Committee Reports > List of Committees > Joint > 1979 > Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies > Report No. 03 - Min Fhéir (1959) Teoranta

MIONTUAIRISC NA FIANAISE

(Minutes of Evidence)

De Céadaoin, 16 Bealtaine, 1979

Wednesday, 16 May, 1979

MIN FHÉIR (1959) TEORANTA

Dr. Michael Maguire, Head of the Animal Nutrition and Biochemistry Department of An Foras Talúntais, called and examined.

108. Chairman.—Dr. Maguire. thank you for coming. In general terms we are anxious to know what you think of the quality of grassmeal. How does it compare with other feedstuffs? Are there better feedstuffs? Is it still an important feedstuff, or has it begun to lose out as against other products?

Dr. Maguire.—Certainly, the use of grassmeal has changed in the past 20 or 30 years since grassmeal production first began at Min Fhéir. The original use of grassmeal was primarily as a vitamin source in pig and poultry rations. This was in the days before synthetic vitamins were widely used. In recent years it has been recognised, following experimental work, that grassmeal now has an important role to play in ruminant nutrition, that is. for cattle, sheep and milk cows, as distinct from its original use as a pig feed. It is in this area that the potential still remains for grassmeal as an animal feed. It is difficult to compare it with other feeds. For example, if you were to compare it with barley, it would have an energy value of approximately 75-85 per cent of that of barley, depending on the quality, of course. That would not be its true evaluation because not only is it an energy source, but it is also a protein feed. It has approximately 50 per cent more protein than barley. It is difficult to compare it with any other feed because it is in a rather different category. It is certainly true that the quality of it will vary with the producer, with the season, but then again nearly all animal feeds do vary in quality. If you take a sample of fish meal, or meat and bone meal, or even samples of barley and other cereals, they have a variation in quality. It is not generally realised that barley may have a variation of anything from 8 per cent to 12 per cent i.e. 50 per cent in its protein content. The variation in grassmeal would not be any greater than that.

109. Chairman.—It is suggested that feedstuffs like grassmeal are important in three areas: energy content, protein and fibre. Do you agree?

Dr. Maguire.—Yes. In terms of its energy content grassmeal would have a value of 75 per cent to 85 per cent of that, for example, of barley. That is viewing it as a straight energy source. As a protein source it is about 50 per cent higher than barley, and as a fibre source it has a unique function in ruminant feeding.

110. Chairman.—When you talk about percentages, this must be related to its cost as compared with other feedstuffs and maybe whether it is convenient for mixing. Bearing these considerations in mind, is it still a valuable feedstuff? Is it still in demand as much as it was?

Dr. Maguire.—The original use of it, as a vitamin and protein supplement for pig and poultry rations, has virtually disappeared. There are alternative sources of these nutrients. Synthetic vitamins are now available at a much lower cost than vitamins from grassmeal. The prime potential use of grassmeal now is as a ruminant feed. The way the market has developed abroad. and is developing in this country among some of the major producers, is as a ruminant feed in which various combinations of barley and grassmeal are used. As a constituent of these concentrate diets it has a particularly important role to play.

This combination of barley and grassmeal seems in some way almost to have a catalytic effect in that the production and energy value of the mixture is essentially higher than one might expect. The performance of animals is higher than one would expect from the nutritive value of the constituents. That is quite important in relation to milk production where rations of that kind, cereal-grassmeal mixtures with mineral supplements, can now be used to achieve the same level of performance in lactation as can be got from conventional concentrates which are based primarily on cereals and imported soya bean, cotton seed cake and so on.

In this area there is a substantial potential for grassmeal. This is the way some of the producers are using their grassmeal production now. They are in the compounding business themselves. In fact, they seem to be able to produce ruminant rations which compete very effectively with that of the conventional feed-compounders. Farmers seem to be well satisfied with the product. It is available at a considerably lower price and, at the levels of feeding used. it seems to give the same performance. A number of trials have been done abroad and here—the Agricultural Institute has done some trials—in which comparisons have been made between grassmeal and cereals. In these instances, grassmeal has performed equally well with barley as a supplement with silage in beef production. That is an important consideration. It does seem to have some advantages in that you do not get the reduction in silage intake which is often sustained when concentrates are fed with silage. Grassmeal seems to maintain a higher level of silage intake than cereals. That is important from the point of view of making use of silage as a feed.

