Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 12 Mar 1931

Vol. 14 No. 10

The Encouragement of Winter Dairying.

Mr. Wilson

The motion I intend to propose has relation to the action of the Executive Council in placing a tariff of 4d. per lb. on butter. The tariff was put on by the Government following a recommendation of the Tariff Commission. The Tariff Commission recommended the tariff with the object of stimulating winter dairying. Under present conditions, with the price of butter in winter more or less the same as the price of butter in summer, to any ordinary farmer the idea of producing butter in winter and getting only the same price as in the summer seems absurd. In the interests of the nation, and in view of the benefit that would be derived if we had a system of winter dairying, I think it would be good business on our part if we subsidised the producers of milk during that particular time of the year. There are various reasons why subsidising winter dairying would help this country. Everybody who has read the recommendations of the Tariff Commission knows that we are lagging behind in regard to the price of our butter in England. Our butter fetches the lowest price in the world, if we except Russian butter, and probably if the Czar were put back on the throne in Russia the price of Russian butter would, like the price of the butter from other countries, be also better than what we obtain for ours. The price of Irish butter in England is less than what is received by the Danes, the people of Finland, Sweden, the Argentine, New Zealand and Australia.

With our progressive Government, with the type of country that we have and with the ideas we have of our own ability, I do not think that we will agree that our position in regard to butter is a right position. We certainly should do something to change it. It is not right, with the advantage for dairying that this country possesses, and our proximity to England, that we should be getting the lowest price for our butter. The object of my motion is to induce farmers to produce winter butter in order to keep up a supply of Irish butter on the English market all through the year. In that way we will make some effort to bridge the difference that lies between the price of our butter and the highest price that is paid in England. It is my ambition that we should get the very highest price for Irish butter. Those who produce beef here are able to maintain a supply of beef to England all the year round. We have grass beef and winter beef. Why are we not able to have similar conditions in regard to the supply of butter? Why are we not in a position to maintain a continuous supply?

I believe it would be a very good thing if the Minister for Agriculture were to gather some of the farmers around him and explain to them the advantages that can be derived from winter dairying. He could point out that we would get, probably, £600,000 a year more for the same quantity of butter that we are sending now to England, if the farmers could be induced to produce the butter in the winter time. A great deal will, of course, depend upon the nature of the inducement that is offered. That is one reason why I suggest an export bounty at the rate of 5d per lb. Senators, no doubt, will ask how I have arrived at that figure, and naturally I will have to give my reasons. It will be noticed from the Report of the Tariff Commission that the Department has not supplied the Commissioners with information with regard to costings. They should have supplied that information. There is something wrong in that respect. I am not going to attempt to do what the Department will not do, but I will try to show the Senate what would be the difference of producing butter in the winter time as compared with the price in the summer. I know I am getting on dangerous ground now. The cost of producing butter in the summer time includes such things as rent, rates, labour and transport. Of course at that time of the year grass is the food of the cattle. It is quite a simple operation to make out the cost of milk per gallon under those conditions.

Many people make a mistake in connection with the summer cost because they forget that the cows that give milk in summer have to be fed right through the winter, whether or not they are giving milk during that time. Those cows have to get a substantial allowance during the winter. That cost is not placed on the summer milk, and that is the reason why many people bring forward different figures. Let us take the cost of a man in Limerick who has his cows calving in spring. He gets the summer milk and then the cows go dry in winter. That man must put on to the summer cost the cost of keeping the cows in the winter time. The point I want to get at is: What amount will be necessary to produce milk in the winter time, not omitting the summer cost? Let us suppose that a farmer in Limerick has his cows calving in November. What will he have to give them in addition to the maintenance ration in order to produce three gallons per day? According to the Department's regulations he gives nothing at all for the first gallon: for the second gallon he must give 3½ lbs. of concentrates and for the third gallon he must give 7 lbs. of concentrates.

The Minister for Agriculture will be able to tell us what 7 lbs. of concentrates will cost. In every speech that he delivers he regularly gives the cost of these things. He gives the cost of Indian meal and everything else that must be used by the farmer. I contend that 7 lbs. of concentrated food given to a cow calving in November, plus the maintenance ration, and costing about 6d., will produce those 3 gallons of milk. If the cow calves in November and gets 7 lbs. of concentrated food in the shape of bran, Indian meal and albuminoids, that will go to produce the three gallons of milk. You can get the concentrated food at 6d. for the half stone. In my opinion that is what the farmer would have to give the cows daily in order to get three gallons of milk.

Mr. MacEllin

What about roots?

Mr. Wilson

Some advocates say that the cow should get no roots in winter. Some exclude roots altogether from the food given to milk-producing cows. You can produce milk by feeding the cows with mashed bran, hay and water and a balanced ration of 7 lbs. of concentrates. That, in my opinion, will give the three gallons of milk. If the cost of producing milk in summer, plus the maintenance of the cow in the winter, is represented by X, then the cost of producing milk in winter will be X plus 2d. I will not have the Minister humbugging me on this matter as he did before.

Cathaoirleach

Is the Senator setting any price on the actual cost of milking? Is he giving any price for the actual operation of milking the cow? It would be very interesting to know from a practical farmer what it would cost per gallon to milk the cow.

Mr. Wilson

I am giving the cost in the summer, plus the maintenance in the winter, and I am assuming that that is represented by X. I then hold that the cost of producing milk in the winter would be X plus 2d. When I explained how I arrived at that 2d. before, the Minister for Agriculture said: "Here is a genius who can produce milk in the winter for 2d." That is not what I said. What I said then and what I say now is that if the cost in the summer represents a certain figure, then the cost of producing milk in the winter will mean an additional 2d. That is the reason why I recommend an export bounty of 5d. per lb. The money collected by the revenue authorities in connection with imported butter would help to finance this scheme. If the summer butter is to be held over and placed in cold storage I contend that that summer butter should pay an excise duty of 3d. per lb. That would save the public from subsidising the farmers twice in the one year. If there is a shortage in the winter the public pay 4d. That sum related to 27,000 cwts. of butter, the requirements of the Free State for a month, would provide a bounty on 22,000 cwts. of exported butter at 5d. a lb. You will not have to subsidise the export of butter the whole winter; you need only subsidise for December, January and February. You will have sufficient funds in the Revenue Department to pay all the export bounty necessary.

What are the possibilities in connection with this proposal? I believe there are three possibilities. First of all, the farmer has the possibility before him that the price of milk during the whole year will be raised by probably 4d. a gallon. He has the possibility of getting his portion of £600,000 a year. That sum will probably go into three different counties—the three counties that produce most of the butter that is exported. If, by the introduction of this scheme, the farmers could gain £600,000 a year extra, it would be of immense benefit to the country. In the second place, the farmer has the advantage that winter milk is nearly always a greater price than summer milk. If Senators will look over the returns given by the members of the Commission they will find that, with the exception of one year, the winter price is usually higher than the summer price. With a guarantee of 2d., and having the likelihood of an increased price in the winter, the farmer who goes in for winter dairying will have a double advantage. In the third place, experience proves that cows generally calve in the fall of the year. If they are fed through the winter they will give a greater supply of milk than would be the case if they calved in the spring with the lactation period in the summer.

