Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 11 Mar 1948

Vol. 34 No. 24

Milk Yield of Dairy Stock—Motion.

Mr. Counihan

I move:—

That in view of the statement recently made by the Minister for Agriculture in regard to premiums for pedigree Shorthorn bulls, the Seanad now considers that immediate steps should be taken with a view to increasing the milk yield of dairy stock without detriment to the quality of our beef cattle and suggests to the Minister that this objective would be promoted by giving a bonus of £10 to the owner, for every cow of the Shorthorn breed certified by an inspector of a recognised cow-testing association as having produced 600 gallons of milk or 210 lbs. of butter fat within 12 months and which has not been previously certified as producing this record; and also that a bonus of £15 be paid to the owner for every cow of the Kerry breed producing 500 gallons of milk or 180 lbs. of butter fat.

I am happy to have the opportunity of welcoming Mr. Dillon on his first visit to the Seanad as Minister for Agriculture. I should like to assure him of the full co-operation of the cattle trade.

As the House will remember, I had a motion on the Order Paper before the adjournment to annual an Order made by the Minister's predecessor, but that Order has been annulled by the Minister, and I do not propose to make any reference to it further than to say that if it had been enacted it would have been disastrous to the cattle trade. We all agree that the milk yield of our dairy stock is very low. I think most people will agree that something should be done to increase that milk yield. There is no good complaining about the milk yield being low if there are not suggestions to increase it. At all events, this is a definite proposition. I am not standing by the terms of the motion if somebody else has a better proposal, but I am satisfied that every dairy farmer in the country is agreed that something must be done to increase the milk yield. Everybody is complaining about the shortage of milk and the shortage of butter, and yet nothing is being done. We have in the Twenty-Six Counties 1,200,000 dairy cows and a number of in-calf heifers. Of the 1,200,000, 66,000 are registered in cow-testing associations, and of that 66,000 only 13,000 are registered as producing over 600 gallons of milk in the year. That is a very low record. It must be presumed that the best farmers are members of the cow-testing association and that the best cows are registered, and yet only 13,000 of the 66,000 produce 600 gallons in the year. None of those 13,000 which are already registered as producing the prescribed quantity of milk or the prescribed amount of butter-fat would be eligible for the bonus I am suggesting. The bonus would be only given in respect of cows which had not been previously certified as producing the required amount, that is, 600 gallons or 210 lbs. of butter-fat. The Minister for Finance will probably want to know from the Minister for Agriculture what the cost of the scheme will be. It is not easy to fix a definite amount. I think the biggest number that we could hope for would be 1,000 cows per year to produce over 600 gallons. If we take the milk life of a cow as ten years and the average it is now producing as 400 gallons, it would be fairly accurate to assume that the increase would be 200 gallons a year, and on 1,000 cows over ten years, which is the milking life of a cow, it would be 2,000,000 gallons. The outlay on the subsidy over that period would be £10,000 and the value of the 2,000,000 gallons of milk would be £100,000. I think that would be a very sound investment.

With regard to the subsidy of £15 to the owner of every cow of the Kerry breed producing 500 gallons of milk or 180 lbs. of butter-fat, the butter-fat is a higher percentage than that of the dairy Shorthorn and I feel that something should be done in respect of the Kerry cow which is the only native breed we have in this country. It is a most useful and healthy animal and is free from tuberculosis and other bovine ailments which affect other cattle. For that reason I think it would be well that we should do something to increase the stock of Kerry cows.

There has been a lot of talk about Friesians and Jerseys. The Friesian will produce a good calf which will make a good store, but the Jersay will produce nothing but milk and butter. A Jersey beast would not be bought except to be sent for feeding animals in the Park; it is not even fit for sausages; it is only dogs' meat. The Kerry will be superior; the progeny of it will be superior as a beef-producing animal. It is the type of animal which is suitable for any land, poor mountainy land, or even the most fertile plain. It will pay better than the Jersey.

A lot of us seem very anxious to go in for something foreign. We have the Bourne Vincent Park in Kerry and I suggest that the Minister should establish a herd of Kerry cattle there, cattle with a good milking strain. Let the bulls that would be produced there be let out to farmers in various parts of Kerry at a reasonable price. It might be no harm if they were brought to other parts of the country also, to Government farms at the Albert College, Ballyhaise, and other such places. Every farmer knows how to breed a good Shorthorn, but we ought to establish the Kerry breed. There should be more attention paid to that aspect than there has been by the Department up to the present.

I have been asked why I have mentioned butter fats as well as milk. Most people know that milk contains 87 per cent. of water and the most valuable ingredient in the milk is the butter fat, which is generally 3½ per cent. If we got a 500-gallon cow with 4 per cent. of butter fat it would be as valuable from the butter fat point of view as a 600-gallon cow with 3½ per cent. The Minister should take into account the butter fat content as well as the quantity of milk produced.

It is possibly forcing an open door to ask the present Minister to do that. I am sure he is as anxious as any farmer to increase the milk yields of our dairy stock. If the Department or any individual has a better proposal to make, I shall be delighted to hear it. I feel that something should be done to increase the milk yield of our cattle and it should be done without any further hesitation.

Mr. McGee

I should like to support Senator Counihan by seconding his motion. I agree with most of what he has said. I am not, however, very keen on opening a door to the extent of saying that so many homes in Ireland require a subsidy. I would like to see the cattle trade of Ireland standing on its own feet. I should be sorry to see the day when we shall have to subsidise the farmers to feed themselves.

The complaint that Senator Counihan has so correctly voiced this evening has come at a rather abnormal time. Milk yields, even in the creamery districts, are much less than they used to be— indeed, they are worse than they used to be. It must be remembered that we are just moving out of a period when we experienced two or three wars. In the last war we had increased tillage. Ordinarily speaking, that increased tillage would provide a most satisfactory additional food but, with the high prices prevailing and the difficulties farmers were encountering over labour and one thing or another, the whole position was altered. There was not even permission given to use the crops you grew to feed your cows. On most farms, where compulsory tillage exceeded the ordinary tillage that the farmer was proceeding to carry out, inevitably he ploughed fields convenient to the yard. These would be the fields that would get the greatest portion of manure. If you had a load of manure handy you would drop it into the first field you met and each year it tended to enrich that land.

I hold that the good land in most cases of ordinary farmers was the land around the home. That was tilled and the cows were left to fend for themselves on the other land, possibly waste or damp land. On certain farms it can be said that compulsory tillage meant compulsory loss. If it was worth the farmer's while to till he would till. As it was, the farmers selected what would just fill the bill; they tilled the same land year in and year out. Accordingly, the scarcity of feeding stuffs and the practice of depriving the cows of the ordinary good land have had much to do with the reduced milk yields of to-day.

Thirty years ago we were getting along gaily but steadily, showing some improvements now and again; but the recent war left things abnormal. I would urge the Minister to set up a committee of exporters or feeders to report on the existing situation. The other day one of the Dublin papers told us that the loss to the farming community, since the beginning of the economic war, has been at the rate of £1,500,000 a year. That would mean something like £20,000,000. I think there is a situation there that could usefully be examined.

If there has been a loss, it has not matured to the detriment of men like myself, practically purely feeders. It has come to the producers of the live stock. We found calves being slaughtered at 10/- and perhaps it was then the best paying proposition because feeding was not available. There were certain things that militated against the producers of stock. Men buying store cattle for the past ten or 15 years whilst they were prohibited from getting high ceilinged prices as against what obtained in England, due to the tariffs, still got the store cattle at such a figure as protected most, if not all, of our normal feeders.

It must be remembered that whilst milk production has fallen, the yield of practically all crops has also been reduced. That is attributed to the absence of what we call fertilisers, but is really due to the fact that the same land was being cropped and there was an effort to over-produce without putting anything back into the land. On this question we have received from no Minister for Agriculture as yet an authoritative statement. There are rumours spread about and I think it would be well to have an examination in order to get the real facts of the situation.

Senator Counihan's motion would not be very costly. Perhaps as a countryman, I ought to embrace it and say it would mean more money in the country and would do something, but, on the other hand, I think Senator Counihan will agree with me that we have frequently prided ourselves on the fact that the Irish cattle trade can stand on its own feet if it is left alone. In the more peaceful days which we trust are not far ahead, I am not without some hope that the milk yield will improve and that the land will improve.

I am not too keen on adopting Senator Counihan's motion inasmuch as it opens the way for a subsidy for man's most useful animal—the most valuable companion that the farmers in Ireland have—and that is the cow. The cow is in every Irish homestead and she is essential. Her produce forms one of our most cherished possessions. I trust the Minister will see his way to proceed along the lines I have suggested. I would welcome the results of these inquiries before I would be prepared to go the whole length of putting this motion into operation.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Dillon)

It may be as well for me to intervene in this debate, if I may, at an early stage, because on the principle underlying this motion I take a very strong view. I shall never be party to the proposition that the farmers of this country should be turned into paupers by a Government proposal to pay them for keeping a good cow, and I do not believe the farmers will ever desire an Irish Government to do that to them. I have always believed that every section of the community in this country, professional men, business men, labourers and everybody else in the last analysis depend on the farmers for their livelihood. If the farmers have a decent livelihood the rest of the community prosper; if the farmers cannot get a decent livelihood the rest of the community will go bust.

Senator McGee has referred, in passing, to the economic war. Nobody will ever be able to reckon the devastation that was wrought on the best working farmers in this country by the economic war. They suffered in silence and many of them were ruined by the economic war to a degree from which they have never been able to recover. That is past history and it is our job now, in so far as we can, to repair the ravages of that disaster and restore the agricultural community to the road to progress and prosperity which they are well able to travel if only their neighbours would get out of their way.

