This is the most important Vote the House has to consider, but Deputies got extremely short notice as to the Government's intention to take this Vote the first day the House assembled after the Easter recess. I think it shows very scant courtesy for Deputies, and they have no grounds for feeling satisfied as to the manner in which they have been treated. At the present time the whole nation, even those people who are in the habit of looking down upon, and treating with contempt, the agricultural community are looking anxiously to that community to produce sufficient food to meet the requirements of man and beast from now until the end of the war.
It may appear to some that the Minister charged with the responsibility of harnessing the people to that important and vital work is confronted with a very formidable task, but when one examines the problem in the aggregate it should not present any insuperable difficulty, assuming that our resources are effectively and efficiently organised. On this question of providing a highly efficient organisation to ensure that our resources are fully tapped and developed during this period of emergency, when we have to rely almost 100 per cent. on our own resources, I have no hesitation in saying that, in my opinion, the Minister has lamentably failed to provide that organised effort which is so essential if we are to achieve satisfactory results. Our biggest concern in that respect at the moment is the production of essential cereals to substitute for the normal importation of wheat, maize, and other feeding stuffs. Looking back over the results of the past two years, and comparing those results with what has been achieved in the neighbouring country and in Northern Ireland, one is forced to the conclusion that the results which we anticipated here were not achieved. We fell considerably behind the results that were anticipated, while our neighbours succeeded. At the present time I am asking myself whether that is going to be repeated in the coming year. As I said, to my mind this is a problem which should not present any insuperable difficulty. We have a population of less than 3,000,000, living in a country where there are 12,000,000 acres of arable land, some of which ranks amongst the finest arable land in the world, and it will not redound to the credit of our generation if we fail to produce the essential food for that small population during this period of crisis. No one can question the ability and capacity of our people to do that. If we fail, we will fail not because of the incapacity of our people to do the job, but because our people have not been efficiently and effectively organised to do it.
When we compare our methods with the vast organisation built up in England and Northern Ireland to effect the maximum production of food there, we can readily understand why we have not achieved satisfactory results. Only within the last month the British Minister of Agriculture was in a position to boast of the wonderful achievement there. They have now under cultivation in England 6,000,000 acres of land over and above what was under cultivation prewar. It was pointed out by the British Minister that, in his opinion, they have now under cultivation the maximum amount of land that it is possible to have under cultivation there, and that in future years if more food is to be produced it can only be produced by more efficient methods of agriculture. In achieving those results they had set up organisations in each county, known as war agricultural committees. Those committees are comprised of practical farmers in each county. They dealt with every difficulty and every aspect appertaining to the production of food, including credit, equipment, seeds, and all the other details to which it was necessary to give close attention if successful results were to be hoped for. Our efforts were altogether on a different scale. The Taoiseach went down to Ennis and said that they had warned the people of the danger, and the Government could not be blamed. Does the Taoiseach really think that his responsibility as head of the Government ended when the people were warned that we must produce a certain amount of food in this country, or else go hungry? The Taoiseach and the Minister must realise that if we are to get efficient food production, and if we are to expect the people to cultivate 25 per cent. of their land, some of them who never cultivated to any extent before, they will require a good deal of assistance. Many of them have no equipment whatever, and, no matter how willing they are or what capital they have, they find it impossible to purchase the necessary equipment. Yet, no effort was made by the Minister to provide that equipment.
In reply to a Parliamentary question of mine recently the Minister informed me that the incidence of default was not any greater in the non-tillage districts than in the tillage districts. I am very much inclined to question that. In fact, my own experience does not bear that out at all, because I have got some letters from farmers in the non-tillage areas of my own constituency in North Kildare complaining of the fact that no matter how willing they are to do their necessary quota of tillage they find it impossible to get the equipment for the job. Yet, the attitude of the Department is simply to send down an official who has no sympathy, good, bad or indifferent, with the problems confronting those people. If they are not prepared to do the job by some means or other, that is a matter for themselves; they are brought into court and severely fined. That is not the way to tackle a big problem like this. That is not the way to get results. That is why we have failed during the last two years, and that is why I am afraid we will fail again this year—because there is no organisation whatever to deal with the problem. The Minister, in his statement, gave us very little information on that score. It is a matter that is agitating the minds of many people who appreciate the problem of food production, and who appreciate the dreadful position that our people will be in next year if we fail this year.