The position is, that the State will guarantee the farmer his extra costs. He will have a chance of getting a higher price for his milk the whole year round. He has a chance of getting a higher price because the milk is produced in winter and, finally, with the cattle calving in the fall of the year, the farmer will have a larger milk supply than would be the case if the calving were to take place in the spring. If we could get the Minister for Agriculture to address a meeting of the farmers in Limerick, and submit a case upon the lines that I am now advocating, it would be a great step forward. If he could get the gentlemen in the great milk-producing counties to produce more milk in the winter and thereby help to raise the price of butter in this country— the price is now at the bottom and it really should be higher than the price obtained by other countries—he would be doing a great service to the Free State.

We have ample evidence that the butter that is exported from this country for sale in England is of the very best quality. That was proved by a surprise inspection held some time ago. The result of that inspection was that 75 per cent. of the butter was found to be the choicest creamery and 95 per cent. of it was good marketable butter. That proves that the butter produced in this country is of excellent quality. If it is of good quality there can be nothing wrong except that we cannot hold our customers all the year round. I believe in the policy of grouping all the creameries, and guaranteeing to our customers in England a continuous supply the whole year round. It is up to the farmers to try to get the additional £600,000 which is there for them if they would only rise to the occasion.

Possibly this motion will not, so to speak, set the heather on fire; at any rate, it will not do any great harm. It is a constructive proposal. I daresay that there are objections to it. Before I propose it I will add three words to the motion as set down on the Order Paper. With the addition of the three words the motion which I now propose reads as follows:—

That the Seanad is of opinion that further action is necessary in order to ensure an extension of winter dairying, and recommends that an export bounty at the rate of 5d. per lb. be paid during the winter period on all freshly manufactured creamery butter exported from Saorstát Eireann, and that an excise duty of 3d. per lb. be charged, levied and paid on all creamery butter taken out of cold storage for home consumption during the same period.

Cathaoirleach

You will need, Senator, to get the permission of the Seanad to make that alteration.

Leave granted.

Mr. Wilson

The reason I want these words put in is, supposing the creameries hold over a sufficient quantity of butter to carry them through their winter trade here, that the price would not be higher than the international price. In that case it would be hardship to ask a man to pay an excise duty of 3d. per lb. Senators will remember that the members of the Tariff Commission, when they recommended a tariff of 4d. per lb., pointed out that they were not doing that for the purpose of encouraging the cold storage of summer butter, but rather to stimulate winter dairying. From the way that tariff is operating at present you will have no winter dairying. I do not agree with the statement of the Commission that there is no reason why protection should be given for the purpose of having summer butter cold stored. Suppose that bounty-fed butter from Australia came in here in the winter in sufficient quantities and at such a low price that it was cheaper than the price at which summer home-produced butter could be sold, then that would be dumping. The great argument in favour of tariffs is to prevent dumping. Winter dairying to supply the home market only would be of no use. It would simply mean that the farmer would be getting summer prices for his winter butter. But if you were in the position that you could have winter production and an export trade throughout the year, thereby maintaining, like the Danes, a continual supply for the English market, that is going to mean an additional £600,000 or £700,000 for our industry. If we were able to carry out the scheme outlined in the motion it would mean an enormous gain for this country. By keeping up a continual supply throughout the year we would be able to get on the English market not the lowest price for our butter, but the top price. We are at the top so far as our bacon is concerned, and the same applies practically in the case of beef and horses. If we can do so well in the case of our cattle trade, why not the same in butter? That is the object that I have in view in bringing forward the motion, and I now submit it to the House for consideration.

Mr. Molloy

I second the motion.

Miss Browne

Is the Senator only proposing to pay a bounty on creamery butter? How does he propose to help winter dairying in the parts of the country where there are no creameries? There is a very large amount of butter produced in dairies throughout the country. I think that not more than half our total butter production comes from the creameries.

Mr. Barrington

I must say that a great many of the arguments put forward by Senator Wilson in support of his motion leave me rather cold. Unless the Senator can explain away some of the figures which I propose to read for the Seanad, I am afraid I shall feel compelled to vote against the motion. He has put before us certain proposals which, he says, will enable us to lay hold of or to collar the profits that at the present moment the Danes are getting. I wonder if the Senator could explain this to me. On the 13th of February last I was in London. In a West End store—this was not exceptional, but occurred in all the other stores around—I saw Australian butter selling at 1/- per lb., retail. Those with me wondered whether this Australian butter was of inferior quality or if anything was wrong with it. With the assistance of the salesman we tasted it, and found it was splendid butter. Alongside it was Danish butter. We tasted it. We could find no difference between it and the Australian butter. Apparently it was not a bit better than the Australian, but yet it was selling at 1/6 per lb.

If the Danes are able to get 1/6 per lb. while Australian butter is only able to get 1/- per lb., how are we going to collar the Danish trade? It seems to me that the explanation of the difference in price is to be found in the method which the Danes adopt to market their produce rather than in the quality of their butter. The Senator proposed that we should pay a certain duty on butter in cold storage when we take it out. What has been the effect of the duty that has been imposed? A prohibitive tariff was imposed towards the end of last year. The acid test in this case is, what had the consumer to pay following the imposition of that prohibitive tariff? Prior to its imposition Irish butter was selling in the ordinary shops here at 1s. 2d. per lb. We were told that the putting on of the tariff would not affect prices, but in some mysterious manner the price of butter rose to 1s. 8d. per lb. The result was that the consumers in this country had to pay 6d. a lb. more for their butter. I do not know that all these duties, and the giving of bounties on butter that is exported, are really going to effect the object that the Senator has in view. Unless the Senator can give some more satisfactory explanation than he has already done to satisfy me on the points I have raised, I am afraid I must vote against the resolution.

Mr. Counihan

We all agree with the idea which Senator Wilson has in mind—the encouragement of winter dairying if it were possible to make it pay. The proposal before the House will not, I think, have the effect which the Senator desires. Winter dairying is very desirable if it could be made pay. The Senator said it would give us continuity in our butter supply, it would increase tillage and lessen unemployment. It would help to increase materially the production of our live stock. But what effect will this proposal of 5d. per lb. have on winter dairying? It was demonstrated on the last occasion that we debated this matter that such a tax would not mean more than an extra 2d. per gallon on the milk produced during the winter. We all know that farmers are not going to increase their milk production during the winter for an extra 2d. per gallon. Farmers are fairly shrewd men, and if winter dairying would pay them Senators may be quite sure they would go in for it without any subsidy. They have already found out that it does not pay.

