‘t'lfi' I." ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF FOUR MECHAMCAL GRAPE HARVESTING AND HANDUNG SYSTEMS - Thesis for the Degree of M. S. MICH‘GAN STATE UNNERSlTY PAUL LEIGH W|LUAMS 1 97 2 ABSTRACT ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF FOUR MECHANICAL GRAPE HARVESTING AND HANDLING SYSTEMS by Paul Leigh Williams The introduction of the mechanical grape harvester in Michigan was thought by many to be long overdue. Stable prices, rising hand harvesting costs and the unavailability of temporary labor hastened the transition to mechanical harvesting. Since 1968, mechanical harvesting has increased from approximately 1 percent of the total grape crOp harvested to 87 percent in 1971. The major question facing grape producers was twofold: what are the breakeven acreages or income possibilities for mechanical harvesting vs. the traditional hand harvesting methods, and how much initial capital investment for mechanization can be justified? The equipment necessary for mechanical harvesting centers around the ownership of one particular piece of equipment, the harvester. The coordination of other equipment must operate parallel to and concurrently with the harvester. Five handling methods were designated for analysis and comparison: two existing and two experimental mechanical harvesting and handling systems and the traditional hand harvesting system. Data were accumulated for the five systems under investigation during the 1970 Concord grape harvesting season. Assistance in the analysis and comparison of the systems was accentuated with the aid of a feasibility computer program. Paul Leigh Williams The results of the study indicated mechanical grape harvesting both existing and experimental was profitable for most conditions, specifically, most conditions above 70 acresper season when mechanized harvesting was used. Income potential increased substantially for growers harvesting more than 250 acres per season. Furthermore, investment for increased mechanization in the "experimental bulk handling system" could be justified by inherent labor reductions. Economically, ownership of the experimental mechanical harvesting systems, when compared to hand harvesting methods, is recommended for growers harvesting 90 acres or more per season. Approved . Major rofessor 13 A star Department Chairman ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF FOUR MECHANICAL GRAPE HARVESTING AND HANDLING SYSTEMS By PAUL LEIGH WILLIAMS A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Engineering 1972 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Appreciation is extended to the Department of Agricultural Engineering for the financial assistance given to the author which enabled him to start and complete his graduate study on the master's level. The time and interest of the author’s major professor, Dr. B. F. Cargill, is greatly appreciated and acknowledged, for without his articulate guidance the final phase of this thesis would have been much more difficult. A special thanks is extended to the Michigan Concord Grape Production Research Fund and in particular to Michigan Wineries for their assist- ance and equipment made available during the research development. Appreciation is also extended to the grape producers in the southwestern Michigan area for their enthusiasm and willingness to supply data for this thesis. ii DISCLAIMER References to company names, products, or trademarks do not constitute condemnation or endorsement of these products but are merely convenient designations for selected equipment and materials. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF'TABLES LIST OF FIGURES . . Chapter I. II. III. IV. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Historical . . . . . . 1.2 World Production . . . . 1.3 Michigan Trend . . . 1.4 Michigan Setting and Situation STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . . . . 2.1 Stable Prices and Rising Costs 2. 2 Unavailability of Labor 2. 3 Future Predictions REVIEW OF LITERATURE 3.1 Current Harvesting Cost Knowledge . 3. 2 A Review of Another Study-washington 3.21 Capital Investment 3.22 Harvester Performance 3.3 Analysis Techniques 3.31 Materials Handling . 3.32 Economic Methods . 3.33 Model Development Review 3.34 Machinery Feasibility Study JUSTIFICATION FOR RESEARCH . . . OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . 5.1 Overall Objectives . 5.2 Specific Objectives of this Study iv Page vii ix J-‘Nr-iv—t \l 10 10 12 13 14 14 15 15 16 18 20 23 23‘ 23 Chapter VI. VII. VIII. IX. FRAMEWORK AND PROCEDURE . . 6.1 Equipment and System Development 6.11 Mechanical Harvesting Definitions - 6.12 Field System Definition 6.121 hand harvesting . . . 6.122 existing mechanical harvesting systems . . . . 6.123 experimental handling system design , 6.13 Equipment Procurement and Modification- 6.2 Data Procurement Techniques 6.21 Time and Motion Study 6.22 Field Data Sheet . . . 6.23 Truck Data Sheet 6.24 Post Harvest Survey 6.3 Computer Program Development . 6.31 Cost Structure . . . . 6.32 Source of Data . . . . . DISCUSSION OF RESULTS . 7.1 Effective Field Capacity. . 7.2 Effects of Unequal Variables Incorporated Within the System . . . . . . 7.3 Other Variables 7.31 Harvesting Rate Per Hour 7.32 Potential Yield 7.33 Product Recovery . 7.4 Discussion of the Systems 7.41 Existing Harvesting and Handling Systems 7.42 Experimental Harvesting and Handling System . . 7.5 Labor 7.6 Options . 7.7 Breakeven Points . SUMMARY . . . CONCLUSIONS Page 24 24 24 24 26 26 28 3O 32 32 33 33 33 34 35 35 38 39 43 46 46 48 50 6O 6O 62 64 66 75 70 81 Chap ter Page REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 A 84 B 92 C 100 D . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 E . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Grape Production Trends for Major States in the U.S. 1899-1969 (short tons). . . . 2 2 The Rapid Trend for Mechanical Harvesting of Concord Grapes in Soutwestern Michigan from 1968 to 1971. . . 3 3 Michigan Production, Average Price Per Ton, and Disposition from 1936 to 1971 for Michigan Concord Grapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4 Mechanical Harvesting Data, 1968 (4 machines, Chautaugua County, New Yerk ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5 Estimated Capital Investment and Depreciation Cost Required for Mechanical Grape Harvesting in Washington. . 13 6 Possible Economic Decision Accompanying Many of the Components of a Mechanical Grape Harvesting and Handling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7 Effective Field Capacity for 3 Different Size Mechanical Harvester Operations and 2 Different Row Lengths, 320 Ft. and 2640 Ft 0 O ‘ O O O O O O O O I O O O I O 41 8 Ownership and Operating Cost Per Hour for 2 Different Harvesters. The Self-PrOpelled Chisholm-Ryder and the Pull Type Mecca and Tractor Operated 350 Hours or 301 Acres Per Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 9 An Analysis of a Post-Harvest Survey of 7 Southwestern Michigan Grape Harvester Operator/Owners Utilizing the Conventional Existing Systems II and III in Comparison to 1 Harvester Operator Using the Experimental Bulk Handling System V. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 10 Comparison of Labor Requiremenuzfor Various Sized OperationsUsing Systems 11 and III Labor Requirements as the Base for Determining Labor Requirements of the Experimental Systems IV and V . . . . . . . . . 66 11 Physical Aspects for Determining the Breakeven Points Between the Existing (Systems II and III) and Experimental Mechanical Grape Harvesting ( Systems IV and V) Expanded to Options A, B, C, D, and E. , _ , , , , 69 vii Table 12 13 14 Investment or Labor Differences for Determining the Breakeven Points Between the Existing (Systems II and III) and Experimental Mechanical Grape Harvesting (Systems IV or V) Expanded to Options A, B, C, D, and E. . . . . . . . . . . Annual Costs for Determining the Income Potential (Breakeven Points) Between the Existing (Systems II and III) and Experimental Mechanical Harvesting (Systems IV or V) and Extended Options A, B, C, D, and E. Income Potential for the Five Options viii 71 72 74 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Traditional Hand Harvesting Technique Employed for Grape Harvesting Prior to Mechanical Harvesting . . 25 2 Conventional Method Employed to Transfer Concord Grapes from Vineyard to Processing Plant Prior to Mechanical Harvesting . . . . . . . . . , 25 3 Existing Mechanical Grape Harvesting System II in Operation in Southwestern Michigan Utilizing Plastic Lined Pallet Containers to Transport Harvested Grapes to Processing Plants . . 27 4 Existing Mechanical Grape Harvesting System III in Operation in Southwestern Michigan Utilizing Cherry Tank Containers Instead of Plastic Lined Pallet Containers to Transport Harvested Grapes to Processing Plant . . . . . . - - ° 27 5 Experimental Mechanical Harvesting System IV in Operation in Southwestern Michigan Utilizing the 8-ton Bulk Tank Trucks of a Rotary Head Field Forklift to Empty Pallet Containers . . . . . . 29 6 Experimental Mechanical Harvesting System V Utilizing Totelifts and 8-ton Bulk Tank Trucks. This New Bulk Handling System Requires a Self- dumping Vineyard Tank Trailer Instead of the Conventional Pallet Containers and Vineyard Trailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 7 Self-dumping 3-ton Vineyard Totelift Discharging into an 8-ton Capacity Bulk Tank Truck (System V). . 31 8 Bulk Tank Truck Discharging into a Michigan Processing Plant Receiving HOpper (System IV or V) . 31 9 Mechanical Harvesting Cost Per 2 Ton Yield for Concord Grapes in Southwestern Michigan. Initial System Cost Ranges from $24,000 to $40,000 and Acreage from 50 to 450 Acres Per Season . . . . . . . 51 ix Figure 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Page Mechanical Harvesting Cost Per 3 Ton Yield for Concord Grapes in Southwestern Michigan. Initial System Cost Ranges from $24,000 to $40,000 and Acreage from 50 to 450 Acres Per Season . . . . . 52 Mechanical Harvesting Cost Per 4 Ton Yield for Concord Grapes in Southwestern Michigan. Initial System Cost Ranges from $24,000 to $40,000 and Acreage from 50 to 450 Acres Per Season . . . . . 53 Mechanical Harvesting Cost Per 6 Ton Yield for Concord Grapes in Southwestern Michigan. Initial System Cost Ranges from $24,000 to $40,000 and Acreage from 50 to 450 Acres Per Season . . . . . 54 Mechanical Harvesting Cost Per 8 Ton Yield for Concord Grapes in Southwestern Michigan. Initial System Cost Ranges from $24,000 to $40,000 and Acreage from 50 to 450 Acres Per Season . . . . 55 Mechanical Harvesting Cost Per 10 Ton Yield for Concord Grapes in Southwestern Michigan. Initial System Cost Ranges from $24,000 to $40,000 and Acreage from 50 to 450 Acres Per Season. . . . . 56 Mechanical Harvesting Cost Per Acre Independent of Yield for Concord Grapes in Southwestern Michigan as Influenced by Initial Harvesting System Cost and Acres Per Season . . . . . . . 57 Influence of a 90 Percent Product Recovery Upon Mechanical Harvesting Cost for a $32,000 System on 150 Acres and a $40,000 System on 450 Acres Per Season. . . . . . . . . . . Sl Breakeven Points Between the Existing and Experimental Mechanical Grape Harvest System Based on a Reduction of l or 2 Workers Per Shift . 76 I . INTRODUCTION 1.1 Historical Vineyards were among the earliest plantations made by civilized people, those of the Greek, Roman and Biblical eras. "The grape comes to us out of the abyss of antiquity."1 Viticultural tradition is nearly as old as man; seeds found in remains of the Swiss Lake Dwellings of the Bronze Age and entombed with mummies in Egypt closely resemble cultivated species of today. Details for grape and vine production also figure in the hieroglyphics of the 4th (2400 B.C.), 17th and 18th dynasties of Egypt. Noah, according to the Bible, planted a vineyard. In virtually all of the world today, the technique for harvesting grapes has changed very little since the beginning of viticulture. 1.2 World Production Land acreage in the world devoted to cultivation of grapes totals more than 25 million acres (10 million hectares). Over 75 percent of the grapes produced are grown in Europe, 11 percent in Asia, 5 percent in South America, 5 percent in Africa, 3 percent in North America, and 1 percent in Oceania. In the United States, California produces 80 percent of the North American total, with a high percentage utilized for table grapes and raisins} Table 1 gives some comparisons between California and the five remaining states producing 1Encyclgpaedia Britannica,1nc. Vol. 10, William Benton Publisher, The University of Chicago, 1972, pp 688-693. TABLE l-—Grape Production Trends for Major States in the United States 1899-1969.(short tons) Year U.S. Calif. N.Y. Mich. Pa. Ohio Wash. (000) (000) (000) (000) (000) (000) (000) 1899 650 360 123 21 23 39 1909 1,285 990 126 60 17 22 1919 1,258 1,028 76 58 21 21 1929 1,942 1,691 77 59 22 14 1936 1,916 1,714 49 39 16 26 5 1940 2,467 2,250 60 38 17 22 10 1945 2,781 2,663 31 13 6 5 19 1950 2,687 2,440 96 43 31 19 23 1955 3,241 3,020 88 23 24 17 49 1960 3,069 2,767 122 65 33 15 38 1965‘ 4,351 3,975 153 75 49 21 37 1966 3,734 3,400 132 49 39 17 64 1967 3,049 2,680 158 39 51 17 73 U.S. Census of Agricultural, 1899-1939; Agricultural Statistics, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1939-1960. the other 20 percent. These states of New York, Washington, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio produce the American Hybrid Concord grape (Vitis labrusca), which is crushed almost exclusively for grape juice and wine. In most years since 1920, Michigan has placed third or fourth among the states in total tonnage of grapes produced and is usually surpassed only by California, New York, and sometimes 2 Washington. 1.3 Michigan Trend Use of mechanical harvesters to harvest grapes has increased in southwestern Michigan since the introduction of the first harvester 2During recent years Washington's production has increased yearly while Michigan's total production has remained relatively constant. in 1968. In Michigan, mechanical harvesting of grapes has continually increased from 1 percent in 1968 to approximately 87 percent in 1971. The data in Table 2 indicate the dramatic trend that has taken place during the past three seasons. In 1968, approximately 1 percent of the Michigan Concord grape crop was mechanically harvested; however, in 1971, over 87 percent of the grape crOp was harvested mechanically. TABLE 2--The Rapid Trend for Mechanical Harvesting of Concord Grapes in Southwestern Michigan from 1968 to 1971. Year Total Concord Harvested Harvested Grape Crop Mechanically Mechanically (tons) (tons) (percent) 1968 23,000 400* 1% 1969 38,000 9,500* 25% 1970 62,000 41,500* 67% 1971 72,000* 63,000* 87% Michigan Crop Reporting Service, Michigan Agricultural Statistics, July, 1971. *Estimated information supplied by Southwestern Michigan Processors. Mechanical harvesting of Michigan's 16,700 acres of grapes will eventually approach 100 percent with abandonment and/or replacement of undesirable vineyard sites. Low yields and market requirements may also preclude machine harvesting in certain instances. Thus, capital requirements and personal desires of growers and processors will influence the development of complete grape harvesting and~ handling systems. 