figi‘ Iv rr ‘3' l" ““12. .3, flzzzfiaéqa'l'k ' $36523“ ””54”,! .93“ ,3, r... _ . 'h 4 . 3 “. V'Uv' . . '41.“ :1 ~ , . , . ‘7 .,.. -' P 4 . ' «4:. “ ‘1 , 9'"?! ' ' ' 1.. .‘:3' 4. “Emma? ‘43. v ‘ , L.‘ ‘ 14” S ‘w ‘ ’3‘ up? 3"3;;Z:§"":j 54R? ‘ r, ' I - ‘ n W ‘ ‘W .1 531 1-K: 335 ‘35,. A x 33".“ W‘ ' ..“. ¢ ~31 "'1'" :;~.."":-_ _ . w “cz- 3111532333. 3 ‘5!“ 5:7 9w .. .m. . £17153me >.';~‘_.‘,§ ; ' ' ~ ,. , . .. 4.2.325: " >..:;.:' '3 3. ._ . ._ '«H’ . ' " m . ,C‘ "1. .m ‘. 3"."12: é,“ V“ x- ‘ ‘ r . a . ~ ‘4 ’L "E‘Eelimfi" "‘ 1 v :11 a‘?-‘L§~.7 14¢.11“ «‘3 . .. w“ 41%? 533-959” é. ‘L‘3. 4:33;? mag “1... .37“ ‘ 3.7% {.5311 313.3, "f3! 1; ‘ “1153'“?W vamp .. $13133 . a»? .3. * av “9W :'~ 1.335% {4' . "‘11. 'K'. ‘ 3 m "Jul..." a: Win- ‘ t,._a‘¢‘m ml . '3 . .«m . u m. untodz‘ 3.1 1 {‘3 Q. “a -v. .. «if: it". ‘ “In" (3541;312:3342 ' Mfi‘xfikgf": :0»; g” ‘- mu; 1. " V3.10» 3;: 2'1, 3:3: {ma-3 :‘Sflnl'f‘rhr' is}: .u. .7 .n ‘ fie-3 v.’ A. \- . 3.“. r: ’T""" N 1.4..” Mr: 4 , I ' , 4\"I ~\r.v \ 3,... . .W £31“... 4-." - 2 u I- r r,.‘.'..§,.,.':,‘ ,rt— .~";" “3 'E' _..‘,.',;,"3 ' . -H~--‘--- .- . ,._ . "1:5,. ""',":""'x~.-r" . ..-._...... J 2’- “' ~ I . -.- ..... .. - - . J'vurrj' mgr" 9,.-- , “1.3.17.1.le 4" SITY LIBRARIES 11101111111111 111111111 11111111111" 111111111111 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled ECONOMICS OF ESTABLISHING A LOW-VOLUME POULTRY PROCESSING PLANT: A COMPUTER APPLICATION DESIGN presented by Vusumuzi Dhladhla has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for glib, ’FFMZW degree in £22122le fid/{té 6L Major professor mafia/W 7/ MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 LIBRARY Michigan State Univerelty PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or hetero date due. DATE DUE . DATE DUE DATE DUE MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution CWMI ECONOMICS OF ESTABLISHING A LOW-VOLUME POULTRY PROCESSING PLANT: A COMPUTER APPLICATION DESIGN BY Vusumuzi Dhladhla A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Animal Science 1991 IDA"- .. PARK?“ Y pk Lw V cr‘ pa '\ h"- ”v\s‘. J r: ~~~ "19 v R t Pcluavry p‘OLes- -3. 'n O; p 'y F" HdCb.Ont 3...»: f‘ r.“ Lsa'-vc'.u:1e bro: le zeal; scale bi‘Oi1 Station. The GEEQC :saezhanical trans :i;le:e:ess of this fixation design t and then deter I: a manual pro tested is reached 3‘5 40, or 30 birds 31615 $1.00, $2.01: Spam-9'11. Beyond :5, W is desiracj ABSTRACT ECONOMICS OF ESTABLISHING A LOW-VOLUME POULTRY PROCESSING PLANT: A COMPUTER APPLICATION DESIGN BY Vusumuzi Dhladhla Poultry processing is a crucial stage or phase of poultry production. This study concentrates on the economics «of low-volume broiler processing. The rationale for low- ‘volume processing consideration is that a previous MSU study on small scale broiler processing has attracted considerable attention. The objectives of this study were to determine the mechanical transition threshold, refine and expand completeness of this previous study. Then make a computer application design that could be used for synthesizing a plant and then determine the processing costs. In a manual processing plant the mechanical transition threshold is reached when the plant processes 165, 80, 60, 56, 40, or 30 birds per hour when the labor compensation rate is $1.00, $2.00, $3.00, $4.00, $5.00 or $6.00 per hour, respectively. Beyond these points, substitution of equipment for labor is desirable. first-q C 1:- :;:‘35 per h Batti15' cor 0': Regents for Fig 239,195: $186,513; pgccessing COS: gages. On a per 1:529, 30.6346. $3 :lfespectively' ind 3:255:11" COSt per tatztese plants “9 sysa'aeek, 8 hO‘Jl’ assassins were: a ‘33, a building COS taper amul inter Isensitivity a liner carpensation r as :ade to infer tn he inpact of intere 12;:alconpared to 1 2351395. Iv‘nen relati' increase of $1.00 ‘irec'ucing the rate Tenant ' ~ capamty uti] Four mechanized processing plants were synthesized. The processing capacities of these plants were 200, 350, 500 or 1200 birds per hour. These plants will be referred to as Plant A, B, C or D, respectively. The total investment requirements for plant A, B, C or D were $139,498; $186,510; $263,476 or $510,056; respectively. Processing costs were determined using budgeting techniques. On a per bird basis, the p rocessing costs were §Ui;§23?tw§939?4§' $0.5915, or $0.4539 for plant A, B, C or I), respectively, indicating that as output is increased the processing cost per bird declines. The base assumption was 'that these plants were operated at 100% capacity. That is 5 days a week, 8 hours a day, and 50 weeks per year. The other assumptions were: am1abor compensation rate of $6.00 per hour, a building cost of $150 per square foot and an 8 per cent per annum interest rate. A sensitivity analysis using capacity utilization, labor compensation rates, building costs and interest rates was made to infer their impact on processing costs per bird. The impact of interest rates and building cost changes were minimal compared to capacity utilization and labor cost changes. When relating labor cost to capacity utilization, an increase of $1.00 in labor compensation rate is similar to reducing the rate of plant operation to between 50 and 60 percent capacity utilization. 3:51; wife I 37‘ 331521 5150 were a :p'pafefits (15rae 1;; and ny sister: 5;. soon after be ruse of the A2355” hieputiic of Angel Fade, said, "-‘e S-‘IE Ignnc-untry (Soot: salsa-1d want to re'. ecstatic South Afr: The Rahns: Dr. 1 time), Lethe ("-1 531.1%ka tor becc Has a wilderness TC Hy committee iii-3‘! Enery, thank: £55 a 'o‘ord of thank: £3,311 and 15th {1 :p . d-fient and the pr; ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To my wife (Monica), and my two sons (Shaka and Sbusiso) who were a source of support and encouragement. And to my parents (Israel and Peggy), my brothers (Dan and Sipho) and my sisters (Sesi and Thandi). I hope to see my faunily soon after being separated from them since 1976 because of the Apartheid system. As the late President of 'rhe Republic of Angola, Agostinos Neto (The Poet of the IPeople) said, "we shall return" I am planning to return to :my own country (South Africa). I have spent fifteen years in exile and want to return to a non racial, non-sexist, democratic South Africa that is in the making. The Rahns: Dr. Allan Rahn (chairperson of my committee), Letha (wife), Jennifer (daughter), and Michael (son) thanks for becoming my second family, otherwise the USA was a wilderness. To my committee: Denise Smith, Cal Flegal, Bob Deans, and Roy Emery, thanks for your time and input in my study. Also a word of thanks should be forwarded to Brower, Pickwick and Ashly for providing information on the equipment and the price lists. q. vvvr" l ~:.'e:1:O'E:-?‘"u' aft , “ *ion 2. .ntroouc. ”I expose of c.. “*‘ect'ves “a! V51 ‘ ' 37. let: 40.091 ‘r‘er 2: lITmf‘Jfil “’5. The historica poultrypro: II. Substitution 1 21:. fine and Hotic processing a: :7. Process contra Egte: 3: PROCESSZN: I. locational Co: 21. land Requireae 221. Principles of 3. Processing P12 1. Operationa I1. Receiw B. Dressir C. Evisce: D. Ottal i E. Packag: F. Storage 2. Ion-Operati A. Office 3. Employr latter I: EQUIPMENT 35 Intro‘mCtion i“ messing Pla 5' Perforn 0: 8' Discrete 1 C. ContinUOug Deteaming tr Tb"reshold A' One ACtivi ° Discrete E TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY I. Introduction .................. 1 II. Purpose of the study .................. 4 III. Objectives .............. .... 8 IV. Methodology .................. 8 Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW I. The historical perspective of poultry processing ................. 10 II. Substitution Of capital for labor ................ 11 :III. Time and Motion Studies on processing activities ................ 15 IV. Process control ................. .15 Chapter 3: PROCESSING PLANT DESIGN I. Locational Consideration ................. 21 II. Land Requirement ................. 22 1111. Principles of Lay-out Planning .................24 IV; Processing Plant Lay-out .................27 1. Operational Areas ..... ...........29 A. Receiving Area ........ .........29 B. Dressing Area .......... .......29 C. Eviscerating Area ................. 30 D. Offal Area .................31 E. Packaging and Chilling Area.. ............ .31 F. Storage and Shipping Area ................31 2. Non-Operational Areas A. Office ................ 32 B. Employee Facilities .......... ......33 Chapter 4: £2001me AND LABOR COMBINATION I. Introduction ................35 II. Processing Plant without mechanized equipment....37 A. Perform One-Activity at a time...............37 B. Discrete Batch processing approach...........38 C. Continuous batch processing ....... . ..... ...39 2111. Determining the Mechanical transition Threshold .................................41 A. One Activity Processing ...................42 B. Discrete Batch Processing ..................45 ii .— le-ra‘a‘ zed pr‘ 11.1331 PF 5. In'Lifie ‘ My: ' 5' CAPITAL LOW—33L ' I'CIOGOC..O'- 2:..estaent 1 Plants: A, '. Investment '. Plants: A, I". Iza'estcent i .La.t : A, 7. I...estoe:t in '3. Investment 1r. ‘- 4, 2:6: PROCESSII SENSITI' I. Introductzcr. II. m'erhead cos 3'. kocessang 1 Y. SensitiVLty ,' A. Caracaty 8' Labor CO! C. BUlld‘n’J 9- Int terest 13:2: 7: mg 311;. 3- Introductior 3-1 SOft'dare use : AIF‘roach Scr "' C“rational it: 71"“; u a... AP'PQTLdiX A 1 I :1 m ii.“ mix a. C C) :2 13:9 len‘ix C CO Appendix 01 2-1 IV. Mechanized Processing Plants A. Batch processing B. In-Line processing Chapter 5: CAPITAL INVESTMENT FOR 0.0000 .......... 53 OOOOOOOOOOOOOO 53 ...53 LOW-VOLUME PROCESSING PLANTS. Introduction Investment in Land Plants: A, B, C and D I. II. III. Investment in Buildings Plants: A, B, C and D IV. Investment in Equipment Plants: A, B, C and D V. Investment in Furniture ‘11. Investment in Vehicles . PROCESSING COST AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS I. Introduction II. Overhead costs III. Variable costs IV. Processing costs V. Sensitivity Analysis A. Capacity utilization B. Labor cost C. Building cost D. Interest rate Chapter 6: Chapter 7: THE COMPUTER APPLICATION I. Introduction II. Software used IIII. Approach Screen’ application IV. Operational Instructions REFERENCES APPENDICES Appendix A. In-Line Processing Equipment Appendix B. MS Thesis. Appendix C. Appendix D. iii ..... 0.00.00.00.64 ................ 66 ....... .........67 ........... ..... 72 ..............76 .... ..... .......80 ................89 000.000.000.000092 .0 000000000000 0.92 ................ 98 ............... 100 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0101 0 0 0 0 0102 000.000.000.0000107 .0... 000000000 0110 Copies Of Letters Requesting Computer Application: Screens List of Equipment Manufacturers . ...-4 Ca .1. A.- - ' Dow's“ .u "'3" 9| .0. HI" " I\ \ .Ib n-OV 9,. anu , Q'I‘; .1” .‘a—o-I- o -2 ) ‘ )5- "1 24.5 i ‘ ARI! .'.~ nt‘vu . L- 2W1:- "' cowl\. 3r “bu . A . a \~-.‘ .I. .1 . f I Ate :2 — IQ. u‘ 0... :v. ‘§‘ :‘ a . J I w Ls. ‘4 ‘n n: {1' q ..1 ye: . e n‘ ‘* up“. 5'.‘ ! l"’1‘r‘lfi‘!." LIST OF TABLES TABLE EASE 1.1 Timed Processing Activities ....... . ...... 16 3.1 Proportionate Land Requirements for the Processing Plants. ......... ............ 23 3.2 FSIS Recommendations for Determining Toilet bowls Requirement .... ................ 34 4. Summary Of Processing Standards ........ ....... 42 4. Worker-Output Relationship when Using One Activity at the Time Processing Processing.... 44 4.3 Worker-Output Relationship when Using Discrete Batch Processing ................ 46 4- Mechanical Transition Threshold ....... ........ 49 44.5 Processing Activities, Equipment and labor Requirements in the Four Processing Plants ... 55 4 . 6 Summary of Labor Requirement in the Four Processing Plants ................. ...... 56 15.21 Estimated Construction Cost for the Processing Plants at $150 per square feet..... 61 5 . 2 Estimated Investment on Batch Processing Equipment .............. ......... 64 55-23 Summary of Total Investment Requirement for low-volume Processing Plants ..... ...... 65 €5.11 Depreciation Cost on Building, Equipment and Furniture for the Four Plants ..... ..... .. 70 ‘5..2 Maintenance and Repairs for the Four Processing Plants .................. ....... 71 ‘5-3 Summary on Property Tax of the Four Processing Plants .............. ........... .. 72 ‘52-4 Summary of Insurance Costs on Building, Equipment and Furniture for the Four Plants... 73 iv T ._ .n-w.., If: "I .0. W. . {an Processing Cost. Sensitivity Ana. ... I... 2 Scary of Proc Cost for the F . Utilization (9 Sensitivity Ans Utilization 1i .9 Sensitivity Ana 0. ‘3 5.11 Sensitivity Ana ~ . 0 . B. ... 0 - * 9‘ t). ... . - (.h ‘ 1 ".3 tilization (“ Se: itivity Ana tilization (c Utilization (E Sensitivity Ana Utilization (: 5': Smart of Proc 5mm Showing 100-701 and 75. SGHSitivity Ana; Wit Cost (1.1a; Sensitivity Anal sensitivity Ana] sensitivity Anai at 12 Percent IfiflLE EAQE 6.5 Summary Of Processing Costs ................. 78 6.6 Processing Costs as a Percentage Of Total Cost for the Four Plants. ..................... 80 6.7 Sensitivity Analysis: Capacity Utilization (90 percent) ..... ................ 82 6 . 8 Sensitivity Analysis: Capacity Utilization (80 percent) .... .............. ..83 6 . 9 Sensitivity Analysis: Capacity Utilization (70 percent) .... ................ 84 6 . 10 Sensitivity Analysis: Capacity Utilization (60 percent) .... ..... . .......... 85 6 . 11 Sensitivity Analysis: Capacity Utilization (50 percent) ................... 86 6 . 12 Sensitivity Analysis: Capacity Utilization (40 percent) .................. 87 6.213 Summary Of Processing Cost per bird due to Capacity Utilization .... .............. 88 6 . 14 Summary Showing Impact of Changing From 100-70% and 70-40% 00000000000000. 0000000 0090 6 - 15 Sensitivity Analysis: Increase in Labor Cost (wage=$7.00/hr) ....... ...... .....91 6 . 16 Sensitivity Analysis: Building Cost at $140 per square feet............. ...... ....94 6 . 17 Sensitivity Analysis: Building Cost at $160 per square feet............ .......... .95 6 . 18 Sensitivity Analysis: Interest at 12 percent 00000000000 0000000000000000000 97 v 0‘ n :' . CC'erablo“S a no . 1‘- v" POL.t.r A ‘An 1 Process“? " flow of Processing A icrker-Cutp: tancal Plant lie-:hanized P. .’ Mechanical t: Capacity L'ti.‘ Increase in 11 Change in Bo: Increase in l Ceneral Flo: Flov Charts c EIEHRES .2AEE 3.1 Operations in the Conversion Of Live Poultry to Ready to cook ................. 26 3.2 Processing Area Relationship Indicating the Flow Of Product ................. 28 4.1 Processing Activities and Loose Hand Tools..... 40 4.2 Worker-Output Relationship .................. 47 4.3 Manual Plant ............................... 50 4.4 Mechanized Plant ............................. 51 4.5 Mechanical transition Threshold ............. 52 6.2 Capacity Utilization ........................ 89 6.3 Increase in Wage Rate by $1.00/hr.............. 92 6.4 Change in Building Cost .................. 96 <5.5 Increase in Interest Rate by 4% .............. 98 7.1 General Flow Chart .......................... 103 7.2 Flow Charts of Screens ....................... 104 LIST OF FIGURES vi A“'°‘ .A 0"..- V. \,:‘\V"" o O ‘9? p2’3 and " O ‘Ffl I1..e jECllfii‘ ‘.3 :94 "ea: 9: C “a“. --'=:Sed meCha: ...-e "" --n H‘ ”2" "l .‘C as V‘?’ C- , -..". t “ 2-2.316 6: 0 Cf :v:5::e. -t req‘J; ff: seek pla" in. te ground- :3:'.ves reaode‘. ;;=.:ts. The focus O -12..:ises.'rh Petitions in th “4.:gih1e.l..is he is a limit “4:98 Sing SiiiCE 2:6“). ““0 25- Tit-er I Chapter 1. OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY I. INTRODUCTION Poultry processing plants continue to grow in size while declining in numbers, leading to a longrun trend toward greater concentration. The larger plants with increased mechanization, greater scale economies and better use of capacity produce efficiencies that are more than sufficient to offset rising input costs. The capital investment required to establish a large plant is sizeable. Barton (1986) estimates $25,000,000 for a one million birds Per week plant. Very few new plants have been constructed from the ground-up in recent years. Most of the activity jJ'IVolves remodelling or add-on (expansion) of existing Plants. The focus of this study is on low-volume poultry enterprises. The contribution of low-volume poultry operations in the 0.8. to the total production of poultry is negligible. This is not the case for developing countries. There is a limited amount of information on low-volume Processing since most of the attention is on large scale c>perations. There are several reasons some entrepreneurs are interested in low-volume Operations in the U.S. First, low-volume operations have low capital requirements. Second, b . ,-..,_ r,‘ c:.-.'uo‘3e .J‘a secia'. Erie'- .5 . nan-A V v. :9: ~04an "‘- I an, ' : :'.“"V ...-e- h ... ob - ‘ I MAI-.1" *1 ’ ’ .s.~».c- MI‘ \\ 2:;19 are lo< In": UV u! “RE 2mm" 0 ‘I-On,: ‘ ‘ Amuflj gr: WOV.‘Ib . n " :;DA‘RQ' A . h‘:‘ ' _ p 23.52363 are “As-- a.‘ .~--...s (Pia; 1.1;.0" v . . ‘) Vm 'a "E: Slfica: s \ Q U . ‘1- SE ’n c h as“! 2 ‘hi I.» I \V..fi H ‘ .V‘\ v.k tug at ..5 a l‘ 39 902;: there is the notion that low-volume operations can be flexible. Since fixed costs are low relative to variable costs the ”opportunity cost" of inactivity are reduced. The low-volume plants can easily adjust to produce for a special market niche. These niche markets are the product of three concerns: (a) environmental concern, (b) health and nutritional concern and (c) taste consciousness. In these markets people are looking for a differentiated product. Usually these products are marketed with appealing phrases such as "naturally grown", "chemical free", "without hormones or Steroids". A recent survey by Consumer Information Management System (CIMS) of Georgia indicate that some cOnsumers are dissatisfied about the quality of such claimed Products (Haung and Sukant, 1990) . Third, this can be considered as an alternative farming sYstem. For farmers engaged in other enterprises such as dairy, beef or cherry production, involvement in low-volume poultry production could supplement their farm income. Diversification of business enterprises can also help spread risk. For people working in off-farm occupations, raising and Selling chickens can also supplement their income. For peeple who are unemployed or underemployed in rural areas, raising poultry can be a major source of income. Involvement ( . y 3. ,, .533", me. .. :' ’ ...' :r'W' 533‘ I u‘ .....U‘ 33185 (e '9' 5552 because Lined the-r e :ffaners. Pr _.;:‘ iaplica :jective, y . zen—e genera: I able to ope: 11:7 Hell organ Histinc 2' size should 16:: ecenonies 3.395 to per tiled, trip: 3‘4”! : 'wd'vn‘es Of 5 in poultry meat enterprises can substitute for off-farm jobs and employ some underutilized resources. For developing countries (e.g., in Africa), low-volume operations make sense because of their low capital requirements. Also, it is claimed there is labor in excess in the developing countries. The development strategy in many countries is based on small holder farmers that constitute the majority of farmers. Promoting low-volume operations has social policy implications in addition to the profit motive objective, by creating opportunities for people to have an income generating activity. The low-volume plants will never be able to operate as efficiently (technically) as larger and well organized plants. A distinction between economies of scale and economies of size should be made. According to Debertin (1986) the term economies of scale could be used to describe what happens to per unit cost of production when all inputs are doubled, tripled, or halved. 0n the other hand, the term economies of size could be used to describe what happens to Per unit cost of production when output is doubled, tripled, or halved, while the input levels do not necessarily increase in proportionate amounts. The technical economies of size in the poultry industry shows that both vertical and horizontal integration should be the norm. There are several reasons why vertical integration has taken place in the 13153: 53;; CO“-.Q..A' a: “v,""ouhl ‘ N .n F “a" .b” I.“ “.... a v- - 2'13“: A. ‘ ...“ vat V. we Frscess' :15th and p< 00-":0. A“3‘ ~‘ . 0-"... I. I ...: 0-4" ‘M he. nub“! ‘v‘ ;;:;.-:e.' app; £33015 and ‘ ....V . NLOeA . awe" “ 3359 $121 5;: and l .5 1c determil ethnically P 21a: in'v'eSt‘“ 525529395531“! zingeration. 2:6: of 16:50: o .5 at‘ e: n- an r»; OCQS ,1 n... : resulted i .::...e:s and 0f industry. Among those reasons is the need to assure a constant supply of uniform sized birds, scheduling production activities to ensure operation at optimum capacity, and ensure control and/or power. II . PURPOSE OF THE STUDY An MSU study (unpublished MS Thesis, 1988) on low- \n>1ume processing has received a lot of attention from existing and potential entrepreneurs, domestically and iJTternationally (See Appendix C). There is a need to refine taxis study for completeness and ease of accessibility (Computer application). A brief review of the study, and the additions and enhancements that are to be made need to be highl ighted . Three sizes of processing plants were synthesized, a 350, 500 and 1200 birds per hour. The thrust of that study Was to determine the capital investment requirements for Eaczonomically plausible equipment and labor combinations. The 12<>tal investment requirement in that study did not include some necessary peripheral equipment like boilers, 1T£3frigeration, generators, and ice making machines. The t1lumber of laborers needed in the processing plant was only based on processing line equipment operation assignments. UPIlis resulted in excluding labor needed for removing feathers and offal during processing, cleaning of the plant .p ‘ V'-.” “- a,- =;V" l '5 . n I“. -.. “..." « abus- . bit U .‘ . I I .l~.A' :E'Cv-Ub S \ .r .‘F‘s ... bob . messed. Al Int-v Alain-(:A. O‘ a... rainy. b‘ O n. a‘.‘ ‘ . ‘: t-cQ‘eSb fiessars, < 2:955"? r l V.- L\ .‘.' .‘I All. _ fixing": Cc 233;:er and 0’. ‘ 3, fly h wvlo av; “Gag 338:.h.‘ ‘ I H... ‘0. due 5 C: I) o!‘ RAP a... “Vi‘sistf ...; ‘ 6 Doe‘s, 5:‘en E ‘F . «.6: F‘ ‘ {H’CK up The t“ ...) Z‘W ..i: and removing by-products, the moving of live birds to the hangers, and to the refrigeration area. Management personnel was also excluded. The logistics for the plants were not considered. For example, where to store the produce where to put supplies, what to do about by-products, dock1ng area, inspector’s office space and equipment. In this study the above mentioned concerns will be addressed. Also, an additional plant size of 200 b1rds per hour capacity will be synthesized. This plant will represent the smallest size of the low-volume plants. The appropriate question is: who are the low-volume processors, or what is the definition of a low-volume Processor? Four categories of low—volume proce551ng oPerations can be considered. The first group is the "hobby Producer and processor" that raise a few birds and processes them for home consumption, and/or for friends and ne1ghbors. BY definition this group is not profit motivated. The second is the commercial producer or grower, and f,— this consists of profit motivated entrepreneurs. They grow birds then send them to custom processors for proce551ng, then pick up the processed birds and sell them. ~«H‘m. The third group is the custom processors who are profit n“ vu-fl‘ Iw-v -t-‘~ l'IKD‘IZivated entrepreneurs. They do not raise chickens of their 0WD, but only process at a fee for other poultry producers. Custom processors do not only process broilers, but include "'5'! ' 1'9: pow») 5: «”15. .-- .. h The fc.r'... ‘ 1 v. "‘I'.’ v‘fa. ‘V. we ...... n- Ih'y“ cr CC .5 ...