Senator Wilson asked us to remember a lot of things. Farmers will remember a lot of things when they are asked to go in for winter dairying. They will remember first of all that their cows do not milk during the twelve months of the year. Take people supplying milk wholesale to Dublin. They get 6d. a gallon more for milk in the winter than they do in summer, and yet many hold that is not sufficient inducement to increase winter production. An important point to remember, too, is that it is a very risky business to have cows calving in October and November in order to produce milk in the winter. A very big percentage of those cows go wrong at that particular time. They must be left dry for two or three months before they calve, and everyone knows the risk involved in having cows calve at that time. To prove that there must be some risk in it it is well known that cows calving in the early winter months are worth from £6 to £8 and £10 more than cows that calve in the spring months.

The Government recently imposed a tax of 4d. per lb. on butter. This motion, if adopted, would cut directly across that tariff. I think it would be better that farmers should have an opportunity of seeing what the effect of that tariff will be before the country is asked to embark on the proposal outlined in the motion before the House. For that reason I ask the Senator to withdraw his motion.

Mr. Comyn

I am personally in agreement with the principle of this motion. I think it is advisable that winter dairying should be encouraged in this country and for several reasons. In the first place it is desirable that we should keep our market abroad. That can only be kept by a steady supply of butter during the winter as well as the summer months. That has been achieved by the people of Denmark. I think I am right in saying that their climate is less favourable for the continual output of butter than our mild climate, particularly in the south and west. A constant supply will give us the advantage of higher prices abroad. The constant supply which the Danes are enabled to keep on the London market is the main, perhaps the only, reason why Danish butter commands a higher price on the English market than Irish butter.

In addition to that there is another advantage in winter dairying. As Senator Wilson said, winter dairying tends to increase the output of the cows. The Senator does not profess to know the meaning of that, although I think he speaks in his modesty. Though I do not know as much about this question as the Senator, I think I can give the reason. Cows calving in the spring could, if they were properly fed, be made to yield milk for six or eight weeks longer than they yield it at present—that is grass-fed cows. The members of this House are nearly all farmers or farmers' sons, and I would ask them not to profess ignorance on this subject. When the grass fails, the cow is allowed to go out of milk. If that cow were properly fed, she would continue to milk for six or eight weeks longer than she does at present. Senator Wilson said that the autumn calving cow yields more than the spring calving cow. That is true, and for this reason: the autumn calving cow is properly fed during the winter, and then in the early summer months it has the most luscious cattle food in the world—young growing grass. For that reason the autumn calving cow yields more than the spring calving cow.

That is the second advantage to be derived from winter dairying. The third and, to my mind, the greatest advantage of all is that winter dairying will have a direct effect upon the tillage of the country. In the last eight or ten years, about 350,000 acres of land have gone out of cultivation. According to Senator Counihan, that is not good or bad for the individual farmer. This, at least, is certain, that it must be bad for the country, and particularly bad for our agricultural labourers. We ought to be interested in them as much as in any other class.

Perhaps some of us are interested in them to a greater extent than we are in any other class. The great thing to be desired in connection with winter dairying is that tillage would be revived, and, in my opinion, you cannot have winter dairying without at the same time having a revival of tillage. I say that for this reason: that it is much cheaper for the farmer to hand-feed his cows on roots, oats and hay than on the imported materials that are now sometimes used for the fattening and feeding of cattle. In order to make that spring-calving cow bear milk, say, until Christmas Day, it would be necessary to feed her on oats and good hay, which is very good feeding, or on roots from October or November to Christmas Day. The feeding ought to ke kept up to a certain extent during the spring.

It seems to me, then, that winter dairying would promote the growth of turnips and mangolds, which are very good for cows in milk, and of oats. In that way the country would derive an indirect advantage from holding the market for their butter, and holding it at a good price in the promotion of tillage, which is absolutely necessary. We must have more tillage in this country—as Strongbow said—by hook or by crook. Turning to what Senator Counihan said, he, of course, is all for grass. That may be very good for the individual farmer. In fact it has an advantage. If I had 100 acres of good land, and was a thoroughly selfish person, I would have a herdsman, a dog and cattle on these 100 acres of land. It would be good for me individually, but would be no good for the country.

We must consider the interests of the country in this matter. The individual looks to his own profit. The State must look to the advantage to the country. As I understand it, the principle of this resolution is to enable the individual man to adopt the kind of farming which is good for himself and good for the country at the same time. Senator Counihan referred to another matter about which I do not profess to know as much as he does, but I venture to disagree with him when he says that the autumn and winter calving of cows is attended with more casualties than the spring and summer calving. I spent some of my life on a farm. I have some considerable experience of farming, the result of which is that in my opinion there is a greater danger with cows calving in May or June than there is with cows calving at any other period of the year, particularly the cold periods.

There is another matter that ought to be considered. We have creameries throughout the country. In the dead months of the year these creameries are run at a loss. That happens even in the case of small creameries. They are run at a loss of £1,000 a month. That is because the running and working expenses, overhead charges and the employment of permanent servants have to be kept up, in order to be ready for the summer trade. It would be a good thing to keep those creameries in work, if possible during the twelve months of the year, to keep the persons engaged in them in permanent employment. What applies to the creamery applies also to the individual dairies. A servant has to be employed by the year. If he is to be productive in regard to the output of his work only during six months of the year, then that is wrong. I think it would be a great advantage if these servants could be employed during the entire year. That is another reason why farming of this description, including winter dairying, would be a distinct advantage to the country.

So much for the principle of the resolution. That is the extent to which I, for one, would be prepared to go with the mover of it. With regard to the first part of the resolution urging that further action is necessary in order to ensure an extension of winter dairying and recommending an export bounty at the rate of 5d. per lb., I want to say, speaking for myself, that I have nothing to guide me as to whether the rate of 5d. per lb. is too high or too low, and I would not be prepared to commit myself to any figure in regard to that. The resolution goes on to deal with "freshly manufactured creamery butter." I agree with Senator Miss Browne that there is no ground for limiting this to creamery butter. In the County Clare, where I was reared, we have no creameries. We set our face against creameries in the part of the county from which I come, and for this reason: we believe in mixed farming, in tillage, young stock, butter and milk. We value the young stock just as much as we do the output of the creameries. I think that in the County Clare you will find the best young stock in Ireland. That is because the farmers there take a pride in the quality of their stock. We consider that the supply of separated milk from the creameries is not suitable food for the rearing of calves, and therefore we have set our faces against the creameries. We turn out as good separated milk, cream and butter in the County Clare as can be found in any other part of the country. I agree with Senator Miss Browne that this limitation in regard to creamery butter should not apply.

Miss Browne

I would like to point out to the Senator that all I did was to ask a question.

Mr. Comyn

There is another reason that I want to mention. It is our hope to extend the area of the creamery business into the agricultural parts of the country. I know well that the best butter can be made in the tillage areas, that is, in the areas where there is, or was, a considerable quantity of tillage, if the people will only turn their attention to it. I know that from experience. As a young man I lived in an area which was essentially a tillage area, and yet the very best butter was manufactured in that place, not so much from grass-fed cows, but from cows fed mostly on oats, turnips and mangolds. I also lived in what was a purely dairying area, so that I have had personal individual experience of both classes of farming. In my judgment, it is quite possible and would be highly desirable that dairying should take place in the agricultural portions of this country, just as it has taken place in Denmark. Denmark is essentially a tillage country and produces the best butter.

