3. ''Do the process as rapidly as possible at the assembly point. The longer the 
process is delayed after harvest the greater and faster the breakdown." 
4. "Better to process after fruit has been graded, sized and packed. An argument 
against a central facility is that fruit could not be hauled around because of the danger of 
damaging it." 
5, ''A packinghouse location is the most desirable from a handling viewpoint because 
it requires less handling. If cost can be brought down it would be handiest at each han- 
dler's location, '' 
6. ''Must have it on the conveyor where produce is going into packinghouse or into 
a rail car or else cost of handling would be increased," 
7. ''A small facility at the packinghouse would be the best because we have no time 
to rehandle and must use facility when it is needed." 
8. ''Cost would be prohibitive for the small volume of each handler's location."' 
9. "A large central facility would probably be the only feasible way from an eco- 
nomic viewpoint, '' 
10. "Volume is needed in order to reduce unit costs, and this would require a large 
centrally located facility. "' 
ll. "A large central facility at a packinghouse location is required to reduce unit 
costs and give better quality and marketing control. "' 
Question 10. --On the basis of your answer to question 9, what modifications in cur- 
rent produce handling methods do you think might be required in order to accommodate 
radiation processing of fresh strawberries, peaches, tomatoes, grapes, oranges, and 
grapefruit? 
Of all survey respondents suggesting either a small stationary facility at each han- 
dler's location or a mobile facility in answers to the preceding question, 67 percent 
thought only minor or no changes would be required in present produce handling methods.® 
Eight percent thought a substantial change would be required while 25 percent failed to 
give a usable answer (appendix A, table 16). 
Respondents suggesting a large stationary centrally located facility were about 
equally divided between either a minor change or no change, and a substantial change 
as being required in present handling methods. 
Comments by respondents containing the main ideas in answers to question 10 are: 
1. ''No great problem; some modifications, investment and extra labor." 
2. "If a facility is put in each individual plant, it would not change handling methods 
much; maybe one additional handling. If a central location, it would mean more changes 
in handling." 
3. ''Would be most economical to treat while fruit is still on conveyor. Then the 
only thing required would be the room or screened area and the conveyor to take produce 
in and out," 
4. ''Treat on conveyor before or after packing into lugs. Probably have to consoli- 
date plants. The difficulty is to get individual shippers to combine operations. "' 
5. ''Would probably hasten the need for centralized packing operations; would cause 
some growers to go out of business or combine their operations, "' 
6. ''The market would handle more volume if spoilage were cut down; otherwise, 
handling methods would be about the same."! 
7. ''The shipper would store and hold off the market to manipulate prices.'"' 
8. ''More storage; could reduce the number of deliveries; otherwise, about the 
same.."' 
9. ''Could allow more time from purchase to delivery to promote more orderly 
marketing. "' 
10. ''The process would reduce rehandling operations." 
© When the results for each of the two types of equipment were found to be closely comparable they were tabulated together 
as a group to simplify presentation. Also, all commodities are considered together because no substantial difference in survey re- 
sults could be noted between commodities. 
10 
