A Publication of the College of Agriculture UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EFFICIENCY IN FRUIT AAARKETING Grading Costs for Apples and Pears R. G. BRESSLER and B. C. FRENCH LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CAUFORNIA DAVIS CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION GIANNINI FOUNDATION OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS Mimeographed Report No. Ij^SvaMsu r ut- cAlJ^utw^ June 1952 UBRARY F0R£1"/0RD This report is one of a series written especially for packing-house managers and aimed at improving efficiency and reducing costs in the local marketing and packing of deciduous fruits. Such local costs are very impor- tant, averaging nearly as much as the return to farmers during the postwar years. To improve efficiency requires the examination of the details of plant operation and modification of the various operations within the plant on a "step-by-step" basis. The present report deals only with the opera- tions involved in grading or sorting apples and pears. .Studies of sample plants indicate that sorting costs averaj'ed about S0,9U per thousand pounds of apples and ^0,62 per thousand pounds for pears in 1950, with some 9$ per cent of these costs represented by the wages paid to the sorting crew. The studies reveal a wide range in efficiency and have been used to establish standards for reasonably efficient operation. Applying these standards should permit the managers of typical packing houses to reduce sorting labor require- ments an average of about 2^ per cent for pears and more than 50 per cent for apples . 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. The studies were made under the authority of the Research and Marketing Act. •CO sifitJ^r- ■ J.r!niiiCJ sri.: EFFICIENCY IN FRUIT MAB.KETING GRADING COS IS FOR APPLES AND PEARS R. G. Bressler and B. C. Frenchl/ WHAT IS GRADING OR SORTING? Grading or sorting in fruit packing houses consists of inspecting the field-run fruit and separating it into grades for packing or for diversion to processing and cull uses. Hie job must be carefully done in order to meet the established standards for the several grades for these grades are used as a basis for sale and have an impact on prices. In addition, the job is also important as an element of packing-house labor costs, accounting for roughly 25 per cent of all hourly rate labor and 1^ per cent of total labor costs in apple and pear packing houses. Many types of sorting tables are used, but basic arrangements are fairly uniform. In California, sorting tables are usually of the belt-conveyor type. The pear sorting table shown in Figure 1 illustrates the general arrangement. Pears enter the table from the washer in the background and move past the sorters on the sorting belts at each side of the table. Cannery fruit is picked out, placed on the center belt, and moves on to be boxed. Culls are also picked out, but in this case they are placed in "drops" or chutes along the side of the table and drop to a cull belt below the table and so to the cull boxing area. First-grade pears continue on the side belts to the end of the table, drop to another belt, and are conveyed to rope or curtain sizers and then move to the packing tubs or bins. Number 1 cannery fruit is sized out of the first-grade fruit in this process. Figure 2 shows a type of sorting table commonly used in Washington and Oregon. Here the sorting belts are replaced by spiral rolls that turn the fruit as it moves along the table. The table illustrated feeds three sizinp machines} the first-grade fruit for two of these machines is delivered to belt conveyors directly from the spiral rolls while the fruit for the third is placed on the two center belts. In contrast with the tables illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, California apple plants usually use tables where all fruit is picked up, the first-grade fruit being placed on several sets of 1/ R. G. Bressler is Professor of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Economist in the Experiment Station and on the Giannini Foimdation. B. C. French is a co-operative agent of the Experiment Station and of the U. S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Figure 1— Sorting table with conveyor belts— the type commonly used in California pear packing houses. Figure 2— Sorting table with spiral rolls— the type commonly used in Washington and Oregon packing houses. 3. center belts. 