EB 0935 - Washington State University

@ CooperativeExtension
College of Agriculture
Washington State University
Pullman, Washington
Extension Bulletin 0935
Apple Packing Systems:
Comparison of Selected Costs
Between Conventional
And Presize Systems
'
\
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Number
INTRODUCTION .
DESCRIPTION OF PACKING SYSTEMS
Presize Equipment . .
Trayfill Lines . . . .
Conventional Systems
ASSUMPTIONS USED IN ANALYSIS
Packout Volume . .
.
Daily Production . . .
Packing Rates . . . . .
Grading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Length of Season and Yearly Production
Other Assumptions
INVESTMENT COSTS . . . . .
Presize Systems . . .
Conventional Systems
2
. 4
5
7
. . 10
. . . . 10
. 10
. 12
. 13
. 13
. 15
. 16
. 18
. 19
OPERATING COSTS
Labor . . .
Rerun Costs .
.
Water and Chlorination
Electricity
. 19
RESULTS
.27
IMPLICATIONS
. 32
.20
.26
.26
.27
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page Number
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
1:
2:
3:
4:
Presize System, 350 Bins per Day
Single Trayfi 11 Line
.
Conventional Lines: 100 Bins and 200 Bins per Day.
Estimated Production Cost Relationships . . . .
3
6
9
31
LIST OF TABLES
.
Table 1 : Cullage and Grade Percentages .
....
Table 2: Daily Production Levels by System and Variety .
Table 3: Packing Rates •
.. .
• '
Table 4: Length of Season and Yearly Production; Conventional
Systems
. .
.•
. . '
.
Table 5: Length of Season and Yearly Production: Presize
Systems .
..•
.. •'
Table 6: Estimated Building Dimensions: Presize Systems
Table 7: Presize Systems: Total Investment and Annual Cost
Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ,
Table 8: Estimated Building Dimensions: Conventional Systems .
Table 9: Conventional Systems: Total Investment and Annual
.
Cost Estimates
. . . • . . . . . . • . . .
Table 10: Estimated Daily Labor Requirements . . . , . ,
' .
Table 11: Labor Costs Per Shift: Conventional Systems , .
.
Table 12: Labor Costs Per Shift: Presize Systems
•.
Table 13: Presize Re r un Labor Requirements Per Shift
.
Table 14: Horsepower Ratings by System
.....
. •
Table 15: Presize Systems: Estimated Annual Investment and
Packing Operation Costs . . .
• •
Table 16: Conventiona l System Estimated Annual Investment and
Packing Operation Costs . . .
.
.
.
.
.....
.
.
..
..
.
.. .
.
10
11
12
14
16
18
19
20
20
21
22
23
26
27
29
30
iii
SUMMARY
Apple processors need more capacity to handle larger crops. One result
has been increasing interest in presize packing systems. This publication
compares costs for small, medium, and large presize systems with costs for
four sizes of conventional packing systems.
The analysis shows conventional systems have cost advantages at low
yearly outputs, but presize systems are advantageous when a firm packs 750,000
boxes a year or more. Under the assumptions in the analysis, costs per pack
with presize packing ran from $.92 to $1 .93; with conventional packing from
$1.12 to $2.14.
APPLE PACKING SYSTEMS: COMPARISON OF SELECTED COSTS
BETWEEN PRESIZE AND CONVENTIONAL SYSTEMS*
Ralph T. Schotzko**
INTRODUCTION
The apple industry in the State of Washington has been growing very rapidly.
Increased production, a changing labor force, and aging or outmoded equipment
have created considerable interest in the expansion or replacement of present
packing facilities.
Larger crops are probably the major problem facing the packing phase of
the industry. Storage capacity insufficient to handle larger than normal crops
places considerable strain on packing facilities during harvest. Unstored fruit
must be packed and shipped at harvest to minimize loss of quality. With larger
crops, packing capacity per day may be inadequate to handle needed movement
during harvest unless additional storage is constructed.
Another effect of larger crops is on seasonal packing capacity. As seasonal
packing capacity is reached, marketing flexibility is reduced. Packing houses
at or near seasonal capacity do not have the ability to expand packing output
during periods of strong market demand.
The movement of people from· rural areas has also created problems for the
apple packing industry. The out-migration of people from rural areas in recent
decades has resulted in a smaller available labor supply. With this out-migration
pattern, there is considerable concern within the apple industry that labor may
be insufficient to meet future requirements.
As with all industries, the apple packing industry is faced with changing
technologies in packing equipment. In some cases, improved equipment replaces
labor. Other improvements enhance the productivity of labor. In either case,
these improvements imply technical obsolescence of conventional lines.
There are two primary alternatives being considered by apple packing firms .
Sorting, sizing, and semiautomated tray filling in one unit is one alternative.
Since the three operations are all performed at one time, apples are brought
out of storage only once prior to shipping. Presorting and presizing with
segregated, semiautomated tray filling is another alternative. Here fruit are
*Funding for this study was provided by the Washington Tree Fruit Research
Commission. Investment cost data (April 1980) were provided by Food Plant
Engineering, Inc., Yakima, Washington.
**Extension Economist, Washington State University, Pullman.
EB0935--Page 2
sorted, sized, and then returned to storage. Fruit will be packed at some
later time. A third alternative, which is not always considered, is to increase
the capacity of the operation in the current packing system with the lowest
capacity. Grading capacity often controls fruit movement through the systems.
Increasing grading capacity would increase daily and seasonal production.
While each of these alternatives has advantages and disadvantages, a
detailed analysis of each is beyond the scope of this study. The purpose of
this study is to determine investment and operating costs of packing apples
using two types of sorting and packing systems. The systems analyzed here
are: 1) the presize, presort water system with segregated packing;ll and
2) the older, conventional system. Not all costs are included. The costs
included are those which vary between kind and size of system. The primary
concern here is the difference in costs of packing apples between sizes and
kinds of systems. Only part of the total packing house cost is estimated.~
The conventional system was deemed to be the most logical for comparison
purposes. It represents the type of packing system most widely used within the
industry. Consequently, it offers a known alternative against which the
presize system can be compared.
DESCRIPTION OF PACKING SYSTEMS
Seven variations of the two systems have been devised for cost comparisons.
Three of these systems are presize, presort with segregated packing, henceforth
_referred to as presize systems. This system has been developed for different
levels of output per shift.
The other four systems, which will be called conventional systems, or
lines, are representative of the systems many packing houses currently use.
