Division of Agricultural Sciences

rf 9 Pol

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY IN
ASSEMBLY AND PROCESSING
LIMA BEANS FOR FREEZING

Robert H. Reed

I JUL 2 9 (359

CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
GIANNINI FOUNDATION OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

Mimeographed Report No. 219

June, 1959

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

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

- - • . ■! .

, . -

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

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

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

•• * .' ■ ■ • • ■ •

■ ■ ■.■ . ■

•cc-eesooiq ' j'*%istrxAt bsniaJtio ttt$v no.ciRsiltiu Jo^nqiups bq,« tocteX. etfpO.

• ■ : . :

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).

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

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:

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

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

anuionx eJSoo laT?fis>3 16

.136

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.

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

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.

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.

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

50
57
63
69
75

3
4

5
6
7
8
9
10

14
16

22
24
27
29
32
37

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
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

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

1 B

1 c

1 B,C

A,B,C

A,B,

length

number

in feet

number

J d/

E /

1+6

lit

110

: ; >» , i

126

110

152

126

168

142

lt2

190

158

"*5

206

174

ItO

261+

222

: % :,i

itit

312

264

Itlt

360

302

110

"*3

1+08

350

127

lt8

462

392

105

510

430

152

112

558

472

165

122

606

520

191

140

103

7<t

708

596

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

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

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

9
12
Ik

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

33
ko
48
55

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

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

v»£i?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

„r/

1
1

10,000

1*50

«/

10k

2
1

15,000

20^

450

120

3
1

20,000

1
1

A
B

2
1

131*

574

2
1

120

k
1

A
B

133 ■

25,000

1
1

1
2

A
B
C

£
1

A
B

156

720

1
2
1

B
C

136

2
1

B
C

155

30,000

B
C

30^

2k Z/

1
1

A
B

156

720

136

k
2

A
B

155

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

10,000

*50

15,000

I6i/

D .

1
1

20ll

1*50

20,000

2
1

1
1

A
B

Ilk

57^

2
1

25,000

1
2
1

A
B

112

1
1

B
C

30 2 -/

1
1

156

720

1
1
1

A
B

30,000

136

1
1

A
B

156

720

(Continued on next page) f£

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.

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^/

Replacement cost-'

Annual fixed charge^

Attend

clean-

Attend

Icing

Power

Rate

ing-

grading

and

Re-

equip-

distri-

Total

re-

Equip-

Belt-

Equip-

Belt-

out-put

ceive

ment

bution

crew

Labor

pairs

Total

ment

ing

Total

ment

ing

Total

pounds

per

hour

number of workers

dollars

5,000

7.68

1.36

9-04

16,462

137

16,599

2,716

2,750

10,000

9-54

2.50

12.04

29,789

29,877

4,915

4,937

15,000

13.50

2.93

16.43

37,276

176

37,452

6,151

6,198

20,000

15.36

3. 42

18.78

46,269

176

46,445

7,634

7,678

25,000

21.18

4.67

25.85

57,932

176

58,108

9,559

9,603

30,000

23.01*

4.81

27.85

60,856

176

61,032

10,041

10,085

Bin handling

5,000

8.55

1.59

10.14

17,582

221

17,803

2,901

2,956

10,000

9.80

2.46

12.26

29,089

204

29,293

4,800

4,851

15,000

15.00

2.62

17.62

33,778

191

33,969

5,573

5,621

20,000

16.25

3.51

19.76

47,702

231

47,933

7,871

7,929

25,000

21.70

4.54

26.24

58,240

275

58,515

9,610

9,679

30,000

24.50

4.68

29.18

61,500

275

61,775

10,148

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

* 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.

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.

