raise average delivery costs for the other firms. In order to keep customers, 

 some of the other firms might also go into bulk, but their short-run position 

 may turn out to be even worse than the new firm entirely on bulk or the 

 established firms which do not go into bulk, inasmuch as they are split 

 between two systems. 



With the present alternatives of bagged or bulk delivery as used in 

 this section, the long-run picture will be dependent upon whether full use 

 can be made of either or both types of systems. In many areas of New 

 Hampshire it would be difficult to carve out efficient bulk routes without 

 going beyond the radius of feasible operation. In others, where efficient 

 bulk routes and efficient bagged routes can be developed, average delivery 

 costs could possibly be reduced in the long run. 



An Aiternative AAethod of Distributing Feed 



A promising alternative intermediate between regular bagged or bulk 

 delivery, lies in the development of a hopper-and-elevating mechanism 

 attached to a base on the truck, and which can be placed in position for 

 unloading by power rather than by hand. This would in effect be a com- 

 bination method, making bulk feed available to those customers who want 

 it, but permitting others who do not, or who have units of smaller size, 

 to be served with bagged feed. 



Such a method would eliminate handling of bags by the farmer, but 

 would entail the opening and dumping of bags at the farm by the dealer's 

 crew in instances where this is not now done in unloading bagged feed. 

 However, it would be desirable and quite possible to sew bags in such a 

 fashion that they could be opened more rapidly than is possible with some 

 systems now in use. Bags could be taken back to the loading point without 

 entering the farm grain storage area. Several companies have for some time 

 been interested in a system of this general type to provide the option of 

 bulk or bagged feed to their customers. It is likely that such a unit could be 

 made considerably cheaper than conventional bulk bodies and mechanisms. 

 However, units of this type which have materialized from years of develop- 

 ment v/ork still require two men. As such, they do not offer the potential 

 economies which would exist if but one man could be used. 



Using some of the time and cost data presented earlier, it is possible 

 to make rough estimates of the cost effects of a combination system. In 

 Table 23 there are presented estimates of the depreciation costs of such 

 delivery equipment. Since knowledge about the truck chassis is limited the 

 costs used are the extremes — bagged truck and bulk truck — and the 

 midpoint. Suppose further that submitted with the specifications to the 

 engineers is the provision that the body cost for the hopper-elevating unit 

 shall not exceed $3,000. In terms of depreciation, therefore, the truck and 

 unit cost will lie between those in Table 23 for regular bagged and bulk 

 trucks. 



Basic to realizing the full economies of the hopper-elevating method is 

 the specification that it can be operated by one man. In the absence of data 

 regarding operating time, it can be further assumed that the truck and 

 mechanism can be readied for unloading at the farm in about the same time 

 as with regular bulk units. So far as unloading time is concerned, actual 

 unloading time per unit should probably not differ greatly from that for a 

 conveyor (see Table 17), except that one man rather than two can do the 

 job under our assumptions. If it is made easy for that one man to open 



45 