There is this further point in Senator Wilson's motion:—"That an excise duty of 3d. per lb. be charged, levied, and paid on all creamery butter taken out of cold storage during the same period." Again, I say I am not in a position to state whether that 3d. is too much or too little. I go with Senator Wilson to this extent, that it is highly desirable that some kind of excise duty should be put on frozen butter stored up in summer for consumption in winter in order to avoid fraud under the system of tariffs which we have introduced. I am in favour of the principle of the resolution, but I have no information to guide me as to the figures. I would recommend for the consideration of the Seanad that the principle of the resolution ought to be accepted. It is a matter of great importance to this country. I am quite satisfied, from my experience throughout the country, that a resolution from the Seanad would be received by the people with the greatest respect because they would realise that it was a resolution considered essentially on its merits, and was free from any question of very vigorous party politics.

Mr. MacEllin

I must say that Senator Comyn reasoned this question very soundly, but I cannot go as far as he has gone in enthusiasm for Senator Wilson's motion. I have great sympathy with Senator Wilson's endeavours to establish winter dairying. Senator Counihan said—I think it is right to contradict it from my own practical experience—that there is a great danger to cows calving in winter time.

Cathaoirleach

Were those his words?

Mr. MacEllin

I understood that they were.

Cathaoirleach

What I thought he meant to convey was that the calving of cows in winter presented difficulty.

Mr. MacEllin

The statement is too ridiculous, in any event, to stress a contradiction. As regards this question of winter dairying, I think that a good deal will depend on what will happen during the next few years—on the prices generally in the world market. We are faced with widespread competition of extreme severity from subsidised countries. The dairy farmers of this country are left, to a certain extent, to eke out their own salvation. We have found ourselves within the past twelve months selling our produce at much less than the cost of production. That terrible depression would seem to have passed. I believe that Australian dumping was, to a great extent, the cause of the abnormal depression. We must remember that Australia is subsidising its dairy farmers to the extent of 4½d. per lb. of butter fat. They could, therefore, well afford, either as individuals or collectively, to engage in this dumping without serious loss. I believe that they have got rid of the surplus butter which they had on hands and that we will not meet as severe competition from now on as we experienced during the past year. However, that is only a prophecy. At the same time, we are not sufficiently far advanced to say what the summer markets or the markets at the back end of the coming year are going to be like. If we have a collapse at the back end of the coming year the same as we had last year and that collapse is anticipated next month or the month after by creameries or butter producers in this country, I suggest that the creameries are not going to hold their butter in cold storage waiting the collapse. They will decide that it is better for them to get rid of their butter as it is manufactured. As the result of that anticipated collapse, you will find that you will have no butter in cold storage. You will be subsidising all butter manufactured to the extent of 5d. per lb. and you will have no butter in cold storage for home consumption. You will also find yourself in the position of paying 4d. per lb. on foreign butter imported. I think that Senator Wilson's scheme is unworkable. If such a state of affairs existed, the community here would be mulcted by having to buy foreign butter.

Mr. Johnson

The subsidy is only for butter exported in the winter period.

Mr. MacEllin

Freshly-manufactured creamery butter.

Mr. Wilson

The fund from which the export poundage will be derived will be the product of the 4d. collected on foreign butter used in this country during the winter. What the Senator suggests would, from that point of view, be the right thing to happen. The public will pay 4d. per lb. as they are paying 4d. per lb. now. That will go to the Minister for Finance and will be used for the poundage payable on exportation of our own supplies.

Cathaoirleach

Senator MacEllin's point is a very nice one—that there would be no home-made butter for home consumption, and that the subsidy of 5d. would raise the price by that amount.

Mr. MacEllin

You will have 3d. per lb. on all butter coming out of cold storage for home consumption. Senator Wilson stated that that would go towards financing the export of freshly-made butter. My point is that he is going to force the creameries to put butter in cold storage. If we have no butter in cold storage, how are we going to levy the 3d.? We find ourselves, say, in the position that we have no butter of any description in the country. Any freshly-made butter that is being manufactured we are exporting. We are subsidising the export of that butter by 5d. and paying 4d. per lb. on imported butter for home consumption. So that the consumer would be very badly mulcted altogether. The proposal is not practicable. I am in sympathy with anything that will give confidence and stability to the producers of butter in this country, but, as I understand Senator Wilson's motion, it is not workable at all.

As far as winter dairying as a whole is concerned, we have great attempts being made by theorists to convince the farming community that winter dairying is profitable. From the practical point of view, it has been a hopeless failure. I am quite satisfied— not from the theoretical point of view— that winter dairying is most desirable if we can get some solution of the present difficulties, with due consideration to the community as a whole. The policy of placing a tariff of 4d. per lb. on imported butter is not going to establish winter dairying or create any stability or confidence amongst dairy producers. I am quite satisfied as to that. While there are just sufficient supplies to satisfy the needs of the home market, it will give them a little higher price than the world's market would justify, but the moment you have an exportable surplus the tariff is ineffective. For that reason I say that the mere placing of a tariff of 4d. per lb. on foreign butter is not an adequate solution of the problem of winter dairying.

In a matter of this kind it is wrong to criticise the efforts that have been made by the State or by an individual without being able to put forward some constructive scheme. When the prohibition order was made serious consideration should have been given to the amount of butter on hands. It was thought at that time that there was sufficient supply to carry us over the winter months, but that was not so. It is absolutely necessary to have some sort of central committee—call it I.A.C. or anything you wish—that will control your market and direct the operations of the dairying industry as a whole in this country, that committee having complete control of prices ruling in the home market, with due consideration to world market prices. It would be quite feasible to adopt a scheme of guaranteed prices. My suggestion would be ls. 2d. per lb. of butter fat in summer and ls. 9d. per lb. of butter fat in winter.

I contend that 1/9 per lb. of butter fat in winter would be sufficient guarantee to induce certain parts of the country to go in for winter dairying. I do not believe that it will ever induce farmers, say along the Golden Vale, to go in for winter dairying, but it would induce farmers in the tillage counties to do so. In the West of Ireland, we have very few creameries but I am satisfied that we would have a considerable amount of winter dairying there, if we had such guarantees. In one creamery that is operating in Mayo, if we had the supplies during the last few months that we have in summertime, we would be able to pay the producers 8d per gallon. We are not doing anything like that because we have not the supplies which govern the ordinary costs of operating the creameries. If we had the normal summer supplies during the past few months, we would have been able to pay 8d per gallon, and I believe that that would be sufficient to induce the producer to continue producing milk in winter. If, at any time, because of the Prohibition Order, or the short-sightedness of those in control, we did run short of butter in the winter months, the appropriate thing for the Board to do would be to allow in foreign butter under licence. I do not see why there is any necessity for a tax on foreign butter when you have not sufficient produce for the people's needs at home. There is no reason why foreign butter should not be let in under licence. On central boards and bodies of that description, there is considerable difference of opinion as regards the dairying industry. I am merely giving this as my own personal opinion, and it will more or less bring me into line, if you like, with the principle of the I.A.C. As far as the I.A.C. is concerned, I say clearly and definitely, my view at the beginning was, and my view now is—

Cathaoirleach

Is not this rather outside the scope of the motion?

