Minimum Price for Wheat—Motion.

Mr. Baxter

I move:—

That in the opinion of Seanad Eireann it is an urgent national necessity that the Government should increase the minimum price for the 1942 wheat crop to 50/- per barrel and should make an immediate announcement to that effect

I am asking for something which is obviously so reasonable and so sensible that I feel the Minister might cut this debate very short by intimating that he proposes to accept the motion. If the Minister is not so disposed now, what I have to say will be said in a manner which, I hope, will indicate that at least I am anxious that this discussion should be conducted in a calm, straightforward and frank manner, and that all the facts should be examined coldly and logically. Food for humanity is something that, I suppose, was taken so much for granted in normal times, that we treated food producers in a rather thoughtless and haphazard way, but food has now become such a vital necessity of the human race, from Vladivostock to the Islands of Aran, and all countries are so disturbed and troubled in the struggle to obtain food for their people, that here in this calm and peaceful island we should be very grateful for the opportunity that was given us to provide ample food for all our people, and should understand that it was only the limitations which were imposed that prevented us from doing so. I have asked that this question should be examined calmly and fairly. At this stage I should say that the problem of food production, particularly in relation to wheat, has not been treated as fairly by the Government as I think it should have been. Any subject that is of vital importance to the life of the nation in times like these should be examined impartially by the Government and by the people concerned.

It seems to me that a certain attitude has been adopted, at least on the part of some members of the Ministry. I am raising the point now so that the Minister for Agriculture may have a chance of disabusing my mind, and the minds of many farmers, of a feeling they have, as to the attitude of the Ministry. I have the feeling that the Ministry are not quite happy about the possibility of getting ample supplies of food provided by farmers under the conditions that exist, and that a sort of subtle campaign is being carried on that is unfriendly to farmers, and that is not helpful from the point of view of the Ministry or the nation as a whole.

I suggest when you have the Minister for Supplies making statements like those that he recently made in our national Press, indicating that "grain difficulties were due to the withholding of grain to an extent beyond anything anticipated," he may have information that I have not got. The Minister for Agriculture may also have it. I should like to be told on what facts that statement was based. I should like to be told on what facts the people who sat at tables in Merrion Street or elsewhere in Government buildings in this city made their calculations as to the quantities of grain which our farmers were to turn into the food pool of the nation this year. I suggest that the farmers are not withholding quantities of grain. I suggest that the calculations which have been made were faulty in themselves. I suggest in addition that the quantities of wheat which it has been asserted are being held by the farmers do not exist and that to urge, as some Ministers are doing, that the farmers are unnecessarily and unreasonably witholding quantities of grain is hardly in accordance with the facts, or at least it is half the truth only.

Side by side with that, there is the other consideration which has been advanced in this House by me and others on this side of the House in various motions since war came to the world. That is the consideration that if you want to get food produced in sufficient quantities you have got to pay the producers a reasonable price. I have put down various motions towards that end. As soon as the first Tillage Order was made, I urged as strongly as I could that you have got to give the farmers a guaranteed minimum price. I am sure the memories of my colleagues on the left side of the House are not so short that they have forgotten that they voted that in their judgment the Government could not do that. Wisdom came to the Ministry later and they discovered that they could fix a minimum guaranteed price. The view of many of us was then, and is to-day, that these prices are too low and, to the extent that any grain which is available for the market is being withheld at the moment, it is due entirely to the fact that the remuneration when the grain is put on the market is not sufficient to justify the farmer putting it there.

What troubles me about the attitude of the Ministry is that while it is permissible for a Minister to say that the farmers are withholding stocks of grain from the market, and to publish that statement in the Press, it is apparently not permissible to say that the farmers are not putting their grain on the market because the farmers think they are not getting the real worth of the grain. In other words, the Press may say that the farmers are not doing justice to the community because they are withholding supplies of grain, but the community are not to be told that the farmers would put the grain on the market, any grain they have as surplus, if they were paid more money. I do not know how much the Minister for Agriculture knows about it, but some of his colleagues know that there is a censorship to-day which is terribly unjustified with regard to any discussion relative to the price of grain. Here is the sort of thing you get from the censor. I suggest that none of us anticipated when the order was made and when we assented to it, that the censor would use his powers in this way. I never believed he would use his powers in regard to matters of internal policy as between what the Government proposed to do and what others desired to have done. That the censor would act in this fashion never occurred to any of us. We subscribed to the proposal to give him these powers in complete ignorance of the fashion in which they were going to be used. Here is a paragraph which was censored. I am aware of the fact that it is but one of a number of instances in which the strong hand of the censor came down to prevent any discussion of prices through the Press. "Belatedly," this man writes, "the price for next season's wheat has been raised to 45/-. Let us hope not too late for winter sowing. Several farmers whom I have met think that at this price not nearly enough will be grown and that we shall have to try to import more at considerably greater cost. Hence there is great force in Mr. Martin Corry's proposal, which practically amounts to this: in addition to the 45/-, guarantee the farmers an added bonus approaching 5/- as the farmers got nearer to producing 100 per cent. of our requirements." I do not know where the mischief is in that, if it is not the reference to the fact that the 45/- offer came too late or the doubt expressed that it is enough to get us to grow wheat up to our requirements. But even if there were mischief in it from that point of view, I think that for the Government to use its powers of censorship to prevent any discussion through the Press of price in regard to the growing of wheat is a grave injustice to the nation and to the people of the nation. The Government's view, as expressed up to the present, is that the price of wheat at 45/- per barrel is sufficient remuneration for the farmer. They are not permitting anybody to tell us that it is not sufficient. They are not permitting anyone to say anything publicly through the Press to the contrary. The facts are, as far as any of us knows— and if I misstate the position I can be contradicted—that there is no evidence whatever that the area put under winter wheat so far is anything approximating to what was put under winter wheat 12 months ago.

The policy pursued by the Ministry has the effect that while in fact the farmers are not putting their land under wheat—and they are not putting their land under wheat because, in the judgment of many of them, the price offered is not sufficient—they are not permitted publicly to say anything as to why they are not doing it. We are all sailing blandly along, the Ministry knowing the facts and the farmers believing that they are justified in pursuing their present policy, but the net result for the nation will be that the supplies of wheat will not be available; food will not be available. Any of us who look to the future consequences of such a policy cannot feel happy with that attitude on the part of the Ministry or that the ruthless hand of the censorship in this matter of price in relation to wheat is sound.

