The Ways of the M.M.B.
Page 55
Page 56
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Criticism is Sometimes Directed Against the Milk Marketing Board. The System to which it Works and the Parts Played by Hauliers are Described in this Article
FACTS ACTS and figures relating to milk transport in England
and Wales were given in a publication of the Milk Marketing Board iii Detember, 1948. Some of the figures lot quantities handled May not be quite up to date. but those relating to the haulage system are sOfficiently accurate for the purpose of this article. •
The pamphlet began by pointing out that the transport of milk must be speedy and efficient, as milk is highly perishable. The job demands a seven-day week and close co-operation among all branches of the industry. Probably over -10,000,000 tons of milk and containers are handled in a year.
The actual transport of milk falls into thme main stages: first from the farm to either a bottling depot or town dairyman; second, from the depot to retailers; and third. delivery to the consumer from the retailer.
The chart which accompanies this article illustrates these channels. Hauliers generally are concerned with transport controlled by the Milk -Marketing Board, marked in the diagram with a double-line arrow. The Board conveys from the producers to the.bottling depots and from the producers to town .vholesale and retail distributors.
The milk produced is collected from 140,000 farms by wholesalers. The producers themselves deliver just under one-tenth of all milk. direct, but. the greater bulk, over 1,000,000,000 gallons a year, is collected from farms and
delivered by the wholesale collectors. .
This is the responsibility of the Milk Marketing Board. The total representsover 2,500,000 full lorry loads of milk .a year_ The actual ntimber of loads is far more than that as the milk comes from many scattered places and in quantities varying seasonally.
Hauliers Engaged .
Of the 5,000 or more people engaged in milk collection, roughly 4,000 are small dairymen collecting their own milk by van, float or other small vehicle. In spite of their numbers they carry only a small proportion of the total milk collected and, unless their charges are excessive, the Board does not interfere with this small-scale transport. . Some dairymen collect free of charge, sometimes while on their way to their retail round. • .
The remaining 1,000 or. so concerns which operate with lorries, collect nearly all the milk sold from the farms on wholesale contract. Of these. roughly 70 per cent. are independent hauliers having no -interest in milk apart from its transport. The other 30 per cent. are the larger dairymen. depot and creamery proprietors, who provide their own transport. Some are multiple firms running separate fleets in different localities, so that, in effect, each of their 'depots forms a separate haulage unit. This applies to the Board itself, the transport fleet of which is used as a " pilot " in the study of operational costs.
In passing, this particular statement should dispose of the view that the Milk Marketing Board has established its own fleets as a preliminary to taking over the whole of the traffic, or at least of dispossessing those small operators who are probably not amenable to discipline and do not accept the Board's views as to what rates should be. That, at least. is the conclusion one could draw'. The mimber of vehicles employed in collecting and delivering in the first stage of milk transport is estimated at nearly 10,004. They' Make over 4,000,000 collection tripsper annum Between 4,000 and-5,000 of these vehicles are yam orsmall vehieles; the nuniber of -lorries in use is nearly 6,00." Only in the flusn months are all of these in use, and for perhaps nine months of the year, fewer vehkles are employed'.
. Time Taken on Work The collection vehicles start out in the morning With empty churns' which are 'Placed at the farm collection points, where churns 'containing milk are loaded.. The producer is responsible-for-providing either a stand for his churns or assistance in lnail:ng.. Many lorries spend only part of the day on delivering milk to its first destination, being used afterwards for other goods, or for the haulage of processed milk from the depots. The average time taken by the independent -hauliers, exclusive of such other work. is 54hrs, per day per lorry.
Part of the work of the Board is to plan routes so as to cut out excessive mileage and overlapping, and to ensure that vehicles delivering into the same depot or dairy arrive at staggered times to keep the unloading dock and processing plant evenly supplied. Many vehicles bring in'ian early load and then make a second 'or even a third collection trip.
In order to ensure that loading at all limes approaches maximum capacity, the number of pick-ups allotted to each lorry needs constant adjustment because production fluctuates. [Clearly, a wellloaded vehicle is more. economical, especially where payment is calculated per gallon of milk hauled.
Better loading results are obtained when the load is made up of churns having the same diameter and, as a longterm policy, the Board advocates the adoption of a standard 10-gallon churn. The Board's own vehicles are now fitted with a standard type of body, evolved from experiments at its tranSpo'rt depots. The number of churns in use is estimated to be 2,000.000 for farm collections, with an additional 150,000 in use between wholesalers and distributors. Churns are normally provided by the purchasers, but if the producer's own churns be used, he may be rraidid.inore per gallon by the purchaser. The most popular churn sizes are 10 and 12 gallons, but many others are in use, ranging from 4 to 17 gallons.'
There are many factors which make it difficult to achieve perfection in loading, such as geographical differences, bath " aS regards country, to be travelled and the density of milk production. In East Anglia. for example, the pick-ups are more scattered than in a predominantly milk-producing county such as Cheshire Or Somerset. Each haulier's rate is based on individual conditions, the best yardstick for measuring these • differences being the number of gallons picked up per mile rim.