-l 219.2516 5;; The baSLS 22.3333 C5311 “......" h ”5.3.4.1 u SIZESSIJ! T135 E The plant :‘msized in eascrel CUSZC! Mat for me 'I‘v , 5". _ ~.":‘:' 3:, he 5? other poultry species (ducks, geese, pheasants, quail and/or rabbits. The fourth group is the commercial producer/processor. ”Uh—“-fl- The commercial producer/processor may personally raise all the birds or contract with other producers to ensure adequate supply of birds. The basis for this classification is based on the following characteristics: activities, profit motive, and frequency of processing. In this study a low-volume processor has a commercial operation, and the profit motive is the main objective. The plant sizes of 350, 500 and 1200 birds per hour Synthesized in the previous study are also "too big" for seasonal custom processors. This is due to the economic Plausibility constraint that was used in selecting the equipment combination of the systems. This constraint forced a plant design where any capital item, if anticipated to aocount for more than 10 percent of the initial equipment investment, had to be utilized at more than 80% of its erigineered design capacity. From the above criteria, seasonal-hobby processors (with idle equipment most of the time) are not economically sound ventures, but maybe their goals are not solely of profit motive. Maybe these people Sliat: satisfaction from processing their own or neighbors’ birds and costs are not their primary concern. To make 'H ' '»C' ’"11 33L, L .3: :ztletely mars. :zcessmg ecu. was, bucket: :23 theme-men 7:35;: 12y pcs m; process ezzanical tec all need to b afar: to as The requi etegories of ‘1'“. the hobby :imentary t, filla'aed by ac ifferent Size information available for such clientele, a plant size of less than 350 birds per hour was synthesized. This also aroused interest in determining the maximum number of birds that could be processed per unit time in a completely manual processing plant. A plant where no processing equipment is used except loose tools such as knives, buckets, barrels, containers, heating devices, and hand thermometers. At some volume point it will not be physically possible or economically desirable to only use manual processing techniques. At this point and later some mechanical technology that substitutes equipment for labor Will need to be introduced. This point in this study will be referred to as the "mechanical transition threshold". The requirements for establishing the different categories of low-volume operations will differ. Beginning with the hobby producer/processor, being the simplest or 1" Udimentary to the low-volume commercial enterprise, then f011owed by moderate and large processing plants. The different sizes of plants will be identified. ’«*"";: v ‘N " Jizvu‘” ..n ' e. aatemiT-e ‘. 0' .- process??? - 3: syxthesx . ,- ‘5 ;..: resfie 3’ [4 J r? ' In: it“ Q 7.. Fifi-2:30:06 The three 1:11:30 birds "sei as a base stuesized. l ‘(lh ‘ sites per mg time an May obse a “A finned. Co A use aaie for 3"": "Iqrnent (t‘y‘ ‘ 2. .39? m by n,-‘. 0‘1 RA‘ ~ at t: III . OBJECTIVES 1. To determine the "mechanical transition threshold" where processing is not feasible or economically desirable without using mechanization. 2. To synthesize a processing plant of 200 birds per hour. 3. To refine and update the earlier study for completeness and improved accessibility. IV . METHODOLOGY The three synthesized processing plants of 350, 500, axui 1200 birds per hour, from the 1988 MSU study, will be used as a base. Another plant of 200 birds per hour will be sYl'lthesized. The four processing plants 200, 350, 500 or J~1200 birds per hour will henceforth be called plant size A, B: C or D, respectively. A thorough and systematic search usil'ig secondary sources will be used for identifying all the Processes, equipment, machines, manufacturers and dealers. The "mechanical transition threshold" was determined by Using time and motion data from previous research, and by aetually observing and measuring some processing activities l><3lrformed. Contact with equipment manufactures and dealers Was made for obtaining current information on processing ‘3CItuipment (types, availability and prices). The contact was either be by telephone, correspondence and/or personal Contact at the Southeastern International Trade Show in . «1""‘ '0 :"3. £01“ I..." "‘ :v-“'D"S, e gene-5" ' ' MM- " finanv-t 3- rarest iter. A survey mug? OF‘FVP: “‘hrb. in. V. ”U Sue 3'; it we ”Ago-’3' T . bun-151d» A . I “"f' AfflFI“ .‘.,,'§. a bUn-u'U» ' o a”; a screen 1: 0' bhl - 0. ...-s nerIUQC - n‘bn’ ' W ‘ -..:'., 10 3.1! I”! _; on f‘v‘yes: ‘?.q S: :Q a“? u' ...azle in Atlanta. Enquiries also were made from relevant people (architects, engineers and building contractors) to gather information about building cost, utility rates, and other pertinent items concerning processing plants. A survey was sent to custom and hobby processors to gather information concerning their processing activities. Some visits were made to custom/hobby processors. Computerized information manipulation will be made using a computer programming language (TopSpeed Modula—Z) , and a screen manipulating program (Repertoire). The essence of this menu-driven computer application is three fold. First, to allow a potential investor to synthesize a Processing system by selecting equipment combinations available in the database (providing equipment type, model, Price, details about the equipment, and the manufacturer or sllpplier of equipment) to set up a processing system that is technically feasible (the program will ensure that). Second, to calculate the processing cost per unit based on the different sized plants, organization, and equipment selected ( which vary by manufacturer or supplier). Third, to make sensitivity analyses . ..istcrical F .cccrding site early st fzrrea: as p: 51:35 far egg rested of he :e;'.a:e:e.“.t hat seiner: and r :e' was expat 52:59; the eve is: bad a pro Na}... ...Jilvys . Incr ' I l ‘° fit. I. Nos lndus: The inih' lbl ”W‘A “=5: was tc "“ ee'v'empaer u‘ " P0213}, has Chapter 2. LITERATURE REVIEW I. Historical Perspectives of Poultry Processing According to Gordy (1974) the 1920's could be regarded as the early stage of the broiler industry. The poultry sold for meat was primarily a result of the keeping of laying flocks for egg production. The typical poultry meat consisted of hens culled from laying flocks, and male of the replacement hatch. During this period production was haphazard and not well organized. As the industry developed there was expansion of low-volume operators attempting to satisfy the ever rising demand for poultry meat (Rogers and Badwell, 1963). World War II furnished even more impetus for e"‘Pansion. The war, with its meat shortage and rationing, also had a profound influence on the consumption of poultry products. Increased poultry consumption promoted the growth of this industry . The initiation of the "chicken of tomorrow" contest in 1944, did much to enhance the development of the broiler industry (Tobin and Arthur, 1964). The challenge in this c30111.:est was to develop a broad-breasted chicken similar to the broad breasted turkey. Since the contest, the breeding and development of highly specialized strains of all types of Poultry has revolutionized all aspects of the poultry 10 "‘10?“ 'r‘e l ...y' ‘ > g‘ v ‘ em»? 0. ‘ Q V ”IN?" and p. and“ I. {17:23 reaj 2e: cams” 33255 that i: 5:: 903': bod 5:: 3 {find Cf mice a four :f feed per pc .153 tituti Live bird :einiastry. slaughter or I ;;:1(er, the e< 2 the early ‘ restry its \ New Yori evis incl scal evis Ready tc protr down trac] orga: 11 industry. The other aspects include nutritional discoveries (especially of Vit D and 812), disease prevention and control and processing technology (from New York Dressed1 [NYD] to ready-to-cook? [rtc]). Broiler growth rate and feed conversion have improved dramatically. Rogers (1990) states that in 1949 it took 94 days to bring a bird up to four pound body weight and 3.85 pound of feed were needed for a pound of gain. By 1990, it only took 42 days to produce a four pound bird and feed conversion of 1.98 pounds <3f feed per pound of weight gain. iII. Substitution of Capital for Labor Live bird marketing was the norm at the early stages of the industry. As the industry developed mechanized primary slaughter or processing was inevitable. The invention of the Picker, the equipment that removes feathers from the bird, 3111 the early thirties probably gave the poultry processing industry its stimulus. Before this time, picking of birds \ 1New York Dressed (NYD) - processed birds that are not eviscerated. The processing activities involved include: hanging, stunning, killing, bleeding, scalding, picking, chilling and packaging without eviscerating. 2Ready to cook (rtc): any slaughtered broiler free from protruding pin feathers, vestigial feathers (hair or down) and from which head, feet, crop, oil gland, trachea, esophagus, entrails, mature reproductive organs, and lungs have been removed (F818, 1895). :33". volumes The trans reessing was =:-.:‘ are still, sei when ref e ezfaiized pla 'ezhanizaticn reserrce alloc st: ensure 1 Effitiency in The even Etelcrized i: 'li'lihe or C( ;‘.a::s can b v.1 " . MK “n H ‘ ‘ “lap. 12 ems done by hand and this was a laborious task. With the advent of the picker and other processing equipment, the number of processing plants grew rapidly. Plant sizes and output volumes and pounds increased. The transition from hand tools to mechanized equipment processing was gradual since some of the activities were, and are still, done by hand. Different terminologies are used when referring to the use of equipment. For example, mechanized plant or semi-automated plant or automated plant. Mechanization in the processing plants indicates a shift in Iflesource allocation. The substitution of capital for labor is to ensure increased output, uniform quality, and Gefficiency in the plant operation. The evolution of the processing activity can be (Zategorized into: (a) "batch or discrete" processing and (b) "in-line or continuous" processing. The "batch processing" E>lants can be defined as plants that have scalding and Elicking equipment that handles a certain number of birds at a time, hence the name batch. This set-up is typical in low- Volume plants. The batch pickers have a maximum capacity of picking fifteen broilers in thirty seconds, while the S3<3alder can scald thirty birds in one minute (Brower, 1990). ’JDInere is no reason to think that today's batch equipment is lunch different from that used in the forties (same technology), except the stainless steel construction irate" IE I ’ 1' gun.- by.‘ a a F'xessl 53" ab. "gt: :rocess . O r a. w A‘. ' .9-00:“e“b ‘e‘. . ..np- I.” Sta I...::....~g Tne anre games for rt'nonp. AA” A 2‘ Monk-...b O . . e . IIQO A -- ”I" write: '1‘“ \I Erie's-“t cf in‘bl O V . h ."““F In“!- ” 'Vs JV“ U Ste": r. 'n', p...’ ‘” t":a:bure a I‘VI‘. I . M- the flrs Sifter} oke ] ‘ 5‘A t.r‘ “-4593: res; o" . "E '“An'o . II VVh'bAn‘dO‘ In - “N ‘\ ‘ “41$an 13 requirement imposed by USDA for federally approved plants (e.g. processing more than twenty thousand birds per year). "Batch processing" still depends largely on the labor complement required for moving birds between the various processing stages. The increased demand for poultry meat produced ijmcentives for company engineers to improve their processing equipment. According to Gordy (1974) , among the long list of people who contributed with invention, development and ianrovement of processing equipment, credit should be given to Gordon Johnson, Seth Baker, George Hunter, Jesse Jewel, and Sherman White. For example, Johnson was the first to mnanufacture a manually operated mechanical picker; Baker ksuilt the first automatic scalding machine; and Hunter :irwented the rubber finger. The improvement in processing equipment resulted in the shift from the batch processing to 11he "continuous or in-line" processing. "Continuous processing" refers to plants where most of ‘Clle processing activities (e.g., scalding, picking, EEvisceration and chilling) are done while the birds are in E3llackles on a conveyor line. Less manual bird handling (alaring processing is ensured which results in higher lE>1:ocessing speeds and therefore output. In these plants very Ifsew laborers are needed in the initial stages of primary lE>Jrocessing to work as equipment back-up. The adoption of ' v Q F ..IAD'a‘ In 3 3 :0” “I“ . . ..II‘ ‘. aflfl'fl‘”. . yv.¢.«‘ ed as a cc: ...-.A‘FF c...::.-c..€-5 5 33:93: ‘I': 'qus‘fl‘h. ‘ n..- -. dill“ L PI-Igno “a; .lu “keelflna 5 u. Op h‘ra " 'h 8..“ 1 .. ..rs. Seccnd L: éitclescse .‘ ‘6 ""‘1"At ' I 14 "continuous processing" became common or widely adopted because of the mandatory inspection for wholesomeness adopted in 1959, and for increased output (Brant, gt _a__l__L 1982). According to Tobin and Arthur (1964), inspection was used as a competitive selling device rather than for product wholesomeness. The introduction of compulsory inspection had some noticeable effects that need to be highlighted. First, this brought the elimination of NYD poultry. NYD was the dominant end product of poultry processing. The evisceration of the birds was now the norm of processing resulting in rtc t3irds. Second, inspection increased consumer confidence for the wholesome product. Third, to ensure the wholesomeness of the product, inspection imposed by law the minimum standard for plant sanitation and of the equipment that could be llSed. Fourth, inspection required major capital expenditures to meet the requirements. This included the structure of Walls, floors, and stainless steel equipment. This forced processors to increase their capacity to spread their <>\rerhead costs over more output units. The fate of low- Volume processors was in jeopardy. It was economically not feasible to satisfy the inspection requirements and remain "Small" or low-volume. "1:36 and I the tine 2:11.73 11585 [5: EffECti'v'e =_‘:';:;e:t mcti ezelerent c Basra; state :75 been date 0"!!! .A .-., .. be us '3' ‘ ‘ ‘ Lee a;;.rcat 1:.ccess C7 The insm bile that of iii! the pas 1357. trtil t 3E1x‘aspectic :mfi’o I 5. ye I‘exc :xe‘SAd . ~ 5 WL ‘37 1984) . v: *w since 17 15 III. Time and Motion Studies on Processing Activities The time and motion study is an industrial engineering technique used to analyze an operation for determining the most effective work area lay-out, the minimum and most efficient motions to use, and the time required to perform each element of the operation (Childs and Rogers, 1958). Several studies on time and motion on processing activities have been done (Table 1.1) . In this study, the motion studies in Table 1.1, are going to be used as standards for processing activities where applicable. These studies will provide insight to synthesizing a plant where processing equipment is not used. IV . Process Control The inspection of red meat became mandatory in 1907, while that of poultry was not until 1959. This occurred after the passage of the Poultry Products Inspection Act of 1957. Until that time, inspection of poultry was voluntary. The inspection law covers all raw poultry sold in interstate commerce (except small farm flocks) as well as all processed poultry products such as frozen dinners and soups ( F818, 1984) . Since inception, the inspection procedures have been undergoing changes (modification) to suit the prevailing conditions. The issues of concern are the production of s============;: sly-N 'vfi‘e::.,,u 1'." a. 4 "'3'.- hu- / I I ,... D'V“ ' _. UaOI‘ o" uh "A i... “a I". I. "‘ -“' ':.O l ‘d- at f F-Q‘e :" .c ifiv ‘ en ‘ ‘ In .. ‘ :"rn ‘ "' 6A. '3 “n ‘7 steal 3*- '-'= 3.83, 7 fl \ ...' 'r333'ds 16 Table 1.1 Timed Processing Activities Processing Time Reference Activities Required Sources (min.) Hanging birds 0.056 Brant et a1. , 1982 jfipnning 0.12 Brant et a1. , 1982 Killing 0.015 Brant et a1. , 1982 Bleeding 1.5 Perry, 1989 2.5 Brant et al., 1982 Scalding 3.5 Perry, 1989 2.5 Brant gt_gl;, 1982 soft (120 F) 2.5 Stadelman e_tLl;, 1987 semi (126-130 F) 2.0 Stadelman e_t;_a_l_., 1987 sub (138-140 F) 1.5 Stadelman §;t__a_l_., 1987 Picking 4.8 Perry, 1989 Preen gland removal 2.72 Childs and Walters,1962. Bird opening 2.58 Childs and Walters, 1962 Inspection 4.74 Childs and Walters, 1962 Emove vent 6.41 Childs and Walters, 1962 an viscera 7.30 Childs and Walters, 1962 Lung removal 4.02 Child and Walters, 1962 m heart a liver 7.04 Childs and Walters, 1962 -BEEEEEZg, clean gizzard 8.55 Childs and Walters, 1962 iEEEEL_Jgizzards 2.61 Childs and Walters, 1962 3231E1_Jheck vertebrae 2.70 Childs and Walters, 1962 RS’POVe crop and 4.74 Childs and Walters, 1962 %ipe Wr . . s.22§1_.§ stuff giblets 7.81 ChlldS and Walters, 1962 ‘0 a ... ‘ ar“ yuan! ‘ *”1-.-.. f $.t-tia .EH - - ‘ ' 7:4! .‘ I 0' .Lei‘.-\ :5 an] 5-! .‘ ..‘I-Q‘ fo- '~ :N:D‘\vc 3‘92 {St a 4.. titted o ”'44:; "V“‘ .E 9 V a.‘ ‘ .1: as, “. ~ ‘ to. 7‘ , f~~L0r a! . ' b s '1». ._ ,, fur-1. bu. l7 wholesale product and processing speed maintenance. Several changes have taken place in the inspection of processing plants (Crawford, 1988; Lefens, 1986 and Kushner 1986). These changes in inspection procedures include: 1. Acceptable Quality Limits (AQL) These are sets of processing standards. They were implemented in 1973, though never published as rules. 2 - Traditional Inspection In traditional inspection, the inspectors are required to physically examine every bird. This inspection procedure does not address itself to contaminants that are not detected organoleptically on broiler carcasses. 3 - Modified Traditional Inspection (MTI). MTI was introduced in 1978, then implemented in 1989. The introducing of this procedure was the first in the line or increasing the inspection procedures. In MTI one ihSpector checks all birds on the outside, and then two other inspectors check the inside and viscera on an every c)‘ther bird basis. This reduces the number of inspectors required . :CESSCI’S CC} sates. EELS j 0’ a u»—-0~~ H. H :.?.....v aob.’ : :‘vago‘ a‘he " "O sundae“ (II (I) was a I" ‘n-‘o;,.fl ~-- ......lm, arfacturin iiie'ees. 5:: ~45 system t7 3:: “rd. 77-1.. 3“ ‘00: .F . 'fi‘c l'zasses wit? :1... 5.:d to 3‘“: ifSpec: .‘ e 18 4. New-line Evisceration Line Speed (NELS). The implementation of NELS in 1984 resulted in a significant change in traditional inspection. In NELS the Acceptable Quality Control (AQC) procedure was replaced by the Partial Quality Control (PQC), which relied on the processors commitment to develop their own quality control system. NELS permitted processing line speeds to increase significantly. 5 - Streamline Inspection System (SIS). SIS was implemented in 1986. SIS is an extension of MTI, shifting the responsibility for identifying manufacturing defects from inspection personnel to plant employees. SIS eliminated one of the three inspectors. Under this system two inspectors share the complete examination of each bird. This procedure applies Total Quality Control (TQC). 6 - Second Generation Inspection. In this procedure, USDA trained trimmers trim the Qazrcasses without direct USDA supervision. There are three inspectors on the line, each responsible for checking every third bird for total bird disposition and wholesomeness. The f<>urth inspector at the end of the line verifies adherence to trim specifications . . «4'4 6626 e .....U q}. "F‘.V one ““. 5h ' :Y1.E:I ptte ‘1 . ;,.. AnnflpP"; ..in v'vu‘d‘rw" rises the r .' “... o)- v ::e U) 5318 .i . a. ROA .f‘ ...-:vevtdr 5U II . I ‘ :27. :CYIEI'S .:a:‘rd Ana 1'. a” L‘AVHP' a parts was “Mgr a: , A ""f‘easlvn 'I 7:, ; ‘ . 54.2.5.1'atl .‘::‘n \i.. 5' unu..h: 19 7. Third Generation Inspection. The Third generation was implemented in 1987. In this system, the USDA trained plant employees would sort normal from condemnable carcasses. This procedure dramatically :reduces the number of inspectors since most of the work is done by the plant employees. A computer is used by the inspector to track the actions of plant sorters, and analyze each sorters' performance. 8 . Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) HACCP, a rational approach to process control for food Iproducts was developed by the Pillsbury Company in (zooperation with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in 1971, when asked to develop foods for use in space (Lazar, 1991). This control system depends On the identification of hazards during the process. A hazard may include any point when the product may become unsafe, unwholesome, or adultered. Any point where a hazard may result, if the process goes out of control, is called cliltitical Control Point (Adams, 1990). The control is placed by identifying each of the Critical Control Points (CCP) and then establishing a method for controlling that step. According to Crawford (1988), HACCP depends on the application of controls throughout the life of a food product. This ideally means that controls are in place from -~'.P"I“" Qh n 'vb‘.' 'V gIII‘ A all" M.“ Dre: 5 an I..." f'A.‘qh ...‘Vd‘t‘ I. 3!? 1:52; .4{0n! ‘5‘ ...‘I-UOII bu .HHJD oi :- ...vofltivb 50' ' .' ‘ o,- o~~n~vn (R u .‘uM‘II’. Ht: "“ncscrs st .- V'b ta :g.‘ql';‘ ‘FA "50".“ fid'y . . ‘:‘:v-a fling» =L=&&_ “v“- ____ ll 20 animal production through consumption. FSIS has the authority to implement the HACCP system from slaughter through processing. Though the F815 procedures have changed over the years, in an attempt to be "in-step" with the dynamics of the .industry, there are indications of shortcomings. This :includes the shortage of personnel to "man" the plants due 1:0 funding shortages, line speeds not fast enough by [processors standards and food safety concerns involving the following foodborne pathogens: W enteridis, Listsm' ' new. and W123; EL 'ni. .‘J C ...0A7:‘ fl . :oil' “I ...A .F‘:' ‘ I g: .u’v‘dvo‘ '-g A". ' 5'5"! 3‘ C 5" 'an "I V oV'V 5“ 0" . ~ . «0 :IF“ d u» UNVUAH 332311.195 ...” ~- ‘b.i a‘OV' ‘ . . 5539‘ A; .' ~ V‘EQVJ V4 \ : ‘iea., Chapter 3. PROCESSING PLANT DESIGN The importance of proper planning needs to be reiterated. Issues to be considered during planning include: the location of the plant, total land area needed, plant lay-out, and the processing activities that are to be done. The location should satisfy the basic requirements, the lay- out should ensure ease of product flow and the processing activities should be arranged in the order that they occur and allow ease of work for employees. It. Locational Consideration Ideally a complete appraisal of all the economic, Fflnysical, and environmental qualities of the site where the IDCIultry enterprise is to be located needs to be made. The Elzaproach for appraisal may be different from one company to title other, or from industry to industry. In practice many companies make this appraisal especially when considering JEWealocation. According to Ridlen and Johnson (1970). there iallre several factors that need to be considered when ‘EBEStablishing a poultry processing plant. This includes: (:Ei) Proximity to market, (b) Supply of birds sufficient for ‘:=€2en selected, proper design of the facilities, equipment Elrid how the activities are going to be performed must be Gil'asured. Future possible developments, such as expansion llllnst be considered at the early planning of the facility. TIFIJe total land area for establishing a processing plant can be categorized into four areas:— ( 1) area for the building (receiving area, processing area, storing, offices and employee facility) ( 2) area for parking ( 3 ) area for dumping or disposing of wastes ( 4 ) buffer area (between the plant and neighbors). gflfl'a ‘ ' .va‘ uu AVU‘ '4' .5 “V I .I- -'e r‘urb - ".“~ "\I F V ' ' ..t ravk‘”: recon“ u ' . yvt... I 9 (I) '1 a" . . I I) (I! (n 530.4?) as a '- rmn‘v .n vyIaL-s 13:1: land EAL-um 5'3“ ....i..u:o algd \~. -..is In) f? If” .'