I think the sooner the Minister looks into that question from the point of view of agriculture the better, because it does not make sense. We ought to be in a position to say publicly that we think such and such a price is not enough for the goods we have to sell. This is an internal problem, between ourselves. If we are sellers and other people are buyers, and if we are not selling because we are not getting enough, or if we are not producing a particular commodity because we think it will not bring the cost of production, we ought to be able to say publicly why we are not doing it. We ought not to be put in the position of being misunderstood and misrepresented to the people who want our commodity. They ought to know why it is not available to them. Justice is not being done the nation unless that information is available to all. I suggest that the Minister ought to concern himself very seriously about the attitude of the censor in this matter. I have considerable experience of it, into which I do not want to go at any great length.

I have said already that I think it will not be disputed that the area under wheat up to the present is considerably less than the area under wheat last year. Apparently 290,000 tons of wheat were expected from the home crop. I presume the Minister will give us the correct figures, as far as he has got them, as to what the results have been. It is estimated that we have got somewhere around 200,000 tons. I suggest there were miscalculations. I do not know that any great stocks of wheat are being withheld but I am concerned, as we all must be concerned, about what the future holds for us. I do not accept, and I do not think any other sensible, normal person will accept, that the farmers are refusing to grow wheat out of cussedness or out of laziness or for any of the other slanderous reasons which are repeatedly advanced as to why the farmer is not managing his land in a particular way. From my experience of farmers, I think the farmer would do anything for which he was paid a reasonable price. He would produce any commodity that his land could produce and he would engage in any sort of menial, arduous toil if he could see that there was reasonable remuneration for his efforts.

Peadar Mac Fhionnlaoich

Cuid aca.

Mr. Baxter

He will do it to-day just as he has done it in the past. The standard of living of the farmers in this country is not high. We do not see any great prospect of its being considerably raised by putting a greater area under wheat. Farmers, just like the rest of the people of this country, live on a cash economy. The farmer of this country is not like the Bulgarian peasant. He cannot take a sack of wheat or bag of potatoes, or couple of stones of oatmeal on his back and go into the bank with it to send to the Land Commission or to give it to the rate collector. He cannot exchange it for boots or clothes for himself or his children. He cannot even exchange it for a bag of sulphate of ammonia to fertilise his field. He has got to get cash for anything he has to sell, and, accordingly, whatever he is going to produce he measures in terms of cash. The net result is that the farmer, like anybody else, looks at his farm and asks himself what can each field grow— how many tons of any particular crop. He asks what are the prices per ton, if he is going to cash it or translate it into food for his own farm. The farmer, wanting to get cash, decides for himself that a particular crop or a particular method of farming will give him more than another method, even though the experts advise something else, or even though the patriots advise something else. Can you blame him for determining that it pays better to grow oats and barley than to grow wheat if the experience of growing wheat, oats and barley for a year or two shows him that there is more cash in oats or barley? What are the facts to-day? In the markets on Monday in my town, oats were sold at 2/-, 2/2 and 2/3 a stone. If I had a bag of wheat to sell and brought it into the market, I could not take more than 2/-, and nobody could offer me more than 2/- for it. Tons and tons of oats have been sold in that market for the past couple of months. It has been sold from 1/10 to 2/3 per stone, and the price of wheat is only 2/- per stone. There is not a farmer that I know who can be got to grow wheat to sell at 2/- a stone if oats will bring him 2/- or 2/3. When we are measuring the possible yields from different crops, we come to the conclusion that we have got to get more for growing wheat than we must ask for growing oats. We have to-day that anomalous position. If you like you may call it a black market, but those are the facts.

My motion suggests that the price of wheat should be raised to 50/- per barrel. I am not going to say that the price of 45/- per barrel offered by the Minister is a bad price. It is not, and in normal times it might be regarded as the very contrary. I am not going to measure the price of 45/- a barrel against the wheat of the Canadian prairies, even if it were dollar wheat. I do not know that we can ever compete with that. As I say, I do not suggest that 45/- is a bad price, but I think the Minister and the Government made a mistake. In the first instance, they advanced the price of wheat by 1/- a barrel, and then by a further 4/- per barrel. Had they taken the leap which they should have taken, and raised the price from 40/- to 50/-, it would have made a very big difference. I do not think that 50/- would be a great price, but I do not put myself, on the other hand, in the position of those who demand 60/- and say that they must get it or they will not grow wheat. I think 50/- would be reasonable.

I do not know whether that price would have given us all the wheat we require or not, but I think that 50/-, decided in October last, would have made a tremendous difference. Had it been offered at the end of September, the area under wheat to-day would probably be 100,000 acres, or perhaps 200,000 acres, bigger than it is, and the whole attitude and mentality of the farmers to wheat growing would be different. What would it amount to? Let us accept that 390,000 tons represent our full requirements. If we put 5/- per barrel on to the present price, my calculation in respect of 390,000 tons is that it would mean an extra £780,000. That is all it would amount to. What are the facts and where is this sum to come from?

Let us assume for the moment that every cent of that sum would come from the consumers who are of the non-farming community, and let us look at the picture then. I have here what must be regarded, in the absence of anything more authentic, as the authentic figures of our national income up to 1940-41. It is the work of Professor Duncan who calculates, in a report published in the journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society in 1940-41, that our total national income from industry, agriculture, personal service and everything that can be included as national income, apart from the income from abroad, amounted to £167,000,000. That amount was divided into £106,000,000, representing the national income of the non-agricultural section and £60,000,000 the national income of the agricultural section.

It is interesting to look at it further and to realise that the £106,000,000 represents the income of approximately 1,043,000 people and the £60,000,000 the income of 1,923,000 people. That means that 1,923,000 people got £60,000,000 for their services and 1,043,000 people got £100,000,000 for theirs. There is a vast difference between the national incomes of the two groups, and if anybody suggests to me that the transfer of this extra £780,000, which would be the cost imposed by an additional 5/- per barrel, to the people who got the £106,000,000 is going to make a tremendous difference to them, I will not accept it. There is this fact anyway, that if they have to pay it, it will be paid to their own countrymen. It will not make any of these countrymen rich and it will be kept within the country, and, if it is spent, it will be spent within the country. I believe that it would do this great good, that it would change the mental attitude of many of our farmers to the whole question of wheat growing. It would enable me and others who think with me, and have thought with me on this subject all along, to go out in support of the Minister and the Government and of all who are pressing the policy of grow more wheat on the people.

