ment in container equipment on the 

 farm over the spring water and ice 

 cooling methods formerly used. Lower 

 bacteria count and a better tasting 

 product were the result, along with 

 larger and more attractive milk- 

 rooms. The compressor was contin- 

 ually improved and finally the sul- 

 phur dioxide gas was replaced by the 

 more efficient freon gas. 



The farm bulk milk tank relieves 

 the producer from back-straining 

 manipulation of 40-quart cans and 

 produces a more perfect control of 

 milk temperature and bacteria 

 counts. The ice bank machines fol- 

 low along the more familiar pattern 

 of the refrigeration units with a water 

 and ice jacket. They operate with 

 lower motor capacities and build up 

 a reserve bank of refrigeration at off- 

 load times and over a longer period 

 of time. The direct-expansion type 

 usually operates only for the milking 

 period each morning and afternoon, 

 but with a motor of larger capacity 

 than the ice bank cooler. Consider- 

 ations of compactness of the unit in 

 relation to milk house size, size of 

 motors to the availability of power 

 without extra rate assessments, and 

 the quality of the repair service are 

 important factors in making a choice 

 between the two types. 



With the tank collection of milk, 

 the driver samples and weighs the 

 milk, passes on its appearance and 

 odor quality, and accepts delivery at 

 the farm. The producer has the re- 

 sponsibility and the advantage of hav- 

 ing complete control of the product 

 up to the point of sale. All the milk 

 is rapidlv cooled and held at about 

 38° until it is pumped into the in- 

 sulated (but not refrigerated) tank 

 truck for transfer to the depot hold- 

 ing tanks or to the carrier for final 

 disposition. 



Aside from its part in the mech- 

 anization of the dairy farm, modern 

 tank assembly of milk reduces back- 



labor for producer, trucker, and re- 

 ceiver. It improves the taste of the 

 product as testified by producers. It 

 is the requisite of modern, quick, and 

 efficient transfer of milk from pro- 

 ducer to processor. 



6. Towards the Adoption 

 Of Bulk Tank 



The introduction of bulk milk 

 handling in an area meets mixed re- 

 action from producers. A dealer may 

 be successful in forcing producers 

 to convert to tank by taking the initi- 

 ative and announcing a change-over 

 on some particular date. The result 

 of this approach has frequently been 

 the loss of some producers to other 

 proprietary dealers or to cooper- 

 atives or by their ceasing production. 

 On the other hand, many dealers 

 discuss the proposed investment with 

 their producers and by these discus- 

 sions exert minor pressure on pro- 

 ducers to plan an investment. 



Similarly, dealers may be under 

 pressure to adopt bulk handling from 

 those producers who visualize advant- 

 ages to their own farm operations. 

 The same producers influence their 

 neighbors, and the adoption of tanks 

 will no doubt be speeded up as local 

 farm leaders make the investment. 

 The opinions of farmers towards 

 buying a bulk milk tank are con- 

 servative. Among producers using 

 cans only 41 percent indicated they 

 would install bulk milk tanks. The 

 largest proportion in all three states 

 believed the initial expense would be 

 too great to be borne by their pre- 

 sent milk sales. A somewhat smaller 

 yet substantial number preferred to 

 delay any decisions and to wait and 

 see the turn of events before making 

 a change. The need for a bigger 

 premium from dealers was expressed 

 in a few cases. In Vermont a few 

 producers were located so close to 

 their local dealers that they had no 



14 



