At this point it might be well to elaborate on a number of consider- 

 ations which limit the size of the "potential market" for bulk feed aside 

 from unit size and number of sellers. These are: (1) accessibility of farm 

 and farm storage; (2) inclination of the producer or specifications of con- 

 tractors or hatcheries; (3) feeding program followed; (4) feed company 

 policy relative to size of minimum delivery; and (5) keeping character- 

 istics of feed, i.e., determining frequency of delivery. 



As previously noted, inaccessibility may exclude some farms from con- 

 sideration for bulk feed delivery. A suggestion, attributed to J. C. Taylor, 

 included the recommendation that a study of highway and farm driveway 

 conditions should be the basis for determining the use of the new style 

 of delivery, and the comment that a suitable truck road open the year round 

 with at least a 12 foot clearance is a practical need.* Weight limits, width, 

 overhead clearance, and seasonal variations in road and driveway condi- 

 tions, as well as maneuvering room need to be taken into account. 



Because of the heavier truck chassis required for the bulk feed body 

 and unloading equipment, and the additional weight of those items them- 

 selves, the adoption of bulk feed delivery tends to increase tare weight. 

 Use of aluminum bodies would help minimize this effect. If a customer tak- 

 ing 5 tons of feed per delivery is located on a road with a load limit of 8 

 tons gross weight, a truck of 2-3 tons empty weight could make the delivery. 

 However, with a 3-ton truck chassis and a 214-ton bulk body and unloader, 

 a load of 5 tons would gross 101/4 tons, or in excess of the road limit. 



During the spring months many New Hampshire roads are virtually 

 impassable due to mud. Hence, a customer normally receiving bulk service 

 might need to be serviced by a small truck and with bagged feed for the 

 duration of the difficult going. Such special arrangements are obviously 

 less efficient than standardized operations, and coming in number at one 

 time, might deter the introduction of bulk feed service to such units in 

 the first place. 



Under-emphasis by some farmers upon the building and maintenance 

 of serviceable farm roads and driveways, which are frequently unsatisfactory 

 for non-bulk delivery, would initially preclude them from being serviced by 

 the heavier bulk feed delivery equipment. Somewhat more room is required 

 for maneuvering bulk delivery equipment into position for unloading than 

 is generally necessary for non-bulk delivery equipment. To provide adequate 

 facilities with respect to the preceding might require cash outlay and/or 

 time, rearrangement, building or rebuilding of a magnitude that a farmer 

 would be unwilling or unable to undertake. 



Some producers, whose farms are of sufficient unit size to warrant con- 

 version to bulk feed, may not be inclined to make the move. As with most 

 agricultural service innovations, the impetus to secure adoption rests large- 

 ly with the supplier. Farmers generally have to be sold on the idea in 

 terms of convenience or efficiency, but in the case of bulk feed or any other 

 new method, requiring extensive building or remodelling, the presence of 

 an additional incentive in the form of a substantial cash savings is a help- 

 ful inducement. However, matters other than bulk feed are likely to receive 

 priority on some farms despite a convincing presentation of its merits. 



A feed company may also find itself unable to extend bulk feed service 

 to additional farm units because of the inclinations of and limitations im- 



* Benson, H. J., "Farm Delivery of Feed in Bulk," Eastern Feed Merchant, Jan., 

 1952, p. 67. 



52 