111. Senator Keating.—Could I make a few points? It is a feed where there is some energy burned to obtain it. What does the evolution of energy costs, specifically petrochemical costs, do? What did 1973 do? What will the current round do?

Dr. Maguire.—After the first oil crisis many of the manufacturers of crop drying machinery in Europe set about trying to reduce the energy requirements. They have achieved very dramatic technological improvements which have greatly reduced the energy consumption. Some of them are claiming reductions of 40 per cent to 50 per cent in the energy required. This is achieved in various technical ways by recycling flue gases, and so on. It entails an increase in the capital cost of equipment. Various projections which have been put out by these manufacturers indicate that this cost is recoverable within two to three years. The larger manufacturers in Europe are all adopting these procedures. I daresay the current situation will tend to accelerate the modification of drying-plant. This is particularly relevant in the larger plants. It means that the plant drying perhaps 20 tons an hour can now become a plant drying 30 tons an hour. The difficulty is that you must have the crop to avail of an increased throughput; otherwise the benefit is partly lost. That is an important consideration in a particular location.

112. Senator Keating.—It is impossible to ask you to furnish details of areas you have had no warning of. In Denmark there is an efficient and cost-conscious industry, and a feed problem. I have visited and seen grass drying plants in Denmark. If one takes the approximate terms over the past half decade, has the grass drying industry in Denmark been shrinking rapidly, or holding level, or increasing rapidly?

Dr. Maguire.—It has stabilised in recent years. Much of their production was going as an export crop to Germany. The Danish crop drying industry, in terms of the capital they have invested in it, is certainly not small. They are worried about this. Production is not expanding, but has stood still. People who remain in the industry will have to adopt and apply these energy conservation systems.

113. Senator Keating.—If you are moving to an area where you have greater efficiency, as it would seem likely with a larger plant, as distinct from a larger throughput, there would be something to be said for economies of scale. I am asking these questions in relation to Min Fhéir, and how much you could grow in the Min Fhéir environment. With the available terrain in Min Fhéir, how big a plant would it sustain? Is there a current minimum area below which your plant is uneconomic?

Dr. Maguire.—I would not like to hazard a guess and it would only be a guess. I would think a plant of less than ten tons production per hour is not a proposition at Min Fhéir. Most of the plants would need to process 20 tons an hour in order to utilise the crops from the area available and at that throughput.

114. Senator Keating.—That is about 500 tons of dry matter a day. Taking 20 tons an hour, 350 tons upwards——

Dr. Maguire.—I am talking about water evaporation capacity. The plants are usually expressed in those terms. The area of land to go with that would depend on the dry matter production. You would have to reckon on the dry matter production per acre in the season. Four tons of dry matter should be achievable. I do not think that has been studied in great detail, although I am sure there are some figures available in regard to dry matter production. On cutaway you are starting on a lower base until the fertility is built up.

115. Chairman.—Is there much difference in production between reclaimed bog and mineral soils?

Dr. Maguire.—They are growing it on the bog, not on cutaway. As I understand the situation, there is a slightly later start to the season on the original peat soil, in Glenamoy, where cultivation is on the bog surface. During the whole growing season, 24 to 26 weeks, the production is not far behind that of the best mineral soil.

116. Deputy L. Lawlor.—Have any of the co-operatives at any stage introduced any schemes for grass growing for grassmeal?

Dr. Maguire.—I do not believe they have; not to my knowledge.

117. Deputy L. Lawlor.—We are dealing with an undertaking in a remote part of Ireland which financially is not having a very good time. Would you think it is coming to a situation when that organisation, as a practical proposition, is not capable of being sustained because of other feed products which are available? What would your views be as to the future of Min Fhéir?

Dr. Maguire.—As I understand the situation, the crop produced at Min Fhéir has been used primarily as a supplement, being sold to other feed manufacturers rather than as a product which they themselves are converting into animal feed. The question is whether the optimum use is being made of the product in that situation. I suggest that what they ought to do is to utilise their grass production for conversion into a compound feed. In that area and in North-West Mayo where milk production can be increased, there is tremendous potential for grassmeal compounded into a complete dairy ration. That has been done in the eastern part of the country.