These lines were developed for four different levels of production per shift.
liThe reasons for concentrating on this system are: a) there appears to be a
greater amount of interest in the presize system; and b) sufficient experience
with this system has accrued to the industry to allow development of cost
information.
~One cost not included in the investment cost analysis is Washington State
sales tax.
Figure 1: Presize System, 350 Bins per Day
SINGULATORS
~
~
IIII
/
r
I 1
I I
II
Ill
TABLES Ill
r
I
I
I
I
I
11111111
II
I I
II
I
I
I
11111111
11 1
rs) ~ ~ LIT
~
I
~ER
II
II
II
t
I'T1
ex:;
0
t
I.D
FLUMES
w
U"1
I
I
""'0
l:lJ
TRASH
BIN
LE
I
II IIIII
II
....___
tl
,
I
SORTING
q
EL
I
I
I
)J-
ll
.------
I
9 LANE ELECTRONIC SIZER
~
I.C
ro
w
I
/DEFECTIVE
BIN
DUMP
/~
~
ELIM.
0
BIN DROP.____
1"---
...____
350 BINS PER DAY
~
/
•
[\__
r-=="'
r==="'
BIN
FILLERS .____
]
I
EB0935--Page 4
Presize Equipment
Fig. 1 shows the basic layout for the presizers. This particular system
will handle 350 bins per shift. Stacks of full bins (3 bins per stack) are
placed on a feed roller conveyor which takes the bins to the destacker. Each
bin then moves to an electronic scale where bin and fruit are weighed. From
the scale, the bins are taken to a continuous T dump where the bin is emptied.
The empty bin is then moved by transfer chain bin pushers to the bin fillers.
The fruit is moved through a water flume to the grading tables. While the
fruit is moving through the flume, it will pass over the small fruit eliminator.
Leaf eliminators are also incorporated into the system. The fruit is elevated
out of the flume onto a brush and sponge drying section. Then the fruit moves
onto the grading table .
Each grading table is 4 ' x 16' and has soft rubber rollers, cull chutes,
and a varispeed motor and drive. Each table is equipped with overhead belts
for 3rd grade or processing culls. A transfer belt is included for moving
these grades to the appropriate flumes. The transfer belt has a hip down
to the flume and is equipped with slowdown drapes.
The fancy and extra fancy fruit move over the grading table and into
another flume. This flume takes the fruit to the sizer . The fruit moves onto
a submerged singulator, through an electronic color sorter, and onto the
electronic weight sizer. Each sizer is equipped with a micro processor tally
counter, control panel, semiautomatic weight product sampler, product belt and
shunts, and a 1" thick sponge delivery. It also has a varispeed motor and
drive, and is constructed of stainless steel.
The sizer drops the fruit into accumulation flumes which are 3' x 72'.
Automatic product gates, pump, piping, electronic and micro processor control,
and flume gate control are included in the presizer.
The bin fillers are the rotary type with product collars, product lowerator, empty bin feed conveyor and panel, and full bin take away conveyor. This
type of bin filler has a grea t er capacity because of the different sequence of
activities. By positioning empty bins for filling while one bin is filled with
fruit the time lapse between the start of fill i ng one bin to the start of filling
the next bin is shortened considerably.
EB0935--Page 5
All cull and undersized fruit are carried by belts to a Pomona bin filler.
The cull bins are located near the destacker so that the forklift operator(s)
feeding the presizer can also remove the filled bins of culls.
Other miscellaneous equipment is included with the presizer. These items
are platforms for sorting tables, control panel, and bin fillers. The electrical motor starters panel and wiring are also included.
The 200 bin per day presizer and the 500 bin per day presizer contain the
same basic list of equipment. The basic difference is in the size or number
of different pieces of equipment.
The 200 bin per day presizer has two grading tables. Fruit are sized on
a 6 cup electronic sizer. This system has 14 accumulation flumes. It also
has two rotary bin fillers.
The 500 bin per day presizer utilizes four grading tables. There are two
electronic sizers, eight cups each. This system has 25 accumulation flumes
and requires three rotary type bin fillers.
Trayfill Lines
The trayfill packing line is shown in Fig. 2. This particular packing line
is utilized with the 200 bin per day presizer.
The bins of presized fruit are brought to the destacker in stacks of three
bins. They are placed on an accumulation roller conveyor which moves the stacks
to the destacker. The individual bins are carried into a continuous T dump by
elevator. The empty bins are moved from the dump by elevator. They are taken
over a bin transfer which changes the direction of movement by 90 degrees. The
bins drop down an empty bin slide and move to the restacker. The direction of
movement of the bins changes another 90 degrees at the empty bin slide. The bins
are restacked and accumulated on a roller conveyor.
The fruit move through a flume and up a roller elevator to the washer.
After being washed the fruit moves across sponge rollers and is air dried.
EB0935--Page 6
Figure 2: Single Trayfill Line
DES TACKER
~
EMPTY BIN
STACKER
~
HAND
PALLETIZE
GH~
STRAP
WASH - SPONGE
AND AIR DRY
WAX
DRY
CASE SEAL
STRAP
WEIGH
POMONAf
FILLER
~TRAY
FILL LINES
SINGLE PACKING LINE
EB0935--Page 7
The waxer is next. It has a foam generator and wax applicator.
Following the waxer is the product dryer. This dryer has a furnace and motor
powered fan.
From the dryer the fruit moves onto a sorting table where any remaining
low quality fruit is eliminated. The culled fruit is placed on an overhead
belt above the table and is carried to a Pomona bin filler.
The fresh market quality fruit move down a distribution conveyor with
. product diverter to the double tray line. The tray lines are equipped with
speed control and tray feed.
At the end of the tray lines are drag chain conveyors, and motorized
accelerator rollers. These conveyors are also equipped with devices to regulate movement of filled cartons ( 11 traffic cops 11 ) . All cartons move throu~h a
stamper with a tally unit and control panel .
Each carton is weighed, sealed with hot melt glue and strapped before
moving to the palletizing area. The system includes the electric motor
starters and wiring.
Since both Red and Golden Delicious apples are packed on this system a
third trayfill line has been added to the packing line. This third trayfill
line accommodates the color sorting of Golden Delicious.
The 350 bin presizer has two of the packing lines shown in Fig. 2. These
lines are organized so that the palletizing areas for the lines are adjacent.
One line does not have the third trayfill line. This line is used exclusively
for packing Red Delicious apples. The second packing line has three trayfill
lines to handle Golden Delicious as well as Red Delicious.
