a 4 • A • / * Division of Agricultural Sciences UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA The Eighth Report in a Series on Efficiency in Fruit Marketing COSTS OF DUMPING INCOMING FRUIT AS RELATED TO WORK METHODS - APPLE AND PEAR PACKING HOUSES L. L. Sammet I IBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION GIANNINI FOUNDATION OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS Mimeographed Report No. 1 53 June 1953 FOREWORD This is the eighth in a series of reports aimed at improved efficiency and lowered costs in the packing of deciduous fruits. The present report is concerned with a relatively small proportion of the total operations— the dumping of incoming fruit. Data are presented for estimating the labor and equipment requirements for this operation using different types of equipment and different work methods. Comparison of total season costs with different methods indicates that hand dumping is the lowest in cost if the dumping rate per station is less than ap- proximately 350 field lugs per hour. For higher rates of dumping per station, costs are lower with machine dumping. Savings with machine dumping increase as the length of season increases. For seasons of 2J>0 hours in plants operat- ing at the rate of 1,000 lugs per hour, use of a stack dumping machine — in contrast "1th hand dumping — may result in savings of about $1,000 per season; if the season were 500 hours in length, these savings would amount to $2,5>00. These studies were made cooperatively by the Giannini Foundation of Agri- cultural Economics of the California Agricultural Experiment Station and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture. They were made under authority of the Research and Marketing Act of 19^6 (IMA, Title II). This act provides for studies of the costs of marketing agricultural products in their various forms and through the various channels and is designed to foster and assist in the development and establishment of more efficient mar- keting methods (including analyses of methods and proposed methods), practices, and facilities, for the purpose of bringing about more efficient and orderly marketing and reducing the spread between the producer and the consumer. 61 sin bii'iii S&tij eeifinlbfif 'afaorii-3(n Jrie**>llir> diJey- stfaoa noase?- Xs^oi lo nasi': -qc nsfiJ" eeex «x «o£}B#e. -tea 9$»'t •g»2qintfb e'rti ti teas n-.r ^aewoJ prfjh si §r t no.c^e^2 isq gaiqcu/b lo '•beVJbi Vorigir:' 10*9 ■ .iKCst 'taq z*$v5. b-iei'i' .Oc& -TcXa.?B« BP.eeton.'r "^nlcgwb aitbtb.9fc-rfJ.fr sgniVfi^-* .gniqwirfj anlrfojwt rfJJ'v T*nr \c-'dT ' .amtfuoir'tgA 'lb insr^isqen :.3 .1l.'\aoitt L6-w3isn>i , i$\ lo t (It pl&il tA» fi) d&X lo JoA 3fu^'ifiJ»'-bn« ria'inaaafl art* ld» y/iioxiitfe "jabfu aJoi/boiq Jbix^Xj/oIi^b -gniJajWam lo'aJao} art J eaxbi/ja tox eabiyoiq Jr -isin- ; JnaxoxTxe vrrorc lo'-iiiajTrisxIo'eJa^ •bna .Jn^mqoXevab ari-t q± Jaiaaa bnr> ■ aaoiJoi-'-iq , (eborfjom baaoqb-iq bns "eooriJs* lo spa^sfus. ^nXbuXonl) aijor'Joa ! ,taraimnoo r; ^^ ' bns 'iaabjb&fco - arid ••flaa^aM : heatcra*. erf* •«o| 5t.ba? fiw, 3*fc TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 Methods Observed 1 Machine Dumping 3 Dumping Methods — Effect on Bruising 3 Labor Cost of Dumping in Sample Plants h ESTIMATING COSTS OF LABOR AND EQUIPMENT FOR RECEIVING AND DUMPING 6 Direct and Fixed Costs 6 Production Standards 7 Method A — Hand Dumping Without Conveyor Aids 8 Method B— Hand Dumping With Conveyor Aids 13 Method C~ Hand Dumping With Conveyor Aids Plus Relief 16 Method D — Single-Box Machine Dumper 20 Method E-- Stack Dumper 2k Trucking Costs in the Receiving Operations 28 SUMMARY— COMPARISON OF DUMPING AND RECEIVER-TRUCKING COSTS WITH DIFFERENT METHODS 31 Fork- Truck Receiving 31 Hand- Truck Receiving 33 APPENDIX A 35 Cost Data 35 Production Standards 38 ^ T Pl/nTTv r n r } ijf) '•57 FT AT a »J j ' ■•TinjHE/CI 3njfcnofi?£ ;\c3"-9x§nj!c— (1 .be •8TS00 EMD!0(7nT-n37I3dad' QIIA ffllUBlQ. V) HQElSi» e Pi6o«..,.i -. V Efficiency in Fruit Marketing COSTS 0? DUMPING INCOMING FRUIT AS RELATED TO WORK .METHODS— APPLE MD PEAR PACKING HOUSES L. L. Sammeti/ INTRODUCTION In California apple and pear packing houses, fruit is received at the packing house in field lugs containing hO to h$ pounds of fruit. The initial step in the grading and packing process consists of dumping the contents of each lug at the packing line. The purpose of this report is to present data on the labor and equipment requirements and costs for these operations with different types of equipment and methods. As the method of dumping is closely integrated with the movement of fruit and empty lugs in the receiving area, it is necessary to make these comparisons for the joint process of receiving and dumping. Methods Observed Two basic methods— hand dumping and machine dumping—were observed, and with each method there were several variations. The different procedures are as follows . Hand Dum ping.— Two variations of this method are considered. In one, the full lugs are trucked to a point adjacent to the dumper in single stacks 5 or 6 lugs high or on pallets containing 30 to 36 lugs. The lugs are emptied on the dumping table and the empty lugs stacked by the dumper. Empty lugs are trucked to a storage point and later to the grower's truck. These steps in the receiving and dumping process are illustrated in Figure 1A. In the second method, two aids to the dumper are introduced. Full lugs are trucked to a conveyor belt leading to the dumping station. The lugs are placed on the belt by a seton manj each lug is emptied by the dumper who then places the empty lug on a conveyor leading to the empty-lug storage area. At this point, the empty lugs are set off and stacked then trucked to a temporary storage and, later, to the grower's truck. The steps in this process are illustrated in Figure IB. 1/ Cooperative Agent of the California Agricultural Experiment Station and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture. o3' cti" ■ .•^nxQjn/'i: .3ftDXi£XisT gsri t hi b* 3S>1 ?JlJ' aqaia 9C«*riT .ilatfW s'-isvro'xs exit ©i istel ferfs Jcixoq e^szaiz so* efaift owi .borti$iB bnoo-33 sri* nl .AX snu$l% at bsABTizuLtl $i& sssocnq yiicmub fans SaJLiioss jricst flMas £ ttf Jx*«? srii fl<* bsKjsXg sis s^i/I e&T rfwiieJe frttfyotb «W °t oi gnxxsKsI -to^evnors tojfcie fjna Ylo 4es 3is a-jul V¥>» t inioq airtj J A •es'ts ggs-ioi© gi&^gtaf arii ?.qa*a BrtT .21ojhJ s'-iswoTg srtt ,ia&&L K brvz s?§6ioJ3 \rifrrdqrasJ b oi IfcjfStfltf n?r!f .81 9ifJ3i'3- nx bsiBttauXIir ste eas*!»P»q siriJ nx Grower's truck Grower's truck Empty lugs, temporary storage o Full lugs Full lugs, temporary storage Truck transport (A) NO LUG-CONVEYORS Grower's truck Empty lugs, temporary storage Conveyor, full lugs (^) Full lugs, temporary storage (B) CONVEYORS FOR FULL AND EMPTY LUGS I xr Grower's truck Figure 1. Typical plant layout and movement of fruit and field lugs in the receiving and dumping operations in apple and pear packing plants. 3 Machine Dumping .— The steps in the machine-dumping process are similar to those outlined for hand dumping using conveyors for full and empty lugs, except that a dumping machine is used to empty the full lug and to place the empty lug on a conveyor to the lug storage area, nne type of dumping machine— the single- box dumper— receives single lugs of fruit from a conveyor, and the receiving and dumping crew consists of seton men for full lugs and setoff men for empty lugs in addition to the truckers. With a second type of machine— the stack dumper— the full lugs are carried into the dumping machine in stacks $ or 6 lugs high by a floor chain conveyor. The stacks are placed on the floor chain by a hand trucker, and the crew consists only of truckers and empty-lug setoff men. Except for the operations performed mechanically, the process with machine dump- ing is similar to that illustrated in Figure IB. Several other variations in the above methods are possible* With hand dumping, for example, higher rates of output can be achieved if the dumper al- ternates with a worker on some other job, for example, a trucker or seton man. Still higher rates of output may be achieved if, in addition to providing al- ternate work for the dumper, extra rest time is provided. Requirements for labor and equipment and estimates of costs with the above methods are presented in the following discussion. Dumping Methods— Effect on Bruising Although the emphasis in this report is on costs, an important aspect of the problem is the relative quality of the work done with different methods. In the dumping operation, the principal requirement regarding quality is to avoid bruising the fruit. In this respect, the relative performance with hand-dumping and machine-dumping methods depends on the care used in hand dumping, the per- formance characteristics of the machine dumper, and the rate of dumping* From general observation and from limited studies of this problem, it appears that careful operation with either method will yield about the same results in regard to quality. A possible exception is the chain dumper — a variation of the single- box machine dumper (see Figure 7, page 21). More difficulty with bruising might be expected with this machine than with careful hand dumping or with other types of machine-dumping equipment. With all methods, a dumping arrangement in which the fall of the fruit is cushioned in a water tank appears to reduce damage to the ^jp*** altnou £ h the water should be changed frequently to prevent contamina- tion.- In the cost comparisons that follow, it is assumed that differences in 2/ See Apple Research Digest, October, X9h9, Washington State Apple Commission, Yakima, Washington. t* V Qi ■niriisui gnxqna/b lo 9Cflt* ^gsio^s 30X 9ri^ ioysvaoo s no odi bit3 ^TOVffvnoo a jno*rl iiifrl Id ^ifX ^XsflXB agvl^syi'— t-tacpct/fc ~o o rol nap llov+ss fcrw agtfl XXult *iol nom .10*33 lo a^X8ifcS> ^si^T^niqrajb *>Ai~- &a tdosv 'so- ©q^i bnoooa s riii'V .aisjfoxrti ©riJ o^ noiJ'ibbn ni > ?o 5 asbttte ni oniriosm anxqntfcb ©ri* oinx be|insc si" sguX IXxjI «tt ieris fooli ©rfi no> bsoslq 9*xs abasia sriT .'lov^vnoo nxsdo icoll s ^0 Loxoa %til~-{&qa* hns 'ensHoLif lo ^Ind aiexsnoo waft? 9rii bne ^leMosni dj>r aset>o'iq arfi ^iEoxnarioefn bonaolteq moll&jeqp ericf io' Jqao:<2 •Si ni bs^s-ijauXXi isiij ci uiidjtB ax gnx ✓eXdxaaoq 9'ts abort jotc ©vods srii ni anoiisxisv -red-to XbisvoS .