DOCTORAL DISSERTATION SERIES mxM ommm m m m i Pim t m m AUTHOR. m m m UNIVERSITY DEGREE hull WO/- SW£ COIL M of DATE / & PUBLICATION NO. m yi'l'i'pi1! TNI1 UNIVERSITY UNIVf MICROFILMS -L J / M A klld A 5 B A B ki i^ 111 ^ a ai A N O P E R A T I O N A L A N A L Y S I S OF D A I R Y PLANT E ^UIFMFNT fey Carl W i l l i a m Hall A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of M i c h i g a n State College of A g r i c u l t u r e and A p p l i e d Science in p a r ti al f u l f i l l m e n t of the requirements for the degree of D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y D e o a r t m e n t of Ag ricultural E n g i neering 19 52 1 ACK FOWLED GEMETTT S The author wishes to ex-cress his thanks Carleton, under whose to Dr. W. M. inspiration and supervision this investigation was uncertaken. He is also indebted to Frofessor A. W. Farrall Tor his encouragement and guidance in collecting and a s s e m b l i n g the data, and for m a ki ng funds available for the study. The investigator extends his sincere thanks to the dairy plant superintendents who so wi l l i n g l y p e r m i t t e d their facilities to be used as a laboratory for the study. The congenial relationship with the workers dairies which were studied was of the m a n y greatly appreciated. Grateful acknowledgement is given to thirty-fou r m a n u ­ facturers who aided in supplying specifications and p r i c e s of dairy plant equipment. Without their cooperation, study of this nature would have teen impossible. a ii Carl W i l l i a m Hall candidate for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPH Y Final Examination: July 30, 1952, Agricultural E n g i n e e r i n g E n g i n e e r i n g Building, Poom 218. Dissertation: An Operational Analysis of D a i r y Plant Equipment. Outline of Studies: M a j o r subject: Agricu ltural Engineering M i n o r subjects: Mathematics, Mechanical Eng i n e e r i n g Biographical Items: Horn, November 16, 1921+, Tiffin, Ohio Undergraduat e Studies, Ohio State University, 191+2-3 > lQ l+6-8, Columbus Ohio Degrees: B. S. College of Agriculture B. Agr. E., College of Eng i n e e r i n g (summa cum l a u d e ) Graduate Studies (1) Un i v e r s i t y of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, 191+8 -50. Major: Mechanical Engineering Minor: Mathematics Degree: M aster of Mechanical Engineering. (2) M i c h i g a n State College, 19 50 - 19 52. M i l i t a r y Service: East Lansing, Tfichigan, U. S. Army, 191+3 to 191+6, European combat service, Staff Sergeant, Infantry. Experience: Assistant Instructor, Ohio State University, Soring, 191+8. Instructor, U n i v ersity of Delaware, 191+8-1950 Assistant Professor, University' of Delaware, 1D50-1951 Mic hi g an State College, 1951M e m b e r of: T a u Beta PI, Engineering Honorary Gamma Sigma Delta, Aloha Zeta: Agricultural Honoraries A m e r i c a n Society of A p t icultural Engineers (ASAE) Society of Automotive Engineers ( SAE) A N O P E R A T I O N A L A N A L Y S I S OF D A I R Y P LANT EQ U I PMENT By Carl W i l l i a m Hall A F S T R A C T OF THESIS Submi tted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigai State College of A g r i cu lture and A p p l i e d Science in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of the req uirements for the degree of D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y D e p a r t m e n t of A g r i c u l t u r a l E n g i n e e r i n g 1952 Approved_ UJ cutter 3 3" tr w o ( % S' iii A N O P E R A T I O N A L A N A L Y S I S OF D A I R Y PLANT E Q U I P M E N T By Carl W i l l i a m Hall The d a iry m a n u f a c t u r i n g industry has b e e n f o r c e d to carefully analyze its p r o c edu res turn. to assure a f i n a n c i a l r e ­ The c o m p e t i t i o n is k e e n a n d the nro f i t small. The analysis was made to aid the d a i r y indu stry in i m p r o v i n g its operations. A study was made of the costs of each o p e r a t i o n in the process of b o t t l i n g fluid milk. Plants were s e l ected for study w h i c h were c o n s i d e r e d to have an efficient operation. Charts were p r e p a r e d s h o w i n g the rela t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the operational cost and c a p a c i t y of equipment in 195>2 for dairies w i t h capacities f rom 2 0,0 0 0 to 1 00,000 pounds per day. The charts may a i d the p l a n t operator in s e l e cting the most economical piece of equipment for an operation. Each individual o p e r a t i o n was s t u died to determine methods of de c r e a s i n g the cost. Time studies were made to determine the time r e q ui red by different operators on the same job. By c o m p a r i n g different operators the easiest and least t i m e - consuming m e t h o d for c o m p l e t i n g the w o r k was recommended. The Item of m a j o r cost in each o p e r ation was selected and suggestions made for d e c r e a s i n g the cost of the operation. In m a n y cases equipment was either too large or too small, to e f f i ciently utilize labor, utilities, soace, or other equipment. buildin g iv A check list w a s f o r m u l a t e d w h ich c o u l d be u s e d by the manufacturers of d a i r y equipment, d a iry p l a n t p l a n n e r s , dairy plant o p e r a t o r s or to analyze present or p r o p o s e d o p era­ tions . Most of the e q u i p m e n t use d in dairies year old. is at least a The c o s t of o p e r a t i o n of the older p i e c e s of equipment would not n e c e s s a r i l y be the same as t h e costs figured for 1952. A series of charts were p r e p a r e d w h i c h can be used by the p l a n t operator to calculate t h e tional costs of his p a r t i c u l a r equipment. opera­ The d a t a can be used as a guide f o r e c o n o m i c a l l y selecting n e w equi pment. After the e q u i p m e n t is selected, out must be used. a satisfactory lay­ T a n g i b l e methods were i l l u s t r a t e d to aid the planner in s e l e c t i n g the best arrange ment by u s e of an operation schedule, and u t i l i t y and m a n analysis c h a r t s , layout with b l o c k m o d e l s . V T A F L E OF CONTENTS Pag© n u m b e r I. II. III. IV. V. VI. Intr o d u c t i o n ................................ 1 Review of L i t e r a t u r e ........ ............... 9 O b j e c t i v e s ........................... 31 M e t h o d of A n a l y s i s ................. 32 Calculations . . . . . . . . . 1|0 55 D i s c u s s i o n of R e s u l t s ............. A. R e c e i v i n g R o o m Operations 1. 2. 3. 56. VII. . . .. 55 Dumping Weigh can and r e c e i v i n g tank S t r a i g h t - a w a y can w a s h e r Rotar y c a n washer Conveyor Overall e f f i c i e n c y B. P r o c e s s i n g R o o m Operations . . . 86 1. C l a r i f i e r 2. Filter 3« R a w m i l k plate cooler I4. Storage tank 5. Internal tube heater 6 . S e p a rator 7- F o m o g e n i z e r 8. P a s t e u r i z i n g by the h o l d i n g process 9* F i g h - t e m p e r a t u r e short-time p a s t e u r i z a t i o n 10. C o o l i n g after p a s t e u r i z a t i o n 11. Glass f i l l i n g and c a p p i n g 12. Paper c a r t o n former and filler 1 3 « Fipe line a id accessories C. Bottle w a s h i n g r o o m .............. 150 D. Refrigerated ............ 154 l i s t .................................. 158 Check Storage Vi Page numbe VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. Mac hinery selection 168 Layout planning 182 Summary .............. Conclusions . . Ap n e n d i x Glossary List of References . • • 9 • • • m 189 19*4 LIST OF TABLES Page I. R e l a t i o n Bet ween Size of Dairy and Labor B e q u i rements Tor P a s t e u r ­ izing and C o o ling Milk II. Number of M e n Eimoloyed in 19ii City Milk Flants III. Number of Square Feet in V a r ious Work Booms of Five W e l l - a r r a n g e d Milk Flants 16 Effect of T r a n s f e r r i n g Eottles on Pottle Breakage 23 Unit Cost of M ilk C o l l e c t i o n in Cans and Farm Tank Trucker S3 stem 26 VI. Costs 29 VII . Symbols for M U ltipl e - a c t i v i t y Chart 38 VIII. Analysis 39 IX. Es t imated Life of D a i r y Equipment X. Capital R e c overy Factor for U n i form Ann ual D e p r e c i a t i o n and Interest U3 C o m p a r i s o n of D e p r e c i a t i o n and Interest with the Straight-lin e plus Average Interest and the A c c urat e f,ethod U5 Cost of O p e r ati ng R e f r i g e r a t i n g Systems for D i f f e r e n t Sizes of Dairies 52 Standard Time for R e c e i v i n g Roo m Operations 57 XIV. C o m p a r i s o n of V a cuu m and Band Sampling 65 XV. Rate of D u m p i n g for Manual 70 XVI. Rate of Dumping for Print-weigh Device 71 XVII. D u m p i n g Rate Obtainable wit h Different Sizes of Can Washer 73 Over-all Labor Efficiency of R e c e i v i n g Room 85 IV. V. involved in Milk P r o c e s s i n g of h a n d l i n g of Products U1 $ XI. XII. XIII. XVIII. weighing viii Table XIX. S a v i n g in O p e r a t i o n a l Cost of a n 8I4 Inch D i a m e t e r C o m p a r e d w i t h a 9 6 inch D i a m e t e r H o r i z o n t a l M i l k Storage T a n k 98 C o m p a r i s o n of Cost of O p e r a t i o n of HTST a nd H o l d i n g M e t h o d T o r P a s t e u r i ­ zation or M i l k 12^ Relative Time Tor C l e a n i n g St ainless Steel and Glass Pipe Lines li+3 Table XXII. Unit Cost A n a l y s i s 169 Table XXIII. E q u i pmen t S e l e c t i o n and R e p l a c e m e n t 173 Table XX. Table XXI. LIST OF FIGURES Flow Process Chart Tor uilk Bottling No 5 Equipment in a Typical One-man Dumping OperatI on 56 Chart for D e t e r m i n i n g Years Required to Offset A d d i tional Cost of 750 lb. Weigh Can in Comparison w i t h a 500 lb. Weigh Can by Labor Saved 61 Obstruction to Convenient Sampling 61+ Time Operator Permitted 750 lb. Weigh Can with a li| inch Diameter Outlet Valve to Drain 63 A Properly Lighted Receiving Room with Natural and Artificial Light 67 Total Cost of Operation of Can Conveyor, Dumping A ccessories, Weigh Can, Receiving Tank, and Scales 68 Unit Cost of Operation of Can Conveyor, Dumping Accessories, Weigh Can, Receiving Tank, and Scales 69 Standard Time for Emptying, Sampling, and Weighing of M i l k 72 Total Cost of Operation of Straight-away Can 'Washer lb Unit Cost of Op e r a t i o n of Straight-away Can Washer 75 Total Cost of Operation of Rotary Can Washer 77 Unit Cost of Operation of Rotary Can Washer 78 Cans Dumped at Right Angles to Conveyor 83 Relationship of Dumping Time and Conveyor Length for D i f f e r e n t Lengths of Incoming Conveyor and Different Dumping Rates 82 A Long Empty Can Conveyor 8if Total Cost of Operation of Clarifier 89 X Fig. 18. U n i t Cost of O p e r a t i o n of C l a r i f i e r 90 Fig. 19. Equipment located in the R e c e i v i n g Room 91 Fig. 20. T o tal Cost of Op e r a t i o n of F i l t e r 92 Fig. 21. U n i t Cost of O p e ration of F i l t e r 93 Fig. 22. T o t a l Cost of Op eration of R a w ^ilk Plate Cooler 96 Unit Cost of O p e r a t i o n of R a w M i l k Plate C o oler 97 T o t a l Cost of O p e r a t i o n of horizontal Storage Tank 99 Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. 