We now come to that important consideration; the factors which cover the fixing of rates for the 'haulage of milk from the producing wholesalers to first destinations. Before the Board 'came into being.in 1933 milk was purchased competitively, and a low. collecting charge was one of the attractions offered tothe producer, who has always paid the cost of transport. In general, the . charges appeared to. be framed . on. " what the traffic could bear." Collection was, usually arranged by the purchaser, who employed either his own vehicles or outside hauliers, or both. The large concerns set up collecting depots in strategic positions, e.g., near a railway, . in-: order to dispatch milk promptly to the large towns.
• The Board inherited these arrangements and in its earlier forms of contract left trans'port details to be .agreed between producer and purchaser, intervening only if the proposed charge seemed excessive. After the outbreak of war, it became necessary to redirect milk to keep pace with changes in consumption. and the Ministry of Food was empowered to give appropriate directions.
These involved many changes in transport, although they still continued to be arranged by the parties concerned. Finally it was decided that the Board should sell all wholesale milk to the Ministry of Food and undertake its delivery to whatever destination was required. Since October 1, 1942, the Board has been responsible for deliveryto first destinations, employing either the purchaser Or an .independent -haulier, or, as in a few cases, in the hands of producers.
The total cost of carrying Milk from farm to first destinations amounts to more than 0,500,000 annually. It is met from a fund accumulated from deductions made at standard rates per gallon from producers' accounts with the Board. These rates range from fd. to lid. per gallon. Despite the increase in overall transport Costs, the control of transport by the Board has resulted in a lower cost per gallon. Where the first destination is a creamery or collecting depot, further transport is needed to convey milk which is not processed to its final destination in the liquid market, often many miles away to big centres such as London, Manchester or Sheffield. Producers have to bear the cost of ex-depot transport, as well as charges for transport to themselves. They have, however, no control over the actual transport at this later stage. Consumer Distrib Wholes and Retai
Work of Tankers
Ex-depot transport is still privately arranged. The milk is sent to the consuming centres bulked in tankers. There are about 1,000 road and rail tankers in Great Britain. In this phase of transport the -Board also has a pilot fleet of
• road tankers hauling processed _ milk from its own creameries. Here again, valuable costing data are obtained. Sales to small dairymen purchasing from the depots are dispatched in churns by lorry or van: the collection lorries are often employed in this way after bringing in their loads from the farms.
This represents in brief the work of the Milk Marketing 04
Board. The governing factor, so far as hauliers are concerned,. is implied in that sentence which claims that the transport cost per gallon. has been diminished as. a result of the Board's activities, notwithstanding the increase in
A number of readers" will be well aware of the Board's keenness in achieving this objective.This is the time of the year when contracts for milk haulage are being renewed, it -is also the time when the Board is exerting its power in the hope of being able to reduce that cost of transport still' further, even though that reduction may be effected at the expense of the haulier who does the work.
It is well known that the majority of milk hauliers is dissatisfied'with the rates they receive for the work they do. They have found the Milk Marketing Board a hard , bargainer, and in the -view of many of them, the bargaining is not always conducted in the fairest way. It may be that the
methods employed are not , officially authorized by the Other Board, but they are certainly . Transport employed by their zealous employees.
The procedure, as a rule, is -something like this. The Board's • representative will come. to Jones and 'offer him 0.8d.'Per gallon, which is considerably less than he has been getting. If he asks in amazement why he should accept the deduction, the representative tells him that Robinson, his neighbour, is doing similar work and has agreed to it. Afraid of losing his contract, Jones aceepts. Later, Jones meets Robinson. They compare notes and find that the same representative has persuaded Robinson to revise his rate by telling him the same story about Jones.
The Milk Marketing • Board insists on dealing with individuals, and a factor which presents difficulty is' the predominance of small operators engaged in this class of traffic. Seventy-five to 85 per cent. are .owners of, one to three vehicles and are not in the habit of keeping cost records in such form that they can be analyzed and used as a basis for rates assessment. The Board will always take note of certified costs which give the essential information and allow a rate to be based on that plus a profit. It is where there are not such costs that it is disinclined to accept the operator's figures. and is apt to be arbitrary in its assessment of what his rate should be. It is to be assumed that in making this assessment it uses the experience gained in the operation of its pilot fleet.
Success Limited The Road Haulage Association has been energetic in taking the part of the haulier in these negotiations with the Hoard, and for quite a while now there has been in existence a Joint. Milk Haulage Committee, comprising members from the Milk Marketing Board, the R.H.A. and dairymen. Any haulier who is aggrieved at the offer made to him can take his case to be adjudicated by this committee. The success of the committee in presenting these cases has, however, largely been limited owing to the fact that there were so few actual cost figures submitted. Progress could only be made in negotiations with the Board if the weight of evidence received in complaints was sufficiently heavy.
In particular, resentment is felt amongst _ operators inasmuch as when a haulier, by efficiency of his operation, reduces his costs, the Milk Marketing Board assumes that that reduction must be passed on to the consumer. The Board simply reduces the rate paid per gallon and the haulier receives no additional benefit.
However, there are indications of the existence of a more reasonable frame of mind on. the part of the Board, inasmuch as it is now prepared:to negotiate iterns.of expendilure which inpast years it has been inclined almost to ignore. Reference to the latest development in this
connection will be made in the next article. S.T.R.