Three packing lines are utilized with the largest presizer. These lines
are organized so that one continuous T dump feeds two of the lines. This
eliminates one continuous T dump . The two remaining T dumps are next to each
other in parallel fashion. This arrangement permits the use of only one bin
restacker for all of the empty bins.
Conventional Systems
Fig. 3 has diagrams of the equipment contained in the conventional systems.
The 100 bin conventional system contains the same equipment as the semiautomated
packing lines up to the grading table with one exception. The 100 bin line does
not have a restacker. In this system empty bins are nested manually into groups
EB0935--Page 8
of three. The first bin remains upright after having been taken out of the
continuous T dump. The second bin is placed on its side inside the first bin.
The third bin is placed upside down on top of the second bin.
The grading table has overhead belts for fancy and "C" grade fruit. The
table is equipped with cull chutes.
The 100 bin line has three mechanical sizers. Each is equipped with a
singulator, over the end drop, and a product return belt and drive.
The first sizer is for extra fancy grade fruit. It has four lanes and 24
drop outs. Each of these drop outs leads to a 36" tube from which the fruit
are handpacked.
The second and third sizers handle fancy grade and "C" grade fruit,
respectively. Both are two lane sizers. The fancy grade sizer has 20 drop
outs and the same number of 36" tubs. The "C' grade sizer has 12 drop outs
and twelve 36" tubs.
A chain conveyor carries the filled cartons to the scale, case sealer,
strapper and palletizing area . An overhead monorail (not shown in figures)
carries carton bottoms to the packers.
The 200 bin line has a restacker. This system also has another grading
table to handle the increased volume of fruit. The extra fancy grade sizer in
this system has 6 lanes. This sizer is separated into 3 sections, each with
10 drop outs and 36" tubs. The fancy grade sizer has 3 lanes and 13 drop outs
on each side. Each drop out has a 36" tub. The "C" grade sizer has 2 lanes
and a total of 20 drop outs with 36" tubs. All sizers are mechanical. An
overhead monorail is used for empty carton bottoms.
The 300 bin system combines the 100 bin line and 200 bin line into one
system. The lines are situated side-by-side b_u t are operated as individual
units.
The 500 bin system is a combination of two 200 bin lines and one 100 bin
line. Some economies of size are achieved here by using one continuous T dump
to feed both 200 bin lines. With this arrangement only one bin restacker is
needed.
i
I
Figure 3: Conventional Lines : 100 Bins and 200 Bins per Day
4 LANE SIZER - 12 TUBS
2 LANE SIZER - 10 TUBS
2 LANE SIZER- 6 TUBS
NEST
BINS
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J
HAND PALLETIZE
STRAP
cAsE
SEALER
SCALE
CONVENTIONAL LINE - 100 BINS PER DAY
I'Tl
OJ
0
1.0
w
(J"1
I
I
""C
Ql
1.0
(!)
1.0
HAND SEGREGATE AND PALLETIZE
STACKER
STRAP
I~
SCALE
CASE SEALER
DESTACKER
CONVENTIONAL LINE - 200 BINS PER DAY
I I I I I 1 11 TTl I I I I I I I I I I I
EB0935--Page 10
ASSUMPTIONS USED IN ANALYSIS
Packout Volume
A variety of factors influence the rate of fruit movement through any
packing line. Probably the most important factor is the amount of fruit that
does not make the top grade. Unless a color sorter is used to separate fancy
from extra fancy fruit, every apple that does not make extra fancy grade must
be picked out and either placed on another conveyor belt or dropped down the
cull chute. The percentages of extra fancy, fancy and cull fruit varies from
year to year as well as between lots within each year. Table 1 contains
representative industry averages which are utilized here to calculate appropriate labor requirements and the number of packed boxes.
Table 1.
Extra Fancy
%
Cullage and Grade Percentages
Fancy
%
Cull age
%
Red Delicious
70
15
15
Golden Delicious
54
21
25
The figures in Table 1 are based on total fruit. A bin of Red Delicious
apples is assumed to contain 70% extra fancy fruit, 15% fancy fruit, and the
rest are culls.
Daily Production
The ability of packing houses to achieve or pass the design capacity of the
packing system directly affects costs. This is more important for presize
systems which require greater capital investment. Table 2 states the assumed
level of production per shift for the various systems. These figures are based
on information obtained by observations and in conversation.
EB0935--Page ll
Table 2.
Daily Production Levels by System and Variety
Golden Delicious
Red Delicious
bins
Presize
Small (Single Variety)
Medium
Large
200
350
500
174
305
435
Conventional
System 1 (Single Variety)
System 2
System 3 (Two Varieties)
System 4
100
200
200
400
90
180
100
100
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
It is assumed that all of the systems are able to achieve design capacity
in handling Red Delicious. Handling of Golden Delicious is slower for two
reasons. First, Golden Delicious are more susceptible to bruising. Therefore,
they require more careful handling. The second factor is the higher percentage
of culls and fancy grade fruit that need to be sorted.
Since presizers can handle only one variety at a time, we have an either/
or situation. They will be handling either Red Delicious or Golden Delicious
at one time. The same is true of conventional systems as long as they are
composed of a single line.
Conventional systems l and 2 are single lines. Conventional systems 3
and 4 are mixed systems. System 3 is composed of a 100 bin line and a 200
bin line. All Golden Delicious are assumed to be packed on the 100 bin line.
However, Red Delicious may be packed on both lines. Therefore, Red Delicious
production is 200 bins per day, while Golden Delicious production is 100 bins
per day. If Red Delicious are packed on both lines simultaneously, daily production is 320 bins per day.
The conventional system 4 has a daily production of 400 bins per day of
Red Delicious and 100 bins per day of Golden Delicious. Simultaneous packing
of Red Delicious on both lines will yield a daily production of 520 bins.
EB0935--Page 12
Packing Rates
Another major variable of production is the rate at which boxes are packed.
Table 3 contains the packing rates for the various systems.
Table 3.
No. of Trayfill Lines
Units
Red Delicious
Golden Delicious
Packing Rates
Type of S•YS t em
Seminautomated Packing
Conventional
3
NA
2
Packs/hr
Packs/hr
Packs/day/packer
440
570
180
NA
480
140
The hourly production rates for the semiautomated packing lines are averages.
They are based on the typical production levels observed in six different presize operations. Hand packing rates were based on an earlier studyll and then
reviewed by industry personnel.
As noted earlier, semiautomated packing lines are differentiated by
whether Golden Delicious can be color sorted. Semiautomated packing lines
with three trayfill lines permit color sorting. The semiautomated packing
lines with two trayfill lines handle only Red Delicious.
