asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will state whether in view of the shortage of potassic manure this season, together with the possibility of a further curtailment of supplies in the future, he will take immediate steps to have the 1941 crop of seaweed harvested for kelp manufacture in April and May next when the weed is at its best, thereby ensuring a sufficient quantity of this valuable product for the 1942 season.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Manufacture of Kelp.
Previous experience of the cost of harvesting seaweed and converting it into kelp for the manufacture of iodine showed that the by-product, kelp potash, could be made available at an economic price for manurial purposes. It is understood, however, that a remunerative market is not at present available for iodine and, accordingly, that if the unextracted kelp is used for manurial purposes, the entire cost would have to be borne by the farmer.
Having regard to the comparatively low potash content of ground kelp, it is not considered that farmers would be justified in paying for this product a price commensurate with the cost involved in gathering the seaweed and in the subsequent preparation of the kelp. Furthermore, it is considered that there will be an adequate demand for seaweed for direct application to the land within reasonable distance of our coasts and also for all the dried seaweed which is likely to be produced during the coining season. Not only is the potash made available when the seaweed is used in this way, but the valuable organic matter, including nitrogenous compounds, which is lost in the manufacture of kelp is also retained.
Surely the Minister realises that without potash manures for beet, potatoes, wheat, or any other crops it will be practically impossible to grow them in the course of a year or two; that we are facing a situation in which we may not have any potash manures coming in for years; and that we are also facing a period of unemployment? Along the seaboard where this kelp could be manufactured, even if seaweed is carried away for manurial purposes, there are thousands of tons still which could be used for the manufacture of kelp which would help us to produce the crops of beet and wheat required. No matter what the cost is, it should be undertaken.
It is too dear.
Will the Minister consider a scheme of desiccation of seaweed for the purpose of transport inland if its conversion into kelp is considered undesirable, bearing in mind the fact referred to by Deputy O'Donovan that it may be years before we can get supplies of potash manures again? Although it is true that we might be able to get root crops for a year or two years out of the accumulated potash reserves in the soil, I think the Minister will agree that after that it will be vital to provide some artificial potash. Bearing that in mind, surely this matter of seaweed should be further looked into.
It is being looked into and will be further looked into. I think the Deputy will realise that, if it is possible to grow a root crop for this year without potash, it will be possible for seven or eight years to come, because very few farmers in this country will have so much tillage that they will have to go over the same land for seven or eight years.
Surely the Minister does not imagine that if I grow a potato crop on an acre of land this year I will leave it fallow for seven years afterwards?
You do not leave it fallow. You put other crops in, and then let it go back to grass again.
I will grow a rotation of crops. But, if it is five years under tillage, surely in the last three years of that period it is going to be materially reduced in productivity if I exhaust the potash content of the land in the first two years and take no steps to restore it in the subsequent three years?
Potash is not necessary for cereal crops?
Not necessary at all?
Not essential.
Does the Minister suggest that continued tillage without adequate manures will increase its fertility?
No, I think the Deputy is a long way from what I said.
Would the Minister not consider a scheme whereby seaweed would be saved, even if it is not economic? We are doing a lot of things now that normally would not be considered economic. What about the number of people who are on unemployment assistance and home assistance? Would it not be better for them to be gathering seaweed and selling it by auction to those who will buy it, even in its raw state? Every bit of it will be bought.
If much of the liquid manure that is wasted on farms throughout the country was conserved, would it not be of more advantage and more economic than seaweed?
Is the Minister aware that during the last war seaweed was gathered along the seaboard and burned for the manufacture of kelp?
There was a good price for iodine then.
You cannot produce flax without potash; you cannot grow potatoes or any other crop without potash. If, as Deputy Dillon stated, we are faced with a situation that for the next four or five years we will be without potash, we can produce no crop.