'Center belts may be placed at several levels and may be di- vided to permit the dropping of cull fruit directly to a sublevel cull belt. Hie sorters.' may place cannery or cull fruit directly in boxes rather than on belts. Finally, sorters on the regular table may place two grades, such as culls and Number 3 cannery fruit, on a single belt that feeds a supplementary or "resorting" table where several sorters divide the fruit into the separate grades. In spite of these and other modifications, the basic grading job remains essentially unchanged. The most significant differences appear to be the comparisons between those systems that require the handling of all of the fruit and those where only the culls and cannery fruit are picked out. HOW MUCH mrs grading cost? During the 19^0 season, the simple average costs of grading apples in eight California plants were |0,89 per thousand pounds of fruit for grading labor and $0.05 for grading equipment — a total of ^0.9h per thousand pounds of fruit graded. Table 1 indicates that there were important differences among plants, with total costs ranging from |0.76 per thousand pounds for Plant H to $1.13 for Plant B. The simple average grading costs for ten California pear plants were |0.59 for labor plus $0.03 for equipment—a total of $0,62 per thousand pounds of fruit. Total costs for individual plants ranged from ^0,k^ for Plant T to $0.92 per thousand pounds for Plant L. Differences between the grading costs for apple and pear plants are the result of several factors. First, apple plants paid an average wage of about $0,82 per hour for sorters while pear plants paid an average wage of $1.01; per hour* If apple plants had paid $1,0U per hour, and assuming no change in productivity^ their average sorting costs would have been about $1.19 per thousand pounds. Using this estimate to eliminate the effects of wage dif- ferences, the average apple house would have had grading costs about $0.57 per thousand pounds higher than the average pear house. This difference can be divided into three parts: (1) approximately $0.13, due to the extra labor required for apple plants where all fruit is handled and placed on belts; (2) about $0,30, due to the efficiencies of larger volume operation since ' the apple plants averaged only 9,600 pounds of fruit per table per hour as compared to 22,iiOO pounds per hour for the pear plants; and (3) the residual of about $0,lU, due to the greater efficiency in pear houses in adjusting crew organizations to the volume of fruit available. i!> I zbnssr - . 300 i£ i^O.I^ . . ^ - . .t\: s.tfrr , n>:'' ' Oil • :bm'oq o;'Sr?i.f irj.-t; • r»tf 00 . • TABLE 1 Estimated Costs of Sorting Apples and Pears in California Packing Houses, 1950 Plant Hours of sorting labor per 1,000 pounds Estimated costs per 1,000 pounds Labor Equipment^/ j Total Apples : A 1.08 $0.93 eo.oU 10.97 B 1.33 1.08 0,05 1.13 C — — . -J 1.25 0.9U 0.06 1.00 D 0.91; 0.80 O.OU 0.8ii £ 1.20 0.96 O.OU 1.00 F 1.01 0.86 0.0)4 0.90 G 1.13 0.05 0,06 0.91 n fill 0,71 0.05 0.76 Average^/ 1.10 0.89 0.05 0.9U Pears: L 0.8ii 0.88 O.Oii 0.92 M 0.65 0.68 0.03 0.71 N 0.65 0.72 o.oli 0.76 P 0.68 0.75 0.03 0.78 R 0.5U 0.1;9 o.oU 0.53 S 0.58 0.U9 0.02 0.51 T 0.^4 o.Uo 0.02 0.U2 U 0.U8 0.53 0.02 0.5U V 0.38 0.U8 o.ou 0.52 w . 0.h3 O.J45 o.oU 0.ii9 AverageH' 0.57 0.59 0.03 0.62 i a/ Based on current replacement values and an assumed season of thirty 8-hour days of plant operation, annual costs have been estimated from the following rates J depreciation, 5 per cent; repairs including new belts, 5 per centj insurance, 1 per cent; interest, 3 per cent (approximately equivalent to 5 per cent on the undepreciated balance); and taxes, 1 per cent. b/ Ihe simple average for the plants listed. 00. L- ■..:.o '1 5. UBOR REQIJIREhENIS AND STANDARDS The average hours of grading labor per thousand pounds of fruit for these plants during 19k9SO are indicated in Table 1 and Figure 3. "Rie total height of the bars in Figure 3 represents the average labor requirements observed in these plants; indicated economies (Stages I-IV) will be discussed in following sections. Grading labor in pear plants ranged from 0,38 to 0,8U and averaged 0.5? hours per thousand pounds of fruit. In apple plants, on the other hand, the range was from 0,8U to 1.33 hours and the average was 1,10 hours per thou- sand pounds. In addition to the marked differences among plants, every plant had periods of relatively efficient and relatively inefficient operation during the season. These periods of relatively efficient operation for all plants have been used to develop standard requirements for grading labor in pear and apple plants. The standards for pear plants are given in Figure U and indicate the approximate effects of the amount of first-grade and subgrade fruit£/per hour per sorting table on the number of sorters required under reasonably efficient operating conditions. The use of this diagram may be illustrated by the operating de- tails for Plant M, During the peak of the season, this plant handled about 20,000 pounds of fruit per table-hour, some l6,600 pounds of which represented first-grade fruit and the balance of 3,U00 pounds represented subgrade fruit. These volumes may be used to estimate the standard sorting crew as follows: (1) enter Figure U at point A, corresponding to l6,600 pounds of first-grade fruit per table-hour^ (2) move up to point B, representing approximately 3,ii00 pounds of subgrade fruit per table-hour; and (3) read across to the scale at the left of the diagram at point C to determine the approximate crew size — here about 9,6 sorters per table. In other words, the standards given in the diagram indicate that this plant should be able to operate under peak-season conditions with not more than 10 sorters per table. Suppose we consider several other examples. For purposes of illustration, let