- ■ ■■ -.riJ ii bsvslrioa sd jr&o "Suq+t'c lo aWsi isrfgxd t eXqaiaxa 10I ^iqnsuc to I9?lo0*t* .G t eiqtE6xa,iol XJi >' ri^odjXE t ixu- nx aaons k bruising can be kept small enough so that special consideration of this factor may be omitted. It should be stressed, however, that where variations in the amount of bruising do result from the dumping methods used this factor must be evaluated in any cost comparisons. Labor Cost of Dumping in Sample Plants Labor utilization and costs per 1,000 pounds of fruit dumped in 15 California apple and pear packing plants are given in Table 1. In general, labor use is lowest in the group of plants using the hand-dumping method without conveyor aids. Labor use is largest in the plants using the hand-dumping method, plus aids in the form of conveyors for full and empty lugs. The dumping labor costs given in Table 1 are based on standardized wage rates selected as representative for the industry. In terms of these standard- ized costs, the range is from .$0.09? to |0.2Ul per 1,000 pounds of fruit for the hand-dumping method without conveyor aids and from ^0.11*7 to $0*335 per 1,000 pounds of fruit in the hand-dumping operations using conveyor aids. Costs for dumping labor in the plants using machine dumping were 40.151 and ^0.188 per 1,000 pounds of fruit dumped.^/ if the labor cost comparisons were based on wage rates actually paid in each plant, the variations in costs between plants would be greater, although the general indications as to relative costs with dif- ferent methods would not be different. Labor costs based on actual wage rates would be relatively lower in apple packing plants than in pear packing plants because of generally lower wage rates in the apple packing plants. In itself, the dumping operation does not comprise a large proportion of the total direct plant labor. Based on the standardized costs for dumping labor and total direct labor given in Table 1, the dumping labor cost ranges from 2.1 per cent of the total direct labor cost in Plant B to 5.U per cent in Plant H. The dumping method, however, also affects the costs of moving incoming fruit, and when these operations are considered jointly, the problem assumes more sig- nificance. 3/ The usual expectation of lower labor cost with mechanized equipment fails to materialize in this instance — labor costs with the single-box dumping machines are hieher than with the hand-dumping method without conveyor aids. This is ex- plained by the fact that the hand-dumping operation is performed with one handling of the lug, while the single-box dumping machine requires two handlings per lug- one by the full-lug seton man and another by the empty-box setoff man. Each of these operations taken alone requires less labor than the complete hand-dumping operation, but their sura is greater. The net effect is a rate of operation per dumping station greater than with hand dumping but at higher cost. Similarly, the labor cost of hand dumping with conveyor aids is still greater as with this method each lug is handled three times. ■ ff+ n f ^ no i AciiBV s?"X©rlvr dsdi »isv©worJ . L?329iJ"3 t»d bXx/Oils Jl *.D ! dii/jri "loiosl eidd b.93tf eboddwr gniqmo?) arid rco-rl dXuaei ob ^nxsi -": .snosxieqtnoo toco Tins i&L iBt^ae-i rrl «X sXdsT nr nevig 'is adnfXq ^cr/.^ssq issn bns sXqqs d-tfojii-xf bori^SIT 3aiqBiub-bns.fi enij gnisu adnsXq lo qtrois arid' ni ise-vol Lq t borf.tem gnfqlni/b-bnsff odd ^tttzu sdnsiq 9dd ni da^fiX ei sbu rodfiJ .33uX x&qme bne XXul iox aio\:9vnco lo nao'l 9*& irnsbrtada no b£aed 91s I sldeT ni nevi-g adaoo todsX «ffiqmtfb sriT sarii lo a«riei rxj .Tfl&Stfkrti £»dJ iol ev.idsdnsaoiqfn as BsdooXsa epJet ?£? .0; at YiiX*Q<,j racil bns ebifi 'io\,ovnco tyoddxT bflSfdSffl gnxquM/b-bnsri .ebic toxBvnop 3«xa« eno.idRioqo gniq-Tjjb-bncri 9rid ni diirtl lo ahouoq Ov bns X5X.0 9*191* -jnicptab 9fU#;9Bffl ggitiif edneXq erid ni -rodsX -gnianu/b w anoariKyiOos *aot> JodsX ©rid H ^.bsqmub dxirjl lo sbru/oq 000,1 tea d adaoo ni. enoidjai'iev ©rid do8 no bsasd adsoo rtodaJ .dnB-fe'llib 9d Jon bXuow abodcfsa dno-i©! iijtoeq moq ni nerfd adnsXq grtHoaq s/qqs ni •*©ffoX yXavidBX-?'! ed bXxiow .3+riEXq gni/bsq oiqqa ©rid ni aetei agsw -iewoX yXXs-xonss lo ©snsoad iqoiq S3i6i b saiiqmpo ion. eaob noidsTeoo ^niqmtrb erid «lX£ ! 3di ni rb tol acfaoi bssxb/ieba^a add no bsaaS .iod£X dn«Xq drmcb Xedcd ed* •gnsi daoo todsX gniqia/b -?di t X 9idsT ni ngvig iqdsX doaaib. Xsdpd bns ti *n93. laq ti.3 ot fl. *nBX*i ni ieoti lodai. 3r>&iih £a*oi arid "io ineo ieq :in:or»rii gnivoffi-^* siscj 9ri."t zJco'ilz or,L& t i9vorrod ^boriism %nlqmub grlT ;smi/eeB fflaXdo^q ^di ^vtnipt,. bcnrsbienoo 9*ts anoliatsno esgrfi n?riw bns £L, .eonisoi^in ixupe b9£in£do9at drfr^ iaco - iOdBi TtewoX *xo noiJ"B309qx9 Xbusi/ 9riT \t incqm.vb 3fbd-&X$nie ?di tWiw s*aob -rodeX — sons^fii aid* ni 9sils'ii9*£n I«iw b.stn to_ i?q. ai nof^sisqo gniqifiob-bnsd arid Jsrfi dosl adi >cd baaiisla liXtUarf .ovrt k^iiupei snid-'sra ^rjlq.Tt'b xod-eX^nia 9ri* aXidw t 9uX 9d* lo iao lo eikt « ai iaelie ion adX ♦ , t9i£S'is ai nu& tiaidd di.'d .nocW'isqo bsXbhsri 3i 5. TABLE 1 Selected Costs for Dumping Labor and for Total Direct Labor in Fifteen California Apple and Pear Packing Plants Dumping labor, hours Labor cost with standardized wages Standardized dumping labor costs rxant.— per 1,000 pounds Dumping Total direct plant labor as a percentage of total plant labor dollars per 1,000 pounds Hand dumping A B D y .llh .105 .09U .079 .179 .073 .153 .lid .126 .107 .21*1 .095 6.1*55 6.619 U.870 3.880 2.37 2.13 2.20 5.37 2.1*5 Hand dumping with full-lug and empty-lug conveyors L M N P Q fa &/ .258 .161 .203 .162 .195 .11*2 .116 .151 .335 .208 .261 .205 .21*7 .183 itkl .166 7.089 U.000 6.551i 5.658 6.258 5.298 U.559 5.038 U.73 5.20 3.98 3.62 3.95 3.1*5 3.22 3.29 Machine dumping w .132 .123 .188 .151 3.593 U-26U 5.23 3.51* a/ Plants A to H are apple packing plants j remainder are pear packing plants. b/ Two men per dumping station. c/ Dumper alternates with worker on another job. d/ Empty-lug conveyor but no conveyor for full lugs. e/ Dumper alternates with worker on another job; also has rest time equivalent to 20 per cent of total work time. f/ At capacity operation, one line is supplied by hand dumping with two dumpers working as a team. rft cw jzoo rode i 000 t X *iaq • BfHit/og - • ■ t —&ttBl t i l — f Tt'.S «| £&S j tsx; . (J eye-.*! vox: S&fcij Us-, 088U j SRC*. .^•■w i.. .'feT^i* » i ■ — i * 1 J" . ! 000. 4 80S'. • ('.IS* A ' I Ac* tut -t M t • 1 fir. t v>ui. •; if f i . x^r. Jill ! .1 .1 T 1 f o-b-r j 381 j £S»c! f jSI.J 1 X5i: I isx; W j §rt±:fo:3q tssq etffi *rebniBa*3-t jairtaXq §ni>loBq sXqijfi f>is R o .fjoiisie snlbn&b "ieq nam oV-' \rf ©£E±J- Show XfiJo^t lo 'inea T©q OS ot JnaXavJtrpa riJXw yiiqrai/b ib/i'sxi ytf fcalXqqui al aniX #io \}lor.^o ik \l — 6. ESTIMATING COSTS OF LABOR AND EQUIPMENT FOR RECEIVING AND DUMPING The estimates of labor and equipment costs which follow for several differ- ent methods of receiving and dumping fruit are based on standardized production and cost rates.-/ Two elements of cost are included— direct costs for labor and equipment and fixed costs for equipment. Direct and Fixed Costs The direct costs include the cost of labor, equipment repair expenses di- rectly attributable to use, and the cost of power for mechanical equipment. The rates used for labor range from $1.10 per hour for empty-lug setoff men to $1.35 per hour for dumpers. These are selected rates which appear to be typical for the industry. The cost of electric power is estimated at the rate of $0.03 per motor horsepower, and the cost of direct repairs for equipment is estimated as 0.5 per cent of the replacement cost per 100 hours of use.-^ Annual fixed costs for equipment are estimated as a percentage of the 1950 replacement cost. Shipping costs and estimates of the labor and materials re- quired for installation are included in the estimated cost of replacement. The percentage annual charge includes the following: insurance, 1.0 per cent; taxes, 1.0 per cent; interest, 3.0 per cent;-/ fixed repair expense, 1.5 per cent; and a depreciation percentage based on the estimated use life of the equipment. The depreciation rates used for the various types of equipment are as follows; gravity conveyors, 5.0 per cent; power conveyors and hand trucks, 6.7 per cent; and fork trucks, 10.0 per cent. The cost estimating procedure can be illustrated by an example. Consider the method of hand dumping without conveyor aids. Excluding the trucking opera- tions, the labor and equipment requirements per dumping station consist of a dumper and a dumping table. The estimated dumping costs are: h/ For a more detailed discussion of the basic cost and production data, see Appendix A. 5/ Adequate data on repair costs are not available, and this necessitates a somewhat arbitrary allocation of repair expenses. In the procedure outlined above, it is recognized that deterioration is a function of both time and use. Hence, part of the estimated repair expense is included with the annual fixed cost. In addition, an estimated amount is included as a direct charge per hour of equipment use. 6/ Approximately 5.0 per cent of the undepreciated balance of the investment. •fcHttJAtJG SVl'- tftilVIOTH "TH3M^IUp3 H08AJ TO 3T30D {MIIAM1?S3 — 'te'tlib Xfiisvsa toI 7roT- r ol rioxriw etaoo *n9mqi.up9 bne lodul 1.0 &3tfsfiu..a9 sol bna iod". i -iol ataoo io3i£b--bi>bulonl eia .jabo lb ainsmeXs opT '^~.89.t£*i taao bft ; ;inei'W4Xtip9 io'i siao3 bexil b«5 int'fiiqiups in/ ' E^300 {Vfc ljyJfc!:HJtJ . ****** at-Sit^TB ,-39X£.t--;$nso *ts brwr ?dxieo- T9ti Brit. vin^T. i liBqyr jns»mqii/pe t*iodsX lo iab'D diii sb « Laola&Tio*!P iol iswoq to cteoo arict bns ,,981' o* &XdsJudx-i.td-s yXjo9*i •loie'j -^xirl-viqffi© nol mrod "t9q QX.Xtf moil 9308*1 iod&l T.01 b»3u 29*st Otf btf ^oqqo'rioxrtvr aafo bsioelM'TWb " 9B 9riT .siaqnu/b tol iuori *i9q •ivtsi srftf $& be-tanijas ex lawoq oX-iJooX© lo teoo sdT .YxiaxjbnX 9riJ• >' -fol ' a-xxaqg-x v'ooxiH lo cfaoo 9fodi;X r.'df lo' : 'a^8mX'iS9 bos ad j*i loJeo^ bgjajlrx+so erii fix fcebui >".X' t'90nBi.'j3nx ' tgn t'foXXol 9rli es I ^saneqxsiicqaa bexll N^neo" j© 9*1^ To *1IX sax; b9ifs.Tii«e;& adi - no . ■iawoXa r *>l es" 9*xs JnMqlup* lo ao'qy* atioiTsv ,. i*n»o •jsef-f.d * t 8*iwxi Uieti bnR"- a-ioyevnoo ' lowoq ; up ns ' y0 yiXv£"'3 isq 0.0*1 aiJojrcJ Mfol b.T6 X 3fiiJflnixi39 iaoo 9ilT ifiioarfiib bnsri lo 'boit-tan erf^ 9«i8 t fijj*b nbiioubotq' bna'-'^aoo olBsd orii "io no. ^zuoniib bsxisjob ©toi^ b s9j." ♦iaaa-.tOrt . e. bariiXix/o S'urba: jfrrxdao ns" t noj nX 9/U- lo ^onsXfi' w lo ,tnr-) lac? 0;? ylwiea 7. Fixed costs Replacement cost for dumping table Annual fixed cost (13.? per cent of replacement cost) $ 68 Direct costs Dumping labor $1.35 per hour Direct equipment repair (0.5 per cent of replacement cost per 100 hours of use) $0.02 per hour Power cost (for operation of elevator to sorting table, £ horsepower at $0.03 per horsepower hour) $0.02 per hour $1.39 per hour Total Production Standards The amounts of labor and equipment required with a given rate of dumping are estimated by means of unit time requirements for the various operations. These unit time requirements — for example, the time required by the dumper to obtain and empty a full lug and to dispose of the empty lug — were derived from studies of actual plant operations. These studies give the net time requirements. To obtain the actual work time per unit, the net time must be adjusted to allow for nonproductive time. The amount of nonproductive time varies in different plants. There is a customary allowance of regular ten-minute rest periods for each four hours of work time, and this amounts to k*2 per cent of the total work time. In addition, there are unavoidable delays and, in some plants, lost time due to the break be- tween lots of fruit from different growers.!