University of California College of Agriculture Agricultural Experiment Station Berkeley, California COST OF DRYING CUT FRUIT IN CALIFORNIA by- Alexander Joss September f 1943 Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economic Mimeographed Report No. 85 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE DAVIS LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Number of records obtained of the cost of drying apricots, apples, peaches, and pears, selected areas, California, 1942 . . 3 Table 2. Comparison of tonnage of fruit dried by operators who cooperated in the study with tonnage dried in California, 1942 3 Table 3. Apricots: Summary of dry-yard costs per fresh ton and per dried hundredweight, fifty-eight dry-yards, California, 1942 7 Table 4. Apricots: Distribution of fifty-eight dry-yards with respect to their total drying costs per fresh ton of fruit dried, selected areas, California, 1942 9 Table 5. Apricots: Distribution of fifty-eight dry-yards with respect to their labor costs per fresh ton of fruit dried, selected lifornia, 1942 9 Table 6. Freestone peaches: Summary of dry-yard costs per fresh ton and per dried hundredweight, forty dry-yards, selected areas, California, 1942 11 Table 7. Freestone peaches: Distribution of forty dry-yards with respect to their total drying costs per fresh ton of fruit dried, selected areas, California, 1942 ..12 Table 8. Freestone peaches: Distribution of forty dry-yards with respect to their labor costs per fresh ton of fruit dried, selected areas, California, 1942 12 Table 9. Clingstone peaches: Summary of dry -yard costs per fresh ton and per dried hundredweight, fourteen dry-yards, Stanislaus County, California, 1942 14 Table 10. Clingstone peaches: Distribution of fourteen dry-yards with respect to their total drying costs per fresh ton of fruit dried, Stanislaus County, California, 1942 ... 15 Table 11. Clingstone peaches: Distribution of fourteen dry-yards with respect to their labor costs per fresh ton of fruit dried, Stanislaus County, California, 1942 ..... 15 Table 12. Pears: Summary of dry-yard costs per fresh ton and per dried hundredweight, four dry-yards, California, 1942 16 Table 13. Gravenstein apples: Summary of drying costs per fresh ton and per dried ton, six driers, Sebastopol area, California, 1942 ... 17 Table 14. Late apples: Summary of drying costs per fresh ton and per dried ton, four driers, Sebastopol area, California, 1942 .... 20 Table 15. Late apples : Summary of drying costs per fresh ton and per dried ton, five driers, "atsonville area, California, 1942 .... 20 S%or \' ^rxt^lf.r^ ai r » *• t< ?=:. , . •, ....... : ; , ■ • • • • ' ■»«••'" t . '..'".(■ .'•'.••"„ . v.r [ , ~V | -v' "*•; •? ; f - . ' «» c • • , «iireeft UvX- • • fttafcic* uteStlatftt'i, foil* ■ «» - ; . i .'". '«• ; ; ? iiv8I-'- € :;2.vi.vii£::r.. • .vtr.tiS': *.tu6l-$c*i;& • • ,'J,' . ' t, .•• Page Table 16. Comparison of rental charges with depreciation and interest on investment, 11 selected apple driers, Sebastopol and Watson- ville areas, California, 1942 .» 21 Table 17. Tonnage of apricots dried, by varieties, selected areas, California, 1942 22 Table 18. Tonnage of freestone peaches dried, by varieties, selected areas, California, 1942 22 Table 19. Analysis of variance of drying ratios of apricots, by varieties, California, 1942 23 Table 20. Analysis of variance of drying ratios of freestone peaches, by varieties, California, 1942 23 Table 21. Tonnage of all fruit dried, 81 dry-yards, selected areas, California, 1942 24 Table 22. Average investment in drying facilities per fresh ton of fruit dried, 80 dry-yards, selected areas, California, 1942 24 Table 23. Average investment in drying facilities per fresh ton of fruit dried, by size of dry-yard, 1942 27 Table 24. Average tonnage of fruit dried per dry-yard, 81 dry-yards, selected areas, California, 1942 . 27 Table 25. Operator's estimates of the length of life of drying equipment, 81 dry-yards, selected areas, California, 1942 .... 28 Table 26. Relation of size of tray to original cost and length of life, 80 dry-yards, selected areas, California, 1942 28 Table 27. Hours of shed, yard, and supervisory labor at different wage rates, apricots, selected areas, California, 1942 29 Table 28. Hours of shed, yard, and supervisor;/ labor at different wage rates, freestone peaches, selected areas, California, 1942 ... 30 Table 29. Boxes of apricots cut at different rates of pay, selected areas, California, 1942 ...... 31 Table 30. Boxes of peaches cut at different rates of pay, selected areas, California, 1942 . 31 Table 31. Average wage rates for different kinds of work, 6 selected driers, Sebastopol and YJatsonville areas, California, 1942 ... 33 Table 32. Hours of labor required per fresh ton for drying apricots and peaches, selected areas, California, 1942 33 Table 33. Labor requirements for drying pears, selected areas, California, 1942 34 Table 34. Hours of labor required to dry apples, selected driers, Sebas- topol and V.'atsonville areas, California, 1942 34 -o.i let Page Table 35. Number of boxes of lartlett pears cut per hour and amounts earned by 89 cutters during the week ending September 26, 1942, Lake County, California 36 Table 36. Tray equipment, 84 dry-yards, selected areas, California, 1942 . . 36 Table 37. Pounds of fruit per tray reported by 81 dry-yard operators, selected areas, California, 1942 . ..37 Table 38. Calculated tray capacity in relation to tonnage of apricots dried, 81 dry-yards, selected areas, California, 1942 37 Table 39. Calculated tray capacity in relation to tonnage of freestone peaches dried, 81 dry-yards, selected areas, California, 1942 . . 39 Table 40. Utilization of apricots and peaches on farms included in study, selected areas, California, 1942 40 Table 41. Sulfur used per ton of apricots and peaches, 81 dry-yards, selected areas, California, 1942 40 COST OF DRYING CUT FRUIT IN CALIFORNIA l/ by Alexander Joss 2j SUMMARY This study presents data obtained from operators of 84 dry-yards and 11 apple driers during the 1942 drying season. These men furnished information on the cost of drying a total of 3,915 tons of apricots, 8,197 tons of freestone peaches, 1,377 tons of clingstone peaches, 2,691 tons of pears, and 16, 693 tons of apples. All weights are given on a fresh basis. It cost an average of $22.96 per fresh ton to dry apricots during the 1942 season. An average of 5.44 pounds of fresh fruit were required to produce one pound of dried fruit. The average cost of drying per dry pound was therefore £>\ cents. Labor was the most important item of cost, amounting to about 77 per cent of the total. Freestone peaches cost an average of $13.21 per fresh ton. The freestone peaches dried away at a ratio of 6.69 to 1, resulting in a drying cost of 4.42 cents per dry pound. Again, labor was the most important single item of cost, averaging about three fourths of the total. Clingstone peaches cost more to dry than freestone varieties mainly because of higher cutting costs. The average cost in 14 dry-yards was $17.41 per fresh ton or 6.34 cents a dry pound. It required an average of 7.29 fresh tons to produce one dried ton. The apple and pear drying industry is concentrated in the hands of relative- ly few firms. Although records of apple-drying costs were obtained from only 11 driers, the tonnage of dried apples covered by these records represented 36 per cent of this product produced in California in 1942. Similarly, records were obtained from only four concerns that dried pears, but their combined tonnage of dried fruit represented about 16 per cent of the pears dried in the State in 1942. Four driers in Sonoma County reported an average cost of only $82.48 per ton of dried apples. This low cost was possible only because the drying ratio was ex- tremely low. Because of the very high quality of the fruit handled by these four driers, only 6.67 tons of fresh apples were required to produce one ton of dried apples. \j The author wishes to acknowledge the help received during the course of this study from the following members of the Extension Service of the University of Cali- fornia: B. B. Burlingame, A. G.Volz, Peter T. Meyers, C. C. Barnum, H. R, Keller, N. W. Stice, R. D. McCallum, Henry L« Washburn, V. W. DeTar, Enoch Torpen, A. D. Rizzi, and J. L. Quail. 2J Instructor in Agricultural Economics, Junior Agricultural Economist in the Experiment Station and Junior Agricultural Economist on the Giannini Foundation. w 2. The cost of drying Gravenstein apples in Sonoma County averaged $103.96 per dry ton, with a drying ratio of 8.23 to 1. Costs were highest in the Watsonville area where they averaged $114.68 per ton of dried apples with a drying ratio of 8.09 to 1. The average cost for drying a ton of fresh pears was $25.30. The drying ratio was 5.20 to 1, resulting in a cost per one hundred pounds of dried fruit of $6.57. Labor was the biggest single item of expense accounting for slightly more than 70 per cent of the total cost. The important factors affecting the cost of drying appear to be the ratio of fresh to dried fruit, the efficiency with which labor is used, the wage rate paid, and the average investment per ton. For apricots, the Tilton variety had the high- est drying ratio, 6.35 pounds of fresh fruit per pound of dried fruit, compared with only 5.38 pounds for the Royal variety. Of the four freestone peach varieties dried, Elbertas dried away the most, 7.06 to l,and Lovells the least, 6.44 to 1. A variation of over 10 cents an hour was found in the wage rates paid hired labor for the shed, yard and supervisory work among the areas studied. The average wage rate was lowest ($0.51 an hour) in San Benito and highest ($0.63 an hour) in Santa Clara County. The wage rate paid hired workers in the Fresno area averaged $0.53 an hour, as compared with $0.62 an hour in Stanislaus County. The average investment per ton of fruit dried affects both depreciation and interest costs. The average investment per ton was lowest in Stanislaus County ($7.76 per fresh ton) and highest in Alameda County ($46.90 per fresh ton). Any plan that contemplates the drying of a larger tonnage of apricots and freestone peaches than was dried in 1942, must take into consideration the labor, equipment, and material requirements of the task. Approximately 50 hours of labor are required per ton of fresh apricots, 21 hours per ton of fresh freestone peaches, and 29 hours per ton of clingstone peaches. Within each producing area, much of this labor is needed during a relatively short period. If any equipment shortage occurs, it seems likely to be an insufficient num- ber of trays. Estimates were made of the tray capacity of the dry-yards studied, and the porportion of this capacity that was used in 1942 was calculated. These calculations are intended as a guide in approximating the tonnage that can be dried within the various areas studies. Method of Study Before the 1942 drying season started, a number of dry-yard operators in each of the principal producing areas were contacted and their promise of cooperation ob- tained. With each was left a work sheet on which the cost data for the season could be entered. YiThen the season was completed, these work sheets were collected and the data analyzed. At the time the work sheets were collected, a supplementary ques- tionnaire was filled out. This furnished information on the acreage, production and use of certain fruit crops, the source of the fruit dried during 1942, and cer- tain data about the dry-yard and the practices followed. Records were obtained from the operators of 84 dry-yards and 11 apple driers. Because some of them furnished data on more than one crop, 127 individual cost records were obtained (table 1). ii>$ -ap rati up i si: i 5, * * . « ■* ••■ • . • ■ : r ■ * ....... :. • ';..