-6- 



IviiSEAFCll ri;OM l)!II;^:: A OCA;; 



Packing Apples in the J[ortliea^st 



Marketing Research llcport ilo. 543 titled "Packin;j Apples in tlie ilortheast ' 

 compares four types of apple packing lines in coiranon use in the Ilortheast. vhe 

 studies were conducted in eight packing sheds with Iiclntosh apples. The sumiiiary 

 of the report is given below. A copy of the report can be obtained by writing the 

 Agricultural Marketing Service, U. S. Uepartment of Agriculture, Washln.^ton, D. C. 



"This report compares four types of apple packing lines in common use in the 

 Ilortheast. Studies were made in eight plants that used the tender, easily' bruised 

 Mcintosh variety of apples. 



"An all-manual sorting-sizing-packing operation had the lowest labor and equip- 

 ment cost of the four packing, lines studied, 13.7 cents per container at a volume c ? 

 50,000 crates annually. There was no mechanical damage to the apples. This method 

 was the most efficient, as long as skilled packers were not difficult to obtain, the 

 wage rate remained low, and the daily volume did not e::ceed the space available for 

 packing stations. There were great differences in the abilities of individual worker;^ 

 to sort, size, and pack apples simultaneously, so that within a given lot of packed 

 fruit, a wide disparity in sizes and grades became the rule rather than the exception, 



"The packing line in which apples were dumped manually, sized by chains, and 

 sorted and rechecked for size by the packers was the most costly. Many apples were 

 bruised, and the sorting and sizing were poorly done. Also, the capacity of this 

 packing line was below that of other mechanized lines. At a volume of 50,000 crates 

 annually, labor and equipment cost 22.8 cents per packed container. 



"The other two packing lines studied showed almost identical costs. The one 

 using mechanical dumping, sorting at a roller table, weight sizing, and manual 

 packing from a return-flow belt, had a labor and equipment cost of 20.8 cents per 

 container at an annual voliame of 50,000 crates; when the annual volume was 75,000 

 crates, the unit cost was reduced to 18.3 cents per container. 



"The second mechanized line employed a drum dumper and a reverse-roll sorting 

 table with dimension sizing, and packing from a return- flow belt. Its labor and 

 equipment cost was 19.6 cents per container at 50,000 crates annually, and 17.4 cents 

 at 75,000 crates annually. With both of these packing lines, the sorting and sizing 

 were highly accurate, and bruising was not serious. Each line had a built-in 

 capacity far beyond that of either the all-manual line or the one using chain sizers. 



"In all cases, labor cost more than equipment, even when the assumed wage rate 

 was as low as $1.25 per hour. Should the cost of labor rise, then the manual opera- 

 tions would rapidly become more costly, and the mechanized packing lines v/ould 

 become relatively more efficient. Or, if skilled labor should become difficult to 

 hire, the manual packing line would become less efficient, because it requires 

 greater skills of its workers than do the other more mechanical lines. 



"The following comparison sununarizes the advantages and disadvantages of the 

 four packing lines: 



