Division of Agricultural Sciences 
 
 rf 9 Pol 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY IN 
 ASSEMBLY AND PROCESSING 
 LIMA BEANS FOR FREEZING 
 
 Robert H. Reed 
 
 r, 
 
 1 
 
 I JUL 2 9 (359 
 
 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 
 GIANNINI FOUNDATION OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 
 
 Mimeographed Report No. 219 
 
 June, 1959 
 
i 
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 Page 
 
 FOREWORD iii 
 
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS lv 
 
 INTRODUCTION 1 
 
 Sources of Data 1 
 
 Production Standards 2 
 
 Estimation of Costs 3 
 
 Variable Costs ............... 3 
 
 Investment Replacement Costs 
 
 Total Annual Costs h 
 
 OPERATING STAGES AND COST COMPONENTS 5 
 
 ANALYSIS OF STAGE TECHNIQUES AND SYNTHESIS OF COST RELATIONSHIPS . . 8 
 
 Vining 8 
 
 Viner to Plant Transportation 17 
 
 Receiving, Initial Cleaning, and Initial Quality Grading .... 19 
 
 Blanching and Second Quality Grade Separation 25 
 
 Visual Inspection and Manual Quality Separation 27 
 
 Sorting Costs 3^ 
 
 Packaging or Filling 37 
 
 Estimation of Packaging Costs hi 
 
 Variable Costs hi 
 
 Annual Fixed Cost ..... hh 
 
 Total Annual Packaging Costs h6 
 
 Casing hj 
 
 Annual Fixed Costs 53 
 
 Annual Variable Casing Costs 53 
 
 Total Annual Casing Costs 56 
 
 Variable Water Inputs and Costs 58 
 
 Freezing and First Month's Storage 58 
 
 In-Plant Transportation of Cased Goods and Packaging 
 
 Materials .... 61 
 
5D f 4C HJ' "•'<.. 
 
 Qj%)\tSZOr> 
 
 . . . . . . . , V- « • » * 8TK3?tagi40t> T300 CMA fcSKUfcTa fiKTEAOT 
 
 . . , , f t--n~ / 'J yftlaui! iauwH baft, aoi+os^eal leys IV 
 
 ...-..*.»*.».«.. 3^3q0 oSJatrtST 
 
 .'. • ■,# . . . . * • •■» ,««-, ,« «' sjaoO Jtoxift iBt'nnA 
 . . » . • « « * • ? * eJaoO yrie^jS ©*J'«£ijbV iaij:mk 
 
 • ♦• • • »v*-i • V*» . f «*so3 %; u?-r.: iJEtffu-A. XgjoT 
 
 .• •• k't^ .* . » , .• a#aoO £oa aftngoX "tstjsv? altf© ^taV 
 
ii 
 
 Page 
 
 Investment Cost of Plant Buildings, Water Piping, and 
 
 Electrical Wiring . 64 
 
 Plant Buildings 64 
 
 Electrical Power Distribution . . 68 
 
 Water Supply System . 70 
 
 Summary of Building, Electrical Wiring, and Water 
 
 Supply Costs 71 
 
 Supervision and Miscellaneous Labor 73 
 
 Administrative and Office Costs 73 
 
 Miscellaneous Equipment 75 
 
 TOTAL FIELD ASSEMBLY AND PLANT COSTS 77 
 
 Separate Planning Costs for Field and Plant Activities 78 
 
 Combined Planning Costs for Field and Plant Activities 8l 
 
 Integration of Field and Plant Operations «... 81 
 
 Problems of Flexibility 84 
 
 The Planning Equation for Combined Field and Plant 
 
 Processing Activities 85 
 
 Economies Related to Size of Plant and Length of Season . . 86 
 
 The Effect of Distance of Haul ■ 89 
 
 Effect of Percentage Manual Grade -Out 91 
 
 Effect of Style of Pack 91 
 
 SUMMARY 93 
 
 APPENDIX A, TABLE 1: Summary of Installed Equipment Replacement 
 
 Costs, Lima Bean Freezing Plants, California, 1958 97 
 
 APPENDIX A, TABLE 2: Summary of Labor Production Standards for 
 Jobs Performed in Processing Lima Beans for Freezing, 
 
 California, 1958 99 
 
 APPENDIX B: The Minimum Cost Combination of Hours of Operation 
 and Rates of Output of Field and Plant Operations in Processing 
 
 Lima Beans for Freezing ° 101 
 
 APPENDIX B, TABLE Xi Minimum Cost Combinations of Hours 
 Operated and Rates of Output for Field and Plant Operations 
 in Processing Lima Beans for Freezing— Three Lengths of 
 
 Season, California, 1958 < • 106 
 
y tie *••£<*> i Leon* 
 
 "JV . « . • . 99XCfXV&}9A •STtjJ^^i. . B£,£ »Xai" - ^oT" Ktao' 
 
iii 
 
 FOREWORD 
 
 This is the fourth in a series of research reports "by the University of 
 California on the competitive position of the western frozen fruit and vegetable 
 industry "being conducted under a regional research project by the Agricultural 
 Experiment Stations of the states of California, Oregon, Washington, and 
 Hawaii in cooperation with the Agricultural Marketing Service, U. S. Department 
 of Agriculture. 
 
 Previous reports in this series by the California Experiment Station have 
 dealt with a survey of the industry on the Pacific Coast, costs and efficiency 
 in processing California strawberries, and regional production trends and 
 costs in the major strawberry producing areas. 
 
 The present report concerns economic efficiency in the processing and 
 assembling of Lima beans for freezing. It is based on studies of operations 
 in California frozen fruit and vegetable plants made in 1957 and 1958. Future 
 reports will include additional studies of processing plant costs and effi- 
 ciency, freezing costs, demand and price relationships of frozen fruits and 
 vegetables, and interregional competition in the industry. 
 
, . • J . - Hf.t 
 
 .. ... r - 
 
 . a ■ ■ , ■ ■ 
 
 • .:• ! : ' ' . : • . • ■ ■ I 
 
 XoawXIts has e*eo? t Ja»cO oXttotfi t;.f-» a -?tteijf>*} art* lo evicts a rWJhr ilcafe 
 
 - - • . ■! . 
 
 , . - 
 
iv 
 
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
 
 The author is indebted to C. C. Dennis of the Agricultural Marketing 
 Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture and Giannini Foundation of 
 Agricultural Economic for substantial aid in the collection of basic data for 
 this study. Special credit is due L. L, Sammet of the Giannini Foundation 
 for his encouragement and help in all phases of the study and to J. N. Boles 
 for his aid in formulating the programming procedure used in study of the 
 integration of field and plant processing activities. Thanks are also due 
 R. G. Bressler of the Giannini Foundation; L. C, Martin, Agricultural Marketing 
 Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture} and to members of the Regional 
 Technical Committee for helpful comments during the review of the manuscript. 
 
 The study would not have been possible without wholehearted cooperation 
 from the industry. While it is difficult to single out individuals in this 
 connection, the author wishes to extend his particular thanks to the follow- 
 ing men and organizations: R. Beverly, Food Machinery Corporation; E. Boone, 
 John Inglis Frozen Foods Company j C. Calleros, Sacramento Freezers, Inc.; 
 K. M. Eberts, Stokely-Van Camp, Inc.; R. G. Free, California Consumers Corp.; 
 V. Gross, Spiegl Farms, Inc.; G. Harris, Walnut Creek Sheet Metal Co.; N. 
 Jozovich and Company ; J. Q. Leavitt and Company; J. C. Martin, Knudsen Frozen 
 Foods Co.; R. Shaw, Watsonville Canning Company; L. States, Ocean Shore Iron 
 Works; and F. B. Voit, Patterson Frozen Foods Company. 
 
■ 
 
 9 r«tc 
 
ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY IN ASSEMBLY AND PROCESSING 
 LIMA BEANS FOR FREEZING 
 
 by 
 
 Robert H. Reedi^ 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 Of the many factors affecting costs of preparing Lima beans for freezing, 
 
 the most significant are the methods used at particular stages of harvesting and 
 
 assembling raw product and in processing plant operation, the quality of raw 
 
 product, style of pack, rate of plant output, and length of operating season. 
 
 This report is designed to show how variations in these factors affect the 
 
 2/ 
 
 cost of processing Lima beans,- to provide a basis for comparing alternative 
 methods of operation, and to present data useful in planning new construction 
 or changes in existing facilities. It is also intended to furnish data for 
 incorporation in a later study of multiple-product plant operations and to 
 contribute to future studies of interregional competition among fruits and 
 vegetables processed by freezing. 
 
 Sources of Data 
 
 Data on labor and equipment utilization were obtained through processor 
 interviews; time and production studies of actual plant operation; and 
 analyses of operating and accounting record data, equipment inventories, and 
 plant layouts in 10 California Lima bean freezing plants in 1957 and 1958. 
 Eight of these plants processed both Fordhook and Baby varieties, while two 
 specialized in the latter variety. Capacity output capabilities in these 
 plants ranged from approximately 5,000 to 30,000 pounds per hour of operation. 
 
 1/ Agricultural Economist, Agricultural Marketing Service, U. S. Department 
 of Igriculture, and Associate in the Agricultural Experiment Station, College 
 of Agriculture, University of California. 
 
 2/ The term "processing 11 as used in this report includes all the activities 
 involved in handling, preparing, and freezing Lima beans. 
 
i-arwi .mow 
 
 S3 
 
 •• * .' ■ ■ • • ■ • 
 
 ■ ■ ■.■ . ■ 
 
 •cc-eesooiq ' j'*%istrxAt bsniaJtio ttt$v no.ciRsiltiu Jo^nqiups bq,« tocteX. etfpO. 
 
 • ■ : . : 
 
2 
 
 Supplementary data for certain job and equipment categories were obtained from 
 seven plants processing strawberries. Data concerning equipment replacement 
 costs and operation were developed from information obtained from major equip- 
 ment companies, custom manufacturers, and contractors. 
 
 Production Standards 
 
 The development of production standards for labor and equipment was com- 
 plicated because most of the plants studied processed both Fordhook and Baby- 
 Lima bean varieties. Each Fordhook bean averages from 2 to 2-1/2 times larger 
 than the Baby Lima variety; and, consequently, most of the processing equipment 
 will handle slightly higher capacities of the latter type. All in-plant produc- 
 tion standards used in this study are for the Fordhook variety, except for the 
 hand-sort operation where the standards are in terms of the Baby Lima variety.^' 
 The differences in standards are slight, however, and have negligible effect 
 on the labor and equipment requirements used in this report. 
 
 The work standards in this study do not represent peak performances of 
 the most efficient workers. Instead, they represent a level of job performance 
 that could be maintained by typical workers in plants organized so as to result 
 in minimum unavoidable delay. Since excess delay on individual jobs was ob- 
 served in most plants, these standards exceed the average level of performance 
 observed in actual plant operation. They tend to fall about halfway between 
 
 the observed average of rates actually attained and the highest individual 
 2/ 
 
 performance rate*-' 
 
 Production standards for labor were derived from production and time stud- 
 ies wherever this technique was applicable to measure unit time required to 
 perform a given operation. This involved estimating net time expended in actual 
 performance of the operation as well as the minimum additional allowances for 
 
 1/ On an equal weight basis, 100 Fordhook beans are on the average roughly 
 equivalent to 285 Baby Lima beans. 
 
 2/ For a detailed discussion of work measurement methodology, refer to French, 
 B. C, L. L. Sammet, and R. G. Bressler, "Economic Efficiency in Plant Opera- 
 tions with Special Reference to the Marketing of California Pears, " Hilgardia , 
 vol. 2k, no. 19, July, 1956. 
 
 See Also Sammet, "Economic and Engineering Factors in Agricultural Proc- 
 essing Plant Design" (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Ifaiversity of California, 
 Berkeley, 1958). 
 
3 
 
 unproductive time, such as rest periods, unavoidable delays, and personal 
 time. For example, production studies of the job of setting off and palletizing 
 cased Lima beans indicated net working time—including necessary miscellaneous 
 operations — averaged 0.1093 man-minutes per case. 3/ With additional allowances 
 amounting to 15 per cent of the total work time, estimated gross unit time per 
 case was 0.1286 man-minutes per case. This is equivalent to a "standard" pro- 
 duction rate of 1*67 cases per man-hour. 
 
 For jobs are not adapted to measurement by time and production studies, 
 operating and accounting record data were used to establish work standards. 
 Jobs in this category include machineH?aced jobs, supply men, utility workers, 
 housekeeping, and hand-sort workers 
 
 Equipment standards, reflecting capacity output rates, were developed 
 from studies of plant record data, production studies of actual operations, 
 specifications of equipment manufacturers, and processor interviews. Supple- 
 mentary equipment data, such as motor horsepower and operating and service 
 requirements, were obtained as a basis for calculating operating inputs. 
 
 Estimation of Costs 
 
 Variable Costs 
 
 Variable costs include expenses for labor, materials, electric power , 
 variable repair costs, and other expense directly related to volume of out- 
 put. Labor costs with each method and output rate considered were calculated 
 
 3/ 
 
 by applying typical wage rates to estimated crew requirements, - 
 
 The method of estimating other variable costs, such as electric power, 
 fuel, water, steam, packaging materials, and variable maintenancey-related to 
 methods used and equipment requirements at capacity rates of output — are set 
 forth in appropriate sections of the analysis that follows. 
 
 1/ Based on 2U-10 ounce cartons per case. 
 
 2/ See page 27 where accounting and operating data are used in the 
 development of hand- sort standards. 
 
 3/ Current wage rates of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the 
 Frozen Food Operators and the California State Council of tannery Unions were 
 used in calculating labor costs. The wage rates used were increased 6 per cent 
 to allow for employer payroll contributions such as social sectmlty, paid 
 vacations, and fringe benefits. 
 
■ 3 • . - '•■ • ■ ■ ' 
 
 (eeonevoXLe lenoii'Jbts rkfiw \-tSafc:> isq a^UKXitwiBm £^OI»0 be^trsvs— anox-Jsi^qc 
 ■rxsq acit? j-ruu esci^ baTawtxa? .«s<ai.t Htow XsJ-o-t 9&t lo ,taf*9 teg; od" w.ttrjJGve 
 .-c-sq 'U/^n, <••.,< •*»• .8 ci ^nsluvii/p? ex axrfT •agar- leq tatatfi .biwisr ?<b'2I..O e&r-satfa 
 
 ' ■ ■ • . . • - ' - 
 
 .-afqqiry .aw»^r:9^ai •;oas«>3o*rq fcnr l £'/p-iioslonurj Jn9fliqsc<jp9 1c wc ttjeoc'ixo^qa 
 
 A,, i' 
 
 1 iW» M t" 
 
 91^1? 3. 
 
 •In -jo isr: 
 
h 
 
 Investment Replacement Costs 
 
 Installed equipment replacement costs with different methods of operation 
 and rates of output were calculated by applying cost rates obtained from equip- 
 ment manufacturers and contractors to the estimated quantities required of each 
 equipment item. Replacement costs of building and industrial piping and wiring 
 are based on engineering estimates of the costs of constructing or installing 
 required quantities of these services. The physical quantities in relation to 
 plant capacity on which these estimates are based were developed in studies of 
 space requirements and equipment layout in efficiently organized plants. These 
 costs were estimated during the first quarter of 1958 and reflect the price 
 level prevailing at that time. 
 
 An annual fixed charge, expressed as a percentage of equipment replace- 
 ment cost, was used to reduce replacement cost to an annual basis. These 
 charges include allowances for depreciation, taxes, insurance, interest on 
 investment, and fixed repairs and maintenance. 
 
 Total Annual Costs 
 
 Estimation of total annual costs was facilitated by combining closely 
 
 related processing operations into several operating stages or components and 
 
 making separate analysis of each.i^ Total annual costs for each stage, related 
 
 to methods used, hourly rates of output, and length of operating season, were 
 
 calculated by multiplying the hourly variable cost by the hours operated per 
 
 season and adding the annual fixed charge. These cost estimates provide the 
 
 basis for comparing relative costs of different methods of operation and for 
 
 2/ 
 
 selection of the most efficient organization for each stage of processing.- 
 
 1/ An operating stage comprises a series of closely related activities 
 directly involved in the physical handling or processing of the product. 
 Examples are vining, cleaning, blanching, maturity grading, visual inspection 
 and grading, packaging, casing, freezing, etc. General cost components include 
 cost that are not directly related to a specific operating stage. Examples 
 of general costs include supervision and miscellaneous labor, plant administra- 
 tion, fctc. 
 
 2/ Efficient organization as used here involves the selection from among 
 alternative methods or techniques, that combination which will result in least 
 cost for any given output rate (size of operation) and length of operating 
 season. 
 
-qiupv Bo*! baajt6.-»rio • e§i*a Woo ^nx^I^crx ^d'bsj&luolno pgow .hjqteo 'to astors'ftfra 
 0059 'io boritrpot aaxdiJ&ufp b*tf,3mi'J'8e> srii o.+ rfoWaUaeo fcfl* a*to*tfWs%dK*n 'tf-Ganr 
 gnjlh, hoc ar^qxq l£xi iBcbnx fens saibXiwd lo ateeo taoftOOfcXq'JJ? VnainqiifP* 
 3&£XX«fMj.t 10 g..i.jww6noo lo ateoo oifr r o aetfamMsa * fcfiisswijna ao ftraad oi* 
 ct noiisT-ST. ax nBltl&tifvp lasxe^n'q. snT .asolvxae 9$od3 lo asxJlofetep boilifpe'i 
 11 •3Pci«i,tr» ax ioqcXov^b r*ow boeacf 9Z& aoJ*w.ttaa -Aslthr no ^txoaq^o JhsXq 
 
 «c«c(T ..ainfilq bsixne^to .s£$no£dJt!lt» nx tfd^sj $B$9q**fi be* ^ama-Hapm ofoqs 
 
 hna 8c~f V'trat'ft je-iit oris grtxrcub baJisrifcteo (MP&w a&oo 
 
 .Mifj *tfs j'aiXxBV'd^q -XoVoi 
 3to-;.ose.i.ier*tsq £ ss .teaanqjeo t .^MrtO boxix Xswafe'iiA 
 turifta rts o* taoa <?f!3rcaaBlq9i soxrfiri 'oi boea tes?r v*&bo #a#f 
 
 < 
 
 7.1 5>a : 
 
 r Mate j vd .bs>; 
 
 rioiia 10|t ei^nc 
 
 Uuana ifiSoi to n^xcfsmiiaS 
 
 to'i hor aol *ai*qo to *i> 
 *», -iiiizBzocvi to ofsJa j 
 
 LcfaX'tav 
 
 08 
 
 anuionx eJSoo laT?fis>3 16 
 
 .136 
 
5. 
 
 Aggregation of costs representing efficient stage organization, along tiith 
 general cost components not associated with specific operating stages, gives 
 total annual cost for the entire plant and field processing activities. These 
 costs, related to size of plant and length of operating season, comprise the 
 total annual cost of processing Lima beans with efficient plant and field 
 organization. They are not the costs of a particular plant or plants. Rather, 
 they express costs with attainable levels of efficiency for any volume of out- 
 put. Total annual costs developed in this manner are referred to as long-run 
 or planning costs. They are particularly useful in economic analysis of plant 
 costs and to management as an aid in planning new plant construction or changes 
 in existing facilities. 
 
 OPERATING STAGES AND COST COMPONENTS 
 
 The principal steps in the preparation of Lima beans for freezing — including 
 both field and plant operations — are illustrated in the product flow diagram 
 (Figure 1) and the plant layout drawing (Figure 2). 
 
 The field operations consist of vining *r shelling the beans and trans- 
 porting them to the receiving station of the freezing plant. Some of the 
 initial cleaning operations may also be accomplished at the vining site. At 
 the freezing plant, the product is pumped, flumed, or otherwise conveyed from 
 the receiving station through a series of in-plant operations. These include 
 initial or additional cleaning, quality separation, blanching, visual inspection 
 and manual quality grading, filling or packaging cartons or containers of 
 various sizes, wrapping or labeling, freezing, casing, and warehousing. 
 
 The operations performed in most processing activities can be accomplished 
 by one or more alternative methods. Since estimation of the relative costs of 
 alternative methods of operation is facilitated by combining closely related 
 operations into several plant operating stages or components, field and plant 
 operations have been classified into 10 operating stages and h general cost 
 components, the operating stages include: (1) vining; (2) transportation to 
 plant; (3) receiving, initial cleaning, and quality grading: (U) blanching and 
 second quality grading; (5) visual inspection and manual quality grading; (6) 
 filling and packaging; (7) variable water costs; (8) casing; (9) freezing and 
 initial storage; and (10) in-plant transportation of cased goods and packaging 
 materials, ©eneral cost components include: (1) investment cost of plant 
 buildings, water piping, and electrical wiring; (2) supervision and miscel- 
 laneous labor; (3) plant administration; and (h) miscellaneous equipment. 
 
C9S9 JO IQ 
 
Figure 1. Process Flow Diagram for Frozen Lima Bean Processing. California, 1958. 
 
 01 
 
7. 
 
 0 ® ('5) © (V)i — I 
 
 I * I 12) 
 
 OFFICE 
 
 REST 
 
 ROOMS 
 
 REPAIR 
 SHOP 
 
 STORAGE 
 
 CASING 
 
 LEGEND 
 
 d> Cradle Type Bin Dumper 
 ® Receiving Tank 
 ® Food Pump - 3 " 
 
 ® Return Water Screen and Supply Tank 
 ® Flotation Washer 
 ® Pneumatic Cleaner 
 <2> Conveyor 
 
 ® Pre-Blanch Quality Grader 
 
 @ Temporary Storage Hoppers 
 © Hot Water Blancher 
 O Dewater Reel 
 G2> Cooling Flumes 
 Q> Dewater Reel 
 (L3> Dewater Shaker 
 C5 Post-Blanch Quality Grade 
 O Temporary Storage Hoppers 
 <n> Flume 
 03) Dewater Shaker 
 
 © Cross Distribution Conveyor or Flume 
 
 Pick Eelts - w/Cascade 
 (D> Cross Distribution Flume 
 (I! Mesh Conveyor to Bulk Fill Station 
 © Bulk Fill Station 
 
 (O Retail and Bulk Style Accumulating Hopper 
 
 (O Vibrator Feeders 
 
 £2> Fill Hopper 
 
 <Z3> Carton Feed/Form 
 
 1 4) Retail Filler 
 
 <Z5> Institutional Filler 
 
 (£5 Carton Closer 
 
 <ZD Wrappers 
 
 (23) Tray Off Assembly 
 
 Figure 2. Lima Bean Freezing Plant Layout, Capacity 5 to 6 Tons per Hour. California, 1958. 
 
8 
 
 The remaining sections of this report deal with analysis of the above 
 operating stages and general cost components and a blending of the results in 
 an analysis of the over-all costs of assembling and processing Lima beans for 
 freezing, 
 
 ANALYSIS OF STAGE TECHNIQUES AND SYNTHESIS OF COST RELATIONSHIPS 
 
 vining 
 
 Vining or shelling Lima beans in California usually involves one of two 
 types of operation— mobile or stationary. In mobile vining a self-propelled 
 unit operating as a combine harvester moves through the fields. Under the 
 stationary system, the vines in the various fields of the area are cut and 
 draper-loaded into trucks for transportation to the vining station which is 
 normally located in the center of a production area. 
 
 Three methods of stationary vining— classified according to their degree 
 of mechanization — were analyzed in relation to the amount of labor and equip- 
 ment required at various rates of output and length of season. 
 
 In the least mechanized stationary operation considered — Method A — viners 
 are arranged in a series of parallel pairs with approximately 6 feet between 
 pairs. Vines are delivered by truck and dumped adjacent to the viner from 
 where they are hand-forked onto the vine feed conveyor which moves them into 
 the beater cylinder. Shelled beans drop through perforations in the revolving 
 screen reel to a rotating canvas apron and are collected in cannery lug boxes 
 from the viner delivery chutes. The lug boxes are picked up as they are filled 
 and dumped by workers onto a main assembly conveyor which delivers them to a 
 shaker-separator for additional trash separation. The beans pass through the 
 shaker into a bulk-receiving container, which is transferred by lift truck to 
 a delivery truck for delivery to the plant receiving station,^ Additional 
 cleaning or washing operations and icing may occur at this point. The vines 
 are discharged from the viner screen reel onto a straw carrier which deposits 
 
 1/ For bulk hauling, the bulk-receiving container may be picked up by the 
 lifC truck and dumped into the truck bed by operating a trip-lever device 
 installed on the receiving hopper. 
 
9. 
 
 them in an ensilage trench. A standard 2-plow tractor equipped with a loader 
 frame assembly is used to group vines for the fork workers and to spread or 
 redistribute piles of vines collected in the ensilage trench. 
 
 In the sedend and more mechanized method studied —Method B— labor is 
 reduced, and the rate of output per viner is increased approximately 20 per cent 
 by the installation of power forks and vine feed regulators. The increased 
 output per viner is primarily attributable to the vine feed regulator which 
 results in a more even flow of vines to the beater cylinder and more effective 
 effort on the part of the fork worker. With this additional equipment, one 
 worker can supply vines to two viners rather than one and at a faster rate per 
 viner. Other labor and equipment requirements are the same as for Method A. 
 
 In the third and most mechanized of the stationary vining operations— 
 Method C- the equipment of Method B is supplemented with a side-delivery con- 
 veyor installed under each viner delivery chute. The beans thus are conveyed 
 directly to the main assembly belt eliminating lug-handling labor. 
 
 In the mobile vining operation, self-propelled units with driver and 
 attendant replace the vining station labor and equipment. A beater cylinder, 
 screen reel, apron, and frame of a standard viner are mounted on a chassis 
 with Awheel drive-and-steering and propelled by a tractor engine. A sway-bar 
 mechanism keeps the reel and apron in a level position during operation. The 
 viner cylinder and auxiliary equipment are operated by a standard ^-cylinder, 
 air-cooled engine. The mobile viner moves through the field and picks up the 
 vines-previously cut by the grower-by a specially designed drum which feeds 
 them to a conveyor leading into the beater cylinder. The groupdsppedd of the 
 viner is regulated to obtain optimum pickup and feed of vines to the beater 
 cylinder. The shelled beans are collected on a side-delivery conveyor and 
 elevated through a pneumatic cleaner to a collection hopper. The hopper is 
 hydraulically elevated, and the beans are dumped periodically into a bulk- 
 delivery truck for transfer to the receiving station of the plant. 
 
 Production Standards. -Production standards for labor and equipment were 
 developed from operating and accounting record data for each of the four 
 methods studied. These standards are related to capacity output rates measured 
 in shelled weight. Standards for machine-paced jobs— hand and power forking, 
 lug handling, and mobile unit operators and attendants— are directly related 
 to the capacity rate of the viners. The average capacity output rate per sta- 
 tionary viner hour is hOO pounds with Method A, h7$ pounds with Method B and 
 
•:Bn9 ne nx msd-t 
 vlckteees smei'i 
 r.q aSisgiitotboi 
 
 hftoo: 
 
 re siar 
 
 snb t in^nqiop« 
 
 It lot £©nrv qjjoig of i 
 
 •xocFBl—i boricrsV— b9ibtfcK j . borf^ra bss rr;p;!o9m <3icm I 
 OS ylPv "mi^onaqs 'besBsioiix ei i9nxv ieq ftjq&o 'xo 
 e-xortx ©riT .wo*a.Cus«i b©©l 9alv 8J,ao ' 1 * x;wo ^ 
 •xoJa!uA9t bee"i sniv ©dtf ©Idsiudtiito YXxiaorii 
 etas bns a©bnxlv,s ns^s^cf ©rtx o4 £• >nxv "io troll 
 
 rxhbB exd+ d*JW •■jmIkw Mao"! art* 1o JiBq ©At ho. iioll* 
 j sno n»rf* isrtJsi owi o- + Btfltt? vXqqt'a nso taxtow 
 
 ©if* ©is Btfn©m9-xxupsi Jneeqxirpa bf» tods! isd+0 .ionxv 
 —ancUeieqo ^inxv vianomdo ©rf* lo bssxnRdosm Jean tea bixri* ©d* ril _, 
 o -i3vxl9'. ~9bx8 b iWiw bstiisaotw* ax B bodi*** to Jnemqlups aria-— 0 boAtstt 
 h n 9i& fusdi ana©d ©dT .©Judo Yi©vxl9b i©nxv does labrru b9llB.t^nx wit'** - 
 .too'gX sr.ilbftsrf^jjl gflx+anlmxJs 4T©d vXdmoaBs nxaa 9d4 o* YXjoeixb 
 bae i9v fib rf*tw alitor bsXJoqoxq-tloe t noxieiaqo ^nxniv *Xxdom erirf ni 
 labntXys TOJaotf A .dnercqitfp© bn/icdcX aottaJe vnxniT ©d? ©aalqa-i inabnaJia 
 p FpaAds- b rto ba^'f-fooi 91* T*nJN[ brsbrraiB a to snuiil brtc t rroiq. - . t J99rt nesioe 
 -\ ^.t-rta »rt+^nt+ ft vri bsiisaotla fans *ftxi*9-*8-brtft-©vxib isaxb*-*; dJlw 
 ©rfT .noJWsiaqo yiMwb rtoiixeoq lav©! anx noiqe bna i99T WW -nainB m 
 
 t if>bnJ-l^9-4l bisbne.t-3 s yd b^*6i9qo ©is .dnaaqtop* Tisilixas bns lobnxXyD i9niv 
 o,<J nu nldiq bn* bfail edi risuoirivt esvom iwthr slxdom 9riT .©nlgna b^lOOd^i* 
 
 rmrvra sriT i : *bn il lYO i«J39d 9riJ o^nx nrrib^sX io\9vnoo p o& merij 
 t aaniv lo b?9li Ixifi qujiolq mtrmi^qo nis*do oi b&t&Su iii el I9fi/v 
 o rievil9b~?^ia s no b9JoeIloo eis ansed hsXXfrie ©riT .isbnXl'^') 
 ; kiMMod noitoolioo e oj xertBrfo oi^fiaujfnq 0 dgooid^ bs^avoX© 
 fc vXIsoxboxidq boqaush sib axiBod t-ui brta tbaicveXa \IIeoxXx;Bib\r; 
 eXq ©di *Jo noiffl^fl ^nxvi:©09'i ©riJ 1 o^ i*'i8flf.-i:t -rox Hax/iJ" Yi©vxl9? 
 • bns -lodal ioi abi^bnBxa noljauooil— v aj^Bb{jgjg,Jl?^^^ 0 t^. 
 lo doB© ioi Bv+ab b'looei v'i*" 00056 ^ 5«J:J-Bi'-'qo moil b&qolavab 
 vqftso v^^ofiqao oi b©JeX©i ©ib ebosfwaia ©aerfT .bo.tbxr.t8 sbod^ain 
 LaM-To** i©roq bne bnod — adof, bsoaq-eflxrioam ioi (sbisbrBiB .dd^ > ©r; b9lX©^a nx 
 5©<J-frX©i %t$»9tt& ©ib— .eiiTB&aoM-a bne aio^sisqo cJxrto yXxclora bns t gnxlbnad guX 
 ; +2 t3q 9^bt .Ttrq^tiio yixoaqso 9^bi»ye ©dT .Bianiv to ©isi 
 
 r+aV rf + 
 
 sq <ITii »A. bodi 0 *? riii^ abm;o.r OOil ex iuori ni 
 
10. 
 
 C, and 525 pounds per hour with mobile vining. Accordingly, the effective hand- 
 forking standard — with one worker per viner — was estimated as kOO pounds per 
 
 worker hour. The power-forking standard— with one worker per pair of viners 
 
 is equivalent to twice the viner capacity rate or 9$0 pounds per hour. Simi- 
 larly, the lug-handling standard is 800 pounds per worker hour with Method A 
 and 950 pounds for Method B. As one operator per mobile viner and one attendant 
 for every two mobile viners are required, the standard for one mobile unit is 
 525 pounds per worker hour and 1,050 pounds for two units. Trucking standards 
 for hauling vines from the field to vining station were converted to a shelled 
 weight equivalent and related to the radius of haul. A standard of 880 pounds 
 per truck hour, based on a maximum haul radius of 10 miles, was developed and 
 used in this analysis. Standards for bulk-container attendant, lift-truck and 
 tractor operation, and station cleanup are identical for each of the stationary 
 vining methods and were estimated as 5,600, 20,000, and 14,000 pounds per man- 
 hour, respectively. Field cleanup was estimated as U,000 pounds per man-hour 
 for all methods including mobile vining. Supevision for stationary operations 
 consists of one crew supervisor and one general and field supervisor for all 
 levels of output. One general supervisor is required for each operating group 
 of 10 mobile viners. 
 
 These production standards are the basis for the estimated crew and equip- 
 ment requirements summarized for the three stationary vining methods — Methods 
 A, B, and C — in Table 1. With Method A, for example, an hourly production of 
 il,000 pounds of shell beans would require 10 forkers, 5 lug handlers, 2 cleanup 
 workers, 1 lift-truck operator, 1 tractorman, 5 truckers for vine hauling, and 
 2 supervisors. Major equipment requirements in this example would be 10 viners 
 complete with auxiliary equipment, a main assembly conveyor, 1 shaker-separator, 
 1 lift truck, and 1 tractor. 
 
 The crew and equipment requirements, as well as data on wage rates, unit 
 investment costs for equipment, and other cost rates given in Table 1, are the 
 basis for the estimates of variable costs, investment costs, and annual fixed 
 
 charges given in Table 2. Variable costs— with a given hourly output rate 
 
 can be estimated by applying appropriate wage rates to crew requirements and 
 adding the variable costs associated with equipment repair, maintenance, power, 
 and fuel inputs. In the above example, labor costs are $28.32, and power, 
 equipment repair and maintenance, and vine hauling are estimated as • < $27.6U per 
 hour of operation. Total hourly variable cost necessary to achieve 1;,000 pounds 
 output per hour using Method A is the sum of the above estimates or $55.96. 
 