„ . • ' . ' 7 • ■' ■ ■ ■. \ V??'. .• c ' - • • •• - 3 TABLE 1 Number of Records Obtained of the Cost of Drying Apricots, Apples, Peaches, and Pears, Selected Areas, California, 1942 /•-yards furnishing data on Dry-yards Freestone Clingstone County reporting Apricots Apples peaches peaches Pears 4 A *± 1 18 18 San Benito 6 6 — — ■Mri Solano 12 12 2 — Contra Costa 4 4 1 Stanislaus 26 14 26 14 Fresno 6 6 Kings 2 2 Tulare 3 3 Lake 3 » 3 Sonoma 6 6 Santa Cruz 5 5 Total 95 58 11 40 1 . 14 4 TABLE 2 Comparison of Tonnage of Fruit Dried by Operators who Cooperated in the Study with Tonnage Dried in California, 1942 Crop Dry-yards in study Fresh weight of fruit dried* California dried fruit production, 194 zr Proportion of estimated State production in study Total Per dry-yard Number Tons Tons Tons Per cent Apricots 58 3,915 68 110,000 3. 6 Apples 11 16,693 1,518 46,000 36.3 Freestone peaches 40 8,197 205 110,000 7. 5 Clingstone peaches 14 1,377 98 22,500 6. 1 Pears 4 2,691 673 16,500 16. 3 * Fresh weight of fruit dried for which data on costs are available. / Preliminary estimates converted to fresh equivalent weights. * 4. No attempt was made to obtain a predetermined number of cooperators or a given tonnage of fruit. The author was guided by the time limits for soliciting cooperators and the number of possible cooperators in a given area. Because of the work involved in keeping the cost records, naturally there were operators who did not care to cooperate. Some indication as to the representativeness of the sample is given in table 2. The large tonnage of apples was obtained primarily because the apple drying in the state is concentrated in two areas and in the hands of rela- tively few operators. On the other hand, to have obtained a larger number of pear dry-yards or a greater tonnage of apricots in the study would have necessitated con- siderable travel in the different pear and apricot-producing districts of the State and the soliciting of the operators of a number of very small dry-yards. Definition of Terms In any study of costs it is necessary to classify the many individual cost items in such a manner that they may readily be compared. To clarify the tabular material which follows, it is appropriate now to describe the procedure used in this study. In all instances where the operator or members of his family performed any of the work connected v/ith drying, that labor was included as a cost. The operators frequently valued their time at a slightly higher rate per hour than their regular hired help was receiving in order to reflect the operators' greater skill and abili- ty as workers and managers. It was possible to use the same classification of costs in the apricot and peach records. The first item shown in this classification is labor, and it is fur- ther divided into four categories. Maintenance and repair labor includes the work of getting the dry-yard ready for use, in repairing trays, boxes, and other equip- ment, and in storing equipment after the drying season is over. 'There equipment was used for the drying of more than one crop, the cost of the maintenance and repair labor was allocated among the crops dried on the basis of their respective fresh tonnages. This principle was followed in the allocation of all joint costs. It was impossible to determine for individual dry-yards whether the repair work, particular ly that on trays, was of such a nature as to apply to more than one year or not. The repair work that was done was charged as an annual expense. Some operators did comparatively little repair; others did a lot. It is felt that the average for all the yards is a fair representation of the annual repair cost under the wage condi- tions prevailing in 1942. Washing trays and boxes labor included also sweeping of trays, since a few dry-yards reported trays were swept rather than washed. One dry-yard used paper tray-liners and had no labor cost of cleaning trays, although this operator felt that the net result of the use of paper was an increase in his costs. Only three dry-yards neither swept nor washed their trays in preparation for the 1942 season. Cutting labor was a piece-work operation in all yards. When a member of the operator's family cut fruit, the number of boxes cut was recorded and charged at the same rate as was paid the hired cutters. Occasionally, transportation was regular- ly furnished the cutters, or they were paid an additional sum each day for providing their own transportation. These costs to the operator were added to his regular cutting costs. In one small dry-yard, the shed vrorkers helped with the cutting when they were not busy with their other duties. The number of boxes they cut was charged at the rate paid the other cutters and the amount deducted from the cost of the shed labor. fi[f/'rt'i ; ""*i+"» i i j'"< -"»'■■ ijo ■ ; . •• ' '' hi? "■ 5. Shed, yard, and supervisory labor includes the remaining work on the fruit not covered in the first three categories. A separation of these costs was obtained in some yards but not in others due to the fact that workers were shifted at fre- quent intervals from one job to another. Material costs need little definition. Repair material is subject to the same comment as repair labor. Some operators used a fairly large amount; others very little. Sulfur costs represent current consumption for the season regardless of the year in which purchased. Cards , knives , and miscellaneous material was a minor expense item in most yards. Some operators required the cutters to furnish their own knives while others provided them. Other cash costs include the use of spray rigs for washing trays, tractors for preparing the dry-yards, and trucks for hauling trays. Taxes were calculated by multiplying the assessed value of land and equipment by the county tax rate. If irrigation district taxes were levied against the dry-yard, their cost was also included. To this was added, in the case of the commercial yards, the license tax required of them. Compensation insurance costs were obtained by multiplying the hired labor ^ costs by the insurance rate. A few yards reported they carried no compensation in- surance. Fire insurance costs were obtained by applying the insurance rate to the in- sured value of the property; if it were a three-year policy, one third was taken as representative of the annual cost. Few dry-yards reported carrying no fire insur- ance . General expense was arbitrarily calculated at five per cent of the labor, material, and equipment cost except for one record for which complete cost accounts were kept. This procedure was followed because in a study such as this it is im- possible to obtain all of the costs of drying unless the dry-yard operator keeps a complete set of cost accounts. The few detailed accounts available for analysis indicate that telephone, interest on short-term borrowing, auto expense in soliciting workers, and other similar costs averaged about five per cent of the labor, material and equipment costs. The straight-line method of calculating depreciation was used in all cases. The operator was asked to give the original cost and his estimate of the total length of life of the following equipment: cutting sheds, sulfur houses, trays, boxes, tracks, cars, and miscellaneous equipment. The rate at which some of these items depreciate depends to a considerable degree upon the kind of treatment the dry -yard operator gives them. For example, trays, if carefully repaired and protected from the weather may last thirty or forty years; if handled roughly and discarded when broken, they may last only five years. Instead of applying a constant depreciation rate to equipment regardless of treatment received, the operator's estimate of probable length of life was used. Interest on the average investment was considered a cost because the funds tied up in drying equipment could be invested elsewhere and bring in an interest return. An interest rate of five per cent was used. The average investment in drying equipment in each dry-yard was calculated by adding to the cost of the land one half of the original cost of all the other items. This procedure is based on the premise that, for any large group of dry-yards, there will be some new equipment and some very old equipment, and that on the average, the equipment will be worth I *'■ * .1A 6 about half its original cost. The premise was tested with the data from 80 dry-yards, and it was found that the average value of drying facilities obtained by this method of calculation was $13.67 per fresh ton of fruit dried. On the same 80 dry-yards the depreciated or "book" value of drying facilities was $12.67 per fresh ton of fruit dried. Use of the latter figure would have lowered the cost of drying by only five cents per fresh ton. It should be reiterated here that any costs in connection with items of equip- ment which were used for more than one kind of fruit were allocated among the differ- ent fruits dried. In the majority of cases, the allocation was on the basis of tons of fresh fruit dried. In a few cases, an arbitrary allocation was made based on the operator's description of the respective uses made of the equipment. A somewhat different classification was necessary on the pear records. It was not possible on those records to separate the labor of repair, maintenance and washing from the regular shed and yard work. A separate item of supervision is shown. This includes only the- portion of the manager's salary allocated to the dry- yard. Some supervisory labor was paid for by the hour and this cost is shown under shed and yard work. The dehydrator expense item was due to the fact that three of the dry-yards had to finish their fruit in dehydrators