23. 2lj. 25» 26. 27. 28. 29. U n i t Cost of O p e r a t i o n of H o r i zontal Storage Tank 100 Tim e Required to C l ean H o r i z o n t a l Storage Tanks 102 A Cut-away V i e w S h o w i n g an A g i t a t e r in A Storage Tank 103 T o tal Cost of O p e r a t i o n of Internal Tube Heaters 105> U n i t Cost of On e r a t i o n of Internal Tube H e a ters 106 Fig. 30. T o t a l Cost of Operation of S e p a r a t o r 108 Fig. 31* Unit 109 Fig. 32. T o t a l Cost of Operation of H o m o g e n i z e r 113 Fig. 33. U n i t Cost of O p e r a t i o n of H o m o g e n i z e r lllj- Flg. 3I4- T o t a l Cost of O p e r a t i o n of Process Tank 116 Fig. 3^- U n i t Cost of O p e r a t i o n of Process Tank 117 Fig. 36. T o t a l Cost of O p e r a t i o n of Coil Vat 119 F I g . 37* U n i t Cost of O p e r atio n of Coil Vat 120 Fig. 38. Total Cost of O p e r ation of H T S T Pasteurizer 122 Fig- 39. U n i t Cost of O p e r ation of HTST Pasteurizer 123 Cost of O p e r a t i o n of S e p a r a t o r Page No, Fig. kO. Total Cost of O p e r a t i o n of Surface C o o l e r 126 Fig. I4.I . Unit Cost of O p e r a t i o n of Surface C o ol er 127 Fig. i+2 . T o tal Cost of O p e r a t i o n of F i l l i n g and C a n n i n g of Glass M i l k Bottles 131 Unit Cost of O p e r a t i o n of F i l l i n g and C a n n i n g of Glass M i l k Bottles 132 Fig. kk. Mapes 136 Fig. Total Cost of O n e r a t i o n of P a n e r C a r t o n M i l k F o r m e r and F i l l e r 137 Unit Cost of O p e r a t i o n of Paper C a r t o n M i l k F o r m e r and F i ller 138 Time R e q u i r e d to C l e a n Pipe Line and A c c e s s o r i e s in a D a i r y 11+2 Total Cost of O p e r a t i o n of Bottle and Case Washer 151 U nit Cost of O p e r a t i o n of Bottle a nd Case Washer 152 A u t o m a t i c U nit for U n c a s i n g the Bottles and L o a d i n g of the W a s h e r 153 T otal Cost of O p e r a t i o n of Pipe Line, R e f r i g e r a t e d Storage, Load-out of cases 155 Tot al D a i l y C l e a n i n g Time Pieces of D a i r y E q u i p m e n t 157 Fig. i+3• Fig. I4.6 . Fig. U7. Fig. ue. Fig. U9. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. 50. 51. 52. 53. 51+- Fip-. 55. Fig. Fig. 56. 57. S y s t e m of C a s i n g Bottles for Various Chart for D e t e r m i n i n g A n nual Cost of Taxes, Insurances, and Licenses for P u i l d i n g m Chart for D e t e r m i n i n g A n n u a l Cost of (1) Taxes, Insurances, Licenses, (2) Repairs, M a i n t enance, Su pplies for E q u i pment 175 Chart for D e t e r m i n i n g the A n n u a l D e p r e c i a ­ tion of a B u i lding 176 Chart for D e t e r m i n i n g Annual Cost of D e ­ p r e c i a t i o n of E q u i pment 177 Chart for D e t e r m i n i n g A n n u a l Cost of Interest for a B u i l d i n g Investment 178 xii Page No. Fig. Fig. Fig. 58. 59. 60. Chart for D e t e r m i n i n g Annu a l ^ost of Interest on Equipment Investment 179 Chart for D e t e r m i n i n g the Cost of Ele c t r i c i t y 180 Chart for D e t e r m i n i n g Fuel Cost of P r o ­ ducing 1000 pounds of S t eam w i t h Boiler O p e r ating at 80 per cent Eff iciency l8l Fig. 61. Block Layout of D a i r y Plant Equipment 181+ Fig. 62. Block Layout of O n e - m a n R e c e i v i n g R o o m 181+ Fig. 63. A c t ivity Analysi s Chart 186 Fig. 61+. Pr o d u c t i o n Schedule of 2 5 , 0 0 0 p o u n d per day H a i r y 188 A n A nalysis of Utility Requirement s 25,000 p o u n d p e r day d a i r y 188 Fig. 65. of a xiii APPENDIX LIST OP F I G U R E S and LIST OF TABLES 1. D a i r y "A" , O n e -man R e c e i v i n g Roo m Fig. 2. D a i r y " e ” , O n e - m a n R e c e i v i n g R oom Fig. D a i r y "C" , On e -man R e c e i v i n g R o o m Fig. 3- One-man R e c e i v i n g Room Fig. 1+. D a i r y "D", Fig. 9. D a i r y "E", T w o - m a n R e c e i v i n g Roo m Fig. 6. D a i r y 11F « 9 T w o - m a n R e c e i v i n g R o o m Fig. 7. D a i r y "G" , T h r e e - m a n R e c e i v i n g R o o m Fig. 8. D a i r y "H", T h r e e - m a n R e c e i v i n g R o o m Fig. 9. D a i r y M jit Table I. T h r e e - m a n Re c e i v i n g Room M il k P r o d u c t i o n by Farms, Table II. Num b e r of M ilk Dealers Table III Economic 191+9 by States, Indexes for D i f f e rent 191+9 Items Table IV. Currents and Wattage of Various Types of Induc tion Motors at Full Load Table V. D a i l y Cost of O p e r a t i o n and S a v i n g of 81+ Inch and 96 inch diameter Ho rizontal Insulated M i l k Storage Tanks, Dollars Table VI D a i r y Cost of O p e r a t i o n of Conveyor, D u m p i n g Accessories, Weigh Can, Scales, and R e c e i v i n g Tank Table VII D a i l y Cost of O p e r a t i o n of S t r a i g ht-away Can Washer Table VIII D a i l y Cost of O p e r a t i o n of R o t a r y Can Washer Table D a ily Cost of Clarifier IX. xiv Table X. Table XI. Dally Cost of O p e r a t i o n of C l a r i f i e r w h e n used In O n e -man R e c e i v i n g R o o m Dally Cost of O p e r a t i o n of F i l t e r Table XII. D a il y Cost of O p e r a t i o n Cooler Table XIII. D a i l y Cost of O p e r a t i o n of H o r i z o n t a l S t or age Tank Table XIV. D a i l y Cost of O p e r a t i o n Heater of I n t e r n a l T u b e Table XV. D a i l y Cost of O p e r a t i o n of S e p a r a t o r Table XVI. Daily Cost of O p e r a t i o n of Cold M i l k S e p a r a t o r Table XVII. D a i l y Cost of O p e r ation of H o m o g e n i z e r Table XVIII. D a i l y Cost of O p e r a t i o n of FTST Table XIX. Daily Cost of O p e r a t i o n of Frocess T a n k (Temperature difference of 120° F . ) Table XX. D a i l y Cost of O p e r a t i o n of P r o c e s s Tank U s i n g R e g e n e r a t i o n (Temperature d i f f e r e n c e of 100° F . ) Table XXI. Dally" Cost of O p e r a t i o n R ectangul ar Coil Vat Table XXII. Daily Cost of O p e r a t i o n of C o m p a c t - T y p e Surface Cooler Table XXIII. D a i l y Cost of O p e r a t i o n of R e f r i g e r a t e d Storage Table XXIV. Daily Cost of O p e r a t i o n of Glass F i l l i n g and Capping Table XXV. Daily Cost of O p e r a t i o n of naw M i l k P l a t e of Square and of P a per C a r t o n Filler Table XXVI. D a i l y Cost of O p e r a t i o n Can W a s h e r Table XXVII. D a ily Cost of O p e r a t i o n of Fipe Line of Soake r B o t t l e and I. I *Ti’hODT)CT loN in 19^9 the total milk n r o d u c t l o n by cows on farms the United ttates was 119,13^,000,000 n o u n d s . quantity 1+9,000,000, COO nounds sumed in towns (1). of milk and cream were c o n ­ into factory oroducts. Census has r e r o r t e d a j.'he bureau of uetailed b r e akdo wn of m a n u factured but has not summarized the quantities milk sold. milk CT this The r e m a i n d e r of che milk was consumed on the f a r m and made oroducts, of fluid The n'amber of dairy plants p r o c e s s i n g fluid Is reflected by the number of milk dealers Unit e d States. of which In in the There were a total of 15,736 milk dealers, 5,655 m ilk dealers had over four routes (2). There are also the following: 5360 butter manufacturers; 3661 cheese manufacturers; 1561 condensed, evaporated, and dry m i l k manufacturers; 7122 ice c r eam manufacturers. M ichigan lies "nited in the bast Uorth states for census purposes. Central district of the This district produces 3 5 ,615',000,000 pounds, or twenty-nine per cent of the total milk p r o d u c t i o n In the United States. ! ichip’an ranks Dairy I n d u s t r ies C a t a l o g , The Olsen FubllshinpCompany, M i l w a u k e e , Wisconsin, 19 51, n 6. 2. I b i d ., p. 53 2 seventh in the United States in the p r o d u c t i o n of fluid milk, being pre ceded by Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, dew York, and Fennsylvania.(l) From the previous data, 37-6 rer cent of the milk p r o ­ duced on the farm is sold in the city. chat practically all of this mil k it can be assumed is p a s t e u r i z e d and p r o ­ cessed because of the health regulations. there is a dairy for each milk route, handles 21,000 rounds of milk per day. in the number of milk dealers, Pennsylvania, California, California, A s s u m i n g that the average dairy U i c h i g a n ranks sixth b e i n g behind Yew York, Illinois, and Ohio (2). The equipment required by the dairy industry is s p e ­ cialized, and m a n u f a c c u r e d by a group of a pproxima tely 37*000 people who are engaged in the manufacture of food p r o ­ cessing equipment ( 3 )» The dairy industry does not make an exorbitant profit. The competition is k e e n and the rrofit is small. ing to the Pennsylvania Uilk Commission, Accord­ 565 companies made an average profit of three-fifths of a cent a quart after taxes, in 19l|9, and 127 companies for the year (I4.) . showed a net loss A similar survey by the Indiana University 1. See Appendix Table I 2. See Appendix Table II 3 . ______________ 19i4 7 Census of manufacturers, Vol. II, h. S. Fe^artment oT C o m m e r c e , S t a t i stics by i n d u s t r y , U. S. frintirg Office, 19U-9 • I4. Ueeley, Oeorge p. "} roblems in *Tilk Distribution," Talk presented before the National a s s o c i a t i o n of Sanitary Uilk Pottle Closure v arufacturers from an undated p u b l i c a ­ tion by che same title. 