1.4 Michigan Setting and Situation An era of mechanization has affected nearly every aspect of the food and fiber industries. The fruit and vegetable industry has been more resistant to change particularly due to the delicate nature of the product and the previous availability of abundant temporary farm workers. During recent years, the unavailability of seasonal laborers precipitated by mechanization of other fruit industries has accelerated the pace to design and develop new methods for harvesting grapes. The mechanical grape harvester which was in the developmental stages for a number of years, prior to the scarcity of labor, was introduced in Michigan in 1968. However, the development of the mechanical harvester is only a portion of the solution to the problem. Whittenburger (1970) states, concerning the mechanization of the grape industry: "The invention of a mechanical harvester for Concord grapes is but one step in the development of a complete harvesting system." Many handling systems are currently in operation delivering the grape product to the processor. The existence of many different handling systems and the possibility of new handling methods not yet employed have created uncertainty within the grape industry. II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Many external factors, such as abundant hand labor supply and small family acreages surrounding the grape industry, have combined to allow it to function in essentially the same manner as it has for the past thousands of years. The increased importance of external factors affecting the grape industry--such as the application of engineering techniques, the uncertainty of migrant workers, the changing attitudes of the family enterprise, the availability of research funds, and the changing consumer demand-has brought emphasis to mechanical harvesting. Fortunately, these external factors have played a desirable role in the mechanization of grape harvesting. 2.1 Stable Prices and Rising Costs The grape industry is inherently stable. Unstable gross return, unavailability of hand labor requirements and long vineyard growth characteristics create a business enterprise demanding care and development best supplied by the family enterprise. Business enterprises are by no means static, but the deletion of external resources normally drawn upon by the enterprise has caused growers to become increasingly concerned for their livelihoods Grape producers. as well as other agricultural researchers, are concerned with~ economic return affected by increasing costs and stable prices for their product. Stable prices and the consumers' desires for juice, requiring the crushing of grapes, can be reviewed in Table 3. TABLE 3--Michigan Production, Average Price Per Ton, and Disposition from 1936 to 1971 for Michigan Concord Grapes Year Average Production Home Total Fresh Juice Percent Price/Ton Use Sold and Crushed tons tons Wine Z 1936 36 34,600 2,610 31,990 1937 23 55,000 3,660 48,540 1940 25 38,200 1,900 36,300 23,360 1945 138 13,000 1,120 12,380 3,780 1948 98 27,000 960 25,040 7,020 1949 101 34,000 1,050 30,950 5,860 24,600 77 1952 96 40,000 700 38,300 6,100 21,800 55 1956 80 60,500 500 60,000 8,400 41,600 68 1958 100 50,500 400 50,100 5,500 43,600 88 1960 103 65,000 280 64,620 3,900 60,720 94 1961 101 33,000 250 32,750 2,900 29,850 90 1962 106 68,000 350 67,650 5,100 62,555 93 1963 146 33,500 300 33,200 2,445 30,755 92 1964 126 70,000 300 69,700 3,700 66,000 95 1965 90 71,500 300 71,000 3,350 67,850 95 1966 88 49,000 300 48,700 3,450 45,250 93 1967 119 39,000 300 38,700 3,100 35,600 92 1968 122 23,000 300 22,700 1,900 20,800 88 1969 158 38,000 300 37,700 2,200 35,500 94 1970* 145 60,000 1971* 100 65,000 Production and Average price/ton, 1936-1969, from Agricultural Statistics, U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1936-1969. *Estimated information supplied by southwestern Michigan Processors. The average price per ton for two 6-year periods, 1958 to 1964 and 1965 to 1971, was $114 and $120 per ton respectively, a 7 percent increase. Hand harvesting costs according to Harsh in (1968) and Kelsey in (1971) were $28.81 and $40.79 per ton respectively, a 41 percent increase in hand harvesting costs. The major economic question that grape producers face is: how much can I invest in a mechanical harvesting and handling system? The equipment necessary for mechanical harvesting essentially centers around the ownership of one particular piece of equipment, the harvester. The mechanical grape harvester was introduced for commercial operation in 1968, with initial costs ranging from $22,000 for a Mecca to $28,500 for a Chism-Ryder. The handling system has many alternatives, such as different handling methods, renting or leasing, purchasing new or used components, borrowing or joint ownership, and so on. With all these possible alternatives, the initial decision can be very confusing. 2.2 Unavailability of Labor Growing pains experienced by grape producers trying to stay competitive over the years increased the dependency of growers to available temporary labor supplies. However, during critical times, unavailability of labor has left the producer vulnerable to this dilemma. In the past, the migrant labor pool drawn to the state by other fruit and vegetable industries served as a source of labor for grape hand harvesting. Unfortunately, the source of migrant labor has dwindled with the introduction of pallet handling systems and mechanical harvesters for other fruit and vegetable crops. In addition, housing regulations for migrant workers imposed by recent Federal rulings to improve living conditions of migrant workers has caused grape producers to look in other directions for assistance. Finally, unsuccessful wage competition with other nonagricultural industries for local temporary labor has decreased the number of alternatives available. Thus, the uncertainties of obtaining labor during ' critical periods has created a need for refinement of managerial decisions for purchasing newly developed mechanical harvesting methods. 2.3 Future Predictions The harvesting of grapes as well as other fruit and vegetable crops has been highly dependent upon an adequate supply of family and seasonal labor. Project 80 (1964), created to study the prospects and potential for rural Michigan by 1980, made the following projections: General The important factor enabling farmers to increase production while experiencing a decline in farm population and land cr0p acreage will be more efficient use of fewer farm laborers operating larger and more efficient farm machines. The ability to handle large volumes of material with minimum labor, to maintain quality, to process mechanically, to feed mechanically, and to measure and weigh automatically, will require careful selection of equipment and considerable investment. Fruits and Vegetables Major changes in the mechanization of fruit crops will occur in harvesting and handling systems. Grapes It is estimated that nearly 90 percent of the grapes harvested in Michigan for processing will be mechanically harvested by 1980. Labor The actual number of workers in the labor force will be reduced by 60 percent from 215,000 in 1963 to . 89,000 . . . in 1980. Seasonal Labor Seasonal labor requirements will be reduced by nearly 64 percent from 53,000 to 19,000 workers by 1980. Cargill (1969) contends in his publication, "Fruit and Vegetable Harvest Mechanization-Technological Implications:" As research continues to develop more efficient, lower cost per unit mechanical harvesting techniques, fruit and vegetable growers will continue to substitute capital investment for labor in the reorganization of their enterprises to increase the output per man-hour. When one reviews the countless volumes of statistical data and records of the agricultural enterprise, mainly confined within the boundaries of many self-supporting farm units, it is easy to realize agriculture is built upon a solid foundation of scientific research, rapid technological development and expanding managerial abilities. Hence, grape producers will have to adopt developments and machines at a faster rate to stave off the cost-price sqeeze in hopes of lowering per unit cost and increasing net returns. Cargill (1969) also goes on to state, ...these more efficient, but expensive machines will permit growers more economical operation of larger holdings with less manpower resulting in more timely harvesting of their fruit and vegetable crops. These will include...handling systems. Unless the grape producer prepares himself knowledgeably to trends and finances, he will find it impossible to salvage his economic existence in the future. III. REVIEW OF LITERATURE The groundwork for any type of research rests upon the theories and approved testing and modeling techniques accepted by the Scientific Arts. In the development of comparison studies, the supporting discipline is economics. The purpose of this chapter is to review mechanical harvesting and studies completed by other researchers. The latter part of this chapter includes a concurrent study on the economics of mechanical harvesting at Washington State in 1970. In addition, several different techniques available for analyzing economic costs from a total system approach were reviewed and explored. 3.1 Current Harvesting Cost Knowledge Not until Shepardson (1957) in New York State was serious con- sideration given to the possibilities and problems concerned with the development of a feasible machine for grape harvesting. In 1959 Dominick's economic studies indicated that the harvesting costs for handpicked Concord grapes delivered to processors or wineries in the major grape producing areas of New York averaged $30 per ton. Of this total over 75 percent or $23 went for labor in picking, loading and delivering. The remainder consisted of fixed and varied costs for equipment and overhead. Again in 1968, Dominick stated the New York data indicated the harvesting cost for Concord grapes picked by hand and delivered to processors averaged about $35 per ton. The labor portion of this increased to over 85 percent of the total cost, more than - 10 - offsetting per unit labor and equipment efficiencies that were instituted during this time period. In Michigan, individual contact with grape growers and processor fieldmen indicated that out-of-pocket costs for hand harvesting ranged from $28 to $35 per ton. This of course did not include the additional overhead cost such as depreciation and use of equipment. Kelsey (1971) indicated in a grape study, "Economics of Grape Production in Southwestern Michigan," that total hand harvesting costs approached $40.79 per ton. Wages paid out to workers represented $32 per ton or approximately 80 percent of the total harvesting costs. During the period 1957 to 1967, prototype harvesters were being developed and tested by Shepardson (1969) on an experimental basis. During the 1968 season, the mechanical harvesting of grapes on a commercial basis became a reality in New York State with at least ten harvesters operating during the entire length of the harvesting season. TABLE 4--Mechanical Harvesting Data, 1968 (4 machines Chautauga County, New York) Days machines were operated 27 Hours machines were operated 323 Acres harvested 255 Tons harvested 939 Yield per acre (tons) 3.7 Cost per ton fixed $10 variable $11 TOTAL $21 per ton T. Jordan and B. Dominick, Jr. Economic Aspects of Mechanical Harvesting Fruit and Vegetable Harvesting Mechanization, Volume I, p. 593. B. F. Cargill and G. E. Rossmiller, Rural Manpower Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Records kept by the operators were summarized in Table 4 by Jordan and Dominick (1969) immediately after the 1968 harvesting season. The machines were used an average of 27 days and operated 323 hours during the harvest season. An average of 939 tons were mechanically harvested from 255 acres for an average of 3.7 tons per acre by each machine. 3.2 A Review of Another Study--Washington Dailey (1971), an agricultural economist at Washington State and his associates presented a paper to the American Society of Enologists (ASE), Palo Alto, California: "The Economics of Owning and Operating Mechanical Grape Harvester in Washington." Dailey's cost analysis was completed in the traditional agricultural economic technique using methods relying on total capital investments necessary, fixed costs, variable costs, breakeven analysis and straight-line depreciation for their analysis. In Dailey's study, he and his research associates were concerned with determining the costs of owning and operating mechanical grape harvesters and complementing systems at various harvesting rates. Dailey's major findings indicated an annual mechanical grape harvesting cost of $12.55 per ton or $84.83 per acre for a typical grape harvesting season of 1655 tons harvested on 245 acres. The breakeven point of 136 acres per season paralleled with the initial system cost of $54,055. Dailey was explicit in pointing out that not everyone who owns or is thinking of buying mechanical grape harvesting systems would have the same costs. Subcontracts for trucking, previously owned equipment used in the new grape harvesting system, and yield can affect unit cost and capital investment considerably. _ 13 - The conclusions reached by Dailey are very important; however, the input data is just as important for comparison of averages and ranges used in this study. For this reason, the following information includes data from Dailey's study for comparison purposes throughout the remainder of this thesis. 3.21 Capital Investment Capital investment costs for a system averaged $54,075 per system with one-half of this investment necessary for the harvester. Salvage value of $5000 and service life of five years was considered average due to the relatively high obsolescence rate of newly developed agricultural. mechanics. Table 5 gives an indication of the amount of depreciation that must be justified for each season. TABLE 5--Estimated Capital Investment and Depreciation Cost Required for Mechanical Grape Harvesting in Washington. Item Purchase Salvage Years of Depreciation Price Value Life Total Annual Harvester $27,000 $5,000 5 $22,000 $4,400 Tractors (two) 9,000 3,000 5 6,000 1,200 Trailers (two) 3,000 0 7 4,000 430 Trucks (2% tons) 3,075 1,000 5 2,075 415 Trucks (% ton) 1,000 150 5 850 170 Straddlebuggy 8,000 2,500 5 4,500 900 Washington Equipment 600 0 5 600 120 Bins 2,400 0 3 2,400 800 Total $54,075 $12,650 $41,425 $8,435 R. T. Dailey, R.J. Folwell, and R. C. Bevan, The Economics of Owningiand Operating Mechanical Grape Harvesters in Washington, Circular 540 Washington Agricultural Experiment Station, 1971. - 14 - Dailey also noted the possibility of reducing the capital investment for a system by subcontracting trucking and producer ownership of components such as tractors, washing equipment, bins, trucks, etc. 3.22 Harvester Performance Harvester owners operated their machines either 8 to 12 hours a day with 1 work shift, or 18 to 24 hours with 2 or 3 work shifts. With the high capital investment and short periods of time the machine could be used, it was important to operate the machine as many hours as possible during the harvesting season. Actual Operating time averaged 63 percent of the total time available, which included vineyard equipment relocating, servicing, repairing, labor breaks and washing. Down time averaged 36.5 percent with a range of 20 percent to 46 percent. Acres harvested per hour averaged 0.68 (acres per hour) with harvested yields of 5 to 12 tons per acre. 3.3 Analysis Techniques Many different methods for system analysis approaches exist depending upon the particular training of the authors. System engineers use dynamic approaches while agricultural economists may employ several methods, such as static modeling, synthetic firm approach, breakeven analysis, and fixed and variable costing. Agricultural engineers may employ feasibility studies and/or optimizing individual equipment or a total system. Regardless of the method employed, the importance of economically analyzing a machine or system cannot be overemphasized. _ 15 - 3.31 Materials Handling Post harvesting handling systems (materials handling) may be regarded as movement of the product to a new location. Pinches (1958) defined materials handling as any operation which changes the spatial location of the material without changing the form, except incidentally. Cost optimization of the materials handling system may be regarded as manipulation of the operations surrounding the harvester unit to obtain the lowest cost per unit. The increased interest concerning development of material handling systems has developed not so much because material handling has lagged in an absolute sense, but because it has come to the foreground as the next area needing development. Thus, every phase of handling systems should be regarded as a link in an integrated system involving functional Operations. Any individual operation could be a constriction on the efficiency or capacity of the whole system. Operating efficiency and capital investment costs are normally not in ideal balance in many handling systems. By taking the management viewpoint, we can investigate to understand better how to optimize handling systems and capital investment. Handling systems should be oriented toward operating efficiency by integrating equipment and labor into coordinated systems that reduce output cost per unit. 3.32 Economic Methods Ricks and Kelsey have authored many reports employing a fixed and variable cost structure analysis on the economics of vegetable and cash crop farming in Michigan. This type of analysis presents an accurate fixed and variable cost per unit of production if the equipment or land is purchased in one lump sum. However, many agricultural engineers question this depreciation method, eSpecially in the grape industry. Grape production is a family Speciality handed down from generation to generation and the likelihood of an individual establishing a profitable operation from scratch is prohibitive. Much of the support equipment necessary for the handling system is presently owned or is capable of being loaned or leased, or partnership possibilities exist. Table 6 indicates some of the many possibilities available to grape growers for choosing a system. The different combinations of mechanical harvesting and handling systems are numerous. With so many possibilities existing for system ownership, leasing, partnership, and renting, assimulating a realistic system becomes impractical. The major fallacy existing with most economic studies is the assumption that all equipment will be purchased new upon initiation of the system, when many times, in actuality, much of the equipment is already possessed by the operator-owner and only a portion must be depreciated toward the harvesting of the crop. The purchase of a new 2-ton truck to haul 400 tons of grapes to the processing plant is not desirable management practice when custom trucking of grapes is available for $3 to $5 per ton. Depreciation of fixed costs per unit can be misleading when capital investment is determined by situations not existing in the industry. 