us assume that we have two other r^lants (or this plant in other periods) when the total volume of fruit averaged 10,000 and 30,000 povmds per table- hour and with the same proportions of first- and subgrade frxiit as in the previous case. In the first case, the volvme of first-grade fruit would be 8,300 pounds per table-hour, and this would be used to enter the diagram along the scale on the base line as before. The volume of subgrade fruit 2/ In many plants, fruit may be sorted into three or more grades. For pur- poses of si.Tiplicity, however, all fruit has been classified in this study under two grades corresponding in general to the method of treatment on the sorting table: (1) first-grade fi-uit, including all fruit to be packed plus Number 1 cannery fruit; and (2) all other fruit, usually consisting of culls plus lower grades (Number 3) of cannery fruit. / Olqq^ Jl.-: J lll.Vi-J, . jj ■ ■ '■ ■' .^■/■.-ll V'-;. 1.5 in T3 c 3 O Q. O o O 9) Q. 3 O 1.0 0.5 o o c o CO SAVING LABOR IN GRADING PEARS AND APPLES Savings - Stage I Savings - Stage H Savings - Stage HI Savings - Stoge W. Present Requirements m Stondard Requirements VWTURSNMPL Pear plants D F A G E C Apple plants B Figure 3— Labor requirements for grading apples and pears, and potential savings from reorgani- zations of crew and equipment, California packing houses, 1950. 20 15 10 If an apple packing plant, - add 1,2 sorters J- -J — I — 1 — I I I ' ' STANDARD SORTING CREWS FOR PEAR PACKING HOUSES 10 15 20 First grade fruit - 1000 pounds per table -hour 25 30 Figure 4— Standard labor requirements for grading pears and apples. The use of this diagram may be illustrated for Plant M where, in the peak of the season, the volume per table-hour averaged 16,600 pounds of first-grade fruit plus 3,400 pounds of sub- grade fruit. The volume per hour of first-grade fruit is used to enter the diagram at point A along the base-line scale. Then move vertically to point B, located betv/een the 3,000 and 4,000-pound lines for sub-grade fruit. Finally, read across to point C on the scale to the left— here 9.6 or, in round numbers, 10 sorters per table. mm 8. would be 1,700 pounds per table-hour, and we would locate this between the 1,000 and 2,000 pound lines for subgrade fruit immediately above 8,300 pounds of first-grade fruit,. Reading from this point across to the left-hand scale will indicate a crew of approximately 7 sorters. In a similar way, 30,000 pounds per table-hour would involve 21^,900 pounds of first-grade and 5*100 pounds of subgrade fruit per hour. With these volumes, the diagram indicates a crew of roughly 12 sorters per table. These results are summarized below and may be used to illustrate the application of the efficiency standards to the problem of large-scale operation. In these cases the results indicate that increasing volume per table-hour from 10,000 to 20,000 pounds, holding the proportion of subgrade fruit constant at 17 per cent, would result in a reduction in sorter labor from 0.7 hours per thousand pounds to 0,5 hours per thousand pounds. A further increase in volume to 30,000 pounds wovild result in labor requirements of only O.U hours per thousand pounds. Volxime of fruit sorted Size of Sorter hours per 1,000 pounds per table-hour sorting crew 1,000 pounds 10,000 7 0.7 20,000 10 0.5 30,000 12 O.U By following these methods, a packing-house manager can estimate the sorting crew necessary to operate his plant under various volume situations and the benefits that he could anticipate from such adjustments as combining the volume handled by several tables. Applications of this type are described in some detail for the sample plants in the following section. Before going on to them, however, it should be stressed that these standards do not repre- sent hypothetical levels of efficiency that can be attained by only a few plants operating under most favorable conditions. All plants studied operated with grading labor crews about as low as or lower than these standards during some periods of the season. Considering the total of all operating days studied, the sample plants equalled or bettered these standards about 30 per cent of the time. The foregoing discussion applies directly to pear plants, but the same efficiency standards can be applied to sorting requirements in apple plants. As previously noted, California apple plants usually use sorting tables that require that all of the fruit be picked up and placed on special belts. This ■■■ ' -icq 8/ • . ■ omfoq OGCtiiS 5vXo>/r on-t^iJ: ■ '.i: i;-j:if4i.''S oif, Bi {jjQQi es^ifT .old ■ saxtioii , r GOOtW moi'i liioii'^ " • ■ ^ ^ '■■ ■ ".^ noxJ''! iij idq aittOfi V.O'iJioi".' 'IOC as noj Oi SI .wi iiij . -\..c- 8nijr.'it..qc 11b to Ifivtc* t/;L' i l6oi.