• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Credits
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Scope of study
 Cost
 Analysis of handling methods
 Comparison of cost with different...
 Production standards














Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station ; 547
Title: Cost of moving citrus from tree onto highway trucks as related to methods of handling
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027589/00001
 Material Information
Title: Cost of moving citrus from tree onto highway trucks as related to methods of handling
Series Title: Bulletin - University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station ; 547
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Thor, Eric.
Dohner, Luke D.
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Publication Date: 1954
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027589
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page 1
    Credits
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Table of Contents
        Page 4
    Introduction
        Page 5
    Scope of study
        Page 6
    Cost
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Analysis of handling methods
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
    Comparison of cost with different methods
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
    Production standards
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
Full Text



September 1954


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS
WILLARD M. FIFIELD, Director
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA




Cost of Moving Citrus from Tree onto

Highway Trucks

As Related to Methods of Handling

By
ERIC THOR and LUKE D. DOHNER


Fig. 1.-Loading full field boxes onto the "goat" truck in the grove.


Single copies free to Florida residents upon request to
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA


Bulletin 547









BOARD OF CONTROL

J. Lee Ballard, Chairman, St. Petersburg
Hollis Rinehart, Miami
Fred H. Kent, Jacksonville
Win. H. Dial, Orlando
Mrs. Alfred I. duPont, Jacksonville
George W. English, Jr., Ft. Lauderdale
W. Glenn Miller, Monticello
J. B. Culpepper, Secretary, Tallahassee
EXECUTIVE STAFF
John S. Allen, Acting President"
J. Wayne Reitz, Ph.D., Provost for Agr.'
Willard M. Fifield, M.S., Director
J. R. Beckenbach, Ph.D., Asso. Director
R. W. Bledsoe, Ph.D., Assistant Director
Rogers L. Bartley, B.S., Admin. Mgr.s
Geo. R. Freeman, B.S., Farm Superintendent
W. H. Jones, Jr., M.Agr., Asst. Supt.

MAIN STATION, GAINESVILLE

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
H. G. Hamilton, Ph.D., Agr. Economist 1
R. E. L. Greene, Ph.D., Agr. Economist
M. A. Brooker, Ph.D., Agr. Economist 3
Zach Savage, M.S.A., Economist
A. H. Spurlock, M.S.A., Agr. Economist
D. E. Alleger, M.S., Associate
D. L. Brooke, Ph.D., Associate
M. R. Godwin, Ph.D., Associate 3
W. K. McPherson, M.S., Agr. Economist
Eric Thor, M.S., Asso. Agr. Economist a
Cecil N. Smith, M.A., Asso. Agr. Economist
Levi A. Powell, Sr., M.S.A., Assistant*
E. D. Smith, Ph.D., Asst. Agr. Economist
N. K. Roberts, M.A., Asst. Agr. Economist
Orlando, Florida (Cooperative USDA)
G. Norman Rose, B.S., Asso. Agr. Economist
J. C. Townsend, Jr., B.S.A., Agr. Statistician
J. B. Owens, B.S.A., Agr. Statistician -
F'. T. Galloway, M.S., Agr. Statistician
C. L. Crenshaw, M.S., Asst. Agr. Economist
B. W. Kelly, M.S., Asst. Agr. Economist
AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING
Frazier Rogers, M.S.A., Agr. Engineer 1
J. M. Myers, M.S.A., Asso. Agr. Engineer
J. S. Norton, M.S., Asst. Agr. Engineer
AGRONOMY
Fred H. Hull, Ph.D., Agronomist 12
G. B. Killinger, Ph.D., Agronomist
H. C. Harris, Ph.D., Agronomist
W. A Carver, Ph.D., Agronomist
Fred A. Clark, M.S., Associate2
E. S. Horner, Ph.D., Assistant
A. T. Wallace, Ph.D., Assistant
D. E. McCloud, Ph.D., Associate
G. C. Nutter, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
I. M. Wofford, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
E. 0. Burt, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
J. R. Edwardson, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomists

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND NUTRITION
T. J. Cunha, Ph.D., Animal Husbandman 13
G. K. Davis, Ph.D., Animal Nutritionist3
R. L. Shirley, Ph.D., Biochemist
A. M. Pearson, Ph.D., Asso. An. Husb.3
John P. Faster, Ph.D., Asst. An. Nutri.
H. D. Wallace, Ph.D., Asso. An. Husb.3
M. Koger, Ph.D., An. Husbandman :i
J. F. Hentges, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. An. Hush.3
L. R. Arrington, Ph.D., Asst. An. Husb.
A. C. Warnick, Ph.D., Asst. Physiologist
DAIRY SCIENCE
E. L. Fouts, Ph.D., Dairy Technologist 1
R. B. Becker, Ph.D., Dairy Husbandman 8
S. P. Marshall, Ph.D., Asso. Dairy Husb.8
W. A. Krienke, M.S., Asso. Dairy Tech.3
P. T Dix Arnold, M.S.A., Asso. Dairy Husb.3
Leon Mull, Ph.D., Asso. Dairy Tech."
H. H. Wilkowske, Ph.D., Asso. Dairy Tech."
James M. Wing, Ph.D., Asst. Dairy Husb.


EDITORIAL
J. Francis Cooper, M.S.A., Editor' 3
Clyde Beale, A.B.J., Editor
William G. Mitchell, A.B.J..Assistant Editor
H. L. Moreland, Jr., B.S.A., Asst. Editors
ENTOMOLOGY
A. N. Tissot, Ph.D., Entomologist
L. C. Kuitert, Ph.D., Associate
H. E. Bratley, M.S.A., Assistant
F. A. Robinson, M.S., Asst. Apiculturist
R. E. Waites, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
S. H. Kerr, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
J. R. Christie, Ph.D., Nematologist
HOME ECONOMICS
Ouida D. Abbott, Ph.D., Home Econ.'
R. B. French, Ph.D., Biochemist

HORTICULTURE
G. H. Blackmon, M.S.A., Horticulturist''
R. A. Dennison, Ph.D., Hort. & Interim Head
F. S Jamison, Ph.D., Horticulturist 3
Albert P. Lorz, Ph.D., Horticulturist
R. K. Showalter, M.S., Asso. Hort.
R. H. Sharpe, M.S., Asso. Horticulturist
V. F. Nettles, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
F. S. Lagasse, Ph.D., Horticulturist
R. D. Dickey, M.S.A., Asso. Hort.
L. H. Halsey, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
C. B. Hall, Ph.D., Asst. Horticuturist
Austin Griffiths, Jr., B.S., Asst. Hort.
S. E. McFadden, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
C. H. VanMiddelem, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
B. D. Thompson, M.S.A., Interim Asst. Hort.
M. W. Hoover, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
LIBRARY
Ida Keeling Cresap, Librarian

PLANT PATHOLOGY
W. B. Tisdale, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist '
Phares Decker, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Erdman West, M.S., Botanist & Mycologist
Robert W. Earhart, Ph.D., Plant Path."
Howard N. Miller, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
Lillian E. Arnold, M.S., Asso. Botanist
C. W. Anderson, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.
POULTRY HUSBANDRY
N. R. Mehrhof, M.Agr., Poultry Husb.1 '
J. C. Driggers, Ph.D., Asso. Poultry Husb.3

SOILS
F. B. Smith, Ph.D., Microbiologist 3
Gaylord M. Volk, Ph.D.; Soils Chemist
J. R. Neller, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Nathan Gammon, Jr., Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Ralph G. Leighty, B.S., Asst. Soil Surveyor'
G. D. Thornton, Ph.D., Microb:ologist'
C. F. Eno, Ph.D., Asst. Soils Microbiologist
H. W. Winsor, B.S.A., Assistant Chemist
R. E. Caldwell, M.S.A., Asst. Chemist 3'
V. W. Carlisle, M.S., Asst. Soil Surveyor
J. H. Walker, M.S.A., Asst. Soil Surveyor
William K. Robertson, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist
0. E. Cruz, B.S.A., Asst. Soil Surveyor
W. G. Blue, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
J. G. A. Fiskel, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist3
L. C. Hammond, Ph.D., Asst. Soil Physicist
H. L. Breland, Ph.D., Asst. Soils Chem.
W. L. Pritchett, Ph.D., Soil Technologist

VETERINARY SCIENCE
D. A. Sanders, D.V.M., Veterinarian '
M. W. Emmel, D.V.M., Veterinarian3
C. F. Simpson, D.V.M., Asso. Veterinarian '
L. E. Swanson, D.V.M., Parasitologist
W. R. Dennis, D.V.M., Asst. Parasitologist
E. W. Swarthout, D.V.M., Asso. Poultry
Pathologist (Dade City)
M. Ristic, D.V.M., Associate Pathologist
J. G. Wadsworth, D.V.M., Asst. Poul. Path.









BRANCH STATIONS


NORTH FLORIDA STATION, QUINCY

W. C. Rhoades, M.S., Entomologist in Charge
R. R. Kincaid, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
L. G. Thompson, Jr., Ph.D., Soils Chemist
W. H. Chapman, M.S., Agronomist
Frank S. Baker, Jr., B.S., Asst. An. Husb.
T. E. Webb, M.S.A., Asst. Agronomist
Mobile Unit, Monticello
R. W. Wallace, B.S., Associate Agronomist
Mobile Unit, Marianna
R. W. Lipscomb, M.S., Associate Agronomist
Mobile Unit, Pensacola
R. L. Smith, M.S., Associate Agronomist
Mobile Unit, Chipley
J. B. White, B.S.A., Associate Agronomist


CITRUS STATION, LAKE ALFRED

A. F. Camp, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
W. L. Thompson, B.S., Entomologist
R. F. Suit, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
E. P. Ducharme, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
J. W. Sites, Ph.D., Horticulturist
H. O. Sterling, B.S., Asst. Horticulturist
H. J. Reitz, Ph.D., Horticulturist
Francine Fisher, M.S., Asst. Plant Path.
I. W. Wander, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
J. W. Kesterson, M.S., Asso. Chemist
R. Hendrickson, B.S., Asst. Chemist
Ivan S'ewart, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
D. S. Prosser, Jr., B.S., Asst. Engineer
R. W. Olsen, B.S., Biochemist
F. W. Wenzel, Jr., Ph.D., Chemist
Alvin H. Rouse, M.S., Asso. Chemist
H. W. Ford, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
L. C. Knorr, Ph.D., Asso. Histolovist
R. M. Pratt, Ph.D., Asso. Ent.-Pathologist
W. A. Simanton, Ph.D., Entomologist
E. J. Deszyck, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
C. D. Leonard, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
W. T. Long, M.S., Asst. Horticulturist
M. H. Muma, Ph.D., Asso. Entomologist
F. J. Reynolds, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
R. B. Johnson, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
W. F. Newhall, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
W. F. Grierson-Jackson, Ph.D., Asst. Chem.
Roger Patrick, Ph.D., Bacteriologist
M. F. Oberbacher, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Physiol.
R. C. J. Koo, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
J. R. Kuykendall. Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
W. C. Price, Ph.D., Virologist
J. J. McBride, Jr., Ph.D., Assistant Chemist