Let us consider what this motion proposes—that we should pay the farmer to retain on his land a cow that will yield 10.741 pounds of milk in a lactation period. At present, butter fat values return £47 10s. 0d., there is £6 18s. 11d. for the skimmed milk and the price of the calf—call it £55. Why should the Government pay a man for retaining on his land a cow that is going to pay £55 in preference to a cow that is going to pay £20? What farmer in this country wants to be paid to keep a good cow in preference to a bad cow? I never met him, but if there are any such, the sooner they cease to be farmers the better it will be for themselves and for the country.

I can readily understand the Senator's anxiety to see energetic measures taken to increase the average milk yield of the dairy cattle of this country. I entirely agree with him that energetic measures to that end are urgently required, and they are going to be taken right here and now, not by coercion, not by sending out another horde of inspectors, but by placing at the disposal of the farmers of this country the means of securing milk yields. I will stake my reputation on it that, by putting within the reach of our farmers the means of doing that, this Government will achieve more in two years than 15 years of inspectors have done for the milk yields of this country.

What requires to be done to improve milk yields? It is not necessary to change the whole basis of our live-stock industry in order to secure satisfactory milk yields from the dairy stock of this country. I believe that the Shorthorn breed is the foundation of our whole live-stock economy, and I believe that, as an economic milk producer, the Shorthorn breed will hold its own against any other breed. I am not prepared to maintain that, if average volume be the sole criterion of a breed's excellence, the Shorthorn breed will excel all other breeds, but I think it is true, and I believe will be demonstrated in the course of the next few years, that as a profit-making producer the Shorthorn breed can hold its own with any other breed known in this country.

If we want to get from the Shorthorn breed, or from any other breed, the maximum yield of milk that is economic —remember milk yields can be pushed to fantastic heights by artificial feeding programmes which are far from economic—if we want to push milk yields to the highest economic level, the first instrument to employ is grass, and the first and most urgent improvement in grassland management in this country is to extend the period in the year during which fresh herbage is available from our pastures and the aftergrass of our meadows. One of the blights under which agriculture has suffered in this country for many years is the ignorant superstition, so widespread in certain circles, that grass is a kind of weed and that to have grass on your land is a sort of reflection on the farmer who has it about his place. I want to say this, that in my judgment the most valuable crop that can be grown in this country can be grass, if it were properly grown. It is the farmers who look on grass as a casual weed who are justified in despising it, because they are despising something which when treated like a weed acts like a weed; but they should, instead of despising the grass that they have suffered to degenerate in their keeping, hang their heads for shame of their ignorance rather than join in the raucous rubbish about ranchers and the like.

If they would but till their land and sow their grass seeds with the same care and discrimination that they profess to exercise in the selection of cereals for sowing, they would discover that, instead of having grass from May till September, they could have grass from March till October. They would discover, too, that the cheapest method of producing milk is the feeding of cattle in their full lactation on the growing grass, and that the man who is concerned primarily to supply co-operative creameries might be very well advised to produce all his milk with grass, and to concern himself very little with any effort to feed his cattle with concentrates designed to increase milk yields in winter.

A different story must be told of the man whose prime concern is to maintain an all-the-year-round supply of liquid milk and desires to sell the milk in that form to consumers. It is of the very nature of his business that he must seek to maintain his milk yield winter and summer, and with prudent discrimination he will seek to produce the milk that pays him best, in winter by the use of suitable feeding, and in summer by the provision of the fodder which his growing grass provides.

But grass has another use which some day our people will wake up to understand. Grass as an article for ensilage can be converted into one of the most useful and nutritious winter feeds that money can buy. It is only when it is extensively used for that purpose, in addition to being used for grazing and for hay in suitable circumstances, that we can say that an exhaustive use is being made of our own resources for the production of milk.

I say that measures are being taken, and are going to be taken now, to realise these objectives, not by coercion but by placing within the farmer's reach the means of doing it. I hope, within the next few months, to have a general survey made of the grassland of this country by one of the greatest authorities, I think, in the world on practical grassland management. If it should be possible, I hope in time to have at the disposal of our Government as adviser on grassland maintenance a man whose reputation has established him as a great practical authority, and the result of whose work is not only contained between the covers of a book but in successful results on the practical demonstration of his own knowledge in his own country. The Government propose, in the course of this year, to establish at Johnstown a soil science research institute and a plant breeding institute which, I hope, will yet be, if not the first, amongst the first, of such institutes in the world. If we think of competing with wealthy countries in material achievement we are foredoomed to failure, but in the realm of science, of learning and of skill we are more than a match for most competitors, and at least the equal of all. Soil science and plant culture are two matters in which I believe we have as fine workers as there are in any country in the world. It is the intention of the Government to place at the disposal of these workers facilities equal to those available to workers in other learned institutions throughout the world. I will stake my reputation that, given the same facilities, our men will bring those interested in these sciences from all parts of the world to study, in our country, how soil science, the management of soil, the management of plants and the development of grasslands can best be done.

The Government have already taken steps, and the plants will shortly be in operation, to produce ground limestone in abundant quantities for those who wish to buy it. It is not the intention to break down any man's gate and pile ground limestone on his land, whether he likes it or not. Fixity of tenure in this country of ours, as far as I understand it, means that you can throw the landlord's bailiff out if he tries to come in. I should like to see established in this country the right to throw anyone off the land if he tries to break in but I should also like to see the Department of Agriculture in this country developed into such an institution that every farmer in this country, whenever he encounters difficulty or perplexity or embarrassment, would think that he has a department to which he can turn with confidence in the certain knowledge that if it is humanly possible they would consider it a privilege to come to his aid. And in that spirit we are providing the ground limestone. No one need buy it if they do not want it, but we will explain the value of it to the land for which those farmers are in some sense trustees. And again I stake my reputation that where it is required there will be nobody more eager to buy and spread it than those who own the land of Ireland. I hope to see it costing about 16/- per ton at the quarry. I hope to see a service available of which every farmer can take advantage if he wishes, but he need not if he does not want to, to have the ground limestone brought to his land and distributed by efficient distributors for a small additional charge. Some men will wish to avail of that. Others will prefer to send their own carts and spread it in their own way. I know that old practitioners will decry my indiscretion in speaking frankly and openly of the plans we have and of our confident hopes. If anything goes agley I have left myself open to gibes and jeers in opening my mouth but I do not give a fiddle-de-dee. These are the things I do hope now. These are the things I believe we can perform. Maybe I am wrong but I am staking my reputation in our ability to do these things and I know we mean to do them.

The next measure, once the grasslands of this country have been raised to the highest pitch of production by suitable manure, by the application of lime, by prudent rotation of tillage and re-seeding where it is necessary, and by a prudent system of grazing designed to apply cheap nitrogen to the soil, is to ensure a supply of the best dairy bulls money can buy, and it is the intention of the Government to buy them wherever they can be got—Scotland, England, the North of Ireland, Ballsbridge or Ballydehob. It is by no means certain that the only place you can get a good bull is Perth or Ballsbridge. If it costs money to get them, I think money so spent is the best of all investments. We will buy a few duds, by mistake, because there never was a man yet who dealt in live stock, whether it be horses or cattle, who in the course of his career did not get a few duds, but it will not be for want of skill or experience, because we have some of the finest authorities on live stock in the world in the Irish Department of Agriculture. Do not doubt that. If it is not known at home, it is known abroad, where their opinions are universally sought when great sums are spent. I have every confidence that the public servants at the disposal of this State will make as good a job as any body of men in buying for our people the stock that we require, and in my opinion the best to acquire is the double dairy Shorthorn bull.

There is one feature of all these figures that has been a perennial puzzle to me and that is the unpopularity of cow-testing. Why is it that the farmers of this country are so slow consistently to practise cow-testing? If any Senator here can propose to me a practicable method of popularising cow-testing in this country I shall be greatly indebted to him. It is common knowledge, among all of us who have any experience of milch cattle, that one is most easily deceived by that type of cow which shortly after calving produces an astounding abundance of milk. I believe in the science of psychology; it is a well-known fact that one insensibly remembers the happy experiences of life and thrusts into the subconscious the less agreeable experiences one may have to pass through. The cow-owning farmers are marvellous exponents of that psychological phenomenon. For the first month the cow fills the bucket and then falls away. Most farmers of this country love to remember the first month and some of my acquaintances on being induced to join a cow-testing association were surprised when it was revealed by the test that some of the sedate old ladies who kept to the middle of the road were really the money-spinners whereas the charming queens who began with histrionics ended up by being nothing but a burden on their owners. Some of them were so resentful of that revelation that they left the cow-testing association. They felt it was a kind of reflection on themselves.

That is common knowledge in many parts of the country and it is something that is a real hindrance to the development of deep-yielding cows of this country. Mind you, I am not saying this in a spirit of derision, because I am obliged to confess that it is in some measure spoken from experience. You do get an idea about your own cattle and it is a bit of a shock after the acid proof of test is administered that your own opinions about your own cattle are fallacious. I think most experienced farmers will agree with me that it is extremely easy to estimate wrongly the milk-producing capacity of your own cow and there is no means of correcting that false estimate except to submit to cow-testing. Anything that my Department can do to promote cow-testing societies in this country and to induce farmers to join them and stay in them we will most happily do. I think it is worth mentioning that whereas in the past the view was held that anything less than a weekly weighing of milk would make cow-testing illusory that view no longer holds. I understand it is pretty general belief that a monthly weighing will give a very valuable indication, perhaps not quite so precise but quite precise enough for all ordinary purposes of a cow's capacity for milk and this fact may help to remove some of the prejudices that at present exist against cow-testing.

