A Publication of The College of Agriculture UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA The Fourth Report in a Series on Efficiency in Fruit Marketing PACKING COSTS FOR CALIFORNIA APPLES AND PEARS B. C. French CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION GIANNINI FOUNDATION OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS Mimeographed Report No. 138 October 1952 LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS FOREWORD This report is the fourth of a series aimed at improved efficiency and lowered costs in the local marketing and pack- ing of deciduous fruits. The present report deals only with one segment of packing house operations — the labor and equip- ment costs associated with the actual packing of fresh fruit. Studies of sample plants during the 19U9-50 season indicate that packing rates averaged 12. k standard boxes per packer- hour in apple plants and 11.5 standard boxes per packer-hour in pear houses. The studies reveal a wide range in efficiency among plants, from day to day within plants, and among indi- vidual packers. Standards for reasonably efficient operations have been derived from these studies which, if generally achieved, would free 12 to 15 per cent of the packing labor for other work. In addition to these direct effects, the efficiency of the packing operation may affect the cost of operations throughout most of the plant. Further economies are possible through the choice of a type of packing equip- ment appropriate to the length of operating season. These studies were made cooperatively by the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, California Agricultural Experiment Station, and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, TJ. S. Department of Agriculture. They were made under the authority of the Research and Marketing Act of 19W>. Efficiency in Fruit Marketing PACKING COSTS FOR CALIFORNIA APPLES AND PEARS B. C. French!!/ THE JOB OF PACKING The operations in plants packing fruit for shipments to distant markets may be classified into several broad groups. These include within-plant transportation of the raw materials and finished products; grading of the field-run fruit; materials supply; loading for shipment; miscellaneous jobs such as lidding, stamping, tallying; and "packing" or placing the fruit in boxes. This report is concerned only with the labor and equipment costs for the last of these groups — packing fruit intended for fresh consumption. Types of Packing Equipment One of the widely used types of packing equipment is the canvas bin (Figure 1-A) . The fruit drops into the bins from rope sizers and rolls down the sloping canvas bottoms to the packer. Bin boys are commonly used to keep the fruit piled up at the bottom of the bins where it is most convenient for the packers. In addition, they may push boxes on conveyors, occasionally set off packed boxes for packers, and give other minor assistance. Two different types of tub systems are commonly observed. All of the apple plants studied used the small 2-^-foot tubs set in double rows (Figure 1-B). The pear plants used both large tubs with diameters (Figure 1-C) — with packers on both sides — and small 3-foot tubs similar to those used for apples. Both types of tubs have spring -weighted bottoms that keep the fruit at a convenient level, and both rotate in order to keep the packers evenly supplied with fruit. Curtain or rope sizers are commonly used in pear plants while weight sizers were observed in all apple plants. 1/ B. C. French is a cooperative agent of the California Agricultural Experi- ment Station and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture. ZSim OKA S&IAio ; .q- 431 w bae ^InraxV*]*rit aat gnioeXq 1c **Bi«no3 so,.hMg 1c *>t a: i.tfi its jns33*rq oi .to© J-roqsnjs-ij ax agsmsb jaio»j? ,ocf «:£ 6« ; b abiiisni noxJeisqc jftow srft 1o a^n^acslv ni&w erf? »$#$p(J .'.'drntrn 8*Trajfoijq arfj fttiw yocf atf.t ^alquja^e t xod -yxirxi «W ; vrirxl erf* snxtfofiq-eoeig bn£ gniqqsW ,feisnil boa sbsq 33, i^toqaruj'r* dterft KXi?vaQQ erfi o* bfiHxe gniawBq aii* saoil «9Cjtf.fq 9JJ£.*rO-l'4 jG*«Ifl»0 B WOT* i leniX bsiaaf.bs vtiseo .llitfa vl'iie'i seatfort AAJttiife^ hi Influence on Plant Costs Packing labor represents the most important single component of the pack- ing house wage bill. It accounts for roughly half of the total labor cost in California pear and apple packing plants. Packers are key workers whose out- put has a substantial effect on the efficient utilization of labor and equip- ment in the entire packing house. Many of the jobs in the plant, such as tallying, stamping, lidding, setoff, and others, require that the worker remain in a given place and perform certain operations on the fruit as it comes to him. Studies show that workers of this type may be idle a considerable portion of the time and could often handle more fruit with little increase in man-hour inputs. Thus, greater packer productivity may result in lower over-all average costs. In addition, effective use of the packers — sometimes overlooked because usually they are paid on a piece-rate basis — will give them higher take-home pay. Ibis will result in improved labor relationships and reduced pressure for higher piecework rates. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND EFFICIENCY FACTORS Packing time requirements, derived from detailed studies of packing operations, are given in Table 1. These are average requirements for "average" packers when fully supplied with fruit. While some individuals require more time per box and others less, the typical worker should usually approximate the indicated times. The time requirements given in Table 1 are net times and do not include allowances for normal delays and rest periods. These amount to U.2 per cent for rest periods, .8 per cent for changing stations, and h per cent for per- sonal time. When added to the net time this gives the total time required per box. This gross time may be regarded as a "standard time" for reasonably ef- ficient operation and is used in the calculation of the performance standards given in Table 2. These performance standards are calculated in terms of boxes per hour and for fruit of several sizes. When expressed relative to the average of the various sizes packed in each type of container, the standards are: szscfio* yp* &za ■ •.-,y.oB < i .a.tnslq TU\iJiocq eXqqa bna teoq alniblilaQ lodelflc nox,tB2xXWx/ Jngxoii'ra edi no joalxs Sslirutisdue a aari ivq s jrfnaXq ari+.ai edor. ecit %o ^naM .*?siforf snxjfoaq s^xxn* srid nx J nam .'grit isrkf eiix/poi ,R7edJ;o bus /ilo-toa t §nibfaiX ,anxamsJ-e .gnxvIXaJ di~ e« ^lifaS eriJ nc eno.fcta'xaqo ni^tioo is-sol'isq bits ?oeIq nsvxg a - nx t©bienoo. s oXbx sd y,ara scnf* - zisii lo aie^'tow Jarit worte zsibadB .mid MtttfffieX O-Tiixi itfiv .txtJi'i 9*ror: oXbnari nad'io feXuoo bna ©mid :?rt> "io rave* tsvoI itl XS** Xj-tviJot/faoiq ifc-foeq iivdasTg ,euftfr '.edyqol • 3-teco oIooItsvo E9(CiJemoo»-37ojjofiq odd So ©ey ov& ov^la t nox^i±>b6 n? T^ngiri piotii ©vii> IIxw— -Sxasd 3d , arr~dOt»xq a no biac ©tub y©dd X-f-f-fci " :u foopubsT bna tqiflSaftOXj alsi *sodaX bsvosqati ni uXyB9t XXI » sxiff . 1 csq .R9da*r ^iow«oeiq TSffexd 10'i seibirds, b^Xxadab mqs'i bsvir&b 1 3*nem© T xyp^ ©«2d •:-,''•> r.\ )ffie7Jti»9i 3s,e*f*va ©is &a©d!F #X ©XdaT nx asvxg ate ^nordxvrsqo syfcfv'bn* smos '"•XiriW dinl'ddi"? bolLcaiss vXXeS iiariw ""'^Fn >n ob brre eomXJ dan 9**a X slrfaff ai neyig Rinemeixupat ..1! od dtwoflifi .t-eefft . gboiioq Js&t bna syalob Isimon tol nfit> icq d bna t £floxda.*e *pi%tt*dc *ioS ineo I9q 8. t 8boxi ! 9m.td Xadsrd grid asvis eirii amid dsn add od bob'ba naiSV." * ■ J .1. ■ •MaXai b&ttfeftqpcs n©rf> r . aajf is laTsvsa irfj .istiisdnoo "ic ©cvcf rios^ nx bejloaq aosxa 5. TABLE 1 Packing Time Requirements for California Gravenstein Apples and Bartlett Pearsiy Size— number of fruit per standard box Bartlett pears 90 100 110 120 135 150 165 J . 180 Minutes per standard box Nonpacking time^ Packing time .3hk 2.273 .310* 2.575 .3hh 2.877 .3hh 3.179 ,3hh 3.632 ,3hk u.085 .3hh U.538 .3l0i U.991 lotal time 2.617 2.919 3.221 3.523 3.976 U.U29 U.882 5.335 Minutes per San Francisco lug Nonpacking time^/ Packing time .302| 1.U81 .30lt 1.706 .301* 1.931 .30U 2.156 ,30h 2.1i9U Total time 1.785 2.010 2.235 2,1*60 2.798 Minutes per Los Angeles lug Nonpacking time^/ Packing time .20U .687 .20U .771 .201; .855 .20U .939 .201* 1.057 Total time .891 .975 1.059 1.1U3 1.261 Gravenstein apples Size — number of fruit per standard box 88 100 113 125 138 150 163 180 Minutes per standard box Nonpacking elements^ Packing elements Total time .687 2.192 .687 2.U06 .687 2.637 .687 2.851 .687 3.082 .687 3.296 .687 3.527 .687 3.830 2.879 3.093 3.32U 3.538 3.769 3.983 lu2U* U.517 a/ Fruit in standard boxes is wrapped; Los Angeles and San Francisco lugs, usually containing only the larger sizes, are naked pack. b/ Breakdown of nonpacking elements: Pears Apples Standard San Francisco Los Angeles Standard box lug lug box minutes per box Get box .103 .103 .077 .103 Stamp packer number .063 .063 .063 .063 Set off box .138 .138 .061* .138 Get new supply of wraps .OliO .oho Get and adjust liners • .3U3 ,3bk .301* •20b .687 1 • i • • rr o _ j .'Ml * - * r * • .... . _ _ - . — q si,--.- -^sr-l 1 ' "* ' ■** -! * Dr' i ' * ™ " : ~ TABLE 2 Performance Standards for Packing California Pears and Apples^/ Size — number of fruit per standard box Bartlett pears 90 100 110 120 135 150 165 130 Standard boxes per packer-hour 20.9 18.7 17.0 15.5 13.8 12.4 11.2 10.3 San Francisco lugs per packer-hour 30.7 27.2 24.5 22.2 Los Angeles lugs per packer-hour pi. 4 56.2 51.7 47.9 43.4 Size — number of fruit per standard box Gravenstein apples 88 100 113 125 138 150 163 180 Standard boxes per packer- hour 19.0 17.7 16.5 15.5 14.5 13.7 13.0 12.1 a/ The standards include allowances of 4.2 per cent for rest periods, .8 per cent for changing stations, and 4 per cent for personal time. 4 ba£ I j J 1 , s.ss ! f S.YS ! *' ' \ 88 S p Ir, :'l B ■ -IX B& axi 3 V pfO r 3.91 V..VJ fT \£- 7 Bartlett pears — 13 standard boxes, 21.it San Francisco lugs or I46.6 Los Angeles lugs per