Such a country is Great Britain. With us fish is an exceedingly cheap food and one which, normally, is readily procurable in adequate quantities. The “long haul” by rail occasions no apprehensions, inasmuch as the railway transport problem, so far as fish is concerned, has been magnificently solved, it being possible to move consignments four hundred, even six hundred miles within a few hours. The sea’s contribution to the table is prolific. At the same time it is variable. This factor in itself conduces towards pronounced wastage. We seem to have failed lamentably in our efforts to cope with the alternating spells of plenty and relative scarcity in a scientific manner. We have not mastered the adjustment of seasonal gluts, arising from the periodic massed movements of the fish, to shortages in order to maintain a steady and uniform supply the whole year round. In view of the immense strides which have been made in the art of preserving perishable foodstuffs, this deficiency is certainly somewhat remarkable. The extremely low prices at which the bulk of the food from the sea, particularly of herring and sprat--occasionally mackerel--is available, are primarily responsible for the extravagance which rules. This state of affairs offers another interesting illustration of the fact that extremely cheap living promotes waste. We need only to recall the experience of the war to assure ourselves upon this point. Under the system of price control, coupled with abnormally high rates, fish purchases had to be conducted by the trade with extreme caution to obviate financial losses, while, similarly, the consumer was compelled to be more economic and less fastidious in his, or her, tastes. Under such conditions far less of the single fish was wasted, while greater ingenuity was exercised in the preparation of the less attractive edible portions for the table. Nevertheless, no matter how extreme the care or economy manifested, a certain degree of wastage is unavoidable. For the most part the offal, which in itself is appreciable in volume, is regarded as irreclaimable and valueless except as a fertilizer. But this reasoning is fallacious. Fish-waste is capable of furnishing raw material in several forms to feed other industries. As yet this notable circumstance has not become fully appreciated in these islands, the practicability of using such refuse only having been established during the past few years. Ability to turn fish offal to distinct profitable advantage not only solves the problem in its economic aspect, but at the same time indicates a promising outlook for glut catches and to which the ordinary markets are often denied. In this country the conventional disposal of surplus fish is decidedly deplorable for the reason that it follows the line of least resistance. A glut or late catch is generally sold at an absurd price in bulk to serve merely as manure.