I have said that I have regarded Shorthorn cattle as the basis of our whole live-stock industry and that I believe it and will continue to hold that belief until the reverse can be established. I am prepared to make this admission that if the dairy farmers of this country can establish that they are being urged to retain a breed of cattle which over the average is yielding a lesser milk supply than some other breed which is available to them and that they are being urged to do this in order to avoid irretrievable injury to the live-stock industry or the drystock industry I think the case could be made for the proposition that the dairying industry in which the farmers engage was entitled to some consideration from their fellow-farmers who depend upon drystock for their income. I doubt if when the investigation is made that a case could be established. I certainly would not undertake to establish it but if it were established that the farmer for the same quantity of foodstuff could produce from a Friesian cow 700 gallons and from a Shorthorn cow only 500 gallons and a calf I would be prepared to admit that a case which would seem to me irresistible could be made for paying the farmer to keep a Shorthorn cow for the public good the value of the 700 gallons of milk for the 500 gallons and the calf. Mind you, if and when the reckoning is made, I doubt very much that it can be established before any reasonable body of impartial men or women that the differential between the average yield of dairy Shorthorn cows, bearing in mind that that yield consists of a calf and milk, is substantially inferior in value to the yield of a Jersey, a Guernsey or a Friesian, if you take her milk and her calf into the counting.

I think I have said all that I can profitably say on this motion, but I would like to end as I began. If the day ever comes when the farmers of this country have to be paid to keep a good cow, then, as Senator McGee indicated, this country will be bust wide open. I do not believe that day will ever come. God forbid that any Minister for Agriculture in this country, for political reasons, publicity reasons or popularity reasons, would ever stoop to make paupers of the farmers of Ireland. I never will, in any case, and so long as I am where I am the Government of this country will not be asked to pay any farmer to keep a good cow. But, without having recourse to that device, I hope that my Department in the course of the next two or three years will have completed a programme which will place it within the reach of every farmer to get the highest yield per cow out of every cow in Ireland that could be got out of any cow in any country, and without compelling one single one of them to employ or purchase anything, I dare to prophesy that the resources placed at their disposal will be availed of and that the necessity of discussing inadequate milk yields will rarely if ever arise again in this Seanad.

Mr. O'Callaghan

I was rather sorry to hear the Minister turning down Senator Counihan's motion in such a manner as he did. Senator Counihan, when he brought forward the motion, said it might not be a practicable one and he was quite prepared to listen to other proposals. His motion does not appeal to me in the least, but he brought it forward for the purpose of a discussion, and I was rather disappointed at the attitude the Minister has adopted towards Senator Counihan and his proposal.

The Minister is, I think, on right lines. When he was making his opening statement I was very doubtful as to whether he was going to come to the kernel of the question, or what I conceived to be the kernel of the question. He talked for a long time about grass and making ensilage. Fifty years ago a noted agricultural scientist said that grass was the best and the cheapest food for cattle. That is as true to-day as it was then. Many good farmers in this country know the value of grass, but all the farmers in this country are not good farmers, and all the farmers cannot be blamed for not being good farmers. Most of us know there are historical reasons which have militated against the farmer of the present day being a good farmer. The Minister mentioned Perth as a possible venue for the purpose of bringing bulls to this country. For 50 years we have been bringing bulls from Scotland, and the result is that we have been brought down to a two-ounce ration of butter and we have been brought down to a low yield from our cows. Scotland breeds cattle for beef; England breeds cattle for milk. We have been bringing bulls all these years from Scotland, but we seldom brought a bull capable of breeding a good milking strain from England.

Mr. Dillon

We are going to, Senator.

Mr. O'Callaghan

I congratulate you on your decision. I was disappointed when you came into office in that the first thing you did was to subsidise beef bulls which, in my opinion, have done more harm to the dairying industry than anything else could have done. I know the Minister is amenable to reason and that he will change his mind when he sees what is right. I have no doubt that he will continue on the right lines, will improve the breed of cattle and make them suitable for dairying. The farmer who goes to a fair to add a cow or two or three to his herd is an extremely lucky man if he gets a middling animal and very lucky if he gets a good animal. What is happening in the cross-Channel markets at the moment is that Shorthorn dairy heifers are ousted completely. The Ayrshires and Friesians are making double the price of Shorthorns for dairying purposes because the Shorthorns have been bred entirely too much for beef.

The Minister talked about grassland and every good farmer knows the value of grass. Whatever is wrong, we have not got accustomed to making ensilage. In my opinion, and the Minister has said so, too, the making of ensilage is a practical and an economic way of feeding dairy cows. Eight or ten years ago in County Kerry a number of silos were erected. They were subsidised out of public funds, out of county committee funds. Three or four years ago an agricultural instructor's report showed that not one of the silos was filled. I want to point out the difference between theory and practice. I am convinced that ensilage is a grand food for cattle. Most of us should be making ensilage, at least on every farm over 50 acres. In Kerry you have an illustration of what happened in connection with silos. Silos were built and filled for three or four years and then left there.

Mr. Dillon

Was the land rebuilt?

Mr. O'Callaghan

I consider the Minister has the right ideas about improving the land and bringing in the proper type of cow. In the English markets the dairy Shorthorn heifer is at a discount. The farmers will come in and buy the Ayrshire and Friesian and give double the price because they find that the Shorthorn is more beef than milk. We have been breeding for beef and completely neglected milk. We brought beef bulls from Scotland but no bull of the dairy strain from England. Now is the time, Minister. You have my blessing and may God speed the plough!

As regards the unpopularity of cow-testing, I have been cow-testing for 40 years and I have been associated with other people trying to get farmers to do cow-testing. Why is it not more popular? Because the people who are cow-testing could not find any good results from the testing. The heifers and cows they were breeding were not as good as their dams. Anything I say is said to help the Minister. I am anxious to be helpful and not critical.

Mr. Dillon

The Senator will agree that is not a good argument against cow-testing, that it did reveal that the daughters were worse than the dams?

Mr. O'Callaghan

To my mind, what it revealed was that we were using the wrong type of sire.

Mr. Baxter

And it did not change even when we discovered it.

Mr. O'Callaghan

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the statement he made. I hope he will continue-along the same lines.

Professor Johnston

I feel inclined to begin my remarks by asking the rhetorical question: "Why are we here?" only I am reminded that a certain preacher who began his sermon for the inmates of a certain asylum by asking that question was answered by one of the brighter patients, "Because we are not all there." I want to say, in all seriousness, that the fact that this particular section of the Independents is sitting on this side of the House does not necessarily imply that we are 100 per cent. supporters of the present Government, any more than we were 100 per cent. opponents of the last Government. We propose to retain our independence and say exactly what we think about all governments and all government policies.

Someone has said it is the proud tradition of the British Civil Service that they serve all governments with equal fidelity and equal contempt. I would not use quite the same form of words, but I would say that some of us, at any rate, feel that we ought to serve and criticise all governments with equal fidelity and equal respect, bearing in mind that the voice of the people is also the voice of the Government, whether it is uttered in the still, small voice of the late Minister for Justice or in the thunderous accents of the present Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. Dillon

It is equally untrue, Deo gratias.

Professor Johnston

Coming to the Minister's speech, unfortunately he said nine-tenths of what I would have said if I had spoken before him, and a great deal of very interesting matter as well, and, after his devastating analysis of the particular method proposed in this motion of achieving a result that we all desire to see achieved, there is really nothing I would care to add to that part of his speech.

In spite of the fact that I could not but agree with practically everything he said, there may remain one or two points which I would like him, on some convenient occasion, to develop at greater length. The Minister did not cover quite the whole ground, but the ground that he did cover was of the utmost importance. I thoroughly agree, and I welcome the fact, that Senator O'Callaghan also sympathised with the point of view that the best method of grading up the milk yields of our cattle is to improve the quality of the milk transmitting capacity in the bull. We want more and better dairy Shorthorn bulls in the creamery areas. Now, on that point there are some facts which might perhaps be put on record. According to the information contained in the Interim Report on the cattle and dairy industries by the Committee on Post-Emergency Agricultural Policy, we find that in 1942 in the nine dairying counties there were 64 premium bulls of the beef Shorthorn type and 479 premium bulls of the dairy Shorthorn type. It was recommended by that committee that the high proportion of dairy Shorthorn bulls should be made still higher in these nine varying counties, and, further, that the Minister should exert himself to ensure a certain minimum of dairy Shorthorn bulls even in those areas which specialise in drystock farming. That raises the question of the relations between the dairy Shorthorn bull premiums and the beef Shorthorn premiums. That has been a matter of some controversy and of a change of policy recently. I am sorry that the Minister did not take this opportunity of explaining in full, as only he could explain, what exactly is the present policy and attitude of the Government with regard to beef Shorthorn premiums and dairy Shorthorn premiums. Will he, for example, discourage the use of beef Shorthorn bulls in the dairying areas and encourage the minimum use of a certain number of dairy Shorthorn bulls in the drystock areas? Now, there has been as I say a change of policy. The former Minister was prepared to abolish the beef Shorthorn premiums. The present Minister has restored them. It is a curious fact that the former Minister, in abolishing premiums for beef Shorthorns, was carrying out a recommendation made to the Government of Northern Ireland by the Barrington Committee that reported to that Government. Therefore, the reasons which influenced the Barrington Committee to recommend the abolition of premiums for beef Shorthorns and to specialise on premiums for the dairy Shorthorn type are not without interest. I would like to put them on the records of this House. They can be found in the monthly report of the Government of Northern Ireland—Ministry of Agriculture—for December, 1947. I may say that is a very admirable publication from which I have learned a lot of practical agriculture. I would strongly advise our Minister and his Department to produce a similar document or, if not, to arrange for its circulation here. Here is what the report says:—

"The committee's decision is summed up in the following sentence —‘But, whether it be difficult or not, we recommend that the efforts of the Ministry of Agriculture be directed to producing and establishing a dual-purpose animal based on the English Dairy Shorthorn with milk as the first objective, but suitably balanced by beef characteristics.'