because of the late season and the cool weather. General expense for three of the dry -yards was taken from published statements and includes such items as taxes, telephone and telegraph, light and power, office supplies, tractor expense, office expense, director's expenses, and other items of a like nature. To have separated these would have involved a complete audit of the books of these firms. For the fourth yard, general expense was taken as five per cent of labor, material, and equipment cost, plus tractor and county tax costs. The resultant per ton cost fell within the range of general ex- pense costs of the other three dry-yards that had complete accounting systems. De- preciation and interest costs were obtained in the manner previously described. It was not possible, to make much of a separation of cost items in the study of apple drying costs. The eleven firms that cooperated all had somewhat different classifications under which individual expense items were placed. To have made a more detailed breakdown of costs would have required an extensive study of the books of these firms, and a reclassification of many of their expense items. The five cost items used will be described in greater detail in the discussion of tables 13, 14, and 15. Cost of Drying Apricots Summary of All Costs*-- The average cost to dry a ton of apricots in the 58 dry-yards studies in 1942 was $22.96 (table 3). The dry-yard with the lowest cost reported only $14.70 as the total cost per fresh ton dried while the highest cost yard reported $53.86. Much of this difference was due to variations in labor costs which ranged from $11.70 to $39.54. Some operators made a practice of sorting their fruit over very carefully before turning it over to the packer. Since family labor was charged as a cost in this study, those operators who devoted considerable time to sorting and upgrading their fruit had higher than average costs even though mem- bers of the family did the work. It was not possible in this study to make a separa- tion of the labor cost of this farm sorting of the dried product, but it is known that this work contributed to some of these higher costs. The range in material costs is due to the fact that some dry-yards purchased no repair material or knives, leaving only sulfur and cards as material expense items. TABLE 3 Apricots: Summary of Dry-yard Costs per Fresh Ton and per Dried Hundredweight, Fifty-eight Dry-yards, California 1942 Cost per fresh ton Cost per dried hundredweight Cost items Range Weighted Range &V6 r 3, go t Giro *.o rprt Dol i.ars Maintenance and repair u# ob 0.18 V. : ashing trays and boxes n 7Q U* to 0.21 Cutting 2.42 Shed, yard and supervision 7 4 2 2.02 Total labor 1 7 IP, i i vn 'q lit i u-oy • o't 4.o3 *z Ar\ 3.U9 - ■ 12.92 material : 0.42 0.11 Sulfur 0.36 0.10 Cards knives at c . 0., 14 0.04 Total material 0.92 0.09 - 1.77 0.25 0.02 - 0.49 Other cash costs : Equipment 0.15 0.04 Taxes 0-21 0.06 Compensation insurance 0.36 0.10 Fire insurance 0 e 21 0 06 General expense * 0 C 74 0.20 Total other cash costs 1.67 1.02 - 4.54 0.46 0.28 - 1.48 Depreciation 1.62 0.20 - 8.90 0.44 0.05 - 2.34 Interest on investment at 5 per cent 0.99 0.16 4.16 0.27 0.04 - 1.23 Total all costs 22,96 14. 70. -53. 86 6.25 4.05 - 17 c 59 Fresh weight, tons 3,914o95 Dried weight, hundredweight 14,396.54 Ratio, fresh to dried weight 5.44 * Calculated as being 5 per cent of the labor, material, and equipment cost except for one record for which complete cost accounts were kept. t * . \ * ■ * . -— 6. The range in other cash costs is due in part to the range in labor costs since general expense is a percentage of this item. Compensation insurance also bears a relationship to labor costs and tends to vary with it. The lowest depreciation and interest costs were reported for the same dry- yard. This operator dried over 300 tons of fruit with a minimum investment in fa- cilities. The highest depreciation cost was recorded on a yard that dried a small tonnage of fruit. The operator had a considerable sum invested in drying facilities which he felt should be depreciated over a fairly short period of time. The result was a high depreciation charge per ton. The high interest charge of $4.16 per ton was on a dry-yard in Alameda County that had a particularly heavy investment in dry- yard per ton of fruit dried plus a large investment in drying facilities. Only a small tonnage of fruit was dried. Nearly five and a half pounds of fresh apricots were required for every pound of dried fruit produced, the ratio of fresh to dried weight averaging 5.44 (table 3). The average cost per dried hundrodvreight was $6.25, and the range was from $4.05 to $17.59. Total Cost per Fresh Ton . — Of the 58 dry-yards, 41 had total costs per fresh ton of less than $25.00 (table 4). These yards dried 80 per cent of the apricots included in this study. The yards that had the lowest total costs also had the low- est labor and the lowest "all other" costs. As total cost per ton increased, both labor cost and all the other costs showed increases. Labor Cost per Fresh Ton .-r- ".Then the dry-yards were sorted with respect to their labor costs per fresh ton of fruit dried, 44 yards had labor costs of less than $20.00 per fresh ton (table 5). These yards dried 85 per cent of the apricots cov- ered by this survey. Costs other than labor increased with labor costs although not in the same proportion. Income from Apricot Pits . — The apricot grower who elects to dry all or part of his crop has some income from the sale of fits. Anyone interested in making com- parisons among prices of fresh, canned, and dried apricots, should consider this fact In the dry-yards studies, there was one ton of pits for every 19.17 tons of fresh fruit dried. The average value of the pits was $15.33 per ton, which was equal to $0.80 per ton of fresh fruit and $0.22 per hundredweight dried. Cost of Drying by Areas .— The total cost of drying a ton of fresh apricots varied from $21.08 in Stanislaus County to $26.62 in Alameda County. This differ- ence, while large, was not statistically significant because of the wide variation in costs within each of the areas studied. A difference as great or greater than this could have easily occurred due to factors other than the area in which the dry- yards were located. 3_/ Similar results were secured when costs of drying apricots in the various areas were related to a dried weight basis. It should be added that comparisons of apricot drying costs among areas were limited to three counties from 3/ Analysis of variance was used to test the statistical significance of the various differences cited in this paper, "'.'hile it cannot be claimed that the assump tions underlying this technique are strictly fulfilled by the data, it was felt that some objective test of significance of differences should be employed. Otherwise, the reader would be led to endow each numerical difference with a significance it may not possess. In all comparisons mentioned in this paper, the 5 per cent point was used as the level of significance. 1 9. TABLE 4 Apricots: Distribution of Fifty-eight Dry-yards with Respect to Their Total Drying Costs per Fresh Ton of Fruit Dried, Selected Areas, California, 1942 T^v cpn Tirol n»l^ 4~ rresn we l gnu Weighted average cost per ton per Dry-yards of apricots Labor All other All costs fresh ton dried costs Dollars Number Tons Dollars 14 to 20 20 991.01 14.77 3.10 L7.87 20 to 25 21 2,139.58 17.42 5.29 22.71 25 to 30 3 441.11 20.68 6.42 27.10 30 to 35 6 278.43 24.22 8.21 32.43 35 to 54 3 64.82 27.57 12.99 40.56 All dry- yards 58 3,914.95 17.76 5.20 22.96 TABLE 5 Apricots: Distribution of Fifty-eight Dry-yards with Respect to Their Labor Costs per Fresh Ton of Fruit Dried, Selected Areas, California, 1942. Labor cost Fresh weight Weighted average cost { ier ton per Dry-yards of apricots Labor All other All , costs fresh ton dried costs Dollars Number Tons Dollars 11 to 14 9 233.86 12.93 3.75 16.68 14 to 17 18 1,076.78 15.50 3.73 19.23 17 to 20 17 2,021.39 17.71 5.57 23.28 20 to 23 6 179.18 21.45 7.37 28.82 23 to 26 5 343.57 23.91 7.05 30.96 26 to 40 3 70.17 29.93 7.22 37.15 All dry- yards 58 3,914.95 17.76 5.20 22.96 ^-^-p—? ■ • — - • • '-*. ♦ '*' *'U* *** I , 10. which the largest number of records was obtained, namely, Santa Clara, Solano, and Stanislaus counties. Cost of Drying Freestone Peaches Summary of All Costs . — The average cost of drying a ton of freestone peaches in the 40 dry-yards studies in 1942 was $13.21 (table 6). Cost per fresh ton ranged from a low of $7.17 to a high of $17.74. Labor was the most important item of cost, representing over 83 per cent of the total. The range in material costs was extreme- ly great. The low-cost yard spent only a few dollars for repair material and burned a minimum amount of sulfur. When questioned concerning the small amount of sulfur used, the operator of this yard stated that his sulfur houses were large enough so that all fruit could be held in them overnight, and he folloived the practice of burning a very small amount of sulfur and leaving the fruit exposed for a long period. The yard with the highest material cost per fresh ton used paper tray liners. The cost of this paper was classified as a material cost. The range in depreciation costs was rather wide. The lowest cost dry-yard is the same one mentioned in the discussion of apricot drying costs. The yard that had a depreciation cost of $4.45 per fresh ton used a very short period in which to de- preciate equipment, particularly trays. The writer visited the yard, and from the treatment some of the trays had received, the short period seemed justified. This yard was one that had no expense for repair material. Total Cost per Fresh Ton . — Twenty-five of the dry-yards, representing 51 per cent of the freestone peaches included in this study, had total costs per fresh ton of less than $13.00 (table 7). The three dry-yards that fell in the highest group- ing ($16.00 to $19.00 per ton) did so because of their costs other than labor. Labor costs per ton on these yards averaged a little below the labor costs in the next lower group. Labor Cost per Fresh Ton . — Over half of the dry-yards had labor costs per fresh ton in the one group — $9.00 to $11.00 (table 8). These yards dried 62 per cent of the freestone peaches in the study. All other costs did not vary in the same proportion as did labor costs. Income from Feach Pits . — Peach pits have little commercial value. A few operators reported sales for use as fuel. Some operators used the pits as fuel in their own homes, and the others disposed of them in various ways. The income from them can be disregarded under present price relationships. Cost of Drying by Areas . — The 11 records from