CITY MILK PLANTS: CONSTRUCTION AND ARRANGEMENT. 15 
and the milk spilled. A comparison of the economy of the three 
systems is shown in Table 2. 
TABLE 2.—Comparison of men and time required to receive and dump the milk 
and wash the cans at three different types of plants. 
y Average 
Average | Average | Average | Average aS ees Average | eans re- 
Number| cansof| time |number| hours oflat time ceived 
Type of plant. of milk spent | of men | of labor 0 per 100 and 
= plants. | per per per per ee re. | Cans re- | dumped 
plant. | plant. | plant. | plant. | Cy ©" | ceived. | per 
eived. hots 
Hours. Hours. 
2AI(pUMDp)Eoeeee Mile cetera ete rORNe 18 | 1,034.7 4.9 4.3 26.2 2.5 0. 47 212.6 
Bi(CONVEYER) scone 6 845 4.9 ard 30. 8 3.6 208 172.0 
5.8 58. 4 Teal .99 101.5 
Cielevaton) si ba Be 4 | 825 8.1 
Fic, 4.—Gravity conveyers bringing cans of milk from trucks to power conveyer, which 
carries them to top floor where milk is dumped. 
From the data in this table it is apparent that the system of pump- 
ing the milk from the ground floor rather than elevating it in cans 
is much more economical in the use of labor. At these plants the 
pumping system was more than twice as efficient as the elevator and 
much more efficient than the conveyer system. The conveyer system, 
however, 1s more economical in the use of labor than the elevator 
system and requires only about one-half as many man hours to. 
handle 100 cans of milk. Of course, other factors enter into this 
problem, but these figures will illustrate the general tendency. 
In some plants it may be necessary to have the receiving room on 
the top floor because of lack of space on the ground floor, but that is 
