MILK DISTRIBUTION COSTS.

Otaki Mail, 10 August 1923, Page 3

MILK DISTRIBUTION COSTS.

The greed and profiteering propensites of milk distributors in the larger centres of population have been one of the nation’s food scandals for a longtime. Facts and figures dealing with the subject iu the interim report of the Departmental Committee on milk and milk products are conclusive on the point that the charges for retailing milk are grossly exorbitant. We cannot see where the Committee has thrown much light on how reductions are to made, but, clearly, if an important item of farm produce like milk, admittedly the finest natural food for man or animal kind, cannot be handled much less expensively between the piodueer and the consumer, something is seriously wrong with the system, ll is uii to farmcis, at all events, to put the ease plainly before the town dwellers who, meantime, tiro paying lo sliop--1 keepers twice as much, and in some cases more, for farm produce, than the farmer, who has till the risk and (rouble of raising or producing the food, himself obtains. The big margin which goes into the pocket of the milk retailer is clearly sliown in tables giving the average prices paid to producers and by consumers iu the principal Scottish cities in the years 1913 and 1922. I With the exception of Edinburgh, which is famed for its city and suburban dairies, the cost of distribution in 1922 was doubled all over, and iu some cases more than double that of 1913. Retail profiteering, as indicated, is no | new grievance as may be seen iii the case I of Dundee where, in 19.13, despite the j fact that the producers got 2Jd less per gallon in certain months than in others, 1 the retailer never altered his charge I all the year round. Indeed, at the per- i iod tin) producer gets the least per gal- j lon, the .Dundee milk retailer charges (lie most for distribution. The follow- j ing tables are eloquent of the big margin between the producers’ and the consumers’ price per gallon, thus: —

While pointing out that a striking feature of the milk trade is the large j number of retail milk shops in large town and cities and that “the margin allowed for distribution is frequently greater than that allowed for production,’’the Government .Committee have really nothing of a very practical nature to suggest which would be helpful either to'the- producer or consumer. The Committee, however, agr.ee that .< < there is room for a substantial in-; crease in both tho- consumption of j liquid milk and in the home production of milk for manufacturing purposes.’! But " here is the incentive to the farmer to produce or to the public to consume if each is to be so bady fleeced bv the middleman that the producer is not encouraged to develop his dairy business nor the consumer able to buy the quantity of this rich food desired. No doubt, as the report says. “ the practice of door-to-door delivery of small quantities of urflk is an expensiveluxury,” but need it be. so expensive that the wholesaler be paid approximately Id and the retailer Sd per gallon for distribution’ The cost of distribution, according to the Committee, is still more than 100 per cent, above prewar rates. The Committee are laudatory in regard to “the advantages or well-considered schemes of co-operation

in the dairying industry which hate been proved in Scotland and in North Wales,” and state that “the comparative lack of success of co-operative-dairying in England should not be a-

111 The Committee also urge that “ the National Farmers’ Union, should

> serious consideration to tlie question of i co-operation, -with a view to encouraging tlie formation of co-operative dairy societies under suitable conditions and ■ in districts where they arc most needed and likely to achieve a fair measure of success.” After pointing to ‘‘the initiative and enlightenment which the railway authorities in the United Stator and certain other countries have shown in tlie handling of milk traffic,” -the Committee hold that ‘‘transport facilities in this country have not: kept pace with tire modern developments and requirements of tlie industry,” and point out that ‘‘lower railway charges on milk would be of the greatest national advantage in encouraging an increase in consumption and therefore in railway revenue. The companies should review the present scale of rates in this sense.” The railway charges, admittedly, are stiii too high, but the distribution expenses in towns are the chief factor against producer and consumer, and we agree with the Committee, even if theirs is but a pious observation, that "a. substantial reduction Of the wholesaler's margin of -id or of the combined margin of Is a gallon should be made having regard to the changed conditions. ’ ’ —Farmiiic- Ifcws

(A) Produce price per gallon. .(B) Consume r nice per gallon. POP .1021 A B. Margin. A. 1 i. Margin EDINBURGH. cl, s. a. (1. S. d. s d. s. cl Jan, Pi J 4 Ui 1 1.(1 2 $ 10 Feb. C, X .1 4 0 i .1 0 2 8 1 2 March 8 1 4 8 1 2 2 4 1 2 April 7 .1 4 9 1 1 2 0 11 May; Of 1 2 9i 10 i 2 (j 1 Ji June Off 1 2 < i Pi 1 8 iu; J ulr 7 1 2 7 10i 1 8 Pi Aug. 7 .1 2 7 1 0 1 8 S Sept. 71 1 4 84 1 4 - 0 s Oct. Si 1 4 7 1 4 2 0 s Nov. 0 1 8 10J 1 Ci 2 4 lu Dee, pi 1 s 101 1 s - 4 s GLASGOW. a. s, d. a. 8, d. s cl. ». a. Jan. 10 1 2 4 1 Si - 2£ u Feb. 10 1 2 4 1 3 - 0 y March lu 1 2 Of 1 3 - 0 p April 7 1 u 0 1 3 2 u y May (if 1 1) oh in 1 y lu June (if I U Si lu 1 >8 i" July (if 1 0 Of .10 1 8 lu Aug. 7 l (J 0 n 1 8 0 Sepl. 7 1 u 0 1 0 x 10 -V Oct. 81 1 2 Si 1 2) 0 10 Nov. P 1 2 s 1 7 - -i p Fee. p 1 1 - 4i 1 7 2 -J. L ‘ :d L'NDEE. d. s , a. .1. r. d. 6. cl. 5. a. Jan. pi 1 2 V: 1 10 3 5 lu Feb. 8i 1 2 4?, 1 10 2 8 lu March 8 1 2 1 2 3 0 iu April S 1 1 2 5 1 1 2 3 0 lu May 7 1 2 7 1 2 3 0 lu June 7 1 2 7. 1 1 3 u 11 J uly 7 I 2 7 1 1 2 0 11 Aug. 7 J 1 2 01 1 2 3 0 lu Sept. 7 : i 1 2 0:1 1 2 3 u lu Oct. S1 1 2 o'i 1 0 3 i lu Nov. Si 1 2 5.v 1 0 3 i lu Dec. si l 2 3i i 0 3 4 10 ABERDEEN, d. s. Cl. a. s. d. s. ci. s. a. Jan. y 1 2 5 1 0 2 4 10 Feb. Si 1 1 u 1 (i 2 4 10 March S I 1 5 1 0 2 4 10 April s 1 2 0 1 2 3 0 10 May s i 1 5 1 2 2 0 10 June ’s 1 1 5 1 2 2 0 10 July s 1 1 3 1 0 2 0 1 0 Aug. 7; 1 I 5j1 1 2 0 11 Sept. s 1 1 5 1 2 2 0 10 Oct. Si 1 1 1-1 1 2 2 0 10 Nov, Si 1 1 41 1 2 2 0 10 Doc. Si 1 2 4J 1 2 2 0 10