3 Bureau of Business Research on a nationwide basis c o v e r ­ ing 313 companies showed an average net profit of two-fifths of a cent pe r quart (1). The fact that the m o r t a l i t y of dairies teen years illustrates in the last f i f ­ (1935-1950) has been about fifty ner cent (1) the importance of ana lyzing the problems involved in the dairy plant. F lanning the many operations involved is difficult because of the nany variable equipment is installed in the plant, in a dairy plant involved. Once the the m a i n concern of the man ager is to a s s i g n the proper amount of work to each em ­ ployee. A better job is performed by workers who are r e ­ sponsible for a definite activity. share of work to an employee, tion should be available In order to a s sign a fair standard times for each o p e r a ­ to nlan the work schedule. Plant planners frequently encounter difficulty ing equipment in a plant, either new or old. of a plant can often be increased more ment of equipment in p l a c ­ The efficiency by the p r o p e r a r r a n g e ­ than by improving the work methods. order to provide an efficient plant layout, In standard times for each operation should be available. Engineers who d e s i g n dairy plant equipment could do in­ dustry a service by d e s i gning simplified methods and moti o n 1. Meeley, George E. L o c . cit. economy into the machinery. which M a n y of the s t r a i n e d re l a t i o n s often d e v e l o p w h e n m a n a g e m e n t a t t empts workers methods c o uld tY en be avoided. and p l a n n e r of d a iry plants, to improve Thus, in the operation, o p e r a t i o n may be eliminated. visualize of the time a nd A f t e r a n a l y z i n g each operation, is often found that steps cating the ^bottlenecks" the o p e r a t o r and the d e s i g n e r of dairy p l ant equioment can benefit by a t h o r o u g h analysis cost of each operation. the Time it or the entire studies also aid in lo ­ in a process, and perm i t a p e r s o n to the need for and the p o s s i b i l i t i e s in d e v e l o p i n g new e q u i p m e n t . M a n y p r o c e s s e s m a y be carried out amples of processes are b o t t l i n g milk, m a n u f a c t u r i n g cheese, esses consists sing, and b o t t l i n g of m i l k will gated in this disser tation. these be the only p r o cess The various in p r o c e s s i n g milk. steps w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e chart. Each of these proc The receiving, listed in order of occurrenc e for ease symbols Not all dairies are alike Ex­ p r o d u c i n g ice cream, and c h u r n i n g butter. of several operations. successive steps in a d a i r y plant. proces­ investi­ operations m ay be in v i s u a l i z i n g the A chart illustrating is c a lle d a flow process in their operations. A typical flow pro cess chart for the p r o c e s s i n g of whole milk is s h o w n in Pig. 1. The same i n f o r m a t i o n p l o tted on a floor p l a n cives a f l o w diagram. One objective will be to o b t a i n time values elements of w or k in each operation. for various The next step will in- 5 FIG. 1. F l o w P r o cess '"’hart for V i l k B o t t l i n g *11 '• t Bottl63 Cor veyor Washed Conveyo r I cans In track s To 10 gel* cans on ■L;livery truck Lids re oved ' ids loose nod by truck Cor v e y o r drIvor 111: ro 'oved 3La in conveyor Co n v e y o r ilk c .ec ed fo r odor 77a shed by du 'per '.'Ilk Turned and Vv1:ip ,od Su.aplod for B.F* By gravity R e c e i v i n g tank ?ipe line • D . pump r ipe line Clarifier P i p e line _________ Crejarn ^ijiernted^ p t ora S a m p l e d for s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n Pip e line :To.iter J Separat ed P i n e line ki m Cream 'o openizer cj)Pipe l l nei T i p e line ^Gtorcge ^ '^TST Pasteurizer C ooler P i p e line CAGES AKD GIASS BOT TLES Cases 10 gal* folding Tank P i p e line Pot tle filler Conveyor Refrigerated storage t l J SY'^CLS o o □ Process o v G n o nt Storage Inspection or sample taken CW H 6 volve obtaining- time values for each of the op e r a t i o n s as a whole. The time v a lues and equinrent capacities c an be o b t a i n e d f or d i f f e r e n t plant to calculate part of the c o s t of the onerat ion. Standard times for each operation, necessa ry time b e t w e e n operations, man a g e m e n t that the w o r k e r the work e r that he t o g e t h e r with are e s t a b l i s h e d to assure is doing: his share, is not d o i n g more than his standard time represent s the time, to p e r f o r m a c e r t a i n task, lowances. total a llowance varies with task, and to assure share. in m inutes, should require The the which The that a w o r k e r includes a l ­ the p l ant and the but is generally twenty p e r cent of the actual work time. A l l o wances personal items. are for rest to prevent It m a y be n e c e ssa ry to add a d d i t i o n a l time for c o n d i t i o n factors as cold, heat, The work time varies while m a k i n g a time speed. This fatigue and for according slippery floors, to the pace of the worker, study it is necessary (1) experience. is to define a normal pace as b e i n g e q u i valent to d e a lin^ 52 cards around a bridge table in four piles in 0.1+5 minutes. Fy c o m p a r i n g the s t a ndard times for d i f ferent pieces . equipment, lated. so to rate a w o r k e r ’s is a d i f f i c u l t task which r e q uires One m e t h o d s u g g ested by Carroll etc. of a check list of des irable features c an be f o r m u ­ l'oo often equipment is pa t t e r n e d from that of a co m p e t i t o r without f o r m u l a t i n g new approaches, and conse- 1. Carroll, Ihil, h o w to Chart Timestud\ D a t a , h e O r a w - F i l l T ook ^omnany, New York, 1$ 50, p ”I 5? . 7 quently void of new ideas. new an nroach L'he time study r e su lt s offer a to d e s i g n i n g e q u i p m e n t — a n a pproach which should lead to improved equ i pm en t and meth od s. Of course, the equipment must first be d e s i g n e d to p e r f o r m a function, time 3tudy results The fact should be an a p p r o a c h to i m p r o v i n g a design. that s t a ndard times o f ten benefit as w ell as the company Dhe result of a time Is often overlooked. study which but the w o r k e r A n examp le is showed that a m a n c an shovel the m a x i m u m tonnage a day if he lifts 2 1 . 5 pounds on each shovel full (1). l'he w o r k e r w o u l d be less fatigued, tion to a c c o m p l i s h i n g extra work, in a d d i ­ and n o s s i b l y greater pay, if his shovel were d e s i g n e d to h o l d only the o p timum weight. Time study m e t h od s have p r e v i o u s l y to industries with re pe ti ti ve cottled mi l k consists industries study methods ’,,any’r operations values for pacity. handling. design. tire r e l a t i o n s h i p Sons, Chernies 1 in this resrect. industry pre s en ts a the capacity’ it is important to secure b e t w ee n o p e r a t i n g and rated ca ­ in p lant desig n is to min i mi ze objective can be sought in dairy plant T-'inirnum h a n d l i n g would w! ich. is desirable industry are c o n t r o l l e d by Cne of t- e objectives i’he same The p r o c e s s i n g of methods. to tv e dairy of the e qu ipment in tie cairyr. applied operations which do not to time study are similar to the dairy A d a p t i n g time challenge. operations. of c o n t i n u o u s readily lend themselves been widely include m i n i m u m pipe length f rom the s ta n dpoint of lower initial costs, 1. Fames, lew York, 19U^, P. F. , F o t i o n and Time S t u d y , Wiley and . 11. p 8 reduced labor requirement, and in re d u c t i o n of Tat losses. The relationship of one o p e r a t i o n to a n o th e r is of prime importance in considering- the h a n d l i n g problem. The cost of an operation is a f u n c t i o n of the floor area required, the cost of che equipment, labor required for the operation, the layout of the Plant, and the services and u t i l ­ ities required in the form of electricity, steam, water, etc. A mathematical r e l a t ionship a m o n g these various factors would be of benefit to the people connected with try in order to determine the dairy indus­ the effic iency of operation. These costs could be expressed best in terms of the equipment cost and capacity, which are usually known to the dairy nlant operator or engineer. 9 I I . B K V 1 L Durinp the last Tew years t' L s L '' t: L the cairy 1 :1 ' i Industry has been forced to Increase the efficiency of its o n e r a t i o n in order to obtain a profit fceeao.se lacor costs have markedly and the oufclic has nroducts be h eld down. increased demanded that prices for dairy It is cifficult the efficiency of a dairy plant the rrofit-loss column, which to evaluate exactly by methods other t ha n from includes plant and delivery operations for most dairies. The efficiency of an oneration, concerned, depends unon the labor costs, bulldinc- snace requirement, investment. utility equipment costs, is costs, and interest on Tach of tv ese factors has been sc-uoied separately for each niece of equioment. A. Time as far as the riant Labor studies were first used at the T'Idvale Steel Company (1)- in 1&81 by r'. ,. Taylor trank and Gillian Gilfcreth are credited with oririnatinp; m o t i o n study as we know it today ( 2 ) . Time and m o t i o n studies have been applied to industries other than the dairy/ Industry for several years. 1. 2. Barnes, on. cit., Ibid., n. 12^T^. o. 7» These 10 i n d u s tr i es were machine mainly of the repetitive type in w h i c h operator work e d c o n t i n uo us ly on one machine reneat- ing the same task during short intervals. The chemical dustry, industry, ur> of which is very similar to the aairy continuous onerations. the chemical L’ime studies came in­ is made into use in industry during the early part of the 1 9 U 0 ’s. F j o r k s t e n ( 1 ) in 19U3 nointed out m a n y advantages chemical the to the industries from the use of time and m o t i o n studies. H o s s m o r e and Aries (2) pointed out that e ven though the cost of m a n u f a c t u r i n g for mechan ic al industries where time and m o t i o n studies are usually used included fifty per cent labor cost in c o m a r i s o n to twenty ner cent labor cost for chemical industries, ly b e c a u se that the chemical industries could benefit great­ of the following factors: 1. As an independent expense item, labor costs have a deciding- effect on plant l ocation and economics; 2. M any onerations are mechanical; 3- Pnit operations c o u l d be simnlified, quiring less s u p e r v is io n and time; 1+. Development of new types of equipment; 5. TJse for arrangement or r ea r rangement of equipment. thus r e ­ Although time and m o t i o n study methods were developed m a n y years ago, these methods have only been applied to the 1. Ejorksten, J., "Time and '*otion studies for Chemis C h e m i c a l and engineering h e w s , Volume 21 (191+3)* P- 1321}.. 2T h o s s m o r e , t . , and h.. 3 . Aries, "Time and lotion Study in the Chemical :rocess Indus t r i e s ,"Chemical and i:.ngineerlng h e w s , Voli w e 2 ^ ( 1C'I;7 ) , p p . 311+2 - 31V+ • 11 dairy industry recently. I'he most recent 3h iffermiller ( 1 ) in 1990 . operations he found that study was made by tv e cleaning in a dairy required s ev enteen to twenty ner cent of che total nlant la t or, ana made re co mm endations Tor r e d u c ­ ing the labor requirements for cleaning. F. 1 . hood and Sons Comnany has been ad ap t i n g time and m o t i o n study analysis to the dairy they have been able to decrease industry since 191^2, and their labor requirements c on s i d e r a b l y ( 2 ). In snite of the fact that many nlant time study benefits though is not needed, of time study, the p roauct 1. 2. 