Group Title: Lake Alfred AREC Research report
Title: Packinghouse newsletter
ALL VOLUMES CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00095555/00051
 Material Information
Title: Packinghouse newsletter
Series Title: Lake Alfred AREC Research report
Alternate Title: Citrus packinghouse newsletters
Packing house newsletter
Physical Description: v. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Citrus Experiment Station (Lake Alfred, Fla.)
Citrus Experiment Station (Lake Alfred, Fla.)
Agricultural Research and Education Center (Lake Alfred, Fla.)
Citrus Research and Education Center (Lake Alfred, Fla.)
Indian River Research Education Center
Publisher: Citrus Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Lake Alfred Fla
Lake Alfred Fla
Publication Date: June 1974
Copyright Date: 1965
Frequency: irregular
completely irregular
 Subjects
Subject: Citrus fruits -- Harvesting -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Citrus fruits -- Packing -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
periodical   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Additional Physical Form: Also issued on the World Wide Web.
Dates or Sequential Designation: No.1 (Sept. 1, 1965)-
Issuing Body: Issued by the Citrus Experiment Station (no. 1-38); Lake Alfred (Fla.) Agricultural Research and Education Center (no. 39-136); Lake Alfred (Fla.) Citrus Research and Education Center (no. 137-189); and the Ft. Pierce (Fla.) Indian River Research and Education Center (no. 190- ).
General Note: Title from caption.
General Note: Latest issue consulted: No. 202 (Aug. 1, 2005)
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00095555
Volume ID: VID00051
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 02430250
lccn - 2006229390

Full Text
tter #63


Lake Alfred AREC Research Report CS74-5
1000 Copies
June 3, 1974






Editor: W. F. Wardowski
Harvesting and Handling Section
University of Florida
Agricultural Research and Education Center
P. O. Box 1088
Lake Alfred, Florida 33850
Phone 813 956-1151




if a


iUv. of Fionida|


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES

and

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CITRUS


*Anyone wishing to receive this newsletter
may send a dozen stamped, preaddressed
envelopes to the above address.




y Word Index
Bagging Machines, Fungicide Regulations, Residue
Tolerances, Universal Product Code, Safety.




(*-*)
Newsletter #63 Lake Alfred AREC Research Report CS74-5
1000 copies
June 3, 1974




Harvesting and Handling Section

PACKINGHOUSE NEWSLETTER



POSTHARVEST FUNGICIDE RESIDUES

Residues of fungicides in or on fresh citrus fruit, applied for postharvest
decay control, are determined by the Division of Fruit & Vegetable Inspection to
insure that a fungicide has been applied for decay control. This is required by
Florida Department of Citrus (FDOC) Regulation 105-1.43. The maximum residue
permitted is established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The
minimum residue is established by the above mentioned regulation.

Regulation 105-1.43 has recently been revised to establish minimum residue
levels for benomyl (Benlate) and sec.-butylamine (2-aminobutane). Both of these
fungicides have recently been cleared for postharvest use on citrus fruits.
Canadian clearances, however, have not been obtained. When the use of these
fungicides is approved by Canadian officials, you will be notified through this
NEWSLETTER. The use of these fungicides in Florida will not be recommended for
postharvest use until Canadian clearances have been obtained. Fruit shipped for
domestic use may end up on the Canadian market.

Fungicide residue in or on citrus fruit is only an indication of the value
of a postharvest fungicidal treatment and is not always proportional to decay
control. Large-sized fruit with smooth peel usually have proportionately less
residue than small-sized fruit with a rough peel. For example, grapefruit
frequently have a lower fungicide residue than tangerines when both fruits are
given the same postharvest fungicidal treatment. This does not mean that the
tangerines will have less decay, the reverse is usually true. A low concentration
of a postharvest fungicide distributed evenly over the surface of the fruit may
result in better decay control than a higher concentration distributed unevenly.
Higher fungicide residues usually result when a fungicide is applied in a wax.
Some of the fungicide, however, may be "tied-up" in the wax and as a result
doesn't contact the surface of the fruit.

As long as fungicide residues do not exceed the tolerances established by
the EPA, and one of the fungicides is above the minimum established in the FDOC
regulation, the fruit has had an acceptable postharvest fungicide treatment.