packer-hour; Gravenstein apples — 15.5 standard boxes per hour. The relation of the standards to actual daily performance is illustrated in Figures 2 and 3, considering all of the sample plants together. Each dot on the diagrams represents, for one plant, the number of packers and their actual combined average hourly rate of output— in terms of standard boxes — on a par- ticular day of season^i/ The standard combined rate for any number of packers is represented by the straight lines through zero. In other words, the lines show the total output per hour of a given number of packers, working at the rates indicated by the performance standards — 13 standard boxes of pears and 15.5 standard boxes of apples per packer-hour. Hourly rates of output in nearly all of the sample plants equaled or exceeded the standards on some days during the seasons studied. Of the total days observed, 23 per cent in the apple plants and about 20 per cent in the pear plants were on or above the standard. In other words, these standards are well within the range of actual performance. Season average rates of output per packer-hour for the plants represented in Figures 2 and 3 are illustrated in Figure U.— ' These averages reflect days of inefficient as well as efficient operation and thus tend to fall somewhat below the performance standards. On this basis, only two of the pear plants and none of the apple plants exceeded the standards, as indicated in Figure h, although apple plants A and B did exceed the standards in 19^7, a year of large volume and possibly larger fruit size. The following are among the major factors which account for the inefficient days and for the variations in average rates of production among plants.^/ 1/ The data are primarily for !Sh9$ with the 19^7, 19U8, or 1950 seasons also represented for some plants. 2/ This report is based on studies in 8 apple packing houses and Ik pear packing houses. Detailed information on average rates of output for packers, however, was available only for 7 of the apple and 8 of the pear houses. Data for plant T are for 1950 j all others are 19U9. 3/ Several factors affecting packing rates are not considered. These in- clude temperature variations and time at the beginning of the season during which the packers are getting back into practice. These effects are relatively minor, however, as the summer weather in the areas considered tends to be fairly uniform. Also, many of the packers pack other kinds of fruit — traveling from region to region during the year — so that the period of adjustment in most plants is usually very short. •V gsIqgnA epJ £ t d£ fo 3§iu .oqelpns'J'*! ae'rf? gniiyb eysb omoa no abisbnEde ed^ bab^oxe .oonsmolisw i&iSos lo sgi®! ©rfj niddiw XXew aos bsdn^aeiqcil sdnsXq icit tol ujcri-r^oBq -isq duqdt/o lo asj^si egais^/s noageS aysb dosXle-i fapaetovB yasrfT \£.4 swjil fli beie.ttzu.Lii e*8 £ bna S seTUgl'? ni dfiriwamct; XXsl oj bne-t ex-rid briB ffoirtsTtaqo dtioiozUte aa XXow zb edosXq iBsq 9ftt lo cwJ ^Xno t ei?sd eirid nO .ebisbnada sonewSoliac ; S3 ifiX lo iboy s % UU ni. efnatasde arid hasoxs bib 8 bns A ainsXq 9Xqc §non£ saa gnjtyoXJol 9rfT .osxa iijr. 5i"i«v srid tol bnB &xph insio tllsni 1 issq 4X ix!B essuori ar.iHOBq clctqa 3 ni ayibtids no b3ar>d s'r irtoqOT a ,eiojIoBq iqa- .iua5v.o lo ae^et 'ggBiavB no noxuBMiolni boXisJaQ .2931; "sisp »ao2ifcd nssq 9dJ lo d bnc aXqqfi oriJ lo Y Tol yX-'f afdsXiBva as -ni as'JciT ■• «bs*c9biJ:i will raise output on the average by l,k boxes per packer-hour — an increase of 12 per cent. 2. Skill of individual packers As indicated in Figure U, the season average rate of output per packer- hour varies considerably from plant to plant and, as shown in Figures 2 and 3, from day to day within plants. In addition, for any particular day there will usually be a wide variation in the rates of output among individual packers. An example of this variation is given in Figure 6. These diagrams show for typical 8-hour days the percentage of packers packing various number of boxes per hour above and below the average for all packers. For example, 3 per cent of the pear packers achieved a rate of output 5 to 6 boxes per hour less than the average for all packers j 17.7 per cent were 1 to 2 boxes below average; 9.5 per cent were 2 to 3 boxes above average; and so on. Due to the large number of factors influencing the rates of production in the plants studied, the determination of the relative levels of packer skill among the different plants was not feasible. However, the fairly wide varia- tions in skill among individual packers — pictured in Figure 6— indicate that by careful selection of workers, managers may effectively increase rates of plant output. 1/ Records of the California Tree Fruit Agreement and cooperating packing houses. The average for pears is lU3, although there is, of course, no box packed that actually contains lU3 fruit. 