3. k- 3• 6. Sadler ( 3 ) lives feel that the f o l l o w i n g which were taken from rundel (b, ) , e v en is machine-controlled: .improve schedules Determine jot requirements Check work efficiency Distribute work uniformly "Stahl is!' Incentive Determine best methods In an a ustralian cheese factory, m o t i o n study executives in wrannin£, a^rl yi n ' principles a fifty per cent decrease vras reported and the output was of in labor increased two h u n d r e d per 1. S h i f f e r m i l l e r , h illiam h. , "A Time and M o t i o n Analysis of '^leaninpr Operations in Filk F l a n t s , ” unpublished thesis for "aster of Science Depree, v:ichiman State College, 1?90, n. '4I4.. 2. Dunlop, h. G . , "Work S im pl if ic a ti on Fays 0 f f , M Pood Industries, October 191x9, pp. 1396-1399: November la k9, ~p": i ^ F - r ^ 2 ‘. 3 . Nadler, Gerald, "Time arid loti on study in Canninp riant," Food I n d u s t r I e s , February la 50* pp. 236-237. l\. ^ u n d e l , Wl h . , hot Ion a n d Time Stuc y , Iiertice-rall, inc., New York, 19 90. 12 cent accordin'^ to Pel line; ( 1 )« as yet, ''orrison emphasizes a l t h ou gh not c a r ri ed out, the need for a p p l y i n g work s i m ­ p l i f ic at io n to the ice cream i n d u s t r y , in the face of rising labor costs (2 ). Te ^oints out tv at studies should be made with the idea of m a k i n g tie best use of present facilities, he also cautions against s implifying one o p e ra ti on at the expense of others. hecent studies st Purdue showed that t>e average w o rk e r In t'-e re c e i v i n g roo^ w a st ed forty-three per cent of his nay (3)* The time wasted ran as high as sevent y- si x per cent in some dairies (U ) . down into small parts, parts The job was analysed by b r e a ki ng it and o l c t t i n g the time values of these by use of a mu lt i m a n chart. y redistributing •work the labor requirements were redu ce d from minutes she .6 man- to 3 7 -U ran-mir.utes for receiving a ICO-can truck load. V a n 1 echjpan em.rh as ice d the importance of obtaining; operating standards for teaching a job to an untrained p e rs on ( 5 )• 1. helling, c . 0., "Changed Layout Saves y 2 9 0 0 , M h a c t or y ' a n a g e - e n t , February lPigO, pp. 6/4- 6 ^. Z. Porruson, P.. 0 . , "work dimplifi c a t ion in an Ice bream Operat ion," Ice C r eam Kevi e w , June 1931, on. 1-2-193• 3French, Charles L. , ^ o r k dimnlif ication in the Dai ry plant," Cherry-Burrell Circle, ’’arch-April lc:>92, nr. 3-7I4.. French, Charles h. , "S tr ea ml in in g Deceiving Operations," Food F n p i n e e r ing, January, 19 32, p. Q 9 • 5. Van F echman, T -:. , R e v i s i o n and i.xpansion of Cneratirr- otanaards," Chemical and engineerinn ”e w s , October 10 , 191-|3 > pp. 1621- 162"3T~ 13 United States Department or Agriculture studies of 115 dairy nlants, h a n d l i n g an average of 62,000 rounds of milk, showed that 365 gallons of m i l k were received per m a n - h o u r when the milk was handled in cans from trucks of 3.9 m e n snent 1+.6 hours receiving studies, (1). the milk. m A n average the same dairies of the same size handled 1309 gallons of milk ner m a n -h o ur w hen the m i l k was received f rom tank trucks or tank cars. In the latter case 1.5 m e n scent 5-»U hours receiving. Much of the data reported on labor studies in dairy plants was secured during those years w h e n the labor cost was not as great, comparatively sneaking, as it ia at the present '•'any textbooks have quoted the data of Tables I and II, which would not an^ly to present m o d e r n dairy nlants, useful for comparison. time, but which are These data were obtained before the use of the short-time p a s t e u r i z i n g unit. Table 1. gelation between che Size of hairy and Labor requirements for Fasteurizinu and Cooling : ilk and Cleaning equipment in 112 H a n t s (2) Milk p asteurizea daily, gallons Cb) ” 7 aj.. 3000 or less 3000 - 5000 25.6 3-7 5.0 9.3 17.3 2U-5 3U1 5000 - 10,000 10,000 - 15,000 over 15,000 k3h 5-16 5-50 including labor for c leaning Tan-hours of labor required for cleaning p a s t e ur iz in g equipment (b) I_ Pabc o c k , (TT J . , " Operation and "anagement of Milk H a n t s , " United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. r . , Circular ^o. 260, revised, l°5-7» n • 6» 2. C l e m e n t , C. h ., "Operat i.on and Management of Milk I T r% ^ rt M T k a /-I J h n +• a a A vs D r» h r-> 1 o y p ■*- f' a r - T o n ! h 11 A ilfi q V > 1 . 14 i'able 11. Number of yen bmoloyed 2000 - 5000 SG00 - 10,000 10,000 - 19,000 19, O o O - 20,000 o v e r 20, 00 0 labor (2). (1) Milk handled per plant employee, gallons Average number of e m p l o y e e s inside plant S i z e of I l a n t , gallons In 1933, in 194 City v ilk Ilants 216 213 249 221 267 19.3 3 4.9 46 76.6 103 Sommer listed the m a j o r nrocessin?: expense as From his finures, 4 C . 9 per cent of cl e processing cost c on sisted of labor. The use of permanent nine bilities have in place glass -reat p o s s i ­ In order to calculate the resource the utility effec­ (J). cost, the quantity re quired can be calcula te d from the of the eq uipment Chemical were consulted for b values, in using, engineering or heat of t heoretical Data on utilities used by various pieces equipment are raci er limited. Tests :itillties requirements and the efficiency the utility. lines can be cleaned -y recire ul at o ry means B. han db o ok s offers in d e c r e a s i n g uhe labor requ ir e d for cleaning. shown that permanent tively lines of texts and transfer 1. Clements, i b i d ., n. 38 . 2. Sommer, Hugo H», Market TTilk and related P r o d u c t s , Second Edition, O l se n F u b l i s h i n g Company, lbjq.6, p~l 606 • 3. i’l e i s c h m a n , g. I1’., reas in the dairj . Ross has summarized ire area requirements for operations for cairies of different fable capacities as shown in ill . facie ril. dumber of Square feet in Various ive Quantity bottled da i l y , gallons 1000 1^00 3000 l+oco 6000 lie various .'el 1 - a r r a n g e d v ilk Ilants dork Rooms of (2 ) P a s t e ur receiv­ ottle v ilk ing wash ing izing hottling Storage room room room room room sq. ft. sq. f t . sc. f t . sq . ft . sq . f t . 14.00 — 900 1;60 120C 600 700 lOCO 1666 Id 06 300 h0 0 1300 51+0 720 300 375 1200 •( 7r 0>0^ 720 I4 5o 550 1200 114-26 1110 Gl a s s bot tie s t ora ge Sq, ft. I4OO -7 90 h^o 72 0 A relationship b e t we en ihe total floor area of the plant and the area occupied by the equipment was presented 1. Kitt en orace L . , "functional design of fluid ■rilk P l a nt s, ” dnnublished thesis for ’’aster of Science decree, Yi c higan .State College, 19lj6, n . 16. 2. Data taken from, ross, T . 1., Care and handling of T'ilk, Cranra Judd Co., New York, 19 3Q » P • 32 5. R o s s o b t a i n e d his cate from T': ited States terartrent of Agriculture, 'Nash inmton, D. C., Pul let in 61+9» by .Nelly. 17 by Trim ( 1 ). be succests that the floor area req u ir ed the equipment should not exceed one-i'il'th of the by total I'loor area. the cost of partly on e o ne raoion of tv e .;airj olant e investment in the building. depends i vertuildinp has been the cause of several failures of dairy plants. The building- may^ ee a one or m u l t i p l e f loor structure, results from Pabcock ( 2 ) show h o w crease as the number of floors buildinrs, the labor r e qu ir em en ts increase. 26.2 employees were required in­ for one story to hanale 10,000 rallons of milk per day; for a two story 7,000 to building, 3U«U er.rloyees; and for three or mere floors, I4.6 employees were required. it is recommended tions be cone on one floor level. that all " r o c e s s i n " o p e r a ­ n c c or di nr to 'it ten ( 3 )> when h a n d l i n g p 00 to 10,000 raiions rer cay, one story randled 361 gallons per employee; stories h a n d le d 2 p 2 gallons ner employee; a plant h a v i n g those with two and three stories, 237 gallons per e m p l o y e e . Surveys fcy.T the Unit ed States arree closely with Department of Agriculture those reported from other sources. The average floor space for 2l\. plants p r o c e s s i n g over 20,000 pounds of milk was 2. Piq square feet ner gallon of milk 1. Trim, 0. ’’S a n i t a r y Construction in D a i r y (ij-). 18 i'he q u e s t i o n of wa y s building been a difficult riant and r o s s i b l e consider. ar^roach 'ased for rroblem on a s u r v e y selectin the nlus ume in the and near future, of allow over-all the labor r e q u i r e d to faced task ter w o r k at and water, however, the a lower ihe ecui^ment should and is oneratlon he d e s i ~ n e a the plant vol­ the r i a n t to h l o m b e r g s s o n orein S w e u e n w h i c h area ( 3 )» the the and cost of the manufacturers -achinery that wi ll r e d u c t i o n of are do bet­ steam r e f r i g e r a t i o n are considered, should from is a o i n r to by required, Equinment Commonly, tv e o e r s o n w h o safest build locate affected snace energy’, a n d individual of cost it. cost. to aoc i t i o n a l plants a central of d e v e l o ^ i n p electrical viewroint the utilities operate and ^he the Equirment orerational the e q u i r ’T'ent, with dairy for exnansion about to foreseeable ( 1 ) ( 2 ). for factors nlants, is al­ l c c a t ’o n of imnortsnt to a r r a n g e layout fhe of n l a n t any D. The are several exnansion when necessary se nted a dia yramatic exnansion has to a n s w e r . size the e x i s t i n g v o l u m e would future future markets for rermit for save be studied the w o r k ( ij.) . the and time the i’he energy of operator. 1. Ihitten, op . c 1 1 . , n. 33» 2. ________ ,vNotes on I lant Layout," Cherry-F-urrell Co., T l c a p o , ITTT no i s , M imeo'ra^h, November 2, 1°L(9. 3. clomhergsson, h., "Ciscussion of General Frincioles for the esirn of dairies of different Size and Iroducoion "a-acitv," Proceedings hiI International Dairy Congress, Vol. 3 » " lQ^ 9 , n. 873 . . Larnes, T-. ^ . , ong c l t . , n. 72 It m u s t usually unit not fits be r e m e m b e r e d she m o s t into the I'Ve u s u a l nlanninr example bottle hour with by In economics a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. (1) of lists ana the the equipment but r a t h e r h o w equipment work the ( 1 ). system of is from equipment is to s t a r t there(2). An for a LgO-ys 600 gallon ner fol l o w i n g manner: P!umber of v a t p a s t e u r i z e r s S i z e p e r u n i t ----------------P r e h e a t i n g t e m n e r a n u r e -----C l a r i f i e r or f i l t e r c a p a c i t y V a t filling- t i m e -------------h e a t i n g time In v a t s -------h o l d i n n time in v a t s -------E m c ty i n g ti m e ----------------of she short-time to m a k e the straight-line milk is h e l d for only next operation without so m u c h nurnoses, considering the of operation handling much cleaning cost factor, filler filling The d e v e l o p m e n t re c a u s e the in s e l e c t i o n tv e bottle Thompson the important practice ner minute that its fifteen efficient and as is f o r c e d done the to the a r'>um.o ( 3 ). of dairy ease 2 0 0 gal. 130° r • 5 2 0 0 lb/hr 2 0 min. 1 0 min. 30 min. 2 0 min. pasteurizer has flow more seconds, k the total nlant equipment cf c l e a n i n g labor should is r e q u i r e d be p u r c h a s e d Tor after (k) - 1. T h o m p s o n , C . L., " P l a n t O p e r a t i o n s a n d .Efficiency," v 1 1 k Plant " o n b h l y , ay 19^£, pp. 3 t - ^ l . 