- ^^^^ ■ '. .i-t a»X'JBx xo- : SJiXu'i^Ji: oJ' Xidx^ ':-'l£JbiXS : ■ . bns qL' i'tviioxq ad jXXi'i'' 9. extra labor should be reflected in the standards and may be included by adding 1.2 sorters to the results obtained from Figure 1|. Other than this modifica- tion, the use of the diagram for apple plants would be the same as for pear plants. Mention should also be made of the possibility of using special can- nery sorting tables where large quantities of Number 1 finiit are being diverted to canneries. Because the cannery grade is somewhat less exacting than the fresh fruit grades, these special tables can be operated with significantly smaller crews in relation to the volume handled. Only three such cannery lines were observed in the study but, based on this limited sample, it would appear that labor requirements average about 0.25 hours of sorter labor per thousand pounds when less than l5 per cent of the fruit is subgrade. REDUCING IRE COSTS FOR SORTING LABOR Sorting labor costs may be reduced by adjusting the sorting crews in line with the standards given in Figure h» Potential reductions in the amount of sorting labor per thousand rounds of fruit have been indicated for the sample packing houses in Figure 3 and may be discussed as four stages or types of plant reorganization.^'' These stages are described below. Stage I ; In a number of the plants studied, there was a tendency for the size of the sorting crew to remain relatively constant regardless of the rate at which fruit moved through the house. Moreover, in six of the eight apple packing houses and seven of the ten pear packing houses, the sorting crews were larger than required to handle even the peak-season flow of fruit. The first stage of sorting crew reorganization, then, may be represented by eliminating the sorters that are not needed even when the plant is handling relatively large amounts of fruit. Ihis stage may be illustrated by the details for Plant M. This plant averaged about 17,000 pounds of pears per hour per grading table for the entire season. At the peak of the season, as indicated in the previous section, the rate was about 20,000 pounds per hour with about l6,600 pounds per ho\ir of first-grade fruit and 3,U00 pounds of subgrade fruit. Ihese peak volumes correspond to a crew size of 9*6 sorters per table according to Figure U. 3/ This report considers only the effects of changes in crew and in volume on Tabor requirements and does not include possible improvements in sorting and grading methods. A study designed to improve methods of visual inspection is being made, however, by Industrial Engineering Department, University of California, and the Production and Marketing Administration, U. S. Department of Agriculture. •DSq slqqs 10. If this plant had used an average of 9.6 sorters per table during the season, with 10 sorters per table on some days and 9 on others, it wo\ild have required 0,56 hours of sorter labor per ti-iousand pounds of fruit handled. Actually, the plant used an average of 11 sorters, and sorting labor averaged 0.6[i hours per thousand pounds of fruit. Operating with a crew in line with the standards in Figure k and in line with peak rather than average volumes, then, would permit a savings of approximately lU per cent in the amotmt of sorting labor used. The potential Stage I savings for other plants range widely, but for all plants studied the average potential savings would be about 8 per cent for pear plants and lU per cent for apple plants. As noted above, two apple plants and three of the sample pear plants actually operated with sorting crews as small as or smaller than the Stage I standards. Stage II ; Even after the grading crew has been adjusted to anticipated peak volmes, further efficiencies are possible. These may be attained by adjusting the hours of daily operation and the number of sorting and packing lines in order to keep the hourly volume per table at or near the peak rates. Tf-Tien lower rates of handling the fruit are unavoidable, this can be accompanied by changing the sorting crew in line with the standards provided in Figure U. It is recognized that such changes may be difficult to make. Nevertheless, all plants utilize these methods to some extent and a few plants completely exploit the possibilities. If plants were able to take full advantage of these potentialities. Stage II savings would average about 10 per cent in addition to the Stage I savings discussed above. Again, the possibilities vary considerably from plant to plant, but only one of the eighteen sample plants operated as efficiently as the Stage II standards vAiile in others the potential savings ranged as high as 20 per cent. Stage III ; In considering the above stages, standards for apple houses have included 1,2 sorters more than the pear standards. This extra labor reflects the type of apple sorting tables commonly used in California where every apple must be picked from the table and placed on particular belts. In California pear houses and in many northwestern apple houses, on the other hand, several of the belts serving the packing machines feed directly from the table and the fruit passes onto these belts without special handling. Apples are customarily sized by a "weight sizer" and, in order to fall correctly into the pockets of the sizer, the apples are shiinted into a single line at the end of the table and then pass through a "feeder" that drops one fruit at a time into the sizer pockets. 