In discussing what has happened in the past, the report admits that the deterioration of the milking qualities of the cows in this country has been brought about through the use of Scottish Shorthorn bulls, most of which have very little milk ancestry in their pedigrees. The use of beef (or non-dairy) Shorthorn bulls on Dairy Shorthorn cows is particularly condemned because of the fact that the heifer progeny are of the same natural colours as those from Dairy Shorthorn sires. Thus there is the very great danger that they will filter into the dairy herds and prove to be very disappointing and unprofitable. The committee takes a very serious view of this point and makes the following statement—‘We, therefore, recommend that beef Shorthorn bulls be made ineligible for premiums, and that an intensive educational campaign be inaugurated against the use of beef bulls with Dairy Shorthorn cows'."

The late Minister, as I have said, carried out the recommendation of the Northern Government's committee and the present Minister has reversed that policy.

The Minister in the course of his remarks said that it was regrettable that Irish farmers did not make more use of the cow-testing associations. If he refers again to the Interim Report issued here he will find that the existing organisation of those associations is capable of considerable improvement. The method of payment of a cow-testing supervisor is based on the number of cows that are cow tested. The farmers let their cows be tested just to oblige a neighbour who happens to be supervisor, and in that way add to his annual income, but not because they have the least interest in the results. Consequently, a great number of cows are put through the machine of cow testing merely in order to make up an income for the supervisor. He is interested in keeping a lot of "dud" cows in the register in order to keep up a very moderate income for himself—determined in the wrong way. The Committee on Post-Emergency Agricultural Policy recommended that payment for the services of cow-testing supervisors should be altered and that in future there should be a levy on the milk supplied to creameries of, I think, 2d. per 100 gallons, that this sum should be doubled by a contribution from the State, and that the State would pay two-thirds of the whole cost of running the cow-testing associations, and that the salaries of the cow-testing supervisors should be irrespective of the number of cows being tested.

One result of that would be that an association would have an interest in throwing out of the test all cows which were obviously unprofitable, and would have no interest in keeping them just to keep up the number, and equally would have an interest in throwing out all cows which reached a certain high standard and which, obviously, had to be registered and treated with considerable respect as the dams of future high milking progeny.

I think it was also urged that these cow-testing associations should be given more creative and constructive functions in connection with the whole business of increasing the milk supply, that they should be turned into dairy cattle improvement associations operated in close contact with existing creamery organisations, that the supervisors should not only do the mechanical work of measuring the monthly output of the cows but also provide the farmers with advice and information as to the best methods of feeding their cows so as to get the maximum yield. The machinery of these associations, it is suggested, should be used for identifying and marking at birth the progeny of all "designated" cows and the associations should have the care and custody of suitable dairy Shorthorn bulls.

All these recommendations were made in all seriousness and were contributed to by the Minister's own Department. I would like to know on some suitable occasion whether the Minister proposes to give effect to the suggestions for increasing the efficiency of existing cow-testing associations, and of abolishing the present organisation which, obviously, makes for waste and inefficiency. It is calculated that by adopting that method of organisation—the levy—in the country the initial cost to the State would be £29,000 per year which cost, of course, would gradually expand. It is thought that the additional expenditure would have an educational justification. It would mean that farmers who are supposed to be profit-makers would not be paid at the public expense, thereby adding to their existing profits. It is thought that such a scheme would help to do something in reference to a matter in which there is a public interest, and would bring about efficiency in our agricultural industry.

Sir John Keane

I agree with what the Minister has said, but there was one special point that I was sorry he did not develop. He referred to the importance of accountancy amongst farmers and then proceeded to relate it to cow testing. Of course, that is only a very limited aspect of this question of accountancy, a subject which has been brought before this House on many occasions in the past by Senator Counihan and myself. The results of mere cow testing may be illusory. It is quite possible that a cow producing 1,000 gallons of milk, or the equivalent units of butter fat at a certain price, may not be as profitable to a man as a cow producing 600 gallons at a lower figure. Farmers should be educated, as far as possible, to look at the unit cost. That is the real test as to whether his business is profitable or not. I am sure that the Minister as a practical farmer and as a man of commercial experience appreciates that. I was interested when the Minister said that he would be very anxious to get from farmers some indication of how accountancy could enter into their mentality. I know it is very difficult. In Denmark it is done by voluntary associations of farmers who see the importance of this matter. They supply the basic data to a secretariate which then gets out the figures. I know that was done to a certain extent in the early days of the Minister's Department.

I would press on the Minister the great importance of cost accountancy in relation to the unit cost of milk produced. Indeed it might be applied to all aspects of farm production. The original Agricultural Commission on which I served recommended that the Department should set up and foster, not necessarily through the Department's staff but through some form of financial assistance to farmers who were willing to keep accounts, a scheme on those lines. Presumably, where it was successful the farms where it was employed might be utilised as demonstration farms and the accounts made available. I am sure the Minister is in sympathy with the general idea. I know it is difficult. I hope the Minister will bear in mind this business aspect of farming which is really so important.

Mr. S. O'Donovan

I am afraid that I cannot congratulate Senator Counihan on putting down this motion for discussion this evening. He tabled a motion here previously in connection with the branch of the live-stock industry with which he is mainly concerned, namely, the beef trade, and I feel that he is astute politician enough to know that that might have been his swan song if he did not bring forward something to placate a section of the farming community which is of as great a value, if it is not of greater value to the community, as the beef-producing members of the community, those who concentrate on producing milk for sale as milk or for supply to the creameries for butter. He must have felt that these people would be dissatisfied with him unless he brought forward some motion which would show that he was really in favour of the milk-producing farmers as well as the beef-producing farmers. He then presents us with this motion, which is grotesque in its wording and which would be absolutely impossible to put into operation.

Senator Counihan does not like inspectors and the new Minister for Agriculture seems to have a holy horror of inspectors, but if this motion were to be implemented the number of inspectors would certainly have to be increased tenfold. The bonus in respect of dairy cattle is fixed by him at £10 a head for those animals not producing 600 gallons of milk per year, and it would require an astute inspector, with the co-operation of all the farmers, to earmark, tag and identify the cows already producing 600 gallons, and give them nothing, but to give a bonus of £10 to those cows not then producing 600 gallons. Any Senator can see the impossibility of doing that without having inspectors invading the farmer's premises and checking up on the cows which were, and were not, producing 600 gallons. In the case of Kerry cows, where the suggested bonus is £15, he apparently intends to give it to them all, whether they previously produced 500 gallons or not. That would make it, to some extent, easier than his proposal for dealing with the Shorthorn type of cattle. I think that the Senator, on examining the terms of the motion, will realise that it is absolutely inoperable and impracticable.

I fear that I cannot congratulate the new Minister on his statement of policy here to-night. I think his statement is capable of having applied to it the description he gave of the high milking cow which begins with histrionics and ends up with nothing at all. He gave us practically nothing new, except this decision to concentrate on a better use of our grasslands. That was referred to in the reports of the post-war planning committee to which Senator Johnston referred and it was referred to by many speakers in this House already. The Minister said he would have nothing to do with making paupers of the farmers. Senator Counihan on one occasion called the farmers paupers and I protested strongly against calling any farmer a pauper. If a subsidy is given, as subsidies are given at present, to enable the farmer to produce butter at the price at which it is sold to the community, that subsidy applies to the dairy industry and there is no reason why we should call the farming community paupers on that account.

I seriously suggest to the Minister that he remove from his mind this antipathy to inspectors. I am an inspector and I hope that fact will not increase his antipathy to my speaking here, if I continue to have an opportunity of speaking after to-night. He suggested that he could do more now than 15 years of inspectors' work. Other Ministers of the new accommodation Government have made disparaging remarks about the people who must carry out their policy and I think it is a bad principle to adopt the first day a new Minister comes into office. Inspectors have to carry out the policy and instructions of their Departments, and I strongly deprecate any remarks by a new Minister against the efficient work which these inspectors have endeavoured to carry out, often under very difficult circumstances. Whether those inspectors went into a farmer's premises with gaiters on or not, they were carrying out the duties imposed on them by their officers in charge, and it is bad policy for the head of any State Department to cast aspersions on the ability or suitability of the officers carrying out the instructions of that Department.

Mr. Baxter

He did not do that at all.

Mr. Dillon

I did asperse the warble-fly inspectors.

Mr. S. O'Donovan

I read in the Press that the Minister for Agriculture referred to the farmers who would be trained and said that they would not be fellows with gaiters going around to visit farms. That is an aspersion on the suitability and efficiency of the present instructors who are doing the work of the Department and who must continue to do it. I hope the Minister will see to it that more of them will be provided to do this work.

Mr. Dillon

Are we talking of instructors, inspectors or warble-fly inspectors?

