a better way of going about the business than letting every sort of scrub bull operate in the county. As I said, that is not a solution at all.
I should like to refer again to that matter which I have already mentioned, the necessity for preserving at all costs and keeping here, at least until they breed, those choice heifers that are exported from this country year after year. Very keen prices are offered for them, so keen that our own buyers are unable to compete. I want to emphasise the necessity of preserving that basic stock. I would go even further and say that in my opinion it is a pity that we use so many other breeds. After all, the shorthorns are the basic stock of this country, and we are inclined, I think, to grant too many premiums for the Aberdeen Angus and the Hereford. After all, we must not lose sight of the fact that the Argentine and other countries can provide meat for the British market, but this is the only country in the world that provides the milker for the English people.
Beyond what they produce themselves, they can only buy the cow here, and they are not able in England to rear an animal with the bone and quality that our cows have. The soil to produce bone and muscle is not there; they have not got it, and we are fortunate enough to have it in this country. There is no doubt about it, we are able to produce the very best type of cow that will eventually produce the best milk. I say to the Minister that we should concentrate particularly on producing the best type of milker for that market in which we have a monopoly, and I hold that we are disimproving our livestock by the introduction of too many Aberdeen Anguses, Herefords, and other crosses. I take this opportunity of suggesting to the Minister that the number of Hereford and Aberdeen Angus premiums granted by his Department should be reduced as much as possible. I quite appreciate the advantages of the Aberdeen Angus bulls in mountainous or poor districts where fodder is scarce and it is difficult to carry over the winter, because, as we are told—whether it can be proved or not —they are a hardier breed and easier to get into condition, and they are slower to rear, but, possibly, if an experiment were carried out, it might be found that in the long run the shorthorn would prove just as profitable. Taking the interests of the country as a whole, however, from the livestock point of view, we should concentrate on the shorthorn, the basic stock of the country, particularly as we have a monopoly in supplying the stock that will eventually produce the best milker for the British market. The Argentine and other countries can supply meat to that market and we have to compete with these countries, but we have a monopoly in that market of providing the basic stock for the milkers that will eventually produce the milk they require.
I am glad that Deputy Linehan referred to these patent cures, or supposed cures, that are being pushed on the people all over the country. I do not think the Department can do very much about it beyond what they are doing at present, and that is warning the farmer that they are not cures. I do not think you can prosecute these people, if the farmers are foolish enough to persist in buying these alleged cures. Well, it is their own kettle of fish if they are being robbed for something that has no value at all. It is necessary, however, whenever the Department is publishing such a warning, to put it in as prominent a position as possible in the newspapers, so that the farmers will see it and so that those foolish people will not buy these patent things, which are supposed to be cures, and which we know very well are not cures.
The agents of the companies that sell these supposed cures are very active and persistent, and they have sold them in many districts and to people who ought to know better. As a matter of fact, I know of one particular case where a supposed cure of this type was sold to one of the biggest colleges in this country. It was sold to the management of the college, where they have a big farm attached, and they felt very sore about it and thought that they were badly treated because the Department had not warned them. We all know that it is not the policy of the Department to encourage that kind of thing at all, but in some cases that warning is overlooked and some farmers are not aware that the Department do not approve of these things. Accordingly, when you are warning the farmers about these supposed cures, you should make the warning large enough and its insertion in the papers prominent enough to enable the farmers to see the warning at all events.