118. Deputy L. Lawlor.—The big co-operative movement. North Connacht Farmers, have been spending a lot of money on the building of a feed mill. Is there a complementary link-up there? Could Min Fhéir be integrated into the North Connacht undertaking?

Dr. Maguire.—It is something that should be explored, if it has not been looked at already. It would seem to be a very suitable tie-up. Whether Min Fhéir would consider setting up a local mill, whether there would be sufficient local demand to justify it, is something that might also be considered.

119. Deputy B. Desmond.—What would be the impact of EEC market developments in regard to soya, tapioca and so on?

Dr. Maguire.—The industry in Europe is much larger than in the UK or Ireland. It has expanded dramatically in the past 10 to 20 years. This has largely been through the co-operative system. For example in France the France Lucerne company operates as a super co-operative for 20 farmer co-operatives producing dehydrated forages. All their production is sold through a central marketing agency, making very good quality control. There is a good research and development organisation there. There is an EEC subsidy for high protein forages. The EEC totally has a deficiency in respect of protein feeds and the community is anxious to encourage protein production in the form of sunflower or soya beans. They have various schemes in operation including EEC subsidy. The potential for protein production from these alternatives is being investigated throughout the Continent. Yields however are low. These crops have no possibility of success in Ireland. On the other hand forage crops are widely grown and farmers know how to deal with them. The yields are high. There are new technologies coming along which may lead to new human food products. This is an active area of research. In the France Lucerne Co-op a new process, in which the crop is milled and squeezed, is being used. This removes a large proportion of the liquid present and reduces drying costs. The liquid contains a lot of protein and can be used as an animal or possible human protein source. They are at present producing an animal protein concentrate. This is something we may see developing in Europe.

120. Senator Keating.—Is there anything more possible with grass?

Dr. Maguire.—There is no reason why the same technology cannot be applied to grass. Some experimental work has been done in the UK and we have done some in the Institute, The crop is put through a hammering process. The plants’ cells are ruptured and by a squeezing operation you get about 50 per cent of the total crop wet weight coming out as a liquid which is very high in protein. This is an area where new technology may produce new products in the feed industry. Here it is still in the experimental stage. We have equipment in the Institute and we are doing research in this area in collaboration with the EEC protein programme.

121. Chairman.—Would it be very costly —capital and otherwise?

Dr. Maguire.—The capital cost of the extra equipment in the France Lucerne undertaking was in the region of £200,000. There is a demand in France for highly pigmented poultry products. This is the main outlet for that particular protein feed.

122. Deputy L. Lawlor.—How is the liquid extracted—what is the process?

Dr. Maguire.—There are various techniques but essentially the liquid is squeezed out.

123. Deputy L. Lawlor.—Has the Institute backed up Min Fhéir in any research into their product?

Dr. Maguire.—We have had fairly close contact with the people there and advise on its use in feed formulation. We have had samples analysed for them in regard to protein content and digestibility. One of the most important points is that there should be some system of grading the product. I understand that carotene is still specified in the legislation. Digestibility ought also be included.

124. Chairman.—I take it that in general terms you would consider it a pity if Min Fhéir was unable to continue?

Dr. Maguire.—I would think so. Apart from the production of grassmeal there are sociological aspects. I am not an expert in that field, but I suggest that there are alternative systems which might lend themselves to exploitation in that area. For instance, a headline could be set for the operations of local farmers, and in the meantime I think present operations should be continued.

The witness withdrew.

Mr. David Gallagher, Managing Director of Wexford Field Products Limited called and examined.

125. Chairman.—Mr. Gallagher, would you like to tell us very briefly about your operations?

Mr. Gallagher.—We dry grass. Ours is a mixed farming system. We rotate the grass drying operation on the farm. We grow sugar beet and cereals as well. At the moment, we have about 450 acres of grass for drying from which we produce about 2,000 tons of dried grass. We make it all into cubes. We do not make any meal. We cube it direct. We do not grind it.

126. Senator Keating.—2.000 tons?

Mr. Gallagher.—Yes.