30 BARTLETT PEARS ■ I 20 10- 80 90 100 110 120 135 150 165 Size-number of fruit per standard box 180 195 72 80 88 100 113 125 138 150 163 Size-number of fruit per standard box Fig. 5. Reported fruit size distributions for California Bartlett pears and Gravenstein apples in standard boxes. -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 Boxes per hour below average Boxes per hour above average -7-6-5-4 Boxes per hour below average -3 -2 Boxes per hour above average Fig. 6. Average variation in rate of output of standard boxes among individual packers in five Cali- fornia apple packing houses and nine pear packing houses. 13. 3. Irregular flow of fruit Irregularity in the flow of fruit to the packers may have a considerable influence on the realized rates of production. One of the more important ir- regularities is the delay in plant operations due to "break-for-lots," i.e., the interruptions that occur when changing from one grower's fruit to that of another ,i/ This type of delay, considered in more detail in a following re- port of this series, affects most of the operations in the plant. In the sample plants using break-for-lots procedures, the estimated average time lost at the sorting tables ranged from 11 minutes to 1 minute per lot. The total time lost, which depends also on the number of lots run per hour per line, varied from 28 per cent in plant N to 3 per cent in plant S. Packers work during the major part of the "break" period, but their average rate of activity and of output is greatly reduced. Thus, the full impact of the break cannot be measured directly. However, studies show that on the average an absolute in- crease of 10 per cent in the time lost at the sorting table results in a decrease in the average output per packer-hour of .72 standard boxes of pears and .86 standard boxes of apples — approximately a 5-per cent loss in output. During the periods of study in each of the cooperating pear plants, the average realized rate of output was 11.8 standard boxes for 8 plants using "break-for-lots" procedures and 12.9 boxes for 2 plants not using this system. The average time lost at the sorting tables was 9»h per cent. If there had been no break periods, it is estimated that the average rate of production in these 8 plants would have been 12.5 boxes per packer-hour, which compares more favorably with the plants operating without break-for-lots. In some of the apple plants, "loose" or "jumble" packed fruit for local markets is often placed in boxes by the sorting crews, diverting most of the fruit from the packing lines and leaving the packers nearly idle for extended periods. Plant H, for example, during the period of the 19^0 study, utilized an average of 8 per cent of the operating time in this manner, with particular days as high as 16 per cent. 1/ This procedure is avoided in some plants by using sampling procedures in accounting to growers for quality and quantity of fruit. Single-producer concerns do not, of course, have such problems. ■ 10 J*l l6X)£U»iT8 Ct'4 ui: - ■ - Since the packers are paid by the box, the idleness of these workers does not add to the average costs. However, unless the associated hourly workers are fully utilized in handling loose fruit, or are otherwise occupied, payment for their unused time must be added to the plant costs* Moreover, excessive interruptions may affect the plant's ability to attract good packers. Another factor affecting the flow of fruit to the packers is the "peaking" of particular size groups. Output may be reduced through failure or inability to adjust sizing equipment to spread out the peak sizes and so permit a larger proportion of the packers to work on the sizes where the volume of flow is largest and most constant. Other delays or factors which influence the rate of flow of fruit to the packers include: diversion of more than normal amounts of first-grade fruit in pear plants to "cannery"; variation in the proportion of subgrade fruit from lot to lotj equipment failures; and failure of fruit to arrive from the field. Since these are usually relatively minor, they are not considered in this report other than to point out that they may have an important effect on cost and efficiency. 1+, Adjustment of crew size Actual plant production is shown in Figures 2 and 3 to fall below the suggested performance standards on many days. Several factors — packer skill, fruit size, and irregular flow of fruit — have been discussed as factors in- fluencing efficiency, explaining why some of the dots on the diagrams fall below the standards. Even after making due allowance for these elements, however, many of the dots would still fall below the standard. More packers were employed than were actually required for the volume of fruit handled — achievement of the packing-performance standard would have required a re- duction in the size of the packing crew, . This failure to adjust the packing crew to the actual rates at which fruit is being handled is partly a result of a method of payment whereby the packer is paid only for actual output and not his time. However, even more important as a deterrent to change is the uncertainty concerning future fruit quality and volume and future labor supplies which confronts the plant manage- ment.