Daily output for the semiautomated lines is determined by the number of
hours of production. A typical shift has seven hours of actual production.
While a typical shift has 7.5 hours, on the average, at least 30 minutes is
lost per shift because of lot and/or variety changes.
The importance of coordination between production and marketing becomes
increasingly obvious when using semiautomated packing. Given these packout
l!Greig, W. Smith and A. Desmond 0 1 Rourke, Apple Packing Costs in Washington,
1971: An Economic- Engineering Analysis, Washington Agricultural Experiment
Station, College of Agriculture. Washington State University. Bulletin 755.
May 1972.
EB0935--Page 13
rates, the lines are being operated at about 80% of capacity. It is important
to note that as a firm becomes niore familiar with the requirements of these
packing lines, increases in efficiency can be achieved. This increased
efficiency will reduce costs.
The daily production of conventional lines is usually controlled by the
amount of fruit graded. Given the production levels listed in Table 2 and the
percentages in Table 1, total packs per day can be determined. Using the information in Table 3 the required number of packers can be established.
The lower rate of handpacking Golden Delicious is caused by the use of a
slightly different pack. Each apple in the top layer of each pack of Golden
Delicious is wrapped with paper (overwrapped).
Grading
Grader productivity affects both costs and returns. Considerable
differences in grading philosophy exist among packing houses. The range in
bins per grader per day in the six packing houses visited was from 12.5 to
18.5. An average figure of 15.5 bins per grader per day was used here. This
is only for the presize operations.
For the conventional systems, the number of bins handled per grader per
day was set at a somewhat slower rate. The rate used for all of the conventional systems was 12.5 bins.
Length of Season and Yearly Production
Total costs per pack are a function of the amount of fruit handled during
the packing season. In this study the basic packing season was set at 150
shifts. In order to show the effects of changing production levels on costs
yearly production was varied around the 150 shift midpoint. Yearly production
was varied in 20% intervals to a maximum of 40% above and below the midpoint.
The shortest season is 60% of production at the 150 shift output. Tables 4
and 5 contain an assortment of data concerning length of season and yearly
producti on.
Table 4 presents data for the conventional systems. Length of season
shows the number of s hifts or, in the case of single daily shift operations,
the number of working days required to handle a specified yearly production.
Bins received shows the amount of fruit to be graded and packed or sent to
the pr ocessor . The number of bins of Red and Golden Delicious are in 75% - 25%
EB0935--Page 14
proportions . The proportion of packed boxes of each variety will be somewhat
different because of the cullage assumptions. Red Delicious represent more
than 75% of the total packed boxes.
Table 4.
Length of Season and Yearly Production:
Conventional Systems
System 1 100 Bins
Length of Season - shifts
Bins Received
Packed Boxes -Red Delicious
- Golden Delicious
Tota 1 Number of Packed Boxes
89
8, 727
115' 910
34,090
150,000
119
11 '636
154,540
45,460
200,000
149
14,545
193' 180
56,820
250,000
179
17,455
231 ,820
68,180
300,000
210
20,364
270,450
79,550
350,000
89
17,455
231,820
68,180
300,000
119
23,273
309,090
90,910
400,000
149
29,091
386,360
113,640
500,000
179
34,909
463,640
136,360
600,000
210
40.727
540,910
159,090
700,000
86
26' 181
347,730
102,270
450,000
116
34,909
463,640
136,360
600,000
146
43,636
579,540
170,460
750,000
172
202
52,364
61 ,019
695,450
811 ,360
204,550
238,640
900,000 1 ,050,000
System 2 200 Bins
Length of Season - shifts
Bins Received
Packed Boxes- Red Delicious
-Golden Delicious
Total Number of Packed Boxes
System 3 300 Bins
Length of Season - shifts
Bins Received
Packed Boxes - Red Delicious
-Golden Delicious
Total Number of Packed Boxes
System 4 500 Bins
Length of Season - shifts
Bins Received
Pa r. kP.d Boxes - Red Delicious
-Golden Delicious
Total Number of Packed Boxes
176
147
89
117
87,273
43,636
58,181
72 '727
579,540
772,730
965' 900 1 '159,090
340,910
170,560
227,270
284,100
750,000 1 ,000,000 1,250,000 1,500,000
205
101,819
1,352,270
397.730
1, 750,000
EB0935--Page 15
Other Assumptions
Bin size varies from packing house to packing house. For purposes of the
calculations here all bins were assumed to average 875 lbs. of fruit.
While bagged apples are an important outlet for some sizes and grades of
fruit, this study concentrated on tray packs. No attempt was made to evaluate
costs of bagging apples. All sizes of fresh market quality fruit were assumed
to be packed in traypack cartons.
Because of the assumptions made concerning the packing and grading rates
of Red and Golden Delicious apples, costs will vary depending upon the percentage
of the total crop that is Red Delicious. For purposes of this analysis it was
assumed that in a typical year, the packing house would handle 75% Red Delicious
and 25% Golden Delicious. This breakdown between Reds and Goldens was based
on the number of incoming bins, not on the number of packed boxes.
The information in Table 5 is similar to the data in table 4. The number
of rerun shifts is included to indicate the effect of not coordinating system
size with marketing strategy. The number of rerun shifts is included in the
length of season to show, accurately, the total packing season. All fancy
grade fruit are rerun in the small and medium presize systems. The basic
150 day packing season was used here also. The length of season for the
presize systems is based on the number of days required to presize fruit. The
number of shifts required for packing in the presize systems was less than the
number of presize shifts. This was true for all presize systems at all analyzed
levels of production.
EB0935--Page 16
Table 5.
Length of Season and Yearly Production:
Presize Systems
Small Presize System
Length of Season - Shifts
Number of Rerun Shiftsll
Bins Received
Packed Boxes - Red Delicious
- Golden Delicious
Total Number of Packed Boxes
111
21
17,455
231 '820
68,180
300,000
148
28
23,273
309,090
90' 910
400,000
186
35
29,091
386,360
113,640
500,000
223
42
34,909
453,640
136,360
600,000
102
19
27,927
370,910
109,090
480,000
136
25
37,236
494,540
145,460
650,000
170
32
46,545
618,180
181 '820
800,000
205
238
39
45
55,855
65, 164
865,450
741,820
218,180
254,550
960,000 1,020,000
261
49
40 '727
540' 910
159,090
700,000
Medium Presize System
Length of Season - Shifts
Number of Rerun Sh i ftsll
Bins Received
Packed Boxes - Red Delicious
- Golden Delicious
Total Number of Packed Boxes
Large Presize System
Length of Season - Shifts
Bins Received
Packed Boxes- Red Delicious
- Golden Delicious
Total Number of Packed Boxes
151
212
80
120
181
72,727
43,636
58,181
87,273
101,319
579,540
772,730
965' 900 1,159,090 1,352,270
170,460
227,270
340,910
397,730
284,100
750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 1,750,000
YNumber of rerun shifts included in length of season.
