A Publication of The College of Agriculture
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
EFFICIENCY IN
FRUIT MARKETING
Orehard-to-Plant Transportation
L L. SAMMET
CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
GIANNINI FOUNDATION OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
Mimeographed Report No. 131 July 1952
LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY OF CAUFORNIA
OAVIS
FOREWORD
This report is one of a series aimed at improved efficiency and lowered
costs in the local marketing and packing of deciduous fruits. During the
postwar years these local costs— covering operations from orchard through
shipping point — have averaged nearly as much as returns to farmers. The
present report deals with only a small segment of these local operations —
the movement of fruit from the orchard to the packing house. Studies at a
number of orchards indicate that loading in the orchard and unloading at the
plant require from 32 to 120 man-minutes of labor per 100 lugs of fruit,
depending primarily on the methods and type of equipment used, and that over-
the-road transportation requires additional labor ranging from less than 3
to more than 30 man-minutes per 100 lugs for each mile between the packing
house and the orchard. Improved methods and equipment represent important
potentials for increased efficiency of labor in this phase of fruit mar-
keting.
These studies were made co-operatively by the Giannini Foundation of
Agricultural Economics, California Agricultural Experiment Station, and the
Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U, S. Department of Agriculture, They
were made under the authority of the Research and Marketing Act of I9I46,
r'KiiJO'md'' b'if .-i:mi 'nrd'
.:rij di 'biil
> t-^uL i "lo esJ'miim-fusm uSii ot
- 9- .Li'ps 'io acf^ci
to '^ortiio
— Jniocf Tvii'jqiflB
I xnin-
EFFICIENCY IN FRUIT MARKETING
Orchard- to-Plant Transportation
L. L. Sammeti/
In transporting fruit from their orchards to central packing houses,
growers follow fairly uniform procedures. In the orchard, field boxes or
lugs of fruit are stacked by the pickers. These lugs are loaded on some
type of truck or trailer and hauled to the plant. After the fruit is weighed,
the grower receives a receipt and a receiving crew unloads the full lugs.
The truck or trailer is usually reloaded with empty lugs and returns to the
orchard where the empty lugs are distributed in the picking area. The sum
of these tasks may be called a/iauling cycle, ^
Although the basic steps in this hauling cycle are similar for all
growers, there are substantial differences in the equipment and particular
methods used by different growers and at different packing houses. These
differences materially affect the amount of labor required in the hauling
cycle. Observed methods of loading and transferring fruit at the orchard
and unloading and reloading at the packing house were found to have labor
requirements that ranged from 32 to 120 man-minutes per 100 lugs of fruit,
Over-the-road hauling between the orchard and the plant required additional
labor ranging from 2,5 to 32,5 man-minutes per 100 lugs for each mile from
the orchard to the packing house.
The objective of this report is to relate such differences in labor re-
quirements to observed differences in method and equipment. The results of
studies of a number of methods and types of equipment are then compared to
discover the relative labor and equipment requirements of each method.
In all cases, the data presented are based on studies in several orchards
involving many different workers. For this reason they should be representa-
tive of the relative requirements for the several methods under more or less
typical conditions. Particular conditions in any specific orchard may differ
from these averages, but growers should be able to use these results to esti-
mate the approximate effects of changes in their orchard-to-plant transporta-
tion methods and to assist in the development of plans for increased efficiency
in this phase of fruit marketing,
l/ Co-operative Agent of the California Agricultural Experiment Station
and~of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S, Department of Agriculture.
•biBtic ■■)■ eJftj.
2.
LABOR AND EOUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
Studies of orchard-to-plant transportation were made in a number of
pear, apple, and peach orchards. Results of these studies are given below
for five major methods and types of equipment: (l) highway trailer; (2)
truck; (3) fork-lift attachment; (U) truck and orchard trailer; (5) truck
and fork-lift attachment. For each of these, labor requirements are divided
into three categories: (a) labor expended in the orchard and at the transfer
point; (b) time required for highway travel; (c) time required at the packing
house,^/ The effects of such factors as highway speed, size of load, and
crew organization are noted,
1. Highway Trailer
Equipment and Methods , — The highway trailer is a low-bed, tractor-drawn
trailer, with from 1 to 3 trailer units hitched in tandem to a single tractor-
Figure 1, Lugs are placed directly on pallets on the trailers in stacks 5
or 6 lugs high. One man serves as loader and driver, although occasionally
an additional loader may be used. Each U-wheeled trailer unit has space for
2 pallets, or capacities of 60 lugs with stacks 5 lugs high and 72 lugs
with stacks 6 lugs high. Several variations of this type of equipment were
observed, including a 2-wheeled semi-trailer with a capacity of h pallets.
Because of its higher ground clearance, however, this type appeared to be
less well adapted to 1-man operation than the ii -wheeled trailers.
Labor Requirements .— Labor requirements for the highway trailer are
summarized in Table 1, For lugs stacked 6 high, the indicated capacities
of 72, lUh) and 2l6 lugs correspond respectively to 1-, 2-, and 3-unit
trailers. All estimates are based on operations with a 1-raan crew and have
been expressed in terms of labor requirements per 100 lugs in order to
facilitate direct comparison. The total labor required to load and unload
the trailers in the orchard is directly related to the number of lugs and
remains constant per 100 lugs regardless of total load; loading full lugs
requires 8,8 man-minutes per 100 lugs while unloading empty lugs requires
2/ Time and labor requirements at the packing house and for highway travel
are^based on the assumption of a 1-man crew for the orchard-to-plant trip.
At-plant time does not include the time of packing house workers. Receiving
labor requirements for plant t^orkers will be covered in a separate report.
'T?(» riBitr rsaO .ftflrfff i?.«5
(A) A 3-unit trailer en route to plant.
Fig. 1— Orchard-to-plant transportation with highway trailer.