Mr. Hogan

They are all the same.

Mr. Dillon

That is not true, thanks be to God.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator should be allowed to proceed with his speech. There will be no further interruptions, I hope.

Mr. S. O'Donovan

The Minister also referred to people who did not speak respectfully of grass as having an ignorant superstition against it. I have often referred to the fact that the first thing which the people who speak so highly of, and have such confidence in, grass should learn is how to grow it and that is one of the things the Minister mentioned with which I thoroughly agree. The plough must be taken round the land and used to make the production of grass for feeding our live stock a proper and reproductive system of agriculture, instead of its being left unattended from year to year, fading away to what the Minister referred to as weed land.

Senator Counihan spoke of the average life of the milch cow as being ten years. Actually, it is only half that. Through the incidence of disease and other factors, the productive life of the cow is, unfortunately, not half the period he stated. If a cow continues, without accident by reason of animal disease, for five years on any farmer's premises, he is lucky, and, as a matter of fact, that average of five years is high. A period of ten years is an impossible figure to give in this respect. I am sorry that when Senator Johnston was referring to the post-war planning committee's recommendations on the dairying industry he did not refer to one of their recommendations to the effect that if the milch cows of the country were properly fed all the year round their production would increase by 100 gallons each. If that were done our milk production problem would be practically solved. If each cow producing milk at present produced 100 gallons more, and if, in addition, we had a policy of reducing the incidence of disease in these cows —be they dairy Shorthorn, beef Shorthorn, Jersey or Holstein—and again I must emphasise that the cow producing our live stock must continue to be the Shorthorn breed—we would have solved our milk problem so far as the production of butter and milk sufficient for the country's needs is concerned, and anything beyond that could be used for export purposes. There is a possibility that we would have sufficient milk to have a liquid milk export trade, as they have in the North of Ireland.

I ask the Minister to concentrate on the recommendations of that post-war planning committee, so far as they apply to milk-producing animals, and on their interim report which referred to the need for a proper veterinary service. There is no doubt we cannot have a satisfactory live-stock industry until we reduce the incidence of animal diseases, and especially infectious diseases. What is the good of having a high-class milk-producing animal if next year she is going to abort and destroy her whole milking career or develop mastitis and destroy her whole productive capacity? There must be a development of a veterinary service for the agricultural community, and I want to impress on the Minister that he must have an increased number of agricultural instructors or inspectors or advisers—call them what you will. They must be there to take the information into the homes of the farming community. There is no good in publishing research on this and that disease. We have research being done into various diseases, into plant breeding and into soil analysis. What is required is the bringing into the homes of the farmers of the information we have and that cannot be done without a greater personnel than we have. Let this personnel be educated for a short period in an agricultural college. Let them be men who have got a degree in agriculture at the university, but, be they who they may, they must be the personnel to bring the information into the households and homes of the people. It cannot be done without increasing expenditure and I would say to the Minister that he should not deter the man who can carry that information there and educate the farming community that extent.

By all means let him do as he indicated the other day—help the farmers and the farmers' sons for a year, or even two years if the father can afford it, at an agricultural college. The idea would be to let him go back to the farm and put into practice there the information he has got. To keep the farming community up-to-date you must have the personal contact at the home of the farmer through the medium of another person who is more skilled and who becomes up-to-date from year to year through the information at our disposal. Do not try to concentrate on what has been so often suggested— that we want research, and that we want it written in the books that this, that, and the other thing is the right thing. It will be ineffective unless we can transmit it to the cowshed and field or anywhere else around the farmer's premises. You cannot do it by books, pamphlets or any system other than the personal contact. I make this appeal to the Minister: Do not let the agricultural people think that because an instructor goes around with leggings that he is the person at whom you must throw sods of turf. That is the wrong attitude to adopt.

Mr. Dillon

Entirely wrong.

Mr. S. O'Donovan

The feeling might grow through the country that, because he is an inspector, he is only the paid official of the Minister and he is no good. It would be breeding a bad policy and a bad mentality amongst the community if the Minister here calls him the inspector with leggings or another Minister calls him a pipsqueak inspector. That is wrong, it is a bad policy and it is not good for the country. The better course would be to say to the farmers: "Send your sons to the agricultural college or to the demonstration farms for a year." Every farmer's son will not be able to go there. Tell them: "We will give you more help, more assistance." You may call them inspectors if you wish, but give the farmers these people who will go to their farms and tell them: "You are doing wrong; I will show you how to do it." He is the man who knows how to plough and he can show the farmers' sons how to do things. These are the people whom the Minister should concentrate on in order to help the farmers. If it is to cost money, spend that money in bringing that education to the farmers' homes, but do not give the impression that these people are incompetent, silly people because they have leggings on and that they are not the people for whom the farming community should have respect.

Mr. Dillon

Will the Senator permit me to say that I would be greatly distressed if anyone in the country understood my reference to inspectors to apply to the agricultural instructors who, in my judgment, are a splendid body of men doing an invaluable work? But the Senator will agree with me that there is a difference in English and in Irish between "muinteoir" and "cigire".

Mr. S. O'Donovan

Tuigim go bhfuil difiriocht idir muinteoir agus cigire ach is féidir le cigire beith ina múinteoir leis. Táim-se im cigire agus táim ag múineadh gach lá dem shaoghal. Ní ceart an rud a dubhairt an tAire á rádh mar gheall ar cigire nó múinteoir. I will finish on that note. I appeal to the Minister to have less histrionics and a more practical application of the education which we have so as to bring it home definitely to the agricultural community. In that way I believe we will be able to do a better day's work for the country.

Mr. Duffy

When Senator Sir John Keane was speaking, I recalled to mind a story which Senator Hayes tells frequently. I hope I am not embarrassing the Senator now. The story goes something like this. A distinguished member of Dáil Eireann, mainly distinguished by reason of the fact that he never took part in a debate, happened to be in conversation on one occasion with W.B. Yeats who, I think, frequently took part in debates, and with some effect. The poet was talking eloquently for half an hour. When he finished the Deputy said: "Well, Sir, you have taken the words out of my mouth." Senator Sir John Keane took some of the words out of my mouth because I was perturbed by the fact that most people talking of milk yields overlooked the fact that it costs money to get yields. I understand there are in this country some cows which produce upwards of 1,200 gallons of milk per annum. Senator O'Callaghan will probably know better than I do if that is true.

Mr. Dillon

It is.

Mr. Duffy

I understand from people closely associated with milk production that that is so but that, in fact, the cost per gallon is no greater in the case of the cow giving 1,200 gallons than in the case of the cow giving 600 gallons. The main thing is that we should not lose sight of the cost element in discussing this matter. I understand that there is in relation to most strains an optimum yield beyond which any effort to get better results becomes less remunerative—uneconomic, in other words. In discussing this matter I want to refer only to one aspect of the case which seems to me to require attention. Although, I suppose, others have thought of it, nobody has mentioned it. In this country we might aim at two things. We might aim in certain parts of the country at milk production and in other parts of the country, where probably conditions are more suitable, we could aim at beef production. I do not know if these two things can be separated, but I imagine they can.

There is not much use in thinking in terms of beef production when you are dealing with, for instance, the West of Ireland, or what is particularly called the Gaeltacht congested districts. I do not think they can produce much beef in these areas unless at very great expense. I believe that you can increase the milk yield in these areas, because I know that you will find in the Gaeltacht areas cows which give a reasonably good yield. As against that, you have cows which have a very poor yield. In that regard, I think there is an economic factor which is overlooked. Many of these cows which give a poor yield along the western seaboard are old cows or badly-fed cows—hungry cows—because they are practically of no use and are retained by the small farmers for the reason that they cannot afford to replace them.

It was a practice in my youth when certain people lost their cows to send a few neighbours around with a passbook to collect over an area of ten miles the price of another cow, because those people could not out of their own resources buy a cow. I think that is a factor that has to be taken into account—the factor that there is poverty amongst the farming community, amongst the small farmers on the western seaboard and in the Gaeltacht areas as a whole. Their cattle are poor in quality, largely because they cannot afford better cattle and because the cattle are poor in quality the milk production is low. Therefore, the income of the farmer from his cattle is extremely low. This is probably something apart from the problem indicated by Senator Counihan, but I think it is really a vital question. It is a question of enabling a small holder with two or three cows to get on to a higher level where he can afford to have better cows and where he can afford to decide as between one strain and another. He cannot afford to do that now and that is one of our big problems, one of the problems to which I would like to direct the Minister's attention in particular.

I have in mind now the condition of the small holders along the western seaboard. The Minister is as well acquainted with that area as I am, and probably better acquainted. It is, at any rate, a problem apart from what Senator Counihan is familiar with in County Dublin or Senator O'Callaghan is familiar with in County Cork. There is another problem, a very serious one. Almost one-third of the land-holders of this island live in that poor area, an area where there is nothing but poverty and hard work, and I would like to think that one of the early activities of the Minister will be to devise some means—we cannot discuss them now—by which we can raise the standard of living for those people to whom I refer, so that they can have better and choicer cows and can make a better income out of their small holdings.

Mr. Meighan

Before entering on the motion before the House, may I be permitted, as a neighbour of the Minister, to convey to him on behalf of those I represent and on my own behalf our good wishes for his success as Minister for Agriculture?