Mr. MacEllin

It comes into my proposal.

Cathaoirleach

I am trying to see how the I.A.C. can be brought into this motion, but I cannot say that I have succeeded.

Mr. MacEllin

As a counter proposal to Senator Wilson's, I brought in the Central Marketing Board and the Central Marketing Board is another name for the I.A.C.

Cathaoirleach

I agree.

Mr. MacEllin

The principle on which the I.A.C. was evolved, I believe, was sound. I suppose they were guilty in their operations of a lot of bungling or poor business foresight, but there is no reason why, given efficiency, the principle should not be sound. The principle being sound, there is no reason why they should not be able to control the home market and guarantee the price I say per lb. of butter fat. Even if that price were guaranteed, I do not believe, seeing how things stand at the moment, that the State would be called upon for the subsidy. During operations in the summer, if the price did fall abnormally low, you might have to subsidise your exportable surplus over and above 1/2 per lb., but it would not amount to very much. I doubt if the Central Marketing Board or the State would ever be called upon for a subsidy, and by the State guaranteeing 1/2 per lb. in summer and 1/9 per lb. in winter, confidence would be given to the dairy producers. It would create that stability which is so absolutely essential at present to the maintenance of production. I do not think that Senator Wilson told us exactly how his motion could be worked out. He told us a lot about the cost of feeding in the winter and the difference between winter and summer feeding, but I fear, however well his motion looks on paper, it would not work out.

Mr. Wilson

Why?

Mr. MacEllin

For the reasons which I have stated.

Mr. Wilson

What are those?

Cathoirleach

The Senator will please not cross-question the Senator who is speaking.

Mr. MacEllin

I believe that my proposals are the only practicable ones, and the only ones that will establish confidence in the dairying industry.

I believe that they will cost the State nothing, given ordinary conditions. Prices of food have fallen all over the world, and our own prices have fallen, but if the farmer looks at the matter from the point of view of the businessman who cuts half his profits to double his sales, he may, in the end, have the same income. The farmer may not be able to do that in the full sense of the word, but if he gets the guarantee he will respond. I do not believe that the present tariff of 4d. per lb. will lead to greater home production.

Mr. O'Hanlon

I dare say that Senator MacEllin's counter proposals to Senator Wilson's motion are not open to discussion. If they were, one would be tempted to follow them up and pass comment upon them. I will pass over his statement by merely referring to the remark that it would be very easy for any central organisation to guarantee a price of 1s. 2d. per lb. of butter fat in summer, and 1s. 9d. per lb. in winter. I merely ask: If there were a central marketing organisation set up and it took upon itself to guarantee the sum of 1s. 9d. per lb. of butter fat in winter as a business proposition, how long would it exist? One slump and the whole structure would totter. How that would be any solution of the problem of improving the butter industry, is beyond me.

One matter that Senator MacEllin referred to seemed to get some approval in the House. I say this in support of Senator Wilson, with whose proposition, by the way, I do not at all agree: Senator MacEllin said that if no butter went into cold storage no money could be collected in respect of this excise duty, and the Irish consumer would have to pay a tariff on the butter which came in to the country to supply the people's needs, and on the other hand would have to pay the subsidy on the butter which went out—in other words, that he would have to pay twice. That statement seemed to meet with some approval. I am surprised at that Surely there is one thing—if all this talk leads to anything—that will be brought about if we address ourselves scientifically to the solution of this problem. That is the extension of winter dairying. If there is an extension of winter dairying there is going to be more fresh butter in winter.

If there is more fresh butter in winter, then, as submitted by Senator Wilson, what the supplier would do first would be to supply home needs. Remember that there is a tariff of 4d. per lb. on butter coming into the country. The home producer has the advantage of that tariff. If he exports his butter, he has to pay freightage and handling charges to the country to which he consigns it. If foreign butter comes in instead of the home butter that foreign butter has to meet extra freightage charges. The Irish consumer has the advantage of saving double freightage charges on his own as against the foreign butter. He has also this 4d. per lb. tariff, and it is perfectly logical to assume that the first market that he will devote attention to under Senator Wilson's scheme is the home market. The consumer will, therefore, not have to pay twice.

Senator MacEllin further said that the great depression in the butter industry lately was due to the dumping of Australian butter. There has not been, practically speaking, any dumping of Australian butter. I do not know how that word can be used at all in connection with what has happened. Australia has been seeking the best market for its butter in the ordinary business way. The Australians and New Zealanders have, for their own purposes, adopted the perfectly legitimate course of taking off the market some surplus butter at a particular period, putting that into cold storage and releasing it at another period of the year. They are attempting to do the very thing that we are setting out to do. Senator Wilson has advocated a more regular supply of butter on the British market. There is no use in calling that dumping. The Australians have adopted a perfectly legitimate means of getting the best price possible for the butter produced in their country.

To come to Senator Wilson's motion, the Senator, in a way, deserves credit for the manner in which he has attacked this problem and for his ingenious proposal. Against Senator Wilson, I would say that he has shifted his ground somewhat. There was a motion before the House some time ago on the dairying question. Senator Johnson asked for more positive action with a view to the extension of winter dairying, and there was an amendment by Senator Dowdall, who also asked for some form of positive action, and advocated, in his speech, a subsidy of so much per hundred gallons of milk. Speaking in that discussion, Senator Wilson said: "I am not prepared to vote for the motion, and I am not prepared to vote for the amendment. I prefer to let things proceed as they are and see what the result will be." The main difference between Senator Wilson and myself, therefore, is that I am prepared to wait and see how things are going to turn out while he, who has given the matter more attention, has gone a bit further in his attempt to find a solution for this problem. I do not make that comment in any disparaging way about Senator Wilson. I do not want to get into contention with him on this question, because heknows more about it than I do, and he deserves credit for having attempted to find a solution. Coming to the motion, the position in which we find ourselves at present is that a tariff of 4d. per lb. has been imposed on butter imported into this country. The object of the tariff was mainly, even according to the Commission, to bring about an extension of winter dairying. Two cases were made before the Tariff Commission when that tariff was sought. One was that the result of the imposition of the tariff would be that Irish butter at the time of year when it would be most plentiful would be put into cold storage and released for home consumption, at the time we were importing butter, to replace that imported butter. That was one of the cases made before the Tariff Commission. The other case was: if a tariff is imposed, the Irish farmer, by reason of the results which will accrue from the imposition of that tariff, will go in more for winter dairying. The Tariff Commission said: "We want winter dairying; we will take a chance of it, and we will impose a tariff." The tariff is here.