TABLE 1
Average Labor Requirements for Orehard-to-Plant Transportation
Using Highway Trailers
Labor requirements
man-minutes per 100 lugs
Operation
72 lugs
per trip
lUh lugs
per trip
216 lugs
per trip
Labor in orchard:
Full lugs
Load on trailer
Miscellaneous V
Empty lugs
Unload from trailer
Miscellaneous^/
8.8
11.6
2.9
8.8
7.9
2.9
3.9
8.8
7.0
2.9
3.6
Labor at plant
IU.8
11.2
10.0
Total labor in orchard and at plant
li3.5
3U.7
32.3
Labor on highway: .
per mile of one-way distanceS'
11.7
5.8
3.9
a/ Includes driving in orchard, placing and removing load bindings, waiting,
and other miscellaneous operations.
b/ Includes driving at plant, placing and removing load bindings, waiting
while load is weighed and unloaded and empty lugs loaded, and miscel-
laneous operations. Also includes an average of 1.3 minutes of delay,
c/ Equivalent to highway speeds of 12.it miles per hour when loaded with
~" fruit and l6,7 miles per hour when loaded with empty lugs.
5.
only 2,9 man-minutes per 100 lugs. Mscellaneous orchard operations include
some elements that are on a per-trip rather than a per-lug basis, on the
other hand, and so require smaller amounts of labor per 100 lugs as load
size increases. The miscellaneous elements associated with full lugs require
11.6 man-minutes of labor per 100 lugs with load size of 72 lugs and only
7.0 man-minutes per 100 lugs with loads of 2l6 lugs. Labor requirements for
miscellaneous elements associated with empty lugs drop from to 3.6 man-
minutes per 100 lugs as loads increase from 72 to 2l6 lugs.
For the most part, the driver's time at the plant represents waiting
time while plant and office workers weigh the load, prepare the grower's
receipt, unload the fruit, and reload the trailer with empty lugs. Time re-
quirements average lU.8 man-minutes per 100 lugs id.th loads of 72 lugs, 11.2
man-minutes with loads of ihh lugs, and 10.0 man-minutes per 100 lugs with
loads of 216 lugs. 2/
Total labor requirements in the orchard and at the plant (excluding
highway travel time) average U3.5 man-minutes per 100 lugs with loads of 72
lugs, 3U.7 man-minutes with loads of ihk lugs, and 32.3 man-minutes per 100
lugs with loads of 2l6 lugs.
Time requirements per 100 lugs for highway travel depend on road speed,
size of load, and distance to plant. Road speed is affected by such factors
as highway and traffic conditions and the characteristics of the driver, but
the average results of the sample studies may be taken as more or less typical.
The average observed speed for highway trailers when loaded with fruit was
12,U miles per hour. When loaded with empty lugs, the average speed was l6.7
miles per hour. These averages have been used to calculate travel time re-
quirements in terms of man-minutes per 100 lugs for each mile of one-way
distance from orchard to plant. As is indicated in Table 1, travel time re-
quirements per one-way mile average 11,7 man-minutes per 100 lugs with loads
of 72 lugs, 5.8 man-minutes with loads of lUli lugs, and 3,9 man-minutes per
100 lugs with loads of 2l6 lugs,
3/ Estimates of at-plant time are based on the use of fork-lift trucks.
If hand trucks are ujed, with 2 hand truckers per load, the at-plant time
requirements for the grower would be increased about 2.U man-minutes per 100
lugs above the estimates given. At-plant time also includes 1.3 minutes per
trip to cover delays while waiting for the plant crew to handle the load.
While this was the average delay for the plants studied in detail, longer
delays may be typical in some plants.
Similar qualifications apply to the estimates of labor requirements with
the other methods (Tables 2 to 5).
Si '
bifiCi 8G lOffBl to ■'. a
XXno fcnfi sgi-'i nsia lodsX 'io
•lo'j at a, m^i'i it) O'-T. -t: ^XS ebeol dtiw rj\x/I 001
iq ^br: ) fans iaslq sXtxlw amM
omJT .egi/I id" erii bsoIo'T bo? . bftofnr
' ?V lo ei: .: 001 ntq api . -trp
T;I loq tv)itfnijn-nf.m 0»0X bn& . '41 nbfol rltirw b-^
' it d& fatifl b'iftriolo f«H* ni .
ST lo ebeol rWiw ej^I 001 loq . ; Icvsti •ziswci'gid
OOX i3q ^Sf. fcmi I Io absol itfiw eaj-i/nim-nfim V»4C tSSvX
.a^iL'X dl^ In eb^nf d.t Iw ''juX
bfio^ no bn-;i<|ob Xev^i* d io5 Bswl
riotfs -^d biyJosllB ei: faaoqe / .joisXa n& s'jnp.t.ttb bns <b£or "Jo ssXa
;b ariJ' R-rfc^si-K^acusdo frii bnp ?; . bns - 3b
10 9iOfn ; ad xsin ^ 3 odi lo B,tXx;35'i .tc .jrfj-
esw ixx/ll tiJi;j bobsoX ni:'riw cisiifliJ- . ; tol be-ar:?! i-::yT:08d':: vb srfT
esw booqe o^rt-.to^^ aiit tSSi'X x^qff'"^ -'^J"!*' h-jbnol n ytvod loq z-:>ljm
-31 amij XovfitJ also oi -b^u nosd ^^v ,l ,i0ori - e ' ir-
"T ni I /li ai bA ..^j-msIvT fcTsrioio moil . ^ib
eho.rl H.t'v r-- jf)q e^&r-^hk-mm ^,Ii 3Sj?iovfi ::-Xfr' y-';-sno loq e^JaQmoiii/p
<. hns , 11 lo sbBoi riJiv ;r . - ..nm 8,$ ,BgyX lo
" r:+ r Rgxij OOX
. lodivX lo :.tBu ^mI- .
6.