.;: chu-zse ; :2: tee synt‘r P 3123.1. Q A. N \‘m. ’ “wild m 1 23 According to Childs et a1. (1970), the rule of thumb f0r the proportions of the different areas is: building, 20%; parking 10%; dumping, 5%; buffer, 65%. Childs gt a1. (1970) recommends that the processing plant site should not be less than five times the actual size of the plant facility as a minimum for land requirement. In contrast, Shupe at al, (1975) recommends that the lninimum land requirement should be twenty times the hnfllding. This study used the former recommendation of Childs et a1. since the latter seemed more ideal for the lligh volume processing plant. The minimum land requirement kar the synthesized plants in this study is shown in the Table 3.1. Table 3.1 Proportionate Land Requirement for a Processing Plant P lant Min . Land Bui lding Parking Dumping Buffer requirement (100%) (20%) (10%) (5%) (65%) ------------------ sq.ft. ----------------------- A 4000 800 400 200 2600 B 5000 1000 500 250 3250 C 7000 1400 700 350 4550 D 15000 3000 1500 750 9750 JE't: should be noted that these minimum requirements are based on plant lay-out recommended by equipment manufacturers. It no‘ “...;AH h "t‘:5.vll a [5:15:33 a ‘k.',' .:..(..'1g, ‘38. um .. . M“"‘EI 58f "C \ . ' “Wynne: . . 'Ln ‘5‘ “UV 5. 3‘ . 1 ~‘ 9-3 .131 c ’5 . she fm. ....I‘ {IV " ..v. lng a 32;, are: ~ like gOO: New to J 24 is always better to have more than the minimums. This could he helpful especially when expansion is a possibility in the future. III. Principles of Lay-Out Planning. Establishing a processing plant needs well thought out pdanning to ensure success. According to Clearance, et a1; (1972) developing a good lay-out can be thought of as arranging equipment, work areas, and other elements of an «operation according to good common sense. Operations are arranged in the order that they occur; travel distances are kept short and direct; congestion, delays, and back tracking, rehandling, and interferences are held to a Enjqnimum; safety and protection of employees are built in; rmcxnrproductive effort is minimized: and work is distributed as equally as possible among workers. The fundamental principles that should be considered in developing a good lay-out, according to Clearance, e; a].A ( 1972) are: ( 1) Make good use of space. Need to have a formula/methodology for space allocation based on the equipment dimensions, worker space, ease of movement of inputs and workers. ; new-e men/women a: the distances a: nininized by 10: ancth r as clos« sperations is e: products) move areas. Transpcr‘ trip and redu i: anount of mover-.4 3 Provide 900d pro: locate and arr : Fr ucts flow 5; to the next 3"” Ab. interference (Se .Plan so future c.‘ The plant lay-01 can be provided permanent struc‘. partitions s‘nou] they limit chant Possible expansi (Le. attachment " provlde safe, sat cfinditions. r. ‘WS that provi 25 (2) Move men/women and materials minimum distances. The distances and frequencies of movement can be minimized by locating operations that follow one another as close as possible. The location of operations is especially important where men/women (or products) move frequently between operations and work areas. Transporting the maximum number of birds per trip and reducing the distance travelled reduces the amount of movement. (3) Provide good product flow. Locate and arrange work areas, rooms, and equipment so products flow smoothly from one operation and work area to the next with minimum backtracking, rehandling, or interference (See Figure 3.1). (41) Plan so future changes can be made. The plant lay-out should be flexible. Future expansion can be provided for in several ways. For example, permanent structures, such as cooler walls or partitions should be used only where essential, because they limit changes that can be made. Allow more space. Possible expansion points should be at the outside (i.e. attachment). ( 5) Provide safe, satisfactory, and efficient working conditions. Firms that provide and maintain good working conditions / Figure 3.1 Opera! W Fi P83 “\“1 FEATHERS i\ l \ \ uer3. 1111 lOe mp1: 26 rta Sions in the Conversionl of Live (Source: Stadelman et.al.198& ' LIVE HANG ' i [ STUNNING 3' r KILLING; I SCALDING”. I iDE-FEATHERINGE OFFAL I EVISCERATION ! J R E NDERER i _j §CHILLINGj PACKING j 7510111140 1 i __. FRESH PACK 1. r ‘1 .._.FIUICK FROZEN 3... l can expect to 122 Laser insurance firns that nain‘. siting together a s 3' ' ‘ 1r.add-t.0na1 1 area-'9 P311 c;;.€ process and FTC 3.?rccessing Plant The poultry proc Izcnents or areas 0 1‘5 :sspcnents of a p Six: can be catego Icessinq area consi. and Defeatner see, id) Offal area 1 Area. Seccnd, the non-t 5‘ ms. ante area, and l "2:. It is important mile, it is mandatc filing and defeatneri 3.7.339“: “Won area 27 can expect to have less absenteeism, higher moral, lower insurance rates, and greater productivity than firms that maintain poor working conditions. (6). Bring together all factors to make a total working unit. An additional factor that needs to be included in the above principles concerns the protection of the process and products contained therein. IV. Processing Plant Lay-out. The poultry processing plant consists of several components or areas based on the type of activity performed. Iqie components of a processing plant that produces rtc lPlroduct can be categorized into two areas. First, the E>Irocessing area consisting of: (a) Receiving Area, (b) JFIleling and Defeathering Area, (c) Evisceration and Chilling 15dtrea, (d) Offal area (e) Packaging, (f) Storage and/or Shipping Area. Second, the non-operational areas consisting of: ( 8) Office area, and (b) Employee facilities (See Figure :3r-2). It is important to separate the processing area. For e)fiample, it is mandatory, by FSIS regulations, that the killing and defeathering area be separate from the av isceration area . .Figure 3.2 PTO W Offal Area ‘ Office L___ 1 Ice Cooler 28 F1 1gur e.3 2 Process sdng Ar rea Relationship Indicatlnge Flow of Prod ugct (Source: Shupe. 1973) 1 Receiving Area # Dressing Area 3* ihBoiler and Shop? I ‘7 —3 Evisceration Area I Employee Facility Packaging an“ ' Freezer ‘7 Chilling Area .‘ Storage and i 1 Shipping Area I 1 Tne plant 1aY'C‘ autriaid. Flexi'c: «we-“ate future C3 5.....29. ;v.\:s:‘:ility. Usually :re::::end plant 1. :eezsadvisable to p: 3225., instead of giv Liseiving Area The incoming bi} IetiLa-tion and a CO: ‘1' e ' ' .- lteiving area m! ..ace even during ad‘ sarenent for the ‘ sea“ ‘or . . a truck to l dock 12" hiah 52:2?! ' be pitched at a, ‘ . "3 (a: 1' . The PSIS regula‘ i.‘ «‘Eati} )-' 29 The plant lay-out should be designed in a way that it is not rigid. Flexibility should be emphasized to accommodate future changes, especially if expansion is a possibility. Usually the equipment manufacturers do provide or recommend plant lay-outs to potential processors. It seems advisable to provide the proportions of the processing area, instead of giving rigid processing areas in square feet. OPERATIONAL AREAS A- Receiving Area The incoming birds are received at this area. Adequate "€Entilation and a comforting environment should be ensured. The receiving area must be covered so processing can take 91 ace even during adverse weather conditions. The minimum quuirement for the receiving area is to have an adequate SIlace for a truck to unload and be able to maneuver its way ':>‘Ult. A dock 12" high extend across the back. The floor Ql'lould be pitched at 3/4" per foot toward the drain-trough t0 facilitate draining (FSIS, 1987). E . Dressing Area: The FSIS regulation states that the killing and defeathering area must be separated from the evisceration F‘OCI‘S and dra ‘ 4 anal of mood anu ‘ h 1‘5 Dra'ilde smootal “vi- 1. E‘sisceration Area This area accor: :e;a:a:d from the P3 .sseration (assunir s’azkles) include: t: zazgzng birds on th Floral, cut open the tense heart and lung 3313' percent of the e (Shape, at at. mid be given to t? 1319 Space, ventilat faunties. The gene: 1::‘1 station is three eviscerating trough, asuer assistants r 30 area. Floors and drains should be designed for efficient removal of blood and cleanup of wastes. A standard practice is to provide smooth floors sloped approximately at 1/4" per foot to floor drains that are no more than twenty feet apart (FSIS, 1987). C. Evisceration Area This area according to FSIS regulations must be separated from the previous areas. The activities of evisceration (assuming a two-point suspension on the shackles) include: transfer of birds from the picker table, hanging birds on the shackles, pinning, singeing, oil gland removal, cut open the birds, draw viscera, inspection, remove heart and lungs, gizzard cleaning, and cut the hooks. Fifty percent of the plant workers work in the eviscerating area (Shupe, at all, 1975). Therefore particular attention Should be given to the design and lay-out of work stations, aisle space, ventilation and proper placement of personnel facilities. The generally recommended space allocation for a W<>rk station is three feet for each worker at the eViscerating trough, and four feet for the inspector and his/her assistants (FSIS, 1987). :. :ifal Area Aggrcxinately :zcarded as inedi‘c feaiiers, viscera, Lizated close to, t atszeration areas 3.?a:kaging and Cl". This area that ::::ain space and e :egging and clippi 11:: running water asceration statio Laterage and ship Th ...e volume of product influ ”canon of the st0 31 D. Offal Area Approximately 25% of each broiler processed is discarded as inedible material in the form of blood, feathers, viscera, feet, and heads. The offal area should be located close to, but separate from defeathering and evisceration areas to minimize transport distance. E. Packaging and Chilling Area This area that adjoins the eviscerating area must contain space and equipment necessary for carcass packing (bagging and clipping), weighing, and icing. Chill tanks with running water must be placed next to the final I evisceration station (i.e. inside and outside bird washer). F. Storage and shipping area The volume of product processed and the form of the final product influence the type, size and sometimes the location of the storage area. The storage area can be (iivided into: (a) non-refrigerated dry area, used for s"II-oring packaging materials; (b) refrigerated cooler, is used as a temporary storage keeping the product at 32 to 36°F. The rule of thumb is that a cooler facility should be 0d insurance for contingencies: and (c) the freezer area, Which consists of two compartments, each of which require agitate rooms (i) raised at 0'? for Loading area la ratiard lay-out for :.;,e e; g;_._, 191‘: ::':e employed, whi Trio-:ation of the reaand the cold 5: rut-g ..:..L.Ce. Various d i: rum. ,..=.. situation or p: l -: : 1. (“:38 Floor space OCCE :41“: averaged 7 per C :Ctilds at all (197 1‘ Adequate sitting 2 private offices f :::entration without J's-cut for two or no in” “Net? ‘tly used busir 11g” 1 use them; (4) SE' iii-3m . Office staff 32 separate rooms (i) blast freezer (-20 to -60°F) and (ii) a room held at 0°F for storage of frozen products. Loading area lay-out and procedures vary so much that a standard lay-out for all plants is difficult to develop (Shupe, at all, 1972). However some basic lay-out principles can be employed, which would benefit most plant operations. The location of the loading dock is usually near the packing area and the cold storage area to ensure minimum travelling distance. Various dimensions are adopted depending on the given situation or preference. NON-OPERATIONAL AREAS A. Office Floor space occupied by offices in a large processing plant averaged 7 percent of the total plant area. According to Childs et a1; (1970) office facilities requirements are: (1) Adequate sitting room for visitors and reception: ( 2) private offices for persons whose work requires concentration without interruption; (3) a general office lay-out for two or more workers with space for files and for frequently used business machines located near the persons ‘Vlro use them; (4) separate rest room facilities for the fileeneral office staff; (5) a secure place for office Supplies, records and funds; (6) natural light argumented by 4hr" .u . . . h r'";:;al 11g... . .:.. for business 1: o ,;.' '0‘: "'1 3...: Lalsbéll B) . ‘ . v ' :sfazric ted semi E.E:;'.:yee facilit hide range 1 52:;lities is possi runners, and thi trove vorknanshi ”sever. The f acil ¥‘=6n§.,‘ . “wusuce . . Lunchroom - it i used. Lunch faci -‘ oh ’ ' .. ..e.e is suffici I. ‘v I ‘ “955139 rooms - 433319 dressing 1 .- .....red (unless or on should provide .4 “valet rooms - E ‘A-~‘ kt§=‘ ‘ng rOOms by t j32:5. FSIS recourse ‘-. Ken, 1" k Wet or tOile 33 artificial lighting and several electric outlets on each wall for business machines; and (7) provisions for expansion and flexibility with nonload-bearing walls or movable, prefabricated sections. B. Employee facilities A wide range in the size and type of employee facilities is possible. Personal facilities provide comfort to workers, and this results in greater worker productivity, improved workmanship, better morale, and lower labor turnover. The facilities according to FSIS (1987) may constitute: 1) Lunchroom - it is recommended that 15 sq.ft. per person is used. Lunch facilities can be provided in dressing rooms, if there is sufficient space. 2) Dressing rooms - must be separated from toilet rooms. Separate dressing rooms for employees of each sex is required (unless only one sex is employed). The dressing room should provide lockers, shower and bath facilities. 33) Toilet rooms - should be separated from adjoining dressing rooms by tight, full height walls and self closing doors. FSIS recommends the following formula for determining the number of toilet bowls required (Table 3.2). Table 3. deternin Persons < f.— 56 to 80 er; 1 M For each a f) LA. employees 34 Table 3.2 FSIS recommendations for determining toilet bowls required Persons of same sex Toilet bowls required 1 to 15 employees 1 16 to 35 employees 2 36 to 55 employees *3 56 to 80 employees *4 For each additional 30 *1 employees more than of 80 E Source: FSIS, 1987 *Urinals may be substituted for toilet bowls but only up to 1/3 of the number of bowls required. I. Litroduction ' nan¥:na“.ov ine \rULJ-Llllla 5‘ a . . 4 :=:.:s :as enable-d eating in bigger . , ‘ " :z-zessing is a la. 221615: ges of pea. .: .fl - .. use nechanize: “stalling mechanize rtsnly increase ca ;;al;ty inprovenents 22sed by absenteeis :t-cessing activitie .. and cunulat ‘1 'I "':I Th ...e need to CO: 16:32 - 68 more evident .....eases. Before t? it; e. 9 .he early dev w"-‘91930'5. birds 356 3‘ . . m€Chanized e; Chapter 4 EQUIPMENT AND LABOR REQUIREMENTS I. Introduction The combination of equipment and labor in processing plants has enabled increased speed in processing activities, resulting in bigger plants with large outputs. Poultry processing is a labor intensive process when compared to other stages of poultry production. The trend in processing is to use mechanized equipment with humans as back-up. Installing mechanized equipment in the processing plant will not only increase capacity but also will provide product quality improvements and reduce disruptions that may be caused by absenteeism. It is a known fact that some of the processing activities are monotonous and arduous can lead to Stress, and cumulative trauma disorders or CTD (Hebert, 1989). The need to complement labor with mechanical equipment tNacomes more evident as the size of processing plants ailicreases. Before the invention of processing equipment, and (illring the early development stage of the poultry industry 1111 the 1930's, birds were processed manually (without the use of mechanized equipment). Increased demand of poultry 35 ¢ 2:: it necessary . o as done by substitu 1Ibis trend of s 1223:: even today. 5:17.: desire to rea ::’ ;:oduct produced, :ztneed manual, he“. slides for example teplant, checking 1 setting or correct'n: :spection of the kil eciines and the sur: The foregoing i1 Fultry processing p2 lr-volune processinc 251: questions that Pill-try processing as information not incl .. . usca.e/size, by de 15:..in . . .. ‘A ' U '4. ea: lY forties is tali- .. dent role. The 1:3 l. . 36 made it necessary for plants to increase their output. This was done by substituting equipment for labor. This trend of substituting capital with labor is still the norm even today. Hechanization is based on the never ending desire to realize the lowest possible cost per pound 0f PrOduct produced, as well as a uniform product. Though manY large plants are mechanized, there are some activities that need manual, human activities at the moment. This inc=ludes for example, hanging of live birds upon arrival at t'h‘elplant, checking individual machine performance and setting or correcting the machine if required, visual inspection of the killed birds, cleaning and dissinfencting machines and the surroundings. The foregoing information provides the status of Poultry processing plants. The task at hand is to focus on 1O‘V‘volume processing plant. This will provide answers to basic questions that would share light to the evolution of POUItry processing as well as providing additional information not included in the studies concerning economies 0f scale/size, by depicting the lowest plant output oPerations. In a low-volume poultry processing operation meChanization is not that advanced. The technology used in the early forties is still the norm, where labor plays a Prominent role. The scope of this study will be restricted to only consider plants that do not process more than 2.25 .Processing Plant It is possible 1 also: the use of me ocls". This type of :tensive. It is reas (at: an increase in :sreasing the number There are three imaged in manual ; Llerforn one activi All the laborers :tceed to the next. solved in killing t .131, eviscerate, chi :zcept is practiced Messed are killed teediru. Then all tl E‘s...” Mae here is to d 37 million birds per year. II. Processing Plant without mechanized equipment It is possible to manually process poultry (i.e. without the use of mechanized equipment) with loose hand 1100181. This type of a plant would be highly labor intensive. It is reasonable to conceptualize that in such a plant an increase in output would need to be matched by increasing the number of laborers. There are three procedural approaches that could be envisaged in manual processing plants: A- Perform one activity at a time. All the laborers become engaged in one activity, then Proceed to the next. For example, all the laborers will be involved in killing the birds to be processed, then scald, pick, eviscerate, chill and pack. This procedural or stage c301'K3ept is practiced in Tanzania“. The birds that are to be Processed are killed then put in drums for restraint and bleeding. Then all the birds are scalded and picked. The esSence here is to do one activity completely before \ 1Loose tools refer to knives, scissors, rope and a block, bl-ICRets, knife sharpener and hand thermometer(s) . A table(s) and heating device to boil water is needed. ’Personal communication with Mrs Halima Hakwaia who is .a managing director of Kandalla Poultry Farm in Tanzania, during her visit to Michigan State University. needing to the ne: There are some 1 :osedure. First, if could be a pro! (‘3 I. I -.. SET-3:08:61 be a bi? Ecreiazple the tine lielay time in pick: Eater-holding strer ;;:}r.;.g process. it”: rulers can still be .13le of up to four cressed and modif ie :..;s:rete batch P“ T . in this procedur ..ressed, from the t a... is processed. 1 aging of birds on a 335 ' ' .- Then killing 2‘.) ...e neck. It is i. Meme blood Spla BirdS are then Mn.‘1 rqu.:1n I ed 1n buckets «i necessary f or me i a ' 1 ‘ 5“ :CH ’ 38 proceeding to the next stage. There are some questionable issues concerning the above procedure. First, if the killed birds are not well bled, there could be a problem of cadavers and red wings. Second, there could be a big time lapse between processing stages, for example the time between killing and picking processes. A delay time in picking after slaughter increases the feather-holding strength, and substantially hinders the PiCking process. Although Gregory (1988) states that broilers can still be satisfactorily picked after a delay in PiCking of up to four hours. These concerns could be addressed and modified where necessary. B. Discrete batch processing In this procedure a batch of birds (5 to 8 birds) is Processed, from the beginning to the rtc Stage, then another hatobis processed. The activities that are done include hanging of birds on a rope and a block (Sheperd and Flegal, 1985). Then killing by cutting the jugular vein on the side 0f the neck. It is important to hold the head after cutting to reduce blood splattering. Birds are then scalded in water at 128-140°F which is contained in buckets or other containers. A hand thermometer is necessary for monitoring the water temperature. There is a need to have some heating device like a stove or heater. The birds are 3::edtezp rarily j n;s:eration process see containersx'aate as: and reduce car: 2:12;. in plastic agent. The segue: lacse hand tools in Rate 4.1). 2. Continuous batch This processing '2;s:rete batch" pr: mined Specific ta “(‘3 ' ...,c..sible for ham .0 .-e:e is some specie '1! - .. 1 "994316 doing a be bother process Fierce-d; «“9 procedures ......JOUS batch" p1 Flt moves th: Higeifie 39 The turns are then picked by hand, then washed and stored temporarily in cold water bins awaiting the evisceration process. The eviscerated birds are then put in some containers/water tanks/barrels with running water to wash and reduce carcass temperatures. The carcasses are then packaged in plastic bags and chilled with ice awaiting shipment. The sequence of the processing activities, and the loose hand tools in a manual plant need to be highlighted (Figure 4.1) . C- Continuous batch processing This processing method is nearly similar to the "Discrete batch" processing method, except that laborers are assigned specific tasks. For example, one person being responsible for hanging and killing birds all the time. There is some specialization involved, and this will result in People doing a better job over time. Another processing method can be derived from the PreCeding procedures, and could be called the "Adaptive cOntinuous batch" processing. In this processing method, management moves the workers around depending on the peak iand troughs of processing needs. For example at the beginning of the day more help may be needed for unloading, hanging, killing and scalding birds for start-up. Gradually some workers will be released to assume the other processing Hanging KiHing Bkeding Scalding Defeathering Eviscerating Chilling PaCkaging \‘ Figure 4.1 Processing Activities and Hand Loose Tools HHh—ee_-e~ ___,_______ Hanging - ropes and blocks Killing _ knives Bleeding Scalding .- buckets and/or containers : Defeathering _ hand(s) 1 Eviscerating - hand, knives and table(s) 1 Chilling ' _ buckets, barrels, conatiners Packaging _ plastic bags ‘ ..-...gies. AS the ‘ .ZTiEIS should be co :5: gradually moved amid-ties. Towards :e beginning of the 121*. up their area, :ee'.';scerating lin 2:111 and packagin‘ 5?;roazh is more rea E"~Tl3'iees become no: teativity over ti: specific tasks have Determining the 'K. ' .-o processmg .;screte batch proce Ectanical transitic '3“ be the basis 0: poi," ' ow.‘ J‘tles . 