INVESTMENT COSTS
Two kinds of costs are presented in this section. The first set of costs is
the total estimated cost of investment. These figures represent the total capital
outlay for each of the systems--both buildings and equipment--at April, 1980
replacement cost.l/
l/These figures were developed by Food Plant Engineering, Inc., Yakima, Wash .
in April, 1980.
EB0935--Page 17
The
directly
interest
based on
K=
second set of costs is an estimate of the yearly expenses pertaining
to that investment. Costs such as insurance, property tax, and
are included here. The estimated annual cost of the investment is
the following formula.~
[t + (1-E)Rb + ~~~
+ T + N + G]
Where
K = Multiplier for conversion of investment costs to annual costs.
Have one multiplier for buildings and one for equipment.
L = Depreciable life of item. 10 years for equipment; 30 years
for buildings.
E = Stockholders equity as a proportion of total assets. Assumed to
be 40%.
Rb= Annual rate of interest on borrowed funds. A figure of 12% was
used here.
Re= After-tax rate of return on stockholders equity. Assumed to be
15%.
I = State corporate income tax (6.8%).
T = Local property tax rate. Tax rate was set at $12.50 per
$1,000 valuation.
N = Insurance rate. Assumed to be 0.6%.
G = Annual rate of repairs. Building repairs charged at rate of
0.5% per year. Equipment repairs set at 2.0% per year.
The figures used here were either based on information provided by
cooperating packing houses or from knowledgeable sources servicing the industry.
Inserting the values for equipment yields a conversion factor of 0.2749.
For every dollar invested in equipment the firm will have annual expenses of
27.49¢. The conversion factor for buildings is 0.1929. The difference between
convers i on factors is caused by depreciable life and annual rate of repairs.
Both of these factors are lower for buildings.
~Ada pted from Grei g and o•Rourke, op. cit. p. 1~.
EB0935--Page 18
Presize Systems
Since presize systems are composed of completely separated sizing and
packing operations building requirements were set up as individual units.
Table 6 contains the dimensions associated with each unit. Allowances have
been made for forklift traffic. Some packing material storage is also possible
in the packing building. Employee lunchrooms, restrooms, etc. are also included.
Total construction costs were determined at a rate of $20 per square foot.
Table 6.
Estimated Building Dimensions:
Presize Systems
Building
Presize
ft.
System
Small
Medium
Large
140
140
160
X
X
X
144
172
200
Packing
ft.
80
150
156
X
X
X
175
175
200
Table 7 contains both the estimated total investment and the average
annual costs associated with building investments. The individual building
estimates are based on table 6. The annual cost is obtained by multiplying
the total investment by 0.1929.
Equipment investment costs are also listed in Table 7. These figures
· include equipment, delivery, installation and in-plant wiring. The annual
costs for equipment were calculated by multiplying 0.2749 times total investment.
The bottom totals are the sums of the total investment costs and annual
costs listed above respectively. The total investment costs are the estimates
associated with construction of the various presize systems. Cost estimates
developed for individual firms will not likely match these figures. Variations
in construction, material, equipment, and services provided by engineering
firms will result in actual estimates somewhat different.
EB0935--Page 19
Table 7.
Presize Systems:
Investment
Buildings
Presize
Packing
Total Building Investment
Annual cost
Total Investment and Annual Cost Estimates
System
Medium
Large
$
403,200
280,000
683,200
131,789
$
481,600
525,000
1,006,600
194 '173
$
640,000
624,000
1 ,264,000
243 '826
679,782
262' 771
942,553
259,108
779,030
518,488
1,297,518
356,688
1 '187 ,259
571 '775
1 '758, 836
483,504
1,625,753
390,897
2,304,118
550,861
3,022,836
727,330
Small
Equipment
Presize
Packing
Total Equipment Investment
Annual cost
Total Investment
Total Annual cost
Conventional Systems
I nformation on building dimensions and investment costs for the conventional
systems are presented in Tables 8 and 9, respectively. Building investment
costs are calculated in the manner described above. Equipment investment costs
contain the costs of installation, transportation, and in-plant wiring as
well as equipment. The average annual cost estimates are based on the appropriate adjustment factors.
OPERATING COSTS
Some packing costs are the same regardless of system. Glue, packing
material, wax, soap, etc., are more a function of management or type of pack.
These costs are part of the total expense involved in packing a carton of
app l es. Of more immediate interest here are the costs which vary between
EB0935--Page 20
Table 8.
Estimated Building Dimensions:
Dimension
S~stem
1
2
3
4
Table 9.
Conventional Systems
100
200
300
500
Bins
Bins
Bins
Bins
Conventional Systems:
64'
88'
124'
212'
X
X
X
X
256'
290'
290 '
292
I
Total Investment and Annual Cost Estimates
System
Investment
1
2
3
4
$
$
$
$
Building
Annual cost
327,680
63,209
510,400
98,456
719,200
138,734
1,238,080
238,826
Equipment
Annual cost
482,565
132,657
668,544
183,783
1 , 145,1 09
315,065
1,741,204
478,657
Total Investment
Annual cost
810,245
195,866
1,178,944
282,239
1 , 865,309
453,799
2,979,284
717,483
systems or which vary by size of system. Since total costs are not being
estimated, the inputs listed above are not included. Costs considered here
include labor, water, chlorination, electricity, and rerun expenses.
Labor
Table 10 contains the list of production personnel included in this
study. The focus here is on fruit handling from the time the apples are taken
from storage to be graded to the point where the apples are back in storage in
packed boxes . Production personnel not directly involved in this sequence of
operations have not been included. Firms interested in a complete cost estimate
need to add in cost estimates for quality control personnel, loading and unloading operations as well as other personnel to obtain total cost estimates.
'
EB0935--Page 21
Table 10.
Estimated Daily Labor Requirements
Presize
Conventional
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10 .