- 
 
 A borttsM ditn tvoti ismiow tsq abnxfoq 00b ei bi-ihacin gaiXbnsri-^uX s 
 isbn^iJa 9flo bna aarfiv 3ll(JoiK i9<j *ioj.9T9qo sno eA «5 bctitsM tol abnoc 
 
 ai Jimr sXicfom 9no 10I bisbaaJa sxtt t bei±i/p97 9i£ atsnlv oXXdom owt 
 able basis ^ni-N'anT .eilnu cm* ncl sbnuoq 0t!0 t X bo* 'fl/orf isjCnonr rnq t 
 b*>Ll9te a oi fc^iisvueo siow noiiada ^ninxv oi Moil &di fflrotl aeniv 51 
 Bboi/o<i 088 1o buBbncrfa A .Xc/arf lo ayibsT 3rfi od beislai baa iflwlBvii 
 
 bns bsqolsveb e.aw .aolim OX lo 3irJ±£-r Xvarf myjnxKan a no bdead ^lyorf 
 
 _aa* -i« ebittfoq 000.^ bns ,Q0O*OS t 00c\5 as b9*saida» eisw bns abni* 
 
 sd arict 3*ts ab 
 
 sb 3B lis* aa .eifu 
 
 ytiXifsfl ^ni"v bos 
 
11, 
 
 TABLE 1 
 
 StaJbionar^ning-Crew and Equipment Requirements in Relation to Methods Used 
 and Hourly Rate of Vlning Output, California, 1958 
 
 Vinlng 
 rate 
 
 pounds 
 per hour 
 shelled 
 
 1,000 
 2,000 
 3,000 
 4,000 
 5,000 
 6,000 
 7,000 
 8,000 
 9,000 
 10,000 
 
 12,500 
 15,000 
 17,500 
 
 20,000 
 22,500 
 25,000 
 27,500 
 30,000 
 
 35,ooo 
 
 Fork 
 vines 
 
 Handle 
 lugs 
 
 Attend 
 fill 
 
 Oper- 
 ate 
 lift 
 
 Trac- 
 tor 
 man 
 
 Clean- 
 up 
 
 Haul 
 vines 
 
 Super- 
 vise 
 
 A I B.C I A.B ] C 
 
 3 
 5 
 8 
 10 
 13 
 15 
 13 
 20 
 23 
 25 
 32 
 38 
 
 44 
 
 50 
 57 
 63 
 69 
 75 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 4 
 
 5 
 6 
 7 
 8 
 9 
 10 
 
 11 
 
 14 
 16 
 
 19 
 
 22 
 24 
 27 
 29 
 32 
 37 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 4 
 5 
 6 
 7 
 8 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 14 
 16 
 19 
 22 
 24 
 27 
 29 
 32 
 37 
 
 3tSS j ESS 1 A - B ' c 1 a,b ,c 
 
 number of workers^/ 
 
 Method 
 
 Total crew 
 require- 
 ments 
 
 Number 
 
 of 
 viners 
 
 Main 
 con- 
 veyor 
 
 Lift 
 truck 
 
 Trac- 
 tor 
 
 Shaker 
 sepa- 
 
 A,B,CTA,B,C 
 
 1/ 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 It 
 It 
 It 
 It 
 6 
 6 
 6 
 6 
 8 
 10 
 12 
 lit 
 14 
 16 
 16 
 
 2 
 3 
 it 
 5 
 6 
 7 
 8 
 9 
 11 
 12 
 15 
 17 
 20 
 
 23 
 26 
 29 
 32 
 34 
 ItO 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 
 A 
 
 1 B 
 
 1 c 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 1 B,C 
 
 A,B,C 
 
 A,B,C 
 
 A,B, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 length 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 number 
 
 in feet 
 
 
 number 
 
 
 
 
 
 b/ 
 
 c/ 
 
 J d/ 
 
 e/ 
 
 f/ 
 
 E / 
 
 12 
 
 11 
 
 9 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 30 
 
 30 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 17 
 
 15 
 
 12 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 1+6 
 
 46 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 22 
 
 18 
 
 lit 
 
 8 
 
 7 
 
 72 
 
 62 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 25 
 
 21 
 
 16 
 
 10 
 
 9 
 
 88 
 
 78 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 34 
 
 26 
 
 20 
 
 13 
 
 11 
 
 110 
 
 94 
 
 1 
 
 : ; >» , i 
 
 1 
 
 38 
 
 30 
 
 23 
 
 15 
 
 13 
 
 126 
 
 110 
 
 1 
 
 X 
 
 1 
 
 43 
 
 33 
 
 25 
 
 18 
 
 15 
 
 152 
 
 126 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 47 
 
 36 
 
 27 
 
 20 
 
 17 
 
 168 
 
 142 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 55 
 
 lt2 
 
 32 
 
 23 
 
 19 
 
 190 
 
 158 
 
 1 
 
 l 
 
 1 
 
 59 
 
 "*5 
 
 34 
 
 25 
 
 21 
 
 206 
 
 174 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 72 
 
 54 
 
 ItO 
 
 32 
 
 27 
 
 261+ 
 
 222 
 
 1 
 
 : % :,i 
 
 1 
 
 82 
 
 60 
 
 itit 
 
 38 
 
 32 
 
 312 
 
 264 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 96 
 
 71 
 
 52 
 
 Itlt 
 
 37 
 
 360 
 
 302 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 110 
 
 82 
 
 60 
 
 50 
 
 "*3 
 
 1+08 
 
 350 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 127 
 
 94 
 
 70 
 
 57 
 
 lt8 
 
 462 
 
 392 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 va 
 
 105 
 
 78 
 
 63 
 
 53 
 
 510 
 
 430 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 152 
 
 112 
 
 83 
 
 69 
 
 58 
 
 558 
 
 472 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 165 
 
 122 
 
 90 
 
 75 
 
 6U 
 
 606 
 
 520 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 191 
 
 140 
 
 103 
 
 88 
 
 7<t 
 
 708 
 
 596 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 2/ 
 
 to ?s ™s« rates in dollars per hour and labor standards in pounds of shelled beans oer man hour: Supervise and field 
 5l*f Jf 4?"^ ' T V °™?1 Per h ° Ur " Su F 9rTl3a ° r °" ' S 1 - 60 P° r »<»«•; 30.000 pounds per hour. C lean up, (fl^ld and 
 » T r ?° U S,' i' 000 P0Und " P" r nour - Haul-vines (contract). $4.50 per hour, 880 pound s oer h our. Operate 
 
 H^l V £ %" ' f P 01 * h0Ur '' 2 °* 000 P 0ua(l8 P er h °'"-. Attend fill, 11.26 per hour, 6.600 pounds per hSuK 
 
 Handle lugs |1.26 per hour, 800 pounds per hour with Method A and 960 pounds oer hour with Method B. Fork vines 41.25 
 per hour, 400 pounds per hour with Method A and 950 pounds per hour with Methods B and C. 
 
 it *?S*^_A : Viners are complete with viner unit including strawcarrier— $3,090; apron scraper— $33; vine shaker— $135; 
 
 undercarrler separator— $117; feed conveyor— $460; 15-horsepower electric motor with reduction gear and drive assembly— $860; 
 and freight and installation— $500 . Total cost per viner is $5,215. 
 
 c/ Method B: Replacement costs are the same as for Method A except add to each unit a vine feed regulator— $365; and to each pair 
 of viners a power fork hoist assembly- -$807. Method C : Replacement cost identical to Method B except replace viner pea boxes 
 with a side delivery conveyor installed beneath the viner delivery chutes. Converyor is 6 incheB wide by 17 feet long and 
 rides in a 2-inch channel equipped with V-type sideboards driven by viner reel— $280 each, installed. 
 
 d/ Main conveyor electrically driven, frame of angle and channel iron construction with 4- inch wood sideboards, and steel rollers 
 12 inches on center with return rollers to prevent sag. Cost of drive unit and conveyor frame is $347 for 1-horsepower motor 
 and drive plus $10.30 per foot of conveyor. First 100 feet of conveyor is of 24-inch belting, next 100 feet is 18-inch belting, 
 and 12-inch belting thereafter. Belting is 4-ply rubber cannery type where cost is estimated by the relation: C B ■ $0.41 (W)(L) 
 where W is width of belt in inches and L is length in feet of conveyor. 
 
 e/ Standard 4,000-pound capacity gas driven lift truck, pneumatic tlres--$5,775 each, delivered. 
 
 f/ Standard 2-plow tractor with 6-foot detachable loader frame assembly— $2,100 each, delivered. 
 
 £/ Sieve type shaker, 2 screen, o.d. 3' x 12', with l/2-horsepower motor and drive-41,lt60 each, custom built and installed, 
 h/ Lug handling not required with Method C. 
 
 l/ Lift truck operator attends fill for low output rates 
 
TAB IE 2 
 
 S^iomry_Vinlng--Variable Costa, Replacement Costa, and Annual Fixed Charge 
 in Relation to Methods Used and Hourly Rates of Output, California, 1958 
 
 Rate of vining 
 
 
 Labor^/ 
 
 
 Variable costs 
 
 Power and maintenance^ 
 Method 
 
 
 Total 
 
 
 output 
 pounda per 
 hour shelled 
 
 A 
 
 1 B 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 A 
 
 1 B 
 dollars 
 
 1 c 
 
 1 A 
 
 1 B 
 
 1 C 
 
 1,000 
 2,000 
 3,000 
 
 4,obo 
 5,000 
 6,000 
 7,000 
 8,000 
 9,000 
 10,000 
 12,500 
 15,000 
 17,500 
 20,000 
 22,500 
 25,000 
 27,500 
 30,000 
 35,000 
 
 23.22 
 33.07 
 
 42.57 
 50.82 
 62.82 
 72.32 
 81.82 
 
 on r»7 
 IO6.57 
 114.82 
 140.82 
 159.82 
 187.07 
 214.32 
 246 .04 
 273.29 
 296.79 
 319.54 
 371.54 
 
 21.97 
 30.57 
 37.57 
 44.57 
 
 54.07 
 62.32 
 69.32 
 76.32 
 90.32 
 97-32 
 118.32 
 132.32 
 155.82 
 179.32 
 204.79 
 228.29 
 246.79 
 265.79 
 307.79 
 
 19.47 
 26.82 
 32.57 
 38.32 
 45.57 
 53.57 
 59-32 
 65.07 
 77-82 
 83.57 
 100.82 
 112.32 
 132.07 
 151.82 
 174.79 
 194.54 
 213.04 
 225.79 
 261.54 
 
 2.02 
 2.91 
 4.25 
 
 5 .14 
 6.49 
 7-38 
 8.71 
 9.60 
 10.94 
 11.84 
 14.96 
 17.71 
 20.39 
 23.06 
 26.58 
 29.25 
 31.94 
 34.68 
 40.48 
 
 2.12 
 3.08 
 4.05 
 5.02 
 5-98 
 6.97 
 7-93 
 8.90 
 9-87 
 10.83 
 13.75 
 16.26 
 18.66 
 21.61 
 24.40 
 26.82 
 29.26 
 32.23 
 37-08 
 
 2.16 
 3.15 
 
 4.15 
 5.14 
 6.14 
 7-15 
 8.14 
 9.14 
 10.13 
 11.13 
 13.13 
 16.71 
 
 19.17 
 22.22 
 25.08 
 27.56 
 30.07 
 33.12 
 38.11 
 
 25.24 
 35.98 
 46.82 
 55.96 
 69.31 
 79.70 
 90.53 
 99.67 
 117.51 
 126.66 
 155 .78 
 177.53 
 207.46 
 237-38 
 272.62 
 302.54 
 328.73 
 354.22 
 412.02 
 
 24.09 
 33.65 
 41.62 
 49.59 
 60.05 
 69.29 
 77-25 
 85.22 
 100.19 
 108.15 
 132.07 
 148.58 
 174.48 
 200.93 
 229.19 
 255.11 
 276.05 
 298.02 
 344.87 
 
 21.63 
 29.97 
 36.72 
 43.46 
 
 52.71 
 60.72 
 67.46 
 74.21 
 87.95 
 94.70 
 114.95 
 129.03 
 151.24 
 174.04 
 199.87 
 222.10 
 243.11 
 258.91 
 299-65 
 
 
 
 Replacement costs^ 
 
 
 Rate of vining 
 output 
 
 Equipment 
 
 Belting and 
 miscellaneous 
 
 Total 
 
 Equipment 
 
 Belting and 
 miscellaneous 
 
 Total 
 
 Equipment 
 
 Belting and 
 miscellaneous 
 
 Total 
 
 pounda per 
 hour shelled 
 
 
 
 dollars 
 
 Metnoa u 
 
 
 1,000 
 2,000 
 3,000 
 4,000 
 
 5,000 
 6,000 
 7,000 
 
 8,000 
 9,000 
 10,000 
 
 12,500 
 15,000 
 17,500 
 
 20,000 
 
 22,500 
 25,000 
 27,500 
 30,000 
 35,000 
 
 25,636 
 36,231 
 52,144 
 62,738 
 78,957 
 89,552 
 105,465 
 116,059 
 131,931 
 142,873 
 179,975 
 213,400 
 245,351 
 277,135 
 322,419 
 354,203 
 386,334 
 419,579 
 488,771 
 
 1,105 
 2,073 
 3,138 
 4,092 
 5,132 
 5,790 
 6,792 
 7,720 
 8,692 
 9,114 
 10,209 
 11,255 
 11,991 
 12,727 
 13,493 
 14,229 
 14,965 
 15,702 ' 
 16,703 
 
 26,74l 
 38,304 
 55,282 
 66,830 
 84,089 
 95,342 
 112,257 
 123,779 
 140,623 
 151,937 
 190,184 
 224,655 
 257,342 
 289,862 
 335,912 
 368,432 
 401,299 
 435,281 
 505,474 
 
 27,538 
 39,670 
 51,802 
 63,933 
 76,065 
 88,544 
 100,676 
 112,808 
 124, 939 
 137,071 
 173,814 
 206,027 
 235,933 
 273,482 
 311,299 
 341,551 
 372,305 
 4lo,l6o 
 471,125 
 
 1,105 
 2,073 
 3,040 
 3,994 
 4,975 
 5,942 
 6,600 
 7,528 
 8,456 
 9,384 
 10,002 
 11,019 
 11,706 
 12,442 
 13,149 
 13,836 
 14,592 
 15,278 
 16,152 
 
 28,643 
 41,743 
 54,842 
 67,927 
 8l,o4o 
 94,486 
 107,276 
 120,336 
 133,395 
 146,455 
 183,816 
 217,046 
 247,639 
 285,924 
 324,448 
 355,387 
 386,897 
 425,438 
 487,277 
 
 28,378 
 4l,070 
 53,762 
 66,453 
 79,145 
 92,184 
 104,876 
 117,568 
 130,259 
 142,951 
 181,374 
 214,987 
 246,293 
 285,522 
 324,739 
 356,441 
 388,545 
 428,080 
 491,845 
 
 1,105 
 2,073 
 3,040 
 3,994 
 4,975 
 5,942 
 6,600 
 7,528 
 8,456 
 9,384 
 10,002 
 11,019 
 11,706 
 12,442 
 13,149 
 13,836 
 14,592 
 15,278 
 16,152 
 
 29,483 
 43,143 
 56,802 
 70,447 
 84,120 
 98,126 
 111,476 
 125,096 
 138,715 
 152,335 
 191,376 
 226,006 
 
 257,999 
 297,964 
 337,888 
 370,277 
 403,137 
 443,358 
 507,997 
 
 
 
 
 
 Annual fixed charge 
 
 J/ 
 
 
 
 
 Rate of vining 
 
 Equipment 
 
 Belting and 
 miscellaneous 
 
 Total 
 
 Equipment 
 
 Belting and 
 mi scellaneou s 
 
 Total 
 
 Equipment 
 
 Belting and 
 miscellaneous 
 
 Total 
 
 output 
 
 Method A 
 
 Method B 
 
 Method C 
 
 
 pounds per 
 hour shelled 
 
 . .... dollars 
 
 
 
 1,000 
 2,000 
 
 3,000 
 
 4,000 
 
 5,000 
 6,000 
 7,000 
 
 8,000 
 9,000 
 
 10,000 
 
 12,500 
 15,000 
 17,500 
 
 20,000 
 
 22,500 
 25,000 
 27,500 
 30,000 
 35,000 
 
 4,230 
 5,978 
 
 8,6o4 
 10,352 
 13,028 
 14,776 
 17,402 
 19,150 
 21,769 
 23,574 
 29,696 
 35,211 
 40,483 
 45,727 
 53,199 
 58,443 
 63,745 
 69,231 
 80,647 
 
 l4o 
 
 253 
 385 
 496 
 621 
 672 
 791 
 896 
 1,009 
 1,013 
 1,151 
 1,279 
 1,376 
 1,473 
 1,577 
 1,674 
 1,771 
 1,868 
 2,019 
 
 4,370 
 6,231 
 8,989 
 10,848 
 13,649 
 15,448 
 18,193 
 
 20,046 
 
 22,778 
 
 24,587 
 
 30,847 
 36,490 
 41,859 
 47,200 
 54,776 
 60,117 
 65,516 
 71,099 
 82,666 
 
 4,544 
 6,546 
 8,547 
 10,549 
 12,551 
 14, 610 
 16,612 
 18,613 
 20,615 
 22,617 
 28,679 
 33,994 
 38,929 
 45,125 
 51,364 
 56,356 
 6l,430 
 67,676 
 77,736 
 
 140 
 
 253 
 365 
 477 
 590 
 702 
 753 
 858 
 962 
 1,067 
 1,109 
 1,232 
 
 1,319 
 
 1,416 
 1,508 
 1,595 
 1,686 
 1,784 
 1,908 
 
 4,684 
 6,799 
 8,912 
 11,026 
 13,l4l 
 15,312 
 17,365 
 19,471 
 21,577 
 23,684 
 29,788 
 35,226 
 4o,248 
 46,541 
 52,872 
 57,951 
 63,116 
 69,460 
 79,644 
 
 4,682 
 6,777 
 8,871 
 10,965 
 13,059 
 15,210 
 17,305 
 19,399 
 21,493 
 23,587 
 29,927 
 35,473 
 4o,638 
 47,111 
 53,582 
 58,813 
 64,110 
 70,633 
 81,154 
 
 i4o 
 253 
 365 
 477 
 590 
 702 
 753 
 858 
 962 
 1,067 
 1,109 
 1,232 
 1,319 
 1,416 
 1,508 
 1,595 
 1,686 
 1,784 
 1,908 
 
 4,822 
 7,030 
 9,236 
 11,442 
 13,649 
 15,912 
 18,058 
 20,257 
 22,455 
 24,654 
 31,036 
 36,705 
 41,957 
 48,527 
 55,090 
 6o,4o8 
 65,796 
 72,417 
 83,062 
 
 a/ For wage rates and crew requirements, see Table 1. 
 
 b/ Power requirements from Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 2891-E, Schedule PA-1, Agricultural Power , effective November 15, 
 1957- Costs are approximately $0,012 per horsepower hour. Operational maintenance and repairs estimated as 0.5 
 per cent of equipment replacement costs per 100 hours operations. 
 
 c/ For replacement costs of equipment units, see Table 1. 
 
 0/ Equipment : 16.5 per cent of equipment replacement cost includes depreciation— 10 per cent; taxes~l per cent; 
 inaurarce— 1 per cent; interest on investment—3 per cent (approximately 5 per cent of undepreciated balance); 
 and fixed repairs and maintenance— 1. 5 per cent. Belting : Charged at 25 per cent of belting replacement cost. 
 Miscellaneous : Charged at 10 per cent of replacement costs of miscellaneous equipment. 
 
13. 
 
 Replacement cost for any specified output rate is the sum of the equipment 
 replacement costs and investment outlays. In the example, total outlay for 
 major equipment items is estimated as $62,738. Supplemental outlays required 
 for site construction, electric wiring installation, conveyor belting, spare 
 motors, and repair parts are estimated as $i*,092, giving a total outlay for an 
 installation of this size of $66,830. 
 
 An annual fixed charge of 16.5 per cent of the major equipment cost of 
 stationary vining includes: depreciation— 10 per cent; taxes— -1 per cent* 
 insurance— 1 per cent; interest on investment— 3 per cent (or approximately 
 5.5 per cent of the undepreciated balance); and fixed repairs and maintenance— 
 1.5 per cent. The annual fixed charge for site construction, electrical wiring, 
 and spare parts was estimated as 10 per cent of replacement cost, while the 
 annual fixed charge for belting was estimated as 25 per cent of belting replace- 
 ment cost. Site rental costs are included. Applying these percentages to the 
 equipment replacement costs developed in the above example gave an annual 
 charge of $10,352 for the major equipment items and $1*96 for the supplemental 
 equipment including $92 for site rental. Combining the separate charges gave 
 a total annual fixed charge of $10,82*8 for a Method A installation with a 
 !*, 000-pound hourly production rate. 
 
 With mobile vining, the procedure used in estimating crew and equipment 
 requirements and costs parallels that used in developing these estimates for 
 stationary vining, with the exception of the percentages used in estimating 
 the annual fixed charge. The annual fixed charge for equipment used in the 
 mobile vining operation was estimated as 17 per cent of replacement cost. The 
 higher percentage reflects a greater annual outlay for fixed repairs and main* 
 tenance attributable to higher costs of gasoline engine repair and overhaul 
 and a higher rate of wear with the mobile equipment. Estimated crew and 
 equipment requirements and costs for mobile vining are summarized in Table 3. 
 
 Total annual costs related to rate of vining output per hour and length 
 of season were calculated by multiplying the hourly variable costs by the 
 hours operated per season and adding the annual fixed charge. In the example 
 given above— Method A, with i*,000 pounds output per hour of operation— variable 
 costs totaled $55.96 per hour with an annual fixed charge of $10,81*8. For a 
 season of 1,000 operating hours, total annual cost would amount to $66,808— 
 $10,81*8 plus $55.96 multiplied by 1,000. 
 
 Calculations similar to those outlined in the preceding example can be 
 made from the data in Table 2 and 3 for other hourly output rates and lengths 
 
TABLE 3 
 
 Mobile Vinln^-Crev and Equipment Requirements and Costs 
 California, 1958 
 
 1,000 
 2,000 
 3,000 
 4,000 
 5,000 
 6,000 
 
 7,000 
 8,000 
 9,000 
 
 10,000 
 
 12,500 
 15,000 
 17,500 
 
 20,000 
 
 22,500 
 25,000 
 27,500 
 30,000 
 35,000 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 9 
 12 
 Ik 
 
 17 
 
 20 
 
 23 
 
 26 
 29 
 
 35 
 42 
 
 56 
 62 
 69 
 75 
 83 
 96 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 3 
 1+ 
 
 5 
 5 
 6 
 6 
 7 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 3 
 
 1+ 
 1+ 
 
 5 
 5 
 5 
 6 
 
 5 
 8 
 11 
 14 
 16 
 
 20 
 24 
 27 
 
 30 
 
 33 
 ko 
 48 
 55 
 
 64 
 
 71 
 
 79 
 
 86 
 
 91+ 
 109 
 
 8.00 
 12.50 
 16.50 
 21.50 
 24.50 
 30.25 
 37.00 
 in. 50 
 46.00 
 50.50 
 60.75 
 73.50 
 
 83.75 
 98.00 
 108.25 
 121.00 
 131.25 
 143.25 
 166.25 
 
 2.6l 
 5.11 
 7.61 
 10.11 
 11.36 
 13.86 
 16.36 
 19-02 
 21.62 
 24.22 
 29.42 
 35.92 
 41.33 
 48.08 
 53.48 
 60.39 
 65.99 
 72.99 
 85.90 
 
 10.61 
 17.61 
 24.11 
 31.61 
 35.86 
 44.U 
 53.36 
 60.52 
 67.62 
 74.72 
 90.17 
 109.42 
 125.08 
 146.08 
 161.73 
 181.39 
 197.24 
 216.24 
 252.15 
 
 2 
 4 
 6 
 8 
 
 9 
 11 
 
 13 
 15 
 17 
 19 
 
 23 
 28 
 32 
 
 37 
 4l 
 46 
 50 
 
 55 
 64 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 3 
 3 
 4 
 4 
 4 
 5 
 
 26,200 
 50,200 
 74.200 
 98,200 
 110,200 
 134,200 
 158,200 
 
 184,400 
 
 208,400 
 232,400 
 
 280,400 
 34o,4oo 
 390,600 
 450,600 
 498,600 
 560,800 
 608,800 
 668,800 
 779,000 
 
 4,454 
 8,534 
 12,6l4 
 16,694 
 18,734 
 22,814 
 26,894 
 31,348 
 35,428 
 39,508 
 47,668 
 57,868 
 66, 402 
 76,602 
 84,762 
 95,336 
 103,496 
 113,696 
 132,430 
 
 &J l?loTX2 .25°Z?Z^ Sttend Tiner8 --* 1 ' 5 ° PSr h0 ™> field *leanup~ $1 . 25 per hour; and field sup.r- 
 
 SS£l» Gasoline calculated at 3 gallons per hour per viner and truck at $0.21 per gallon Oil 
 aF1^02 per hour per viner and truck. Variable maintenance and t*^ .* EstiSLf as o! 5 Sr cenf or 
 equipment replacement costs per 100 hours operation. Includes mechanics' vages and suppliesf 
 
 27 ^ck^| 2 ^ e V±ner ^ SerViC£ Weldlng Unlt " Re P^ment ^sts : Viner~$12,000; and 
 
 d/ Includes depreciation-10 per cent; insurance-1 per cent; interest on investment-^ per cent- fixed 
 repairs and maintenance-^ per cent; and taxes-1 P er cent. The total is 1 7 per cent *S repLement 
 
i 
 
15 
 
 of season for each of the four methods considered. The results—for three 
 selected length of season—are shown in Figure 3 for hourly output rates up 
 to 30,000 pounds per hour. Figure 3 then provides a basis for selection of 
 the most economical method of vining for the three selected lengths of season 
 illustrated. Similar comparisons could be made for lengths of season different 
 than those shown. Study of Figure 3 shows that in a 500-hour season, mobile 
 vining is the low-cost method for rates of vining output below 6,000 pounds 
 per hour, while Method C becomes the low-cost method for all hourly output 
 rates above that level. For season of 1,000 and 1,500 hours, mobile vining 
 becomes the low-cost method for all rates of output considered. 
 
 A useful generalization can be developed from total season costs like 
 those given in Figure 3. This involves selection of the least-cost method with 
 any given rate of output and length of season. The least-cost points so 
 selected provide "planning costs" of the type previously defined and form the 
 basis of a "planning equation." Such an equation for the vining operation^/ 
 is given below and is represented graphically by the heavy dashed lines in 
 Figure 3. 
 
 (1) TSC y - $3,929 ♦ $2,633 (R) ♦ $0.3691 (H) ♦ $7.99 (R)(H) 
 
 where 
 
 TSC v is the total season cost of vining in dollars. 
 R is the rate of vining output in 1,000 pounds per hour. 
 H is the number of hours of vining operations during the season. 
 
 For any given rate of output and length of season, equation (1) can be 
 used to estimate total season vining cost with efficient organization. As an 
 illustration, consider a vining operation operating at the rate of 10,000 
 pounds per hour for a season of 1,000 hours. Total season cost for a' vining 
 
 The e ?uation shows the average relationship of annual costs to rate of 
 vining output and length of season. It is computed to minimize the sum of the 
 squared residuals between costs represented bythe equationlnl toe s™tn^zed 
 costs derived from Tables 2 and 3. The corrected multiple correlationco- 
 
 5 J£ ent If °-"V' ThiS indicates the equation gives a very close description 
 of the synthesized costs representing an efficient vining operation. It is not 
 however, a statistical measure of the validity of these Estimates! Similar ' 
 SSSJyrS sSdy? CalCUlati ° nS 0f 0ther cot relationships 
 
Figure 3. Total Annual Costs of Vining Li.a Beans in Relation to Methods Used, Rate of Output, and S 
 
 Length of Season. California, 1958. 
 
17. 
 
 operation under these conditions is estimated by substituting for R and H in 
 the above equation and solving, that is: 
 
 TSC y - $3,929 ♦ $ 2,633 (10) t $0.3691 (1,000) ♦ $7.99 (1 0 )(1000) 
 - $3,929 ♦ $26,330 + $369 + $79,900 - $110, #8 . 
 
 Viner to Plant Transportation 
 
 Costs of transporting Lima beans from the vining station to the plant 
 receiving dock vary widely with respect to distance of haul, equipment 
 capacities, and contractual arrangements. In California, Lima beans are 
 hauled in bulk— by trailer or truck, or in tote bins.i^ 
 
 In most of the plants observed, the hauling was performed under contract 
 with commercial trucking companies. Although the rates varied slightly among 
 plants, most of the variation in transportation costs was due to the differences 
 in tonnage per load and length of haul. To eliminate the effect of hauling 
 charge differentials among areas, the 1957 schedule of rates listed in Minimum 
 Rate Tariff No. 2 of the California Public Utilities Commission was used for 
 establishing the costs used in this report. The rates in this schedule ap- 
 plicable to hauls of 20,000 pounds minimum weight—as shown graphically by 
 the light, broken line in Figure fc— tend to level off as distance from the 
 plant increases. A general expression relating truck-hauling cost per 1,000 
 pounds to distance hauled is shown by the solid line "smoothed" through the 
 steps of Figure 1*. This line, representing a generalized rate-distance 
 relationship, is defined by the following expression: 
 
 (2) THC « $1.1*0 (log 10 D) 
 
 where 
 
 THC is truck-hauling cost per 1,000 pounds of shelled Lima beans. 
 T S th f distance f rom vining station to plant, expressed in 
 logarithms (base 10). 
 
 1/ Tote bins are wood containers approximately V x k* x k'. 
 
19- 
 
 Total annual costs can be estimated by multiplying equation (2) above by 
 the annual volume of Lima beans vined (1,000 pounds of vining output per hour 
 times the number of hours operated per season) . This relation is given by the 
 planning equation below and is graphically depicted in Figure $• 
 
 (3) TSC H - $1.1*0 (log D) (R)(H) 
 
 where 
 
 TSC„ is annual truck-hauling costs, 
 B 
 
 D is distance from vining station to plant, expressed in 
 
 logarithms to the base 10. 
 R is 1,000 pounds of vining output per hour. 
 H is hours of vining operation per season. 
 
 This equation can be used to estimate the annual truck-hauling cost for 
 any given rate of vining output, distance to plant, and hours operated per 
 season. For example, the total annual cost of hauling for a vining operation 
 of 10,000 pounds per hour, 20 miles from the plant, and operating over a 
 season of 500 hours, is estimated by substituting these values for D, R, and H 
 in equation (3) above and solving, that is: 
 
 TSC - $1.U0 (log 20) (10) (500) 
 W - $1.1*0 (1.3010) (5,000) 
 - 19,107 
 
 Estimated total annual hauling costs for a plant operating under the 
 conditions assumed is $9,107. This result can be read directly from Figure 5, 
 by entering the figure at 10,000 pounds, the appropriate season length, and 
 distance hauled (point A) and reading off approximate total season hauling 
 costs on the vertical scale (point B). 
 
 Receiving, Initial Cleaning, and Initial Quality Grading 
 
 Two methods involved in the receiving, cleaning, and initial quality 
 grading of Lima beans — bin handling and bulk handling — are considered. 
 
 With bin handling, the beans are normally subjected to an initial cleaning 
 at a stationary vining site. After vining, the beans proceed on the main 
 assembly conveyor through a pneumatic separator and are flumed to a series of 
 straight-line washers equipped with destoning attachments. They are then 
 
TCtfC 
 
5 10 15 20 25 30 
 
 Hourly rate of vininq output, thousand pounds 
 
 Figure 5. Total Annual Costs of Viners to Plant Transportation in Relation to Selected 
 Distances and Vining Output Rates— Lima Beans Processed by Freezing, California, 1958* 
 
21. 
 
 conveyed into h f x k* x h 1 tote bins. When filled, these bins are set aside 
 by lift truck for icing down and transfer to a truck for delivery to the plant 
 receiving station. Whether or not ice is added depends upon distance to the 
 plant and on the possibility of temporary storage at the vining station or 
 plant. 
 
 At the plant receiving station, and bins are set off by lift truck and 
 either set aside to temporary storage or are placed directly on a cradle-type 
 mechanical dump where they are emptied into receiving tanks mounted on a shaker 
 frame assembly. The beans feed continuously from the receiving tank to a pump 
 intake conveyor or flume where they are pumped through a dewatering shaker to 
 quality graders situated on a raised platform. The quality grader separates 
 the beans into maturity grades using the specific gravity principle. The 
 higher grades float to the surface of a brine solution while the overmature or 
 firms beans sink to the bottom. Each grade is discharged through separate 
 discharge pipes. Normally, the higher quality beans continue to the blanching 
 operation while the more mature beans are either conveyed to temporary storage 
 for disposal as waste or to await their turn for further processing in a lower 
 quality pack. 
 
 With bulk handling, the beans are loaded into the truck directly and do 
 not require an intermediate container. In mobile vining operations, the beans 
 are mechanically dumped from the collection hoppers of the individual viners 
 and are hauled directly to the plant. In stationary vining operations, the 
 beans may be cleaned at the vining site, as in bin handling, or sent directly 
 to the plant. Icing down may occur with either mobile or stationary vining, 
 depending upon the distance to the plant receiving station. 
 
 On arrival at the plant, the truckload is dumped in a receiving tank 
 mounted on a shaker frame assembly and conveyed through the various cleaning 
 and grading operations in the same manner as with bin handling. 
 
 Labor requirements with bin handling include a lift-truck operator at 
 both field and plant locations and for operating and attending the cleaning, 
 brining, and icing equipment. In bulk handling, the lift-truck operator at the 
 plant receiving dock is replaced by a bulk-receiving attendant. With this 
 exception, labor requirements of the two methods are identical. 
 
 The equipment requirements and unit equipment costs given in Table k 
 are used to estimate the total investment cost with selected rates of output 
 that are shown in Table $. Annual fixed charges — and the percentages used in 
 their computation — are also shown in Table $. In addition, production standards 
 for labor and wage information given in Table 5 are used to estimate the labor 
 requirements and cost that are summarized therein. 
 
•insfq 
 
 bra 
 
 »rf.l mcn't h 
 ? 9dJ oi v 
 
 vȣi?5Xfc 
 
 sri.} rti 
 
 can bQC 
 
 saw sta $ al&'aT ax r 
 . aisiarf.t fcesxu: 
 
TABLE k 
 
 Equipment Requirements by Rate of Output and Method of. Handling, Receiving Initial 
 Cleaning and Quality Grading in Lima Bean Processing, California, 1958 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Bulk 
 
 handling 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Rate 
 of 
 output 
 
 Rec 
 i 
 
 tan 
 
 eiv- 
 
 ng / 
 kf/ 
 
 Con- . 
 veyor-' 
 
 Shaker 
 separa- 
 tors' 
 
 Con- . 
 veyor-' 
 
 Pneumatic 
 separa- 
 tor!^ 
 
 Flume 
 assem, 
 blyl/ 
 
 WashersS/ 
 
 Con- 
 veyor 
 
 or . 
 flumeiy 
 
 Pumping. . 
 assembly*' 
 
 Tub- , 
 ingJ' 
 
 Dewater , 
 
 shakeriS' 
 
 Briner 
 plat, 
 formi' 
 
 Quality. 
 gradersS' 
 
 Pumping , 
 assembly!/ 
 
 Flume 
 assem, 
 bly™ 
 
 Tem- 
 porary 
 storage 
 tanksS' 
 
 Walk, 
 way&2 
 
 Icing 
 
 equip, 
 
 ment2' 
 
 pounds 
 per 
 nour 
 
 num- 
 ber 
 
 _tvp_e_ 
 
 feet 
 
 number 
 
 feet 
 
 num- 
 ber 
 
 type 
 
 feet 
 
 num- 
 ber 
 
 type 
 
 feet 
 
 num- 
 ber 
 
 type 
 
 feet 
 
 number 
 
 square 
 feet 
 
 num- 
 ber 
 
 type 
 
 num- 
 ber 
 
 type 
 
 feet 
 
 num- 
 ber 
 
 type 
 
 feet 
 
 num- 
 ber 
 
 type 
 
 5,000 
 
 1 
 
 B 
 
 10 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 1 
 
 A 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 A 
 
 10 
 
 „r/ 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 1 
 
 A 
 
 1 
 
 A 
 
 50 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 B 
 
 C 
 
 35 
 
 1 
 
 A 
 
 10,000 
 
 1 
 
 C 
 
 10 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 B 
 
 14 
 
 2 
 
 A 
 
 20 
 
 1 
 
 A 
 
 78 
 
 2 
 
 1*50 
 
 2 
 
 A 
 
 «/ 
 
 
 10k 
 
 2 
 1 
 
 A 
 
 C 
 
 76 
 
 1 
 
 B 
 
 15,000 
 
 V 
 
 1 
 
 B 
 
 20^ 
 
 2 
 
 
 1 
 
 D 
 
 27 
 
 2 
 
 C 
 
 28 
 
 1 
 
 B 
 
 78 
 
 2 
 
 450 
 
 2 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 120 
 
 3 
 1 
 
 A 
 
 C 
 
 98 
 
 1 
 
 B 
 
 20,000 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 A 
 B 
 
 20 
 
 2 
 
 16 
 
 1 
 
 E 
 
 27 
 
 2 
 1 
 
 B 
 
 C 
 
 35 
 
 1 
 
 A 
 
 131* 
 
 3 
 
 574 
 
 2 
 1 
 
 B 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 120 
 
 k 
 1 
 
 A 
 B 
 
 133 ■ 
 
 1 
 
 B 
 
 25,000 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 B 
 
 C 
 
 20 
 
 2 
 
 16 
 
 2 
 
 C 
 
 28 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 A 
 B 
 C 
 
 *5 
 
 £ 
 1 
 
 A 
 B 
 
 156 
 
 
 720 
 
 1 
 2 
 1 
 
 A 
 
 B 
 C 
 
 
 
 136 
 
 1* 
 
 2 
 1 
 
 A 
 
 B 
 C 
 
 155 
 
 1 
 
 B 
 
 30,000 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 B 
 C 
 
 30^ 
 
 3 
 
 2k Z/ 
 
 2 
 
 D 
 
 28 
 
 4 
 
 c 
 
 *5 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 A 
 B 
 
 156 
 
 k 
 
 720 
 
 k 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 136 
 
 k 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 A 
 B 
 
 C 
 
 155 
 
 1 
 
 B 
 
 
 Bin handling 
 
 
 Infield cleaning 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Inplant 
 
 operations 
 
 
 
 
 
 Rate 
 of 
 output 
 
 Conveyor—^ 
 
 Pneumatic 
 separa- 
 tor.^ 
 
 Flume . 
 assembly!' 
 
 Washers^ 
 
 Conveyor-^ 
 
 Tote , 
 ^ binsH/ 
 
 Icing 
 
 equip, 
 
 ment3' 
 
 Lift , 
 truck!' 
 
 Dumping . 
 station^' 
 
 Receiving 
 tankS' 
 
 Conveyor^/ 
 
 Pumping . 
 assembly!' 
 
 Tubingj/ 
 
 Devater , 
 shaker-' 
 
 Briner , 
 platformi' 
 
 Quality . 
 graders^' 
 
 pounds 
 per 
 hour 
 
 feet 
 
 num- 
 ber 
 
 type 
 
 feet 
 
 num- 
 ber 
 
 type 
 
 feet 
 
 number 
 
 type 
 
 number 
 
 type 
 
 feet 
 
 num- 
 ber 
 
 type 
 
 feet 
 
 number 
 
 square 
 feet 
 
 num- 
 ber 
 
 type 
 
 5,000 
 
 8 
 
 1 
 
 A 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 A 
 
 15 
 
 2k 
 
 1 
 
 A 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 B 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 A 
 
 10,000 
 
 8 
 
 1 
 
 B 
 
 lU 
 
 2 
 
 A 
 
 23 
 
 U8 
 
 1 
 
 C 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 c 
 
 10 
 
 1 
 
 A 
 
 78 
 
 2 
 
 *50 
 
 2 
 
 A 
 
 15,000 
 
 I6i/ 
 
 1 
 
 D . 
 
