11. The change from cans to bulk 

 assembly creates operating problems 

 for farmer cooperatives no different 

 from those for proprietary dealers, 

 once the decision to change has been 

 made. The decision-making process 

 for farmer cooperatives may be some- 

 what lengthier than for proprietary 

 dealers if full member participation 

 is the aim. However, there was evi- 

 dence that the time lag is shortened 

 when the possible loss of volume 

 from larger producers, who may 

 leave the cooperative in favor of a 

 tank assembly outlet, exceeds the cost 

 of adopting bulk assembly and the 

 premium payments which may be 

 necessary to retain them. 



12. Not all milk dealers are plan- 

 ning a changeover to bulk assembly. 

 Of those receiving milk in cans, thirty 

 percent were under some form of 

 pressure to change. This pressure in 

 two-thirds of the cases was repre- 

 sented by competition from other 

 dealers for producers' supply and the 

 remainder came from their own year- 

 round producers who wanted to 

 change to bulk assembly. 



The major obstacle mentioned by 

 dealers, to conversion to bulk assem- 

 bly of milk, was the cost of the 

 necessary trucks and farm facilities. 

 It was believed that the cost of the 

 latter would be especially burden- 

 some to the small farms which were 

 typical sources for many of these 

 dealers' milk. 



13. Over four-fifths of the for-hire 

 trucks assembling milk in cans were 

 owned by the drivers. Three-fifths of 

 the owner-drivers supplemented their 

 income from milk assembly by pro- 

 ducing milk, by custom hauling of 

 other products, and as employees in 

 milk plants. For every 100 producers 

 shipping in cans, 18 were self-haul- 

 ers, trucking only their own milk. 

 They are not here considered as 

 truckers. 



14. There were no instances of 

 written contracts between dealers and 

 either can or tank truckers. In the 

 case of tank truckers, however, at 

 least two-fifths had some form of in- 

 come guarantee from the dealer. The 

 initial investment in a tank truck may 

 require more financial and income 

 support from the dealer than has 

 been true for the can truck. The 

 trucker now becomes more closely 

 tied to a single source of livelihood, 

 and the loss of alternative sources 

 of income must be replaced by some 

 form of minimum income guarantee 

 if trucking service is to be assured 

 without the truckers' becoming a 

 dealer-employee. This will be par- 

 ticularly true during the initial phases 

 of developing tank truck routes. 



15. The tank truck haulage rates 

 charged producers were, in general, 

 lower th?.n those charged producers 

 shipping in cans, for equal distances. 

 This reflects lower transportation 

 costs, and, in some instances, a dealer 

 policy of helping to pay the tank 

 trucker for hauling milk, partly for 

 the purpose of inducing producers to 

 shift to bulk assembly. 



16. On the assembly routes 

 studied, the most frequently found 

 rates charged by truckers to pro- 

 ducers were 20-cents per cwt. by can 

 truckers and 15-cents per cwt. by 

 tank truckers. In addition to the pay- 

 ment from farmer to trucker, there 

 were — as noted above — instances 

 in which the dealer made a supple- 

 mentary payment to the tanker — 

 especially a tank trucker — through 

 some such method as guaranteeing 

 him a minimum gross income per 

 week. 



17. Through the shift to bulk 

 assembly, the cost to the trucker, in 

 hauling milk from farm to plant, can 

 be reduced by 7 to 11 cents per cwt., 

 for comparable sizes of trucks ■ — for 

 example, a reduction from 28 cents 



51 