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Graders
Grade analyst
Hydrofi 11 er
Packers
Li dder
Weight checker
Stamper
Tal ly person
Box maker
Segregators
Denesters
Fruit orienter
Trayfi 11 ers
Box fillers
Polybag placers
Cleanup
Mechanics
Supervisor
Handyman
Forklift operator
1
2
8
16
11
1
1
1
1
1
2
21
2
1
1
1
1
4
Hourly
Sma·ll Medium Larqe CostL/
4
3
Number of People per shift
26
33
3
2
2
2
3
6
42
54
5
3
3
2
5
7
12
1
1
24
1
3
5
7
1
2
3
5
4
5
5
5
3
1
3
3
3
7
7
6
7
7
7
7
3
2
4
5
3
10
83
113
1
2
2
2
5
2
3
3
3
8
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
2
2
5
Total Labor Force Per Shift 34 l/2 54 3/4 89
140
50
1/2
1
1
1
2
3/4
2
1
1
3
-
2
9
32
1
2
$4.42
4. 59
4. 59 2 I
.30554.48
4.48
4.48
4.48
4. 48
4.49
4. 54
4.54
4.54
4. 54
4. 4f',
4.66
6.87-7.12
6.49
4.54
5.15
l/Tot al cost to packer.
~/Hand packers paid on piece rate basis.
Labor utilization in the presize systems is based on observations of the
six cooperating packing houses.
The number of graders was determined by dividing the expected production
per shift by 15.5 bins. An allowance was made for absentees. Graders are
also often used on the trayfill packing line. The total number of graders
inc ludes these additional graders. Two graders are assigned to each packing
line in the presize systems. The small presize system has 12 graders inspecting f r ui t prior to sizing. The other two graders are assigned to the packing
EB0935--Page 22
line. The medium presize system has four graders on the packing lines and
the large presize system has six graders on the packing lines.
As noted earlier, the small presize system utilizes three trayfill lines
for the packing of both Red and Golden Delicious. The medium sized presize
system has two packing lines, but only five trayfill lines. One line is used
to handle Golden Delicious and has the packing labor complement listed for
the small presize system. The second packing line is used exclusively for
Red Delicious and, therefore, does not have the third trayfill line. The total
amount of packing labor for the medium sized system is less than double the
small presize system.
The third packing line in the large system is also used only for packing
Red Delicious. Therefore, the increase in total packing labor between the
medium and large systems is the same as between the small and medium systems.
Polybag placers are individuals who place plastic bags in the bottom of
each carton of Golden Delicious apples. These bags are placed in the cartons
prior to packing apples in the box. These individuals are needed only when
this variety is being packed. Since one packing line is used for Golden
Delicious in the medium and large presize systems only three polybag placers
are required by each system.
Labor requirements for the various conventional systems were based on
personal observation, an earlier studyll, and information from industry personnel. The number of graders in each system is determined by dividing daily
production by 12.5.
The number of hand packers is included for comparison purposes. Since
packers are paid on a piece rate basis the actual cost can be determined by
multiplying the number of packed boxes by the piece rate. By including the
number of hand packers labor force size comparisons can be made among systems.
The hourly wage costs listed in Table 10 include overhead costs. The
average overhead for produc tion labor among the six firms was 17 . 5%. To obtain
the hourly wage, hourly cost must be divided by 1.175.
l/Greig and O'Rourke, op. cit.
EB0935--Page 23
Table 11 contains the estimated labor costs per shift for each conventional
system. Since the smaller conventional systems have one packing line only one
variety can be handled at a time. If an entire shift is spent packing Red
Delicious the cost of labor for the shift would be $1,264 for the smallest
system. This figure represents the sum of the costs of the labor listed in
Table 10.
The difference in labor cost between Red and Golden Delicious is caused
by different levels of daily production in conventional system l, Red Delicious
production is 100 bins and 1770 packed boxes daily, whereas Golden Delicious
production is 90 bins and 1406 packed boxes. Here, all of the difference in
daily cost can be attributed to fewer packed boxes. This means piece rate
payments are reduced.
Table 11.
Labor Costs Per Shift:
Conventional Systems
System
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
Red Delicious
Packing Line 1
Packing Line 2
1,264
2,282
2,272
1, 443
4,420
1 ,443
1,153
2,059
2,050
1 ,271
3,975
1 ,271
Golden Delicious
Packing Line 1
Packing Line 2
System 2 is similar to system 1. The only difference is that system 2
handles 200 bins of Red Delicious per day or 180 bins of Golden Delicious.
System 1 has half the volume of system 2.
Systems 3 and 4 are more complicated because each has two separate packing
l ines. Therefore, it is possible to be packing Red Delicious on both lines
simulta neously. Its also possible to pack Golden Delicious on both lines
EB0935--Page 24
Table 12.
Labor Costs Per Shift:
Presize Systems
S~stem
Small
$
Medium
$
Large
$
689
1 '191
1 '587
Red Delicious
Line 1
2
3
1 ,061
793
1,010
796
796
1 ,013
Golden Delicious
Line 1
2
3
1 '168
Presize
Packing
1 '118
1 '121
simultaneously, or some combination of Red and Golden Delicous. Under the
stated assumptions,each system handles three times as many Red Delicious as
Golden Delicious. Consequently, the larger packing line is always packing Red
Delicious. The smaller line is packing Golden Delicious most of the time;
however, some Red Delicious will be packed on the smaller line.
The 300 bin system (system 3) is composed of a 200 bin line and a 100
bin line. Packing line 1 in system 3 is the 200 bin line. Direct comparisons
can be made between system 2 and line 1 in system 3 because identical equipment is being compared. The small cost difference is caused by the incremental
increase in cleanup personnel.
Since the smaller line in system 3 is set up to handle Golden Delicious,
production is set at 100 bins per day by adding two additional graders and one
additional packer. When Red Delicious are packed on this line 120 bins can be
handled per day. This increased labor for packing Red and Golden Delicious on
the smaller line results in the increased total labor cost per shift when
compared with system 1.
EB0935--Page 25
'
'
Some labor efficiencies are achieved when two 200 bin conventional lines
are combined into one un i t. The result is listed as packing line 1 in system 4.
While the gains are not great, the daily cost for packing line 1 in system 4
is less than double the cost of packing line 1 in system 2. Packing line 1
in system 2 is a single 200 bin conventional packing line.
Packing line 2 in system 4 is a 100 bin conventional line. It is operated
in the same manner as line 2 in system 3. This results in the same total labor
cost per shift.
The major factor affecting presize labor costs is the variation in the
number of graders. While some labor requirements do increase as size of presizer increases, other positions are not as closely tied to production as
grading. Grade analysi s i s a good example. One person can monitor fruit
quality and acc uracy of si zing equipment. This is true for all three presize
systems. Table 12 shews the variation in daily presize labor cost.