EVERGLADES STATION, BELLE GLADE

W. T. Forsee, Jr., Ph.D., Chemist in Charge
R. V. Allison, Ph.D., Fiber Technologist
Thomas Bregger, Ph.D., Physiologist
J. W. Randolph, M.S., Agricultural Engr.
R. W. Kidder, M.S., Asso. Animal Hush.
C. C. Seale, Associate Agronomist
N. C. Hayslip, B.S.A., Asso. Entomologist
E. A. Wolf, M.S., Asst. Horticulturist
W. H. Thames, M.S., Asst. Entomologist
W. G. Genung, M.S., Asst. Entomologist
Robert J. Allen, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
V. E. Green, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
V. L. Guzman, Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
J. C. Stephens, B.S., Drainage Engineer
A. E. Kretschmer, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. Soils
Chemist
Charles T. Ozaki, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist
D. S. Harrison, M.S., Asst. Agri. Engr.
F. T. Boyd, Ph.D., Asso. Agronomist
J. N. Simons, Ph.D., Asst. Virologist
D. W. Beardsley, M.S., Asst. Animal Hush.
R. S. Cox, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Pathologist
Donald M. Coe, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Pathologist


SUB-TROPICAL STATION, HOMESTEAD
Geo. D. Ruehle, Ph.D., Vice-Dir. in Charge
D. O. Wolfenbarger, Ph.D., Entomologist
Francis B. Lincoln, Ph.D., Horticulturist
Robert A. Conover, Ph.D., Plant Path.
John L. Malcolm, Ph.D., Asso. Soils Chemist
R. W. Harkness, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist
R. Bruce Ledin, Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
J. C. Noonan, M.S., Asst. Hort.
M. H. Gallatin, B.S., Soil Conservationist 2
T. W. Young, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist

WEST CENTER. FLA. STA., BROOKSVILLE
Marian W. Hazen, M.S., Animal Husband-
man in Charge2

RANGE CATTLE STATION, ONA
W. G. Kirk, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
E. M. Hodges, Ph.D., Agronomist
D. W. Jones, M.S., Asst. Soil Technologist
F. M. Peacock, M.S., Asst. An. Husbandman

CENTRAL FLORIDA STATION, SANFORD
R. W. Ruprecht, Ph.D., Vice-Dir. in Charge
J. W. Wilson, ScD., Entomologist
P. J. Westgate, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
Ben F. Whitner, Jr., B.S.A., Asst. Hort.
J. F. Darby, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.

WEST FLORIDA STATION, JAY
C. E. Hutton, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
II. W. Lundy, B.S.A., Associate Agronomist
R. L. Jeffers, Ph.D., Asso. Agronomist

SUWANNEE VALLEY STA., LIVE OAK
G. E. Ritchey, M.S., Agronomist in Charge

GULF COAST STATION, BRADENTON
E. L. Spencer, Ph.D., Soils Chemist in Charge
E. G. Kelsheimer, Ph.D., En.omologist
David G. A. Kelbert, Asso. Horticulturist
Robert O. Magie, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
J. M. Walter, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
S. S. Woltz., Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
Donald S. Burgis, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
C. M. Geraldson, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
G. Sowell, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. Plant Pathologist


FIELD LABORATORIES

Watermelon, Grape, Pasture-Leesburg
J. M. Crall, Ph.D., Plant Path. in Charge
C. C. Helms, Jr., B.S., Asst. Agronomist
L. H. Stover, Assistant in Horticulture

Strawberry-Plant City
A. N. Brooks, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist

Vegetables-Hastings
A. H. Eddins, Ph.D., Plant Path. in Charge
E. N. McCubbin, Ph.D., Horticulturist
T. M. Dobrovsky, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
D. L. Myhre, Ph.D., Asst. Soils Chemist

Pecans-Monticello
A. M. Phillips, B.S., Asso. Entomologist 2
John R. Large, M.S., Asso. Plant Path.

Frost Forecasting-Lakeland
Warren O. Johnson, B.S., Meteorologist in
Charge


1 Head of Department
2 In cooperation wi'h U. S.
3 Cooperative, other divisions, U. of F.
'On leave






















CONTENTS


PAGE


INTRODUCTION ...-........--.... ....... --------- ------------------ 5


SCOPE OF STUDY ....-...........--- ................. --------- --------- ------.. 6


COST ............. ...-....-....... --.... ---.. --.....--------- ------------ ---- 6

Fixed Cost ............. ------- ..-------......... 7

Direct Cost ....... ------ -------- -----------.............----------- 8


ANALYSIS OF HANDLING METHODS ..

A. Hand Dumping-Field Box ......

B. Field Box-Bulk "Goat" Truck

C. Portable Grove Elevator-Bulk

D. Tractor-Bulk Field Trailer ..

E. Tractor-Basket ...........-......


"Goat" Truck .......... ......... ........


COMPARISON OF COST WITH DIFFERENT METHODS


.-......... ............-... 33


....- ---- ..-............... 40


APPENDIX









Cost of Moving Citrus from Tree onto

Highway Trucks

As Related to Methods of Handling

ERIC THOR and LUKE D. DOHNER 1

INTRODUCTION
Only One Phase of the Overall Operation Included.-Moving
citrus from the tree to the processing plant includes (1) pick-
ing the fruit off the tree; (2) handling and transporting the
fruit, after it has been picked, from the tree onto the large
semi-trailer highway truck; and (3) hauling the fruit to the
processing plant. Of these three independent operations, only
the second is included in this study.
Average Cost for a Sample of 24 Florida Firms.-The cost
account records of 24 Florida citrus packers and dealers were
studied to estimate the 1951-52 cost, not including cost of pick-
ing labor, of handling and transporting citrus from the tree
onto the semi-trailer truck. The seasonal average cost per
standard field box (capacity of 4,800 cubic inches) was 10.90
cents for oranges and 7.97 cents for grapefruit.2
Considerable Variation in Cost Among Firms.-This study
also showed that there was considerable variation among the
various firms performing the same service. The seasonal aver-
age cost varied from approximately 4 to 19 cents per field box
for oranges and from 5 to 17 cents per field box for grapefruit.
Size of Differential Suggests Possibilities of Reducing Costs.
-The size of this cost differential suggests that some firms
might be able to reduce their handling cost by improving their
existing method or changing to a new method, depending upon
particular situations.
1 This study was made co-operatively by the University of Florida
Agricultural Experiment Station and the Bureau of Agricultural Eco-
nomics, U. S. Department of Agriculture. The authors gratefully ac-
knowledge the valuable suggestions and constructive criticisms of Dr.
Henry G. Hamilton, head of the Department of Agricultural Economics.
University of Florida; Dr. Bennett White of the Bureau of Agricultural
Economics, USDA; and Loy L. Sammet, cooperative agent, California Agri-
cultural Experiment Station and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics.
Part of this bulletin is based on a thesis entitled, "Cost Analysis of
Handling Citrus from the Tree to the Highway Truck", which Mr. Dohner
presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Agriculture.
2 Adapted from A. H. Spurlock, Cost of Picking and Hauling Florida
Citrus, Agricultural Economics Series No. 52-1 and No. 53-2.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


Purpose of Study.-The primary purpose of this study is to
show what appears to be the most feasible means of increasing
efficiency and reducing the cost of handling and transporting
citrus sold for processing. More specific purposes are (1) to
determine the cost per field box for transporting and handling
citrus from tree onto "semi", not including picking costs, for
five distinct methods used by the Florida citrus industry; and
(2) to determine which of these methods is most economical
under specified conditions.

SCOPE OF STUDY
Five Methods Were Studied.-The five methods studied were:
1. Hand dumping-field box.
2. Field box-bulk "goat".3
3. Portable grove elevator-bulk "goat".
4. Tractor-bulk field trailer.
5. Tractor-basket.

Data Were Collected in Five Counties Under Varying Wea-
ther, Soil and Topographic Conditions.-The data used in this
study were collected by detailed time studies, examination of
accounting records of handling and packing firms, and through
personal interviews with workers, managers and equipment
dealers. Detailed input-output studies were made during the
five-month period of January through May of 1953. Field
data were collected in five counties to study each method during
the operation process with different workers, and under vary-
ing weather, soil and topographic conditions.4
Time requirements, effect of distance upon volume per hour,
and cost, were calculated for each method.

COST
Both Fixed and Direct Costs Were Calculated for Each
Method.-Fixed cost was considered independent of hours used
per season. It included such annual charges as depreciation,
taxes, insurance and interest. Direct cost included those costs
directly associated with operating expenses, such as labor and
gasoline. Fixed cost and direct cost were combined to obtain
total cost.

S"Goat" is a common term for a narrow flat-bed grove truck.
'Marion, Lake, Orange, Polk and Hillsborough counties.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


Purpose of Study.-The primary purpose of this study is to
show what appears to be the most feasible means of increasing
efficiency and reducing the cost of handling and transporting
citrus sold for processing. More specific purposes are (1) to
determine the cost per field box for transporting and handling
citrus from tree onto "semi", not including picking costs, for
five distinct methods used by the Florida citrus industry; and
(2) to determine which of these methods is most economical
under specified conditions.

SCOPE OF STUDY
Five Methods Were Studied.-The five methods studied were:
1. Hand dumping-field box.
2. Field box-bulk "goat".3
3. Portable grove elevator-bulk "goat".
4. Tractor-bulk field trailer.
5. Tractor-basket.

Data Were Collected in Five Counties Under Varying Wea-
ther, Soil and Topographic Conditions.-The data used in this
study were collected by detailed time studies, examination of
accounting records of handling and packing firms, and through
personal interviews with workers, managers and equipment
dealers. Detailed input-output studies were made during the
five-month period of January through May of 1953. Field
data were collected in five counties to study each method during
the operation process with different workers, and under vary-
ing weather, soil and topographic conditions.4
Time requirements, effect of distance upon volume per hour,
and cost, were calculated for each method.

