40 QUEENSLAND AGRICULTURAL JOURNAL. [1 Juny, 1898. 
are now going into the pockets of the far-seeing profit-making agents. I think the 
time is now at hand when the farmers should move in this matter, and 
no longer feed the drones who in the past have feathered their®nests from 
the labours of the sons of the soil. It is unreasonable and absurd to suppose 
that equal or better prices are obtainable from proprietary companies, or that 
there isa shadow of a chance of their competing against a well-organised: 
co-operative company. It is unreasonable to think that traders are going 
to invest capital and work in the interests of the producers for small profits. 
Self-interest is a law of nature, but should not be so with the dairy farmers. I 
will not dispute the fact that traders will pay equal, and in some cases more: 
than co-operative companies, for a short period, or until a monopoly is gained,. 
after which the poor “cockey” is roughly handled. Knowing, as the farmers do, 
that these statements are perfectly correct, who can sympathise with them when they 
continue to travel in the old groove without any ambition to better their position, or: 
ocket 15 to 20 per cent. of their hard earnings that are now going to feed the drones. 
re is unwise to entertain the idea, as some people do, that if the producers co-operate 
the traders will not buy their goods. By the aid of co-operation the agent is com- 
pletely done away with, distributing depédts would be established in the various: 
centres of population, and the consumers could rely upon getting the genuine article. 
In Denmark 95 per cent. of the factories are worked.on the co-operation system, and 
the middleman never comes in for a share of the profits. A manager and three 
assistants sell over £6,000,000 worth of butter yearly in England, thus saving the- 
London commission, which alone would amount to £300,000 at 5 per cent. Apart 
from the direct gain to the producer under a system of co-operation, there are other 
advantages to be obtained. It will be to the interest of the producer to exercise 
every care in supplying the best quality of goods to enable the manager to turn out. 
an article of the finest quality, whereas under the present proprietary system there 
is no inducement offered—the man who never exercises any care in the handling of- 
the raw material receives just as much for it as the person who exercises every) 
precaution. The proprietary people rightly claim the credit of haying done a great. 
deal towards developing the industry in this colony, but have done so in their 
own interests. Had these traders not stepped in, the industry would, of necessity, . 
have been developed by the farmers themselves, but at a slower rate of progress. 
The people of this colony have long ago realised the importance of the factory 
system of dairying, knowing that a good article cannot be turned out in large 
quantities under any other system; consequently it is unnecessary to deal with the 
matter here. The following are a few points which I have found to militate against 
successful co-operation: 1, apathy on the part of the farmers; 2, petty jealousies ; 
3, interference with the manager and directors by the milk-suppliers; 4, limiting the 
business to too small dimensions; 5, want of self-reliance. The foundation fora 
successful export trade has been laid beyond doubt, and although Governments, as a 
rule, do not obtain credit for what good they do, praise in this instance is due for the. 
help rendered in opening up this trade with London. A bonus was given upon 
approved butter for export, arrangements were made for shipping space, bad butter - 
was rejected, and good butter carried the Government brand. Iam of opinion that. 
the industry requires no more spoon-feeding, and can and will support itself. Too 
much assistance would, in my opinion, ruin any industry; but I do think that the 
Government would render valuable assistance by exercising strict supervision over - 
the distribution of Queensland produce in the London market, and in support of this ~ 
argument would draw attention to the conflicting and contradictory reports that have - 
appeared in our papers in reference to the recent shipments of butter to London. 
Incorrect and unfavourable reports have also gained currency in the southern . 
colonies, which may to some extent detract from rapid agricultural settlement here. 
Now, I know a great deal about the recent shipment of butter, and think I can - 
relieve your minds of the idea that bad butter was. shipped. In the first place, the . 
_ Under Secretary for Agriculture and myself inspected and branded nothing but the - 
very best quality, all of which was superior to the shipment per the ‘*Jumna” that 
was so highly spoken of in London. Some samples were rejected owing to the - 
quality being inferior, but I have every reason to believe these samples were shipped 
as first quality. We have no power to prohibit anyone from shipping goods 
of the most inferior quality, but really think that power should be given. If © 
the article is inferior, ship it without a brand, or mark it according to 
its quality. Coming back to the recent shipment of butter, we all know 
that the producers here are in the hands of the “traders” in England, as well 
as at this end. All butter is sold privately in London at prices fixed by the buyers, | 
and so to make known the actual results would be contrary to the interests of those - 
4 