3.33 Model Development Review In general, the system analysis approach requires definition of the boundaries, inputs, outputs, assumptions and the computer model TABLE 6--Possible Economic Decisions Accompanying Many - 17 _ of the Components of a Mechanical Grape Harvesting and Handling System. Item Initial Rental Already Lease Salvage Service Cost Cost Own value life Range 10% Dollars Harvester 22,000 - - - 0-3000 3-7 to 27,500 Tractors 30HP 3,500 possible possible possible 300-500 6-10 55HP 6,000 possible possible possible 500-700 6-10 Trucks 1% ton $3-6ton* 10-12¢/mi possible 2% ton $3-6ton* lO-lZc/mi possible Trailers 200-600 - - - 50 5-10 Containers l8 cherry 50 ea $10 possible possible 0 3-6 tanks 720 total 12 plastic 87 ea lines 1032 total possible - 0 2-5 Totelift 2700 ‘ ‘ 270 5-10 High Pressure washer 300-1000 possible possible possible 30-100 5-10 Service vehicle 2000-3000 possible possible possible 200-300 3-6 Forklift conventional 3000-5000 350 mo. possible possible 300-500 6-10 rotary 4500-7000 500 mo. possible possible 450-700 6-10 *hauling cost, vineyard to processor framework. It is also important to define the interaction and equations. Computer models can be used for many different purposes, with the normal use being tedious calculations, recording payroll, etc. Computer models also can be used for simulation of systems designed to compare the effects of many variables influencing the system. Two types of simulation-~static and dynamic—-exist, McMillan and Gonzales (1965). Static simulation is the listing of input parameters for a once only situation and calculating the results. The fallacy associated with static simulation is that all variables remain constant during the analysis without considering conditions of uncertainty which prevail in the real world. Dynamic simulation attempts to deal with these interim period relationships and with the linkage of feedback mechanisms in the model design. The dynamic simulation technique has the following advantages over other techniques. 1. All possible system designs are evaluated in terms of interface between components. 2. The model is dynamic in structure providing a full impact of time elements and their relationships. 3. The model is sufficiently broad to allow a full interplay of all operational factors. The disadvantages are: 1. The high cost of seeking perfect information in terms of data collection and analytical structuring. 2. The overall complexity of the study often results in an inevitable communication barrier between technical and general management groups. 3. Extensive time is required to complete the study. 3.34 Machinery Feasibility Study Stout and Kline (1968) completed a study comparing the feasibility of different machinery systems harvesting tomatoes, asparagus, and cucumbers. In their paper, "Predicting Economic Feasibility of Mechanical Vegetable Harvesting Systems," Stout and Kline considered large numbers of possible hypothetical systems then selected the machine system most favorable from numerical output. Emphasis was placed on high cost items such as labor; capital investment; or manipulation of harvesting rate; and less significant variables such as taxes, shelter, repairs and lubrication lumped into percentages of total capital investment. Grouping of these low cost variables simplified programming. Relatively speaking, less critical variables have very little if any affect upon output data when compared to other more critical variables such as labor and capital investment. Tennes (1971) modified this feasibility approach in an apple study by incorporating a graphic plot routine deve10ped by Bakker-Arkema (1970) and Lerew. Their plot routine allowed a maximum of 5 output values to be plotted on an X-Y coordinate. IV. JUSTIFICATION FOR RESEARCH The grape industry is in a transitional state from hand harvesting to mechanical harvesting. The temporary unskilled labor normally utilized for hand harvesting can no longer be depended upon to harvest grapes in the traditional manner. Rising costs and stable commodity prices have caused grape growers to search for economic relief, particularly toward mechanical harvesting which is sweeping the industry. Efficient use of complex mechanical grape harvester systems depends largely upon the organization and utilization of the various components and labor. Thus, determining the per unit costs (breakeven points) for the various systems would be an asset to harvester operators. This would aid in the acquisition of components to deve10p a smooth and efficient mechanical grape harvesting and handling system. Michigan has produced an average of 92,400,000 pounds of grapes annually for the 5-year period 1967-1971. During this time the total annual value of the grape crop produced on 16,700 acres in southwest Michigan averaged $6.5 million. In the same period, the transition from hand harvesting to mechanical harvesting rose from 0 percent to 87 percent and will eventually approach 100 percent. Neither machinery cost and per unit cost knowledge supplied to the grower has kept pace with the acceptance of mechanical harvesting and handling systems. Equally important, the combining of labor and machinery components by growers into an efficient, lowest cost per unit functioning system implies assistance is needed by application of the systems approach. - 20 - - 21 _ The usefulness of the systems approach to machinery analysis can be readily adapted to the individual grower/operator/owner about to select a machinery system. Benjamin in his unpublished thesis (1968) indicated the primary steps required by the farmertn make a decision to select and purchase components for an optimum system as follows: 1) kinds of machinery needed, 2) capabilities of each machine, 3) alternative uses of capital, 4) determining the most important function of the system, and 5) capacities of the system. Based on this knowledge, the final requirements for an efficient machinery system are: a) recommended operation procedures for Specific system, b) time limitations that must be imposed upon completion of the job, and c) a and b must be accomplished in the least-cost manner. Fulfillment of these last requirements necessitates the systems approach in order to determine the "most" efficient machinery system for a given enterprise. However, as Conner (1967) points out, changing levels of technology require "...continuous planning in order to maintain an efficient machinery system for any given farm." Through a study of existing and experimental mechanical grape harvesting systems, a comparative breakdown (income possibilities, profitability) of these systems may be analyzed. Therefore, the following questions regarding mechanical grape harvesting are of interest to grape growers, processors, extension specialists, and researchers: 1. What acreage is necessary to provide a profit comparable to that which the operator might earn by hand harvesting his crop? 2. What are the relative profits of the many alternative systems now available to the developing and expanding mechanical harvesting systems? 3. What are the individual machinery and machine operating costs for different size operations? 4. What is the minimal labor requirement necessary to operate a mechanical harvesting system when substituting for hand harvesting methods? The grape grower is faced with several alternatives, ranging from system ownership to custom hiring or partnership with another grower. An economic feasibility study requires cognition of these operating costs (direct), ownership costs (indirect), expected years of service, machine capacities, custom rates, interest rates, salvage values, etc. Thus, for comparison to existing mechanical harvesting systems, the development of an experimental system which would maximize recovery, minimize handling costs, reduce labor and result in an economically sound system for the grape industry was explored. V. OBJECTIVES 5.1 Overall Objectives The overall objective of this study is to provide to persons in the grape industry pertinent information relative to costs and investments associated with various mechanical grape harvesting systems utilized in southwestern Michigan. Specifically, this study is directed toward determining income possibilities (breakeven points) for the grape operator under different labor usages, harvesting systems, yields, and acreage allotments. 5.2 The Specific Objectives of this Study are: l. 2. Determine current hand harvesting costs for comparison with mechanical harvesting costs. Define the existing mechanical harvesting systems and determine the current operating costs. Describe the experimental mechanical grape handling system. Determine the factors most critical when acquiring a mechanical grape harvesting system. Determine the breakeven (income possibilities) points for existing mechanical grape harvesting systems vs. the hand harvesting method. Determine the breakeven points (income possibilities)between the experimental and existing mechanical grape harvesting system. - 23 - VI. FRAMEWORK AND PROCEDURE This chapter contains the framework and procedures used to evaluate the relative profitability of alternative mechanical grape harvesting and handling systems in southwestern Michigan. There are three parts to this chapter: 1) the equipment and system development, 2) data procurement, 3) computer prOgram development. 6.1 Equipment and System Development 6.11 Mechanical Harvesting Definition This study is concerned with the general grape harvesting methods available and their affects on the income producing ability of the different harvesting and handling methods available, both existing and experimental. Specifically, the study is concerned with income variability due to the management of various services, labor, machinery and capital. For the purpose of this study, a mechanical grape harvesting system is characterized by the methods employed to remove the grapes from the vine and to deliver them to the processing plant. This also includes all activities carried out by the harvesting crew such as rinses, washing, repairs, delays, field moves, etc. 6.12 Field System Definitions 6.121 hand harvesting Figures 1 and 2 on page 25 illustrate the traditional method used to harvest grapes before the introduction of mechanical grape harvesting in Michigan in 1968. - 24 - -25- Figure 1. Traditional Hand Harvesting Technique Employed for Grape Harvesting Prior to Mechanical Harvesting. Figure 2. Conventional Method Employed to Transfer Concord Grapes from Vineyard to Processing Plant Prior to Mechanical Harvesting. - 26 - SYSTEM I -- Traditional Hand Harvesting: The conventional or traditional hand harvesting and handling system utilizes 40-1b. grape lugs, seasonal labor, forklift for lug pickup, and trucks for hauling. Cost evaluation for hand harvesting was obtained from interviews conducted with vineyard owners. These data were compared with data available from other grape producing states. These data are essential to determining breakeven acreages between hand harvesting and mechanical harvesting. 6.122 existing mechanical harvesting systems A basic mechanical harvesting system consists of the mechanical harvester unit and paralleling vineyard trailer unit operating in the vineyard as a team. Harvested produce was delivered to the processing plant after shaking by various size containers and trucking methods. Current methods consist of handling the grapes in steel or plastic lined pallet containers, approximately 1 ton capacity. Existing mechanical harvesting methods basically classified as plastic lined pallet and cherry tank containers are represented by a system designation of Systems II and 111 respectively. Figure 3 on page127 represents System 11 with a Chisholm-Ryder self—propelled harvester conveying grapes into plastic lined pallet containers. On the vineyard trailer observe the worker necessary to guide the Spout into the containers. Figure 4 illustrates System III and pictures cherry tanks on a flat bed stake truck ready for delivery to the processing plant receiving hopper. SYSTEM II -- Mechanical Harvesting into Plastic Liners: The existing bulk pallet container system is filled in the vineyard, transferred from the vineyard wagons by fork; lift to a truck, hauled to the processing plant, and dumped by rotating forklifts into the processing plant receiving hopper. Equipment required: .‘ .g) ." 'J~ . Figure 3. Existing Mechanical Grape Harvesting System II in Operation in Southwestern Michigan Utilizing Plastic Lined Pallet Containers to Transport Harvested Grapes to Processing Plants. .. -.I~ Figure 4. Existing Mechanical Grape Harvesting System 111 in Operation in Southwestern Michigan Utilizing Cherry Tank Containers Instead of Plastic Lined Pallet Containers to Transport Harvested Grapesto Processing Plant. - 28 - Harvester Containers (l6) Tractor(s) Vineyard trailers Support unit Trucks Forklift a. Conventional - field b. Rotating head - plant SYSTEM 111 -- Mechanical Harvesting into Cherry Tanks: Identical to System 11 except this system utilized 22 cherry tanks instead of 16 plastic lined wood pallet containers. The reason for additional cherry tanks is due to their load capacity of 1500 lbs., approximately 500 lbs. less than plastic lined wooden pallet boxes. Equipment required is essentially the same as for System 11 except more cherry tank containers are necessary for adequate capacity. 