COST
Both Fixed and Direct Costs Were Calculated for Each
Method.-Fixed cost was considered independent of hours used
per season. It included such annual charges as depreciation,
taxes, insurance and interest. Direct cost included those costs
directly associated with operating expenses, such as labor and
gasoline. Fixed cost and direct cost were combined to obtain
total cost.

S"Goat" is a common term for a narrow flat-bed grove truck.
'Marion, Lake, Orange, Polk and Hillsborough counties.








Cost of Moving Citrus from Tree onto Highway Trucks 7

FIXED COST

Fixed Cost Calculated on New Equipment Valued at 1953
Price Level.-The accounting value of the equipment used by
individual firms depended upon the price at time of purchase.
Therefore, to facilitate direct comparison of the various
methods, all fixed costs were based on new equipment valued
at the July 1953 price level. It was impossible to determine
a precise value for fixed cost because the disposal value, or
trade-in value, of the equipment is unknown. Also, there is a
large degree of uncertainty as to the physical life of equipment
and the possibility that it may become obsolete before it is
actually worn out. The estimate of the service life of equipment
was based on information given by field foremen who supervised
the use of the equipment.

TABLE 1.-ANNUAL FIXED COST OF EQUIPMENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF
REPLACEMENT COST.


Item


"Goat" truck ................
Bulk "goat" truck ........
Two-wheeled trailer ....
Loading elevator ........
Portable grove loading
elevator .................
Tractor basket ...........
Field box ..................
Loading conveyor ........
Tractor with hydraulic
lift ....-..... ........-....
Tractor ........ .............


Annu
Esti- ____
mated
Service Depre-
Life ciation



8 121/
8 12 1
10 10
10 10
Ic' n


10U
20
331 /
10

20
1212


al Charge as Percentage
of Replacement Cost


Insurance,
Interest
Repairs and
t Taxes


1.5 5.0
1.5 5.0
1.5 5.0
1.5 5.0

1.5 5.0
1.5 5.0
1.5 5.0
1.5 5.0

1.5 5.0
1.5 5.0
1.5 5.0


Total


Estimated (actual service) life, taking into account seasonal operation of 1,500 hours
per year, assuming no salvage value at the end of the use period.
** Depreciation is calculated by the straight line method. The annual percentage charge
is found by dividing 100 by the estimated life.
tThis repair is a function of time. The repairs attributable to use are included as
direct costs.
4. Insurance 1.0 percent taxes 1.0 percent; interest 3.0 percent (interest at three
percent is equal to approximately five percent on undepreciated balance).

Fixed Costs Were Divided into Three Components.-The com-
ponents of fixed cost (summarized in Table 1) were divided into
(1) cost of depreciation; (2) cost of repairs, which are at-
tributable to time; and (3) insurance costs, interest on invest-


I


I







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


ment, and taxes. The depreciation costs of equipment were
calculated by the straight line method. That is, if equipment
was estimated to last 10 years, the annual depreciation was
1/10 of the original cost.
Calculation of Annual Fixed Cost.-Annual fixed costs (Table
2) for each equipment item were calculated from the estimated
replacement cost and the percentage annual charge. For ex-
ample, the 1953 replacement cost for a "goat" truck is given
in Table 2 as $2,350, and the percentage annual charge for this
equipment is given in Table 2 as 19.0 percent. The estimated
annual fixed cost is ($2,350 X 0.19) = $446.50.

TABLE 2.-ANNUAL FIXED COST OF HANDLING EQUIPMENT.

Percentage Annual
Item Replacement Annual Fixed
Costs* Charge''* Costt
Dollars Dollars
"Goat" truck .. .................... 2,350.00 19.0 446.50
Bulk "goat" truck --........... 3,000.00 19.0 570 l0
Two-wheeled trailer ............. 125.00 16.5 20.62
Loading elevator .................. 1,200.00 16.5 196.00
Portable grove loading
elevator ........................ 1,000.00 16.5 165.00
Tractor basket ...-............ 60.00 26.5 15.90
Field box ........................... 2.65 39.8 1.05
Loading conveyor ..............-..... 330.00 16.5 54.45
Tractor with hydraulic lift -_ 3,200.00 26.5 84s 00
Tractor .................................... 1,800.00 19.0 342.00

At 1953 price level.
** Total percentage annual charge from Table 1.
t Annual fixed cost is the replacement cost multiplied by the percentage annual charge.

The Calculated Fixed Cost Was Higher than the Fixed Costs
Shown by Any of the Firms' Accounting Records.-This was
possible because the calculated fixed costs are based on new
equipment valued at the 1953 price level and most of the equip-
ment used by the firms studied was purchased prior to 1953
and at lower price levels. Also, a number of firms are using
some equipment which is already fully depreciated in an ac-
counting sense.
DIRECT COST
Direct Costs Were Calculated on a Per-hour Basis.-Direct
costs, which are summarized separately for each method, were
calculated on a per-hour basis. These included: (1) labor cost
of the field foreman and other workers directly associated with







Cost of Moving Citrus from Tree onto Highway Trucks 9

the handling of fruit after it had been picked until it was loaded
on the semi-trailer truck; (2) equipment repair cost attributable
to use; and (3) other operating costs, such as fuel oil and grease.
Labor Costs Are Based on Uniform Wage Rates.-Wage rates
were fairly uniform for all firms studied. However, to facili-
tate comparison among the methods, labor costs in this study
were based on equal wage rates for comparable jobs for all firms
and for all methods. The wage rates selected for use in this
analysis were considered to be representative of those actually
paid in the industry.
Direct Costs Are Based on "Efficient" Capacity Operation.-
The volume handled per day by a handling crew varied with the
number of pickers, type and variety of fruit, and the age of
the trees. However, to facilitate direct comparison of all
methods, the volume that a crew can handle per hour, and upon
which direct costs were calculated, was based on the assump-
tion that the handling crew worked at an "efficient" capacity
rate-a rate of production that can be expected of a crew work-
ing without undue fatigue and with allowances for personal and
unavoidable equipment delays.
The Calculated Average Direct Cost per Box for the Various
Methods Was Lower than the Direct Cost Shown by Any of the
Firms' Accounting Records.-This was possible because the cal-
culated direct costs were based on time studies of actual field
operations and adjusted to have the crew working at an "effi-
cient" operating capacity, while the costs shown by the firms'
accounting records include days of less than capacity operation
and thus higher per-box cost.

ANALYSIS OF HANDLING METHODS

A. Hand Dumping-Field Box

A Great Deal of Hard Physical Labor Is Required to Handle
Fruit by This Method.-In this method pickers emptied the
fruit from their picking sacks into standard field boxes, which
were then loaded manually onto a "goat" truck for hauling from
the picking area to the loading site at the roadside (Figure 1).
There the full field boxes were dumped by hand into the loading
elevator which carried the fruit onto the semi-trailer truck
(Figure 2). The empty field boxes were then returned to the
grove and distributed to the pickers.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


The number of workers per handling crew included one field
foreman and four loaders. The foreman's duties consisted of
supervising both the picking and handling crews and keeping
records of the volume picked and loaded. He was usually paid
on a per-hour basis. The loaders distributed the empty field
boxes, loaded the full field boxes on the "goat", drove the "goat",
and dumped the fruit into the loading elevator at the roadside.
They were paid on a per-box basis.
Great Variation in Volume Handled per Season for the Crews
Studied.-A handling crew usually transported the fruit from
approximately 30 pickers. Some firms had a set number of
pickers per handling crew, while other firms attempted to shift
pickers from one crew to another to adjust for type of fruit,
age of trees and distance fruit had to be transported from
the picking area to the roadside loading area. The number
of pickers that can be supervised by the field foreman deter-
mines the maximum size of the crew. In general, the picking
crew averaged approximately 300 boxes per hour and worked
6 to 8 hours per day. The length of the season a crew worked
varied from 5 to 8 months, with roughly 20 picking days per
month. A range in seasonal volume of 100,000 to 300,000 boxes
included all the crews studied.

Fig. 2.-Dumping full field boxes into loading elevator in the process of
loading the semi-trailer truck at the roadside.








Cost of Moving Citrus from Tree onto Highway Trucks 11

The Distance from the Picking Area to the Roadside Loading
Area Determined the Volume of Fruit that a Crew Could Handle
per Hour when Working at an "Efficient" Rate of Capacity.-
The volume that a crew can handle per hour when operating at
an "efficient" rate of operation was calculated from the time
requirements presented in the appendix and is shown graphi-
cally in Figure 3. In this chart the one-way distances are
shown on the horizontal scale and the volumes per hour are
shown on the vertical scale. The number of boxes that can
be handled per hour for various distances may be estimated
from Figure 3. For example, to find the "efficient" capacity
volume per hour for a distance of 1,500 feet, enter the graph
at the point corresponding to 1,500 feet, move vertically to
the sloping line and then horizontally to the scale on the left
side of the diagram. At this point read the scale as approxi-
mately 285 boxes. By using Figure 3 in this manner the
capacity volume per hour may be estimated for other distances
from the tree to the semi-trailer truck.

400


300- "Efficient" capacity rate for
300
two "goat" trucks







100




500 1000 1500 2000 2500
One -Way Distance in Feet
Fig. 3.-Effect of distance upon volume handled ner hour from the tree
onto the semi-trailer truck by the hand dumping-field box method, hauling
52 boxes per "goat" truck load.

FIXED COST

Total Annual Calculated Fixed Cost is $1,766.00.-The nor-
mal amount of equipment for one handling crew consisted







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


of two "goat" trucks, one loading elevator and approximately
640 field boxes. A summary of the estimated equipment re-
placement cost, estimated annual charge as a percentage of
replacement cost and estimated annual fixed cost is shown in
Table 3. The calculated annual fixed cost for two field trucks
was $893.00, for one loading elevator $198.00, and for 640
field boxes $675.00. The total annual fixed cost per field crew
was $1,766.00.

TABLE 3.-FIXED COST OF THE HAND DUMPING-FIELD BOX METHOD.
Estimated Estimated I
Item Number Replacement Annual Estimated
IRequired Cost* Charge* j Annual Cost
Dollars iPercent of Re- Dollars
placementCost
"Goat" truck ........ 2 4,700.00 19.0 893.00
Loading elevator .. 1 1,200.00 16.5 198.00
Field box ............ 640 1,696.00 39.8 675.00

Total .............. ..................... 1,766.00

See Table 2.