/ In the plants studied, unavoidable delay ranged from 1.0 to 15.9 per cent of the total work time and averaged 6.3 per cent. Break -for-lots time ranged from 3.0 to 28.1 per cent of the total work time and averaged 9.3 per cent. Using the percentage of customary rest time and the average percentage time loss for the remaining delays, the total nonproductive time is approximately 20 per cent of the total work time. 7/ The break between lots consists of the period between lots of fruit from different growers when the dumping operations are suspended to permit the lots to be processed separately. This procedure is the means of accounting to the grower for the quantity and grade of fruit delivered. In some plants, a sampling procedure is used which eliminates the break -for-lots delay. For more detail regarding break -for-lots delays, see Economy and Accuracy in Accounting to Growers for Fruit Received at the Packing House . Berkeley, 1953. (Calif. Univ. Gianni ni Foundation of Agricultural Economics. Mimeographed Report 1U9) lo irt90 ist «'* t GOX *iaq ieco JrJsm'a'OBlqa'i lo etas? •toJaveJfe 'to n'o±v+£a.3qo. -i.ol).d-*oo -rs7*>q IfiioT tiirpsi omxd- tina lo anssm ^ bQj&mkf&s nirje^tlo od laqmcn grii yd- be-uupsi ©mi:* erfr • t 9lqm£x9 ^ol^-adrfeffloTii/pai amid dim? 39±fcui8 /noil bayXieb siaw — $uX Tjdq&'S edi lo 9ccqaib« Ov brts gt'f S.Lul & T£dqfli9 oT .sdnarraxa/ps't sitiid- ds« ©d«f ovirs aoxbada ©neriT iBnoi^sneqo dnsXq Xst/dos lo •to'i wo£Xs bgdcjtftbjs scf dawra gmXd dsn ofld ,i.cav *ioq ©mXi Jticw Xsydos odt n±sdao s si MsHT .adrtEXq irt9rteTi.ib nX aaXrtsv. sniid ovitfoi'boiqflon dniromf. snT 10- 810O£z HfOX *fiO££ IOX EivCX'X-Cf ; *jC9*J OXi/fl.!*^—*!- ./ '. 'Ii : .Ltr5^9 ,, T j.C *?J>n -j.iTGXXii i^ICC^O^ 3XJ-. ^fioi'/ibbs nl •emW ^xo>? X-odod" 9rfd lo.dH90 ioq S.4 ci sini/oms eirid bns ,&mid ^to^ -ad -5te9icJ sriJ cdsub Mird 1 dsol t edrsBlq amoani ^n^tS^fiLob^oLd^bio^Bms sue tnarld eXdrbioVBOO ^baxbtfda. adoeXq eiiS el >I.ci©ivoia dnsiallib noil iisnl lo 3J0X ngovr* £..0 bsgsiovfi b«08 ©arid jJicw Xadod .erfo.-lo dwao isq ri* II . Is q* gul'leq tfatfimira-nsLi jiOOtO \"I gjtri ?sq beutx/ps'-i emx* Ia*ot eri^ t 9Bso -;xrf*.nl .*ex"I-Eq \;*qm9 9dd .worf isq a$ux Qitt ax o*si \*x?sqso erf* fans' tastanxa gnxqwub arii ni edo{, ie»ri*o iol be*eui **« od 8e ^ e ' 1 ***W 0 ^^-tsixraia J j-iw .alio • ^ jsi44> ! snxlbnnrf tolm. "-nsrn eriT .eieaftpw in9i9l1ib d*.hv b9*99tpC9 od t *nq*tfo ^avbxlsd 9*i£ -^e^lBfls jjnivrollol'sri* hi bae;/ 9is *Brf* sirssb lY?*ax;bn ^ ?d,J ni -39*61 noi*oLfb6?q bns 8*803 lo 9vx > *s*nj»>39 rf*iw e*3oo 9v±^bX91 ad* Il9w ^/.dsnoaaei 9*sDxbn.t blucda opd* no bsead 39xbxri3 erfT ' - ; ...ebodi-OT *h9i9«jb !^neflt9iijup5ji *no?nii/pa,bnB.^3dsI-3b B8*emr*80 <3wof.!:ol *|ri*. noXaeyoaxb ari* nl Xd bswoilol 2X axflT? iabori^sm gr.iqmx;b ,:, *n9i9 , liXb .£6iOT93..io , i navxg aiB eJaoA b«B -9i nx* b9ixifp9-i...snox*B.i?qo. anWouU ertf'io'i eieoo bos^ ^iwn»?lapeT lo aie^Ifins ns £ 'eblvtriq oj bgnxdrcoo tieM el's a'i'lxr39i "ssoriT mbetiim^'VitaBtf* da^ & S^xvX90 ~9i bns anxqcjub Is Jo* no abodtem gnxqkub tawts&itb lo Joe'il9 ati& lo noariisq.'aoo •3*300 anxviso )j ioi' jqeT;X9 1/ ?x 51.9 qo gottgporb en* ^Xno snxi»biaaoj «.(> erta^rx)- "%itx rmb ^t-coBqeo erii'—isjfo'ni* »d* h*iv; e9*/»nie*Xe leqraj'D ? >d bli/ow 3*809 *h9«t9o^Iqp'i bns B*n93i9iiKp9i *fi9nqxi;po 9. Method A Job classification Capacity rate From floor From pallet Dumper: Lifts a full ln«r frnm a * a x X Uc X X wilt fix stack on the floor, or pallet, empties the lug, and restacks the empty- lug lugs per hour 350 Equipment requirements per dumping station Estimated quantity Replacement / cost, 1950^ Dumping station: Table and elevator to sorting table 1 $5oo a/ In this and the following summaries, the cost estimates are based on the prevailing prices for labor and equip- ment in 1950. Since then, the level of prices for labor laid equipment has risen about 10 per cent, but the rela- tive costs with different methods has not changed greatly. Labor and equipment requirements and costs using dumping Method A— and as- suming that the dumper alternates with the trucker— are presented for different rates of plant operation in Table 2. The estimates are worked out on a step- by-step basis by adding an additional worker and dumping station as the capacity rate of the dumper is reached. The dumping rates at which these additions occur are given in the columns at the left of the table. Different capacity rates are indicated for plants using hand trucks and fork trucks for the trucking opera- tions. Thus, the initial step provides for dumping rates up to 350 lugs per hour in the plants using hand trucks and a rate of 3h0 lugs per hour in the palletized fork-truck plants. Similarly, the capacity dumping rates for two dumping stations are 700 lugs per hour in the hand-truck plants and 680 lugs per hour in the fork- truck plants. The estimates of dumping costs given in Table 2 are computed from the equipment requirements per station and the equipment cost rates previously given and from crew requirements and wage rates indicated in the table. With two dumping stations, for example, the direct costs are: labor, $2.70 per hour; electric power and equipment repair, $0.08 per hour; and total direct costs, 10. TABLE 2 Hand Dumping — Method A: Dumping Labor and Equipment Requirements and Costs in Relation to Capacity Dumping Rate, Apple and Pear Packing Plants Number of dumping stations Crew capacity*/ Job and number of workers,]?/ Direct cost Equipment cost Hand- truck plant Fork- truck plant Labor Equipment (power and repairs£/ ) Total Replace- ment cost P** 1 hour. c/ Estimated as 0.5 per cent of replacement cost per 100 hours of usej power cost estimated at $0.03 per hour per motor horsepower. d/ Price level for 1950. e/ Estimate based on percentage of replacement cost; for dumping table = 13.5 per cent. .01 •baa' Tt'tii&4 7 A bcr!^J»M- s: asX3 sn ifllJ 9Xq0j 4 ^yJisJS ^nxcjawu ■ - . . «... iffdjnun bcia del. btt& *X«5T?0SI i / \ «*\ * ^ - _ ; •* ^q °3y~ ~ — r*| &*X 80.0 - ot.-sl | f \£. * • ? ^ ■ o •os!o * OOt'x jo5YJ. J * u iiS.0 • 01.8 d • d .1* Jbtte qs.O V ■1 300 1c 3i0orf 001 ^&q, iep? h ST 10 J 13. $2.78 per hour. The replacement cost for equipment is $1,000, and annual fixed costs for equipment, at a percentage rate of 13.5, are $135. These cost esti- mates may then be used to compute total costs per season. For example, if the plant were to operate 200 hours per season, the total season cost would be the annual fixed cost of $135 plus direct costs of ; ? 556 to make a total cost of $691 per season. Similarly, season total costs could be estimated for other rates of operation and for different lengths of season. The cost relationships presented in Table 2 are shown graphically in Figure 3. In this chart, total season costs are given in relation to capacity dumping rates in hand-truck and fork-truck plants. The dumping rate is shown on the horizontal scale, and total season costs for the dumping operations are shown on the vertical scale. Two sets of cost lines are indicated, one for 200 hours of operation per season and the other for h00 hours of operation. In each set, two cost lines are given. The "step" cost line represents season costs at the capacity rates of receiving indicated in Table 2 for different crew sizes. While this step cost line indicates the costs that would result with the crew and equipment specified in Table 2, it is likely that in actual plant operation crew adjustment would be made over a range of dumping rates rather than at the precise points shown.-' If costs in a number of plants of a given size are considered, adjustment in crew size in a particular plant would be expected in the "neighborhood" of the steps indicated in Figure 2. The average cost situation in these plants then would be at some intermediate point between the high- and low-cost points in each step. Such "average" costs are represented by the uniformly sloping cost lines in Figure 3. If, for example, the dumping rate with hand-truck receiving were 1,000 lugs per hour, these cost lines indicate total season costs of approximately $800 with 200 hours of operation per season and $1,1*00 with hOO hours of operation per season. These smoothed lines are more convenient for comparing costs with different methods and are used for this purpose in later sections of this report. 8/ There are several reasons for this kind of adjustment. There is the normal variation in output to be expected from different workers. In some instances, a rate of output higher than normal might be induced by paying more than the going wage. Moreover, some integration of workers on different jobs may be achieved, thus reducing the amount of nonproductive work time. bexil I&uaas has ,OpO«X3 el jta$m%lisp* tol Jbos Jn^s-js/qst'i sAI -X-J8© Ho? Hsdt «"« «<*•£.! lo etfei ©seis^-i-!