These labor requirements with the highway trailer are combined in Figure
1 to illustrate the effects of size of load and distance from plant. In
the diagram, the labor requirements in the orchard and at the plant are in-
dicated by the heights of the bars in Part B, while the influence of distance
is indicated by the sloping lines in Part C, Suppose we illustrate the use
of this diagram by considering a grower whose orchard is located S miles
from the packing house, and who is now hauling fruit on a single highway
trailer with capacity of 72 lugs per trip. To find the total labor require-
ments per 100 lugs, enter Part C of Figure 1 at the point corresponding to
5 miles, move vertically to the line labeled 72 lugs, and then horizontally
to the scale at the left of the diagram. At this point, read the hauling
labor requirements as about 102 man-minutes per 100 lugs. If this grower
were to change to a 2-trailer rig with capacity of ihh lugs per trip, his
hauling labor requirements would be reduced to 62 minutes per 100 lugs.
Potential savings from such a change would thus average Uo man-minutes of
labor per 100 lugs, or 39 per cent of his present labor requirements. By
using Figure 1 in this manner, labor requirements may be estimated for other
distances and load sizes as desired,
2, Truck
Equipment and Methods ,— Where tree size and spacing permit, many growers
load directly in the orchard on a standard flat-bed truck (Figure 2). Lugs
are stacked 5 or 6 high and may be placed either on the truck bed or on
pallets, depending on the type of unloading equipment at the packing house.
The crew ordinarily consists of two men: a driver—who also lifts the lugs
from picker stacks to the truck bed— and a helper who stacks the lugs on
the truck. The helper usually performs other work in the orchard when the
truck is enroute to and from the packing house— for example, he may work as
a picker. The capacities of the trucks observed ranged from 120 to 2l6 lugs.
Labor Requirements . — Average labor requirements for orchard-to-plant
transportation based on a truck loaded in the orchard by a 2-man crew are
given in Table 2. Estimates are given for three load sizes — 108, ihh, and
2l6 lugs per trip. With a load of 108 lugs, labor requirements in the or-
chard and at the plant average 5? •I man-minutes per 100 lugs. When load
size is increased to 2l6 lugs, labor requirements are reduced to hS»^ man-
minutes per 100 lugs.
(A) Unloading at packing house.
Fig. 2— Orchard-to-plant transportation with flat-bed highway truck.
8.
TABLE 2
Average Labor Requirements for Orchard-to-Plant Transportation
With Highway Truck Loaded Directly in the Orchard
Labor requirements
man-minutes per 100 lugs
Operation
108 lugs
per trip
Ikh lugs
por trip
216 lugs
per trip
Labor in orchard:
Full lugs
Load lugs on truck
Miscellaneous V
Enipty lugs
Unload empty lugs
Miscellaneous V
16.0
11.8
8.5
16.0
8.7
5.5
6.6
l6,0
8.1
5.5
5.9
Labor at plant^/
15.3
12.0
10.0
Total labor in orchard and at plant
57.1
U8.8
U5.5
Labor on highway j
per mile of one-way distance£/
5.8
2.9
a/ Includes dri\ring in orchard, placing and removing load bindings, and
" other miscellaneous operations.
b/ Includes driving at plant, placing and removing load bindings, waiting
while load is weighed and unloaded and empty lugs loaded, and miscel-
laneous operations. Also includes an average of 1.3 minutes of delay,
c/ Equivalent to highway speeds of 17.7 miles per hour when loaded with
fruit and 20,5 miles per hour when loaded with empty lugs.
The time required for highway travel will again depend on typical over-
the-road speeds. For the trucks observed, speeds averaged 17.7 miles per
hour when loaded with fruit and 20.5 miles per hour when loaded with empty
lugs. Assuming that the helper remains in the orchard, these opeeds corres-
pond to average labor requirements of $,Q man-minutes per 100 lugs per mile
of 1-way distance with loads of 108 lugs. Highway travel time per 100 lugs
will decrease as the size of load increases, and requirements for loads of
2l6 lugs average only 2.9 man-minutes per 100 lugs per mile of 1-way dis-
tance from orchard to plant.
Total labor requirements per 100 lugs may be computed for various load
and distance situations from the data given in Table 2 or from the diagrams
given in Figure 2. Suppose a grower located 5 miles from the packing house
is hauling his fruit on highway trucks with loads averaging 108 lugs. Ac-
cording to Part C of Figure 2, his present labor requirements will be ap-
proximately 86 man-minutes per 100 lugs. If he found it possible to increase
load size to 2l6 lugs, labor requirements wovild be reduced to approximately
6l man-minutes per 100 lugs. The change in load size would thus result in
a savings of 25 man-minutes of labor per 100 lugs, or nearly 30 per cent of
his present hauling labor requirements,
3. Fork-Lift Attachment
Equipment and Methods .— A recent development in orchard-to-plant hauling
is the use of a fork-lift attachment for a standard farm tractor (Figure 3).
In the operations studied, the equipment is operated by one man who also
stacks full lugs on pallets and unloads empty lugs in the picking area as
required. In some orchards, all the lugs are stacked on pallets by the
operator and in other orchards all the stacking is done by the pickers.
More commonly, the pickers stack part of the lugs on pallets where convenient,
while the operator completes the pallet load by picking up lugs from picker-
stacks between pallets. Pallet loads consist of 36 lugs in stacks 6 lugs
high or U2 lugs in stacks 7 lugs high.
Labor Reqiiirements ,— Estimates of labor requirements for hauling directly
from orchard to plant are given in Table 3 for load sizes of 36 and U2 lugs.
The time requirements for loading full lugs and distributing enqpty lugs in
the orchard are based on the assumption that 50 per cent of the lugs are
placed on the pallets by the pickers~as this will normally require little,
if any, additional work by the pickers~and that the remainder are stacked by
in
•rft ■v:d pi.tv
il ■ ■ .■-■IK-' -^r-— •rT-'-'/b arii
(A) Loading fork-lift attachment in orchard.
Fig. 3— Orchard-to-plant transportation with fork-lift attachment.