The Larger the Volume Handled per Season the Lower the
Average Fixed Cost per Box.-The average fixed cost per box
was determined by dividing the total annual fixed cost by the
volume handled per season. The average fixed cost per box
for a seasonal volume of 100,000 boxes was $0.01766 ($1,766.00
S100,000) and decreased to $0.0059 ($1,766.00 -- 300,000) per
box when the volume per season was increased to 300,000
boxes.
DIRECT COST
Direct Cost, Calculated on a Per-hour Basis, Is Summarized in
Table 4.-The total direct cost of repairs, fuel oil, grease, etc.,
for the two "goat" trucks was $0.56 per hour. The direct
operating cost of the loading elevator, excluding repair costs
already included under fixed costs, was $0.02 per hour.
The direct labor cost for the field foreman was $1.25 per
hour 5 The per-hour cost for loading was dependent upon the
volume handled. Two loaders worked together in placing the

SThe foreman's duties in all methods included the supervision of the
picking crew. Therefore no allocation of foreman's wage was charged
to picking, since the division would have been the same for all methods.








Cost of Moving Citrus from Tree onto Highway Trucks 13

field boxes on the "goat", driving the "goat" to the roadside
loading area, dumping the boxes into the loading elevator
and distributing the field boxes to the pickers. They were
paid on a piece rate of $0.025 each, a total cost of $0.05 per
field box.

TABLE 4.-DIRECT COST OF THE HAND DUMPING-FIELD BOX METHOD.
SFuel
Item Number Repairs Oil, Labor Total
Required Etc. **
Dollars per Hour
"Goat" truck .......... 2 0.06 0.22 0.56
Loading elevator .... 1 t .02 .02
Labor:
Foreman .............. 1 1.25 1.25
Loaders .............. 4 Total piece rate
of 0.05 per box

Total direct cost = 1.83 + .05 per box

Repairs based on $100.00 estimate for approximately a 1,500 hour season.
** Foreman is paid by the hour; hand loaders by the box.
tRepairs for loading elevator are included in depreciation.

The Average Direct Cost per Box Decreased as Volume
Handled per Hour Increased.-The average direct cost per box
was calculated by dividing the total cost per hour by the
volume handled per hour. The direct cost per box was $0.0683
when a field crew handled 100 boxes per hour, but decreased
to $0.0561 when volume per hour was increased to 300 boxes.

AVERAGE TOTAL COST PER BOX
An Increase in Either Volume per Hour or Volume per Sea-
son Decreases Average Total Cost per Box.-The average fixed
cost per box and the average direct cost per box have been
combined into an average total cost per box, which is sum-
marized in Table 5. This table shows the relationship between
volumes handled and average total cost per box. The average
total cost per box decreased as either, or both, volume per
hour and volume per season were increased.
The use of this table can be illustrated by an example. Sup-
pose a firm desired to estimate the average total cost per
box for a field crew handling 200,000 boxes per season and
operating at a rate of 300 boxes per hour. To find the cost,







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


enter the table at the top of the column headed 200,000, then
move downward to the row labeled 300. At this point read
the average total cost per box as $0.0650. By using Table 5
in this manner, estimates of average total cost per box can
be made for various seasonal and hourly volumes.

TABLE 5.-EFFECT OF VOLUME PER SEASON AND VOLUME PER HOUR UPON
AVERAGE TOTAL COST PER BOX OF HANDLING CITRUS FROM TREE TO
SEMI-TRAILER TRUCK FOR THE HAND DUMPING-FIELD BOX METHOD.

Volume Volume per Season
per Hour 100,000 200,000 300,000
Average Cost per Box in Dollars
50 0.1043 0.0955 0.0925
100 .0860 .0771 .0742
150 .0799 .0711 .0681
200 .0769 .0680 .0650
250 .0750 .0662 .0632
300 .0738 .0650 .0620


EVALUATION
The Greatest Asset of the Hand Dumping-Field Box Method
Is Its Flexibility.-The crew using the equipment described
above can handle fruit going to the processing plant or fruit
going into fresh consumption channels without any major
change in method.
The principal disadvantage of this method is the relatively
high cost per box. Labor cost is the largest expense item of
the direct cost. Loading and dumping full field boxes is hard
physical labor, and therefore demands a relatively higher wage
than other jobs. A second disadvantage of this method is the
difficulty of obtaining a suitable area for loading the semi-
trailer truck. A large, relatively level area is necessary in or-
der that the semi-trailer, loading elevator and grove truck can
sit side by side. Also, the surface needs to be firm enough
to allow the loaded semi-trailer truck to pull onto the main
road under its own power. A suitable loading area of this
type is often not available near the picking area, and the
hauling of the fruit a considerable distance on the "goat" truck
is necessitated. The increase in distance from tree to semi-







Cost of Moving Citrus from Tree onto Highway Trucks 15

trailer truck reduces the volume the loading crew is able to
handle and thus tends to increase the average total cost per
box.

B. Field Box-Bulk "Goat" Truck

Use of the Bulk "Goat" Eliminates Some of the Labor Re-
quired in the Hand Dumping-Field Box Method.-In this method
the pickers emptied their fruit into the standard field boxes.
Two loaders dumped the full boxes into a bulk "goat" truck for
transporting to the roadside (Figure 4). The loaded "goat"
was driven to the loading site at the roadside where it was
backed up to the hopper of the loading elevator. The driver
raised the front end of the bulk box of the "goat" and opened
the rear end gate. The fruit rolled into the loading elevator
which carried it onto the semi-trailer truck (Figure 5).


Fig. 4.-Dumping full field boxes into bulk "goat" truck in grove.

The number of workers in a handling crew included one field
foreman, two bulk "goat" drivers and two loaders. The fore-
man's duties consisted of supervising the picking and handling
crews and keeping records of the volume handled. The two







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


loaders dumped the fruit out of the full field boxes into the
bulk "goat" truck. The "goat" truck drivers drove the truck
and handled the unloading process at the roadside.
Equipment Has Excess Capacity.-The time requirements
presented in the appendix were converted to boxes per hour and
are illustrated graphically in Figure 6. The chart illustrates
the effect of size of load and hauling distance from picking area
to roadside loading area upon the volume that can be handled
per hour by a crew consisting of one field foreman, two grove
loaders and two "goat" drivers. This chart shows that the
volume that can be handled per hour is limited by the volume
that can be dumped by two workers dumping the full field
boxes into the bulk "goat". The "efficient" capacity rate for
the two loaders is approximately 465 boxes per hour (Figure
6). This is less than the volume that could be handled per
hour by two 50-box bulk "goats" for one-way distances up
to 1,100 feet, and by two 75-box bulk "goats" for one-way
distances up to 2,000 feet.

FIXED COST
Total Annual Fixed Cost per Handling Crew is $1,676.-The
normal amount of equipment for one handling crew consisted
of two bulk "goat" trucks, one loading elevator and approxi-
mately 10 field boxes per picker, or approximately 300 boxes.

Fig. 5.-Unloading bulk "goat" truck into the loading elevator in the process
of loading the semi-trailer truck at the roadside.



.B*- ^... B-. .- -,-..% .

2 :..r '"

.1 "" "

!'I54-i~:


., iI


. S.








Cost of Moving Citrus from Tree onto Highway Trucks 17



600

"Efficient" capacity of 2 75 box



"Efficient" capacity of
Stwo grove loaders
o 400
S"Efficient" capacity of ----
5. 2 -50 box bulk goats
o 300


200


100



500 1,000 1,500 2o00 2500
One Way Distance in Feet
Fig. 6.-Effect of distance and size of load upon volume handled per
hour from the tree onto the semi-trailer truck for the field box-bulk "goat"
truck method.

A summary of the estimated equipment cost, estimated annual
charge as a percentage of replacement cost, and estimated
annual fixed cost is shown in Table 6. The calculated annual
fixed cost for two bulk "goat" trucks was $1,140.00, for one
loading elevator $198.00, and for 320 field boxes $337.50. The
total annual fixed cost of the equipment used by this handling
crew is $1,675.50.

TABLE 6.-FIXED COST OF THE FIELD BOX-BULK "GOAT" TRUCK METHOD.
Estimated Estimated Estimated
Item Number Replace- Annual Annual
Required ment Cost*I Charge* Cost
Dollars Percent of Re- Dollars
placement Cost

Bulk "goat" truck .... 2 6,000.00 19.0 1,140.00

Loading elevator ..... 1 1,200.00 16.5 198.00

Field boxes ............. 320 848.00 39.8 337.50

Total ........ ........ ..-.. -------------------...... .------- ... .......... ----- 1,675.50

See Table 2.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


DIRECT COST
Direct Cost Varies with Volume Handled per Hour.-Direct
cost was calculated on a per-hour basis and is summarized in
Table 7. The total direct cost per hour for two bulk "goat"
trucks was $0.56. The direct operating cost per hour of the
loading elevator was $0.02. Total direct equipment cost per
hour was $0.58.
The direct labor cost per hour for the field foreman was $1.25.
The direct cost for the loaders was dependent upon the volume
handled per hour. Loaders received $0.01 each per box, which
was a total cost of $0.02 for each box dumped into the bulk
"goat" truck. Total direct cost per hour was $3.53 plus $0.02
for each box handled.

TABLE 7.-DIRECT COST OF THE FIELD Box-BULK "GOAT" TRUCK METHOD.
Fuel
Item Number Repairs Oil, Labor Total
Required Etc. | **
Dollars per Hour
Bulk "goat" truck .... 2 0.06 0.22 0.56
Loading elevator .... 1 t .02 .02
Labor:
Foreman ............. 1 1.25 1.25
Drivers ................ 2 .85 1.70
Loaders ............. 2 Total piece rate
of 0.02 per box

Total direct cost = 3.53 + .02 per box

Repairs based on $100.00 estimate for approximately a 1,500 hour season.
** Foreman and driver are paid on per-hour basis; loaders are paid on piece rate.
t Repairs for loading elevator are included in depreciation.
AVERAGE TOTAL COST PER BOX
The Average Fixed Cost per Box and the Average Direct Cost
per Box Have Been Combined into an Average Total Cost per
Box and Are Summarized in Table 8.-This table shows the re-
lationship between the volumes handled and the average total
cost per box. The average total cost per box decreased as either
or both volume per hour and volume per season were increased.
For example, for a seasonal volume of 200,000 boxes the average
total cost per box when operating at 100 boxes per hour was
$0.0637. This cost decreased to $0.0402 when the volume per
hour was increased to 300 boxes. Likewise, the average total
cost per box decreased for given volumes per hour as the total







Cost of Moving Citrus from Tree onto Highway Trucks 19

volume handled per season increased. For example, Table 8
shows that for an hourly rate of 300 boxes the average total
cost was $0.0485 per box for a seasonal volume of 100,000 boxes.
This cost decreased to $0.0374 per box when the volume per
season was increased to 300,000 boxes.

