During the seven-year period before a certain law was passed in England—1925-31—there was an average export of cattle from this country of 730,000. It is interesting to analyse the composition of that export of 730,000 and compare it with the position at the present time. At that time, we were exporting on the average 290,000 fat cattle, 390,000 store cattle and 55,000 dairy cattle. In the next seven years—I hope to point out later the significance of these three seven-year periods—1932-38, the average export went down to 650,000, composed of 170,000 fats, 430,000 stores and 52,000 dairy cattle. The stores and dairy cattle maintained the same level as before. The next period of seven years—1939-45—gave an average export of 535,000. Again, there was about the same number of dairy cattle, 55,000; practically the same number of stores, 400,000, but fats were down to 80,000. In respect of the last seven years, I want to add a certain figure. Up to the last seven years, our export of dressed beef or canned beef was insignificant but, during the last seven years, it became a very big item. It is estimated—I think fairly accurately —that the average number of cattle going into cans and dressed meat for export was 97,000 per year. For those seven years, that would bring the average total up to 632,000. If we take the more recent three years, 1943-45, included in the last seven-year period, we have an average as low as 466,000. Again, the stores remained at 407,000, dairy cattle 43,500 and fats 15,000. We have the history there of gradual and continuous decline in the export of fat cattle. That is the whole story of the export of cattle from this country for the past 21 years.
During 20 years, the number of cows here remained the same—1,200,000. It has varied very little up or down during that period. We may, therefore, conclude that we had the same number of calves born in the country and we must further conclude that the big decrease in the exports was due, to a great extent, to the fact that we did not rear the calves in these recent five or six years because young stores were a poor price. That discouraged farmers from rearing calves. Stores were a poor price because farmers were over-stocked with older cattle they could not dispose of in a remunerative way.
We must, of course, take some account of the increase in the consumption of beef at home because there had been some increase during all that time. As I have said, the big and most significant fact in the whole picture is the decline in the export of fat cattle. Undoubtedly, that had its origin in the provisions of the Cattle Industry Act, passed by the British Parliament in 1934, under which payment of subsidy was made in respect of home-bred beef in Great Britain and in respect of animals which were imported for further feeding in Great Britain. The British farmer got a good subsidy on cattle reared in Great Britain and a fairly good subsidy on cattle brought in for further feeding but there was no subsidy in respect of the cattle which went over for slaughter from this side. Up to 1939— to the end of the second period I mentioned—the subsidy was 5/- per live cwt. on cattle brought in for further feeding, equal to 9/4 dead weight. From that period, there was a distinct reduction in the number of fat cattle going in and there was a distinct inducement to exporters here to send out good store cattle for further feeding. By 1939, the number of fat cattle exported had declined by 100,000 per annum as from 1931. There was some improvement in the year 1941, but that was due entirely to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease when we were sending nothing but fat cattle for immediate slaughter to Great Britain. We ought to ignore that year in a way in making comparisons of the number of fat cattle exported.
Again, when the Minister for Food assumed control in Great Britain in 1940, the production of cattle in Britain was further encouraged. The Minister for Food gave those who reared cattle in Britain and those who brought in cattle for further feeding in Great Britain a higher subsidy than they had been getting in 1939. The differential of 5s. per live cwt. to which I have already referred, had increased by 1941 to 12s. 6d. per cwt. and now, after some recent increases on the other side, the differential is 15s. If we take the average beast of 10 cwt., or, in fact, a smaller animal than the average beast, because a 10 cwt. animal is a small beast, by an easy calculation any Deputy will see that the bullock that is exported is worth £7 10s. 0d. more after two months in Great Britain and the bullock that is reared in Britain is worth £10 more than the animal imported for immediate slaughter. That is to say that the export of fat cattle from this country was very much discouraged.
I have stated here that in some ways we can produce things cheaper here than in Great Britain, but in the case of cattle there is very little difference in the cost of production because when you take everything into account—rents, rates and the items that count most in the rearing of cattle —there is not very much difference between the cost of rearing cattle in Britain and here. If it is necessary to give the prices that have been given to the British farmer to get him to rear cattle, then it must be obvious that the price that we are receiving for our cattle when exported fat are not remunerative and therefore they are not going. I have mentioned the fact that the average number of fat cattle exported in the last three years from this country to Britain averaged 15,000 per annum—a very big reduction from the 300,000 per annum that used to go in the '20's. I might mention further that that 15,000 is confined almost entirely to a type of beast that would not be regarded as the ideal animal for export. They are mostly small cattle of the Kerry breed or of the Galloway type. They are slow-maturing cattle which would not be suitable for the very high-class store cattle trade which we have built up in Britain in recent years.
This store trade is of a very selective nature and the number that can be taken by the British farmer is limited, because the British farmer, through force of circumstances, has had to put a great deal of his land under tillage and, as well, the British farmer, like our own farmers, is greatly in need of feeding stuffs. Therefore, he selects the best possible type of stores that will give him a quick return and that can be sent for slaughter at the end of the two months' period for which he must wait to get his subsidy.
