M.—AGRICULTURE. 199 
gallon for milk sold to a middleman from my farm, and for this milk my 
wile is charged 3s. per gallon. I am selling lamb at 1s, 4d. per pound for 
which she is charged Qs. 6d. per lb., and if the drought had not upset the 
crop I should be selling potatoes at an equal disparity as between whole- 
sale and retail prices. Can anyone say whether these figures do or do not 
represent a fair division of total cost as between producer, retailer, and 
consumer? It may be asserted with confidence that no one can speak 
with authority upon the subject. The only figures which we have been 
able to collect at Oxford on the cost of distribution relate to milk, and the 
most recent that we have are those for the year 1918. In that year ina 
Midland manufacturing town we found that the distribution costs of a 
large producer-retailer were as follows :— 
£ S4 ade 
hour { Manual and clerical . : : d : . 1,242 10 - 2%. 
Horse : : : : ; : : . 497 0 OF 
Rent c : 7 ‘0 0 
Sundry purchases, depreciation, general expenses, &e. ~ ) 14301429 
Total cost : P j ‘ P : : Re 7S: OB ew | 
Number of gallons of milk distributed. s ; F 112,833 
Cost of distribution per gallon ; , : : ; 4-77d. 
Doubtless the conditions have changed since that year, nor is it 
possible to generalise from a single example; but, nevertheless, the 
figure for the gallon-cost seems to indicate that both farmer and con- 
sumer are suffering in the interests of the distributor, though it is 
impossible to say without further investigation whether the profit 
secured by retailers generally is excessive, or whether the difference 
between distribution cost and the margin out of which it is paid is 
necessary owing to an excessive number of distributors. 
As to the other points named, meat and potatoes, no evidence exists 
at all, and the position with regard to them and also to milk is only 
indicated to emphasise the need for a full investigation of the economics 
of distribution. 
At the present time labour problems afford a useful example of the 
need for further investigation of the economic problems of agriculture. 
The agricultural industry has been fortunate in that it has escaped 
the serious labour troubles which have shaken many other industries so 
badly during the past few years. This has been due in part, no doubt, 
to the closer personal relations which exist between employer and 
employed in agriculture than in other enterprises, and in part to the 
intervention of that often unfairly criticised body, the Agricultural 
Wages Board, but agricultural employers have also to thank the fact 
that agricultural labour is difficult to or ganise. Much controversy in 
the past would have been avoided, and the possibility of future difficulties 
could be faced with more confidence, if all the facts relating to labour 
had been and were being studied over the country generally. The 
labourer is often blamed for results which are due to the inefficiency 
of the farmer as a manager. When wages were low it may have been 
that the labourer was the cheapest machine, but in proportion as his 
remuneration approaches more nearly to the standard of reward in com- 
peting industries, so will the necessity for making his work more 