TABLE 8.-EFFECT OF VOLUME PER SEASON AND VOLUME PER HOUR UPON
AVERAGE TOTAL COST PER BOX OF HANDLING CITRUS FROM TREE TO SEMI-
!TRAILER TRUCK FOR THE FIELD BOX-BULK "GOAT" TRUCK METHOD.*

Volume Volume per Season
per Hour 100,000 I 200.000 I 300,000
Average Cost per Box in Dollars
50 0.1074 0.0990 0.0962
100 .0721 .0637 .0609
150 .0603 .0520 .0491
200 .0544 .0460 .0432
250 .0508 .0425 .0397
300 .0485 .0402 .0374
350 .0469 .0385 .0357

Average total per-box cost was calculated by adding average per-box fixed cost and
average per-box direct cost.

EVALUATION
The Volume of Fruit Which Can Be Handled per Hour by a
Crew Is One of the Advantages of This Method.-More than
any of the other methods studied, this method facilitates the
moving of the fruit a longer distance from the tree to the
semi-trailer without delaying the picking crews.
High handling cost, largely due to labor cost, is the principal
disadvantage of this method. Also, as in the hand dumping-
field box method, a suitable loading area near the grove being
picked is often lacking. This necessitates hauling the fruit
a considerable distance in the "goat" truck and tends to increase
the cost.

C. Portable Grove Elevator-Bulk "Goat" Truck
This Method Eliminates the Use of the Field Box.-In this
method the pickers emptied their picking bags directly into a
portable grove loading elevator. The portable grove elevator
was towed behind the bulk "goat" truck in the grove during
the loading process (Figure 7). When the "goat" truck was
loaded it was driven to the roadside and backed up to the
hopper of the loading elevator. The driver raised the front







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


end of the bulk box of the "goat" and opened the rear end
gate. The fruit rolled into the loading elevator which carried
it onto the semi-trailer truck (Figure 8).
The handling crew included one field foreman and three
"goat" drivers. The duties of the foreman included super-
vising both the picking and handling crews and keeping rec-
ords of the volume handled. The "goat" truck drivers drove
the bulk "goat" trucks and handled the unloading process at
the roadside.
The normal amount of equipment for each field crew con-
sisted of three bulk "goat" trucks, two portable grove loading
elevators and one regular loading elevator.
Only a Limited Number of Pickers per Portable Grove Ele-
vator.-The number of boxes that can be handled per hour by
this method is directly related to the volume picked, because
the rate of picking regulates the time required to load the

Fig. 7.-Loading bulk "goat" truck in the grove by the use of a
portable elevator.




'* -I-







Cost of Moving Citrus from Tree onto Highway Trucks 21

bulk "goat" truck. For example, a picking crew of 16 men,
eight for each portable grove elevator, operating at an "effi-
cient" rate of capacity, would dump approximately 160 boxes
per hour into the grove elevator. If the picking crew were
increased to 20 pickers, 10 pickers per portable grove elevator,
the expected volume would increase to approximately 200 boxes
per hour. These volumes per hour did not keep the three bulk
"goat" trucks operating at an "efficient" capacity rate within
the 2,500-foot distance from the picking area to the roadside
loading area included in the study. There seemed to be no
feasible method for increasing the volume handled by each
portable grove elevator, since more than 8 to 10 pickers per
elevator either caused too much congestion or caused some
pickers to carry their picked fruit a considerable distance to
dump it into the elevator.


Fig. 8.-Unloading bulk "goat" truck into the loading elevator in the process
of loading the semi-trailer truck at the roadside.
FIXED COST
Total Annual Fixed Cost is $2,238.00.-A summary of the
estimated annual fixed cost is shown in Table 9. The calculated
annual fixed cost for three bulk "goats" was $1,710.00, for two








Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


portable field elevators $330.00, and for one loading elevator
$198.00, a total of $2,238.00.


TABLE 9.-FIXED


COST OF THE PORTABLE ELEVATOR-BULK "GOAT"
TRUCK METHOD.


Item


Bulk "goat" truck .-

Portable grove load-
ing elevator ........

Loading elevator ......

Total ...


Number
Required )


3

2

1


Estimated
Replace-
ment Cost*
Dollars


9,000.00

2,000.00

1,200.00


Estimated Estimated
Annual Annual
Charge* Cost
Percent of Re- j Dollars
placement Cost

19.0 1,710.00


330.00

198.00


.....-.. ----.. ..-............. ...... 2,238.00


* See Table 2.


DIRECT COST

Total Direct Cost per Hour is $4.64.-The total direct cost of
repairs, fuel oil, grease, etc., for the three bulk "goat" trucks
was $0.78 per hour (Table 10). The operating cost of the load-
ing elevator and the two portable elevators was $0.06 per hour.
Total direct equipment cost was $0.84 per hour.

TABLE 10.-DIRECT COST OF THE PORTABLE ELEVATOR-BULK "GOAT"
TRUCK METHOD.


Item


Number
IRequired


SFuel
Repairs Oil, Labor Total
Etc. **


Dollars per Hour

Bulk "goat" truck ...... 3 .06 0.20 -.78

Portable grove
elevator ................ 2 t .02 .04

Roadside elevator ...... 1 t .02 .02

Labor:
Foreman .............. 1 1.25 1.25

"Goat" drivers .... 3 .85 2.55

Total ..........--.......-----.......... .. -- ------------........... 4.64

Repairs based on $100.00 estimate for approximately a 1,500 hour season.
** All labor paid on a per-hour basis.
t Repairs for elevators are included in depreciation.







Cost of Moving Citrus from Tree onto Highway Trucks 23

The direct labor cost was $1.25 per hour for the field fore-
man and $0.85 per hour for each of the three "goat" truck
drivers. Total direct labor cost was $3.80 per hour. Total
direct cost for equipment and labor was $4.64 per hour.

AVERAGE TOTAL COST PER BOX
Average Total Cost Decreases Rather Rapidly as Volume Is
Increased.-The average fixed cost and the average direct cost
have been combined into an average total cost. These costs
are summarized in Table 11. This table shows that as the
volume handled per hour is increased for any given total volume
per season, the cost per box is decreased. For example, for a
seasonal volume of 200,000 boxes the average total cost per
box when operating at 100 boxes per hour was $0.0576. This
cost decreased to $0.0344 when the volume was increased to
200 boxes per hour. Likewise, the average total cost per box
decreased for given volumes per hour as total volume handled
per season increased. For example, Table 11 shows that for
an hourly volume of 200 boxes the average total cost was
$0.0456 per box for a seasonal volume of 100,000 boxes. This
cost decreased to $0.0307 per box when the volume handled per
season increased to 300,000 boxes.
TABLE 11.-EFFECT OF VOLUME PER SEASON AND VOLUME PER HOUR UPON
AVERAGE TOTAL COST PER BOX OF HANDLING CITRUS FROM TREE TO SEMI-
TRAILER TRUCK FOR THE PORTABLE ELEVATOR-BULK "GOAT" TRUCK.

Volume Volume per Season
per Hour 100,000 200,000 300,000
Average Cost per Box in Dollars
50 0.1152 0.1040 0.1003
100 .0688 .0576 .0539
150 .0533 .0421 .0384
200 .0456 .0344 .0307


EVALUATION
Pickers Empty Sacks Directly into Portable Elevator, thus
Eliminating Cost of Loading "Goat" in the Grove and Cost of
the Field Box.-This method has lower labor cost and lower
total cost per box than either the hand dumping-field box
or the field box-bulk "goat" truck methods. However, the







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


portable elevator-bulk "goat" truck method is impracticable
for most firms because the pickers have to be paid on some
basis other than the individual volume picked. The fruit handled
by a single portable grove loading elevator has to be pooled
in order to determine each picker's wage. Many pickers object
to this system.

D. Tractor-Bulk Field Trailer

Two Pickers Usually Emptied Their Fruit into One Trailer.-
In this method the pickers emptied the fruit from their pick-
ing sacks into a small two-wheeled bulk trailer (Figure 9). The
trailer was towed to the loading site at the roadside by a me-
dium-sized field tractor. There the trailer was backed to the
loading elevator, the front end of the trailer box was raised
and the rear end gate was opened. The fruit rolled into the
loading elevator which carried it onto the semi-trailer truck
(Figure 10).
The usual amount of equipment used by a handling crew con-
sisted of 18 small two-wheeled trailers, two medium-sized farm


Fig. 9.-Picker emptying picking sacks into the two-wheel
trailer in grove.







Cost of Moving Citrus from Tree onto Highway Trucks 25

tractors and one loading elevator. The two-wheeled trailers had
a bulk capacity of 20 boxes of citrus. Many of the trailers
observed had a partition which divided the trailer box into two
compartments of approximately 10 boxes each. This division
made it possible for each picker to empty his fruit into a sepa-
ratae compartment of the trailer for the purpose of keeping
account of individual volumes picked. The tractor used to tow
the trailers was a standard medium-sized tractor. The loading
elevator was of the same type used by the methods discussed
in the previous sections. In addition to this equipment, a semi-
trailer truck tractor was needed to move the semi-trailer during
the truck loading process.
In the methods discussed in the preceding sections it was
possible to move the loading elevator during the loading process
in order to obtain a uniform semi-trailer truck load. In this
method either the hopper of the elevator had to be dug down

Fig. 10.-Unloading two-wheel trailer into loading elevator in the process
of loading the semi-trailer truck at the roadside.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


or a platform used to raise the trailer to allow the fruit to
roll out the rear end and into the hopper of the loading elevator.
The field crew consisted of one tractor driver-foreman, one
tractor driver and the semi-trailer truck driver. The duties of
the tractor driver-foreman included supervision of the picking
and the handling process and keeping records of the volume
picked and the volume loaded. The tractor driver drove one
of the field tractors and assisted the field foreman.

