on the truck. This unit had two practical limitations, i.e., the maximum 

 elevation of 5 feet above normal truck platform level, and the maximum 

 lift of 90 bags (60 was preferable). Time consumed in preparing to unload 

 bulk feed was not excessive, and unloading was. on the average, fast and 

 done by one man. 



Just as the use of a hand truck offered certain economies in loading 

 bagged feed on delivery trucks, so it could offer economies in unloading. 

 The principal drawback to wider usage of hand trucks in unloading is the 

 variable and improper height of unloading platforms at the farm. For best 

 results such platforms should be close to truck platform level. 



There would appear to be a definite place in the delivering and un- 

 loading of grain-feed on many routes for a system intermediate between 

 a complete bulk setup and the traditional method of handling bagged grain 

 by hand. Admittedly, there are many technical and cost problems involved 

 in developing a system which will permit the maximum flexibility with 

 economical operation. Two alternatives appear worthy of investigation: 



(1) A conventional bag conveyor modified in such a way that it 

 could be attached to a base on the truck. This would eliminate tying, un- 

 tying, lifting, shifting, etc., as is now necessary with portable conveyors 

 used on some loads. It could be placed in position by power rather than 

 by hand. Two men would still be needed, one at each end of the conveyor. 

 Feed could be stored in bags or the bags dumped into bulk bins. 



(2) A hopper and elevating mechanism attached to a base on the 

 truck, to be placed in position by power rather than by hand. Feed would 

 be hauled in bags and the bags clumped into the hopper, the feed then 

 being deposited in bulk in the farm bins. This system should be worked 

 out so it could be handled by one man and used only on orders where 

 quantities justified. One problem would be to assure the clearance of one 

 type of feed from the system before another was introduced. 



The cost limitations of alternatives such as the two mentioned above 

 can be roughly defined. First, depreciation and maintenance charges should 

 be less than those experienced on the conventional bulk delivery equipment. 

 Secondly, total route operating costs should not exceed those experienced 

 on the most efficient bagged feed routes. 



Data on making deliveries of grain in bulk, shown in Table 14, were 

 recorded on the auger-type body. Recently the pneumatic-type of body has 

 been introduced into the state. The pneumatic system makes it possible to 

 reach points more distant from the truck-setting position than is possible 

 with the auger system. This is accomplished by means of pipes (probably 

 stove-pipe) sealed at the joints and running from the outside of the house 

 to the storage bins. It may prove somewhat easier in operation to hook on 

 a short length of outlet pipe. 



Even where bagged feed was unloaded by hand, the location of many 

 farm grain storage points required a considerable amount of time to ma- 

 neuver the truck into position for unloading. Extra men were largely 

 "dead weight" in this instance, as on collecting, travel, etc. In general the 

 additional men did not reduce the man minutes per 100 pounds in unloading. 

 Hence, as with loading, it must be concluded that additional men are, on 

 the average, not utilized efficiently. 



The preceding conclusion is further substantiated by Table 15. Here 

 the primary purpose was to analyze the effect of size of delivery on time 



32 