 27 
 
 2 
 
 C 
 
 23 
 
 72 
 
 1 
 
 C 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 A 
 
 B 
 
 20ll 
 
 1 
 
 B 
 
 78 
 
 2 
 
 1*50 
 
 2 
 
 C 
 
 20,000 
 
 16 
 
 1 
 
 E 
 
 27 
 
 2 
 1 
 
 B 
 
 C 
 
 31 
 
 96 
 
 1 
 
 C 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 A 
 B 
 
 20 
 
 2 
 
 A 
 
 Ilk 
 
 3 
 
 57^ 
 
 2 
 1 
 
 B 
 
 C 
 
 25,000 
 
 16 
 
 2 
 
 C 
 
 28 
 
 1 
 2 
 1 
 
 A 
 B 
 
 C 
 
 UO 
 
 112 
 
 1 
 
 c 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 B 
 C 
 
 20 
 
 30 2 -/ 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 A 
 
 B 
 
 156 
 
 
 720 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 A 
 B 
 
 C 
 
 30,000 
 
 
 2 
 
 D 
 
 28 
 
 i 
 
 c 
 
 U0 
 
 136 
 
 1 
 
 c 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 B 
 
 C 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 A 
 B 
 
 156 
 
 k 
 
 720 
 
 k 
 
 C 
 
 (Continued on next page) f£ 
 
 TO 
 
Table 4 continued. 
 
 a/ Mounted on shaker frame for continuous feed. Custom manufacture of three types i Type A : 105 oubio feet, 1 -horsepower motor, ecoentric shaft, direct 
 drive — $705, installed. Type B t 240 cubic feat, 3-horsepower motor, eooentric shaft, direct drlve-$909. Installed. Type C t 480 cubic feet, 4-horse- 
 power motor, eccentrio shaft, direct drive — $1,259, installed. 
 
 b/ Single conveyor with 3/4-horsapower motor and drive — $383, installed, l/ Twin conveyor off single drive, 1-horsepower motor— $553, installed, l/ Twin 
 conveyor off single drive, 1-horsepower motor— $383, installed. Single conveyor with 3/4-horsepower motor sheared to third shaker separator— $383, in- 
 stalled. 
 
 o/ Custom-built trash separator, 12' x 3' with 3/4-horsepower motor and drive, capacity, 12,500 pounds per hour— $1,460, installed. 
 
 &/ Single conveyor with 3/4-horsepower motor and drive— $362, installed, l/ Twin conveyor off single drive, 1-horsepower motor— $512, installed, zf Twin 
 conveyor off single drive, 1 -horsepower motor— $362, installed; and cross conveyor, 8' x 12", 3/4-horsepower and drive to deliver to pneumatic separator— 
 $362, installed. 
 
 e/ Five Types t Type A i 18-inoh intake, 3-horsepower, capacity 7,600 pounds per hour— $1,488, installed. Type B i 24-inoh intake, 7-l/2-horsepower, capa- 
 city 10,000 pounds per hour— $2,698, installed. Type C i 30-inch intake, 7-l/2-horsepower, capacity 12,500 pounds per hour— $2,788, installed. Type D: 
 36-inch intake, 10-horsepower , capacity 15,000 pounds per hour— $3,050, installed. Type E i 42-inoh intake, 10-horsepower, capacity 20,000 pounds per 
 hour — $3,136, installed. 
 
 tj Includes filming, dewater reels, fittings, and waste water piping. For details on installed costs, refer to Appendix A, Table 1. 
 
 g/ Flotation washers with destoner attachment. Three types i Type A i 5,000-pounds per hour capacity— $2,789, installed. Type B » 6,500-pounds per hour 
 capacity— $3,089, installed. Type C i 7,500-pounds per hour capacity— $3,389, installed. 
 
 h/ Conveyor for 5,000 rate 10' x 12" — $383, flumes thereafter. Flumes, fittings, waste or return water piping inoluded. For unit costs refer to Appendix A, 
 ~ Table 1. 
 
 i/ Product pump assembly and intake tanks. Two types: Type A i 3-inch intake, oapaoity 12,000 pounds per hour— $695, installed. Type B : 4- inch intake, 
 eapaoity 18,000 pounds per hour— $900, installed. 
 
 j/ Tube conveyors for product pump8--3-inch tubing of polyethylene and 4-inch tubing of aluminum. Elbows, tees, adaptors, valves, recirculating equipment 
 included. For detailed costs refer to Appendix A, Table 1. 
 
 k/ Capacity is 8,000 pounds per hour, includes return water tank— $670, installed. 
 
 l/ Custom built, 5/l6-inch safety plate, angle iron and black pipe construction, includes guard rails on stairway and platform. Platform is 10-feet above 
 plant floor. Labor and materials cost— $3.40 per square foot. 
 
 m/ Types and capacities same as for washers (see |/). Installed oost is $200 less than washers since it does not include destoner equipment. Brine mix 
 equipment, including tanks, brine density controller, and distribution system— $1,P15, installed. One brine station supplies four quality graders. 
 
 n /includes flumes, dewater reels, waste water tubing, elbows, tees, adaptors, and other fittings. See Appendix A, Table 1 for cost details. 
 
 p/ Capacity of storage is 8-hours at the rates indicated. Tanks are galvanized iron, sloped bottoms and sides. Three Types i Type A : 700 oubio feet, 
 approximate capacity, 26,000 pounds— $785. Type B : 525 cubic feet, approximate capacity, 19,500 pounds — $665. Type C i 350 cubic feet, approximate 
 capacity, 13,000 pounds— $550. 
 
 p/ Installed over temporary storage tanks, 5/16-inch safety plate, 2 feet wide with black pipe guard rails for stairs and walkways. Installation cost— 
 $1.50 per lineal foot. 
 
 q/ Three types: Type A : Crusher with 3-horsepower motor, without blower, 40 cubio feet, galvaniied iron tank mounted on warehouse truck, 4 scoop shovels — 
 $1,048, installed. Type B ; Same as Type A but includes 10-horsepower blower and ice delivery tubing— $2,052, installed. Type C « Same as Type A but 
 includes additional tank assembly— $1,257, installed. 
 
 r/ Dashes indicate that with low output capacity this job does not apply. 
 
 s/ Blanks indicate that this Job is performed by the pumping assembly crew. 
 
 Designed as described in b/. 
 
 u/ Allows 8-hours of reserve storage at rates indioated. Capacity of tote bin is approximately 1,800 pounds, excluding ice. Bins cost $14, each, 
 v/ Standard type lift truck, 4000-pound oapacity — $5,775, delivered. 
 
 w/ Cradle-type bin dumper, electrically driven 1/2-3/4 horsepower motor, capacity, 19,500 pounds per hour— $690, installed. 
 
24 
 
 TARTE 5 
 
 Crew Requirements, Variable Coots, Equipment Replacement Co3ts, and Annual Charges by Rate 
 of Output ana Method of Hand! ins — Receiving, Initial Cleaning, and Quality Grudinc in 
 Plant3 Processing Lima Beans for Freezing, California, 1958 
 
 
 Bulk handling 
 
 
 
 
 Crew 
 
 requirements^/ 
 
 
 Variable cost^/ 
 
 c/ 
 
 Replacement cost-' 
 
 Annual fixed charge^ 
 
 
 
 Attend 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 clean- 
 
 Attend 
 
 Icing 
 
 
 
 Power 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Rate 
 
 
 ing- 
 
 grading 
 
 and 
 
 
 
 and 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 of 
 
 Re- 
 
 equip- 
 
 equip- 
 
 distri- 
 
 Total 
 
 
 re- 
 
 
 Equip- 
 
 Belt- 
 
 
 Equip- 
 
 Belt- 
 
 
 out-put 
 
 ceive 
 
 ment 
 
 ment 
 
 bution 
 
 crew 
 
 Labor 
 
 pairs 
 
 Total 
 
 ment 
 
 ing 
 
 Total 
 
 ment 
 
 ing 
 
 Total 
 
 pounds 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 per 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 hour 
 
 
 number of workers 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 dollars 
 
 
 
 
 5,000 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 7.68 
 
 1.36 
 
 9-04 
 
 16,462 
 
 137 
 
 16,599 
 
 2,716 
 
 34 
 
 2,750 
 
 10,000 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 9-54 
 
 2.50 
 
 12.04 
 
 29,789 
 
 88 
 
 29,877 
 
 4,915 
 
 22 
 
 4,937 
 
 15,000 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 7 
 
 13.50 
 
 2.93 
 
 16.43 
 
 37,276 
 
 176 
 
 37,452 
 
 6,151 
 
 44 
 
 6,198 
 
 20,000 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 8 
 
 15.36 
 
 3. 42 
 
 18.78 
 
 46,269 
 
 176 
 
 46,445 
 
 7,634 
 
 44 
 
 7,678 
 
 25,000 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 
 11 
 
 21.18 
 
 4.67 
 
 25.85 
 
 57,932 
 
 176 
 
 58,108 
 
 9,559 
 
 44 
 
 9,603 
 
 30,000 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 If 
 
 12 
 
 23.01* 
 
 4.81 
 
 27.85 
 
 60,856 
 
 176 
 
 61,032 
 
 10,041 
 
 44 
 
 10,085 
 
 
 Bin handling 
 
 
 
 e/ 
 
 tJ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5,000 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 8.55 
 
 1.59 
 
 10.14 
 
 17,582 
 
 221 
 
 17,803 
 
 2,901 
 
 55 
 
 2,956 
 
 10,000 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 9.80 
 
 2.46 
 
 12.26 
 
 29,089 
 
 204 
 
 29,293 
 
 4,800 
 
 51 
 
 4,851 
 
 15,000 
 
 1 
 
 1* 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 9 
 
 15.00 
 
 2.62 
 
 17.62 
 
 33,778 
 
 191 
 
 33,969 
 
 5,573 
 
 48 
 
 5,621 
 
 20,000 
 
 1 
 
 If 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 10 
 
 16.25 
 
 3.51 
 
 19.76 
 
 47,702 
 
 231 
 
 47,933 
 
 7,871 
 
 58 
 
 7,929 
 
 25,000 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 1* 
 
 13 
 
 21.70 
 
 4.54 
 
 26.24 
 
 58,240 
 
 275 
 
 58,515 
 
 9,610 
 
 69 
 
 9,679 
 
 30,000 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 H 
 
 15 
 
 24.50 
 
 4.68 
 
 29.18 
 
 61,500 
 
 275 
 
 61,775 
 
 10,148 
 
 69 
 
 10,217 
 
 a/ Work standards and wage rates : 
 
 
 Wage 
 
 rate 
 
 
 
 Job 
 
 Field 
 
 Plant 
 
 Bulk handling 
 
 Bin handling 
 
 
 dollars 
 
 pounds per hour 
 
 Receive bulk 
 Receive bins 
 
 Attend cleaning equipment 
 Attend grading equipment 
 Distribution and ice 
 
 • 
 
 1.25 
 1.25 
 
 1.86 
 2.10 
 1.86 
 2.10 
 1.86 
 
 20,000 
 20,000 
 10,000 
 10,000 
 7,500 
 
 20,000 
 20,000 
 10,000 
 10,000 
 7,500 
 
 * Lashes indicate not applicable. 
 
 b/ Power costs estimated on basis of $0,025 per horsepower hour. Variable repair costs including wages and supplies 
 for maintenance men estimated as 0.5 per cent of equipment replacement costs per 100 hours operation. 
 
 c/ Refer to Table 4 for delivered and installed prices of major equipment items. 
 
 d/ Equipment : 16.5 per cent of equipment replacement costs includes depreciation — 10 per centj taxes — 1 per cent; 
 insurance — 1 per cent; interest on Investment — 3 per cent (approximately 5-5 per cent of undepreciated balance); 
 and fixed repairs and maintenance — 1.5 per cent. Belting: 25 per cent of belting replacement cost includes 
 depreciation — 20 per cent; taxes — 1 per cent; insurance — 1 per cent; and interest — 3 per cent. 
 
 e/ Operates lift truck and bin dumper. 
 
 fj Includes both field and plant location. 
 
25 
 
 Total annual costs for four lengths of season are shown in Figure 6. The 
 figure shows there is little difference in the total annual costs of the two 
 methods. Selection of the method to use, therefore, will depend upon the pref- 
 erences of the plant management concerned. Costs in this study are based on 
 hulk handling. 
 
 As in the analyses of preceding operating stages, planning costs for the 
 receiving, initial cleaning, and quality-grading stage are given in equation 
 (1+) helow. The costs represented by this expression are graphically depicted 
 by the heavy dashed line in Figure 6. 
 
 (4) TSC = $1,892 + $320(R) + $4. 5882(H) + |O.WE)(l) 
 
 where 
 
 TSC is total season cost in dollars for receiving, initial 
 cleaning, and quality grading. 
 R is 1,000 pounds of output per hour. 
 H is hours of plant operation per season. 
 
 Blanching and Second Quality Grading 
 
 The blanching operation consists of subjecting the product to heat through 
 the medium of hot water or steam, or a combination of both. A hot-water bath 
 is the medium normally used in blanching Lima beans. The primary purpose of 
 blanching is the partial prevention of enzyme activity associated with the 
 production of "strong" flavors and discoloration. 
 
 The duration of the blanching treatment depends primarily on the tempera- 
 ture of the water bath and the size and firmness of the beans. At the tempera- 
 ture usually maintained- -just below boiling— an exposure time of approximately 
 3 minutes for Baby Lima and 5-1/4 to 4 minutes for the Fordhook variety is 
 required. Blanching equipment and service inputs (steam and water) require- 
 ments in this analysis were developed on the basis of a U -minute exposure 
 time. 
 
 The beans are flumed from the initial quality grade operation over a 
 drain or dewater belt and into the blancher. The blancher consists of 
 an outer tank that holds the blanch water through which the beans are con- 
 veyed in a perforated revolving drum or blanching reel by means of an inner 
 spiral. Water is supplied at the discharge end of the unit and two steam 
 inlet pipes are also provided. In this study it is assumed each blancher 
 is equipped with a variable -speed transmission or drive and an automatic 
 
Mtrwra 
 
 ant*' ! 
 
26. 
 
 60 
 
 50 
 
 40 
 
 30 
 
 10 
 
 T 
 
 250 Hour Season 
 
 — — Planning costs 
 
 Bin handling 
 
 Bulk handling 
 
 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 
 
 Hourly rate of output, thousand pounds 
 
 15 
 
 20 
 
 25 30 
 
 Figure 6. Total Annual Costs of Receiving, Cleaning, ana 1 Initial Grading in Relation to Methods Used, Rate 
 of Output, and Length of Season. Lima Bean Freezing Plants. California, 1958. 
 
27. 
 
 temperature-control system to assist the operator in maintaining proper blanch 
 temperatures and exposure times. Steam at 125 pounds per square inch pressure 
 is furnished by boilers fired with forced draft natural gas burners. 
 
 In most of the operations studied, provision is made for a second or 
 postblanch-quality grade operation. The postblanch-quality grading step is 
 required when the quality of the product is such that the initial grading 
 station cannot separate overmature and shriveled beans with enough selectivity 
 to avoid grade losses. If the beans received are of generally high quality, 
 however, initial grading may suffice, and the postblanch grading equipment may 
 be used as a skimmer or bypassed entirely. Provision for postblanch grading 
 is included in the equipment layout of plants synthesized in this report. 
 
 Labor requirements for this operating stage include attendants for the 
 blanch, brine, and boiler equipment. Labor standards for these machine-paced 
 jobs were developed from an analysis of plant record data and from direct 
 observation of the job requirements in plants of different capacities. 
 
 Crew and equipment requirements and costs are summarized in Table 6. 
 Production standards and the variable cost rates and equipment unit costs on 
 which they are based — as well as the percentages used to compute annual fixed 
 charges — are also given in Table 6. Variable costs and annual fixed charges 
 given in Table 6— in relation to selected rates of plant output and hours 
 operated per season — have been used in calculating total annual costs illus- 
 trated in Figure 7. Planning costs for blanching and second-quality grading 
 are shown by the heavy dashed lines in Figure 7 and are given by equation 
 (5) below. 
 
 (5) TSC - $1,293 + 1187(B) + 15.6773(H) + $0.2238(R)(H) 
 
 where 
 
 TSC is total season cost in dollars for blanching and second 
 quality grading. 
 R is 1,000 pounds of output per hour. 
 H is hours operated per season. 
 
 Visual Inspection and Manual Quality Separation 
 
 While most overmature beans and defects are removed by mechanical brine 
 separation and cleaning, maturity grading to a strict tolerance by this means 
 is difficult because of insignificant differences — in some lots — in specific 
 
iris buf 
 
 (H)( 
 
TABLE 6 
 
 Crew and Equipment Requirements, Variable and Replacement Costs, and Annual Fixed Charges 
 for Blanching and Second Quality Grade Operation in Lima Bean Freezing PlantB 
 
 California, 1958 
 
 
 
 Variable costs 
 
 
 
 
 
 Equipment 
 
 -eauirements 
 
 
 
 
 
 Replacement costs 
 
 Annual 
 
 9 1 VpH choi-iree 
 
 Rate 
 
 
 
 Power 
 
 
 
 
 Blanch 
 
 Steam dataf/ 
 
 Cool- 
 
 
 Second- 
 
 By-pass 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 of 
 output 
 
 WorkersS^ 
 
 Labor 
 
 and 
 
 repairs^/ 
 
 Total 
 
 Flume=/ 
 
 Con- 
 veyorj/ 
 
 equip- 
 ment®' 
 
 Boiler 
 
 Steam 
 
 Heating 
 surface 
 
 ing 
 flume 
 
 Con- 
 veyors' 
 
 quality 
 gradejy 
 
 con- 
 veyor^/ 
 
 Equip- 
 ment^/ 
 
 Belt- 
 inglJ/ 
 
 Total 
 
 Equip- 
 ment!/ 
 
 Belt- 
 ings/ 
 
 Total 
 
 pounds 
 per 
 hour 
 
 number 
 
 
 dollars 
 
 
 feet 
 
 num- 
 ber 
 
 type 
 
 h.p. 
 
 pounds 
 
 square 
 feet 
 
 feet 
 
 num 
 ber 
 
 type 
 
 feet 
 
 
 
 dollars 
 
 
 
 5,000 
 
 3 
 
 6.30 
 
 O.74 
 
 7.04 
 
 17 
 
 a/ 
 
 1 
 
 A 
 
 y& 
 
 690 
 
 108 
 
 50 
 
 
 1 
 
 A 
 
 12" x 25' 
 
 13,703 
 
 221 
 
 13,924 
 
 2,261 
 
 55 
 
 2,316 
 
 10,000 
 
 3 
 
 6.30 
 
 1.02 
 
 7-32 
 
 20 
 
 10 
 
 1 
 
 C 
 
 2# 
 
 932 
 
 146 
 
 75 
 
 
 2 
 
 A 
 
 15" x 25* 
 
 17,903 
 
 301 
 
 18,204 
 
 2,95^ 
 
 75 
 
 3,029 
 
 15,000 
 
 5 
 
 10.50 
 
 1.38 
 
 11.88 
 
 26 
 
 20^ 
 
 2 
 
 B 
 
 
 1,725 
 
 270 
 
 100 
 
 20 
 
 2 
 
 C 
 
 15" x 25' 
 
 24, 7^7 
 
 350 
 
 25,097 
 
 4,083 
 
 88 
 
 M71 
 
 20,000 
 
 5 
 
 10.50 
 
 1.60 
 
 12.10 
 
 28 
 
 20 
 
 2 
 
 C 
 
 *y 
 
 1,863 
 
 292 
 
 125 
 
 v$ 
 
 2 
 1 
 
 B 
 
 C 
 
 15" x 25' 
 
 28,503 
 
 400 
 
 28,903 
 
 4,703 
 
 100 
 
 *,eo3 
 
 25,000 
 
 7 
 
 14.70 
 
 2.18 
 
 16.88 
 
 28 
 
 3<^ 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 A 
 
 C 
 
 10? 
 
 2,453 
 
 4oo 
 
 125 
 
 
 i ■ 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 A 
 
 B 
 
 C 
 
 18" x 25' 
 
 37,031 
 
 530 
 
 37,561 
 
 6,110 
 
 133 
 
 6,243 
 
 30,000 
 
 7 
 
 14.70 
 
 2.30 
 
 17.00 
 
 36 
 
 30 
 
 3 
 
 C 
 
 8# 
 
 2,79^ 
 
 437 
 
 150 
 
 
 4 
 
 C 
 
 18" x 25' 
 
 40,876 
 
 530 
 
 4l,4o6 
 
 6,71*5 
 
 133 
 
 6,878 
 
 &/ Labor standards for each of the blanch, grader, and boiler room attendants are estimated as 10,000 pounds per hour* Wage rates for each of these Jobs are 
 |2.10 per hour* 
 
 b/ Power estimated as 2*5 oents per horsepower hour* Variable repairs estimated as 0*5 per cent of equipment replacement cost per 100 hours operation* 
 0/ Flume, galvanised iron* 20-guage, leading from temporary storage— $7 per foot, installed* 
 
 if Mesh oonveyor, dewater, and distribution to blanohers. 1/ 10' x 12", 1 oonveyor, S/4-horsepower motor and drive— $432, installed. if 10' x 12", twin 
 conveyors, S/i-horsepower motor off one drive— $659, installed, if 10' x 12", 3 eonveyors, 1-horsepower motor off one drive— $929, installed. 
 
 *f Requirements based on 4-miuute blanch, includes varispeed motor and drive and blanch temperature control assembly. Type A i 12-foot cylinder, eapaoity 
 
 6,400 pounds per hour— price estimated at $4,463, oomplete. Type B i 15-foot cylinder, eapaoity 8,000 pounds per hour— price estimated at $4,620, complete 
 Type C i 18-foot cylinder, capacity 10,000 pounds per hour— price estimated at $5,182, oomplete* 
 
 £/ Includes 12 5-pound 3 -per- square- inch Scotch marine dryback boiler, trim and fittings, lagging, stack, forced draft natural gas burner, less steam piping 
 and fitting. 1/ Boiler— $3,063, oomplete, installed. 2/ Boiler— $3,344, complete, installed. 3/ Boiler— $4,313, complete, installed. 4/ Boiler— 
 $4,313, complete, installed, hf Boiler-$5,594 ( complete, installed. 6f Boiler— $7,219, complete, installed. 
 
 6/ Mesh conveyors, each 12 inches wide, inclined 15 degrees, if One oonveyor, 3/4 horsepower motor and drive— $383, installed, zf Twin conveyors, s/4 
 horsepower motor off one drive— $553, installed. if Three ooavsyors, 1-horsepower motor off one drive— $655, installed. 4/ Two twin oonveyors, two 
 3/4 horsepower motors and drives— $850, installed. 
 
 h/ Straight-line flotation type, oomplete with brine mix equipment, including tanks, brine density controller, and brine distribution piping* Type A i 
 Capaolty 5,000 pounds per hour — $4,404, installed. Type B . Capacity 6,600 pounds per hour — $4,704, installed. Type C i Capacity 7,500 pounds per 
 hour— $6,004, installed. 
 
 l/ Mesh oonveyor to by-pass seoond-quality grade, 1-horsepower motor and drive, drip pans. Motor and drive assembly and oonveyor frame — $605 each, in- 
 stalled. 
 
 Sum of replacement costs of individual equipment items* 
 k/ Belting cost estimated by expression) $0*41 (W)(L) where W is width of belt in inches and L is length of conveyor in feet. 
 
 if Estimated as 16.5 per oent of equipment replacement cost, includes depreciation— 10 per oent; taxes— 1 per centj insuranoe— 1 peroentj interest on 
 investment- 3 per cent (approximately 5.5 per cent of undepreciated balance); and fixed repairs and maintenance— 1.5 oer cent. 
 
 mf Estimated as 25 per cent of belting replacement cost, inoludes depreciation— 20 per cent; taxes— 1 per oent; insurance— 1 per oent; and interest on in- 
 vestment — 3 per cent. 
 
 TO 
 
 00 
 
29. 
 
 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 
 
 Hourly rate of output, thousand pounds 
 
 Figure 7. Total Annual Costs of Blanching and Second 
 Quality Grading Operations in Processing Lima Beans for 
 Freezing in Relation to Rate of Output and Length of 
 Season, California, 1958. 
 
50 
 
 gravity of green and overmature beans.- Consequently, quality separation 
 by manual means is necessary for final inspection and removal of any over- 
 mature beans or defects that remain. 
 
 Beans are flumed directly from the second mechanical quality grading 
 station to the sorting belts. These belts, with a few exceptions, are 2U 
 inches wide and from 25 to 30 feet in length. A wire mesh belt (for de- 
 watering) comprises the first section of the sorting belt from? which the beans 
 are deposited on a rubber cannery (or neophrene) belt moving in the same 
 direction.-^ This arrangement results in a "cascade" effect which turns the 
 beans over so both sides can be inspected with minimum effort by sorters 
 stationed along the entire length of the belt, including the wire mesh section. 
 
 The amount of sorting labor required depends upon the volume of beans run 
 per belt hour and the proportion of defects and overmature beans which must be 
 removed. As visual inspection requires effort which cannot easily be measured 
 in quantitative terms, direct work measurement techniques such as time and 
 production studies are inappropriate for measuring the input of sorter labor. 
 Accounting record data showing the number of sorters in relation to volume run 
 per belt hour and pounds of grade-out were not available in the detail required. 
 Furthermore, the number of beans, rather than their weight relative to volume 
 per belt hour and proportion of grade-out^is a more relevant factor to consider 
 in the measurement of sorting-labor inputs. 
 
 Because of the limitations of direct work measurement and the difficulty 
 of obtaining adequate plant record data, an intermediate approach was used. 
 Direct studies were made of the sorting operation in seven plants. The 
 procedure used in the development of data for the analysis involved five major 
 steps : 
 
 l/ Defects include extraneous vegetable material, pieces, shrivels, sprouts, 
 discoloration, and blemishes. For a more detailed discussion of grade determi- 
 nants, refer to U.S. Standards for Grades of Frozen Lima Beans, 8th issue, 
 April 16, 1957. 
 
 2/ Sorting tables or belts vary among plants in construction characteristics, 
 width and length, but no significant differences in costs were detected. The 
 inspection belts used in this study were 2U" x 25', each with an estimated 
 capacity of 7»000 per hour. 
 
snciroq dab iron jUkj w 
 
3U 
 
 1. Samples of two pounds each were removed immediately prior to sorting. - 
 At the same time, the number of the sorters employed on each inspection 
 belt was recorded. 
 
 2. The volume of beans of each inspection belt at the time the sample 
 was removed was estimated from the plant production tally* 
 
 3. A count was made of the total number of units in each sample. This 
 included the total number of "green" beans in the sample as well as 
 the number of grade-outs— overmature beans and defects. 
 
 U. "Manual grade-out percentage" — defined as the ratio of the number of 
 beans including defects and overmature beans not meeting grade re- 
 quirements to the total number of units in the sample — was computed 
 and recorded. 
 
 5. A check was made with the U. S. Department of Agriculture or plant grade 
 inspector to ascertain the grade and score of the finished product in 
 each lot sampled. 
 
 The data obtained were made comparable and summarized according to volume 
 
 2/ 
 
 run per belt hour, grade-out percentage, and number of sorters.-' These data 
 were then separated into subgroups reflecting small intervals in grade-out 
 percentages. For each subgroup, the number of sorters were plotted against 
 output rates per belt hour. Figure 8 shows these points for the k to 6 per 
 cent grade-out category. 
 
 The wide scatter of points in Figure 8 suggests underutilization of 
 sorting labor during certain periods in most of the plants studied. This 
 was expected as workers idled during temporary stoppages in other parts of the 
 
 1/ Approximately 300 samples were taken in each of the plants studied. 
 
 2/ On an equal weight basis, 100 Fordhook beans are on the average roughly 
 equivalent to 283 Baby Lima beans. As observations were taken in plants 
 processing both Baby and Fordhook varieties, the data obtained in the sampling 
 procedure were placed on a comparable weight basis by converting one pound of 
 Fordhook beans to an equivalent "count" basis by multiplying by 2.83. The 
 conversion factor used was developed from count data in the samples described 
 above and by numerous additional samples made available through the courtesy 
 of the U. S. Department of Agriculture grade inspectors. 
 
'to ^namti 
 
 icq o o* 41 ©u- noi vjnxcof ©c^rfj* s'^oxJo o c^ii/sxl »"XiJOff sti.':*d *x9 f T bs^a"* ^uod rf o 
 
 t*feX9^V Xsi/P9 CIS 
 
32. 
 
 plant, and surplus labor provided for contingencies usually are assigned 
 temporarily to the sorting operation even though not required by the work load 
 there. In terms of the definition of work standards previously presented, an 
 "efficiency standard" represents better than average — but not maximum — per- 
 formance levels. The basis for selecting a sorting-labor standard is given in 
 Figure 8. The solid line in the upper portion of the figure shows the average 
 performance level of sorters at various rates of output per belt hour, while the 
 dashed line indicates the maximum performance level observed. These two 
 reference lines define the range of points considered in establishing the sort- 
 ing standards in this analysis. 2/ The line connecting the crosses in Figure 8 
 represents the sorting-labor standard finally derived for this particular 
 manual grade-out percentage subgroup. 
 
 This procedure was followed for each of the manual percentage grade-out 
 
 2/ 
 
 categories or subgroups considered.- A generalized expression derived from 
 analysis of these data and relating the number of sorters to the rate of plant 
 output per hour and manual grade-out percentage is summarized in the following 
 equation: 
 
 (6) N - 5.101 + 0.892 (R) + 0.06£6(R)(P) 
 
 where 
 
 N is the number of sorters required. 
 
 R is 1,000 pounds of plant output per hour. 
 
 P is manual grade-out percentage. 
 
 For any given rate of plant output and manual grade-out percentage, this 
 equation can be used to estimate the number of sorters required with efficient 
 organization. For example, the number of sorters required for a plant operat- 
 ing at the rate of 10,000 pounds per hour with a manual grade-out percentage 
 of 5 per cent is estimated by substituting these values for (R) and (P) in 
 the above equation and computing the value of N. 
 
 1/ The points within the reference lines were fitted by the method of 
 least squares. 
 
 2/ Subgroups of manual grade-out percentages considered were> 0.5? to 1 
 per~cent, 1 to 2 per cent, 2 to h per cent, h to 6 per cent, 6 to 8 per cent, 
 and 8 to 10 per cent» 
 
l--9<3 B15VB 
 
 owit 9B9riT •b9vi<*ad6 Xs»v?I eorffiitno^ieq aoaixxt/p srii estfsriibnx anfl: bMssb 
 loa eriJ 3nxdpi.fr/ejB? at tfci "ibjartoo einioq lo 930 ei zdi snxlab Mflil 9orti>i3l*»*r 
 9ltfgl$ ni 8?5&oio Mi ^nl*t>?nnoo snil edT -♦^xa^Ifinp. sidi nx Bb-iabiwte ^nx 
 isli/rrMnsq axrfJ"iol bovxiab "^ieail b~-.hn6ie totteJUjttijftifti odd atftuies-tqsrx 
 
 •quoTgdua ^sin'' ;neq itrc-s'-fce.'sj. XBi/nsai 
 rfi/fv-^bBtvi ag^hs'sneq' X«frtfiM 3ffi lo does 10I bewollot asw ciijbpoo'iq. BiifF 
 nttTi'i hovxisb nox8B0" , :;Xd t>9ti : J «visn.'>3 A -.bf-'iPbienao etp/ai§|dije. *xq 99ttogs^e.o 
 tsXq lo 9*bt srii ctf aiataba 'io nsdaii/n sdd- ^ni tBLst bne iftfcb eeo»i^ 'io axa^isnB 
 xiwcIXol »Hi ax b«ii.xi£jcsr.ye 8l 3%Bin9o*x9q Jtfo-sbena Jsunem bru- twoo ieq ttrqftno 
 
 Io Tadmun 9di al H 
 5 ebftuoq C0O*X 8i H 
 
 >-5bBlS iBLTJfta *X «l 
 
 8xflV jO'iB^niiyiriq ix/'.^^beTg Xfitrma bus •tuqj'uo tfrnXa" It eisi navis vne *xo r ^ 
 Jfrsioills iiirr r.oixi/ps'r a-39^Tto« lo Tecfmr/n edi piBmiJasi oJ b&ao sxf abo noi^swpa 
 -^sisqo ^rreXq s io! t>e*£xi/p9i siocr-xoa lo todam $ti$ tftfcptox* io 1 ? .noi^BSinBgio 
 ^BJn^gTsq tiro-sbsng iRvneur & ri&i* Tuod isq abnuoq O0O t OX lo ©iai -:>dJ tB snt 
 nl M) boa (R) lol seuXsv sesrtj ijff f jlj^ BwIot \d beJamxie? bx Jne-o isq 5 lo 
 
 •H lo ewXcv 5d* Hil&uqmoo bnr -roxisypa avodB ©dJ' 
 
 T8q OX ( 
 
33. 
 
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
 Output rate per belt/hour, thousand pounds 
 
 Figure 8. Sorting Labor Input Related to Output Per Belt Hour and 
 I4 to 6 Per Cent Grade-Out Percentage in Lima Bean Freezing Plants, 
 California, 1958. 
 
3*. 
 
 That is: 
 
 N - 5.101 + 0.892(10) + 0.656(10) (5) 
 » 5.101 + 8.92 + 3.28 - 17.3 sorters. 
 
 Eighteen sorters are required under the conditions assumed as fractional 
 inputs are adjusted to the next whole number. 
 
 These relationships are set forth in graphic form in Figure 9. For the 
 above example, the graph is entered at the point representing 10,000 pounds 
 hourly output and 5 per cent grade-out count — point A in the figure — and the 
 number of the sorters is read on the vertical scale at point B. As in the 
 solution given by the equation, 18 sorters are required. 
 
 In order to use these relationships in forecasting sorter crew require- 
 ments, field estimates must be made of grade-out percentages. Grower "pay 
 weight" samples may be used for this purpose. Reliable estimates of the 
 efficiency of mechanical brine separation and cleaning equipment are also 
 essential as a means of estimating the percentage grade-out count which must be 
 manually graded, remembering that "percentage grade-out" refers to the per- 
 centage of overmature beans and defects on a count basis as distinguished from 
 a weight basis. The sorting standards developed apply specifically to Grade 
 A packs. 
 
 Sorting Costs 
 
 Hourly sorting-labor costs are obtained by multiplying the number of 
 sorters required by the appropriate wage rate.i^ Table 7 lists equipment 
 requirements and costs and hourly variable costs for selected rates of plant 
 output. The data given in Table 7 can be used to compute estimated annual 
 costs for the sorting operation for any given rate of plant output, length of 
 season, and manual grade-out percentage. A generalized expression for the 
 manual sort and quality separation stage based on such estimates is given in 
 equation (7) below. This equation was derived by relating total season costs 
 of the manual sort stage to rates of plant output and hours operated per season. 
 
 1/ The number of sorters is stated in whole numbers, however. 
 
Figure 9. Labor Standards for Visual Inspection and 
 Manual Quality Separation of Lima Beans Processed by- 
 Freezing, California, 1958. 
 
TABLE 7 
 
 Visual Inspection and Manual Quality Separation Equipment Requirements 
 Replacement Cost, Annual Fixed Charge, and Variable Costs for 
 Selected Hourly Rates of Output, Lima Beans, California, 1958 
 
 Rate 
 
 Equi 
 requii 
 
 pment 
 •ements 
 
 R< 
 
 splacemen 
 cost 
 
 t 
 
 Annual 
 fixed charge 
 
 
 Variable 
 
 ijoo pcx IJUL 
 
 . 
 
 of 
 output 
 
 Distri- 
 bution / 
 flurae^ 
 
 Sorting / 
 tables—' 
 
 Equip- 
 ment 
 
 Belting 
 
 Total 
 
 Equips 
 ment—' 
 
 
 Total 
 
 Power 
 and , 
 repairs— ' 
 
 Labor^/ 
 
 Total**/ 
 
 pounds 
 per 
 hour 
 
 feet 
 
 number 
 
 
 
 dnn?>T<? 
 