EFFECT OF DISTANCE UPON VOLUME
Method Could Operate with Either One or Two Tractors.-
Time requirements presented in the appendix were converted
to boxes per hour and are illustrated in Figure 11. In this
chart the volumes that can be handled per hour are shown in
relation to distance from the tree to the semi-trailer truck.
The distance is shown on the horizontal scale and the volumes
per hour on the vertical scale. The number of boxes that can
be handled per hour by a single grove tractor and by two grove
tractors pulling 20-box capacity trailers can be estimated from
Figure 11.



600


500


S400
"Efficient" capacity for
Stwo tractors
300


One Way Distance from Tree to Semi-trailer Truck in feet
Fig. 11.-Effect of distance upon the volume handled per hour from the
tree onto the semi-trailer truck for the tractor-bulk trailer method.







Cost of Moving Citrus from Tree onto Highway Trucks 27

FIXED COST
Method Has Low Annual Fixed Cost.-A summary of the
annual fixed cost is shown in Table 12. The calculated annual
fixed cost for two field tractors was $684.00, for 18 two-wheeled
trailers $371.25 and for one loading elevator $198.00. The total
annual fixed cost per handling crew was $1,253.25.

DIRECT COST
Method Has Low Operating Cost.-Direct cost was calculated
on a per-hour basis and is summarized in Table 13. The direct
equipment cost for operating two tractors and one loading ele-
vator was $0.58 per hour.
Direct labor cost for the foreman-tractor driver was $1.25
per hour. The wage rate for the tractor driver was $1.00 per
hour. The semi-trailer truck driver was needed on the job to
move the semi-trailer during the loading process. His wage
was included in the rent of the semi-trailer truck tractor. The
per-hour cost for the semi-trailer truck tractor and driver was
$2.25. Total direct cost for equipment and labor was $5.08 per
hour.
AVERAGE TOTAL COST PER BOX
Volume Is an Important Factor in Determining Average Cost.
-The average fixed cost and the average direct cost have been
combined into an average total cost per box which is sum-
marized in Table 14. This table shows that as the volume
handled per hour is increased for any given total volume per
season, the cost per box is decreased. For example, for a sea-
sonal volume of 200,000 boxes the average total cost per box
when operating at 100 boxes per hour was $0.0571. This cost
decreased to $0.0232 when the volume was increased to 300
boxes per hour. Likewise, the average total cost per box de-
creased for given volumes per hour as the total volume handled
per season increased. For example, Table 14 shows that for
an hourly volume of 300 boxes the average total cost was $0.0295
per box for a seasonal volume of 100,000 boxes, but decreased
to $0.0211 per box when seasonal volume was increased to
300,000 boxes.
EVALUATION
This Method Has Lower Cost than the Preceding Methods.-
Direct costs for this method are lower than for methods analyzed
in preceding sections. The lower direct costs are primarily due
to a reduction in labor costs. This labor reduction was made








Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


TABLE 12.-FIXED COST FOR THE TRACTOR-BULK FIELD TRAILER METHOD.


Two-wheeled trailer ..

Loading elevator ......

Total ............ --


1,253.25


See Table 2.

TABLE 13.-DIRECT COST FOR THE TRACTOR-BULK FIELD TRAILER METHOD.


Item



Tractor .....................

Loading elevator ....

Semi-trailer truck
tractor and driver

Labor:
Foreman-tractor
driver ..........-.

Tractor driver ....
Total ........................


Number Repairs
Required


2 0.06

1 -


1


1 -

1 -


Fuel ]
Oil, Labor
Etc. **
Dollars per Hour

0.22

.02






1.25

1.00


Repairs based on $100.00 estimate for approximately a 1,500 hour season.
** All labor paid on per-hour basis.
SRent calculated on a per-hour basis of $1.25 wage for a truck driver, and $1.00
for semi-trailer truck tractor. One dollar per hour is approximately equal to the per-
hour fixed cost for a $6,000 semi-trailer tractor.

TABLE 14.-EFFECT OF VOLUME PER SEASON AND VOLUME PER HOUR UPON
AVERAGE TOTAL COST PER BOX OF HANDLING CITRUS FROM TREE TO SEMI-
TRAILER TRUCK FOR THE TRACTOR-BULK FIELD TRAILER.


100,000


Average

0.1141
.0633
.0464
.0379
.0328
.0295
.0270


Volume per Season
~ 200,000 I


300,000


Cost per Box in Dollars

0.1079 0.1058
.0571 .0550
.0401 .0381
.0317 .0296
.0266 .0245
.0232 .0211
.0208 .0187


Total



0.56

.02


2.25t



1.25

1.00


Volume
per Hour







Cost of Moving Citrus from Tree onto Highway Trucks 29

possible by the elimination of the use of the field box and by
the bulk handling of the fruit from the tree to the semi-trailer
truck.
The equipment used in this method was more maneuverable
than that used in the other methods studied. For example, a
field tractor, while towing a trailer, could completely circle a tree
in the average grove without any noticeable damage to the tree
or fruit.
One problem which confronted the users of this method is
the transporting of the field trailers from grove to grove. It is
possible for short distances to pull the trailers behind the field
tractors to the new picking area. However, for longer distances,
it is necessary to transport the field trailers on some type of
semi-trailer truck. A specially built two-decked trailer is being
used by some handling firms.

E. Tractor-Basket
New Method.-One of the more recently developed methods
of handling citrus fruit from the tree onto the semi-trailer
truck is the tractor-basket method. In this method the pickers
emptied their fruit into a 10-box container (Figure 12). A
standard farm tractor, equipped with front and rear hydraulic
lifts, picked up the baskets in the grove-one basket on the
front and one on the rear lift-and transported them to the
semi-trailer truck. By use of the front hydraulic lift the tractor
dumped the fruit from the 10-box container into the bulk box
of the semi-trailer truck (Figure 13).

Fig. 12.-Handling basket in the grove.




r











'AL .
,- *. -.s_,_.-.' *' ''
.Y- %>.- C<^sa~.c^;'^-.:. .-...I Aflbtl'^lb~S~







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


The number of workers per handling crew consisted of two
tractor driver-foremen. The duties of the two tractor driver-
foremen were to drive the field tractors, supervise the picking
crew, and keep records of the volume picked and the volume
loaded. In addition, they transported citrus from the picking
area and dumped it into the semi-trailer truck. Each tractor
usually handled the fruit from approximately 16 pickers, or a
total of 32 for two tractors.
The normal amount of equipment used by one field crew was
two medium-sized farm tractors and approximately 38 10-box
baskets.
EFFECT OF DISTANCE UPON VOLUME
Distance from Picking Area to Semi-trailer Truck Is an Im-
portant Item in This Method.-A crew of 32 pickers can be
expected to average approximately 320 boxes per hour. The
volume that can be handled per hour by a single tractor and
by two tractors has been calculated from the time requirements
shown in the appendix and is illustrated graphically in Figure
14. This figure shows that as the transporting distance in-
creases the volume that can be handled per hour decreases, and


Fig. 13.-Dumping citrus into the semi-trailer truck.








Cost of Moving Citrus from Tree onto Highway Trucks 31

that for one-way distances in excess of 1,400 feet from the pick-
ing area to the "semi," two tractors find it difficult to keep up
with 30 to 32 pickers.

600


500


I 400
Soa-

2 300
S"Efficient" capacity for
two field tractors

200
"Efficient" capacity for
one field tractor
100


0 1 1 I 1 I I } I I I
200 600 1000 1400 1800 2200 2600
One Way Distance in Feet

Fig. 14.-Effect of distance upon volume handled per hour from the tree
onto the semi-trailer truck by the tractor-basket method.

FIXED COST

High Fixed Cost Does not Necessarily Mean High Total Cost.
-The calculated annual fixed cost for two tractors equipped
with front and rear lifts was $1,696.00, and for 38 metal
baskets it was $604.20 (Table 15). The total estimated annual
fixed cost was $2,300.20.

DIRECT COST

Method Has Low Direct Cost.-The direct cost is summarized
in Table 16. The per-hour operating cost for the two grove
tractors with hydraulic lifts was $0.64. Both tractor drivers
received $1.25 per hour. Total direct cost was $3.14 per hour.

AVERAGE TOTAL COST PER BOX

Average Total Cost per Box Decreases Rapidly as Volume Is
Increased.-The average fixed cost per box and the average
direct cost per box have been combined into an average total








Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


TABLE 15.-FIXED COST FOR THE TRACTOR-BASKET METHOD.

SEstimated ) Estimated Estimated
Item Number Replace- Annual Annual
SRequired ment Cost*: Charge* Cost
Dollars Percent of Re- Dollars
placement Cost
Tractor with lifts ...... 2 6,400.00 26.5 1,696.00

Metal basket -.....-..... 38 2,280.00 26.5 604.20

Total -------- ---.......... ..................... ......--------. 2,300.20

See Table 2.


TABLE 16.-DIRECT COST FOR THE TRACTOR-BASKET METHOD.

SFuel I
Item Number Repairs Oil, I Labor Total
Required Etc. ** I


Tractor with lifts ....

Labor:
Foreman-driver

Total ......... ------


Dollars per Hour
2 0.10 0.22 0.64


2 1.25 2.50

.. ............................................................... ................. 3.14


Repairs based on $150.00 estimate for approximately a 1,500 hour season.
** All labor paid on an hourly basis.


TABLE 17.-EFFECT OF VOLUME PER SEASON AND VOLUME PER HOUR UPON
AVERAGE TOTAL COST PER BOX OF HANDLING CITRUS FROM TREE TO SEMI-
TRAILER TRUCK FOR THE TRACTOR-BASKET METHOD.


Volume per Season
100,000 200,000
Average Cost per Box in
0.0858 0.0743

.0544 .0429

.0439 .0324

.0387 .0272

.0356 .0241

.0335 .0220

.0320 .0205


300,000
Dollars

0.0705

.0391

.0286

.0234

.0202

.0181

.0166


Volume
per Hour







Cost of Moving Citrus from Tree onto Highway Trucks 33

cost per box, which is summarized in Table 17. This table
shows that as the volume handled per hour was increased for
any given total volume per season, the cost per box decreased.
For example, for a seasonal volume of 200,000 boxes the average
total cost per box when operating at 100 boxes per hour was
$0.0429. This cost decreased to $0.0220 when the volume per
hour was increased to 300 boxes. Likewise, the average total
cost per box decreased for given volumes per hour as the total
volume handled per season increased. For example, Table 17
shows that for an hourly volume of 300 boxes the average
total cost was $0.0335 per box for a seasonal volume of 100,000
boxes. This cost decreased to $0.0181 per box when the sea-
sonal volume increased to 300,000 boxes.