6.123 experimental handling system design Two experimental mechanical harvesting systems were developed. System V, utilized 3-ton self-dumping vineyard trailers and 8-ton capacity bulk tank trucks. System IV utilized the 8-ton bulk tank trucks but eliminated the self-dumping vineyard trailers and inserted the vineyard trailer, pallet containers and field rotary forklift to dump pallet containers at the field. Figure 5 illustrates System IV, the technique of utilizing a field rotating head forklift to discharge the contents of pallet containers into 8-ton bulk tank trucks. System V is shown in Figure 6 utilizing a 3-ton self-dumping vineyard trailer working with a pull-type Mecca harvester. SYSTEM IV -- Mechanical Harvesting Utilizing Cherry Tanks and Bulk Tank Trucks: The same as System 111 except at the vineyard the cherry tanks are dumped by a rotating head forklift into 8-ton bulk tank tran8port trucks. Equipment required: Harvester Support vehicle Tractors Wash unit Tank trucks Vineyard trailers Forklift - rotating Containers (6) head _ 29 _ S -ur-!I:: p- - 5' -r'o .\ _S ~ '- - K .rv ‘ . _. - ,.‘i;k(4 .t Figure 5. Experimental Mechanical Harvesting System IV in Operation in Southwestern Michigan Utilizing the 8-ton Bulk Tank Trucks and Rotary Head Field Forklift to Empty Pallet Containers. Figure 6. Experimental Mechanical Harvesting System V Utilizing Totelifts and 8-ton Bulk Tank Trucks. This New Bulk Handling System Requires a Self- dumping Vineyard Tank Trailer Instead of the Conventional Pallet Containers and Vineyard Trailers. _ 30 _ SYSTEM V -- Mechanical Harvesting Utilizing Hydraulically Operated Dumping Units (totelifts) and 8-ton Bulk Tank Trucks: A new bulk handling system requiring a self-dumping vineyard trailer (totelift) instead of the bulk boxes and vineyard trailer. The grapes are harvested into the 2- to 4-ton self-dumper and dumped at the vineyard into the bulk tank truck. In this system the forklift and its operator plus the numerous pallet type containers are eliminated. Equipment required: Harvester Support vehicle Tractor(s) Wash unit Tank truck(s) Totelift(s) 6.13 Equipment Procurement and Modification for the Experimental System Two self-dumping vineyard trailer units (hereafter referred to as totelifts) were supplied by the Pixall Manufacturing Company. During preharvest trials, modifications were made to these units and the units were epoxy painted. The modification consisted of shortening the tongue and welding the seams to make the hopper liquid tight. A Farmhand self-dumping trailer was also modified to hold grapes in the vineyard as an emergency reserve unit. Figure 7 shows a totelift discharging into an 8-ton bulk tank truck. Two 8-ton bulk Cherry holding tanks were modified, epoxy painted, and mounted onto 2 hydraulic stake deck trucks. Modification included the design and construction of a tank opening. A tank rear door was designed liquid tight for tran3portation from the vineyard to the processing plant and to control the flow of product from the tank during dumping. Exterior tank splash shields were added to direct the grapes into the receiving hopper. The tank interior was modified by the insertion of baffles at the 2 rear corners to aid in self-dumping. - 31 - .QJQ I Figure 7. Self-dumping 3-ton Vineyard Totelift Discharging into an 8-ton Capacity Bulk Tank Truck (System V). Figure 8. Bulk Tank Truck Discharging into a Michigan Processing Plant Receiving Hopper (System IV or V). - 32 - For sanitary reasons canvas covers were installed for use in the vineyard and during transportation. Figure 8 illustrates the 8-ton bulk tank truck discharging grapes into the processing plant's receiving hopper. 6.2 Data Procurement Technique Data for the research analysis were collected on data sheets during the 1970 Concord grape harvesting season in southwestern Michigan. The actual data sheets used in southwestern Michigan are in Appendix A. Following is a discussion concerning the technique used to record data. 6.21 Time and Motion Study Preliminary data gathered prior to the harvesting of the main grape crop, the Concord variety, established a base to develop the coded data sheet for the time and motion study (Bower 1970) and record forms. The coded data sheet standardized terminology for day-to-day recording and aided in the final summary of the time and motion study. The coded data sheet and record forms were tested during the mechanical harvesting of several small plots of Delaware and Niagara grapes about a week in advance of the main Concord harvest. Data for this study were collected during the harvest of the Concord variety, which normally begins approximately September 15. The physical spread of system equipment made it impossible for one man to analyze the total system while in operation. However, within each mechanical harvesting system, 3 natural subactivity groups existed: harvesting, field grape transfer, and trucking. -33- To utilize the time study sheet for the recording of time and rapid recurring events, the code previously developed was memorized. If optimization of daily tonnage is to be achieved, recording operational delays within each hour to harvest grapes from the vine is also important. The delay headings are listed as: breakdown, maintenance, wash, rest period, container change and synchronization of trailer. 6.22 Field Data Sheet During the preharvest testing of the mechanical harvesting system, a field data sheet was developed for recording additional information, such as weather conditions, cultural practices, condition of the vine- yards, and labor utilization. 6.23 Truck Data Sheet The assistance of the truck drivers to record the movement and delays in the transportation of the grapes to the processing plant was also necessary. The truck data sheet contains records of such major items as trip length in miles and time, container type transported, grape weight, and truck identification. 6.24 Post Harvest Survey A post harvest questionnaire developed and personally administer- ed due to time limitations which prevented development of a self- administrative type questionnaire, and a personal desire to meet with grape growers to discuss variations with any question was to gather additional information on items such as harvest totals, financial arrangements, leasing or rental arrangements, and important observations and opinions made by operators during the season. - 34 - Appointments were arranged for personal visits with the selected owner to complete the post harvest survey form. The questionnaire and summary sheet compiled immediately following the harvesting season are in Appendix B. 6.3 Computer Program Development The use of a computer to facilitate the analysis of data can simplify the complex problem of comparing the many possible mechanical harvesting systems. To simplify the investigation of the 4 mechanical harvesting systems, the nuclei for the computer program originated from a feasibility study of a mechanical vegetable harvesting system study by Stout and Kline (1968). The advantages of the economic analysis technique utilized by Stout assigned values to many non-varying factors of fixed and variable costs and included them as a percent of initial or total capital investment. Particular data, such as interest, shelter, taxes, etc., is readily available from previous economic studies. Tennes (1971) modified this feasibility approach in an apple study by incorporating a graphic plot routine capable of graphing output variables on a single graph. This plot routine developed by Bakker-Arkema and Lerew (1970) allows l to 5 variables to be chosen from the main program and plotted. The program and basic equations used in the computer subprogram along with the symbols and description of the function are given in Appen— dix D and E. The main program consisted basically of the graph routine used for graphing chosen variables. Limited numerical data output _ 35 - was printed--in particular net return machine, net return hand pickers, and breakeven point--to verify the graph function. 6.31 Cost Structure The costs are divided into 2 groups--variable (operating) and fixed (ownership). Variable costs differ with increased or decreased acreage harvested per year. Fixed costs vary indirectly and are those costs for which the owner must pay whether the equipment operates or not. Such costs are depreciation, taxes, insurance, shelter, etc. The separation of costs into fixed and variable is important from a management point of view. Variable costs per ton or acre, which normally refer to operating expenses such as gasoline, grease, labor, repairs, etc., remain fairly stable per acre regardless of acreage harvested per season. This is very important to operators in deter- mining cash outflows during the short harvesting season. Machinery fixed costs, on the other hand, are long-term investments and are generally referred to as the depreciation,and storage costs over the number of acres the system is accountable for in a season. 6.32 Source of Data Much of the data used in this study was drawn from the questionnaire completed after the completion of the Concord grape harvesting season. With the program capable of comparing hand and mechanical harvesting within the same computer run, all initializing values common to either system are listed in Appendix C. A With 36 potential computer input variables to be regulated within a chosen range, grouping of these variables into classes for discussion was appropriate. - 36 - Hand harvesting values, such as potential yield, seasonal acreage, preharvest production cost and price of commodity can be located in Appendix C, Table 1. During the season potential mechanical harvesting acreages ranged from 50 to 450 acres per season. With mechanical harvesting costs indirectly related to acreage, acreage is chosen as a variable and utilized for the X axis on the computer output. Hand harvesting costs remain relatively stable per ton regardless of yearly acreage and can be indicated as a horizontal line equal to the current hand harvesting cost on the output graphs. Potential yield ranges from one-half to 10 tons per acre with reports of 12- and l4—ton yields on several selected plots. The average yield for 1970 was 3.58 tons per acre. Various output graphs were computed, changing potential yield from 2 to 10 tons per acre in 1 and 2 ton increments. Price of the commodity per ton ranges from approximately $88 to $158 per ton, depending upon the yield. Increased yields normally accompany decreased prices paid for the commodity. Preharvest production cost per year was established at $150 per acre from a study completed by Harsh in 1967. The adopted program incorporated comparison of hand and mechanical harvesting costs per acre. Appendix C, Table 2 contains the variables pertinent to cost analysis of hand harvesting. Direct, daily out—of-pocket costs for temporary hand pickers averaged $28 to $33 per ton, depending on the yield. If a large crop was harvested, hand picking costs per ton decreased. 4 Rental rates for a forklift and trucking rates were introduced for hand harvesting systems when appropriate. Seasonal rental for a - 37 - conventional forklift cost approximately $350 per month. Trucking costs ranged from $3 to $6 per ton with a chosen value equal to $5 per ton. The discrete resources, (Appendix C, Table 3) mainly equipment, are purchased in a Specific size. Equipment of this type makes up the physical aspects of a mechanical harvesting system and can be under-utilized. Such items as bulk tanks, pallet containers, trucks, and tractors are purchased as a unit to complement the total system. Some of the equipment and values are: totelift, $2700; bulk tank, $800; and plastic lined pallet containers, $87. A range was established for each of the divisible resources with raw data values used for computer computation. Such items as repairs, maintenance, lubrication, fuel cost, interest, taxes, insurance and shelter are calculated as a percent of capital investment for the system and originate from a mechanical harvester feasiblity by Stout (1969). Other mechanical harvesting variables, such as rental leasing, wages, service life, horsepower, and trucking rates, were obtained from data compiled from a post harvest survey conducted during the 1970 grape harvesting season. Appendix C, Table 4 lists the harvester and handling systems' efficiency factors utilized for determining the effective field capacity analysis. Recording of the individual functions and increments for each machine established the ranges, averages and values utilized in the effective field capacity study. Product loss was observed but not recorded due to a time limitation. Efficiency factors such as trellis length, number of harvesters, wash time, etc. were recorded as divisible values. VII. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS This study recognizes the problems plaguing grape growers in selecting a suitable mechanical grape harvesting and handling system. Although the magnitude of investment for the mechanical harvester normally was greater than 75 percent of the total capital investment for a mechanical harvesting and handling system, there are certain unique characteristics associated with management's decisions which rendered difficult the management of available information. Some of these characteristics recognized in this study are: 1. Rapid technological developments in machines without accompanying per unit cost data. 2. Calculation of breakeven points (income possibilities) for different investment levels for mechanization. 3. Economic comparison between different mechanical harvesting and handling systems--both existing and experimental. 4. Determining the economics feasibility of introducing an entirely new and simplified handling system. This particular chapter is divided into various sections to develop fully the variables indirectly affecting managerial decisions. The development of the concepts behind many of the following sections would have been more difficult without computer assistance. The items discussed in this chapter are as follows: 1) effective field capacity, 2) effects of unequal variables, 3) other variables, 4) discussion of the systems, 5) importance of labor, 6) options, and 7) breakeven points. _ 33 - - 39 - 7.1 Effective Field Capacity Determination of the best size and type of equipment to develop a complementing grape harvesting system involves measurement of the factors influencing optimization of a system. Harvester efficiency has a large effect upon per unit cost or breakeven points. Factors which determine system efficiency include total acreage involved, total time available, capacity of the machine, size of machine and compatibility between operating units. The effective field capacity of an implement is the actual rate of coverage of the field by thenmmhine based upon the total time in the field, Bowers (1970). Certain factors, such as adjustments, lubrication, breakdowns, turning at the ends, plugging, or synchroniza- tion of companion equipment, are additive and combine to decrease harvester efficiency. During the study 3 distinct harvesting time periods were observed in Operation-~1, 2 and 3 work crew shifts per day, depending upon the acres harvested per season. Little variation in field efficiency was observed between the 3 operating time periods. A11 3 working time periods relied upon preventative maintenance techniques to stabilize delay time in the vineyard. One particular harvester operator realized over 99 percent harvester availability, harvesting over 535 acres in 17 days with only 2 hours of downtime forfeited to mechanical breakdown delay. During the field survey, 4 variables were observed to limit effective field capacity, as follows: 1) delay per hour hopper change or synchronization of harvester and trailers, 2) delay per hour for washing, 3) delay per hour, for mechanical and managerial delays and 4 delay per - 40 _ hour for turning at the end of row. The effective field capacity for the harvester in this particular situation ranged from 19.6 to 63 percent of the possible theoretical harvesting rate. Table 7 illustrates the relationships of these delays to acres per hour. Dailey in his Washington study of the mechanical grape harvester stated that the effective field capacity averaged 63 percent. With the relative newness of the machines and preventative