127. Chairman.—Do you mix it with anything?

Mr. Gallagher.—We put molasses in the cubing process, about 2½ to 3 per cent. Whereas two to three years ago we used to sell it all direct to compounders, we recently have been concentrating our efforts on setting up our own compounding business and selling complete cattle feed mixed with barley, maize, and soya bean, as appropriate, depending on the quality required. We find we are able to achieve a much better price for the dry grass in this manner, rather than selling it straight.

128. Chairman.—You grow on mineral soil?

Mr. Gallagher.—Our land is below sea level. It is part of the sloblands in Wexford. We have to pump the water out. It is pretty heavy clay. It is mineral type soil.

129. Chairman.—It would differ considerably from the kind of area where Min Fhéir is?

Mr. Gallagher.—Completely, Structurally the soil is entirely different.

130. Chairman.—Do you think the soil you use is more suitable for grass?

Mr. Gallagher.—It is easier to work in terms of the heavy machinery which one normally associates with grass drying operations. Anytime I have been to Min Fhéir they have been growing very good grass, but the problem is of course when you get wet seasons. There is the problem of getting heavy machinery onto the land. We have that problem to a lesser extent. It is nothing like as big a problem for us.

131. Chairman.—Would there not be much variation in the quality of the grass?

Mr. Gallagher.—We are looking for yields of live tons of dry matter, and up to six tons on occasion, per acre. I have no idea what sort of yields they can get.

132. Senator Keating.—We had Dr. Maguire with us just now and he mentioned four tons of dry matter to the acre. He thought in the circumstances that was about the limit.

Mr. Gallagher.—In that part of the country they have a shorter season, I would imagine.

133. Deputy Kenneally.—How long would your season be?

Mr. Gallagher.—Our best would be 30 weeks, but we would be averaging 26 to 27.

134. Senator Keating.—How much a ton? You say you prefer to make your own compounds and sell them, but if you sold to a compounder how much a ton?

Mr. Gallagher.—We had a very good season this year because there was such a demand for compounds. We are currently getting about £110 per ton. Earlier in the year we were selling for considerably less, for £85 and maybe £90 per ton.

135. Senator Keating.—Do you sell that on protein and total energy?

Mr. Gallagher.—Yes. It is mainly bought on a protein basis now. Originally it was sold on the basis of carotene. There are still minimum standards laid down by the State. Basically the synthetics have done away with this market. There is no poultry market now. The big market now is for ruminant feeding.

136. Senator Keating.—You sell on a protein analysis?

Mr. Gallagher.—We will quote energy levels to people if they want them. It is a very difficult process to analyse for energy levels.

137. Senator Keating.—What is the protein range of your grass at five or six tons of dry matter to the acre?

Mr. Gallagher.—15 per cent to 16 per cent. We grow mainly a mixture containing red clover which means we do not have to use as much nitrogen. We can do that because we rotate our acreage. The clover will last for three years.

138. Senator Keating.—Let us make the arithmetic simple and say you can sell the product for £90 a ton. We are talking of between four to six tons of dry matter to the acre, but how much meal? How much product?

Mr. Gallagher.—The product is sold on a basis of 10 per cent moisture, so it really does not vary very much.

139. Senator Keating.—You would get perhaps six tons to the acre?

Mr. Gallagher.—Hopefully. That would be good. Five might be a better average.

140. Senator Keating.—If you had £500 worth of product for sale per acre, that would be good?

Mr. Gallagher.—It would.

141. Deputy B. Desmond.—What is the extent of CAP aid? Does it affect your business?

Mr. Gallagher.—The EEC production aid? It is very substantial, of course. They formulated a new scheme last year which increased substantially the old system. It now has a sort of support system. It varies in relation to what the EEC regard as a target price and the actual world price.

142. Deputy B. Desmond.—Would you be profitable otherwise?

Mr. Gallagher.—No.

143. Deputy B. Desmond.—What would the true cost be?

Mr. Gallagher.—At the moment the subsidy is about £10 or £11 a tonne. I doubt if there would be very much profit in it if it were not for this subsidy. I must stress that we are in a slightly different situation because ours is a mixed farming system, and the high fertility levels we are building up through this grass drying is of great assistance to our cereal growing. It is not as if we were specialists. It is slightly different from the Min Fhéir operation.