^ & 3* 9di 11 9lqinr»x9 rot *aoas»a is»q eijao-; Jlsio.t piJxfqraoo oi beau od .n9rtcr * s/U ed bltfow i3oo nosJess isfj* t»rii t np8ses *jaq aixrori 00S eisi»qo oi 9"i9w inslq m2~**- r^+^+ K ' ,,,+ Vss »+ ao n -t-jMiii) aula <*£X& lo J-aoo bexil Xtst-rans toAio io1' bd*flmi.tae erf 6Xi?oo »Jeos Xactoi oos-bm t^lislxmi- .nossse Ts?q X<*& •y/ '. nosed?, "lo ariianoX }n©ie»lllb tol brus noi-tsiscjo *o ae^fii ni vXXsaxrtqsig rrroda pis $ -jXcfsT ni be-jnasatq sqtriSBoisteXs'x tfaoo *d* viioeoso oj noxdsXsi ni nsvia 9*t6 sjsor. nosses ifetfotf , ^isdo aidJ' ni •€ StiTjiS 'amife 3i s»4-ai srtlqnu/b s>nT .ainslq jtwrxJ-afcol bna ?iy^ii-bneri ni 3©*6*i snxq/aiib enox^sisqo aniqatub odtf *tol atfaoo noasea Izfoi br;* t als36 Xfiitnos hxori 9dv no DOS 10I sno be.rsoxbnl ©is asnil ctaoo lo a^ea owT »eXaos XfiSiilflW **c nwona riass ni ^noii^ieqo 'lo att/ori OCiTksI 79d3o sdt fens noaaoa i«q noisffi^qo to anuoxi is siaoa cpas92 3inP89"iq?fi caiL iaoa 4< q&je'* sdT .nsvxg *i£ BaniX jeoo o^w tJ-_a .89SX3 TOlo tns-isllib tol S sldeT ni hWsotbnx gnivxao^i id soJ&i xd-xosqso 9di wdTo adi riJiw Jlxiaa-r bXxfbw Jyd.t 3*aoo srit 84&9ibfii erriX cfaor qs»*a atdJ eXirfW noxisisuo inaXq LBUfvs ni i*di ^tsflfli ai: tfi t 5 *Xds3f nx b9ili09qa Jnemqiups bn£ adl r - Jis nsni toriifii 3^61 ^nxqret-b "io- eanei s 'isvo *baw 8t ^-s^rfT" .iw*m*»;;^bfl lo bnitf sldJ aol 8fl*»»l ijnsvsa ©IB ^4«riT \8 ■srij gnlwb?? zudi t b9Vf*id: Figure 2. Hand dumping without conveyor aids— Method A. (Note that lugs are supplied to he dumper on pallets— full lugs on the dumper's left and empty lugs on the right The pallets rest on roller conveyors on the floor and the full-lug pallet is pulled under the dump- ing platform as pallet is emptied, thus reducing the reach required. Empty pallets pass under the dumping platform and on to the right as the pallet is filled with empty lugs 1 i ! l 1 iND TRU Dumpinc CK RECE ) Methoc IVING 1 A a son *r \ 400 / Hours per se 1 ^ 1 — i / \ 200 ,. i 1 1 i 1 i i FX )RK TRU Dumpinc CK RECE 1 Method VI NG A r 400 Hours per s eason I — r — - ^^^^ 200 i 1 1 i 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Lugs dumped per hour Figure 3. The effect of rate of operation on total season dumping costs with hand dumping (no conveyor aids, but trade with trucker) — Method A. 13 Method B— Hand Dumping With Conveyor Aids In this method, the field lugs are dumped by hand, but the dumper is aided by means of conveyors for full and empty lugs (Figure li). The different job classifications, the capacity rate of operation for each job, and equipment requirements per dumping station are as follows: Method B Job classification Capacity rate From floor 1 From oalle t lugs per hour ocuon man* Places the full field lug on a conveyor leading to the dumper (alternates with r)nmnoY*\ h6Q 10i5 Dumper: Receives the full lug on the con- veyor at waist height, empties the lug, and places it on an empty-lug conveyor leading to the lug- storage area (alternates with seton man) aoO hh5 Setoff man: Removes empty lugs from the conveyor and stacks them on the floor or on a pallet 585 555 Equipment requirements per dumping station Estimated / quantity—' Replacement cost, 1950 Seton conveyor 25 feet $530 Dumping station: Table and elevator to sorting table 1 $5oo Empty-lug conveyor: Power conveyor 30 feet $530 Gravity conveyor UO feet $125 a/ For a one-station plant. The average quantities per station vary slightly with the number of dumping stations. .11 j- »c ^a-«.k Art 4 ttwi ihrteifi v+ih*canufc aifi awi bXeil erf* .tiodJaci aid* itl ixivsqJtop© bite ,db'fcdaw rioii^eqo lo sttii gttttftfM «W &ttottBolU*z*li jbwJEXoI as- sis aolie&z iftlcpah wq ataameafi/pei 8 bonJ*8' i iool4 ino-?? j jnoiteaixjfca.e'aXa del j 3 — 3: — -j 4 : : ^ nc ^j>I o-fcsxT. Lxuz an? aeosi'i j •i&qniiji) eric* oi"" §ftxpsel ic^s-vnoo (leqmufr rfix'w as^sme-tXi?) - t. -no© arid fro Sl/X Xlul ajf* aevieoeH *ritf aettqma ,*ti$fcswi te&V 4b tow S0.£-^qn» rts no Si espslq bus ^tfX 3tf3 iO Figure 4. Hand dumping with conveyor aids — Methods B and C. The full lug comes to the dumper from the left on a conveyor at waist-height. The empty lug is placed on the over- head conveyor which transports it to the empty-lug storage area. Figure 5. The effect of rate of operation on total season dumping costs with hand dump- ing, using conveyor aids — Method B. 15. TABLE 3 Hand Dumping— Method B: Dumping Labor and Equipment Requirements and Costs in Relation to Capacity Dumping Rate, Apple and Pear Packing Plants Crew T capacity^' Number of sta- tions Hand- truck plant Fork- truck plant Job and number of workers^/ Dumper Set- on Set- off Direct cost Labor Equipment (power and repairs£/) Total Equipment cost Replace- ment COSt<3/ Annual fixed / cost^' j-ugs per nour 1 2 2 3 3 1* It l*6o 585 920 1,170 1,380 1,755 1,81*0 aoiiars per nour 1*1*5 555 890 1,110 1,335 1,665 1,780 1 2 2 3 3 I* h 1 2 2 3 3 1* h 1 1 2 2 3 3 1* 3.80 6.50 7.60 10.30 11.1*0 ll*.10 15.20 dollars 0.09 0.17 0.17 0.26 0.26 0.3b 0.31* 3.89 6.67 7.77 10.56 11.66 ll*.l*l* 15. 5U 1,1*70 198 2,853 385 2,853 385 U,236 572 li,236 572 5,619 759 5,619 759 time is 20 per cent of total work time, b/ Wage rates: dumper, &1.35; seton, $1.35; and setoff, |>1.10. c/ Estimated at 0.5 per cent of replacement cost per 100 hours of use; power cost estimated at $0.03 per hour per motor horsepower, d/ Price level for 1950. e/ Estimate based on percentage of replacement cost; for dumping table and conveyors* 13.5 per cent. Costs for the labor and equipment required for the dumping operations with this method are summarized for different rates of output in Table 3. In plants using hand trucks for receiving, for example, the dumping crew required for a capacity rate of 1,170 lugs per hour consists of three dumpers, three seton men, and two setoff men-. The direct costs, including labor, power, and direct equip- ment repair expense, are $10.56 per hour* Annual fixed costs for equipment are $572. If fork trucks are used for the trucking operations, the capacity dumping rate corresponding with these costs is 1,110 lugs per hour. The relation of costs to capacity dumping rate is shown graphically in Figure 5* As with Method A, total costs per season in relation to capacity dump- ing rate are given for 200 and 1*00 hours of operation per season. Two cost lines are shown in each case — a step cost line reflecting the costs with different crew sizes and capacity rates given in Table 3 and a uniformly sloping line represent- ing the "average" cost situation. Using the "average" cost line for a plant op- erating with hand trucks and at the rate of 1,000 lugs per hour, total costs for labor and equipment are $2,500 per season with 200 hours of operation per season and $1*,500 with 1*00 hours of operation per season. Costs for other dumping rates and for different lengths of season can be calculated from the data in Table 3* rfi^-r.jrf^S»a bnatt j .00 iv si"SH' ? 'r&- atfac p m onl ■» • - ** , ■ [ IwrM * » -» .., •-Vja ■ • t. ^ ,,„..- eft [■•te'qacKI ■--•:/-'"'' ? : pi — ■ — 4 : | i 1 s : S 5 1 c ! s li e i i t \ % , * | 4... * f *— — . — — . — r » #5..'QX « d&.'ix <#'."0 &s;o I ** 08. f. •0£.*d of o r cx;ili OS.'ec t x "06f t X OS? OTX«*I .GdM .0X7X3 t llo*ea* brta »« jbsjj io aiaod OCX toq J-eoo ifre&eqBJ _ *soi It. d bns sld^J s'hlqau/b iol jTxso'o tfnsiirsoslqa'i 'io ogsineoisq no baaed s^amitea .Jna? ieq 5*ti Hiiw anoiiaiaqo giiiqtwb 9ri;t io"i baiii/pgi ^nemqxup6 brts TodsX eriJ- io*t scfaoO »*iislq al iC sXdsT Hi i«qi&o Io tfe&i in&leilib nol beslrteamys 9as Bori*6ir aid* 9'is tftSfrq'wpe zn\ zizco ks; ^ftiqaurC ^iiosqc'a ad* * t enoi3v Wifod ■' tdl+ 'io aj-aianco Tt©5Stf 9iA a'Soirt^ >!'io'i II \?T^<& a^lil 0XX;X ai 'irioo eo'kij dixw gftibnbqfesiitbo ^at til tXXfididqfi'i^ rtmSt tfi fftisic ^xqnrrb v:*iasqso oi aiaco lo noiislsi »dT -qfiitib -^xbaqfio oi flOi^aX©^ ni aoas'aa tsq '2'iaoo Is^oJ- *,A bori-Je 1 * d*iw aA •»?. •nwal'? 'asdxX Ho6 oWT '.nHataa *^aq d6x^a*i9q6 1^ aToori - 00d fena 00S toi nevig ^ta e*ai gnx waio S^rt&llfb ftiiw a^iHoo aft* gdiv*^Xl^f ^'ftil Hb6 'qe#a a* — aaas 'irfos© hi -nvroda sia -^naeafiqet s^'/i '^riiq6Xe $X^bTixoir a 5fti- £ siXcteT nt nsvi.^ 8©>ai 'x*foaqa6 f ftne eVsxs -qd ^rislq a wl anil Je&> ^sris-ieHra" W* gfti^ '.htyWartib vta'ob "agaiEeve" sdrf i-ii 161 iteib XfeH-cS- \^UoS -f*q Wt^. "OOCV^I io Vie** 2s bHe 8:-(oiri'i 'brisrt d^iw ^ntiets nosa&a isq noilsTS^c lb V-uTch 'C0» rW'iw fibaasa %q '00^^ '9t& *h»fflqlJ?p9 -toe Ibdal Wa^ &&ijj&b "la^fo Ttol alibO ^Soa's^a 'h$t{ W&vriXib 'lb 'e'-itfod Otil rttiv 005«4l bos *.C eldfet'ni Sill ^ j iso^ '''^a-iwoiKio 'ad-"«io * rt^sa "**c -3if*8»»I •^nat»llib aol bne 16 Method C— Hand Dumping With Conveyor Aids Plus Relief In some plants, the required rate of dumping per station exceeds the ca- pacity for hand dumping with Method B. One means of increasing the dumping rate per station is to provide additional rest for the dumper, thus, allowing him to operate at an accelerated pace while actually working. Estimates of costs based on this procedure are given in Table h and Figure 6. The estimates are based on dumping rates applicable when the additional rest time is approxi- mately 20 per cent of the total work time. For one dumping station, the "dumping crew" would consist of one seton man, one dumper, two truckers, and one relief man. This five-man crew then rotates through the various jobs with one of the five men always in a rest status. With the addition of the relief element, the capacity rate for the dumper and seton man (in plants using hand trucks) increases from 1*60 lugs per hour with dumping Method B to 610 lugs per hour with dumping Method C. There also is a substantial change in the conveyor requirements. While the requirements for the lug conveyors would increase only slightly, the increased dumping rate would require— in most plants— the addition of a fruit distribution belt for sorted fruit. This change is necessary because a rate of dumping of 610 lugs per hour would exceed the normal capacity of the usual "packing line," unless the proportion of cull and cannery fruit was unusually high. A distribution belt for loose fruit then would be necessary in order to route sorted fruit to two, or more, different packing lines.-^ The various job categories, capacity rates, and equipment requirements for this method are as follows i 9/ An equally logical allocation of costs for the fruit distribution belt would be to charge this expense to the larger sorting table. If this were done, the annual fixed costs would be less by approximately $100 per dumping station, and direct costs would be less by ilO.Oh per station. In a two-station plant operating 200 hours per season, this would amount to a total reduction in dump- ing costs of $216 per season. If such a reallocation were made, it would also apply to Methods D and E which follow. .61 ■ • ^laUaH Mil a bxA loy^vn ob dJiW ^x qmxCi-baaH--^ boriJ-gM ■so sriO sbabTT noxcfm isc ^nlqmb \< ztvi batxjjpat 3d* «&jnslq srnos nl ^nxomrfc arij z^lzSBioat lo enesffl anO .a botes® rfixw ^nxqawb bnad tol ^tta* •i j to't -fast Lenox J :bbs sbxvotq si notta-ie t*q :i..t sjxtca eX W-y sosq brie i also:* OB cfrs 9,rai9qo fT .6 ewsil b;i* 4 sXdsT ni navxg 9 ta g-ufbeo^tq airiJ no baesd ad-ecu •ixotqqa ax amid ^ssi isnatttbbE add nsdw aXo'soilqqs esdat aniqnwb no b?sad ets add noidada gaiq.