Mr. Dillon

Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Meighan

While I agree with the spirit of Senator Counihan's motion, I do not agree with the manner in which it is framed. It is not a new notion of mine. I expressed it at meetings of the county committee of agriculture in Roscommon and also here in the presence of two predecessors of the Minister. I refer to my opinion on this premium question and on the question of an increased milk supply. As a result of our experience of seeing premiums given to dairy bulls in County Roscommon for the past 20 years, we find that the milk yield has not increased to the extent that it should. I attribute that to this reason, that the heifer calves from bulls, noted sires, with a good milking strain, have not been retained in the county. I made the suggestion on former occasions that if it was possible for the Department of Agriculture to devise some scheme whereby heifer calves from sires of a noted milk strain would be earmarked and retained, it would be very desirable.

It would not matter very much whether or not they were retained by the people who bred them so long as they were kept in the country. The Minister is familiar with conditions in the West of Ireland and knows that there are many farmers there whose holdings will not maintain more than from two to five cows. Any extra stock would disturb their economy. Hence the great majority of them are not in a position to keep these young calves. It means that, if they decide to retain a two-year-old heifer they have reared, they have to dispose of a cow. That is one of the reasons why I think it is essential that the Department should devise some scheme whereby these heifer calves, with a milking strain, should be earmarked. If they have to be disposed of afterwards by those who rear them it will be all right so long as they are kept in the country. We could then say that we had a number of heifers of noted milking strain.

I do not think it would be necessary to give premiums for that purpose or even to subsidise such a scheme. Provided those heifers were earmarked, as I suggest, and were known for their milking strain, the demand for them would be such as to guarantee the producer good recompense for rearing them. With regard to the bull premiums they have been given on a generous scale in Roscommon. There are premiums up to £28 for those of the double-dairy type. I think that after an experience of 15 or 20 years the members of the county committee of agriculture in Roscommon do not believe that things have turned out as well as they should. I suggest that one of the reasons for that is that the calves have not been retained in the area.

Senator Duffy suggested that there should be nothing but dairy cows in the West. A great number of the farmers there like good stores. Our fairs are noted for supplying some of the best store cattle produced in the country. Therefore, I think that the Shorthorn beef type is also necessary. With regard to the cow testing supervisors, one of the difficulties, in my opinion, is that their pay is not sufficient at the initial stages. I think that at that period of a cow testing scheme, for the first five or six months at any rate, the supervisors should be paid a decent wage. That might help to overcome some of the difficulties that have been mentioned. These are some points that I wish to bring to the Minister's notice. I got the ear of the Minister's two predecessors when putting forward those suggestions in the past. I hope that on this occasion I have not alone got the ear of the present Minister but that I have touched his heart a little also.

Mr. Hawkins

I must say that Senator Counihan got a rather hard knock from his Minister for Agriculture on this motion, almost as hard as the knock he received from the Minister's predecessor on the last occasion that he had a motion down. The Minister at that time dealt with some matters that I thought would never be raised in this House again, but two of them were brought into the discussion to-night, one by the Minister and the other by Senator McGee. The latter referred to the slaughter of calves. That matter was very ably dealt with by the former Minister.

If the present Minister is speaking again to-night I would be glad to hear him give his views to the House on that matter. I wonder if the Minister is prepared to do what Senator McGee suggested, that the dairy farmers in the South of Ireland should be compelled by regulation to produce and to rear calves for a very small section of the people engaged in the cattle trade. We know that the Minister has said that he himself is against regulation or coercion of any kind. Senator McGee wants him, however, to coerce the dairy farmers in the South of Ireland, irrespective of its effect on milk and butter production. They should be coerced, according to the Senator, not for the benefit of the whole people of the country but for a small section—it may be an important section—engaged in the cattle industry.

The Minister, in his opening statement, said that the people of this country would never be able to estimate what the economic war cost them. The people have quite a good appreciation of what happened to the farmers over the last 20 or 30 years. The farmers were the standard-bearers in the economic war. They won the fight despite the efforts of the Minister and of his colleagues at that period to coerce them into surrender. The farmers had to make sacrifices during those years and they made them. I hold that those who refused to throw in their weight behind the majority of the people in support of the farmers in that fight, were responsible for prolonging the economic war if they did not actually help to begin it.

The Minister, in turning down Senator Counihan's motion, said that he was not going to make paupers of the farmers, but was going to give them a scheme that would put them in a self-respecting position. We learned later from him that his scheme was the one which was announced some time ago in this House by his predecessor, Deputy Smith, namely the provision of £1,000,000 for ground limestone. The Minister must know that that is no new scheme. It would have been put into operation if he had never become a Minister.

A number of Senators referred to statements made by the Minister and his colleagues since they came into office in regard to inspectors. The Minister told us to-night that there will be no more inspectors, that no man will have the right to go in on a farmer's holding except by invitation. I have the feeling that he did not mean that people should read into that what most people may understand from it. I would like to think that what he meant was that he was going to undertake a campaign of education and that there will be more instructors and less inspectors. Are there to be no inspectors during the interval that will elapse between now and the putting into effect of such a proposal? Will a farmer be allowed to grow weeds on his land to the detriment of his neighbour?

Are all the regulations that have been made for the benefit of agriculture under various Acts of Parliament to be allowed to go into abeyance because the Minister has a fad that there should be no inspectors and that these regulations should not be carried out? I think great damage has been done by the statements of Ministers since they took office with regard to those people who were loyally carrying out their duties under the previous Government. We had inspectors to see that the tillage regulations were observed. They were necessary to see that food was produced to feed the people. If the advice of the Minister and his colleagues had been taken before and during the war the food would not be there for the people. It was also necessary to have inspectors to see that price control and rationing regulations were carried out. I think I remember reading that the present Minister for Industry and Commerce often complained in the Dáil that these regulations were not enforced strictly enough.

Mr. Baxter

We are not discussing the Department of Industry and Commerce now.

Mr. Hawkins

I think that one chairman is enough at a time.

Mr. Baxter

I would like to know if the Senator is entitled to discuss the administration of the Department of Industry and Commerce in this House?

Mr. Dillon

He is coming around to the warble-fly inspectors.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Hawkins might be allowed to continue his speech.

Mr. Hawkins

The Minister interrupted many speakers to-night who addressed themselves to this subject. If what is being said is not agreeable to him, I hope that, by the time he vacates his office, he will have grown more patient.

Mr. Baxter

I do not know whether Senator Counihan is pleased or displeased with the reception which his motion has been given. Speaking frankly and as a colleague, I think that he would have been well advised to have had some discussion with some of his colleagues before putting down the motion. However we have a freedom in this House to-night that we rarely experienced in the past. The lid is off and men can say what they please. Those on this side of the House now are freer than any group that have been here for the past 15 years. Anything we are prepared to say we hope will be a help to the Minister and his policy. All I have to say about Senator Counihan's motion is this: I would have said to him, had he consulted me before he put it down, our average yield from our dairy cows is somewhere in the region of 400 gallons, perhaps less. I think it has fallen considerably in the last 15 years but it used to be around 400 gallons about 1930. I think it is probably much less now. But if at the present price of milk or butter fat the farmer is able to increase his yield from 400 gallons to 600 gallons per cow it will mean much more to him than anything Senator Counihan is asking for in his motion. So really he does not need this kind of encouragement at all, and I agree with the people who say this is not the way to do it. It is a much more serious problem.

Generally I would welcome the kind of approach which Senator O'Callaghan made to this question. Senator O'Callaghan really knows what he is talking about when discussing the dairying and farming industry. He has a very long experience of it; he has occupied a prominent place in the dairying industry as a dairy breeder and in a representative capacity in the Dairy Shorthorn Association. He really understands many of the problems much better, I should say, than Senator Hawkins and I think, with all respect, than Senator O'Donovan despite the fact that he is a veterinary surgeon. I think from the practical point of view Senator O'Callaghan's experience is longer and wider. I think I can say generally he approved of what the Minister said and welcomed his declaration of policy. Senator Hawkins expressed the opinion that all the Minister had given was what his predecessor had stated in this House on a previous occasion to be his policy and that was summed up in a £1,000,000 lime scheme. I do not know whether Senator Hawkins was listening to the present Minister or not, but it seemed to me that he gave us a great deal more because he began at the beginning. There is no use in talking about a £1,000,000 lime scheme unless you first try to discover whether the soil requires lime or not, and there are soils in this country that do not require lime at all. If you are going to create an alkaline condition which is deleterious to the growth of certain plants you are actually going to depreciate the conditions under which your farm is going to operate. The Minister is doing what his predecessors never did and what I advocated many times in this House and that is to have a soil surveying staff. There was not any use talking about it. The Minister comes into office now and, after much talk in the other House, he is handed over, as far as I know, two soil scientists to make a study of the soils of this country when across the Border and in Great Britain they have surveyed and mapped a great portion of their soils in a methodical way and can say on reference to the map whether a soil is acid or alkaline. The Minister is now going to make a start; he is going to use Johnstown Castle.

Mr. McEllin

I wonder what a soil survey has got to do with Senator Counihan's motion.

Mr. Dillon

Everything.

Mr. Baxter

I think the Senator was out of the House most of the time and is not au fait with the discussion. Senator Hawkins said that the present Minister was not doing anything which his predecessor had not outlined in his £1,000,000 lime scheme, but there is no use in talking about a lime scheme without ascertaining the requirements of the soil and there is only one way of discovering that and that is by making a survey. I have got it done with one field of mine with amazing results. I discovered that I had practically an alkaline condition and the scientist who discovered that for me discovered other deficiencies which I did not believe existed. The Minister is going to start the survey and to organise the production of lime. I do not know how he is going to do it. I hope the co-operative movement will be asked to assist in the production of lime or any raw materials which our soil requires. I think it would be most unfortunate if any profit-making urge would enter into it which would make it more expensive than if the farmer were to organise the production himself.