There is no longer, therefore, a market for what might be regarded in this country as slow-maturing cattle. We have quite a number of that type. They have become very plentiful. It is hard to get rid of them in this country and they remain on the farmers' hands. They would be regarded as the rougher type of cattle. There are also the non-beef breeds, like the Kerry cattle or the Galloways. The Galloway might be regarded as a semibeef breed, but they are not cattle which are regarded as a quick-maturing type. These are the types which are being left on the farmers' hands. They are not wanted for the high-class store trade in Great Britain. What is becoming of these cattle? They remain here until they are absorbed by the home victualling trade. Some go for canning and a small portion eventually go, after a long period of feeding, as stores to Britain. While they are there, they have the effect of making it very difficult for the farmer to get rid of his yearlings and the price given for yearlings to the farmer is not inducing him to rear his calves. Hence you have the tendency to slaughter more calves than had been slaughtered heretofore.
I should like to say, of course, that the type of cattle to which I have already referred, the Kerry type and the bigger and grosser types, make first-class beef when they eventually mature and are fit for the butcher. If there was a more attractive outlet for fat cattle for slaughter on the other side, I believe the feeders here would get rid of these smaller and slower-maturing cattle, more rapidly.
In fact, feeders would be tempted to breed more of them if they could be got rid of rapidly for immediate slaughter on landing on the other side. In that way, we would be sending out a bigger proportion of that type and our general export figures would increase. It would not interfere in any way with the export of the high-class stores that are going out now because there will always be a demand for such high-class stores by feeders on the other side and they will be prepared to pay a price for these stores. If these slow-maturing cattle, non-beef varieties, were got rid of more rapidly, it would create a movement upwards for younger stores. They would realise in turn a better price and the farmer would be induced to rear his calves.
There have been, as Deputies are aware, various estimates given of the number of calves slaughtered in this country in recent years. It is not an alarming number but it is a great pity that such slaughter should take place at a time like the present when meat is so badly needed. There was always, even at the best of times, a slaughter of about 10,000 calves, calves that were hardly worth rearing. There was a small trade in them as veal and we may regard that number as the normal number which would be slaughtered no matter how good the cattle trade might be. Owing to the low prices recently obtaining, as I said already, for yearling cattle, calves were killed up to the number of 100,000 per annum. That is a very big increase. What became of them? About 30,000 in recent years were exported as veal to Britain and about 70,000 were used at home. We are not veal eaters, so it may be assumed that a good lot of that veal was used wastefully—not always for human consumption, so that to a great extent these calves were waste as human food. In any case, if all these calves were consumed by human beings as veal, the sum total of meat would be small compared with what we could get from them as matured cattle if they were all reared.
It is evident, therefore, that until there is some more movement at the top for the slow maturing cattle there will be no prospect of stopping this present movement in the slaughter of calves. In fact, I think there is a certain danger that it will increase until we reach a kind of numerical equilibrium—that is to say, until yearlings begin to get a bit scarce and dear. Then, of course, through the very scarcity of yearlings there will be an inducement to the farmers to stop this movement towards killing more calves. It is rather significant that the British policy in regard to prices has resulted not only in a serious decline in fat cattle going in but has created a situation which may very well lead to a general decline in the number of fat cattle going across. Taking the total number of all classes, as I have said already, exported as tinned beef, or dressed beef, in more recent times, as well as the cattle going across, into account the sum total of the decline in exports has been from 730,000 to 536,000. That is a very substantial decline in exports.
I thought it well to refresh the minds of Deputies here in this House with these figures in order to show to them the difficulty we have on our side and the difficulty that the British appear to have on their side in working their subsidy system and encouraging their own farmers. The British Government have stated that they are desirous of getting more meat from this country, but I am afraid that in actual practice their present policy has the effect of ensuring that less meat will go. I might say to the Deputies now that these were the facts that the recent delegation from this side tried to make as clear as they possibly could to the British Government during the course of these negotiations. The whole position has been put to the British Government and fully explained and the British Government are now examining, from their point of view, what they are prepared to do. They have not, however, given us any indication as to what their decision may be. As far as cattle go, therefore, I am even less in a position to give the Dáil any indication as to what the result of the negotiations may be than I was in the case of eggs. In the case of eggs I was at least able to say that there will probably be an increase in the price to the producer for the coming year.
Deputy Cogan mentioned one other point as regards the export of cattle to the Continent. There are, of course, cattle going to the Continent under two headings. Firstly, there are cattle going out as a gift to those countries that suffered through the ravages of war. The number under that heading amounts to something in the region of 12,000 to 14,000 head. Apart from that some Continental countries are buying cattle here in the ordinary commercial way and we have made various treaties with them from time to time—I should, perhaps, hardly dignify the negotiations with the title of treaties, but we have made agreements with them any way—to give them a certain number. I do not know what that number may be for the rest of the year, but there is one thing to be said about it—that is, that the trade to the Continent means that they are taking off our hands those cattle which are slow to mature, the non-beef beast, the Kerry breed and so on; they are first class beef and, therefore, they are taking beef off our hands and in that way they have relieved the position here to a considerable extent. We would, however, want further relief before we could feel as happy as we would like to feel about the whole cattle trade. I do not think that I have anything further to add unless any Deputy would like to ask for more definite information.