-m/b ano -so"* .onid Hion laded odd dnoo toq 05 TjIadEtn brtB ' t ete*>uta owd W b »aor ^j&Jaa sue lo Stianoo bxwo'vr *mo *«x>u/b>' ddiw sdot awoxtav 3xit d^i/oidd zetBoot narid v%ia naitt-avil aidl .asm lOXlei sue j§& . .eaiaie dset.fi ni: ayarle nem «vil add lo ano laonaib st*J ,ica adst ^xyaqsa, arid- .dngmale lailat arid 1c nombba add ddiW •mod *iaq agi/i Odji moil esasatoni (e."4ojj«ii bned aniei/ atfnslq ni) nsra nctea' r>ns oaX* atariT ,0 boridatf gniqmab ddxw iifod taq a^t'I OIo ot 3 borideM §niqim:b rtdx-' adnamsilx/pat ?rid alixfl? .sdnsmaTu:;/p-.j*i -to^ovnoo add' ni aanedo Isidrrodadxra' a ei 9*6T aniqawb baaaaionr. add ,;jldrig.xla vino oasateni Mifow ei'o^vnoo #H arid' iol ■iol *Ied noivfodii*8it tJ&O a lo nox^ibbe srid—Rdnalq dsor. nK-oxtopotf Www. egul Cld.lo. sniyfiub to ed.st a 9ax/aoad xiaaea^n ai 93nsrio eidT .diutl bedioa aesinxf y ..a\ifcl sni^oaq" L&uzis arid lo ^xosqpo XamTon siit ba9"ys bX^ow tr/od isq no.Wi.rdJti*8.tb A .ri^id ^tOBtftifl aaw 1-.tu-jl ^lannso bns Xiwo lo noWiogfcnq adef od- *JSrrt bo*?oa eJiro-i o* TtaJ^o ni y^aESOsn ^ bXuovm9dt ixx;il aeool iol Itstf v v J N*.aenll sohto«q ^noisllxb 4 oio« to tol sd-nacjsixiipat inaataij/ps ine t B9*«t xixoaqso t B9xic§9dao dot awoitav oriT tewoXXol as 9ia borfieir .*4- dii^Xq r ae9X m gjeo? b Method C Job classification Capacity rate From floor From pallet lugs per hour Seton man: Places full field lugs on a conveyor leading to uuc; uuhuqa — cu. vCI ild uBB nj. ul dumper, trucker, and relief 6U0 605 i-'umper. iteceives iuxi xups on conveyor, empties lug, and places empty lug on conveyor — alternates with seton, trucker, and relief 610 610 Setoff man: Removes empty lugs from conveyor and stacks them on the floor or on a pallet 555 nexici • Aiucrnaucs wiT/ii uuinper ■ seton, and trucker Trucker: Alternates with dumper, seton, and relief per dumping station Estimated / . . . a/ quantity— Replacement cost, 1950 Seton conveyor 35 feet $620 Dumping station: Table and elevator to sorting table 1 $530 Empty- lug conveyor: Power conveyor ItO feet 1560 Gravity conveyor 1*8 feet $150 Fruit distribution belt i 30 feet $730 a/ For a one-station plant. The average quantities per station vary slightly with the number of stations. 2 1< 18 Costs for the labor and equipment needed for the dumping operations only- omitting the trucking requirements and the costs of work done by the dumping crew while alternating as truckers— are given for different dumping rates and the corresponding crew organization in Table U. TABLE h Hand Dumping — Method C: Dumping Labor and Equipment Requirements and Costs in Relation to Capacity Dumping Rate, Apple and Pear Packing Plants Number Crew j capacity-' Job and Direct cost Equipment cost of Hand- Fork- number of worker Equipment Replace- Annual sta- tions truck plant truck plant Dumper Set- on Relief Set- off Labor (power and repair s£/) Total ment / costS/ fixed cost®/ lugs per hour dol] Lars per hour dollars 1 1 2 2 3 3 It 58$ 610 1,170 1,220 1,755 1,830 2,3iiO 555 590 1,110 1,180 1,655 1,770 2,220 1 1 2 2 3 3 fa 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 h 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 i 1 2 2 3 3 h h 5.15 6.25 8.95 io.o5 lU.io 15.20 17.90 O.Ui O.Ik 0.27 0.27 0.1*0 0.1*0 0.53 5.29 6.39 9.22 10.32 1U.50 15.60 18.1*3 2,1*70 2,1*70 1*,780 li, 780 7,090 7,090 9,1*00 333 333 61i5 61*5 957 957 1,269 a/ Capacity dumping rate, assuming dumper, seton men, and truckers alternate and extra rest time is approximately 20 per cent of total work time. b/ Wage rate: dumper, $1.35} seton, $1.35] relief, |l«JIj setoff, $1.10 per hour. c/ Estimated as 0.5 per cent of replacement cost per 100 hours of use; power cost estimated at $0.03 per hour per motor horsepower. d/ Price level for 1950. e/ Estimate based on percentage of replacement costj for dumping table and conveyor - 13.5 per cent. These costs are shown graphically in Figure 6. As with the previous methods, the graphs show total season costs in relation to dumping rate, and both the step cost lines and cost lines representing the "average" situation are given. If costs with this and the preceding methods are compared for a given dumping rate, only minor differences are indicated. The higher costs per station are offset by the increased dumping rate per station. f**-isqo aflicprif? arii 10I bsbaan Jnamcilapa ba* -tods! (.\2aiifiqDi • . ' V£«0 YS.T) 01. dl 1 j... .. ii>... i iaci 01. .lails >JsiiTx?:o , xqqs al exeij f 3B .laqmub .05PI tol I oval ooiil \b, ^svrioo b«t> aXdfii §nxqaii/b -io1 {-tBOo inamsoelqsrt **.o s^ajnsoiaq «o baaed etfamiiaS \s rj^.i ••• '.ifiso *xeq rltaro si/oiveiq ad* Attw e,A ,b amgiU ni ^XXeajtriqjPi^ nworia aia aietio aearfT ixtt rttcd bfis t^a-l^nxqmai od coU'sIsi nx ec^ocr'nos-a^?, fajcJ W;*rfa erfqsis srif navig sis. m-ivfau^.ts w &s js *i«yfi M arf* fgrifctnaeWiqari eerHI Saoo boa earii! J-eoo oa-ts ^niqmcb 'riavig A 4ol ;f>3nD6qaio» 'a^s.g6crt*e.* griibaoaiq 'arfcf baa 'aid* fitfw -r?.oc II sic :hoJtfa*B*iaq p^e'>a '-iarigL1- arfT' -^batf^fbni'Vts' BosnaVallib lonlm Ttfno <&t*i ••« ,. • • .'"•-v'.'^i'foJtfBSe *j3q sis-: gpri'iqniirb '"ba'Baa-ts'rtx attt ^cf Jaa'HQ • .. . **, ■ 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Lugs dumped per hour Figure 6. The effect of rate of operation on total season dumping costs with hand dump- ing, using conveyor aids plus extra rest time — Method C. 20. Method D — Single-Box Machine Dumper The dumping operations with this method are similar to those in Method B hand dumping with conveyor aids—except that the full lug is fed into a dumping machine which automatically dumps the contents and places the empty lug on the empty-lug conveyor (Figure 7). The dumping crew then consists only of the seton men for full lugs and setoff men for empty lugs. As the seton man works at a point near the dumping machine, such supervision of the machine operation as is required — for example, to stop the machine in the event of jamming — can be per- formed by the seton men. Hence, no special labor for machine care is required. The various job categories, capacity rates, and equipment requirements per dumping station are summarized below. In this summary, a range in replacement Method D Capacity rate Job classification From floor | From pallet lugs per hour Seton man: Places full field lug on a conveyor leading to the dumping machine U60 Setoff man: Removes empty lugs from conveyor and stacks them on the floor or on a pallet 585 555 Equipment requirements per dumping station Estimated / quantity- Replacement cost, 1950 Dumping machine 1 $1,100 to 2,600 Dumping table 1 $ 5oo Seton conveyor 35 feet $ 620 Empty- lug conveyor: Power conveyor h0 feet $ 560 Gravity conveyor 1*8 feet £ i5o Fruit distribution belt 30 feet 1 730 a/ For a one-station plant. The average quantities per station "~ vary slightly with the number of stations. rfiaSI ni eao/ft erf -isX-ima eis badtan . Bin'* ;i r iv, enoiJsasqo sniqamb srfT b s o*n£ Ml ar sul XXt/1 adi <*eriJ d-qa-cx©— sols -loygvnoo rtJxw gnlqawb bred o agl xtqais sri-t ~*oaXq bns p.j-n^noa Bttt &qmh xXlsciifimoius doiriw srt'xrfoB.ri ci* .lp yXnp ad-3isnoo nericf waic qatqevb 91IT .(V 3Tx»3.ft) lo'^ovnoo ' strl-^qme 2Jfrcw xibic noi'So 6Jfi" "tol sJaco yii£d , 99ll9*i tbsi&sibni 8X srxidoam gniqnujb aru *ioi bjboo &qA$f does dtfiVi .diaiab l30.hnjerfr»9ra oi SB •sjfii'l'sHxb fans ais-citf OBlynon! d-nsisllxb iics 3rtiqifci/b lo ei&i 9rii darf* oa babrvo-xq al evlfb boaqa sldaruv s t 3nirfoa«r lo xix eia'itans aifa lb"? .TUQri isq sairl 000,1 &t- CSV mcxl ba^ne-i i3n/j , o-»U'n£t! orij- a' bsiehiarioo' ax .tariw Ja' b^sxbiabnr,;tE n9ad aftrf sixn y-tiosqao ^rft t^ioqsi aider noJtt'toqo-cq tsia* 'isq-OS- a tttiW swori isq agtrl 0nB -rniniqiupg hOB -rods! io r i aiepo doaT-xb exit 3o ePtamiiaS d09i9l'itb* 10I 5 eln'aT fir nsvi^ ana \;i«o 8noiiai9qo sniqmob si$j -lolaJsco bsxi'- -ao gnxviso.oT. sdi ni Zlfoini baad "to s:iDi.n:* .>l*tol sniau acftisXq ni seJfcT snxqmtfb TisigBib sftxbeys-iq wis rri aA .8 sits sit ni rrvjods oeia 3is aisoo eaexlT .artoxja**? anil tfaoo a bnfc £ 9XdsT nx nsvx^ aiaoo ?df gntJosXlsi snif deoo qada e rtf-'od ..bainsGSTq sis nox*axfiie "aasisvj?," sxW sni^nsesiq^i -90filqs'i i9woX ad* no fcsasd sis 5 9ldaT nJt nwrxg ataoo srii |"^xo±Xqiitr« to"5 i9w *aoo anidoan lodgid «rtt 1! • . asax-foRm gnxqjwp ,iol gvods baisoibnx craoc trtaci atfaoibni nsdi isd-ssis »d bXxJow ncxtBta snxqitaib isq, eiaoo b9xxl Xwcna t ii9zis \d isJuen^ *d" bXtf'jw aJaoo tfosiib 9dJ- bna t aaiu£.ta «fixqffl£/b "jtaq 00S# tfboxia '^d nod* tb.CtroPi'i&'^soo insinsoarqax qgwoX nrfj lo.aair : 0ffT ■•inox^fioc im 80-.O<5 iuodn .abcriio-u .tftsial^xL 1 riJxw eteorj syxiala*: ;9dJ- .lo aoWspibnx ■\cio.f03lex.t6a jevavio Wixdoaai daoo ud^iri ori* aaalxur t na^od» ad, bluon . snxfloam j-goo-wol sdi ^yidaimiaai? if ft 'idi aesfftif io — 90iiafinolT9q * 'Jc 'x^xlsifp ip- .^xoaqco ..;o etrisi' ni "iox*t9qua 919^ j-naxoillua ini/ums n* i9woI.97:iW ad-aoo. gnMsisqo b9*C9qx© bna noidralooiqeb 1c lo euris^'ni aiaTCfana ^aoo a ^tead iihtt nO , **aor> X3xtxni , ladgld »fi*''jNtello • si B * qonqqp a i onid^aic t eo o-w>X 9XiJ e^naii'rinx ^s;a sboriiam .gtiiqai/b-gnxdo^si sriJ. lo saw atit ni essainsvbs o?/T >9^aoIav9 d-on 6as tsna sox/easis o*-. rf-ii/oxllib od blvo.v e^?e>llo nx9dj- risi/oriiie ed'eon ttiw oldxaaoq' ai ?iasi §did"io8- »d* oi: ^iutl lo vroll nsvs 9io*a A .cf^oqm axd* ni Tfi ^iiiouo iriril rsl y'noiiaiisv liiiyt o^ai §nxqfaub ni^ K9^nsrio .bns ^nrqau/K snxdoair. ni ©8B9to'nx Ifaius a nx rfTyasi o^ lesqqB B#o°dlla saodT *b9llo7inoo ■\jXisB9 sncm baisbianoo 8i do(, gtiiqinub adi t oeIA .enoitaiaqo -^nxd^ioa srfj lo ^qm.'ioillo arid lo ndldciq add 1 esi'ixlqmi^ 89?iiriox|nt gniqmrb lo asu .arid" bna auoixbic ^iBli/ox^i&q ,ai9?i"'iow vja2J-±x -jos'i 22. TABLE 5 Machine Dumping, Single Box— Method D: Dumping Labor and Equipment Requirements and Costs in Relation to Capacity Dumping Rate, Apple and Pear Packing Plants Number OX dumping Crl capa< 3W / Job and number Direct cost Equipment cost Hand- truck Fork- truck of ./ workers— Equipment (power and Replace- ment / cost^ Annual fixeg/ cost- plant plant Seton Setoff Labor repairs- ) Total lugs per hour do liars per hour dollars 1 1*60 1*1*5 1 1 2.1*5 0.23 2.68 3,660 al* 1 585 555 2 1 3.80 0.2l* l*.ol* 3,660 1*9** 1 600 600 2 2 1*.90 0.25 5.15 3,660 1*91* 2 920 890 2 2 1*590 0.1*6 5.36 7,11*5 965 j 2 1,170 1,110 3 2 6.25 048 6.73 7,11*5 965 2 1,200 1,200 3 3 7.35 0.1*9 7.81* 7,11*5 965 3 1,380 1,335 3 3 7.35 0.68 8.03 10,630 1,1*35 3 1,755 1,665 U 3 8.70 0.72 9.U2 10,630 1,1*35 3 1,800 1,780 1* it 9.80 0.73 10.53 10,630 1,1*35 3 1,800 5 1* 11.15 0.73 11.88 10,630 1,1*35 a/ Capacity dumping rate, assuming nonproductive time is 20 per cent of total work time. b/ Wage rate: seton, $1.35 J setoff, $1.10 per hour. c/ Estimated as 0.5 per cent of replacement cost per 100 hours of use; power cost estimated at &0.03 per hour per motor horsepower. d/ Price level for 1950. e/ Estimate based on percentage of replacement cost,* for dumping machine and conveyors = 13.5 per cent. < 3JSAT IjJrifsil snitfo*^ is? 5 ! tins si ■ r- bus ool ■ia'rJotm Jbn$ tavroq) f i ■ 1 1 $S.O «*' ea.o ■ - i . ocs t 'i 00S I ■ ' * C 1 " Li 1 I w^d**0«L ! Si!.? 0T.6 i 06 1?' 