TWICE-WEEKLY DELIVERY ON RETAIL MILK ROUTES Possible economies: consumer and

dealer attitudes toward adoption

Maine Agricultural Experiment Station

University of Maine Orono

Contents

Some Factors to Consider ..... ............ ...... ........ .... ...... .. ... ..

Summary .... ... ............... . ........... . .. ......... .... ..... .... .

Introduction ... ...... ...... ..... ...... ...... ....... ... .

Characteristics of Retail Milk Routes .. General Delivery Practices .. .... .... .. ... .. . Frequency of Delivery to Customers . . ........ . ...... .. . .. .. ... .. Distance Travelled Per Route ...... .. ...... .... .. ... ..

Possible Economies in Route Operations from Twice-Weekly Delivery Service .. ... .. .. .. ... .

Savings from Complete Adoption .... ... .... .... ... ... .. .... . . Cost per Unit .. .. ....... ...... ............ .. .. .. .

Page 3

4

6

7 7 8 9

10 10 10

Route Delivery Labor .. . . . .... . . .... . . ...... . .. ...... . .... . . . .... . .... . ...... . 11 Route Delivery Miles .. .... .... ... ... .. .... ..... .... ... ...... ... ... ... .... .... 13 Route Overhead Items ..... .. ..... .. .... .... ... 14

Savings from Partial Adoption ... Industry-wide Savings in Man Power .. .. .. .. ... .... ... .... .. .. Industry-wide Savings in Mileage .... .. ... . . .. ..

14 15 16

Distributor Attitudes Toward Twice-Weekly Delivery Service .. 16 Feasibility of Complete Adoption ........ .. ..... .. ... . 16 Feasibility of Partial Adoption .... .... .... ..... ..... .. ... ... ... ... .. ... ... .. 17

Consumer Attitudes Toward Twice-Weekly Delivery Service 18 Route Delivery Practices in Portland 18 Attitude Toward Twice-Weekly Service 18 Milk Keeping Quality in Households . . .. .... . ... ... .. 20 Household Storage Capacity for Twice-Weekly Service

Appendix Tables Route Characteristics .. Route Labor Costs Comparisons Route Truck Costs Comparisons .. . .. ...... ..... . Factors Influencing Acceptance of Twice-Weekly Service Days Milk Has Been Kept Satisfactorily .. ... ... ..

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

21

24 25 26 27 28

The author acknowledges with appreciation the contributions of milk dealers, consumers, enumerators and staff members which made this study possible . Alan Clark, owner of Houlton Farms Dairy, Raymond Taylor and Mrs. Carole Hardy of the Department of Agricultural Business and Economics, deserve special recognition for their assistance.

;,.

SOME FACTORS TO CONSIDER

Results of this study indicate these al·e important factors which milk distributors should consider in decisions about twice-weekly delivery.

1. CUSTOMER REACTiON TO THE PLAN Initially most customers will oppose a reduction in service

but they should adjust to the change. Lack of refrigeration space and doubt as to the freshness o£ the milk are obstacles to overcome.

Most customers already. have adequate refrigeration space to store the larger deliveries - special consideration is needed for some.

2. EFFECT ON VOLUME OF SALES Some route sales may be lost due. to less frequent selling

contacts. Customer raiding may arise without market-wide agree­

ment on the practice. Customers must know they a.re receiving a .high quality

product.

3. POTENTIAL SAVINGS On compact routes savings will be nominal - from one­

hall to one cent per quart. Opportunities for savings will depend upon:

Importance of r etail to total business Length of routes Route layout Predominance of small orders Method of paying route drivers Truck operating costs

4. BENEFITS A potential exists fol·:

Reductions in manpower and in fleet operations Improvement in supervision Increased employee earnings More profitable route operations

SUMMARY

Twice-weekly delivery of milk on retail routes is not a common practice. Three-times weekly delivery service was provided on eighty percent of retail milk routes in a sample of 342 routes located thruughout the state. Thirteen percent of the routes were operated every-other-day and four percent either four or six times per week. Only one route was providing twice-weekly service although nearly two percent of the milk delivered on all routes was delivered once or twice weekly. Central and northern Maine routes provided more frequent delivery service than routes in western and southern Maine.

The average retail route covered a distance of 45 miles per day. Fourteen percent of the routes were 70 miles or over in length while 27 percent were under 30 miles long. It is estimated that retail route trucks travel 140,000 miles per week in making milk deliveries in the state.

There is a potential saving of one cent per quart in reducing de­livery frequency from three to two times per week. Half of the sav­ing would result from lower labor expenses and half from lower truck expenses. These potential savings are based upon detailed information obtained on the operations of three routes. The routes studied aver­aged 20 miles in length and served an average of 127 customers 465 units of product per day. Wages paid route drivers consisted of $30 base pay plus $56 in commissions. Ownership and operating costs of refrigerated trucks used on the routes averaged 35 cents per mile. The analysis assumes the reduction in delivery service would permit the elimination of one route driver and one truck for every three routes operated. This is made possible through an estimated saving of 9.1 homs of labor and 31 miles of travel per route per week. On a statewide basis it is estimated these savings would mean a reduc­tion of $250,000 in annual labor costs and $218,000 in annual truck operating expenses.

By providing twice-weekly service only to customers receiving less than 13 quarts of milk per week a saving of one-half cent per quart is estimated. Tllis is based upon a saving in labor of 4.9 homs per route per week but no reduction in truck nliles. Partial conversion to twice-weekly delivery would permit the elimination of regular re­lief drivers. On a statewide basis, this would mean potential payroll savings estimated at $235,000 per year.

Only nine percent of 44 large milk dealers indicated they thought it was feasible to reduce deliveries to twice-weekly for all their customers. Dealers felt customer lack of refrigerator space and in­adequate plant storage space were major obstacles. In addition, they

felt competitive reasons would prohibit its adoption. Fifty-seven per­cent of the dealers indicated that partial conversion to twice-weekly delivery would be feasible. From one quart to four quarts per cus­tomer per delivery were given as the maximum size of current customer orders which could be delivered twice weekly.

Interviews with 529 heads of households in Portland, Maine in­dicated that consumers were satis.6ed with three milk deliveries to homes per week. Three percent of the households received less fre­quent delivery and three percent more frequent de-livery. Seven per­cent would like more frequent delivery than cmrently received. Sev­enty percent would oppose reduction in deliveries from three to two times per week.