When citrus fruit are to be exported (e.g. Japan), only fungicides approved
by the country to which the fruit is to be shipped should be used.


A. A. McCornack
FDOC, Lake Alfred


This public document was promulgated at an annual cost
of $201.60, or two and one-half cents per copy to inform
county agricultural directors, ranchers, and growers of
research results in harvesting and fresh fruit handling
and marketing.




June 3,. 19


Universal Product Code (UPC) program moving ahead


Implementation of the Universal Product Code
(UPC) program is moving ahead rapidly.
To date, more than 600 grocery manufacturers
representing annual sales of over $52 billion and a
significant number of food distribution companies
with private labels have joined the Uniform Gro-
cery Product Code Council (UGPCC)-the UPC
implementing organization-and have been issued
code numbers. The growing number of symbol-
marked packages, cartons, shipping containers and
invoices coming off the production lines is evidence
of their participation.
A survey of UGPCC members conducted by
Distribution Codes, Inc. (formerly the Distribution
Number Bank) administrators of the UPC and UPC
symbol, indicates progress far surpasses original
time estimates. Manufacturer-members report that
as of July 1, 1974:
80% will have shipping cases with symbols
68% will have packages with symbols
56% will have completed conversion of their
internal system to five-digit product code numbers.
97% will have appointed a project officer to plan
strategies for code implementation and symbol
printing.
A survey of store designers and developers at
chain, voluntary and cooperative headquarters
shows significant distribution progress, too. Some
75% report their particular headquarters have as-
signed personnel to the problem of integrating the
UPC into the organization. More than 40% say their
companies have applied for their own UPC num-
bers-obviously for private label merchandise.
The symbol chosen for UPC is "an oversquare
bar code configuration," with human-readable
numerals to be printed below the bar code.




12345 67890
The symbol is variable in size, with single bar
widths ranging from 0.0095 in. to 0.025 in., with
the nominal total symbol size slightly smaller than
1.5 sq. in. It will accommodate the 10-digit code
already decided upon by the Grocery Product
Industry.


It can be read omni-directionally by electronic
scanning equipment, and it is expected that most
of the dozen scanners already developed for super-
market use can be adapted to it.
Significant progress on the UPC has come about
through a combination of increased source-marking
technology and symbol education program. Step-
ped up action on the part of manufacturers of
branded items, who had fallen behind the pace of
private label suppliers, allows the grocery industry
to take dead aim at the announced industry goal:
a minimum 50% coded super market products by
the end of 1974 and 75% by the end of 1975.
Motivated by the UGPCC executive committee-
which is responsible for UPC guidance, technical
assistance, ideas and progress reports-suppliers
continue to clear the way for "automated" front-
end development. Projections show that if a reason-
able number of stores, about 6,000, purchase scan-
ning systems, distributor savings during 1975 can
range from $100 to $400 million.
Learning UPC nomenclature and improving total
system efficiency are two aspects of this neophyte
business with which retailers, wholesalers, pro-
ducers, and suppliers will have to become familiar.
Two publications, available singly or as a unit, do
the best teaching job. The "UPC Guidelines Man-
ual" covers symbol specification and location pro-
cedures. The new edition of "Recommended Stan-
dards for the Grocery Industry" covers such UPC-
related topics as case marking, invoices, purchase
orders, payables and receivables documents, brok-
ers' memos and related documents. These two
documents are available from Distribution Codes,
Inc., 1725 K Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.
A UPC random weight produce subcommittee
was recently formed and is co-chaired by Jesse
Raybourn of PMA, and John Nelson of UFFVA. A
number of knowledgeable individuals from all
facets of the produce industry have agreed to serve
on this committee, and a committee meeting is
being scheduled to initiate actions necessary to get
the produce industry actively involved in the UPC
program. r
The PMA Report
Volume 6, No. 4
February 22, 1974


Newsletter #63




Newsletter #63


MECHANIZED PACKAGING NOW IN THE SPOTLIGHT


Recent information on developments in mechanized packaging equipment,
particularly for bagging citrus in "Vexar", or other plastic net, bags,
points to more decision making for packinghouse owners and managers. Now
in sight are choices between multipurpose or single-purpose machines; between
using ready-made bags or forming bags from factory-roll tubing ("rope stock")
as part of the bagging machine action; between connecting new bag-handling
components to existing count-fill equipment or acquiring complete machines.

