3. About a third of the farms us- 

 ing cans planned herd expansion, as 

 compared with fifty percent of farms 

 with tanks. Of all such producers' 

 plans for increases, over four-fifths 

 were for additions of 1 to 9 cows. 

 This appears to be a realistic esti- 

 mate because, of those farms already 

 using bulk tanks, thirty percent had 

 increased their herd size and, of those 

 increases, sixty-one percent were 1 

 to 4 cows and twenty-six percent were 

 5 to 9 cows. 



4. Reasons given for planned herd 

 increases by producers shipping milk 

 in cans were to make greater use of 

 existing buildings, to increase farm 

 income from herd improvement 

 plans, and to increase production. 

 In one tenth of the cases, herd in- 

 crease plans were specifically aimed 

 at the future purchase of a farm 

 bulk milk tank. 



5. The major reason for producers' 

 planning no increases in herd size 

 was labor limitations such as short- 

 age of hired help, age and health of 

 the operator, and time required for 

 off-farm work. Other reasons were 

 that farm acreage was too small and 

 that existing buildings were used to 

 capacity. 



6. Producers using cans were 

 asked what they would do if their 

 present milk dealer changed to bulk 

 assembly. Forty-five percent said 

 they would change to a dealer will- 

 ing to accept their milk in cans. 

 Fourteen percent would go out of 

 business. The remaining 41 percent 

 would install a farm bulk milk tank. 

 These reactions presumed that other 

 dealers would be willing to accept 

 their milk in cans or that there 

 would be alternative employment op- 

 portunities. Therefore, these proposed 

 actions are subject to change. 



7. By farmers still using can 

 assembly, the expected cost of 

 changeover, exclusive of the farm 



bulk tank purchase, was estimated at 

 less than $350 for 27 percent of the 

 farms, between $350 and $749 for 

 37 percent, and $750 or more for 

 36 percent of the farms. The experi- 

 ence of producers who had actually 

 changed to a farm bulk milk tank 

 was better than this. Sixty-three per 

 cent of the farms required additional 

 costs of less than $350. For 37 per 

 cent, the figure was $350 or more. 



8. Two-thirds of the farm bulk 

 milk tanks purchased in Maine, New 

 Hampshire and Vermont were direct 

 expansion type. The preference for 

 this type will depend on local electric 

 power service rates and policies, as 

 well as on the individual preference 

 of the producer. The power require- 

 ments for the direct expansion type 

 of farm bulk milk tanks are greatest 

 during milking, whereas the power 

 needs for the ice bank type of bulk 

 cooler are more evenly distributed 

 through the day. 



9. The most frequent methods of 

 financing farm bulk milk tanks were 

 through local banks and the Produc- 

 tion Credit Association. The milk 

 dealer frequently co-signed the pur- 

 chase note at the bank and the inter- 

 est rate was generally 6 percent on 

 the unpaid balance. 



10. Unused capacity of tank trucks 

 means a higher cost per cwt. for 

 milk transported than if the tank 

 were full. The seasonal variation in 

 production was greater for producers 

 shipping in cans than for farm tank 

 users. There was insufficient evidence 

 that the use of a farm bulk milk 

 tank had encouraged more even pro- 

 duction, but the difficultv of a trucker 

 in hauling a full load will be in- 

 creased as the production of pro- 

 ducers on his route varies from month 

 to month. In addition, variations in 

 milk sales will increase a producer's 

 difficulty of meeting the payments on 

 a new farm bulk milk tank. 



50 



