46 QUESTIONS OF PRINCIPLE 



was to base this division upon a comparison of the market 

 values of the two products, the justification suggested for 

 this course being that in a prairie country, where the straw 

 is usually burnt, as being worthless, the whole cost of the 

 crop will be borne by the corn, and if it were possible to 

 find a locality, or a crop (flax is sometimes a case in point) 

 where the straw alone is utilized, the total cost would be 

 chargeable against the straw. Between these extremes 

 it was suggested that the cost should be shared between 

 the two commodities according to their relative market 

 values. One objection to this principle is the fact that one 

 of the components may have no real market value, and the 

 division of cost has then an unsubstantial basis. This is 

 certainly the case, for example, with barley and barley 

 straw, for there is no market in the latter, and it is probably 

 true equally with other crops. Another division has been 

 suggested, based on a comparison of the food values of the 

 two parts of the crop. On an East Midland farm where 

 a total crop-cost of 5 6s. IQd. per acre was incurred in the 

 year 1915 to produce 3-9 quarters of barley and 15 cwt. of 

 barley straw, a division of cost was made on the basis of 

 a market value of 2 per quarter for barley and 1 per ton 

 for the straw. This brought the cost of growing the barley 

 to 1 4s. Qd. per quarter, and of the straw to 14<s. 5d. per 

 ton. But when the comparison was made on the basis of 

 feeding value, calculated by the starch-equivalent method 

 of Kellner, the cost of the corn was about 18s. per quarter 

 and of the straw about 47s. per ton, regarding the former 

 as a production food, and the latter as a maintenance food, 

 or about 21s. per quarter and 28s. per ton if both were 

 regarded as production foods. These divergences suggested 

 an urgent need for further consideration of the matter, 

 and the practice now adopted at Oxford is to charge the 

 whole cost of production against the principal object of 

 production, treating the secondary product as a by-product 

 and assigning no part of the cost to it. Thus, straw and 

 wool are taken as having no cost ; they are charged only 

 with any labour-cost incurred in handling them, and any 