 
 
 5,000 
 
 45 
 
 1 
 
 1,004 
 
 369 
 
 1,373 
 
 166 
 
 92 
 
 258 
 
 0.09 
 
 16.10 + O.56P 
 
 16.19 + O.56P 
 
 10,000 
 
 65 
 
 2 
 
 1,833 
 
 738 
 
 2,571 
 
 302 
 
 185 
 
 487 
 
 0.18 
 
 23.60 + l.llP 
 
 23.78 + 1.11P 
 
 15,000 
 
 • 93 
 
 3 
 
 2,718 
 
 1,107 
 
 3,825 
 
 448 
 
 277 
 
 725 
 
 0.27 
 
 31.10 + 1.67P 
 
 31.37 + I.67P 
 
 20,000 
 
 93 
 
 3 
 
 2,718 
 
 1,107 
 
 3,825 
 
 448 
 
 277 
 
 725 
 
 0.27 
 
 38.60 + 2.22P 
 
 38.87 + 2.22P 
 
 25,000 
 
 Ilk 
 
 k 
 
 3,55^ 
 
 1,476 
 
 5,030 
 
 586 
 
 369 
 
 955 
 
 0.35 
 
 46.10 + 2.78P 
 
 46.45 + 2.78P 
 
 30,000 
 
 135 
 
 5 
 
 4,390 
 
 1,845 
 
 6,235 
 
 724 
 
 46l 
 
 1,185 
 
 0.44 
 
 53.60 + 3.33P 
 
 54.04 + 3.33P 
 
 a/ Includes loir-grade and high-grade flumes for distribution to sorting tables and take-avav at n * * m 
 Plumes unseamed, galvanized iron-$7 per foot, installed. take-away a, end of table. 
 
 b/ Includes i2§' x 24" neoprene belting: 12^* x 24" wire mesh dev=ter vit "m..*.*.*. i/h v, 
 
 c/ Equipment : 16.5 per cent of equipment replacement cost includes depreciation-10 per cent- taxes-1 «» n,n + . 
 insurance--! per- cent; interest on investment ~ 3 per cent (approximately 5-5 per cS? of unde^SSef ' 
 balance); and fixed repairs and maintenance— 1. 5 per cent. undepreciated 
 
 d/ Belting : 25 per cent of belting replacement cost includes depreciation-20 per cent: taxes-1 per cent- 
 insurance--l per cent; and interest on investment-3 per centt * ^ ' 
 
 ^ f 8 ^^ 4 / 8 2,5 ° ent3 per horse P ower h °ur. Variable repairs include wages of mechanics and supplies 
 
 estimated as 0.5 per cent of replacement cost per 100 hours operation. mecnanics and supplies 
 
 fJ 5f J^ff ? sed / rS ^ 1 - 68 5 f r h °«r, straight time. Equation stating labor costs obtained by multiplying 
 
 SLysrs outpTSd efge so 2L r :. reaulred: N - 5 - 101 + °- m (r) + <*><p> ^ ^^ss* 
 
 £/ Labor costs plus variable power and repairs. 
 
 CD 
 
37. 
 
 (7) TSC - $11*9 + $32(R) + $8.65(H) + $1.$1(R)(H) ♦ $0.1110(R)(H)(P) 
 
 where 
 
 TSC is total annual cost of visual inspection and manual quality- 
 separation in dollars* 
 R is 1,000 pounds of plant output per hour. 
 P is manual grade-out percentage. 
 H is hours operated per season. 
 
 The above equation can be used to estimate total annual sorting costs for 
 any given size of plant (rate of output), length of operating season, and manual 
 grade-out percentage. Total annual costs, represented by the above equation, 
 are graphically depicted in Figure 10. The figure shows total annual costs in 
 relation to hourly output rates and hours operated per season for manual grade- 
 out percentages ranging from 5> to 10 per cent. 
 
 Packaging or Filling 
 
 Lima beans are packed in three styles of packages — retail, institutional, 
 and bulk. The size of packages considered in this study are 10-ounce retail 
 cartons, 2-1/2-pound institutional cartons, and $0 or 60-pound bulk bags or 
 cases as these are the sizes most commonly packed. The retail style is normally 
 packed to higher grade specifications than are the institutional and bulk styles. 
 Although there is a selling price differential in favor of high grade retail 
 packs, it is economical to pack lower grade institutional and bulk styles if 
 the net returns are greater than the direct costs and expenses which could have 
 been saved by their disposal as waste. If the lower grades are to be utilized, 
 plants must be equipped with packaging facilities for handling these grades. 
 This type of flexibility was accomplished in the plants observed by providing 
 separate facilities for packaging retail, institutional, and bulk containers. 
 The plants synthesized in this analysis are also equipped with separate packag- 
 ing lines such that the capacity output rate of any given plant can be packed 
 in any given style. 
 
 Variations among filling and packaging methods are primarily related to 
 the type of freezing operation used. In California all plants observed used 
 either tray-tunnel or plate-freeze methods that require packaging beans before 
 freezing. Prefilling or prepackaging of beans before freezing—commonly called 
 the "wet pack" method — involves a series of continuous operations. The beans 
 are delivered to the fill stations by a fluming system serviced by product pumps. 
 They pass through a dewater shaker to a pneumatic separator and into an 
 
ttt. 
 
 x/py f»/odA actt be.tnae^tqsvi t aJaoo J surra* iaJoT .$ 
 
 •xo aasd rfl^d bnuqq-Od 
 
 oJixf-f bar- £maliu1t it 
 LlsS&t ,abe*t<j rfairi io *< 
 
 )fSJtI Wif ad oJ sis erbi 
 ^aJ-falvciq \ r d b^vroedo 
 
 ot be 
 
 &SH3JJ 
 
 bsXIao ylfioamor — ^ais^M't eio'ted ansod 1o j 
 . aqmq cfaobcrtq ^d bfoivisa m^e^a grjjrrat/Il a > 
 
38. 
 
 Hourly rate of output, thousand pounds 
 
 Figure 10. Total Annual Costa of Visual Inspection and Manual Quality Separation 
 Lima Beans Processed by Freezing in Relation to Rate of Output, Length of Season, 
 and Selected Manual Grade-Out Percentages, California, 19^8. 
 
39. 
 
 accumulating hopper at each fill station. From the accumulating hopper, the 
 beans are shaker fed to a mechanical filler for transfer to the appropriate 
 container — retail, institutional, or bulk. 
 
 In the carton-fill operation, bundles of flat cartons are placed in the 
 magazine that feeds the mechanical carton former. The cartons are filled as 
 they move beneath cups mounted in a revolving filling cylinder, The filled 
 cartons are segregated onto two conveyors by means of an interchanger. Workers 
 stationed on each side of the conveyors inspect the filled cartons and remove 
 cartons which are improperly formed or filled. After emerging from the auto- 
 matic closing machines, the cartons are checkweighed and inspected for proper 
 closure. The cartons continue through high-speed wrapping machines and are 
 manually set off in trays and placed in skids or carts for transfer to the 
 freezing tunnel or cabinet. Two types of carton-filling equipment are in general 
 use for filling retail and institutional styles. The essential differences 
 between these fillers involve the method of forming and closing the cartons. 
 
 In the bulk-fill operation, the beans feed from an accumulating hopper to 
 trays passing beneath the filler on a powered roller conveyor. As the trays 
 are filled, they move to a skate wheel take-off conveyor where they are loaded 
 into skids for transfer to the freezing tunnel. Workers are required for 
 supplying empty trays, attending the fill, setting off filled trays, and trans- 
 ferring the filled skids to the freezing tunnel. The trays are removed from 
 the freezing tunnel and manually dumped into cluster-breaking equipment from 
 which they are moved by a spiral conveyor to a bulk-fill station for packaging 
 into 50-or 60-pound bags or cases. The bulk containers are filled, manually 
 weighed, closed, stenciled, and set off to pallets for removal to the cold- 
 storage warehouse. 
 
 Equipment arrangement, layout, and organization of the packaging stage 
 will vary among plants according to local conditions and preferences of 
 processors. The design reflected in the above description is a synthesis 
 based on studies of actual plant layouts and on recommendations of processors 
 and equipment manufacturers. 
 
 Equipment standards for the packaging stage were developed from studies 
 of plant record data, production studies of packaging operation, and specifi- 
 cations of equipment manufacturers. These standards are summarized in Table 8. 
 They were used in estimating the separate equipment requirements for e ach of 
 the various styles of pack that are given in panels A, B, and C of the table. 
 Requirements as to in-stage transportation equipment such as pumps, tubing and 
 
lo dbie rio**? no fabric 
 
 >BS<J 
 
40, 
 
 TABLE 8 
 
 Equipment Requirements for Packaging Lima Beans for Freezing 
 by Style of Pack and Selected Rates of Output 
 California, 1958 
 
 Panel A— -Retail packaging equipment 
 Pneumatic r 
 
 Panel B~ Institutional packaging equipment 
 
 Rate 
 of 
 output 
 
 pounds 
 per 
 hour 
 
 sepa- , 
 
 rator^ 
 
 num- 
 ber 
 
 Accurau- 
 
 lating, 
 hopper—' 
 
 num- 
 ber 
 
 brator , 
 feeder—' 
 
 number 
 
 equina 
 menw 
 
 num- 
 ber 
 
 type 
 
 Wrapping 
 equips 
 menb-' 
 
 number 
 
 Rate 
 of 
 output 
 pounds 
 per 
 hour 
 
 Pneumati c 
 sepa- , 
 rator^ 
 
 num- 
 ber 
 
 tv£e 
 
 Accuimi' 
 
 latlng, 
 hopper--' 
 
 num- 
 ber 
 
 tyjoe 
 
 brator / 
 feeder-^ 
 
 equi] 
 men' 
 
 ft 
 
 number 
 
 num- 
 ber 
 
 Wrapping 
 equi] 
 men 
 
 number 
 
 5,000 
 10,000 
 15,000 
 
 20,000 
 
 25,000 
 
 30,000 
 
 5,000 
 
 10,000 
 
 15,000 
 
 20,000 
 25,000 
 30,000 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 s 
 
 A 
 
 B 
 D 
 
 E 
 
 c 
 
 D 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Panel C — Bulk packaging equipment 
 
 Panol D — In-3tage distribution eauiDment 
 
 Rate 
 of 
 output 
 
 Pneumatic 
 sepa-, 
 rator— ' 
 
 Tray flOly 
 assembly^ 
 
 Cluster 
 sepaT / 
 rator-/ 
 
 Spiral 
 
 con- . / 
 veyor*' 
 
 Bag or 
 case , 
 filler^ 
 
 Rate 
 of 
 output 
 
 Pump , / 
 assembly" 
 
 Tubing 
 
 Flume J* 
 
 Dewatgn 
 reels-/ 
 
 pounds 
 per 
 hour 
 
 num- 
 ber 
 
 type 
 
 number 
 
 pounds 
 per 
 hour 
 
 number 
 
 feet 
 
 number 
 
 5,000 
 
 1 
 
 A 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 5,000 
 
 2 
 
 60 
 
 ho 
 
 3 
 
 10,000 
 
 1 
 
 B 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 10,000 
 
 3 
 
 60 
 
 10 
 
 3 
 
 15,000 
 
 1 
 
 D 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 15,000 
 
 3 
 
 60 
 
 80 
 
 6 
 
 20,000 
 
 1 
 
 E 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 20,000 
 
 3 
 
 60 
 
 80 
 
 6 
 
 25,000 
 
 2 
 
 C 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 25,000 
 
 3 
 
 70 
 
 90 
 
 7 
 
 30,000 
 
 2 
 
 D 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 30,000 
 
 3 
 
 90 
 
 110 
 
 9 
 
 18-inch intake, 3-horsepower motor, capacity 7,500 pounds per hour — $l,lj88, installed. 
 
 2U-inch intake, 7i-horsepower motor, capacity 10,000 pounds per hour — $2,698, installed. 
 
 1 — , 7§-horsepower motor, capacity 12,500 pounds per hour — $2,788, installed. 
 
 , 7 s- 10 horsepower motor, capacity 3.5,000 pounds per hour — $3,050, install* 
 
 30-inch intake 
 36-inch intake 
 
 lj2-inch intake, 7§-10 horsepower motor, capacity 20,000 pounds per houi — $3,135, installed 
 
 li5 cubic feet, conical or totrahedral — $175- 
 108 cubic feet, conical or tetrahedral — $358. 
 
 a/ Five types: 
 
 TypeB i 
 Type C ; 
 Tvp_e_D: 
 
 Typ 9 E! 
 
 b/ Two sizes: 
 Type A: 
 Type B: 
 
 c/ Custom built, 3/lj-horsepower motor, capacity, 10,000 pounds per hour — $1)75- 
 d/ Two types: 
 
 Type A : Retail filler, volumetric, with leased carton forming and closing attachment, capacity 7,500 pounds per hour- 
 $)j,065, installed; lease equipment — $13,279 payable in annual installments over 10-year period. 
 
 Type B : Retail filler, volumetric, with integrated carton forming and closing equipment, capacity 10,000 pounds per 
 hour—wholly leased, $21,150 payable in annual installments over 10-year period. 
 
 e/ Retail wrapper, capacity 7,500 pounds per hour — $12,2li5, installed. 
 
 f/ Institutional filler, volumetric fill with leased carton closing and forming equipment, capacity 12,750 pounds per hour- 
 Si, 065, installed; lease equipment — $13,277 payable in annual installments over a 10-year period. 
 
 g/ Institutional carton wrapper, capacity 12,750 pounds per hour — $10,500, installed. 
 
 h/ Includes tray fill hopper, vibrator feed mechanism, powered roller conveyor (cleated for trays), 2-speed motor and drive 
 assembly, take-off skate wheel conveyor. Custom built, capacity 10,000 pounds per hour — $1,823, installed. 
 
 i/ Custom made, 1-horsepovrer motor, capacity 10,000 pounds per hour — $1,200, installed. 
 
 j/ Each spiral conveyor 15 feet wide with 9-inch screw, enclosed, 1-horsepower motor and drive — $1498 each, installed, 
 k/ Manually operated, includes hopper, spiral feed mechanism, shear gate, and hand lever, custom built — $672, installed. 
 if Pump assembly and intake tank, 3-inch pump, capacity 12,000 pounds per hour — $695« installed. 
 
 mf Includes 3-inch polyethlyene tubing and fittings, flumes, dividers, chutes, waste water disposal tubes. For cost details 
 refer to Appendix A, Table 1. 
 
 n/ G.i. unseamed construction 7-inch flumes — $7.00 per foot, installed. 
 
 of Dewater reels — $375, installed. 
 
flumes used in distributing the product to the various fill stations are given 
 in panel D of Table 8. 
 
 Labor standards for the jobs described earlier in this section were cal- 
 culated from studies of plant record data and of actual operations in plants 
 of different capacities. Crew requirements— along with the labor standards on 
 which they are based — are summarized in Table 9. 
 
 The equipment and crew requirements given in Tables 8 and 9 are the basis 
 for the estimates of variable and fixed costs summarized in Table 10. This 
 involves conversion of packaging equipment requirements given in Table 8 to costs 
 by applying estimated unit replacement costs to the number of equipment units 
 required to achieve selected capacity dutput rates. Similarly labor costs with 
 each capacity output rate considered were computed by applying appropriate wage 
 rates to the estimated crew requirements given in Table 9. 
 
 Estimation of Packaging Costs 
 
 Variable Costs.— Est.-i ma-H nn 0 f annual variable costs for the packaging 
 stage is complicated because they are not related to the output of a uniquely 
 defined "product." Instead, output in this stage is defined in a multiple- 
 product sense associated with different styles of pack or "product." Conse- 
 quently, annual variable costs for this stag.e vary not only with hours operated 
 per season and hourly capacity rates of plant output but also with the pro- 
 portion packed in the various size containers. The estimation procedure may 
 be simplified by determining the relationship between hourly variable costs of 
 packaging each of the thred styles and hourly volumes of output. The initial 
 step in this procedure involves plotting the variable cost points given in 
 Table 10 against hourly rates of output for each of the three styles of pack 
 as shown in Figure 11. The figure indicates that fcs hourly rate of output 
 increases, increasing hourly variable costs with a given style of pack may be 
 represented by a straight line passing through the origin. In this case, hourly 
 unit cost per pound— for packaging each style of pack— is constant at all capa- 
 city rates of filling and is independent of the scale of operations. Average 
 unit costs per hour— based on the points in Figure 11— are $2i;.730 per 1,000 
 pounds packed in retail cartons, .fll^So per 1,000 pounds packed in institutional 
 cartons, and th»$90 per 1,000 pounds packed in bulk bags or cases. Total 
 variable packaging costs per Season can be estimated by applying the unit costs 
 
VROXB- 
 
 '1 ' -3tP- 
 
 mums 
 
42. 
 
 TABLE 9 
 
 Crew Requirements for Packaging Lima Beans far Freezing by Style 
 of Pack and Selected Rates of Output, California, 1958 
 
 Rate of 
 output 
 pounds 
 per hour 
 
 Feed 
 cartons 
 
 Attend 
 fill 
 
 Retail packaging crew requirements^/ 
 
 Check 
 weight 
 
 Inspect 
 cartons 
 
 Tray 
 off 
 
 Supply 
 skid and 
 tally 
 
 Supply 
 materials 
 
 Total 
 crew 
 
 number of workers 
 
 5,000 
 10,000 
 15,000 
 20,000 
 25,000 
 30,000 
 
 y 
 
 1 
 
 l 
 
 l 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 2/ 
 
 
 6 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 h 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 12 
 
 i 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 
 17 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 k 
 
 h 
 
 7 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 
 23 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 h 
 
 5 
 
 8 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 
 27 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 
 31 
 
 Rate of 
 output 
 
 pounds 
 per hour 
 
 Feed 
 cartons 
 
 Institutional pac kaging crew require ment sd/ 
 
 Attend 
 fill 
 
 Check 
 weight 
 
 Inspect 
 cartons 
 
 Tray 
 off 
 
 Supply- 
 skid and 
 tally 
 
 Supply 
 materials 
 
 Total 
 crew 
 
 number of workers 
 
 5,000 
 10,000 
 15,000 
 20,000 
 25,000 
 30,000 
 
 y 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 
 y 
 
 
 5 
 
 i 
 
 
 10 
 
 i 
 
 
 15 
 
 2 
 
 
 20 
 
 2 
 
 
 23 
 
 3 
 
 
 26 
 
 
 
 
 Bulk 
 
 packaging 
 
 crew requirements;?/ 
 
 
 
 
 Rate of 
 output 
 
 Feed 
 trays 
 
 Attend 
 fill 
 
 Truck 
 skids 
 
 Dump to 
 cluster 
 breaker 
 
 Operate 
 fill and 
 check weight 
 
 Set off 
 bags or 
 cases 
 
 Supply 
 materials 
 
 Total 
 crew 
 
 Attend 
 
 distri- 
 
 butionf/ 
 
 pounds 
 per hour 
 
 number of workers 
 
 
 5,000 
 10,000 
 15,000 
 20,000 
 25,000 
 30,000 
 
 y 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 1 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 1* 
 it 
 
 1 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 3 
 U 
 
 2 
 It 
 6 
 6 
 8 
 10 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 3 
 It 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 2 
 2 
 
 8 
 13 
 15 
 19 
 2h 
 30 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 a/ Labor production standards and hourly wage rates, 10-ounce retail cartons. Standards : Feed cartons, attend 
 filler, supply and truck skids, and supply packaging materials — 19,500 cartons per man hour; check weight and 
 inspect cartons — 9,750 cartons per man hour. Wage rates ! Feed cartons, attend fill, check weight, and inspect 
 cartons— $1.69 per hour; all other jobs--$1.86 per hour. 
 
 b/ Cartons fed by filler attendant. 
 
 c/ Materials supplied by skid supply man. 
 
 d/ Labor production standards and hourly wage rates, 2j-pound institutional cartons. Standards : Feed cartons, 
 attend filler, and supply packaging materials — 5,100 cartons per man hour; check weight, inspect cartons, and 
 tray off — 2,550 cartons per man hourj supply and truck skids — 8,000 cartons per man hour. Wage rates : Same as 
 for retail packaging jobs. 
 
 e/ Labor production standards and wage rates, 50-pound bulk bags, cases, or trays- Standards : Feed trays for loose 
 ~ fill and attend tray filler — 200 trays per man hour; supply and truck skids — I4OO trays per man hour; supply 
 packaging materials and stencil — U00 bags or cases per man hour; operate fill and check weight, set off filled 
 containers — 50 bags or cases per man hour. Wage rates : For all jobs — $1.86 per hour. 
 
 f/ Attend pumps, flumes, and product flow of in-stage distribution system— -30,000 pounds per man hour. Wage rate : 
 $1.86 per hour. 
 
 ff/ Feed trays job done by bulk filler operator. 
 
TABLE 10 
 
 Variable Costs, Equipment Replacement Costs, and Annual Fixed Charges for Packaging 
 Lima Beans for Freezing by Style of Pack and Selected Hates of Output 
 
 California, 1958 
 
 
 Retail packa^in^ costs 
 
 
 Bulk packasunp. costs 
 
 
 Variable costs 
 
 Equipment 
 replacement costs 
 
 Equipment Annual 
 fixed charges 
 
 
 Variable costs 
 
 Equip- 
 ment 
 
 
 of 
 outrut 
 
 Labor?/ 
 
 Cartons, 
 wraps^' 
 
 Power 
 and . 
 repairs?' 
 
 Total 
 
 Purchase^ 
 
 Leased 
 
 Total 
 
 Purchase^ 
 
 Leased 
 
 Total 
 
 Rate 
 
 of 
 output 
 
 Labor?/ 
 
 Con- 
 tainers!!' 
 
 Power 
 and 
 repairs?' 
 
 Total 
 
 replace- 
 ment 
 costsil' 
 
 Annual 
 fixed . 
 charged' 
 
 pounds 
 per 
 hour 
 
 dollars 
 
 pounds 
 per 
 hour 
 
 doll: 
 
 irs 
 
 
 
 5,000 
 
 10,000 
 
 15,000 
 
 20,000 
 25,000 
 30,000 
 
 IO.63 
 21.24 
 30.01 
 40.63 
 47.71 
 54.96 
 
 113 
 225 
 
 337 
 450 
 
 563 
 675 
 
 1.83 
 2.59 
 3.63 
 4.58 
 6.17 
 6.31 
 
 125.46 
 248.83 
 370.69 
 495.21 
 616.88 
 736.27 
 
 18,653 
 28,248 
 37,388 
 46,326 
 69,346 
 66,201 
 
 13,277 
 21,150 
 26,554 
 34,427 
 39,831 
 47,704 
 
 31,930 
 49,398 
 63,042 
 80,753 
 109,177 
 113,905 
 
 3,078 
 4,661 
 6,169 
 7,644 
 11, 442 
 10,923 
 
 1,328 
 2,115 
 2,655 
 3,443 
 3,983 
 4,770 
 
 4,406 
 6,776 
 8,824 
 11,087 
 15,425 
 15,693 
 
 5,000 
 
 10,000 
 15, 000 
 
 20,000 
 25,000 
 30,000 
 
 14.88 
 24.18 
 27.90 
 35.34 
 44.64 
 55.80 
 
 13 
 26 
 39 
 52 
 64 
 77 
 
 0.60 
 0.66 
 1.19 
 1.26 
 
 1.73 
 1.80 
 
 28.48 
 50.84 
 68.39 
 88.60 
 
 110.37 
 134.60 
 
 5,031 
 5,061 
 5,931 
 6,891 
 11,680 
 12,904 
 
 830 
 835 
 979 
 1,137 
 1,927 
 2,129 
 
 
 Institutional packaaing costs 
 
 
 In- stage distribution costs 
 
 5,000 
 
 10,000 
 
 15,000 
 
 20,000 
 
 25,000 
 30,000 
 
 8.77 
 17.53 
 26.30 
 35.06 
 40.29 
 45.69 
 
 Sj 
 
 63 
 126 
 190 
 253 
 315 
 378 
 
 1.73 
 1.75 
 3.50 
 3.50 
 3.68 
 5.25 
 
 73.50 
 145.28 
 219.80 
 291.56 
 353.97 
 428.94 
 
 16,728 
 17,938 
 33,456 
 33,616 
 36,056 
 51,820 
 
 13,279 
 13,279 
 26,55? 
 26,558 
 26,558 
 39,837 
 
 30,007 
 31,217 
 60, 014 
 60,174 
 62,614 
 91,657 
 
 2,760 
 2,960 
 5,520 
 5,547 
 5,949 
 8,550 
 
 1,328 
 1,328 
 2,656 
 2,656 
 2,656 
 3,984 
 
 4,088 
 4,288 
 8,176 
 8,203 
 8,605 
 12,534 
 
 5,000 
 
 10,000 
 
 15,000 
 
 20,000 
 
 25,000 
 30,000 
 
 1.86 
 1.86 
 1.86 
 1.86 
 1.86 
 1.86 
 
 J/ 
 
 0.29 
 0.35 
 0.50 
 0.50 
 0.54 
 0.61 
 
 2.15 
 2.21 
 2.36 
 2.36 
 2.40 
 2.47 
 
 2,997 
 3,800 
 5,310 
 5,310 
 5,782 
 6,826 
 
 495 
 627 
 876 
 876 
 954 
 1,126 
 
 a/ Calculated from crew requirements and wage rates given in Table 9 • 
 
 b/ 10-ounce retail cartons : 5-l/4" x I-3/8" x 4", 0.015 solid bleach sulphate. Requirements calculated at capacities indicated plus 2 per cent waste allowance. Price 
 estimated at $9.77 per 1,000. 10-ounce overwraps : Five-color print. Price estimated at $4.02 per 1,000. 
 
 c/ Power estimated at 2.5 cents per horsepower hour. Variable repairs estimated as 0.5 per cent of equipment cost per 100 hours operation. 
 
 d/ Cost of replacing all equipment, excluding lease items. For unit costs of separate items, refer to Table 8. 
 
 e/ Rental price of lease filling equipment items. Ten- year lease cost calculated at current prices. 
 
 f/ Calculated as I6.5 per cent of equipment replacement cost, including depreciation--10 per cent; taxes— 1 per cent; insurance— 1 per cent; interest on investment—3 per 
 cent (approximately 5.5 per cent of undepreciated balance); and fixed repairs and maintenance — 1.5 per cent. 
 
 g/ Annual rental price. 
 
 h/ 50-pou nd bags : Multiwall, l/40 wax, 6-inch tuck-in sleeve, 2/60 wet strength, plain — price estimated at $128. 80 per 1,000. 50-pound cases : Price estimated at $128. 80 
 per 1,000 pounds. 
 
 l/ 2- l/2 po und institutiona l carton s: 9-l/2" x 5-1/4" x 2-1/2", 0.020 solid manlla. Pequirements calculated at capacities indicated plus 0.5 per cent waste allowance. ^ 
 Price estimated at $23.71 per 1,000. 2-1/2 pound o v erwraps : Two-color print. Price estimated at $7.54 per 1,000. oa 
 
 j/ Blanks indicate that container costs do not apply. 
 
44. 
 
 given above to the total season volume packed in each style. ^ Annual variable 
 costs, calculated on this basis, are given in equation (8) below. 
 
 (8) TVC = $24.730(H r )(R) + $14,480(1^)00 + $4,590(^)00 
 
 where 
 
 TVC 
 
 is total variable costs of packaging per season in dollars. 
 R is 1,000 pounds of plant capacity output per hour. 
 H, is number of hours operated, retail style. 
 l£ is number of hours operated, institutional style. 
 H£ is number of hours operated, bulk style. 
 
 This equation can be used to estimate annual variable packaging costs for 
 any proportion of total season volume that is packed in retail, institutional, 
 or bulk styles.^ 
 
 ■Annual Fixed Cost 
 
 The annual fixed charges of packaging equipment- -for selected capacity 
 output rates— are given separately for each style of pack in Table 10. The 
 total annual fixed cost of packaging equipment required for handling a given 
 plant capacity is the sum of the annual fixed charges necessary to achieve 
 that rate of output in either of the three styles. A generalized expression 
 showing how total annual fixed cost varies with the size of plant— measured in 
 capacity rates of plant output- -is given in equation (9) below. 
 
 (9) TFC =» $4,345 + $856(R) 
 
 where 
 
 TFC is total annual fixed cost of packaging in dollars. 
 R is 1,000 pounds of plant capacity output per hour. 
 
 l/ Total season volume in each style container is calculated by multi- 
 plying the number of hours spent per season in packaging each style by the 
 capacity rate of plant output per hour. 
 
 H H. H. 
 
 2/ For any given hourly rate of plant output, -~, ~, and are the pro- 
 
 portions of total season volume packed in retail, institutional, and bulk 
 styles, respectively. 
 
3* loairJa 
 
 sd.t m 
 
45. 
 
 Figure 11. Relation of Hourly Variable Packaging Costs 
 to Hourly Rates of Output in Lima Bean Freezing Plants 
 Equipped to Package Retail, Institutional, and Bulk 
 Containers, California, 1958. 
 
Total Annual Packaging Costs 
 
 Total annual packaging costs — for any given plant capacity and length of 
 operating season — is the sum of the corresponding annual fixed and variable 
 cost components. The generalized total season or "planning" cost equation for 
 plants packaging any combination of retail, institutional, or bulk styles is 
 obtained by combining equations (8) and (9) above and is given in the expression 
 below t 
 
 (10) TSC - $U,3U5 + $856(R) ♦ $2U.730(H r )(R) ♦ IHuU&XHjKR) ♦ $U»590(H^)(R) 
 where 
 
 TSC is the total annual cost of packaging Lima beans 
 
 8114 (R)>(H r ),(H i ) and (H^) are as defined in equation (1) above. 
 
 For any given length of season, proportions packed in the various styles, 
 and rate of plant output, equation (10) can be used to estimate total annual 
 packaging costs. For example, suppose that a plant with a capacity output rate 
 of 5,000 pounds per hour is operating over a 500-hour season. During the 
 season assume that 300 hours are spent packaging retail style and that 100 
 hours each are spent packaging institutional and bulk styles, respectively. 
 With the conditions assumed, the symbols in equation (3) are: 
 
 (R) " 5,000 pounds of plant output capacity per hour. 
 
 (H j ■ 300 hours operated, retail packaging. 
 
 (H^) » 100 hours operated, institutional packaging. 
 
 (H^) « 100 hours operated, bulk packaging. 
 
 Total annual packaging costs can be computed by substituting these values in 
 equation (10), that is: 
 
 TSC - $h,3h5 + $856(5) + $2U.730(300)(5) + $ia.U60(100)(5) + $li.590(100)(5) 
 
 - $U,3U5 ♦ $M80 ♦ 137,09$ + $7,2Uo + $2,29$ 
 
 - $55,255 
 
 Therefore, total season packaging cost for a plant operating under the 
 above conditions is $55,255* The planning equation can be used in a similar 
 manner to compute total annual packaging or filling costs with any given rate 
 of plant output and hours of packaging each of the three styles. 
 
 Total annual packaging costs vary substantially with variations in the 
 proportions packed in each of the three styles. The effect of variations in 
 
,9V 3dB (I 
 
 tatl&b r£. sis ( ,H) ka& 
 
 Mi v>rixJi<-tkSi 
 
 TO 5fii"l£ 
 
 at 
 
proportions packed in each of the various styles on total annual packaging cost 
 is illustrated in Figure 12 for plants with a 500 -hour operating season. The 
 figure shows the lower and upper range in total season costs as the proportions 
 packed vary from 100 per cent bulk to 100 per cent retail. 
 
 Casing 
 
 The principal variations among casing methods involve the degree of mecha- 
 nization associated with the case -fill and case -seal operations and the type of 
 freezing operation. In California all plants observed used either the tray- 
 tunnel or plate -freeze methods for freezing Lima beans. » 
 
 Four methods of carton casing — classified according to their degree of 
 mechanization — were analyzed in relation to estimated quantities and costs of 
 labor and equipment required at various capacity output rates and length of 
 season. Crew requirements for each of these methods described below are sum- 
 marized in Table 11. With Methods A and B the equipment requirements and lay- 
 outs are equally adaptable for retail or institution carton casing. The machine 
 case filling equipment used with Methods C and D is adapted for retail casing 
 only, and additional facilities are required for manually filling cases of in- 
 stitutional cartons. 
 
 Method A — manual fill and seal — was the least mechanized method consid- 
 ered. With this method all job components are manually performed. These 
 components include: (l) get full tray from freezer skid and set off to case-in 
 table; (2) stencil, form, and stitch case; (3) fill case; {k) seal case; and 
 (5) set off to pallet. The stenciling job involves obtaining bundles of flat 
 cases from temporary storage, placing them on the stencil table for removal 
 of twine bindings, 6tenciling each flat, and setting it aside for forming and 
 stitching. The stenciled flats are formed and the bottoms stitched by a 
 worker operating a wire case stitcher. The case -in job involves getting and 
 placing the formed and stitched case on a skate -wheel conveyor, grasping six 
 
 1/ For a description of the various methods used in the freezing operation, 
 see Reed, Robert H., Survey of the Pacific Coast Frozen Fruit and Vegetable 
 Industry (Berkeley: University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences, 
 Agricultural Experiment Station, 1957), 36p. (Giannini Foundation Mimeographed 
 Report No. 198* ) Processed. 
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 
 
 Hourly rate of output, thousand pounds 
 
 Figure 12. Total Annual Packaging Costs in Relation to 
 Capacity Output Rates for Lima Bean Freezing Plants Pack- 
 ing Different Proportions of Retail, Institutional, and 
 Bulk Styles for a ^00-Hour Operating Season, California, 
 1958. 
 
49. 
 
 TABLE 11 
 
 Crew Requirements for Casing-In Tray Frozen Lima Beans, 
 by Methods Used, Rate of Output, and Style of Kick 
 California, 1958 
 
 
 
 
 
 Retail 
 
 style-' 
 
 Institutional style^ 
 
 
 Rate 
 of , 
 output-" 
 
 Form 
 case 
 
 Stitch 
 case 
 
 Stencil 
 case 
 
 Dump 
 trays 
 
 Fill 
 case 
 
 Guide 
 cartons 
 
 Manual 
 
 seal 
 and/ or 
 setoff 
 
 Total 
 
 Form 
 case 
 
 Stitch 
 case 
 
 Stencil 
 case 
 
 Dump 
 trays 
 
 Fill 
 case 
 
 Manual 
 
 seal 
 and/or 
 setoff 
 
 Total 
 
 pounds 
 per 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 hour 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 number 
 
 of workers 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Method A 
 
 
 5,000 
 xu , uuu 
 15 ,000 
 20,000 
 25,000 
 30,000 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 2 
 
 3 
 3 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 1* 
 5 
 7 
 8 
 10 
 
 
 1 
 3 
 It 
 5 
 6 
 7 
 
 7 
 14 
 
 19 
 
 25 
 30 
 36 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 1 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 .-2/ 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 2 
 2 
 
 1 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 3 
 It 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 It 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 
 3 
 it 
 
 5 
 9 
 11 
 lit 
 17 
 22 
 
 
 
 
 Method B 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5,000 
 
 10 , 000 
 15 , 000 
 20,000 
 
 25,000 
 30,000 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 2 
 
 3 
 3 
 4 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 2 
 2 
 
 3 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 1* 
 5 
 7 
 8 
 10 
 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 3 
 3 
 it 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 11 
 15 
 
 19 
 
 23 
 
 29 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 2 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 3 
 it 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 it 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 l 
 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 3 
 
 It 
 
 6 
 9 
 12 
 15 
 18 
 
 
 
 
 Method C 
 
 
 
 
 
 5,000 
 
 10 y 000 
 
 15,000 
 
 20,000 
 25,000 
 
 30,000 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 2 
 
 3 
 3 
 It 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 3 
 It 
 5 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 3 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 3 
 it 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 3 
 it 
 5 
 
 6 
 11 
 lit 
 18 
 21 
 
 26 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 2 
 2 
 
 1 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 4 
 
 5 
 6 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 3 
 
 It 
 
 6 
 9 
 12 
 15 
 18 
 
 
 
 Method D 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5,000 
 
 10,000 
 
 15,000 
 
 20,000 
 
 25,000 
 30,000 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 1+ 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 3 
 
 5 
 6 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 3 
 1* 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 3 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 3 
 it 
 5 
 
 7 
 lit 
 18 
 2lt 
 
 28 
 34 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 2 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 It 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 3 
 it 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 3 
 it 
 
 5 
 9 
 11 
 lit 
 
 17 
 
 22 
 
 a/ To convert pounds to 2lt/l0-ounce cases, divide by 15. 
 To convert pounds to 12/2-g-pound cases, divide by 30. 
 
 b/ Retail carton casing (10-ounce cartons, 24 per case): 
 
 Production standards (cases per hour): Form case (Methods A, B, C, and D)--5lt9; stitch case (Methods A and D)~ 
 33 1 *; stencil case (Methods A, B, C, and D)--790; dump trays (Methods A, B, C, and D)— -334; manual fill (Methods 
 A and B)~213j machine fill (Methods C and d)— 576; manual seal and setoff (Methods A and D)— 300; machine seal 
 and setoff (Methods B and C)--467; and guide cartons (Methods C and D)— 576. 
 
 Wage rates : Dump trays, manual seal and setoff, and machine seal and setoff — $1.86 per hour; and all other 
 jobs — $1.69 per hour. 
 
 c/ Institutional carton casing (2^- pound cartons, 12 per case): 
 
 Production standards (cases per hour): Form case (Methods A, B, C, and D) — 494; stitch case (Methods A and D) — 
 334; stencil ease (Methods A, B, C, and D)— 700; dump trays (Methods A, B, C, and D)~285; manual fill (Methods 
 A, B, C, and D) — 200; manual seal and setoff (Methods A and D) — 290; and machine seal and setoff (Methods B and 
 
 C) — 450. 
 
 Wage rates : Dump trays, manual seal and setoff, and machine seal and setoff — $1.86 per hour; and all other 
 jobs — $1.69 per hour. 
 
 d/ Blanks indicate that this job is not required vith this method. 
 
 e/ Dashes indicate that with low output rate this job is performed by the case-forming or stitching crew. 
 
50 
 
 retail or four institutional cartons at a time and placing them in the case. 
 As the case is filled, it is pushed along the case-in conveyor to the case 
 sealing operation, where a worker applies glue to the flaps, usually with a 
 3-inch or U-inch brush. The sealed case is then set off to a pallet for 
 removal to cold storage. 
 