As I said in this House already, my humble opinion is that one result of the imposition of this tariff is perfectly certain: that is, that more butter than ever will be put into cold storage in this country and released in the winter time when our home production is lowest. That is a certainty. It is a simple business proposition. Business men are ready and willing to take advantage of every situation which offers monetary reward. It is as logical as it can be to say that if they can buy butter at a time of year when it is cheap and, by holding it over, sell it at a higher price, they are going to do that. If, in addition to the artificial aid of the tariff, they have the advantage of being positively in a position to take advantage of the natural rise of price which takes place in winter as compared with summer, then this is a simple business proposition, and they are bound to take advantage of it. One thing is absolutely certain —that more butter will be put into cold storage, and that our needs will be supplied in that respect. If there is more butter put into cold storage the advantage will be with the cold-stored butter in a way. If there is a lot of butter put into cold storage by reason of this tariff, and if the farmers go in extensively for the winter production of butter, we are going to arrive at a position where there will be something approximating to chaos, and the farmer will not get any great advantage.

Senator Wilson is aiming to get over that by giving a subsidy to the farmer in connection with the export of butter. Senator Wilson is aiming at a definite thing by giving that subsidy; he is aiming at bringing about a condition of things whereby we could undertake the supply of a certain amount of butter to Great Britain during the winter, and so make our export of butter to that country uniform the whole year round. According to the figures that were given on the occasion of the application for a butter tariff, we have, for some years, exported butter from this country in quantities varying from 60,000 or 70,000 tons to 120,000 or 130,000 tons. If we are to supply a uniform quantity of butter to England all through the year, the least amount we could send in the winter would be 60,000 or 70,000 cwts. a month. If we reach that stage which is envisaged in Senator Wilson's motion, the happy stage when we may be able to go a bit closer to the Danish prices, we will be exporting about 60,000 or 70,000 cwts. of butter a month. The subsidy on that amount of butter will be 5d. per lb. That amount on 60,000 cwts. of butter works out at about £150,000 a month. Spread over a period of four months— and we are only taking four months into consideration—it works out at £600,000.

If we ever to come to the happy days when we will have regular supplies of Irish butter on the British market, the subsidy will work out at £600,000 for a period of four months. The result will be that we will give the farmer the extra cost which he has incurred by giving extra food to his cattle. I contend that on that basis we are not going to put the farmer in a better position. The farmer is going to incur extra cost in the production of butter during the winter. On the basis of a subsidy he is going to get an extra price for the butter, but I maintain that the extra money is all going to be eaten up by the extra cost of production and the farmer will, in reality, obtain no benefit at all. The State will contribute £600,000, but where will the advantage be? Senator Wilson says that one advantage is that we would be bringing the price for Irish butter nearer to the price now obtained for Danish butter. I am afraid we are not reasoning this thing out on exact lines and on definite, concrete instances. If we have to do nothing in this country beyond putting butter on the British market more regularly in order that we may reach the point where the price for our butter will be the same as the price paid for Danish butter, then there is surely something very wrong.

I hold that before we tackle this question of getting near to the Danish price we should first of all tackle the question of getting the same price for Irish butter as the New Zealanders get for their butter. Notwithstanding all the talk there has been on this subject, I have not yet listened to any statement in this country setting out the reasons why we cannot get for our butter a price even approximately near to what the New Zealanders get. Here we are quite close to the British market and yet we are not getting anything like the price that is obtained for New Zealand butter. The New Zealanders are getting from 5s. to 10s. a cwt. more than we are getting. Even the Australians are getting more than we are getting, judging by the figures that are made available for us. Both in New Zealand and Australia the supply of butter for the British market is seasonal just as in our own case. During what is our summer they do not supply much butter to the British market, but during what is our winter they supply quite a lot of butter to the British market. Their position, with an inversion of the season, is exactly similar to ours, but notwithstanding that they are beating us on the British market in regard to price. I say that that is an extraordinary position of things.

Even if this scheme were successful, it will be a long day before we can bring about the condition of things that Senator Wilson refers to; a long time will elapse until the price of Irish butter will be on a level with the price obtained for Danish butter. The day is certainly far distant, too, when we will be in a position to keep up a supply of butter to the British market the whole year round.

The Senator has referred to the desirability of an extension of winter dairying. He has emphasised a concentration upon winter dairying, and he holds that, by so doing, we are likely to produce milk to the extent of 100 gallons more per cow. Senator Comyn, who said he knew little about farming, really hit the nail on the head when he said that there was one way to get an additional yield from the cow, and that was to feed the cow better. That can be done in two ways. One way is a better balanced ration, and the other is more food. In either case it certainly will cost more money. If you can get 100 gallons more by giving the cow more food your cost of production will go up. If the cost of production goes up in what better position is the farmer placed? He is no better off. When it comes to a close analysis where are the advantages the Senator has referred to? There are little or no real advantages. There is one thing certain, and that is that under a scheme of subsidies there will be a huge cost to the State, but there will be no real advantage to the farmer. In the last analysis any advantage that may result will be very long delayed.

As regards the Excise duty, the Senator brings that matter forward in such a way that I cannot support him. If, by reason of the tariff, winter dairying is not encouraged, largely because of the fact that too many people go in for cold-stored butter, and if there is no extension of winter dairying, then the next step for the State to take is to impose an Excise duty on butter taken out of cold storage. That is the only way with any definite certainty to bring about an extension of winter dairying, by reason of the imposition of the tariff; otherwise the whole advantage will go to the people, the creameries and otherwise, who will cold-store their butter. I will say that much in support of Senator Wilson's reference to the Excise duty. I am obliged to him for bringing that point along.

In regard to the whole question of subsidies, tariffs and Excise duty, we have to take various considerations into account. We have to look at the conditions in Denmark. If we are attempting to compete with Denmark, we have to have due regard to the circumstances of both countries. Our standard of living is much higher than the standard of living in Denmark, and, therefore, in a sense, their cost of production is lower.

Sir John Keane

Perhaps the Senator will give us some figures in support of that statement.

Mr. O'Hanlon

I was going to give one instance, and this instance will, in a way, support what I am saying. I could not give all the figures in support of everything I have said.

Sir John Keane

This is a startling statement.

Mr. O'Hanlon

I will take margarine as against butter. In this country we consume two-thirds of the butter that is produced. We consume 64 per cent. of the butter produced, and we export 36 per cent. We consume very little margarine. In Denmark they consume 46 lb. of margarine per head of the population and 12 lb. of butter per head of the population. That shows that the Dane is prepared to eat the inferior article, margarine, in order that he may place more butter on the British market. In Ireland we prefer to eat the superior article, butter, and we place the residue on the British market. That goes to show that in certain respects the standard of living of the Dane is inferior to ours. We want the superior article, and the Dane, in some instances, at any rate, is prepared to consume the inferior article in order that he may hold his position on the market.

