Any conclusions that are reached in such an enquiry as this can only be put forward very tentatively, for they are based (1) upon limited data which cannot be free entirely from error, and (2) upon the averaging of individual results drawn, it is true, from the same class, but from families varying considerably in economic status. For this reason, without much further investigation, any generalisation would be out of place, and the conclusions summarised below are put forward not as definite results but only as indications of the actual facts.

(1) In view of the fact that minimum wage legislation for agricultural workers is being introduced in answer to the statements that the economic status of these workers is deplorably low, it is important to bring forward any facts relating to the actual condition of the rural families.

(2) For an investigation of these conditions, Essex (rural districts) was chosen as the field of enquiry in 1923, and for purposes of comparison and confirmation of results earlier rural investigations have been utilised.

(3) A study of the experimental work on metabolism suggests that the agricultural labourer would certainly need a gross amount of at least 3300 calories per day, and that this assumption will not be likely to err on the side of excess.

(4) The Essex studies of 1923 give a mean value of 2872 calories per man value per day and only 17 per cent. of the families secure over 3300 calories per man per day.

(5) This result is not at variance with the conclusions reached in earlier investigations in rural areas, and the suggestion accordingly is that underfeeding is, to some extent, present in the rural areas. (Lusk writes “it is evident… that one may reduce the basal requirement of energy by undernutrition, and that this process may largely economise food, but that to accomplish a given amount of work a fixed amount of food-fuel is required, irrespective of the nutritive condition of the organism.”)

(6) This under-feeding occurs although nearly three-quarters of the total income is spent on food (leaving a very small amount for other essentials and practically nothing for non-essentials), and although the diet is substantially increased by the consumption of home produce. Without the latter the diet would be seriously deficient.

(7) In the Essex studies nearly one-third of the money spent on food was devoted to bread and flour.

(8) On the other hand, in comparison with urban studies, the rural diet compares very favourably with that of urban workers possessed of a higher money income.

(9) This advantage to the rural family is gained by (a) a larger percentage expenditure on food; (b) a less varied diet containing a substantially smaller amount of meats and hence less animal protein; a substantially larger amount of breadstuffs and hence more carbohydrates in place of fats1; (c) by the consumption of home produce, which, however, entails, in its turn, a lengthening of the day's work and increased needs for food. Without this home produce the diets would compare very unfavourably with those of the urban workers studied. With it, the Vitamine content, as well as the energy value of the diet, must be substantially increased.

(10) In spite of the diet being low there is little evidence of malnutrition amoung the rural children of Essex, and their physique is better, age for age, than that of urban children, living on a diet equivalent or superior in energy value. Other factors, especially the “racial” factor and the “fresh air and sunlight” factor, however, must exert such an influence that the efficacy of the diets cannot be satisfactorily measured by a comparison of heights and weights.