We do not find ourselves in that position to-day, and we do not find ourselves in that position because we have ordinary experience. I tried to grow some wheat last year. It did not do very well. It was sown under favourable conditions and the work was very well done indeed, but when spring came I had half a crop. I do not like to look at half crops of anything. I did not know what to do and I did what somebody perhaps less foolish or less anxious to experiment would have done. I sowed oats through the wheat. I harrowed it down and I reaped quite a good mixed crop. My next-door neighbour had also sown wheat practically adjoining mine. The crop was even worse than mine, and had to be ploughed up, and potatoes sown there. On an estate adjoining my land on the other side, where there were over 100 acres of tillage, all the winter wheat crop had to be ploughed up. If it were possible to examine conditions all over the country, it would be interesting to see how far this position persisted throughout the country.

That all represents extra cost. There are risks involved in the production of wheat of considerable dimensions and very difficult to measure and these all have to be taken into account. The net result in this case is that neither of my neighbours, up to the moment at any rate, have sown any winter wheat, either on the 100 acres, on one side or the smaller farm, on the other. I have a much better appearance of a crop this year than last year, and I have more than twice as much done. That is my own experience, and so, when we talk to farmers and tell them about what they ought to do, we must remember that when farmers have had practical experience of the risks and losses involved, they have to get something which will mean security to them when they have to take risks.

There is no doubt that there are more risks involved in attempting the growing of a wheat crop than any other cereal and it is quite clear, too, that the yields are not capable of being calculated. It seems to me that somebody sat down at a table with clerks and said: "We have so many acres under wheat and we are going to get so many barrels per acre. What will the total yield be?", but when we went to do the threshing, we did not get the barrels per acre. I think it is there that the mistake was made. It is not that the farmers are withholding the wheat, but that it is there that the chickens were counted before they were hatched. If we are to get wheat for the coming year, it is going to be very difficult at this stage to get all we want, but I suggest that we had better be wise in time about what we attempt. There could be nothing more dangerous to the whole position of our food supply than to attempt to put a greater area under tillage in spring than we shall be able to harvest. Anybody who takes a short run through the Six Counties will see there hundreds and hundreds of acres of crops—and I said this earlier in the House—and, I think, thousands of acres of crops which were never harvested. They sowed in that case more than they could reap, and we here could do exactly the same thing.

I think the Minister will probably appreciate that point, and I impress on him that there are physical limitations to what farmers can do. We did not get a great deal of assistance last harvest. I could have done no more myself and I do not know any of my neighbours who could have done anything more, and, but for the fact that we were blessed with a marvellous harvest, we would not have garnered in as much as we did. It would be a great error of judgment on our part to drive our people into putting a greater area under the plough in spring this year than we shall be able to reap later on. It is something about which we must be very careful, because having to cut two or three extra acres of grain at a time when you should be harvesting other crops may cause you to lose all. Anybody who has experience knows that as well as I do. Therefore I urge that we should be rational and reasonable, because we have to measure our capacity to sow more by our capacity to reap it—by the amount of labour available—and, in addition, we have to measure the fertility content of the soil. With all these limitations, I think the Government are very unwise in not doing one thing, anyway, and that is, putting the price up so high that it will be attractive. I think it will be shown here that there is no profit whatever in growing wheat at 42/- a barrel. I do not know if there is any profit in it at 50/- a barrel: that even at that price there is a living in it for the people who engage in the occupation.

The Taoiseach, in his speech at Navan on Monday last, addressed himself at very great length to this question of wheat growing. I think it is a matter that gravely concerns all of us, that when the Taoiseach or any Minister addresses himself to this or any other problem before a meeting of farmers he should make statements which are incontrovertible. The Taoiseach said that a number of excuses for not growing wheat were put forward. "They were told that it was a very severe crop on the land, but he was now told that the most recent experiments had shown quite the contrary. From scientific examinations, not merely hearsay, wheat was one of the lightest crops from the point of view of taking plant nutriment from the soil—lighter than any other crop except barley." That is a new one for me. If the Minister for Agriculture has this marvellous expert who proclaims that wheat is the lightest crop in absorbing fertility from the soil, he should tell the House who he is.

Dr. Ryan

He broadcasted it.

Mr. Baxter

It was Professor Caffrey then?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. Baxter

I think it is really tragic, when you are discussing problems relating to agriculture, to find that when experts give opinions their opinions are not related to the facts that are known to practically every farmer. There is nothing more disastrous, in my opinion, to the future of agriculture in this country than that we should discover that the experts are at fault. This is a question that I want answer to: If what the Taoiseach said be true, why is it that there is not more wheat being grown in a great many of the counties? This policy of growing wheat has been pursued with a patriotic fervour not second to that behind any other policy ever advocated in this country. Take the County of Leitrim which is two to one in support of the Government policy. In the year 1940 the area under wheat in that county was 360 acres. This is what I want the Minister to answer: If wheat takes less fertility from the soil than, say, a crop of oats, why is it that the farmers of Leitrim are not growing wheat rather than oats? Why is it that they only grew 360 acres of wheat in a county where they probably have 11,000 holdings? I think nobody accepts the statement made by this expert. I doubt if the Minister accepts it. I would like to hear Senators on either side of the House say what they think about it. From my own personal experience, I can say that it is not a fact. I regret that anybody, on whose behalf it can be urged that he is an expert, should commit himself to such a fallacious statement as that. Anyway, it is something that is not accepted by our farmers. The strange thing is that when the Taoiseach referred to the excuses put forward for not growing wheat—that it was the severest crop on the land—he never once adverted to the question of price, although the Minister for Agriculture and the Taoiseach know, perhaps better than I do, that it is the question of price that is the excuse. Indeed, it is not an excuse at all. It is the fundamental fact in the whole position, a fact which should not have been evaded by the Taoiseach. I should like to know if the Taoiseach did discuss the question of price, and if he, too, was censored. Could we have some information on that? When the Taoiseach discusses excuses put forward by farmers, I suggest that he ought to discuss all the excuses. In my opinion the one he referred to is not an excuse at all, but a very good reason why farmers were not growing wheat.