Packing labor costs for the presize systems are contained in Table 12 also.
The small presize system has one packing line with three trayfill lines.
Both Red and Golden Delicious are packed on the same line. The difference
in the daily labor cost is polybag placers. Three polybag placers are used
when packing Golden Delicious. Daily cost for these three individuals is $107,
the difference between packing Reds and Goldens.
The medium presize system has two packing lines. All Golden Delicious
are packed on line 2. The difference between packing Red and Golden Delicious
on line 2 is the cost of polybag placers. The difference between packing Red
Delicious on line 1 vs. line 2 is the number of trayfill lines. Packing line 1
has two trayfill lines while packing line 2 has three trayfill lines.
The difference in packing labor costs between the small and medium presize
systems is a result of more efficient use of labor in the medium system. The
increase in total production per day is 150 bins, or 75%, while the increase in
labor requirements is 33 people or 66%
There is essentially no change in packing labor costs between the medium
and large presize systems . The difference between the medium and large systems
i s t hat the large system has three packing lines. Two of the packing lines
handle only Red Deli ci ou s (lines 1 and 2). The third line is used for packing
both Red and Go l den Delicious.
EB0935--Page 26
Rerun Costs
The number of flumes in the small and medium presize systems precludes
the sizing of two grades of fruit at the same time. The use of an electronic
color sorter and sizer provides the flexibi l ity to size some sizes of both
grades at once. However, it is not possible to size all fruit at one time.
Therefore, some fruit must be rerun at a later date. Additional labor is required for this operation. Table 13 contains a list of the labor requirements
for reruns and cost per shift. Depending on the firm's grading policy, graders
may not be needed for reruns. However, the use of graders is, currently, a
common practice.
Tab l e 13.
Presize Rerun Labor Requirements Per Shift
Small
2
4
1
1
Forklift operators
Graders
Hydrofi 11 er
Supervisor
TOTAL
$ 82.40
141.44
36.72
53.60
$314.16
Medium
3
6
2
1
Forklift operators
Graders
Hydrofi 11 ers
Supervisor
TOTAL
$123.60
212.16
73.44
53.60
$462.80
Water and Chlorination
The use of water as a medium for fruit movement in the presizer causes
costs to vary between types of systems. Commercial rates for the city of
Yakima were used to estimate these costs. The system is assumed to be flushed
every two weeks. Each flume requ i res approximately 540 cubic feet of water
per month.
Although not strictly valid, it was assumed that the quantity of water
used in the bin dumper and the flume to move fruit to the grading tables was
the same for equivalently sized systems.
EB0935--Page 27
The ability of many disease organisms to thrive in water means that
chlorination is required. The typical chlorination rate among the observed
firms was two gallons of chlorine compound per flume per month. Total cost of
chlorination was based on an average price of $4.95 per gallon of compound.
Electricity
Electrical costs include the expense of operating the packing equipment.
General lighting in the plant and other electrical usage are not included. The
horsepower requirements for each system and Pacific Power and Light Co. rates
provide the basis for the electrical costs. Table 14 lists the horsepower
rating for each system. Other assumptions include an eight hour workday and
80% efficiency of the electrical motors.
Table 14.
Horsepower Ratings by System
Horsepower
Presize
Sma 11
pres i ze
packing line
125
61
186
Medium - presize
packing line
139
122
261
Large -
202
189
391
presize
packing line
Conventional
System
System
System
System
1
2
3
4
48
74
122
196
RESULTS
Combining the information from the sections on investment and operating
costs yields estimates of the costs for the packing operation. Keep in mind
that these figures are not total costs since overhead, storage, packing materials
as well as other cost items have not been included. Tables 15 and 16 list the
estimated costs for presize arid conventional systems, respectively.
EB0935--Page 28
In all cases the production cost per pack declines as yearly output
increases. The primary reason for this decline is the fixed investment cost.
The annual investment costs for each system are constant regardless of the
level of production. At the same time yearly packout more than doubles from
the shortest season to the longest season. Using the small presize annualized
investment costs as an example, the annualized investment costs per pack for
the shortest season (300,000 packs) are $1.30. At 700,000 packs the per pack
annualized investment costs are $.56. This is less than half the cost for the
short season.
Because of the assumptions employed in this study, labor costs increase
at a rate approximately proportioned to the increase in production. Referring
again to the small presize system total labor costs more than double between
the shortest and the longest seasons. Since total output is also more than
double between the two seasons per pack labor costs decline slightly from
$.61 to $.56.
The greatest relative decline in labor costs occurs with the 200 bin
conventional system. For this system the decline in labor costs per packed
box represents approximately 8.5% of the total decline in packed box costs
between the lowest and highest level of yearly output. Clearly, then, under
the stated operating conditions the most effective method of reducing per pack
costs is to increase yearly output.
Production costs per pack also tend to decline as size of system increases.
The only case in which this trend does not hold is between conventional system 2
and conventional system 3. The precise reason for this anomaly is not known.
It appears that the economies of size associated with combining conventional
system 1 and conventional system 2 into one system are not sufficient to reduce
costs below the costs for system 2.
This is not to say that economies of size are not achieved by combining
the two lines. The average production cost per pack for conventional system 3
is less than the weighted average of systems 1 and 2 at 1,050,000 packs. The
weighted average is $1.19 per pack vs. $1.15 for system 3.
Comparisons between systems and between different sizes of the same type
of system are more easily seen graphically. Figure 5 shows the relationship
between production cost per packed box and level of yearly output.
Table 15.
System
Sma 11
Medium
Presize Systems:
Estimated Annual Investment and Packing Operation Costs
Labor
Annual Costs
Building &
Equipment
Water &
Chlorination
Electricity
Total
Production
Cost/pack
$
$
$
$
$
$
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
182 568
233,760
286 '703
337,895
389,668
390,897
390,897
390,897
390,897
390,897
1,264
1 '703
2 '149
2,536
2' 981
3,124
4,165
5,236
6,277
4,342
•577,853
630,525
684,985
737,605
790,888
1. 93
1. 58
1. 37
1.23
1.13
480,000
640,000
800,000
960,000
1,120,000
282 '517
350,186
441 '163
521,998
600,603
550,861
550,861
550,861
550,861
550,861
1 ,322
1 ,802
2,223
2,710
3,124
3,508
4,682
5,842
7,054
8,190
838,208
907,531
1,000,098
1,082,623
1 '162, 778
1. 75
1.42
1.25
1.13
1.04
Yearly
Production
# of packed
Boxes
IT1
0:1
0
1.0
w
<.n
I
I
"'C
Ql
tO
m
Large
750,000
1,000,000
1,250,000
1,500,000
1,750,000
392' 919
524,981
642 '178
757,681
876,470
727,330
727,330
727,330
727 '330
727 '330
1,634
2,452
3,076
3,688
4,313
4,227
6,059
7,514
8,994
10,526
1,126,110
1,260,822
1,380,098
1,497,693
1,618,639
1. 50
1.26
1.10
1.00
. 92
N
1.0
Table 16.