I
TABLE 3
Average Labor Req\iirenients for Orchard- to-Plant Transportation
With Fork -Lift Attachment
Labor requirements
man-minutes per 100 lugs
Ooeration
36 lugs
per trip
U2 lugs
per trip
Labor in orchard:
Full lugs
Load lugs on fork lift
Miscellaneous^
Empty lugs
Unload empty lugs
Mscellaneous
a/
6.0-
16.5
1.5B/
9.9
6.0
lii.2
1.52/
7.U
c/
Labor at plant-'
15.9
13.7
Total labor in orchard and at plant
U9.8
i
h2,8 1
!
Labor on highway: .
per mile of one-way distance^/
■ -
32.5
27.9 :
a/ Estimated on the basis that 50 per cent of the full lugs are stacked
directly on pallet by pickersj 50 per cent of the empty lugs are
secured directly from the pallet by the pickers.
b/ Includes driving in orchard and other miscellaneous operations.
c/ Includes release of pallet load of fruit and pick up of empty lugs,
waiting while load is weighed and miscellaneous operations. Also
includes an average of 1,3 minutes of delay time,
d/ Equivalent to a highway speed of 10,2 miles per hour when hauling
empty or full lugs.
12.
the pickers on the ground at intermediate points and loaded by the operator.
Labor at the plant involves the same operations and time requirements per
trip as in the methods described previously, except that the iinloading and
loading operations consist merely of spotting and releasing the pallet of
full lugs and picking up a pallet of empty lugs with the fork-lift attach-
ment. Labor requirements in the orchard and at the plant decrease from
ii9.8 man-minutes per 100 lugs with a load size of 36 lugs to Ii2.8 man-minutes
per 100 lugs with a load size of h2 lugs. Travel speed on the highway
averages 10.2 miles per hour with loads of full or empty lugs. At this
speed, the labor used in highway travel is 32.5 man-minutes per 100 lugs
per mile 1-way distance with a load size of 36 lugs and 27.9 man-minutes
with a load size of h2 lugs.
Estimates of total labor requirements can be made from the data in Table
3, or may be read directly from Figure 3. For a grower located 5 miles from
the packing house, a total of 212 man-minutes per 100 lugs are required if
the load size is 36 lugs. With a load size of i|2 lugs, the total labor re-
quirements are 182 man-minutes per 100 lugs, a reduction of 30 man-minutes
per 100 lugs, or lU per cent in comparison with the smaller lead,
U. Truck and Orchard Trailer
Equipment and Methods .— In some orchards, topography or tree spacing
and height of branches above the ground prevent driving into the orchard
with highway trailers or trucks, a circumstance commonly found in Cali-
fornia apple orchards. Growers in this situation frequently use a low-bed
orchard trailer or a special orchard truck for operations within the or-
chard, with a flat-bed highway truck for the over-the-road haul (Figure it).
The crew usually consists of two or more men who load the orchard trailer
in a manner similar to that described in method 2, then drive to the edge
of the orchard where the lugs are transferred by hand to the highway truck.
The capacity of the orchard trailers observed was 120 lugs; the capacity of
the highway trucks, 120 to 2l6 lugs.
Labor Requirements . — The average labor requirements for orchard-to-plant
transportation with a truck and orchard trailer combination are given in
Table h for load sizes of ihk and 2l6 lugs per trip. The estimates of labor
required to load full lugs and to unload empty lugs in the orchard are based
on the use of a 2-man loading crew, as in method 2. All time used in driving
in the orchard, maneuvering the orchard trailer at the transfer area, and in
(A) Flatbed highway truck at transfer point receiving full lugs
from orchard trailer.
Lugs per trip Qne-way distance to plant, miles
(B) Average labor requirements in (C) Average total labor requirements,
orchard and at plant.
Fig. 4— Orchard-to-plant transportation v/ith truck and orchard trailer.
Hi.
TABLE h
Average Labor Requirements for Orchard-to-Plant Transportation
With Truck and Orchard Trailer Combination
Labor requirements
man-minutes per 100 lugs
1
Operation
lUU lugs
per trip
216 lugs
per trip
Labor in orchard:
Full lugs
16.0
16,0
Load lugs on orchard trailer
Transfer lugs to truck
20.6
20.6
M s c ellane 0 us£/
13.2
11.7
Empty lugs
5.5
5.5
Unload empty lugs
Transfer empty lugs to orchard
trailer .
iyii s c ell ano ousf:'
12.0
12.0
9.7
9.5
Labor at plant^/
12.0
10.0
Total labor in orchard and at plant
89.0
85.3
Labor on highway: .
per mile of one-way distancoS'
h.h
2.9
a/ Includes driving in orchard, placing and removing load bindings,
~ waiting, and miscellaneous operations.
b/ Includes driving at plant, placing and removing load bindings,
" waiting while load is weighed and unloaded and empty lugs loaded,
and miscellaneous operations. Also includes an average of 1.3
minutes of dwlay time,
c/ Equivalent to highway speeds of 17.7 miles per hour when loaded
with fruit and 20,5 miles per hour when loaded with empty lugs..
15.
similar operations is included under "miscellaneous" labor. The estimates of
labor used in the transfer of lugs between the truck and orchard trailer in-
cludes only the work of passing lugs from one vehicle to the other. This
labor is on a per-lug basis and does not vary with changes in size of load.
It amounts to 20,6 man-minutes per 100 lugs in transferring full lugs and
12,0 man-minutes per 100 lugs in transferring empty lugs.
Labor in the orchard and at the plant averages 89,0 man-minutes per 100
lugs with a load size of ihh lugs and 85,3 man-minutes per 100 lugs with a
load size of 2l6 lugs. Since the over-the-road transportation is by highway
truck, the labor used on the highway per 100 lugs is the same for a given
size load as previously indicated under method 2,
Total labor requirements for a particular situation caji be estimated
from the data in Table k or may be read directly from Figure 1|, Thus, for a
grower located $ miles from the packing house, the total labor requirements
for hauling with the orchard trailer and truck combination is approximately
110 man-minutes per 100 lugs with a load size of lUli lugs and 100 man-minutes
with a load size of 216 lugs,
5, Truck and Fork -Lift Attachment
Equipment and Methods , — This combination of equipment is used by growers
whose situation is similar to that described in method k and who wish to re-
duce the laborious and time-consuming task of transferring lugs between the
orchard trailer and highway truck by hand (Figure $)» The fork-lift attach-
ment is used in the orchard to pick up and distribute empty lugs and, at the
transfer point, to load and unload the highway truck. The orchard operations
with the fork-lift attachment are performed by a loader-driver as in method 3»
The number of lugs per pallet may be 36 or U2, With 36 lugs per pallet, the
number of lugs hauled per highway trip is ikk lugs for a U-pallet load or
2l6 lugs for a 6-pallet load. With U2 lugs per pallet, the 6-pallet load
contains 2^2 lugs.