The Taoiseach then came to another point. He referred to the position with regard to artificial manures, and said that was no excuse for refusing to grow wheat because if they put the wheat in "their statistics showed that this year they had an acreage far in excess of 650,000 under manured root crop and they could put the wheat into that land." If they did that, the Taoiseach said they would have ample supplies of wheat. I would like the Minister, or Senators on either side or the House to go down to the poor farms in my own county, in Leitrim. Monaghan, Donegal, Kerry, Clare or elsewhere: to go down to the farmers on the hillsides of Cavan who had good potato crops last year, and tell them that they had better put their land under wheat than under oats. If they do, they will get their answer from them.

I heard the Rev. Chairman of our county committee of agriculture inform the committee that in a field a farmer sowed wheat and oats. In the portion of it in which the wheat was sown he had no crop at all, but in the other portion he had a splendid crop of oats. That man lost a crop on his manured land by putting wheat in it because apparently the soil was not able to produce the crop. Therefore I say that the Taoiseach, in asking our farmers to sow wheat on our manured ground, is asking the impossible. I imagine that half the manured ground in the country is on the poorer soils where wheat cannot, advisedly, be grown. The probability is that if it is put in on such land you are not going to have more than half crop, so that the total net food yield will be much less than a reasonably good crop of oats.

The Taoiseach further on said that to help out "he would ask farmers to eat less bread and to substitute other foods in their dietary. This was easier for a farmer than for a town dweller. Potatoes were an excellent substitute, and where a farmer had potatoes and milk there was no fear of hunger. He would ask the farmers to be as sparing as possible in their use of food that was particularly useful in the city." We have it now that the farmers themselves can go on potatoes three times a day and produce wheat and send it in to the towns. I suggest that is not the proper kind of approach to this problem—to urge farmers to produce a crop for the people in the cities and towns and to adopt a lower standard of diet for themselves.

Further on the Taoiseach said: "Remember human beings will come first, and if there is any shortage the animals will have to go in this country as they had to go in other countries." There, again, I urge that that is a completely mistaken understanding of the psychology of the farmer: to tell him that if he does not do so his animals will have to go as they had to go in other countries. I think nothing could be more disastrous to the policy that we want to see carried out than to tell the farmers that their animals will have to be killed off. In the first place, I do not know that it is practical, or how it would be carried out, and if a policy is not practical it ought not to be urged. Anyhow, it is a bad line to take—to suggest that we are going to have to kill more animals. Goodness knows, we have had more than enough of that in the past 12 months. It was a costly and expensive business, but I suppose it was unavoidable, but surely we do not want to have to face that sort of thing again.

Is there not this added consideration —to the extent that we lower our animal population, especially at times like these, when fertilisers are no longer available, are we not reducing very considerably the quantity of farmyard manure which is requisite for the growing of any crops? We are able to go in for additional tillage, to plough and manure fresh land only to the extent that we are able to add to the numbers of live stock we have, and the greater the numbers of live stock we are able to maintain, the more manure we will have on our farms and the more land we will be able to put under the plough. These are vital and important facts and they ought to be carefully weighed by public men before they make speeches.

Further down, the Taoiseach said that the farmers would be very foolish to try to be like the boy with the nuts, endeavouring to grasp too much. That is the only reference the Taoiseach made to price. I think 60/- a barrel is an unreasonable price to ask, and it is not wise to ask too much. I think the Minister has had this advice, not alone from the beet growers' organisation, but from his Consultative Council, that 50/- a barrel would be reasonable and would get him all the wheat he requires. It is not a sensible policy for the Taoiseach to urge that the farmer is not wise to act like the boy with the nuts, trying to grasp too much. The farmer in asking for 50/- is not asking too much.

Towards the end the Taoiseach read a letter he had received from a Limerick farmer. This Limerick farmer was urging that the Taoiseach should ask the Bishops of the Church to encourage the people to recognise their moral obligations to grow wheat. It is true that the Bishops have urged the farmers to do their best. I am prepared to accept that the owner of land has certain moral obligations to the community. That is a fact which we cannot side-step, but this also should have been added by the Taoiseach when he declared his opinion as to what he would like the Bishops to do—and I am quite certain that the Bishops would turn it over in their minds—that side by side with urging the farmers to grow more wheat it should be preached that there was also a moral obligation on the part of the community to pay a just price for the wheat.

Up to the present the price of wheat, like the price of other commodities, has not been just, and because of that fact the farmer's attitude towards the whole problem of production of greater quantities of food is entirely different from what we would like it to be in an emergency. This is a problem that can be solved if we all put our backs into it, and even if there are people prepared to suggest that we should ask 55/- and 60/- a barrel, we are determined to say to them that there must be some limit within reason and we do not want to ask too much. If the Minister gave us the chance, I am certain that, with the co-operation of all the people, much could be done; but not much will be done under the present circumstances.

I do not quite know whether Senator Byrne is serious in his amendment. The Senator suggests, while accepting 50/- per barrel, that we should amend the Compulsory Tillage Order to make the production of wheat obligatory. I do not know whether that is a Ministerial amendment or whether the Senator has submitted it on his own.

Mr. Byrne

Absolutely on my own.

Mr. Baxter

I have already said that in my judgment farmers have moral obligations to the community, but these obligations must not be all on the one side and the people must be prepared to pay. I am glad Senator Byrne agrees that 50/- is reasonable, but under present conditions I think his amendment would not be workable. I have a recollection of reading a speech made by the Minister for the Co-Ordination of Defensive Measures in Galway, where he said it was not practicable to insist upon every farmer growing a certain percentage of wheat as tillage crops. You could not do that justly without first having a soil survey and determining the land which will grow wheat and the land on which wheat cannot successfully be grown.

I do not know whether Senator Byrne will say that the West Wicklow farmers can successfully grow wheat. I know thousands of holdings in my county where it would be unjust to insist upon the farmers putting a percentage of the land under wheat. I believe the crop would be a failure. For that reason it would not be sensible to apply that order. If you do, you will have less food produced. I would not be prepared to accept the amendment and I doubt whether the Senator is convinced that it would be practicable. I urge him to reconsider his decision.

From what has been said on this subject, it is quite clear there are grave fears that we are going to be short of grain before another season's crop can be reaped. I do not know how much grain is available for seed or what the calculations are as to the surplus after feeding our stock. I suggest that if the Minister accepted this proposal and if it were to operate from this moment and the people who have any wheat on hands would get 50/- per barrel for it, it would bring out the wheat and then he would know where he stood. Oats have been sold in Cavan for more than 2/- a stone, and I expect the same applies to other counties. The Minister should be prepared to go into the market, or let the miller go there, and buy oats at 2/- a stone for storing purposes.