08T«I ■ • f V i - J- • - ■*■ \ ■■ > 1 . - Aioaf.iatfoq iwarsr IS ifaoit 'QOt toq Je6s 3 twTtt$he.i4$'i 'to ftfeo 5.0 a*? DatfrtialJaa \> *>i§ra aff Jrt'isW-grc'i'qOTfe' id?* ?iaoo 'iifeias-oaiqyi* 1c asaJn^p-isq ho tezsd afm&eS \© »/rtao Tteq $.'£.1'*= anF^'™ 05 (A) (B) Figure 7. Single-box dumping machines. (A) Field lugs are fed by conveyor from the left to a dumping table, which tips and empties the box, then delivers the empty box to an empty-lug conveyor on the right. (B) A twisted-chain conveyor, which inverts the full field lug (background) over a water-dumping tank; empty lugs are righted and continue on con- veyor to the empty-lug storage area. 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Lugs dumped per hour Figure 8. The effect of rate of operation on total season dumping costs with single-box machine dumping — Method D. 2k. Method E — Stack Dumper The procedure with this method is the same as with Method D— the single-box dumper— except that the full lugs are fed into the dumping machine in stacks of 5 or 6 lugs (Figure 9). The machine automatically destacks the lugs one at a time, empties the contents, and places the empty lug on the empty-lug conveyor. As the last box in the stack is dumped, a new stack is moved into place from a floor chain conveyor. Job categories, capacity rates, and equipment requirements per dumping station with the stack dumper are summarized below. Method E Job classification Capacity rate From floor From oallet lugs per hour Trucker— ^p+.on s Wi t.h hanri +.r r nf»k' transfers stacks of full lugs from Dallpts adiappnt to the* floor chain conveyor to the conveyor. (This job required only in fork- truck nlan+.q. ) 600^ Setoff mans Removes empty lugs from e^ipty-lug conveyor and stacks them on the floor or on a pallet 585 555 Equipment requirements per dumping station Estimated quantity^/ Replacement cost, 1950 Dumping machine 1 $2,200 to 3,800 Dumping table 1 $ 500 Floor conveyor 20 feet $ 610 Empty- lug conveyor: Power conveyor Gravity conveyor hO feet U8 feet $ 560 t 150 Fruit distribution belt 30 feet $ 730 a/ Estimated capacity of trucker-seton is 780 lugs per hour, but the capacity rate of 600 lugs per hour indicated allows one trucker- seton man per machine. b/ For a one-station plant. The average quantities per station vary slightly with the number of stations. * rtro*rl errslq c.;nr bevois ai n asc^s w.1 £ t b9qnE.v> ex 3n£?s srtj nx xoa jruaj. 9ar sa 1 • .i*o£9d bssliRnriis/s; lacpnufo xo^jb sna titivt (Toxjsa? gniainiiD "tsq no x t £ 0 x "tx 38 :iXo ioI» 1 7~* . • jfoxrx-j fanr.H % "'xfi<&f * :httf £'s-T'9#:>if'xT ' moil e$ul flux lo ofoB^c KTdlsn'iJ lO ( ©_ 1 f eft, Ovf. jn^ o^CrP 3 Baaxj sq * -J V l»l -f r\ >• " 1- MT^'' 231/1 yarn's ssvomsH tftsm. : tlo^sa. i ; BJiosJe bK* toy/svuo.- rwl-v/n . r no-il j etc • j — J — ^-X.^ .J,,-... — < (%■< .9ld&yt. ( §n.tqgnca': OXo tf- [i; ioy;3Vnos •:oc>I? ; 051 $ 1 &qA be. 1 ' . 1 9fii ,tuct n^cfjod ieq sgir! G3V' ax'flo;f9e-T9>to£'Td Ift-'tfiiaeajk© • bWsnix-tsS \s' ' -TetfoxrtJ. eno awofJx b&tsoibnx woi! • isq egj/X &0b to *fsT yixoaqso ynsv' noWsiR tea 89'iJ.ttrui/p agaisve srIT .tffislq^ noiif&p-sno s Tat \d[ 1 2$. In the above summary, a range of replacement costs is given indicating the range in costs for equipment of different manufacturers. With each type of machine, the rate of dumping may be varied over a considerable range by means of a variable speed drive. The manufacturer's estimates of maximim dumping rate range from 800 to 1,200 lugs per hour. As with Method D, however, a stand- ard capacity rate of 750 lugs per hour has been taken as a good "working" range. With a delay proportion of 20 per cent of the total work time, this provides an effective dumping rate of about 600 lugs per hour. In the plants using hand trucks for the trucking operations, both the seton and dumping labor are eliminated. This is true also in the plants using fork trucks for the trucking operations, but in these plants a substitute worker is required to transfer stacks of full lugs from the pallets to the floor chain conveyor.—/ In either type of plant, it is assumed that supervision of the machine operation can be provided by the hand trucker so that no special labor for machine care is required. Direct costs and annual fixed costs for equipment required for the dumping operations with the stack dumper are given in Table 6. Because the dumping crew organization in the fork-truck and hand-truck plants is different, crew require- ments and costs in relation to dumping rate are given separately in Table 6 for plants using hand trucks or fork trucks in the receiving operations. In the plants with hand-truck receiving, the direct costs include only the cost of power and direct repair expense for the equipment, plus the labor cost for the empty-lug setoff men. In the fork-truck plants, however, an additional labor cost is included for a hand trucker who transfers stacks of full lugs from pallets to the floor conveyor. — ^ The costs of none of the other trucking opera- tions are included, A graphic representation of these cost estimates with seasons of 200 and b00 hours of operation is given in Figure 10. As with the single-box dumping machine, the cost estimates are based on the lower value in the range of re- placement costs given for the stack dumper. If the high-cost figure is used, annual fixed costs per station would be about $220 more than indicated, and direct costs per station would be about $0.08 more per hour. 10/ A machine for mechanically destacking lugs from pallets is reported to be under development in the Northwest, but equipment of this type is not yet avail- able for plant use. 11/ The transfer of lugs from pallet to floor conveyor could be made singly by a seton man, but the cost would be higher than with a hand truck. arid- gniiso.tbni- ntwig'sl. etaor .tngoK'aaXqax 1o sgrtGi £ ,iCTsrrmrfe ?v6de ©rft nl xo sqij* ri«3$ , ^x'V.-.i8'- r 9*iy^06-'lc«fim*?<'«s''i3liit) io dtftS&qlupa -roll ataoo nt gsnan • Bfsas.T v.- isaet aXdi^sbisnoo a isvo baiisv ad -{sm gniquaub lo'^ai srii t haiAo&®. .gniqsc/b miffiixsm lo B'Sdsarxd'ee a 1 lantfosli/nsm oriT. .ovrib bsaq? oXdsxisv 6 to bnsis p. K iBV9tK>& fi. boriieM rid-iw aA . : ,'iDon -£sq z~k.nL O0S<£ od" 008 moix s^nsi tfdxi dgitst "snijiiow" boog & as na^laj naed sari -ajoilT^q a gel 0 sldaT ni nm£%-<.&:R t^qraub jtas^e add rid-iw enoidaiaco eaiifp9T V97p ^.tfiatsYixb ax ainsXq douii-bn&d ban ^oirtd-jliol arid- ni noitaainasio not ^ni^sirti lo ssdsfuxcteS one noite'ieqo lo etai zt9vx 5 9TJB sgchsxariea rfoi;8 tol scfsG i-jBTp Yiiosqss 9tiT .J«?a<#ffpS bsa&d 9iB insraqii/po 10 esqY* rcxupgi emi* snirionstf no bns flirt* eioVi ^.pJnSlq tasia'l .aboriiexn ■snteoitif'tliosS tol qmx/b lo ledmrn 9it*i ste i&wol ei Y^io'sqso etli'tii eeBeiaob §ni *i9q srrci ^jtd&gso ©rf* ,-9lqrosx?' art iea eax/I ?fl bns nojtfscfs gni :o 9au 9xli t S bpxtf9& rfJiV/ ,a*nsiq rfbxrri-Jttol srf* ni tuooo bssibiabnsd-s 9d. oi eaonBjaib §ni^oui* arf* atfxunaq y*^ 9 bae IXul 9rii- lot 3i bodism airl* tox >^Din* i»q ?*si ^iosqso sriT .?isia *n£>"t9z'ilb" lo s*nsiq' icl .Jne no 3 bne 3tti'/iq .XsdoT 1 enoxdBia ^nia.-i ■ 00. 00V, bX'Xs loyevnoo duo OO.C^i V \dJn9v. lXii Xsii'nnA' bJ-roo }09ixG 1 ooc.x • 3 PiT9 Q JC9 IX ' isq t iodiiJ 1 1 — . i9q tX^ioT j «5dti ' enoXd* de saxqaa- - , sgisdo isi/nrus sgsdn.'joieq lo /two LO 3Sv9~ TLTonj"XVf nOXTij'lOqO ' rSVfiL fqA \ -?iq b.jvroXXol dsrid od /iBXxmxa bx surbsooiq srfT ♦? a 1 boo t^fsXuoXso rioua lo a^I/jaei 9riT .gnXTrmi/b lo sJso Xadod rfsxrfw nl XX 91031'! irx bsdnass-iq 91s dn9i lo an»od 004 bns COS -col as si.*. S boddsM lid-H edeoo 8 *t 9byXonx ion ofi .tsvwoil <3de:oo eaariT .X borfdfW rftiw ttarfi S boridsM 3nx5fo:nd 096 snxwoIXol erid nx snob si Bid? :-tj?fflxJ-E 1 on a anol36utl& gnxMou-it ti-iotnd lo sqvd igrldXs dti id 10I SdBO' edf lo d09ll© den arid bn hrtfi snjtqmub 1c sdeoo 31. SUMMARY — COMPARISON OF DUMPING AND RECEIVER- TRUCKING COSTS WITH DIFFERENT METHODS In this section, the labor and equipment costs for trucking and dumping field lugs are compared for different dumping methods. This is done by combin- ing the estimated costs given separately in the preceding sections for dumping and trucking to obtain a total cost for the combined operations. Consider, for example, a fork-truck plant in which the lugs are hand dumped without conveyor aids — Method A — and the rate of dumping is 1,000 lugs per hour. The length of season is 200 hours. Total season costs for dumping in such a plant are given in Figure 3 as $1,200, and total season costs for the trucking operations are given in Figure 11 as $2,600. Total dumping and trucking costs are then v 3>800 per season. Similarly, if the lugs are hand dumped — but with conveyor aids as in Method B — the total cost of the dumping and trucking opera- tions in receiving may be obtained as $5,000. Comparisons similar to the above may be made for other rates of dumping and for other methods. It is difficult, however, to obtain a comprehensive view of the relative costs with different methods from this point-by-point comparison. One problem is that some of the methods require relatively large quantities of equipment and so have correspondingly high annual fixed costs. For this reason, an important factor in comparing methods having large differences in equipment costs is the length of operating season. To take this into account, the com- parisons that follow are made in terms of total season cost for plants operating at a given dumping rate but with the length of season varied. As costs with a given dumping method are affected by the type of trucking equipment used, sepa- rate comparisons are made for hand-truck and fork-truck receiving. Fork-Truck Receiving Total season costs with a dumping rate of 1,000 lugs per hour are shown in relation to hours of plant operation per season in Figure 12. Comparison of the cost lines for the various methods indicates that costs with Method A — hand dumping without conveyor aids — are lowest for any length of season. For example, vith 250 hours of operation per season, costs with Method A are ap- proximately $U,200 per season in contrast with costs of $5,700 per season with Methods B and C — hand dumping with conveyor aids — and $5,300 per season with machine dumping, Methods D and E. The capacity dumping rate per station with Method A, however, is only 3^0 lugs per hour, and if the "line" requirements imposed by the equipment for sorting and packing require a higher dumping rate, one of the other methods must i gnix wi-f adaoo in^qxupo. bns -teds! e>d& t noi&^PZ- exrtJ ni rf.