41 mfidvities. As the flow of slaughtered birds increase, inukers should be concentrated at the eviscerating line, then gradually moved to the chilling and packaging activities. Towards the end of the work period, workers at the beginning of the processing activity should begin to clean up their area, and progress to other areas. Those in the eviscerating line should be merged with those in the chill and packaging activities. Logically, among the three procedures, the specialized aFlufoach is more reasonable. Through this procedure emPloyees become more proficient, resulting in mastery of the activity over time. Less confusion is ensured because SPGCific tasks have been assigned to each worker. III. Determining the Mechanical Transition Threshold Two processing procedures (One activity at a time and Discrete batch processing) will be used for determining the meChanical transition threshold. The time and motion studies will be the basis or standards for performing processing aCtivities. Wane; Plant capacity = 200 birds to be processed Number of Laborers = 10 ggriards! Table 4-1 lg proce Act; It is important he standards, from rained from plants 6.9., shackles) ver sundards used are c is considered. The r veer presentation I 0'4 ' 1.. F v.15 2,: ocessing act: 1.3.» - - ..e Activity at :nere are thre :eei 5 to be subject 42 standards; Table 4.1 Summary of Processing Standards (Derived from Table 1.1) Processing Time Activity Required H = Hanging 0.056 min. K = Killing 0.015 min. B = Bleeding 1.5 min. S = Scalding 2.5 min P = Picking 4.8 min. D = Eviscerating 3.5 min. It is important to note that the values/numbers used as the standards, from the time and motion studies were obtained from plants where some processing equipment (e.g., shackles) were used. It may be argued that the Standards used are on the lower side when manual processing is Considered. The hanging of birds on shackles ensures a better presentation of the bird to the employee, easing of some processing activities. A- One Activity at a time There are three constraints that the proposed solution needs to be subjected to: 3 Tire taken to p This can be cal aim the processi :ti'. evisceration ( 2e total time regui assumption here is t messed. The evisc all for cooling. 1;. Travel distance activities. During the processii found during proce: pant lay-out. For mites is used for it e . .e r0:31 time rec “"37 minutes , 43 (aL.Time taken to process one bird This can be calculated by summing the time required to Perform the processing activities, from hanging the bird until evisceration (Equation 1). 1}=(H+K¥B+S+P+E)....(l) where I; = time taken to process one bird (for other equation notations refer to Table 4.1) The total time required is 12.37 minutes. Note the aS'a‘amnption here is that the viscera is discarded and not Processed. The eviscerated bird will be placed in a chill tank for cooling. (b). Travel distance for repositioning and doing processing activities. During the processing activity some time is wasted by moving around during processing. This could be reduced by proper Plant lay-out. For this example, let us assume that 5 minutes is used for travelling or repositioning. r; (H+K+S+P+E+TD) . . . . (2) where TD = travel distance The total time required for processing one bird will then be 17.37 minutes. The processing p :2; are a function 0 :isvill provide the letters that can be :ejrocessin activi If it takes 17.3 1111 take 3474 minute press 200 birds. In Litaies them 5.79 h: :aciaging stage), 3- _:lint vith a process the above inforna Moor and labor r :9 partial calcula: ‘ 35.1 "‘ mm in manual Table 4.2 USinq Ont Birds Pro (per hog 10 35 79 100 124 145 180 190 200 - -- -q 44 (c). Required area for processing a bird The processing plant dimensions are necessary because they are a function of the travelling distance (TD). Also this will provide the insight of the possible number of laborers that can be put and be efficiently productive in the processing activity. If it takes 17.37 minutes to process one bird, then it will take 3474 minutes (or 57.9 hours) for one person to process 200 birds. In our example there are ten workers, so it takes them 5.79 hours to process 200 birds (excluding the packaging stage). This could be translated as a manual plant with a processing capacity of 35 birds per hour. Based on the above information, the determination of plant output per hour and labor requirement is possible. Table 4.2, shows the partial calculations of the relationship between labor and output in manual processing. Table 4.2 Worker-Output Relationship when Using One Activity at a Time Processing Birds Processed Workers Incremental (per hour) (No.) change 10 3 35 10 3.57 79 23 3.38 100 29 3.50 124 36 4.80 145 42 3.50 180 52 3.50 190 55 3.33 78: To make a gene- 1"“: -..~s a RegreSSLOn I {,sz I "“"S‘rip' A 11393 {nation 3) - Tie rodel depicting i l'=0. ‘ Tie egiation depicts letters by one (x) Messed per hour. i Discrete Batch P: Abatch of 8 1: ”NS. Based on Peters Could be a I'm}; ; eV-.'£ties: lperson to ha 45 To make a generalization about the relationship of output and labor requirements in manual broiler processing plants, a Regression Analysis using the statistical package (SYSTAT, 1990) was made to determine the functional relationship. A linear function model format was used (Equation 3). Y=a+bX' ............ (3) where Y Birds processed per hour a constant coefficient number of workers XU'D! II II II II The model depicting the relationship is shown in equation 4. Y=0.333+3.515X ............. (4) The equation depicts that an increase in the number of laborers by one (x) will result in 3.515 additional birds ;processed per hour. B. Discrete Batch Processing A batch of 8 birds is processed at a time using 10 laborers. Based on the standards in Table 4.1, the 10 laborers could be assigned the following processing activities: 1 person to hang, stun, kill and bleed the birds. ’8 46 1 person for scalding and moving the birds 4 people for picking birds 4 people for eviscerating birds. In the discrete batch processing procedure, the picking and eviscerating activities determines the speed of processing. The labor and output (birds processed per hour is shown in Table 4.3. Table 4.3 Worker-Output Relationship when Discrete Batch Processing Birds Workers Incremental processed (No) change 50 10 63 11 13.0 75 13 6.0 88 15 6.5 100 17 6.0 113 19 6.5 125 21 6.0 138 23 6.5 150 25 6.0 163 27 6.5 176 29 6.0 188 31 6.5 200 33 6.0 According to the standards of time and motion studies, for both the One activity at a time and Discrete batch Processing, there is a linear relationship between number of laborers and birds processed per unit of time Figure 4.2. An increase in the laborers will result in an increase in birds pr-‘<>1::essed . Le'v' ‘1' 47 Figure 4.42 Workrer-Output Relationship Output (birds/hour) 250 «— 200 ~ T ,4 150 P + 100 — +’ 2+4” ’ i 71 ' / 50 r— + i /// o iL 1 1 1 i i r I o 10 20 30 4o 50 60 70 Number of laborers —'—— One Activity "—‘3— Discrete batch ..‘o'w'u :...¥.b ... b; V ..i ~00 h 0‘ ll- . n .‘C L: ’7': 5". was ..L .. “A n . ‘ I'- Just «3.1;... H.5ob. M" > ..E: vvs... i=9...__ .5.....: l AA: r‘= ‘ s '9 0.4:. l". 48 Figure 4.2 show that Discrete batch processing is efficient than One Activity at a time procedure. To process 200 birds per hour 60 laborers are needed in the One Activity at a time procedure, while only 30 laborers are needed for Discrete batch processing. The linear relationship portrayed in Figure 4.2 needs to be modified to accommodate some practical factors. It is true that an increase in laborers will increase output. But at some point and time there will be crowding of laborers, difficulty of movement, accidents, etc. that result in counter productivity. This reflects the law of diminishing returns’..An appropriate question is, "at what point (number of birds processed per unit time) is manual processing in a plant not practical?" That is where some other technology will need to be introduced. This range in this study will henceforth be regarded as the "mechanical transition threshold". The time and motion study information is necessary but :not sufficient for being the only basis for determining the mechanical transition threshold. This is due to the fixed <3oefficients that are built in when the time motion studies “ITIe Law of Diminishing Returns states that additions of a ‘variable input (i.e. labor in this case) to a set of fiXed inputs at some point will result in a total product that increases at a decreasing rate, and eventually in a fgtal product that decreases (Harsh, Connor and Schwab, 81). O 222 .3 val-bu. . u 0 :: :zex; mite: < d H hue < I. P- T: 49 are performed. The alternative procedure is to determine the processing cost per bird of the smallest mechanized plant operating at different capacity utilizations‘, then compare them to those of manual processing. The premise of this comparison is based on the concept that when labor is free or inexpensive plants will prefer to use more laborers to increase output (manual processing scenario). To determine the importance of the labor compensation rate, a wage rate range of $1.00 to $6.00 per hour was used. Figures 4.3 and 4.4 show the processing cost curves for manualprocessing and the mechanized plant, respectively. The mechanical transition threshold is derived from a comparison of Figures 4.3 and 4.4 (see Table 4.4 and Figure 4.5). Table 4.4 Mechanical Transition Threshold Wage rate Birds processed (5) (per hour) ‘Note: investment on building and furniture is not factored in the calculations for a manual plant. Unlike the manual plant, the mechanized plant must have a building for the equipment .lu 1|: I‘M AU ’ . D! U, ”/5 y Ir III Co: 0 50 Figure 4.3 Manual Processing Cost per bird _N_ ‘1 l 1 : N a: \ ,9 4 l l. \ s _. _ l \V : \ 3K \ \\ .wxs. \ s i i F i ii Aw 0 0 150 200 Birds per hour 100 50 $3 +$2 —{-‘>—$1 _;.__§_. i...J +34 —+—$5 +$6 f .P g_ 1 ii 'va 3- w o\ 51 Figure 4.4 Mechanized Processing Cost per bird 2.5 _ if i i. i 2 i— ' T l i E l 1.5 f I. \ \\ \ \\ \ 1 R \ x \ \\\ ‘r‘\l\\ L \ ‘\\\\\\‘ _\+_\ \ : /\_ \_ E1 ‘ “‘ t “ \ 191 y \\ . \ \\+‘\\.\‘\‘ \\ \X ‘ k. ' ‘61 R\I>\‘\\L\K~i~1 L \ 1 111. '- “*’ "1.1 1 1 ‘ w 0.5 . \\\\1\\\D‘\~i:‘ '5 ..\ i ‘\r§;\\ \ \k‘k ‘W K , . i 0 L I i i 0 50 *$6 +$5 100 150 200 Birds per hour +354 {Ur-$3 —~f-$2 —e»—s1 250 fi is .\D v Figure 4.5 Mechanical Transition Threshold 7 Wage Rate ($lhour) ! a l i 6 1‘— e i l \ w I z \ i‘ , 5i i I . l \, l i ‘\ i l \ i 4 F‘ \e i i s .\ ) l \ i 3 “F I\\_\ i \(X ; l 2 R a .\ ! .\\\ \ L 1 ‘ 1 e ‘\. i L 0 l L— L l l 0 50 100 150 200 250 l Volume (birds/hour) :AO'. the 3.,” AF 5.1,. \m . Ann‘s ,, yin-v I. M 1"; ... “.1“. 4 ner g v v... . E-p:. I l tuna-.5 CI ‘ ‘ s “'7'“: n Ungl- W‘ . .n !e:r 9' ' 'e; y . In, H »~.-:‘e "IAAAS: rt i'ycb 0 w. L‘v.‘ :9' A 'u c 53 Form the above information it is evident that at a lower labor compensation rate ($1.00 per hour), manual processing becomes economically undesirable beyond 165 birds per hour. At higher wage rates, the substitution of capital for labor occurs sooner. For example, at $6.00 per hour, the mechanical transition threshold occurs when processing about 30 birds per hour. IV. Mechanized Processing Plants Very few companies both in North America and Europe are involved in the manufacturing of low-volume poultry Processing equipment. Low-volume as defined earlier refers to Plants that process not more than 1200 birds per hour (or not More than 2.25 million birds per year when processing for 8 hours per day, 5 days a week, and 50 weeks per year). In the 0.8. , three manufactures of low-volume poultry processing equipment have been identified. These are: (1) Pickwick Company, (2) Ashly Machine Company, and (3) Brower. These manufacturers except Brower (who bought Ruhl's line of poultry processing equipment, a few years ago) have been operational since the 1930’s. The design of the low-volume processing equipment (dimensions and capacity) is nearly the same between the Illal'lufacturers. The technology used is still that of the eaIll‘ly forties, with equipment geared to batch processing. In 54 Europe, the identified manufacturers of low-volume processing equipment are Stork and Linco. These companies are also well known manufacturers of large scale processing equipment. It seems as if low-volume equipment manufacturing is specially designed for marketing in developing countries. The design of their equipment resembles that of large scale processing plants, but they are of reduced scale. Their equipment allows processing activities to be done while the birds are hung on the conveyor line, thus the phrase "in- line" processing. We can categorize low-volume processing Plants into two groups based on equipment used: (1) Batch type processing, and ( 2) In-line processing. A . Batch Processing The processing procedure is similar to the one used in the Specialized batch processing plant mentioned earlier. The only difference is that in this case mechanized processing equipment is used. The processing activities, equipment and labor required is shown in Tables 4.2 and 4‘ 3 . The birds per man-hour output increases for all the plants with Plant D having the highest. The increase of bit‘ds per man-hour is by a factor of 0.7 when increasing °utput from 200 to 350 and from 350 to 500 birds per hour. goon-oi l“-.'-I -vvc'é ‘ . . A-Q . “ l-IOVI‘ ::oq-nl .‘do-u‘ r . u. ‘0 g l cub: l _. . - I ,w‘ Igvbu I I \‘: A '1‘.“ -‘ n‘nu i I -.Iv.b¢4' :‘..p‘| 3.“!!‘51 u n ! I‘vfl "I wool ': u ....S. ‘ o'a we. - 1”"‘9' -v..u.ul. a \""'“P‘ ~‘Iu5k‘. l8 .. s . Q.“ ‘1“; .i-‘Obai ‘ ' V 'I‘ “‘J‘ "Voiun M ..o m '58.. y. !:.l. J, “"| A\ In ' .1. .l a on. Q‘ whet. - "‘A" "uL-S‘ I‘if‘ ... Q“ ‘s ‘- Table: 4.5 Unloading Hanging Stun and Kill Bleed Scald Plucking Singeing Bird washing Eviscerating Rehanging Supporting HOlding offal Holding giblet Vent cutting NeCit/Hock cut Lung removal I’}Spection gizzard cleaning 31rd washing Bird cooling Alr mixing Packaging Bagging Bag sealing 311‘? weighing "3151119 ice Chliiing birds :31:an steam Pigssure Ear su l Cutting[pp y sellipping, etc Secretary , etc 55 Processing Activities, Equipment and Labor Requirement for the Four Processing Plants Labor Requirement Equipment A B C D Unloading Conveyor Killing Cones/Shackles 1 1 3 6 Stun and Kill knife 1 1 1 1 Bleeding trough/tunnel Scalder 1 2 2 4 Picker 1 2 2 5 Singer Outside Washing Station Evisceration table 8 13 18 31 Evisceration line Evisc. line Floor stand Offal Cart Giblet pans Vent Cutter Neck and Hock Cutter Lung Gun Inspection station 1 2 2 2 Gizzard Peeler Inside Washing Station Chill Tanks Tank Agitator Pump Packaging Table 2 3 5 8 Bird Bagger Bag Clipper Packaging Scales Ice machine Refrigeration Boiler Pumps Generator Loose Hand Equipment: Knives, hand rakes Scissors, etc) Office Equipment: 1 1 1 1 (chairs, desk, file cabinets computer, typewriter) Miscellaneous: Finger replacing tool Electric knife sharpener _ .1 I.“ HF m—. \ u u L .l'l'; 56 Table 4.6 Summary of Labor Requirement ------- PLANTS -------- ITEMS A B C D Birds/hr. Output 200 350 500 1200 No. of laborers 15 25 34 58 Birds/man-hour 13.3 14.0 14.7 20.7 Marginal Output 15.0 16.7 29.2 B. In-line Processing 'The in-line processing as defined earlier, refers to a Processing system where most of the activities are performed while the birds are on the conveyor line. There is less ha"filing of the birds during processing. This is the similar c(”K-"apt used in large plants. The scope of this study does not incorporate the in-line processing because of lack of adequate information on this subject, but Appendix D shows the processing systems of Stork and Linco companies. qt 1 can‘ by JV.‘ b. .4 :an \ 3’: a u‘a.. .IV 3 to 1‘ NV . Q h l! out were 5.3 .° 4- .55 ‘ IA-G ‘ ~v=b 15:179 F . VI 1H him“: ‘F‘iw' “'1 Chapter 5 Capital Investment for Low-volume Processing Plants. I . INTRODUCTION Very often people become tempted to be involved in a poultry business for several reasons. For example, one might be involved because of the rapid turn-over of broilers, or availability of resources and time, or hobby persuasion. Three categories of processors can be identified as: (a) hobby producer/processor, (b) custom processors, and (C) low-volume broiler producer and/or processor). There are several distinguishing features among the three categories. First, the goals of the group. Second, the equipment used in the plant/building, resulting in the number of birds Processed per unit time. A brief description of the three categories is provided then followed by pertinent questions that need to be considered before establishing a processing Plant . (a) Hobby Producer or Processor. This category is constituted of people who are raising less than one hundred birds at a time for home consumption. most families involved in this category have no commercial lllo"live, or this is not their primary objective. The hobby pI‘Oducer/processor can be regarded as a homesteader. Their ac":ivities are seasonal and may be planned to coincide with 57 ‘:.0 al: ”..‘a'nu ' .. ’. a" ’ " a L'ZCESS- £3391. O‘OOOQ‘I ‘n.‘ .u 0:“..' I . 25.. IEOdUO‘" u'. (.0 Th 58 national holidays such as Thanksgiving and the Fourth of July. To other families, the realization of home grown and processed chicken served at the table brings some kind of fulfillment and pride. There is a tendency that the people (family) who are already involved will influence their relatives and/or neighbors to become involved in poultry production. Usually one family (especially the motivator) Will have the capability to process birds raised by neighbors or relatives or friends. The processing activity, arrangement and organization for the hobby processor is the Simplest among the three categories. (b) - Commercial Producer or Grower The commercial producer or grower category is profit m(Dr-‘i.\rated. The primary activity of the commercial grower is t0 raise birds, arrange an agreement with a custom pr Ocessor, and establish a market. It is very important to have a reliable and dependable custom processing plant. (c) ~ Custom Processor This category has low-volume processing plants, used f°r processing birds at a fee for poultry producers. This is a commercial operation run by the family (both man and wife) or by the wife alone with a few employees. Usually the processors do not raise their own birds. Their processing 0‘ “...-l :v-0 ‘ ‘ 0’! :g N I.“ of» bin-... ii 7 I‘ p u iC‘pv- "'~-~ ‘44». C «.15 ‘Q s;. O. 5“: 3‘ A. u. “b 4 Year. ‘n... \UV‘S 5 v § se.e.: 59 activity is seasonal, the plants are not specialized and can handle different species of poultry (broilers, turkeys, geese, and quail). There is a fee charged for the processing activity depending on the type and size of the birds. The processing activity is driven by the availability of birds. No birds, no business! Processors seem to have established regular customers. Very little advertisement is done, and the information about their business is spread by word of mouth . (d) . Low-volume Broiler Producer and/or Processor This is the most complex of the three categories. The activities range from producing, processing, and marketing. Several approaches or alternatives can be used in such an enterprise (e.g., contracting growers) but this will be determined by the game plan of management. This study will foeus on the poultry processing aspects. The assumption made is that birds will be available to enable the plant to run eight hours a day, five days per week, for fifty weeks per Year. The analysis of the investment requireiment will fOCT—us on the 200, 350, 500 or 1200 birds per hour plants, her‘etoafter called Plants A, B, C or D, respectively. .1 ..a o- 0. V .1 'I v twat \ F It'll ‘05 at .7...” Used . . ~,. ‘8.- .4- 1J5!- ‘A 2% u "I. l ’-,-.i I“‘ :5. '~‘ . :b "s 60 II. INVESTMENT IN LAND The land investment question will be an issue for a person who does not presently own land for a suitable site. Usually, low-volume processing is done by people who already own land and where the processing activity is added to other farming activities. For this reason the investment in land may be excluded, so this will depend on the given situation. On the other hand, land could be an important and eXpensive cost, provided the desired land has a high alternative use cost. This results in a large range of land Prices. The minimum land requirement for the different Processing plants as stated in Table 2, are 4,000: 5,000; 12,500: or 15,000 sq.ft. for Plants A, B, C or D, respectively. In this study it will be assumed that the Plants need a minimum of one acre, and are located on an existing farm. So the investment in land will be zero. III . INVESTMENT IN BUILDINGS The FSIS regulation and specifications should be adhered to when building a plant to ensure approval of your plant sketches. This has an implication on the material and building procedures to be followed. The building cost per sQtlare foot for different areas of the plant will differ, for this study an average amount will be used for all areas. 61 The assumed building cost of $150 per sq.ft. is used. Based on the minimum area requirement for the four plants tabulated in Table 3.1, the cost of the building and floor area and daily production relationship is shown in Table 5.1. Table 5.1 Estimated Construction Cost for Processing Plants, at $150 per sq.ft. _— Floor Area Building Daily Floor Area per bird Cost Capacity (sq.ft.) Daily Cap. (3) A 1600 800 0.500 120000 B 2800 1000 0.357 150000 C 4000 1400 0.350 210000 D 9600 3000 0.313 450000 — The building cost for Plant D is more than two-fold that of Plant C. A ratio depicting the relationship between floor space and daily processing capacity is shown in Table 5'1 - This ratio explains what happens to the floor space allOcation as the daily processing capacity is increased in relation to equipment and machinery. As daily output in<-‘-:reases from Plant A to D, the floor area per bird ratio dec=Il:'eases. The increase of the ratio is not proportionate. An explanation of this phenomenon is that when increasing daily processing capacity from Plants A to B or C t° D the equipment and machinery are not that different, ‘W.‘” an .4...) 0'“: I," V. ‘ ... .UA . . .p‘ :P‘ AI .touuovn $33356 A... to}. 1‘ ‘- I'M. . A...‘ u 'p ‘1‘ ' ‘ ‘."’ O I ‘ q. 4 I~~ r~~i Q 9" ‘ V‘ N 62 implying that machinery investment does not increase proportionally to output. When moving from Plant B to C, the relationship is different. The floor area per bird increases because more room is needed for introducing larger equipment and machinery. In essence, the ratio on floor area per bird and daily capacity indicate that equipment and machinery used in Plants A and B are not very different in terms of space requirement, which may imply similarities. This is the same concerning Plants C and D. IV- INVESTMENT IN EQUIPMENT There are several reasons that make estimating the cost of equipment difficult. First, the cost will depend Upon the manufacturer, distributer, or dealer from whom the equipment is purchased. One striking observation concerning the low-volume equipment is that most of the basic equipment (picker, scalder, and eviscerating table) from the different s<>11tlrces are the same in dimension, shape, and other featmres but have different company tags. Second, the cost of Similar pieces of equipment may vary within the same company. For example, the cost will vary between standard and deluxe models of the same piece of equipment. One theoretical possibility to overcome these problem is to asS-ume that comparable equipment for each plant is purchased fl‘om the same manufacturer. In this study it is assumed that IONFI :Uaobb _ . Any-u. . 