5d 'an'i to 8f 3« 11 Since such equipment is available and in successful use in apple packing houses, there appears to be no compelling reason why California aople houses need to use the less efficient method. This would eliminate the need for extra apple sorting labor and bring apples into line with the labor sorting stand- ards given for pears. These Stage III savings would range from 0,09 to O.I6 hours of labor per thousand pounds, as indicated in Figure 3, and would aver- age about Ik per cent of sorting labor after Stages I and II savings had been achieved, it/ Stage IV ; All of the above stages refer to adjustments that could be made within the framework of present packing-house operations. In addition to these, there are important gains in labor efficiency associated with packing table volume where volume is measured in terms of the hourly rate at which fruit is handled. These efficiencies arise from tlie fact that the number of sorters does not increase in direct proportion to the increase in volume. Figure 5 shows the decrease in the hours of sorting labor per thou- sand pounds of fruit that would accompany increases in the volume per hour handled by each sorting table. This curve is based on Figure U, with the assumption that 20 per cent of the fruit received is subgrade. It may be taken as more or less typical for the plants under consideration. In addition, the curve shows the levels of labor reo,uirements after sorting efficiency has been inproved in line with the established standards. In other words, the curve indicates the effects of increasing volume when plants always operate so as to achieve the Stages I, II, and III savings just discussed. Finally, the curve is based on the assumption that the actual size of the table will be increased as required to handle the higher volumes. As indicated by this diagram, sorting labor per thousand pounds of fruit decreases rapidly with increases in volume per table-hour, but the major econo- mies have been achieved by the time volume reaches 1$,000 pounds per table-hour. A packing house with a volume of 5>000 pounds per hour per table, for example, would require about 1,2 hours of sorting labor per thousand pounds of fruit if operating efficiently. On the other hand, a plant with a volume of 1^,000 pounds per table-hour would require only 0,^6 hours per thousand pounds and so would have an important advantage. Labor requirements would continue to decrease k/ Some equipment maniif acturers estimate sorting labor savings from this change to range from 2$ to 50 per cent. ■ f noli ff p-f 1 IT Figure 6— Floor plan for the receiving sections of Plant L, with two sorting tables, and a possible reorganization based on a single, larger table. 13. beyond this range, but, even with volumes of 30,000 pounds per table-hour, a plant would require approxiraately O.U hours of sorting labor per thousand pounds of fruit handled. These Stage IV savings are in part related to the total plant volume, but, even in many existing plants, such economies can be obtained through a reorganization of the plant layout and a reduction in the number of sorting tables. Figure 6A shows the general layout for Plant L with two dumping and sorting lines feeding a number of sizing and packing machines. In this plant, volume per line-hour averaged less than 10,000 pounds, and, even in the peak season, the volume averaged only 11,000 pounds per sorting table per hour. As a consequence of this relatively low volime, sorting labor requirements would average about 0»68 hours per thousand pounds even after Stages I and II efficiencies have been achieved. If the plant were reorganized as suggested in Figure 6B, the volume per table-hour could be doubled, and with efficient operation the labor requirements could be reduced to O.lj.7 hours per thousand pounds of pears, Ihe single large table would require four or five fewer sorters than would the two present tables. Where present volume per table-hour is low, this Stage IV reorganization may represent the most important single method for increasing sorter labor efficiency. Estimates of potential savings have been included in Figure 3 for the sample plants. Note that estimates have not been made for a number of plants. Ihese represent cases where either the present organization is based on a single line or where present volumes are high enough to realize most of the savings associated with large-volume operation. In the plants where this adjustment seems promising, potential savings range from 0.07 to 0.35 hours per thousand pounds of fruit. It should be noted that consolidating the number of receiving and sorting lines will affect several aspects of plant operation in addition to the direct effect on the number of sorters. Figure 6 suggests that the reorganized layout would require one less dumper and so contribute to lowered costs in the receiv- ing and dumping phases of the plant. The diagrams also illustrate the fact that the revised system, while using only one large table, would require a more elaborate set of conveyors to move the sorted fruit to the sizing and packing madiines. Table 2 gives approximate descriptions and investments in sorting tables of several common sizes and indicates that the investment in a single table will frequently be less than the combined investment in two or :5q SfiUflcv -oneifpaaflr . 