Consumers indicated they would refuse fewer deliveries per week for reasons of milk freshness or keeping quality, and lack of storage space. Younger persons with large families were the principal op­ponents of reductions in delivery service. Neither incomes of the family nor size of refrigerator had an influence on acceptance of the idea. Modest reductions in milk price along with the reduction in delivery service would improve the degree of acceptance.

Based upon past experience reported by interviewees, milk can be kept without noticeable loss in quality under a twice-weekly de­livery system.

Nearly 80 percent of the households could refrigerate the quant­ities of milk which would be delivered under twke-week.ly delivery. The ability to refrigerate milk declined rapidly as the quantities pur­chased exceeded five quarts per delivery. Serving customers with Jess tJJan five quarts per Friday or Sahuday delivery on a twice weekly basis would reduce customer stops by 20 percent.

TWICE-WEEKLY OELIVERY ON RETAIL MILK ROUTES-Possible Economies; Consumer and Dealer Attitudes Toward

Adoption

B. B. :Metzger1

INTRODUCTION

During World War II every~other-day delivery replaced daily delivery on retail mill< routes. Daily delivery was prohibited in order to conserve tl'\.Jcks, gasoline, tires and man power. Following World War II, every-nther-day delivery was extended into the postwar per­iod on a voluntary basis. As an industry sponsored practice it was widely adopted. Within the past teo years many dairies voluntarily adopted the practice of making only three deliveries per week to retail customers. Both these shifts away from daily delivery have been important factors in keeping delivery costs down.

Unless retail milk delivery co.ntinues to become more efficient it will be priced out of a large segment o£ the availabJe market. Con­sumers are reluctant to pay more than a modest premium over store prices for home milk delivery service. Only 18 percent of household­ers interviewed as a part of this study indicated they would pay more than two cents per quart over store prices. The advent of lower cost methods of distribution1 through supermarkets and dairy stores makes milk available through stores at prices substantially below those charged for route delivery. Out-of-store prices in some Maine markets are two and one-half cents per quart below home delivery prices, while in many southern New England markets the differential is as much as eight cents per quart Costs for delivery represent about one­third the price paid for a quart of miJk delivered to the home. About 60 percent of these cos ts are for labor. Perpetually rising wage rates and associated payroll expenses exert a strong upward pressue on de­livery costs. Rising costs are eventually reflected in the prices charged for milk delivery service. While rising wage rates may mean added purchasing power they also mean greater disparity between home delivered and store prices for milk.

Improved efficiency may be achieved by resorting to fu rther re­duction in the frequency of delivery on retail routes. It may be a means of maintaining a healthy Tetail route distribution system. Only a few attempts have been made to reduce delivery service below the prevailing minimum of three times weekly. These have occurred pri­madly in out-of-state markets where route distribution is competing with low cost store distribution metl1ods.

1 Professor of Agricultural Business and Economics

TwiCE-WEEKLY DELIVERY ON RE.TAIL MILK ROUTES 7

Reduction in route delivery frequency may take several forms. One approach is to provide twice-weekly service by eliminating the mid-week delivery. Instead of delivering on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday milk would be delivered on Mouday and Thursday. Customers would have a choice of Monday - Thursday, Tuesday - Friday, or Wednesday - Saturday delivery, receiving a 3-day supply of milk one day and a 4-day supply the other tlay. Another method is to deliver milk every thil'd day. This gives the ct1stomer two deliveries one week and tlu-ee deliveries the next. Still another approach has been to pro­vide delivery service only five days of the "veek on all routes, but make delivery only as frequently as the costomer needs it. An ad­vantage here is that route operations a1·e shut down com pletely on two days (instead of one or no days of the week) in addition to re­ducing deliveries to s(l'lall-vohtme customers.

As with eve1·y-other-day and three times weekly delivery, in­dustry-wide cooperation will be needed to develop any change in the system of delivery. It may also need to be introduced with a vo}u(l'le­discount system of pricing to encourage its adoption. ·wider recogni­tion of the high cost of delivery service, particularly to the small volume custo(l'lers, under current delivery practices should lead to serious consideration of one of these systems.

This study consisted of surveys and analyses to determine the economies of twice-weekly delivery and the opportunity for and ob­stacles to its adoption. Both milk dealers and consumers were inter­viewed to obtain attitudes toward reduction in services. Route opera­tions and cost data were analyzed to provide an indication of the potential savings from this reduction in service.

CHARACTERISTICS OF RETAIL MILK ROUTES

Information on delivery practices which p1·evailecl in the fall of 1961 was provided by 44 milk distributors. These distributors ac­collnted for an estimated 75 percent of the volume of milk delivered on retail routes in the state. A total of 342 retail routes was inc)Ltded in the analysis. These routes (l'lade deliveries primarily to homes. A route was considered to be the week's work of one driver plus his relief. Where less than four deliveries were made per CllStomer per week, such as three-times-weekly or every~other-day delivery service, the two delivery segments or sections served constituted one route.

General Delivery Practices

Eighty-three percent of the retaj[ routes surveyed were making deliveries to homes three ti(l'les per week. Thirteen percent were op-

8 MAINE AGRICULTURAL ExPERIMENT STATlON BULLETIN 612

erated every-other-day, two percent were operated four times and two percent six times per week. Only one route was providing twice­weekly service, table l.

Central and northern Maine distributors were providing relative­ly more frequent retail route service than western and southern Maine distributors. In central and northern areas 66 percent of the routes were providing three times weekly service compared with 91 percent in western and southern markets. About ten percent of the routes in central and northern Maine were delivering four or six times weekly. Less than t:\vo percent of the routes were operated this frequently in western and southern Maine.

Area

Northern Central Western Southern All Areas

All Areas

Table 1

Frequency of Delivery on Retail Routes By Areas of the State

1

0 0 0 0 0

0

Days Milk Delivered Per Week All

2 3 3% 4 6 Routes

Number of routes providing service! 0 37 0 4 0 1 33.5 26 1.5 4.5 0 15 3 0 0 0 199 15 1 2 1 284.5 44 6.5 6.5

percentage of routes providing service

41 66.5 18

217 342.5

2 83 13 2 2 100

1 Where the practice was to make less than four deliveries per customer per week a route was considered to be the week's work of one driver plus his re­lief.

2 Less than one percent.

One-fourth of the central and northern Maine routes were pro­viding every-other-day delivery compared with eight percent on this delivery pattern in western and southern areas of the state.