—^ . __________ 1/ The inflexibility of crew size, together with the more frequent occur- rence of delays at the beginning and end of the season when volume is low, often results in a seasonal pattern of packer productivity. Average output per packer-hour tends to rise as the season gets under way and falls off a little toward the end, . m OTbc; or ili srij i iivil 1c be ox/but ad ;is9q rtfiJ ii .tixrrl $b3".\ CI 9.-W an-woalla -iocioal isnJoflA J tvajL'Q .zqucn? ssxs -raixr U-iiaq lo z&aiqz d ufl!"xovr oi .majtofiq ad* lo noxticqaic .in.sip.r;oo iaora bus #a 3? is.C sje-j ota oofttiiilax rfoxdw Kioiosl 10 s^&Dsb torilO .':s£fonre Xaflvt~:: liKrfa etofll ic rifxena^xb :9bi;£on.i fsisisoeq tJ^oqoiq adJ- rxi ftoxia/iav ^'vrsnrtsn 1 ' oi eJnsIcr isaq ni CX XQ 97UX IB X DXIS XS .t. i7n21Tq.Lt/p3 JJL»Jf OJ JoX IHOIj. r.onJ j'ionxin yX^vxj -*jl9t y^-^--' 2 *' 9aed# aofiiS .bXsil >var! v;am Jfiftf -too inloq ox ncrix Torino licqg-i sxdj .•vpnoxuill 4 ) bnp xaoo osia wa-ro lo "Vf nam? ait £bA -nx cicjopI es Logsuo-. XXsl ijinerrgsxb 9fW no t sjnamQx9 searix aol 6if Jxirr'} lo &mi; --ha brxc S ^ii^i'i ni qwoils ex noijoubcnq JaaXq XaitfoA Isir»v95 .s^ab tyiam nc ginstnate aoaBnrrol'fsq bsxojegjx/a >aib iiisd 9vertj lo 9uios *#iw gnxninXqxa ^^onsicixllc gn.foa9Jt/Xl : aon&voXXa $ttb snxMaiu *iaxlc na^E. . ab"/.«x « yXJ-xsq 2X fcaXbnfid gniad ex 3/xrrl oiocr n^vo t *£>v9voK ,9stiW 8xri J-oc b«c iuqluo Xs^ob -ral ^Xao t>iaq tsi aajjosq J.Urrl oty-twl ^tnioonco ^t«ia^*x95iUf sdJ ai sgrtfrio otf ^n9xii?d-©b s se Jnsiioq/cJ doiriw ?. ; .xicqaa lodeX o*uriul bn« amxrXov brta Vi'*& u P -r.oonr.fn ins \ f .^J xvi tow i j9i ir^ilo 15. 5. T ype of packing equipment Since all of the sample apple houses used the small tubs, the effect of type of equipment on apple packing rates could not be determined in this, study. However, detailed studies of individual pear packers and of entire packing crews failed to reveal consistent differences in packing efficiency for the three types of equipment described earlier. Die results of these studies are summarized in Table 3 in terms of average boxes packed per productive packer-hour. The top half of the table refers to studies of individual packers taken over short periods of time and when sup- plies of fruit were adequate. These figures indicate that there were not very marked differences in the average rate of packing any given type of box from the three types of equipment. Moreover, the differences that are indicated are not consistent — packing from tubs, for example, gave the lowest rate of output in standard boxes and the highest rate in Los Angeles lugs. The lower half of the same table shows the results of studies based on all packers in a number of plants and represents the average rates of output for periods of several days. These rates have been adjusted to eliminate the effects of delay and idle periods and show the average outputs for periods while actually working. Probably, the rates are more indicative of normal packing house operations than the individual packer studies, however, and in general show somewhat lower rates of sustained output. These data suggest that, over a period of time, the output per packer-hour is highest with packing belt equipment and lowest with packing bins.i/ However, both the highest and lowest rates of output shown in Table 3 were achieved by bin plants. The absence of consistent differences in the data in Table 3 is not sur- prising in view of the basic similarity among the three types of equipment in the elements of the packing operation itself. The physical packing job can differ only in the distance reached for the fruit. Measurements indicate that with "heaped-up" fruit the average distance reached in bins may be about l/ The study was made in only one belt house— this kind of equipment being used in very few Bartlett pear plants. As a consequence, the rate of achieve- ment may be less generally indicative of potential performance than are the several figures for each of the other types of equipment. The degree to which these figures may have been influenced by differences in the average skill of packers among plants is not known. • vwjb w-w nx ct»niOTSJf»D ay jou ruooa e-3jsi gr, xjioaq slqgi. no inamqiupB lo aoy,* gnjjfosq t'liifls lo boa p.najibBq taaq Ssitbivibtil lo ssifcafe bsilinj'sb .-xovs^oH ori* «sbl vwiaisilia artjUtosq ox Baonoiailib *rie*B&ti#i leaver o* beXial t'xsslmkv iadiic-sab *n9inqiupo 'lo ssqyvf sairii 93£-i9vo lo sma* ni £ ftlflteT ni bs-si-i&HBtre sis 8&xbi/*e aaad* io' e*Xuae*r '9tft o* u'&'x&t «Xt:,u atari* .isd* vjsoibni aanrsil aaefff .