3d em ■iTX3 9i;- 15dm;;.' ■cfx-rvtao. 13 TSfltr cfnitffl 9f4t "if. ■i-'.tS:, jiJi!.)y__.;.:>. '1:0. . . ' three smaller tables. The exact effects of these reorganizations on invest- ments and fixed costs for tables and conveyors will depend on the particular conditions in the plant, but in any event the equipment costs can be expected to be minor relative to labor costs and potential savings (see Table 1). Finally, the reorganized system might have an adverse effect on other plant costs where the plant handles many small lots of fruit and uses a "break-for- lots" system to determine the pack-out for each lot. With a reduced number of lines, this would mean an increase in the proportion of time that the plant was idle during a "break" and so a decrease in average efficiency. The effects of these indirect impacts of plant reorganization on costs and efficiency will not be discussed further at this point, but many of them will be covered in detail in other reports in this series. TABLE 2 Approximate Capacities and Investments in Sorting Tables Length in feet Approximate capacity Approximate investments/ Number of sorters Thousand pounds per hour 12 8 lU ^ 700 16 11 26 85? 20 lU 37 910 27b/ 18 50 2,060 a/ At 1950 prices and including installation charges. b/ Custom-made; others are standard equipment. REDUCING SORTING COSTS IN YOUR PACKING HOUSE There may be many reasons why grading labor requirements in some apple and pear packing houses are higher than the standards given in this report. One of the most important is uncertainty . Managers find it difficult to make accurate forecasts of plant volumes and to know if suitable labor will be available when needed and so may employ an unduly large crew early in the season to be on the safe side and to train inexperienced workers. Adjustments in the hours of plant operation and in the number of grading lines in order to maintain high volume per plant-hour and per line-hour are possible and such ■:evbB as sviin -ya^iin iiisJe^a b-, oxJioqoiq ^s^nil TO tti be i i c- r • i i i o.[ • ' ! 1 j OS j 1 i 05 ■ X'pti'i lOCfj: T-XOBiX,' ir' 15. adjustments are made in most plants, but they require frequent changes and irregular hours and may result in labor dissatisfaction. In some plants, grading labor requirements are increased by packing several grades of fruit although this was true in only one of the eighteen pear and apple plants studied. In such cases, of course, the added sorting costs must be justified by the additional values secured from the sale of the fruit. In spite of these difficulties, the studies indicate that some managers have achieved significantly lower grading costs than others and that all of the plants studied reach efficiency levels comparable with the established Stages I and II standards for at least part of the season. Could grading labor costs be reduced in your plant? As a general answer, it is only possible to say that there were significant cost-reducing possibili- ties in nearly all of the plants studied and that in some of the plants these possibilities were relatively large. To obtain a more specific answer for your plant, it will be necessary to compare your operations with the standards given in Figure U. Ihe table ttiat follows has been set up to help you ap- praise your own sorting operations. Suppose we compare your operation for last season with those for the sample plants and with the sorting labor standards. To illustrate the use of the table, calculations for Plant M have been included. The several items in the table are discussed below. 1. Average volume, expressed in 1,000-pound units. From your records, determine the total volume of fruit handled during the season and enter it (in 1,000-pound units) as item la. Do not include any volume run over special cannery sorting tables. Also determine the total hours of table operation corresponding to this total volume, entering this as item lb. Be sure to count each table separately, adding together for each day the hours that each regular sorting table operated. Finally, divide the season volume by the total table-hours to determine the average volume of fruit per table-hour and enter the results as item Ic. For Plant M, the total volume amounted to U, 2^7,000 pounds, the total sorting table operation to 2^0 hours, and the average volume was about 17.0 thousand pounds per table-hour. 2. Peak volume, expressed in 1,000-pound units. This item is similar to the first item except that it considers only the peak-volume days for the season. For this purpose, select the three days during the season when your plant operated at highest rates. For these three days, determine the total volume of fruit (2a), the volume of first-grade fruit— packed fruit plus :3 MiTOO a Tinc - .T-rnfi-.e- ■ .iMtfoq-.fioss.i . V£ J'i-'ccf «• ?sv ejrt- '-•" ^■-Tfiv- cut Jv.lni'Ofli*? f &«tj reel Ery^h '^nf 'fov- f« j, '•■ TABLE 3 Estimating the Potential Savings in Sorting Labor for Your Packing House Item Source Plant M Your plant 1. Average volume, 1,000 poiands a. Total volume for season b. Total hours of sorting table operation c. Average volume per table-hour 2. Peak volume, 1,000 pounds a. Total for three high days b. First-grade fruit, three days c. Subgrade fruit, three days d. Total sorting table-hours, three days e. Total volume per table-hour f . First-grade per table-hour g. Subgrade per table-hour 3. Total hours of sorting labor k. Sorting hours per 1,000 pounds 1 5. Standard sorting crew t 6. standard sorting hovirs per 1,000 pounds a. stage I b. Stages I and II 7. Potential savings, hours per 1,000 pounds a. Stage I b. Stages I and II Plant records Plant records la i lb Plant records Plant records Plant records Plant records 1+ k 6a 6b 2a ~ 2d 20.0 2b I 2d 16.6 2c 4 2d 3.