June, 1940] Transportation of N. H. Milk 5 



only the two preceding stages but would investigate the possible relo- 

 cation of milkshed boundaries so that unnecessary expense and duplica- 

 tion might be eliminated. 



Only the third stage of reorganization involves shifting producer- 

 dealer relationships. In the first or second stages, by shifting producers 

 between dealers, a small reduction in distance traveled could be secured. 

 But several factors peculiar to the markets considered, made the addi- 

 tional savings through these changes seem less significant than the other 

 changes in milk assembly which have been studied. In the first place, 

 most routes collecting milk for more than one dealer, deliver to dealers' 

 plants situated in the same part of the city. Second, many small deal- 

 ers do not purchase sufficient milk to warrant the operation of a commer- 

 cial truck route, and so it is necessary to combine the production of 

 farmers supplying two or three dealers in order to secure sufficient 

 volume for a route. Third, because the great majority of dealers in the 

 area studied received all their milk from only one or two truck routes, 

 the problem of congestion and delay at the dealer's plant — the most sig- 

 nificant trucking cost factor at many large plants — is practically non- 

 existent. 



Should producers be shifted between dealers, but no truck haul milk 

 for more than one dealer, the savings through such reorganization would 

 be appreciably less than in the first stage of reorganization outlined 

 above. This would be true because of the large number of small dealers 

 in some markets, the consolidation of whose routes offers the chief op- 

 portunity for savings in the first stage of reorganization. If this com- 

 bination of routes were prevented, a much smaller reduction in hauling 

 costs could be expected. 



Certain assumptions, more or less borne out by fact, are necessary in 

 making these readjustments. The first is that dealers and producers 

 would forego relationships through truckmen which may have been in 

 existence for some time, in order that greater efficiency of collection 

 might result. Some of the present inefficiencies have crept into existence 

 because of the desire on the part of certain distributors to have a direct 

 contact with their producers through their truckmen. Indeed, it has 

 been reported in some parts of the couutiy that dealers have attempted 

 to exercise monopoly powers in purchasing milk by insisting that de- 

 liveries be made to a particular truckman. However, such a situation 

 is not common, and it is likely that offered etficient transportation, few 

 dealers would refuse to use it. In some markets where strong coopera- 

 tive organizations operate, ^ producers largely control the transporta- 

 tion system and are able to introduce economies as opportunity for them 

 arises. 



The second assumption — in order that the milk of all producers ship- 

 ping to the market be hauled on commercial routes — is that commercial 



1 For example, see : 



Bartlett, R. W. and Caskey, W. F., "Milk Transportation Problems in the St. Louis 

 Milkshed," University of Illinois, Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 430, 1937. 

 Weldon. W. C. and Stitts, T. G., "Cooperative Milk Marketing in Louisville," Farm 

 Credit Administration Bulletin No. 32, 1939. 



, "Milk Cooperatives in Four Ohio Markets," Farm Credit 



Administration Bulletin No. 16, April, 1937. 