Kings, Tulare, and Fresno coun- ties were grouped together and referred to as the records from the "Fresno Area." The 26 records from Stanislaus County were considered as representing a second area, and the other three records were excluded on the basis of constituting too small a sample to represent their respective areas. Differences in total costs per fresh ton between the Stanislaus County records and those taken in the Fresno Area were not found to be statistically significant. Similar results - were secured when costs were expressed on a per dried hundredweight basis. Cost of Drying Clingstone Peaches Summary of All Costs . — The average cost to dry a ton of clingstone peaches in the 14 dry-yards studied in 1942 was $17.43. The range in costs was rather narrow, 11. TABLE 6 Freestone Peaches: Summary of Dry-yard Costs per Fresh Ton and per Dried Hundredweight, Forty Dry-yards, Selected Areas, California, 1942. Cost per fresh ton Cost per dried hundre dweight uosij looms Weighted Range Weighted R ange average average Dollars Labor : Maintenance and repair 0.43 0.14 Washing trays and boxes 0.55 0.18 Cutting 4.24 1.42 Shed, yard, and 1.54 supervision 4.59 Total labor 9.81 5.62 -12.00 3.28 1.80 - 4.30 Material : Repair material 0.26 0.09 Sulfur 0.29 0.10 Cards, knives, etc. 0.07 0.02 Total material 0.62 0.03 - 2.38 0.21 0.01 - 0.8 3 Other cash costs : Equipment 0.07 0.03 Taxes 0.11 0.04 Compensation insurance 0.22 0.07 Fire insurance 0.11 0.03 General expense * 0.47 0.16 Total other cash costs 0.98 0.40 - 1.65 0.33 0.13 - 0.60 Depreciation 1.26 0.20 - 4.45 0.42 0.06 - 1.72 Interest on investment at 5 per cent 0.54 0,16 - 1.33 0.18 0.05 - 0.40 Total all costs 13.21 7.17 -17.74 4.42 2.30 - 5.88 Fresh weight, tons 8,196,84 Dried weight, hundredweight 24,511.16 Ratio, fresh to dried weight 6.69 * Calculated as being 5 per cent of the labor, material, and equipment cost ex- cept for one record for which complete cost accounts were kept. 12. TABLE 7 Freestone Peaches: Distribution of Forty Dry-yards with Respect to Their Total Drying Costs per Fresh Ton of Fruit Dried, Selected Areas, California, 1942. Total cost Fresh weight Weighted average cost per ton per Dry-yards of freestone Labor All other All costs fresh ton peaches, dried costs Dollars Number Tons Dollars 7 to 10 5 776.55 7.04 ' 1.70. 8.74 10 to 13 20 3,403.75 9.40. 2.62. • 12.02 13 to 16 12 2,818.47 10.74 3.71 14.45 16 to 19 3 1.198.07 10.55 6.04. 16.59 All dry- yards 40 8,196.84 9.81 3.40 13.21. TABLE 8 Freestone Peaches: Distribution of Forty Dry-yards with Respect to Their Labor Costs per Fresh Ton of Fruit Dried, Selected Areas, California, 1942. Labor cost Fresh weight Weighted average cost per ton per Dry-yards of freestone Labor All other Al 1 costs fresh ton peaches, dried costs Dollars Number Tons Dollars 5 to 7 4 416.25 6.17 2.33 8.50 7 to 9 8 1,226.96 8.28 2.82 11.10 9 to 11 22 5,049.41 9.97 3.76 13.73 11 to 13 6 1,504.22 11.50 3.04 14.54 All dry- yards 40 8,196.84 9.81 3.40 13.21 • - r . . . .1 ' ' ' ■ - f if •el «'* n _***_. -n-YM-r- ^ ) ; .»-~ - 1 -" — • r - -*f — — — 13. the low-cost yards averaging $15.51 and the high-cost yard $19.40 per fresh ton (table 9). The higher cost of cutting the clingstone peaches largely accounts for the difference in cost between this fruit and the freestone varieties. Total Cost per Fresh Ton .— Five of the 14 dry-yards had average costs within the interval $17.00 to $18.00 (table 10). Variation in labor cost per frosh ton was largely responsible for the variation in total costs inasmuch as the labor item represented about 83 per cent of the total cost. Labor Cost per Fresh Ton .— A tabulation of the 14 dry-yards arranged by groups on the basis of their labor cost per fresh ton is presented in table 11. Cost of Drying Bartlett Pears Records of pear-drying costs were obtained from three dry-yards in Lake County and from ono dry-yard in Alameda County. The yards in Lake County were owned and operated by three farmers' cooperative organizations and served as a means of utiliz- ing members' fruit that was unsatisfactory for shipping or for sale to canneries. The yard in Alameda County was owned by a commercial drier who bought pears from Santa Clara County and dried them for his own account. The average drying cost in these four dry-yards during the 1942 season was $25.30 per ton of frosh pears (table 12). The lowest cost yard reported a cost of $21.98 while the highest cost yard reported $31.80 per fresh ton. The ratio of fresh weight to dried weight was 5.20, resulting in an average cost per dried hun- dredweight of $6.57. Labor was the biggest item of expense, accounting for slightly more than seventy per cent of the total cost. Cost of Drying Apples Apples are dried by means of artificial heat in contrast to the sun-drying methods used for apricots, peaches, and pears. This fact has tended to concentrate the drying of apples within the control of a relatively few large commercial apple driers. Records of apple-drying costs were obtained from 11 operators who produced a total of 2,115 tons of dried apples. The dsta used in this study were supplied from the records of these eleven operators. No attempt was made by the author to audit the books of these firms. Because of the lack of uniformity in the accounting systems employed by these firms, it was possible to separate costs into only five different categories. The average cost of drying Gravenstein Apples was $12.64 per fresh ton (table 13). For every ton of dried apples, 8.23 tons of fresh apples were required, re- sulting in an average cost per dried ton of $103.96. This variety was dried only in the Sebastopol area. Labor was the most important single item of cost. This item includes all : hired labor plus a charge for the operators' own time in those driers where a portion of the work was done by him. Supplies include sulfur, sodium sulfite, salt, box shook, paper, nails, sacks, and unclassified supply items. The wide range in this cost item, $0.95 to $14.16 per dried ton, is due largely to the fact that some of the operators packed apples in boxes, while others used the less expensive method of sack- ing them. -.8 rs A3 14. TABLE 9 Clingstone Peaches: Summary of Dry-yard Costs per Fresh Ton and per Dried Hundredweight, Fourteen Dry-yards, Stanislaus County, California, 1942. Cost per fresh ton {Cost per dried hundredweight Y/eighted Range Yfoighted Range average average Dollars T chfii* • Maintenance and renair WA^hinc fravR and hrtxes 0.40 0.15 \j U U U XI J. c. 9.04 3.29 Shed | yard , and supervis ion 4.80 1.75 14.49 12.28-16.19 5,28 3.85 - 6.45 Ma "her 3 al • Repair material 0.11 0.04 Sulfur 0.37 0.13 Cards, knives, etc. * HP 0.48 0.15- 0.89 0.17 0.04 - 0.36 fyfchpT* cash costs: Equipment 0.10 0.04 Taxes 0.07 0.03 Compensation insurance 0.34 0.13 Fire insurance 0.03 0.01 General expense / 0.76 0.27 Total other cash costs 1.30 1.02- 1.92 0.48 0.29 - 0.72 Depreciation 0.82 0.34- 1.54 0.30 0.13 - 0.58 Interest on investment at 5 per cent 0.34 0.23- 0.71 0.12 0.08 - 0.26 Total all costs 17.43 15.51-19.40 6.35 4.45 - 7.89 Fresh weight, tons 1,376.73 Dried weight, hundredweight 3,778.87 Ratio, fresh to dried weight 7.29 * Less than $0,005 / Calculated as being 5 per cent of the labor., material, and equipment cost. 15. TABLE 10 Clingstone Peaches: Distribution of Fourteen Dry-yards with Respect to Their Total Drying Costs per Fresh Ton of Fruit Dried, Stanislaus County, California, 1942 Total cost per fresh ton Dry*- yards Fresh weight of clingstone peaches dried Weighted average cost pe r ton Labor All other costs Al 1 costs Dollars Number Tons Dollars 15 to 16 16 to 17 17 to 18 18 to 19 19 to 20 All dry- yards 2 3 5 2 2 31.78 451.76 325.57 464.88 102.74 13.05 13.68 14.33 15.15 16.03 1.20 0.77 1.27 1.37 1.52 15.54 16.28 17.45 18.23 19.35 14 1,376.73 14.49 1.16 17.43 TABLE 11 Clingstone Peaches j Distribution of Fourteen Dry-yards with Respe to Their Labor Costs per Fresh Ton of Fruit Dried, Stanislaus County, California, 1942. ct Labor cost per fresh ton Fresh weight of Y/eighted average cost pe r ton Dry-yards clingstone peaches dried Labor All other costs j .11 costs Dollars Number Tons Dollars 12 to 13 13 to 14 14 to 15 15 to 17 All dry- yards 2 4 4 4 73.32 494.35 288.48 520.58 12.83 13.79 14.48 15.40 1.24 0.82 1.63 1.20 16.39 16.36 18.00 18.27 14 1,376.73 14.49 1.16 17.43 p 16. TABLE 12 Pears: Summary of Dry-yard Costs per Fresh Ton and per Dried Hundredweight, Four Dry-yards, California, 1942. Cost per fresh ton jCost per dried hundredweight Cost items Weighted Range Yfeighted Range average average Dollars Labor: Cutting 8.87 2.30 Shed and yard 8.34 2.17 Supervision 0.94 0.24 Total labor 18.15 13.64-23.32 4.71 3.25 - 5.85 Other cash costs: Sulfur 0.48 0.12 Repair material 0.34 0.09 Other material 0.27 0.07 Tray rent 0.06 0.01 Dehydrator expense 0.37 0.10 Insurance 0.40 0.11 General expense 0.78 0.20 Total other cash costs 2.70 1.70- 4.31 0.70 0.40 - 1.09 Overhead costs : Depreciation 3.31 2.74- 4.29 0.86 0.66 - 1.31 Interest on investment 1.14 0.84- 2.39 0.30 0.20 - 0.57 Total overhead costs 4.45 3.58- 5.71 1.16 0.86 - 1.75 Total all costs 25.30 21.98-31.80 6.57 5.23 - 8.23 Fresh weight, tons 2,691 .23 Dried weight, hundredweight 10,358.96 Ratio, fresh to dried weight 5.20 17. TABLE 13 Gravenstein Apples: Summary of Drying Costs per Fresh Ton and per Dried Ton, Six Driers, Sebastopol Area, California, 1942. Cost per fresh ton Cost per dried ton Cost items Weighted Range Yieighted Range average average Dollars Labor 8.66 7.52-11.25 71.25 52.11 -87.09 Supplies 1.21 0.11- 1.71 9.97 0.95 -14.16 Fuel, electricity, and water 0.99 0.83- 1.29 8.16 6.65 -11.93 General expense 0.49 0.13- 0.67 4.06 0.95 - 4.66 Rent, interest, and depreciation 1.29 0.42- 3.59 10.52 2.86 -31.50 Total all costs 12.64 11.17-16.17 103.96 77.41 -141.83 Fresh weight, tons 4,022.05 Dried weight, tons 488.93 Ratio, fresh to dried weight 8.23 i—T* ■ - j i • . * -: : -. C • • ummm m' ■ «■■ ■ ■wwiju j,, , ••• i • >8a$$x.