2L)“ 12:6 e ins i 4:)" II “ooh-L ‘ A 0‘. . I... 5 3c: 1r :x:lr ‘ a i... ' t at .,. ] f) n o 63 the processor/investor has complete information about equipment. The other consideration with equipment purchases, is equipment indivisibility. The same equipment such as ice crushers, and weighing scales, may be used over a wide range of output. This and other equipment may not be utilized to the fullest extent. Yet through necessity of need for the service, or by virtue of this equipment being relatively more efficient than hand labor, it may be desirable to use this type of equipment. That is why there will be some equipment overlap between plants (Table 5.2). Please note that the listed total cost of equipment in Table 5.2 does not include other costs that may be of pertinance, for example:- (a) - Installation charges (15) - Freight charges ((2) - Sales tax. V' INVESTMENT IN FURNITURE The purchase of furniture for the office, inspector and employee facilities is needed. In this study, estimates of $500, $600, $600 and $800 for Plants A, B, c and D, respectively, were used as representative investment amounts f°r furniture . ' .' 5" vii. . ’t.) ' f ('1 64 Table 5.2 Estimated Investment on Batch Processing Equipment Equipment overhead Conveyor Killing Cones/Shackles Stun and Kill knife Bleeding trough Bleeding tunnel Scalder Picker Inspection table Singer Outside Washing Station Evisceration table Evisceration line Evisc. line Floor stand Off a1 Cart Giblet pans Vent Cutter Neck and Hock Cutter Lfilng Gun Glzzard Peeler In§ide Washing Station Ch-‘Lll Tanks Tank Agitator Pump Bagging Unit Packaging Scales ICe machine L90se Hand Equipment “lscellaneous: sE>are fingers Finger replacing tool Protection clothing 300 998 540 1160 1500 533 41 490 295 116 600 370 1180 440 9645 500 144 57 60 Electric knife sharpener 29 TOTAL 18998 500 998 795 2021 3018 740 41 1495 5595 2255 295 116 350 1105 1146 1899 370 1780 440 9645 800 200 57 220 “ ~ ‘-------------------------------------------------------- e '\ bi ’ I a. 4 III a “n I J \ | l l a a" 0‘5... t. A fl .5 .Y'F- cult: N t '3?” ..I‘ \ v I .‘ 1“. . or” ‘1‘ h“ a o " 'u‘. . A.- b 5‘ ""I v o .- “aw 9 H I Art 1 i . a .. n u. a 1 -1 n s w .. . E. Ill .| -. \. 65 VI. INVESTMENT IN VEHICLES Transportation service is a necessity in any business operation. For a processing plant that is to be established on an operating farm, vehicles that are currently at the farm can be used for the processing enterprise. In this case then, the investment cost in vehicles will be zero. VI I . Summary The total capital investment for establishing the identified low-volume processing plants is summarized in Table 5.3. The resources that were assumed to have zero, an investment cost will not be included in Table 5.3. Table: 5.3. Summary of Total Investment Requirement ¥ for Low-Volume Processing Plants. F Plant A Plant B Plant C Plant D Year prod. Cap. (No.) 375,000 656,250 937,500 2.25mi1 $101119 cost (5) 120,000 150,000 210,000 450,000 _Eq\uipment cost ($) 18,998 35,910 52,876 59,236 Furniture cost (5) 500 600 600 800 Total cost (5) 139,498 186,510 263,476 510,036 Tet. cost/day Cap (5) 0.372 0.284 0.281 0.23 The increase in investment requirement (total cost) is ciramatic when moving from Plant B to C, an increase of 2.3 66 times that of Plant B. The main consideration in this regard is what happens to the investment requirement as the plant capacity is increased from one size to the next. This has led to deriving a ratio that considers the daily processing capacity with the total investment cost. Table 5.3 indicate that increased daily processing capacity results in a lower ratio. The implications of these results can be better understood when other processing issues are factored into the equation . .‘IAI Iain ”4‘ Uni! O . III 335‘ ..n, Ind. 13'. (J. Chapter 6 Plant Processing Cost and Sensitivity Analysis I. INTRODUCTION The processing costs to be considered in this study are taiose that occur in the processing plant, that is in-plant processing costs. These are all costs that are incurred between the procurement of birds and shipping the rtc meat from the processing plant. The in-plant processing cost will has expressed on a cost per bird basis. This expression unit is; (a helpful common denominator when comparing processing costs of different sized plants (Plant A, B, C or D, in this study). The approach of this study is that processing costs are made up of the following: (a) Labor (b) Administrative costs (0) Packaging (d) Utilities (e) Insurance (f) Taxes (9) Depreciation (h) Interest (1) Supplies Office 67 >4 "PRI ‘val 68 (j) Miscellaneous costs (telephone, postage and fax) (k) Waste disposal (by-products, sewerage) The above list of cost items is not exhaustive, but representative of the cost incurred by low-volume processing plants. For example, some plants may budget and incur advertisement and public relations costs. But most low- volume processors do not advertise. The mode of advertisement is by "word of mouth." The philosophy used is simple: as a processor you must do a better job to keep your customers satisfied and loyal. This will make your customers recommend you to other potential customers. The alternative is to advertise, but this may be very expensive and most lCNN-volume processors do not use it. Occasionally processors may use flyers and newspapers for advertisement. The costs that are incurred by a processing plant can be classified or categorized into: a ) - Overhead or Fixed cost b) - Variable costs. 11 . OVERHEAD costs The terms overhead costs and fixed costs are normally interchangeably used, and this is the case in this study. I“I‘Lxed costs are costs that are unaffected by volume changes within a plant. Therefore, as output is increased (decreased), the fixed costs are spread over more and more 1.:"' Jon. . 'OF - \ a... ‘- ...,b. b is... IVA. I. iv a I»)! 9 i“ a...“ I .t _' 69 (less and less) units of output. Therefore the fixed cost per unit of output will vary with total output. These costs are associated with investment costs of land, building, equipment, furniture, vehicles and include such costs as depreciation, interest, maintenance and repairs, taxes and insurance. Please note that the investment for land and vehicles are assumed to be zero. This implies that the processor already has invested in land and vehicles. Depreciation costs There are three categories that the depreciation of a durable asset can be divided into: (a) depreciation from Wear and usage, (b) depreciation over time resulting from age, and (c) depreciation due to obsolescence. In order to try and address the fore mentioned concerns, the Straight Line (SL) Depreciation was be used in this study. The calculation of depreciation for the building uses the initial cost and 15 years of useful life. The useful life of ecIllipment ranged from 1 to 7 years. For the furniture the useful life of 5 years was used. The depreciation cost for the building, equipment and furniture is shown in Table 6.1. II I r“—T__T-‘l "-T 70 Table 6.1 Depreciation Cost on Building, Equipment and Furniture for Four Processing Plants ---------- PLANTS -------—--- ITEMS A B C D Annual depreciation: ($) ($) ($) ($) Building 14020 17524 24534 52573 Equipment 6650 10500 14910 16399 Furniture 100 120 120 160 Total depreciation 20770 28144 39564 69132 Per bird depreciation 0.055 0.043 0.042 0.031 The depreciation cost of Plant B and C are nearly the same. Plant 8 is $0.001 higher in depreciation cost than Plant C. This shows that Plant B is small enough to efficiently use hand labor and some lower cost equipment. On the other hand, Plant B is not large enough to warrant the “Se of more mechanized equipment that ought to result in 1Outer costs only if larger volumes of birds are processed. This is shown in Plant D (the largest plant) with the depreciation cost of $0.031, which is the lowest among the four plants . Maintenance and Repairs Costs The maintenance and the repair operations are two ae“Iivities that are separate but usually considered as one entity when cost accounting is made. A point of departure or IA. m airy vi aOIc' '“l'. -‘ Ffle‘ can hit Pan. I'd- . o yew-g "'.&A 4 u .- II '(‘J 0.. 1‘ ‘1 .‘ // 71 consideration is that maintenance can be either regarded as a fixed or a variable cost depending on the given situation. For example, some maintenance must be performed to keep machinery in working condition even if the plant is not currently operating as is regarded as a fixed cost. The other consideration is when maintenance and repair is a direct result of equipment/machine usage, that is a variable cost. The maintenance and repair cost on the building, equipment and furniture is shown in Table 6.2. The total maintenance and repairs costs increase as plant output increases. In this study, Plant D which is the largest plant, had the highest ($4126) while Plant A, the smallest, had the lowest maintenance and repairs costs ($1144). On a per bird basis, maintenance and repairs cost ranged from 0.0031 to 0.0018 for Plants A and D, 1i‘eSpectively . Table 6.2 Maintenance and Repairs for the Four Processing Plants ---------- PLANTS ----------- ITEMS A B c 0 liftint. & Repairs on: ($) ($) ($) ($) Building 900 1125 1575 3375 Equipment 238 A 449 661 741 | Furniture 6 8 8 10 }‘P<:tai Maint & Repairs 1144 1582 2244 4126 ‘I Per bird Maint & 0.0031 0.0024 0.0023 0.0018 1 Repairs ,,__,,__,_______11,__ — “—1: a IOBI I V".‘ a I A n 5' II ,2: I I 72 Interest The interest costs reflect what the money invested in the processing plant would secure if it was invested in other endeavors of approximately equal risk. An interest of 8 percent was used in this study. Taxes Normally property tax is considered in this category, since items like social security tax are included in the total labor cost under fringe benefits. The property tax, real and personal is based on the assessed value of property. In this study the tax is going to be assumed as (1.015 of the initial cost (Table 6.3). Table 6.3 Summary on Property Tax of the the Four Processing Plants ---------- PLANTS ---—------- ITEMS A B c 0 Initial value of: ($) ($) ($) ($) Building 120000 150000 210000 450000 Equipment 18998 35910 52876 59256 Furniture 500 600 600 800 Z 1P<>ta1 initial value 139498 186510 263476 510056 .TPeax on Build., Equip. 2093 2798 3952 7651 end Furn. per year Tax on Build., Equip. 0.0056 0.0043 0.0042 0.0034 ‘1FHDd Furn. per bird 73 Insurance Insurance considerations for a processing plant would be to cover the buildings, equipment and furniture. Normally coverage ensures against property damage (such as fire, wind, etc.). In this study a reasonable estimate of 0.025 of initial cost was used (Table 6.4). Table 6.4 Summary of Insurance Costs on Building, Equipment and Furniture for the Four Plants III. VARIABLE COSTS fi‘ i L i! ---------- PLANTS ----------- ITEMS A B C D Initial value of: ($) ($) ($) ($) Building 120000 150000 210000 450000 Equipment 18998 35910 52876 59256 Furniture 500 600 600 800 Total Investment 139498 186510 263474 510056 ‘Total Insurance cost 3488 4663 6587 12751 Insurance cost 0.0093 0.0071 0.0070 0.0057 Variable costs vary with plant output. The cost items that are included in this category are: labor, administrative costs, utilities (water, electricity, fuel, and gas), packaging costs, and miscellaneous or secondary 74 costs (postage, telephone, and fax). The other costs that need to be considered are those dealing with waste and by- product handling. These costs depends on the type of arrangement that the plant personnel has arranged. Wages and Salaries The total labor cost is made up of the processing number of laborers employed in a plant. The wage rate for all laborers and a secretary is assumed to be the same at $6.00 per hour (Table 6.5). Administrative costs consist of management and a secretary (or support staff). The salary to allocate to management needs some consideration. The typical situation in a low-volume processing plant is that there is an owner-manager arrangement. Usually the owner-manager allocates more time on an irregular basis in the enterprise than the assumed definition of 8 hours a day, and 5 days a Week. The administrative cost per bird for Plants A, B, C or D are 0.064, 0.050, 0.045 or 0.037, respectively. Cost of Utilities The cost of utilities include costs for items such as water, electricity, steam, gas. The approach in this study is to specify each item and not group those costs, since grouping does not reflect the requirement of each item. 116 I w NA‘. ‘31... rip-i ital oA-O 1v I 1.; 'ID .... I1. (1‘ 75 a) Water The water requirements in this study were based on a recommendation made in the FSIS regulations that processing one bird will require at least 8 gallons of water (FSIS, 1987). It has been reported that some processing plants are doing much better than this, by using 5 to 6 gallons per bird. The other basic assumption in this study is that water costs $1.50 per 1000 gallons. Based on the above assumptions, the water requirement, as well as the cost of water for each plant can be determined. The annual costs of water is $4500, $7875, $11250 or $27000 for Plants A, B, C or D, respectively (Table 6.5). b) Electricity To determine the electricity cost in the processing plants, a reasonable estimate of $0.16 per 100 birds was Ilsed. The estimated annual cost electricity for Plants A, B, 1C or D were $600, $1050, $1500 or $3600, respectively (Table 6.5). c) Gas The cost of gas will depend on the source of gas (LP, Natural gas, or Propane) that the equipment is fitted for. For example, some scalders are gas fired and singers use gas. 76 Cost of Packaging The cost of packaging supplies are estimated at $0.05 per bird. The total cost for the different plants can be determined based on the daily output. The annual packaging cost for Plants A, B, C or D were $18750, $32813, $46875 or $112500, respectively (Table 6.5). Miscellaneous costs There are several other costs that do not fluctuate greatly with output, yet which would not be incurred if there were no output. These include such cost as telephone, postage, office and supplies. An estimate of the secondary costs for Plants A, B, C or D on an annual basis were $4450, $4475, $4500 or $4550, respectively (Table 6.5). Cost of handling sewerage, waste disposal and processing by-products A waste water pre-treatment facility is needed in a processing plant to ensure the reduction of effluent (BOD, suspended solids, oil and grease) entering the sewerage system. Usually in a low-volume processing plant an arrangement with a renderer is made for collecting {accessing by-products. This helps the processor handle the rupeessing by-products, such as blood, feathers, offal and dead birds. This arrangement is made at a certain cost. At O'IF ...-t 00:0 ...-Ir ‘1‘ (J! 77 times the renderer may stipulate the type of by-products that will be collected (e.g., blood, offal, but excluding feathers). Costs in this category were not incorporated into this study because of limited availability of information. IV. PROCESSING COST The summary of all the costs involved in low-volume poultry processing is shown in Table 6.5. The calculations are based on the following assumptions: 1) Amormotized building cost at $150 per sq.ft., Life 15 years, Interest rate = 8%. 2) Amortized equipment cost at 8% Interest rate, Life = 1 to 7 years. ll UI 3) Amortized furniture cost at 8% Interest rate, Life years 4) Labor compensation: basic + benefits = $6.00 per 5) Administrative cost based on $30,000 per year for the 500 birds per hour plant and $12,000 per year for secretarial assistance. 6) Water at $1.50 per 1000 gallons. 7) Electricity at $0.16 per 100 birds. 8) Building maintenance and repairs at 0.0075 of initial cost. 78 _ Table: 6.5 Summary of Processing Costs l --------------- PLANTS ------------- A B c 0 [Year production Cap. 375000 656250 937500 2250000 L OWNERSHIP 0081-8: - ----------- DOLLARS ----------- , Building Annual cost 14020 17524 24534 52573 Equipment Annual cost 6650 10500 14910 16399 Furniture Annual cost 125 150 150 200 OPERATING 008T8: Labor 180000 300000 396000 696000 Administrative costs 24000 33000 42000 84000 I Water 4500 7875 11250 27000 Electricity 600 1050 1500 3600 I Building Maint & Rep 900 1125 1575 3375 I Equipment Maint & Rep 237 449 661 741 J Furniture Maint & Rep 6 8 8 10 l Packaging supplyr 18750 32813 . 46875 112500 E Insurance 3487 4663 6587 12751 Property Tax 2092 2798 3952 7651 Miscellaneous 4450 4475 4500 4550 TOTAL 259817 416430 554502 1021350 __.1- __ #929 0.6346= 0.5915 0. 4539 79 9) Equipment maintenance and repairs at 0.0125 of initial cost. 10) Furniture maintenance and repairs at 0.0125 on initial cost. 11) Packaging supply at $0.05 per bird processed. 12) Insurance at 0.025 of initial cost. 13) Property tax at 0.015 of initial cost. 14) Miscellaneous based on $4500 per year for 500 birds per hour plant (for telephone, postage, fax, etc.) Table 6.5 shows that the cost of processing, on a per bird basis, decreases as the capacity of the plant increases. The annual output of the plants considered range from 375,000 to 2.25 million birds. The increment in plant output between the plants is not proportional. Based on the «output, Plant B is 1.75 times larger than Plant A: Plant C .is 1.429 times larger than Plant B: and Plant D is 2.40 'times larger than Plant C. The other consideration is the relationship of total capital investment for the plants. The capital requirement of Plant 8 is 1.362 that of A: Plant C is 1.413 times that of B; and Plant D is 1.936 that of C. The processing cost per bird is an appropriate measure for comparing the different sized plants. Unit processing costs fall as plant size is increased, if all plants are operating at their designed rates of output. 80 To determine the contribution of different costs to the unit processing cost, the cost in Table 6.6 were grouped into the following categories: 1) Fixed cost (consisting of depreciation of building, furniture and equipment, management, insurance and tax). 2) Labor cost (included plant laborers and secretary). 3)tTtilities (water and electricity) 4) Maintenance and repairs (for building, furniture and equipment) 5) Packaging 6)rtiscellaneous (supplies, telephone, postage, stationary, etc.) Table 6.6 Processing Costs as Percentage of the Total cost for the Four Plants. ----- PLANTS ------ ITEMS A B C D ----(percentage)---- Fixed cost 20 15 14 12 Labor cost 69 73 74 72 Utilities 2 2 2 3 Maint. and Rep. 0 0 0 0 Packaging 7 8 8 11 Miscellaneous 2 1 1 0 TOTAL 100 100 100 100 'm- v9.4 'IF oui , ss‘ 0U4 0‘. M N 5v C!‘ V (D "K "t ‘N 81 Table 6.6 shows that labor, fixed cost and packaging constitute 96% of the total cost for plants A, B and C, while for plant D those costs constitute 95%. The remaining (utilities, maintenance and repair and miscellaneous) costs are negligible. The fixed cost decreases as the plant size increases. V. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS The estimation of per bird processing cost in Table 6.5 for the different sized plants were based on certain assumptions. The result obtained using those assumptions will be regarded as the base scenario. A sensitivity analysis is used to determine the impact of changing some of the assumptions used in the base scenario on processing costs. In this study, the four factors that are to be considered are: '8) Capacity Utilization: 100, 90, 80, 70, 60, 50, and 40% b) Labor Cost: $6.00 and $7.00 per hour. c) Building cost: $140, $150 and $160 per sq.ft. d) Interest cost: 8% and 12% per annum. Capacity utilization The comparison of processing cost per bird for each Plant when operating at 100, 90, 80, 70, 60, 50, and 40 Percent of plant utilization is presented in Tables 6.7 to 6-12. The results obtained from the 100 percent capacity Utilization (the base situation) are shown in Table 6.5. Table 6.7 Sensitivity Analysis: Capacity 82 Utilization (90 percent) --------------- PLANTS—— —— — A B C D Year Production Cap. 375000 656250 937500 2250000 Year Average Volume 337500 590625 843750 2025000 ------------ DOLLARS ----------- OWNERSHIP COSTS: 20795 28174 39594 69173 OPERATING COSTS: Labor 162000 270000 354000 626400 Admiamistrative costs 24000 33000 42000 84000 Water 4050 7088 10125 24300 Electricity 540 945 1350 3240 Builxiing Maint & Rep 900 1125 1575 3375 Equipment Maint & Rep 237 449 661 741 Furniture Maint & Rep 6 8 8 10 Packaging supply 16875 29531 42186 101250 Insurance 3487 4663 6587 12751 Property Tax 2092 2798 3952 7651 Miscellaneous 4450 4475 4500 4550 TOTAL 239432 382256 506538 937441 Cost/bird 0.7094 0.6472 0.6003 0.4629 83 Table 6.8 Sensitivity Analysis: Capacity Utilization (80 percent) --------------- PLANTS------------- A B C D Year Production Cap. 375000 656250 937500 2250000 Year Average Volume 300000 525000 750000 1800000 ------------ DOLLARS ----------- OWNERSHIP COSTS: 20795 28174 39594 69173 OPERATING COSTS: Labor 144000 240000 316800 556800 Administrative costs 24000 33000 42000 84000 Water 3600 6300 9000 21600 Electricity 480 840 1200 2880 Building Maint & Rep 900 1125 1575 3375 Equipment Maint 5. Rep 237 449 661 741 Furniture Maint & Rep 6 8 8 10 Packaging supply 15000 26250 37500 90000 Insurance 3487 4663 6587 12751 Pr0perty Tax 2092 2798 3952 7651 Miscellaneous 4450 4475 4500 4550 TOTAL 219047 348082 463377 853531 Cost/bird 0.7302 0.6630 0.6178 0.4742 84 Table 6.9 Sensitivity Analysis: Capacity Utilization (70 percent) --------------- PLANTS------------- A B C D Year Production Cap. 375000 656250 937500 2250000 Year Average Volume 262500 459375 656250 1575000 ------------ DOLLARS ---------- OWNERSHIP COSTS: 20795 28174 39594 69173 OPERATING COSTS: Labor 126000 21000 277200 48700 Administrative costs 24000 33000 42000 84000 Water 3150 5513 7875 18900 Electricity 420 735 1050 2520 Building Maint & Rep 900 1125 1575 3375 Equipment Maint 8: Rep 237 449 661 741 Furniture Maint & Rep 6 8 8 10 Packaging supply 13125 22969 32813 78750 Insurance 3487 4663 6587 12751 Property Tax 2092 2798 3952 7651 Miscellaneous 4450 4475 4500 4550 TOTAL 198664 313909 417815 769421 Cost/bird 0.7568 0.6833 0.6367 0.4886 85 Table 6.10 Sensitivity Analysis: Capacity Utilization (60 percent) --------------- PLANTS------------- A B C D Year Production Cap. 375000 656250 937500 2250000 Year Average Volume 225000 393750 562500 1350000 ------------ DOLLARS ----------- OWNERSHIP COSTS: 20795 28174 39594 69173 OPERATING COSTS: Labor 108000 180000 237600 417600 Administrative costs 24000 33000 42000 84000 Water 2700 4725 6750 16200 Electricity 360 630 900 2160 Enilding Maint & Rep 900 1125 1575 3375 Equipment Maint & Rep 237 449 661 741 Furuiiture Maint & Rep 6 8 8 10 Packaging supply 11250 19688 28125 67500 Insurance 3487 4663 6587 12751 Property Tax 2092 2798 3952 7651 Miscellaneous 4450 4475 4500 4550 TOTAL 178277 279735 372252 685711 Cost/bird 0.7924 0.7104 0.6618 0.5079 Table 6.11 Sensitivity Analysis: Capacity 86 Utilization (50 percent) --------------- PLANTS---—--------- A B C D Year Production Cap. 375000 656250 937500 2250000 Year Average Volume 187500 328125 468750 1125000 ------------ DOLLARS -------- OWNERSHIP COSTS: 20795 28174 39594 69173 OPERATING COSTS: Labor 90000 150000 198000 348000 Administrative costs 24000 33000 42000 84000 Water 2250 3973 5625 13500 Electricity 300 525 750 1800 Building Maint & Rep 900 1125 1575 3375 Equipment Maint 8: Rep 237 449 661 741 Furniture Maint & Rep 6 8 8 10 Packaging supply 9375 16406 23438 56250 Insurance 3487 4663 6587 12751 Property Tax 2092 2798 3952 7651 Miscellaneous 4450 4475 4500 4550 TOTAL 157892 245560 326689 601801 Cost/bird 0.8421 0.7484 0.6969 0.5349 Table 6.12 Sensitivity Analysis: Capacity 87 Utilization (40 percent) --------------- PLANTS------------- A B C D Year Production Cap. 375000 656250 937500 2250000 Year Average Volume 187500 328125 468750 1125000 ------------ DOLLARS ----------- OWNERSHIP COSTS: 20795 28174 39594 69173 OPERATING COSTS: Labor 720001 120000 158400 278400 Administrative costs 24000 33000 42000 84000 Water 1800 3150 4500 10800 Electricity 240 420 600 1440 Enilding Maint & Rep 900 1125 1575 3375 Equipment Maint & Rep 237 449 661 741 Furniture Maint & Rep 6 8 8 10 Packaging supply 7500 13125 18750 45000 Insurance 3487 4663 6587 12751 Property Tax 2092 2798 3952 7651 Miscellaneous 4450 4475 4500 4550 TOTAL 137509 211386 281127 51891 Cost/bird 0.9167 0.8053 0.749 0.5754 88 Table 6.13 Summary of Processing Cost per Bird due to Capacity Utilization Capacity --------------- PLANT --------------- Utilized A B C D -------- DOLLARS ------ 100% 0.6929 0.6346 0.5915 0.4539 90% 0.7094 0.6472 0.6032 0.4629 80% 0.7302 0.6630 0.6178 0.4742 70% 0.7568 0.6833 0.6367 0.4886 60% 0.7924 0.7104 0.6618 0.5079 50% 0.8421 0.7484 0.6969 0.5349 40% 0.9167 0.8053 0.7497 0.5754 The above Table show that when processing plants are operating at less than the potential capacity output, the cost of processing a bird increases the most for the smallest plant, while the large plant has the least cost increase as output decreases. The degree of capacity utilization shown in Table 6.14 indicating that a plant not processing at full capacity (70%), if it further reduces the Capacity (40%), the unit processing cost increases dramatically, especially as plant size is reduced. 