16 N. H. Experiment Station [Bulletin 325 



In terms of costs. Table III shows tliat by far the largest percentage re- 

 duction from the preceding stage is in the (.'oncord market. This is to be 

 expected, as that market had a very high proportion of milk "self-hauled" 

 at the time the data were collected. Altogether, the additional savings 

 possible through progressing from the first to the second stage of reor- 

 ganization amount to about 12 per cent of the original costs. This is 

 a|)proximatcly equal to the saving made available by the first stage, 

 making a total reduction of 24 per cent, if reorganization progressed 

 through the second stage. When interpreting this figure, it should be 

 kept in mind that the method of evaluating the costs of self-haulei's 

 placed very low values on such operations, and that the effect of reor- 

 ganization on labor costs has not been taken into consideration. Both 

 these items would, if included, increase the estimate of possible savings. 



Other advantages, not taken into account in this estimate, are that 

 farmers trucking milk would be enabled to make greater returns for 

 their efforts and milk dealers would benefit through having milk arrive 

 in better condition (trucks with better facilities for keeping milk cold, 

 etc.) and with less congestion and irregularity of arrival at unloading 

 rooms. 



The Third Stage of Reorganization 



TX tlie two preceding stages, no disturbance of producer-dealer rela- 

 tions has been involved except for the requirement that the same 

 truckman might delivei' milk to several different dealers. This third 

 stage of reorganization involves the transferring of milk between milk- 

 sheds. Accordingly, some dealer relationsliips must be disturbed. The 

 extent of these disturbances is not great, however, and involves only 74 

 producers or 9.3 per cent of all those shipping to these four markets. 



In making the reallocation of milk between milksheds several prin- 

 ciples have been kept in mind.^ First of all, changes have been kept at 

 a mininnim in order to disturb as few dealer-producer relationsliips as 

 possible. Shifts of producers are made in such a way as to retain ap- 

 proximately the same total quantities of milk in each market. 



The problem of determining whether or not the quantity of milk now 

 entt-riiig a market is the quantity which under oi)timum conditions 

 should enler that market is not discussed here. For instance, in at least 

 Iwo of Ihe four markets, a considerable part of the milk is not consumed 

 in the market but is reshipped to out-of-state markets. In turn, one of 

 these nuirkets receives a ([uantity of milk for local consumption fi-om an 

 area in the western part of the state about 100 miles distant. This dis- 

 tant milk has not come under the scope of this study. Undoubtedly a 

 system of assembly whereby milk which is produced within direct-haul 

 distance of a market is put through a receiving plant and i'esliij)j)('d to 

 other markets while at the same time milk from outside the dii-ect-haul 

 area (and in the normal Boston milkshed) is passed tliroiigli a receiving 

 station and then hauled to a local market for consumption, offers oppor- 

 tunity for greater efficiency. 



I iheoretical duicussions of milkshed n-iillocation .see HummerberK, et al., opus cil. and 

 Parker, opus. cit. 