 In Method B—manual fill, machine seal— -the labor involved in stitching 
 the bottom and gluing the flaps is reduced by the addition of a top and bottom 
 mechanical sealer and compressor unit. Other labor and equipment requirements 
 are the same as in Method A. 
 
 With Method C the labor required to fill the case with retail cartons is 
 reduced by the installation of a mechanical caser. In the retail casing opera- 
 tion, a worker gets a full tray of retail cartons from the freezer skid and 
 dumps them to a 8' x 30" portable dump conveyor. As the cartons move over the 
 ends of the dump conveyor, a worker arranges them in single file on the carton- 
 intake conveyor leading to the mechanical caser. The caser operator forms 
 the case and places it over a sleeve-type feeder where the cartons are filled 
 in tier fashion by a pneumatically driven ram lever. When filled, the case is 
 automatically released to a conveyor leading through a mechanical sealer and 
 compressor and manually palletized for removal to storage. The portable tray- 
 dump conveyor can be used as a case-in table for manually filling cases of 
 institutional cartons. To use this equipment for filling cases of institutional 
 cartons, rather than retail, the portable dump conveyor is moved so as to tie 
 in with the lead-in conveyor of the mechanical sealer. Workers stationed at 
 the end of the dump conveyor manually fill the case with institutional cartons. 
 As the .case is filled, it is conveyed through the mechanical sealer and 
 compressor, then palletized manually. 
 
 Method D combines the techniques of Methods A and C. Case-in operations 
 for both retail and institutional styles are identical to Method C, but the 
 sealing is done manually as in Method A. The crew requirements for the retail 
 casing operation are slightly less than with Method A but are greater than 
 with Methods B and C. The crew requirements for the institutional casing 
 operations are identical to those of Method A. 
 
 Crew requirements and estimated equipment requirements are shown in Tables 
 11 and 12, respectively. These data are the basis for estimated costs of 
 labor and other variable inputs as well as the investment cost and annual fixed 
 charge for equipment that are given in Table 13 for selected capacity rates of 
 casing. 
 
TABLE 12 
 
 Equipment Requirements for Casing Tray Frozen Lima Beans by Methods 
 Used and Rata of Output,^ 7 California, 1958 
 
 Rate of/ 
 outpuW 
 
 Case-In 
 tabled 
 
 Case- in , 
 machine— 1 
 
 1 Full case / 
 conveyors' 
 
 Sealer- , , 
 compressor-^ 
 
 Case 
 stitcher^ 
 
 ' St ° ncil f hy 
 equipment/— 
 
 '1 ? 1U °vi/ 
 stand-' 
 
 Set-off. 
 conveyor*^ 
 
 
 esl2/ 
 
 pounds 
 per hour 
 
 feet 
 
 number 
 
 feet 
 
 num- 
 ber 
 
 1 type 
 
 number 
 
 feet 
 
 number 
 
 
 
 Method A—Manual fill and seal 
 
 
 
 
 ?,000 
 10,000 
 15,000 
 20,000 
 25,000 
 30,000 
 
 8 
 16 
 
 20 
 28 
 32 
 ho 
 
 y 
 
 18 1 
 
 26 
 
 30 
 
 1*8 
 
 52 
 
 60 
 
 
 
 1 
 2 
 3 
 h 
 5 
 6 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 3 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 Method 3— Manual fill, mac 
 
 hine seal 
 
 
 
 
 5,ooo 
 
 10,000 
 
 15,000 
 
 20,000 
 25,000 
 30,000 
 
 8 
 16 
 20 
 28 
 
 32 
 1*0 
 
 
 16* 
 21* 
 28 
 1*6 
 
 ua 
 
 56 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 2 
 1 
 1 
 2 
 
 C 
 B 
 A 
 B 
 A 
 B 
 A 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 2 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 
 20 
 
 20 
 20 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 Method C —Machine fill and seal 
 
 
 
 5,000 
 
 10,000 
 
 15,000 
 
 20,000 
 25,000 
 30,000 
 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 U 
 
 7 3 
 21. 
 2ii 
 31 
 
 31 
 
 1*8 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 2 
 1 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 C 
 B 
 A 
 B 
 A 
 B 
 A 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 2 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 20 
 
 20 
 
 20 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 v. 
 
 athod D — Machine fill, manual 3eal 
 
 
 
 5,000 
 
 10,000 
 
 15,000 
 
 20,000 
 25,000 
 30,000 
 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 3 
 h 
 
 10* 
 
 20 
 
 20 
 
 30 
 
 30 
 
 1*0 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 3 
 fa 
 5 
 6 
 
 1 
 1 
 2 
 
 2 
 3 
 3 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 a/ Equipment requirements for both retail and institutional casing. 
 
 b/ To convert pounds to 2l*/l°-ounce cases, divide by 15} to convert pounds to 12/2j-pound cases, divide 
 by 30. 
 
 c/ Wood construction 30 inches set-on surface for trays} 30 inches case-in surface inclined 25 degrees, 1» 
 feet allowed for work place, plant or custom made~*75 per Ij-foot section, installed. 
 
 d/ Pneumatic ram-lever type, l/li-horsepower motor for retail cartons only. Capacity, 576 2lj/lO-ounce cases 
 per hour with 15 per cent allowance for wait and unavoidable delay. Includes tray dump conveyor assembly, 
 8' x 30" with l/lj- horsepower motor and drive; modified for use as case-in conveyor for institutional 
 carton casing. Machine caser«$2,lj95> installed} tray dump conveyor— $719, installed. 
 
 e/ To convey full cases to sealer-compressor unit or to manual seal and set-off station. 
 
 1. Skate-wheel conveyor, 12 inches wide by specified lengths. 
 
 2. Includes! (l) skate-wheel conveyor, 12 inches by length of case-in table— $5 per foot, installed} 
 and (2) an 8' x 12" belt conveyor with ^-horsepower motor for distributing cases to sealer, $21(7 ♦ 
 $10.30 per foot of conveyor, installed. 
 
 3. Belt conveyor, 12 inches by specified lengths. Includes: motor and drives with box turn and/or 
 converger units. Installed costs are estimated as $2lf7 + $10.30 per foot of conveyor plus $1*80 foi 
 each box turn or converger. Conveyors modified for use when casing institutional cartons. 
 
 1*. Skate wheel type— $5 per foot, installed. 
 
 tj Top and bottom sealer and compressor unit, adjustable for different case dimensions. 
 
 Type A : 28-foot compressor, capacity, approximately 1,170 2Vl°-ounce cases or 17,500 pounds per hour— 
 $6,1*60, installed. 
 
 Type B : 20-focrt compressor, capacity, approximately 810 2lj/l0-ounce cases or 12,150 pounds per hour— 
 $5,832, installed. 
 
 Type C : 12-foot compressor, capacity, approximately 1*76 2l*/lO-ounce cases or 7,11*0 pounds per hour — $1*,998 
 installed. 
 
 ^/ Standard type, 12-inch throat, capacity, 260 stitches per minute— $675. 
 
 h/ Includes stoncil table, wheel, and pad. One set required for each 790 cases per hour — $60. 
 
 1/ Trough type, situated over set-off conveyor. 
 
 j/ Skate wheel, 10' x 12"— $5 per foot. 
 
 k/ Desk surface, 22" x 60" x 1", single drawer— $30. 
 
 1/ Blanks indicate equipment is not used with methods indicated. 
 
52. 
 
 TABLE 13 
 
 Equipment Replacement Costs, Annuel Fixed Charges, and Variable Costs for Casing 
 Tray Frozen Lima Beans by Methods Used and Hate of Output 
 California, I958 
 
 
 Fixed costi 
 
 , retail and in! 
 
 titutionaLfj/ 
 
 Variable costs, retail 
 
 Variable costs, institutional 
 
 Rate 
 
 of 
 output 
 
 Replacement 
 
 costsS' 
 
 Annual 
 
 fixed charge s£/ 
 
 
 Miscel- 
 
 
 
 
 Miscel- 
 
 
 
 
 Equip- 
 ment 
 
 Belt- 
 ing 
 
 Total 
 
 Equip- 
 mentc/ 
 
 Belt- 
 ingd/ 
 
 Total 
 
 Laborf/ 
 
 laneous, 
 
 power and 
 repairs^/ 
 
 Casess/ 
 
 Total 
 
 Lahore/ 
 
 laneous , 
 
 power and 
 repairs^/ 
 
 
 sesh/ 
 
 Total 
 
 pounds 
 per 
 hour 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 dollars 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Method A 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5,000 
 
 10,000 
 15,000 
 20,000 
 25,000 
 30,000 
 
 1,030 
 1,895 
 2,750 
 3,665 
 4, 1*95 
 5,36o 
 
 t/ 
 
 1,030 
 1,895 
 2,750 
 3,665 
 
 i*,i*95 
 
 5,360 
 
 170 
 313 
 1*51* 
 605 
 71*2 
 881* 
 
 
 170 
 313 
 1*54 
 605 
 71*2 
 881* 
 
 12.11* 
 21*. 1*5 
 33-21 
 1*3.56 
 52- ^3 
 62.88 
 
 1.09 
 2.13 
 3.18 
 1*.27 
 5-31 
 6.36 
 
 30.15 
 6O.3O 
 90.1*5 
 120.60 
 150.75 
 180.90 
 
 1*3.38 
 86.88 
 126.81* 
 168.1*3 
 208.1*9 
 250.IU 
 
 8.79 
 15.89 
 19.27 
 21*. 51 
 29.58 
 38.51* 
 
 0.59 
 l.ll* 
 1.69 
 2.28 
 2.82 
 3.38 
 
 17.98 
 35.85 
 53.82 
 71.69 
 89.67 
 IO7.5I* 
 
 27.36 
 52.88 
 71*. 78 
 98.1*8 
 122.07 
 11*9.1*6 
 
 
 Method B 
 
 
 5,000 
 10,000 
 15,000 
 20,000 
 95,000 
 
 jVJ y UUU 
 
 5,507 
 6,381 
 7,089 
 12,712 
 13,1*20 
 ll*,088 
 
 39 
 39 
 39 
 79 
 79 
 79 
 
 5,5"*6 
 6,1*20 
 7,128 
 12,791 
 13, **99 
 11*, 167 
 
 908 
 1,053 
 1,170 
 2,097 
 2,211* 
 2,338 
 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 20 
 20 
 20 
 
 918 
 1,063 
 1,180 
 2,117 
 2,231* 
 2,358 
 
 10.1*5 
 19.22 
 26.30 
 33.21 
 1*0.29 
 1*9.06 
 
 1.07 
 1.86 
 2.65 
 3.73 
 i*.5l 
 5.30 
 
 30.15 
 
 60.30 
 
 90.1*5 
 120.60 
 150.75 
 180.90 
 
 1*1.67 
 81.38 
 119.1*0 
 157. 5 1 * 
 195-55 
 235.26 
 
 7.10 
 
 10.65 
 15.89 
 21.13 
 26.37 
 31.61 
 
 0.1*7 
 0.88 
 1.31 
 1.78 
 2.20 
 2.62 
 
 17.98 
 35.85 
 53-82 
 71.69 
 89.67 
 107. 5I+ 
 
 25.55 
 1*7.38 
 71.02 
 91*. 60 
 118.21* 
 lUl.77 
 
 
 Method C 
 
 
 5,000 
 10,000 
 15,000 
 20,000 
 25,000 
 30,000 
 
 8,1*71 
 13,207 
 13,895 
 22,U82 
 23,170 
 27,700 
 
 120 
 290 
 290 
 1*11 
 1*11 
 580 
 
 8,591 
 13,497 
 14,185 
 22,893 
 23,581 
 28,280 
 
 1,398 
 2,179 
 2,293 
 3,710 
 3,823 
 4,571 
 
 30 
 73 
 73 
 103 
 103 
 H*5 
 
 1,1*28 
 2,252 
 2,366 
 3,813 
 3,926 
 4,716 
 
 10.U5 
 19.22 
 2'*.6l 
 31.53 
 36.92 
 1*5.69 
 
 1.19 
 2.20 
 3.00 
 1*.19 
 i*.99 
 5-99 
 
 30.15 
 60.30 
 90.U5 
 120.60 
 15C75 
 180.90 
 
 1*1.79 
 81.72 
 118.06 
 156.32 
 192 .66 
 232.58 
 
 7.10 
 IO.65 
 15.89 
 21.13 
 26.37 
 31.61 
 
 0.U7 
 0.88 
 1.31 
 1.78 
 2.20 
 2.62 
 
 17.98 
 35.85 
 53-82 
 71-69 
 89.67 
 
 107. 5 1 * 
 
 25.55 
 U7.38 
 71.02 
 91*. 60 
 118. 21* 
 11*1.77 
 
 
 Method D 
 
 
 5,000 
 10,000 
 15,000 
 20,000 
 25,000 
 30,000 
 
 3,851* 
 7,593 
 8,353 
 12,092 
 12,827 
 16, 566 
 
 86 
 172 
 172 
 258 
 258 
 3M* 
 
 3,91*0 
 7,765 
 8,525 
 12,350 
 13,085 
 16,910 
 
 636 
 1,253 
 1,378 
 1,995 
 2,116 
 
 2,733 
 
 22 
 43 
 >*3 
 65 
 65 
 86 
 
 658 
 1,296 
 1,1*21 
 2,060 
 2,181 
 2,819 
 
 12.11* 
 21*. 1*5 
 31.53 
 1*1. 98 
 1*9.06 
 59.51 
 
 1.26 
 2.50 
 3-57 
 i*.8o 
 5.88 
 7.10 
 
 30.15 
 60.30 
 90.1*5 
 120.60 
 150.75 
 180.90 
 
 43.55 
 87.25 
 125.55 
 167.38 
 205.69 
 21*7.51 
 
 8.79 
 15.89 
 19.27 
 24.51 
 29.58 
 38.5I* 
 
 0.59 
 l.ll* 
 1.69 
 2.28 
 2.82 
 3.38 
 
 17.98 
 35.85 
 53-82 
 71.69 
 89.67 
 107.51* 
 
 27.36 
 52.88 
 71*. 78 
 98.1*8 
 122.07 
 11*9.1*6 
 
 a/ Identical equipment is used for casing both retail and institutional styles. 
 
 b/ Replacement costs derived from applying unit equipment costs to equipment requirements. 
 
 c/ Estimated as 16.5 per cent of equipment replacement costs. Includes depreciation — 10 per cent; taxes--l per cent; 
 
 insurance — 1 per cent; interest on investraent--3 per cent (approximately 5-5 per cent of undepreciated balance); and fixed 
 repairs maintenance — 1.5 per cent. 
 
 d/ Estimated as 25 per cent of belting replacement cost. Includes depreciation — 20 per cent; taxes — 1 per cent; insurance— 
 1 per cent; and interest on investment — 3 per cent. 
 
 e/ Calculated from crew requirements and wage rates given in Table il. 
 
 tl Power : Estimated as 2.5 cents per horsepower hour. Variable repairs : Estimated as 0.5 per cent of replacement cost per 
 100 hours operation. Miscellaneous : Includes glue estimated as $75 per 100 gallons and wire at $28 per 100 pounds. 
 
 %J Costs based on 2l*/l0-ounce cases, 1* panels, 2 colors, estimated at $?0 per 1,000 cases. 
 
 h/ Costs based on 12/2-1/2 pound cases, 4 panels, 2 colors, estimated at $107 per 1,000 cases. 
 
 i/ Blanks indicate that annual fixed charges of belting does not apply in Method A. 
 
53. 
 
 Total annual casing costs, related to casing method, style of pack, hourly- 
 rates of output, and length of operating season were calculated from the data 
 given in Table 13. Figure 13 shows these cost relationships for Methods A, B, 
 C, and D for three different lengths of season. Method B is shown to be the 
 least-cost method for both retail and institutional styles over all ranges of 
 output rates considered. Consequently, the equipment, labor, and cost estimates 
 for Method B were used in developing a planning equation for estimating casing 
 costs in plants packing various proportions of their total pack in retail and 
 institutional styles. 
 
 Annual Fixed Costs 
 
 The annual fixed charges shown in Table 13 for Method B operations were 
 used to develop the generalized expression showing how these costs vary with 
 the size of plant — measured in capacity output-rates — as given in equation 
 (11) below: 
 
 (11) TFC - $U80 + $67(R) 
 
 where 
 
 TFC is the total annual fixed cost of casing Lima beans, and 
 (r) is 1,000 pounds of plant capacity output per hour. 
 
 Annual Variable Casing Costs 
 
 As with packaging or filling operations, estimation of annual variable 
 costs for the casing stage is complicated because they are not related to the 
 output of a uniquely defined "product" or style of container. Estimation of 
 annual variable casing costs may be simplified, however, by determining the 
 relationship between hourly variable costs of casing each of the two styles and 
 hourly volumes of output. The procedure involves plotting the variable cost 
 points given in Table 13 against hourly rates of output for each of the two 
 styles and measuring the "fit" of a line smoothed through the points as 
 illustrated in Figure lij. The figure shows the relation of hourly variable 
 cost to hourly volume is approximately linear and through the origin for both 
 container styles. This means that unit cost per pound — for casing each style 
 of pack — is constant at all capacity rates of casing and is independent of the 
 scale of operations. Average unit costs based on the points in Figure lii are 
 $7,952 and $U.712 per 1,000 pounds cased in retail and institutional styles, 
 
iXiuoti «49*9 *o 9l\ 
 siux) ed^ moil bs» 
 
 J-EC.0 *3SdJ 
 
 C .fctTB t vt/q^IXO lo £9>}i 
 
 i'? .£! sidfiT ni nav; 
 
 5i «) 
 
 sldBl^v iairnne lo rroX fj&rai.»2» t t 
 lo sto^ Jsn'irf's-i »4tkjttt^ct09 lo oyEi 
 
 -t>5ic»qc vjfilXXil 10 gitjs 
 
 ?ri4 lo cijce v-s'.lsao lo a.taoo eCdcitBV 
 •v -vfJ" jiniJ^oXq eavlc-vwi ©mfcoooiq sd' 
 do£a *tol Jircriuo lo 89*bi vl'iycd dani; 
 
 fSAJC'tdCf bf\£ 
 
 urjil dT .MX 
 .Jxo&njiO XI .-1 di 
 
 ,a*l\i-s Xaiolli/di-tGfli box S.lc f *i ai teas? 
 
 r*>rr f f I 
 
 1"8 '£3/ 
 
54. 
 
 RETAIL STYLE INSTITUTIONAL STYLE 
 
 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 
 
 Hourly rate of output, thousand pounds 
 
 Figure 13. Total Annual Coals of Casing Tray Frozen Lima Beans by Methods Used, Rate of Output, Length of Season, 
 and Style of Pack, California, 1958. 
 
1 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
55. 
 
 Figure lU. Relation of Hourly Variable Casing Costs 
 to Hourly Rates of Output in Lima Bean Freezing 
 Plants Equipped to Case Retail and Institutional 
 Cartons, California, 1958. 
 
56. 
 
 respectively. Total variable casing costs per season can "be estimated by- 
 applying the unit costs given above to the total season volume packed in each 
 style. Annual variable casing costs, calculated on this basis, are given in 
 equation (12) below for plants equipped with the least-cost casing method 
 (Method B). 
 
 (12) TVC = $7.952(H r )(R) + $4.712(H i )(R) 
 
 where 
 
 TVC is total variable costs of casing per season. 
 H is number of hours operated, retail style. 
 BC is number of hours operated, institutional style. 
 R is 1,000 pounds cased per hour. 
 
 This equation can be used to estimate annual variable casing costs for 
 any proportion of total season volume that is packed in retail or institutional 
 style s . 
 
 Total Annual Casing Costs 
 
 Total annual casing costs for any given plant capacity and length of 
 operating season are the sum of the corresponding annual fixed and variable cost 
 components. The generalized total season or planning cost equation for plants 
 casing any combination of retail and institutional cartons is obtained by 
 combining equations (11 ) and (12) above and is given in the expression below. 
 
 (13) TSC * $480 + $67(R) + $7.952(H r )(R) + $4.7l2(H i )(R) 
 
 where 
 
 TSC is the total annual cost of casing Lima beans and (R), 
 (Hj, and (B.) are as defined in equation (12) above. 
 
 For any given length of season, proportions packed in the various styles, 
 and capacity rate of output, equation (13) can be used to estimate total 
 annual casing costs. Total annual casing costs for plants casing different 
 proportions of retail and institutional styles are shown in Figure 15 for a 
 500-hour operating season. 
 
[nil .h 
 
57. 
 
 Figure 15. Total Annual Casing Costs in Relation to 
 Capacity Output Rates for Lima Bean Freezing Plants 
 Packing Different Proportions of Retail and Institu- 
 tional Styles for a 500-Hour Operating Season, 
 California, 1958. 
 
58. 
 
 Variable Water Inputs and Costs 
 
 Variable water inputs and costs are, for the most part, associated with 
 particular stages of plant operation. For convenience, however, the require- 
 ments and variable costs of water for the plant as a whole are summarized in 
 this section. Estimated rates of water usage with the types and amounts of 
 equipment previously developed for each stage are given for selected plant out- 
 put capacity rates in Table liu These estimates are based on data obtained 
 from equipment manufacturers, processors, contractors, and on studies of equip- 
 ment operating characteristics. 
 
 Estimated water costs—also given in Table Hi — are obtained by applying 
 average public utility for industrial water usage ^ Typical rates involve 
 a fixed annual stand-by charge and a unit price of 13 cents per 100 cubic feet 
 of water used. The cost data in Table lU are the basis for estimated total 
 water costs shown graphically for selected -lengths of season in Figure 16 as 
 well as for the planning equation belowt 
 
 (ill) TVC - $166 + $15.01 (R) + $0. 1872(H) + $0.5580(R)(H) 
 w 
 
 where 
 
 TVC is total variable water costs per season. 
 R w is 1,000 pounds of hourly plant capacity. 
 H is hours of plant operation per season. 
 
 Freezing and First Month's Storage 
 
 As Lima beans are processed during a relatively short season, cold-storage 
 requirements beyond the first month depend primarily upon the initial volume 
 entering storage and the rate of sales. As costs associated with storage 
 beyond the first month can be logically classified as selling expenses, they 
 are not considered in this report. 
 
 Freezing and first month's storage costs, however, enter directly as an 
 operating expense. These costs are related to the type of product packed, 
 
 1/ The development of pumping costs for privately owned wells was not 
 attempted as the depth to static ground water levels varies widely within and 
 among processing areas. 
 
m 
 
 atfeoQ bne advqnX *»J 
 
 fi^y, iv^r-/l«v : w ieq- ; d-Riiv- -i? nJ% t «i£ aieco-brs* a<fuqeX Tote"? aXtfaisa? 
 »a*!t&/pai &:{tf< •v-&:-u <?fi«!5ftn»Y,noo 10*5 ♦noX.t-iaqo toaXq io tifafflltfij 
 nX fc«slte;<OTU5 fi| alprfw £ aa $naXq ad* ■«# -xadsw tp a*«oo 9Xd>:.v:6v ba» a. toss. 
 Io-. aXcaioott; a«>qy$ arf.-t- tffci* pr^cax t^.tsw lo v9&bi badsrrtXXaS .jioXXsea sXdi 
 •ivo.i/xsXq bain-visa left JxavX$ ais age^a rfoaa *joI b9qaX&v*fi yX^catvaicr ^n^irrlups 
 banxn.JdQ ajfib no b?sad ats esimbit?? *aariT .ili aXa.iT nX 35Jsn gtXaeqaa taq 
 •<rXt : pe 'io e-aljiiKt* no baa 0 vr->} 931^100 «e.teaJM&9tq f e?aawjoa}»as» tfcostqiep* soil 
 
 •eoXdtoXsa.taa'farfg 0it0&qp fam 
 gy/XXaqs yd fModtaftfO 9is-mh}X ; aXda? nt ntvj^ oeXs-~a-itoc lajai? badY.Miiea 
 avXwni earfa* Xaaiqyt ^.p^fiatr laio* XfiX^ctrbi-tX Till yiitWxr aXXdaq *3*riayj& 
 teel oXdy > OOX laq.tfrpa CO© •*N| JXny * tea ?si2rio yd-baatfa XaaoM b*xXl £ 
 £H0tf bfJafffiste* i»l aSa«d add a«ys iX aXtteT at adsft t&oo 90 • beau sajtew lo- 
 $a dX arsygti^ flJ nosBas ?o erii>?naX XadaoXcc! io\ xtl^oisiqaTi nwoila t^soo Wtfi?f , > 
 
 :*.«oIsd ftft&tffpa anXtfnalo <»dd ioX es XXew 
 
 %?.o£ + (H)SY8i>0$ + (5I)X0.3X* ♦ &X# - ^V? 
 
 « n<;c os* 703 s^aoo rtadavr eXdc. ttssf j..cXoi 8- 07T 
 .ytXosqsa drteXq yiwed-io abrooq O^kt&T* 
 
 : S3" 
 
 amrfiv.XfiXtXni ad* noq» yXXTamX-xq bnoqzb ddncw da-xXt ed-X bnayad sdnaereri £x;p©'x 
 ageio^e isiiw haJaXaoar-.a adeoo aA .aaXaa lo aX.n erii bna a^io^a ^nX^eina 
 'v" J d* ( e»at!dqxd %RtXXaa Bfl .baXliacnlo xfXeaXs^X *d tf&o riXnom . ie-xX't erW- ..eyed 
 
 •ctfcf.tfa eirf.7 ru. ^STca'sXinoa Joa ai« 
 na »« TtXiaaiXb taXna ^tapaworf t ac|aoo aja-sto^a e'd^nonr Xaiil bfta ^nXsae*!? 
 ^.V-;i»aq ^subotq %o aqtf ««»<»• otf bs^f>Xa«x 01a 8daoo aasrfT # acn*qxa snf*F-rsq^ 
 
 •ton a/jw. aXXow b<aiT»w. Y.f^cvXitq t;o1 aiano snXqmwq iftfwiqolavob ariT V 
 hm- aiiUXw .yXabfiti l#^anr -jJavaf.; t»#i«r bauo-i.rj ai<t»te oi itftfrh m& as b*>iqiB3i^ 
 
TABLE ±h 
 
 Hourly Water Inputs and Variable and Stand-By Costs in Relation to Selected 
 Capacity Output Rates in Lima Bean Freezing Plants, California, 1958 
 
 Rate of 
 output 
 
 Hourly water input s^-/ 
 
 Hourly 
 variable 
 costsiy 
 
 Annual 
 stand-by 
 charge£/ 
 
 Receiving 
 and initial 
 cleaning 
 
 Blanching 
 and second 
 quality 
 grade 
 
 Pick-belt 
 and filler 
 distri- 
 bution 
 
 Total 
 
 pounds 
 per hour 
 
 thousand gallons 
 
 doll 
 
 ars 
 
 5,000 
 
 5.3 
 
 5.5 
 
 5.0 
 
 15.8 
 
 2.7it 
 
 180 
 
 10,000 
 
 15.5 
 
 7.9 
 
 8.3 
 
 31.7 
 
 5.50 
 
 300 
 
 15,000 
 
 18.8 
 
 15.2 
 
 13.9 
 
 U7.9 
 
 8.31 
 
 Uoo 
 
 20,000 
 
 28.1 
 
 19. h 
 
 17.2 
 
 6U.7 
 
 11.22 
 
 1)00 
 
 25,000 
 
 35.0 
 
 25.1 
 
 21.7 
 
 81.8 
 
 ]lul8 
 
 600 
 
 30,000 
 
 39.6 
 
 29.0 
 
 25.1 
 
 93.7 
 
 16. 2U 
 
 600 
 
 a/ For equipment items, see specific stage analyses. 
 
 b/ Based on average PUC rates— approximately 13 cents per 100 cubic feet (750 gallons). 
 
 c/ Stand-by charge for meter service, etc. 
 
so'oco 
 
 so ^ 
 
 
 
 =— 
 
 
 TO' C,t 
 1 ■» V <5l 
 
 ZOO 
 
 Sc;'CGO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 TTt* f *> 
 
 
 50 GCO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; iris 
 
 i P r -"3 
 
 
 TP'S 
 
 T"t? * IS 
 ■ . ,., *J 
 
 
 
 ri;i • .ij 
 
 i 
 
 
 »x po ! ..\. \ 
 
 
 
 E9J r''-3"~""'' 
 
 
 "~ " ■ 1 " ""I 
 
 
 
 
 
 -y— - -» ~* 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 fto/Jij^ ji^ex. v.tbapa sij^j Aaxj-gpyc sr»<| 2#w<^ri. cos^a goy«fToo 4.0 g«T«c. 
 
60, 
 
 Figure 16. Total Variable Water Costs in Relation to 
 Length of Season and Rate of Plant Output in Processing 
 Lima Beans for Freezing, California, 1958. 
 
61. 
 
 style of container, storage or handling methods used, and length of freezing 
 season and storage. Development of precise relationships among these variables 
 requires a detailed engineering-economic analysis of freezing and storage 
 operations. Such results are not available, and the costs used in this 
 analysis are based on data obtained from plant records. Accordingly, total 
 freezing and first month's storage costs are estimated on the basis of annual 
 volume and a unit freezing and storage cost, representative of rates paid for 
 custom service by plants studied. Costs estimated on this basis are summarized 
 in the expression below and are graphically depicted in Figure 1?. 
 
 (15) TSC - $8.30(R)(H) 
 
 where 
 
 TSC is the total annual cost of freezing and first month's 
 storage . 
 
 R is 1,000 pounds of plant output per hour. 
 H is hours operated per season. 
 
 As about 75 per cent of the plants observed rely on commercial cold stor- 
 age companies for freezing and storage operation, the costs summarized in 
 equation (15) are considered representative of the costs experienced by the 
 majority of California plants. 
 
 In-Plant Transportation of Cased Goods and Packaging Materials 
 
 Fork-lift trucks are used in Lima bean processing for transferring cased 
 goods to cold storage and for supplying packaging and miscellaneous materials. 
 As all these activities are often performed by the same equipment and crew, 
 they are combined in this report to form one operating stage. 
 
 Net time requirements for the various components of the lift-truck jobs 
 observed were measured by time and production studies in a number of freezing 
 plants and fresh fruit packing houses.i^ Total net time per round trip is 
 
 1/ For a more detailed analysis refer to Sammet, In-Plant Trans- 
 portation Costs as Related to Materials Handling Methods — Apple and Pear 
 Packing . (Berkeley: University of California, College of Agriculture, 
 Agricultural Experiment Station, January, 1953), 57p. (Giannini Foundation 
 Mimeographed Report No. Ih2.) Processed. (The sixth report in a series on 
 Efficiency in Fruit Marketing.) 
 
Sen sie z&lun&t dtesQ *t 
 inx£$3o Biah no be&Bd §3f 
 
 •au ft*- & 
 
 'K'Oq'S'j: lift' 
 
62„ 
 
 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 
 
 Hourly rate of plant output, thousand pounds 
 
 Figure 17. Total Annual Costs of Freezing and First 
 Months Storage of Lima Beans in Relation to Rate of 
 Plant Output and Length of Operating Season, Califor- 
 nia, 1958. 
 
63. 
 
 comprised of two components -."turn around" and transit time, "Turn around" 
 activities involve operations that are common for each trip such as engaging 
 the load and set off. Transit time is the time required to move loaded pallets 
 to delivery point and return, unloaded, to the pick-up point. Net time require- 
 ments on this basis are summarized in the following relation: Net time per 
 round trip » 1.308 + 0.005(D), where "D" represents round-trip distance in 
 feet. This expression states that 1.308 minutes are required per trip for 
 "turn around" activities plus 0,00$ minutes per foot traveled between the pick- 
 up and delivery point and return. 
 
 The average round-trip distance from the casing area to the warehouse was 
 300 feet in the plants studied. As pallets were normally loaded with 90 retail 
 or 1*5 institutional cases each, the weight per pallet load is approximately 
 1>350 pounds. m Time requirements for supplying packaging and miscellaneous 
 materials were estimated as amounting to 10 per cent of the total trucking 
 time. 
 
 With these specifications regarding distance traveled and weight per 
 
 pallet load, lift-truck requirements per 1,000 pounds of plant pack-out are as 
 2/ 
 
 follows ♦- 
 
 Job Minutes required 
 
 Transport full cases to cold storage 2.080 
 Transport packaging and miscellaneous materials 0.231 
 Unavoidable delay 3 -' 0.578 
 
 Total time per 1,000 pounds pack-out 2.889 
 
 The total time requirement per 1,000 pounds pack-out given above can be 
 used to estimate the number of fork trucks and operators required for any 
 
 1/ Retail cases considered in this report contain 2k 10-ounce cartons. 
 Institutional cases considered contain 12 2«i/2-pound cartons. 
 
 2/ Net time requirements per 1,000 pounds are obtained as follows: 
 l,00o/l,350 (1.308 + 0.005D). With D specified as 300 feet, net time require- 
 ments for transport of full cases is 1,000/1,350 (2.2808) - 2.080 minutes per 
 1,000 pounds as given in the above table. 
 
 3/ Includes scheduled rest periods and nonproductive time due to contingencies, 
 
 personal time, etc. Various studies indicate that this varies in particular 
 
 plants from 15 to UO per cent of the total time input. Twenty per cent is used 
 here as a practical minimum. 
 
10.0 018 . Jen* 31 
 
 •3 . q 
 
 ; .-..-rip., 
 
 31 OX It: 
 
 0 05C»A« 
 
61*. 
 
 given plant output rate. On this basis, one fork-lift truck and driver will 
 "be required for every 20,700 pounds of plant pack-out. 
 
 Although a large part of the work performed in transporting packaging 
 and miscellaneous materials may be accomplished between shifts or during other 
 periods of plant inactivity, this portion of the transportation load represents 
 only a small percentage of the time required in the over-all transportation 
 operation. General observations of plant equipment inventories suggest that 
 the procedure used gives good estimates of fork-truck requirements during peak- 
 load periods. 
 
 The hourly variable costs of operating a fork-lift truck comprise a charge 
 of 29 cents for variable repairs and maintenance, 21 cents for fuel, and $2.10 
 for the operator. 
 
 The cost rates and standards presented above are used to estimate the crew 
 and equipment requirements and costs given in Table 15. Total annual costs 
 based on the entries in the table are illustrated in Figure 18. "Planning" 
 costs, represented by the heavy dashed lines in Figure 18, are given by the fol- 
 lowing expression; 
 
 (16) TSC = $425 + $^8(R) + $1.0800(H) + $0.1500(R)(H) 
 
 where 
 
 TSC is total season cost in dollars of the in-plant transportation 
 of cased goods and packaging materials. 
 R is 1,000 pounds of plant output per hour. 
 H is hours operated per season. 
 
 Investment Cost of Plant Building, Water Piping, and Electrical Wiring 
 
 Plant Buildings^ / 
 
 The costs of plant buildings used in this study are based on engineering 
 estimates of replacement costs for plants of concrete sidewall construction 
 
 1/ Material on the section of building costs is drawn from Sammet, "Economic 
 and Engineering Factors . . .," and from Sammet and I. F. Davis, Building and 
 Equipment Costs, Apple and Pear Packing (Berkeley: University of California, 
 College of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station, December, 1952.) 38p. 
 (Giannini Foundation Mimeographed Report No. ihl.) Processed. (The fifth report 
 in a series on Efficiency in Fruit Marketing.) 
 
y.i2i. f *R aid* ci ftjNUJ egnii 
 
TABLE 15 
 
 Equipment Replacement Costs, Annual Fixed Charges, and Hourly- 
 Variable Costs of Fork Lift Truck Transportation in 
 Relation to Capacity Pack-Out Rates, Lima Bean 
 Freezing Plants, California, 1953 
 
 
 V 
 
 arlable costs 
 
 Equipment 
 
 Rate of 
 plant 
 output 
 
 Lift 
 truck 
 driver 
 
 Repairs 
 
 and 
 fuel!/ 
 
 Total 
 
 Replace- 
 ment 
 costV 
 
 Annual 
 fixed 
 charge^/ 
 
 pounds 
 per hour 
 
 dollars 
 
 5,000 
 
 2.10 
 
 .12 
 
 2.22 
 
 5,775 
 
 953 
 
 10,000 
 
 2.10 
 
 .all 
 
 2.3h 
 
 5,775 
 
 953 
 
 15,000 
 
 2.10 
 
 .36 
 
 2.1*6 
 
 5,775 
 
 953 
 
 20,000 
 
 2.10 
 
 .Ii8 
 
 2.58 
 
 5,775 
 
 953 
 
 25,000 
 
 U.20 
 
 .60 
 
 U.80 
 
 n,55o 
 
 1,906 
 
 30,000 
 
 li.20 
 
 .75 
 
 a. 95 
 
 n,55o 
 
 1,906 
 
 a/ Variable repairs estimated as 0.5 per oent of repiaotmient cost 
 per 100 hours operation. 
 
 b/ Lift truck, standard type, 4,000 pounds oapacity, gae driven-- 
 $5,775, delivered. 
 
 o/ Estimated as percentage of replacement cost. Includes depreol- 
 ation--10 per oent; taxes— 1 per cent) insurance— 1 per cent j 
 interest— 8 per centj fixed repairs and overhaul— 1.5 per oentj 
 for a total of 16.5 per oent 
 
 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 
 
 Hourly rate of output, thousand pounds 
 
 Figure 18. Total Annual Costs of In-Plant Transportation 
 of Cased Goods and Packaging Materials in Lima Bean Freez- 
 ing Plants in Relation to Rate of Plant Output and Length 
 of Operating Season, California, 1958. 
 