<. :■ I: 18. Fuel, electricity, and water were costs common to all of the driers. Some of them kept separate records of those items, but a few driers did not, so it was necessary to combine the three items into the one cost category. General expense includes taxes, insurance, repair, storage, inspection, tele- phone, office supplies, and the other miscellaneous costs connected with the opera- tion of the drier. Because all of the operators kept complete records, it was not necessary to approximate the general expense as was the case for the apricot and peach records. Five of the six operators who dried Gravenstein apples rented their driers. Four paid rents based on the green tonnage of apples dried. The other paid a flat sum as rent for the entire season. Depreciation on the owner-operated drier was figured at the same rate as the operator used on his income tax return. Two interest items were calculated. Interest on the average investment at the rate of 5 per cent was figured as a cost on all of the owner-operated driers. Interest on working capital was figured as a cost for all the driers in the study. The assumption was made that each operator would need working capital equal to one half of his expenses other than depreciation and interest and that this sum would be needed for four months. An annual interest rate of 6 per cent was used. This rate was paid by some of the operators who needed bank credit. Only four of the six cooperating driers in the Sebastopol area dried late apples (table 14). The average cost per fresh ton was $12.36 and the average per dried ton $82.48. The low cost per dry ton was due to the low ratio of fresh to dried weight of 6.67 which was reported by these four driers. This low ratio was i due to the quality of the fruit delivered to the driers and would not prevail under ordinary conditions. Costs per fresh ton averaged somewhat higher in the ''"atsonville area (table 15). The important differences were in connection with the items of supplies and general expense. Four of the five driers in this area packed out their fruit in wooden boxes for delivery to the United States Army and accordingly had the high costs associated with this type of pack. This accounts primarily for the larger supplies cost. The higher general expense item may be attributed in part to the more complete accounting systems employed by the v .atsonville area, firms. They were larger, and most of them employed full-time bookkeepers and were thus in a position to record properly all charges against the drier operation. Some of the smaller firms in the Sebastopol area did not have regularly employed bookkeepers, and their records, as a consequence, were not as complete. Six of the eleven operators interviewed rented the driers that they operated. Excluding one drier that was rented on a seasonal basis, the average rental charge was $7.86 per ton of dried apples. This compares with average interest on investment and depreciation charges totaling $6.43 for the five owner-operated driers (table 16). The data on taxes and repairs on buildings and equipment were not given in sufficient detail to permit their inclusion, but it seems highly probable that these two expense items would equal or exceed the $1.43 difference shown in table 16. Credit for Apple By-products .— In the drying of arples, certain products of value other than the dried apple result. The cores, peelings, and small apples, can be used in making vinegar. In some cases, the small poices of dried apple, or "screenings," as they are called in the industry, can be utilized. There is some difference of opinion in the industry as to the proper account- ing procedure to be followed with regard to the money received from these products. •9 ri: si .I- ."i: i' r 5 One group believes that this income should be credited against the cost of drying and thus serve to lower the cost. The other group believes that any income from these products should revert to the drier, and not serve to reduce the cost. Sound accounting procedure favors the former group. Data are available from only three driers as to the exact amounts received in 1942 from the sale of these by-products. One firm received the following amounts per ton of dried apples : $5.73 for cores and peeling; $3.87 for cider apples; and $21.84 for screenings and pickouts. This amounted to a total return from these prod- ucts of $31.44 per ton of dried apples. This was the only firm that stated that a return had been received from the screenings. Several other firms indicated that their screenings had been condemned as unfit for human consumption by the State In- spector. The other two driers reported that they received $7.69 and $7.04 respec- tively for cores and peelings per ton of dried fruit . This matter of the value of these by-products should be investigated thor- oughly. The value of the screenings in particular suggests that ways be studied for preserving their quality so that they might remain in all possible oases an edible product. Some Factors Affecting the Cost of Drying Apricots and Peaches This discussion is limited to apricots and peaches because of the larger num- ber of records obtained of the costs of drying these fruits. The principles brought out here are applicable also to pears and apples. Ratio of fresh to dried weight . — The relation between the fresh weight of the fruit and its dried weight is extremely important to the dry-yard operator. Virtually all of his costs associated with drying bear a direct relation to the ton- nage of fresh fruit handled. His income is dependent, however, upon the weight (and the quality) of the dried product. The differences in drying ratios of either apricots or peaches among the various areas studied in 1942 were not statistically significant. However, there were significant differences among the drying ratios of the different varieties of fruit. The analysis of variance of drying ratios by varieties is reproduced for apricots in table 19 and for peaches in table 20. Of the apricot varieties, only Royal, Blenheim, and Tilton were dried in sufficient tonnage to be considered (table 17). For freestone peaches, the differences among the Elberta, . 'uir and Lovell varieties were tested. The Lovell variety was represented by the largest tonnage of the freestone peaches included in this study, and the Muir variety ranked second in importance (table 18). The clingstone peaches studied were not reported separately by varieties. Average Investment per Ton . — The average investment pur ton of fruit dried has an important bearing on the drying cost per ton through its effect upon both the interest and depreciation charges. However, before examining the investment per ton, it is pertinent to consider the tonnage of fruit dried. These 81 dry-yards dried a total of 16,333.80 tons of fruit (table 21). Free, stone peaches were represented with the largest tonnage, apricots were second in importance with clingstone peaches third. In addition to these three crops, these yards also dried 889.5 tons of prunes, 523 tons of golden bleach raisins, 189.4 tons of pears, and 136.7 tons of nectarines. All weights are the fresh weight of the fruit dried. I * • ««WjH' tag':'?" 20. TABLE 14 Late Apples: Summary of Drying Costs per Fresh Ton and per Dried Ton, Four Driers, Sebastopol Area, California, 1942. Cost per fresh ton Cost per dried ton Pnct" i tpmc Weighted Range Weighted Range average average Dollars Labor 8.64 7.51-11.58 57.65 47. 69- 85.13 1.26 0.14- 1.60 8.45 0. 95- 10.19 Fuel, electricity, and water 1.01 0.96- 1.30. 6.73 6. 09- 8.95 General expense 0.63 0.25- 1.06 4.16 u 75- 7.27 Rent, interest, and depreciatior 0.82 0.42- 1.31 5.49 2. 51- 11.18 Total all costs 12.36 11.17-15.37 82.48 70. 36-118.95 Fresh weight, tons 2,271.57 Dried weight, tons 340.40 Ratio, fresh to dried weight 6.67 TABLE 15 Late Apples: Summary of Drying Costs per Fresh Ton and per Dried Ton, Five Driers, 7. r atsonville Area, California, 1942. Cost per fresh ton Cost per dried ton Cost items Weighted Range Weighted Range average average Dollars Labor 8.79 6.21-12.73 71.11 55.69- 93.49 Supplies 2.03 1.59- 2.83 16.43 11.59- 22.05 Fuel, electricity, and water 0.70 0.52- 1.01 5.61 4.56- 7.44 General expense 1.55 1.02- 1.79 12.54 7.53- 16.16 Rent, interest, and depreciation 1.11 0.97- 1.49 8.99 7.52- 10.84 Total all costs 14.18 11.47-17.37 114.68 102.89-127.57 Fresh weight, tons 10,399.12 Dried weight, tons 1,285.60 Ratio, fresh to dried weight 8.09 21 table; 16 Comparison of Rental Charges with Depreciation and Interest on Investment 11 Selected Apple Driers, Sebastopol and IVatsonville Areas, California, 1942. Rent Depreciation Drier per dried and interest ton per dried ton Number 1 $ 7.00 Number 2 7.50 Number 3 8.00 Number 4 8.00 Number 5 10.00 Number 6 30.10* was Number 7 $ 2.11 Number 8 6.32 Number 9 6.51 Number 10 8.71 Number 11 9.82 Weighted average $ 7.86/ - $ 6.43 Drier rented on a seasonal basis. Smaller tonnage dried than was anticipated. / A verage does not include drier Number 6. - 22. TABLE 17 Tonnage of Apricots Dried, by Varieties, Selected Areas, California, 1942. Fresh tons of a ;;ricots dried A rea Blenheim Royal Tilton Moorpark Variety not All segregated varieties Contra Costa 1J018.20 184.00 359.45 1 ,561.65 Solano 598.66 598.66 Santa Clara 553.48 12.76 566.24 Stanislaus 269.25 229.78 5.04 504.07 San Benito 175.41 240.75 416.16 Alameda 268.17 268.17 All areas 2,284.51 598.66 413.78 12.76 605.24 3 ,914.95 TABLE 18 Tonnage of Freestone Peaches Dried, by Varieties, Selected Areas, California, 1942. Fresh tons of peaches dried Area Variety not All Love 11 Muir Elberta Hale segregated varieties Stanislaus 2,851.92 1,230.97 374.35 50.18 542.22 5,049.64 Fresno 321.39 314.10 774.61 332.10 1,742.20 B r e ntwo o d »Wi nt e r s 133.42 716.78 85.40 216.60 252.80 1,405.00 All areas 3,306.73 2,261.85 1,234.36 266,78 1,127.12 8.196.84 ;0 ^BiJ-'j^A • — — ■.'"lo era--* — — — — — X ~. >« 0 •! £«J '. *i • • .J- f\3 1 •' . ; 1 ■• - — « — , i • \ J. E HI? a 8Wf#£6< "5 *io * ".ft r i oliX *3 ■ ,i — — 1 V ■ 1 ■ *~ q • £ ™ " t * • i 1 o \ * ■ ' l > • » C • i 3 ^ wi 0\ •wV/V| & 23. TABLE 19 Analysis of Variance of Drying Ratios of Apricots, by Varieties, California, 1942. Variety Number of records* Average drying ratio Variance analysis Degrees of freedom Variance Variance ratio, F. cen va 5 per b table lue of F. Royal Blenheim Tilton 12 38 11 5.38 5.49 6.35 Among varieties Yfithin varieties 2 58 3.55 0.31 11.65 3 .16 All vari. ties 61 5.63 Total 60 Some dry-yards dried more than one variety. TABLE 20 Analysis of Variance of Drying Ratios of Freestone Peaches, by Varieties, California, 1942. Variety Number Average Degrees Variance j > per of drying Variance of Variance rat io, coni ; table records* ratio analys is freedom F. value of F. Elbcrta 17 7.06 Among varieties 2 2.91 4.07 3, 14 Muir 21 7.01 V.'ithin varieties 65 0.72 Love 11 ' 30 6.44 Total 68 6.77 Total 67 * Some dry-yards dried more than one variety. 