Let us see how much grain this advanced price will bring on the market. If it does not bring sufficient supplies of grain to carry the people to the next harvest, then the Minister should buy as many thousand tons of potatoes as will, when added to the wheat and oats, give us a sufficient supply of carbohydrates as will bring us to the next season. I consider that it would be much better than letting the people go short and creating a very grave situation. If we are as short as the Government say, we should try to measure how short we are and get a store left by against the days when it will be difficult to get supplies.

It may be that my interpretation of the Taoiseach's remarks in Navan is different from the interpretation of some of those on the other side of the House, but I have examined them and I have given expression to the manner in which they struck me. I myself think it is not the right approach to the whole situation. I am just as anxious as any member of the Government Party or anybody else in this country that our people should not go hungry, and I myself believe that it can be prevented and avoided. I think we have imposed limitations upon ourselves mainly because we are not prepared to pay farmers the cost of production. Those limitations ought to be removed and, with their removal, you will create an entirely different atmosphere. If we are ready to do that, even now at this late stage, we can transform the whole situation and can get the spring, the vigour, the energy and the intention to do what has not been done in this country before, or what has not been done, at any rate, since we attempted it in another way in 1916, but unless we can get some of that spirit of unity and harmony and unless the farmer is paid for his job he will not do it, and if he does not do it there is nobody else in this country who can do it, neither the Land Commission nor anybody else.

Mr. McGee

I formally second the motion.

Mr. Byrne

I beg to move the following amendment:—

After the word "barrel" to insert the words "and should amend the Compulsory Tillage Order to make the production of wheat obligatory."

I should like to assure Senator Baxter and the House that nobody inspired me to put down that amendment and that I consulted nobody in putting it down. It is my contribution and mine alone, because I am convinced that if we are going to get the wheat that we require this year in order to save this nation we will have to adopt some such policy as I am trying to outline in this amendment. Again, however, I tell Deputy Baxter that it is only my own contribution and has not been inspired or suggested by anybody, nor did I consult anybody. I would support Senator Baxter's motion, but not for the same reasons that he has given. I am not as sanguine as he is that by giving 50/- we will get all the wheat we require, or that by giving even £3 a barrel we would get all the wheat we require. No matter what Deputy Baxter or anybody else may say I am one of those people who do believe that there is a prejudice against wheat growing in this country.

Personally, I have had a great deal of experience of growing wheat, and a strange experience, too, in connection with the price I got for it. I remember having a very good crop, in 1927, I think it was, which I sold at 27/- a barrel, and did very well out of it. Two years later I had another good crop, but, in the meantime, owing to the policy that then prevailed, the flour mills were shutting down—two shut down in my own locality—and I wonder would the Senator believe the price that I was offered for that wheat? I was offered 13/-, and I sold it afterwards for 16/- for feeding fowl. That certainly cooled my ardour for wheat growing until the present Minister came along with his guaranteed price some years ago, and since then I have been growing wheat with varying success. Sometimes it was very good, and sometimes it was very poor, but the same thing applies to all crops. I have sown wheat, and it failed, and I have resown it later on in the year and had a good crop, and I sowed the land the next year with the same kind of wheat, April Red, and had a very poor crop.

That is one of the reasons why I support Senator Baxter's motion to bring the price up to 50/-, and not because I believe, as I have said before, that it will get more people to grow wheat; nor is it for the sake of those people that I would support the motion, but for the sake of the people who have been growing wheat for the last two or three years and for years before that, and who will have to grow the wheat on the same soil. Those are the people who I believe are entitled to get all that they possibly can get from the State. I realise that the Minister will probably point out to us that we are getting 50 per cent. more than we were getting when the war began and that, compared with the world price, we are probably getting a very good price, but I would emphasise that this year, considering that many of us will have to sow wheat again on the same land as we sowed it on last year, and certainly the same land on which we sowed it in the last five or six years, and since there is practically no manure and the yields may be low, it will be very necessary to get as high a price as it is possible to recommend the State to give us.

Of course, there is a difficulty there, too, and the Minister may argue that the State has gone as far as the community can afford to go, but no matter what the price is, I am still convinced that we will have to make some effort at compulsion if we are to get the wheat that is necessary for this year. We have been told that during the year that has gone we have not had enough wheat and that there may be a possibility of having to ration bread, despite the fact that we succeeded in importing a good share of wheat. We imported that wheat in ships that could have been better employed in bringing other things in here that were very necessary for the country, and we could have grown all that wheat if the people had done their national duty. As far as I am concerned, I am prepared to try to insist on their doing their duty. I do not see why the policy I am outlining should be impossible and I cannot agree with Senator Baxter on that point at all. As far as Wicklow is concerned, I think he will find that West Wicklow grows probably as much wheat as any other portion of the county. In West Wicklow they may not be able to sow winter wheat to any great extent but they sow spring wheat extensively and do very well with it—much better than in my end of the county.

I agree that if my amendment were adopted it would be necessary for the Minister to schedule certain districts, mountainy or other districts if you like, but you must remember that the present Tillage Order, which is compulsion also, lays it down that a man must till a certain percentage of his arable land—I think it is 20 per cent. or 25 per cent of his arable land over ten acres. I am only asking that a certain percentage should be fixed, whether it be 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. or 10 per cent.—that could be decided upon later—so that every farmer will have to grow that amount of wheat. In the case of the small man, that would make very little difference. In many cases it would not mean more than half an acre, and on the bigger farms, where a man might have 100 acres of arable land, which would be a very large holding, I think that the least he ought to do would be to grow 20 acres of wheat. I think it is a national duty that he should do that and I think he should be made to do it. That is my own personal opinion. I have all kinds of land myself some poor and some good, and I realise the difficulties, but I believe that this can be done and that it will have to be done, especially in the year in which we are living now.

Now, I do not see why we could not grow enough wheat in this country to give us an all-wheat loaf or why we should not have the bran and pollard that we are now eating made available for stock feeding. In fact, I cannot see why the same arrangement could not be made as in the case of the beet people, and it would be a great help to the farmers and they would appreciate it very much if they could get back the bran and pollard for stock feeding in the same way as the beet people get back the pulp. I think that idea would be of great help to us.

Mr. McGee

It would.

Mr. Byrne

I am glad that Senator McGee, one of the most practical men in this House, agrees with me. I think it would be a great asset, and would probably inspire people to grow wheat who would not otherwise do so.

