Examing the data in Tables 11 and 12 from another angle, it appeared 

 possible to increase efficiency by using a hand truck and other devices to 

 minimize carrying. In terms of man minutes per unit in loading, the filling 

 of bulk trucks from overhead bins, where one man handles the operation 

 and feed flows freely, appeared to be the most efficient method. However, 

 where bulk feed bridged rather badly (as dairy feeds may do), where it 

 was necessary to use more than one man, and particularly where bulk 

 trucks were loaded from bags, loading efficiency was very low. Those types 

 of situations represent some of the problems with bulk feed handling. 



In seeking a more controlled answer to time savings from use of a 

 hand truck, the data from Table 11 "loading mostly by hand truck and 

 chute", could more properly be weighed against the two men data in 

 Table 12. The combination of one stop and over 130 bags with two men 

 hand loading should yield a figure somewhere between .44 and .67 man 

 minutes per bag as compared to the .41 man minutes from Table 12 for 

 loading by hand truck and chute. Another indication of this general trend 

 can be observed from Table 13. Here, it took one man .20 man minutes per 

 bag to load a truck from a railroad car using a hand truck. Two men load- 

 ing by hand took .33 man minutes per bag. Both were loading for one 

 destination, but the different number of bags per load probably accounted 

 for some of the previous difference. 



Table 12. Effect of Number of Men, Number of Bags, and Number 

 of Orders on Man Minutes per Bag in Loading Grain 



Table 13 is interesting in another respect. Comparing the man minutes 

 required per bag with data from Tables 11 and 12 leads to the conclusion 

 that there are decided economies in operating routes from railroad cars as 

 against delivery from retail units. These are in addition to the elimination 



29 



