SHOULD FARMERS COMBINE ?
By H. D. WALSTON
AGRICULTURAL co-operatives have never been popular in this country. It is usually non-farmers who bring the idea forward as a solution to many agricultural problems, especially if they have just returned from a visit to the Netherlands or to Denmark. If they make the suggestion to farmers they are probably greeted with polite but somewhat bored smiles and a remark to the effect that English farmers are too independent by nature and too diverse in their methods of farming for co-operatives ever .to have the same success as they have on the Continent. But I sometimes wonder if these stock objections carry the weight today that they did twenty years ago. In those days there was undoubtedly truth in them. Farmers were then still free to grow what they liked, to buy the type of machinery they thought most suitable for their needs, and to erect the buildings which they thought most helpful to their own method of farming. On the selling side they had the firmly ingrained habit of disposing of their own produce, of making their own bargains at the weekly market and Corn Exchange, and of generally ordering their own affairs without much outside interference. But very little of that remains today. Even though considerably more machinery is decontrolled than during the war it is still not possible to walk into a shop and buy what you want ; nor can you call up the local builder and tell him to start building you a' piggery next week.
When it comes to selling, the tradition of the weekly visit to market still lingers on, but more and more farmers have been relieved of the necessity of selling their own produce. All milk, for instance, goes to the Milk Marketing Board ; fat pigs and cattle to the Ministry of Food at controlled prices, and to the centres which the Ministry directs ; potatoes and grain again at controlled prices to authorised merchants, and so on. Independence of action, which was formerly one of the greatest impediments to co-operation in farming, no longer exists.
Before going farther, we should satisfy ourselves that co-operative marketing would give better results, both to the farmer and to the consumer, than the present method. From the consumer's point of view a marketing scheme is desirable if it gives 'him a wide choice of produce in good condition, of reliable quality and at a low price. From the producer's point of view, what is needed is a system which will relieve him of the worries of detailed selling, while at the same time ensuring him a constant price for his goods and the major share of such money as the consumer eventually pays. The more middle- men there are, whether they be private firms or governmental com- missions or boards, the more people there will be to claim their rake-off, and the less will be left for the farmer. In other words, the fewer hands that the produce has to pass through before it reaches the consumer, the greater will be the farmer's share of the money that the consumer is willing to pay.
The only way in which these two objectives can be reached is by ensuring that the passage of any commodity from producer to con- sumer is as direct as possible, so that handling and transport charges are reduced to a minimum, so that the producer retains a feeling of responsibility for his product during the whole of its journey, and so that the consumer feels he can go straight to the source of the trouble if he is not getting what he wants. Under our present system, which was already growing up before the war, these conditions do not exist. It would be fantastic for any milk-drinker in London to expect to be able to find out from which farm or even from which district his milk was coming, and a butcher would probably turn his back in disgust on a customer who tried to find out whether the Sunday joint came from Herefordshire or Aberdeenshire.
This of itself is sufficient to discourage farmers from paying much attention to quality, even if a financial incentive is offered. If the first-quality Aberdeen-Angus steer is sent off to some central slaughterhouse in company with a group of elderly Shorthorn cows, and if the Jersey milk from a tuberculin-tested herd is dumped into the pasteurising vat with tubercle-infested milk of 3 per cent. butter fat, as time goes on an ever greater difference in price between the grades will be needed to encourage farmers to produce good quality. Co-operative marketing can overcome this difficulty, because the units would be sufficiently small to enable farmers to follow their produce right through at least as far as the retailer, while they would be large enough to enable an effective marking system to be put into operation, so that the retailer could exhibit in his shop the produce which he had got from the co-operative known to produce the best quality.
But the value of co-operation for marketing meat and milk is far less than for marketing poultry, eggs, cheese, fruit and vegetables. The successful. sale of all these crops requires certain things which the average farmer cannot supply, but which can be profitably employed by a medium-sized concern—grading machines, packing machines, transport facilities and market intelligence. The co- operative comprising 5o to 50o producers can collect and distribute economically, can grade and pack attractively, and can, either through its own or through a more central market intelligence system, find the best outlet for its produce.
These are the main advantages which can be otuained from co- operative marketing. How then can such schemes be made realities? Old prejudices against co-operation continue in many quarters, so whole-hearted acceptance of the system can only come after it has proved itself. Once it has been decided that it is a system that we like and want to encourage, we must give it all the help we can. In these days of subsidies, controls and licences, that does not present many -difficulties. A precedent has already been established by the, Ministry of Agriculture in its decision to grant licences and financial assistance to co-operative enterprises who want to arrange grass- drying. Similar facilities should be made available to co-operatives for the marketing and grading of fruit, vegetables, eggs and poultry. All these are crops which come high on the list of priorities with the Ministry of Agriculture, and at the same , time are the com- modities which, it is commonly agreed, are badly marketed under the existing system. Help should be given by issuing preferential licences for the erection of buildings and for the acquisition of plant. There should also be a Government subsidy in the shape either of a State guarantee against loss for the first five years ; or, as in France, 20 per cent. of the capital should come from the farmers, 20 per cent. from a State subsidy, and 6o per cent. from the Agricultural Credit Bank, repayable over fifteen or twenty years and lent at a specially low rate of interest.
One final objection remains. k has been said with some truth that no marketing scheme in England can succeed unless all growers are compelled to belong to it. The experience of the bacon-marketing scheme bears this out. There is a real danger that some farmers may be tempted to sell their best produce privately for good prices, and to send to the co-operative only what they cannot sell on their own. I do not believe that in a properly constituted and run co-operative there would be much fear of this, but if a safeguard were needed against it, prices guaranteed by the State are an effective weapon. There is no reason why a farmer should not receive his guaranteed price only through an authorised marketing organisation. If he wants to sell on his own he must take his chance on the open market, but if he hopes to get the advantage of guaranteed prices he will be forced to sell through the co-operative body.
Before we embark on any further highly centralised and bureau- cratic schemes for marketing farm produce, let us first of all reinves- tigate thoroughly the possibilities of co-operatives. Let us study those few (though not so few as most people imagine) successful ventures that are already in existence here, and let us see what has been done overseas. Then let us decide what further encouragement is needed in England. I believe that the help needed is less, and the benefits to producer and consumer alike are far greater, than the help required or the benefits gained under any other marketing system so far suggested.
Previous page