©**trpaba aiaw *Jx<"fl lo aaiXq mo*sl *od 'io eqi$* navxg vrss arx^osq lo s*Brc ejjatava an* hi aaonaiallxb betfiem bs&RolLr. sib *an* adonartellib sxi* t lavoarro-i .Jnamqix/pa lo aaa^* eai'ri* 'ad* lb #Jai *eawoX eri* sva-3 ion ana .a^X BaiaanA soj ni aia*i *e9ri£ir{ ad* brt« fcaxod biabnEJa rrx *trq*i/o no fcoaad ealbi/Ja lo a*Xt/ua*t -di aworfa s»Xda* ©maa ari* 16 lied tswoX arT *aq*i/o lo Ed^B'i B^p-evs' ©fit s-tnassiqex bna ainslq lo tadrur a as. BiajJbaq XXo sriJ 3*ah,iraxXa c* fey*8Dtbe need avari soctst aaafC ".2V«b Xsiovaa lo eboiaaq *iol aliriw aboiT&q rol siitqiw o^eisva ad* woria bna aboxisq aXbi bh? vaXab lo a*oa11« ajnbfcaq i«RTOfj lo avxtfcoibnx sioxn a*rs K3*a-x stf* ' ^dadorr*? .gnbfiow ^XXbjk»ob Xsisns? ni bna ,"avavori iesXb»*£ ia:foaq Xaubivibni a if* •: 'r--xi rc n'.i/Ci.f iovo t *«rti *e&ji^jie a*ax. assril ,*x!o*tfo b©xixa*ax/a lo ^e*a*t .ieriwemoB woxia *iad anXdo-oq ri*Xw itC'rigirf ax "Ufori-'iaji&aa wq *trq*uo ari* t emi* so boinsq a bna *asriaxri aricr ryocf t iavawoH ^♦anid j«ii>Joaq ri*ivj *eow©X bna *namqiapa .a*fu-Iq n.M bev*xi$S8 aiaw C al-isT ni nwoiia *xrq*«o lo Bp.ta*i *ea'v r oX -■tuu too aj. i a.lcffiT rtx a*ab ari* ni eaonatallib *no*exanba lo oonaacfa arfT ni dnsmqixfpa lo Baq^t astfi* ailr §nomfi ^imlxifsia alaficf art* lo waiv di gniaiiq nso 000 sal^ocq Xaoievtfq ariT ilXae*i noWataqo gn/jfosq ari* lc e*n?maXa ari* b*aoibfli 8*fl$«&9Ttms9M ,*ix»il art* tol bartoaat aoaa*ec.b a'ri* ni x^ 30 lolULb ■ txrodn &d vein anid r.i bgrfos^i Bonje*"aib a^anava ari* *ia*il "qx/'-baqaad" n*fw isi^t _ anioq" *n^«iqiapa lo bni>i aixf*— eayori *£ad ©no yiqo ni jabam aatf ^by*a adT \X. -av9irfoa .16 a*a*x ari* ^doftajjpaenoo a bA .einaXq icaq ^daidiaa wa'j ifiav at 'Iwet/ rir^ifiv o* aarcsob sriT. ^*naraQixrpa lo Bacn^ icarido aiit lo xioaa tol can/six i^'iavoa lo LtlAe asaiava ad* ni: aaonaisVtXb vd baonaf flnr aaed avad "Kfiflr aau/^i'i asarW 16. TABLE 3 The Effect of Type of Packing Equipment and Type of Container on Output Per Productive Packer-Hour, Bar tie tt Pears Average rate of output- boxes oer packer-hour S tandard box Los Angeles lue San Francisco lus Individual packer studies Bins Tubs Belt 15.8 13.5 14.3 50.8 52.6 50.4 26.0 22.4 Packing crew studies Bin plants L M N R S T 12.9 14.1 12.1 12,2 15.3 12.0 46.2 43.4 43.7 23.2 19.9 20.1 19.8 Average 13.1 44.4 20.8 Tub plants P U W 13.7 13,7 13.9 49.1 49.1 49.8 22.6 22.9 Average 13.8 49.3 22.8 Belt plants V 14.1 50.5 A ,05 Mf mL 8.03 . £1' a i Ac* Ml ► .-frfntVr 17. 2 inches less than in tubs and h inches less than with belts— this out of a total reach of 20-28 inches. Reference to tables of standard work data indi- cates that the effect on time requirements of such differences in distance would be quite small. With belt packing, another consideration is the decision that must be made by the packer as to the correct size when reaching for the fruit. This undoubtedly has, to an unknown extent, a restrictive effect on the rates of output. However, the problem of size peaks discussed previously is largely eliminated with belt packing. Thus, although the basic time requirements per box may be slightly higher for this equipment, the realized rate of output compares very favorably with that of other methods. While the sizing may be slightly less uniform with belt packing, no quality deterioration was noted due to this method nor was there market discrimination in the form of lower prices. On the whole, then, considering the results of these studies and the nature of the job itself, it seems reasonable to conclude that there is no important difference in packing rate associated with a particular type of equipment. COST COMPARISONS Hourly Earnings and Cost Per Pound for Packing Labor Potential hourly earnings of packers and costs of packing labor per pound of fruit vary somewhat according to type of package. The data summarized in Table h suggest that, with the 1950 wage schedule, the Los Angeles lug per- mitted the highest hourly earnings — $2.80 per hour as compared to $2.02 for the standard pear box, $2.li* for San Francisco lugs, and $1.86 for apples. While deviations from the indicated average sizes would alter the earnings figures, the differences are large enough that one may conclude that piece- work rates for Los Angeles lugs were not comparable with those for standard boxes and San Francisco lugs. The higher level of packer earnings in pear plants, as compared to ap- ples, is in conformity with a situation which also has been commonly observed Lb: 3tt t'X9 9* o;1 iesdairi pcli boisim .esXcqs no! doYf" bns, tBgt/I, ooaiorusi'? r?s2 *jo'? iH»j»# ixcrf 1B9C; bfBbrcstfa sxfd' . . *tt%fiini&s arij i?iXa bXVOM easia sssisye beteolbni: sA"t mo**"! artoivtexvab alxnw -dooiq-^Bilt &bi/lojto& Y*rt sno tettt ...i.>u sg*xs£ ate espnsiallib art} .gxl Ertehfioje ict eeori-J ittiw eXdmfiqmt?? ^on aiew agxl aelggnA aeJ *xol zojssz jjmcw »?..8if£ ooaionst"? nsS bn» BSfWWf **q£ bsif qmc.3 «s .rttO .diis/nsyriAi I BBaxi 9a?riJ sifcf ononis *Griw9icoB -xeYUb v.Xi^d'dirobm; ,yosqe 'roofl 'vM llxvj iv> ^>j]fc^JXL»v Dt> \j fiflo •JOB}. wXiu ci3£**IJ8 8£*o .S»fi J. J* B3 9fiT witfpo iF/imrts bcrs dwradBovwi Isfiijirro woX Yfgvx^elsi gJx rri eaiX Joiw iiiogoi ^oTgSYiroo xcsrf»fo93(ocq .'io Bnoj.}088 isdrtoric t aoi3 tfeta r &ri3 diwtaq t r@xod 9&1 rfeuq v^XfiKozBSooo oJ svo.d nid x*£ijfcd rXIs^etr Bjisd bsifvoq sridorsrtt tsrfJ-e-t . aioxsvdoo ^iTOTg d3oo-v©I .Jaiti g_r t fjoBii i-sftto • 9ti* no ^adnslq .aid lo 9gsdrt3v&s?;ib atif . s^od nld s-rfj" ibl 6s>vXovfti tsieoo xod t&q sJeoo jn&fosq doa'xib hsie^tisst 9rfd Tjtf badfioibaj; sA >ori r;9i-i>r— zsq\,i isrijQ rt3vo sgsdnfivbs Jsoo imp tisa^lti b avsri r/iwp.