EVALUATION
This Method Has the Lowest Direct Cost of the Five Handling
Methods Studied.-The lower direct costs are due primarily to
a reduction of labor costs. This labor reduction is made possi-
ble by eliminating the use of the field box and by bulk handling
of the fruit from the tree to the semi-trailer truck. Annual
fixed equipment costs are higher than in any of the other
methods analyzed. This higher fixed cost is the result of the
higher purchase price of a tractor equipped with hydraulic
lifts and its shorter service life compared with equipment used
in other methods.
The tractor-basket method required a more highly skilled
tractor operator than is required of the other methods because
the equipment is more difficult to handle in the grove and at
the semi-trailer truck. The tractor equipped with hydraulic
lifts is less maneuverable in the citrus grove than is a tractor
towing a bulk field trailer.

COMPARISON OF COST WITH DIFFERENT METHODS
In this section the calculated handling costs of the five meth-
ods described in the preceding sections are compared. These
cost comparisons include average total cost per box and total
cost per season.

AVERAGE TOTAL COST PER BOX
Effects of volume per season and volume per hour upon aver-
age total cost per box of handling citrus from the tree to the














A

7- B


6 D B
o C
SE D
a- C

4 E





< A Hand dumping- field box
B Field box bulk "goat" truck
S C Portable elevator bulk "goat" truck
D Tractor bulk field trailer
E Tractor basket
0 ----------------- ----------- I ----------- I ---------
100 200 300 100 200 300 100 200 300
Rate per hour Rate per hour Rate per hour
A. Boxes per Season (100,000 boxes) B. Boxes per Season (200,000 boxes) C. Boxes per Season (300,000 boxes)

Fig. 15-Effect of volume per hour for various seasonal volumes upon the average total cost per box for handling citrus from
the tree onto the semi-trailer truck.








Cost of Moving Citrus from Tree onto Highway Trucks 35

semi-trailer truck for all methods are compared in Table 18.
Comparisons of the average total per-box cost of the different
methods for varying seasonal and hourly volumes can be made
directly from this table.

TABLE 18.-EFFECT OF VOLUME PER SEASON AND VOLUME PER HOUR UPON
AVERAGE TOTAL COST PER BOX OF HANDLING CITRUS FROM TREE TO SEMI-
TRAILER TRUCK FOR ALL METHODS.

Volume Average Cost for Total Seasonal Volume
Method per at at at
Hour 100,000 200,000 300,000
SI Boxes Boxes Boxes

100 $0.0860 $0.0771 $0.0742
Hand Dumping- 200 .0769 .0680 .0650
Field Box I 300 .0738 .0650 .0620

100 .0721 .0637 .0609
Field Box- 200 .0544 .0460 .0432
Bulk "Goat" Truck 300 .0485 .0402 .0374

100 .0688 .0576 .0539
Portable Elevator- 200 .0456 .0344 .0307
Bulk "Goat" Truck 300 *

100 .0633 .0571 .0550
Tractor-Bulk 200 .0379 .0317 .0296
Field Trailer 300 .0295 .0232 .0211

100 .0544 .0429 .0391
Tractor- 200 .0387 .0272 .0234
Basket 300 .0335 .0220 .0181


Maximum volume that can be handled per hour by a
elevator-bulk "goat" truck method is 200 boxes per hour.


field crew using the portable


The average costs shown in Table 18 are illustrated graphi-
cally in Figure 15. This chart shows the effect of increasing
the volume per hour for seasonal volumes of 100,000, 200,000
and 300,000 boxes. The volume per hour is shown on the hori-
zontal axis and the average total cost per box is shown on the
vertical axis. Part A of the chart shows that for a seasonal
volume of 100,000 boxes the tractor-bulk trailer method had
the lowest per-box cost.
Part B of the chart illustrates the effect of volume per hour
upon cost per box for seasonal volumes of 200,000 boxes. This
section shows that the average cost per box was lower for a
seasonal volume of 200,000 boxes than for a seasonal volume of
100,000 boxes. Also, it shows that for a volume rate less than







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


approximately 300 boxes per hour, the tractor-basket method
had the lowest cost of the methods studied.
Part C relates the hourly volume handled by the various
methods for a seasonal volume of 300,000 boxes. This chart
indicates that for a seasonal volume of 300,000 boxes the trac-
tor-basket method had the lowest cost.
When studied together, these charts indicate that when the
volume handled per field crew is larger than 200,000 boxes per
season, the tractor-basket method tended to have the lowest
cost.
The average volume handled per season by the crews studied
was 200,000 boxes and the average rate of operation was
roughly 200 boxes per hour (1,600 boxes per day). The most
common method observed in use was the field box-bulk "goat"
truck method. However, this analysis indicates that for an
average crew (200,000 boxes per season, 200 boxes per hour)
the calculated savings possible by a choice of the tractor-
basket method over the field box-bulk "goat" method is ap-
proximately $0.0188 per box ($0.046 0.0272).

TOTAL COST PER SEASON
It is difficult to obtain a comprehensive view of the relative
cost of the different methods by comparing their average total
cost per box. One of the reasons is that some of the methods
required relatively high capital outlays for equipment and there-
fore have correspondingly high annual fixed costs. To take
this into account, the comparisons that follow are made in
terms of total seasonal cost for field crews operating at a
given volume per hour, but with varied volumes per season.
From this type of comparison the amount of estimated sav-
ings possible through the choice of one method over another
can be made by comparing the total seasonal cost.
The amount of estimated saving per season in the choice
of one method over another may be determined from Table
19. For example, Table 19 shows the total seasonal cost for
the tractor-basket method when handling a seasonal volume of
300,000 boxes and operating at a rate of 200 boxes per hour,
as approximately $7,010. The total seasonal cost for the field
box-bulk "goat" truck method, when operating at the same
seasonal and hourly volume, is shown to be approximately
$12,956. The estimated seasonal saving is the difference be-
tween these two total costs, approximately $5,946.








Cost of Moving Citrus from Tree onto Highway Trucks 37

TABLE 19.-TOTAL ANNUAL COST FOR ALL METHODS STUDIED FOR VARIOUS
HOURLY AND SEASONAL VOLUMES OF FRUIT HANDLED.

Total Volume Average Total Cost for Total
Annual per per-Box Seasonal Volume
Method Fixed Hour Direct at at at
Cost Cost 100,000 200,000 300,000
Boxes Boxes Boxes

100 $ .0683 1 $ 8,596 $15,426 $22,256
Hand Dumping- | $ 1,766 200 .0592 7,686 13,606 19,526
Field Box 300 .0561 7,376 12,986 18,596

100 .0553 7,206 12,736 18,266
Field Box-Bulk 1,676 200 .0376 5,436 9,196 12,956
"Goat" Truck 300 .0318 4,856 8,036 11,216

Portable 100 .0464 6,878 11,518 16,158
Elevator-Bulk 2,238 200 .0232 4,558 6,878 9,198
"Goat" Truck 300 -

100 .0508 6,333 11,413 I 16,493
Tractor-Bulk 1,253 200 .0254 3,793 6,333 8,873
Field Trailer 300 .0169 2,943 4,633 6,323

100 .0314 5,440 8,580 11,720
Tractor-Basket 2,300 200 .0157 3,870 5,440 7,010
300 .0105 3,350 4,400 5,450
Cost calculated at capacity volume per hour. Distance from tree to semi-trailer
truck affects volume that can be handled per hour.
** Maximum volume that can be handled per hour by a field crew using the portable
elevator-bulk "goat" truck method is 200 boxes per hour.

This method of estimating possible savings by comparing
the seasonal cost of one method with another also may be
used by firms which have a fixed cost based on prices other
than the 1953 level. Note that for a firm in which equipment
is fully depreciated, the annual fixed cost is zero. For such
a firm, total annual cost is simply the direct cost, and this
can be computed by subtracting the estimated annual fixed
cost (column 2) from the tabulated total cost. For example,
dealing with the first line of the table: direct cost with
200,000 boxes per year is $13,660 ($15,426 1,766).
Figure 16 illustrates graphically the relationship of volume
handled per season to total costs for hourly rates of 100, 200
and 300 boxes per hour. In these charts the volume per season
is shown on the horizontal axis and the total cost per season
is shown on the vertical axis. The annual fixed cost for each
method of handling is indicated by the point at which the
sloping cost line intersects the vertical scale, while the direct
cost in each case is represented by the slope of the cost line.













7 /
E Portable elevator /
Sj/ Portable /' -" -
bulk "goat"truck -




SC e//- Tractor bucket






1
0 I I I I I I

100 200 300 100 200 300 100 200 300
Boxes per Season (1,000 boxes) Boxes per Season (1,000 boxes) Boxes per Season (1,000 boxes)
A. 100 boxes per hour B. 200 boxes per hour C. 300 boxes per hour
0 Field box bulk
___3_4 "goat' truck /
00,














Fig. 16.-Effect of volume handled per season for various hourly volumes upon the total seasonal cost for handling citrus from
the tree onto the semi-trailer truck.
field trailer k
2





100 200 300 100 200 300 100 200 300
Boxes per Season (1,000 boxes) Boxes per Season (1 ,000 boxes) Boxes per Season (1,000 boxes)

A. 100 boxes per hour B. 200 boxes per hour C. 300 boxes per hour

Fig. 16.-Effect of volume handled per season for various hourly volumes upon the total seasonal cost for handling citrus from
the tree onto the semi-trailer truck.