Evaluation of possible equipment changes for individual packinghouses
will involve such factors as:

Package appearance preferences -- shape, labeling, closure.

Flexibility of packaging operation -- normal and maximum output rates;
different packages and types of fruit.

Cost effects in packaging operation -- equipment ownership and opera-
ting, and plant space requirements (multipurpose and single-
purpose machines); labor; packaging materials; degree of utilization
of existing packaging equipment by connecting to new bag-handling
components; maintenance requirements.

One of the best possibilities for further savings on packaging fresh citrus
now appears to hinge on automatic bagging operation in which tubing can be used
in a continuous length direct from the factory roll.

Estimated costs developed for comparison show that use of polynet tubing
from the factory roll offers savings in the range of $12 to $17 per M (thousand)
bags when compared to ready-made, 5-pDund polynet bags costing about $27.50 per M.
The net saving to be realized after considering labor cost plus equipment owner-
ship and operating costs combined with bag cost may be the full difference in
cost of bags from factory-roll tubing vs. ready-made bags, but, in some circum-
stances, could be somewhat reduced by factors such as equipment ownership cost.
Potential for attractive net savings is particularly good, however, because the
cost of ready-made polynet bags is about two-thirds of the total cost -- bags,
labor, equipment and operating costs -- for bagging and placing filled bags in
master cartons.




We are indebted to Earl Bowman, USDA, Gainesville for the above observations
following the bagging machine demonstration, movies and discussion at the April
10th Fla. Fresh Citrus Shippers Association meeting at Lake Alfred. The rope
stock International Staple Makfil bagging machine demonstrated has been adapted
to fill cartons also and is in operation at Orange-co (formerly Lake Hamilton
Coop.). Ed Shores, Orange-co welcomes you to view this machine but suggests
that you phone (813--439-1585) first to be sure that it is operating.

Editor
KUMQUATS ANYONE?
We have an inquiry from an exporter looking for a supply of Kumquats "of
good shipping quality and in large enough supply." Anyone wishing to contact
him, just let us know.
Bill Grierson
AREC Lake Alfred


June 3, 1974




Newsletter #63


CITRUS PACKINGHOUSE DAY

WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 4,1974

LAKE ALFRED

A featured speaker at Citrus Packinghouse Day will be Edward Hurt, Attorney
specializing in Workman's Compensation. We will schedule ten minutes for Mr. Hurt
to tell you how to avoid being beaten by him in court, plus ten minutes for you to
cross examine him. Mark your calendars, Wednesday, September 4, 1974. This presen-
tation alone will be worth the price of admission (free) plus a day's time.
Editor
LIFT TRUCK SAFETY

Some points on lift truck safety from OSHA:

Only trained and authorized operators shall be permitted to operate a powered
industrial truck. Methods shall be devised to train operators in the safe
operation of powered industrial trucks.

Trucks shall not be driven up to anyone standing in front of a bench or other
fixed object.

No person shall be allowed to stand or pass under the elevated portion of any
truck, whether loaded or empty.

Unauthorized personnel shall not be permitted to ride on powered industrial
trucks. A safe place to ride shall be provided where riding of truck is
authorized.

The employer shall prohibit arms or legs from being placed between the uprights
of the mast or outside the running lines of the truck.

When a powered industrial truck is left unattended, load engaging means shall
be fully lowered, controls shut off, and brakes set. Wheels shall be blocked
if the truck is parked on an incline.

A powered industrial truck is unattended when the operator is 25 feet or more
away from the vehicle which remains in his view, or whenever the operator
leaves the vehicle and it is not in his view.
Charles A. Coggins, Winter Haven
John C. Sample, Tallahassee
Fla. Dept. of Commerce Industrial
Safety Representatives.


AVAILABLE PUBLICATIONS
Available from Dr. W. F. Wardowski, AREC, P. O. Box 1088, Lake Alfred, FL 33850
"Fungicide or Fungistat Treatment Required for Fresh Citrus Fruit" Florida Dept.
of Citrus Regulation 105-1.43. April 24, 1974.

Available from American Society for Horticultural Science, National Center for
American Horticulture, Mount Vernon, Virginia 22121

"A Better Environment Through Horticulture", 6 page brochure, March 1974.


June 3, 1974




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