I thought there would have been much more vehement condemnation of the grass mentality in this House than there has been. It is very refreshing that there is a realisation that grass is a crop which can and ought to be cultivated, and that it can only grow on soils made fertile by good cultivation and good feeding, and the Minister proposes to do that. The scientists have measured the production of an acre of grass and the production of an acre of cereals, and they have discovered that there is a much greater starch content in the ordinary good grass than there is in an acre of cereals, and our aim must be, if we are going to feed live stock, to get the greatest possible yield per acre. The Minister is going the right way about this and we ought to welcome it. There have been certain things said, that he is going to take the plough, as Senator O'Donovan said, around to farms where it is required. There may be many soils where the plough is not required. The farmer is a very responsive individual, and I think he will welcome information on this. He may be doubting and hesitant and there will have to be demonstrations to prove that it is satisfactory. I could say a great deal about the failure up to this in practical demonstrations, but I am not going into that question. I am digressing for a moment to deal with Senator O'Donovan and Senator Hawkins on the question of inspectors and instructors. I do not know why they were at such pains to exaggerate the Minister's dislike of inspectors. If the Minister has spoken frankly on this matter, he has only represented the point of view of the great bulk of the intelligent farmers of this country, who want to be permitted to get on with their job without interference. I remember having three inspectors one day. One came into the potato field; he drove up in his car; I tell you I said what for to him. There is a difference between an inspector and an instructor. Intelligent instruction is welcome, and if you have intelligent instructors you will not want many inspectors.

Reference has been made to cow-testing associations. The Minister has expressed astonishment that these have not been embraced more widely by the farmers. Senator O'Callaghan has a fairly long experience of cow-testing associations and I think he is one of the people who could have influenced policy in regard to that matter. With regard to the problem of breeding there is much more in it than has been discussed here to-night. I do not know that I am prepared to accept fully the Minister's point of view on this. We have a 400-gallon cow. I think we want at least a 750-gallon cow and if there is going to be beef production in this country it is going to be rather difficult to reconcile the demands for milk production and beef production. While it is all right to talk about how essential it is to consider beef production, I think if we will go in for the development of the dairy breed we will have a different type of Shorthorn from the type we have got to-day. I have personal experience of 750-gallon cows which I would not take for inspection because they would not be passed. The inspector would refuse to have them registered. That is the sort of thing we have experienced in the past.

With all respect to those who hold the point of view that we are going to develop the dairy Shorthorn so as to get a high yield of milk and at the same time preserve the beef characteristics I have to express doubts. I think the further we go in that direction the more obscure will the beef characteristics become. I think it is a matter for research and experimentation. Many people tell us what we achieve by good feeding. Where the milk is bred in the animal and it is well-fed you will definitely increase the yield but if the milk is not bred in the animal all that you will achieve by better feeding is more flesh. I think we have to make up our minds that this is a complicated genetical problem which has to be considered from different angles. Up to the present the beef exporting interests have prevailed. It will have to be examined from the point of view of our beef export and in relation to the possible development of our dairy stock. The possibility is that in the future the maintenance of the dairying industry is going to be more difficult than it was in the past; that we may have to find cows of such quality that 20 of them will give as much as 30 of the cows we have kept in the past. Milking is becoming more difficult day after day on dairy farms. Labour is not available and it may be our farmers will be forced to take a decision on this from the point of view of cutting down the number of cows while at the same time trying to maintain as great a yield from fewer cows as they got from a larger number in the past.

I do not want to prolong the discussion. I feel there is a necessity for more experimentation. I do not think in this country there ever has been an effort made to test what a good dairy breed could yield on a well cultivated grass farm. It is something I would like to see done. It has not been done. I hope the Minister will attempt something along these lines. Generally, one can feel there is a fair measure of agreement on the attitude that ought to be adopted towards a dairying policy. I think Senator Counihan must realise that the House on every side is against his method of trying to increase the yields or the income of the dairy farm. Senator Counihan's is not a satisfactory solution.

Mr. Hogan

I was very interested in some of the statements made by various Senators to-night and, although they all criticise the motion before the House as being ridiculous, I think Senator Counihan did a great service by putting down that motion and letting us hear the views of our new Minister on the question of dairying and increased milk production. We also heard some of the experts we have in all Parties with regard to milk production. I have sat here patiently for more than one and a half hours, and although there have been sensible views expressed by different speakers, I have not yet heard any speaker putting a practical proposition to the House, one that might be seriously considered with a view to increasing milk production.

The first step the Minister for Agriculture took when he became Minister was to change the system of premiums in so far as dairy stock are concerned and to allow the beef Shorthorn to get a preference to the dairy Shorthorn. That was not a step in the direction of increased milk production, if he is interested in that matter, although it was applauded by farmers and county committees of agriculture.

I have not much experience of milk production. However, I can take my mind back 20 years at least, and I remember a time when there was far more milk produced and more butter, too. I believe, in my own simple way, judging by the facts as I have seen them, that the decreased milk production was brought about principally by the laxity of the farmers in feeding their cows. Although a lot has been said about different breeds and about double and single dairies and so on, I believe that if the farmers could feed the cows they have a little better, if they would feed them as well as they were fed 20 years ago, when every farmer hand-fed his cows during the winter months, the months in which the cows usually are in calf and previous to the cows calving, there would be a marked difference. In the years I speak of the cattle were well fed, and when they calved in the spring of the year they produced good milk, all by reason of the good feeding.

For a number of years the farmers have not been giving their cows hand-feeding; they have not been giving the cows the food they required in order to give an increased milk supply. The cows are put into the cow sheds in the early winter and given hay and, perhaps, turnips without any mixture. That has been the greatest hindrance to an increased milk supply for the past 20 years. The cows are not getting the food they require if you want them to produce bigger quantities of milk. That is my view. It may be right or it may be wrong. I hold that as long as the best of our in-calf heifers, our young cows, can be bought by English buyers and people in the trade here and exported to England, we can never hope to improve our cows.

What is happening is this. Throughout the whole country, farmers have young heifers in calf. If she is a good heifer she is put on the market and sold. If she is bad he retains her for his own use. If the Minister would concentrate on that very important matter and if he could devise some means of encouraging the farmer to retain for his own use his best heifers and young cows instead of the worst, we might succeed in increasing our milk supply.

Some ten or 15 years ago a scheme was started to provide money for small farmers to purchase heifers to be kept by themselves for cows. For one reason or another it was not adopted by the farming community. I think it was the greatest loss the country ever sustained when the small farmers particularly, where they were not able to provide a good cow out of their own resources, did not take advantage of that scheme. It was in operation for a time, but owing to the small number who did avail of it, the Minister dropped it. It would be a good day's work if a scheme such as that were again put into operation. It would enable the small farmer, who could not do so out of his own resources, to buy the best type of cow for his own use or retain the best type if he has one. The Department could give him some financial assistance or something along the lines set out in Senator Counihan's motion. The Department could give him some kind of bonus. In that way we might in the future be able to improve our herds and increase our milk production.

I will not discuss any of the matters that have been dragged unnecessarily into this discussion. I congratulate Senator Counihan on putting down such a motion, even though nearly everybody in the House has condemned it. Perhaps the Senator might change his motion to something along the lines suggested—that a farmer who is not able out of his own resources to retain the best cow he has would be given some form of subsidy. They might give him £10 or £15 if the cow is certified to be of good quality and so enable the farmer to retain that cow. You would be then doing a good day's work with regard to the improvement of our milking herds. I suggest that something along those lines would be helpful.

I do not appreciate Senators bringing contentious matters into this discussion. I hold that a subject such as this should be discussed entirely outside any political atmosphere. Even the Minister did not stay outside that. It is unfair to the House that political points should be introduced, that any man should try to score political points on every possible occasion here. The Minister set a bad example. He started off on the wrong foot. I would want to hear him a little further before I would be convinced that he is such an expert on agriculture as he professes to be. I would like to have heard this matter discussed on its merits without other subjects being dragged into the debate. Senators who have knowledge of the conditions in the country and farming matters generally should be able to express their views on this motion without dragging in contentious matters.

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

I should like to join with the last speaker in his statement that Senator Counihan has done a great service indeed by bringing forward this motion. I sympathise fully with the intention behind the motion, namely, to increase milk production. I explained personally to Senator Counihan that I was not sufficiently conversant with the details to enable me to decide that his way would be the best possible way of attaining his objective; that is to say, by increasing our premiums, by subsidising generally. There is a tendency at the moment to condemn them and the Minister appears to be in line with modern ideas—that industries generally should stand on their own feet.

I discussed certain matters with a farmer from somewhere in West Cork the other day. He was at the bull show and he laid down certain rules and principles that, in his opinion, were correct. He condemned a famous beef-producing county—County Meath —for not going in more extensively for milk production. His opinion was that it was due to the laziness of the farmers. Having considerable experience of the views of County Meath farmers, listening to their discussions and so on, I arrived at this conclusion, that the land there is not suitable for milk production but it is for beef production. Hence, Meath adopted as its keynote the production of beef, just as Limerick and other centres go in for milk production. As Senator Duffy suggested, if we could get these two things in line—the fact that one region is suitable for one thing and the other region is suitable for something else— we would be able to get at the facts more readily.