Frequency of Delivery to Customers

Some customers receive more and some less frequent delivery than the route operations would indicate. While 82 percent of the routes made three deliveries to an area each week, only 79 percent of the customers received delivery this frequently. While 13 percent of the routes were operated on an every-other-day basis, 15 percent of the customers received service every-other-day. Nearly one percent of the home delivery customers received only one delivery per week, while over one percent received two deliveries per week. On the

TWJcE-WEEKLY DeLIVERY oN RETAIL M tLK .RouTES 9

other hand, nearly thtee percent of home delivery customers received six deliveries per week. Thus, actual deliveries to the customer were adjusted somewhat to meet customer needs

The volume of milk delivered under the various frequencies of delivery also varied somewhat from the general delivery practice. Eighty percent of the milk was delivered on a three times weekly basis. Less than two percent was delivered once or twice weekly. while four percent was delivered either four or six times weekly. Nearly 15 percent of the .route volume was delivered on an every­other-day basis.

;Uea differences were also evident in volumes of milk being delivered at the various frequencies. In central 'Maine 40 percent of the milk was delivered on a three-times-a-week or less basis. 1n con­trast, from 84 to 95 percent of the retail route volume was deJivered three times a week or less in other sections o£ Maine.

One percent of the total volume of milk was delivered twice weekly. This proportion ranged from 0.2 percent jn northern Maine to 2.1 percent in western Majne.

Distance Travelled Per Route

An average d istance of 45 miles was travelled per route per day of operation. For every-other-day and th.ree.times-weekly delivery this average distance represented the average distance travelled on the two segments of the route. Differences in route mileages among areas were smalL The .routes jn northem and central Maine. averaged 43 miles. Those in western Maine averaged 48 miles while those in southern Maine averaged 46 miles in length.

Table 2 Number of Retail Routes Opemted Various

Distances, by Areas, Maine, 1961

Average Daily Route Mileage!

Under30 30-49 50-69 70 miles All Area miles miles miles and over Routes

number of routes Northern 11 9 21 0 41 Central 20 17.5 20 9 66.5 Western 2 10 3 3 18 Southern 60 72,5 47.5 37 217 All Areas 93 109.0 91.5 49 342.5

All Areas 27 32 percent of routeS

27 14 100

1 Where multi-plant operations existed, mileages reported were average distances travelled per route by alt routes in each city, town or area served .

lO MAlNE ACTIICUtTU!tAI. EXHRI'MENT STATION BULLETIN 612

A breakdown by mileage intervals showed that 14 percent of the routes were 70 miles or over in length while 27 percent were from 50 to 69 miles, table 2. Routes under 30 miles in length represented 27 percent of all routes while those from .30 to 49 miles accounted for :32 percent of the routes. The shortest distnnce travelled on a route was 10 miles, while the longest distance was 100 miles.

Substantial weekly travel is involved in servicing retail custom­ers. The nveJ·age route distance is driven more than six times per week. (Routes giving customers thsee deliveries per week travel the distance six times; routes on every-othe.r-day delivery cover the dis·­tMce seven times per week.) Over 100,000 miles of travel are in­volved each week in serving customers on the 342 routes studied. This would mean about 140,000 miles of travel for all retail routes in the state.

Tl1e potential savings in transportation and labor expense from reducing the freq11ency of delivery from three to two times a \.veck would be important in view o£ the long :rou te distances involved.

POSSIBLE ECONOMIES I N ROUTE OPERATIONS FROM TWICE-WEEKLY DELIVERY SERVICE

D etailed costs of delivery on three retail mi]k routes were de­termined from financial and other records made available by a co­operat.ing milk distributor. Estimates were nJade to show the effect on costs of reducing the frequency of delivery from three times to two times per week. These estimates were based upon time records kept by r01..1 temen and detailed infmmation obtained on route organization and customer purchases. Cost information covered the year ending July 1960, while the route data were obtained in September 1960.

Savings hom Complete Adoption

Reducing the frequency of delivery may reduce either truck mileage, or labor used, or both truck mileage and Jabox. Depending upon the size and organization of the individual business, these sav­ings may result in a st•bstantiaJ reduction in unit costs, or merely make a shorter work week.

Costs Per Unit Under three times weekly delivery, cos ts for labor, truck, and

overhead expenses amounted to 7.3 cents per unit deliveroo. Wages for delivery labor and associated payl'oll expenses amounted to 4.0 'Cents, truck expenses 1.7 cents, and overhead expenses 1.6 cents per unit, table 3. These costs were based upon tbe following average

TwiCE-WEEKLY DELIVERY ON RETAIL MILK .ROUTES .II

route organization and operating expenses. The average routeman delivered 465 units to 127 customers and travelled 18.7 miles on delivery service plus 1.3 mjles on call backs for collections. These were shorter, more compact routes than the average in the state. De­tailed statistics on mileage travelled and other characteristics of the routes are sbown 'in the appendix tables. Refrigerated trucks were used for delivery at a cost of 35.2 cents per mile, or $47 per route per week Route drivers received a base pay of $30 pe1· week plus an average of $55 per week in commissions on collections and bonuses. R.egular relief drivers received $80 per week and vacation relief drivers $65 per week. With payroll taxes and driver benefits amount­ing to 9 percent of earnings the average weekly cost per route for labor was $111.

With twice weekly deliveries, the delivery cost could be 6.3 cents per unit delivered. Labor costs could amount to 3.5 cents, truck costs 1.2 cents, and over.head expenses 1.6 cents per unit, table 3. Thus under the route and cost conditions prevailing in the situation studied, twice weekly delivery could mean savings in delivery costs of one cent per quart.2

The level and method of computing wages, the distance travelled on the route, and tn1Ck operating costs all affect the potential finan­cial savings from tWice-weekly delivery. The greater the proportion of the route dtivers wage obtajned from a base wage (rather than from commissions) the greater the savings in wages. The detailed analysis which follows shows the source of the savings on the routes studied.

Rottte Delivery Labo·r Savings in delivery labor expense would result from the elimina­

tion of one route driver plus l1is relief for every three routes operated, Net savings would amount to $40 per week for the tlJree routes. This saving consists of $30 for one route driver's base pay, $16 for the pay of his regular and vacation relief, less an increase of $6 in relief wages paid the remaining drivers. Regular route driver wages would increase from $85 to $113 per week because of the added commis­sions for v~lume handled, assuming no change in the comrnjssion rate. Relief driver wages would need to be adjusted accordingly. ln the analysis they were raised from $80 to $100 per week. Additional savjngs in payroll expenses for both regular and reilef drivers would be achieved jf the rate of commission were lowered.