Labor Requirements .— Estimated labor requirements with the truck and
fork-lift attachment are given in Table 5 for load sizes of lUi> 2l6, and
252 lugs per trip. In regard to labor used in the orchard, note that the
requirements for loading full lugs on the fork lift and for unloading empty
lugs are the same as for the fork-lift attachment used on a direct haul to
the packing house (method 3), As in method 3> it is assumed that the loader-
driver handles only half of the lugs in the orchard, the remainder of this
(A) Fork-lift attachment placing palletized loacJ of field lugs on
highway truck.
Fig. 5— Orchard-to-plant transportation with truck and fork-lift attachment.
I
I
!
17.
TABLE 5
Average Labor Requirements for Orchard-to-Plant Transportation
With Truck and Fork-Lift Attachment
Labor requirements
man-minutes per 100 lugs
Operation
luU lugs
per trip
clO lugs
per trip
c^c lugs
per trip
Labor in orchard:
Full lugs
Load lugs on fork lift
Miscellaneous^/ .
Transfer pallets to truck£'
Empty lugs
Unload empty lugs
Miscellaneous^/ ,
Transfer pallets from truck^/
6.0^/
16.8
5.6
1.5
8.8
6.U
6.0^/
16.6
5.6
1.5
8.1
6.1;
6.0^/
13.8
U.8
1.5
7.U
5.5
Labor at plant^/
12.0
10.0
hi
Total labor in orchard and at plant
57.1
5U.2
i;8.5
Labor on highway; .
per mile of one-way distance^/
U.U
1
2.9
2.5
a/ Estimated on basis that 50 per cent of lugs are stacked directly on
pallet by pickers; 50 per cent of the empty lugs are secured directly
from the pallet by the pickers.
b/ Includes driving in orchard, releasing pallets of full lugs and picking
" up pallets of empty lugs at the transfer area, and other miscellaneous
operations.
c/ Transfer pallets of full or empty lugs between tmick and temporary
storage at transfer area.
d/ Includes driving at plant, placing and removing load bindings, waiting
while load is weighed and unloaded and empty lugs loaded, and miscel-
laneous operations. Also includes an average of 1.3 minutes of delay.
e/ Equivalent to a highway speed of 17.7 miles per hour, when loaded with
empty lugs, and 20.5 miles per hour when loaded with full lugs.
18.
work being done by the pickers. The miscellaneous labor performed in the or-
chard includes driving in the orchard, the release of pallets of full lugs
and picking up of pallets of empty lugs at the transfer area, and miscellaneous
operations. Since many of these operations are on a per-pallet rather than a
per-lug basis, the miscellaneous labor requirements per 100 lugs are notice-
ably less as the load size increases fron} 2l6 lugs, with 36 lugs per pallet,
to 2^2 lugs, with ij,2 lugs per pallet, J^abor requirements at the transfer
area include only the transfer of pallets between the highway truck and
temporary storage in the transfer area. These decrease slightly as the num-
ber of lugs per pallet increases.
Labor requirements at the plant and in the- orchard decrease from 57.1
man-minutes per 100 lugs with a load size of ihh lugs to US, 5 man-minutes
per 100 lugs with a load size of 252 lugs. As in the preceding methods, labor
requirements per 100 lugs for highway travel decrease as the size of load in-
creases.
Total labor requirements can be computed from the data in Table 5 or may
be taken directly from Figure 5. For a grower located 5 miles from the
packing house, the total labor requirements are 79 man-minutes per 100 lugs
with a load size of ikh lugs and 69 man-minutes per 100 lugs with a load
size of 252 lugs. Increasing the load size from ihh to 252 lugs would save
approximately 10 man-minutes per 100 lugs, a reduction of approximately 13
per cent of the requirements with the smaller load.
LABOR SAVING POSSIBILITIES
For most growers, the labor required for orchard-to-plant transportation
undoubtedly can be reduced. Some possibilities of labor saving are evident
in the preceding estimates of the labor requirements with different methods.
Depending on the particular situation, savings might be achieved by improve-
ment of the existing method or by changing to a new method.
Improving the Existing Method
Increasing the Size of Load , — As some operations in loading and hauling
fruit are on a per-trip basis, labor required for such operations is used
more efficiently as the size of load increases. In discussing the labor re-
quirements for the truck loaded directly in the orchard, for example, it is
shown that a grower located 5 miles from the packing house can save 25 man-
minutes per 100 lugs by increasing the load size from IO8 to 2l6 lugs per
trip. Similar effects are noted in regard to the other methods. The longer
.ox
■-illidi 3 soc{ f-c.
snlbn
19.
the over-the-road h^ul, the more advantageous it is to increase the load size.
If the grower in the above example were located 10 miles from the packing
house instead of 5 miles, the saving in labor through the change in load size
would increase from 25 man-minutes per 100 lugs when the length of haul is
S miles to hX man-minutes per 100 lugs when the haul is 10 miles (Figure 2),
Reducing the Crew Size . — In the preceding estimates of labor require-
ments it is assumed that the orchard operations with the highway trailer and
with the fork-lift attachment are performed with a 1-man crew. Orchard
operations with the truck loaded directly in the orchard and with the truck
and orchard trailer combination are assumed to be performed with a 2-man crew.