6$. 
 
 with a clear height to the roof trusses of 18 feet. In general, the estimating 
 procedure involves two major steps: (1) determination of floor space require- 
 ments for a series of efficiently organized plants of different capacity out- 
 put rates and (2) estimation of construction costs for each building in the 
 series by applying current prices to the quantities of labor and materials 
 required for each structure* 
 
 Floor space requirements for well-organized plants of various capacities 
 were developed from an analysis of floor plans of plants cooperating in the 
 study. Space for processing, temporary raw product storage, packing materials 
 storage, boiler room, repair shop, rest rooms, and offices is included, while 
 space for freezing and cold-storage facilities is not. Space requirements in 
 terms of total roofed area for plants of three different capacities are given 
 in Table 16. These estimates are the basis for a general expression of space 
 required in relation to plant capacity as follows: A - 5,000 + 1,005(R)« In 
 this expression the symbol A represents the total roofed area of the building, 
 excluding freezing and cold storage facilities, while R represents 1,000 pounds 
 of plant-output capacity per hour* 
 
 Estimated construction costs for the type of building construction con- 
 sidered in this report are given in Table 16 plants of three different sizes. 
 These costs are the basis for a generalized expression showing total building 
 investment replacement costs in relation to plant size as measured by capacity 
 output rates. This expression is given in equation (17) below, 
 
 (17) C fi - $2k,930 * $3,1U0(R) 
 
 where 
 
 C_ is building replacement cost in dollars and R is 4,000 pounds 
 of plant output per hour. 
 
 An annual charge of 8.9 per cent of replacement costs is applied to 
 equation (17) above to give the annual fixed charge for depreciation, taxes, 
 insurance, interest, and repairs.^ 
 
 1/ These charges include depreciation 2,5 per centj taxes 1 per centj 
 insurance 0.6 per cent; interest on investment 3 per cent (approximately 
 5.5 per cent of the undepreciated balance); and repairs 1.8 per cent— for a 
 total of 8.9 per cent. 
 
tot 8.+n^ 
 
 ■ 
 
 tflelfsuhw ^nlviSaq- ..srjs'loic f'jiffco-rq wsi v*usnoqnsi , 
 
 gnibXxi/d siW 'io c^rrs batfooi X*$«* sd.f apneas Tqot A ierfa^e erf* noietss-tqna a&tf 
 
 ♦.ti/n-j toq tiiosqa:) ^-qtoo-Aneiq io 
 -n*3 nnijwxianoo gni-eX ta-J' lo aq-^-t i«1 staos adit :>i;iianoo bt.-imtizd 
 
 (H)CiiX< 
 
 abfiLcq 000<i ejfc ii brrF atir.Xlob nX tfaoar icift-soovrqt 
 
 o»* beilgqs si sJaoo tfaanraoaXqat lo $us r i is-q 
 • ef Kfci .n-oi^jto^-tq^ii lift &vttuir) bexxi Xamad srid 
 
67e 
 
 TABLE 16 
 
 Estimated Construction Cost of Concrete Wall and Concrete Floor tGround Level), Frozen Lima Bean 
 Processing Plants in Relation to Size of Building,^ California, 1958 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total quantity^ 
 
 Total c 
 
 OS 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 
 Unit 
 
 Plant 
 
 Plant 
 
 Plant 
 
 Plant 
 
 Plant 
 
 Plant 
 
 Item 
 
 
 Units 
 
 
 C03t 
 
 A 
 
 B 
 
 c 
 
 A 
 
 B 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 dollars 
 
 
 
 
 thousand dollars 
 
 Roofed area 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Grading 
 
 1,000 
 
 square 
 
 feet 
 
 20 
 
 15.0 
 
 25. 2 
 
 35«1 
 
 0.3 
 
 O.i 
 
 
 0.7 
 
 Floor 
 
 1,000 
 
 square 
 
 feet 
 
 kh9 
 
 i$.o 
 
 25.2 
 
 35.1 
 
 6.7 
 
 ii.: 
 
 i 
 
 15.8 
 
 Walls: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 lli.l 
 
 
 
 
 Exterior 
 
 1,000 
 
 square 
 
 feet 
 
 1,723 
 
 8.2 
 
 10.1 
 
 11.9 
 
 17.1 
 
 t 
 
 20.5 
 
 Interior 
 
 1,000 
 
 square 
 
 feet 
 
 618 
 
 1.0 
 
 1.6 
 
 2.U 
 
 0.6 
 
 l.C 
 
 ) 
 
 1.5 
 
 
 1,000 
 
 square 
 
 feet 
 
 
 0.6 
 
 1*7 
 
 2.7 
 
 0.2 
 
 0.7 
 
 1.1 
 
 jtooi ana irame 
 
 1,000 
 
 square 
 
 feet 
 
 1.10? 
 
 15.0 
 
 25.2 
 
 35.1 
 
 16.6 
 
 27.! 
 
 i 
 
 38.8 
 
 i/OUI o« 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Swing 
 
 
 Each 
 
 
 (4 
 
 6.0 
 
 6.0 
 
 8.0 
 
 o.U 
 
 O.U 
 
 0.6 
 
 
 
 Each 
 
 
 21)7 
 
 U.o 
 
 6.0 
 
 8.0 
 
 1.0 
 
 1.5 
 
 2.0 
 
 
 
 Each 
 
 
 39 
 
 U.U 
 
 o.U 
 
 y.u 
 
 
 0.2 
 
 O )i 
 
 Heating 
 
 
 Each 
 
 
 100 
 
 1.0 
 
 1.0 
 
 2.0 
 
 0.1 
 
 o.: 
 
 L 
 
 0.2 
 
 Ventilation 
 
 
 Each 
 
 
 100 
 
 2.0 
 
 U.o 
 
 8.0 
 
 0.2 
 
 0.1 
 
 i 
 
 0.8 
 
 Subtotal 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 hP.k 
 
 61. 
 
 
 82.U 
 
 Paving and siding 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Railroad siding 
 
 Lineal feet 
 
 10 
 
 200.0 
 
 300.0 
 
 li5o.o 
 
 2.0 
 
 3. 
 
 D 
 
 M 
 
 Paving 
 
 1,000 
 
 square 
 
 feet 
 
 k?9 
 
 7.8 
 
 12.0 
 
 20.7 
 
 3.9 
 
 6. 
 
 3 
 
 10.3 
 
 Subtotal 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5-9 
 
 9. 
 
 0 
 
 1^.8 
 
 Total direct coat 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1+6.3 
 
 70. 
 
 3 
 
 97.2 
 
 Contingencies, 5 per cent 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 lj.9 
 
 of direct cost 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2.3 
 
 3. 
 
 5 
 
 
 Architectural and engineering 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 fees, 2 per cent of 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ii 
 
 
 direct cost 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 0.9 
 
 1. 
 
 1.9 
 
 Contractor's overhead and profit, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 16 per cent of direct cost 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7.U 
 
 11. 
 
 2 
 
 15.6 
 
 Total cost 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 56.9 
 
 86. 
 
 k 
 
 119.6 
 
 a/ Excludes freezing and cold storage facilities, electrical wiring, and water piping. 
 
 b/ Quantities of each construction unit estimated from space requirements of plants of three different 
 capacities. Plant A is designed for a maximum hourly capacity of 10,000 pounds packoutj Plant B, 20, 
 pounds; and Plant C, 30,000 pounds. 
 
 Source: Sammet, L. L., "Economic and Engineering Factors in Agricultural Processing Plant Design" (Fh.E 
 thesis, University of California, 1958), U3ljp. 
 
68. 
 
 (18) AFCg - $2,219 + $280(R) 
 
 Equations (17) and (18) were used to estimate total building investment 
 replacement costs and annual fixed charges in relation to space requirements 
 of plants of selected capacities. These costs are summarized in Table 17. 
 
 Electrical Power Distribution 
 
 Processing plants of identical floor space area may vary widely with 
 respect to electrical power requirements because of differences in the power 
 requirements of different types of equipment. For this reason, investment 
 costs for electrical wiring are shown as a separate cost component and are 
 not included as a part of the building costs developed above. Variable costs 
 of electrical power inputs are included in the particular stage of operation 
 to which they apply. 
 
 Costs of electrical-wiring systems used in this analysis are based upon 
 engineering estimates of replacement costs. The initial step in the estimating 
 procedure used was to determine power wiring and illumination requirements for 
 a series of well-organized plants of different capacities. This involved 
 drawing power and light circuit layouts showing the number and distribution of 
 motors, light fixtures, and switchboards, together with motor horsepower ratings 
 and wattage requirements for illumination. The data derived from these drawings 
 provided the basis for estimating the quantities and types of equipment needed 
 for each installation. 
 
 Costs of installation and materials were then estimated by applying current 
 prices to the quantities of labor and materials required for electrical power 
 distribution in each size of plant considered. The prices used in the 
 development of labor and materials cost, including charges covering con- 
 tingencies, profits, and fees, were obtained from electrical contractors. The 
 replacement costs estimated in this manner were then related to plants of 
 various size as measured by capacity output rates and summarized in Table 17. 
 Investment replacement costs of power distribution systems — based on the costs 
 given in the table and related to the plant capacity output rates— are given 
 in the generalized expression below. 
 
 (19) % - $3,U50 + $171 (R) 
 
TABLE 17 
 
 Floor Fpace Requirements, Replacement Costs, and Annual Fixed Charges of Plant 
 Building, and Electrical and Water Supply Fystems in Relation to 
 Capacity Output Rates, Lima Beans, California, 195o 
 
 Rate of. 
 output^' 
 
 Plant building 
 
 Electrical system 
 
 Water supply system 
 
 Total 
 
 Roofed 
 areai/ 
 
 Replace- 
 ment 
 cost£/ 
 
 Annual 
 fixed . 
 chargeS' 
 
 Replace- 
 ment 
 cost£/ 
 
 Annual 
 fixed 
 charge£/ 
 
 Replace- 
 ment. 
 costS/ 
 
 Annual 
 fixed . 
 charge^/ 
 
 Replace- 
 ment 
 cost 
 
 Annual 
 
 fixed 
 
 charge 
 
 pounds 
 per hour 
 
 square 
 feet 
 
 dol] 
 
 .ars 
 
 5,000 
 10,000 
 15,000 
 20,000 
 25,000 
 30,000 
 
 10,025 
 15,050 
 20,075 
 
 25,100 
 30,125 
 35,150 
 
 lj0,630 
 56,330 
 72,030 
 87,730 
 103,1j30 
 119,130 
 
 3,619 
 5,019 
 6,U19 
 7,819 
 9,219 
 10,619 
 
 lj,305 
 5,160 
 6,015 
 6,870 
 7,725 
 8,580 
 
 382 
 U57 
 532 
 607 
 682 
 757 
 
 !*,600 
 6,900 
 9,200 
 11,500 
 13,800 
 16,100 
 
 1)10 
 
 615 
 820 
 
 1,025 
 1,230 
 
 1,U35 
 
 1*9,535 
 68,390 
 
 87,2li5 
 106,100 
 
 1214,955 
 1143,810 
 
 Mill 
 
 6,091 
 7,771 
 9,ii5l 
 11,131 
 12,811 
 
 a/ Index of plant size. 
 
 b/ Estimated from relation: A = 5,000 + 1,005(R), where A is roofed area excluding freezing and cold 
 ~ storage facilities and R is 1,000 pounds plant output per hour. 
 
 c/ Estimated from relation: 
 
 
 
 ► $3,ll40(R). 
 
 d/ Estimated from relation: 
 
 AFC B 
 
 « $2,219 + $280(R). 
 
 e/ Estimated from relation: 
 
 C E° 
 
 $3,160 + 
 
 $171(R). 
 
 f/ Estimated from relation: 
 
 AFC E 
 
 ■ $307 + 
 
 $15(R). 
 
 g/ Estimated from relation: 
 
 c w" 
 
 ^2,300 + 
 
 $1)60(R). 
 
 h/ Estimated from relation: 
 
 
 - 0205 + 
 
 $ljl(R). 
 
q\ jgafiawf eq .(Rota j-sjopTOu: YLCT » <S*SX<b ♦ *5>K)(Kj} * 
 
 3\ jyqe-c 
 
 30*000 J 3t»'330 nfc'J>? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f 2>3I. liOiTi - i,.jp — p ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
70. 
 
 In equation (19) the symbol Cg refers to investment replacement cost of power 
 distribution vdiile the symbol R refers to 1,000 pounds of plant capacity out- 
 put per hour. 
 
 An annual charge of 8.9 per cent of replacement cost was used to cover 
 depreciation, taxes, insurance, repairs, and interest.^ Annual fixed charges 
 of electric power distribution are obtained by applying this percentage to the 
 expression given in equation (19) above. The result is given below: 
 
 (20) AFCg - $307 + $15 (R) 
 
 In equation (20) AFCg is the annual fixed charge of electric power distribution 
 and R is as defined previously. 
 
 Water Supply System 
 
 The quantity of water delivered through the piping system of a given plant 
 depends upon the gauge pressure at the source of the plant water intake? 
 diameter, length, and age of piping j and number, size, and types of orifices 
 and valves, etc. 
 
 Estimation of replacement costs of plant water supply systems parallels 
 the procedure used in the estimation of electric power wiring. This involves 
 the preparation of a number of piping layouts showing the number and distri- 
 bution of equipment items, flumes, pumps, and personal service facilities 
 together with estimated water use rates. -/ The size and quantities of industrial 
 
 piping needed to supply plant water requirements with a given intake pressure 
 
 3/ 
 
 were estimated from these layouts.- Costs of installation and materials were 
 
 1/ These charges are allocated in the same manner as for buildings. 
 
 2/ With the plant layouts considered, standard equipment items are arranged 
 in straight line fashion. Plant water mains are 18 to 20 feet above floor 
 level, with tap-ins or drops averaging 15 feet each in length. Additional 
 footage is provided for branch runs and drops to account for dispersement of 
 boiler room, laboratory, and personal service facilities such as reeli rooms and 
 drinking fountains. Estimated water use rates and variable costs are presented 
 in Table 12, page 51, of this report. 
 
 3/ Selection of pipe size was made so as to provide 25 pounds per square 
 inch* minimum pressure at equipment discharge points, with 60 pounds per square 
 inch pressure in city distribution main. 
 
.07 
 
 -too ytfiosqao jivXq io abweq 0O0 t X .H Xocfrrca art* aXXrfc 
 
 9ftt O-t 3QJ 
 
 j;f>oflIqFHi' lc v+jv>'o 9,8 3o a^iado Xairqfu- flA. 
 ceil XftwioA" ,H9t&tnl-'"btt& % ?.fJt&qet v a3EUi.i*ai.+*9X** , t aoU*io: 
 tmazioq cJttit 'jffjh'cXqqjB yd bsttfaJdc n >X,.todx-T>taX£ .aowoq ox*r*o?J 
 svoXed nevXg af ,fij/3S»i sdr • ,*>vodfl (-21) jyoX&srpa nX rtavX^ nolss* 
 
 (#51* f, ?pC£< w, *0"*A (OS) 
 
 aoiftrdtiizib i&noq aX*ioaI*t1§&" §8* 
 
 ta o^.tiX ^OfA ( ) np.i.y--*p9 oi 
 .^X3c."-jia rc ''iq bsrulab e« eX 3 baa 
 
 Jo aefz'ie aaiqXq dstfotti* be-xj-vXXat* vtfaw lo vjXtfuai/p sdT 
 loiisw '&ffiXq 0rtt to eatyo'S f 9rii Aa aiuaaavj s^ubxj sritf- ftoqa abneqsb. 
 e=qY,<J" bns t ^sie ^•xetcrcraa feca tyrfqiq "io ags baa ( dj$go*X tisisiniiXb 
 
 aXelle-xsq aniens ^£qqva* istfaw 'XdaXq Io eJaoo Jnsff&cslqei lo nci-JaciJal ' 
 awXovni afrfi ♦sniihfr 'iavoq • ojpr^oaXd Io ffoitamXi?.? Jftdl pX boctr aiubaoo'sq «di 
 -iUaXb bae lediaiui srf.+ ^nXvoda a«t»o^»X gnxqiq *.o lodmtra r Io aoi^etBeso^q odj 
 
 iRltictrbnl lo tvtit&naup bitiB ??la • srtT ^-.aa^si aau *ia; 
 siew aXe/ieiwn b.;s noit<*. fXsiani 'to a.tsoO -.adweva: 
 
 qqjn o* :vi>b*efl •■■( *.-;xq 
 i uiot'2 bsvroiJaa otsw 
 
 twpi? b'iiibfjiB.ta- jba* 
 6^ 8X ■ ota"- saiafir t 
 
 bfl* anoi f J onagri iol babivo*? eX -ega^ool 
 81 '£ciioti«q bra {\;;pJaTcdftX t «oo'j 4&&fifNf 
 .ia^£w ibojcraXiaoL •eoxWnool- $p iT&ii'ib* 
 . Woq'xi -« .iriii So , t jig "ageq .SX alds r ni 
 
 .pi-am- noi#<rcf.ixjai j 'r' ^.?£o ,hrX "owaa^iq (ftioi 
 
71. 
 
 then estimated by applying current prices to the quantities of labor and materials 
 needed in each size of plant considered.^ The investment replacement costs 
 so estimated were then related to plants of various size as measured by selected 
 capacity output rates. Costs estimated in this manner are summarized in Table 
 17. A generalized expression showing investment replacement costs of water 
 supply systems in relation to plant capacity output rates is given in equation 
 (21) belowj 
 
 (21) - $2,300 + $U60(R) 
 
 The symbol refers to investment replacement cost of water supply systems of 
 Lima bean plants, and R is 1,000 pounds of plant capacity output per hour. 
 
 The annual fixed charge of plant water distribution systems is obtained by 
 applying an annual charge of 8.9 per cent to the above estimate of replacement 
 costs. This includes amounts for depreciation, taxes, insurance, interest, and 
 repairs that are identical with those applied to buildings and electrical power 
 systems. Annaal charges based on this percentage and the estimated replacement 
 costs are summarized in Table 17. A generalized expression based on these 
 costs is given in equation (22). 
 
 (22) AFC^ - $205 + $U1(R) 
 
 The symbol AFC^ refers to the annual fixed charge of plant water distribution 
 systems, and R is as previously defined. 
 
 Summary of Building, Electrical Wiring, and Water Supply Costs 
 
 Total costs in this category are simply the sum of the costs of building, 
 water, and electrical facilities. The totals as to investment cost and annual 
 fixed charge for plants of selected capacity rates are given in Table 17 and 
 are shown graphically in Figure 19. 
 
 1/ The quantities and prices of construction inputs were derived from 
 estimates obtained from commercial contractors on the basis of the specifi- 
 cations provided. 
 
at Bits 
 
 dsX "ic p^DUnsup « 
 
 £i/p« viX novin 
 
 'lo fegS 
 
 I le afxwoq GCQ<X si H bos t sJnfiiq ast?d atc.U 
 
 I rfi > R If!. T> 1" T 
 
 bis , J?.?n»ijni t 3orif;tt!?vii: . ssrE.t t noitfec:>s , 5q3b iol **, 
 ':?woq XeoxitfovX* bfws aafllbllx/cf o* bg>ilqq3 e*acrU (it* 
 •jfla-raacX^en b**suX-i30 erf* has ygsdw^yic-q ai.ii tto bsi 
 
 /t£/o}!TS a on i afi!" 
 r icaynsbj: sis Jjoric 
 s.d ae^-xfrlo : X6*ffu:A 
 
 ttctAt!tj±i$».sb •x&osw *™iq lo s»s)tBfio bexil Xsim/Tfi erf* o.t Btslst ,-3' 
 
 •b--viil«b •\Xau'- ivfr'iq eX Jl 
 
 •^nioXitM lo a ***>:> 
 i&urms bas Jaoo Uitift 
 Item YT : 9fcf»T ni fl 
 
 o jFTita «(& <j.qraxe arrfc t&S'tfa.o . eirfA «i.>. j*a» XaSq!; 
 dt 0* es .elato* sriT- •esiiXlXps'i &fotytm£* bos , 
 
 Of? 
 
 ICO !RX! 
 
 jdi a j 
 
72. 
 
 Figure 19. Annual Fixed Costs of Building and Electrical 
 Power and Water Distribution Systems in Lima Bean Freez- 
 ing Plants in Relation to Capacity Rate of Plant Output 
 (Size of Plant), California, 1958. 
 
73. 
 
 Supervision and Miscellaneous Labor 
 
 Labor associated directly with a particular operating stage has been 
 included in each stage analysis. There are several additional categories of 
 general supervision and labor categories, however, that are not directly related 
 to a specifi c operating stage. These include the plant superintendents} 
 foremen) subforemenj foreladiesj and quality control, utility, and cleanup 
 workers. Some plants are also under continous U. S. Department of Agriculture 
 inspection which requires the presence of a federal inspector during each 
 operational shift. 
 
 Total annual costs of these general categories vary widely among plants, 
 primarily in relation to the size of the operation and length of season. Data 
 relating to these cost categories were obtained from accounting records of the 
 firms studied. Analysis of these data resulted in the following generalized 
 expression which relates the costs of supervision and miscellaneous labor Jso 
 capacity output rate and hours operated per season* 
 
 (23) TSC - $2,800 + $7.110(H) + $1.2Uo(R)(H) 
 
 where 
 
 TSC is total season cost of supervision and miscellaneous labor 
 in dollars. 
 
 R is 1,000 pounds of plant output capacity per hour. 
 H is hours of plant operation per season. 
 
 Costs based on the above expression are shown graphically in Figure 20. 
 
 Administrative and Office Costs 
 
 The administrative and office cost component includes salaries of 
 administrative office employees, plant managers, and field men. It also 
 includes expenditures for professional services, office supplies, telephone, 
 licenses, dues, subscriptions, and donations. It does not include selling 
 costs. 
 
 Administrative and office costs are related to both size of plant and 
 length of season. However, it was not possible to develop a precise relation- 
 ship among these variables from plant record data. This was due to the 
 difficulty of separating administrative costs attributable to Lima bean proc- 
 essing in multiple- product plants and because of the multiple nature of the 
 
loctaj. n<J sorts/ J "i : 
 
 ?£!O0 ta 
 
 BPtirifp-a; rial 
 
 "to 
 
 \rip-v 
 
 Hell b^/rft 
 
 (h)cox/ 
 
 rtsXX'.^ 3?» Lm baa aoJ 
 
 Ki .'I 
 
 sjsc'J ill to haui evJtifit#0±ii 
 
 ttfrcXI 
 
 *ci$ 03 ruffe bJ 
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 
 
 Figure 20. Total Annual Costs of Supervision and Miscellaneous 
 Labor in Plants Processing Lima Beans by Freezing Related to 
 Length of Season and Rate of Plant Output, California, 1958. 
 
 5 10 15 20 25 30 
 
 Hourly rate of output, thousand pounds 
 
 Figure 21. Total Annual Costs of Plant Administration in 
 Relation to Length of Season and Rate of Plant Output In 
 Plants Processing Lima Beans by Freezing, California, 1958. 
 
75. 
 
 duties performed by some administrative personnel. Consequently, total 
 administrative costs — drawn from an analysis of accounting record data of plants 
 cooperating in this and other studies— were developed by applying a constant 
 unit cost based on the allocation of these costs to various products on a total- 
 season volume basis. This relation is given by equation (2U) below and is 
 graphically depicted in Figure 21. 
 
 (210 TSC » $5.51 (R)(H) 
 
 where 
 
 TSC is total season cost of plant administration in dollars. 
 R is 1^000 pounds of plant capacity output per hour. 
 H is hours of plant operation per season. 
 
 Miscellaneous Equipment 
 
 Equipment items associated with a particular operating stage have been 
 included in the estimates of stages costs presented in earlier sections. Many 
 equipment items such as repair, fabricating, laboratory, and housekeeping 
 equipment are not assignable to particular operating stages and are considered 
 as comprising part of general plant overhead. These are grouped together and 
 summarized in Appendix A, Table 1, for inclusion in total plant costs of proc- 
 essing Lima beans for freezing. Total season costs of these equipment items- 
 related to plant output and length of season — are represented in the equation 
 below. Estimation of these costs is based on annual fixed charge of 16.5 per 
 cent of the equipment replacement cost and a variable charge of 0.5 per cent of 
 replacement cost per 100 hours operation for variable repairs and maintenance. 
 
 (25) TSC - $1,072 + $9.00(R) + $0.3250(H) + $0.1300 (R) (H) 
 
 where 
 
 TSC is total season cost of miscellaneous equipment, and R 
 and H are as defined above. 
 
 The cost relations stated in the above expression are graphically 
 illustrated in Figure 22. 
 
^d f<>TTLO?-rrv; b •>'.'..; 4j 
 
 eiriJ ai iniJasaqooo 
 no bdsad c^go .tiitc 
 exef>d «o;Iov noaeaa 
 
 iq i$ d 
 
 Jnaaqiifp 
 
 ; !'flI.r90U.jLV. 
 
 ttnoxto&'s istltBa at l&toagarq aisoo e-vgaJa lo 89ja«l,jao arlj 
 3niqK« ^aifoff brie iXrataldcteX ^-uJecHdsl t nif,qe3 «e rirnre ess. 
 
 bns tswftagoj fcaqptrcg »tcs oaariT ibaarhKwo dnaXq Xeiansro lo tfisq 
 ♦txfoq lo m too .trisiq .uSo.t nl WtfBifXSci to! % X alcfsT t A xibooqqA ai 
 .■frieaq tops ea^o'i lo aJaoi Seim XfijoT •gnisacrt lot araad 
 ifniieapa 3tiJ ni b^iftaaetqai 9*ifi--maAoa lo to^ai bns foqjtto .tn&L: 
 *i"*q *?»o.t *o o.t» ^ti^xf ^> ff jxi^ Xattnn. ; ° no hos/sd si •> i -t;.p a 3^^ifi ic no'lAtri 
 
 rlJ gn.teao 
 i3 .waCori 
 
 •»v<3d? benxi&D e.i stc H bare 
 
 O'i. ffcv 
 
 'iXXaoidqai 
 
76. 
 
 5 10 15 20 25 30 
 
 Hourly rate of output, thousand pounds 
 
 Figure 22. Total Annual Costs of Miscellaneous Equipment 
 in Plants Processing Lima Beans by Freezing Related to Rate 
 of Plant Output and Length of Season, California, 1953. 
 
77 
 
 TOTAL FIELD ASSEMBLY AND PLANT COST 
 
 In the preceding sections total costs in relation to volume of output and 
 other conditions of plant operation were developed for each of several operating 
 stages. In this section the cost relationships for individual stages as well 
 as general costs not associated with specific stages are combined into total 
 costs for the entire operation. 
 
 Total plant cost is affected by the rate of output, length of operating 
 season, style of pack, the manner in which field and plant operations are in- 
 tegrated, the wage rates paid, and other factors. The effects of variations 
 in the more important of these factors have been considered specifically in the 
 stage-cost analyses. Fixed values were taken for certain other factors con- 
 sidered unlikely to vary enough under ordinary circumstances to have a 
 significant effect on total costs. Specifications relating to such factors- 
 most of which have been previously discussed-— are summarized below. 
 
 1. Plant size is defined in terms of capacity output rate. Specific 
 consideration is given to six different plant capacities varying in 5,000 
 pound increments over the range 5,000-30,000 pounds of raw product "through- 
 put" per hour.i^ 
 
 2. A maximum of eight hours temporary storage (with ice) is allowed be- 
 tween vining and processing and is assumed to have no measurable affect on 
 quality. 
 
 3. In each plant considered, packaging and casing equipment are provided 
 for each style of pack — retail, institutional, and bulk — with capacity for 
 handling the entire plant throughput in any single sjjyle of pack. 
 
 h* Repackaging operations were not considered. 
 
 5. Straight-time wage rates as specified in the 1958 Collective Bargaining 
 Agreement Between Frozen Food Processors and the California State Council of 
 Cannery Unions were used in the development of in-plant labor costs. These 
 
 1/ "Throughput" is the rate of flow of raw product that is handled by the 
 labor and equipment of each operating stage. In-process losses in product 
 weight due to maturity grade separation are partially or wholly offset by weight 
 gains attributable to water absorption and are assumed to have negligible effect 
 on the selection of processing equipment based on capacity. The major effect 
 of quality, as measured by overmature and defective beans, is on labor require- 
 ments of the visual inspection and manual quality separation stage. 
 
• 1 
 
 -VI 
 
 (Ml 
 
 L0V Otf .J 
 
 J doss 1 
 
 in 
 
 taw noij^iaao ?ru; 
 
 .Off f.o 
 
78. 
 
 rates were increased 6 per cent to allow for employer payroll contributions. 
 Field labor costs used in estimating costs of vining and field assembly opera* 
 tions were based on typical wage rates observed among plants cooperating in the 
 study. 
 
 6. Selling costs and storage costs beyond the first month were omitted. 
 
 7. The costs of raw product are not included. 
 
 Separate Planning Costs for Field and Plant Activities 
 
 Planning cost equations that were developed in preceding sections of this 
 analysis are summarized in Table 18. The operating stages are listed in the 
 first column of the table, while each of the remaining columns relates to a 
 variable used in deriving the planning equations relating to the separate 
 operating stages and cost components. Individual planning cost equations 
 taken from the stage analyses presented earlier— can be read directly from the 
 table toy applying appropriate coefficients given in the body of the table to 
 the variables listed in the column headings. For example, the cost equation 
 for vining r^adfrom the first line of Table 18 isi TSC y - 13.929 + 12, 633(H) 
 + $0.3691(H) + $7.99(R)(H)j in which TSC y represents total season vining cost, 
 and the variable (R) and (H) are as described previously. 
 
 Planning cost equations for plant and field operations are obtained by 
 aggregating the equations representing costs of the individual stages and cost 
 components. 2/ Thus, the planning cost equation for total field and assembly 
 operations is obtained by summing the entries on lines 1 and 2 of Table 18. 
 This gives: 
 
 (26) TSC - $3,929 + $2,633(R) + $0.3691(H) + $7.99(R)(H) + $l.Uo(log 1() D) (R) (H) 
 
 The planning cost equation for the total in-plant operation is similarly 
 obtained by summing the entries in lines 1 to 12 of Part B of Table 18. This 
 expression, read from the last line of Table 18, is given in equation (27) below: 
 
 1/ The individual operating stages were so defined as to be independent 
 with" respect to stage costs. Total plant cost relationships then are given by 
 simple summation of stage-cost relationships. 
 
79, 
 
 TABLE 18 
 
 Summary of Planning Cost Equations for Operating Stages and Cost Components in Field Assembly and 
 Processing Operations for Plants Processing Lima Beans for Freezing, California, 1958 
 
 Operating stages 
 and cost components 
 
 Variable s-^ 
 
 
 Constant 
 term-' 
 
 (R) 
 
 (H) 
 
 jam 
 
 Lor D (R)(II) 
 
 (R)(H)(P) 
 
 (H r )(R) 
 
 (! 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 " coeffic 
 
 Jftrits or 
 
 multipliers expressed in 
 
 dollars 
 
 
 
 
 A. Field or assembly costs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1. 
 
 Vlning 
 
 3,929 
 
 2,633 
 
 0.3691 
 
 7.99 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2. 
 
 Transportation to plant 
 
 Total field or assembly 
 costs 
 
 3,92? 
 
 2,633 
 
 0.3691 
 
 7.99 
 
 1.1(0 
 l.ljO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 B. In- 
 
 ■Til airf f*rtc+c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1. 
 
 Receiving, initial cleaning, 
 and quality grading * 
 
 1,892 
 
 320 
 
 U.5882 
 
 0.8IM 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2. 
 
 Blanching and second- 
 
 nun 1 1 1 v o T* a H "I n er 
 
 '-JUlA-L J. CtU J_i L£ 
 
 1,293 
 
 187 
 
 5.6773 
 
 0,2238 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3. 
 
 Visual inspection and 
 manual quality grading 
 
 Up 
 
 32 
 
 8.6500 
 
 1.5100 
 
 
 0.1110 
 
 
 
 
 
 h. 
 
 Packaging 
 
 h,3hS 
 
 856 
 
 
 
 
 
 2ll.730 
 
 11 
 
 .I480 
 
 1.590 
 
 5. 
 
 Variable water costs 
 
 166 
 
 15 
 
 0.1872 
 
 0.5380 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6. 
 
 Caging 
 
 189 
 
 67 
 
 
 
 
 
 7.952 
 
 t 
 
 .712 
 
 
 7, 
 
 In-plant transportation of 
 cased goods and packaging 
 materials 
 
 
 hQ 
 
 1.0800 
 
 0.1300 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 8. 
 
 Freezing 
 
 
 
 
 8.3000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 9. 
 
 Plant investment costs 
 
 a. Blildings 
 
 b. Electrical wiring 
 
 c. Water piping 
 
 2,219 
 307 
 205 
 
 280 
 
 15 
 
 ia 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 10. 
 
 Supervision and miscel- 
 laneous labor 
 
 2,800 
 
 
 7.1100 
 
 1.2lj00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 11. 
 
 Plant administration 
 
 
 
 
 5.5100 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12. 
 
 Miscellaneous equipment 
 
 1,072 
 
 9 
 
 0.3250 
 
 0.0130 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total in-plant costs 
 
 15,353 
 
 1,870 
 
 27.6177 
 
 18.31142 
 
 
 0.1110 
 
 32.682 
 
 19 
 
 .192 
 
 lj.590 
 
 a/ The variables of the planning cost equation are defined as follovs; 
 (R) = 1,000 pounds of plant output capacity per heir. 
 (H) = number of hours of plant operation. per season. 
 
 (R)(H) = total season volume obtained by multiplying 1,00/3 pounds of plant hourly output times the number of hours 
 operated per season. 
 
 log D (R)(H) = logarithm of the distance from viners to plant, multiplied by total season volume (r)(h). 
 
 (R)(H)(P) = total season volume multiplied by the percentage of grade-out remaining after mechanical quality 
 separation and must be manually graded on an in"jpeet1.«n belt. 
 
 (H )(R) = number of hours operated per season packaging retail style times the plant output rate (R) as defined 
 in thie footnote. 
 
 (1,)( R ) " number of hour3 operated per season packaging Institutional style times the plant output rate (R) as 
 defined in this footnote. 
 
 (R.)(R) = number of hours operated per season packaging bulk style times the plant output rate (R) as defined in 
 this footnote. 
 
 b/ Represents the fixed annual charge. 
 
80. 
 
 (27) TSC p - $15,353 ♦ $1,870(R) + $27.6177 (H) ♦ *18.31U2(R)(H) 
 ♦ 0.1110(R)(H)(P) + $32.682(H r )(R) ♦ $19.192 (H^)(R) 
 + $U.59(H b )(R) 
 
 Equation (26) can be used to estimate total field costs — vining and 
 assembly — for any given rate of vining output, number of hours of vining opera* 
 tamper season, and distance of haul from viners to plant. Equation (27) can 
 be used to estimate total in-plant processing costs for any given rate of plant 
 output, number of hours of plant operation per season, percentage of manual 
 grade-out, and hours spent in packaging each style of pack. To illustrate the 
 procedure, consider a plant that has a capacity output of 10,000 pounds per 
 hour; operates 250 hours packaging retail style and $50 hours packaging institu- 
 tional style for a total season of 500 hours; and maintains a brine concentration 
 in mechanical quality graders such that manual grade-out percentage averages 
 5 per cent. Assume further that the vining capacity output rate is also 10,000 
 pounds per hour and that the average distance from viners to plant is 10 miles. 
 Based on these assumptions, the variables appearing in equations (26) and (27) 
 have the following values* 
 
 Substituting these values in the total cost equations given above gives 
 total annual costs of $77,39U for field and assembly operations and $271,893 
 for in-plant processing. 
 
 Average cost is found by dividing total annual cost by the number of 
 pounds packed. In the above example, the total number of pounds packed during 
 the season is the product of the rate of hourly output and the number of hours 
 operated, or 5 million pounds. Dividing this amount into estimated total costs 
 gives a unit cost of field and assembly operations of 1.5U8 cents per pound 
 and an average cost of in-plant processing of 5.U38 cents per pound. 
 
 D - 10 
 
 R - 10 
 
 H - 500 
 
 P - 5 
 
Mil ♦ (H)?V£3»YS& + (f^ovc 
 
 ru»c (tS) noi.-* 
 
 ^Hb£ct lo ^ tfl'i Clf 
 
 8'ti/Oif lo 
 
 won is 
 
 boA blstl lot |l^£»Tf4 lo Piioa 
 
 :r..s'*>-q s&m'oq lo locfau/n Isrf^t t oXcjmf.xa ^voda orfj nX •f>ml;>&q efcra'oq 
 
 ► b9fmt$z& odoi Jtu/cts e.jUtt ^nibl?i<I .frmooq iio/ff/ai <* *io , i>o,fcn'tsqo 
 eJ-:T9o lo enoi\tB"Xsqo ^IddWBCJI biiiv alsxl 'to jno^ .n il' £ aovia 
 
 ,fcn>;cq isq eJnao lo grJi5.,e6o-q *n*?;q-ni lo Jtoo ilgaraa ae bat 
 
81. 
 