2r,i v i t ten, F o r a c e L. , "'■'ilk P l a n t L a y o u t , " I'llk I l a n t ’'ontv ly , '’a r c h 19lf° , pr . 73-7U* V a G u l r e , " a l t e r , " P l a n t e f f i c i e n c i e s f h r o u g h ;ork o i m ^ l if i c a t i o n , " " i l k P l a n t " o n t h l y , L e t . 19l|.7, P. i+6 • 6 . P e r k i n , T7 E . , " D a i r y T l a n t h o use k e e n i n ' , " " i l k P l a n t " o n t h l y , ’’ey la h(9, n . 6 °. 20 L. The floor layout area i’L e and of the labor e q u i p m e n t may ire advantages has a definite effect on the be laid out L-shaped, according U-shaped, f l o w nlari o f f e r s tc d i f f e r e n t and s t r a i g h t - 1 ine the f o l l o w i n g ( 1 ): L e s s c o n f u s i o n in w o r k i n g ; dives w o r k e r s f e e l of o r d e r l i n e s s ; Less p i p e r u n n i n g a c r o s s f l o w lines; Lasier supervision. In s m a l l and m e d i u m decreased by supervise several using In l a y i n g plants equipment straight-line a. b. c. d. and t r e n c s Layout requirements. f l o w a r r a n r e m e n t s , as flow. I lant of out the L-shared a milk plant, can "leu e n t te a. fc. c. d. e. distance new of e q u i p m e n t the h i s t o r i c a l used lists cons i a e r a t i o n v.len p u r c h a s i n g walking flow pattern where different pieces the p a s t of t o m o r r o w . sized plants as a •iide be workmen ( 2 ). developments to r'lsnnir.' t1 e fcl l o w i n g equipment may items the for ( j. ) : uew e q u i p m e n t is m o r e c o m p a c t ; P i l k h a n d l i n g e q u i p m e n t is f a s t e r , m o r e L e w o r and s i m p l e r p a r t s , d e s i g n e d f o r a c c e s s i b i l i t y In c l e a n i n ; imnrove'f e nts In c o n t r o l s ; T*ore e f f e c t i v e u t i l i z a t i o n of a l l o y s . automatic; 1. ’Ufcten, u o r a c e L. , " F u n c t i o n a l ;.esign of F l u i d ’-"ilk 7 l a n t , " U n p u b l i s h e d th e s i s f o r ’U s t e r of S c i e n c e ue r e e , v l c h i ^ a n b t a t e C o l l e g e , 1 9 1+^'» P^ • 9’6 - c:7. 2. Loc. cit. 3. ^lemen t , ~ , i-quin-ent for Pity T'ilk I l ents," T'nitea tates department of Agriculture, a s 1 In tor., D. ". , ^ircular ’o. 99. r e v i s e d , June l - g l , pp . 1-3* 21 Efficient products pocd move layouts of is che m a j o r labor effectively. i'u i t t ^ it i_ tl is future (4). hhe dictate a circle may of n l a n t following layout items h a v e Minimize walking; balance m a c h i n e cycles; Irovide lor effective supervision. f u n c t i o n of n l a n t A statement is written ’-■lant a n d which layout for summarizes '-arks by is the dairy states operation nlant chances the ideas that she frequently for in e q u i p m e n t of (3) several (n): of a c h e - i c a l than as to u t i l ­ tc p l a n " T h e i d e a l arrarve- ent of e q u i p m e n t w i l l r e m i t m a t e r i a l to tra v e l in the s h o r t e s t p a t h , yet c o o r d i n a t e m a n u f a c t u r e w i t h a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and inspection requirements." The just (2 ) : b. c. d. the the t e e n i lyjy-.tod Reduce manual h a n d li ng to a minimum; cf be is a. exnansion that ( 1 ). eliminated objective important authors necessarily objectives ize An not In a s t r a i h h t - l i n e , as if b a c k t r a c k i n g Cne do nlant mechanical the p l a n t mere closely industries. layout is so tie parallels Terr; (6 ) inefficient 1. C a l d w e l l , r.urene, " ^ h e c k L a y o u t s ' a f o r e You xnand," f a c t o r y v a n a p e ^ e n t a n d M a i n t e n a n c e , July l^i_)l, n. ^7 • 2. apn 1 e , J a m e s , M a t e r i a l s I'andllnp a n d P l a n t L a y o u t, R o n a l d P r e s s n o m n a n y , K,e w Y o r k , 19 50, pp li; 1 3. ’f r k s , L i o n e l , y e c h a n i c al E n g i n e e r s 1 h a n d b o o k , Y c G r a w - ^ i l l hook C o m p a n y , 'Tew v o r k , 19 1 4 n"i 1 . 1 . A ^ r l e , J a ^ e s , o n . c i t . , n. 2°9. 9 . ’‘a r k s , L i o n e l 3., loc . c i t . c. t e r r y , John, o n . cit., p. 1 139- 22 that as m u c h as forty ner needlessly. T e lists which te should a. cent four studied .nalysis cf the w o r k e r s elements to d e c r e a s e of task c. ci . w a t c h ’^ a o l n s; /.d j us tner.t cf s ton wa tel sp e e d . in i n c r e a s i n g the be portant factors 3 8 m out. it subject efficiency Table to in use th e vandliny vent products devote were of thro lrhout the at devices. no other. he tie w o r k m e n ( 1 ). in a n l a n t the two. author conveyors, " uch of are onl; of im­ the nlant L'extbooks of their or ch ites, on milk and a was h a n d l e d carried from a few nlants air;; n l a n t , he bottles The w it]' a should importance -loss cootie cf this the to a tr.ir.innm to p r e ­ of i'actor IV. 1arkin, i. operation, ., on. cit., p. 6°. is in one ;.e h e l a his the snace can recall f-e m i l k ’-'lant, and are today. breakage. 1. aid least h a l f The i’h e r e to norma 1 for in tv e d e s i y n to d i v o r c e cf ^ i n i r g r-rid n u m n s . operation In there requirements: xandliny considered layout handlinr '"alien c o n s tyne be the is d i f f i c u l t in w h i c h minimum 1? tc of r'lant to m a t e r i a l s nlants c-f h a n d l i r r determination r e a d in liyhtea 'eterials *’e t h o d s snent s e t ! oris; rroperly cleaning is elements; iti^rcvement should task tv e l a b o r b. The n l a n t of of time shown in 23 Cable IV. M l ’e c t of l'ransf e r r l n g bu-eakage ( 1 ) Fottles filled daily Transfer of bottles Plants ‘Tone 1 2 3 The nlant minutes U -9 11.6 ^.3 6.0 12.3 2 29,919 9-3 about A total alized t ruck, Judd for vet. of p a l l e t i z e d and unloading tc ten minutes of t w e n t y labor '-lien u s i n g two m i n u te s are for w a i t i n g to fifty saving u p washing room thus saving would be the d e l i v e r y are required fifteen to for loading, ner day fifty increasing There cent system. storage head room would The loading may a and be a ner delivery ner ob­ twenty-five required for in trucks. load with minutes if a d e q u a t e [’h e loads ( 2 ) ( 3 )« to a b o u t processing a palletized fcv u s i n g a f o r k - t r u c k - p a l l e t be s t a c k e d h i g h e r , bottle as t r u c k , in ado it i o n to a b o u t five m in u t e s saving by u s e seven in the m i l k accentance in l o a d in g frov 19.3 2 7 .1 of h a n d l i n g wide for waiting. fork-lift Lotties filled retaT pla nt brt a k a g e 96,hQU 62,779 ™ainly a delivery H a s s t r ’o K e n n e r 1 0 0 0 Before At d i s c h a r g e washing of w a s h e r 3^ t U 6 ? not h a v e Ordinarily, Bo t t l e 10 16 labor requirements tained on 6 I4. pallet method does Pottles truck. be r e ­ cases can in c o o l e r a n d is a v a i l a b l e . 1. boss, P. P., C a r e a n d h a n d l i n g of M i l k , o r a n g e C o m n a n y , Pe w york"] l 0 3 9 » nT 322 • 2. F e c k e n d o r n , L. P., " T h e P a l l e t b y s t e m of h a n d l i n g .he ''ilk ! r o c e s s i n r 1 l a n t s , " v ilk r l a n t '"onthly, J u n e lfv-G, n-. 26- 3l|. 3. d e m m i l l , A r t h u r , " The 7: ball it the . G r i d ' s ,fost " o d f r n F a i r y , " P o o d e n g i n e e r i n g , J u l y l°9l, nr-,. 60-71. 21+ Cottle breakage can be reduced thirty ner cent by the pallet method of handling (1). A soft-drink manufa ct u re r reauced the l o a d i n g time eighty-two n cr cent by clanging from manual to n a l l s t i z e d truck handling, (2 ). The latest ucvelon-nent in han dl in g of milk fro™ the farm is tl e use of bulk handling methods. rerlaced V;- a tank truck. tanks on the farm. a cold wall tank. When using t> e former, about 100 cans; nick-un in the farm tank. A conventional milk Table V. is cooled ±n the 5ulk handvestern truck normally hauls the b Ik tank on the truck wv ich collects of milk. In the Los Angeles that has 'moved economical economical the milk tank or it is rla ce d in the tank. from the farm has a larger capacity, to 30t) cans in holding is being orecticed in localities of the and mestern states. milk oefore the milk is cooled line of milk is coliecteo rbe farm tank may be an insulateo over a surface cooler later tyre, fre milk The ten gallon cans are usually equivalent area the minimum is 2 b0 gallons (3). An comnarison of can and bulk handling is shown in In areas where the average pr oducer sends 2 hO gallons to the ^oiry, less than skin-a-day nickuo is nracticed. 1. : eckendorn, L. H., loc. c i t . 2. "Trucks Loaded gO Cases at ai i m e ,11 good e n g i n e e r i n g , February 191+9, rn . 173-17^. 3. "Eulk -handling of ''ilk,”western Dairy .Journal, June IT 19T2, n . 11. 2h i'he advanta res to the the use oi‘ 10 gallon cans telow oair;, olant of sulk handling over in the l c s angeles area are listed ( 1 ): a. c. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. :,lim inat Ion cl’ s^ace required i'cr- receivinr room ana can storage at tr ^ uairj ; rliminat ion oi‘ raw milk cool in*' at t^e .air?, sav­ ing tons ol’ rel’r iteration; liminat ion of can w as- i n r at the n lant; sanitation at the fsrr. is eric oura/red Lecause ol“ easier and Taster jot; i/limination ol’ milk can insnect ion and maintenance; sRTinlinp can be /one at the farm; T'Llk can be received Taster ( a 2,000 fellon tanker can be unloaded in 10 to 12 minutes); i 1 iminat ion of carri'inf inventory of new cans for rroc .icers; Lower bacteria count Lecause milk is cooled almost immediately and quality cf ’"ilk is usually better. This 1. Journal, is illustrated in fatle V. "Fulk handling of ''ilk,'1 June 1, 37^2, r. 11. T s t r r n uair> i’atle V. Unit; ~osts of Systems (1) ilk C o l l e c t i o n in Cans and b\ F a r m - r a n k ranker C an c o l l e c t i o n ranker co l l e c t i o n Truck fixed costs: i'raccor and trailer for 330 cans Tractor and tanker for 3300 pal. ■‘2,733 oer yr. Truck o n e r a t i on cost 16.73/ ^-r mi. 16.22/ ner mi. D r i v i n g tine 2 . 1 2 7 min/m i 2 . 7 2 7 min/ mi 2 . 1 2. min. 1 0 . 