24. TABLE 21 Tonnage of All Fruit Dried, 81 Dry-yards, Selected Areas, California, 1942. Fresh we ight of fruit dried Area Apricots Freestone peaches Cling peaches Pears Nectar- ines Grapes 1 " Prune i / 3 ' Total Tons Stanislaus 657.97 5,049.64 1,416.73 7,124.34 Contra Costa 1,561.65 1,441.70 15.50 136.7 3,155.55 Fresno 28,25 1,770.20 523.0 2,321.45 Solano 598.66 804.30 ■MP 20.70 121.5 1,545.16 TSanta Clara 566.24 25.00 420.0 1,011.24 San Benito 416.16 348.0 764.16 Alameda 268.17 143.73 411.90 All areas 4,097.10 9,065.84 1,432.23 189.43 136.7 523.0 889.5 16,333.80 * Grapes for Golden Bleach raisins only. On some farms in Stanislaus County and in the Fresno area, the trays were used in the field for drying grapes. / Sun-dried prunes only. In some cases, the trays and other equipment were used in connection with the dehydrating of prunes. TABLE 22 Average Investment in Drying Facilities per Fresh Ton of Fruit Dried, 80 Dry-yards*, Selected Areas, California, 1942. Average investment per fresh ton dried Area Land Cutting Sulfur Trays Boxes Tracks Cars Mis c. Total shed houses Dollars Stanislaus 1.51 0.87 0.56 3.74 0.32 0.35 0.25 0.16 7.76 Solano 1.56 2.41/ 1.22/ 5.45 0.49 0.25 0.22 0.1E 11.75 Fresno 1.97 1.18 0.69 8.48 0.44 0.31 0.21 0.78 14.06 Contra Costa 1.66 4.90 2.34 5.34 0.88 1.14 0.71 0.93 17.90 San Benito 3.28 4.27/ 2.70/ 8.13 0.48 0.63 0.51 0.56 20.56 Santa Clara 6.31 12.85/ 1.50 8.54 0.94 0.56 0.54 0.19 31.43 Alameda 12.26 2.65 3.77 24.53 1.13 0.47 0.60 1.4S 46.90 All areas 2.26 2.46 1.18 5.91 0.52 0.52 0.37 0.4E 13.67 Data on investment not comparable for one dry-yard. / In determining the average investment per ton in cutting shed and sulfur house, the total average investment was divided by the tonnage of fruit other than prunes. 25 The average investment in drying facilities per fresh ton of fruit dried ranged from $7.76 in Stanislaus County to $46.90 in Alameda County (table 22). Con- sidering five per cent as a fair rate of interest, these investment values give an interest charge of only $0.39 per fresh ton in Stanislaus compared with $2.34 in Alameda. One of the principal factors associated with the average investment per ton is the total tonnage dried. There is an irreducible minimum of equipment below which the operator cannot go regardless of the tonnage dried. The eighty dry-yards were sorted into seven groups based on the tonnage of all fruit dried in each yard. Those that dried less than 50 tons per yard had an average investment of $39.34 per ton (table 23). As the tonnage dried per yard increased, the average investment per ton declined with two exceptions. One of these groups, the yards drying from 300 to 500 tons of fruit had one yard capable of drying 600 to 700 tons of fruit, but which, be- cause of labor shortages, dried only 303 tons. As a consequence, the average invest- ment per ton in this yard was high. The investment per ton is also high for the largest dry-yards. This is due in part to one dry-yard that had considerable investment in expensive facilities designed to save labor and lower cash operating expenses. The dry-yards that handled the larger tonnages of fruit did so primarily be- cause they could dry a considerable tonnage of peaches (table 24). This fact pre- cludes the possibility of some dry-yards increasing their tonnage dried. However, the operators of those yards that are located in areas where both apricots and peaches are grown, could reduce their overhead costs per ton by drying as large a tonnage as possible. For those who dry all their own production, contract drying and the pur- chase of fresh fruit are possible ways of increasing the tonnage dried. Depreciation Rates.— Each operator was asked to give his estimate of the probable length of life of each type of equipment used. This practice was followed because different operators subject their equipment to various kinds of treatment, with resulting variations in its useful life. Cutting sheds were estimated to have an average life of 28 years (table 25). This life is equivalent to a percentage depreciation rate of 3.57 per cent per year. The range in estimates, 5 to 100 years is somewhat misleading, in that only three operators estimated the useful life of the cutting shed at less than 15 years and only one at more than 50 years. Most of the estimates were for 20, 25, or 30 years. Sulfur houses were estimated as having a shorter life than cutting sheds. This was primarily because of the destructive action of the sulfur-dioxide gas. The average life was estimated at 19 years? the range from 4 to 50 years (table 25). This range is not out-of-line considering the fact that some of the sulfur houses are very lightly constructed, and designed to last only a few years, while others are of concrete or other material designed for permanence. Trays were estimated to have an average useful life of 13 years, and boxes, 10 years (table 25). Estimates ranged from 5 to 40 years for trays and 3 to 45 years for boxes. The treatment received by these two places of equipment is particularly important. If they are carelessly thrown around, they soon become broken and useless. The operators who used the large-size trays estimated the average life of their trays at 17.6 years while the operators who used the small-size trays considered they would last only 8.8 years on the average (table 26). The original cost of the three mi.* : .. if- : - 26. d ifferent sizes of trays was about the same when their respective capacities are considered. The use of the shorter life on the smaller trays resulted in a propor- tionately higher depreciation charge on the smaller-sized trays. The estimates of the length of life of the tracks were complicated by the fact that the steel rails used in many yards will undoubtedly outlast the wood ties. The average estimate gave this class of equipment a life of 29 years. The range, 10 to 100 years, is further complicated by the fact that a few yards had wood, or strap- iron rails, and that some had steel ties as well as steel rails. Sulfur house cars were estimated to last 17 years. Some of these are all steel construction and will last much longer. Others have wood frames that need fre- quent replacement because of the action of the sulfur dioxide gas. Miscellaneous equipment included a wide range of items and consequently the estimation of length of life covers a wide range. Wage Rates . — One factor which contributed to the variations in cost among individual dry-yards and among the different areas was the wage rate paid. For apricots, the wage rate for shed, yard, and supervisory work hired, ranged between $0.40 and $0.75 per hour in all the areas studied, and averaged C0 e 51 in San Benito County as compared with an average of $0.63 in Santa Clara County (table 27). The operators were asked to place a value on their own labor in those cases where they worked in the dry-yard. In most cases they valued their time at a slightly higher rate than that prevailing for hired labor. This is in line with the common practice of paying hired workers five or ten cents additional per hour when they assume supervisory responsibilities. Tests of significance of inter-area variation in wage rates and labor costs incurred in drying apricots were made. Wage rates appear to shov; significant varia- tion among counties considered, but labor costs do not. It should be recalled here too, that the variation among counties in total costs of drying apricots was not statistically significant. That the difference in wage rates did not result in sig- nificant differences in costs per ton may be due to the fact that within each county there was wide variation in the amount of labor used in the individual dry-yards. Another conjecture would point to the possibility of greater efficiency in the utili- zation of more costly labor. Whatever the explanation, the finding reported here emphasizes the danger of assuming significant differences in either labor or total costs as a consequence of the existence of such differences in wage rates. For freestone peaches, wage rates varied from $0.30 to $0.80 per hour for hired labor (table 28). The average rate paid hired labor in Stanislaus County was $0.62 as compared with $0.53 in the Fresno area. This difference in wage rates ac- counted for the fact that the cost per fresh ton for drying freestone peaches was lower in the Fresno area than in Stanislaus County, The rates paid for cutting also varied considerably among the dry-yards stud- ied. In order to study this variation in cutting rat..s it was necessary to group the dry-yards on the basis of the average weight of fresh fruit per box. For boxes containing 36 to 38 pounds of fresh apricots, from $0.15 to $0.20 w as paid (table 29). This same range in cutting rates was found for the next weight interval, 39 to 42 pounds. If we assume 50 boxes to the ton, this five-cent difference per box is equal to $2.50 per fresh ton of apricots. For individual dry-yards, the range in cutting costs per ton of fresh apricots was from $7.16 for one yard in San Benito • \ :'■ ■■ '. 4™. : ''-v" Hr-rf* - - - ! ! TV." i. • ' ." '"' . . " t*i ■ ' !•• ■ — . : i • : ; ■ I- ;;•! ^.-cl^v r-.>-... •. -1> ilC."*-? P 5 '-;? si 27. TABLE 23 Average Investment in Drying Facilities per Fresh Ton of Fruit Dried, by Size of Dry-yard, 1942. Tonnage of all Average investment per fresh ton driod fruit dried per Land Cutting Sulfur Trays Boxes Tracks Cars Misc. Total dry -yard shed houses Dollars Less than 50 tons 12.84 8.28 2.05 12.96 1.42 0.60 0.90 0.29 39.34 50 to 100 tons 4.58 4.28 1.77 9.55 0.69 0.46 0.45 0.30 22.08 100 to 200 tons 2.08 1.63 1.01 6.12 0.38 0.30 0.28 0.28 12.08 200 to 300 tons 1.46 2.19 0.71 4.50 0.36 0.49 0.26 0.33 ' 10.30 300 to 500 tons 2.63 1.15 1.07 7.98* 0.44 0.20 0.20 0.38 14.05* 500 to 1,000 tons 1.24 0.57 0.46 2.80 0.27 0.46 0.22 0.14 6.16 1,000 tons and over/ 1.49 3.57 1.73 5.81 0.75 0.83 0.56 0.92 15.66 All dry-yards 2.26 2.46 1.18 5.91 0.52 0.52 0.37 0.45 13.67 * One dry-yard in this group had tray capacity far in excess of the tonnage dried. / Includes one yard with considerable investment in labor-saving equipment. TABLE 24 Average Tonnage of Fruit Dried per Dry -yard, 81 Dry-yards, Selected Areas, California, 1942. Total tons Average tonnage dried per dry-yard fresh fruit Dry-yards All Apricots Freestone Cling Prunes Other* per dry-yard fruit peaches peaches Number Tons Under 50 tons 16 26.04 18.49 7.30 0.25 50 to 100 tons 25 71.55 33.54 26.39 1.29 8.50 1.83 100 to 200 tons 17 146.42 31.80 79.80 12.29 22.53 200 to 300 tons 10 247.42 38.45 164.92 15.05 29.00 300 to 500 tons 5 330.90 88.49 177.34 36.32 28.75 500 to 1,000 tons 5 597.31 99.28 404.34 93.69 1,000 tons and over 3 1,508.03 366.23 791.73 130.17 219.90 * Includes pears, grapes, and nectarines. : =3 -ms . ■ • •- - • ..• '.' " ■ -. ■ ...... • ; " : ;■ . "» I ' .. ■ ■ - '-fW I 'ill 1 Ca«f - - " " '"' .V."! . | i ■ — • ■ ■ . ■ * • . - ■ * M * i i ; „ii - ■ ■ . ■ i * j. » • ■■■** «• •■**- * *' ' : • , i. ■ » 1 " ■ i. t ■ * f.- t „ --*"» - - - . * • * • • • - I" - • f ; '. 