System
Conventional System Estimated Annual Investment and Packing Operation Costs
Yearly
Pack Out
# of Packed
Boxes
Labor
$
Annual Costs
Building &
Equipment
$
Electricity
$
Total
$
Production
Cost/Pack
$
1
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
124,112
161,140
198,169
235,197
273,378
195,866
195,866
195,866
195,866
195,866
1,104
1,476
1,848
2,220
2,604
321,082
358,482
395,883
433,283
471,848
2.14
1. 79
1. 58
1. 44
1.35
2
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
226,809
293,473
360,137
426,800
495,522
282,239
282,239
282,239
282,239
282,239
1,430
1, 912
2,394
2,876
3,374
510,478
577,624
644,770
711,915
781,135
1. 70
1.44
1.29
1.19
1.12
3
4
450,000
600,000
750,000
900,000
1,050,000
336,529
439,881
543,232
644,710
748,062
453,799
453,799
453,799
453,799
453,799
1, 990
2,684
3,378
3, 980
4,674
792,318
896,364
1,000,409
1,102,489
1,206,535
1. 76
1.49
1.33
1.22
1.15
750,000
1,000,000
1,250,000
1,500,000
1,750,000
542,786
705,659
871,076
1,038,369
1,202,514
717,483
717,483
717,483
717,483
717,483
2, 786
3,663
4,602
5,479
6,418
1,263,055
1,426,805
1, 593,161
1,761,331
1, 926,415
1.68
1.43
1.27
1.17
1.10
rn
OJ
0
~
w
<J1
I
I
""'0
Ql
1.0
m
w
0
Figure 4:
Pro duction Cost
Pe r Packed Box
Estimated Production Cost Relationships
2.00~------------------------------------------------~----~------,
\
\
1. 60
'
.
IT1
to
0
U)
w
<.11
1 • 20
I
:..... ·...._
"'C..._
•
..
-
:::::........ c:c:::::::::::
• • --
2
.80
.40
I
I
I
!--Conventional
2--Conventional
3--Conventional
4--Conventional
100
200
300
500
~
<
. ...._ .,2
::::::......
I
44111111:::100:
- - ·- ·-----.
U)
4
-·-3
bin
bin
bin
bin
550,000
750,000
950,000
1,150,000
Packed Boxes
1,350,000
1,550,000
I'D
w
......
1--Presize 200 bin
2--Presize 350 bin
3--Presize 500 bin
350 , 000
I
I
-o
s:u
1,750,000
EB0935--Page 32
Conventional systems appear to have a cost advantage at the lower levels
of yearly output. However, when a firm reaches 750,000 packed boxes per year
presize systems begin to exhibit lower costs per packed box. This production
cost advantage seems to increase as production increases. At the highest level
of yearly output for the largest systems the difference between conventional
and presize production cost is 18¢ per pack which translates into a yearly
savings of $315,000.
IMPLICATIONS
Based on this study presize systems do exhibit lower production costs per
pack for the larger systems. However, these costs represent only part of the
total packing cost. Other costs, such as storage and overhead, may offset some
or all of the advantages. The actual significance of storage costs will vary
considerably from firm to firm depending on type and location of the storage
facilities. This study has implicitly assumed that sufficient cold storage is
available adjacent to the presize system. This is necessary for storage of
presized fruit.
This analysis also indicates that some labor savings may occur. Table 10
indicates total production labor force requirements. Comparing conventional
system 4 and presize system 3, the presize system requires 27 fewer people per
shift to handle the same number of bins.
The labor figures should, however, be used with care. First, the differential grading rate per grader favors the presize system. On the surface
there appears to be no reason why conventional systems couldn•t achieve the
same productivity, particularly if a color sorter is incorporated into the
system.
Secondly, packed box production for the presize systems is greater than
grading production on a daily basis. Therefore, total labor requirements of the
presize systems over the course of a season are actually less than implied by
daily estimates.
Water costs may also exhibit considerable variation from firm to firm.
These variations will be caused by water rates as well as any disposal requirements that may be placed upon the firm. In some cases preliminary treatment by
the packing house may be required. This would have considerable impact on firm
costs.
EB0935--Page 33
The longer packing seasons implied in the estimated production costs will
have an impact on marketing strategy. Some firms prefer to have the flexibility
of shipping fruit when the market is strong and reducing operations during
periods of lower prices during the marketing seasons. The volumes used here
for the different systems may force the firm to maintain a fairly constant
level of shipments throughout the marketing seasons regardless of price, to
ensure that all fruit are packed during the marketing year.
In addition, large crop years, such as 1980, could exceed the firms'
capacity to move fruit at harvest time. Yet the packing house needs a relatively
large yearly output, relative to potential maximum output, to minimize the
effects of a short crop. Referring back to Tables 15 and 16, the gain in
reduced costs per pack by increased yearly production is less than the increased
costs from lost production. The increase in costs associated with lost production increases as yearly packout decreases. For example, the medium presize
system production cost per pack increases 9¢, 12¢, 17¢ and 33¢, respectively,
as yearly packout declines from the highest to the lowest level.
Prospect of increased production has been a major factor in the growth
of interest in presize systems. Firms are realizing that current facilities
will be inadequate to handle expected increases in apple production. The
problem that occurs is that in evaluating different systems, production is
often put at the expected level. This may result in reasonable cost estimates,
but it does not show input cost trends.
When a firm changes from an older small system to a new, larger system,
costs increase. There are two major causes for the increased costs. First,
yearly packout will not have increased sufficiently to reduce costs to the
expected levels. Secondly, annual investment costs will be greater in the
first few years after the investment. Consequently, growers associated
with the expanding firm may become disgruntled because of the higher cost.
Loss of growers because of the larger than expected costs will increase both
total cost per pack through reduced current yearly packout and increase the
EB0935--34
number of years until expected production levels are reached.
grower education may be required to alleviate this problem.
Substantial
Issued by Washington State University Cooperative Extension, J. 0. Young,
Director, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in furtherance of the
Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1.914. Cooperative Extension programs and employment are available to all without discrimination. Published August 1981.