The Minister evidently has no practical body or organisation to advise him in that respect. He is relying absolutely on the officials of his Department, many of whom are cloistered in Merrion Street, and are not conversant with practical life in rural Ireland, or with the problems and handicaps that our agricultural community have to face at the present time if we are to get the production that is necessary. We have, under sub-head M (8), an item of £150. which shows a reduction of £50 since last year, for an Agricultural Production Consultative Council. I want to ask the Minister what purpose that Agricultural Consultative Council serves? When has it met? How many times has it met? Is it meeting constantly at the present time, when it is so essential that the Minister should tap all sources of information concerning the problems of production? I think this particular council is a sham, and nothing else. It ought to be a really live, effective and useful body, or else it ought to be cleared out of the Book of Estimates altogether. It does not appear to me to be a useful body. As the amount this year has been reduced by £50, I interpret that as meaning that the Minister intends to summon that body less even than he did last year, and last year I do not believe it met more than three or four times. On the question of equipment, I do not want to put labour into the category of equipment, but Deputy Murphy did refer to the labour problem, and to the fact that labour is leaving the country because conditions are more attractive on the other side. It is a very big problem. I know that many skilled workers—tractor drivers and men skilled in the operation of all tractor machinery and implements—have left the country. I have letters from big farmers who say, in one case, that they have lost two and, in another case, three tractor drivers and who are alarmed about the situation in which men in a constant job, and in what appeared to me to be a good job, found a way of getting around any obstacles there are to prevent men who are employed from leaving the country. We have heard a good deal about the necessity of avoiding waste, and we all recognise that there is a very great necessity for the taking of every precaution to ensure that wastage does not occur. One source of wastage, to my mind, is to be found in the threshing mills. There are many threshing mills in the country, and although the cost of threshing operations at present is very high, many of these mills are in very poor condition, and it would be very useful if, between now and harvest time, the Minister had an inspection made of these mills to ensure that they are in a condition to operate efficiently and will not leave a considerable amount of grain in the straw to be lost.
There is also the point I raised last night that rabbits have not been purchased for the last three weeks. There, again, is a very considerable source of loss. I am sure the Minister appreciates the enormous damage done, particularly in tillage districts, by vermin of that sort. Some sort of appeal might be made to the agricultural community to kill vermin around the farmyard because much destruction is done to grain in the stack and in the barn by vermin such as rats and mice. The Minister gave us a good deal of information about kerosene for tractors, and he told the House that he got fewer complaints this year than last year as to the distribution of kerosene. I think that is quite correct. My experience is that the distribution is more efficient this year and that Deputies are getting fewer complaints, and that is all to the good.
On the question of binder twine, this is a matter of very grave concern to the agricultural community. Fortunately it appears that we have enough twine for the coming harvest, but if present conditions continue until next harvest 12 months, we shall be in a very bad position, so far as we can see. Our present supplies will be exhausted in the coming harvest. An effort is being made to get a certain acreage of flax grown in County Carlow for the purpose of producing fibre for binder twine, but that will produce only a very small percentage of the amount required. I do not expect that more than 450 to 500 acres of flax will be grown and that will produce approximately 200 tons of fibre which is a very small quantity, in view of the fact that 2,000 tons of twine are required for harvesting operations. The Government, I think, showed a lack of vision and foresight in this respect. I am aware that 1,000 tons of twine could have been secured after last harvest. It was a question of securing shipping space and no shipping space would be granted for the shipping of that twine which could have been secured in America from the International Harvester Company. Later, when shipping space could be secured, the twine could not be obtained. When the Japanese took over the East Indies, the source of the supply of raw material was cut away. Sisal comes from the East Indies and our friends on the other side of the Atlantic were reluctant to release any quantity of twine in face of that situation.