Mr. Baxter

And give the townspeople whiter flour.

Mr. Byrne

I am not interested in the townspeople. Do not attribute that to me.

Mr. Baxter

But it would give the townspeople whiter flour.

Mr. Byrne

Why not give everybody whiter flour? If we are able to grow enough wheat to produce an all-white loaf, we will all get it.

Mr. Madden

That is a very good point.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

The debate is gradually degenerating into a slightly heated conversation.

Mr. Byrne

Oh, no; there is not a bit of heat. I think the Minister wants to speak to-night, and I do not want to delay the House. I would be the last to wish to inflict hardship on any section of the people, but, as I have said, I know that in my own particular district we probably grow more wheat than we would be asked to do under this order. I believe the same thing applies to the greater part of the Minister's county, and to the greater part of Senator McGee's county. Those counties have been doing a great deal more than their share, so there must be some place where they are not doing their share. There must be some counties in Ireland with better land than either Wicklow or Wexford, land that could grow wheat, and apparently they are not growing anything like the amount of wheat which they should grow, and which it is their duty to grow. Those are the people I should like to see compelled to do it. In this year especially, that type of land would be ideal for growing wheat, soil which probably has not been broken since the last war, or not even then. Now that there is a scarcity of manure, that is the type of soil we want.

As I said, this amendment is not inspired by anybody; it is my own, and mine alone. I do not see any great difficulty about it. I should like to repeat that we have to till only a certain percentage of our arable land. There is no reason why a certain proportion of that arable land should not grow wheat. It will not hit the small man, the mountain man or anybody else, if it is done in the proper spirit. I hope the Minister will agree to the price, because I consider that this year the farmer could not get too good a price for growing anything. I do not think 50/- is too high a price, but no matter what the price is I am quite convinced that we will not get the wheat unless we are prepared to take some measure to see that it is grown.

Mr. O'Dwyer

I formally second the amendment.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

I am glad that the Seanad has given me an opportunity to speak on this motion to-night, because some time ago I had promised to go down the country to-morrow to speak on wheat-growing to ordinary farmers, and I am quite sure—at least I expect anyway— that I will find a very much better spirit amongst those ordinary farmers than I find amongst the legislators. Any farmers I have met so far have been very reasonable. They have said that they will do their best to produce wheat for the country. The great majority of them look on it as a patriotic duty to grow this wheat. The great majority of them, if not all, thought they were getting a decent price, and that there was no reason why they should not grow it. All of them grew wheat successfully in the past, and hope to grow it successfully this year. There is no foundation whatever for Senator Baxter's fear that the Ministry is unhappy about the position. I think we have fixed a price that should get us the wheat which is required. I think that, taking everything into consideration, the price is a good price to the farmers. If you compare it with the price paid for wheat in any other country, and if you compare it with the price paid here before the war, it is quite favourable. As a matter of fact, I think wheat is the only commodity, of all the agricultural commodities, for which at the present time we are paying a higher price than they are paying in Great Britain. Last year, the price for wheat in Great Britain, where, as you know, wages and so on are very high, was 36/3 as against our 40/-. We put up our price this year by 5/-. I do not know to what figure the British Government is going to put it; I do not think they have announced it. For everything else that I can recollect, whether we take animals, animal products, other grain crops, potatoes or anything else, the British farmer is getting more than the Irish farmer. The one exception is wheat. If we could get the same proportion of the land put under wheat here as they have in Britain we would be satisfied. Comparing ourselves with other countries, the price is very good. Compared with our price pre-war, the price is splendid. It is 50 per cent. higher than it was pre-war, as Senator Byrne has just mentioned. The farmers' costs have not gone up by anything like 50 per cent.

I was looking through various documents in the last few days to see whether I could get costings for the growing of wheat, oats or barley, and the only thing I came across was the costings for growing oats, as published by the Tariff Commission, which inquired into oats in 1931. I suppose the costings would not vary very much, except perhaps in the price of seed, as between wheat and oats. If you look at those costings, you will find that the big items are labour, rent and rates. They account for well over half the cost of growing a cereal crop. Since pre-war, the cost of labour has gone up here by 11 per cent. Rent has not gone up at all, of course, and rates in some counties have gone up by perhaps 10 per cent. or thereabouts; they have not gone up so much in other counties. In those big items, at any rate, the farmer's extra expenses in growing wheat would be somewhere between 10 and 15 per cent., and he is now being offered 50 per cent. more for the wheat he produces. Seed is a big item in wheat. The price of seed is being fixed this year. It is certainly lower than it was last year, and all the rest is as low, I take it, as it was pre-war.

Looking at this question in an impartial way—perhaps it is very hard for us to be impartial on those questions—I do not know how anybody can make a case, on the plea of justice, for a higher price for wheat. There may be Senators here, perhaps on this side as well as on that side, who would not, as a matter of principle, oppose any proposition brought up here to give the farmer a better price for anything. Of course, if there are Senators like that, there is no use in arguing with them, because I presume that, if we had fixed 50/- and if Senator Baxter had said 55/-, Senator Baxter would get the same support for his motion. I do not say that Senator Baxter would have said 55/-, but I think somebody would have said 55/- if we had said 50/-. If somebody said 55/-, Senators here would support that motion—those Senators who would always support any proposition put up here for a higher price for farmers for any commodity. Senator Baxter was not very sure whether or not he was putting up the right figure. He made the positive statement that 2/- a stone was an unremunerative price, but he added immediately afterwards that he was not sure that wheat at 50/- a barrel was going to pay. I think it is a very strange and irresponsible thing for a Senator to come in here with a motion, to make a speech supporting that motion, and, when he had made the speech supporting that motion for 50/—which, he said, was made in all good faith in order to get enough wheat grown here for human food—to say he was not sure whether or not it would pay at that price.

Mr. Baxter

If they got only four barrels to the acre it would not pay.

Dr. Ryan

The Senator is more or less admitting what I said—he was not sure that 50/- was a fair price. I think the Senator, before bringing in a motion like this, to be helpful to the Government, to be helpful to the country in general, and to make sure that we would not have a famine in this country, should have been sure in his own mind and in his own heart that he was putting up a price which would prevent a famine in this country. But he is not sure. He is not at all sure that 50/- is a paying price. He did say positively that he would not support 60/—why, I do not know, because he did not give any reasons why 50/- was a proper price and 60/- was not. The only reason he gave as to why 45/- was the wrong price was that 45/- had already been fixed and he did not believe it was enough.