4 - 1 - 1 ■ • • «-*■'' 28. TABLE 25 Operator's Estimates of the Length of Life of Drying Equipment, 81 Dry-yards, Selected Areas, California, 1942. Items of equipment Estimated life Weighted average Range Years Cutting shed 28 5 - 100 Sulfur houses 19 4 - 50 Trays 13 5 - 40 Boxes 10 3 - 45 Tracks - 29 10 - 100 Cars 17 5 - 50 Miscellaneous 16 2 - 47 TABLE 26 Relation of Size of Tray to Original Cost and Length of Life, 80 Dry-yards, Selected Areas, California, 1942. Original cost Estimate! i Size of tray Trays per tray length of life Number Dollars Years 3x8 feet 117,015* 0.819 17.6 3x6 feet 51,072 0.609 13.1 2x3 feet 270,859 0.189 8.8 * Original cost not available on one dry-yard that had 800 trays. r-~—" vrr •-■ awe «f*9 too**.,, M ■ - . ■ , TABLE 27 Hours of Shed, Yard, and Supervisory Labor at Different Wage Rates, Apricots, Selected Areas, California, 1942.* San Santa Rate per hour Benito Alameda Solano Stanislaus Clara Hours Hours Hours Hours "lours Hired labor: $0.40 781.5 307.5 L40.0 0 . 50 4 OQ4. 9 J. , uo D . \J 1 R1Q K 1,013)0 . t 162.0 0.55 259.0. 1,924.5 773.0 0.60 336. 5T 1,171.2 1,367.5 2,648.5 2,1 302.3 0.65 1,004.0 9 23.0 1,! 240,8 0.70 .... MM w U7.2 0.75 378.0 — — 152.0 y 230.0 Total hours 4,689.7 3,866.7 6,423.0 5,765.5 5,S 392.3 Tn+nl fn i rr - 1 IJ- ■ • '.- ••• ] ." " 3 * , • '.-ST.", ■■ ■■■ ■ it Vv; -Odi^-lc; tffattfc Vt-s&f I TABLE 28 Hours of Shed, Yard, and Supervisory Labor at Different Wage Rates, Freestone Peaches, Selected Areas, California, 1942.* Rate Hired labor Operator's labor per hour Stanislaus Fresno Stanislaus Fresno Hours £ 0.30 159.5 — • mm 0.40 536.5 — 0.45 70.0 1,947.5 0.50 722.8 5,091.5/ 500.0 0. oo 1,944.0 212.0 mmmm 0.60 24,681.7 2,535.9 1,417.5 30.0 834.5 911.0 324.0 0.70 3,166.4 185.0 150.0 0.75 4,368.7/ 910.9 0.80 827.7 0.85 •mmm 720.0 0.875 mm mm 200.0 Total hours 37,311.8 10,882.9 3,002.4 1,280.0 Total cost $23,236.15 $ 0.62 $5,779.38 $ 0.53 $2,018.08 $898.00 Cost per hour $ 0.67 $ 0.70 Comparable data are not available for the Brentwood-Vanters area. / Includes 130 hours paid at rate of $125.00 per month. / Includes 260 hours paid at rate of $200.00 per month. TABLE 29 Boxes of Apricots Cut at Different Rates of Pay, Selected Areas, California, 1942. Rate Founds of fresh apricots per box per 36 - 38 39 - 42 44 - 46 47 - 50 54 - 60 box Number of boxes cut $ 0.15 5,824 19,312 0.16 2,122 4,221 0.17 8,118 2,991 0.18 2,759 4,173 6,781 0.20 1,882 58,362 12,208 24,011 0.21 4,230 0.25 1,672 7,808 5,892 0.27 1,809* 0.30 3,434 0.35 mm 57 1/ * Paid $0.25 per box plus $19.50 for transportation of cutters. Paid $0.25 per box plus $55.00 for transportation of cutters. TABLE 30 Boxes of Peaches Cut at Different Rates of Pay, Selected Areas, California, 1942. Rate Pounds of fresh pea ches per box per 36 - 38 39 - 42 43 - 45 47 - 53 box Number of boxes cut Freestone peaches : $0,055 mm? 2,480 0.06 mm* 7,719 0.07 9,010 9.473 0.075 13,213 0.08 34,599 3,459 10,148 0.09 48,338 10,437 0.10 6,326 44,140 140,995 26,809 0.14 mm 6,192 Clingstone peaches: $0.15 1,510 M*m 0.16 14,914 3,349 0.18 1,735 3,564 960 433 0.20 18,581 21,875 32. County that paid $0.15 for outting 42 pounds of fruit to $12.00 for a yard in Solano County that paid $0.30 per box of 50 pounds. For peaches, both freestone and clingstone, there was also considerable varia- tion in the prices paid per box and also in the fresh weight of fruit per box (table 30). While average hourly wage rates, average labor costs per fresh ton, and aver- age total costs of drying freestone peaches were lower in the Fresno area than in Stanislaus County, only the differences in wage rates and labor costs were found to be statistically significant. Thusj the significant difference in labor cost per ton did not result in a significant difference in total cost between the two areas. A possible explanation of this fact may be found in the happenstance that interest and depreciation costs per ton were higher in the Fresno area and tended to offset the lower labor costs which this area had. v Data are available showing the wage rates paid by five operators of apple driers. The average wage rates for all of the labor ranged between $0. 53 and $0.70 per hour, with four driers having averages of $0.61, $0.62, $0.62, and $0.63 respec- tively (table 31). Persons operating the peeling machines and doing the trimmings were generally paid the lowest wages while the supervisory labor in all driers was valued at $1.00 per hour. Drier operation commanded the second highest wages in all but the Number 3 drier, whose receiver was paid $0.90 per hour. Labor, Equipment, and Material Requirements Any plan that contemplates the drying of a larger tonnage of cut fruit than was dried in 1942, must take into consideration the labor, equipment, and material requirements of the task. Labor Requirements .— Labor should be considered first. It is extremely important in the drying operation, and even in 1942 some areas reported difficulty in obtaining sufficient workers. Two kinds of labor are used in the drying of apricots, peaches, and pears; workers who are paid by the hour and workers who are paid by the box. Considerable information was obtained from the dry-yards studied as to the number of hours worked by the first type of worker, but very little was obtained about the second. However, using the data that are available, we find that in 1942, the drying of a fresh ton of apricots required 50.43 hours, freestone peaches required 20.61 hours, and cling stone peaches, 28.85 hours (table 32). The drying of a fresh ton of pears required 29.04 hours (table 33). Only five of the eleven apple drier operators kept a record of the hours of labor used during the 1942 season. One of these driers was converted from hand- peeling machines to power-peeling machines between the Gravenstein and the late- variety season, and separate costs kept for each season. Accordingly, in the table, the operations of this plant are treated as though there were two driers. The three plants using power- p eeling machines, required fewer hours of labor per ton of fruit dried than did the other plants (table 34). The most efficient plant equipped with hand-peeling machines required 92 hours per dry ton for the peel- ing and trimming operations compared with 70 hours per dry ton for this same work in the least efficient plant equipped with power- peeling machines. .." ■ %\ 5 . :. : ■ • •. ;< ... ' ' ' V . , .... t '.' ".' ' V .' '' ' : ' ; i# mtl ! ,n - J : ,•• ; i . . ».? i ■-. t. •• . , .;l ..... \ : ' ■ •■ ■ '■ ' ••• ' ■ '. ;• ■-. t - ■ «."-'••■■ s ; • .'i ...... •■ . . . ' " ■ " * ' ' "• '• " ' ' - ' * 'si - ■ .I. .:: "'"», -i, i? : 33 TABLE 31 Average Wage Rates for Different Kinds of Work, 6 Selected Driers, Sebastopol and Watsonville Areas, California, 1942. Nature of work Driers No. 1 | No. 2 1 No. 3 | No. 4 I No. 5 11 to. 6 Receiving Peeling and trimming Drier operation Packing Supervision All work ze rate ner hour - 0.65 6.50 0.80 0.60 1.00 0.55 0.54 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.90 0.50 0.76 0.70 1.00 0.75 0.65 0.95 0.75 1.00 0,62 0.60 0.71 0.59 1.00 0.55 0.47 1.00 0.50 1.00 $ 0.61 $ 0.62 $ 0.63 $ 0.70 $ 0.62 \ 0.53 TABLE 32 Hours of Labor Required per Fresh Ton for Drying Apricots and Peaches, Selected Areas, California, 1942. Operation Apricots Freestone Clingstone peaches peaches Repair and maintenance Washing trays and boxes Cutting Shed, yard and supervision Total labor Hours 1.21 1.42 35.40* 12.40 0.76 1.03 11.33* 7.49 0.46 0.71 20.00/ 7.68 50.43 20.61 28.85 * Based on records covering 519 tons of apricots and 420 tons of freestone peaches. / Based on estimates of dry-yard operators. 34. TABLE 33 Labor Requirements for Drying Pears, Selected Areas, California, 1942. Weight of Total Time Operation fresh time required pears worked per ton Tons Hours Hours Cutting 319.37* 4,950.5 15 ,50 Shed, and yard work 2,691.23 33,730.0 12 .55 Supervision 2,691.23 2,667.0 0 .99 Total hours per ton 29 .04 * Data on cutting time available from two-dry-yards for a portion of the season only. TABLE 34 Hours of Labor Required to Dry Apples, Selected Driers, Sebastopol and YJatsonville. Areas, California, 1942. Driers Nature of work No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5 No. 6 Hours Hours per fresh ton: Receiving Peeling and trimming Drier operation Packing Supervision 0.53 6.71* 2.45 2.19f 0.53 0.26 10.24* 1.75 0.54/ 0.65 0.43 8.22* 3.07 2.70/ 0.87 1.26 14.29/ 1.65 0.56^ 0.51 0.70 11.53/ 1.51 2.69r 0.41 0.87 14.94/ 1.43 0.80F 0.54 Total 12.41 13.44 15.29 18.27 16.84 18.58 Hours per dry ton: Receiving Peeling and trimming Drier operation Packing Supervision 3.66 46.56* 16.97 15.20r 3.66 1.82 70.33* 12.00 3.70/ 4.50 3.15 60.06* 22,46 19.76r 6,34 9.25 104.94/ 12.11 4.13/ 3.73 5.62 92.24/ 12.00 21.53/* 3.30 7.26 125. ll/ 12.01 6.66/ 4.50 Total 86.05 92.35 111,77 134.16 134.69 155.54 * Power-peeling machines used. r Hand-peeling machines used. r Fruit packed in boxes . P Fruit packed in sacks * 35. Peeling and trimming required the bulk of the labor used in drying. Even in the most efficient plant, over one half of the labor was used for these operations. Considerable variation was reported in the hours of labor used for packing, depend- ing upon the type of pack put out. The plants that packed in boxes for sale to the U. S. Army reported 15 to 22 hours per dry ton, while the plants that packed in sacks and sold to. processors reported only 4 to 7 hours packing labor per dry ton. It should be emphasized that these labor requirements are average figures. Individual workers will vary widely from these averages. This is particularly true of the workers engaged in cutting. It is interesting to examine the speed at which different cutters work. Data are available covering the work of 89 cutters in one pear dry-yard during the week ending September 26, 1942. This was about mid-season and the yard was being used at capacity. Five cutters averaged less than 1.7 boxes per hour and earned, at $0.20 per box, only $0.30 per hour from their cutting (table 35). It was neces'sary for the dry-yard to pay them additional funds to make up the difference between this amount and the $0.33-1/3 an hour required as the minimum wage for experienced women by the State Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 8a. At the other extreme there were eight cutters who averaged 4.79 boxes an hour during the week. The average of all 89 cutters was 2.88 boxes an hour, which enabled them to earn an average of $0,58 per hour. Women employed by the hour in the shed, the yard, and the adjoining packing houses were being paid from $0.55 to $0.60 an hour, so that the cutting rate of $0.20 per box was fair in comparison with the wages paid for hourly work. Equipment Requirements . — If any equipment shortage develops, it appears most likely that it will be a shortage of drying trays. Of the equipment used in drying, trays were the most important single item, representing 44 per cent of the average investment in drying facilities of the dry-yards studied. Most of the trays used for apricots and peaches were one of three standard sizes; 2 x 3 feet, 3x6 feet, or 3 x 8 feet. One dry-yard reported using trays measuring 3 x 3-1/2 feet. The dry-yards in Lake County all reported using 2-l/2 x 8-foot trays (table 36). The small trays were most popular in the Fresno area, probably because they could also be used in drying raisin grapes. The large trays, particularly the 3 x 8-foot trays, were the most popular in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Benito, and Santa Clara counties. The number of trays required to dry a given quantity of fruit depends upon the capacity of each tray, and upon the number of times during the season that each tray may be used. The approximate capacities of the various sized trays as reported by the operators who dried apricots and peaches are indicated in table 37. The number of times during the season that each tray may be used depends pri- marily upon the weather, both as it affects the time of drying and the length of the harvest period. Data from a number of the operators indicate that trays can be used during the season about one and one half times 4/ for apricots and about twice for peaches. These figures were used in calculating the approximate drying capacity of 4y By this statement "one and one half times" is meant the use of all the trays once and the use of half of the trays a second time during the season. ] 1 • : t. o. ' ro* Is St ' ' . ■ '■- : . : -I>zi60['ib ygftiltit&Q' &^ift"..1 li • - - " - . - nil si" : ' » - f : ! ■ . , • S/US 3o A -jt U&fOP?