I suggest to the Minister who is responsible for the production of food that any shipping space available should be earmarked, firstly, for essential food and then for any raw material necessary for food production. This is a very essential raw material for the production of food. It might be suggested that we could harvest without binder twine, but any practical farmer must admit that under present conditions and in view of the fact that numbers of young men have gone from rural Ireland, harvesting without modern machinery is an impossibility. We certainly would not get the grain tied by hand, and if we were to cut it down like a hay crop and rake it, it would mean an enormous loss in grain. Although it does mean looking forward a year and a half, it is a matter that deserves very special attention, and whatever chance there is of securing any raw material ought to be availed of. I do not want to stress the point unduly—it may be a matter for the Department of Supplies—but the Minister did refer to binder twine and it ought to be his concern. He ought to keep continually impressing on the Department of Supplies that if any odd lots of raw material for binder twine, or even manufactured twine, are available between now and next harvest 12 months, they ought to be secured.
I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the fact, but I should like to inform him that after last harvest it was possible to secure a shipment of binders. Binders to the number of 400 could have been got from the International Harvester Company, but it was not then possible to secure shipping space. It might appear to some people that a large amount of shipping space would be required for 400 binders, but these binders are shipped in cases and assembled here, and for that reason the amount of space required would not be very great. Those 400 binders were afterwards reduced to 100, but shipping space could not be provided and when there was an offer of shipping space later, it was not possible to secure the binders. Such a situation appears to me to indicate lack of foresight on the part of any Minister who let such an opportunity slip because we certainly cannot save a harvest here without the necessary machinery and equipment and where an opportunity like that presented itself, it should have been availed of, no matter how inconvenient it might have been in other ways.
I understand that no spare parts for binders have arrived this year as yet, and that whatever spares we have are spares which were left over from last year. That is a very serious situation, because if a machine breaks down for want of a cog-wheel, or because of a broken needle, it will lead to a very serious position for the country. A considerable amount of spare parts is used each year. These, certainly, will not involve a lot of shipping space, and some effort ought to be made immediately to secure these essential spare-parts for the coming harvest.
Deputy Murphy referred to the guaranteed price of 50/-. It is to be regretted that the 50/- was not announced earlier. The Minister argued that the 41/- and the 45/- more than met the increase in the cost of production at the time. I do not think that the Minister would even attempt to justify that contention, because when one compares the price of implements and manures, or the absence of manures—the percentage increase in those, commodities—with the price of farm produce, then one can appreciate the very substantial increase in the cost of production.
I suggest that there is a necessity for having some sort of costing machinery in operation in the Department. There is a lot of talk about the decay of agriculture, and about people flying from the land. I believe a costing section would give valuable information in connection with the agricultural industry. It is very easy for the Minister to say that, having regard to the cost of other commodities, the 41/- and the 45/- were reasonable prices in the circumstances. That does not satisfy me, nor does it satisfy many other people who have a practical experience of agricultural production. There should be a costing section which could indicate whether certain charges put on agriculture through local government and other channels can be borne by the agricultural community.
The present system of taking a census of production is most unsatisfactory. When last year the figure of 491,000 acres was given as the area of land under wheat, many farmer Deputies questioned it, and we were scoffed at by the Minister for Supplies, who felt certain that the figure was accurate. As regards the figure set out in the Irish Trade Journal, 460,000 acres, I am very much inclined to question its accuracy. The system of taking the census is wrong. A Gárda inquires from one farmer what the position is in regard to half a dozen adjoining farmers. If we are to place any reliance on figures collected in that way, we must have more accurate information. I suggest that the Gárda should take an ordnance sheet on his rounds and ask farmers to point out what fields they have under cultivation and what type of grain or root crop has been sown. The Gárda could then ascertain from the ordnance sheet the actual acreage sown and there would be no difficulty in having a check up, because the Gárda could walk around the place and see if the farmer's information was borne out by the actual amount of tillage on the farm. The method of taking a census of production last year did not give any definite information and some effort should be made to secure more accurate information.