1 min. T r i v e r ’s rime at ranch: rixec, ^er ranch Variatle hanal i n r cans lumnin." yv>ilk Ilant tine: Urlcadin.r cans T -;w,~ in ' r.ilk .eceivin." room: Tor natron x c-r '-alien oaily .as’r in~ tanker 12,7^3 ner yr. 0 . Ol,-? rvi n / y a l 0 . 0 1 6 7 min/yal 0 . 0 2 3 7 T .i n /, - a l 0 . 0 1 6 7 nin/ ^ a l 0.261 rein. 0.0206 min/p a l 23.3 rin/trip lable C ontinued IT" lorry, 7. L., hlank truck C o l l e c t i o n of T'ilk fro:" Farms," A g r i c u l t u r a l F n r i n e e r i n r , jentemfcer 10!T , n. 660. v ripinally nrepared ■_3 uiannini F o u n d a t i o n of Aoriculeural .cono^ics, Cniversit" of "alifornia, and r e r c r te a in v imeor-*ranr ; enort ’'o. 91. .able V Continued Can collection °an fixed and m a i n t e n a nc e cos us 1C vr. life, 2 cans ner 10 cal peak capacity i'arm tank fixed cost per year, tased on 3C0 ,:al. insulated tank v/ith p'jcnp (not cold v;all) ranker c o l l e c t i o n 0.07°7^/f&l .3190 ^er yr. rv> -o 28 ft. Other Factors A typical riant with a daily caracity carried an investment of fifty dollars of 26,000 rounds ner sailor of daily capacity on a sin^le-shift basis in I9 I46 (1). T'ilk bottle treakare acc riots for some A r"i 1a lot tie nakes from 20 to 30 trios of before tie riant cost Leinp i.roken, and in 1Q 33 tests one-third of ci e t iea<«. a ye occurred in the riant (2). was 37. fact In 19l;7> the average number of Ihe o e o ease in breakage can be at tr ibuted to the that orc~ress a ainst breakare clants trips rer- bottle took rlace in tie J a i n (3 ) • It is difficult to evaluate many of tie fact ors that enter into the selection and ar •'•anye- -en t of ceuirm-ent. cf these Is the I m r t a s l o n t’ e riant his includes display of mucv inery, Cne on the rufclic. a rr angements This for visitors, and cleanliness of tie staff (1 ) . C f 0e n ecuirmer t ar-ranye" ents cannot are ideal from an ermio. e r i m ctcucnoint, be carried out which iec.. ise 1 ealth regulations r r o b i h i t , often of nec <-■s s I ty , t^e apnl icat on of many engineerIn.m met>o.iS. L’h e shrinka e of milk is of^en used as an inoication uf tv e efficiencv o f an oreration. In lc 33 tl.e shrinkage was 1. rhcn’ o son, C. I., o r . c i t ., r. 3 8 . 2. '-'lement, ~ . I., 1 o c . c I t . 0 • a he oc a , . ti., op. e i ^ • , r . c^. li . Dierckx, Leo, ”T Ians" d*e Laioeries de Libferontes Larac i t ies et le "& nufac tures de divers lyres du "eme ,enre," Froceedin-s xII International hairy Compress, Volume 3, 1QUQ , n - 882. 29 1-enorted as four ner cent (1). shrinkage of one nor cent. ner cent in 1°39 Several plants now r-enort a toss reported a shrinks e of 2.20 (2). in 1933 the nro ce ss i nn exnenses rroduct in saleable form) consisted (cost of nuttinp; t> e of 19.6 ner cent of the total cost involved in tie di stribution of milk (3)» breakdown of the nro ce s si n^ exnenses Fable VI. Costs is shown in [able VI. involved in T,'ilk Frocesslng ( ) _____ Fer cent cost oT Per cent cos"t oT total m o c e s s i n r total expenses cost Labor r over and refrigeration ena irs ■;errec iat 'on i'axos and rent lnsuranee d u t o "0 b i 1e Ca r t o n o , toxes 'ottle c a s uottles ~ ur.r 1 ie s '■isc c 1 laneous i1o t a 1 1. A 9 1 •0 16. p .0 9 7.23 2."/0 o •9 1, 1 .62 l/4 .0 2. 76 2.22 3. 37 1.1(1 TOO.00 6 .06 2 .9-9 0.7 9 1.07 0. 9 U i/.19 u .292 .20 0.141 0.33 0. 90 0.21 19 .60 Clement, C. 7<. , Ioc . c i t . Foss, t:. . , on. c i t . , n . 3 9Q • 3. oommer, Fugo T7. , Farket v ilk and belated I r o d u c t s , oecona fdition, olsen F ublishinp Co . , Milwaukee , 19 9 6, ~ 606. 9« Calculated from data nresented in (3) 2. 30 In lc l;3 & survey of 92 conmarles ^rociuc inn a quart of milk and in the rlass container, those containers only. were used, showed that in a naner container was 2.7 cents, 3 » f>8 cents, wv en nrouuced in .hen coth plass and naner containers there was a cost cf 3»i)2 cents ner quart for ’•milk in class ana l|.G2h cents ner quart for milk the nresent the cost of in naper (1). time many dairies ckarpe one cent extra a quart for milk in a naner carton. sent da;: prices, co'^arinr Lata are needed, th^ based on p r e ­ two operations with class and f'sner. loss 1. r&rtlett, holand .. , iho ’’ilk I n d u s t r y , ; oribld ~c . , ' . Y., 1c /46, n. 1|7 • At 31 i n . 1. Develop ms th ematical relationships each operation his costs c r' j t : r' r ± v ^ s to enatle tie of tv e n.ost of hairy plant operator to compare to calculated costs of an efficient operation. (a) ’Tse to illustrate economic factors of e q ui p­ ment selection. (t) use Develop nomoprarhs which plant personnel can to determine quickly from equipment specifications, out an extensive mathematical background, with­ the cost of a p a r ­ ticular operation. 2. Determine standard times for various operations which con be used for arranpiny a work schedule. 3. Develop check lists which will enable equipment manufacturers to do a tetter jot of d e s i m the nlar.t onerauor i+. cair; tc do a ;etter jot of equipment selection. Show how the standard times may plant planrin", (a) d. and will enatle ie used as an aid to incorporating Dranhs and charts to compare different olans (b) Ilant layout to utilize space and a r r a ng e ­ ment of equipment for convenience of workers (c) Proper placement cf drains and water valves. Discuss possibilities of imrrcvin- equipment to conform to nlant operations and nlant workers. d 32 IV. T^l'T uD Of A JALY313 Che method of ot taininr the data i'or the onerat lonal costs will be discussed in this section. costs consist of labor requirement, buildinr requirement, involved will interest on investment, and utilities. be discussed ihe oneratlonal Che actual calculations In the next section. ■everal comnsnles rlan t l eir work sch edule individual worker las a clear, defined ■iven time, w i th added allowances. work with so th at each; task to nerform in a ihe arra*;'e^ent of tie th e aid cf a work sinnlif ication nlar. has reduced labor requirements as mucl as one-third of observing- the rath followed (1). Che the technique each: -:orker, tirninr his ooera t o n s , and revis Inc his work rat tern, is called a multi- man e ralr a i s . ihe next step in refininr th'e oneretion serarate narts of f- e operation, and to compare different workers and develon methods tv which can te reduced, or made easier. proved desipn of equipment. likel; no accent 1. ha !.l"1 ; lan the labor requirements this often entails an im­ "'ertainlv a worker would v;ork si^^lif icat ;on methods, technic les th r c u r h v is own is to time the Initiative, and be more develop If th*> ecuin- ent Is ch., 'Carles 1.., " ,ioru Jirr^l ifica t ion in the Ch e r r 'urr-ell Circle, ' arch-,'mril lf::'2, t'p . 3-7 33 desirned for bis cons aeration. rieaninr dairy an outstano Inr e x a mn l e of an operation which rlified to ”ake ibese of re c o r d i n g are snan-tack method, element. ous times. ihe elements IV e interval of tire consist of work done of most sa t isf a c tor;- results back method e l i m i n a t e s are success iv e reaoin'S time stems rives (1). cf an element cf work, of t'-r- stop watch time scud? r-row, used at v a r i ­ is no danger timing method tw e i‘he snap- whereas tv e icy the continuous to obtain elemental times. s tanoarcs are obtained by analyzing fv e standards data for several ctens are established of an oneration. are e l i m i na te d, a>-d ohe efficient co-d Ined to obt ai n an effic lent me tied. 1 ' ona1c there on most operations tv e ' sta from several w o r k e r s . Ihe ine ff ic Ient reacinp inter­ a lot of c a l c u l a t i o n s , Lecause the metboo must he subtra c te d Synthesized in a ti^e the time,* even tbourh a small element marV -• Vie continuous readin s ol talned in the is called an both methods were .ith the continuous not be recorded. intervals. the i and of the vratch is snapped back to Interval. of omittin^ mart In the ston watch runs continuously and val exceeding o .03 minutes. by tsi in snap-back Tettoda. are taken as aesired at various zero for each be sim- she time with a ston watch may the continuous and tv e continuous m e t h o d readings should the w o r k e r ’s job easier. i'wo methods re used. equipment is •w . ’ f urih i steps if.is ^rocec.ure was lime otady and 'ot ion ccnorny , 3*4 used in t’ -ls T ^ sp ar c1 for "Pceiv in Inf- t' e can d v " ' ' r. -no sa— 1 In , ln- roo>- . !'v e synthetic !■w t l o s (a) es tar list tie steins -rIlf in tf e receiv- .let r ave I* c." ~ ’ic a 1 e to otl Cl* S fellow.in;' if ia t 1..US (1), ecjt to wri; ten stanaard rrac t .1ee v ;tf. v;ol 1oefir.ea element end no infs roken own int^ similar elements Similar me irons usea similar equipment used 1 omoceneous elements rated at a uniform rate of activity pOTr.nara cle allowances used. (I) (c) (d) (e) (f) (r ) Pie t i”u Cl >.no we I rl 1n elavs, : . , o n . C it . , p. 3 1 L, . and 3S ten ^er finoin cent s Tor ci‘ a retinue. questionnaire i'he r o l l o w l n ; : of were of everal r ieces s^ace ’' r i c e s cttsined possible. for As fv e were added discussed included companies in (1). allowances is idle (a ] te- to maintain flow of of cf so to tf-e t: e equipment w e r e ct- oo- rar.it s m a n u f a c t a r i n of equipment obtain of t: e the same representative tcuitvent various that the different under I ru-.u s tr ies ho o k of values required. the are T o r r c w , . o K e r t i.. i res crave, 1 alrh, c i r a w - T\ill tf e to the accessories ccmnarinp s tuo ies , n 2 . u ire-'en cs a v e r s -eci to m t h e r cost equipment r-tn t u l u • .u £ representatives prices t im e c cuildiny sales used tv - a r e a ecuipmer.t. i^e as for f r c ■ the h e co m o n l \ the work . a i n t e n a n c e and 1 n o r i o a 1 1o n . I d l e t > e d u r i n p w>~ i c h o p e r a t o r is w a i t i n n f o r macv ine. i r e d u c t u l t i m a t e l y r e j e c t e d t u t o n w v ich n o r m a l w o r k is u o n e , C n A r-fi t o r m u s t w c r l s l c w l y b e e s u s e o f s l o w f l o w of m aterials. trocuc t ion reducedbecause cf added m a n u a l w o r k — a s L ; o s e r in,~ c a n l i d s 07d u m p e r . ' ■1 s c 1;a 1 t, ime . fatiue . i n c e n t i v e f a c t o r ’s. (h ^ (i) ( j) were 1 7, s e v e r a l ire-raring work essential ( O site are with (b) (f ) dairy answerea closely ~ e l a y s u a r i ^ p w h i c h .he o p e r a t o r c a ise o f m a c h i n e b r e a k d o w n . (e) tainei items agrees (a) (c) (d) fata this were m ar.ul' a c ; u r e r s . costs commonly base previous u s u a l I7 C o m r a n r , ". ^ would of be Ire from i’h e as purchased prices. pieces ihe obtained lasic uniform with s m e the the basis was equipment. s e c t Ion, ~reup«d with into regard to cither' , Q p ♦ c T t . , r . hi D y n a m i c s o f i ' h e .