Mr. Johnson

Take meat in relation to the standard of living.

Mr. Comyn

The only thing that is cheaper in Denmark is the cost of government.

Mr. O'Hanlon

I understand that Senator Wilson, in the figures he submitted, took into account the yield of a cow, and he said that by feeding an extra ration of 7 lbs. to the cow you would get an increased return to the extent of sixpence per cow per day. I have very often heard the reference to the three-gallon cow in the winter. Three gallons per cow in the winter means an average of three gallons per day. Taking the winter months, it would mean three gallons a day for 200 days—600 gallons. If the cow were an average cow, and gave 600 gallons for 200 days, she would be expected to give another 100 gallons as well. That cow must be taken as a typical cow, the ordinary cow in this country, and that ordinary cow, according to these figures, gives 700 gallons a year. Where are these cows that give 700 gallons a year? No exact figures have been established showing the yield of the cows in this country. It cannot be done. It is impossible to do it until all our people start milk recording, but that is another question. You do not get 700 gallons from the average cow, or anything like that figure. I suppose the average cow in Ireland does not give anything like 500 gallons a year.

The subsidy to which Senator Wilson's motion refers is one of these artificial aids which have been put forward with a view to helping the butter industry. My attitude in regard to tariffs and subsidies is that there are certain other things which should be tried, certain efficient methods which should be instituted, before we introduce the artificial aids of tariffs and subsidies. In regard to butter, it is in a sense calamitous the direction in which things are tending. We have no central marketing organisation in Ireland, and accordingly we are at a loss to know what way things are likely to turn out. We do not know if under the tariff there will be too much butter placed in cold storage next summer. There is no organisation to regulate the amount of butter which will be placed in cold storage or which will be released from cold storage. In the years immediately before us there is not much likelihood of there being a central marketing organisation. Before there is any subsidy, and before we go into the question of an Excise duty, or deal with any of these other aids, an attempt should be made, by whoever may be responsible, to put into being a live central marketing machine which will operate for the benefit of the butter producer.

The tribunal which considered this question of the marketing of butter, after listening to evidence, stated that, "The practically unanimous opinion in this country and in the British market is that a complete reversion to the old conditions of selling would be in the nature of a calamity." That is a condition of things to which we are fast reverting. The I.A.C. was brought into being at the express wish of the vast majority of those engaged in the butter industry. Everyone in this country adheres to the principle that it is absolutely essential in the interests of those engaged in the trade and in the interests of the country there should be a central marketing organisation.

Mr. Comyn

No, certainly not.

Mr. O'Hanlon

Everybody agees with the principle, but it is an entirely different matter when it comes to the practice. There are people who objected to it in practice, and the result is that the central organisation that was established has, practically speaking, failed. It has not, according to its critics, served its purpose. I hold no brief for the I.A.C., but it is truly a remarkable state of affairs when you have people who agree with the thing in principle but who dissociate themselves with the practice.

Mr. MacEllin

When it has been proved inefficient.

Mr. O'Hanlon

In none of the statements that have been made has the real cause been referred to. There are people who adhere to a certain principle, but there is a complete lack of candour on the part of those who have made public statements in reference to this central marketing organisation. It has been questioned whether most of those engaged in the butter industry subscribed to the principle of a central marketing organisation. Meetings were held before the central marketing organisation was brought into being, and the vast majority of those who attended the meetings subscribed to the principle. As well as that, the Butter Tribunal examined witnesses all over the country and their findings are embodied in the statement I have quoted. I hold that one of the first things to be tackled is a central marketing organisation. If the other countries have central marketing organisations, why have we not one? In these days of intensive competition in the world's market we are going to be left out and those other countries are going to reap the advantage.

If the Dairy Produce Act were not in operation to-day there would, undoubtedly, be a condition of chaos. There are other matters which also need attention. There should be, for instance, a system of milk recording, a system of grading cows, concentration on a better-balanced ration and some method of inducing farmers to go in a little more for the fertilisation of their soil in order to bring about an early crop of grass. In these days, with the use of concentrated fertilisers, it should be possible for farmers to bring in early grass and to keep grass on the land at a later period. One result of that will be that you will have a slight extension of winter dairying by reason of the fact that grass will be available for a much longer period than is now the case.

I disagree with Senator Wilson's motion. I think the first thing we should concentrate upon is getting hold on the home market even in the winter time. The course which things are taking leads us to the conclusion that we are likely to get hold on the home market in winter before many years have passed. In 1925, 84,000 cwts. of butter were imported in the winter time; in 1929, 40,000 cwts. of butter were imported and it is estimated that the amount of butter which ordinarily would come into the country in 1930 will be about 30,000 cwts. That simply means that the imports are being gradually lessened. With the tariff there is no reason why we should not keep out foreign butter entirely in winter.

Mr. Comyn

Has the Senator any figures in regard to margarine?

Mr. O'Hanlon

The remarks uttered by some Senators do not tend to help me much.

Mr. Comyn

The Senator was talking about a diminution in the imports of butter and I wanted to know whether there was, at the same time, an increase in the imports of margarine.

Mr. O'Hanlon

There were certain remarks which I did hear and they do not tend to help me very much. As I have said, we should concentrate upon getting hold of the home market and there is no reason why there should not be an increase of butter production in winter provided that too much butter is not put into cold storage. If there is too much butter put into cold storage you may have an extension of winter production for the first winter, but it is unlikely that you will have it in succeeding winters, even if the tariff is continued. Senator Wilson's attitude was that he was prepared to wait and see what the result of the tariff would be. His motion has served a very useful purpose in bringing about this discussion on the whole problem. I would like the Senator to revert to his original position and let us see if we cannot bring about a considerable extension of winter dairying by reason of the tariff, and if we cannot reach the position where we will be able to supply our home requirements during the winter, it will be then time enough to tackle the question of bringing about an extension of winter dairying. If we have to consider the question of subsidies then, and only then, will be the proper time.

Mr. O'Connor

I have listened with a good deal of interest and attention to the speeches which have been delivered. With a great many of the points put forward by Senators I could not agree. The winter dairying question is one with which I am greatly concerned, being mixed up in farming and knowing everything about cattle and the difficulty of bringing about a satisfactory milk supply in the winter time. There was reference made to the danger of having milch cows calving in the winter time. I am aware that the months of July, August and September are very fatal to cows of the springer class. In our experience there are more fatalities amongst cattle during those months than at any other period of the year.

Mr. Comyn

Cows calving in October would be all right.

Mr. O'Connor

The chief danger lies in the months of July, August and September. That is our experience, and that is the time during which we have had most fatalities. I do not confess to be an expert in regard to subsidies, and I do not believe in asking the Government to help industries by giving subsidies. I think that every industry should help itself, and stand on its own legs. It is rather a foolish idea for any country to have, that industries should be spoon-fed by the Government. It would be much better to let industries live on their own resources and abilities rather than have them living in a fool's paradise, receiving subsidies from the Government. No country could expect to prosper if industries have to be carried on in that way. I ask Senator Wilson to postpone his motion until next Wednesday. I would like to hear the Minister for Agriculture upon this subject.