Some growers, hovTever, use larger crews. With a given method, the effect
of the larger crew is to increase the loading labor recuired per 100 lugs
and to decrease the elapsed time required per trip. For example, a grower
hauling with a highway truck loaded directly in the orchard (method 2) may
use a 5-man crew consisting of a driver, 2 loaders, and 2 stackers. As-
suming the loading crew to be fully occupied during the day— either in
loading or some other work, such as picking— and that none of the loading
crew accompanies the driver to the plant, the effect of the larger crew can
be indicated by comparing only the orchard labor requirements under the two
methods. This is done in Table 6, Note that labor requirements for orchard
operations are 35.5 man-minutes per 100 lugs with the 2-man loading crew and
are 6U.3 man-minutes per 100 lugs with the S-maxi crew. A grower presently
using a 5-man crew could, by changing to a 2-man crew, reduce the labor re-
quirements about 29 man-minutes per 100 lugs, a saving of approximately US
per cent of the orchard labor required with the 5-man crew. This difference
in orchard labor requirements is due largely to the fact that the driver in
the 5-man crew does no loading and that the time used in moving between
loading points in the orchard is greater with the larger crew. Also, ar^
delays result in a time loss for $ men in contrast with only 2 men with the
smaller crew.
Although the amount of labor required is greater with the larger crew,
the elapsed time per trip is reduced by approximately 10 minutes per trip.
In hauling 6 loads, this amo\mts to a reduction in hauling time of 1 hour.
In some situations, the increase in daily hauling capacity resulting from
use of the larger crew may justify the higher labor cost.
saixisqmoo'j ■ w- -sb
■ i 76qmoo Xd b~
fc; .iiw sBixX OOJ
•13 A<;in<*2
ofij
20.
TABLE 6
Effect of Crew Size on Average Labor Rbquirements for Orchard Operations
With A Truck Loaded Directly in the Orchard
Labor requirements
man-minutes per 100 lugs
Operations
2-man
crew^/
5-raan .
crewH'
Full lugs
Load lugs on truck
Miscellaneous
Driver
16.0
8.1 ,
16.0
16, h
9.6
Empty lugs
Unload empty lugs
Miscellaneous
Driver
5.9/
5.5
11.8
5.0
i Total
1
35.5
6U.3
a/ One loader-driver and 1 stacker.
b/ One driver, 2 loaders, and 2 stackers. Estimates of labor
requirements are based on the following assumptions:
(1) the driver does no loading; (2) the labor for loading
and stacking per 100 lugs is the same as with the 2-man
crew; (3) lugs are stacked on each side of the orchard
lane and 1 loader-stacker "team" works each side, with
the work evenly divided between the 2 teams so that
neither is delayed waiting for completion of work by the
other.
c/ Driver's time included under loading and miscellaneous.
•••doiQ-.
nr.^'- J •Slid' r
■ jKi^ \d 5lT . 'lOO "SOl
'H'J. \o
21.
Changing to a Different Method
The savings in labor that may be expected through a change in method can
be estimated by comparing the labor requirements for the different methods.
Ihe procedure is simple and can be illustrated by example. Suppose that a
grower is now using a truck and orchard trailer. He is located 5 miles from
the packing house and is presently hauling 2l6 lugs per highway trip. He
proposes to change to the truck and fork-lift attachment. Waat savings in
labor might he expect? Turning to Figure k, we find the total labor re-
quirements for the truck and orchard trailer with a 2l6-lug load and a S-
mile haul to be approximately 100 man-minutes per 100 lugs. Similarly, we
find from Figure ^ that the labor requirements after substituting the fork-
lift attachment for the operations in the orchard would be only 69 man-
minutes per 100 lugs. The saving in labor through this change is 31 man-
minutes per 100 lugs, a reduction of 31 per cent from the original require-
ments. Similar comparisons can be made for other methods and for any given
hauling distance.
Since total labor requirements for a given method depend on the orchard-
to-plant distance, a simple answer regarding the saving in labor to be ex-
pected from a change in method is not possible. To illustrate this point,
total labor requirements, including highway travel, are summarized for the
various methods in Table 7. Total labor requirements are given for selected
load sizes and for orchard-to-plant distances of 1, and l5 miles. For
an orchard-to-plant distance of 1 mile, the labor requirements are greatest—
88 man-minutes per 100 lugs — for the grower using the truck and orchard
trailer combination and some reduction in his labor requirements would be
possible by shifting to one of the other methods. If, for example, he were
to change to the single unit highway trailer of 72-lug capacity, he could
reduce his labor requirements from 88 to 56 man-minutes per 100 lugs, a
saving of 32 man-minutes, or 36 per cent of the original requirements. If
this grower were located l5 miles from the packing house, however, the change
in method would resiolt in no savings, the labor requirements being approxi-
mately 100 man-minutes per 100 lugs with either method. Similar comparisons
could be made for other methods and woiiLd further emphasize the importance
of considering length of haul in the selection of a best method.
; ex .'..1 .
■•ijrij' va. 'iol fans rborfJWi \^illfj
■' iocf/:i as gnxv,'?'; o:{T, «e3ui Of-
' '■ .loi^offfc-.- -•■ -f *'■
faierlcr-io LJilnT no ba-jqat) borij-'ia n^vxj
'■.'.iJOJ. i
.'JxXjB
aoxj;;i;
enosx-:' . . bodiijia •i^rf^x
;t,-nxii:~.
OOi
. isiebiznon
22.
TABLE 7
The Effect of I^pe of Equipment and Length of Haul on Average
Labor Requirements for Orchard-to-Plant Transportation
Method and equipment used
Number
of lugs
hauled
per trip
Total labor
excluding
highway-
travel
Total loading and hauling labor
man-minutes per 100 lugs
1-raile
haul
5 -mile
haial
15-mile
haul
1. Highway trailer;
1-unit
72
hh
56
102
219
2-unit
Ikh
35
hi
6h
122
3-unit
216
32
36
52
90
2. Truck
216
ii6
h9
60
90
3. Fork-lift attachment
it3
71
182
hso
U. Truck and orchard
trailer
2X6
85
88
100
128
$, Truck and fork-lift
attachment
216
5U
57
68
98
r\
■
-SOdTtL-H" i
■01
Of
V.
