EFFICIENT MARKETING FOR AGRICULTURE.* PROFESSOR MACKLIN has written this book
with special reference to American agriculture, but every one of his principles can be profitably applied to British agriculture. He is perfectly right to deplore the practice of regarding marketing as a kind of detached sequel to production. It is really a stage in production. He writes in a far more judicial temper than is usually found in experts. We all know the prejudices of the expert who writes in some special interest in the large business of food production and food distribution ; but Professor Macklin does not lean more to the farmer than to the consumer, and he is equally just to the much-abused middleman.
On the literary side his book would be more worthy of the knowledge displayed if he had not here and there done a rather unprofessional violence to the English language. His substantives used as adjectives are generally abominable, for example—" consumer characteristics," " farmer sus- picions," " middleman attitude." " Processing " and " packaging " are, we suppose, accepted technical terms in America, but we could wish that they were not.
" What happens in the dark ? " is a striking question strikingly answered. The dark is the gap which has to be bridged between the farmer and the consumer. As Professor Macklin says, farmers and consumers can hardly ever answer the question. This proves how extraordinarily little is known of the economies of marketing and at once supplies the reason why the middleman is fixed upon as the villain of the piece. A very little thought would show that between farmers who produce in small quantities and consumers who want to make a variety of very small purchases there must be the essential services of assembling, transport and distribution.
Assembling is commonly done by middlemen, though there is no reason in the world why farmers should not be their own middlemen and thus save a good deal of expense if only they would abate their mutual suspicions and co-operate freely. Till they decide to do so their abuse of the middlemen is rather absurd. The individual farmer produces on too small a scale to be able to do his own assembling profitably, unless, of course, he is in the exceptional position of, say, a large grazier, who can actually load his own cattle and ship them direct to his chosen market. Assembling is important for three reasons : (1) to secure adequate volume of a commodity or of similar commodities (e.g., grain is assembled in an elevator) ; (2) to secure adequate variety ; (3) to meet the convenience of large buyers.
Grading is not less important. One of the illustrations in this book, showing the waste caused by a failure to grade, is impressive. We see a great heap of undersized potatoes and dirt which had to be discarded at a central market. Grading would have sorted out all this rubbish before it was trans- ported. The farmers, of course, had to pay freight for it. Other pictures show the elaborate machinery which is used in America for grading. Needless to say thii3 sort of plant would not be erected if it did not pay its way. In brief, grading reduces the cost of marketing by reducing to the minimum the quantity of products which must be handled, transported or stored. But that is not all. Products which are accu- rately graded and standardized can be sold by description, instead of requiring inspection and sampling. The farmer who is known as an accurate grader can transact his business by correspondence instead of being obliged to show his goods. Graded commodities do .not include waste and therefore they justly obtain higher prices.
Packing, or " packaging," deserves as much care as assembling and grading. Clearly proper packing facilitates handling. Bulky products, like cotton wool and hay, are conveyed more cheaply when compressed into the smallest possible space. That is an extreme and familiar case, but the principle is true •st:mgt Marketing for Agriculture. By Theodore Macklin, Ph.D. London. [12,. 6d. net.] right through. Proper packing also protects products from damage and deterioration and of itself persuades consumers to pay higher prices because commodities supplied in this form save time and effort. The ordinary consumer willingly pays his grocer a higher price for butter packed in one pound parcels than for butter in a tub.
As for " processing," a term which covers the making up of raw materials into finished products, it obviously ought to be done as near the source of production as possible. Take, for example, the case of condensed milk. If the milk is con- densed and put into tins near the source of supply the cost is much less than it would be if the milk were conveyed in bull to a distance before being condensed.
Professor Macklin's figures showing the time and money saved by roads which are well engineered and have good surfaces are exceptionally important. As they are pertinent to one of our own most pressing domestic problems we will quote what he says a Investigations of road conditions before and after improvement have demonstrated that, in spite of the high investment, hauling costs are thereby reduced. Roads located in eight counties of four states and improved at a cost of about $3,800,000 resulted in net savings of 11.6 cents for every ton of products hauled a distance of one mile. During the year 8.489,652 ton-miles of traffic went over these roads. Before improvement costs of hauling averaged 83.5 cents, while after improvement they amounted to only 15.7 cents per ton-mile. The cost of maintenance, interest on the money expended for improvement and the annual share of the principal itself amounted to 6.29 cents per ton-mile. Thus the difference between poor roads and good after paying all costs resulted in a net saving of 11.6 cents per ton-mile. Stated differ- ently, by improving these roads the cost of hauling was actually reduced one-third. The value of improved roads is well illustrated by the experience of twelve farmers and dairymen during a period of three years. The average length of haul was determined at 5.73 miles. Before the roads were improved, the average load was 2,892 pounds for a two-horse team and only 1.92 trips were made in a day. After improvement the average load was 5,557 pounds per two-horse team and 2.63 trips were made daily. With a value of 84 for man and team, the cost of hauling 13.2 ton-miles over bad roads was 30.3 cents per ton-mile, while after improvement the same outfit hauled 41.8 ton-miles daily at a cost of only 9.6 cents per ton-mile. In this case the expense of local transporting was reduced by two-thirds."
Previous page
