12 



MASS. EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 365 



from whom they purchase milk. They may, during periods of flush production, 

 require producers to retain a specified proportion of the day's output. They 

 may, if the existing policy is to buy closely to fluid requirements, rely on other 

 dealers for reserves. 



Data have not been gathered which would indicate the extent to which dealers 

 make use of these last two practices. Of the other techniques, selection of pro- 

 ducers on the basis of relatively even production is the more important. Dis- 

 tributors handling a low percentage of Class II milk had a small turnover of 

 producers, the average for the group being 8.1 percent. Dealers whose proportion 

 of Class II milk was high had a relatively large turnover of 23.9 percent among 

 their producers. (Table 4.) Except that their Class II handlings might have 

 been greater, adjustment of payroll as measured by producer-turnover is not in- 

 tensively used as a means of bringing purchases and sales into line. 



Table 4.- 



-Rate of Producer Adjustment by Dealers 

 IN Group I and Group IV. 



Dealers who have high product -costs (on the basis of their deliveries per day 

 per dairy) select producers who manage their herds so as to have relatively even 

 production. Using the production records of full-time'' producers for the months 

 of February, May, August, and November as being typical of the year, the range 

 in production was 41.5 pounds for those dairymen selling to dealers in group I 

 and 59.1 pounds for those selling to dealers in group IV. The range in production, 

 however, was but 18.5 percent of the mean for group I as contrasted with 38.0 

 percent for group IV. The deliveries per day per dairy and the index of delivery 

 per day per dairy for the selected months are given in table 5. 



^Similar results secured when records of all producers were used. 



