I will, and I should be happy to send the Deputy a copy so that he can peruse it at leisure and then, perhaps, he may share my view that at this stage it is too tentative to justify publication over a scientist's name. If there is any other Deputy who would be interested in having a copy of the results of this preliminary test, subject to all the reservations I have made, he has only to let me know and I shall be happy to send him a copy.
Deputy Lahiffe, I think, raised certain specific questions on which he wanted information as to how the cattle were eradicated from a herd which was undergoing attestation under the T.B. eradication scheme. He asked me three questions: (a) what are the means for the disposal of cows which are reactors to the test; how long will they be left on the farmers' hands after the test; can that herd owner drive his beast across the border into my constituency and sell that beast at the fair on the open market; (b) is it true that in an area with which I am concerned the average number of reactors is 50 per cent. of the total; (c) what are the provisions for replacement or are there any?
As regards (a) the position is that when we test a herd for reactors we are bound to determine that on veterinary experience of the cattle reacting, 80 per cent. will prove on slaughter to have no clinical evidence of T.B. Perhaps I should put it this way: 80 per cent. of those left to survive will never manifest any clinical symptoms of T.B. My first statement is not strictly accurate because if you searched the carcases you would find somewhere in the carcase at least some gland affected by T.B. But the vast majority of reacting cattle if they never were slaughtered would never manifest clinical signs of T.B. but 20 per cent. of them will.
Our procedure is that if at the first test you have 20 cows and ten dry stock and they are all tested, if five of the cows react and if when the veterinary surgeon conducts the recheck for the Department to determine if any of these five cows showed signs, however remote, of clinical T.B.—if the cow is poor looking, if the cow is not a healthy looking cow, the fact that she had reacted to the test would determine our decision to remove her for slaughter. If she had any external evidence of clinical T.B. she would be removed for slaughter. If she shows no clinical signs the farmer is urged to sell her and get rid of her as best he can and as soon as he can.
If there was never any bovine T.B. elimination scheme the farmer would get rid of these cows in his own good time and he would sell them at the fair and there is no difficulty about it. However, there is this additional protection for anybody who is buying the cow. If the buyer suspects a reacting cow has been sold he can ask the vendor to produce a certificate that that cow is not suffering from T.B. He is thereby safeguarded.
There is no doubt that these reactors are sold and should be sold because in our circumstances we cannot afford to slaughter every reacting cow in the country at this stage for the simple reason that we have not the means to replace them. Let me say that the incidence of T.B. in Clare is very much lower than Deputy Lahiffe suggests. The percentage of positive reactors in all stock, that is cows, dry stock, etc. in County Clare up to the end of March was 12.8 per cent. The percentage of cows reacting to the test was 22.5 per cent. It is significant that of 3,679 herds tested up to 30th April, 1955, no fewer than 692, or 19 per cent., of the total number were completely free of disease, that is, there were neither reactors nor inconclusives in any one of those herds. As regards (c) the general policy in regard to replacements is to aim at and encourage replacement from within the herd in County Clare, in particular, where veterinary inspectors buy reactor cows primarily against the number of tested and suitable replacement heifers in the herd.
In places like Sligo where the total incidence is very low we are inclined to clear out every reactor as we go along but where you are dealing with an area such as Limerick where the incidence is 50 per cent. it is not possible to do so. However, if everybody will put his shoulder to the wheel, if everybody, say, in Limerick, would house their cattle for the four wet months of the year, build good cowhouses—and double grants are being given for the erection of cowhouses— we would be well on the way to fighting off this disease.
There is no use in deluding ourselves that we will eradicate T.B. overnight. There is no use raising false hopes but I will guarantee if everybody lends a hand we will eradicate T.B. in this country as fast as it was eradicated in any other country in the world. But whatever we do we will not deceive ourselves that we are fit to do more than we are fit to do or that we have done what we have not actually done. It will take time and if everybody is prepared to help it can and it will be done.
Let me refer to the progeny testing of pigs. There is a passionate belief in parts of the country that the only salvation for the pig and bacon industry is to bring in the Landrace pig. I do not share that belief but even if I did share that belief I would find the greatest difficulty in bringing in the Landrace pig even by adopting Deputy Palmer's suggestion of bringing it to the Blasket Islands for this reason. We cannot make out and nobody seems to be able to make out how long atrophic rhinitis can remain a suppressed disease in pigs. It is not impossible that atrophic rhinitis may turn up in the grandchildren of a pig that is itself showing no symptoms. Once that disease gets a hold on the pig population it is frightfully difficult to eradicate it and I would be very reluctant to bring in the Landrace pig.
I believe that we ought to be able to build up the strains of pigs in the country at the present time which will, I believe, be as good as the Landrace pig. In every respect I think we have the material to do that except perhaps in regard to the ham but I believe that with patience we will be able to build up the ham part of our pigs into something that will constitute a very strong rival to any Landrace pig that could be produced. I think many people watching the goings on in Great Britain where Landrace were fetching £1,000 and £1,500 and are now beginning to slump will come to realise that there is a lot of publicity always organised by the people who get in on the ground floor and they make a great deal of it. But when people get accustomed to the Landrace it may not be so exciting as at first appears.
