20 BULLETIN 973, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



A wide variation in efficiency is also shown where the same method 

 of washing is used. There are many factors that cause these varia- 

 tions, as, for example, some of the machines of the same type are 

 more serviceable and of a larger capacity than others; also, the 

 operators are delayed from time to time by numerous unavoidable 

 causes, such as breakdowns, broken bottles, or lack of steam, but 

 the greatest factor in causing these variations is the arrangement 

 of the plant. The management and handling of labor are also 

 important factors. 



COMPARISON OF COSTS IN WASHING BOTTLES. 



Using the data in Table 7 as to number of bottles washed per man- 

 hour, it is possible to make a comparison of costs in washing bottles 

 by the various methods for plants of various sizes. According to 

 this table the average number of bottles washed per man-hour at 56 

 plants using one automatic washer each was 1,002; at 49 plants 

 using brush washers, 323 ; and at 8 plants washing with a hand brush, 

 199. Assuming that labor is worth 50 cents an hour, which is about 

 the average at these plants at the present time (1922), the labor cost 

 per 100 bottles washed would be 4.99 cents, 15.48 cents, and 25.13 

 cents for the three methods respectively. The capacity of the auto- 

 matic washer used at the various plants varied considerably, of 

 course, but a fair estimate of the present average purchase price of the 

 automatic machines used at all the plants is $3,500.^ For the brush 

 washer the average current price (1922) for the particular types used 

 would be about $400. Assuming that the depreciation and other 

 annual expense on the bottle washers is 20 per cent of their purchase 

 price, this charge would amount to $1.92 a day for the automatic ma- 

 chine, and $0.22 a day for the brush washer. In the case of hand wash- 

 ing this extra charge would not be worth considering. Using these 

 averages for labor cost and for interest and depreciation on the ma- 

 chines, Figure 15 was worked out to show the relative costs for labor 

 and interest and depreciation on the equipment of the various meth- 

 ods for plants washing different numbers of bottles daily. The cost 

 per bottle is shown in the left-hand margin, while the number of bot- 

 tles to be washed is shown in the bottom margin. 



Hand washing is represented by a straight line, as the labor cost 

 would be the .same per bottle, regardless of the number washed, and 

 no charge for interest and depreciation is considered. The line show- 

 ing the cost with the brush washer crosses that representing the cost 

 with the automatic machine at about 1,600 bottles, indicating that 

 when this or any larger number of bottles is to be washed it would be 

 advisable to consider the economy of installing an automatic washer. 

 The high wages that have to be paid for labor in the plant have an 

 important bearing on this question. The hand-washing system is 

 out of the question for any plant at present prices (1922) of labor 

 and the brush washer is economical only at very small plants. 



A similar graph was worked out to represent conditions in 1914 

 previous to the present high prices for labor and equipment. This is 

 shown in Figure 16. The labor costs used were the average for 40 

 plants using automatic washers, 43 plants using brush washers, and 8 

 plants where the bottles were washed by hand. The average number 



8 Such plants should also have a brush washer to take care of the very dirty bottles. Such a brush would 

 add slightly to the total cost. 