144. Deputy L. Lawlor.—You treat your grass drying operation as a back-up for your other activities. You are adding in and you are now ending up with a final product rather than just selling the grassmeal straight. Have you gone all the way on that yet? You mentioned that you were adding——

Senator Keating.—Barley, maize, soya bean and whatever you are using as part of a mix.

Deputy L. Lawlor.—Are you doing that with all your grass?

Mr. Gallagher.—At the moment we are doing it with about half. We have been developing the market for a few years and we hope it will increase.

145. Deputy L. Lawlor.—Are you familiar with Min Fhéir’s operation?

Mr. Gallagher.—I am. I have been in Mayo with them several times and they have been in our plant.

146. Senator Keating.—Is yours a new plant?

Mr. Gallagher.—It is ten years old. It is a French plant.

147. Senator Keating.—Have you worked out what the increase in fuel cost is going to do to you?

Mr. Gallagher.—Last year the fuel for drying cost between £22 and £23 a tonne. It depends very much on the weather. Five or eight gallons a ton could make quite a big difference if you get a very dry season. Last year was not a good season.

148. Deputy B. Desmond.—I presume you have no problem in fuel supplies?

Mr. Gallagher.—Diesel has been a problem. Heavy fuel has not been a problem. We use 200 second oil for the actual drying of the grass. We have trouble with diesel oil for our harvesters and our tractors.

149. Deputy B. Desmond.—Even now?

Mr. Gallagher.—We have not been short yet. We do not know what will happen in August and September. The oil companies assured us that they will do their best for us.

150. Deputy L. Lawlor.—Do you take any product from Min Fhéir? Do you purchase grassmeal for the overall mix?

Mr. Gallagher.—It could happen in the future but it has not happened yet. If we could develop our compounding operation to the extent that we need surplus grass, it might happen. At the moment we are getting through only half our own grass. The rest we are selling on the open market.

151. Deputy L. Lawlor.—Is it difficult to get the other ingredients?

Mr. Gallagher.—There are a number of new compounding co-operatives in our area. There is fairly strong competition now and it is a matter of trying to increase our share of the market.

152. Deputy L. Lawlor.—Have any of those co-operatives got a source of supply? Do they purchase your grassmeal? Are any of them growing it themselves?

Mr. Gallagher.—They are just compounding operations. Some of them use some of our grass.

153. Senator Keating.—Are any of them thinking of putting in a grass plant?

Mr. Gallagher.—I doubt if it would be a feasible operation at current costs. Our plant is ten years old. I do not know exactly what it would cost to put in today but I doubt if it would be an economic proposition.

154. Deputy L. Lawlor.—The Min Fhéir situation is not unlike that in that there is a fair bit of capital investment needed. Because your plant is ten years old, you will be faced with it sooner or later.

Mr. Gallagher.—We will be. I would face the future in grass drying with a certain amount of pessimism. I do not know if the EEC will continue the subsidy in the light of fuel scarcities. Grass drying is an extravagant way of using energy. I do not know what will happen to the CAP aid.

155. Senator Keating.—On the other hand, this is an aspect of it which spares imports of high quality feed?

Mr. Gallagher.—It is saving imported protein. This is the reason why CAP aid was brought in.

156. Deputy L. Lawlor.—Would you see a possibility of any link between yourself and Min Fhéir in their activity? They are not putting any added value to the grassmeal as you are doing.

Mr. Gallagher.—We are so far apart. What sort of link had you got in mind?

157. Deputy L. Lawlor.—They are not putting any added value to the grassmeal at this stage and to cultivate the market down there they are not doing it the way you are doing it. There are customers in that area likewise. Would you see it essential that they should go in the direction that you are going?

Mr. Gallagher.—All the private producers have gone in this direction. From my knowledge of English producers this is the way the development has been in the UK—vertical integration, if that is the right phrase. My opinion would be that that is correct.

158. Senator Keating.—You are in an area where there is a good demand, even though you are in a corner of the country. The dairying industry in west Mayo is developing briskly, but it is not on Min Fhéir’s doorstep. They have a 20 mile haul before they start getting into the dairying area. The reason I have said those things is to ask you if in the economics of distribution of a compound mill there is readily known in the industry a limit beyond which it does not pay to transport it, that somebody else must set up. I hear people in west Cork, for example, saying that they are being penalised because they are so far from the mills. They would be better off if they had a mill there rather than be depending on Cork city.