 Combined Planning Costs for Field and Plant Activities 
 
 The development of combined processing costs reflecting efficient organi- 
 zation requires finding the least-cost combination of hours operated per 
 season and hourly output rates of field and plant operations. The integra- 
 tion or programming of vining and plant facilities and operating hours so as 
 to achieve lowest total annual cost for handling any given season volume of 
 Lima "beans is discussed in this section. 
 
 Integration of Field and Plant Operations 
 
 Institutional and operating restrictions— such as collective "bargaining 
 agreements, custom, the length of harvest season, and the number of hours it is 
 possihle to operate per day—place limits on the number of combinations of capa- 
 city output rates and hours of operation hut allow much variation. An additional 
 consideration is uncertainty in some aspects of scheduling field and plant 
 activities. This requires flexibility in the design of plant and vining 
 facilities that will give relatively low costs over a range of output rates and 
 operating hours near the least -cost level. 
 
 While all possihle combinations of plant and field output rates and opera- 
 ting hours are not considered, four important alternatives are presented in 
 Figure 23. Two sets of curves are shown— one based on 30 and the other on ho 
 days of operation per season. Each of the cost curves shown in Figure 23 
 represent unit costs of processing Lima beans for freezing with least-cost 
 techniques for selected combinations of field and plant capacity output rates 
 and daily operating hours. In the cases presented, a maximum of eight hours 
 temporary storage (with ice) is allowed between vining and in-plant processing; 
 and this is assumed to have no measurable effect on quality. It is also 
 assumed that daily operating hours and rates of output of vining and plant 
 operations are such that the total volume vined per day is equal to the total 
 volume processed. In recognition of time lost daily in lunch periods, changing 
 shifts, cleanup, equipment servicing, rest periods, and other delays, a maximum 
 of 16 hours operation per day was applied in these examples. This conforms 
 closely to the maximum daily operating hours observed in plants cooperating in 
 the study. 
 
 The four cases presented are (l) a single 8-hour shift per day in both 
 plant and vining operations; (2) two 8-hour shifts of plant and vining opera- 
 tions per day; (3) one 8-hour shift of plant operations per day with two 8-hour 
 shifts of vining; and (h) two 8-hour shifts of plant operations per day with 
 one 8-hour shift of vining. The least-cost combination of season volume, hours 
 
/Si '.31 rw: .0 sJiwCSKvr r psax:foto9 1ft taaogolw 
 :<t So ac.'iafllrfc-^s crso-j-^eodX srii 3.1 J call 
 rstfftjo '£&S.q*&a£i t h&fiX* to ae.'K's dvjiuo vXxyoi 
 > £aa aajyilioal faa Bfftftt* lo gfiifltdglfl 
 
 lo auwlov aoeasa osvxa ^ ^lj£a.T< "sab J-ao» Xai/afti 
 
 ,aox.*c-9i ©irid" ol liasaifoo LS ax aaasd' 
 
 tt 
 
 Sni.iiet/iBi' avxioaxloo as o^ua-»aA^x:3."uxi , ea*x gaxi 
 U e'xr/od to 'Woi/a 6n«. *«psa33 Jeavxad to dt 
 
 tf£g$ to s-ioltmXdisrto tc i^fassn etf* ; «o B#2ftU soslq- 
 
 iaoxcrxf>&e aA - : *nol3»£«av :foua ve& 
 
 Sahxxv ban fnsic lc asxadJ 
 
 •.• i4$84 Tuq^iro xo 
 
 a'lftflfo Jiti? a^!f>*i Jij: 
 
 0-!^ CIO 'X>[3'0 S."!"* fii 
 
 c dwf aotd^rajo to «?"?x/oa Acta 1 
 0 oioajcs: aace rri ^Jiilschisoaij 
 al Y-ixiicfxxel* e3iJ"ifp9'i' > 
 
 3*300 VOX YlGVX^n.. 93 9Y.T3 ill". 
 
 tatsrrxl *ol £: 
 tfoftta 6a* fx 
 
 J I/O 1 Gd - n» l T.S£>l3i< : 
 
 saoi+aaxc'uioo slctfcesbij Xls Sliatf 
 t rtuo'i t £.LVXhf)i6tno£> ioa stta so^ao" 8ttM 
 re ofo 83.ii;o to "si 98 ovT '.£S ai^iS 
 > rfoaSC .noaasa uaj ncxisaeqb 1c s*£3£ 
 Li saiarwo-q Ho ai-aos JJraa taatftftgaf^' 
 $nox£a«xcf<ao9 jtoioatsa lot b9t:pt:'.d'yo$ 
 is 9df»i iiT » a*3 ■ 'orl ^n.£J"i?i*xTC v- "■' oas 
 
 bavt oao'c 
 
 A .fri; 
 
 >?u.r.rov 
 
 ^'ij'xfe owpd-u ovi (' 
 
 s5 1?^ a'aoxi- 
 
Figure 23. Relation of Average Planning Costs to Season Volume With Four Levels of Restrictions on Daily 
 Plant and Vining Operations in Processing Lima Beans for Freezing. California, 1958. 
 
83. 
 
 of operation per season, and output capacity rates were worked out for each 
 case.i^ The cost curves presented for these four cases are based on: season 
 packout consisting of 70 per cent in retail cartons, 20 per cent in institutional 
 cartons, and 10 per cent in bulk bags or cases; length of haul (viners to 
 plant) — 10 miles; and manual grade-out — 5 per cent. Specification of other 
 values for these variables would not materially affect the general relationships 
 developed. 
 
 Several general characteristics of average cost behavior as illustrated 
 
 in Figure 23 are noted. First, with any given pattern of daily operating hours 
 
 and length of season, total season hours are fixed and so differences in total 
 
 season volume necessarily involve changes in scale of plant as measured by 
 
 planned capacity output rates. Consequently, each point on a particular curve 
 
 2/ 
 
 represents average cost with a different plant.- With a given length of 
 season and over a wide range of plant capacities, unit costs decrease as plant 
 capacity increases. This reduction in unit costs associated with increased 
 scale of output results from more effective utilization of supervision and 
 other partially fixed labor inputs and the substitution of various cost reducing 
 techniques in the larger plants. Second, plant capacity rates necessary to 
 achieve any given season volume decrease as hours of operation per season 
 increase. As planned capacity rate with a fixed season volume decreases, 
 investment cost and the corresponding annual fixed charge are smaller which 
 tends to give lower unit fixed costs. As planned capacity is decreased, however, 
 some of the cost advantages of increased scale are lost and this tends to give 
 increased costs per unit. 
 
 Thus, the behavior of unit planning costs varies with both length of 
 season and capacity output rates, and efficient organization of plant and field 
 operations calls for balancing the net cost effects of scale of plant and 
 operating hours. The average cost curves illustrated in Figure 23 reflect the 
 effects described above. Except with relatively small season volumes, average 
 planning costs with any given season volume and combination of vining and proc- 
 essing plant hours are lower with a UO-day than a 30-day season. Unit costs 
 
 1/ The least-cost combination of hours and rates for any given season volume 
 is obtained by minimizing the planning equations representing total annual costs 
 of vining and plant operations — equations (26) and (27) — subject to appropriate 
 constraints on maximum daily operating times and temporary storage allowances 
 for a given length of season. For technical details of the solution, see 
 Appendix B, page 101. 
 
 2/ "Plant" refers to both vining and in-*)lant processing facilities. 
 
noIoiliR fc.is ,e?&yr i*;q4yo Y^i^^o; bft£* Aobjbm 
 
 1 e dii* 19'toX &ts* woti Sanlec srtiaad 
 
 f-ee^X'oriT \X 
 1 bcnift^Jo 
 
 sy&f«lt! baft *C!l!»I? ri.'oo .vt tv*V.-. '■'■ifnsi 
 
8U. 
 
 are lowest over a wide range of season volumes when both vining and plant 
 facilities are planned for a two-shift operation per day, the maximum daily- 
 operating time considered. As total season volume becomes smaller, however, the 
 effects of decreasing scale become more important. With a UO-day season, for 
 example, and for total season volumes below three million poundSj Figure 23 
 shows that lowest costs are achieved by operating two vining shifts and one 
 plant shift per day, so that vining capacity rate of output is one-half that of 
 the plant. The effect of scale is much more pronounced in regard to plant than 
 vining operations, and this explains the shift in the low-cost combinations of 
 daily vining and plant hours illustrated in the figure. 
 
 For the range of operating conditions specified, the above demonstrates 
 that efficient handling of any season volume would call for plant and vining 
 facilities of capacities such that operations were for the maximum number of 
 hours available during the season except in cases where the season is relatively 
 long and the total season volume relatively small. In the cases excepted, 
 costs are lower with planned plant capacity greater than that of the vining 
 facilities, and minimum cost operation v o u 1 d require that hours of vining 
 per day exceed hours of plant operation. 
 
 Problems of Flexibiltiy 
 
 One of the more important problems in processing Lima beans for freezing 
 is how to adjust economically to considerable fluctuations in daily volume of 
 product during the operating season. In addition to variations in daily vol- 
 ume, there are also variations in the proportions of Lima beans packed in 
 various size containers and grades. 
 
 Two types of adjustment to variations in daily volume are used. In one, 
 hours of daily operation may be varied and the plant and vining facilities 
 operated at their most efficient rate of output with little change in cost 
 rates, except where overtime pay is required. A second type of adjustment is 
 applicable where there is a large reduction in daily volume relative to total 
 capacity. The total labor force then might be reduced and the plant operated 
 at less than capacity output rates. This is particularly true if collective 
 bargaining agreements and the maintenance of satisfactory labor relations 
 require that workers be paid for a minimum number of hours per day. 
 
 Large fluctuations in the volume of product received as well as daily 
 variations in the proportions of Lima beans which must be packed in various 
 size containers and grades are best handled in plants designed to operate with 
 some degree of flexibility. A considerable amount of flexibility has been 
 provided in the design of plants synthesized in this study. For example, 
 
«fixr. r 
 
 3 o-iirc I 
 
 »«v . if ,4; 
 
 id I'scuto 7.0 a^'jrJx.Xibs"* 
 
 d rial's 'i; 
 
 89q^J ow"! 
 
 ■ io.c ! 
 
85. 
 
 inclusion of facilities for temporary storage prior to the blanching operation 
 provides some insurance against hour-to-hour fluctuations in plant receipts. 
 Also, large variations in the proportions packed in the various size containers 
 and grades are allowed for by providing filling and casing equipment capable of 
 handling any given plant output in either retail, institutional, or bulk con- 
 tainers. Moreover, the values and standards on which the planning cost equations 
 for specific operating stages are based are themaelves "averages" which permit 
 small ranges of variation around any given rate of output. 
 
 Comparison of costs as developed above with those in plants lacking pro- 
 vision for flexibility in output rate will indicate the extent to which costs 
 are affected by incorporation of this feature in the plant designs used in this 
 study. Calculations for the constant-rate plants may be made easily by adjust- 
 ing the results already given for deletion of special equipment required to 
 provide flexibility. This involves minor adjustments in annual fixed charges 
 for filling and casing facilities, for temporary storage of incoming raw prod- 
 uct, and for building space. These adjustments reduce costs below the levels 
 given above by less than 1 per cent and would not materially affect the cost 
 relationships indicated in this report. 
 
 The Planning Equation for Combined Field and Plant Processing Activities 
 
 From the preceding demonstration, it appears that over a wide range in 
 season volumes, least-cost operation occurs with full-time daily operation — 
 that is, 16 hours per day — in both field and plant. In the range of small sea- 
 son volume where this is not true, total costs with alternative combinations 
 of field and plant hours differ by only a small amount from the level with full- 
 time daily operation. This means that a close approximation to results based 
 on least-cost combination of field and plant hours may be obtained if full-time 
 daily operation in both these areas is assumed through the entire volume range 
 considered. Since this assumption greatly simplifies the estimation of com- 
 bined field and plant costs, it is applied in the analysis which follows. It 
 permits the formation of planning cost equation for the combined operations by 
 simple summation of the planning cost equation for field (equation 26) and 
 plant operations (equation 27). The result is given below in equation (28): 
 
 (28) TSC, A »j\ - $19,282 + $h,503(R) + $27. 9868(H) + $26,301*2 (R)(H) 
 
 ( A+p > ♦ $l.U0(log 10 D)(R)(H) + $0.1110(R)(H)(P) + $32.682(H r )(R) 
 
 + $19.192 (H ± )(R) + $U.590(H^)(R). 
 The variables (R), (H), (D), (P), etc., are defined in Table 18, page 79« 
 
syJatflx lif.n-o.i-'iirori isnxx-as ^offs-xuani «nr 
 
 ?IX t"''!OSU St" - % XOtTf Od> > 'T'7 £'•"{ + it' P'SOX J'* ""I r'"» 
 
 fans -sj-ixllxl ynclixvo'rq xd **ol beiWilfi ase 
 
 k& f>eqo.C?v. h e 
 
 Oft 
 
 i^so fans 
 
 sisr-x*,* 
 
 903 ICi 
 
 rsoxexv 
 ..yfur/3 
 
 sgns~ - 
 
 iff ifoa o» xq erfi i«o i"! 
 
 ■ram- 
 
 .ton at ztitt 
 
 AOS 
 
 i.t(lf 0*1.1 
 
 ix'xi'sfra ad* nr fc^xj 
 
 ui ex j 
 
 jxd:-too~ .feoo-J3s:?I no 
 
 xjqiaifess sini aon.c3 »bsi3Diaffor> 
 *i ( ctooo inslq bii'a b.[gx'i benid 
 
 nxannlc; *>o kplimrtoBl stit Bjjbr'sq 
 f nnslq arf.t lo ncJJircrws ^i'qracs 
 .(V? nox.sf eups) ei cx£si?cc fruUtq 
 
 ii) ssldsiisv 
 
86. 
 
 Average cost per 1,000 pounds pack-out is obtained by dividing the costs 
 estimated in equation (28) above by the total season volume. 
 
 Equation (28) can be used to estimate total and average costs with effi- 
 cient field and plant organization for any given size of plant, length of 
 operating season, style of pack, percentage manual grade-out, and distance of 
 haul from viners to plant. In the discussions to follow, use will be made of 
 this equation to demonstrate how variations in the above variables affect total 
 and average costs of processing Lima beans for freezing. 
 
 Eeonomies Related to Size of Plant and Length of Season 
 
 The effect of size of plant (rate of output) and hours operated per season 
 on total and average planning costs will be illustrated for plants operating 
 under the following conditions: average distance of haul (viners to plant) is 
 10 miles j manual grade-out averages $ per cent; 70 per cent of the total season 
 volume is packed in retail cartons; 20 per cent in institutional cartons j and 
 10 per cent in bulk bags or cases. Estimates of total and average costs are 
 obtained by substituting these values in equation (28) for each length of season 
 and rate of output considered. The planning costs so computed are shown in 
 Figures 2k and 25 for plants operating under the conditions specified. The 
 general relationships presented would be approximately the same, however, if 
 the variables were specified at different values. 
 
 The rate of reduction in average planning cost as the rate of output (size 
 of plant) increases is shown in Figure 2k» The curves in the figure show that 
 average cost drops rapidly — for any given length of season — as the size of plant 
 increases. The decrease in average cost as plant size increases is primarily 
 due to more effective use of supervision and other partially fixed general 
 labor costs and the substitution of various cost reducing techniques in the 
 larger plants. The figure also shows that major cost-reduction possibilities 
 through increased scale of operations are in plants of relatively low capacity 
 and that advantages of increased scale are relatively small in plants above 
 20,000 pounds per hour capacity. Under the conditions assumed and with an 
 operating season of $00 hours, for example, average cost for a plant operating 
 at a capacity rate of 5,000 pounds per hour falls approximately $2«66 with each 
 increase of 1,000 pounds in planned capacity. At a plant capacity of 10,000 
 pounds per hour, average cost falls approximately 66.5 cents with each 1,000 
 pounds increased capacity, and at 20,000 pounds per hour this figure is only 
 16 0 6 pents per 1,000 pounds added capacity. 
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 
 
 Hourly rate of plant output, thousand pounds 
 
 Figure 2I4. The Effect of Size of Plant (Capacity Rate of Output) on Total and Avorage Planning Costs for Three 7° 
 Lengths of Season, California, 1953 
 
2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 
 
 Hundred hours operated per season 
 
 Figure 2$. The Effect of Length of Operating Season on Total and Average Planning Costs for Three Sizes of Lima 
 Bean Freezing Plants , California, 19$8 
 
89. 
 
 Figure 25 demonstrates that average planning costs decrease as length of 
 season— with a given capacity output rate—is increased and the annual fixed 
 charge spread over a larger total volume of output. For any given capacity 
 output rate, substantial reductions in average cost are indicated as the 
 length of season is increased from 200 through 1,000 hours. However, economies 
 associated with increased length of season become relatively less important 
 for seasons in excess of 750 hours. To illustrate the magnitude of the effect 
 of increased hours on average unit cost, let the capacity output rate be fixed 
 at 10,000 pounds per hour — other specifications remaining as set forth in the 
 beginning of this section. With a season of 250 hours, each increase of one 
 hour reduces average cost by 10.3 cents per 1,000 pounds. With a 500-hour 
 season, the rate of reduction is 2.6 cents with each added hour, while at 750 
 hours the rate of decrease in average cost is only .75 cent per 1,000 pounds 
 with each additional hour of operation. Figure 25 and the preceding discussion 
 indicate that economies associated with increased hours of operation per 
 season can be relatively large. A substantial portion of such savings, however, 
 cannot be realized in some bean-producing areas because of the short harvest 
 season. This situation may be relieved by processing other products maturing in 
 other periods and using the same types of equipment. Under favorable circum- 
 stances with respect to raw product procurement and sales, for example, frozen 
 peas will serve this purpose in many California plants. 
 
 The Effect of Distance of Haul 
 
 Truck hauling charges in relation to distance were presented in an 
 earlier section of this report wherein it was shown that the cost rate per 
 1,000 pounds hauled tends to level off as distance from the plant increases. 
 The effect of distance of haul on average planning costs will be illustrated 
 for plants operating under the following conditions: length of season is 500 
 hours; percentage manual grade-out averages 5 per cent; and 70 per cent of the 
 total season volume is packed in retail cartons, 20 per cent in institutional 
 cartons, and 10 per cent in bulk bags or cases. Estimates of average unit 
 costs are obtained by substituting these values for the variables in equation 
 (28) and calculating the average planning cost for each length of season and 
 distance of haul considered. Average planning costs so computed in relation 
 to selected lengths of haul are illustrated in Figure 26 for plants operating 
 under the conditions assumed. The figure shows that hauling charges have a 
 relatively small effect on average planning costs for distances up to 100 miles. 
 
90. 
 
 o> 
 o 
 
 > 
 
 < 
 
 5 10 15 20 25 
 
 Hourly rate of plant output, thousand pounds 
 
 Figure 26. The Effect of Distance of Haul on Average Planning 
 Costs in -Relation to Selected Lengths of Haul and Capacity 
 Rates of Output in Lima Bean Freezing Plants Operating 500 
 Hours Per Season, California, 1958. 
 
 to 
 TJ 
 C 
 
 I 80 
 
 C 
 
 a 
 
 CO 
 O 
 
 <u 
 
 Q. 
 
 CO 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 ■o 
 
 CO 
 CO 
 
 o 
 a 
 
 a> 
 
 cr 
 
 a 
 k. 
 
 a> 
 > 
 < 
 
 70 
 
 Manual gradeout 
 percentage 
 
 0 5 10 15 20 25 
 
 Hourly rate of plant output, thousand pounds 
 
 30 
 
 Figure 27. The Effect on Average Planning Costs for 1, 5, and 
 10 Per Cent Levels of Manual Grade-Out in Lima Bean Freez- 
 ing Plants Operating 500 Hours Per Season, California, 1958. 
 
91 
 
 However, some additional costs associated with increases in the length of haul 
 were not specifically evaluated and are not shown in Figure 26. These include 
 increased costs related to the more elaborate in—field cleaning and icing 
 operations that must be performed as length of haul increases in order to avoid 
 losses in grade yield and recovery. 
 
 Effect of Percentage Manual Grade-Out 
 
 The effect of the level of manual grade-out percentage on average planning 
 costs can be determined with calculations based on equation (28) similar to 
 the above. This is illustrated in Figure 27, which gives average unit costs 
 with 1, 5, and 10 per; cent manual grade-out.- Increased cost resulting from 
 increased numbers of defective and overmature beans that must be manually 
 removed to make a particular grade specification is largely controlled by the 
 effectiveness of mechanical quality-grading equipment. Losses in grade yield 
 brought about by improper balancing of mechanical and manual quality grading 
 could be substantial, however, and are not reflected in Figure 27. 
 
 Effect of Style of Pack 
 
 The proportion of total season volume packed in various size containers 
 has an important effect on total and average planning costs. Figure 28 
 illustrates this effect for plants packing various percentages of their total 
 season volume in retail, institutional, and bulk styles. The curves in Figure 
 28 are based on costs computed from equation (28) with the variables specified 
 as follows: distance of haul averages 10 miles ; an operating season of 500 
 hours j and percentage of manual grade-out average 5 per cent. The figure shows 
 that total and unit costs — for a given capacity rate of output — increase 
 substantially as the proportion of total season volume packed in retail cartons 
 increases. This is primarily due to higher costs of retail packaging materials. 
 The heavy lines in Figure 28 define upper and lower cost ranges as proportions 
 of season volume packed vary from 100 per cent bulk style to 100 per cent retail 
 style. 
 
 1/ Other specified values of the variables in equation (28) are as in the 
 preceding examples: $00 hours operated per season — distance of haul 10 miles \ 
 and 70, 20, and 10 per cent of the total season is packed in retail, institutional 
 and bulk styles, respectively. 
 
A. TOTAL COSTS 
 
 Legend : 
 R= Retail Style 
 I = Institutional Style 
 B= Bulk Style 
 
 Per cent 
 total pack 
 
 size of 
 container 
 
 80 
 
 to 
 T3 
 C 
 
 o 
 a. 
 
 TJ 
 C 
 
 o 
 
 in 
 zs 
 o 
 
 CL 
 
 70 
 
 0) 
 
 I 60 
 o 
 
 T3 
 
 to 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 m 
 a> 
 
 | 50 
 
 B. AVERAGE COSTS 
 pack etc. 
 
 R, 100% 
 .0%. 
 
 B,....0% 
 
 0 
 
 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 
 
 Hourly rate of output, thousand pounds 
 
 15 
 
 R, 70% 
 , 20%. 
 8, 10% 
 
 R, 50% 
 20%. 
 B, 30% 
 
 R, 20% 
 10% 
 8, 70% 
 
 R,....0% 
 I, ...0%, 
 8,100% 
 
 20 
 
 25 30 
 
 Figure 28. Total and Average Planning Costs Lima Bean Freezing Plants Packing Different Percentages 
 of Retail, Institutional, and Bulk Styles for a 500 Hour Operating Season. California, 1958. 
 
93. 
 
 The cost relationships discussed above and illustrated in Figures 2k 
 through 28 have been based on selected values of the variables comprising the 
 expression of total annual planning costs given in equation (28). Total annual 
 and average planning costs with conditions more closely approximating circum- 
 stances of individual interest may he calculated by specifying values for the 
 variables other than those specified in this discussion. As the allocation of 
 unit costs among the various styles and grades may be accomplished by several 
 different procedures, meaningful estimates depend primarily upon the individual 
 plant and local conditions. Therefore, no attempt has been made to allocate 
 total and unit costs synthesized in this study to the various styles and grades. 
 
 SUMMARY 
 
 The major objectives in this report are to: (1) develop estimates of the 
 total cost of processing frozen Lima beans with efficient crew and equipment 
 organization} (2) determine a basis for integrating field and plant operations 
 that will minimize total field and plant costs j (3) show how costs are affected 
 by variations in such factors as scale of operation, length of operating season, 
 distance of field-to-plant haul, per cent of manual grade-out, and proportions 
 packed in different styles of packj and (k) present this information in such a 
 way as to indicate which of alternative methods in certain operating stages 
 are most economical in the production of given annual volumes of output. 
 
 For convenience in analysis, field and plant operations are classified 
 into ten operating stages and four general cost components (page 5 ). 
 Engineering and economic data pertaining to individual operations are used to 
 estimate for each plant operating stage the quantities and costs of labor, 
 equipment, and other services required in relation to selected rates of plant 
 output. The stage-cost estimates are made terms of variable! costs per hour of 
 plant operation and annual fixed costs for equipment and other services. These 
 costs are used to estimate within each stage the total season cost with different 
 lengths of operating season. Comparison of such stage-cost estimates for 
 different methods indicates the least-cost method, and the aggregation of stage 
 costs thus selected provides a basis for estimating season plant cost for the 
 entire field and plant operation. Results of this procedure that indicate the 
 effects of a wide range of operating conditions are presented both graphically 
 and in terms of "planning cost equations." 
 
 Studies of alternative methods in particular plant stages gave the follow- 
 ing indications as to least-cost method* 
 
9h 
 
 In field vining four methods — classified according to their degree of 
 mechanization — are analyzed in relation to capacity rates of vining output and 
 length of operating season. These include three methods of stationary vining 
 and one method of mobile vining. Among the stationary vining methods, the 
 most mechanized method — Method C — has lower annual costs than the others over 
 all ranges of capacity and length of season considered. Mobile vining becomes 
 the most economical method as the length of operating season increases beyond 
 500 hours and the annual fixed charge is spread over a larger total annual 
 volume of output. 
 
 Bulk handling and bin handling are the two methods analyzed in connection 
 with the receiving, initial cleaning, and quality-grading stage. Studies of 
 these methods failed to show any significant cost difference between them. 
 
 Four methods of casing are studied in relation to estimated quantities and 
 costs of labor and equipment required at various capacity output rates and 
 length of season. The principal variations among the methods studied involve 
 the degree of mechanization associated with the case-fill and case-seal operation. 
 Method B — manual fill, mechanical seal — has the lowest cost for casing combi- 
 nations of retail and institutional cartons. 
 
 Total annual cost for the separate field and plant processing activities 
 are obtained by aggregating costs representing efficient stage organization, 
 along with general cost components not associated with specific operating stages. 
 The planning cost equation for field operations is obtained by combining the 
 equation representing costs of vining with that representing the cost of 
 viners-to-plant transportation. The expression so derived is repeated below. 
 
 TSC A - $3,929 + $2,633(R) ♦ 10.3691(H) + $7.99(B)(H) + $l.U0(log 10 D) (R)(H) 
 
 1/ The variables in these equations are? 
 
 (R) is 1,000 pounds of capacity output per hour. 
 
 (H) is total number of hours operated during the season. 
 
 (D) is distance of haul from viners to plant, expressed in logarithms 
 
 to base 10. 
 
 (P) is percentage manual grade-out. 
 
 (H ) is hours operated per season, retail style. 
 
 (H^) is hours operated per season, institutional style. 
 
 (H^) is hours operated per season, bulk style. 
 
 TSC. is total season cost of field and assembly operations. 
 TSCp is total season cost of in-plant processing operations. 
 
«5!Ui"JX7 &BQot$tsi$ 'to a) 
 
 t&tttrp bo 
 
 Julifcv Iscurviiiq 
 
 MJ 10'; 
 
 mm 
 
 •.ftC^ft Let 
 
95. 
 
 The planning cost equation for in-plant processing is obtained by combining 
 the planning equations representing costs of the individual operating stages 
 
 and general cost components of in-plant processing operations. This expression 
 
 TSCp « £15,353 + *1,870(R) + $27.6l77(H) + $l8.31b2(R) (H) + $0.1110(P) (R) (H) 
 
 Before the above equations are combined into a planning cost equation 
 representing total annual costs for over-all processing operations — of both 
 field and plant — the least-cost combination of hours operated per season and 
 hourly output rates of field and plant operations was determined. For the 
 range of operating conditions specified, analysis demonstrated that efficient 
 handling of any season volume of Lima beans for freezing calls for plant and 
 vining facilities of capacities such that operations are for the maximum numb^rr 
 of hours available during the season except in cases where the season is 
 relatively long and the total season volume relatively small. In the volume 
 range excepted, costs are lower with planned plant capacity exceeding that of 
 the vining facilities. 
 
 The separate planning equations for field and plant operations are then 
 combined to give a planning cost equation for the over-all processing operation 
 which closely approximates least-cost integration of field and plant facilities. 
 The planning equation so derived is used to demonstrate how variations in the 
 variables — size of plant, length of operating season, percentage manual grade- 
 out, style of pack, and distance of haul — affect average and total costs of 
 processing Lima beans for freezing. 
 
 The ■ study indicates that average costs per unit of output decrease with 
 increases in the scale of operations and length of season. In terms of plant 
 capacity, advantages of increased size are substantial in lower capacity plants 
 but become relatively small in plants above 20,000 pounds per hour capacity. 
 For any given capacity output rate, relatively large reductions in average 
 cost are indicated as the length of season is increased. However, economies 
 associated with increased length of season become relatively less important 
 for seasons in excess of 750 hours. 
 
 1/ Ibid. 
 
at an 
 
96. 
 
 A considerable amount of flexibility is provided in the design of plants 
 synthesized. Inclusion of facilities for temporary storage prior to the blanch- 
 ing operation provides some insurance against hour-to-hour variations in plant 
 receipts. Large variations in the proportions packed in the various size 
 containers and grades are possible through provision of filling and casing 
 equipment capable of handling any given plant "through-put" in either retail, 
 institutional, or bulk containers. Although the costs developed in this report 
 are based on constant rates of output, the plants are designed with enough 
 flexibility to operate efficiently over a range of output rates near the 
 optimum. 
 
 Although many Lima bean freezing plants in California have achieved a 
 relatively high degree of efficiency, the selection of more economical techniques 
 and movement toward increased hours of operation per season and larger plants 
 could lead to further cost reductions. While many of the savings could be 
 achieved in the short run, some of the cost-reduction possibilities involve 
 changes in plant facilities and design which may be economical only as existing 
 facilities are worn out and replaced. The material that has been presented 
 should provide useful guides of Lima bean freezing plant operators interested 
 in planning new or modernized facilities and for firms contemplating 
 reorganization and consolidation of plants. 
 
DM 
 
97. 
 
 APPENDIX A 
 T»bl« 1 
 
 Summary of Equipment and Installed Replacement Coate, Lima Bean Pressing Planta, 
 California, 1968 
 
 I ten 
 
 Blanching equipment 
 Blanch era 
 
 Type A, 12-foot aylinder 
 
 Type B, 15-foot cylinder 
 
 Type p a 18-foot cylinder 
 Temperature controller, dual control 
 Varispead drive assembly 
 Boilers 
 
 Boiler h.p. 
 
 
 Heating 
 
 Capacity, 
 
 Stean 
 
 3iirf ace 
 
 beans 
 
 pounda 
 
 square 
 
 pounds 
 
 per hour 
 
 feet 
 
 per hour 
 
 690 
 
 ioe 
 
 5,000 
 
 m 
 
 ite 
 
 10,000 
 
 1,725 
 
 270 
 
 lS.ooo 
 
 1,863 
 
 292 
 
 20,000 
 
 2,153 
 
 llOO 
 
 25,000 
 
 2,79b. 
 
 U7 
 
 30,000 
 
 20 
 27 
 50 
 5U 
 7li 
 81 
 
 Casing equipment 
 
 Case-in table, per li-foot section 
 
 Casing machine, 10-ounce, with dump conveyor 
 
 attachment 
 Sealer and compressor unit 
 
 Type A, 28-foot compressor 
 
 Type P, 20-foot compressor 
 
 Type C, 12-foot compressor 
 Case Btitching machine, 12-inch throat 
 Stenoil table, wheel, and pad 
 Tally desk, single drawer 
 Olue stand, trough type 
 Case materials, shook, glue, wire 
 
 Cases, 2b. 10-ounce, li panels, 2 colors 
 
 Cases, 12 2^-pound, U panels, 2 colors 
 
 Olue 
 
 Wire 
 
 Cleaning equipment 
 
 Flotation washers with destoner attachment 
 Type A, capacity $,000 pounds per hour 
 Type B, capacity 6,500 pounds per hour 
 Type C, capacity 7, $00 pounds per hour 
 Cleaner, shaker type, double sieves 
 Cleaner, pneumatic 
 
 Type A, 18-inch intake, 3 h.p., capacity 7,500 
 
 pounds per hour 
 Type 9, 2li-inch intake, 7j h.p., capacity 10,000 
 
 pounds per hour 
 Type C, 30-inch intake, 7i h.p., capacity 12,500 
 
 pounds per hour 
 Type D, 36-inch intake, 7^-10 h.p., capacity 
 
 15,000 pounds per hour 
 Type E, lj2-inch intake, 7|-10 h.p., capacity 
 20,000 pounds per hour 
 
 Container filling equipment 
 Carton filling machines 
 
 Type A, 10-ounce, capacity 7,500 pounds per hour 
 Carton form and close equipment (annual rental) 
 Type B, 10-ounce. capacity 10,000 pounds per hour 
 
 (annual rental) 
 Type C, 2^-pound, capacity 12,750 pounds per hour 
 Carton form and close equipment (annual rental) 
 Bulk tray filler (for tray freeze, IQF), capacity 
 
 10,000 pounds per hour 
 Bag filler (IQF bag or case fill, manually 
 operated) 
 
 Cluster breaker, capacity 10,000 pounds per hour 
 Hoppers, accumulating 
 
 Type A, Ij$ cubic feet 
 
 Type B, 108 cubic feet 
 Wrappers 
 
 Retail, capacity 7,500 pounds per hour 
 Institutional, capacity 12,7$0 pounds per hour 
 Packaging materials 
 
 CartonB, 10-ounce, 5-lA x 1-3/8 x U inches; 
 
 0.015 solid bleach, sulphate 
 Cartons, 2^-pound, 9? x 5« x 2£ inches; 0.020 
 
 special solid, manlla 
 Bags, 55-pound, plain; multiwall, l/UO wax, 
 
 6-inch tuck-in sleeve 
 Overwraps, 10-ounce, 5 -col or print 
 Overwraps, 2^-pound, 2-color print 
 
 estimated 
 replacement 
 cost 
 
 3,071 
 3,U28 
 3,790 
 
 686 
 706 
 
 3,063 
 3,3Ui 
 U,313 
 l»,313 
 5,591. 
 7,219 
 
 75 
 
 3,2lJ. 
 
 6,1.60 
 5,832 
 U,998 
 675 
 60 
 30 
 25 
 
 90 
 107 
 75 
 26 
 
 2,789.00 
 3,089.00 
 3,389.00 
 l,li60.00 
 
 1,1.88.00 
 2,698.00 
 2,788.00 
 3,050.00 
 3,136.00 
 
 li,o65.oo 
 
 1,328.00 
 2,115.00 
 
 O ,o65.oo 
 
 1,328. (XI 
 
 I180.00 
 
 1, 200.00 
 
 175-00 
 350.00 
 
 12,U25.00 
 10,$00. 00 
 
 9.77 
 
 23.71 
 
 129.00 
 li.02 
 7.5b 
 
 each 
 each 
 each 
 each 
 each 
 
 each 
 each 
 each 
 each 
 each 
 each 
 
 each 
 
 each 
 each 
 each 
 each 
 each 
 each 
 each 
 
 1,000 cases 
 1,000 cases 
 100 gallons 
 100 pounds 
 
 each 
 each 
 each 
 each 
 
 each 
 each 
 each 
 each 
 each 
 
 each 
 each 
 
 each 
 each 
 each 
 
 each 
 each 
 
 each 
 each 
 
 each 
 each 
 
 1,000 cartons 
 
 1,000 cartons 
 
 1,000 bags 
 1,000 wraps 
 1,000 wraps 
 
 Item 
 
 tC.Ll (W)(L) 
 $0.1,3 fw)(L) 
 SO. hi (W)(L) 
 
 Conveyor equipment 
 
 Oonveyor frame, complete 
 
 Belt or mesh type 
 
 Spiral type 
 Motor and drive assembly 
 
 1/U h-P. 
 
 1/2 h.p. 
 
 3A h.p. 
 
 1 h.p. 
 
 3 h.p. 
 
 5 h.p. 
 
