in the past as the most economical 

 way to assemble and ship milk. With 

 the advent of tank truck assembly of 

 milk, however, the maintenance of 

 receiving stations must be subject to 

 economic re-evaluation. The cost of 

 maintaining receiving stations varies 

 with the extent of use. Many months 

 of the year the plant may be only 

 partially used. As an alternative, 

 milk may be assembled by tank from 

 farms then transferred to a mobile 

 receiving station such as a tank 

 truck or a rail car. Much of the 

 handling costs can thus be elimi- 

 nated or reduced. 



5. Long and Short Hauls 



The transportation of milk from 

 farms to processing plants can be 

 classified by length of haul. Milk 

 moving to Boston and vicinity from 

 Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine 

 entails longer distances in general 

 than milk shipped to secondary or 

 local markets. An exception may be 

 found in Maine, for example, where 

 local dealers assemble milk from dis- 

 tances up to 95 miles. 



Returns to producers shipping 

 from northern New England to 

 Massachusetts markets will be less 



than if they ship to local markets, 

 provided that the same price for de- 

 livered milk is paid by dealers on 

 these markets and the same form of 

 transportation is used. In point of 

 fact, the price paid to New Hamp- 

 shire and Maine dairy farmers for 

 milk to be used locally in fluid con- 

 sumption is fixed by the respective 

 State Milk Control Boards at a level 

 equal to that paid at Boston. The 

 northern New England producer's 

 relative disadvantage in shipping to 

 Boston a disadvantage by com- 



parison to nearer producers ■ — 

 would be reduced if the cost of trans- 

 porting milk were reduced on long 

 distance hauls relatively to short 

 hau's. 



Any means by which transporta- 

 tion charges can be reduced is 

 equivalent to an increased price at 

 the farm. This would have the most 

 significance to farmers shipping long 

 distances. As most of the milk from 

 Vermont and a major part of the 

 milk from New Hampshire is shipped 

 to Massachusetts there could be an 

 increase in farm income to these 

 states from reduced transportation 

 costs. To a lesser extent the farmers 

 selling on local markets would bene- 

 fit from lower charges per cwt. 



III. Procedure of Study 



Information incorporated in this 

 study was obtained in 1955 and 1956 

 from producers, dealers, and truckers 

 already operating with partial or 

 complete bulk tank assembly and, for 

 comparison, from producers, dealers, 

 and truckers still using cans. The 

 purpose of the interviews was to ob- 

 tain operating experiences of those 

 using tank truck assembly and the 

 attitudes of those members of the 

 industry who had not converted from 

 cans towards the adoption of tank 

 assembly. 



The questions answered in this 

 survey form the basis for this an- 

 alysis. Every effort was made to draw 

 a 20 percent random sample of deal- 

 ers selling on local markets (Table 2) , 

 a 20 percent random sample of dairy 

 farms shipping to the dealers sam- 

 pled, and 100 percent coverage of 

 truckers asembling milk from farms 

 for the dealers sampled. A prelim- 

 inary division was made between se- 

 condary market plants (Figure 2) 

 and plants from which milk is hauled 