Now I want to talk about milk costings. There is nothing secret or confidential about these, but since everybody seemed to be so worked up about them I thought it best to ask the chairman of the Milk Costings Committee a question I had never asked him before, for the reason I explained to the House; I was quite satisfied that the man was doing his job quite properly and as fast as he could do it, and I did not want to give him the feeling that I was pushing him or shoving him or worrying him. He knew I would be glad to get his report. But I addressed no official communication to him and I left him absolutely on his own. However, since everybody in the House seemed to think I was engaged in some dark and dire conspiracy to suppress any information, I wrote to him and asked him if he would give me a note and, if he did, I asked his permission to use it in Dáil Eireann. I got the following reply:—
"...At this stage I am afraid that if I were to indicate even approximately when the report will be available I may mislead.
Apart from ascertainment of capital involved the heaviest of the work has been done and progress is now more rapid.
(Signed) T.A. SMIDDY."
That communication is addressed to the Secretary, Department of Agriculture. Here now is the report, and I think the best thing I can do—it is a very long report—is to incorporate it, with the Ceann Comhairle's permission, in the Official Report. Following is the statement:—
"1. It was decided by the committee that the inquiry should be made on 100 farms in the main creamery areas and 100 in combined Dublin and Cork liquid milk supply areas.
2. The records would be collected and summarised on eight farms by each of 25 advisers and, in addition, three or four co-ordinators would check the summaries of records and consult with the advisers as recording proceeded, so that the records would be kept summarised and checked up to date and problems arising be resolved while there was ready access to relevant information at the farms.
3. It was thought to provide the requisite staff by
(1) transferring 14 members of staff of the Department of Agriculture, and
(2) recruiting the remainder by advertisement.
As a result of advertisement nine persons accepted and were appointed to work on the inquiry. One of the 14 transferred officers was appointed to a post in the Land Commission leaving 22 advisers with the technical director and his assistant to commence the inquiry.
4. The number of farms sought to provide records was, therefore, reduced to
96 in 12 groups in the creamery areas and 64 in eight groups in the liquid milk supply areas.
Recording was, subsequently, begun on 94 and 60 farms in the number of groups mentioned in the respective areas. The dates of commencement were, on the creamery supply farms, at the end of September and during October, 1952 (with exception of two on November 3rd and 10th) and, on the Dublin/Cork farms, between November 10th and December 15th, 1952 (except three on December 19th and January 5th and 19th, 1953).
5. Although there was some interference with smooth progress of the beginning of recording (mainly in the liquid milk supply areas) by the agitation in regard to prices for milk and the temporary non-function of the inquiry committee, recording on the farms was continued substantially as finally planned.
6. This arrangement would leave two advisers and the assistant to the technical director to do checking and co-ordinating work among the 20 groups of farms. Two resignations— on 15th November, 1952, and 3rd January, 1953—however, rendered it necessary for these two advisers to carry on recording on the two groups of farms concerned and continuous checking and consultation with the advisers, as planned, impossible.
7. Two further resignations in April, 1953, presented the choice of abandoning recording on two groups of farms or seeking additional staff who, of course, would be new to the work and would have missed the preparatory instructions and discussion at U.C.C. As a result of representations to the Department of Agriculture, five persons were seconded to the work between April 12th and May 5th, 1953. With this assistance and rearrangement of the farms among three groups where recording had ceased on a few of the farms, thus releasing an adviser, it became possible again to arrange checking and consultation for the advisers working with the farm groups. This continued until the end of August, when it was terminated by the resignation of four advisers between 25th July and 12th September.
8. When recording on the farms ended in November and December, 1953, there was, therefore, an accumulation of work that should be done while the advisers are at the farms.
9. Further loss of staff: one member in December, 1953, due to illness; six who changed to other employment between 30th April and 15th May, 1954; one on June 30th; one on August 13th; one at the end of February last; and transfer of two members to work with the C.S.O. on 1st March, leaves seven persons and the assistant to the technical director now continuing work on the records of 134 farms.
10. It has not been feasible to replace the advisers lost from the work further than has been done. A study of this kind can, ordinarily, be done efficiently only by persons who, prepared for it before it begins, know what is required and carry it through to completion. Personal knowledge of the farms is essential for proper summary of the records.
11. In the present inquiry the loss of staff during the period of recording at the farms left:—
(1) an accumulation of arrears of work at the end of that period and
(2) the advisers without necessary consultation during recording with the result that problems that should be dealt with at the farms have been more difficult to elucidate since, and have in some cases involved loss of time and expense in additional visits to the farms from Dublin.
The loss of staff since recording at the farms was completed has meant that the remaining staff have had to endeavour to work up the records, kept by other persons, of farms unknown to them.
12. Progress of the inquiry has been impeded due to inadequacy of staff. The position cannot be rectified at this stage. The inquiry should now be continued towards completion by those engaged on it."
That is the position. On the whole, I think the prospects are fairly good. On the whole, I think we are getting along fairly well. I am grateful to the Deputies who have participated in the debate, because, as to 90 per cent., their contributions were helpful and very valuable. I urge on those, particularly Deputy Moher, who participated in this debate, not to think that they are voices crying in the wilderness to which nobody pays the slightest attention. That is not so. Deliberative and considered contributions such as Deputy Moher's and those of other Deputies are not wasted. They are read and considered. We may not agree with them but, at least, they elicit from me in reply the reasons why I do not agree with them. They are carefully read and carefully considered by those who are interested in the matters we have been deliberating over the past few weeks. Probably I have not covered certain points raised by individual Deputies but I have tried to remember all the issues raised. If there are any specific questions any Deputy would wish to ask I shall be most happy to answer.