89 ; 1 ; \ 5 i *1 0.8 4- if a 1.414 l' *9“; *5}. 0.6 7 “A; . J '1 \C l i '—:\\ 1 \S\ __ ‘ L \b\\‘:\b 1 _ I 1 0.4 5 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 0.2 f- ’ I 1 i 1 1 1 ‘ 1 1 n 1 1 1 1 + Plant A 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Capacity (birds/hr) + Plant 8 + Plant C “EL Plant D 90 Table 6.14 Summary showing the impact of changing from 100 to 70% and 70 to 40% capacity utilization Plant --- Capacity Utilization -- -- Changes from -- 100% 70% 40% 100-70% 70-40% A 0.6929 0.7568 0.9167 +0.0639 +0.1599 B 0.6346 0.6833 0.8053 +0.0487 +0.1220 C 0.5915 0.6367 0.7494 +0.0452 +0.1127 D 0.4539 0.4886 0.5754 +0.0347 +0.0868 Labor cost In an integrated poultry enterprise, the processing plant is the highly labor intensive operation when compared to the other production stages. Even though sophisticated equipment is being used, labor (to operate, back-up, clean, maintain and repair) is still needed. Several labor factors (availability, labor cost and reliability) were mentioned in the early discussion as important when considering plant location. The sensitivity analysis on labor costs (salary and wages) will determine the impact it has on the processing cost as it varies from $6.00 (base) to $7.00 per hour (Table 6.15). The change in labor compensation rate (from $6.00 to $7.00) caused the unit processing cost increase by $0.0800, $0.0761, $0.0704, or $0.0516 for plant A, B, C, or D, respectively. 91 Table 6.15 Sensitivity Analysis: Increase in Labor Cost (wage rate = $7/hr) --------------- PLANTS------------- A B C D Year Production Cap. 375000 656250 937500 2250000 OWNERSHIP COSTS: ------------ DOLLARS ----------- Building Annual cost 14020 17524 24534 52573 Equipment Annual cost 6650 10500 14910 16399 Furniture Annual cost 125 150 150 200 OPERATING COSTS: Labor 210000 350000 462000 812000 Administration costs 24000 33000 42000 27000 Water 4500 7875 11250 27000 Electricity 600 1050 1500 3600 Building Maint & Rep 900 1125 1575 3375 Equipment Maint & Rep 237 449 661 741 Furniture Maint & Rep 6 8 8 10 Packaging supply 18750 32813 46875 112500 Insurance 3487 4663 6587 12751 Property Tax 2092 2798 3952 7651 Miscellaneous 4450 4475 4500 4550 TOTAL 289819 466429 620502 1137351 I__ Cost/bird 0.7729 0.7107 0.6619 0.5055 92 Figure 6.3 Increase in wage rate by $1.00/hr. Cost ($) 0.8 MM MM M M 1 0.08 0.0704 \\.\\ \ \\\ \\ fl\\~ “‘i\ \W A Plants ._J 93 Building cost Building a processing plant requires adherence to the FSIS regulations, though it is known that some low-volume processors can be exempted. Getting information on building costs from the industry is not a very easy task. This is because the emphasis has long shifted from small sized low- volume processing to large scale processing. Also, according to building contractors it is cheaper per square foot to build a plant larger than that the low-volume processors are contemplating. To grasp the implication of this, three building costs of $140, $150 (base) and $160 were used in sensitivity analyses (Tables 16 and 17). The increase and decrease of building cost per unit area slightly changes the unit processing cost. Interest rate The impact of changing the interest rate was determined by using 8 percent (base) and 12 percent (Table 6.18). A four percent increase in interest rate (from 8 to 12 percent) resulted in an increase in unit processing cost by $0.005, $0.0021, $0.0022, or $0.003? for plant A, B, C, or D, respectively. 94 Table 6.16 Sensitivity Analysis: Building Cost at $140 per sq.ft. --------------- PLANTS------------- A B C D Year Production Cap. 375000 656250 937500 2250000 OWNERSHIP COSTS: ------------ DOLLARS ----------- Building Annual cost 13085 16356 22899 49068 Equipment Annual cost 6650 10500 14910 16399 Furniture Annual cost 125 150 150 150 OPERATING COSTS: Labor 180000 300000 396000 696000 Administrative costs 24000 33000 42000 84000 Water 4500 7875 11250 27000 Electricity 600 1050 1500 3600 Building Maint & Rep 840 1050 1470 3150 Equipment Maint & Rep 237 449 661 741 Furniture-Maint & Rep 6 8 8 10 Packaging supply 18750 32813 46875 112500 Insurance 3287 4413 6237 12001 Property Tax 1972 2648 3742 7201 Miscellaneous 4450 4475 4500 4550 TOTAL 258504 414785 552201 1016421 Cost/bird 0.6893 0.6321 0.5890 0.4517 9S Table 6.17 Sensitivity Analysis: Building Cost at $160 per sq.ft. --------------- PLANTS------------- A B C D Year Production Cap. 375000 656250 937500 2250000 OWNERSHIP COSTS: ------------ DOLLARS --------- Building Annual cost 14954 18693 26170 56078 Equipment Annual cost 6650 10500 14910 16399 Furniture Annual cost 125 150 150 200 OPERATING COSTS: Labor 180000 300000 369000 696000 Administrative costs 24000 33000 42000 84000 Water 4500 7875 11250 27000 Electricity 600 1050 1500 3600 Building Maint & Rep 960 1200 1680 3600 Equipment Maint & Rep 237 449 661 741 Furniture Maint & Rep 6 8 8 10 Packaging supply 18750 32813 46875 112500 Insurance 3687 4913 6937 13501 Property Tax 2212 2948 4162 8101 Miscellaneous 4450 4475 4500 4550 TOTAL 261133 418072 556802 1026281 Cost/bird 0.6964 0.6371 0.5939 0.4561 96 Figure 6.4 Change in building cost Cost ($) 0.8 f“ MMM i,,,i_, e1__ _,__ Plants 97 Table 6.18 Sensitivity Analysis: Interest at 12% --------------- PLANTS------------- A B C D Year Production Cap. 375000 656250 937500 2250000 OWNERSHIP COSTS: ------------ DOLLARS ----------- Building Annual cost 17619 22024 30833 66071 Equipment Annual cost 7191 11498 16371 18034 Furniture Annual cost 139 166 166 222 OPERATING COSTS: Labor 180000 300000 396000 696000 Administration costs 24000 33000 42000 84000 Water 4500 7875 11250 27000 Electricity 600 1050 1500 3600 Building Maint & Rep 900 1125 1575 3375 Equipment Maint & Rep 237 449 661 741 Furniture Maint 8 Rep 6 8 8 10 Packaging supply 18750 32813 46875 112500 Insurance 3487 4663 6587 12751 Property Tax 2092 2798 3952 7651 Miscellaneous 4450 4475 4500 4550 TOTAL 263971 421944 562278 1036505 Cost/bird 0.7039 0.6430 0.5998 0.4607 98 Figure 6.5 Increase interest rate by 4% 0.0110 0.0084 0.0083 0.0068 Plants 99 Summary The average per bird processing cost for the model plants A, B, C and D were $0.6929, $0.6346, $0.5915 and $0.4539, respectively. The cost per bird declines as the plant size increases. The basic assumption made ia that plants are operating at full capacity (8 hours a day, 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year). In practice, low-volume plants do not operate at full capacity utilization. In order to infer the impact of not processing at full capacity utilization, sensitivity analyses were made. The economies associated with plant capacity utilization are demonstrated by higher per bird processing cost, when not operating at full capacity (100%). The processing cost increases the most for the smallest plant, while the large has the least cost increase as output decreases. When comparing capacity utilization with other factors used in the sensitivity analysis (labor, building cost and interest rate), it is evident that labor had more impact than other factors. The per bird processing cost when labor compensation rate is increased to $7.00 is similar to that when capacity utilization is between 40 and 60 percent. When building cost and interest rate were increased to $160 per sq.ft. and 12 percent, the processing costs were similar to those when plant capacity was between 90 and 100 percent Chapter 7. The Computer Application Design I. INTRODUCTION The era of computers has dawned, and people are gradually becoming more familiar with using computers in almost all their activities. One of the other objectives of this study was to transform the research information contained in this thesis into a computerized format. There are several advantages for making this transformation. First, the computerized format can be easily made available to people who need it. From the previous study decisions always had to be made on what and how much to photocopy and send to the enquirer (requester of the study). Using a computerized format will ease this problem by sending this information in a five and quarter floppy disk. The only cost for this transaction would be the purchase of a floppy disk and postage, unlike photocopying 150 pages or so at five to ten cents a page, and then paying postage costs. Second, in the computerized format, changes can be easily be made when necessary, to suit a given situation. For example, equipment prices and other assumptions made in the study can conveniently be altered. Third, the computerized format will allow a processor to 100 101 synthesize a processing system. According to this program a low-volume batch processing system can be synthesized. A processor can select equipment combinations to synthesize a processing system of 200, 350, 500, and 1200 birds per hour from equipment manufacturers or dealers. There is compatibility of equipment combinations from the different sources, except for the killing and scalding equipment of Pickwick Company. They use specialized batch shackles and a conveyor system suited for their equipment, which differs from other manufacturers or dealers. After synthesizing the processing system, the program then calculates and displays the capital investment requirement, processing cost per bird, and makes sensitivity analysis. This computerized Low-Volume Poultry Processing Synthesizing System is henceforth going to be referred to as the LVPPSS, as an abbreviation or acronym. II.SOFTWARE USED A database of processing equipment was made using dBASE II software of Ashton Tate. The database is comprised of: the Function of equipment, Model of equipment, Power supply, Price information, Specification of the equipment, and manufacturer and or dealer (i.e. source) of the equipment. The information contained in this database was later used in Repertoire. 102 Repertoire, is Polytron Corporation software. It provides an integrated approach for handling screens, text, lists, structured-file, and input analysis. The screen program of Repertoire (DBMSPIM) has a capacity to edit, compile, run and display screens. In this study Repertoire was used in conjunction with dBASE II and Module-2 programming. Module-2 is a powerful software development language, which was introduced by Niklaus Wirth in 1980. Modula-2 provides support for the development of a large software system using object-oriented programming and modern software engineering. III. Approach A set of screens showing the chronological output of tables was made using Repertoire. This is a prerequisite for setting out a menu driven program. The screen forms the "skeleton" of what needs to be done by the program, concerning the input, on screen messages, and output. The screens created need to be compiled before they can be displayed. (Appendix C) These screens are depicted in Figure 7.1, showing the most general approach of what the program needs to do, and also capturing the relationships that exist. 103 Figure 7.1 General Flow Chart SIZE MENU I IA 8 c DI (’ Cost Assumptions g— 5 l 0‘ l I l I I I New Labor Electricity Water Fuel Building Equipment Furniture +3 ['INVESMENT I ' l Building Equipment I Furniture I 1 Yes I ./ / OPERATING COSTS \ Maint. and Rep. on: l \\ \ " \ ,/ \ V l 3 ANNUAL OPERATING Initial Investment COSTS '--——'H l . Amortized cost: 1 I Building NO Equipment I ‘ PROCESSING H7 COSTS 1 Furniture l 1 I I ANALYSIS CapacHy Ufifizofion Building cst ‘ Labor compensation rate Interest rate Twmml l_7 EXIT 104 The basic objective of the program is to be able to synthesize a processing system by either selecting the default system (given) or by making ones own selection from the database. The database is organized in a way that four processing systems can be synthesized. Then Figure 7.2 shows a refined, detailed and a specific relationship of events that the program needs to perform. Using Modula 2, a program was written based on the screens created in Figure 7.1. Operational Instructions: The computer application LVPPSS, can be used as an information gathering tool fOr potential low-volume poultry processors. LVPPSS will provide information on capital investment required, resources needed, processing cost per bird and sensitivity analysis. The LVPPSS program is dynamic, it allows the change of default assumptions to suit prevailing conditions. The LVPPSS start-up procedure displays a menu providing the following options: 105 / \\ Yes Ig'Have‘\_ N0 ‘_\_Building?/—'U Figure 7.2 Flow Chart of Screens iTop Menu : I ISize Menu I I. a) O U 1 Resources: 1 ‘7 fl 1 ~ ResourceA I 1 l I Display ResourceA l a I BuildingA 1 L 1 i. GO to BuildA DisplayI .\/// i . I; \ \ G) I 1 106 (k I / Have , . Go to ' . _ 5 / a I I Equ1p cost-O ‘- Equipment'KR-JQ-J. Equip Dsp Figure 7.2 Cont. \ \ I L r/ I I .r/‘ ' ‘7 l Synthesiz 1' Make *_ Yes system I ~Changes?,a——OI I JNO ‘ —_‘ I Save I 1______I Equip USP 1 . _ _l 1 I60 to FurnitureI t ‘\ Have GO to Furn DSRIfi—Y-Ehifurniture?,S—N9-VFW“”Ure costzoI 1 \ \ / : J \ “ /,’ t e /7\\ /' \ " \ l , Make \\ I . I '2 In ut chan es . ' Save I \Qhonges_ /& p g 1 ; ..\‘ No (9 107 Figure 7.2 (cont.) $ Save Dsp I I GO to I Summary Dsp #4 # Yes \ Corrections?§—_. Modify / No Cost I Calculations r— 1 __l Summary Dsp I of processing costsI l I GO to I I Sensitivity Analysis I 1 Summary Dsp OffiI Sensitivity Analysis I I I l 1 T ”—0 108 1) Size Option This option provides four plant sizes of 200, 350, 500 or 1200 birds per hour. The potential processor should select a plant size of choice since he/she should have an idea of the plant size that he/she is contemplating to operate. 2) Resource Option The resource Option provides information on resources Ineeded in a processing plant. The resources considered are louilding, furniture and equipment. A display of default Jresources is provided, and this may be saved when cacceptable to the processor. If not, the processor may Select resource dimensions of his/her choice. The utility of LVPPSS is put into practice when s)Inthesizing a processing system. This is based on selecting l;>1:ocessing equipment stored in a database. Information on 1title types of equipment, model name, price, power 3‘=‘1tlladhla Vusumuzi. 1988. Organizational and Economic Fundamentals of Small Scale Broiler Processing Activities. Unpublished Thesis, Michigan State University. East Lansing. 111 FSIS, 1984. US Inspected Meat and Poultry Packaging Plants: A Guide to Construction and Lay-Out. Handbook 570. , 1987. Meat and Poultry Inspection Report. USDA. Gordy Frank. 1974. Broilers. Chapter 11 in American Poultry History 1823-1973, eds. Oscar Hanke, John L. Skinner and James H. Florea. American Printing and Publishing, Inc. Wisconsin, 1974, pp. 370-433. Harsh S, L. Connor and G. Schwab. 1981. Managing the Farm Business. Prentice-Hall Inc. Englewood Cliff. New Jersey. Hebert Lauren Andrew. 1989. The Master Guide for Eliminating Cumulative Trauma Disorders from Workplace: The Neck and Arm Handbook. IMPACC, Inc. Maine. ldenke O. A, J.L Skinner and J.H Florea. 1974. American Poultry History: 1823-1973. American Printing and Publishing, Inc. Madison, Wisconsin. Iiuang, Chung and Sukant Misra. 1990. Designing a Data System for Consumer Research. Agribusiness, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Vol. 6, NO. 5, pp. 515-524. Kushner Gary. 1986. Poultry Inspection in Transition. Poultry Processing. December 1986. IL-azar Virginia. 1991. HACCP: An Overview. Broiler Industry. Vol. 54, No. 9. September. Lefens Mark. 1986. A New Era: Slaughter Inspection will never be the same. Poultry Processing. December 1986. :IF’EEITY R.T. 1989 Technological Developments in Pre-slaughter Handling and Processing. pp. 65-100. In Mead G.C. Processing of Poultry. Elsevier Applied Science. London and New York. Ri.dlen S.F. and Hugh S. Johnson. 1970. Locating a Poultry Enterprise. Monthly Poultry Suggestions. University of Illinois at Urban Cooperative Extension Service. Dept of Animal Science. July. Sl'leppard C.C and C.J Flegal, 1985. Farming Know-How. Guidelines to Better Family Farming. Cooperative . Extension Service. Michigan State University. Extenslon Bulletin E-1257, January. 112 Shupe W.L., E.W. Spangler, John A. Hamman and A. Wade Brant. 1973. Guidelines for Turkey Processing Plant Layout. USDA Marketing Research Report No. 1036. Systat. 1990. The System for Statistics. Systat Inc. Evanston, Illinois. Rogers George B. and Bardwell Edwin. 1963. Marketing New England Poultry. New England Experiment Station Bulletin No. 476. April. Tobin, Bernard F and Arthur, Henry B. 1964. Dynamics in the Broiler Industry. Harvard Univ., Graduate School of Business Administration. USDA 1984. U.S. Inspected Meat and Poultry Packing Plants: A Guide to Construction and Layout. Food and Inspection Service. Agriculture Handbook No. 570. 1986 Processing Manual APPENDICES Appendix A In-Line Processing Equipment 113 APPENDIX A - 1 Estimated Investment on In-line Processing Equipment from STORK KILLING AND PLUCKING: $ Hanging turntable 20962 Overhead conveyor 37690 Suspension material 1250 Killing shackles 11252 Suspension rods 3630 Automatic stunner 11033 Automatic killer 12653 Bleeding trough 650 Automatic scalder 29063 Condensation canopy 7323 Connecting troughing 900 Automatic plucker/finisher 48150 Automatic head/trachea puller 12203 Automatic singer 2220 Sprayer set 943 Automatic transfer system 77903 Automatic unloading station 6180 Automatic shackle washer 5885 Automatic counter 1888 Horizontal conveyor belt 6983 EVISCERATION LINE: Overhead conveyor 50540 Suspension material 1800 lEviscerating shackles 55940 Suspension rods 4400 Iiigh pressure pump 2900 Vent cutter/opening machine 61185 Automatic eviscerator 58935 Iiorizontal slatted belt conveyor 9345 Gizzard harvestor 45435 Automatic gizzard defattener 3798 <3izzard washer/conveyor 6308 InSpection/peeling table 5100 Neck cracker/neck skin slitter 47285 Inside/Outside washer 18810 Ffiinal inspection machine 21778 Unloading station 6280 FEATHER AND BLOOD TRANSFER: Ffixmp (transfer feather and offal) 9950 Separator (feathes, offal, etc) 10325 Pump 3398 vacuum installation 23535 Pump installation 11340 Iliversal grinding machine 3530 Set of PVC transport pipes 19790 114 Appendix A-1 (cont.) Estimated Investment on In-line Processing Equipment from STORK VACUUM TRANSPORT FOR OFFALS: $ Collecting bin 4010 Vacuum transport system control 14200 Cyclone 4635 Vacuum installation 25395 Crusher 9000 PVC transport pipes 7635 GIBLET PROCESSING: Transport trough 3000 Giblet pump 15070 Set of PVC transport pipes 6040 Cleaning system 7430 Giblet chiller 38430 Support frame 3000 Giblet packing machine 80000 PRE-CHILLING LINE Screw chiller 45210 Blower 6600 Horizontal conveyor belt 7965 St. St. sliding trough 1625 SORTING AND SUPPORTING: Overhead conveyor 42165 Set of suspension material 1500 Grading shackles 12833 Chickway grading station 3620 Chickway shackle jam detector 1173 Chickway weigh station 12058 Chickway electronic control 33433 Chickway release station 4088 Chickway drop sensors 800 Set of cables 795 Epson printer 1833 Collecting bin 2250 Filling chutes 3000 Bag closing devices 1600 Semi-automatic bagger 21300 Air compressor 12740 Packing arrangements 34000 Optical digital weighing scales 14270 TOTAL 115 APPENDIX A - 2 Estimated Investment on In-line Processing Equipment from Linco Capacity: 1500 b/hr. Dollars Percent KILLING AREA $ % Water stunner 3972 1.7 Silver link O/H 18079 7.8 Drive units 1635 0.7 Bends, etc. 2854 1.2 Scalder (2 pass) 24673 10.7 Plucker model E2x1/3 29696 12.9 Head puller 467 0.2 Pre EV bird washer 872 0.4 Chain/Shackle washer 1656 0.7 Hock cutter Model B 6281 2.7 Leg unloader 2802 1.2 92987 48 EVISCERATION Transfer chutes & tray 818 0.4 Silver link O/H 8200 3.6 Drive unit 1935 0.8 Bands 1351 0.6 EV trough - 12m 5461 2.4 Giblet troughing - 8m 1971 0.9 034 Vent cutter 8715 3.8 Lung removeal system 5517 2.4 Giblet chiller 6439 2.8 Gizzard skinning table 3117 1.3 Giblet packing table 2654 1.1 Loose tools 723 0.3 Shackle washer 1656 0.7 48558 25 AIR CHILLER / PACKAGING Silverling O/H conveyor 33668 14.6 Bends 4106 1.8 Drive ends & Packing table 8888 3.8 Whole bird packing table 4038 1.7 Shrink wrappers 1620 0.7 116 APPENDIX A-2 (cont.) Estimated Investment on In-line Processing Equipment from Linco Capacity: 1500 b/hr. OFFAL GENERAL $ % Feather pump 7440 3.2 Feather screen 7110 3.1 Blood/Lung tank 1068 0.5 Heads and feet packing table 704 0.3 High pressure 9690 4.2 S/S wash hand basin 3992 1.7 S/S wash hand basins 1052 0.5 sterilizer Apron Racks 986 0.4 Hose reels 986 0.4 Boot washer 1878 0.8 Comperssor 2135 0.9 37041 19 Grand Total 230907 100 Appendix B Copies of Letters Requesting M.S. Thesis 117 9 KAMPALA. UGANDA ’ Agro Projects Limited .6. ... 2030 TOI. (0411257131 _'—"' 241134 AERO—INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES Total 62035 AGRO 31m 4th September, 1990 Out 18' Allen P. Rahu, Department of Animal Science/ . Ymurel Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, U.S.A. Dear Mr. Rahn, We have come across your article on "Small-scale processing Economics" in the Poultry instructional Magazine Of May, 1990. We are very much interested in the project designs and would very much appreciate if you could send us'a standard complete detailed financial analysis Of each of the three plant layouts. It would also be appreciated if you could indicate the sources of the various equipments, buildings and raw materials. Your anticipated prompt response and co-Operation is highly appreciated. Yours faithfully, / . / NELSON; DMAH _TETE Executive Director AgriContact M Torupvejen 97 - 3390 Hundostod - Denmark 1mm.- (.45, 42 323306 Postpaid; 910 1896 Yololu: (045) 423248 48 Dr. Allen P. Rahn Dept. Of Animal Science / Ag Economics Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824, USA 9' .1 Temp, July 17th 1990 Dear Allen P. Rahn. Agri Contact works with transfer Of information from research to industry related to agriculture and food production. We are at present involved in a project concerning new possibilities for food production. The project concerns the possibilities of adding value to products leaving the farm, e.g. by further processing, packaging, labelling etc. On farm of on small scale processing units. We believe that the technological development (microcomputers, information technology, biotechnology, process equipment etc.) will give the more Specialized farms an Opportunity to add further value tO primary farm products in the future. We also believe, that a decentralized processing like this may increase flexibility and the Opportunities to respond quickly tO consumer demands. With great interest I have studied your paper "Small-Scale Processing Economics“ in Poultry International, May 1990. I certainly would appreciate to learn more about your project and to have your comments tO the above mentioned study. Sincerely yours Azn' Contact 119 DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL SCIENCE FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY, ZARlA NIGERIA P.M.B. 1044 Zaris Nigeria Telegrams: Agrisesrch Zaris Your Rel: ................................. Telephone: 50571-4 Ext. 4348 Our Ref .................................... .Jlthisptenber, .......... 