^ srij ridiW . ,tfoI m* ncsfide isq 3mtrXov XsJ-oi bm jid*s*=2 ^ f isq Bdnso d.£ oi eJ awiu . 93s Jtaavfee aift* t ncidBisqo ifctiosaso lo ;i.'.!pfi JioJj jjfiiiiofjq. iiPnj ?r.sX xod "isq 3 bms Jnprtjqiii.^n* di/d © gnxJiorq jrto^qiwpa i'Xsd brrs nid c noesse *tsq noidfii'>qo lo Bit'on nplq dx/.* tqvo atfnso £.0-JvO lo ©gf?Jj>svbs as even" rf>63 has Xsxfpe dft sib sjaoo nid bfi^.. dui t noe*~?3 isq 005 J-nuoms aoi4&tecfo lo 3 Jg9voX odi TOrla BdnsXq J'Xed «0OS svodis noX>t.ei'^qo 'io aiyorf XXc .^*«if>9OTa*ni sis Et93l 08 x YX— aduJ sdssl S4 21. TABLE 5 Estimated Costs of Operating Bin, Tub, and Belt Packing Lines, Bartlett Pears Bins TubsB/ Belts A rinY»Avn mol a ~\ o vi rr 4" Vi nfl v» t\q tvict coi^t 1 ovi 1 t A At. 1 iipproxinici o« j.engbii p«r pa,cj\j-iig dcouiuii ^xoeu/ 42 80 60 Pa r»l/"o v»o not* eoA-f i i tlL-li."! o pel ooO ulUIl 13-15 18-20 15-17 i"i Oi nictjL Oct pet o od.nu.cii u uuac & pci nuui 182 247 208 .ins uajLJLeu cos o j v uoiiars / 1,300 6,520 4,100 iinnuax ecjuxpnionu cost—' vo-oj-ictro / 213 880 615 racKing xaDor cosx per cox, i.»ov \cenosy 15 5 15.5 15.5 Bin boy labor costs per hour-/ (dollars) 2.10 Estimated Cost Per Box WithS/ 50 hours' operation per season (cents) 19.0 22.6 21.4 100 hours' operation per season (cents) 17.8 19.1 18.5 150 hours' operation per season (cents) 17.4 17.9 17.5 200 hours' operation per season (cents) 17.2 17.3 17.0 250 hours' operation per season (cents) 17.1 16.9 16.7 400 hours' operation per season (cents) 16.9 1 16.4 16.2 a/ Based on large tubs — 7 per section. Costs for small tubs slightly- higher, depending on spacing of tubs. b/ Includes cost of packed box conveyors with powered belts for tub and belt plants and gravity conveyor for bin plants. c/ Total allowances for annual costs of depreciation, repairs, insurance, taxes, and interest: bins~16.4 per cent of original investment ; tubs — 13.5 per cent; belts — 15 per cent. §/ Two bin boys per section at (1.05 per hour each. e/ Includes only the cost items indicated in the upper part of the table. |03 OB • (tfgel) iibWo9e grtNosq i^q digaeX •BivMiixo'rqqA ! [ !j * - ' jj aoiJ"033 isq sieioBS 1 SBX " • ■ I •A c-ne» r (aiaXXoo) ViQS.Sj. t ispc beXijsJsru j |5X3 j 088 j'3 31 ; 2 3X or. 5 (8i.Bf lob) \£.i£'od taq si^oo iridjsX verf am j • 3.8X ] X.££ 8.VX (ainao) ncsjsee *i9q /toii^isqo 'a-ri/Qd.OQX | s.?x j e,?x' £.VX - izStiso) notjsss i©q nojy.s'tcjqo ^it/orf 03 X j 0 fx ! 8 VX ■ j (afawo) noR^sec taq rtoiAsraaqo 's-iyorfiOOS j ?,3'£ j G.3X l.VX 1 . (sd'flao) ntosB9n isq nnxisipqo .'awed 03S' ! ;.Mj j (eia«rs) aobsss 'xsq aoX4&t$qQ 'sH/orf 00£ f YXcTifgiXe sdtrcf 'XXxaas ibl* atfeoO .noi •Jo 9B ibq T— .".diAt aa'sjsX a© b Baa dad rrol 3d£sd boiewoq fichlw atoYevaoa xod SsjjojFq "*o rfeqc 3&&i/^oaI \d ,e&n*S.q aid 10': -to%errao6 yfihrtits'lum 3&a»Sq . *€*f soaemgrtf t 8T.t£qsi ,nci.>' iowiqob la s-taoo .Eat'iTae ioT saofysvoXXs Xa»tf»T \o |JnejKf-ssvs| "Jjanijjl'K? 'lo das© ■xqs K 9X--etti:d . j^esrsWni baft < esses*- ! .daeo rr&q 3Xf- fe^X^ad {da?.*? *c»q 3,6£— arftr* •rfofie iyorf teq .80, X) d* ao2do98 *«j oyod erd \fc eXdad grid ttm leaqv edt at badJjslbftfc smajj- jao''- sfl^ vfio. B^of*»riT -As 22. will be somewhat higher than indicated in Table 5.-^ With 200 hours of opera- tion per season, for example, a reduction in the hourly output per bin packing section from 182 to 150 boxes per hour—a decrease of about 20 per cent— would increase costs from 17.2 cents to 17.6 cents per box. For shorter seasons, the effects of underutilization are slightly more pronounced; with a 100-hour season, this same decrease in volume rate would raise costs from 17.8 cents to 18.3 cents per box. A similar reduction of about 20 per cent in tub output to 200 boxes per hour would increase costs from 17.3 cents to 17.7 cents per box for a 200-hour season and from 19.1 cents to 19.9 cents for 100 hours. In belt plants a 20- per cent decrease in utilization — from 208 to about 170 boxes per hour—would increase costs from 17.0 cents to 17. h cents for 200 hours of operation and from 18.5 cents to 19.1 cents for 100 hours. Any plant able to exceed the normal capacity would, of course, realize slightly lower costs. The costs for bin plants may be reduced somewhat, as compared to those of Table 5, by utilizing part of the bin-boy labor for other operations. These workers must be continually available to the packers but, in the sample bin plants, were actually working only 60 per cent of the time. One plant utilized part of this time by having the bin boys keep the records on packer production through a system of punch cards. Studies of clerical-labor requirements indi- cate that, with 30 per cent idle time, the bin boys can absorb the additional function with little trouble. The desirability and feasibility of this arrange- ment will vary according to the specific plant setup. With a typical three-section bin plant, the labor of one tally girl might be replaced by the six