} gn, .anoxcfGTsoo banid.noo mlt io'i ieoo IbJ-oJ a nxsjdo oi snitfomJ bra F a'^uL 'arid- rioifbr ni dnslq jbirr«t-oho1 s t ?Iqm8X9. iol t iebianoO CCC, I ax sniqmt/b lo 9d>rt art* bns-- A boriieM — abis loyevnoo iiroriij ■6 rioua ni saxqmt/b xol etfaoo n sJcoo §nI}foxn'i bris gniquu/b Isio rti/w Jif-i— bsqnitfb b&jsrf eia b§x/I -uioqo ,«ijioiri.t rae aniamtrb 9ft.f bnf- gncqnii/b lo esJ'fi'x isrixo tol obdT ©d yen; 9Vods lo wexv gvisrrgite-tamoo b nischio oi t i9V9wod ,cXtfo .noai'ifsqaiuo inxoq-yd-tfnro 'j zirti moil abort\+9ra di: lo -39xJj:ifTaxjp 93tlbI ylsviisIeT: fiixupa-i aborttaci . noaf.rrx 3irf.t loi t si3oo baxil Isi/nr . ifi3^qxxip9 at aoons-teYiih ajj-iBi" gni : -mo'o srfd jinxfooos o'efni: airfd ^Az t gniisi9qo air«.~Iq iol Jaoo noasoa isc £ riiiw ad-aoo a A .bexxev noasoa 2< ;ori OOS si no£B93 lo rflgngi srt? as i 9if g-t* ni navi§ ots inalq sunjf'S ni nsvirj *us 'anoiJaisco .nnasee i9q OOR.tC. nsiii bib N— 8 bodioM ni 3B -abijs ioA : avnoo t&id? ed ysm gnivi909"X ni anoxi >dv f tslimxa anoaiiaqmoO rllib ai il .abon^s/n 'iprtto io r i sie'i'iib tldiw aiaoa svidslsi sri f =>ftt lo swoa *erfj a! moldsiq 9n p . :& rigid yI§nibnoqag*rjoo 9V£rii oa bmi dna/nqiifpr rvari 3bodi9ro gniTsqmco ni loiosl inciioqmi ns oT .noassa gniJsi^qo 'lo riignsi erli si eiaoo o+ 1c 8wi9* ni 9bsm 93.3 woilol iBrfi snoaiiBn ! dignel 9ri# d.tiw iud 9i£t sniqraub navig a *s •cpji 9di yd beios^lf. 9rta bori.J-9fli aniqmt;b neyi^ bnB jJotni—.bnKd ioI 9bj&«E f?'xs anoaxiscjir.oo 9is*i 'lo noaiisqico3 !^ei;. ri-tiw aJc c xo sxx r od noi>tsx9i ;xsv 9rii 10.1 aanil taoo ■ 9*/noo iijoriixvv ^nio/nyb II/Ou Wj nAX" ■ t 9XqjilBJC9 i9q OOS t iifc yleismxxciq •9-Tori r A bwUsM riiiw r >9 s»di vd beaoami aim aninocq br 10 8 Dumping Methods A — Hand dumping without conveyor aids B — Hand dumping with conveyor aids C — Hand dumping with conveyor aids, — plus extra rest time for dumpers D — Single-box machine dumper E — Stack dumper B and C V y y / z y y> y y 'y FORK TRUCK RECEIVING (Dumping rate 1,000 lugs per hour) 100 200 300 Length of season, hours 400 500 Figure 12. Effect of work methods and type of equipment on total season costs for re- ceiving and dumping field lugs in apple and pear packing plants — fork-truck receiving. (Dumping rate, 1,000 lugs per hour.) 200 300 400 Length of season, hours Figure 13. Effect of work methods and type of equipment on total season costs for re- ceiving and dumping field lugs in apple and pear packing plants — hand-truck receiving. (Dumping rate, 1,000 lugs per hour.) 33. be used even though costs are higher. In this event, a choice is possible be- tween the machine-dumping methods and hand dumping with conveyor aids. From Figure 12 it appears that hand dumping with conveyor aids will be less costly than machine dumping for seasons less than about 150 hours of operation. For longer seasons, costs are less with machine dumping than with hand dumping. Comparison of the single-box dumper — Method D — with the stack dumper — Method E — indicates that costs will be lower with the stack dumper if the length of season exceeds about 300 hours. Hand-Truck Receiving Season costs for dumping and receiving at a rate of 1,000 lugs per hour in a hand-truck plant are shown in Figure 13. Excepting Method E, the results are much like the comparisons in the preceding diagram. Method A is the most eco- nomical for any length of season. Also, for dumping rates per station higher than 3$0 lugs per hour — the maximum rate with Method A — relative costs with Methods B, C, and D are about the same as in the fork-truck plant. Thus, season costs with Methods B and C — hand dumping with conveyor aids — are less than with the single-box dumper for seasons shorter than about 150 hours, and costs are higher with the hand-dumping method for longer seasons. Relative costs with Method E are lower with hand-truck receiving than with fork-truck receiving. This is because the floor chain conveyor makes it pos- sible to eliminate the seton operation with no additions to the trucking costs. The stack dumper, therefore, may be used more advantageously with hand-truck receiving than with fork-truck receiving. Thus, the stack dumper is more eco- nomical than the single-box machine dumper or hand dumping with conveyor aids for seasons longer than about $0 hours of operation, and of all the methods, costs with the stack dumper are least for operation longer than about 300 hours per season. The savings possible through choice of the most economical method can be indicated by comparing total season costs. The amount of the saving will depend on the length of season. With a season of 2E>0 hours of operation, Figure 13 in- dicates that total season costs with Methods B and C are about $5,100; with Method D, $U,6*00; with Method E, $U,100j and with Method A, $3,900. If the dump- ing rate per station need not exceed 3$0 lugs per hour, the use of Method A would save $200 in contrast with Method E, $900 in contrast with Method D, and $1,200 in contrast with Methods B and C, If a dumping rate greater than 3J?0 lugs per hour is required, the use of Method E would save $700 per season in contrast with Method D and would save $1,000 per season in contrast with Methods B and C. 11 ioO 'ro r i .noidsieoo lo z'wott 0&£ iuod-3 nsdd real aneacs? iol giixi noasea lo .UgnsI ertt 1st isqnmb jtoeda ©rid rid.hr lawal ed Xliw edaoo d&rl .etuori OOf iu ni luoii taq B31/I QOO t I lo odd 9 ds gnivr909i br"; ^nxqrqub aqi sjboo ncaaee . . 91s 8d£tos*r arid t 3f bodi««N 'gnidqsoJC'J ,Zl siu^H nx nworts yta dnslq x'oxrcd-bnfiri g -•939 Jsow ©rid ax A bood©M .rar.iasxb ■gnibocsiq erid nx 3i:">3Jisqsioo srij s>lxl rios/m leri^xrf niit&Sd *xoq ciads! ^niarntrb icl t oaXA .noassa lo riigrial yn& *iol Xnoimon ridiw siaoo sviteiei — A .borfd9M ridxw 9Jsi j'ttwixsra ©rfi — mod %»q ag*/I 0 bns t c r u!oxrcd->J 10I ridxvr nsrii ^nxviao©"! ebis io\9V:noD d^lw gniqriL'b bnfid 10 i9qmi/b entriosm xod-^Ignia 9dJ' iscibrroa t abe:ii9in arii lis lo bns ,noi^6*i?qo 10 a'ttrori Otl .tu^ds nsrii nsv^rrol anoaaee .-xol 8iifod 0C£ ±uoda nsdcJ *i9^noI noxij»ieqo tol dssgl sib loqraub lioeiz wit dj'xiv arfnoo . ,noae9a isq ed nop bori^sm le^imonoo© daom arid lo ©oxorio rigyoidd ©Idiaeoq aonivfip. eriT bnaqeb XXXw .3tUvfia srid lo Jnyccis sdT .3J200 noB£9a Xsdcd ^xiEqrnoo yd be^fioibni -ni CX a^xrox^t ^fioi^sT^qo lo atuori 0^5 lo fsqasea ^ ridiW ? aoaasa lo rid^eX edd qc rfdxv j00X t 5^ v»°ds <«tft 3 fans ff abaufc^sM ridi"' adaoo noa593 Xsdod d-srid s?dsotb -qniyfc srii II Ioo°.£# U boridsM diiw bns iOQX t 4$- .3 boridaU dir." itf)9t»i# id bodied bJJtif* ,A JpoddeM 10 oad erfd ,itiod .isq tsgaX 0?f. bosgxq don bssn noideda nsq sdai ^nr OOS^XS hne .a fcodisK ridr^ Jas-rdnoci ni CC^S »3 boriie-M ridby .tas-idno-3 ni; ; 00S| erae isq 830X O^C nBri>t 'Ijucjestj, aia? %Kiq^fa a II «0 bns 3 aboddeM d tiw iaaidnoo nx riJisr ctesidnov nx noas98 *ii5q Q0\$ fsyaa bluow a.boriioM lo 9axr ©dd t baiix;pe*i ai utrod .0 bns q abonisM ddiw iasiinoo ai noasea taq 000nxli0voiq esisi eri>+ nsdi iswol ylXsi 90*53 si& w s^nsXq snxjtoeq sXqqB nl Dftfl soiovT 1U< &.X OF. I 3oV 1 • ■J 3§£/X ilul -no d"9?i sgffX ^d>q©v JJsaJe bns llo baeH :*i93fwreT ■ f V - Hvizt tool . I noJas io isqnmb rid)jb».9S&iiaJ,rA._ :is>foire? boo^x Xsqxonxiq add bssxiBflimuB 91B BnoiJ-stgqo srij .OccX ni tfeoo J-nsrasos 51 sd.G.b .eseoqir/q 9ons»i9l9i 10 lis- sniqnuib -sd* ni b9ixup9i dTfg>j jslqsi b3d"Bmi.t3o sri^ obt/Xonx sieb 9B9dT .H lo sqv.d- rioss lol-BJeoo b9>.l'i Xstrans bna ,9§isdo Xbwutb agBj-neoTsq Bhulonx agiado >Lsoneia es^aeo taq edj- v j-namqxi'p9 "io zetftt XXb io'H C.£ ,d-Bsi9ini jingo 190 O.I . t ssxei- ytaso i9q O.X <9onsiJjeni xgnjh a 5.d Xs:toi 3fl»d-i 9B9dT .dn&o isq 5.X lo moH lei- a*ao3" tea-riG £ns actaoO ...... i m»tl snsXXoh j OP Q VJw * C#V- 1 J 084'' 00M ■ JXocf ! rtoni-SX « "t svcfi ieXXo-r l93.ta no nci+oep. *oot-GS OT? :3XX6t boow no ^ol+o^2 JOo**— OS » O0II.O • ■ • Old 00s t s rioxJose J00I-OS noxiofs tfoci-OCX ■ ■ 0840.0 * 05.64X. * >ifrai ictfavr if; rW [ "' ' • t fthlrid'sia t *:&qmaC ! rfosa t i9omub nifirfO »■ ■ ' oocx »0 00 .x& ! oi 00X t -X 00d t S rio-as txod 5X3.1X8 v • • ' ' i so.o i OS OOXX ,0 0O\?X.G ■' • 0* 00 .^s f*tol to'i ~" iniwoXXol aria 3irXq ,noid3ios>iqob tol 50fisv70XI.fi sgstneoieq £ aohuXoflT \fa |f*d isq O.e t *s»i^ni {J-O90 isq 0.1 % esxsi ;*nso isq O.X ^wwuracr a ~x^q9i bsxil jsonsXsd bsi^io^lqsfcny lo Jnao isq 0.5 xlateuhro'iciqA :' »Jfl90 19q C.l 38. Direct costs for each type of equipment — excluding labor — consist of the following: direct repairs, estimated as 0.5 per cent of the replacement cost per 100 hours of use; power costs for electric motors, estimated as $0.03 per rated horsepoxver per hour of usej and fuel costs for fork trucks, estimated as $D.l5 per hour per U,000-pound-capacity fork truck. Production Standards The amounts of equipment and labor required for a given dumping rate are based on standardized production rates. These rates were derived from net unit time requirements obtained by studies of dumping and trucking operations in a number of plants. The net unit time requirements obtained from these studies have been adjusted to allow for nonproductive time as follows: Item Per cent of total work time Scheduled rest periods: Ten minutes per four hours worked U.2 Break-for-lots time: Range in the plants studied was from 2,2 to 27.9 and averaged 9.3 per cent 9.3 Unavoidable and "other" delay: Range in the plants studied was from 1.0 to 15.9 and averaged 6.3 per cent 6.3 Total 19.8 Production standards for the various dumping jobs are given in Table C with nonproductive time estimated as 20 per cent of the total work time. The produc- tion standards would, of course, be different with other allowances for "delay," and the level of output would be approximately 10 per cent higher than indicated if the break-for-lots delay were eliminated through the use of a sampling pro- cedure to account to the growers for fruit delivered. Unit time requirements are given with both hand-truck and fork-truck receiv- ing. For operations such as "hand dumping" or "seton," the difference in time required per lug consists of an allowance for handling the empty pallet. On logical ground, it appears that the unit time requirements in fork-truck plants should be still greater because of the slightly longer reach involved in grasping AC ant* "io -te ienoa— io'de£*-g«l:b«i oxe-^iw^swiif tot'oqxi; dox-sr nolv'eJaoa. io'astCT : isq *£{"•»(>? iy>j4jfl?lirs \&TSoJoitt- oiiJaoXs '10&- ataoa i9«c!j • 4 aatr •E'itfor! OCX. .is aa-'ha.ts.'a.Ktaa t <22iMrfi aib*. *. r >l eison .E90I foria .