19.90.... Dr. Allen P. labs, Dept.inins1 Science/1311c. Econonics, Michigan State University, Michigan, U. S .A. Dear Dr. Rahn, “I“ I shall be very grateful if you could send no your publication on“ small-scale processing economies and all other papers Of yours. Yours sincerely, .W r. LI. Din. 120 I——- HVA-Nederland bv Michigan State University attn Department of Animal Science Agricultural Economics John A. Hanna Building EAST LANSING MI 48824-0001 U.S.A. — YOU! reletence OL' 'elerence Dale 417/Ter Huurne October 26, 1990 Dear Sirs, Please find enclosed our letter of July 24 this year. Is there any chance that we ever may receive this publication from you? Please look into this matter. Thank you very much. Yours faithfully, H.V.A.-Nederland B.V. Economic Statistical Department Eugenie van Straaten Enclosure: 1 it} (I 121 POULTRY HEALTH SERVICE EXPCPT COMPANY P O BOX 40028 JACKSONVILLE. FLORIDA 32203. U S A TEL. 1904) 786-3224 FAX. .9041 756-5227 CABLE. 'PCHESE' TELEX 56273 Fourth-.14 mmesenvrce 49W Bust/less Systems July 3. 1990 Allan P. Rahn Department of Animal Science fig++cuituaal Economics Michigan State University Lansing Michigan Dear Dr. Rahn: We are interested in receiving a copy of the study on "Small - Scale Proccessing Economics” as described in the May 1990 issue of Poultry International, (by mail or fax). Thank you for your prompt reply. ,/ Cordially “yr-n1 .- g 17- , “w Cast/9.4, 2 . Lynn nvaus Export Department PCISIOI'HS (sq-Ant: '01: 6 Us! snout? 'm ‘I‘BOItIt..t~r‘| halt-DIV Appendix C Computer Application : Screens APPENDIX C Computer Application Screens :TOpMenu ParentFrame: 0 Normal Next: Size Help:{ TopHelp} Fields:{ (S) ” Goto Size: prompt Lets you examine the various plant sizes. (I) " Goto Investment; prompt Lets you determine Capital Investment needed. (C) " Goto Costs; prompt Lets you calculate the costs incurred. (A) ” Goto Analysis: prompt Lets you do Sensitivity Analysis. (X) " Goto 0; prompt Close all files and return to DOS. } Window:{ EntryBox: [EA] all. E. Position: (1, l, 80, 3) } Colors:{ PointerBar = (black, red) ReverseVideo Normal Text = (black, lightgray) Plain Border = (red, black) Plain #Size! #Investment# #Costs# #Analysis# #Exit# :Size ParentFrame: TOpMenu Fields:{ (A) This (3) This (C) This (D) This " Goto ResourceA: prompt plant process 200 birds per hour. " Goto ResourceB; prompt plant process 350 birds per hour. " Goto ResourceC: prompt plant process 500 birds per hour. ” Goto ResourceD: prompt plant process 1200 birds per hour. 122 123 Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: (30, 10, 65, 20) } Colors:{ PointerBar = (black, red) ReverseVideo Normal Text = (black, lightgray) Plain } Help: { Choose an Option with the up and down arrow, then Press F10} Processing Plants Highlight your choice and hit : #PlantA# #PlantB# #PlantC# #PlantD# :ResourceA ParentFrame: Size NormalNext: BuildingA DisplayOnly HitAnyKey Fields:{ () 'BUILDING’ Real [500..100000] () 'FURNITURE' Real [100..10000] () 'EQUIPMENT' Real [12000..100000] } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position:( 15, 10, 70, 20 ) l Colors:{ PointerBar = (black, red) ReverseVideo Normal Text = (black, lightgray) Plain } Help: { This minimum requirements are based on the synthesized model plant with 200 birds per hour capacity} PlantA Minimum Requirements Building (sqft): # 800 # Furniture ($): # 500 # Equipment($): # 18998 # :ResourceB ParentFrame: Size NormalNext: BuildingB DisplayOnly HitAnyKey Fields:{ () ’BUILDING’ Real [500..100000] () ’FURNITURE' Real [100..10000] () 'EQUIPMENT’ Real [12000..100000] } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position:( 15, 10, 70, 20 ) 1 Colors:{ PointerBar = (black, red) ReverseVideo Normal Text = (black, lightgray) Plain } Help: { This minimum requirements are based on the synthesized model plant with 350 birds per hour capacity} PlantB Minimum Requirements Building (sqft): # 1000 # Furniture ($): # 600 # Equipment($): # 35910 I :Resourcec ParentFrame: Size NormalNext: BuildingC DisplayOnly HitAnyKey Fields:{ () ’BUILDING' Real [500..100000] () 'FURNITURE' Real [100..10000] () ’EQUIPMENT' Real [12000..100000] } 125 Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position:( 15, 10, 70, 20 ) l Colors:{ PointerBar = (black, red) ReverseVideo Normal Text = (black, lightgray) Plain } Help: { This minimum requirements are based on the synthesized model plant with 500 birds per hour capacity} PlantC Minimum Requirements Building (sqft): # 1400 # Furniture ($): # 600 # Equipment($): # 52876 # :ResourceD ParentFrame: Size NormalNext: BuildingD DisplayOnly HitAnyKey Fields:{ () ’BUILDING' Real [500..100000] () ’FURNITURE' Real [100..10000] () ’EQUIPMENT’ Real [12000..100000] } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position:( 15, 10, 70, 20 ) } Colors:{ PointerBar = (black, red) ReverseVideo Normal Text = (black, lightgray) Plain } Help: { This minimum requirements are based on the synthesized model plant with 1200 birds per hour capacity} 126 PlantD Minimum Requirements Building (sqft): # 3000 # Furniture ($): # 800 # Equipment($l # 59236 # :BuildingA ParentFrame: ResourceA Fields:{ (Y) " GoTo FurnitureA, prompt Lets you proceed to select the next resource (N) ” GoTo PlantOptA, prompt Lets you select the choice Options } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: ( 30, 5, 75, 15 ) } Colors:{ Normal Text = ( blue, lightgray ) plain Border = (green, lightgray) plain } Help: { Selecting YES will enable you to proceed to another resource, while NO will provide options of either selecting the default or own choice} Do you have a 800 sqft Building? Select your Choice #Yes# #No# :BuildingB ParentFrame: ResourceB Fields:{ (Y) " GoTo FurnitureB, prompt Lets you proceed to select the next resource (N) ” GoTo PlantOptB, prompt Lets you select the choice Options l Window:{ ClearAfter 127 Double Box Position: ( 30, 5, 75, 15 ) 1 Colors:( Normal Text = ( blue, lightgray ) plain Border = (green, lightgray) plain } Help: { Selecting YES will enable you to proceed to another resource, while NO will provide options of either selecting the default or own choice} Do you have a 1000 sqft Building? Select your Choice #Yes# #No# :BuildingC ParentFrame: ResourceC Fields:{ (Y) " GoTo FurnitureC, prompt Lets you proceed to select the next resource (N) " GoTo PlantOptC, prompt Lets you select the choice Options l Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: ( 30, 5, 75, 15 I } Colors:( Normal Text = ( blue, lightgray ) plain Border = (green, lightgray) plain 1 Help: Selecting YES will enable you to proceed to another resource, while NO will provide options of either selecting the default or own choice} Do you have a 1400 sqft Building? Select your Choice #Yes# #NO# 128 :BuildingD ParentFrame: ResourceD Fields:{ (Y) ” GoTo FurnitureD, prompt Lets you proceed to select the next resource (N) ” GoTo PlantOptD, prompt Lets you select the choice Options } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: ( 30, 5, 75, 15 ) I Colors:{ Normal Text = ( blue, lightgray ) plain Border = (green, lightgray) plain 1 Help: { Selecting YES will enable you to proceed to another resource, while NO will provide options Of either selecting the default or own choice} Do you have a 3000 sqft Building? Select your Choice #Yes# #No# :FurnitureA ParentFrame: BuildingA Fields: { (Y) " GoTo DsquuipA, promt (N) " GoTo PlantOptA, prompt Lets you see the Options } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: ( 30, 5, 75, 15 ) } Colors:{ Normal Text = ( blue, lightgray ) plain Border = (green, lightgray) plain l 129 Help: I Selecting YES will enable you to proceed to another resource, while NO will provide Options of either selecting the default or own choice.} Do you have Furniture? Select you choice #Yes# #No# :FurnitureB ParentFrame: BuildingB Fields: { (Y) " GoTo DsquuipB, promt (N) " GoTo PlantOptB, prompt Lets you see the Options } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: ( 30, 5, 75, 15 ) } Colors:{ Normal Text = ( blue, lightgray ) plain Border = (green, lightgray) plain I Help: ( Selecting YES will enable you to proceed to another resource, while NO will provide options of either selecting the default or own choice.} Do you have Furniture? Select you choice #Yes# #No# 130 :FurnitureC ParentFrame: Building Fields: { (Y) ” GoTo DsquuipC, promt (N) ” GoTo PlantOptC, prompt Lets you see the Options l Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: ( 30, 5, 75, 15 ) 1 Colors:{ Normal Text = ( blue, lightgray ) plain Border = (green, lightgray) plain I Help: { Selecting YES will enable you to proceed to another resource, while NO will provide options of either selecting the default or own choice.} Do you have Furniture? Select you choice #Yes# #Noi :FurnitureD ParentFrame: BuildingD Fields: { (Y) " GoTo DsquuipD, promt (N) " GoTo PlantOptD, prompt Lets you see the Options } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: ( 30, 5, 75, 15 ) 1 Colors:{ . Normal Text - ( blue, lightgray ) plaln Border = (green, lightgray) plain l 131 Help: { Selecting YES will enable you to proceed to another resource, while NO will provide options of either selecting the default or own choice.} Do you have Furniture? Select you choice #Yes# #No# :EquipmentA NormalNext: HelpMenu ParentFrame: DsquuipA Fields:{ (Y) " GoTo EquipSum (N) " GoTo PlantOptA 1 Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: ( 30, 5, 75, 15 ) } Colors:{ Normal Text = ( blue, lightgray ) plain Border = (green, lightgray) plain Do you have Processing Equipment? Select you choice #Yes# #No# :EquipmentB NormalNext: HelpMenu ParentFrame: DsquuipB Fields:{ (Y) " GoTo EquipSum (N) " GoTo PlantOptB 1 Window:{ 132 ClearAfter Double Box Position: ( 30, 5, 75, 15 ) } Colors:{ Normal Text = ( blue, lightgray ) plain Border = (green, lightgray) plain Do you have Processing Equipment? Select you choice #Yes# #No# :Equipmentc NormalNext: HelpMenu ParentFrame: DsquuipC Fields:{ (Y) " GoTo EquipSum (N) " GoTo PlantOptC } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: ( 30, 5, 75, 15 ) } Colors:{ Normal Text = ( blue, lightgray ) plain Border = (green, lightgray) plain Do you have Processing Equipment? Select you choice #Yes# #No# :EquipmentD NormalNext: HelpMenu ParentFrame: DsquuipD Fields:{ (Y) " GoTo EquipSum (N) " GoTo PlantOptD } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: ( 30, 5, 75, 15 ) 1 Colors:{ Normal Text = ( blue, lightgray ) plain Border = (green, lightgray) plain Do you have Processing Equipment? Select you choice #Yes# #No# :DsquuipA NormalNext: EquipmentA ParentFrame: FurnitureA Fields:{ " String ’SLAUGHTER' String 'HANGING' String 'STUN AND KILL' String 'BLEEDING' String ’ SCALDING ’ String 'PICKING’ String ’SINGEING' String 'svrsc LINE' String ’OFFAL CART’ String 'TABLES' String 'GIBLET PANS' String 'VENT CUTTING' String ’BIRD OPENING’ String ’REMOVE LUNGS' String 'CLEAN GIZZARDS' String 'HOCK CUTTING' String 'ICE MAKING’ String 'CHILL TANKS' String A V AAAAAAAAaAafiI-‘AAAAA VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV AAAAAAAAAAAAAA l Window:{ ClearAfter 134 ’TANK AGITATOR' String ’DRAIN TABLES’ String 'PACKAGING TABLE’String 'WEIGHING SCALE’ String ’BAGGER’ String ’BAG CLIPPER’ String ’MAKING BOXES’ String ’PUSHING CARTS’ String ’BOILERS’ String 'GENERATORS’ String ’SPARE PARTS’ String ’TOTAL’ String ” String ” String HeadingLine: 5 No Box Position: ( l Colors:{ 2, 5, 79, 23 ) Normal Text = ( blue, lightgray ) plain Border = (green, lightgray) plain Synthesized Processing System for PlantA (200 birds per hour plant) Activity Qty Model Price Source I ------------------------------------------------------------- # Slaughter: HANGING # 5 SH-5 Shackles 220.00 Pickwick # STUN & KILL # l SKG Stunning Knive 998.00 Pickwick # BLEEDING # 1 Killing Cabinat 795.00 Pickwick # SCALDING # l SS-30-SS Scalder 2012.00 Ashly # PICKING # 1 SPJ3 Batch Picker 2995.00 Pickwick # SINGEING # 1 PSI Poultry singer 41.00 Pickwick # Evisceration: EVISC LINE 5 1 ET4 Evisc. Table 1295.00 Pickwick # OFFAL CART # 1 OCBZ Offal cart 373.00 Pickwick # GIBLET PANS # 4 Giblet pans 116.00 Pickwick # TABLES # - - - ' - # VENT CUT # ' - - ' ' # BIRD OPEN # - Knives - - # REMOVE LUNG I - Hand rake - - # CLEAN GIZZARDSi - # HOCK CUTTING I - Knives # Chill and Package: on' Art on- a" n- I. ss'l >‘1 135 ICE MAKING # - - - CHILL TANKS # 4 KT-2T Chill tank TANK AGITATOR # DRAIN TABLES # PACKAGING TABLE WEIGHING SCALE BAGGER BAG CLIPPER MAKING BOXES PUSHING CARTS CTAP-60 Tank agitator Drain-Packaging table BVS-40 Bagging unit *****R§HH H 720 .00 70.00 995.00 1780.00 Brower Brower Brower Brower *§§**§§§h**§h¥s : DsquuipB NormalNext: : ParentFrame : Fields:{ ( vvvvvvvv AAAAAAAAA VVVVVVVVV AAAAAAAAA" ) ,VVVVVVV II String ’SLAUGHTER’ String ’HANGING’ String ’STUN AND KILL’ String ’BLEEDING’ String ’SCALDING’ String 'PICKING’ String "String 'SINGEING’ String 'EVISC LINE’ String ’OFFAL CART’ String : TABLES’ String 'GIBLET PANS’ String 'VENT CUTTING’ String 'BIRD OPENING’ String ’REMOVE LUNGS’ String ’CLEAN GIZZARDS’ String Hook CUTTING’ String 2 ICE MAKING’ String 'CHILL TANKS’ String ’TANK AGITATOR’ String 'DRAIN TABLES’ String ’PACKAGING TABLE’String 'WEIGHING SCALE’ String 'BAGGER’ String 'BAG CLIPPER’ String 'HAKING BOXES’ String PUSHING CARTS’ String . .1 fix ‘1‘ FE Sis \I- use ..- and. use 136 ’BOILERS’ String ’GENERATORS’ String 'SPARE PARTS’ String ’TOTAL’ String ”String AAAAA VVVVV } Window:{ HeadingLine: 5 NO Box Position: ( 2, 5, 79, 23 ) } Colors:{ Normal Text = ( blue, lightgray ) plain Border = (green, lightgray) plain Synthesized Processing System for PlantB (350 birds per hour plant) Activity Qty Model Price ’ ......................................................... Slaughter: HANGING # 6 SH-5 Shackles 300.00 STUN SKILL # 1 SKG Stunning Knive 998.00 BLEEDING # 1 Killing Cabinat 795.00 SCALDING # 1 88-30-88 Scalder 2012.00 PICKING # 1 SPJ2 Batch Picker 2235.00 # 1 SPJRT Catch table 495.00 SINGEING # 1 P81 Poultry singer 41.00 Evisceration: EVISC LINE # 1 EVO-16 Evisc. line 5595.00 OFFAL CART I 1 OCB2 Offal cart 373.00 GIBLET PANS I 4 Giblet pans 116.00 TABLES # ' ' - ‘ VENT CUTTING # - ' - ' BIRD OPENING I - Knives REMOVE LUNGS I - Hand rake CLEAN GIZZARDS i - HOCK CUTTING # - Knives Chill and Package: ICE MAKING # CHILL TANKS # TANK AGITATOR I DRAIN TABLES # PACKAGING TABLE WEIGHING SCALE BAGGER BAG CLIPPER KT-ZT Chill tank 1080.00 CTAP-60 Agitator 370.00 Drain-Packaging 995.00 1 BVS-40 Bagger 1780.00 *‘§‘HPO‘I source Pickwick Pickwick Pickwick Ashly Pickwick Pickwick Pickwick Pickwick Pickwick Pickwick Brower Brower Brower Brower # fi§h“*§h*** ‘fi:“*‘h* ‘***‘*§h‘ 137 MAKING BOXES # - - - PUSHING CARTS # :DsquuipC NormalNext: ParentFrame: Fields:{ ” String 'SLAUGHTER' String ’HANGING’ String "String ’STUN AND KILL’ String ’BLEEDING' String 'SCALDING' String ’PICKING’ String "String 'SINGEING' String AA V ’EVISC LINE’ String "String ’OFFAL CART' String 'TABLES' String ’GIBLET PANS’ String 'VENT CUTTING' String ’BIRD OPENING’ String 'REMOVE LUNGS' String ’CLEAN GIZZARDS’ String 'HOCK CUTTING’ String AAAAAAAAAA Vvvvvvvvvv ’ICE MAKING’ String 'CHILL TANKS’ String ’TANK AGITATOR’ String 'DRAIN TABLES' String ’PACKAGING TABLE’String ’WEIGHING SCALE’ String ’BAGGER' String 'BAG CLIPPER’ String ’MAKING BOXES’ String ’PUSHING CARTS’ String vvvvvvvvvv ’BOILERS’ String 'GENERATORS’ String ’SPARE PARTS’ String AAA VVV 138 () ’TOTAL’ String () ”String } Window:{ HeadingLine: 5 No Box Position: ( 2, 5, 79, 23 ) } Colors:{ Normal Text = ( blue, lightgray ) plain Border = (green, lightgray) plain Synthesized Processing System for PlantC (500 birds per hour plant) Activity Qty Model Price Source 5 ---------------------------------------------- # Slaughter: HANGING I 1 Dunkmaster conveyor 760.00 Pickwick # # 7 SHC16 Shackles 966.00 Pickwick # STUN & KILL # 1 SKG Stunning Knive 998.00 Pickwick # BLEEDING # 1 Killing Tunnel 2795.00 Pickwick # SCALDING # 1 88-36-88 Scalder 4080.00 Ashly # PICKING # 1 JSZA Batch Picker 7425.00 Pickwick # # 1 P-60 Insp. Table 740.00 Pickwick # SINGEING # 1 P31 Poultry singer 41.00 Pickwick # Evisceration: EVISC LINE # l EVO-25 Evisc line 7670.00 Pickwick # # 1 EVS-25 F. stand 2392.00 Pickwick # OFFAL CART # 2 OCBZ Offal cart 746.00 Pickwick # GIBLET PANS # 8 Giblet pans 233.00 Pickwick # TABLES # - - - - - # VENT CUTTING # 1 Vent cutter 1750.00 Pickwick # BIRD OPENING # - Knives # REMOVE LUNGS # 1 Jarv lung remover 350.00 Jarvis # CLEAN GIZZARDS # 1 Gizzard stand 1105.00 Pickwick # HOCK CUTTING # 1 CPE Neck/8 Hock 525.00 Pickwick # Chill and Package: ICE MAKING I - - - ' ’ # CHILL TANKS # 4 K3694 Chill tank 1960.00 Brower # TANK AGITATOR # 1 CTAP-SO Agitator 370.00 Brower # DRAIN TABLES # 1 Drain-table 995.00 Pickwick # PACKAGING TABLE # - - - ' ’ # WEIGHING SCALE # - - - ’ ' # BAGGER # 1 BVS-40 Baggier 1780.00 Brower # BAG CLIPPER # ' - ' ' - # MAKING BOXES # - - - ' - # 139 PUSHING CARTS # ' - - # --------- # # --------------------------------------------------- # :DspEguipD NormalNext: ParentFrame: Fields:{ () ” String ’SLAUGHTER’ String ’HANGING’ String "String ’STUN AND KILL’ String ’BLEEDING’ String ’SCALDING’ String ’PICKING’ String "String ’SINGEING’ String ’EVISC LINE’ String "String ’OFFAL CART’ String ’TABLES’ String ’GIBLET PANS’ String ’VENT CUTTING’ String ’BIRD OPENING’ String ’REMOVE LUNGS’ String ’CLEAN GIZZARDS’ String ’Bird washing’ String "String ’HOCK CUTTING’ String ARAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA vvvvaVVVVvvvvvvavvv ’ICE MAKING’ String ’CHILL TANKS’ String ’TANK AGITATOR’ String ’DRAIN TABLES’ String ’PACKAGING TABLE’String ’WEIGHING SCALE’ String ’BAGGER’ String ’BAG CLIPPER’ String ’MAKING BOXES’ String ’PUSHING CARTS’ String AAAAAAAAAA Vvvvvvvvvv ’BOILERS’ String ’GENERATORS’ String ’SPARE PARTS’ String ’TOTAL’ String ”String AAAAA vvvvv UA- ‘ .n‘ R11“ hilt 5.. \iu \1 H x1! 140 } Window:{ HeadingLine: 5 NO Box Position: ( 2, 5, 79, 23 ) } Colors:{ Normal Text = ( blue, lightgray ) plain Border = (green, lightgray) plain Synthesized Processing System for PlantD (1200 birds per hour plant) Activity Qty Model Price Source # --------------------------------------------- # Slaughter: HANGING # 1 Dunkmaster conveyor 760.00 Pickwick # # 7 SHC20 Shackles 1085.00 Pickwick # STUN & KILL # l SKG Stunning Knive 998.00 Pickwick # BLEEDING # 1 Killing Tunnel 2795.00 Pickwick # SCALDING # l SS-48-SS Scalder 5370.00 Ashly # PICKING # 1 JSZA Batch Picker 7425.00 Pickwick # # 1 P-60 Inspec. Table 740.00 Pickwick # SINGEING # 2 P51 Poultry singer 83.00 Pickwick # Evisceration: EVISC LINE # 1 EVO-37 Evisc. line 9950.00 Pickwick # # 1 EVS-37 Floor stand 3536.00 Pickwick # OFFAL CART # 1 OCB4 Offal cart 998.00 Pickwick # GIBLET PANS # 12 Giblet pans 350.00 Pickwick # TABLES # - ' ' - ' # VENT CUTTING # 1 Vent cutter 1750.00 Jarvis # BIRD OPENING # - Knives # REMOVE LUNGS # 1 Lung gun 350.00 Jarvis # CLEAN GIZZARDS # 1 Gizzard stand 1105.00 Pickwick # BIRD WASHING # 1 BWI washing 1460.00 Pickwick # # 2 BWO washing 3630.00 Pickwick # HOCK CUTTING # 1 CPE Neck/Hockr 525.00 Pickwick # Chill and Package: ICE MAKING # - - - ' - # CHILL TANKS # 6 K3694 Chill tank 2940.00 Brower # TANK AGITATOR # 1 CTAP-60 Agitator 370.00 Brower # DRAIN TABLES # 2 Drain- table 1990.00 Pickwick # PACKAGING TABLE # - ' - - ' # WEIGHING SCALE I - - - - ' # BAGGER # 1 BVS-40 Bagger 1780.00 Brower # BAG CLIPPER # - ' - ' - # MAKING BOXES # - - - ' ' # 141 PUSHING CARTS # - - - - - # # --------- # TOTAL # # # --------------------------------------------------- # :PlantOptA ParentFrame: FurnitureA Fields:{ (B) ” GoTo BuildAltA, prompt Lets you see Building Options (F) ” GoTo FurniAltA, prompt Lets you see Furniture Options (S) ” GoTo EquipKil, prompt Lets you see Equipment Options } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: ( 30, 5, 70, 20 ) } Colors: { NormalText = ( lightgray, blue ) plain Border = (green, blue) plain Do you want to make any changes? Highlight your choice #Building# #Furniture# #Synthesize systems# :BuildAltA ParentFrame: PlantOptA Fields:{ (D) ’Default Value’ Real [500..100000] (C) ’Own Choice’ Real [500..100000] } Window:{ ClearAfter 142 Double Box Position: (25, 5, 75, 15) } Colors:{ NormalText = (lightgray, blue) plain Border = (green, blue) plain Highlight Resources to be Altered DEFAULT VALUE (sqft):! 800 # ENTER YOUR CHOICE (sqft):# # :PurniAltA NormalNext: EquipKil ParentFrame: PlantOptA Fields:{ (D) ’Default Value’ Real [100..100000] (C) ’Own Choice’ Real [100..100000] } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: (35, 10, 75, 20) } Colors:{ NormalText = (lightgray, blue) plain Border = (green, blue) plain Enter DOLLAR AMOUNT of Furnisher DEFAULT VALUE ($):# 500 # ENTER YOUR CHOICE (5):! # :PlantOptB ParentFrame: FurnitureB Fields:{ (B) ” GoTo BuildAltB, prompt Lets you see Building Options (F) ” GoTo FurniAltB, prompt Lets you see Furniture Options (S) ” GoTo EquipKil, prompt Lets you see Equipment Options } Window:{ '___1 143 ClearAfter Double Box Position: ( 30, 5, 70, 20 ) } Colors: { NormalText = ( lightgray, blue ) plain Border = (green, blue) plain Do you want to make any changes? Highlight your choice #Building# #Furniture# #Synthesize systems# :BuildAltB ParentFrame: PlantOptB Fields:{ (D) ’Default Value’ Real [500..100000] (C) 'Own Choice’ Real [500..100000] } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: (25, 5, 75, 15) } Colors:{ NormalText = (lightgray, blue) plain Border = (green, blue) plain Highlight Resources to be Altered DEFAULT VALUE (sqft):# 1000 # ENTER YOUR CHOICE (sqft):# # :FurniAltB NormalNext: EquipKil ParentFrame: PlantOptB Fields:{ (D) ’Default Value’ Real [100..100000] (C) ’Own Choice’ Real [100..100000] } ... \\ 144 Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: (35, 10, 75, 20) } Colors:{ NormalText = (lightgray, blue) plain Border = (green, blue) plain Enter DOLLAR AMOUNT of Furniture DEFAULT VALUE ($):# 600 # ENTER YOUR CHOICE ($):# # :PlantOptC ParentFrame: FurnitureC Fields:{ (B) ” GoTo BuildAltC, prompt Lets you see Building Options (F) ” GoTo FurniAltC, prompt Lets you see Furniture Options (S) ” GoTo EquipKil, prompt Lets you see Equipment Options } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: ( 30, 5, 70, 20 ) } Colors: ( NormalText = ( lightgray, blue ) plain Border = (green, blue) plain Do you want to make any changes? Highlight your choice #Building# #Furniture# #Synthesize systems# 145 :BuildAltC ParentFrame: PlantOptC Fields:{ (D) ’Default Value’ Real [500..100000] (C) ’Own Choice’ Real [500..100000] } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: (25, 5, 75, 15) } Colors:{ NormalText = (lightgray, blue) plain Border = (green, blue) plain Highlight Resources to be Altered DEFAULT VALUE (sqft):# 1400 # ENTER YOUR CHOICE (sqft):# # :FurniAltC NormalNext: EquipKil ParentFrame: PlantOptC Fields:{ (D) ’Default Value’ Real [100..100000] (C) ’Own Choice’ Real [100..100000] ) Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: (35, 10, 75, 20) } Colors:{ NormalText = (lightgray, blue) plain Border = (green, blue) plain Enter DOLLAR AMOUNT of Furniture DEFAULT VALUE (5):! 