If the Government's intention to guarantee 50/- had been announced earlier it would have meant a very considerable increase in the acreage under wheat. There was less winter wheat sown this year than last year. A good deal of land remained untouched until late in the year, and during the last month we had very wet weather, which left the land unfit for cultivation—heavy retentive land which is very wet even still. Many farmers may be obliged to put in some other cereals where they might have put in wheat.
It is only right to point out that the agricultural community value the fertility of the land and they have a conservative policy with regard to that fertility. They are reluctant to draw on that fertility unless in a time of grave emergency and when it is definitely in the national interest, because it is a great capital asset. Individual farmers wish to preserve the fertility of their land and hand it down to their posterity in good shape, and if they are obliged to use it to the extent now demanded, then they are entitled to receive fair compensation. That is the most effective answer that can be made to any criticism in regard to the farmers' demands at the present time.
If certain sections of the community are asked to draw on their most valuable assets, they are entitled to fair compensation for so doing. It is only fair that the farmers should be assured a guaranteed price for at least four years. That would encourage them to adopt a definite system of rotation over that period. It would give them an opportunity of putting in some root crop and dressing the land with farmyard manure, thus restoring its fertility to some extent. If they were assured of that type of guarantee, it would be an inducement to people who would otherwise be reluctant to break up valuable grass land that is capable of producing excellent stock. As well as that there should be an assurance that it is the intention of the Government to help farmers to restore the fertility of the soil, which unquestionably will be impaired during this emergency.
In this matter of food production the greatest handicap is the lack of artificial manures. Unfortunately, at the commencement of the war, the attitude of the Government was represented by leaving on the tariff on imported artificial manures. As has happened with many other essential commodities, the tariff was lifted when it was too late, when it was not possible to secure supplies. The only manure the farmers have to rely on is a new compound manure composed of 20 per cent. of phosphates, 1 per cent. of nitrogen and 1 per cent. of potash. It is a manure of very doubtful solubility and the price is £10. I am very doubtful whether it is value for anything like that price, even under present conditions, or whether a farmer, in fact, would get a return to the amount of £10 by the application of a manure of that very low grade. Then, we find, under sub-head G (3), that last year we had artificial manures subsidised to the amount of £52,880, whereas this year there is merely a token Vote of £5. I suggest to the Minister that it is very poor encouragement to farmers to take the subsidy on artificial manures away from them this year when the artificial manure does not appear to be worth the money. I think it is a wrong attitude.
The Minister, in reply to a Parliamentary question of mine on this matter, suggested that there was no necessity to pay a subsidy because the manure would be bought in any case. I think that is a very unfair attitude for the Minister to take up on this matter of a subsidy for artificial manures. The Minister must appreciate the enormous handicap this problem of artificial manures must be on our agricultural community, and when we compare our situation in connection with artificial manures with what obtains in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the difficulty becomes even more apparent. The real difficulty from lack of artificial manures obtains in the tillage districts more than in the non-tillage or new tillage districts, because where old grass lands are broken up you have a big reserve of plant food; you have a good deal of humus and there is a good deal of vegetable matter in old grass lands that we can draw on for two or three years. But in the tillage districts, where the fertility is low as a result of intensive tillage, the lack of artificial manures is a very serious matter. The Minister is showing no sympathy whatever to the people in those tillage districts in withdrawing the subsidy.
Again, I take this opportunity of raising the question of supplies of sulphate of ammonia. The Minister has assured us that representations have been made to the British Government about releasing supplies of sulphate of ammonia, but so far those representations have proved a failure. If, in fact, we could get supplies of sulphate of ammonia, it would go a long way to relieve the position, because we have in our soil some reserves of phosphates and potash, but what we lack, and what we really need, is nitrogenous manure. On that question the one thing that strikes me is that every other form of artificial manure for the coming year is to be rationed in England and Northern Ireland. Sulphate of ammonia, however, is uncontrolled because they have ample supplies of it to meet their own requirements—it is a synthetic product, manufactured by the Imperial Chemicals Company—and I am not satisfied that sufficient efforts have been made by our Ministry to secure at least some supplies of sulphate of ammonia. I refer to this matter again because I feel that it is absolutely essential in certain districts if we are to continue production or to make any effort to keep up the yield of the crops. There is going to be a steep fall in yield, particularly in old tillage districts, if we have to carry on without some supply of nitrogenous manure.