->tudy, l ° f r , pT i continuous or repetitive operations. The dairy industry would cone u"der the former division. several operations for the worker. however, there are in the milk plant which are repetitive l‘1 ese are dump in,-, weighin'", and sampling of milk, p1«c inr filled tootles into the fcottle washer, in the storage room. into cra.es, rlacin-' tot ties and stackin'’- filled cottle crates ihe cleaning operation could be thought of as a repetitive operation when it is considered over a lonr period of ti^e. rtuties were riaoe on ioth types of opera­ tions . The question of selectin'- the operation which offers the ^ost ^romise for further stud? frequently arises. lenerally, the operations ^ost r'row >sin;' for improvement are those w v ich are costly, t>cse which recuire consideratle la:or, those which are repetitive in nature. in'- operation vividly7 illustrates and An example of a farm­ tv is item. An analy'sis of harvesting ensila e wl.tw a forage harvester- showed tv at th e amount of ti^e used in unloadin'- tv e ensila--e was 0.6^ pan-hours per ton, whicv' was longer z\ an the ti^e required for harvestin'- ana haulinr the hay- (1). operation was studied, and equipment developed, unloadin'7 ti^e was reduced lO the time consuming so tv at the to 0.QQ man-hours ncr ton. facilitate riant layout and equipment arrarpe-mnt, information w a s assembled which' c a n l.g used to Plan the 1. Pavidson, J. - . , C. h. -Ahead, - . J. ^o 11 ins, "Lee or Duty in the 1arvesciny of 'nsil&re,M A u r i c ultu r i nee ring, -err, enter- 1° 1;3 , p . 293 • 37 movements and work schedule of each worker. path of each worker, be ascertained. By charting the the efficiency of labor utilization can The equipment can then be moved to p o s i ­ tions which m ay apoear to be a more efficient layout. By applying the available information, a tangible means may be used for comparing equipment locations. The efficiency of labor utilization is paramount in plant planning. However, a m i n imum floor area, and short utility lines are desirable. A visual means of studying the plant layout is very help ful. Scale models were used in this study. A scale of 1/U inch equal to one foot was selected for the models and floor plan because it is the standard scale usually used for olant layout (1). Block models were developed for each piece of equipment. In most plant planning, the worker stands in one place or works In a limited area during his work. Consequently, attention. the flow of che product receives major In a dairy plant, area to work area; therefore, the worker must move from work the path of the ma n must re ­ ceive primary consideration, with the product receiving secondary consideration. In a dairy plant, the flow of the product will be considered indirectly In minimizing the labor requirements because the pipe line requires consider­ able cleaning time. A grid is used as a background for the floor plan. grid is laid off in one-fourth Inch squares to aid the 1. Apple, James, o p . c l t ., p. 229. The 38 observer in noting the distance between equipment and various operations. The distance between lines of the grid used for the floor is one foot. In evaluating a plant layout, an activity chart was used. An activity chart provides a graphic method of illustrating the individual steps of the work performed by m e n and/or machines (1). The activity chart may be broken down into right and left h a n d movements, and may indicate the time and distance involved in each individual step. The symbols in Table VII are used to illustrate the individual steps. Table VII. Symbol 1 1 1 n □ Symbols for Activity Chart (2) Name M a n Activity Machine Activity Operation Doing something at one place Machine working Operation Not used M an operating machine Quantity determination Inspection D elay Person must determine quantity of Item present Inspection of product or container or equipment Idleness Not used Not used Machine is idle Each step in the present operation and proposed operation can be criticized with respect to the check lists 1. 2. M u n d e 1 , M • E . , o p . c 1 t ., p • 171* Adapted from Mandel, op. cit., p. 1 8 6 . 39 provided. A new chart can then be developed Tor the pro- nosed on the basis of* the check list suggestions and re ­ checked. The handling of the cans, milk, etc., in the plant should be studied to see if che cost can be reduced. The materials handling for different equipment locations can be analyzed by collecting the data to complete Table VIII. Table VIII. Method Analysis of Handling of Products Number of Distance in units Number of feet____________ moved________ persons Time in hours________ In order to utilize the data fully It is necessary to anticipate production, apoly principles of efficient h a n d l ­ ing, and prescribe changes. Each of the following handling methods should be investigated for each of the items handled from the time of entry into the plant until they leave the plant s (a (b (c (d (© (f (g Manual Conveyors, chutes Pipe line Trucks and carts Trolley and monorail Pallets, lift trucks Elevators, hoists 1 ko V. CALCULATIONS The method used for calculating the data included in Tables V to XXVII in the Appendix, and illustrated in numerous figures in the discussion of results, in this section. prices. is discussed All equipment costs are based on 1952 The figures presented in later sections on op era­ tional costs apply specifically to new equipment. new cost is less, the ensuing cost is less. W h e n the The operational costs of used equinment can be calculated by use of the charts presented in the later section on equipment selection. A. 1. Taxes, Fixed Costs insurance, and l i c e n s e s . The taxes, in­ surance and license cocts were figured at three per cent of the original cost of the equipment and building. In 1930 the federal and state taxes amounted to 0.5 per cent of the Investment (1). A survey of ninety-two companies in 19U3 showed the annual taxes, Insurance, and license costs to be about one eighth of the building and equipment depreciation(2 ). This would amount to about one per cent annually of the first cost of the building and equipment. Taxes are often as high as five per cent of the Investment (3)« At the present time 1. Eidman, F. L . , Economic Control of Engineering and M a n u f a c t u r i n g , ^cGraw-Fill Rook Company, New York, 1931 * P»" 29* 2TI feartlett, Roland W., o]D. c l t ., p. I4.6 . 3. Grant, Eugene L., Frlnclples of Engineering E c o no m y, kl insurance rates are high©** than those reported in p r e ­ vious surveys, and more m o n e y is required for licensing and inspection. With an increase in the rate of taxation, and recognizing that the tax evaluation is often one-half of the first cost, a value of three per cent of the original equipment and building cost was chosen. 2. Life of e q u i p m e n t . W h e n calcalating interest and depreciation it is necessary to estimate the life of the equipment. i'he calculations in this d i ssertation were based on Federal Tax Guide Reports (1), as shown in Table IX. ___________ Table IX. Estimated Life of Dairy Equipment_______ Chain c o n v e y o r -------------------------- 15 Roller Co n ve yo r-------------------------- II4. Can D u m p --------------------------------- 17 Weigh Can — ---------------------------- 12 Milk S c a l e s ------------------------------18 Straight-away Can W a s h e r ---------------17 Rotary Can W a s h e r ----------------------- 12 Piston Milk P u m p ------------------------15 Centrifugal Milk P u m p ------------------ 18 Sanitary Pining and Fittings --------Ik Clarif i e r -------------------------------- ll| Surface Cooler -------------------------- 12 Internal Tube Cooler ------------------- 18 Coil V a t --------------------------------- 20 Storage Equipment for Receiving ------ 18 Glass Lined Milk S t o r a g e -------------- 20 Coil H e a t e r s ---------------------------- 20 F o r e w a r m e r ------------------------------- 12 Cream S e p a r a t o r s ------------------------ 16 H o m o g e n i z e r ------------------------------17 P a s t e u r i z e r ------------------------------15 Bottle Soaker Unit --------------------- 15 Bottle C a p p e r ---------------------17 Carton Machine -------------------------- 15 Ammonia Compression System ---22 Brine S y s t e m ---------------------------- 15 Other Receiving Equipment ---15 Milk Rottle C a s e s ------------------------I4. 1. Federal Tax Guide Reports, Commerce Clearing House, Inc.. 19k8. did . 286-2 8 8 . k2 3. Depreciation and I n t e r e s t * The annual depreciatio of most equipment la figured by the straight-line method in which the salvage value of a piece of equipment is sub­ tracted from the initial cost and the difference divided by the life of the equipment. In figuring equipment costs the interest should be in­ cluded because the money is being used. Otherwise, the money could be invested In stocks or bonds where it would be e x ­ pected to give a financial return. The common method of cal­ culating the annual interest cost Is to multiply the interest rate times one-half of the original value of the invest­ ment, or times one-half of the difference between the origi­ nal and salvage value of the equipment. The interest rate varies with the size and type of Investment. The large in­ vestor exoects about two per cent Interest; whereas, the small investor expects about six per cent interest (1). The straight-line method of depreciation Is an approxi­ mate method, but the simplest. The annual cost of capital recovery which includes the depreciation and interest may be calculated by exact means (2). The exact capital recovery factor is / ^ ), in wh ich n Is the estimated life 1 (1 + i)n - l' of the equipment in years, and i is the interest rate. Ey multiplying the first cost of the machine by the capital 1. Grant, Eugene L., Principles of Engineering Economy, Ronald Press, N. Y . , 1950, n o . tl-blj.. 2. Ibid., pn. 86- 87 . i k3 recovery factor, the annual payment necessary to pay for the equipment w ith interest is obtained, value. if there is no salvage Table X gives the capital recovery factors for four per cent interest. Values of the capital recovery factor for other rates of interest are available (1). Table X. Capital Recovery Factor for Uniform Annual Depreciation and Interest for an Annuity whose Present Value is one with Four per cent Interest n years CRF 1 2 3 4 5 I.OI4.OO 0.5302 0.3603 0.2755 0.2246 11 12 13 14 15 O.III4I 0.1066 0.1001 0.0947 0.0899 6 7 8 9 10 0.1908 0.1666 0.1485 0.1345 0.1233 16 17 18 19 20 0.0858 0.0822 0.0790 0.0761 0.0736 n years CRF Many of the pieces of dairy equipment have an appreciable salvage value because they contain valuable materials of construction such as stainless steel, copper , motors, and other accessory parts such as switches and control devices. A salvage value was selected for each piece of equipment, r anging from zero to ten per cent, depending on the item. W h e n a salvage value is anticipated, the annual capital recovery is calculated as follows 1. 