^ Plant records 2,750 3 7 la 0.65 Figure h 9.6 5 i Ic 0.56 5 f 2e 0.1^8 4,257 250 17.0 540 kkQ 92 27 0.09 0.17 a/ (Continued on next page.) t ! r 1 1 i 1 1 i ■ ■ 5P ■.»3COI.qT. ^ 5.5 ' i ' ■ I i D' liTI,-- I i I-.T- i i "fS- i i f 1 * Table 3 continued. Item Source — i Plant M i Your plant 8. Potential savings, hours per season a. Stage I b. Stages I and II la la X 7a X 7b 1 ! i ! i i 383 1 i 1 a/ If your plant is an apple packing house, be sure to add 1.2 to the reading obtained from Figure k. -J 18. Number 1 cannery fruit (2b), and by difference the volume of subgrade fruit (2c). Enter as item 2d the total hours of regular sorting table operation during this three-day period and divide the appropriate volumes by the hours of table operation to obtain peak volumes per table-hour (2e, 2f, and 2g). For plant M, the three-day total was 5UO,000 pounds, the volume of first- grade fruit was Uii8,000 pounds, and the volinne of subgrade fruit, 92,000 pounds. The sorting table operated a total of 27 hours during the period so the volumes per table-hour were about 20,0, l6,6, and 3.U thousand pounds per hour, respectively. 3. Total hours of sorting labor. From your records, enter the total hours of sorting labor for the season excluding any sorters used on special cannery lines. For Plant M, the total amount of sorting labor was 2,750 hours for the season. U. Sorting hours per 1,000 pounds. This determines the average amount of sorting labor used in your plant per thousand pounds of fruit and is calcu- lated by dividing the total hours of sorting labor (item 3) by the total volume of fruit (la). Since Plant M used 2,750 hours of labor to sort U,257 thousand pounds of pears, the average was 0.65 hours per thousand poxinds. 5. Standard sorting crew. This is the estimate of the approximate niamber of sorters per table that could have handled the peak volumes for your plant and is based on the labor standards given in Figure h> Ttie use of the diagram has been illustrated for Plant M: enter the diagram at point A witti the peak volume of first-grade fruit per table-hour (2f), follow up to point B representing the volume of subgrade fruit (2g), and then read across to point C to determine the standard number of sorters per table — 9.6 in this example. Use the data for your plant in this way to estimate the standard crew for your conditions. Note; If your plant is an apple packing house, be sure to add 1,2 sorters to the standard crew as determined from Figure i;. 6. Standard sorting hours per 1,000 pounds. These are estimates of the sorting labor requirements for your plant under the types of adjustments dis- cussed in the previous section. Stage I requirements are calculated by divid- ing the standard crew (item 5) by the season average volume of fruit per hour (item Ic). For Plant M, the standard crew of 9.6 sorters is divided by the average volume of 17.0 thousand pounds to obtain an estimate of 0,56 hours per thousand pounds for Stage I requirements. Item 6b represents the combina- tion of Stage I and Stage II reorganizations and is calculated by dividing the ■lo'i :.!oc. i'Oti 1 Koil b&nxin'i3^3b wairs •10BE9? noli 19. standard crew (item 5) by the total volume per hour for the peak season (2e), For Plant M, this means dividing 9.6 sorters by 20,0 thousand pounds per hour and results in 0.ii8 hours of sorting labor per thousand pounds, 7, Potential savings, hours per 1,000 pounds. These represent the estimates of possible savings in sorting labor per thousand pounds of fruit handled and are obtained simply by subtracting the standard requirements (6a and 6b) from the actual amount of labor used (item U) , Since actual sorting labor requiranents in Plant M averaged 0,6^ hours per thousand pounds, potential savings would be about 0,09 hours per thousand pounds with Stage I adjustments and 0,1? hours per thousand pounds when both Stage I and Stage II savings are made. 8. Potential savings, hours per season. The above estimates of poten- tial savings per thousand pounds may not appear very impressive, but the results over an entire season may be quite significant. To estimate total savings for the season, multiply the savings per thousand pounds (7a and 7b) by the total volume for tlie season (la). Ihus, in Plant M it is estimated that these adjustments in sorting crews and plant operations would permit savings of 383 hours of sorting labor if Stage I changes were made, and 72k hours if both Stage I