2 In.formation provided hy two Otlt-of-~tatc dairie:; showed large.T S<Wings than in­dicated in this ;~nalysis. Savings of 1.4 cents per qoart were reported by a Massachosett~ firm after partial conversion to twice-weekly delivery. Savings of LS cents per quart were anticipated by an Ohio firm contemplating full con­version to twlce-weekl)' delivery.

12 MAINE AGRICU'LTUR"'l- EXPERlMENT STATIOI'T BULLETll'T 612

Table 3

Weekly and Unit Ret11iJ Delivery Costs Per Route. Actt•al Cost fo r Three Deliveries and

Estimated Cost for Two Deliveries Per Week, Three Routes, 1960

ltcm

Labor Truck Overhend 1

Total

Labor Truck Overheadl

Total

Three Deliveries Per Week

Two Deliveries Per Week

average per route per week $l10,88 $ 97.00

47.00 33.00 44.<10 43.75

$!:!02.37 $173.75 aver~ge per unit2

$ .040 $ .035 .017 .OJ 2 .016 .016

$ .073 $ .063

J Share of clerica l :\OU admit1istrativt>- wages, advertising, telephone, office equip­ment, route ;md office 5uppHes, licenses, and uniform expenses.

2 A uni t is one quart of milk or one package of dairy or other product delivered. There were 2,788 units delivered per week 1Jer TOute.

The savi11g in time £rom providing customers two rather than three deliveries per week amoun ted to 546 minutes or nine hours per week per route. One delivery per week would be eliminated for each route segment or two deliveries for eacl1 route. The effect would be to eliminate 242 customer stops per route each week. Analysis in­dicated a theoretical saving o£ .4. minu te in drive time and 1.25 min­utes in customer serve time for each stop eliminated.3 This would be a reduction of 399 minutes pe1· route per week. In addition, 2.74 minutes of drive time would be saved for each mile of travel elimin­ated. This amounts to 93 minu tes per route per week based upon 34 miles saved on route. An actual saving of 461 minutes rather than the total potential saving of 492 minutes was achieved jn the analysis due to above average performance on the days service was elimin-

a The l.25 minutes per customer is a residua] after allowing for standard rates of perfoTITinnce. The .~tundarcl rates of perfonuance used for driving to custom­ers a.nd in ha ntUing milk were based upon studies made by Babb, Hicks, and Woo<.l. Driv1ug time per customer ( .4 min.) and per mile (2.74 min. ) were re­ported by Babb, E. M., Jr. in "Reducing Milk Distribution Costs,'' Pennn. Ag­ricultural Experiment Station AE & RS # 1 Z. April 1957 . The increase in de­livery time due to ench quart of milk handled ( .03 min. ) was l'cported by Ricks, J. W. and Wood. C. 13. in ''Operations in RetAil and Wholesale Milk Routes," Purdue Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 556, November l950. .

TwtCE-WF..cXLY D F.LJVEIW oN RETAIL MILK RouTES J3

ated, table 4. Other savi.l.gs indicated were 13 minutes of delivery preparation time and 8l minutes of check-in time for each route due to elimination of these operations two days each week. Offsetting these savings were added time to return to the plant for reloading because the truck capacity would not handle the volume to be de­livered. The time amounted to 7 minutes per route per week No changes were anticipated in the time required to make collections or to load and unload route trucks.

Table 4

Estimated Ch;mges in Route Labor and Truck Travel from Making Two

Instend of Three Deliveries, Pe.r .Rovte Per Week, Three Routes, 1960

Labor Truck , ___ _.:I~ten='------------......:Minutes _ ____ M~il.es

Prepare for delivery Drive to route Deliver and d rive on .rovte Drive from route Check in

Total

average pe.r route per week

- 13 0 + 7 + 2 - 461 -34 + 2 + 1 - 81 0

-546 ~Jl

Route drivers would work longer hours on two or three days of the week but as indicated would receive higher pay under a reorgan­ization for twice-weekly delivery. This assumes that commissions are paid and that t'Yvo drivers handled the route volume which three drivers previously delivered. Each of the two drivers would take a segment of the third route. This study indicates a 38-hour rather than a 32-hour week for time devoted directly to milk delivery chores. Collection and selling time would be in addition to this, Since com­missions would be shared by two instead of three men, wages per week would increase from $85 to $113 per d1·iver.

Rollte Delive1"y Miles Savings in truck miles cou1d result from mal..ing two instead of

three trips per week on each route segment. Thus two days of route travel could be saved per week on each route. Excluding travel to and from routes, 102 miles of travel would be saved on three routes, table 4. For each of the three routes, 34 miles· of weekJy travel are eliminated. Offsetting this is the added mileage driven to and from routes for reloading because of inadequate truck capacity. This was estimated to amount to nine miles for three routes. Thus a

)4 MAINE. AGRICULTtiRAL. ExPEJUMENT STATION B 'ULLETIN 612

total net saving of 93 miles or 31 miles per route per week was in­dicated.

Major savings in truck expense could result from eliminating a truck for every three routes operated. As reductions in labor homs would permit eliminating a route driver, so the 4,700 mile reduction in route travel (91 miles per week x 52 weeks ) would permit elimin­ating a truck. The effect would be to increase the miles travelled on the remaining two trucks by about 1,100 miles each year. Elimina­tion of the fixed costs associated with the third h·uck plus the reduc­tion in total miles b·a~elled would reduce truck costs from 35 cents to 32 cents per mile and from $47 to $33 per route per week.

Route Overhead Items The elimination of one man and a truck would mean lower route

license fees and reduced uniform expenses. The savings would amount to 65 cents per route per week or an annual saving of about $100. ln terms of product delivered it would be .02 cents per unit.

Savings from Partial Adoption

The household refrigerator places a practical limitation on com­plete conversion to twice-weekly milk delivery. Based upon estimates of refrigerator capacities as revealed in a survey of the home de­J.(very customers, 83 percent of the homes could store the increased volume of milk ~per delivery under twice-weekly service:1 An im­portant proportion of those households receiving five quarts of milk or more per delivery could not refrigerate the milk due to space limitations.

An analy$iS was made of the savi:ngs in delivery expense when those customers who were receiving less than 13 quarts of milk per week with three deliveries were given twice-weekly service. Slightly over 50 percent of the route volume artd about 70 percent of the route customers would be on twice-weekly delive:ry sexvice.

