This may require reorganization of 

 routes or is possible when every- 

 other-day pick-up is introduced. For 

 example, two trucks hauling cans 

 show a reduction in cost per cwt. of 

 milk hauled from 30 cents to 20 cents 

 when the mileage is reduced from 100 

 to 50 miles. The cost per cwt. for 

 a truck of 19.000 pounds gross ve- 

 hicle weight carrying 8.600 lbs. per 

 trip is reduced from 28 cents to 19 

 cents as the mileage is reduced from 

 100 to 50 miles. (Table 35, Trucks 

 2a and 2b.) 



(c) Aii Adequate Size of Farm 

 Tank Necessary 



It is apparent that if the produc- 

 tion of milk on farms served by a 

 given truck varies during the year, 

 the load to be carried by the trucker 

 will vary equally. During periods of 

 a seasonal flush such as May and 

 June, production is frequently con- 

 siderably above that in November. 

 A farmer who owns a farm tank big 

 enough to handle production during 

 flush periods for every-other-day or 

 three times a week pick-up, poses no 

 problem to the trucker. In cases 

 where the farm tank cannot hold two 

 or three days' milkings during flush 

 production periods, then the trucker 

 must call more frequently if he wants 

 the farm's total production. Misjudg- 

 ment of farm tank size or subsequent 

 increases in the size of herd may 

 create this condition. The transpor- 

 tation cost advantage possible from 

 less frequent visits is lost. It should 

 be emphasized that the opportunity 

 for reduced transportation costs — 

 and hence reduced rates — result- 

 ing from fewer trips can be lost by 

 inadequate planning of production in 

 relation to farm tank size and vice 

 versa. 



5. Comparison of Costs of 

 Trucks with Can Truck 

 Costs after Transition 

 Period 



In order to estimate the probable 

 cost reductions from tank truck 

 assembly, budgets or models were cal- 

 culated for 5 tank trucks and 5 can 

 assembly trucks. The data included in 

 these budgets were adjusted to apply 

 to uniform daily mileages of 50 and 

 100, and are based on the data ob- 

 tained from actual operations in 

 Northern New England, including the 

 figures set out in Tables 42, 43, and 

 44, in Appendix I. 



Table 35 shows the costs, miles 

 travelled, and weight carried for 5 

 typical can truck routes. 



The haulage cost per cwt. of milk 

 varied from 19 cents to 30 cents. 

 Each of the high-cost routes was 

 marked by a smaller pay-load I less 

 milk carried), or longer hours of 

 work, or a longer distance traveled, 

 or some combination of these factors. 



Table 36 shows the costs for 5 typi- 

 cal tank-truck and load combinations. 



The average cost per cwt. varied 

 from 17 cents to 21 cents. Carrying 

 a capacity load of milk, twice a day, 

 gave Truck No. 3 the lowest cost 

 per cwt. 



A comparison of can with tank 

 truck assembly costs is possible from 

 the budget data. For 3 trucks of 

 comparable size, Table 37 shows cost 

 and load data extracted from Tables 

 35 and 36. For the same load but 

 half the distance travelled, the tank 

 truck (Example II) would cost 7 

 cents per cwt. less than the can 

 truck (Example I). This is assumed 

 to represent every-other-day pick-up 

 by the tank truck instead of every 

 day pick-up by the can truck. Fifty 

 percent is the maximum mileage sav- 



38 