250 Hour Season

— — Planning costs

Bin handling

Bulk handling

10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10

Hourly rate of output, thousand pounds

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

6.30

O.74

7.04

690

108

12" x 25'

13,703

221

13,924

2,261

2,316

10,000

6.30

1.02

7-32

932

146

15" x 25*

17,903

301

18,204

2,95^

3,029

15,000

10.50

1.38

11.88

20^

1,725

270

100

15" x 25'

24, 7^7

350

25,097

4,083

M71

20,000

10.50

1.60

12.10

1,863

292

125

2
1

15" x 25'

28,503

400

28,903

4,703

100

*,eo3

25,000

14.70

2.18

16.88

3<^

10?

2,453

4oo

125

i ■

18" x 25'

37,031

530

37,561

6,110

133

6,243

30,000

14.70

2.30

17.00

2,79^

437

150

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

splacemen
cost

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

1,004

369

1,373

166

258

0.09

16.10 + O.56P

16.19 + O.56P

10,000

1,833

738

2,571

302

185

487

0.18

23.60 + l.llP

23.78 + 1.11P

15,000

• 93

2,718

1,107

3,825

448

277

725

0.27

31.10 + 1.67P

31.37 + I.67P

20,000

2,718

1,107

3,825

448

277

725

0.27

38.60 + 2.22P

38.87 + 2.22P

25,000

Ilk

3,55^

1,476

5,030

586

369

955

0.35

46.10 + 2.78P

46.45 + 2.78P

30,000

135

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.

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'

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

B
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

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

110

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

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

2
2
2

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

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

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

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

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£

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

2
2

3
3
4

1
1

2
2
3

2
3

2
1*
5
7
8
10

1
3
It
5
6
7

7
14

25
30
36

1
1

1
2
2
3

2
2
2
3

.-2/

1
1

2
2

1
2
2
3
3
It

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

2
2

3
3
4

1
1

2
2

3
3

2
3

2
1*
5
7
8
10

1
2

3
3
it

11
15

1
1

2
2
3

1
1
2
2

3
3
it

3
it

1
l

2
2
3
3

6
9
12
15
18

Method C

5,000

10 y 000

15,000

20,000
25,000

30,000

2
2

3
3
It

1
1

3
3

2
3
It
5
6

2
2
3
3
4

3
3
it

3
3
it
5

6
11
lit
18
21

1
1

2
2
3

1
1

2
2

1
2
2
3
3

3
4

5
6

1
1

2
2
3
3

6
9
12
15
18

Method D

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000
30,000

2
2
3

2
3

5
6

1
1

5
6

3
3
1*

3
3
4

3
3
it
5

7
lit
18
2lt

28
34

1
1
1

2
2
3

2
2
2
3

1
1

2
2

2
2
3

2
3
it

1
2

3
3
it

5
9
11
lit

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.

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

18 1

1*8

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

1
1
1

2
1
1
2

C
B
A
B
A
B
A

1
1

2
2

10
10
10

20
20

1
1
1
1

Method C —Machine fill and seal

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000
25,000
30,000

2
2
3

7 3
21.
2ii
31

1*8

1
1
1

2
1
1

C
B
A
B
A
B
A

1
1

2
2

10
10
10
20

1
1
1
1

athod D — Machine fill, manual 3eal

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000
25,000
30,000

2
2
3
3
h

10*

1*0

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-

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

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.

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.

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

»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

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

Unit

Plant

Item

Units

C03t

dollars

thousand dollars

Roofed area

Grading

1,000

square

feet

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.:

15.8

Walls:

lli.l

Exterior

1,000

square

feet

1,723

8.2

10.1

11.9

17.1

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.!

38.8

i/OUI o«

Swing

Each

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

U.U

o.U

y.u

0.2

O )i

Heating

Each

100

1.0

2.0

0.1

o.:

0.2

Ventilation

Each

100

2.0

U.o

8.0

0.2

0.1

0.8

Subtotal

hP.k

61.

82.U

Paving and siding

Railroad siding

Lineal feet

200.0

300.0

li5o.o

2.0

Paving

1,000

square

feet

k?9

7.8

12.0

20.7

3.9

10.3

Subtotal

5-9

1^.8

Total direct coat

1+6.3

70.