Mr. Gallagher.—It is a difficult one to answer. You hear of some of the major compounders going tremendous distances to deliver to customers, if the customers are big enough.

159. Chairman.—How far do you deliver?

Mr. Gallagher.—Our operations are limited and we would do very little outside County Wexford. We are developing and if we want to get much bigger we will have to travel further.

160. Chairman.—You do not think that that is an insurmountable difficulty?

Mr. Gallagher.—It is not insurmountable. One has obviously to watch one’s transport costs with care and try to plan for bigger loads.

161. Chairman.—I would have thought in the Min Fhéir area sheep feeding should be of more importance than dairying. In England there has been tremendous strides made in feeding dried grass to sheep. The high value of lambs must mean hill farmers are better off than they used to be.

Mr. Gallagher.—Yes.

162. Deputy Kenneally.—Is there direct sale to the consumer or are you wholesalers like local co-operatives?

Mr. Gallagher.—We sell the dried grass direct to co-operatives.

163. Deputy Kenneally.—Do you sell your finished products to co-operatives?

Mr. Gallagher.—We have supplied them from time to time if they were short and if we had surplus capacity, but not on a regular basis.

164. Deputy L. Lawlor.—You sell to the merchant who would sell to the farmer?

Mr. Gallagher.—We sell in a few cases to merchants. Now it is more direct to the farmer.

165. Deputy L. Lawlor.—On a one-off drop or a half load or do you have a minimum drop?

Mr. Gallagher.—We have a minimum drop. We try to encourage bulk loads and we usually leave four or five tons.

166. Chairman.—To sum up what you are saying, does it really mean that you do not think Min Fhéir will become a viable operation unless they follow your example?

Mr. Gallagher.—I would not like to take it upon myself to say that, but it would be of tremendous advantage to them to develop on these lines. Some of my colleagues—private producers in the grass drying business—have sold sheep nuts and sheep rations in what would normally be regarded as the Min Fhéir area i.e. the Donegal area.

167. Deputy Kenneally.—Do you involve yourself in the provision of sheep rations?

Mr. Gallagher.—We have not done it ourselves. It is tricky operationally catering for sheep rations. You would need a certain kind of cube, but it has very good qualities and is very digestible.

168. Deputy L. Lawlor.—When you come to re-investment and the capital required to maintain a ten year old plant, do you see yourself deciding in three to five years that it is a worthwhile proposition to go for re-investment of capital on grass drying or would you utilise the land for less complicated capital outlays?

Mr. Gallagher.—A lot depends on what way the energy situation develops. If oil prices continue to go up the way they went up in 1973 and 1974 and the way they appear to be going up at the moment, I would think it highly unlikely that it would be a viable operation. It is unlikely that we will be faced with a situation of having to replace our entire plant at the one time. It is an on-going operation, replacing various parts and making repairs. At the moment I am not optimistic about the medium to long-term future. We have had quite a good year because of the scarcity of feedstuffs due to the hard winter, and barley prices have risen to unforeseen and unprecedented levels which have affected price levels for all compounds.

169. Deputy L. Lawlor.—On the liquid process—this squeezing operation—have you looked at that at all?

Mr. Gallagher.—We have I have seen a number of papers Dr. Maguire has done on this and I have seen the process being done. From a commercial point of view, I think it is early days yet. It is very difficult to know what will happen. You need some body who wants to buy the juice off you and use it. Ideally it should be fed fresh and it is difficult to store for very long. We have looked at various methods of energy saving in our plant but the capital costs are very high.

170. Senator Keating.—Has your decision to use grass drying anything to do with the difficulty of grazing your land in Wexford?

Mr. Gallagher.—Yes.

171. Senator Keating.—You could put dairy cows across the Slob—there are dairy cows on the North Slob. I ask out of a sense of curiosity of the relative economics. I take it that the decision to go into grass drying relates to the sort of farm it is?

Mr. Gallagher.—It does. Of course at the time when my father made a decision to go into it in 1964, fuel costs were a great deal lower. We were buying fuel oil for 6⅞ths of an old penny. We are now paying about 33p per gallon. The situation has changed dramatically since then.

The witness withdrew.