techniques utilized, minor delays were minimal. The factors included in "mechanical and managerial delay" are as follows: vineyard to vineyard move time, breakdown time necessary to communicate effectively, and other minor incidentals such as the author talking to the harvester operator. This delay normally included all stoppages of the mechanical harvester not appropriate for other delay headings and appeared to be directly related to organization of the operator. The average mechanical and managerial delay was 14 percent with a range of less than 1 percent to greater than 20 percent. The frequency of washing depended upon several factors, including weather, temperature, sugar content, malfunctioning parts due to stickiness and recommendations by grape processors. Depending upon conditions, harvester operators normally implemented a major wash cycle every 8 hours of operation with a minor wash or rinse every 4 hours. The major wash time ranged from 20 to 60 minutes with an average of 40 minutes for a complete wash. The minor rinse or wash ranged from 10 to 25 minutes with an average of 16.5 minutes, depending upon the washing equipment available. During the wash periods, preventive maintenance was performed by the rest of the crew reducing the necessity for MPH Row length Row width Wash time Delay time/hr mechanical management Hopper change delay/hr* Turn time delay/hr Total delay percent Effective field capacity percent (lOO-TDP) If theoretical field capacity 2.1A/h equalled 100% Effective field capacity .41A/h acre/hour - 41 - TABLE 7--Effective Field Capacity for 3 Different Size Mechanical Harvester Operations and 2 Different Row Lengths, 320 Ft. and 2640 Ft. 9/hr/day l8/hr/day 24/hr/day 1 crew workshift 2 crew workshift 3 crew workshift 'L7mm1 lflmm Lhwh ILhwh Lflmm Lhmh 320 ft 2540 ft 320 ft 2640 ft 320 ft 2640 ft 10 ft 10 ft 10 ft 10 ft 10 ft 10 ft 13.8% 13.8% 13.8% 13.8% 16.7% 16.7% 11.1% 11.1% 5.6% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 9.4% .8% 4.2% 1.7% 4.6% 1.6% 4.3% 46.4% 5.6% 46.4% 5.6% 46.4% 5.6% 80.4% 42.0% 75.8% 37.0% 77.7% 40.7% 19.6% 58.0% 24.2% ’ 63.0% 22.3% 59.3% 2.1A/h 2.1A/h 2.1A/h 2.1A/h 2.1A/h 1.22A/h .51A/h 1.35A/h .48A/h 1.28A/h *Potential yield 4 ton per acre - 42 - separate time periods to be set aside for maintanence. The wash delay time to the harvester averaged 13 percent of the time available for harvesting. Hopper change delay refers to the delay caused to the harvester during changing of vineyard trailers used for operation parallel to the harvester. It is directly related to the potential yield of the vineyard and container size (both in capacity and in the container's opening dimensions). The delay time necessary for hopper change averaged 30 seconds per ton regardless of the system employed and was usually caused by repositioning of the harvester spout from a full container to an empty container. Thus, with an average harvesting rate in 1970 of 3.58 tons per hour, 1.75 minutes per hour were devoted to delays caused by spout change. Therefore, the average delay caused by hopper change approximated 3 percent with a possible range of 0.5 to 6 percent depending upon yield. Harvesting delays caused to the harvester while turning depend entirely upon two factors: field configuration (row length) and time required for maneuvering and synchronization of the harvester and vineyard trailer for the return row. Since turn delay time is more affected by synchronization delays and not end travel time, effective field capacity will actually decrease if harvester speed is increased for the same field conditions. During the 1970 grape harvesting season, turn time ranged from 30 seconds to 2 minutes per turn with an average turn time of 1 minute per turn (regardless of harvester row speed). Trellis or row lengths ranged from 60 ft. to 3100 ft. with an average 756 ft. per trellis length. Accountability of turn - 43 - delay time depends largely upon row length and mph of the harvester. Field data indicated delays caused to the harvester for short rows (200 ft. or less) could be greater than 50 percent of available harvesting time. For long rows (3100 ft) with normal harvester operating speeds of 1.7 mph, delays caused to the harvester could be less than 3 percent of available harvesting time. Effective field capacity will increase as improvements to the vineyarcb and the systems are implemented, such as easier turning, leveler and better headlands, longer rows and better coordination of the work crew. 7.2 Effects of Unequal Variables Incorporated Within the Systems Accuracy of output results of system analysis, particularly when comparisons are made between four different systems, requires recognition of the variations between systems. System analysis comparison is valid only if the parameters are equal or the effects of the differences are noted in the evaluation. Visualization of the system being analyzed as a matrix or flow chart of activities taking place in a defined time span can help to draw a mental picture of the activities within the system. Not until all the input and output parameters have been recorded and all the internal workings of each system charted can combination analysis of systems commence. If the definition of grape harvesting is "harvesting and handling" the termination point must be determined for the handling system. Some systems have a natural breaking point such as before unloading of the pallet boxes (as in the case with Systems II and III) at the processing plant. Concurrently in Systems IV and V the natural cost termination existed with the grape juice and pulp unloaded from the truck. - 44 - The advantages realized by processing plants when switching to bulk handling basically consist of elimination of plant labor, forklifts and forklift operators. The reduction in plant expenses by elimination of two rotary forklifts and l to 3 men per shift represents a substantial amount. Cost reduction in forklift rental of $1000 per forklift per season and labor cost of $1800 (25 days, 24 hours per day,and $3 per hour) are possible by switching to bulk handling. However, for the purpose of this study cost computation will be defined as before the dumping or unloading point. This cost reduction is an additional benefit to plant processors when switching to bulk handling. Equipment necessary for processing plants to switch from pallet boxes to bulk handling essentially consists of rearranging existing equipment and construction of an unloading ramp to receive hydraulic tilt dump boxes. A second area of concern is centered around the initial harvester cost of $23,500 for the self-propelled Chisholm-Ryder harvester and $22,500 for the pull-type Mecca harvester. The field advantages are well known to the grape producer. However, cost advantages are not; and for economic comparison, ownership and operating costs were calculated for each. Calculation of ownership and operating costs for 300 acres totaled $31.63 per acre for the Chisholm-Ryder machine and $29.13 per acre for a Mecca harvester. The initial capital investment cost for the Mecca can be very important for the small grower; however, for the commercial operator the extra conveniences for the self-propelled unit may be desired. Table 8 gives an ownership and operating cost breakdown for the Chisholm-Ryder and Mecca harvesters. as - .uoo: you mums wcmumo>umz .ow. an ooHHaHUHoE a 00H ooom mH.o x Nm.o om. x Noe x as oo Hw.H mm.H oo.qu oo.ooH oo.omH oo.~mN ecuomua x ooom N ooom OOONH ooom om.a mo.o ooH . Mn so oomuu oo. x mm.o Nm.0 ON. x Nmm. x a: on mm.na 0H.mH oo.omNm oo.om¢ oo.oom oo.oqmm No. x OOmNN oooa oomNN ooooN oomNN mo. x 0mm x moomz m~.~m o¢.oH oo.¢ oh.m mo.o mo.o om. s an“. x as we no.HN qo.w~ oo.mNmo oo.omm oo.quH oo.m~mq umoo meow ouom\umoo wcwumuoao was ownmuoaso ku09 open use umoo wcfiuouoao honed ooa .XII so oomoo muamomm mo. x no.o pauses one Hao Hana oumoo meflumuomd ouom poo umoo ooxwws poo: poo umoo ooxwm uwo>\umoo ooxwm Hmooa No. x oomom .meH xmo . llnmu oo x oomom .aeH oooom .uoao XIIIII omm oomoN :OwumHoono amoxmleHOEmaao mumoo maemuocso .umow pom wouo< Hon no muaom 0mm moumuooo acuoxue one woos: some HHsm one new woozmnefionmasu ooaaooouaumaom one .msoumo>umm ucouommwa N now usom pom mumoo mewuonoao was awnmuossoanw mqm57 give mechanical harvesting cost per ton based on potential yields of: 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10 tons per acre and a harvesting rate equal to 1 acre per hour. Yearly acreages range from 50 to 450 acres; and system investment levels, from $24,000 to $40,000. The cost per ton can be used as a known or unknown value, depending upon whether it is used for determination of mechanical harvesting cost or for comparison between hand, custom or ownership cost. Figure 15 represents the cost for mechanical harvesting of grapes with calculated values for per acre basis. 7.33 Product Recovery Evaluation of product recovery was not attempted during the 1970 grape harvesting season. Published data on grape harvesting recovery are non-existent. Plans are being made to evaluate grape recovery in the coming season. In the adopted computer simulation model utilized for the economic analysis, provision for insertion of a product loss factor 57 - .coomom pom mopo< new umoo soummm wouuwo>umm HmwowcH an voocmoamcH om cmwwnuwz pneumosnooom ea aoomuo whoocoo you wave» «0 ueoocoaoocw ouohmm Hmowomeooz .mH showed 893% Mum 93.9324: mauve. Om¢ 00¢ Own con omN CON OmH GOA mm 1 u d 1 N N J11 4 ON III . on 1 fl / n00» / N m . on . co 4 oh . ow . ca . cod . ooo.¢~ nan . ooo.~m -N- i oaa ooo.o¢w In: HmOU Zmfimwm Aum= Hmowamsomz coma >um>oomm oooooum ucooumm Om m mo mocooflmcu .oH shaman zomeom mmo ooemm>e<= mmmoe one ooo own oom omm ooN oma ooa - 1 . fi 1 d 1 ii an / muo>ooo- . No3 J Eoumhm ooo.osm . ooou moauuo>uon cu mmmouocu Nnm umoo umo>um£ a“ ommouoaw Nmn 59 - huo>ooom soumxm NooH ooo.Nmm huo>ooom Noe on 1 Ow nu ON mm on an o« N01 83d SHVTTOG ISOO DNILSHAUVH TVDINVHOEN - 60- 7.4 Discussion of the Systems In the development of a mechanical grape harvesting system, several factors appear to guide decisions made by harvester owners. To develop a system it is important to set goals or to indicate what is to be the optionized cost, acreage per season or harvester efficiency. The concern of the grape industry was to develop and adopt a sound grape harvesting system capable of delivering quality grapes to the processor with costs comparable or less than any system currently in use. The basic philosophy utilized for system comparisons was to maximize net return by minimizing per unit costs through manipulation, addition, or subtraction of men, machinery or capital investment. 7.41 Existing Harvesting and Handling Systems Determination of per unit cost for the existing mechanical harvesting systems, cherry tanks or plastic lined pallet boxes evolved around the conception that labor requirements differed little between cherry tanks or pallet boxes and harvester efficiency could not be increased noticeably by the addition of more workers. Per unit cost would also increase noticeably if ownership costs increased by the addition of new equipment instead of utilizing existing equipment or leasing unowned equipment. Accurately speaking, per unit costs increased proportionally as total capital invest- ment increased. The figures discussed earlier on potential yield show the relationship between capital investment, yearly acreage harvested and per ton costs. -61- The major advantage of the existing harvesting system is manipula- tion of initial capital investment. By the inclusion of existing equip- ment into the mechanical harvesting and handling system, it is possible to defer capital investment at the expense of additional labor. Hence, it was possible for some multi-diversified operations (harvesting grapes, apples, cherries, etc.) to utilize existing fruit containers and equip- ment as the handling system, avoiding major additional capital outlays beyond the harvester purchase. Thus, the major advantage to existing mechanical harvesting systems is the deferral of large sums of additional capital investment for the handling system. The 2 major disadvantages of the existing harvesting and handling system are coordination of labor and the excessive amount of equipment and, secondly, acquisition and night operation of a heavy duty forklift. In the existing systems grape pulp is transferred to the processing plant in l-ton capacity pallet containers with dust covers. The continual coordination of full and empty pallets,movement of the harvester equipment from vineyard to vineyard and erratic work requirement surges require a larger work force than necessary to operate the harvesting system. To facilitate night transfer of pallets from vineyard trailers to trucks, the vineyard trailers were often transported considerable distance to better lighted farmstead yards for unloading. Vineyard moves per Season averaged 23.8 in 20 days and ranged from 18 to 58 moves for the operators surveyed, moving an average 2 trucks, 2 trailers, harvester, forklift, support vehicle, wash unit, - 62 - and 16 containers. This moving was accomplished by approximately 4 to 6 men and required frequent looping back of the work crew. 7.42 Experimental Harvesting and Handling System V With the development and eventual field testing of the experimental bulk handling equipment, it was possible to simplify many of the short- comings of the existing systems. In particular, the reduction in equipment numbers decreased manpower surges during vineyard relocation. Secondly, the large 3-ton capacity self-dumping vineyard totelift eliminated l6 pallet boxes, 1 field and 1 processing plant forklift, and 2 forklift operators. Thirdly, the self-dumping totelifts eliminated extensive time needed to load a truck ready for return to the processing plant and could be accomplished in any vineyard conditions negotiable by the harvester. Additional advantages not evaluated in economic values are ease of totelift operation in severe weather conditions, large size of receptive opening for harvester Spout, and ease of grape transfer. During the operation of System V (experimental) the dumping time cycle for a loaded totelift to dump in bulk tank truck nearby (same field and headland) averaged 2 to 3 minutes with skilled operators. This time begins at harvester spout discharge termination to harvester Spout operation on a new row. With the elimination of pallet boxes and the maximization of harvester harvesting time, it was thought that 2 totelifts per harvester or at least 3 totelifts to every 2 harvesters in the same field would be necessary to avoid costly delays to available harvesting time. - 63 - During the testing of the experimental grape harvesting SystanV, the author observed that under certain conditions the work crew was actually operating with only 1 totelift without a decrease in effective field capacity. During the conception of the experimental system 2 totelifts were considered essential per harvester. A review of the delay factors revealed the dumping cycle time for a loaded totelift to discharge 4000 to 7000 lbs. of grapes into a stationary bulk tank truck averaged 2 to 3 minutes. With a harvester reposition time of 0.5 to 2 minutes per turn, a possible delay to the harvester of 1.5 to 2.0 minutes existed per dump. Seasonally, this delay would represent 2.8 hrs. or 4.2 hrs. for 600 tons harvested seasonally. The delay to a larger operation would be 5.6 hrs. and 8.4 hrs., harvesting 1200 tons seasonally. This does not take into consideration that every fourth dump would occur during a wash cycle causing no actual delay to the harvester. If such factors as timeliness and long rows are non- applicable, some mechanical harvesting systems could operate satisfact- orily with l totelift. With this increased flexibility for matching harvester and handling systems to different size operations, additional possibilities are provided for harvester owners. With this capability it is now possible to operate System V with only a harvester, totelift, wash, support vehicle and 2 trucks depending on the plant dumping delay time and distance to the plant. The original experimental System V was expanded to Option C, and E withiidesignation of Option D for the experimental System V. The original experimental System [V was expanded to include Option B a derivative of experimental System IV also redesignated as Option B.