97.2

Contingencies, 5 per cent

lj.9

of direct cost

2.3

Architectural and engineering

fees, 2 per cent of

direct cost

0.9

1.9

Contractor's overhead and profit,

16 per cent of direct cost

7.U

11.

15.6

Total cost

56.9

86.

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

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.

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

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)

" coeffic

Jftrits or

multipliers expressed in

dollars

A. Field or assembly costs

Vlning

3,929

2,633

0.3691

7.99

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

Receiving, initial cleaning,
and quality grading *

1,892

320

U.5882

0.8IM

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

Visual inspection and
manual quality grading

8.6500

1.5100

0.1110

Packaging

h,3hS

856

2ll.730

.I480

1.590

Variable water costs

166

0.1872

0.5380

Caging

189

7.952

.712

In-plant transportation of
cased goods and packaging
materials

1.0800

0.1300

Freezing

8.3000

Plant investment costs

a. Blildings

b. Electrical wiring

c. Water piping

2,219
307
205

280

10.

Supervision and miscel-
laneous labor

2,800

7.1100

1.2lj00

11.

Plant administration

5.5100

12.

Miscellaneous equipment

1,072

0.3250

0.0130

Total in-plant costs

15,353

1,870

27.6177

18.31142

0.1110

32.682

.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

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

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

CO
O

o
■o

CO
CO

o
a

a
k.

a>
>
<

Manual gradeout
percentage

0 5 10 15 20 25

Hourly rate of plant output, thousand pounds

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.

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

to
T3
C

o
a.

TJ
C

in
zs
o

I 60
o

m
a>

| 50

B. AVERAGE COSTS
pack etc.

R, 100%
.0%.

B,....0%

10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10

Hourly rate of output, thousand pounds

R, 70%
, 20%.
8, 10%

R, 50%
20%.
B, 30%

R, 20%
10%
8, 70%

R,....0%
I, ...0%,
8,100%

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*

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';

•.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.

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

ite

10,000

1,725

270

lS.ooo

1,863

292

20,000

2,153

llOO

25,000

2,79b.

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

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

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

each

o.59

each

O.liO

each

2.00

foot

10 per cent

total cost

(Continued on next page.)

98.

SnJ rt rt

"Is

-C 43 -t*

, tx R

■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

CVJ CO

On r«-\

r-i

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-

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 >

•8S c

i i

-O o\ cvj cvj r—

ia J f— VT\

Ov^j nn

O o o o

VWAHH (M

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

mm mm u w

Ed &> 5jj &

§ S S rt
tt: ffi ffi

p p

CD V

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

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

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

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

790 cases
700 cases

3^5 cases
315 cases

5U9 cases
k^jk cases

33U cases
33U cases

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)

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

to the constraints, that is:-

" H l

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.

1_ = -65,825(0) + 0 . 369lDO

■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

Field J

Plant

H l

R l

R 2

thousand

million

pounds

30-dav season

a
O

21.254

0.637

1,328

2,657

i£
lo

44.304

1.329

2,769

4,430

63.890

1.917

3,993

5,324

86.848

2.605

5,428

6,203

113. 4l8

3.403

7,089

150.000

4,500

9,375

200.000

6.000

12,500

300.000

9.000

18,750

4oo.ooo

12.000

25,000

40-day season

28.338

1.134

1,771

3,542

59-072

2.363

3,692

5,907

85.186

3.407

5,324

7,099

115-797

4.632

7,237

8,271

151.224

6.049

9,452

200.000

8.000

12,500

300.000

12.000

18,750

400.000

16.000

25,000

50-day season

35.423

1.771

2,214

4,428

73.840

3.692

4,615

7,384

106.483

5.324

6,655

8,874

144.746

7.237

9,046

10,339

189.030

9.452

ll,8i4

11,184

200.000

10.000

12,500

300.000

15.000

18,750

400.000

20.000

25,000

1o mk^bB Jbi/f- £2tsis?0
...

s a [ ■■■

Sosfi^j

. gasgga TCQ&'O^ ,

COO . ( )0c
000.0041 ]