Calculated savings are based upon the reduction in delivery time and drive time due to fewer stops on the route. No reduction in miles travelled was indicated as the even distribution of the smaU volume and large volume customers throughout the route showed no basis for eliminating mileage.

For each customer stop eliminated 1.25 minutes of delivery time and 0.4 minute of drive time are saved. An average of 178 out o.f '258 stops would be eliminated per route on the rO\Ites studied. Thus

~ MetT.ger, H. B. and Taylor, R. I., ··consumt:r Reaction to Reducing Deliveries on Retail Milk Routes in Houlton and Presque Isle, Maine," Maine Agricul­tural E-xperiment Station·, !Vfis~ello.noou~ Report 101. October 1961.

TwicE-Wii.EKLY D ELIVERY ON RETAIL M)LK .RouTES 15

292 minutes would be saved per route per week. For the three routes the total time saved would be 14.6 hours. This is over half the amount of time it was estimated couJd be saved i£ twice-weekly service were given all route customers.

No delivery days are eliminated under partial adoption of twice­weekly delivery. The truck and man cover eacb segment of the route three days per week. However, two days of the week about two and one-half hours less time is needed to service the route. For some dairies this time may not be used efficiently in the sense of elimin­ating labor, but could be used for selling. For other dairies it docs pennit savings through the elimination of rc1ief drivers. By pairing routes and staggering days off, two routes can be operated by the man on duty on the short midweek delivery days. With each man handling two routes ono day per week no relief is needed. For the routes studied this wouJd mean a saving of $15 per week per route or 0.5 cent per quart.

Tndust·ry-wide Savings ·in Man Power

Partial conversion to twice-weekly delivery with a five-hour reduction per week in time to service one route, adds up to an im­portant reduction in delivery man power and delivery costs on a statewide basis . With an estimated 450 retail routes in the state this means 2,250 hours per week reduction in man hours for milk de­livery. This is equivalent to 56 full-time workers . Savings in wages and associated payroll expense would approximate $120 per week per man. On an annual basis this would amount to $349,000. Full realization of these savings would not be possible because many small businesses could not eliminate part of a worker. Five routes would be the minimum needed to accumu late sufficient time saved , to eliminate a full-time worker. About two-thirds of the milk is being distributed by bnsincsses operating five or more routes. Thus real­ized savings would be estimated as $235,000.

Full conversion to twice-weekly delivery, with a nine-hour re­duction in delivery time per route per week, could mean a reduction of 4,050 man hours per week for the 450 retail routes in the state, This is equivalent to a reduction of about 100 full-time workers. Since the wages of workers affected would be partia11y derived from commissions, the payroll expenses eliminated would be about $60 per week per worker. Thus a potential saving of about $312,000 in an­nual payroll expenses is estimated. Full realization of these savings would be possible only in businesses operating a minimum of three routes, About fou r-fifths of the milk is distributed by businesses op­erating three or more routes. Thus potential savings from complete

16 M.uNE AGRICULTURAL ExPEIUMENT STATlON B ULLETrN 6l2

conversion would be apptox.imately $250,000 annually.

Industry-wide Savings in Mileage Partial conversion to twice-weekly delivery would result in little

or no savings in mileage. Full conversion, however, would result in substantial savings. On the basis of a potential of 31 miles saved per route per week, the 450 routes in the state could reduce travel by 725,000 miles annually. Figured at 30 cents per roile this represents a potential saving of $218,000 annually. Because the average route distances travelled throughout the state are longer than the average distance travelled on the routes studied, possible savings could sub­santially exceed this estimate. Twice-weekly delivery on the routes studied resuJted in an estimated 26 percent reduction in route miJe­age (a saving of 31 miles per week out of an average of 120 miles travelJed per week.) Applying this percentage to the state average of 45 miles travelled per route per day, or 270 miles per week, a saving of 70 miles rather than 31 miles per route per week would be anticipated. Applied to tlJe 450 routes this would mean potential savings of 31,500 miles per week or about 1.6 million miles per year. If only variable costs of ten cents per mile for truck operation were considered, this would mean a saving of $160,000 per year. If fixed costs of truck operation of 20 cents per mile were also considered, because the size of the fleet could be reduced, additional savings of $320,000 per year would be indicated.

DISTRIBUTOR ATTJTUDES TOWARD REDUCED DELIVERY SERVICE

Through personal interviews and a mail questionnaire forty-four of the largest milk dealers in the state were asked for opinions on the feasibility of using twice-weeldy delivery service on their routes. Opinions were asked on both complete and partial conversion to twice-weekly delivery.

Feasibility of Complete Adoption

Only four out of forty-four dealers said they thought it would be feasible to reduce deliveries to twice weekly for all their cu.stomers. Thus in the judgment of 91 percent of the distributors the complete conversion to twice-weekly delivery was not feasible.

There were six reasons given by the dealers for thinking that twice-weekly deJivery was not feasible. The reason mentioned most frequently was customer lack of refrigerator space. Over 40 percent of the dealers gave this reason. Next in order of frequency was men­tioned the lack of adequate plant storage space. Eighteen percent

,

TWICE-WEEKLY DELIVERY ON Rt:TAfL MILK ,ROUTES 17

gave this reason. Twelve percent of tl1e dealers said other dealer competition would not permit it - meaning that customers would be lost to competitors offering more frequent delivery. Eight percent thought that it was not feasible because customers would increase store purchases - which in tum would cause some Joss in route volume and perhaps some loss of business to competitors. Twelve percent of the dealers were concerned about the freshness of the product feeling that with the reduced deliveries milk would not be fresh enough to have consumer appeal. Finally eight percent men­tioned consumer resistance to change as an obstacle to reducing de­livery frequency.

Thus, lack of refrigerator storage space and competition for business were the most important factors working against the adop· tion of twice-weekly delivery in the minds of milk distl'ibu tors.

Feasibility of Partial Adoption

The possibility of partial conversion to twice-weekly service was explored by asking the dealer to specify the size of customer order below which twice-weekly delivery would be feasible. These responses indicated that 57 percent of the dealers thought some customers could be served twice weekly, while 43 percent of the deal­ers indicated that there was no volume which would permit this re­duction in service. There were 20 percent of the dealers who felt that customers currently receiving four quarts or less per delivery could adapt to twice-weekly service, two percent placed the maxi­mum at three quarts, 12 percent placed it at two quarts, while 20 percent tl1ought one quart per deuvery was as large an order as coold be handled under twice-weekly delivery.5

Dealers of the opinion that twice-weekly service was not feasi­ble for any of his customers were asked to indicate why not. In ad­dition to reemphasizing the lack of storage space, milk freshness, and competition from other dealers, the major reason given was that savings would be questionable since the truck would pass the house anyway because the route could not be segregated. WithotJt savings to compensate the customer for reduced delivery service the prac­tice would not be sound. Other reasons mentioned were that home delivery business wou ld decline as it was meant to provide service and convenience, and that route by-product sales would decline, be­cause of reduced selling opportunity.