I was in a very famous institution some time ago and I was brought into contact with the manager. I do not want to say anything that would indicate precisely the particular institution, but it is one with a great reputation for farming. I ventured to open the conversation by referring to theories which, I think, were at the back of the Minister's mind to-night. I mentioned a theory advocated by Stapleton in one of his various books on farming. This man expressed the view that beef was the most valuable food that can be produced. That rather surprised him because the land this man is dealing with is poor and scarcely of the beef-producing type. He seemed to consider that Stapleton's theory for improving the quality of grass was not quite sound. There again we have room for considerable difference of opinion. I have tried to get the hang of these theories; I read them and studied them and concluded that they were absolutely sound as applied to particular types of land. They may not be so desirable in the case of land naturally rich as a beef-producing land, such as we have in Meath.

References have been made to inspectors and I am inclined to agree, though I am an official myself, with the idea that the more we can reduce inspectors and the need for them the better. Someone mentioned education. I think the very best possible form of education at present is that provided by the young farmers' clubs springing up everywhere. These clubs have been due to the inspiration of the county instructors in agriculture and the instructors in the employment of the vocational education committees. In my view, the impression being created by these young farmers' clubs will do away to a large extent with the need for inspectors. They are, as it were, creating a public opinion amongst farmers, who ultimately will come to realise that, if they are not working their land on the most efficient lines, they are not doing their duty to the country and are not a credit to the profession to which they belong. Once that spirit gets abroad, there will be very little need indeed for inspectors. I quite agree with Senator O'Donovan that the agricultural instructors are doing enormously valuable work and I do not think the Minister intended to cast any reflection upon the work of these instructors.

There is one suggestion I should like to throw out in answer to Senator O'Donovan's remarks about the short lactation period of cattle. He says it is something like five years and Senator Counihan suggested ten years. I wonder is that in any way related to the fact that there is a tendency in some districts to specialise entirely in milk production and to the fact that we are altering, as it were, the natural constitution of the animal, just as in the case of fowl it has been altered, in order to produce enormous quantities of eggs. We know that disease is rampant amongst fowl at present, and, from what I have read, the same applies to England. Is that not due to the tendency towards too high a degree of specialisation? That is the opinion I have formed and I throw out the suggestion for the consideration of Senator O'Donovan, who has a very expert knowledge in this matter.

That brings me to this question of the different types of cows. Suppose we specialise too much in milk production, we ultimately set up a type of animal which is subject to disease, and its lactation period will tend to shorten. In that way, while we gain in one direction, we may definitely lose in another. I was speaking to a farmer from New Zealand some time ago, and I asked him how New Zealand farmers could send butter across the ocean and sell it at a lower price than that at which we can sell here, and his answer was: "Increased production." He referred to the quality of the grass, the selecting of the animals and so on. Obviously not one of these factors is enough. They must all be combined, and the quality of the grass, the quality of the animal, and so on, must be taken into account.

I come now to what, in my opinion, is probably at the root of many of the evils of the day. It may be a contentious matter to introduce, but, going amongst farmers, I find general complaint with regard to the relations between the farmer and his employee. The relations, in my opinion, are not as they ought to be at the moment, they are not as cordial as they should be, and if the Minister could devise any way of making the farm labourer more content with his employment and more willing to ignore the hands of the clock, I think we would have done something to improve conditions generally. What is really the trouble is that there is a kind of spiritual disease more than anything else.

I think the House should be thankful to Senator Counihan for having introduced this motion, because it has brought out what I think is the best discussion we have had for a very considerable time, and because it gave the new Minister an opportunity of stating his policy and gave us an opportunity of, if you like, judging and criticising it, and of telling the people that things we have all been dreaming about are now likely to be implemented. In view of the Minister's well-known drive, if he does not take some practical steps to implement his statements, I shall be rather surprised. I should like again to thank Senator Counihan, and the House generally will agree that he ought to be thanked, for having brought about such a fine debate and for having enabled the Minister to make such a fine statement.

Mr. Quirke rose.

Mr. Hayes

Is Senator Quirke concluding for Senator Counihan?

Mr. Quirke

I wish I could do so, and I want to open my remarks by saying that I am thoroughly in favour of Senator Counihan's motion. I am sorry I did not get a chance of seconding the motion. I disagree 100 per cent. with the numerous people here on both sides who have opposed the motion, without, a good many of them, knowing very much about it. I do not like to see mutinies anywhere, but if there is a mutiny in any political Party that Party ought to try to keep it to itself. We do not want to be dragged into it, and if Senator Counihan did not discuss this matter with Senator Baxter, who apparently is the boss, self-constituted or otherwise, before he moved the motion, it is not our fault. There is no reason why things like that should be dragged into the debate.

I am supporting the motion not because of my inclination always to come to the rescue of the downtrodden, although it is, I feel, up to somebody to protest against the treatment meted out to Senator Counihan to-night by the Minister for Agriculture. I know that, during the term of office of the previous Government, certain Ministers disagreed with Senator Counihan, but, even if they did, they gave him a fair hearing and did not cut the ground from under him altogether. I was here to-night for most of the Minister's speech and I was amazed. I disagree with Senator Counihan on a good many things, but one thing I will say, that is, that, while I have a very considerable knowledge of agriculture in all its branches, and particularly the dairying branch, I bow to Senator Counihan's knowledge where the cattle industry as a whole is concerned.

I was a very small boy when I first met Senator Counihan—he does not agree with me on that; he says we are about the same age—and he has such experience of the cattle trade and such a long interest in the business of cattle raising that, before any man would get up to denounce him because of the opinions he expressed, he should consider the matter very seriously. It is a great thing to see a new Minister coming in so enthusiastic as is the present Minister. The only trouble is that, while his enthusiasm might produce good results for us in one direction, it might bring us very bad results in another quarter. It would be a great thing if we could have this Utopia, which we are led to believe is around the corner, if we are to believe the Minister, Senator Baxter and a few other speakers, where we need have no inspectors to enforce any regulations. Because there has been change of Government, all the farmers are going to get out the band and say that whatever the Minister says must be right.

I am and have always been an optimist, and I hope I always will be an optimist, but I am not sufficient of an optimist to believe that it will be possible to carry on the agricultural industry without inspectors. If somebody said fewer inspectors, I would, perhaps, say he was right, but when they make the sweeping statement: "We will do away with them altogether", that is another day's work. How are you going to deal with the question of scrub bulls? How are you going to deal with the question of scrub horses? Are all the ordinary poultry stations, where they keep turkey cocks and pedigree fowl, to be run without any inspectors? I do not expect that is to be the position, and if any attempt is made to do anything of the kind, it will be the beginning of a disastrous period in the agricultural history of this country.

While I am enthusiastically in favour of Senator Counihan, I want to say that he damned his whole case by his opening statement that, if the suggestions of the previous Minister, Mr. Paddy Smith, were adopted and put into effective operation, it would be disastrous for the country. There is very little difference between Senator Counihan's motion and the policy laid down by the previous Minister. In any case, there are, as everybody knows, two schools of thought with regard to this dairying industry, and, as Senator Counihan pointed out, the Holsteins and Jerseys and breeds of that kind will produce more milk, and some, I understand, can produce milk even of better quality than others, but the point is that the calves would not be of the quality required from the point of view of beef production.

I should like to deal with this question of subsidy. The Minister says he would not make paupers of the farmers by giving them subsidies and that there is no necessity whatever to pay the farmer for keeping a good cow. It is not a question of paying him for keeping a good cow. It is a question of holding out an inducement to him to keep a number of good cows. If a certain inducement is held out, if a subsidy or premium—call it what you like—a certain sum of money is given when a man gets a cow up to a certain standard, it means that that farmer and every other farmer in his area will keep several other cows in an effort to get the premiums also. Can that be said to be making paupers of the farmers and handing out the people's money for nothing? I say that it is the only means by which farmers can be encouraged to carry out this milk-testing practice, which is really the basis of any success we may have in the dairying industry.

They say that that is making paupers of the farmers. It might as well be said that it is making paupers of the farmers to offer a prize at a local show for the best dairy cow. Does anybody object when a prize or a cup is offered for the best dairy cow at a show in Navan, Clonmel or Killarney? I say there is no objection and the farmer who gets a prize for his cow, a money prize, in addition to a trophy, is regarded as a hero in the district. The position here is that we have 1,200,000 cows, according to Senator Counihan's figures, and again I bow to his knowledge of the industry, because he has all the figures at his fingers' ends from the association, of which I am also a member. Keeping a good cow means having cows tested, and when we find ourselves in the position that we have to-day only 66,000 cows under milk testing schemes, the farmer must be encouraged. I do not believe in coercing them at all, except in case of dire necessity, for instance, a war period. I believe the farmer should be encouraged and the only point in regard to which I would disagree slightly with Senator Counihan is his suggestion that we should give £15 per cow to the Kerry farmers. I know that Senator Counihan is a Kerryman himself.

Mr. Hayes

Shame!

Mr. Quirke

It is no shame. His natural inclination would be to help the people he knows better perhaps than we know them, although I know them pretty well because I travelled to fairs in Kerry many years ago— more years ago than I care to remember. It would be a mistake to differentiate between the farmer of Kerry and the farmer of Tipperary or Limerick, and, for the sake of the few pounds involved, we should increase the grant to £15 for the other breeds, and let it be the same all round.

On the question of grass, the Minister says there is an ignorant superstition that grass is a type of weed. I should like to remind the Minister that there are approximately 400,000 farmers in this country and that they are not all superstitious, lunatics or ignorant.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.

The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Friday, 12th March, 1948.