We have an increase in the subsidy for lime this year, and I think that is very useful. Deputy Murphy, referring to the use of lime, spoke of it as a fertiliser. I think it is very unwise to refer to it as a fertiliser. It is not a fertiliser, and it would be very unwise to encourage the indiscriminate use of lime. It cannot be used on every type of soil, and its application to an alkaline soil might produce a barren soil for two or three years. Therefore, I think it is very dangerous to refer to it as a fertiliser, and no farmer, unless he is perfectly satisfied that the soil is sour and that it is necessary to apply it to his land, should do so. In fact, he ought not to use lime without an analysis of the soil so as to be sure that there is a lack of lime or alkali in the soil, because it is only on such land that lime can be used effectively or with good results.
Now, I asked the Minister a Parliamentary question to-day about the discrepancy between the price of our fat cattle and the price of British fat cattle. He differed with me about the price of English fat cattle, but I am sure he is aware of the fact that since the 2nd March last a subsidy has been paid to British farmers on fat cattle which would average out at the rate of 6/6 per head over the next 12 months. That subsidy is given to offset the increase in agricultural wages in Great Britain, and on the average it would amount to 6/6 per cwt. Now. the price of fat cattle in England, killing out at 58 per cent., and over, was 76/- per cwt. for the week of April 13. The Minister insists that the price is 70/-, but I am taking that figure from the Farmers' Weekly of April 2nd, 1942, and I have no reason whatever to doubt the accuracy of that information. Accordingly, taking the percentage of 58 per cent., at which many of our cattle would kill out, and taking the present price as arranged to be about 57/- per cwt., while the British price is 76/-, or a difference of 19/- per cwt. for top grade; and taking the 5/- of a reduction in the price of cattle of Irish origin that are two months in England, there is a difference of 14/- per cwt.
In my opinion, some effort should be made to bring our prices into closer alignment with British prices, because if that is not done it is bound to have the effect of forcing all our cattle to be shipped as stores, and that will operate very much against stall-feeding next year. In the grass districts it will mean that cattle will have to be taken off earlier. It may be suggested that it is in our interest to get rid of our cattle earlier, but, taking the long view, I think it is not in the best interests of the country that we should not get an opportunity of finishing some of our cattle here. It undoubtedly takes more from the land to produce young cattle—the bone, muscle and hair and skin—than to finish the cattle. Any rich land that we have here has been made rich because, over a long period of years, it has been only asked to finish cattle, to produce the fat, and that takes less out of the land than merely to produce cattle in the growing stage. Besides that, if we are to have a tillage policy we must encourage winter feeding. This price is certainly bound to operate against winter feeding, of fat stock, as you could not produce fat stock under those price conditions.
In dealing with the question of cattle, I would like to say one word about breeding. Our policy in recent years has been, unfortunately, to use too many black bulls and, while the first cross of Aberdeen Angus produced good results, some of our people are beginning to cross more than once, with very bad results, to my mind. If we are to produce sound basic stock, the shorthorn cannot be beaten. Realising, too, that the people to whom we export our surplus cattle look to this country particularly for young stock to produce their herds of cows, it is very essential that we should stick as far as possible to the shorthorn to produce that type of heifer of good colour, good head and good quality that eventually makes the ideal cow. Therefore, in my opinion, with the exception of poor and mountainous districts—where it may be useful, as some people appear to think that the Aberdeen Angus is a hardier type, though I am inclined to question that, too—it would be a sounder policy for us to stick to the shorthorn and not go in so much for the Aberdeen Angus.
The information the Minister gave the House yesterday about pigs and butter was given in a very complacent manner, and he did not appear to be worried about the situation in the least. He did not advert to any policy with regard to the preservation of those two branches of agriculture so vital and so essential. The Minister informed us there was no export of bacon since 30th September last and that we are drawing on the bacon that was put into cold store over the winter period.