600 # ENTER YOUR CHOICE (5):! # 146 :PlantOptD ParentFrame: FurnitureD Fields:{ (B) ” GoTo BuildAltD, prompt Lets you see Building Options (F) ” GoTo FurniAltD, prompt Lets you see Furniture Options (S) ” GoTo EquipKil, prompt Lets you see Equipment Options } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: ( 30, 5, 70, 20 ) } Colors: { NormalText = ( lightgray, blue ) plain Border = (green, blue) plain Do you want to make any changes? Highlight your choice #Building# #Furniture# #Synthesize systems# :BuildAltD ParentFrame: PlantOptD Fields:{ (D) ’Default Value’ Real [500..100000] (C) ’Own Choice’ Rea1 [500..100000] } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: (25, 5, 75, 15) } Colors:{ NormalText = (lightgray, blue) plain Border = (green, blue) plain Highlight Resources to be Altered DEFAULT VALUE (sqft):# 3000 # ENTER YOUR CHOICE (sqft):# # .I v... 147 :FurniAltD NormalNext: EquipKil ParentFrame: PlantOptD Fields:{ (D) ’Default Value’ Rea1 [100..100000] (C) ’Own Choice’ Rea1 [100..100000] } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: (35, 10, 75, 20) } Colors:{ NormalText = (lightgray, blue) plain Border = (green, blue) plain Enter DOLLAR AMOUNT of Furniture DEFAULT VALUE ($):# 800 # ENTER YOUR CHOICE ($):# # :HelpMenu NormalNext: EquipKil DisplayOnly Window:{ EntryBox: |E=fl ExitBox: r:;1hL£1 Position:(l, 20, 80, 23) } Colors:{ PointerBar = (black, red) ReverseVideo Normal Text = (black, lightgray) Plain Border = (red, black) Plain F1: F2: F3: F4: F5: F6: F7: F8: F9: F10: HELP EXIT KILL SCALD PICK EVISC CHILL PACK PRINT SUBMIT :EquipKil Normal Next: EquipEvisc Fields:{ () ” Group 8 (1) '1' Choice (2) ’2’ Choice (3) ’3’ Choice AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA mflmmfiwNvaQmm-bUNPVNQO‘U‘I-FUNHVM\lmthNvaQO‘mbUNt-‘Vmflmmb Vvvvvvvv vvvvvvvv vvvvvvvv Vvvvvvvv vvvvvvvv \ ~ ‘ § \ I4l l5l l6l l7l l8l Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice ’ Group 8 Ill l2l l3l l4l Isl l6l l7l l8l Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice ’ Group 8 Ill I2l I3l l4l Isl I6I I7I l8l Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice ’ Group 8 Ill I2I I3l I4I Isl I6l l7l l8l Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice ’ Group 8 Ill l2l l3l l4l Isl l6l l7l I8l Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice ’ Group 8 Ill l2l l3l l4l l5l l6l I7I I8I Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice 148 Ill l2l I3l l4l l5l l6l l7l I8I AAAAAAAAAA V 00 N) 0‘ U1 oh U N I-‘V VVVVVVVV } Window:{ ClearAfter ” Group 8 Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice ” String HeadingLine: 5 No Box Position: } Colors:{ PointerBar = Border = ) Help: { (1, 4 l 80, 22) 149 (red, black) Plain (black, red) ReverseVideo Normal Text = (black, lightgray) Plain Use the Function Keys to get information on the Slaughter: HANGING STUN AND KILL I 1 BLEEDING SCALDING SCALDING PICKING SINGEING Synthesizing Processing System **§§**§h§h *‘fi‘h‘h‘fl: ***§&§h*§h **‘***§= U *‘k‘h‘k‘k‘h‘k Choices: # 4 # 4 # 4 # ******§k *‘h‘k‘fi‘hfit *‘h‘h‘k‘h‘h‘fl: *‘h‘h‘h‘flz‘h‘h types # # # # # # # # # # # # # # of equipment, pricing, manufacturers, etc. ) *%%*§h** *‘h‘k‘fi‘fi 150 :EquipEVisc Normal Next: ParentFrame: Fields:{ ” Group 8 ( AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ) mQO\m-§UNHV@\IO)UI-buNHVQQO‘Ul-thO-‘Vm\lO‘U’ihUNHVQOLfl-fiwwtfi Vvvvvvvv Vvvvvvvv VVVVVVVV VVVVVVVV Vvvvvvvv ‘ § § ‘ Ill l2l l3l l4l Isl l6l I7l l8l Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice ’ Group 8 Ill lzl I3l l4l Isl I6l l7l I8l Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice ’ Group 8 Ill l2l I3l I4I I5l I6I l7l l8l Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice ’ Group 8 Ill I2I l3l l4l Isl l6l I7l l8l Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice ’ Group 8 Ill l2l I3l I4I l5l l6l l7l I8I Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice EquipChill EquipKil 151 ” Group 8 ’1’ Choice ’2’ Choice ’3’ Choice ’4’ Choice ’5’ Choice ’6’ Choice ’7’ Choice ’8’ Choice ’ Group 8 ’1’ Choice ’2’ Choice ’3’ Choice ’4’ Choice ’5’ Choice ’6’ Choice ’7’ Choice ’8’ Choice ’ Group 8 ’1’ Choice ’2’ Choice ’3’ Choice ’4’ Choice ’5’ Choice ’6’ Choice ’7’ Choice ’8’ Choice ’ Group 8 ’1’ Choice ’2’ Choice ’3’ Choice ’4’ Choice ’5’ Choice ’6’ Choice ’7’ Choice ’8’ Choice ” String VVVVVVVV ~ VVVVVVVV ‘ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA vooqmmhuwwvooqmmpuupvooqmwoumpvooqosmpwmwv vvs—rvvvvv Q } Window:{ ClearAfter HeadingLine: 5 No Box Position: (1, 4, 80, 22) } Colors:{ PointerBar = (black, red) ReverseVideo Normal Text = (black, lightgray) Plain Border = (red, black) Plain } Help: ( 152 Use the Function Keys to get information on the types of equipment, pricing, manufacturers, etc. } Synthesizing Processing System Evisceration: EVISC LINE I 1 I I 2 I I 3 I I 4 I I 5 I I 6 I I 7 I I 8 I OFFAL CART I 1 I I 2 I I 3 I I 4 I I 5 I I 6 I I 7 I I 8 I GIBLET PANS I 1 I I 2 # I 3 I I 4 I I 5 I I 6 I I 7 I I 8 I TABLES I l I I 2 I I 3 I I 4 I I 5 I I 6 I I 7 I I 8 I VENT CUTTING I 1 I I 2 I I 3 I I 4 I I 5 I I 6 I I 7 I I 8 I BIRD OPENING I l I I 2 I I 3 I I 4 I I 5 I I 6 I I 7 I I 8 I REMOVE LUNGS I 1 I I 2 I I 3 I I 4 I I 5 I I 6 I I 7 I I 8 I CLEAN GIZZARDSI 1 I I 2 I I 3 I I 4 I I 5 I I 6 I I 7 I I 8 I HOCK CUTTING I 1 I I 2 I I 3 I I 4 I I 5 I I 6 I I 7 I I 8 I I -—— ----------------------------------------- I :EquipChill Normal Next: EquipSum ParentFrame: EquipEvisc Fields: { () ” Group 8 (1) ’1’ Choice (2) ’2’ Choice (3) ’3’ Choice (4) ’4’ Choice (5) '5' Choice (6) ’6’ Choice (7) ’7’ Choice (8) ’8’ Choice () ” Group 8 (1) ’1’ Choice (2) ’2’ Choice (3) ’3’ Choice (4) ’4’ Choice (5) ’5’ Choice (6) ’6’ Choice AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA UNI-'Vm\lO‘LflbUNHVQQO‘U‘l-FUNHVQ\lO‘WuhUNvaqmm-kth-‘Vm\lmUl-bUNF-‘vmfl Vv VVVVVVVV vvvvvvvv VVVVVVVV Vvvvvvvv VVvVvVvv Vvv ‘ ‘ § ‘ ~ ‘ ’7’ Choice ’8’ Choice ’ Group 8 ’1’ Choice ’2’ Choice ’3’ Choice ’4’ Choice ’5’ Choice ’6’ Choice ’7’ Choice ’8’ Choice ’ Group 8 ’1’ Choice ’2’ Choice '3’ Choice ’4’ Choice ’5’ Choice ’6’ Choice ’7’ Choice ’8’ Choice ’ Group 8 ’1’ Choice ’2’ Choice ’3’ Choice ’4’ Choice ’5’ Choice ’6’ Choice ’7’ Choice ’8’ Choice ’ Group 8 ’1’ Choice ’2’ Choice ’3’ Choice ’4’ Choice ’5’ Choice ’6’ Choice ’7’ Choice ’8’ Choice ’ Group 8 ’1’ Choice ’2’ Choice ’3’ Choice ’4’ Choice ’5’ Choice ’6’ Choice ’7’ Choice ’8’ Choice ’ Group 8 ’1’ Choice ’2’ Choice ’3’ Choice 153 (4) ’4’ Choice (5) ’5’ Choice (6) ’6’ Choice (7) ’7’ Choice (8) ’8’ Choice () ” Group 8 (1) ’1’ Choice (2) ’2’ Choice (3) ’3’ Choice (4) ’4’ Choice (5) ’5’ Choice (6) ’6’ Choice (7) ’7’ Choice (8) ’8’ Choice () ” Group 8 (1) ’1’ Choice (2) ’2’ Choice (3) ’3’ Choice (4) ’4’ Choice (5) ’5’ Choice (6) ’6’ Choice (7) ’7’ Choice (8) ’8’ Choice () ” Group 8 (l) ’1’ Choice (2) ’2’ Choice (3) ’3’ Choice (4) ’4’ Choice (5) ’5’ Choice (6) ’6’ Choice (7) ’7’ Choice (8) ’8’ Choice () ” Group 8 (1) ’1’ Choice (2) '2' Choice (3) '3' Choice (4) ’4’ Choice (5) ’5’ Choice (6) ’6’ Choice (7) ’7’ Choice (8) ’8’ Choice () ”String } Window:{ ClearAfter HeadingLine: 5 No Box Position: (1, 4, } 22) 154 155 Colors:{ PointerBar = (black, red) ReverseVideo Normal Text = (black, lightgray) Plain Border = (red, black) Plain } Help: { Use the Function Keys to get information on the types of equipment, pricing, manufacturers, etc. } Synthesizing Processing System Chill and Package: CHOICES: ICE MAKING # 1 # # 2 # # 3 # # 4 # # 5 # # 6 # # 7 # # 8 # CHILL TANKS # 1 # # 2 # # 3 # # 4 # # 5 # t 6 # # 7 # # 8 # TANK AGITATOR I 1 I I 2 I I 3 I # 4 # I 5 I I 6 I I 7 I I 8 I DRAIN TABLES I 1 I I 2 I # 3 # I 4 I I 5 I I 6 I I 7 I I 8 I PACKAGING TABL I 1 # I 2 I I 3 I I 4 I I 5 I I 6 I I 7 I I 8 WEIGHING SCALE # 1 # # 2 # # 3 # # 4 # # 5 # # 6 # # 7 # # 8 BAGGER #1##2##3##4##5#I6##7##8 BAG CLIPPER I 1 I I 2 I I 3 I I 4 I I 5 I I 6 I I 7 I I 8 PUSHING CARTS # 1 # # 2 # # 3 # # 4 # # 5 # t 6 # # 7 # t 8 BOILERS I15I2II3II4II5II6II7II8I GENERATORS I 1 I I 2 I I 3 I I 4 I I 5 I I 6 # I 7 I I 8 I SPARE PARTS I 1 I I 2 I # 3 I I 4 I I 5 I I 6 I # 7 I I 8 I :HelpMenuX NormalNext: EquipKil DisplayOnly Window:{ } *‘fi‘h‘k :EquipSum Normal Next: Costs ParentFrame: EquipChill DisplayOnly HitAnyKey Fields: { () AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVvvs-rvv } "String ’SLAUGHTER’ String ’HANGING’ String ’STUN AND KILL’ String ’BLEEDING’ String ’SCALDING’ String ’PICKING’ String ’SINGEING’ String ’EVISC LINE’ String ’OFFAL CART’ String ’TABLES’ String ’GIBLET PANS’ String ’VENT CUTTING’ String ’BIRD OPENING’ String ’REMOVE LUNGS’ String ’CLEAN GIZZARDS’ String ’BIRD WASHING’ String ’HOCK CUTTING’ String ’ICE MAKING’ String ’CHILL TANKS’ String ’TANK AGITATOR’ String ’DRAIN TABLES’ String ’PACKAGING TABLE’ String ’WEIGHING SCALE’ String ’BAGGER’ String ’BAG CLIPPER’ String ’HAKING BOXES’ String ’PUSHING CARTS’ String ’BOILERS’ String ’GENERATORS’ String ’SPARE PARTS’ String ”String ’TOTAL’ String ” String ” String Window:{ ClearAfter HeadingLine: 5 Position: (3, 3, 80, 23) } .fl' Colors:{ 157 NormalText = (lightgray, blue) plain Border = (green, blue) plain Plant Size: Activity RECEIVING HANGING STUN AND KILL BLEEDING SCALDING PICKING SINGEING EVISC LINE OFFAL CART SINGEING TABLES GIBLET PANS VENT CUTTING BIRD OPENING REMOVE LUNGS CLEAN GIZZARDS BIRD WASHING HOCK CUTTING ICE MAKING CHILL TANKS TANK AGITATOR DRAIN TABLES PACKAGING TABLE WEIGHING SCALE BAGGER BAG CLIPPER MAKING BOXES PUSHING CARTS BOILERS GENERATORS (SPARE PARTS) Model Qty Price Source # ......................................................... *§§§h****%*§h***§h*§§**§&¥=*§§=fl==fih***§h=fl=§tK fl: **§h*%§h%**=fl=§t§§§§§h¥§h§h§h§t§h§h§h§hfifi§h§h¥§hfifi§tfi F”! 158 :Investment ParentFrame: TopMenu DisplayOnly HitAnyKey Fields:{ (B) ’Building’ Rea1 [500..100000] (F) ’Furniture’ Real [100..1000] (E) ’Equipment’ Rea1 [500..100000] (T) ’Total nvestment’ [500..1000000] } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: ( 30, 5, 70, 15) } Colors:{ PointerBar = (black, red) ReverseVideo NormalText = (black, lightgray) Plain INVESTMENT REQUIREMENT Investment in Buildings ( Investment in Furniture ( Investment in Equipment ( VVV (D (005(1) .0 0. NE *‘hflh at: *fih‘fl: TOTAL INVESTMENT ( :Costs ParentFrame: TOpMenu Fields:{ (0) ” Goto Ownership; prompt Lets you determine Annual Ownership. (C) ” Goto Operating: prompt Lets you determine Operating Costs. (A) ” GoTo CostAsmpt: prompt Lets you modify cost assumptions. } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: (25, 5, 7o, 15) } Colors:{ PointerBar = (black, red) ReverseVideo Normal Text = (black, lightgray) Plain 159 PROCESSING COSTS Highlight your Choice and hit IAnnual OwnershipI IOperating CostsI ICost AssumptionSI :Ownership ParentFrame: Costs Fields:{ (A) ” Goto OwnershipA: prompt Lets you determine Annual Ownership for PlantA (B) ” Goto OwnershipB; prompt Lets you determine Annual Ownership for PlantB (C) ” Goto OwnershipC; prompt Lets you determine Annual Ownership for PlantC (D) ” Goto OwnershipD: prompt Lets you determine Annual Ownership for PlantD } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: (15, 10, 70, 20) ) Colors:{ PointerBar = (black, red) ReverseVideo Normal Text = (black, lightgray) Plain OWNERSHIP CATEGORIES Select your choice and hit IOwnershipAI IOwnershipBI IOwnershipCI IOwnershipDI :OwnershipA NormalNext: Operating ParentFrame: Ownership DisplayOnly HitAnyKey Fields:{ ( ) ’Plant’ Real [1ooooo..10000001 ( ) ’Equipment’ Rea1 [1000..200000] ( ) ’Furniture’ Rea1 [100..100000] 160 } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: (15, 10, 70, 20) } Colors:{ PointerBar = (black, red) ReverseVideo Normal Text = (black, lightgray) Plain Annual Ownership Costs for PlantA Plant Annual Cost I I Equipment Annual Cost I I Furniture Annual Cost I I :OwnershipB NormalNext: Operating ParentFrame: Ownership DisplayOnly HitAnyKey Fields:{ ( ) ’Plant’ Rea1 [100000..1000000] ( ) ’Equipment’ Real [1000..200000] ( ) ’Furniture’ Real [100..100000] } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: (15, 10, 70, 20) } Colors:{ PointerBar = (black, red) ReverseVideo Normal Text = (black, lightgray) Plain Annual Ownership Costs for PlantB Plant Annual Cost I Equipment Annual Cost I Furniture Annual Cost I *flh‘h 161 :OwnershipC NormalNext: Operating ParentFrame: Ownership DisplayOnly HitAnyKey Fields:{ ( ) ’Plant’ Real [100000..1000000] ( ) ’Equipment’ Rea1 [1000..200000] ( ) ’Furniture’ Real [100..100000] } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: (15, 10, 70, 20) } Colors:{ PointerBar = (black, red) ReverseVideo Normal Text = (black, lightgray) Plain Annual Ownership Costs for PlantC Plant Annual Cost I Equipment Annual Cost I Furniture Annual Cost I ‘41:“ :OwnershipD NormalNext: Operating ParentFrame: Ownership DisplayOnly HitAnyKey Fields:{ ( ) ’Plant' Real [100000..1000000] ( ) ’Equipment’ Rea1 [1000..200000] ( ) ’Furniture’ Real [100..100000] } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: (15, 10, 70, 20) } Colors:{ PointerBar = (black, red) ReverseVideo Normal Text = (black, lightgray) Plain } 162 Annual Ownership Costs for PlantD Plant Annual Cost I Equipment Annual Cost I Furniture Annual Cost I *‘hfir :Operating ParentFrame: Costs Fields:{ (A) ” Goto OperatingA: prompt Lets you determine Operating Costs for PlantA (B) ” Goto OperatingB: prompt Lets you determine Operating Costs for PlantB (C) ” Goto Operatingc; prompt Lets you determine Operating Costs for PlantC (D) ” Goto OperatingD; prompt Lets you determine Operating Costs for PlantD } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: (15, 10, 70, 20) } Colors:{ PointerBar = (black, red) ReverseVideo Normal Text = (black, lightgray) Plain Annual Operating Costs Select your Choice and hit IOperatingAI IOperatingBI IOperatingCI IOperatingDI :OperatingA NormalNext: CostAsmptA ParentFrame: Operating DisplayOnly Fields:{ ( ) ’Labor’ Rea1 [1..100000000] ( ) ’Electricity’ Real [1..100000000] ( ) 'Water’ Rea1 [1..1000000000] ( ) ’Plant maint. and repairs’ Real [1..1000000000] 163 ’Equipment maint. and repairs’ Real[1..1000000000] ’Furniture maint. and repairs’ [1..1000000000] ’Insurance’ Real [1..1000000000] ’Taxes’ Real [1..1000000000] ’Packaging’ Real [1..1000000000] “ARA“ vvvvv } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: (15, 5, 70, 20) } Colors:{ PointerBar = (black, red) ReverseVideo Normal Text = (black, lightgray) Plain Annual Processing Costs for PlantA Highlight your Choice and hit Labor I I Electricity I I Water I I Plant Maint.and Repairs I I Equipment Maint. and Repairs I I Furniture Maint. and Repairs I I Insurance I I Taxes I I Packaging I I :OperatingB NormalNext: CostAsmptB ParentFrame: Operating DisplayOnly Fields:{ ’Labor’ Real [1..100000000] ’ElectriCity' Real [1..100000000] ’Water’ Real [1..1000000000] ’Plant maint. and repairs’ Real [1..1000000000] ’Equipment maint. and repairs’ Real[1..1000000000] ’Furniture maint. and repairs’ [1..1000000000] ’Insurance’ Real [1..1000000000] ’Taxes’ Real [1..1000000000] ’Packaging’ Real [1..1000000000] AAAAAA’ ‘AA VVVVVVVVV } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: (15, 5, 70, 20) 164 } Colors:{ PointerBar = (black, red) ReverseVideo Normal Text = (black, lightgray) Plain Annual Processing Costs for PlantB Highlight your Choice and hit Labor I I Electricity I I Water I I Plant Maint.and Repairs I I Equipment Maint. and Repairs I I Furniture Maint. and Repairs I I Insurance I I Taxes I I Packaging I I :OperatingC NormalNext: CostAsmptC 4 ParentFrame: Operating DisplayOnly Fields:{ ’Labor’ Real [1..100000000] ’Electricity’ Real [1..100000000] ’Water’ Real [1..1000000000] ’Plant maint. and repairs’ Real [1..1000000000] ’Equipment maint. and repairs’ Rea1[1..1000000000] ’Furniture maint. and repairs’ [1..1000000000] ’Insurance’ Real [1..1000000000] ’Taxes’ Real [1..1000000000] ’Packaging’ Rea1 [1..1000000000] AAAAAAAAA vvvvvvvvv } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: (15, 5, 70, 20) } Colors:{ PointerBar = (black, red) ReverseVideo Normal Text = (black, lightgray) Plain } 165 Annual Processing Costs for Plantc Highlight your Choice and hit Labor I I Electricity I I Water I I Plant Maint.and Repairs I I Equipment Maint. and Repairs I I Furniture Maint. and Repairs I I Insurance I I Taxes I I Packaging I I :OperatingD NormalNext: CostAsmptD ParentFrame: Operating DisplayOnly Fields:{ ’Labor’ Rea1 [1..100000000] ’Electricity’ Real [1..100000000] ’Water’ Rea1 [1..1000000000] ’Plant maint. and repairs’ Real [1..1000000000] ’Equipment maint. and repairs’ Real[1..1000000000] ’Furniture maint. and repairs’ [1..1000000000] ’Insurance’ Real [1..1000000000] 'Taxes’ Real [1..1000000000] ’Packaging’ Real [1..1000000000] AAAAAAAAA vvvaVvvv } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: (15, 5, 70, 20) } Colors:{ PointerBar = (black, red) ReverseVideo Normal Text = (black, lightgray) Plain Annual Processing Costs for PlantD Highlight your Choice and hit Labor I I Electricity I I Water I I Plant Haint.and Repairs I I Equipment Maint. and Repairs I I Furniture Maint. and Repairs I I Insurance I I Taxes I I I I Packaging 166 :CostAsmptA ParentFrame: Costs Fields:{ () ’Day’ Real [0..10] ’Year’ Real [1..250] ’Capacity’ Rea1 [1..100] ’Building’ Real [0..200] ’Wages’ Real [0..10] ’Labor’ Real [1..100] ’Interest Rate’ Real [1..20] ’Building maint and repairs’Real [0..10] ’Equipment maint and repairs’ Real [0..10] ’Insurance’ Real [0..10] ’Taxes’ Real [0..10] ’Electricity’ Real [0..10] ’Water’ Real [0..10] ’Packaging’Real [0..10] VVVVVVVVVVVVV } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: (15, 4, 70, 23) } Colors:{ PointerBar = (black, red) ReverseVideo Normal Text = (black, lightgray) Plain COST ASSUMPTIONS Day (hours/day) Year (days/year) Capacity utilization (%) Building ($/sqft.) Wage Rate ($/hr.) Laborers (Number) Interest Rate (%) Building maint and repairs 15 ... 0' 0 ****¥** *‘fi‘fi‘ fit: *%‘*§h** (% of initial cost) 0.0075I Equipment maint and repairs (% of initial cost) 0.0125I Insurance (% of initial cost) 0.0250I Taxes (% of initial cost) 0.0150I Electricity ($/100 bidrs) 0.16 I Water ($/1000 gal) 1.50 I Packaging ($/bird processed) 0.05 I 167 :CostAsmptB ParentFrame: Costs Fields:{ ’Day’ Real [0..10] ’Year’ Real [1..250] ’Capacity’ Real [1..100] ’Building’ Rea1 [0..200] ’Wages’ Real [0..10] ’Labor’ Real [1..100] ’Interest Rate’ Real [1..20] ’Building maint and repairs’Real [0..10] ’Equipment maint and repairs’ Rea1 [0..10] ’Insurance’ Real [0..10] ’Taxes’ Real [0..10] ’Electricity’ Rea1 [0..10] ’Water’ Rea1 [0..10] ’Packaging’Real [0..10] A V } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: (15, 4, 70, 23) } Colors:{ PointerBar = (black, red) ReverseVideo Normal Text = (black, lightgray) Plain COST ASSUMPTIONS Day (hours/day) Year (days/year) Capacity utilization (%) Building ($/sqft.) Wage Rate ($/hr.) Laborers (Number) Interest Rate (%) Building maint and repairs 25 l-' U" 0 *‘***§* *****‘ ‘& *flh‘h%*** (% of initial cost) 0.0075I Equipment maint and repairs (% of initial cost) 0.0125I Insurance (% of initial cost) 0.0250I Taxes (% of initial cost) 0.0150I Electricity ($/100 bidrs) 0.16 I Water ($/1000 gal) 1.50 I Packaging (S/bird processed) 0.05 I 168 :CostAsmptC ParentFrame: Costs Fields:{ () ’Day’ Real [0..10] ’Year’ Real [1..250] ’Capacity’ Rea1 [1..100] ’Building’ Rea1 [0..200] ’Wages’ Rea1 [0..10] ’Labor’ Real [1..100] ’Interest Rate’ Real [1..20] ’Building maint and repairs’Real [0..10] ’Equipment maint and repairs’ Real [0..10] ’Insurance’ Real [0..10] ’Taxes’ Real [0..10] ’Electricity’ Real [0..10] ’Water’ Rea1 [0..10] ’Packaging’Real [0..10] VVVVVVVVVVVVV } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: (15, 4, 70, 23) } Colors:{ PointerBar = (black, red) ReverseVideo Normal Text = (black, lightgray) Plain COST ASSUMPTIONS Day (hours/day) I 8 I Year (days/year) I 250 I Capacity utilization (%) I 100 I Building ($/sqft.) I 150 I Wage Rate ($/hr.) I 6 I Laborers (Number) I 35 I Interest Rate (%) I 8 I Building maint and repairs (% of initial cost) I 0.0075I Equipment maint and repairs (% of initial cost) I 0.0125I Insurance (% of initial cost) I 0.0250I Taxes (% of initial cost) I 0.0150I Electricity ($/100 bidrs) I 0.16 I Water ($/1000 gal) I 1.50 I Packaging ($/bird processed) I 0.05 I 169 :CostAsmptD ParentFrame: Costs Fields:{ () 'Day' Real [0..10] ’Year' Real [1..250] 'Capacity’ Real [1..100] 'Building’ Real [0..200] 'Wages’ Rea1 [0..10] 'Labor’ Real [1..100] ’Interest Rate' Real [1..20] ’Building maint and repairs'Real [0..10] ’Equipment maint and repairs' Rea1 [0..10] 'Insurance’ Real [0..10] 'Taxes’ Real [0..10] 'Electricity’ Real [0..10] 'Water’ Real [0..10] 'Packaging'Real [0..10] AAAAAAAAAAAAA } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: (15, 4, 70, 23) } Colors:{ PointerBar = (black, red) ReverseVideo Normal Text = (black, lightgray) Plain COST ASSUMPTIONS Day (hours/day) Year (days/year) Capacity utilization (%) Building ($/sqft.) Wage Rate ($/hr.) Laborers (Number) Interest Rate (%) Building maint and repairs 58 H U1 0 *§*§h**§= *“‘t** *t: **‘*‘*§k (% of initial cost) 0.0075I Equipment maint and repairs (% of initial cost) 0.0125I Insurance (% of initial cost) 0.0250I Taxes (% of initial cost) 0.0150I Electricity ($/100 bidrs) 0.16 I Water ($/1000 gal) 1.50 I Packaging (S/bird processed) 0.05 I 170 :Analysis ParentFrame: TopMenu Fields:{ (C) ” Goto SensCapa: prompt Lets you display effect of Capacity Utilization (W) " Goto SensWage: prompt Lets you display effect of Wage diffences (B) " Goto SensBuild: prompt Lets you display effect of different Building Costs (I) " Goto SensInt; prompt Lets you display effect of different Interst Rates } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: (15, 10, 70, 25) } Colors:{ PointerBar = (black, red) ReverseVideo Normal Text = (black, lightgray) Plain Sensitivity Analysis Highlight your choice and hit ICapacityI IWagesI IBuildingI IInterestI :SensCapa } ParentFrame: Analysis NormalNext: SensWage DisplayOnly HitAnyKey Fields:{ Window:{ ClearAfter } Double Box Position: (15, 5, 70, 20) Colors:{ } PointerBar = (black, red) ReverseVideo Normal Text = (black, lightgray) Plain SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Capaciy Utilization Plant Daily Cost per Utilization Capacity Bird :SensWage ParentFrame: SensCapa NormalNext: SensBuild DisplayOnly HitAnyKey Fields:{ } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: (25, 5, 70, 20) } Colors:{ PointerBar = (black, red) ReverseVideo Normal Text = (black, lightgray) Plain SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Labor Compensation Wages Cost per bird (S/hr-) ($) $6.00 $7.00 :SensBuild ParentFrame: SensWage NormalNext: DisplayOnly HitAnyKey 172 Fields:{ } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: (10, 5, 70, 20) } Colors:{ PointerBar = (black, red) ReverseVideo Normal Text = (black, lightgray) Plain SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Building Cost Plant ------ Processing Cost per bird ------ size @ $140/sqft @ $150/sqft @ $160/sqft :SensInt ParentFrame: SensBuild NormalNext: TopMenu DisplayOnly HitAnyKey Fields:{ } Window:{ ClearAfter Double Box Position: (15, 5, 70, 20) } Colors:{ PointerBar = (black, red) ReverseVideo Normal Text = (black, lightgray) Plain SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Interest Rate Plant Processing Cost per bird size 6 8% 6 12% Appendix D List of Equipment Manufacturers Appendix D Small Scale Poultry Processing Equipment Vendors WW 1. Ashly Machine 901 N. Carver Street P.O Box 2 Greensburg Indiana 47240 USA Phone: (812) 663-2180 FAX 812 663-5405 2. Brower P.D Box 2000 Houghton Iowa USA Phone: (319) 469-4141 Toll Free 800 553-1917 FAX 319 469-4402 3. Pickwick 1870 McCloud Place N.E Cedar Rapids Iowa USA Phone (319) 393-7443 Toll Free 800 397-9797 Fax 319 393-7456 4. Linco DK-8280 Trige Denmark Phone (06) 231455 Telex 68143 Telefax (06) 231444 Cable LINDHOLSTCO 173 174 5. Stork PMT B.V Handelstraat 3 P.D Box 118 5830 AC Boxmeer Holland Phone (31) 8855-86111 Telex 37376 Fax (31) 8855-86222 Rn ”ITFLLIILITIMWWMM' ” R155 122 -_-_-_-_-_._-_-_-_"_-_-.—'