Senator Baxter criticised the statements made by the Minister for Supplies and the Taoiseach. He said that the Minister for Supplies stated that farmers were withholding wheat. I think that is a perfectly true statement. But, it may be made without any malice and, if the Senator wants to be helpful and if he thinks the Government are making a wrong approach, as he calls it, to the farmers in this crisis, there is no use in trying to make matters worse by interpreting those statements as if they were made with malice. I have met farmers as late as last Sunday who still have wheat to thresh. Those farmers are withholding wheat. I do not think they are doing anything wrong and they do not mean to do anything wrong. What happened in their case was that they had a big amount of corn to thresh. They could only get an engine to thresh for a day, or two days perhaps, last October, and they chose to thresh a certain amount of oats and barley and kept the wheat over. They mean to thresh the wheat as soon as they can and to sell it. They are not doing anything wrong. The Minister for supplies was appealing to such farmers, and I think he was perfectly right in appealing to them to get the threshing done as soon as possible and let us see what wheat we have in the country; because it is hard for a Government to make plans with regard to substitutes for wheat or the rationing of flour or bread, if that is necessary, unless we are perfectly sure of the amount of wheat that will be offered to the millers.

I have met at least a couple of dozen farmers that a person would meet in that way and I have been interested in asking them this question when I meet them: "How much wheat have you kept this year for the use of your family and for seed?" In practically every case the farmer said he kept more than last year. He kept a little more seed, hoping to sow more wheat. He may succeed in sowing more and I think he will. He kept a little more for his own family because, as he said, he thought things might not be too good with regard to the purchase of flour and bread. I do not blame a farmer for that, either, so long as he does not overdo it.

There again you have a number of farmers, probably a very large number, who have kept a barrel or two of wheat more than they require and who will, I am sure, if the appeal is made to them, put that barrel or two on the market later on. But there again the Departments concerned are anxious to know what quantity there is of that kind of wheat, because, naturally, we do not want to introduce a scheme for the rationing of flour or bread if it is not necessary. Therefore, I think that every Minister is quite entitled to make an appeal to farmers to sell whatever wheat they can possibly manage to sell without leaving themselves short; at any rate to sell all they can. If the statement is made that farmers are holding wheat at present, that statement can be made without anything wrong being read into it.

We all agree that in order to get food produced a fair price must be paid, but we can all have our own opinions about what that fair price is. I have already stated that the price fixed for wheat compares very favourably with the price in other countries and with the price paid pre-war here and, after all, we must have some comparison of that kind to go by. I do not think the expenses of a wheat grower here are as high as those of the farmer in England or Scotland. Senators may have seen what the wages are there. They are exactly twice as much as are paid here at present. The combined rent and rates are at least as high as here and there are other expenses, such as overheads and so on, which must be at least as high. If farmers there could produce wheat at 36/3 last year, as they did, I think we were not asking the farmers to do anything unreasonable when we asked them to produce wheat at 40/- per barrel.

The argument that Senator Baxter puts up is this: if we think we are giving a fair price for wheat, why do we not get more grown? I think there is a great lot in what Senator Byrne said—that price is not everything; that there is a prejudice against growing wheat here. It may be quite unconscious, but I think if Senator Baxter reads his own speech he will find on studying that speech that there is a prejudice against the growing of wheat even in his own mind. He made the statement, for instance, that it was a much more "chancy" crop. I met many farmers during the last year who said that they had considerable difficulty in harvesting oats and barley, and no difficulty in harvesting wheat. There is an instance, at any rate, where the chance was with the other crops, not with wheat. I think Senators who grow wheat will admit that, if there is a certain amount of showery weather, you are much more likely to lose a barley or oats crop than a wheat crop. That is what a lot of farmers found last year. These were farmers who were unprejudiced; in fact, if they had any prejudice, it would be against wheat. But they admitted that they had very little trouble in saving the wheat crop and considerable trouble in saving the oats and barley crop, if it did not fail altogether. I am not aware that Senator Baxter, as he stated, had been advocating a guaranteed price for years, and that we had failed to respond. I do not remember that he did; perhaps he did.

Mr. Baxter

It was turned down on a couple of occasions when motions were made here.

Dr. Ryan

I have been very keen on a guaranteed price, and, as a matter of fact, I have tried to bring in a guaranteed price for many of our commodities. Nobody will deny that it is quite a simple thing to have a guaranteed price for a commodity where the whole crop is used here at home, such as wheat and beet and other things. But it is not an easy thing, for instance, to have a guaranteed price for store cattle, of which we sell about 80 per cent. on a foreign market. I do not know if it can be done. It is easy for a Senator or a Deputy or any other citizen to get up and prophesy that the present price will not bring us in sufficient wheat, because that Senator or Deputy will be in a very strong position. If his prophecy comes true, he will be able to say: "I told you so"; if his prophecy does not come true, there will be no more about it; nobody will bother reminding him that he made that prophecy. But the Government have to take other things into consideration. They have to look at the increased cost, if that increased cost is unnecessary. Senator Baxter says that it would be only about £800,000. But even £800,000 is a good lot of money. I think there is something in what Senator Byrne said— that even 50/- may not get all the wheat we require. Senator Byrne at least is logical, because he is afraid that even 50/- would not get sufficient wheat, and, therefore, to make sure that we would get sufficient, he says we should bring in compulsion and make everybody grow a certain proportion of wheat. I think there is at least logic there; but I do not think there is any logic in Senator Baxter's motion, because he did not give us any guarantee that the 50/- would get us all the wheat we require.

Senator Baxter complained about the censor. I am not aware how far the censor has gone in this matter. But, if the censor has cut out any proposals for an increased price for wheat, I think he is doing his duty. He is supposed to protect this country during the emergency. There is one thing I am certain of, that he did not interfere with public opinion until the Dáil made its decision. When the Dáil by a motion voted against an increased price for wheat, I think he was entitled then to say that the Government had got the necessary support for the order, that we were now in almost as serious a fight as if there were a war here, and that we should stop the criticism and go on with an appeal to the farmers to have more wheat grown.