G A fom· qunrf customer would currently receive four quarts on Monday, four quarts on Wednesday and slx quarts on Friday. Under twice-weekly delivery he would receive six quarts on Monday and eight quarts on Thursday, or an increase of one-third in the peak delivery.

18 MAJNE AGRiCULTURAL ElcPERlMENi STAl'lON BULLETiN 612

CONSUMER ATTITUDE TOWARD TWICE-WEEKLY DELIVERY SERVICE

A study of consumer reaction to and consumer facilities for re­duction in delivery service was made in Portland in the spring of 1962. A total of 529 households receiving milk delivery were con­tacted and jnformation obtained by personal interviews. Seventy­five percent of the interviews were with housewives, whlle 9 per­cent were with their husbapds. Sixteen percent of the interviews were with other adults, primarily · female relatives living in the household. Households receiving home delivery were included in a block sample of households drawn at random to represent the Portland urban complex. The households were located in Portland, South Portland, Westbrook and Falmouth.

Route Delivery Practices in Portland

The general practice in Portland was to deliver milk to homes three times weekly. Ninety-four percent of the customers received the dairies' prevailing practice of three-times-weekly delivery service. Three percent of the households received more frequeot delivery, while 3 percent received delivery less frequently than three times weekly.

In terms of quantity, 95 per cent of the milk was delivered on a three-times-weekly basis, 4 percent on a more frequent and 1 per­cent on a less frequent basis. Since three percent of the customers with less than three-times-weekly delivfl'!y were receiving one per­cent of the milk, it was apparently the small-volume customer who voluntarily accepted the 1ess frequent delivery. On the other band, the more frequent than three times weekly service was provided the large-volume customer.

Only seven percent of those interviewed el(pressed a desire for more frequent delivery service than they were currently receiving. Three percent would like to have daily delivery; two percent wanted six-day-a-week delivery and two percent wanted delivery either four or five days per week Those who were buying milk at stores to supplement route deliveries showed a greater interest in more fre­quent delivery than those who did not buy at stores.

Attitude Toward Twice-Weekly Delivery Service

Those persons interviewed who received milk three or more times per week were asked "Would you be wjlling to take delivery twice instead of three times a week?" A majority of the responses were negative. Seventy percent of the interviewees opposed the reduc-

TwiCE-WEEKLY DEUVERY ON RETAiL MILK .ROUTES 19

tion and 5 percent did not answer the question. Only 25 percent of the households (representing 21 percent of the milk purchased through home delivery) indicated a willingness to accept this reduc­tion in service.

When the war-time reduction in delivery service from daily to every-other-day delivery was continued in peace time, 81 percent of Portland families were satisfied with it according to a postwar study.6

At the same time only 49 percent said they would be satisfied with delivery three times per week. Yet today 90 percent of the households do not want more frequent delivery than three times per week. Al­though consumers are opposed to this as well as past proposals for change, they may make rapid adjustment to it.

The principal reason advanced for not wanting to accept de­livery twice weekly was freshness and keeping quality of the milk. Thirty-eight percent of the persons interviewed gave this reason, table 5. Second in importance was the Jack of storage space, men­tioned as a reason by 31 percent of those interviewed. Such reasons as inconvenient, difficult to plan and dislike of keeping milk more than two days were also mentioned. Nine percent could give no specific reason for refusing or were just opposed to making any change.

Table 5

Reasons for Refusal of Twice-Weekly Delivery

Number of Percent of Reason households households

--- --Freshness and keeping quality 140 37.7 Lack of storage space 116 31.1 Inconvenient 37 9.9 Difficulty in planning 33 8.8 Resistant to change 23 6.2 Prefer milk not over 2 duys old 3 0.8 Family eonsumes more milk when

larger amounts are available 8 2.1 Jeopardize milkman's job 2 0.5 Nu reason given 11 2.9

Total 373 100.0

Consumer feeling that milk will not keep its fresh quality for the three and four-day periods it must be held under twice-weekly delivery is a natural reaction hom in part out of past experience with no refrigeration and the short life of some relatively low quality

6 Luke, H. A., "Consumer Use of Dairy Products in Portland, Maine," Maine Ag-ricult-ural Experiment Station, Bulletin 477, November 1949,

20 MAu'fE AGRICULTURAL E.XPEJUMENT STATJON BULLETIN 612

milk. lt is also due in part to a conviction that there is nothing better than really fresh milk.

The age of persons interviewed appeared to have some influence on the acceptance of twice-weekly delivery. Older people were some­what more likely to accept it than younger persons. Those 40 years of age and older were about 2 to 1 against it, but those under 40 were about 4 to 1 against it. Presumably the number of persons in the family was a factor in this result. As the size of household in­creased the willingness to accept twice-weekly delivery declined. One-third of one and two-person households would accept twice­weekly delivery but only about 15 percent of those families with 5 or more persons would accept the reduction. The relationshjps of these and other factors to acceptance of reduced delivery service are shown in the appendix tables.

The size of delivery (as indicated by the quantity delivered on Friday or Saturday) was associated with acceptance of reduced delivery. One-third of the 1 and 2-quart customers would accept twice-weekly delivery compared with 25 percent of 3 to 5-quart customers and 12 percent of those taking 6 quarts ancl over.

The income of the family unit did not appear to inflnence the acceptance of reduced delivery services. Proportionately more fam­ilies with income less than $74 per week were willing to accept tl1an were tJ1e families with higher incomes. However, differences were of no importance.

Refrigerator capacity had relatively little influence on accept­ance of twice-weekly delivery. Householders with refrigerators of 7 cu. ft. or greater capacity were about three to one against twice­weekly service, regardless of the sjze of the w1it. Those with smaller units ( 5 and 6 cu. ft.) were more strongly opposed to reduced de­ll very, being four to one against it.