bin boys. Thus, only 5/6 of their labor is devoted to bin-boy functions; the other 1/6 to tallying. The bin-boy costs (line 7, Table 5) then amount to $1.75 rather than $2,10 per hour. Under these circumstances, bins are less costly than belts for all hours of operation per season up to 200 and have an advantage over tubs up to 250 hours. Beyond 250 hours, bins show the highest cost, with belts lowest, and tubs intermediate. l/ Within limits, longer working hours may be substituted for additional packing equipment, but any resulting advantages are likely to be lost through higher pay rates for overtime. ( -iiforl 002 rttjtvv N~*3 sXdtjT ni. bqJsoxhnx nsrltf nid isq iuqtua v'Xitroif ' $cf$' n.fc noitawbs? b .olqsws toao isq OS iuods lb ssasibefc f-'-Tiiforl I9q saxod if^&s lojtorfa to' 1 ! .xod i?q p .l sJ?too S 3d XXxv rsq nc^«t 80S jKrtl— I baoabsi-od yam edrti ,1 moil bjco:": j5fis r i3r.i ,^X a^rao 5«8X woi'i .faJtrow Y^xosqep Xstnion ni ^iad sa&tor.q ari.t o^f 9Xd6X.?AVfi q no sbiooot sriJ" qeo?! eijod nixf eitf gnXveri yd sirri 9T iciBX-XBax-raXo "io eaibitfc .8b?Bo. riwu/q lo we. dice do ttj&o a^od nxd siif t 9irrjy aXbiinso I9q Ot JxXxdxKfisx tn« yiilidsixaeb 9tfT .^LiaoiJ sXcrill .qiN+sa -jflfilq' 3j"ij»sqe sdi of gnXbTOdOB 9no lo lodfiX art* tJnsXn njrd rtoxiO:>E-o&ir;.f Xcyi.q odsX ix9ri* "l* d\$ %lno t aifriT .3\cd r:xd xia srii soo vod-axd eitf .sniicXXs^ o3 d\L il-trsoo sd iax'n aicwliow Xiw jngm vt xW jo tot S'ifion £ ie>fito 9dJ ? 8«0JSf Ottt) 1 ijod-/iXd i9d*^*f riJ wo;is bs.Ufj x redxra od ^gpr aiuurf g/ji^iov; ipgnoX t e.titf5H nlrfJiW \X 23. POTENTIAL SAVINGS The data in Table $ indicate that packing houses with very short or very- long seasons may find that one type of packing equipment has a distinct cost advantage over the others. However, the normal length of operating season for most California Bartlett pear plants is such that the possible gains from using a particular type of packing equipment are not large. The packing houses usually operate between 100 and 300 hours per season, with 200 a ccmmon figure. For an average season of 200 hours, there is little difference in cost among the three methods. However, these small differences, when added to other small savings throughout the entire plant, may add to a substantial figure. Considerable variation was noted among plants in the average rates of packer production and in adjustment to the major factors influencing packing efficiency. Some packing houses have achieved a relatively high degree of efficiency — particularly in view of the short seasons and uncertainties as- sociated with both labor and fruit supply— while in others important economies could be realized. Potential savings in packer-hours that would have resulted from general achievement of the suggested standards for reasonably efficient operation by the sample plants are indicated in Table 6. Relatively large savings would have been possible for plants F, N, R, and T, for the indicated season. On the other hand, plants P and V actually exceeded the standards and so have already realized in large measure the gains from higher packer efficiency. If the standards were achieved by all California pear and apple houses, it is estimated that at least 30,000 packer-hours in pear plants and 16,000 packer- hours for apples could be freed each year for other work. The greater ef- ficiency which would permit the release of these workers would also be reflected in increased efficiency of many other plant operations and so re- duce over-all plant costs. 68 fon^ >Cj bluet'; rialriW Y^nvioili fcs'sssiSfli sit jbeio«3.riai 2h. TABLE 6 Potential Savings in Packer-Hours for 15 California Apple and Paar Packing Houses, 1949 Season-/ t Total b oxes packed per season Total packer- hours Packer- hours at standard Possible savings packer- Plant Standard San Francisco Los Angeles used rate hours A 40,671 — — 2,971 2,624 347 B 30, 376 — — 2,642 1,960 682 C 13,548.2/ 1,504 O HA 874 ooU D 26,283 2,222 1,696 COG. E 16,97C£/ 1,205 1,095 11U F 69,075 5,372 4,456 y±o H 44,490 1 3,594 2,870 241,413 MM 19,510 15,575 3,935 L 67,897 , 5,517 5,223 294 M 33,105 6,195 — 3,185 2,836 349 N 90,558 2,061 11,724 10,235 7,315 2,920 P 100,862 7,605 7,699 7,923 0 R 92,301 33,412 10,938 8,661 2,277 S 85,425 6,737 6,571 166 T 60,139 10,220 6,694 5,104 1,590 V 121,106 147,256 12,317 12,476 0 651,393 51,888 166,585 63,322 56,109 i 7,596 a/ Data for plant T are for 1950 season; 1949 unavailable. b/ Includes major part of season; data for remainder unavailable. fona vlqrj* attrtoUUD 3X ml J CD6 t X j 383, J > i _ — * 3V8.GE i ' \ "i f — — \«»3&C(.fci i 1 - ■ . ; j \2fiV8 3X ll.HH.WM ir»,L-.J P. c — i OPh 1 aee t s ■ ' j IN 3T2 t 3X ess g 36 3 2 oxa t ex — e£&*x>s- 38X t 3 30X t €S : 1 AOiS ^ J 0 j 6XS , ? f r ^juX *; X30*3 $33 ,06 391 j ^ i X33^ 8 XV3 t 0 SXKCG XOK.SG ! j t frox«3 ! £P3 3 3vj^sx vrs.si 35Si,?^X 022 n r or r i — { 30X,XSX 1 333, 33X 888 t i3 eee«x33 j I oSB9g 0381 id 37i3 T &sv*£q nc ft ja+fiil \£ >6i.'IortI Vi I 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 no a* ttriT. zuoubioQG, tot.