We must stop the criticism sometime. If we are doing our best and if it is necessary to have propaganda for wheat growing, to overcome the terrible prejudice there was here for many years, the censor was perfectly right in preventing people from writing letters to the papers or making statements which would have the effect of making the farmer hold back in the hope of a better price. It is better that the farmer should realise that no higher price will be offered this year, that that now fixed will not be changed, and that it is up to him either to sow or not to sow on the price already announced. There is no use in Senator Baxter telling us his experience of wheat growing, as he has said that his field had to be re-sown with oats. He will admit that 40/-, 45/- or 50/- would not make any difference as far as a field like that is concerned. I admit that there may be a case made where wheat crops are poor a better price should be paid; but when they were not wheat at all, when either they were ploughed and completely sown with oats or harrowed and partially sown with oats, it did not make any difference what the price was.

Senator Baxter seems to find some fault with the Department for making a miscalculation. It is possible that happened, but we did realise—I would like to assure the Seanad that—that there was possibly some exaggeration in the acreage. I know that there is a temptation to a farmer who has done slightly under the amount of tillage required under the Tillage Order, when the Gárda comes around to collect the census of his crops, to put that up to the correct figure. If he overstates the wheat acreage by 10 per cent. in order, as he thinks, to evade a prosecution under the Tillage Order while it is possible that we get exaggeration in that way we do try to allow for that.

Whether we allowed sufficient or not, I do not know. After all, we must make some calculation. We get the acreages in at the end of June and we have then to make plans, as far as we can, with regard to the cereals for the following year and we cannot wait—as Senator Baxter thinks we should—until after Christmas, to find out what the real acreage was. We must go on some assumption and make some calculation. We do that and, so far at any rate, we have been wrong.

Mr. Baxter

Would the Minister say on how many barrels per acre he calculated?

Dr. Ryan

Seven barrels to the acre.

Mr. C.M. Byrne

To the statute acre?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. I would like Senators to realise that, up to 1940 when the acreages were given fairly correctly, the experience was that only five barrels to the acre were delivered to the flour mills. The remainder went in other ways—some as seed, some for milling for the farmer and his family. The average amount delivered for milling during all these years was about five barrels to the acre and that was what we calculated on again this year as being what we could get in.

Senator Baxter also dealt with some of the statements of the Taoiseach. I do not think there was anything wrong in them. In fact, the Taoiseach was perfectly right. If he pointed out to farmers that they could, perhaps, do with a little less wheat by using more potatoes. why should we accuse him of trying to bring in a lower standard of living? Is it not a perfectly human thing to do, if there is not enough wheat in the country? Everybody will admit that and I am sure that, if Senator Baxter's leader had said it, the Senator would look upon it as perfectly normal; but it is because the Taoiseach said it that it is put down as advocating a lower standard of living. If there is any wheat worth while, it could be used with potatoes and that would be better than no wheat. If the Taoiseach made an appeal to farmers to spare wheat and use more potatoes, he was only doing what was perfectly natural in making a humane appeal to these people on behalf of the people in the towns who cannot so easily do without bread. Also, when he said that, if there is not enough food for livestock they must go, as human beings cannot go, what else would he say? Are we to understand that we should let the people starve in the towns but keep feeding to pigs and cattle? Surely there is nothing ridiculous in his statement. Everybody will agree—farm labourer or otherwise—that, if there is not enough food, human beings must be fed first, whatever about animals.

Senator Baxter says it is impracticable to do it. It is hard, I admit, but there are ways, and ways must be found to do it. We are not going to sit down in the Dáil or Seanad and say that, if the people are starving in the villages and towns and if animals are being fed, we cannot do anything about it. We must find a way, and everybody knows we will find a way, if it becomes necessary. I do not think Senator Baxter has made a case for this 50/-. In fact, as I have said already, he has some doubt even on his own figure. He was not sure even if 50/- would pay, but he was sure that 60/- was unreasonable. I do not know on what basis he is going. His mind is somewhere between 50/- and 60/-, but he is not sure if even that will bring it in. Senator Byrne at least is logical, as he says he agrees with 50/- but is not sure that even that will bring the wheat in, and therefore says we should have compulsion. It is not possible to have compulsion this year, but if the Seanad wish to pass the resolution making wheat growing compulsory, naturally the Government will take notice of it and, if they come to the conclusion that compulsion is absolutely unworkable this year, I suppose they will be bound to give it serious consideration for next year. I do not recommend the Seanad to pass it, as I would very much prefer to get the wheat grown on a voluntary basis.

Mr. C.M. Byrne

So would I, but I do not believe it is possible.

Professor Johnston

Has the Minister got any policy about rye?

Dr. Ryan

I will deal with that in a moment. Senator Baxter talked about moral obligations of the farmer, and said there was a moral obligation on the other side. That is true: we are all supposed to have our moral obligations, whatever walk of life we may be in, to do whatever we can in this effort during the emergency. The farmer has the moral obligation to see that he is doing his best on behalf of the community in regard to growing food, and the rest of the State has the moral obligation to see that the farmer is properly remunerated. We all agree with these premises, but where we do not agree, evidently, is as to whether 45/- is a proper price or not. I have met many growers of wheat who are very much in favour of the compulsory provisions advocated by Senator Byrne. These are the growers doing their duty by growing a lot of wheat, and they say that there is no reason why they should go on growing more wheat than they should grow normally, to give the wheat to the mill and only take their chance of getting the 5 per cent. offals that are given back. They agree to a great extent with what Senator Byrne said here— that, if every farmer was made grow his proper quota of wheat sufficient to give white flour all round again, and then if every farmer got his offals back, we would be very much better off, as then they would get offals which they are not getting at present. The farmer has a duty also.

There is nothing further I have to say, except in regard to the question of rye as a substitute for wheat. It has been put to us on many occasions. Rye is grown only in a few areas in this country to any extent—in Kerry, in Achill and in the Aran Islands. They are the only places I have seen it grown. It does grow there successfully, on the whole, but I am told by technicians—and I am very much influenced by them, unless they agree though some Senators may not be influenced by them, unless they agree with them—that rye here is much more subject to virus disease than in Northern European countries. Rye will do well in Scandinavian countries —in Finland and so on—where there is a cold climate. Seemingly, virus disease can thrive here and not in those cold countries and, as a consequence, the rye is subject to failure here in many instances.

In most of the land here where rye is grown, it is possible to get a better oat crop. In at least 75 per cent. of the land, I think we would get a better wheat crop than rye, so it appears from what I can learn that there is not much to be said for the growing of rye on a large scale. We have also the difficulty that we have very little rye seed.

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 14 Jan 1942