(See Option 7.6, pg 66). _ 64 _ 7.5 Labor Labor usage normally is a large part of any grape harvesting system. Traditionally, hand harvesting represented 80 percent of the total hand harvesting costs and an average picker could harvest 1200 lbs. daily. Thus, it was essential to hire approximately 26 pickers to hand harvest 100 acres per season. With the introduction of the mechanical harvester, labor requirements were reduced substantially. However, the workers utilized in mechanical harvesting required more mechanical skill than hand pickers. In 1970 the machine operators utilized in mechanical harvesting consisted mainly of grape growers, their family and year round help. During the study 3 distinct harvesting periods existed. The labor requirements did vary between the l, 2 and 3 work shift operations. The labor utilization for the existing mechanical harvesting system con- sisted of 1 harvester operator, 2 vineyard trailer operators, 1 box tender, 1 forklift operator, and 1 truck driver. In selected cases additional workers such as truck drivers, or maintenance personnel would increase the total number ofvunmers per system. Similarly, jobs could be combined, or a reduction in vineyard tractor operators was possible. In 1970 in southwestern Michigan the existing mechanical harvesting system worker requirement averaged 5.4 workers per shift. The range of workers required in an existing system ranged from 4 to 7 workers. In the operation of System IV, labor requirements paralleled the existing mechanical harvesting systems in most cases. However, if the elimination of 12 to 16 pallet containers, a one-half reduction in forklift operation time, and reduced labor time for pallet box tie down could be instituted, an advantage to some operations existed. The Operation of the forklift by the vineyard trailer operator or truck driver was feasible. This would represent a l worker reduction over the existing mechanical harvesting system and could represent a $375 to $1224 per season labor reduction for 100 and 450 acres reSpectively. The assignment of labor to each function in the experimental mechanical harvesting System V consisted essentially of l harvester operator, 1 totelift operator and 1 truck driver. In some cases a general assistance worker was available to pick up work surges, Spell the harvester operator or handle repairs. In 1970, the average number of workers for System V was 3.5 workers per crew shift. The range for the number ofworkers utilized in System V was 3 and 4 reSpectively. During the harvesting season in 1970, variations in labor require- ments within each system existed. Labor requirements between systems varied as discussed previously. Some of the factors influencing labor requirements within a system consisted of acres harvested per season, number of work shifts per day and coordination and efficiency of the grower's Operation. Between the systems, labor reductions for the experimental systems consisted basically of 1 less worker for System IV and 2 fewer workers for System V. A strong correlation existed within a system between the number of workers and acres harvested per season. These classifications could be labeled as small, medium and large or commercial size operations. The small operation consisted of a family operation harvesting 75 to 150 acres per season with a reciprocal labor agreement for custom harvesting services rendered to a neighbor. The medium size operation represented the majority of the grower operations in southwestern Michigan in 1970. The yearly acreage ranged from 150 to 300 acres per season and consisted of a 2 shift work crew. The commercial Operation consisted of a 24 hr., 3 work crew set-up harvesting over 300 acres per season. In most instances a 1 worker difference existed between classifications. Table 10 Shows the differences between different systems and within a given system. TABLE lO--Comparison of Labor Requirements for Various Sized Operations Using Systenm II and III Labor Requirements as the Base for Determining Labor Requirements of the Experimental SystemsIV and V. *Size Classification of Operation and Number of Workers Per Shift. SYSTEM SMALL MEDIUM LARGE II and III 4 workers 5 workers 6+ workers IV 3+ workers 4 workers 5 workers V 3 or less 3+ workers 4 workers * Assuming effective field capacity between systems is not affected by the worker reduction. 7.6 Options The number of possible combinations of equipment for system design are infinite. With so many possibilities available to grape growers, breakeven points were developed. These breakeven points between the existing and experimental system are determined by trading off capital investment for labor cost. Hence, the reduction in the - 67 - forklift operation and labor must economically meet the additional annual cost incurred for the bulk handling system equipment. Five options (A, B, C, D and E) representing possible experimental systems were developed. The total ownership and operating costs per season for the additional equipment required in the experimental, and eliminated in the existing, systems were calculated for each option. The ownership costs included depreciation, interest, repairs, taxes and insurance; operating costs included gas, oil and maintenance. The physical aSpects, labor requirements, investment levels, and annual costs, are listed in Tables 11, 12, and 13 for the 5 options. Option A. System IV, minimum requirements. The essential equipment consists of a rotating head forklift, 2 8-ton bulk tank trucks and a vineyard trailer. Option A is used basically for Small operations (4 tons per acre or less, short hauls). Option B. System IV, long distance hauling. The essential equipment is identical to Option A except for the addition of l bulk tank truck and a vineyard trailer. Option B is used basically for operations larger than indicated in Option A (long hauls, long rows, heavy yields, 4 tons per acre or greater). Option C. System V, minimum requirements. The essential equipment consists of 2 bulk tank trucks and a totelift. This option is used basically for small operations (short rows, yields 5 tons per acre or less, short hauls, use of vineyard headland for grape transfer to bulk tank truck). Option D. System V. The essential equipment is identical to Option C except for the addition of l more totelift. This Optionvvould function best in vineyards with extremely long trellises, heavy yields 5 tons per acre or greater and in vineyards where grape transfer from totelift to bulk tank truck is not possible in the immediate area. Option E. The essential equipment consists of 3 bulk tank trucks and 2 totelifts. This option is best utilized by the 24 hr. or commercial operation. Many alternatives exist for justification: long rows, high yields, long hauling distances, 2 harvesters in average or below average yields, etc. Table 11 represents the physical similarities and differences among 2 existing systems and 5 options. Costs for the existing systems were calculated at 150 and 300 acres per season for comparison with the different options. Labor was assigned depending upon the acreage harvested per season and for each Operation requiring a worker. In some situations 1 man could be assigned two positions. This of course is arbitrary and depends upon the individual grower's operation. The important use of Table 11 is not total number of workers but differences between chosen systems or options. The physical requirements for equipment were based upon records and observations made during the 1970 Concord grape harvesting season in southwestern Michigan. The number of pallet containers choSen represents actual systems in operation. Determination of bulk tank truck numbers are assigned to situations parallel to existing systems. - 69 - The totelifts are a key factor in developing 3 options (C, D, E) parallel to existing systems. TABLE ll--Physical Aspects for Determining the Breakeven Points Between the Existing (Systems II and III) and Experimental Mechanical Grape Harvesting (Systems IV and V) Expanded to Options A,B,C,D,E - Existing Experimental 11 and III (small or large) 4 5 Plastic lined or cherry Rotating fork- Totelifts pallet containers lift and bulk and bulk tank truck tank trucks Options Small Large A B C D E Labor requirements1 (8-18 hr) (24 hr) Harvester operator 1 l l l l 1 1 Trailer driver 1 2 l 2 l 2 2 Box tender 1 1 1 1 Forklift Operator2 1 1 Truck driver 1 2 1 2 l 1 2 Equipment Forklift Conventional l 1 Rotating head 1 l Pallet container3 16 22 6 9 Bulk tanks (8 ton) 2 3 2 2 3 Truck hoists 2 3 2 2 Totelifts (7000 lb cap) 1 2 2 1. Labor requirements vary depending upon the situation; consequently the author's conservative judgement was utilized assigning values to the Options. The important concern in assigning workers to a system is noting the difference between existing and experimental and not total workers. 2. For Options A and B it is essential that in some situations a forklift operator may or may not be needed. An analogy would be a half boy to operate the forklift. This decision to pay a forklift Operator or combine jobs determines the income potential as negative to positive respectively. 3. Two values were assigned to the number of pallet containers in direct relationship to the number 1%- to 2-ton trucks required per system. The value of the plastic lined pallet containers was $87 each. For the Options A and B, cherry tanks valued at $50 each were assigned. Table 12 contains the initial investment costs for various options and cost of equipment affected in the analysis of the existing system. Labor costs of $3.00 per hour for all workers, except the harvester operator who received $4.00 per hour, were assigned to the various workers. The various investment for each type of equipment (pallets, etc.) depends upon the number required for each option. The determination of the annual costs for each of the 5 options and the 2 existing systems are exhibited in Table 13. Labor the major operating expense is utilized as a breakeven variable to compare with additional annual cost for the 5 options. Operating expenses play an insignificant role in determining the breakeven points between the existing and option systems. The various values, labor and annual costs, utilized in determining ownership expenses for the different options are the most important factors in determining income potential. In all cases except Option E, the breakeven point was less than 150 acres for a 2 worker reduction represented in Table 14. Option B showed the greatest income potential of $1718 per season with Option D showing a negative income potential of $742 per season. It should be noted that in Option D l worker was included with the second totelift, but the option still compared to the same 150 acres small operation. If the worker is not included or Option D is compared to the large 300 acre operation, the income potential is minus $137 and plus $1768 res- pectively. - 71 - TABLE 12--Investment or Labor Differences for Determining the Breakeven Points Between the Existing (Systems 11 and III) and Experimental Mechanical Grape Harvesting (System IV or V) Expanded to Options A, B, C, D and E. Existing Experimental 11 and III (small or large) 4 5 Plastic lined or cherry Rotating head Totelift pallet containers forklift and and bulk bulk tank tank trucks trucks Options Small Large A B C D E (8 or 18 hr) (24 hrs) Labor costs seasonal Harvester Operator 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Trailer driver 3.00 6.00 3.00 6.00 3.00 6.00 6.00 Box tender 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Forklift Operator 3.00 Truck driver 3.00 6.00 3.00 6.00 3.00 3.00 6.00 Equipment Forklift Convent1ona1 350 350 Rotating head 450 450 Pallet containers3 1376 1892 300 450 ($86 per plastic container) Bulk tanks (8 ton) 1600 2400 1600 1600 2400 ($800 each) Hoist ($400 each) 800 1200 800 800 1200 Totelifts (2700 each) 2700 5400 8100 1. Labor costs include social security and workmen's compensation. 2. Rental fee for 1 month: conventional $350 and rotating head forklift $450 . 3. Initial cost for plastic lined pallet container $87 a piece and service life of 4 or 7 years depending upon use (small or large operation). If cherry tanks are utilized, investment costs of $1100 and $1650 would be substituted for the plastic liners. (22 x $50 and 33 x $50). - 72 - TABLE l3—-Annual Costs for Determining the Income Potential (Breakeven Points) Between the Existing (Systems 11 and III) and Experimental Mechanical Harvesting (System IV or V) and Extended Options A, B, C, D, E. II and III(sma11 or large) 4 5 Plastic lined or cherry leatating head Totelift pallet containers forklift and and bulk bulk tank tank truck trucks Small Large Options (8-18 hrs) (24 hrs) A B C D E Hours 175 350 175 350 175 175 350 Acresl Acres 150 300+ 150 300 150 150 300 Labor Costs2 Harvester operator 700 1400 700 1400 700 700 1400 Trailer driver 525 2100 525 2100 525 2100 2100 Box tender 525 1050 525 1050 Forklift Operator3 525 1050 Truck driver 525 2100 525 2100 525 525 2100 Total Annual Labor 2800 7700 2275 6650 1740 3325 5600 Cost Equipment4 Forklift Convent1onal 350 350 Rotating head 450 450 Pallet containers 379 558 64 95 BU1k tanks(8 ton) 688 1032 688 688 1032 and hoiSts Totelifts(7000 583 1166 1166 lb capacity) Total Annual Equipment Cost 729 908 1192 1577 1271 1854 2198 1. Two acreages chosen for the existing systems 150 and 300 acres. This corresponds to 175 hrs or 350 hrs per season (175><.87 acres per hour etc.). - 73 - Labor costs represent total wages paid to each worker for his responsibility in the system. The operation of the forklift in Option A can normally be carried out by either the truckdriver or the vineyard trailer operator depending upon the situation. Annual equipment costs were calculated with the following values and method: RMLH (repairs, etc.) = 4% R(interest) = 8% TIS (taxes,insur.shelter) = 1.5% CIH SVH SLH initial salvage service cost value life Totelift $2700 10% 8 yrs Bulk tanks 800 10% 5 yrs Hoists 400 10% 5 yrs Plastic lined 87 0% 5 yrs pallets Cherry tanks 50 10% 8 yrs SVH SVH CIH ' ' 100 R (CIH +(1oo )(cmn COH = + — SLH 100 2 TIS RMLH +(100) (CIH) + ( 100 (CIH) Forklift values are assigned on a one month leasing basis. The conventional forklift leases for $350 per month and the rotating head forklift for $450 per month. _ 74 - TABLE l4--Income Potential for the Five Options _, Existing, Experimental 11 and III(sma11 or large) 4 5 Plastic lined or cherry Rotating head Totelift pallet containers forklift and and bulk bulk tank tank trucks trucks Options Small Large A B C l) E (8 or 18 hr) (24 hrs) Labor 2800 7700 2275 6650 1740 3325 5600 Equipment 729 908 Option 1192 1577 2171 1854 2198 Equipment eliminated (729)(908)(729) (908) (908) Total Annual Cost 3529 8208__ 2738 7319 2282 4271 6890 Income potential +$79l-+1289+247 -$742 +$l718 when switching to a particular option 7.7 Breakeven Points The determination of breakeven points between the existing and experimental mechanical grape harvesting and handling systems depends upon depreciating of additional equipment against labor reductions inherited in the options (System IV or V). The annual costs for the various affected components are listed in Table 13 along with annual labor costs. Breakeven points between existing systems and the 5 options fluctuated widely depending upon 1 factor, number of workers eliminated (l or 2). This factor, when adopting any option, would double or halve the acreage breakeven point. This factor was influenced strongly by classification or sizing of an operation as small, medium and large or job double up. The normal worker reduction as discussed in labor was 1 less worker for System IV and a 2 worker reduction for System V. If no worker reduction existed, the additional yearly cost for any option would be equal to the annual cost for option equipment and equipment eliminated (System II or III). This condition normally would not exist, but the cost data is available in Table 13. To determine the breakeven points for 1 or 2 worker reduction, Figure 17 represents the seasonal acreage necessary. Option A2 and E1 have the lowest and highest breakeven acreage. As more harvesters are introduced into the grape industry, Option C with breakeven points at 79 and 158 acres will be preferred by the family or partnership grower. Option D will be preferred by growers having unusual factors such as long rows,heavy yields or remote vineyards. Option E will be preferred by the commercial grower. 