 Box turn and/or converger unit 
 Magnetic switch, forward -reverse -stop, 
 Skate wheel conveyor, 12 inches wide 
 Steel roller conveyor, 12 inches wide 
 Flume, g.i., 20 gauge, unseamed 
 Belting 
 
 b-ply rubber cannery 
 3-ply neoprene 
 Wire me6h drain belt 
 Drip pan 
 Product pump assembly 
 
 3-inch product pump, including intake tank 
 li-lnch product pump, including intake tank 
 Dewater shaker and return water tank 
 Dewatcr reel and return tank (pick-belt type) 
 Tubing and fittings f!/ 
 
 Quality grading equipment 
 
 Flotation graders 
 
 Type A, capacity 5,000 pounds per hour 
 Type B, capacity 6,500 pounds per hour 
 Type C, capacity 7,500 pounds per hour 
 
 Brine mixing and holding tank (salt capacity 
 1,200 pounds) 
 
 Brine density controller 
 
 Platform for brining station no. 1 
 
 Pick belts 
 
 Temporary product storage equipment 
 Icing equipment 
 
 Type A, 3 h.p. crusher, without blower 
 Type B, 3-h.p. crusher, with 10-h.p. blower 
 
 and attachments 
 Type C, 3-h.p. crusher, without blower but 
 
 with additional tank 
 Scoop shovels 
 Temporary storage tanks 
 Type A, 700 cubic feet 
 Type B, 525 cubic feet 
 Type C, 550 cubic feet 
 
 Vining equipment 
 
 Viner, stationary, complete 
 Power fork attachment 
 Side delivery conveyor 
 Vine feed regulator 
 Viner, mobile, complete 
 
 Tractor, 2-plow, with 6-foot detachable loader 
 
 frame assembly 
 Truck, 2^-ton 
 Bins, tote, W x W x W 
 
 Estimated 
 replacement 
 cost 
 
 10.30 
 
 Ui.50 
 
 2li7.O0 
 21.7.00 
 280.00 
 317.00 
 Ub.OO 
 
 59k. oo 
 
 1.80.00 
 87-00 
 5.00 
 7.00 
 7.00 
 
 7.00 
 
 695.00 
 900.00 
 670.00 
 375.00 
 
 2,589.00 
 2,889.00 
 3,189.00 
 
 915.00 
 900.00 
 3.l<0 
 
 1,01,8.00 
 1,863.00 
 1,257.00 
 
 5.00 
 
 785.00 
 665.no 
 55o.oo 
 
 5,215.00 
 807.00 
 280.00 
 365.00 
 12,000.00 
 
 2,100.00 
 2,200.00 
 111 .00 
 
 a/ Computed from above equations in which . Is width of belt 111 lr 
 length of oonveyor In feet. 
 
 b/ Dashes indicate nothing to enter, 
 
 f/ See on«t data for oonveyor equipment, 
 d/ Tubing and Fitting Installed cost 
 
 Item 
 
 Tubing 
 
 90-dcgree elbow 
 
 Adapter or coupling 
 
 Tee 
 
 Valves 
 
 Hangers 
 
 Clanps 
 
 Install 
 
 ContingencieB 
 
 3-lnch 
 
 li-lnch 
 
 
 polyethylene 
 
 aluminum 
 
 Unit 
 
 t 0.70 
 
 t 1.00 
 
 foot 
 
 1.90 
 
 16.00 
 
 each 
 
 l.u7 
 
 12.00 
 
 each 
 
 2.75 
 
 3.00 
 
 each 
 
 30.00 
 
 30.00 
 
 each 
 
 o.59 
 
 
 each 
 
 O.liO 
 
 
 each 
 
 2.00 
 
 2.00 
 
 foot 
 
 10 per cent 
 
 10 per cent 
 
 total cost 
 
 (Continued on next page.) 
 
98. 
 
 SI 
 
 SnJ rt rt 
 
 "Is 
 
 -C 43 -t* 
 
 , tx R 
 
 ll 
 
 ■rl 3 O I 
 
 to p. 
 
 88 88 888888 
 
 »8 8? 
 
 CO \A pS_ 
 
 UNO O O O 
 
 3 "6 
 
 W CD 
 
 r- H _cf c\j D\ r-l (— t cvj m eg H xa H H cm 
 
 ■ § 'd _ 
 
 +1 £Z V) O O P -P 
 
 H co ■ a) o «j 
 
 Chi CO 
 
 3 
 
 88 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 CVJ CO 
 
 On r«-\ 
 
 £ 
 
 r-i 
 
 o 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 8888888 
 
 SO O ( 
 -3 W ( 
 HOCM 1 
 
 8o 
 o 
 
 I -H t»0 CO 
 
 i WJ.C 
 
 i -i rt o 
 
 ! 8 II 
 ■3 5 ■ 
 
 '1 §•$ 
 
 83. Si 
 
 ' O 3 to 
 
 1*1 
 
 8 <§ 8 
 
 +> -p +> -p 
 ■ ■ ■ ■ 
 v « a> v 
 
 Ch<h(h<h 
 
 o o mo 
 
 OvONO 
 
 S.S.S.S. 
 
 •H -H -H -H 
 CL. P-. 0-. CL, 
 
 c"»vQ H f~\ r- 
 r-i CVJ H 
 
 CD CA rj vO f- 
 
 1 
 
 I I I 
 
 rl H H CM \A 
 
 j2 *rt rt ^ *3 
 o > t> > t> 
 
 » 
 
 i t 
 
 H H CM 
 
 jilt 
 
 PPI3 
 
 -cj Q ( 
 co O ( 
 
 O H > 
 
 1 
 
 P 
 
 1 
 
 •8S c 
 
 » 
 
 i i 
 
 -O o\ cvj cvj r— 
 
 ia J f— VT\ 
 
 Ov^j nn 
 
 O o o o 
 
 $5 
 
 VWAHH (M 
 
 1 
 
 P • 0) 4) V 
 
 CD <D 0) 0) 
 
 CD ti U) U) 
 O CD CD dJ a> 
 
 If f'f ^ 
 
 a o o o p 
 
 H 
 
 9 
 
 mm mm u w 
 
 Ed &> 5jj & 
 
 § S S rt 
 tt: ffi ffi 
 
 p p 
 
 CD V 
 
 ss 
 
 co co co co 
 
 888 
 
 38 8 
 
 OJ V\ CVJ 
 
 888 
 
 1 3 3 
 
 H a a 
 
 3 & 5 
 
 ■t +> 
 
 o b 
 
 o. J ^ 
 
 B | s 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 1 8l 
 
 . . rt «h l i ., 
 to W (1, 
 
APPENDIX A 
 
 TAB IE 2 
 
 Summary of Labor Production Standard for Jobs Performed 
 in Processing Lima Beans for Freezing 
 California, 1958 
 
 Operating 3tage, 
 Job classification 
 and description 
 
 Production standard 
 
 V'^ge 
 rate 
 
 
 units per hour 
 
 dollars 
 
 VINING 
 
 
 
 Fork vines: 
 
 Method A — Engage vines 
 vdth hand forkj place fork 
 load on vine feed conveyor. 
 
 hoo pounds^/ 
 
 1.25 
 
 Methods B and C --Engage 
 vines vith electric fork; 
 place fork load on vine 
 feed conveyor. 
 
 950 pounds 
 
 1.25 
 
 Handle lugs: 
 
 Method A — Place empty 
 lugs under, viner delivery 
 chute, get full lugs and 
 dump to main assembly con- 
 veyor. 
 
 800 pounds 
 
 1.25 
 
 Method B — Place empty 
 lugs under viner delivery 
 chute, get full lugs and 
 dump to main assembly con- 
 veyor . 
 
 950 pounds 
 
 1.25 
 
 Attend fill: 
 
 Methods A, B, and C — 
 Position empty bin under 
 main assembly conveyor 
 chute, regulate fill, and 
 perform minor housekeeping 
 duties. 
 
 5,600 pounds 
 
 1.25 
 
 Operate lift truck: 
 
 Methods A, B, and C — 
 Unload empty bins from 
 truck; get full bins from 
 fill station; and load 
 truck or set aBide for 
 temporary storage . 
 
 20,000 pounds 
 
 1.60 
 
 Operate tractor: 
 
 Methods A, B, and C-- 
 Group vines for forkers, 
 distribute strav in 
 ensilage trench, and spot 
 loads of incoming vines. 
 
 20,000 pounds 
 
 I.60 
 
 Haul vines: 
 
 Methods A, B, and C — 
 Operate truck between 
 fields and vining station 
 and supervise loading 
 from draper loader in 
 field. 
 
 880 pounds 
 
 
 Cleanup station: 
 
 Methods A, B, and C — 
 Cleanup or housekeeping 
 at stationary vining 
 site/s. 
 
 h,000 pound3 
 
 1.25 
 
 Operating stage, 
 Job classification 
 and description 
 
 Production standard 
 
 Wage 
 rate 
 
 units per hour 
 
 dollars 
 
 VINING (continued) 
 
 Cleanup field : 
 
 Methods A, B, C, and 
 mobile vining — Pickup vines 
 left over from draper 
 loaders and mobiles and 
 perform miscellaneous tasks 
 in fields. 
 
 Operate mobile viner : 
 
 Drive mobile unit and 
 regulate speed for optimum 
 pickup and thresh and 
 assist in servicing machine. 
 
 Attend mobile viner : 
 
 Watch mechanical function 
 tloning, assist in loading 
 truck, inspect disposal for 
 inadequate threshing 
 assist in servicing machine 
 and may alternate with 
 driver . 
 
 Supervision of stationary 
 vining: 
 
 !*,00O pounds 
 
 525 pounds 
 
 1.25 
 
 1.50 
 
 Crew supervisor — Place 
 and supervise vining crew 
 and spot trucks. 
 
 General supervisor — Over- 
 all supervi slon of field 
 and station; coordinate 
 viner to plant deliveries; 
 collect grower samples; and 
 work closely with field 
 man with respect to matu- 
 rity, time of harvest, etc. 
 and with plant manager. 
 
 Supervision of mobile 
 vl n1 n«j : 
 
 1,050 pounds 
 
 30,000 pounds 
 
 1.50 
 
 1.60 
 
 30,000 pounds 
 
 2.25 
 
 Supervise vining crew, 
 coordinate viner-plant 
 deliveries, and work 
 closely with fleldman and 
 plant management. 
 
 RECKIVING, CLEANING, AND 
 INITIAL GRADING 
 
 Bin handling ■notbod : 
 
 Operate lift truck — 
 unload full bins fr^m 
 truck at receiving sta- 
 tion, set aside to tem- 
 porary storage, load 
 empty bins on truck for 
 return to viners, place 
 full bins on cradle dump, 
 operate dump, and return 
 empty bins to storage. 
 
 30,000 pounds 
 
 2.50 
 
 20,000 pounds 
 
 (Continued on next page.) 
 
100a. 
 
 Appendix A, Table 2 continued. 
 
 Operating stage, 
 Job classification 
 and description 
 
 Production standard 
 
 Wage 
 rate 
 
 Operating stage, 
 Job classification 
 and description 
 
 Production standard 
 
 Wage 
 rate 
 
 
 units per hour 
 
 dollars 
 
 
 units per hour 
 
 dollars 
 
 RECEIVING, CLEANING, AMD 
 INITIAL GRADING (continued) 
 
 
 
 BLANCHING AND SECOND- 
 QUALITY GRADE (continued) 
 
 
 
 Attend cleaning equipment 
 (field)— Operate flotation 
 cleaners, regulate flow of 
 product, clean equipment, 
 and perform minor house- 
 keeping duties. 
 
 10,000 pounds 
 
 1.25 
 
 Attend grading equipment: 
 
 Operate flotation graders, 
 mix brine solution, main- 
 tain proper brine concentra- 
 tion, service equipment, 
 and regulate product flov. 
 
 10,000 pounds 
 
 2.10 
 
 Icing bins for Intransit 
 storage — Operate ice crush- 
 ing machine, add ice to 
 bins with scoop, and minor 
 housekeeping. 
 
 Attend quality grading 
 equipment, plant --Operate 
 flotation graders, mix 
 brine solution, maintain 
 proper brine concentra- 
 tion, service equipment, 
 and regulate product flov. 
 
 7,500 pounds 
 10,000 pounds 
 
 1.25 
 2.10 
 
 VISUAL INSPECTION AND 
 MANUAL QUAIITY GRAIE 
 
 Inspect beanE on Inspection 
 tion belt for defects and 
 overmature s, skins, and 
 pieces and remove defectives 
 and "whites. 
 
 N = 5.101 + 0.892(R) + 
 0.0656(R)(P) 
 
 N = number of sorters 
 required 
 
 varies 
 
 I.69 
 
 Bulk handling method: 
 
 Attend bulk dump — Regu- 
 late flow from dump truck 
 to receiving tank; regulate 
 product flow from shaker 
 feed through trash separa- 
 tor, pneumatic cleaner, 
 and flume assembly; and 
 minor housekeeping. 
 
 Attend cleaning equip- 
 ment—Same as with bin 
 handling method. 
 
 20,000 pounds 
 jjj,uu*j pouncis 
 
 1.86 
 1.86 
 
 R = rate of plant output 
 per hour 
 
 P = percentage grade-out 
 by count 
 
 PACKAGING RETAIL AND 
 INSTITUTIONAL CARTONS 
 
 Feed cartons: 
 
 Get flat cartons from 
 ca3e and place in chute 
 leading to carton forming 
 machine . 
 
 
 
 Attend quality grading 
 equipment — Same as with 
 bin handling method. 
 
 Diversion to temporary 
 storage and in-plant 
 icing operations — Distri- 
 bute separate grades to 
 temporary storage tanks, 
 operate ice crusher and 
 add ice to tanks with 
 blower attachment, and 
 distribute grades to 
 blanch as required. 
 
 BLANCHING AND SECOND- 
 QUALITY GRADE 
 
 10,000 pounds 
 7,500 pounds 
 
 2.10 
 1.86 
 
 10-ounce cartons 
 22-pound cartons 
 
 Attend carton filler: 
 
 Operate filler, remove 
 Jams, and regulate flov. 
 
 10-ounce cartons 
 22-pound cartons 
 
 Check veigh cartons: 
 
 Inspect for proper fill, 
 veigh cartons, and remove 
 over-under cartons from 
 packaging line. 
 
 10-ounce cartons 
 25-pound cartons 
 
 19,500 cartons 
 5,100 cartons 
 
 19,500 cartons 
 5,100 cartons 
 
 9,750 cartons 
 2,500 cartons 
 
 I.69 
 1.69 
 
 1.69 
 1.69 
 
 I.69 
 1.69 
 
 Attend blanch equipment: 
 
 
 
 Tray-off cartons: 
 
 
 
 Operate blancher, main- 
 tain proper blanch tem- 
 perature, regulate product 
 flow through blanch, 
 attend cooling flumes, and 
 assist in servicing equip- 
 ment. 
 
 toiler room attendant: 
 
 Fire and regulate boiler, 
 maintain proper steam 
 prescure, service equip- 
 ment, assist in equipment 
 repair, and housekeeping. 
 
 10,000 pound3 
 30,000 pounds 
 
 2.10 
 2.10 
 
 Get empty tray from 
 freezer skid and place 
 on tray-off stand, grasp 
 cartons and slide into 
 tray, and place full tray 
 in freezer skid. 
 
 10-ounce cartons 
 2a-pound cartons 
 
 5,130 cartons 
 2,550 cartonB 
 
 1.86 
 1.86 
 
 (Continued on next page.) 
 
100b. 
 
 Appendix A, Table 2, continued. 
 
 ■ Operating stage, 
 Job classification 
 and description 
 
 Production standard 
 
 Wage 
 rate 
 
 Operating stage, 
 Job classification 
 and description 
 
 Production standard 
 
 Wage 
 
 units per hour 
 
 dollars 
 
 units per hour 
 
 PACKAGING RETAIL AND 
 INSTITUTIONAL CARTONS 
 (continued) 
 
 Wrapper man : 
 
 Get rolls of overwraps 
 from temporary storage, 
 place in wrapper, operate 
 wrapper, make adjustments, 
 and service. 
 
 10-ounce cartons 
 22-pound cartons 
 
 3upply skid for cartons : 
 Get skid from tempor- 
 ary storage and transfer 
 to tray-off station, get 
 full skid from tray-off 
 station, tally out, and 
 transfer to freezing 
 tunnel. 
 
 10-ounce cartons 
 2^-pound cartons 
 
 Supply packaging materials : 
 Get cases of flat cartons 
 from temporary storage, cut 
 open case for carton feeder 
 remove empty cases and 
 trash, get rolls of over- 
 wraps and arrange for wrap- 
 per man, and minor house- 
 keeping duties. 
 
 10-ounce cartons 
 2 2 --pound cartons 
 
 PACKAGING, BULK 
 
 Feed trays : 
 
 Get empty tray from 
 freezer skid and set on 
 power conveyor leading to 
 try filler. 
 
 Attend tray filler : 
 
 Operate tray fill hopper, 
 close and open hand- 
 operate gate lever, and 
 regulate product flow. 
 
 Tray off : 
 
 Get trays of loose beans 
 from filler conveyor and 
 set off to freezer skid. 
 
 Supply skid : 
 
 Get empty skid of trays 
 from temporary storage, 
 truck to tray fill station, 
 get full skid of trays and 
 truck to freezing tunnel, 
 and get skid of loose 
 frozen beans from freezing 
 tunnel and truck to clus- 
 ter breaker. 
 
 19,500 cartons 
 5,100 cartons 
 
 2.10 
 2.10 
 
 19,500 cartons 
 5,100 cartons 
 
 1.86 
 1.86 
 
 19,500 cartons 
 5,100 cartons 
 
 200 trays 
 
 200 trays 
 
 200 trays 
 
 1.86 
 1.86 
 
 1.86 
 
 1.86 
 
 hOO trays 
 
 1.86 
 
 PACKAGING, BULK (continued) 
 
 r>unp trays to cluster 
 breaker: 
 
 Get fuLl tray of loose 
 frozen beans from freezer 
 skid, dump tray to cluster 
 breaking machine, and re- 
 turn empty trays to skid. 
 
 IQF fill : 
 
 Get end form bag or case, 
 place beneath bulk filler, 
 and fill bag and set aside 
 for check weighing. 
 
 Check weigh bulk 
 containers: 
 
 Get full bag or case, 
 weigh on floor scale, add 
 or remove product to make 
 proper weight, set aside 
 to closing and palletizing 
 area. 
 
 Set off to pallet : 
 
 Get and close bag or 
 case and set off to pallet. 
 
 CASING OPERATION, CARTONS 
 
 Stencil or stamp case : 
 
 Methods A and r — Obtain 
 bundles of flat cases from 
 temporary stj.rge, remove 
 twine binding, stencil, 
 and aside to case form 
 station. 
 
 Sh/lO-oi:nae cases 
 12/25-pound cases 
 
 Form case : 
 
 Methods A and P — Get 
 stenciled case from table, 
 form, stitch bottom, and 
 set aside to case-in sta- 
 tion. 
 
 2U/l0-ounce cases 
 
 12/23-pcund cases 
 
 Methods B and C — Get 
 flat case from table and 
 form, aside to case-in 
 station . 
 
 2lt/l0-ounce cases 
 12/2^-pound cases 
 
 Pump tray frozen cartons : 
 
 Methods A, B, C, and P— 
 Get full trays from freezer 
 skid and dump to case-in 
 table or conveyor, return 
 empty trays to freezer skid 
 
 10-ounce cartons 
 25-pound cartons 
 
 50 trays 
 
 50 bags or cases 
 
 50 bags or cases 
 
 50 bags or cases 
 
 790 cases 
 700 cases 
 
 3^5 cases 
 315 cases 
 
 5U9 cases 
 k^jk cases 
 
 33U cases 
 33U cases 
 
 1.86 
 
 1.86 
 
 1.86 
 
 1 .69 
 I.69 
 
 3 .69 
 1.69 
 
 1.69 
 1.69 
 
 1.86 
 1.86 
 
 (Continued on next page.) 
 
100c. 
 
 Appendix A, Table 2, continued. 
 
 Operating stage, 
 job classification 
 and description 
 
 Production standard 
 
 Wage 
 rate 
 
 Operating stage, 
 Job classification 
 and description 
 
 Production standard 
 
 Wage 
 rate 
 
 
 unitr. per hour 
 
 dollarB 
 
 
 units per hour 
 
 dollars 
 
 CASING OPERATION, CARTONS 
 (continued) 
 
 
 
 CASING OPERATION, CARTONS 
 (continued) 
 
 
 
 Fill case: 
 
 Methods A and B — Get 
 case, fill vith cartons, 
 and push aside on case-in 
 conveyor 
 
 
 
 Seal and palletize case: 
 Methods A and D~Apply 
 
 flaps, and set aside to 
 pallet. 
 
 
 
 2l4-/lO-ounce cartons 
 12/22-pound cartons 
 
 213 cases 
 200 cases 
 
 1.86 
 1.86 
 
 2U/lO-ounce cartons 
 12/25-pound cartonB 
 
 300 cases 
 290 cases 
 
 1.86 
 1.86 
 
 FTC ijiiuno \j axiu U— — 
 
 case and place over sleeve 
 feed of machine caser, hold 
 in place, and operate 
 easing machine. 
 
 2lj/l0-ounce cartons 
 
 Methods C and D— <?e.t 
 case, fill with cartons, 
 and push aside on case-in 
 conveyor. 
 
 12/25-pound cartons 
 
 Guide cartons: 
 
 Methods C and D — Get 
 
 576 cases 
 200 cases 
 
 I.69 
 1.69 
 
 Supply casing materials: 
 
 Methods A, B, C, and D-- 
 Get case shook from tempor- 
 ary storage, hand truck to 
 casing station, assist in 
 transfer of case material 
 among stencil and form 
 areas, and minor house- 
 keeping. 
 
 Talley out: 
 
 Methods A, B, C, and D — 
 Record number of cases per 
 pallet load with respect to 
 grade, style, and label. 
 
 815 cases 
 30,000 pounds 
 
 1.86 
 I.69 
 
 and arrange 10-ounce 
 cartons in single file on 
 machine caser lead-in 
 conveyor . 
 
 576 cases 
 
 1.69 
 
 IN-PLANT TRANSPORTATION OF 
 CASED GOODS AND PACKAGING 
 MATERIALS 
 
 Lift truck operator 
 
 20,700 pounds 
 
 2.10 
 
 a/ Units per hour in pounds are in shelled weight. 
 
 b/ Wage rate includes driver and truck (contract basis). 
 
101 
 
 APPENDIX B 
 
 The Minimum Cost Combination of Hours of Operation and Rates of Output of 
 Field and Plant Operations in Processing Lima Beans for Freezing 
 
 Equations (26) and (27) representing total annual planning costs of field 
 and plant operations were given on pages 78 and 80 of the text. These equations 
 can be expressed solely in terms of rates of output (R) and hours operated per 
 season (H) by specifying particular values for the variables D, P, H r , E ±} and 
 H^, that is j 
 
 where the coefficients A^ and A 2 depend on the values specified for the 
 variables D, P, H r , H^, and 
 
 As total season volume is defined as - RgHg - q, the above equations 
 
 can be written solely in terms of (H's) and (q), that is: 
 
 (27) TSC p - $15,353 ♦ $l,870(q/H 2 ) + $27.6l77(H 2 ) + $A 2 (q) 
 since R^ - q/H 1 and R g - q/Hg. 
 
 Also, these equations can be expressed as daily cost equations by dividing 
 the constant terms and the coefficients of q/^, q/Hg, and q by the number of 
 days operated per season. For each length of season (number of days operated) 
 specified, the optimum values of ^ and H g and R 1 and R ? can be found that 
 minimize the combined costs of field and plant operations. The solution 
 presented below assumes a iiO-day operating season. Solutions for seasons of 
 different length are presented later in this appendix. 
 
 (26) TSC A 
 
 (27) TSCp 
 
 $3,929 ♦ $2,633(R X ) ♦ $0.3691(H 1 ) ♦ ^(R^) 
 $15,353 - $1,870(R 2 ) + $27.6177(H 2 ) + $A 2 (R 2 H 2 ) 
 
 (26) TSC A - $3,929 + $2,633 (q/^) + $0.36910^) + ftA-^q) 
 
xsoc if 
 
102. 
 
 where 
 
 * total daily costs of vining and assembly, 
 
 Cg » total daily costs of in-plant processing, 
 
 Q ■ total daily volume vined and processed in 1,000 pounds 
 ■ hours of vining per day, 
 
 "Bg - hours of in-plant processing per day, 
 
 § - R.. hourly rate of vining in 1,000 pounds, 
 *1 1 
 
 Q - R. hourly rate of in-plant processing 1,000 pounds, 
 
 "a 2 
 
 and where the values of A^ and Ag depend on the values specified for the 
 variables D, P, H r » H , and in equation (26) and (27) 
 
 With the maximum number of daily operating hours specified at 16 hours and 
 
 a maximum temporary storage allowance of 8 hours per day, the optimum combination 
 
 of daily hours and output rates is obtained by minimizing C - C, + C subject 
 
 1/ 
 
 to the constraints, that is:- 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 "2 
 
 " H l 
 
 
 8 
 
 h 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 36 
 
 16 
 
 These constraints are graphically depicted in Figure A. Every point on the 
 graph corresponds to a pair of values for EL and Hg. Any point inside or on 
 the boundary lines of the figure (OABCDE) corresponds to combinations of Hi and 
 H 2 that simultaneously satisfy all the constraints. 
 
 The solution to this problem is simplified by first assuming there are 
 no effective restrictions on daily hours of operation and that and H 2 are 
 free to vary up to 2h hours per day with no increase in cost rates. In this 
 case, equations G. and C are minimized separately, that is: 
 
 1/ As the unit cost of temporary storage operations averages less than five- 
 tenEh of a mill per pound, the total daily cost function (C » C 1 + C^) was not 
 adjusted for these costs for each of the constraints on H^, and Hg. Adjustment 
 of the daily cost functions to account for variations in temporary storage 
 costs as the constraints vary would have no significant effect on the solution 
 obtained. 
 
103. 
 
 Hours of plant operation per day (H 2 ) 
 
 Figure A. Feasible and Optimal Combinations of Daily Hours of Field and 
 Plant Operations for Frozen Lima Bean Processing, California, 
 1958 
 
lOli. 
 
 dC 
 
 1_ = -65,825(0) + 0 . 369lDO 
 
 dC 
 
 ■2 m -U6.75(Q) + 27<6177 . o 
 
 ^2 H- 
 
 ^ « 13.351* \/~Q~ 
 H 2 - 1.301 \/~0~ 
 
 Thus, the locus of cost-minimizing combinations of and for alternative 
 values of Q is given by the equation: 
 
 n ± - 10.26U(H 2 ) 
 
 If Q is allowed to increase from zero along the "expansion path" defined 
 by the preceding equation, it is clear that the first constraint to become 
 effective is that associated with ft, - H* - 8 (Point Figure A). The values 
 for H 1 and Hg — and, consequently, for R^, R 2 , and Q — for which this constraint 
 first becomes binding, are found by solving the pair of equations: 
 
 fL - H g - 8 
 ^ - 10.26U(H 2 ) 
 
 These equations imply that = 8.86, Hg = 0.86, and Q - O.UiO, and is unreal- 
 istic. 
 
 For larger values of Q, the cost-minimizing "expansion pathP follows the 
 line % - Hg » 8. In other words, the next step is to minimize the function C 
 subject to the single condition that EL - HL • 8» 
 
 Let 4 - C - X (H- - Hg - 8), where x is a Lagrange multiplier. 
 
 ^ = - 6i,82i(Qi + O . 36oi , x= o 
 9H 1 ^[ 
 
 = - + 27.6177 + X = .0 
 
 Adding these two equations and clearing of fractions results in 
 -65.825(0) (H*) + 27.9868 (H^)(H 2 ) - U6.75(Q)(H*) = o. 
 
10$. 
 
 This equation can be solved for and Hg by noting that HL » Hg * 8. 
 Rather than solving it explicitly, however, it is easier to specify a point on 
 the line (H^ - Hg « 8) and use the above equation to find the corresponding Q. 
 For example, if is set at Ik hours and H 2 set at 6 hours, this equation im- 
 plies that Q - 16.9. 
 
 Movement along this line can proceed with increasing daily volume (Q) 
 until EL reaches its absolute limit of 16 hours. At this point (point "B", 
 Figure A), the value of is 16 and the value of Hg is 8. With these values 
 on 8L and Bg, the daily volume Q implied by the above equation is 28.3. At this 
 value of Q, the "expansion path" becomes the horizontal line |L » 16. With 
 fixed at 16 hours per day, C can be minimized for Q greater than 28.3 by 
 minimizing C 2 independently, or as derived above, ■ 1.301 V Q, For 
 example, if Q - 85.2, the cost minimizing value of Bg is 12 hours. 
 
 As Q increases further, Hg can expand to its absolute limit of 16 hours 
 (point "C", Figure A), which corresponds to Q - 15>1.2. No further adjustment 
 of and is possible as Q expands and increasing daily volume beyond 
 Q = 151.2 can only be achieved with proportional increases in the hourly 
 output rates (size of vining and plant facilities). 
 
 The number of days operated per season has an important effect on the 
 least-cost combination of daily operating hours and hourly rates of output. 
 However, the effect on rates and hours is directly proportional to the length 
 of season. With a 30-day operating season, for example, the total daily volume 
 (Q) corresponding to point C of Figure A is 113 .U, exactly three-fourths of the 
 value for Q with a UO-day operating season. Similarly, the daily volume corres- 
 ponding to point B is 21.2 (three-fourths times 28.3)' for a 30-day season. 
 Appendix B, Table 1 gives selected values for combinations of hours and rates of 
 field and plant operations for a 30-, UO— , and 50-day operating season on both 
 a daily and season basis. 
 
 The development presented in the text, pages 78 to 86 inclusive, assumed 
 that daily operation of vining and plant facilities for the full amount of time 
 available per day gave results closely approximating optimum combination of 
 hours and rates for vining and plant operations. The preceding development 
 demonstrates that, under the operating conditions specified, such an approxima-- 
 ticn is the optimum except in cases of relatively low daily volumes and relatively 
 long operating seasons. 
 
■j^q*..o*.iwjUsB9 ai 31 t ?&m&i, *%Ln&Uqpa it gnxvloa narfd -wytfafl 
 u? r-dt ;bail .oi noiJai/pa avods .arid- eax/Jbo* ( 8 » ^JB j,K) enil c-d* 
 xdd : d dB iBS p,H bns oii^od dX ii? d^a ax H li ^sXqaiBxs *ic % j 
 
 ....... . * P Jarf* a^xTq 
 
 ctaxoq »irfi *k .«1*wd lo tfjartf edv I oacfa sdi eadoe<?-r H IWnu 
 
 gft$W ,8 ax J? lo auXav art* has dX si r H So add «<A a^^i'?- 
 
 • 
 
 x aoi+sypa avocfa odd \d fcattftprl 0 swa/Iav Y.Xi*b add tl * a tfrfi r H ^° 
 f H. <&alX Xfidnosxioii edi earaooM ,! d+sq nolznu^xz" add- t P 1* eulsv 
 d nt-itssia P 'io i bdsfcxinisn ad use 0 ^-afc KBftti 2>X era bsxil P H 
 V , XCF#X «» .^H t avoda : b9vxiab a* to t Yldnefcnyqahrc£ c 0 ^aisfctinim" 
 
 ■ ■ ' 
 
 £ If t aXq.ii£xa 
 
 ac-Ttoa do. fc d>r ,(." a^i*? t w 0" tffixoq) 
 ftETxa 0 ae QXdlaBCKj ax C H bas -R la 
 
 ■ 
 
 i hascxs nso „H .aerfdial aaaBatoni P aA 
 
 •alls d/flfltTtaq^x na aad ooaeaa i.wq v.^ab lc» ntodfiwn Stfl 
 
 -jad£i x,X"iycri b»t£ axi/od saidBiaqo.TtXZab 1© noxdsn-cfcroo tJ-goa-i-aaaX 
 i Xsnoid-rnooiq- xXda© -ib ei BTSJOri baa aa^B'i no d/oal'to ®rid ,*rsv9roH 
 ■r-.ro J add - ,aXqaaxa ?ol t noaeaa ■yii&ct'y. i o ^sb-Of b ddXW .noeaee lo 
 r-ea^tid; ■ysUoBxa % j.i«£XI ai A aiagx'* lo Cj jrxoq od ^tibfloqaaxwo (P) 
 vlixb ©d.t tV^isXlmcS .no36se ^nlJa-iaqo ^b-C-J a ddiw P icl aoXfiv 
 :sf>-OC a zr>\ (t*^ aaaii aridix/cl-aa-trid-) S.XS 8.i Q inxoq od ^atbuoo 
 ooti anoxdr*udn:c > 'io*i 8*x/X.sv baJ-oaXea aavJrs X eddsT t Q xibasqq.-: 
 8 •goid'fi'xaqo ij»3b-» 0^ bnxi. tpO« t"^- B a/toxjetaqo Jxt^-Iq tc.s bl?x'i 
 
 ai>Xoni ci8 od 8T as^oq . ;t Jxa t odd .i^ ba^flaa^-sq dnsjftqofsvab &dT 
 XX<1 9d*J" -xal 8ai.tlXX-.ael drrsXq baa ^niqiv lo aoi vrraqo yXli^b d-ari^ 
 tkao f;s»raiJqo ^niJ ant ixoiqqs vlae-vfo B^Xuact ava-^ *W| aidaXisv* 
 5 'jnxbaos'iq odT .anc-.ds xaqo dn^iq brtfi ^niiixv lol eadt'i bns e^iuod 
 doua t b9xli3aq3 anoi;!-i;?noo «nid-ii'r:?io ^di lat^' t d.<>rid aoiB-r+enonieb 
 eaaXov woX ^Xavid^XaT lo iieaar- nl iqasx? wvmxdqo artj ^1 mrd" 
 
 .anoeaee ^Ida^aqo DncI 
 
106. 
 
 APPENDIX B 
 TABLE 1 
 
 Minimum Cost Combinations of Hours Operated and Rates of 
 Output for Field and Plant Operations in Processing 
 Lima Beans for Freezing for Three Lengths of 
 Operating Season, California, 1958 
 
 Hours operated 
 
 
 
 Hourly rate 
 
 per 
 
 day- 
 
 Daily 
 
 Season 
 
 of output 
 
 Field 
 
 Plant 
 
 volume 
 
 volume 
 
 Field J 
 
 Plant 
 
 H l 
 
 \ 
 
 Q 
 
 <1 
 
 R l 
 
 R 2 
 
 
 
 thousand 
 
 million 
 
 
 
 
 
 pounds 
 
 pounds 
 
 pounds 
 
 
 
 30-dav season 
 
 xo 
 
 a 
 O 
 
 21.254 
 
 0.637 
 
 1,328 
 
 2,657 
 
 i£ 
 lo 
 
 1U 
 
 44.304 
 
 1.329 
 
 2,769 
 
 4,430 
 
 16 
 
 12 
 
 63.890 
 
 1.917 
 
 3,993 
 
 5,324 
 
 io 
 
 
 86.848 
 
 2.605 
 
 5,428 
 
 6,203 
 
 lo 
 
 lb 
 
 113. 4l8 
 
 3.403 
 
 7,089 
 
 7,089 
 
 16 
 
 16 
 
 150.000 
 
 4,500 
 
 9,375 
 
 9,375 
 
 16 
 
 lb 
 
 200.000 
 
 6.000 
 
 12,500 
 
 12,500 
 
 lb 
 
 lb 
 
 300.000 
 
 9.000 
 
 18,750 
 
 18,750 
 
 lb 
 
 lb 
 
 4oo.ooo 
 
 12.000 
 
 25,000 
 
 25,000 
 
 
 
 40-day season 
 
 lb 
 
 o 
 
 28.338 
 
 1.134 
 
 1,771 
 
 3,542 
 
 16 
 
 10 
 
 59-072 
 
 2.363 
 
 3,692 
 
 5,907 
 
 16 
 
 
 85.186 
 
 3.407 
 
 5,324 
 
 7,099 
 
 16 
 
 14 
 
 115-797 
 
 4.632 
 
 7,237 
 
 8,271 
 
 16 
 
 16 
 
 151.224 
 
 6.049 
 
 9,452 
 
 9,452 
 
 16 
 
 16 
 
 200.000 
 
 8.000 
 
 12,500 
 
 12,500 
 
 16 
 
 16 
 
 300.000 
 
 12.000 
 
 18,750 
 
 18,750 
 
 16 
 
 16 
 
 400.000 
 
 16.000 
 
 25,000 
 
 25,000 
 
 
 
 50-day season 
 
 16 
 
 8 
 
 35.423 
 
 1.771 
 
 2,214 
 
 4,428 
 
 16 
 
 10 
 
 73.840 
 
 3.692 
 
 4,615 
 
 7,384 
 
 16 
 
 12 
 
 106.483 
 
 5.324 
 
 6,655 
 
 8,874 
 
 16 
 
 lh 
 
 144.746 
 
 7.237 
 
 9,046 
 
 10,339 
 
 16 
 
 16 
 
 189.030 
 
 9.452 
 
 ll,8i4 
 
 11,184 
 
 16 
 
 16 
 
 200.000 
 
 10.000 
 
 12,500 
 
 12,500 
 
 16 
 
 16 
 
 300.000 
 
 15.000 
 
 18,750 
 
 18,750 
 
 16 
 
 16 
 
 400.000 
 
 20.000 
 
 25,000 
 
 25,000 
 
1o mk^bB Jbi/f- £2tsis?0 
 ... 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s a [ ■■■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 Sosfi^j 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . gasgga TCQ&'O^ , 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 COO . ( )0c 
 000.0041 ] 
 
 or