Mr. Patrick Bolger, County Development Officer (formerly Agricultural Adviser in County Mayo), called and examined.

Chairman.—Thank you for coming, Mr. Bolger. We are interested in the environmental background to Min Fhéir and how important it is to the part of County Mayo in which it is located. Perhaps Senator Keating would like to deal with this.

172. Senator Keating.—Yes. Because Min Fhéir is a State-sponsored company and because it has had such a difficult history and because it is in an area that has other environmental difficulties, we are having a good look at it. You know the wider county development problems— I do not want to lead you too much—but maybe you would give the Committee an opinion on the impact on the social and economic environment of the community in the area of Min Fhéir of either continuing or discontinuing it. What does it stand for?

Mr. Bolger.—I worked in County Mayo for three years as an agricultural instructor. I could never see—and this is a purely subjective opinion—that it had any great impact. It was a little business entity in itself. If you asked the people of Mayo today how they related to Min Fhéir the answer would be that they do not, apart from 30 or so people who have employment there. What strikes me about the basis of the whole matter is that here we have grass which is an animal feed, and why do we go through the whole process of using fossil fuel and drying it down to 15 per cent moisture? It exists at 85 per cent or maybe 90 per cent moisture and it is dried down to 15 per cent moisture. It is very expensive to carry it around and it is going back to be wetted again in the cow’s rumen. The whole biological and economic justification for this is very doubtful. When a thing is not an economic proposition, it is hard to make a social service out of it. If you have a good and profitable business it is more likely to have a social impact. Grass is grass and it should go into an animal.

173. Senator Keating.—Technically you are on the top of the deep bog and you have the problem of getting the grazing ruminant to it and for much of the year it is not easy. You can grow a lot of grass but it is not easy to graze and surely that would be one of the arguments in the first place for growing grass on the top of bog and drying it and cropping it that way?

Mr. Bolger.—This is a factor on the high bog that has to be zero grazed. My idea would be to cut it in the summer and ensile it very cheaply. The problem in County Mayo with the small farmers, as everywhere all over the country in the good and the bad parts, is winter feed for livestock. It is past the experimental stage. I would like to make silage and feed it in the winter.

174. Senator Keating.—To feed it to what? To livestock?

Mr. Bolger.—Yes.

175. Senator Keating.—Once you are into the business of moving silage you are into comparable uneconomic things. So the stock would have to be there where the silage was?

Mr. Bolger.—Yes. There is stock there and farmers have the problem of winter feed. In my time it was common for people to pay good money for wintering out cattle on foggage which was a terrible product. I could envisage an operation where there was plenty of silage made and a simple arrangement of kennels at so much per head per month. This would be doing a great service and it would help the dairy development. The Mayo County Committee of Agriculture at the moment are trying to develop dairying. Many small farmers are cluttered up because they have a number of cows, calves and yearlings, and dairying would give the return per acre. But other cattle and dry cows are the problem. Over winter they are major consumers of food and it is not possible to go wholeheartedly for dairying until such time as you can resolve this. Indeed, many farmers would have to go into dairying gradually. It is reasonable that cattle should be brought a certain distance on their own ground instead of having this terrible thing of calves being trucked up from Newcastlewest to spend a year in Mayo and then have to go for finishing in Meath and Westmeath. A lot could be done by a good winter feed and good summer feed too.

176. Senator Keating.—Do you think that is a feasible alternative? I do not put the question technically, because clearly a technical feed is feasible, but do you think that Mayo farmers within a reasonable distance would provide enough stock to be brought in at a reasonable monthly charge, or whatever, to spend their winter there?

Mr. Bolger.—I would be quite confident of that because it is amazing the distances cattle are hauled. People from Belmullet are hauling cattle to Ballina and Castlebar marts.

177. Deputy Kenneally.—You spoke of 30 employees only in Min Fhéir, and that that was the only advantage Min Fhéir bring to the area; but is it not a fact that contracting work done by local people at particular times of the year has an advantage for the area?

Mr. Bolger.—Yes. I agree with that, but unless you abandon the thing altogether the grass still has to be cut and it still has to be in silage. The labour content with regard to the contracting services would not be very different. It might even be more if you could push this grass growth a little further.