76 - .uuasm pom mumxuoz N no H mo acuuusvom a co venom Emummm umm>umm mam“: amowcmsomz Hmucoswuonxm cam wcaumwxm ecu cmmzumm AmcoHuao use pomV mucwom cw>mxmmum .NH ounwwm ooe own con omN oou on“ ooa on 11 a 4 a d u T . a u an an a Ho «a H< x\\\\LxV. -L\ onsopnmm mmmmmmxwzo \\\\\\ \ ZOHHODQNM MNMMO3 OBH and «u «an Hm n smH «a «am an n as No and Ho 0 ma Na qaa an n he ~< sna ~< < zoneoaamm onaoanmm £22 «memos 86... «memos onEo zm>m cap 14¢ .1114) zm>m mzo o cow ooo~ coma ooou oomN SNHISLS TVINEHIXZJXZ GNV SNILSIXH 513391.139 NOSVEIS 213d I300 XOEV'I NI 335181135316 -77- It is assumed every situation where decisions by the grower are made concerning selection of a method for harvesting grapes, variations in value of important input values exist. A selected situation representative of the grape industry, with the following important variables, indicated a cost per ton for mechanical harvesting to approach $30 per ton for 100 acres, $32,000 investment in new equipment, and expected 4-ton yield. If yield, investment or acreage increased or decreased, harvesting costs would vary appropriately. Acreage breakeven points between hand and mechanical harvesting varied depending upon the local hand harvesting costs per ton and projected total investment in new equipment for a mechanical grape harvesting and handling system. For a selected situation with hand harvesting costs equalling $32 per ton and initial capital investment of about $32,000, the projected breakeven point would be approximately 80 acres. This breakeven point would be for vineyards yielding 4 tons recovery per acre. If local conditions increase or decrease average yearly yields, the breakeven point between hand and mechanical harvesting varies inversely. For lO-ton yields the breakeven point is substantially less than 50 acres. For 3-ton yields the breakeven point increases to approximately 125 acres. Acreage breakeven points between existing and experimental mechanical harvesting varied depending upon the levels of labor reduction possible vs. increased capital investment for more mechanization. If the seasonal work crew for the experimental system was reduced by 1, the breakeven point for no increase in the cost to the producer for Option C (l totelift) was approximately 158 acres. However, if 2 - 73 - seasonal workers could be eliminated by adoption of the experimental system, the breakeven acreage approximated 79 acres. VIII. SUMMARY This research study evolved from the introduction of an experi- mental mechanical Concord grape harvesting and handling system and included an economic comparison of hand and existing and experimental mechanical harvesting and handling systems. The following objectives were cited: 1. Determine current hand harvesting costs for comparison with mechanical harvesting. Define the existing mechanical harvesting systems and determine the current Operating costs. Determine the factors most critical when acquiring a mechanical grape harvesting system. Determine the breakeven (income possibilities) points for existing mechanical grape harvesting systems vs. the hand harvesting method. Describe the experimental mechanical grape harvesting system. Determine the breakeven (income possibilities) points between the experimental and existing mechanical grape harvesting systems. In 1970 an economic analysis was made of Michigan Concord grape harvesting and handling systems (including 4 mechanical and 1 hand harvesting system). The mechanical systems included 2 conventional systems of semi-bulk handling and 2 totally new bulk handling systems. data. A computer assimilation was made of field and survey Three economic variables (harvesting rate per hour, percent recovery, and potential yield) were determined to have the greatest - 79 - - 80 - economic effect on the cost of mechainical harvesting and handling. Ricks indicatedthat in 1970 hand harvesting costs in Michigan ranged from $28 to $32 per ton excluding ownership and operating costs; Kelsey reported that total costs for hand harvesting in 1970 were $38.60 per ton. Hand harvesting costs are expressed on a per ton unit basis and costs are not influenced by potential yield as is the case with mechanical harvesting. Mechanical harvesting and handling involves a substitution of capital for labor, therefore owners and/or Operators of mechanical harvesting systems are interested in the economic breakeven acreages and income potentials in comparison to hand harvesting. The results of this study indicated mechanical grape harvesting was profitable for most conditions above 70 acres per season. The experimental handling system employing a hydraulically dumped vineyard wagon could be justified due to inherent labor reductions. The study indicated the experimental system could be recommended for growers harvesting 90 acres or more per season. IX. CONCLUSIONS 1. In 1970 the hand harvesting costs averaged $38.60 per ton. The average for 1970 and 1971 was $39.70 per ton. 2. The existing mechanical harvesting and handling system consists of a mechanical harvester, field forklift, pallet containers, trucks, tractors, trailers, washing, support vehicle and labor in varying numbers. The current mechanical harvesting costs varies from more than $100 per ton to less than $12 per ton. For example, a particular system with initial investment of $32,000 for a harvesting and handling system, harvesting a potential yield of 4 tons per acre and 100 acres per season, the cost is $26 per ton. 3. Three factors influenced the per unit cost extensively; they are harvesting rate per hour, potential yield and product recovery. 4. Breakeven points between hand and mechanical harvesting vary depending upon potential yield. However for a particular mechanical har- vesting system investment of $32,000 the breakeven point is 65 acres when harvesting a potential yield of 3 tons. 5. The experimental mechanical harvesting and handling system con- sists of 1 harvester, totelift(s), 8-ton bulk tank truck(s), tractor(s), labor, combination wash and support vehicle. 6. The breakeven points between the existing mechanical harvesting system (System II or III) and experimental (System IV)options A and B are 134 and 194 acres respectively with a l worker reduction. The break- even points for experimental (System V) Options C, D and E are 79, 139 and 187 acres per season with 2 worker reduction. - 31 _ REFERENCES Bakker-Arkema, F.W. and L. E. Lerew. 1970. "A Modified Version of CDC Printer Plot Routine Graph."Unpub1ished paper. Agricultural Engineering Department, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Benjamin, C. L. 1968. "An Economic Analysis of Alternative Means of Acquiring Farm Machinery Services for Southern Michigan Grain Farms." Unpublished Thesis. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. page 75. Bowers, W. 1970. ”Modern Concepts of Farm Machinery Management." Stipes Publishing Company. Champaign, Illinois. SBN 87563-011-1. Cargill, B.F. and C. E. Rossmiller. 1969. "Fruit and Vegetable Harvest Mechanization." Rural Manpower Center. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Vol. I pp 5-8. Connor, Larry J. 1969. "Cost and Returns for Major Cash Crops in Southeni Michigan.” ggricultural Enonomics. Report No. 87. Department of Agricultural Economics. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. , Dailey, R. T., J. R. Folwell and R. C. Bevan. 1971. "The Economics of Owning and Operating Mechanical Grape Harvesters in Washington." Circular 540. Washington Agric. Exp. Station. College of Agriculture Washington State University. Dominick, B. E. and R. S. Smith. 1959. "Costs and Returns Chautaugua County Grape Farms 1956, 1957, 1958." Agricultural Engineering Research. 28. New York State College. Dominick, B.E. and T. D. Jordan. 1968. "Conversion and Operating Inputs and Costs Associated with Geneva Double Curtain Training of Grape Vines.” Agricultural Engineering Extension Bulletin. 498. New York State College. Engyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 1972. William Benton Publisher. The University of Chicago. Vol. 10. Jordan T. and B- Dominick Jr. 1969. "Economic ASpects of Mechanical Har- vesting." Edited by B. F. Cargill and G. E. Rossmiller."Fruit and Vegetable Harvest Mechanization." Rural Manpower Center. Michigan State University, E. Lansing, Mich. Vol. I. pp 272-297. Kelsey, M.A. 1971. "Economics of Grape Production in Southwestern Michigan." _gricu1tural Economics Report. No. 196. Department of Agricultural Economics. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. - g3 - McMillan, C. and D. Gonzales. 1965. "Systems Analysis, A Computer Approach to Decision Models." Irwin Series in Quantitative Analysis for Business. Richard D. Irwin, Inc. Homstead, Illinois. "Project 80 - Rural Michigan - Now and in 1980." 1963. Research Report No. 48. Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Ricks, D. J. 1968. "Grape Production Costs in Southwestern Michigan." Agricultural Economics Report. No. 95. Department of Agricultural Economics. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Shepardson, E. S., N. Shaulis and J. Moyer. 1969. "Mechanical Harvesting of Grape Varieties Grown in New York State." Edited by B. F. Cargill and G. E. Rossmiller. 1969. "Fruit and Vegetable Harvest Mechanization." Rural Manpower Center. Michigan State University, East Lansing,Michigan. Vol I. Stout, B.A. and C. K. Kline. 1968. "Predicting Economic Feasibility of Mechanical Vegetable Harvesting Systems. Transactions of ASAE. Vol. II. No. 3. pp 353-4-5-9. Tennes, B. R. and J. H. Levin. 1971. "Feasibility Study on Mechanical Apple Harvesting in Michigan. American Society of Agricultural Engineers. Paper No. 71-116. Wittenberger, R. T. 1971. "Bulk Handling of Concord Grapes for Processing, Quality Evaluation. ASAE Paper No. 71-373 B. APPENDIX A _ 84- TIME STUDY Machine Time Start Date Time Finish Recorder Sig. Pg.__ of __ pages Weather TIME CODE DESCRIPTION TIME CODE DESCRIPTION -85- FIELD DATA SHEET Process Murch Welch Mich Winery Weather Sunny Warm Cold Drizzle Raigy Date Plot Ident. Size of Plot Variety Concord Row Width Row Length Vine Spacing Mileage to Plant (One Way) What system is being analyzed? 1 2 3 4 5 Type of harvesterzMecca, GR? Are trellises in good, fair, or poor condition? Type of terrian? Level Rolling Hilly Number of trellis wires? 1 2 3 Height mfi1_______ " Max ". Field conditions: Dry, wet, odd rows, triangkashaped field, short turning area, small loading area, etc., List equipment used;(Boxes included) 1 3 5 2 4 6 8 How many people involved? What is the duty of each? wage? 1 $ $ 2 $ 8 $ 3 $ 9 $ 4 $ -——-——- 10 $ 5 $ 11 $ 6 $ 12 $ Comments Score Card Number of boxes loaded 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Pix-All Dumps 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Truck Loads 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DATA SHEET - TRUCK Name Truck Number Date ( Your Name ) Plot or Ident Name Mileage to Plant Goods delivered to Murch, WelchL Mich. Wineries? What type of container? Plastic lined; Cherry, Tank truck Time : Load departed for plant, and Weigh in Weigh out Ir a k: Time Study for the MICHIGAN CONCORD GRAPE RESEARCH FUND CODE SHEET Date: September 18, 1970 harvester Pixall unit one Pixall unit two Truck one Truck two Forklift field Forklift Plant Cart (wagon and trail) unit one Cart (wagon and trail) unit two HARVESTER PIXALL TRUCK HO HH HT HS I5 PO PDD PT PD_ _ 1 2 _88_ THE CODE harvester operate harvester harvest harvester turn harvester stOp E-essential l = 2. N-nonessential Pixall operate Pixall dump Pixall travel E l 2. N truck operate truck travel truck weight truck wash B bolts FU'UKL‘WW L line wait breakdown full container jockey maintenance plug rest-cig Note:Stop=Shutdown for the day! Notes to identify one of two trucks the make or some other number and call truck one T, and truck two the next letter in the alphabet U.U, this necessary for computor differiation likewise with the Pixalls and carts and forklifts. Vehicle number two,wi11 the next letter in the alphabet Pixall one P Pixall two Q Cart one C Cart two D Forklift one F Forlift two- G FORLIFT FIELD CART(wagon or trailer) -89 - FO forklift operate empty , FL _ full 11ft empty FRI_ full return box FD E 12 1N 2'2 FJ jockey - FS stop _ B CO cart operate GP cart park for loading and un CE cart empty CD E 12 1N 2' CS cart stop F0 for% operate emp y . FL full 11ft FJ fork jockey FD fork dump FWW fork wash empty FR full return box FD___ l E 2, g 1 2 E breakdown rest delay breakdown full plant capacity no trucks to empty - 90 - HO Operate E essential HD_ _ delay 1 N nonessential 2. B breakdown l 2 F full container HH harvest J jockey HT travel M maintenance HS 'stop P plug R rest cig Note: -— Time study starts at predetermined time. PD E essential Complete dump cycle I'2' N nonessential HT to PDEJ-travel PDD dump PDEJ to PDD-jockey PT travel PDD to PDNH-dump PDNH to PT-wait PS stop PT to HH-travel Note: It is not necessary to time Pixall or cart when it is part of the harvester Operation, only from full load condition to empty rest condition. Any delay by Pixall will be listed as a (HDNJ,HDNF,etc,) harvester delay TE to T TE fill time TE empty TT to TDN travel time TT travel TDNL to TW delay time TD_ _ 1 E 2 TW to TDNL weight time 1 2 N '3 bolts TDNL to TD delay time L line TD to TWW dump time TW weight TWW to TDEB wash time TDEB to TW door bolts time TWW wash TW to TT weight time TT to TE travel TE to TT fill time - 91 F0 Operate FL lift FT travel FR place on truck FS stop E FD_ _ l N 2 l 2 J jockey R rest FO FL FT FP FS FD_ __ 1 N 2 l 2 J jockey R rest CO operate CP part for unloading CE empty E CD _‘_ Delay 1 N 2. ___ 1 2 HT to GP travel GP to CE unloading CE to CDNW wait CANW to HH travel FO Operate FL lift FT travel FD dump FWW wash FR return box FS stop FD_'_ 1 2 ___ _L_ _R_ rest ._2_ plant delay _jL_ wait for trucks APPENDIX B -92.. GRAPE MECHANIZATION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE MICHIGAN CONCORD GRAPE RESEARCH FUND MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY/U.S.D.A. RESEARCH TEAM THE SURVEY Harvest Operation Personmfl Requirements Breakdown & Delays Vineyard Data Problems Encountered Future Plans for Operators This questiowmfire directed to grape harvester operators will be used to obtain labor and cost variables in conjunction with time study data collected during the 1970 Concord grape season. October, 1970 Persomel Requirements How may work shifts? (1, 2, 3) Manpower per shift? Shift 1 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Shift 2 (l, 2, 3, 4, 5, Shift 3 (l, 2, 3, 4, 5, Number of part-time workers? a C!) v hrs. per shift (4, 6, 8, 10, 12). hrs. per shift (4, 6, 8, 10, 12). hrs. per shift (4, 6, 8, 10, 12). U 00 v U AO‘O‘O‘ U \JNN U 00 v V 0 List assignment How many hours per day did you plan to operate the harvester? ( hrs.) How many hours did you actually work per day? ( hrs.) How many people working are? family ( ) permanent hired help ( ) relatives ( ) local help ( ) other farmers ( ) migrants ( ) Do you see a future decrease in the availability of qualified labor?(Yes, NO) Do you have this qualified help available when needed?(Yes, No) 000me O 10. DO you see a need for someone to initiate training programs for skilled operators?