■-f .
001
V
^:
23.
LABOR SA7.ED PliR SEASON
The preceding discussion indicates that some growers should be able to
make substantial savings in the labor required to load and haul fruit to the
packing house and to return empty lugs to the orchard. For an individual
grower, such savings will depend upon the changes in method that his parti-
cular situation will permit. This will be influenced by the methods and
equipment he now uses, by topography and orchard layout, by road conditions,
and by the total quantity of fruit hauled per season. If a grower makes
only a few trips per season, he may achieve a large percentage saving in
labor without a substantial saving in total hours of labor. On the other
hand, a smaller percentage saving applied to a large number of trips might
prove quite significant.
A suggestion as to the labor-saving possibilities for an individual
grower is given in the following example; Suppose that a grower is operating
with the truck and orchard trailer combination (method h) using a 2-man loading
crew and a highway truck of 2l6-lug capacity. He proposes to change to method
5, using a fork-lift attachment in conjunction with the highway truck. The
grower's length of haul (1-way distance) is 5 miles and he hauls a total of
$00 tons of fruit per season. From Figure h, the total labor requirements
with his present method are 100 man-minutes per 100 lugs and from Figure ^
the total labor requirements with the new method are 6? man-minutes per 100
lugs. The saving in labor is 31 man-minutes per 100 lugs. With approxi-
mately U6 field lugs per ton of fruit, the total number of lugs haiiled in
transporting $00 tons is 500 x U6 = 23,000 lugs. The total labor saved per
season is the saving per 100 lugs multiplied by the total number of hundreds
of lugs hauled per season, or: 230 x 31 = 7,130 minutes. This is a total
saving per season of approximately 119 hours of labor.
For any quantity of fruit other than the $00 tons specified in this
example, the savings per season could be similarly estimated. Or, estimates
may be made which contrast methods other than those specified, provided the
methods to be compared closely approximate those described in this report,
DAILY HAULING CAPACITI
In the preceding discussion, attention was focused on the relative labor
requirements of various methods of loading and hauling. An additional con-
sideration for some growers may be the quantity of fruit that can be hauled
per day with a given method and equipment. Thus, a method economical in terms
2U.
of man-hours of labor may have a low capacity in terms of the number of lugs
hauled per day and in some circumstances it may be economical to choose a
method of larger capacity but of lower labor efficiency in order to avoid
increasing the number of equipment units.
These relationships are illustrated in Figure 6 which gives the daily
hauling capacity for the different methods. By reference to the appropriate
curve in Figure 6, an estimate is available of the number of lugs that can be
hauled over a given distance in an 8-hour workday.ii/ For example, to obtain
these estimates for a grower using method D and located 10 miles from the
packing house, enter the horizontal scale at 10 miles and go vertically to
curve h', then from this point, move horizontally to the lefthand scale to
read the daily capacity as about 600 lugs. Observe that method \x, which is
relatively uneconomical in the use of labor, also has the least capacity in
lugs per day. Method 1, which is relatively economical in the use of labor,
is intermediate with respect to capacity. The relatively low capacity of
method 3 results primarily from its small load size of li2 lugs in contrast
with a load size of 2l6 lugs per trip with the other methods.
Now suppose that a grower, who hauls 1,000 lugs per day and is 2 miles
distant from the packing house, is so situated as to orchard and highway con-
ditions that he may choose any of the 5 methods illustrated in Figure 6.
Assuming that the cost of the highway trailer and truck equipment is ap-
proximately the same, the grower would choose method 1 — the highway trailer —
as it is the most economical in the use of labor and is of adequate capacity.
If, however, the grower hauled 1,U00 lugs per day, he might consider methods
2 or 5i as the capacity of method 1 at a distance of 2 miles is only about
1,200 lugs per day. In comparing methods 2 and 5j the grower would choose
method 2 for the capacity at 2 miles is adequate and it is more economical
of labor and requires less equipment than method 5. On the other hand, a
U/ Hauling capacities indicated in Figure 6 are based on estimates of labor
requirements presented in Figures 1 to 5. These estimates include waiting,
or delay, time that averages 1.3 minutes per trip at the plant and 3.0 minutes
per trip at the orchard. Where larger amounts of delay occur, the hauling
capacity will be less than that indicated in Figure 6. These estimates also
are based on the assumption that fork-lift equipment is used for the receiv-
ing operations at the plant. If hand trucks are used for imloading, the time
requirements per trip would ordinarily be greater than in these estimates.
This also would reduce hauling capacity below the amounts indicated.
2000r
"1 — r
\
\
\
1 — I — I — r
1 — I — r
1 — I — i — r
NOTE: Based on highway loods of 216 lugs per
trip with methods 1, 2, 4, and 5, and 42
lugs per trip with method 3.
5 1000 -
500 -
J L
5 10
Orchard-to-plant distance (one way), miles
J L
Fig. 6— The efFects of methods and equipment for orchard-fo-plant transportation on hauling
capacity per 8-hour day.
26.
grower 2 miles distant from the packing house but hauling 1,700 lugs per day-
might choose method 5> or he might consider the desirability of adopting
method 1 and using two equipment units, each with a daily capacity of about
850 lugs each, or 1,700 lugs for two units.
In any of these methods, the daily capacity could be increased by work-
ing longer hours than the 8 hours per day on which Figure 6 is based. This
would be possible, subject to any limitations imposed by the packing house
receiving hours. Another means of increasing daily capacity is to pay for
the work on an incentive basis. One of the growers studied, for example,
paid for the loading and hauling work on a unit cost-per-box basis. VJith
this incentive wage, the labor requirements on certain operations such as
loading appeared to have been reduced about 2^ per cent. On operations such
as weighing the load at the plant, however, such an incentive payment would
have little or no effect.