*! • •» t ...... Mtett QsU o-» t "?ro-? »> Q©.»C3 3&*0| si., sol. : .: , ,%A - "10 : i 3 fCo . tSJ ! | • .r • Iftl ;■ ;. . ■ 1 I $ ■ . ' ■ " i i 1 ■ V ' ' , :: V *C , .:■ •■ x Svl** 5 3^i^' t-v>*io ?.-•'{ tl* •vjfiuioO' :J3£aJ «1 'Wtyqtifib tkt §V W § ^ i i *W « f.M • rr m ■ ' aoqa ibtstoqah fJtsrQ, 'm v*r*.;' :ra u-.'Yl^ ffi U'HlMfPl Pis/Fit 19 Q-^ijKn . ■ tnm 1 ■ - ■■■■■■ ffi , : i v* ; 7 -r ,•' : ' ; • •■; j r . . ... . ( .- • : ... ? . " : r- ' ' . ; : ; . . ■' r ; ■- : o ; . - . • : ., 'i $ r , - let oalw.t JiJoef/ bits. -a-^wsJH^p ■wflt \^ v> v J* tX.i^ 4if.o £ap4* 36. TABLE 35 Number of Boxes of Bartlett Pears Cut per Hour and Amounts Earned by 89 Cutters During the Week Ending September 26, 1942, Lake County, California Average number Hours Boxes Earnings Earnings of boxes Cutters Hours Boxes per cut per per for the cut per hour worked cut worker hour hour* week/ Number Dollars Less than 1.7 boxes 5 163.5 248 32.7 1.52 0.30 9.81 1.7 to 2.2 boxes 14 480,0 930 34.3 1.94 0.39 13.38 2.2 to 2.7 boxes 16 688.0 1,663 43.0 2.42 0.48 20.64 2.7 to 3.2 boxes 22 833.0 2,378 37.9 2.85 0.57 21.60 3.2 to 3.7 boxes 21 882.5 2,975 42.0 3.37 0.67 28.14 3.7 to 4.2 boxes 3 129.0 503 43.0 3.90 0.78 33.54 4.2 boxes and over 8 241.5 1,157 30.2 4.79 0.96 28.99 Totals for the week 89 3,417.5 9,854 38.4 2.88 0.58 22.27 * Based on the piece rate of $0,20 per box. / Based on the hours worked multiplied by the calculated earnings per hour. TABLE 36 Tray Equipment, 84 Dry-yards, Selected Areas, California, 1942. Area Dry -yards Trays 2»x3« 3'x6» 3'x3£' 3'x3£» 2f&8« Number Alameda 4 1,000 20,600 Contra Costa 4 •Ml 45,850 Fresno 11 168,000 5,850 2,600 San Benito 6 13,550 Santa Clara 18 22,190 Solano 12 39,000 9,428 1,750 Stanislaus 26 97,259 46,800 14,325 Lake 3 44,500 Total 84 304,259 63,078 119,115 1,750 44,500 . . . "f.i. ^ ■ ■ '•- -. .. . ■ ■ 'V V*" « f * ' * " . • - 1 ■ ■ ■ . -• .. » * .'* - \ i "* * ■ * ■ ■ • • '"T:#vr>: ;- • .. .. ■ .'' . \ t y#M : i 1 * 1 . ■<:'■■ <■ — ii '• - , r* * » * ■. ^ * * 37. TABLE 37 Pounds of Fruit per Tray Reported by 81 Dry -yard Operators, Selected Areas, California, 1942. Apricots Peaches Size of tray Yards Fruit Yards Fruit reporting* per tray Reporting* per t ray Number Pounds Number Pounds 2x3 feet 10 12 21 11 > 3x6 feet 8 40 12 56 3x8 feet 31 55 7 8C 3 x 3| feet 1 21 3C Some yards dried both apricots and peaches. Calculated by the author. TABLE 38 Calculated Tray Capacity in Relation to Tonnage of Apricots Dried, 81 Dry-yards, Selected Areas, California, 1942. Calculated Fresh Proportion Calculated Fresh Proportion tray weight of of tray weight of of Area capacity apricots capacity capacity of apricots < sapacity of all dried used yards drying dried used yards apricots* Tons Per cent Tons t 'er cent Solano 661 599 90„6 661 599 90.6 Contra Costa 1,891 1,562 82.6 1,891 1,562 82.6 San Benito 559 416 74.4 559 416 74.4 Santa Clara 915 566 61.9 915 566 61.9 Alameda 880 268 30.5 880 268 30.5 Stanislaus 2,870 658 22.9 1,660 658 39.6 Fresno 1,795 28 1.6 258 28 10.9 Total 9,571 4,097 42.8 6,224 4,097 65.8 * Number of trays multiplied by If- and this product multiplied by the pounds of apricots per tray reported in table 37. ■ 38. the 81 dry-yards included in this study that dried apricots or peaches. This calcu- lation gives an indication of the extent to which the trays were used at their full capacity. 5/ The calculated apricot capacity of the dry-yards in Solano County was 661 tons. In these yards, 599 tons of apricots wore dried or, on this basis, the yards were used an average of 90.6 per cent of capacity (table 38). Some yards in Stanislaus County and in the Fresno area did not dry apricots so the calculated capacity of the yards that did dry this fruit are presented as well as the calculated capacity of all yards . The calculated freestone peach capacity of all the dry-yards studied is pre- sented in table 39. The Stanislaus County yards were used to 91.6 per cent of their calculated capacity. The calculated capacities for drying freestone peaches of the Santa Clara, Alameda and San Benito yards are shown even though no peaches were dried in these yards. In 1942, apricots were trucked from Brentwood and from San Joaquin Valley points to the Santa Clara Valley for drying. It may be necessary to truck freestone peaches to these apricot areas if the entire freestone crop is to be dried. It should be pointed out that these farms dried only a little more than one half of the apricots and peaches they produced (table 40), Even if labor were avail- able, the present tray equipment would have to be augmented if a much larger tonnage were to be dried. It has been suggested at various times that paper tray liners be used. The advocates of this plan claim the trays will not need washing and that when the fruit is partly dried, several paper tray liners can be transferred to one wooden tray and several wooden trays thus released sooner than would otherwise be the case. Of the 81 dry-yards studied, paper tray liners were used in only one. The operator reported that the paper stuck to the individual pieces of fruit and had to be very laborious- ly removed by hand. This characteristic of paper should be investigated thoroughly before paper tray liners are recommended to growers as a means of alleviating their tray shortages. The equipment other than trays appears to be adequate in most cases. The amount of land set aside for dry-yard purposes may be too small on some farms, but it can be augmented by spreading trays on ditch banks, in young orchards, and on other open spaces. These practices, if extensively followed, however, will require more labor. If the cutting-shed facilities are inadequate, the cutting can be per- formed in the open. The cutters should be protected from the sun, either by placing the cutting tables under shade trees, or by the erection of some type of sun-shade. Sulfur-house facilities can be made to serve a larger tonnage of apricots and peaches by cutting down the length of time each car is in a sulfur house. Many operators follow the practice of leaving the fruit in the sulfur house overnight. A* exposure to the sulfur fumes of three hours for apricots and four hours for peaches is recommended. 6/ jy If in any given area, the season is such that these factors, one and one half for apricots or two for freestone peaches, do not express accurately the number of times that the trays can be used in drying these fruits, other factors can be substituted. &/ Long, J.D., E.M. Mrak, and CD. Fisher. Investigations in the sulfuring of fruits for drying. University of California, Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 636. p. 27. July, 1940. ./ r -f ?. Vj. 1 .. ." .• v .yt.i>iJ "tit .^'S#f ; fat 9Ui ,3t e^o yeor ni. eJSiiP;..;;..', sa.. -r. 3^ b\;:xj v : .v; ;: ?;j Ar.-.C'/jja t .- ■, • ,-..v h-: - ' - - ■ ' ■ ■" " ;^ _ r _ .. ; ■ ■ 1 t ... ; - :; . •• 1 . . j ' • '■' ■', ' ■ f?\ . . . \ : ' - ' n : ' , . ' Br. ft Cil! :r v ■: ^ ' . ■ ' •• . ■ ■ '■ - r • t ' ■ ■ ■■' •■ : '' ' " ; ' ' " "' ' '"' : ." .. . .... ■ ■ • • 39. TABLE 39 Calculated Tray Capacity in Relation to Tonnage of Freestone Peaches Dried, 81 Dry-yards, Selected Areas, California, 1942. Calculated Fresh Proportion Calculated Fresh Pro- capacity weight of of capacity of weight of portion Area of all freestone capacity yards dry- freestone of yards* peaches used ing peaches* peaches Capacity dried dried used Tons Per cent Tons Per cent Stanislaus 5,514 5,050 91.6 5,514 5,050 91.6 Solano 1,262 804 63.7 989 804 8-1.3 Fresno 3,403 1,770 52.0 3,403 1,770 52.0 Contra Costa 3,668 1,442 39.3 3,528 1,442 40.8 Santa Clara 1,775 0 0.0 0 Alameda 1,706 0 0.0 ■MP 0 San Benito 1,084 0 0.0 0 Total 18,412 9,066 49.2 13,434 9,066 67.5 * Number of trays multiplied by 2 and the product multiplied by the pounds of peaches reported in table 35. 40. TABLE 40 Utilization of Apricots and Poaches on Farms Included in Study, Selected Areas, California, 1942. Proportion Farms Total Consumed Sold to Dried Crop reporting production fresh canneries Number Tons Per cent Apricots 64 6,366.3 19.8 26.5 53.7 Freestone peaches 46 13,070.9 20.3 25.9 53.8 Clingstone peaches 12 3,982.6 0.0 88.2 11.8 TABLE 41 Sulfur Used per Ton of Apricots and Peaches, 81 Dryi-yards, Selected Areas, California, 1942. Crop Fresh weight of fruit dried Sulfur used per ton of fresh fruit Cost of sulfur per 100 pounds Tons Pounds Dollars Apricots Freestone peaches Clingstone peaches 3,914.95 8,196.84 1,376.73 9.01 7.67 9.91 3.95 3.75 3.73 41. A shortage of tracks and cars may be encountered in drying a greatly increased tonnage. It may be necessary to spread trays from trucks rather than using the conventional track *» and-car method in order to alleviate this shortage. Material Requirements . — Sulfur is the only material used for which quantita- tive data are available. The dry-yards studied used 9.01 pounds of sulfur per fresh ton of apricots, 7.67 pounds per fresh ton of freestone peaches, and 9.91 pounds per fresh ton of clingstone peaches (table 41). Repair material, principally tray shook and nails, v/ill be required to ke6p present equipment in usable shape. It is difficult to estimate the quantity required because the demands of individual dry-yards vary markedly. i -v.,