and Stage II adjustments were made. With the wage rates actually paid in this plant, this would mean a potential savings of more than $750 simply as a result of improved labor efficiency in sorting operations. These calculations have indicated the savings in sorting labor that you can expect as a result of adjusting your sorting crew to the -(rolume of fruit handled. In addition, it may be very important for you to consider the type of table used and the possibilities of increasing the volume per table-hour by consolidation and the elimination of one or more tables. If your plant uses a type of table that requires the sorters to handle every fruit and to place each fruit on a particular belt or chute, then you could save the equivalent of some 1.2 hours of sorter labor for each hour of table operation. Since this would require the purchase of new tables, however, you should at the same time con- sider the possibilities of combining tables. If you have filled out Table 3, you have already estimated the peak volxime per table-hour for your plant—item 2e, If this volume is relatively low— say, less than 15,000 po\inds per hour—and if your plant uses two or more sorting tables, then it should be possible to make important gains in efficiency by T:uori Tsc odo ISO aiiroxl -HP eax/ofi -loxJ'JSjL' p ear I 10 ©no 1g aolSRtiiifiile en 20. reducing the number of tables and so increasing the volume per hour for the remaining table or tables. Suppose item 2e for your plant is 10,000 pounds per table-hour and your normal operation involves three tables. According to Figure 5j this volume corresponds to an average labor requirement of 0.?2 hours per thousand pounds; with minor differences because of differences in the pro- portions of first-grade and subgrade fruit, this should correspond to item 6b in Table 3. Suppose you consider combining these three tables into one with peak volume then of about 30,000 pounds. Again referring to Figure S, we see that at this volume the labor requirements will average about O.Ul hours per thousand pounds. In other words, such a change can be expected, on the aver- age, to reduce your sorting labor requirements by more than hO per cent. If for any reason a single table organization seems undesirable for your plant, you might consider eliminating one table and reaching an average peak volume of about 15,000 pounds per hour for each of the remaining two tables. This would res\ilt in sorting labor requirements of about 0,$6 hours per thousand pounds, or an expected savings of more than 20 per cent. CONCLUSIONS Studies of apple and pear packing houses have indicated that grading or sorting costs are important components of the total cost of packing house operation. In eight California apple houses, sorting costs averaged 4j0.9li per thousand pounds of fruit while in ten California pear houses sorting costs averaged $0.62 per thousand pounds. Sorting labor accounts for ap- proximately 95 per cent of total sorting costs. Differences among plants were important with a range in average costs from |0.76 to $1.13 for apple plants and from $0.l42 to $0,92 per thousand pounds for pear plants. These studies have indicated that differences in cost are related to three main factors: (l) the adjustment of the sorting crew to the volume of fruit handled including both the adjustment to the seasonal peak volume and to day-to-day fluctuations in volumej (2) the type of sorting table used with significantly higher labor requirements for tables that require the sorters to pick up each individual fruit; and (3) the volume per hour that is handled by each table. These factors have been used to establish standards for rea- sonably efficient operation — standards that are available to all plants and which most plants actually achieve at least for part of the season. Potential savings in sorting labor requirements that can be expected from the application of these findings by packing house msufiagers will vary depending especially on .OS Ebnx/c sft'ori Sy.O il\ 'io esonorcsl'^^ib lonim rirf. : -foq bnBsx/orl.t tsq ' to SnOXstAQQ -navB 9r(i no ti>eiJo;.qx9 ad , ,il3 lol ,.Jns3 I9q OS fj/5ftf 31. B'^oiajjDiio;) to sr. ;rti bsJ-f oi i9Bi;oxi q Tussq .brt& olqqjs lo H:;i:bx;ic Sniitos Bf^f ; 7 flxcioliXsO noi ni alxriw i.i ^ibrrx/oq bneairoiit isq eiaiil'^ ^jnoiKB esona- . Jzoo j-i. ? ! i .sJnr>Xa ^JE.'^q ^o■i n : Bjo'il. X no •■ f ri-i:o=>q2s gnibn9q?>b v - i&q'\ti ■nibtrfortt balbnc; -■o^-x»5b oi ! 9vsri 21. the extent to which the house in question is already achieving the indicated efficiencies. On the average, however, the study suggests that typical Cali- fornia pear packing houses could reduce sorting labor about 2^ per cent and that California apple packing houses could make more than 50 per cent savings. These findings only suggest the possibilities of increased efficiency. To be of real significance, the findings must be applied to actual plant operations. To this end, the report has indicated how the individual plant manager can appraise the operation of his own plant and so move in the direc- tion of the efficient operations indicated by the standards. be J CO i • srtxv .oaq 9; ,