-• aai/ *!g: .iixxi "tso- iswoo ^afcri.. ba#i tmp isn moil bgViiab Vxsw 39.tai aesc'T .aecte'i aox^Di/boiq basibisbnad'a no..beR/*d s-fll anolis-iaqo : 3flx*rtctf-rf btia gnxqinub lo eaxbuJaytf bs" fcaido ainemsiirfpsT emJ&f eax&tfa aaad* ffonV'befixaVdo s*nasarxtfp9i emiJ.Jiftif tfan-edT .eto&fa lo i9d;nya,- sewdXXol ss '-5;aiJ' ov i.fsifho'tcit&n ncft •w.-vfXs o.f be*f"»irf naad >»V'.sff. bajJaow feiaod vso'i ipq xaeftf./atoX- •vsf >W t&I&b »«iadj.<5« baa t&pr 0 aXda? rrx"ji4Vx!§ 9ife- arfof, gnxqimrb atfoiiev 9dd"iol BinshiB^a fioiioabotfl -oy&otq-adT" .*mf^ ahjpw XsJo* grfi lo Jnss i3q OS as bo&Bmifss> *m±i 9VxJo0boiqftorr ".^Usb* loi'asoliawaiX* i&d-fo dS-i* ?«9?9ll £b ad ifcawroa lo ,bXi:ow ebiBb.TB^a ,.to*i te**3ifon-I ! reafiif" tari§ld Moa i 9 q oX T&£a-:t*mxxoaqqa.ad bXwow *d$&a> lo Xaval lad* bna- -oiq ga'IXqaifS e lo sau ad* dguoiu f. b&i&airalL-, siovi igsXab . cdoX-lo-l-oiagio* ad$ IX; ♦fiaioviiab iitrxl iol a-tawoig gdtf oi dntfoooa- of &usbi>o; -vxsicet jioirai-jncl- bets' Ar.&zfi-bnz:' dJod d-tiwiiayxg 9«ra ataaaaixirperx amit JirfJ amxi iri aocftiallcb &&i K \actw tt 10 ri sniqro;b bnad K aa datra a/ioxcta-ioqo io r i kSdx? rw . bjj/oda- 39. TABLE C Unit Labor Requirements and Capacity Rate Per Hour for Various Field Lug Dumping Operations H and truck Fork trucka/ Gross Gross Job Net time timeV Capacity Net time timet/ Capacity boxes boxes minutes per box per hour minutes per box per hour Set off empty lugs Stack singly, floor 0.13U U5o or pallet 0.103 0.129 1*65 0.107 Stack, two lugs at a time 0.082 0.103 585 0.086 0.108 555 Stack, nests of three boxes 0.063 0.079 760 0.067 0.08U 715 Set on full lugs (to conveypr) No relief, or alternate Ut5 with dumper O.lOii 0.130 0.108 0.135 Reliefs rest, or rest and trade jobs (not 605 wix.n aumper / 0.075 0.09U 6h0 0.079 0.099 Dump full lugs — hand Without conveyor aids 0.226 265 or relief 0.177 0.221 270 0.181 Without conveyor aids, O.llil 0.176 3U0 trade with trucker 0.137 0.171 350 With conveyor aids, 0.165 365 no relief 0.128 0.160 375 0.132 With conveyor aids, 0.108 0.135 WxS trade with seton O.IOU 0.130 U60 With conveyor aids, trade with seton, 590 20-per cent rest 0.078 0.098 610 0.082 0.102 a/ "Move pallet" time prorated on basis of 36- lug pallet. Prorated time =» "~ 0.15U/36 = O.00U minutes per lug. b/ Based on delays as follows: rest = U.2 per cent: BFL « 9.5 per cent; other = ~ 6.3 per cent: total = 20.0 per cent of gross time. e ar.it j * '. !■ 1 j 0 _J ■• • j nsq x?cf IS r ry/." at' 1 »v ■ '. i" ... ' 1 j jiEX jO V l ?:» ft ii80,0 3 All j 49* i ; < imm) "i\ lo cta&o »x9c 0,02 r l&.i<*& ifasa v-jct Uo. a full lug from a pallet or in disposing of an empty lug. Such differences, however, were not revealed by the studies. For the setoff and seton men, the "capacity rate" indicated is actually an average rate based on observed performance in a number of different plants. For the hand-dumping operation, however, a meaningful "average" performance was dif- ficult to measure as the dumping operation is a fixed station job on which the rate of dumping is governed by the requirements of the grading and packing lines served by each dumping station. In other words, the job is "line paced," and the rate of dumping observed in a given plant reflects the line requirements rather than the normal working rate of the dumper. For this reason, the capacity rate for the dumping operation is based on the lower of the observed time requirements for each method. These time requirements were obtained by time study for short periods and were verified by continuous studies of output over a period of three or four days. Hence, the capacity rate for hand dumping may be regarded as an attainable rate for the method specified. When the line requirements are less than the capacity rate for the dumping method used, the dumping rate will be slower than indicated in Table C or there will be a higher proportion of idle time. If the line requirements exceed the capacity rate for a given method by more than a small amount, it is likely that a dumping method of higher capacity will be required. With some methods, an increase in capacity rate may be possible by a very simple change. For example, the capacity rate of hand dumping without conveyor aids is given in Table C as 270 lugs per hour. But if the dumper alternates with a worker on a different job such as trucking, the capacity rate of dumping is 350 lugs per hour. In methods using hand dumping with conveyor aids, the ca- pacity dumping rate is increased from 375 to U60 lugs per hour if the dumper alternates with the seton man, and a still greater rate of dumping may be at- tained if sufficient relief is provided to permit additional rest time amounting to 20 per cent of the total work time. Estimates of the labor requirements for trucking are based on standardized conditions as to load size and transport distance for each type of equipment. These standards are considered typical of the plants studied. Capacity rates per trucker — based on these standards — are derived from estimates of trucking time iy requirements obtained by study of trucking operations in a number of plants. — lh/ For greater detail regarding trucking requirements and costs, see In-Plant Transportation Costs as Related to Materials Handling Methods, Apple and Pear Packing . Berkeley, 1953. (Calif. Univ. Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics. Mimeographed Report 11*2) :'xb dr.,t of] jtos ai bs-fBoxwjt "©dot yjHsaqei;" ©dd ,,n©;it. aoi»R 0rt6-- llodtee ©rfj, io^ rtelq tfrteasYLib lo ^©dnum B.-ni 9t>xiap'to>7s>q jbsvisMa- r» tessd 0$$ cg-e.ns.vri • son^iol'iaq M »^«-j9vs" IxjiTminsan-.B • ^©va-weri t i?oito?s€rc g£lqaw*wbfls<.i etif- piat no dot «oiJc*e box!'!, s al : a«?i*Bisqo -ytlasttrf) 3^. dru;sa, o£« Hiwl? i;fo»q- b:is ^nlbstn. arii lo ^iteweiiitpgrt erij : ^d bsmsY.^ ssrl > $nj.emub • Jc- , a^'fOf'O'iXJfpel 9r:.f:* usvi^aoo sdi 'jc 'tov^X ©lit. no bft&isd gi. uox^Bioqo gflic^tut;- edJ 10'i 4*jorfe tol Ttfxtie amii ^ tefilsjtdo ©19*7 jtfn&is©'uxfp©'* sali saartf .bcrU-ga riafia ml ©s-nU lo bcttsq b isvo Jpqiiro lo eelbitfe aaoi/nij-oao ¥d bslliisv . ©i©* hits gbo.H»q. ns e6 i)4bi63t?T so Xfpffl yn2q!a«b bcsri 10I ojb-i wtioBoBo exii t 9on©K .svBb mol to sasX sie. siaam-itap0% ©ail •*& fisatf ,b©il toeqs ixuk+am sri* :ol ©Xdjeri|sd^6, ad-XiLxw^eis:! ijniqiHtfb t b©ei/ borijs:s ^niq/rajb grtt sol- f>t&t- ypiztRDBo- ©rfi xtBriJ-. ftCbx, noidrtoocrtq- t©$|.cdr.s od XXivr sntari* -i'O, 0 ©Ids?: nl- fftKtepibni riBdJ- naroXa- £d bofc&a nsvis s 'xpl ©tB'i \ntiosqsa ©t^ ba^fixs .Binentsiixfpoi spil ©rfj "il ,©ir»xi ipfioBq^T i©rigx.1 to botiism . jilqmub a d-jstif -yf^JltX ei 41. tJitKoas XXBdra- b nBfJJ- &tcm ,b©xtt/p9"i 3d XI It fip-fW 33JBJi i©>JXB I^CJfHUb c^XUf 6l, Baicrfcurb 'io ©#et y41oi ■•■ ~dB.-sd ^sm gnlanurb 1c 03 bsiri i.n% brisd 3 no ■ baaBd- «ib ...wiST.S-rf-'po lo aqvt do©© osrf io ©,t,Bt ©d.t t ©Xqn»^© id"? .©gnstlo i>Xcnil3 1 i'i'^ .'iwpd i-5c. 3Si|X CTS sb 0 ©XdsT ni navlg si efc.lfi gsa ©rii t §nl3foin4 as rt>ue cfo{, 4rt3 < 3o1'ii& b tip isjfrcw b h'v snxqmub onBri ?.nisu abori^sai nl. ,7_wod isc egul O^t ?.§i,'X Od4 0$ .uoni fcsgBg'ioOii al e#Bi gniqsii/b Yd"xoBi.y. si *t©4B:v'ig IXxd-s a ■ ba& t rr©m nrtes o^j*. diXf 89-i , sa-„©.+i?. bJws ^ifinsa o.t bsblvmo el *iolX9i> 4«© toUrlrs It b^nis.t a.---.a -.B^nBiq &aqei-ej.b rftoqeftB 5f?Iq.9dj lo Xfioxq ■jBieqc ^.'il?iom4 ' 1 e^'le bBxsI oi 3?3 The trucking distances, load sizes, and capacity rates per trucker obtained through the above procedures are summarized for the various trucking jobs in Table D. In the plants not using conveyors for empty lugs, the transport dis- tances increase as the number of dumping stations increases. This is reflected in the range of trucking distances and capacity rates per trucker given in the table for transporting empty lugs from the dumping station to the empty- lug storage. In plants using conveyor equipment in conjunction with the dumping — and for the remaining trucking jobs — the distances are uniform over a range of plant sizes, TABLE D Standardized Trucking Distances and Load Sizes and Estimated Capacity Rate Per Trucker for Various Trucking Operations in Receiving in Apple and Pear Packing Plants Fork truck Hand Truck Job Size of load Trucking distance Capacity Size of load Trucking distance Capacity lugs per hour lugs per hour Unload grower's truck 36 90 1,380 6 50 U5o Truck to dumping station 36 50 1,8U0 6 30 610 Truck empty lugs to storage Without empty-lug conveyor: One line 36 60 2,125 9 30 985 Two lines 36 80 1,890 9 55 710 Four lines 36 120 1,555 9 100 U75 Wi th empty- lug conveyor: One to four lines 36 ho 2,1*25 9 30 985 Truck empty lugs to grower 805 truck 36 ho 2,110 9 30 Truck full lugs from pallet to floor conveyor 6 15 780 •xti acriuJdc •sajfotn'i T.yq's?*fst ^co>q«o 'hits -^'vtzka B&ol \«9bdt^fe£b 'shi^o'in^ : ^HT fxi Htfof, gfliibm* 'ij|xO±*t6if grid" ?o1 fe&t'ElSIWBtte ots 'e^i'b^oVb; ^ratfe 'srfcj cfsbbtritf bsjraXls'i et exriT •'§§s&&'xarf£ aiioils^a gnOtqiKwb So "acfmith aiir a"6 sass'i-oifi "e^brife'^ ni «9VJta •Jfis^Pinfi 't'aq aVfs'i '#iosq£0 "faofc -aetwifctef b "sh-bfoirc* 10 t»$rii% hi- guX-^j-qrra art* o* rioiJfij'e anXqj&ffe «rfj fflbtS 'Bgifl ^qsra |nx^ ; KJqetu?%-t ^lUfi'J -■-gnxqiKfb erfit 'riJiw ho&'dittrfcooo til JhVrOqxr/p^ 'jtffenrnoc gfrfec Viholq to sgnsi * iqvo m-tblhw 9*xa asonei-aJrb arft--actofc ^bferfw* gftidfiS8enc -off* fefte ya«#£a $rtfc£q Ci SlfiAT f ,*msT £naH"'. . ~ j> . , ......... cic^v- .... .... i "=8301 ..iijor, Ttsf< 09. • ■ : ■*gs*co,ta oj s^irX v^aMa ^o/. f tT ! 1 ... 1 4 i COL ■ '■ * P ! • estixX tirol otf snO ; 1 OXX- t S! o£ • iei L'cq ''rtoTl "s^o'X t'Xi/'i jfbirt£v*| ... 1— ~ ........ <5'8 ■ pi rtb^svnbb 'loo-X't bet ! la. Previous Reports in This Series on EFFICIENCY IN FRUIT MARKETING Marketing Costs for Deciduous Fruits Grading Costs for Apples and Pears Orchard-to-Plant Transportation Packing Costs for California Apples and Pears Building and Equipment Costs, Apple and Pear Packing aias^ hna a&iq^A fclrno'UlfiO tel. &ilo3 3«*> 3flf * x*r*fci Trtrtii -»ieoO *iT»fljq^Daf bos sfliMlitf