(Yes, NO) Labor Cost Analysis: Shift I Shift II Shift III . Harv Operator . Forklift No. Salary No. Salary No. Salary Cart Operator Box Tender Operator Truck Driver Maintenance Other II 4. Harvest Containe Forklift Trucks Harvester r pds ..94 - _Eguipment List and Costs of Operations 1. Make and Year: (G R, Mecca 68, 69, 70) 2. Power Unit ( ) (Gas, Diesel) 3. Tachometer hours ( ) Cost: Do you (own, lease) your harvester? What is the approximate cost or value? ($ (Plastic Liners or Cherry Tanks)‘ Did you use covers? (Yes, No) No. of Containers: Plastic (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, Liners 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30 ) Cherry (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 Tanks 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30 ) Cost: DO you (own, rent, borrow) your containers? What is the cost or value of these containers?(§_, ) Did you (own, rent, or lease) your field forklift? size ( ) 4 wheel or tricycle g2 or 42 make ( ) front or rear (front, rear) wt ( ) cap ( ) year ( ) Cost: Own ( ), Leased ( ) How many trucks per harvester? (l, 2, 3, 4, 5) Cost ( )/ton How many trucks do you own? (0, l, 2, 3, 4, 5) Cost ( ,_)/ton How many trucks do you leasé(0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Cost ( )lton Independent trucker? (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Cost ( )/ton How many boxes to each truck? Truck NO. l (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, Truck NO, 2 (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, Truck No. 3 (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, Truck No. 4 (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, l4, l6, vvvv' 5. Trailer 6. Support Vehicle 7. Cleaning Equipment - 95 _ 2 wheel or 4 wheel trailer? (2,4 both) How many 2-wheel trailers (l, 2, 3) How many 4-whee1 trailers (l, 2, 3) How many boxes do you place on each unit? Unit 1 (1, 2, 3) Unit 2 (1, 2, 3) Unit 3 (l, 2, 3) (1) $ Cost: Did you (make or buy) these units? Value (2) $ (3) $ What type of support vehicle? (Pick-up, Truck, Car) Is it adequate to carry all the equipment? (Yes, No) What do we have on this vehicle? Welder (yes, no, would like, hot required) Tools (yes, no, would like, not required) Parts (yes, no, would like, not required) Clean Up (yes, no, would like, not required) Cost: Do you (own, rent, borrow) this support vehicle? What is the value or cost? ($ ) Cleaning Equipment Use? 1. Garden hose & brush (Yes, No) 2. Roller pump (Yes, NO) 3. High pressure sprayer (Yes, No) PSI water pressure ( psi) Spray heads/gun (1,2,3). No. of guns? (1,2,3) Approximate gals.of water consumed per clean-up? (25, 50, 75, 100, 125, 150, 175, 200)’ Do you use detergents to assist clean up? (Yes, No) How many times per day did you clean up? warm day (l, 2, 3, 4, 5) Cold day (l, 2, 3, 4, 5) 5. Trailer 6. Support Vehicle 7. Cleaning Equipment - 95 _ 2 wheel or 4 wheel trailer? (2,4 both) How many Z-wheel trailers (1, 2, 3) How many 4-wheel trailers (l, 2, 3) How many boxes do you place on each unit? Unit 1 (l, 2, 3) Unit 2 (l, 2, 3) Unit 3 (1, 2, 3) (1) $ Cost: Did you (make or buy) these units? Value (2) $ (3) $ What type of support vehicle? (Pick-up, Truck, Car) Is it adequate to carry all the equipment? (Yes, NO) What do we have on this vehicle? Welder (yes, no, would like, hot required) Tools (yes, no, would like, not required) Parts (yes, no, would like, not required) Clean Up (yes, no, would like, not required) Cost: DO you (own, rent, borrow) this support vehicle? What is the value or cost? ($ ) Cleaning Equipment Use? 1. Garden hose & brush (Yes, NO) 2. R011er pump (Yes, No) 3. High pressure sprayer (Yes, NO) PSI water pressure ( psi) Spray heads/gun (1,2,3). No. of guns? (1,2,3) Approximate gals.of water consumed per clean—up? (25, 50, 75, 100, 125, 150, 175, 200)‘ DO you use detergents to assist clean up? (Yes, No) How many times per day did you clean up? Warm day (l, 2, 3, 4, 5) Cold day (l, 2, 3, 4, 5) -96... The average time required for cleanmup? 1 Minor (5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 3o, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60) Max ) Min ( ) 1 Major (5, 10. 15. 20, 25, 3o, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60) Max ( ) Min ( Cost: Do you (own, lease, borrow) your Clean-up unit? What is the cost or value of this unit? ( ) Grower , Cost How did you determine grower cost? ton acre both max mix Fuel Fuel Costs (Total) COSC Harvester Other Vehicles III Breakd n & De How many major breakdowns (1 hr. or more) did you encounter? ( ) Cause of breakdown? Operator Error Vineyard Fault Machine Fault List a few and time required to repair and cost? 1. 2 3. z, How may minor delays (of 1 minute to 1 hour) encountered? Cause of breakdown? Machine Fault Vineyard Fault Operator Error IV -97- List a few: time lost, correction: 1. 2. What do you estimate total time lost to breakdowns for the season? hrs. What do you estimate total time lost to delays accounted for? hrs/day DO you normally set aside a maintenance period for each day? (Yes, No) If yes, hrs. (1, 2, 3, 4) Haryest Data How many days did your harvester operate this season?( ) days How many acres did you harvest this fall? ( ) acres First time mechanically harvested? ( ) What was the average yield lacre ( tons) Lowest (______tons) ‘Best Q______tons) How many times did you move this fall? ( ) Longest distance moved ( mi), Ave. ( ). How long was the time delay for the harvester during field to field moving? Ave_ Min. Max. To move the complete system? Ave, Min. Max. How did you move your equipment from vineyard to vineyard? 1. Car crew 2. Tow extra equipment 3. Best way possible Was ample turning room available? (Yes, NO) How much distance do you need?( ft.) How much distance do you want?(_- ft.) Was an adequate loading area provided nearby? (Yes, No) If no, how large an area do you need? - 98- Did terraces cause you any problems? (Yes, No) Will you harvest terraces next year?(Yes, NO) If no, what do you recommend? How long was the Average trellis?( ) Shortest trellis?( ) Longest trellis?( ) Check the requirements you like to see in a vineyard. Type of floor practices: Trellis conditions: Sod & mowed Wires: Max. __” Not hilled Min. " Weeds cut in row Post. dia. No terraces Knees removed Ample turn P() hedged Row width 5,6,7,8,9,10' Headlands 30' Load Area: Sod Mowed Level ,Road access Problems Encountered What problems did you encounter this year? Expected - 99 - Unexpected What problems did you eliminate before harvest started this year? During the harvest season? Plans for next year? APPENDIX C - 100 - TABLE l-- Initializing Values Ulilized Both for Hand and Mechanical Harvesting where Appropriate. SYMBOL DESCRIPTION A* Acres per season PA** Price Of commodity/ton CP*** Preharvest production cost PY* Potential yield RANGE 50-450, 4 88 to 158 0 - 10 VALUE variable 150 150 Unpublished data gathered from a post harvest survey in southwestern Michigan, Nov., 1970. Source, Agricultural Statistics, U.S. Department of Agriculture 1939" 1970. Ricks, D.,Agricu1tura1 Economics Report Number 95, 1968, Grape Production Costs in Southwestern Michigan, Michigan State University, East Lansing , Michigan . - 101 - TABLE 2--Va1ues Assigned to Major Factors Used in the Analysis Of Hand Harvesting Of Grapes. SYMBOL DESCRIPTION RANGE VALUE HPCT* Cost per ton for 28-33 28.00 hand pickers only; does not include forklift or trucking XFORK* Seasonal rental 0-550 3.50 cost for forklift TRCT* Trucking rate per ton 3.00-6.00 5.00 .10 to .25¢ .12 /mile * Same as Table 1 - 102 - TABLE 3--Values Assigned to Major Non-Varying Factors Used in the SYMBOL RMLH# FC* TIS# TTANK* TOTE* TAINER* XFORK* TRCT* WAGE* CIH* HP* SFCZ NOHC* SLH* XMILE* DESCRIPTION Repairs, maintenance, lubrication on harvester system,percent of initial system cost. Cost of fuel, dollars/gal. Interest rate percent Taxes, insurance, shelter, percent Value of one 6- to 8-ton bulk truck tank Value of one totelift Value of cherry or plastic pallet container Seasonal rental cost for forklift Truck rate per ton dollars, ton or dollars/mile Average wage per hour Cost of harvest system capital investment for SystemsII and III Horsepower Of the system Specific fueld consumption rate, hp-hrs/gal No. of harvest containers Service life of harvester years Miles to plant one way * same as Table l # Stout,B. A.,Predicting Economic Feasibility of Mechanical Vegetable Systems, Transactions, ASAE (vol. 11, no. 3 pp 353-4-5-9) Z Specific fuel consumption, assuming a varying load, taken from the Agricultural Engineering Yearbook as equal to 8.5 horsepower per hours Analysis of Mechanical Harvesting Of Grapes. RANGE 2-5 0.20-.30 5-10 500-1500 1500-3000 40-90 0-550 3.00-6.00 .10 to 25¢/mi 1.75 to 5.00 24,000 to 40.000 100-200 7-16 0-30 3-7 1-60 VALUE 4% 0.24 1.5 800 2750 87 450 5.00 .12 3.00 4000 140 8.5 12 13.5 - 103 - TABLE 4--Harvester and System Efficiency Factors Used in the Analysis of Mechanical Harvesting of Grapes SYMBOL A%% HN%% PL%% DAYS.,/o.,/o TRELLZZ TRWIDE%% XMPH%% TWT%% MGMTHZZ HPCMINzx AMDS%% TT%% DESCRIPTION Acres per season No. of harvesters Product loss Total working hours per day Total working days per season Length of vine row, Trellis Spacing, ft. Miles per hour of harvester Total wash time/day in hours Management time in one 9-hour shift,hrs. NO. of minutes delay to switch pallet boxes ft. Average mechanical delay 2-100 hrs. per season, hrs. Turn time delay,minutes %Z Unpublished data southwestern Michigan, Oct., 1970. MM 50-450 1-3 1 0-10% 0 and 10% 8-24 8-18-24 15—30 21 60-2640 633 7-12 9 0.5-2.5 0.5-4.0 2.0 .5-1.5 .75 .5-2.0 1.0 2-100 40 .5-3.0 1.0 from a time and motion study conducted in APPENDIX D a\ «.mu*uw0~3ak *Nobutuu ¥Zm *~.ou#« uuum *~.¢u*uIJza *«oou*ua *~.mu*un1 *Nomu*uuu *Nomu*uIJU*XN.hm.oum.ruza.a.nr.uu.IJu.mmez_ea .\ Newuthu *aomutnIJm *Nomu#u>u *Nooutua 4a *m.mu*uZI *Nocu*nuu *ooou*uI~U *Nomu*uI< *uomu*u<*.—Iuv quaou "a Ju.IJm.>e. u meoe o mamz_oowru < uo m34<> mre a awze do reozwu Jqoom u James o ezqan ea mzee oznoo< zone goose uoaa ez< m. wuezx u mozeezoo yaou aoeaamno smu>a ezmaaou u some zomamw \ m>< n m0<3 U 104 - Jame».ooaa.m4_zx.yaoux.eoae.m>\.u._ uo ezwu awn.owbuwrm.mmuzo mo<>Jm zo_»azomzou June o.u_umnm we uum .oem.zw»m>m amemm>am no ousonwweox we or .J za amemm>a<1 no menu mo~>owm m~ rum araao.m_e.r>m.oum.ruza.a.ar.ou.r4u.oomooqr no ammzoz we 2: emoo zo_eunoooa emm>o mumqemyoqz Jan» me >ze 04m.> Jaeezmeoa m~>n >paoozsoe o awemm>aan.m *_.¢u#u uuum *uocutuIJza *_.eu*ua *Homu*unI *N.nu*uuu *Nomu*uIJU*XN.hm.Oem.ruza.a.nr.OE.IJO.mmszaan .\ m.ru*uJa *fiomusuIJm #N.mu*u>u *N.ou#u~ an *momu*uZI *Nomutuuu #0o0u*uI~U *Nomu*uI< *uomu*u<*.ulnv hqzaou an Ju.14m.>a. u meoe O mawzeeawIO a mo m34<> m1» u amz~ EO Isozmu 4< we mu_:x O mozee20O yaou aoeqomeo smu>a ezmaono u FOse zomamw \ m>40 own manor ozeyaos quoe m. u manor anor\mmo< u woqs O m some».Ooaa.muasx.yaoux.euae.m>\.O._ no esz amn.ome4mrm.mmuze wo<>um zo_»a23mzou O swam Oeueumam m. Odo .Oem.zmem>m amemm>a<1 zo .an.mOzm mo amzoammoox me or O .J za amemw>aqr no menu mO~>amm we 14m O arqau.m_».I>m.oem.ruza.a.nr.OR.rJO.OOmOao mamaemyaqz Jaeoe m. >2» osme> J<_»zm»Od m~>n >eaoozzoc O amewm>aau.u*<*huahukou mmm OF 06 .omoeowwokoaheun hm OF 00 m >u*<*hUaFUkOU .v/ em or 00 ..Caowoow4_2x.u_ mFmOU 02—MUDQk mozeezou . sues meoe moan goose y24e . m>~u zmem>m sou oom<4 mo emOO "O O» 00 m m>oamIO moan yOoae yzqe . anon zmem>m doe memou aomqu do OF 00 a m><0*maDOI*w0<3*oomuJOU x mvzqe >aamIO e Omar» zmem>m sou memOO oom<4 no O» 00 a m>m aou memoo oom<4 go or 00 m m>n *eOuI u JOO m~.ma.ae.~m.em.m~COF OO Elkm>m IUqw don dode no FmOU uu on EUR W“ «t mu «d "r «a ma QOPWM>Qm DmQOFWM>a< NIP mu u ZOFM>< w>au ZOkw>< Aa \ maquoo. ZOHFUDooau no hmou u dauUuduU wwDJ<> kadJDUJ meq w} Emem>m ¥ZaawIU MIF aou awzn Dado Qu*om.uyaou we on OF 00 m <*>Q*Odou¥aou Fr om OH 00 m MGOEXU¥QOH <$>Q$00ouo wkda th Pd cmk annoaao mm JJ_3 PM yzaam Rama me so oom~ 0e Janem yooux mwzbmmq omsoqu mIe u. mm OF 00 ..o.ow.xooux.ue or mencm.bm.om.om.omeoe ow a Zqumm\m&\m&dJJOO v OdmIQm>O QOme>QmlI_Uv "IOU na \ Q0 QOFWM>Qm eosoa 024 msos Zu YODEs oou yzqs O u32~s70O Ce onz~qn\m/Os am X<1s nusITGU mm fluswm>JaJO su_J uses 10 smou uOsCO O Co as CO e esOO u zndszoO . \xusos*m~se+xusoseiasxe+x.N\Lsos*nee+ «*IUMAIUsosea.Imsoseuosoo aq m usosxidc: l RNUFOFX . Gad CF 0U ACOUCOLITVUH GOG a n muses no .02 A>QC\70s cu mumueccow s4 OE O we 0s CO e a u msosx mac as on x.N.IO.2I.u~ N u mmsosx uo TmmEDZ .uzoscm ZaIs omsdmuo mm >< U” U mmc es cc 0.00emose.eceue >s_Osmus~Oqao n O0 O u0~30s\nJJuas*om9*.®*>nuum to O U._.(.CHF3 zm>~o ma smoO ouxeu mmsqazuaqu eye yo u_ aqu4s sequ qsqn mrs O Gq os CO e ouzeqsa.cc~\u~s + ouzaqs*.ecmfi Ac...uC+ \ USCJJCCV ELIE/T., CCTFCJ @0036 u ...GC U 4*4Q.x.>_fi.kn...flme nadm> \ WQWq*XQ*QIQZ*X(*Giacsxcanllusxr$wCDOI$XPRUJ~1k$XP$C sew omu*u<fl *Oomu*uZI *O.UU*UGC *OomusulHC *mowh*ulq #O.Q.0.“RH.HHe>.hbmsifinn 0" 0s CC am.s4.zeue xee>ne\x<1O+..oo~\4n*q*au*>neeuxne.fieUs Zomadl C74? uo smOu OH qIU n 2H<+VOO+yeou+sOU+JOUn \ m0 \ mequOOv wszunnczdl ch EUDFLH mmoaw u CICC U q$anQIQc aadh> \ muquOCV OZHYOMUC7cl uo swCU u QJIL Olqflu*>0*QH>§F CJUH> Ochsuxaqr Jasos n >2s .CC~\aAJulooHv*>Q.vu>vs -108 U U U U AmOJE<~o<> ams<43O4m L) (I U U 7es2;O CCU CHMZQFFU Uazeszee CU COR Cs 0O m xy2 \ U3SFH§OU ~Q \ WQWQI DMNHZQqu: uo hmuu u qussO+ZH<.&IaZ.OIuO.UIIO.CGTOI.Uerx.eeu.¢cm szeeu “ConutuJU soonuauIJu *c-du*u>c SR omu*u<fl *0.mu*uZI *O.QU*UOC *Oo€u*anU *moxtsnlq #Oocu*uq avkQ.O.AKH.HHv>.hbmsffinn 0" 0s cc am.su.zeue 2<*>OG\Ineeuxne.aee> zomnqx .741 me smou we \ CH \ m03FHOIDC ' . Acqu> \ muesaOCe OVHyenucrnl UO smcu u nIIL 01nOU$>O*anIIU mmm OF OC auokwo&_.uw >QH> HJUQFUXUQ? JdkOk u ACO~\anJuloO~v*>vin>&F “WUJUQHQ<> CMFQJDUJ/‘U UO GTHQDOUUV ZOHFOJDUJOIU 23.4... ...Usmerm HIM—74 ~ I_r ../. “I“ U OuyZCFFU .uDZ H PFC U com Cs cu m xy24ss*.cc~\mes + yZst*~ .oc~\IJzo + .m\¥2qss*.oee\o + .m*14m\.yz2F CCU Can 6“ cu WU 0U L) U ULJL) (3 Illul |.l All!!! lll'lluIAllllll-‘illl’.illll A \ UBCJJCCV UIHIUCT TFTFUQ UUOQC u TCC <*<fl$>SFH§OU a04m> \ madJJCOV UZHsOU>Wq xeAnIez xqsnjae >c:11:c.xr un:eTxxs.UUH. .x-$ sequesxsesenuou < JOU.ZOFU)<.QIQZ.OIQG.UIIU.COIOI.UJ~2X.«GU.dcm PLHCG aCOQhIoflJU ...nOORU....HII-.U c..(....QhT..U> >0 *4“ oWU$H<fl *Oo&k*HZI *OO€U*HQC CLO TUIHIHU *fioUh*fl3G #OOQU*HQ HVFCIQQU JQ.IJw.>n.0.RRH.~HV>.FFmsFHnn 0” 0s CO am.sJ.:euH IOC\Aneeuxn~.aees Zomaz.. 07¢: UO smou UH aIO (HerzOO+ye CU+sOO+JOOu «TO AD W} \ MO \ mchJOOv GZHMO~0C2<1 OCH EDDHLH mmoaw u CICC r.‘ F01 m <*zsunxee — audlxlr \ mwfld [_JUCV U../~V..U~UCV;.:.I ho FrmCU n... flJIL 01GQU$>O¢¢QH>IF CJUH> LJUQPUZ 20d.. JdFOP fl >FF .cc~\xxunao e: x>neen>ps amuJU<~a<> amsquDOJ (f) u h..-.._7. h urn/CU CCU ouy2a\oJa + «Iv. u zo»\»mou UJUH» 0301\mamuq m. 0k omoz wJUHU .oCuZHE>..00ux.oomuznzxooomdux<2x.~¢uU>EDZ.“ouuaOIzDZ.mnku3y<~ CIH ZOTFUC a\ ~0Uh$HLCHBUF *Nofiu*nfi yZdhk *mohu*umkok *Nomu*u»uul *u.uu*UUIC7 *m.uu*nom7H4F*xm. F<>acu qr monzah.¥2qc *u.KU*uwGDOI *moUU*umc<3*xmv kdsaou mt JJmoh.UOUQ.MJ~EX.Maouxokuak.m>w *fiodu*~ uuum *H.¢u*nIJbU afioqu*un *—omu*uel *Nomutnuu *m.mu*n3JU$xm.Fd?UOL or nIm.Uum.IJLG.Q.QI.Uu.IJU.kaz~nu A\ Nouu*uJ0 *Homu*uIJm *wouu*u>a amo®u#u 4a *momu*uZI *N.®u*nou *Oo®u*uI~U *m.mu*uI< *uomuwu<*xm. quflou fir JQ.IJm.>a.Oo ANN o a H v>ohhmkzmflg OH OF 06 «U.FJ.7VUH Aa*>0v\.¢lu+a.OO«\JQ*<*QVVUAR~.-.> ._.7~C,u FZLFEUCJGMO mOUV.U~fiG_de 2m>u \JQuuF u :. muLLrijhru '- I. ll.L '- ' QICZIzuzuCECI aC \ manJOCV U7~3U<2 ZQZFHC Fuz .607. ‘J ‘A u APPENDIX E - 110 - TABLE 1-—Sub Program Functions for an Economic Analysis of Mechanical Grape Harvesting Symbol Basic Equations and Description of the Function 1.03*FC*HP*A*HN CFL ’ AH * SPC Cost of fuel and lubricants _ CIH - LSVH/IOQ)*CIH R *, CIH + (SUH/IOQ)(CIH) COB ‘ SLH + (100) [ 2 3 TIS*CIH + RMLH*CIH 100 100 Cost of harvester system overhead A*CLH COL - AH Cost of labor to operate machine system CHA = CFL + COL + COH Cost of mechanized harvest CPA = CD*A Cost of production TMY = PY* (100-PL)/100 TOTAL MARKETABLE YIELD GRM = TMY*PA*A Gross return per year NRM = GKM - (CHA + CPA) Net return machine dollars/year CHHP= A * PY * CPAHP Cost of handpicking dollars/year GRHP = TMY*PA*A Cross return handpickers dollars/year NRHP = GRHP - (CHHP + CPA) Net return for handpickers dollars/year BEHPRP = NRM - NRHP Breakeven point between handpickers and machine