178. Deputy Kenneally.—Could you actually cut down the cost of transporting animals to a central point for feed? You said cattle are brought to marts etc. but if you fed them on the finished product, it would be a once-off operation and the farmer is finished with them.

Mr. Bolger.—Unfortunately no. In Mayo there is a particular problem because at certain times of the year cattle are not looking their best. A farmer may have to bring them home from a mart more than once.

179. Senator Keating.—I do not know the distances, but the sort of catchment area that we envisage would perhaps be 20 or 25 miles. You would presumably find, especially with the developing dairying industry—and where a yard is cluttered with stock that are not milking—that within a 25 mile catchment area you would get enough cattle to justify haulage costs?

Mr. Bolger.—What I would really like to see is a State enterprise. I would like to see the State initiating this and gradually devolving it to the local community in co-operative ownership. It is a practical and feasible thing and something that the farmer could emulate on a smaller scale himself. Nobody is willing to set up a miniature grass drying plant or even a hay plant. That has not happened in all the years Min Fhéir have been there. You could do something there that local people could look at and copy and see the value of. There is the other thing—the eventual mineralisation of these lands, the animal manure being a factor. It would be a pity if some people had to lose jobs that suited them very nicely near home, but in the long run in the interests of the economy of the area, you could do a lot more. Everybody could.

180. Senator Keating.—I have not done a head count on this. If you have people cutting silage, if you have people doing a bit of minding stock and scraping, if you have one or two people on the transport side for some of the year. I am not sure that if you built a unit for dry stock for six months of the year—I suppose nearly that time because the land is very wet— you are not necessarily talking about fewer people at work, because there are cattle to mind as well as grass feed provision. One would need to get someone to identify jobs and count heads.

Mr. Bolger.—Presumably, you do not want to overstaff the place, but there could be reasonable employment. The important thing is: do you want farm employment? If you can have the west Mayo fellow who has only 30 or 40 acres in dairy cows, that product in the area is very important and more and more jobs may evolve in the long run. But I cannot see the logic of burning fossil fuel to dry out a product that should be fed in the natural form. This is what gets me. You are producing vegetable protein and you will have to consider how to feed it.

181. Senator Keating.—What you are suggesting, and again you can disagree with me if I paraphrase you inaccurately, is that the farm be kept going as a place that produces grass. You are satisfied that at that stage the growing of grass on top of bog is feasible and reasonable. Then, having grown the grass, the more practical thing to do with it is to ensile it and offer yardage for people within a catchment to have their dry stock there rather than to make it into a meal. This is not a suggested discontinuing of the growing of grass on that land. You could do something with that grass.

Mr. Bolger.—This is very valuable and useful land. We are talking about—you could not call it technology—strategy for keeping cattle and feeding and yarding and housing them cheaply. We are trying in the long term to build up a bit of meat processing in places like Sligo. Athleague and Castlebar. We have to produce the meat there and not have this running around. There can be a very nice layout for cattle now. There is another thing in Tourmakeady: they are processing timber for simple housing arrangements for livestock. They see subsidiary developments there in the way of fencing in this great area by the local farmers themselves. They could see a practical use for it if they were able to relate the grassmeal thing to anything that has to do with their own farms. They might be able to see something in silage.

182. Senator Keating.—Is is that you cannot put cattle on to that bog at any time of the year?

Mr. Bolger.—It is a delicate situation where I think you could run cattle and sheep if you had a good man there with a nice sensitivity. You could get valuable bits of grazing.

183. Senator Keating.—You do not suggest that it is continuous?

Mr. Bolger.—It is a matter that you would have to have mostly yard feeding anyway because the bog might get too wet. At the appropriate time having the animals on the soil is very good, but a fellow would want to be a good manager and have a nice discretion.

184. Senator Keating.—Unless you had silage that alternative would not open up. If he drove them off the land, where could he put them?

Mr. Bolger.—That is it.

185. Senator Keating.—In a sense, the making of good silage is the centre for you of economic utilisation?

Mr. Bolger.—That is it. I have been reading—I cannot give you the reference— that some people in Germany on high peat feed continually on silage. They have towers of silage all the year round. It is very effective. This could be the thing to do. We cannot write-off the land. There is a lot of it in west Mayo.

The witness withdrew.