1 Jury, 1898.] QUEENSLAND AGRICULTURAL JOURNAL. 39 
of the 2nd March, 1898, states that a farmer on the Lower Clarence who reaped the 
magnificent sum of £49 as the result of four years’ hard toil in a 20-acre canefield, 
recently threw the whole business up in disgust and started dairying. To-day, the 
same farmer on the same piece of land is averaging something like €24 per month 
for milk, and this is only one instance from hundreds that could be quoted. So 
much has been said and written about the dairying industry in the past, that it 
is difficult to find a fresh starting point, and so evade the fault of a repetition 
of much that I have written or spoken. The first question that to me 
deserves some consideration is—What are our future prospects in the London 
markets for dairy produce, or, in other words, what shall we do when our now increas- 
ing production exceeds the demand? In answer, I give it as my opinion that our 
future prospects are good, and that the ever-increasing consumption will more than 
keep pace with the production, so that we need not fear the future. It only remains 
for us to use every precaution in producing the very best quality of goods, and always 
bear in mind that we have to cater for the taste of the English consumer. Assuming 
for the sake of argument that there may be over-production, it is not, I think, the 
Queenslanders who will suffer from such an effect, but the Danish people and those of 
other European countries, where the cost of production is greater than here. No 
country in the world can produce milk at sucha low cost as Australia, and especially in 
Queensland. Here we have an unlimited area of good lands, from which, for very 
little, abundance of fodder can be produced. We also have a mild climate, and 
only require to shelter our cattle for a few months in the year, whereas in Denmark 
and other Huropean dairying countries the price of land is high, the areas small, and 
housing and feeding of cattle are necessary for at least nine months in the year thus 
increasing the cost of production by over four times that of Queensland. In the face 
of these facts, is it reasonable to suppose that Denmark can compete with this colony ? 
That there is a great future for the dairy farmer in Queensland is undeniable, and 
within the next few years it is anticipated the value of the exports will surpass those 
of many of the now leading exporting industries. At present our greatest drawback 
is the want of population. In Queensland we have sufficient land to carry millions of 
people, and I see no reason why we should not have a large influx of people from other 
parts, where farmers and dairymen are barely making an existence, owing to high 
prices of land and high rents. The farmers of this colony have—it would seem to me 
—need to regret that co-operative dairying is making such slow progress, due in the 
greater part to apathy on the part of the people themselves, who allow petty jealousies 
to interfere with success. With many co-operative associations that are in existence, 
the organisation is so weak that a good manager is not employed, with the result that 
these companies are dependent to a great extent on the profit-making agent to finance - 
the business and disposeof their goods, thus violating the sense of the word co-operation. 
The foundation of successful co-operation is concentration and good management, and 
if carried out under these principles failures are not possible. Failures almost 
invariably have been traced to bad management, and small concerns where the farmers 
themselves, who are not as arule business men, undertake to manage the financial 
part of the business. Co-operation amongst a few is really not co-operation at all, 
and where among a body of farmers some will not co-operate, but supply private 
persons, they are only furnishing the material to wreck the co-operators to the despite 
of their neighbourhood. When a business is carried on in a large way the cost of 
manufacturing is reduced very considerably. Co-operation in the manufacture of the 
article alone is in my opinion not sufficient; co-operation should extend to the distri- 
bution retail in the towns and settlements. Under the existing methods of distribu- 
tion the produce goes through two, three, and very often four hands (or profit-making 
agents) before it reaches the consumer, and the expense on cach occasion. (borne by 
the producer) may be estimated at from 10 to 20 per cent. Even the butter exported 
to London passes through two or three agents before it reaches the consumer. In 
1896 about .6,000,C00 lb. of butter were made in Queensland. N ow, assuming that 
the average price was 10d. per lb., that means a value of £250,00), from which may | 
be deducted for the middleman 5 per cent. (or £12,000), for the retail man (who at 
least gets 10 per cent.) £25,000—or £37,000 all told; and, as every person knows, the 
goods very often pass through the hands of three and often four agents before it 
reaches the actual consumer. The butter exported to London during the last twelve 
months amounted to 810,880 lb., and the average price was something over 10d. per 
Ib., equal to £33,786 13s. 4d., from which is to be deducted 5 per cent. to the first 
agent (£1,689) and 5 per cent. to the second—or £3,378 in all—that, under a thorough 
system of co-..peration, would have gone into the pockets of the producers. Are the 
above figures (which IT consider much under the mark) not proof beyond all doubt 
that co-operative dairying will return to the farmers many thousands of pounds that 