Mr. Wilson

I would like to reply to some of the observations that have been made. I am surprised at the remarks of Senator O'Connor, who has been heretofore advocating tariffs on bacon and everything else. I am surprised to hear him saying that every industry should stand on its own legs. Only last week he advocated a tariff on bacon.

Mr. O'Connor

My attitude is that I am an out and out supporter of tariffs on every imported article that we could manufacture in our own country, and I have held that view all my lifetime.

Mr. Wilson

The Senator wants protection. Senator Miss Browne spoke of the effect that my proposal would have on the farmers' butter that is produced in the winter months. The farmers' butter that is produced in winter will have protection to the extent of 4d. There is very little of it exported, but whatever is exported will not get the bounty. It does not require any bounty. If it is sold in the home market it will get protection to the extent of 4d. Therefore, I do not think it worth while to ask that a bounty be placed on exported farmers' butter. Statistics show that there is very little sent out—a negligible quantity. Senator Barrington referred to the prices of butter produced in other countries. He said that Australian butter was 1s. a lb. and Danish butter 1s. 6d. a lb. The butters from these countries are entirely different articles inasmuch as one is cold stored butter and the other is fresh butter. My proposal is to sell Irish fresh butter in competition with Danish fresh butter. The Australian and the Danish butters are just like chilled and fresh beef.

Mr. Barrington

Australian butter is not cold stored; it is chilled.

Mr. Wilson

In any case it is altogether different from freshly made butter. We want to have our butter placed in competition with the freshly-made butter from Denmark, and we want the price for our butter to be the highest on the list.

Mr. Barrington

That is another matter.

Mr. Wilson

Senator Counihan said that winter dairying could not be made pay. The Senator, instead of contenting himself with making that statement, should have set about proving that I was wrong. He also referred to the risks farmers would have to run with cows calving in November. I hold cows can calve as safely in November as any other time of the year. The period when there is danger is in the summer. I would like to hear from some Senator how it is that the production of beef in the winter can be made pay while the production of winter milk, according to some Senators, will not pay. I suggest that what is needed is a change of system. What we are doing at present is following the easy system, the system that is placing us at the bottom of the price list as regards our butter in England. It is about time, I think, that we made an attempt to get out of the rut in which we have been so long. Let us do what I suggest in my motion, so that we can enter into real competition with the Danes and reap what I estimate will be an advantage of at least £600,000 a year to the industry in this country. Senator MacEllin spoke of the bad times. He did not think this was a favourable time to bring forward such a motion. My answer is that it is the bad times that will force the farmer to change his system; it is during the bad times that people can make progress by concentrating on their business and making vigorous efforts to make it pay. If advantage is taken of the bad times progress will result.

I have brought forward the motion so that if we are going to have the cows calving in November the necessary regulations to meet the change can be made now. Senator MacEllin said that the Australians had a lot of butter on the market last year, but he did not think the competition would be so keen next year. That will be all to the good. If the price of butter is high next winter then that will be all to the benefit of the man who produces milk next winter. With regard to the tariff that is in operation at present, I think it is correct to say that the consumers are paying fully 6d. extra per lb. on the butter they are consuming. I am endeavouring to take advantage for the encouragement of winter dairying of the legislation passed with regard to the butter industry. I am satisfied that, if developed properly, winter dairying would result in the monetary gain to the country that I have indicated.

Someone said that the price of butter fat should be 1s. 9d. in the winter, and 1s. 2d. in the summer, and that these prices should be guaranteed. That difference of 7d. between the winter and summer prices, represents about 6d. per lb. on butter. That is higher than my proposed bounty of 5d. per lb. With regard to the central board referred to, we have had one for three years and it has left us with the lowest price for our butter on the English market. If people on this side are able to give guarantees that they can supply butter all the year round on the English market, then I say that they will get their price independent of any central board. Take the example of the supply of milk in Dublin. If a man came along and said he was prepared to give a supply during the summer months, but could not do so during the winter months he would get no price, but the man who can guarantee to supply milk all the year round is able to get his price. I hold that if we were in the same position with regard to our butter on the English market we would also get our price. Some one referred to the present tariff of 4d. per lb. That is operating to-day, but there is no guarantee that it will be there next year. I hold that 5d. of a bounty on our exports would be better for the industry than 4d. in the home market. Under the present tariff the money collected is going into the Treasury. I hold that is not the correct thing to do with it. It should be diverted for the purpose of encouraging winter dairying. Some Senator said that the cost of living was lower in Denmark than it is here. The wage rates that are paid in Denmark are higher than what we are paying, therefore the cost of living there cannot be lower than it is here. There was a remark made, too, about the 700-gallon cow. My remarks applied particularly to Limerick and the Golden Vale. The cows there, if calved in autumn, are capable of producing much more than 700-gallons. They are splendid animals. I know a man there who has 800-gallon cows in his whole herd. These cows, if calved in the fall, would give three gallons of milk per day.

Mr. MacEllin

What do your own cows average?

Mr. Wilson

I am not in dairying now, but when I had dairy cows they used to average about 650 gallons. That was when I was in the County Wicklow, where you have some of the worst land in Ireland. It was said that the keeping of milk records would be better than a subsidy on butter. Milk records are all right, up to a certain point, but once you get the milk records of your herd what is the good of paying three shillings per cow every year after? Senator O'Hanlon, in making an estimate of what this scheme would cost, took the maximum of 60,000 cwts. of butter that would need to be subsidised during the winter. If the Senator had taken a reasonable limit he would have seen that subsidisation would not have cost anything like what he made it out to cost. Exports from New Zealand last year varied from 140,000 cwts. to 70,000 cwts. Suppose that we were able to have an export of 30,000 cwts. during the winter, it would be an enormous help to us. If you were able to maintain an average the whole year round then you could stop your subsidy altogether. The scheme would always be open to change. I am not standing for the figure of 5d. Senator Comyn said he agreed with the principle of the motion, a bounty to be paid on all freshly manufactured creamery butter produced in the winter, with the excise duty to be determined by experts afterwards. If that principle is acceptable, I am prepared to allow the motion to be put to the House in that form.

Mrs. Wyse Power

I and some other members of the House feel that we could not vote on the motion in its present form. We have no evidence and no material to go on. The information one would require before feeling satisfied to vote on the motion, is not available.

Cathaoirleach

Senator Wilson has concluded the debate, and I cannot allow any further discussion on the motion. I am now putting the motion to the House.

Mr. Comyn

Senator Wilson has just stated that he is prepared to strike out the figures in his motion. I am going to vote for the motion on the basis that the figures in it are presumed to have been struck out.

Motion put and declared lost.

The Seanad adjourned at 6.15 p.m., to Wednesday, 18th March, at 3 p.m.