Cost of Moving Citrus from Tree onto Highway Trucks 39

The difference in steepness of the slope of the cost line reflects
the relative difference in the direct cost per hour for the various
methods.
Part A of Figure 16 shows the relationship between total
cost and total seasonal volume for field crews operating at
the rate of 100 boxes per hour. When operating at this rate,
the tractor-bulk field trailer method has the lowest total seasonal
cost up to a seasonal volume of approximately 65,000 boxes.
The tractor-basket method had the lowest calculated cost for
volumes in excess of 65,000 boxes per season.
Part B shows the total cost-seasonal volume relationship
when operating at the rate of 200 boxes per hour. The tractor-
bulk field trailer had the lowest cost for seasonal volumes of
less than 135,000 boxes. The tractor-basket method had the
lowest total cost for volumes larger than 135,000 boxes per
season.
Part C shows the total cost-seasonal volume relationship
when an average of 300 boxes per hour were handled. The
tractor-bulk field trailer had the lowest total seasonal cost for
volumes of less than 195,000 boxes. The tractor-basket method
had the lowest total cost for volumes larger than 195,000 boxes
per season.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


APPENDIX

PRODUCTION STANDARDS
The measurement of the time required for each handling
method was accomplished by timing each element of the process.'
The stop watch was started at the beginning of the process and
allowed to run continuously through the various elements until
the entire cycle of operation was completed.2 At the end of
each element, the observer noted the reading of the watch and
recorded this reading on the data sheet. This method of col-
lecting time data was used because:

1. It made possible the comparison in detail of methods used
by different operators.
2. Measured elemental times could be built up into synthe-
sized time requirements for the handling method.
3. Division into elements facilitated study of a part of an
operation without study of the entire process.

The object of taking these measurements was to obtain an
estimate of the time requirements for an average skilled opera-
tor to do the work without undue fatigue under "efficient" con-
ditions with allowances for personal and unavoidable equipment
delays. Operating time was affected by the rate at which the
worker performed his job. This variation in speed of perform-
ance called for adjustments: increasing the time per box that
the faster-than-normal worker had taken, and decreasing the
time per box for the slower worker. This leveling would adjust
the time actually obtained on the particular worker to that of
a normally skilled worker performing the job. A time study
man, experienced in studying particular operations and under-
standing the worker's ability, could have adjusted the data to
a predetermined time standard. However, no production stand-
ard had been established for the field handling of citrus and
therefore it was necessary to depend upon the collected data to
establish the average time of each elemental function.

SA work element is a group of motions that can be defined in terms
of an identifiable sequence of operations that can be accurately timed.
2 This cycle included all of the operations of handling the fruit from
tree onto semi-trailer truck.








Cost of Moving Citrus from Tree onto Highway Trucks 41

COMPUTATIONS FOR DETERMINING TIME

A simple arithmetic mean of the time required was calcu-
lated for each work element. These averages were synthesized
to build up the normal operating time for a complete cycle. The
travel time requirements for the "goat" truck and for the field
tractor at various distances were determined by applying linear
regression techniques to the time study data.

APPENDIX TABLE 1.-TIME REQUIREMENTS PER TRIP FOR THE HAND
DUMPING-FIELD BOX METHOD.


Handling Element


Loading "goat" truck:
Placing field boxes on "goat" .....
Tree-to-tree travel .........-....
Driver delay .... ........ .............
Roping the field boxes .............



Unloading at semi-trailer truck:
Preparing to dump .............
Dumping full field boxes ..........
Setting empties on "goat"
Roping the field boxes .... ...........



Distributing empty field boxes:
Untying rope .- -....... ....... ........
Unloading empty boxes .............
Traveling to full boxes ...........


Time per Trip*

S Clock Minutes
....... 4.6280
-.-. .. -....... 1.5631
.....-...-.- ...- .7040
... ....... ..- .... i .3925

7.2876


.................. .2647
........ .. 5.0117
.5003
............... 4799

6.2566


.2269
..-.-. 2.4541
....... ........ 7750

3.4560


Total Handling Time


17.0002


Hauling from tree to semi-trailer truck = 2(.35585 + .00139 D)**

Average time required for 2 workers to handle 52 boxes with 10 percent delay
allowance included.
** D represents one-way distance from tree to semi-trailer truck. Equation includes
10 percent delay allowance.

Unavoidable equipment delays such as motor failure or break-
down of loading equipment varied from a low of two per-
cent to a high of 16 percent of the total time each firm was
studied. The weighted average of unavoidable equipment delay
was 5.4 percent. The workers usually rested 10 minutes at
midmorning and 10 minutes at midafternoon. The total rest
periods averaged approximately 20 minutes per eight-hour day,


_







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


or slightly over four percent of the total work time. There-
fore, 10 percent delay allowance was added to the time re-
quired for each work element for personal and unavoidable
equipment delay.

TIME REQUIREMENTS
Hand Dumping-Field Box Method.-The time required to
handle fruit from the tree onto the semi-trailer truck by the
hand dumping-field box method has been divided into four
major work elements of: (1) loading the "goat" truck; (2) un-
loading at the semi-trailer truck; (3) distributing the empty
field boxes; and (4) hauling from the tree to the semi-trailer
truck. The divisions were subdivided as summarized in Ap-
pendix Table 1.
Field Box-Bulk "Goat" Truck Method.-The time required to
handle citrus from the tree onto the semi-trailer truck for the
field box-bulk "goat" truck method is summarized in Appendix
Table 2. The time requirements were divided into major work
elements of: (1) loading the "goat" truck; (2) unloading at
the semi-trailer truck; and (3) hauling from tree to semi-trailer
truck. The divisions were subdivided as summarized in Ap-
pendix Table 2.
Portable Grove Elevator-Bulk "Goat" Truck Method.-The
time required to handle citrus from the tree onto the semi-
trailer truck by the portable elevator-bulk "goat" truck method
is summarized in Appendix Table 3. The time requirements were
divided into major work elements of: (1) loading the "goat"
truck; (2) unloading at the semi-trailer truck; and (3) hauling
from the tree to the semi-trailer truck.
Tractor-Bulk Field Trailer Method.-The time requirements
to handle citrus from the tree to the semi-trailer truck were
divided into: (1) handling in the grove; (2) unloading at the
semi-trailer truck; and (3) hauling from the tree to the semi-
trailer truck. These were subdivided as summarized in Appen-
dix Table 4.
Tractor-Basket Method.-Time required to handle fruit from
the tree onto the semi-trailer truck by the tractor-basket method
has been grouped into three major work elements of: (1) hand-
ling in the grove; (2) dumping into the semi-trailer truck; and
(3) hauling from the tree to the semi-trailer truck. These divi-
sions were subdivided as summarized in Appendix Table 5.








Cost of Moving Citrus from Tree onto Highway Trucks 43

APPENDIX TABLE 2.-TIME REQUIREMENTS PER TRIP FOR THE FIELD
BOX-BULK "GOAT" TRUCK METHOD.


Work Element


Time per Trip
50-Box "Goat" I 75-Box "Goat" **


Clock Minutes Clock Minutes
Loading "goat" truck:
Dumping full field boxes ........... 4.9500 7.4250
Tree-to-tree travel ................... 1.5631 2.3447

6.5131 9.7697

Unloading at semi-trailer truck
Backing "goat" ............................ 3.3312 .3312
Preparing to unload "goat" .... .5717 .5717
Unloading "goat" truck ......... 1.7172 2.5758
Fastening "goat" truck box .... .4718 .4718

3.0919 3.9505

Total Handling Time ....................... 9.6050 13.7202
Hauling from tree to semi-trailer truck = 2(.35585 + .00139D)t

Average t me required for two loaders and one "goat" driver to handle 50 boxes
per trip. The time includes 10 percent delay allowance
** Average time required for two loaders and one "goat" driver to handle 75 boxes
per trip. The lime includes 10 percent delay allowance
SD represents one-way distance from tree to semi-trai-r truck. Equation includes
10 percent delay allowance.

APPENDIX TABLE 3.-TIME REQUIREMENTS PER TRIP FOR THE PORTABLE
GROVE ELEVATOR-BULK "GOAT" TRUCK METHOD.

Work Element Time per Trip*
Work Element 1 Tirne per Trip*


Loading "goat" truck:
Backing "goat" truck to portable elevator ........
Hitching portable elevator to "goat" truck ......
Loading bulk "goat" truck ........................... .
Unhitching portable elevator from "goat" truck


Unloading at semi-trailer truck:
Backing "goat" truck ......................
Preparing to unload "goat" truck
Unloading "goat" truck ...............
Fastening "goat" truck box .........


Clock Minutes

.3312
.1936
41.2500"*
.3886

42.1634


S.. -..-...... .3312
.5717
........... .. .. .5717
1.7172
...-..-....-......... 1 .4718

3.0919


Total Handling Time ................................. ... 45.2553
Hauling from the tree to the semi-trailer truck = 2(.35585 + .03139D)t

Average time based on 50 boxes per trip and includes 10 percent delay allowance.
** Average time required for eight pickers, picking at a rate of 10 boxes per hour,
to fill a 50-box bulk "goat" truck.
t D represents one-way distance from tree to semi-~trailer truck. Equation includes
10 percent delay allowance.








Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


APPENDIX TABLE 4.-TIME REQUIREMENTS PER TrIP FOR THE
TRACTOR-BULK FIELD TRAILER METHOD.


Work Element


Handling in grove:
Unhitching empty trailer .................
Tree-to-tree travel ...........................
Obtaining full trailer ......-...............-



Unloading at semi-trailer truck:
Backing to elevator ...............................
Preparing to unload field trailer .........
Unloading field trailer ................-
Fastening field trailer box .........--...


Time per Trip
20-Box Trailer*
Clock Minutes

.1056
.3553
.4388

.8997


.3680
.2772
.6037
.2680

1.5169


Total Handling Time ................................. 2.4166
Hauling from tree to semi-trailer truck = 2(.2728 + .00165D)**
Time includes 10 percent delay allowance.
** D represents one-way distance from tree to semi-trailer truck. Equation includes
10 percent delay allowance.

APPENDIX TABLE 5.-TIME REQUIREMENTS PER TRIP FOR THE
TRACTOR-BASKET METHOD.


Work Element


Handling in the grove:
Distributing two empty baskets ................
Obtaining two full baskets ..............................
Tree-to-tree travel ......... ............... ... ......
Recording volume picked ...... .. ............



Dumping into the semi-trailer truck:
Preparing to dum p ........................ .............
Dumping first basket ............................. .
Placing the first basket on the ground .........
Obtaining the second basket .... -.......
Dumping the second basket ..........................
Placing the rear full basket on the ground ....
Obtaining an empty basket with the rear lift


Total Handling Time ... --..................... I
Hauling from tree to semi-trailer truck = 2(.2728


Time per Trip*
Clock Minutes


.4136
.6160
.3553
.2882

1.6731


.2197
.1115
.0783
.4012
.1115
.0620
.3102

1.2944


2.9675
+ .00165D)**


Time based on 20 boxes per trip and includes 10 percent delay allowance.
**D represents one-way distance from tree to semi-trailer truck. Equation includes
10 percent delay allowance.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs