Title: Costs of packing tomatoes, F.O.B. prices, and returns to growers, by containers
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00074526/00001
 Material Information
Title: Costs of packing tomatoes, F.O.B. prices, and returns to growers, by containers
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Spurlock, A. H.
Publisher: Department of Agricultural Economics, Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00074526
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 123437783

Full Text
F *fli'i


.CATALOGED


October, 1952


Agricultural Economics Series No. 52-11


COSTS OF PACK ING TOMATOES, F. 0. B. PRICES,

AND RETURNS TO GRO WERS, BY CO NTAINERS





by

A. H. Spurlock
Associate Agricultural Economist



Contents

Costs of Packing Tomatoes, by Containers, 1950-51...*,.. ....****** 1

F.O.B. Prices and Net Returns to Growers, by Containers, 1949-50*.. 11

Summary. ****.... *****...*....... .. ..... **** ******.**... 19


A Study Conducted with Funds Provided by the
Research and Marketing Act of 1946



Department of Agricultural Economics
Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations
Gainesville, Florida







COSTS OF PACKING TOMATOES, BY CONTAINERS, 1950-51


Growers and shippers have been concerned for several years about the

merits and relative handling costs of the various containers for green-wrap

tomatoes. Until a decade ago the 30-lb. nailed lug was the standard con-

tainer for shipping tomatoes, and most packinghouses were designed for

handling this container. The increased use of motor-truck transportation

and the establishment of ripening rooms in the large terminal markets have

brought a shift in containers, many of which have a larger capacity than the

lug.

In 1950-51 cost data were obtained from 13 firms having records of

operations. Three of the firms had two packinghouses each. All were prin-

cipally tomato packers, though a few of the houses packed certain quantities

of some other vegetables such as pole beans, sweet corn and cucumbers. The

average volume per packinghouse, by commodities is shown in Table 1. The output


Table 1.-Volume Packed by 16 Packinghouses, 1950-51/


Commodity Unit

Cucumbers Bushel tub

Beans Bushel hamper

Sweet corn 5-doz. Crate

Other Vegetables2/ Various

Tomatoes Various


Total Packages


Average No.
units per
Packinghouse

6,809

2,229

980

1,554

125,10

136,676


Percentage


Percentage
Distribution

5.0

1.6

*7

1.2

91.5

100*0


Equivalent bushels of tomatoes only


96,454


1/ Three firms had two packinghouses each.
2/ Includes green peppers, eggplant, squash, cabbage.




-2-


of all the houses averaged 91.5 percent tomatoes, and 10 houses packed

no vegetables but tomatoes.

When vegetables other than tomatoes were packed, total packinghouse costs

were first distributed between tomatoes and other vegetables. The basis of

this distribution was the relative labor requirements for packing various vege-

tables obtained by observational studies in 1949-50. (Table 2) While the


Table 2.-Man-Hours of Labor Required per unit for Packing Tomatoes and Certain
Other Vegetables, 1949-501/

Cucum- Pole Sweet
Tomatoes bers Beans Corn
Bushel
wire-
bound Bushel
or Box
Nailed Bushel Pinks, Bushel Bushel 5-doz.
Operation Lug Crate Box Crooks, Tub Hamper Crate
No. 3's
Number of Packing Sheds 3 2 3 3 3 1 3
Number of observations 8 2 6 8 11 6
(hours) (hours) (hours) (hours) (hours) (hours) (hours)

Receiving, trucking,
dumping .0118 .0201 .0201 .0201 .0201 .0179 .010
Grading .0499 .0800 .0800 .0800 .0652 .1458 .088
Making crates, labeling,
chuting, closing,
loading .0352 .0600 .0500 .0371 *0583 %043
Packing in containers .0588 .0555 .0555 .0407 .0358 .0715 .047
Foremen, other labor .0097 .0156 .0156 .0156 .0177 -0357 -


Total .1654 .2312 .2212 .1564 .1759 .3292 .188


Index of total Labor 100 140 134 95 106 199 114


1/ Obtained by limited observation and
sheds.


timing studies in eight different packing


packinghouses thus observed were not the same ones in all cases to which the

results were applied, it was felt that no great error was introduced, because

vegetables other than tomatoes were a minor part of the total output of most

houses. Crate materials were distributed at cost to each vegetable packed.




-3-


After distributing costs between tomatoes and other vegetables, tomato

costs were then allocated to the various containers packed. Materials used

were distributed between containers at the average invoice rate reported by

the firm. Piece or contract labor was allocated by the rates reported paid,

and the remaining labor on the basis of average labor requirements for each

container packed as shown in Table 2. Royalty on waxing machines was dis-

tributed according to the contract rates paid. All other costs were prorated

by the total man-hour requirement for each container. The effect of this

was to charge the lug packing with a somewhat higher proportion of the cost

that a simple volume distribution would have given. In Table 2, the index

of labor, using the lug as 100, is lh0 for 60 lbs. wirebound or nailed crates

and 134 for bushel boxes. Using 34 lbs. as the net weight of a lug and 62 lbs.

for the bushel containers, the volume of the bushel containers would be 182

percent of the lug.

The total packinghouse costs as reported by each firm were not changed.

The various allocations were merely an attempt to break costs by type of con-

tainer.

The average packing costs per unit for each container of tomatoes packed

in 16 packinghouses, 1950-51 are shown in Table 3. Selling costs are not in-

cluded.

The container cost for lugs includes two types curved side and straight

side each of which usually has a different initial cost. The curved side

lug is higher but does not require a "no-kut" liner. Wrapping paper was

used only for lugs, which were place-packed. All other containers were jumble

packed except pony crates and standard crates which were often place-packed

with special pads. Liners were used in the 60-lb. nailed crate and the wire-

bound (TAB) crate. Other materials include labels, paste, nails, car strips,

bulkheads,




-4-


Table 3.-Costs of Packing Florida Tomatoes, by Type of Container, 16 Packing-
houses, 1950-51

S : : : Bushel: Bushel:1-3/5 Bu :
: : :Bushel : Wire- : Box :Field: :Stand-
: : Bushel: Nailed: bound : Pinks,:Crate: Pony: ard
: Lugs: Box : Crate : Crate : Crooks: :Crate: Crate

No. of Packinghouses 13 16 12 7 3 4 2 2

No. of Units Packed 773,525 549,537 285,810 228,901 41,897 2,429 11,814 2,379
(Packing Costs cents per box)
Materials
Containers 33.75 35.05 35.27 22.91 28.70
Papers,liners,no-kuts 8.86 6.10 4.69 5.24 5.46
Other Materials 3.53 .06 3.58 1.85 .06 .12 1.06
Total Materials 46.14 .06 44.73 41.81 .06 28.27 35.22

Labor
Packing 10.01 9.56 9.41 11.41 7.18 12.71 5.93 8.09
Other Piece Labor 5,04 4-93 4.67 7.53 5.80 6.92
Other Labor & Superv. 13.38 18.20 22.81 16.47 20.21 25.87 8.15 12.63
Total Labor 28.43 32.69 36.89 35.41 27.39 38.58 19.88 27.64

Other Direct Oper.
Power,Lights & Water .50 .62 .57 .60 .65 1.02 .25 .38
Misc. Pkghse. Supp. .26 .30 .26 .46 .02 .11 .18 .35
Royalties (Wax) 2.99 3.84 5.01 4.98 -50 2.18 4.41
Repairs, Bldg. & Equip. 2.70 3.48 2.66 3.84 .12 6.74 2.07 2.40
Total Direct Oper. 6.45 8.24 8.50 9.88 .79 8.37 4.68 7.54

Indirect Operating
Management & Off. Sal. 1.32 4.11 6.21 2.14 1.70 5.44 1.73 3.07
Tel. & Tel. .18 .39 .78 .14 .25 .33 .02 .05
Inspection .29 .36 .07 .40
Misc. -75 3.92 8.37 1.17 2.36 2.77 -58 .84
Total Indir. Oper. 2.54 8.78 15.43 3-85 4.31 8.54 2.33 3.96

Fixed Expense
Depr., P.H. & Equip. 3.90 3.35 3.95 3.53 4.95 6.32 .62 .88
Rent .46 .54 1.45 .19 .02 .19 .62 1.11
Insurance .92 1.25 2.12 .89 2.55 2.79 .21 .41
Interest .08 .21 .27 .22 .16 .58 .06 .12
Taxes .27 .64 .80 .73 1.22 1.85 .12 .09
Total Fixed Exp. 5.63 5.99 8.59 5.56 8.90 11-73 1.63 2.61

Total Packing Expense 89.19 55.76 114.14 96.51 41.45 67.22 56.79 76.97







Packing labor was usually paid a piece rate, especially for the more

common containers. One or two firms, however, used hour labor for all packing.

Other Piece Labor includes the following operations: making up containers,

labeling, chuting or delivering to the packing area, closing tops, loading.

There were some variations in the combinations of jobs or operations, and a

few managers had most of them done by hour labor.

Other Labor and Supervision include receiving, trucking, dumping, grad-

ing, miscellaneous labor and foremen. This class of labor was paid an hourly

rate, and the proportion of the total labor varied with the container packed.

Any Social Security or Workmen's Compensation taxes paid have been added

to the labor cost.

All of the packinghouses used wax on the tomatoes, but it was sometimes

not applied to fruit packed in bushel boxes or 1-3/5 bushel field crates.

Management and office salaries cover only the amounts paid for these

services. In some cases owners performed the management function and no

salary or compensation was charged as a cost.

Interest was also omitted unless actually paid on borrowed capital.

Hence, the interest expense is a comparatively small item. Had interest been

included on the hole invested capital in the plant and equipment at 5 percent,

it would have amounted to about $0.04 per bushel of tomatoes packed.

Total packing costs, without compensation to management or interest on

invested capital, averaged $0*8919 for lugs, 00.5576 for open-top bushel

boxes, $1.141 for the 60-lb. nailed crate, and $0.9651 for the 60-lb. wire-

bound (TAB) crate.

It should be pointed out that comparisons of costs between containers

are somewhat distorted between the nailed crate and wirebound, since not all

firms packed every container shown. This resulted in different groupings of

the finns for each container, and due to the small number of firms, resulted




-6-


in a very favorable combination for the wirebound crate. Only 7 houses

packed the wirebound, and several were low cost firms. The lowest cost firm

packed 58 percent of the wirebounds.

For firms packing both the 60-lb. nailed and the wirebound crate, ex-

amination of detailed costs show little difference between the two con-

tainers. (Table 4)


Table 4.-Comparative Total Costs for Packing Tomatoes in Bushel Wirebound
(Tab) and in Nailed Crates for Three Firms Packing Both Types of
Containers, 1950-51

Total Packing Cost Per Unit
Finn No* Bushel Nailed Crate Bushel Wirebound


1 $ 1.3455 $ 1.3333

2 1-1445 1.1186

3 1.1917 1.1896


Arithmetic Average $ 1.2272 $ 1.2138



Total packing costs varied widely between firms for the same container;

indicating a good opportunity for cost reductions by some of the packing-

houses. (Table 5) The cost of packing lugs ranged from $0.7381 to $1.105

per unit for 13 packinghouses. The lowest-cost firm did not wrap tomatoes,

but another house packed almost as low.

Packing tomatoes in bushel field boxes or sometimes in buyers boxes

of approximately one bushel capacity cost from 0O.4071 to $0.8384 per box

for 16 packinghouses. Every firm surveyed, packed some tomatoes in bushel

boxes.

The 60-lb. nailed crate ranged in packing cost from $0.9100 to $1.3455

for 12 packinghouses. Packing costs for the wirebound crate (Tab) ranged

from $0.8714 to $1.6293 for 7 packinghouses. The lowest-cost firm in this





-7-


Table 5.-Variation in Costs of Packing Florida Tomatoes by Containers, 16
Packinghouses, 1950-51

: : : : :Bushel: :
: : : :Bushel : Box : 1-3/5 :
: : : Bushel : Iire- :Pinks,: Bu : :
Cost Per : :Bushe : Naile ,: Bound :Crooks: Field :Pony :Standard
Unit Packed :Lugl: Box/: Cratea/: Crate : 3's : Crate :Crate: Crate
(number of firms)
$0.40 to $0.4999 3 1
.50 to .5999 5 1 1
.60 to .6999 5 1 2
.70 to .7999 3 1 1
.80 to .8999 2 2 1
.90 to .9999 4 1 1
1.00 to 1.0999 2 4 2 1
1.10 to 1.1999 1 2 2 1
1.20 to 1.2999 2
1.30 to 1.3999 2 1
l.40 to 1.-999
1.50 to 1.5999
1.60 and over 1

Total Number 12 15 11 7 3 4 2 2

Avg. cost per unit $.8919 $.5576 $1.1414 $.9651 $.4145 $.6722 $.5679 '.7697

$.7381 $.4071 $.9100 $.8714 $.4089 $.6238 $.5281 $.7431
Range in Cost to to to to to to to to
1.1051 .8384 1.3455 1.6293 .6461 1.1927 .9922 1.0866

1/ One firm had two packinghouses, but costs of both are combined.


case had a large volume and was efficiently operated, while the highest

cost house packed only half a carload of this container. Total costs for

the next highest firm were $1.3333.

In cases where the same firm packed both the wirebound and nailed crate,

costs were near the same for each as previously pointed out.

In Table 6 are shown comparative costs of packing tomatoes in three

types of containers, 1950-51. The number of packinghouses handling each is

large enough that the comparisons are believed to be reasonably sound. The

bushel box was the cheapest container to fill from the standpoint of packing

costs. Compared with the lug as a base or 100 percent, the bushel box cost





-8-


only 34 percent as much to pack for the same quantity of tomatoes. There

was no container cost or material, and in some cases the packing was done

with day labor. No return freight cost for boxes is included in this compar-

ison. Bushel nailed crates, while costing more to pack than the lug per unit,

contained more fruit, and cost only 70 percent as much for the same quantity.

The containers and materials cost and the piece labor were less per pound of

contents. During observations made in packinghouses while operating, tomatoes

ran over the belt at a faster rate when large containers were packed, thus

lowering overhead costs somewhat per pound.


Table 6.-Comparative Cost of Packing Tomatoes in 3 Containers in Common
Use, 1950-51


: Bushel
: Bushel Nailed
:Lug: Box : Crate


Net Weight of Contents (lbs.) 34 62 62


Number of Packinghouses 13 16 12


Total Packing Cost (from Table 2) $.8919 $.5576 $l.1414
Packing Cost per Pound .0262 .0090 .0184
Packing Cost per Equivalent Lug .8919 .3060 .6256


Index of Cost per Equivalent Lug 100 34 70



Tomato Packing costs calculated by the methods outlined above give

approximate averages by containers for the firms included. They do not

however, indicate the full possibilities of lower packaging costs by con-

centrating on the larger type containers. Many packinghouses were de-

signed and organized to pack the lug, and packing other containers in-

troduces some inefficiencies from the maximum possible with a house
specializing in large containers. Moreover, the labor organization, if







correct for lug packing, is not well organized for large containers. If

lugs and large containers are packed simultaneously or on successive days

so that a lug crew must be kept, the crew is larger than that required for

packing in bushel-sized containers.

In general a low-cost firm for one container usually had a favorable

cost for most of the other containers packed. However, there are excep-

tions, as some houses seemed not able to pack certain containers very

efficiently, and a very small volume of one kind of container would probably

mean higher handling costs.

The number of firms from which tomato packing costs were obtained was

not large enough to provide for much analysis of factors affecting costs

in individual houses. Total volume of tomatoes packed per season is one

factor as shown in Table 7.


Table 7.-Total Volume of Tomatoes Packed and Cost of Packing in Various
Containers, 16 Packinghouses, 1950-51


Volume Group Average Number of Total Packing Cost Per Unit
(number of Pack- Volume Packinghouses Bushel Bushel
ages of Tomatoes) Bushel Nailed Wirebound
Lug Box Crate Crate
(dollars per box)

Under 100,000 72,924 8 0.9951 0.6521 1.1799 1.2107

100,000 199,999 127,719 4 .9208 .5412 1.0877 -

200,000 299,999 273,136 4 .7934 .5127 1.0619 .9583


Average 136,676 16 0.8919 0.5576 1.1414 0.9651



For the eight houses under 100,000 volume of tomatoes of all con-

tainers packed, total packing costs average 99.51 cents per box or 12 per-

cent more than the average of all firms. For the four packinghouses of

over 200,000 box volume, the packing cost for lugs was only 79.34 cents per




-10-


box or 11 percent less than the average. Total packing costs for lugs in

the highest cost group was 25 percent more than in the lowest cost group.

Packing costs for the bushel box showed the same trend by volume groups

as for the lug, but for the bushel nailed crate cost reductions were less

with increasing volume. Fewer houses packed the wirebound, with the result

that there were no firms in the 100,000 to 200,000 volume group.

Adding other vegetables to increase the total volume of a house may

reduce tomato costs only if they are packed in the existing tomato shed and

without too much interference with tomato packing. This may reduce manage-

ment and office costs, building costs, and certain overhead items. If

separate machinery is installed for other vegetables as is usually done,

there can be no reduction in machine costs for tomatoes because of packing

other vegetables.

Labor costs are affected by wage rates paid, and volume of output. The

crews should be balanced so that some workers are not waiting on others to

complete an operation. Balanced crews may not always be possible when a

variety of containers is packed alternately, as the labor requirement and

distribution for each may differ. Some operators have changed to an hour-

basis for paying all labor when only the larger containers are packed. The

time required for packing them is less than for lug-packing. (Table 8)

The average amount of capital invested in land, buildings, machinery

and equipment by 13 tomato packinghouses is shown in Table 9. The total

investment averaged $70,723 per house and the volume of tomatoes packed

averaged 90,321 equivalent bushels. Thus the capital requirement amounted

to $0.783 per bushel packed.

No analysis was made of selling cost. Some firms sold their own out-

put and occasionally also for other packers as well. Other packinghouses had

their shipping quality of tomatoes sold by a specialized sales organization.





-11-


Table 8.-Time Required to Pack Bushel Boxes and Lugs, Spring 19501/


Bushel Boxes Lugs, Wrapped,
(Jumble Packed) Place Packed


Number of units timed 22 204

Average time required per unit (minutes) 1.16 2.33

Number units per hour one worker can pack 52 26

Average time required per equivalent lug .67 2.33
(Minutes) 1 Bu. = 1.72 lugs)


Relative packing time required for the 100 38
same quantity

1/ Timed only when packers were working steadily. This condition seldom
obtained for a long period for all packers. Bushel boxes were packed by
lifting tomatoes from bins by hand and allowing them to fall into the
boxes.


The sales outlet of the packinghouses apparently determined in large

measure the kind of containers packed. Many of the organizations were pack-

ing some container to fill the requirements of certain buyers. Thus con-

siderations of packing containers cannot be entirely separated from the sales

connections of the packinghouse.


F.O.B. PRICES AND NET RETURNS TO GROWERS BY TYPE OF CONTAINER
USED, 19h9-50.


In order to determine the effect of containers used on sales prices and

on returns to growers, the entire sales of one large organization were analyzed

for two seasons, 1918-49 and 1949-50. Since the conclusions were about the

same for both seasons, only 1949-50 data are used here.

The total volume packed in 1949-50 totaled over 300,000 packages or

about 475,000 equivalent lugs. The spring crop was about 53 percent larger

than the preceding fall crop, and made up about 61 percent of the seasons





-12-


volume*


Table 9.-Capital Invested in Packing Facilities, 13 Tomato Packinghouses,
1950-51

:: Average Per
: Average Per : Bushel of
Item : Packinghouse : Tomatoes
: : Packed

Land $ 3,372 $ 0.037

Buildings 37,929 .420

Machinery & Equipment 29, 423 .326


Total $ 70,72L $ 0.783


Average Volume of Tomatoes Packed
(Bushels) 90,321



Prices were compared by grade, size, type of sale, container, and date

of sald, The fall crop of 1949 graded 78 percent, and the spring crop of

1950 graded 79 percent grade two or better by volume. Since most of the

lower grades were packed in bushel boxes, giving no container comparisons,

only number 2 grade and better are included in the comparative prices by

grades.

Season-average F.O.B. prices of tomatoes by size, grade, type of sale

and container used are shown in Tables 10 and 11. To facilitate comparisons

all prices have been converted to the equivalent quantity held by a lug.

The number of containers has also been converted to an equivalent number of

lugs.

The net weights used in making conversions between containers are those

obtained by weighing a number of containers in the packinghouse where the

price data were obtained. They differ slightly from the conversion ratios













bo



*P4
0)


Id







0
M%
0
o
3



.it
0






td
0
0



0
C



0
0




O
*








o
r4





.0
0O

OOl


g













0

5.4

C,













a




O
0






t.0


Cr
(0
H


C
0


bo o


0 > -r

Z )
c *
> to







....5-.

0
z
** ** ** **













(D
*

0










0(12



Uo
s> *U
0 O














.















j-i 0 *r4 0O
P.,






































CO
M























o 0
a
-^











-

C C*



ho 0

I,

f *





0





0 to
a ,


1^1 0 'l
CM Co \'-
*m


CO c0 0



tV\ 0 CO

0 CA






ON o
cm 00



0\ CO




0r-H CM



m -- r-
0 tV\


0 co





0 C-14
'0 t- m
(1 0-1A









.; 4% a%
Co r-I







0 0 t



MC'-c r-u \-


ANt <3 r-
131Lil 0% C--
C'- C~S t M
c.t CM H



C


to-





a,





3 CM0 r-(



(1)


C-

N g^
co


10 en C 0 Cs
Cr- I^ oh CN u
0 9 *
Sr-1 r- HH


'lO CO
S-t 11 r-l .-







OlN0 r- C-








OeSn coJ
%0 -10 %A
*
Cu r( -rl



H co C8 O
SN0 0- 00



4 \ A A 4
OIl 0\ -0 0 H










'C al0 tO\

H-H 00
SCO CO I*-



0\\0 C0

r- 0a\ _:I CC








S \1 r-' C-

..- m c I-








C* *C

r\ CqJ r- CM
A(SC'J CO

C tO C- 0 C'rj



































Cd
H
-'CO O 11-- 0 -


(11 CM


I





I








-t.. c o r o




0



a M





0 <


** **


0ap


a)





t* 6> e
















5.
0 .O t D
D Q














bOO
** *.* *
#0







*




0 hI










bo
*
* {> CU















*r0











o
< (



Co















a









hO


(0
> ri


%0 OCO fr
A CO CO4 .



l\ cm If\ N
N V\ m m














H- C- CN



B. t r-f
0H (-
t* *















O--.-t
) H M
co CO r-1






Hr r-









0 10


'00
C*-

r-- L H j














r
(^co 0
0S CM CM










(So
























Cat a,
49














a


COO COC r
r-1 rr- H%





%-0
O aN E



Sr- 0
ON 10 0r
JH



o\ o r- I
CM -





r-H r-4


ro CO co
'o 0 O
\r-1 0\
0m





H H H
co CC)


rc' %0 rC -
<0 0 0r


rM CrJ(
V3 01







r&f 0 0

so
r-l CM





r-(rf r-(












0 CO CO-
6% 6%
CM

.4
r


0r-
'OrC-
o


N iti ca


** **


** ** **


bo


I-





r4




03
*o
19.


0--



r-

r*I
to







rq









H
0

.0








4)

H












,g
0














01
a9


*rI
0
0


0





O *

0 n
c *






I-^-


0 0






0

(0







r-'-











0)

& '4
9
600


*rd b
k
** ** **

*


^..
> re




O r h

** ** **
0
*
?> CO
o *r. 60


** ** **






SC)
< -


P
** ** **

!>C
>H (Q

**0


M )







<:4
0..
** ** **

M


000
** *r* *




.* *
** ** **
















P02
bo
0 h0















a
** ** **





.. p. *.





p. ** *.
Q>

















ZL,~
** ** **
0 -
** ** **

0
O00


t- 1 0-I ..
0\co H -
*W**



t-- C -: H
r c0 CO r-I
3If\ 0N--- H
Co0 0 Cj




i r-t
H
a









r-4 Vtr

mcu
o:0






*




rCM r-







SrCV r-Ir-I



-- O\ co r-4

c0 -t0
r1 0.
*
CM4 CM 1H H















Co r- xil r--
O,0- r-,
% *%* *





.0J H


















0, 0 .

_:l rf l^O
Lr- Co









:i4


0


i-
13


rf H VI tr\
CO 10 0 CO


-t 0-1 H


r-H H CM r-
r-1 Au\ t
H.W UN-


' 10 0
r-l OO
J* a
cM



CM CM ON


0 HO0 -t




-= 1 r-0
* **
0& H


- r-1 0'











_-- Ht CO N-
o0 \0
c e-- I0
Oco'0 '0
%0r- r-Is
co CC H- 00
* A 4e









=e





0 Loo 00
o co -1 110















O Cr\ nt
Nt CM 0\ftm n











* a
















cud
o LcO- c)







*9 p 9


:4 i-l
C)

00CO T S


4)

I
C)

*r
45

0
0





a




to


a)








Cl














O
*9





FCt





r-

r1I
02
C',









C',


0)
ri
0-t
**o v* *
*
p
> 0
O *rl h0




0)



P

P
o *r.- 6O




0P)

.at
** .
*




.. .. **

C)
060

.. ...


C.cO
o e-


CM coc
co r-
04(Z3


C13
H




r--co


C-rH c M\ U
cMo CMr r-H




0o CO 0\ H-
C CO mCO'C


C\1




f 0
M r-4

Q9
EO r\-
**





M1 1Y\

'i-
r-. 0

r-4 1r% H10

0 1 C P











C'1 H H


co 0" C\-
Ir\ 1co %






Sr-C-4 H
r\C r-INr







** P
cr r- M








cOi
t0







co
CO-
*9


Sr-1 C

r-I H
tad


C)j










..

a) so rx- I'-oo
.(0 ss ~'-


trl --t cr\
'0\ COD





co \j %O H

\01 0 V\1
so CN en









mO NO \
-C.\0




*t*
10 0 0'.





& 0-0 0
r-1 O- A
cO. 0 (O\








***
.% *%ft
r--I Cr-


C-- 00- r




D0 0110
CuO\OMr






_ .:t o
SO OS r-4


* ***


r-1r r-





l >


f-1 C4-


-4co r-
c-t s1 o 0
* *



Htco'0
CM 0
* *
r-4 CM


()
10 a


0 b0



W
(0 0 UbD



r-1 C)
a > -P *H



PO)
0 O60
M3




0
00 0


> H>
H w ** ** *








OO





0 tb*
Sm 0


4. ** ** ** **
0
600


*








0
bO





a)
.o .
C)







C)M
*r-H
4cv

o *



Ca

O





,a
a)
o
0r



*ri


5 0





00
*i3H(
-CC

*a- 0


** **


** ** **







used with the packing cost data.

Too much reliance should not be attached to comparisons between small

samples. Since the prices are season averages, if the two groups compared

do not have the same seasonal distribution, prices could be distorted in case

of small samples.

From the data in Tables 10 and 11, it can be seen that on a season basis,

tomatoes in bushel boxes and bushel wirebounds often averaged a slightly high-

er F.O.B. price than in lugs. The part of the season during which lugs were

shipped was shorter than for the other containers, especially bushel boxes.

If data are further examined by date of shipment, holding grade, size and

method of sale constant, the f.o.b. price of lugs was often somewhat higher

on a given date. Two examples of this are shown in Figures 1 and 2.

However, the lug price was seldom enough higher on a given date to pay

the extra cost of packing. After deducting the packing charges for each

container from the f.o.b. prices in Tables 10 and 11, the net return to the

grower is shown in Table 12. From the grower's standpoint it was usually

more advantageous to have his tomatoes sold in the larger containers than

in lugs. As previously pointed out, lug packing is comparatively expensive

in materials and in labor cost.

One of the factors that significantly affects the price received for

tomatoes is size. This can be seen in Tables 10, 11 and 12, which show that

with few exceptions tomato prices are in order of size, with the highest

prices for the largest tomatoes. For the spring crop of 1950, the f.o.b.

price of Grade 1, size 6x6 and larger was h4 percent more than the average

of all sizes; 6x7 brought 23 percent more, and sizes 7x7 and 7x8 brought

17 and 50 percent less respectively than the average f.otb. price. An

exception is noted in the usual pattern of prices by size in the case of

Grade 2 tomatoes, size 7x8. However, very few tomatoes were included in











Table 12.-Season Average Return to Grower, by Size, Grade, Method of
Sale, Container Used, One Packinghouse, 1949-1950
(Prices and containers converted to equivalent lugs)-/

Consigned : : Delivered :
S Sales F.OB Sales : Sales All Methods Sales
: : : : : : : : : : : All
Lug : W/B :Lug : Bu.Bx.:W/B: Lug : W/B :Lug : Bu.Bx.:W/B :Cont.

Spring Crop, 1950
Grade 1
6x6 and Lgr.2.61 1.45 2.54 2.87 2.90 2.74 2.56 2.87 2.73 2.74
6x7 1.85 1.92 2.39 2.37 2.27 1-89 2.39 2.35 2.28
7x7 1.31 .86 1.66 1.11 1.16 1.04 1.66 1.11 1.36
7x8 .25 .25 .61

All Sizes 2.04 145 2.09 2.74 2.45 1.16 2.46 2.05 2.74 2.41 2.49
Grade 2
6x6 and Lgr. .90 1.63 1.35 1.82 .45 .93 1.35 1.82 1.26
6x7 .94 1.16 1.08 1.03 .61 .95 1.08 1.03 1.06
7x7 1.06 .87 *31 -38 .49 .93 .31 .38 .68
7x8 .52 1.02 .70 1.08

All Sizes .93 1.17 1.20 1.15 .55 .94 1.20 1.15 1.12

Fall Crop, 1949
Grade 1
6x6 and Lgr.l.64 1.86 2.79 2.89 1.79 2.79 2.18
6x7 1.61 1.65 3.01 3.35 2.21 3.20 1.65 3.01 3.26 2.12
7x7 .89 1.11 1.94 2.13 .98 1.94 2.13 1.24
7x8 .09 .56 ,27 .46

All Sizes 1.43 1.69 2.81 3.01 2.37 3.20 1.60 2.81 3.11 2.04
Grade 2
6x6 and Lgr. .42 -97 1.49 1.54 .58 1.26 .69 1.49 1.46 1.10
6x7 .40 .98 1.28 .38 -43 1.10 .71 1.28 .69 .86
7x7 .06 .29 .64 .25 (.06) .49 .26 .64 .28 *35
7x8 (.32) (.03) .18 (.05) .14

All Sizes -39 *72 1.32 .92 .26 1.14 .59 1.32 1.00 .89
1/ Weights and ratios used in converting containers to equivalent lugs: lug,


36 Ibs.; bushel box, 62 Ibs., 1.72 lugs; bushel wirebound crate (tab)
1.72 lugs;


62 lbs.,







-17-


Price per
Equivalent


$5.00 -


I I I I I I I I I





Bushel........
\- rebound *


Box


I I I I I I I I I I I i i I I I I I


2 5 9 12 16 19 23 26 30 3 7 10 14 17 21
April May
Date of Shipment
Figure l.--F.O.B. Price of Tomatoes per Equivalent Lug,
and by Date of Shipment, Grade 1, 6x6, F.O.B.
(One Packinghouse, Spring 1950)


24 28 31 4
June

by Container
Sales.


this size and they frequently brought losses to the grower when packed.


(Table 13)


4.00





3.00





2.00





1.00


I


I I I I I I I I I I j I I I I I I I I







-18-


I I 5 5 5 5 j I I g I I ) I 1 I


Bushel


3.00 -


ishel
Box


I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I


2 6
April


9 12 16 19 23 26 30 3 7 10 14 17 21
May


24 28 31 4
June


Figure 2.--F.O.B. Price of Tomatoes per Equivalent Lug, by Containers
and by Date of Shipment, Grade 1, 6x7, F.O.B. Sales.
(One Packinghouse, Spring 1950)



Table 13.-Relative F.OB. Price of Tomatoes by Size, in Percent of the
Average for all Sizes, One Packinghouse, 1949-50 Season


Spring Crop 1950 Fall Crop 1949
Size
Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 1 Grade 2

6x6 and Larger 144 116 131 138

6x7 123 103 128 119

7x7 83 78 88 80

7x8 50 104 53 64


Average 100 100 100 100


Price
$4.00


2.00 -


1.00 -








SUMMARY


Packing costs for 1950-51, analyzed for 16 packinghouses, indicate the

cost of packing tomatoes in lugs was 89.2 cents; bushel boxes 55.8 cents,

bushel nailed crates $1.1 and bushel wirebound crates 96.5 cents. (Table 3)

However, because of the smaller number of firms packing wirebounds, the

average cost was distorted somewhat. For houses packing both the nailed

crate and wirebounds, costs were about the same for both. (Table 4)

Packing tomatoes in lugs cost 2.6 cents per lb.; in bushel boxes 0.9

cents per lb.; and in nailed crates 1.8 cents per pound. (Table 6)

Total packing costs per unit varied between houses from $0.74 to $1.11

for lugs; from $0.41 to $0.84 for bushel boxes; from $0.91 to $1.35 for

bushel nailed crates; and from $0.87 to $1.63 for wirebounds. (Table 5)

The house with the extremely high cost of $1.63 for wirebounds, packed less

than half a carload of this container. The next highest cost for wirebounds

was $1.33.

Packing tomatoes in lugs was more costly than larger containers because

of higher material costs per pound, and the greater amount of labor for

wrapping and place-packing each tomato. Timing workers while packing indicated

that it required 3-1/2 times as much time for the packer to wrap and place-

pack a lug as to jumble pack the same quantity in a bushel box. (Table 8)

Total packing costs are influenced by the volume of tomatoes packed

in one season. Houses with more than 200,000 box volume packed tomatoes for

20 percent less than houses with less than 100,000 boxes. (Table 7) The

Nailed crate was an exception, and a reduction of only 10 percent was obtained

by the largest volume.

Capital invested in land, buildings, machinery, and equipment averaged

$70,724 for 13 packinghouses, or $0.78 per bushel of tomatoes packed.




-20-


Sales data from one large packinghouse 1949-50 show no price advantage

for the lug over larger containers. For the same grade, size, method of

sale and date of sale, lugs sometimes averaged a somewhat higher average

f.o.b. price. However, this price was seldom enough higher to pay the added

cost of handling in lugs. The grower during the season studied, usually

received more for tomatoes sold in the large containers. (Tables 10, 11,

12 and Figures 1 and 2) Many houses apparently pack for a certain market

outlet and choose the container desired by the buyer.







































AHS:le 11/24/52
Exp.Sta.,Ag.Ec. -150




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