Reducing tJ1e price of milk would influence some persons to ac­cept twice-weekly delivery. Twenty-three percent of those unwilling to accept witl10ut a price incentive said they would accept if the price was reduced one cent per quart. An additional 24 percent of those still unwWing said iliey would accept it if the price was reduced by two cents. Thus a two-cent price reduction would encourage ac­ceptance of the reduction in service by about 60 percent of retail customers.

Milk Keeping Quality in Households

Only six percent of the households reported trouble witll the keeping quality of their mille Only one percent of households with

TwiCE-WEEKLY DELIVERY ON RETAIL MILK RoUTES 21

retail delivery as their only source of milk reported trouble with Keeping milk. In contrast, 10 percent of those who bought exclusively from stores, had trouble keeping milk. Among all households having trouble, 56 percent reported purchasing the milk at a store, 40 per­cent received it from the retail route, and 4 percent obtained it from both sources. The interviewees reported they felt that the purchase of old milk was the major cause of spoilage. Not using all the milk immediately, improper delivery, and lack of refrigeration were other causes mentioned.

In questioning householders about their experience in keeping milk it was revealed that they kept milk at least three or four days satisfactorily on various occasions. Eighty-seven percent reported keeping milk three or more days while 62 percent had kept it four or more days successfully. See appendix, table 10. Twenty percent of the householders reporting had kept milk one week or more with satisfactory results.

The general practice - 66 percent of the householders followed it - was to keep milk two days. This is the normal time elapsing between week-day deliveries. Seven percent kept milk one day or less. Twenty-two percent usually kept milk three days, while four percent kept it four or more days.

The above analysis indicates that consumer experience has dem­onstrated the high keeping quality of milk. It also shows that con­sumers normally keep milk for as long as the distribution practice requires. Thus milk keeping quality does not appear to be an ob­stacle to twice-weekly delivery.

In a special study conducted in Houlton, Maine 125 of 126 co­operators kept milk four days without off-flavor and of llO coopera­tors who kept milk six days, 96 percent reported it good to the last drop.7

Household Storage Capacity for Twice-Weekly Service

There was a relationship between the size of refrigerator and the maximum quantity of milk which the housewife felt she could store. The average estimates of storage capacities indicated that six quarts of milk could be stored in a five to six cu. ft. refrigerator, seven quarts in a seven to eight cu. ft., eight quarts in a nine to ten cu. ft. , nine quarts in a ten to twelve cu. ft., and 10 quarts in refrig­erators over twelve cu. ft. The maximum number of quarts of milk

7 Metzger, H. B. and Taylor, R. 1., "Consumer Reaction to Reducing Deliveries on Retail Milk Routes in Houlton and Presque Isle, Maine," Maine Agricultural Experiment Station, Miscellaneous Report 101, October 1961.

22 MAINE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIOI'I BULLETIN 612

that persons interviewed thought they could store (considering other food storage needs) rather than the size of refrigerator was used to determine the storage potential in order to recognize individual fam­ily situations.

Detailed an:rlysis indicated that among 508 households, 377, or 78 percent, would be able to handle the increased quantity of milk which twice-weekly delivery would require. This analysis was based upon the assumption that a 50 percent increase in the present amount of the Friday or Saturday delivery would be the peak amount of milk delivered under twice-weekly delivery. Tltis allows for some excess capacity, since a customer receiving 4 quarts on Monday and ·wednesday and 6 quarts on Friday under three deliveries would normally take 6 quarts on Monday and 8 quarts on Thursday under twice-weekly service. This is a one-third increase in the peak delivery. The assumption of a 50 percent increase makes allowance for custom­ers who do not take a quantity of milk in proportion to their average daily needs, and for miJk remaining in the refrigerator from the previous delivery.

As the size of order increased, the proportion of households with apparent ability to store anticipated increased quantities of mHk decreased from 87 percent for those taking four quarts to 55 per­cent for those taking six quarts, to 43 percent for those taking eight quarts and to 22 percent for those taking ten quarts or more, Figure 1.

The delivery efficiency in terms of quarts delivered per man hour or per route mile is already high for customers receiving 5 or more quarts per delivery. Converting those customers receiving from 1 to 4 quarts per delivery to customers receiving 2 to 6 quarts per delivery through twice-weekly service would improve overall ef­ficiency of delivery. From the standpoint of refrigerator capacity, twice-a-week delivery is feasible for these customers. These small volume customers represent 63 percent of all route stops and 43 per­cent of the route volume, table 6. Providing twice-weekly delivery for those customers with less than 5 quarts per Friday or Saturday· delivery would reduce the weekly route stops by 20 percent. This would result io saving labor, reducing mileage, and lowering delive1y costs.

TwiCE-WEEKLY DELIVERY ON RETAIL MILK ROUTES 23

PERCENT

100

80

60

40

20

0 \ 2 3 4- 5 6 7 8 9 10

QUARTS PER FR\0~'1 OR SATURDAY DEUVERY Figure 1 - Percent of Families which could Refrigerate at least Fifty Percent

More Milk than Current Amount of Peak Delivery

Table 6

Volume of Milk and Products Delivered by Size of Friday or Saturday Delivery

Quarts delivered Number Whole Skim Other Total per household of Milk Milk Products qts. &

Fri. or Sat. households qts. qts. units units Percent

1 80 243 77 103 423 7 2 115 592 47 113 752 12 3 76 598 34 93 725 12 4 63 676 21 89 786 12 5 51 645 49 99 793 13 6 42 621 13 52 686 11 7 18 314 7 38 359 6 8 35 670 20 52 742 12 9 10 211 22 26 259 4

10-18 18 475 8 27 510 8 None 21 9 131 20 160 3

All Households 529 5054 429 712 6195 100

24 MAJNE AGRICULTURAL EXPE.RJMEN1: STATION ButLETIN 612

APPENDIX TABLES

Table 1

Average Driver Labor Used Per Route Per Day, Three Retail Routes, One Week, September, 1960

Item Route No.1 Route No. 2 Route No.3

minutes Prep!lre for delivery 5 8 Load out milk 13 14 10 Load out by-product 12 20 5 Drive to route 4 3 1 Deliver and drive 253 290 263 ColleCit on route 22 18 12 Collect on call-backs 8 26 8 Drive from route 6 4 4 Unload 10 14 17 Checlc in 64 49

Total work time 397 446 318

1 Average of two routes. 2 Varied from 254 to 297 minutes depending upon delivery day. 5 Total of averages.

Table 2

Mileage Travelled. Customers Served, and Volume of Product Delivered

Three Retail Routes, One Week, September, 1960

Item Route No.1 Route No.2 Ro\lte No.3

Miles to route 0.7 average per day 0.5 0.1

Deliver on route 19.3 16.2 16.2 Route to plant 1.1 1.3 0.8 CoUect on call~backs 0.8 2.5 0.7

Total miles 21.9 20.5 17.8

Customers Collect on route 22 25 16 Collect on call-backs 1 5 2 Total customers 133 138 109

Route stops Single 95 88 79 Multiple 19 25 15

Total 114 113 94

Route sales Units 462 521 412 Cases 27 32 24

Average

61 12 12

2 2682

18 14 5

14 56

4073

Average

0.4 17.2 1.1 1.3

20.0

21 2

127

87 20

107

465 28

Twice-WEEKLY DELIVERY ON ReTA.IL MILK RouTES

Table 3

Retail Route Labor Costs Per Week Actual Costs for Three Deliveries and Estimated Costs for

Two Deliveries Per Wee..k, Three Routes, 1960

Three Deliveries Two Deliveries Per Week Per Week

Item Total Average Total Average

Wages Regular driver 256.201 $ 85AO $226.204 $ 75,40 Relief driver 39.992 13.33 33.345 11.11 Vacation driver 9.003 3.00 7.430 2.48

Total $305.19 $101.73 $266.97 $ 88.99

PayroU taxes and employee benefits 27.47 9.16 24.03 8.01

Total labor costs $332.66 $110.89 $291.00 $ 97.00

25

t Three men at $30 base pay plus actual commissions and bonuses earned per week during year ended July, 1960.

2 Pro rata share of $80 per week base pay. 3 Pro rata share of $65 per week base pay. <~Two men at $30 base pay plus actual commissions and bonuses earned per week

on aJJ route business. ~ Pro rata share of $100 per week base pay. 6 Pro rata ~hare of $80 per week base pay.

26 MAINE A GRJCULTIJRAl- Exl'ERJM&NT STATION B ULLETIN 612

Table 4

Rdail Route Truck Costs Actual Costs for Three Trucks nod Estimated Costs for

Two Trucks, Three Routes, 1960

Item

Three Trucks (Three deliveries

per week)

Two 'Trucks (Two delivet!es

per week) ----per all per all

truck trucks! truck trucks2

Miles per year 6,946 20,839 8,044 16,088

Fixed costs annual costs per truck

Depreciations $ 805 $2,417 $ 926 $1,850 lnte.rest4 268 803 320 641 Taxes and insurance 181 543 166 332 Garage 260 780 260 520

Total $1,514 $4,543 $1,672 $3,343

Variable costs Repairs $ 162 $ 485 $ 32 $ 64 Gasoline 451 1,353 490 981 Oil and lubrication 62 186 72 144 Tires and tubes 90 270 101 202 OtJ1er 169 508 185 370

T otal $ 93-! $2,802 $ 880 $1,761

Total costs $2,448 $7,345 $2.552 $5,104 costs per mite

Fixed costs $.218 $.208 Variable costs .134 .109

Total costs $.352 $.317 costs per route per week

Fixed costs $29 $22 Variable costs 18 11

Total costs $47 $33

I Divco refrigerated trucks: 1956, 1959, and 1960 models. 2 Divco refrigerated trucks: 1959 and 1960 models. 3 Straight Line M ethod, assuming 7 1h years life each for three truck-s, a nd 6%

years life each for hvo trucks. 4 Computed at 6% of 1960 depreciated values.

TwiCE-WEEKLY DELIVERY ON RETAIL MILK ,RoUTES 27

Table 5 Influence of Age of Persons Interviewed

on Acceptance of Twice-Weekly Delivery

Number of persons Number who would Percent w1l o would

Age interviewed Accept Refuse Accept Refuse

Under 30 14 5 9 36 64 20-29 64 9 55 14 86 -. 30-39 122 24 98 20 80 40-49 108 34 74 31 69 50-59 63 22 41 35 65 60 & over 130 35 95 27 73

Total or Av. 501 129 372 26 74

Table 6 Size of Household and its Influence

on Acceptance of Twice-Weekly Delivery

Number Number in of Number who would Percent who would

household households Accept Refuse Accept Refuse

1 21 7 14 35 65 2 123 39 84 32 68 3 108 32 76 30 70 4 102 29 73 28 7'>,

5 75 10 65 13 87 6 42 6 36 14 86 7 17 3 14 18 8~ 8 11 2 9 18 82 9 & over 3 1 2 33 67

Total 502 129 373 26 74

Table 7 Influence of Quantity of Milk Delivered Friday or Saturday on Acceptance of Twice-Weekly Delivery

Quarts delivered Number per household of Percent who would

Friday or Saturday households Accept Refuse

1 69 33 67 2 105 32 68 3 75 29 71 4 61 20 80 5 50 28 72 6 42 12 88 7 18 11 89 8 35 17 83 .., 9 10 0 100 • 10-18 18 11 89 •.

None 20 50 50

All Households 503 26 74

28 MAJNE AGRICULTlTRAL ExPf.RJM£NT STATION BULU11.N 612

Table 8

Influence of Weekly Family lncome on Acceptance of Twice-Weekly Delivery

Number of Number who would Percent who would

Income Under $74

75- 124 125-174 175 & over

Not reported

Total

households Accept Refuse

105 30 75 231 54 177 76 20 56 31 7 24 60 19 41

503 130 373

Table 9 Influence of Capaoty of Refrigerator on Acceptance of Twice-Weekly Delivery

Acceet 29 23 27 23 32

26

Percent who would

Rei use 71 77 13 77 68

74

Capacity of unit (cu. ft.)

Number of households Accept Refuse

5-6 7 - 8 9- 10

ll- 12 Over 12

No answerl All households

47 127 14.9 114 52 14

503

21 '27 25 28 25 29 26

79 73 75 72 75 72 74

1 Includes one household with no refrigerator.

Table 10 Number of Days Milk has been kept Satisfactorily

and days Householders usually have or would prefer to keep it

Number of days No Under

Item answer 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 number of householders

Days usually keep milk 1 36 351 114 17 2 1 6

Most number of days have 8 0 3 54 131 140 66 23 83 kept milk satisfactorily

Days u~"ttally percent of householders

keep milk Most nrunber

0 0 1 66 22 3 0

of days have '2 0 1 10 25 26 12 4 16 kept milk satisfactorily

"0.5 percent or Jess

Over 7 Total

0 529

21 529

0 100

4 100