EQUIPMENT COSTS
All the foregoing discussion has been in terms of labor requirements or
equipment time. A complete analysis requires consideration of the overhead
and operating costs for equipment for the several raeiiiods, for savings in
labor are frequently made possible by the use of more elaborate equipment.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to set up estimates of equipment costs that
can be applied generally to all farm situations. Frequently, equipment such
as the low-bed trailer is home-built, and estimates of its construction cost
are not always complete. More important, virtually all of the equipment can
be and is used for purposes other than fruit hauling. Trucks and tractors
are obviously used for many purposes on the farm, and their use for fruit
hauling may be relatively minor. Even equipment designed primarily for
hauling fruit may be used for other purposes at other seasons. For example,
one grower who had acquired a fork-lift attachment for hauling fruit from the
orchard was also planning to use it for handling feed for his poultry enter-
prise.
It is clear that a study of economies resulting from the use of a par-
ticular piece of equipment in hauling fruit must include an analysis of all
its applications and involves allocation of the cost of the equipment to the
various uses. Although it is difficult to devise a formula for the general
case, a fairly reasonable analysis may be made by the individual grower.
The grower knows what equipment he has available, what new equipment he
27.
would have to build or buy to use any particular method, and he can make some
estimate of the other uses for this equipment on his farm. On the basis of
this information, and the savings in orchard-to-plant transportation labor
discussed in this report, he should be able to reach a reasonable Judgment
as to the desirability of adopting any particular method.
As a rough guide for such estimates. Table 8 summarizes approximate
purchase prices or costs for several of the equipment items used in fruit
hauling. It must be emphasized that these are only approximately correct
for any given situation and that individual farmers in any particular lo-
cality may find prices higher or lower than those listed. In addition, some
farmers may find it possible to build their own equipment at a considerable
saving by using machinery and spare parts available on the farm and unuti-
lized labor during slack seasons of the year.
Table 8 also shows a rough estimate of annual equipment costs (exclud-
ing operating costs for gasoline, etc). These estimates are based on the
assumption of a useful life of 10 years for equipment of this type and the
following annual cost rates expressed as percentages of the original invest-
ment: depreciation, 10.0 per cent; repairs, 3.0 per centj insurance, 1.0
per cent; interest, 3.0 per cent (approximately equivalent to 5.0 per cent
on undepreciated balance); taxes, 1,0 per cent; or a total annual overhead
cost of 18«0 per cent of the original investment. Again, it must be empha-
sized that these are only approximations and that many farmers may find it
appropriate to substitute other estimates for those used. With this limita-
tion in mind, however, the estimates of annual costs may be taken as rough
indications of the minimum savings that must be made by the adoption of a
new method if the investment in new equipment is to be justified.
Suppose we consider a specific example. As on page 23, let us take the
case of a grower located 5 miles from the packing plant and with an annual
volume of 500 tons (23,000 lugs) of fruit. He is considering the relative
merits of the truck-orchard trailer (method h) and the truck fork-lift at-
tachment (method 5). Both methods use a highway truck for orchard-to-plant
ha-iiling with loads of 2l6 lugs. Since the highway and plant phases would be
identical for the two methods, they can be neglected for present purposes.
As noted on page 23j method 5 will require 31 minutes less labor per 100
lugs in orchard loading and transferring to the highway truck than will
method U, This savings would amoiint to some 119 hours of labor per season;
TABLE 8
Approximate Cost for New Equipment and Estimated Annual Cost
of Equipment Used for Orchard- to-Plant Transportation
Equipment
Approximate
cost new^/
Es timated
annual
chargej^/
Estimated
annual
cost
dollars
per cent
dollars
Fork-lift attachmenti'^
1000
18.0
180
Tractor (iirtieel type, nominal size, 2-plow)2'^
Trailers: U-wheel, U ft, x 8 ft. platformS/
ii-wheel, hi ft. x 10 ft. platforinE/
single axle, 2 to U wheel, iif ft.
X Ih ft. platforni£/
1700
200
2$0
U50 to $00
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
306
36
hS
81 to 90
Truck: 8 ft. x 12 ft. bed, nominal capacity
ij ton
5$00 to 2900
U$0 to $22
a/ Approximate delivered prices, north-central California, 19$2.
b/ Improved design, with telescoping top and $-inch side-shift on fork.
c/ Prices include cost of tires and tubes,
d/ Per cent of cost new.
1
29.
it is made possible by the fact that method 5 uses a fork-lift attachment while
method h involves hand loading and an orchard trailer. The annual savings in
labor must then be balanced against the additional annual equipment cost.
Note that a general -purpose tractor will be involved in each method— in
method h to pull the trailer and in method S to carry the fork-lift attachment—
and that overhead costs for the tractor can thus be neglected.i/ The difference
in equipment, then, is in the trailer on the one hand and the fork-lift at-
tachment on the other. According to Table 8, the annual cost for the trailer
will be about ^kS while the annual cost for the fork lift will be about |l80.
The difference, $135, is an estimate of the added equipment cost per year for
method 5, and this must be justified by the savings of 119 hours of labor.
If the savings in labor can be expressed as actual savings in wages paid, it
will be a simple matter to estimate the net money savings that can be expected
from method 5 as compared to method U.
The limitations of the estimates of equipment costs and the problem of
other uses for the hauling equipment have already been pointed out. It also
should be remembered that savings in physical labor may be achieved without
savings in cash labor costs. If increases in labor efficiency are to be
reflected in lowered labor costs, the farmer must be able to get along with
less hired labor, or handle a larger total volume without increasing his
hired labor staff. In some cases, savings in labor will have the primary
effect of lessening the work load and providing more leisure time. While
these results may be quite desirable, they must be recognized as quite dif-
ferent from reductions in cash costs and increases in cash farm income.
Despite these limitations, there are very important possibilities of in-
creasing labor efficiency in hauling fruit, and many farmers are finding it
possible to reduce cash costs and increase farm earnings by adopting such
labor-saving methods,
5/ Because of its smaller load, the fork-lift attachment will require more
trips and more mileage in the orchard. Extra costs for gasoline, etc., will
be relatively minor, however, and so have been neglected in this example.
jS itlOU
■j i9