2. Ibid., tm. 596-613* I b i d ., o . 89 * (2): CaDital Recovery =s (First Cost - Salvage Value) (CRF) + (Salvage V a l u e )(Interest Rate) The difference between the straight-line and accurate method of calculating the depreciation and interest is not great for equipment with exoected life of twenty years or less, considering the assumptions which are made for taxes, insurance, neriod, repairs, etc. For a large investment, over a long the difference is large, as is shown by i'able XI. The straight-line method was used for the calculations in this research so that the results could be obtained as simply as cossible and still be as accurate as the data on which the calculations are based. The methods used in the calcula­ tions have been kept as simple as cossicle so that they can be used by interested dairy personnel who might not have an extensive mathematical background. The annual interest charge is the product of the interest rate and the average investment. vestment The average in­ is equal to one-half of the sum of the first cost and the salvage value. This met ho d was used for the calcula­ tions in this dissertation. Another, slightly more accurate method for calculating the average interest is as follows (1): Average interest = (first cost - salvage v a l u e ) ( ( £L_+__i.) + (salvage value) 1. (i) I b i d ., p . 95. J 45 Table XI. Annual D ep reciation and Interest on an Investment of $1000 at 4 per cent Interest by (a) straight-line decreeiation plus average Interest (b) accurate method using Capital R e c o v er y Factor Years (a) 220.00 120.00 70.00 53.40 45.00 40.00 5 10 20 30 40 50 4* Building c o s t s . per cent difference (b) 224.60 123.30 73.60 57-80 50.50 46.60 2.0 2.7 4-9 7.7 11.0 14.0 The cost of the building was cal­ culated for each operation in the dairy. In a few cases, added building space is required to decrease the labor r e ­ quirement, as exemplified by the storage tank design. The saving in labor was compared to the additional cost of p ro ­ viding more building space. In 1930 building costs varied from $0.25 to $1.10 per cubic foot for brick construction, with the more expensive estimate for stores (1). In 191+6 the cost of a mercantile building was estimated at $0.70 per cubic foot (2). Yost dairy plant equipment Is located In processing rooms which have a height of twelve feet. The volume oc­ cupied by a piece of equipment was calculated on the basis of a room of twelve foot h i gh (3)* at $1.50 for each cubic foot, or $18.00 for each square foot. 1. K1 dma n , 2. Fulver, wcOraw-FIll Book 3. v itten, This estimate was i*. L . , . , p . 67 • F. E., Construction Estimates and C o s t s , Company^ Yl 1947* 463• Forace L . , o p . c i t ., p. 30. U6 o bt ai ne d by calculating the cost of constructing a dair y with a c a p a ci ty of 60,000 pounds per day. The estimate agrees c l o s el y with the value obtained by a pplying the 1930-195>0 b u i l d i n g indexes to the building costs of 1930 (1). B u i ld ­ ing depreciation is assumed to take place over a fifty year p e r i o d (2). No salvage value is a l l o we d for buildings b e ­ cause technological changes often decrease the value of a structure to such an extent that it is often a liability rather than an asset. 5* Repairs, maintenance, supplies. The repair, mainten an ce and supply cost was considered to be four per cent of the first cost of the equipment. It is true that the repair cost is expected to be low wh e n the equipment Is r el atively new, and large after the equipment has been used. The repair cost will vary considerably w i t h different pieces of dairy equipment. pieces of equipment. Data are not available for Individual In boiler operation, one to two per cent of the original cost is required for repairs, m a i n t e n ­ ance, and supplies (3)« However, this cost would be ex­ p e c t e d to be higher for dairy equipment which operates m o i s t conditions, constantly being assembled and disassembled, a n d requiring considerable soap solution for cleaning. r e p a i r and maintenance supplies for the whole plant 1. 2. 3. in See Appendix Table III for economic indexes. Federal Tax Guide Reprt. op. c l t ., p. 27i+. Perry, J. F., op. c i t . The kl amounted to ab out one -h al f of the de pr e c i a t i o n of the b u il d­ ings and equipment in a survey of 92 companies in 1914-3 (1 )» On this basis, a value of four per cent of the original cost of the equipment ap pr o xi ma te s the normal p l a nt charge for repairs and maintenance. The exnense for repairs w o u ld be expected to depend to some extent on use, and these costs m i g ht be included in the ope ra ti ng costs instead of fixed costs. tractors where In the case of farm the e q uipment is used a reasonable amount under average conditions, there is justification for in­ c luding repairs as a fixed cost (2). The same assumptions can be made for dairy equipment w h i c h is used w i t h more regu­ larity and care than m u c h farm machinery. B. O p e r a t i n g Costs The costs for electricity, water, steam, and refrigera­ tion w ill vary c on s i d e r a b l y in each plant, quantity used, depending on the and the lo ca t i o n and operation of the plant. The ca l c u l a t e d values for the utilities were used throughout the calculations, basis. so that all equipment would be on the same These figures will give an accurate relationship for com pa ri ng equipment, value, but can only be used as an average or as a guide for fi gu ri ng plant costs. 1. Bartlett, Roland W. o p . c 1 1 . p. I4.6 . 2. Barger, E. L., W. M. Carleton, E. G. McKibben, Roy Eainer, Tractors and T heir Power U n i t s , John Wiley and Sons, New York"! 1^5^, pn”. 14-51-14-5 2 . UQ 1. Electricity. All electrical energy costs were figured at $ 0 . 01 25 per kilowatt-hour. It was not possible to place meters on all the pieces of equipment employing electric motors. Data were taken from the m a n u f a c t u r e r ^ specifications for the equipment, and converted to kilowatt- hour values based on m o t o r powe r requirements of induction three-phase moto rs as established by Ibbetson (1), and the length of time the m o t o r was in operation. No attempt was made to calculate power requirements for controls, the cost of w h i c h is small, and w h i c h is included under the cost of supplies. 2. Lansing, Water. The commercial water rates as of April 1,1952 Michigan, 25/ 12/ 11/ 9«3>/ per per per P©r were used 100 100 100 100 cu. cu. cu. cu. as the basis for thewater costs, ft. ft. ft. ft. for for for for first 500 cu. next 1500 cu. next 3000 cu. all over 5000 ft. ft. ft. cu. ft. A typical 25»000 pound per day dairy uses about 60,000 cu. ft. of water p e r month (2). Based on these values, average cost of water in different sizes of plants the is as follows: 20.000 lb. per Z4.0,000 lb. per 60.000 lb. per 80.000 lb. per 100,000 lb. per 3. the Steam. day day day day day dairy, $ 0.10 per 100 cu. ft. dairy, $0,099 per 100 cu. ft. dairy, $ 0,098 per 100 cu. ft. dairy, $ 0,097 per 100 cu. ft. dairy, $ 0,096 per 100 cu. ft. T^ost of the references available cost of boiler operation which give were written at least twenty TT Ibbetson, W. S., Ele~ctrlcal Fower E n g i n e e r s * Handbook, Chemical Fubllshing Company of rJew York, Inc., N. Y. 1939, p. 131|. (Appendix Table IV) 2. "Operating Time Schedule," Planning Plants, Sales Engineering, Cherry-Eurrell Corporation, Chicago, years ago, or gave costs based on fuel costs only. methods were u s e d for d e t e r m i n i n g the s t e am cost, different references, Two based on and averaged to establish a reasonable cost for steam. A plant investment of eight dollars per pound of steam m a k i n g c a o ac it y oer h ou r is r e q u i r e d (1). 100 boiler h o r s e p o w e r ( E H F ) boiler, steam per hour, On the basis of a or 3,1^0 pounds of the investment w o ul d be $27*600. All fixed costs in a boiler p l a nt are figured at twelve per cent of the investment (1), or £3312. The daily costs of o p eration of the boiler are as follows: Fixed C o s t s ----------------- $9-10 L a b o r ------------------------ 10.90 E l e c t r i c i t y ------------------ 1. CO W a t e r ------- ---------------- 2.00 Fue 1 ------------------------ -15. 00 Total D a i l y Cost $ 36.00 The total cost is calculated on the basis of pro vi di ng 13,800,000 Etu. per day. 1000 Etu. The total cost wou ld be $2.75 for or one p o un d of steam. A cost of $2.25 per pound of steam was quoted by Gaffert (2) in I9I4.6 for a high capacity boiler above 1000 boiler horsepower. Co r r e c t i n g this figure on the basis of the 1950 Economic Index for fuel and p o w er cost (3)* the 5TI Perry, j7 H. , o p . cl~t. , p. 1631. 2. Gaffert, Gustaf A., Steam Power S t a t i o n s , McGrawHill Eook Company, New York, 19^4-6, pZ 5^6. 3 . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ T h e Economic Almanac, 1 9 5 1 - 2 , T h e National Indus try Conference Eoard, 2177 Park A v e n u e , New York 12, New"York, p. 110. (See Ap pendix Table III). 50 equivalent charge for one p o u n d of s t e a m in 1950 was $3.32. The average of these two values of # 2 . 7 5 and $3.32 is $3.03 which was u se d for a l l steam cost calculations. A boiler efficiency of e i g h ty p e r cent was a s s u me d in d e t e r m i n i n g fuel costs. Unless other data were a va ilable for p a r t i c u l a r pieces of equipment e ig hty-three p er cent of the heat output of the boiler was a s s u m e d to be co nv er te d ergy at the equipment. into useful h e a t i n g en ­ This a s s u me d ef fi ciency is not u n ­ reasonable w h e n the condensate is r e t ur ne d to the boiler. The cost of ste am is consid er a bl e h i g h e r than that given by m a n y references for plants w i t h capacities above 10,000 pounds per h o u r capacity. Values betw e en &0.1+0 and $0.70 per p o u n d of steam are reported (1) (2). The steam requirements for the various pieces of e q u i p ­ ment were c a l c u l a t e d f r o m p u b l i s h e d data and m a n u f a c t u r e r ’s recommendations. The time required to a c c o m p l i s h the heat transfer was ev al u at ed f ro m the U (3) values of the d i f f e r ­ ent pieces of equipment. The U values were u s ed for c o m ­ p a r i n g the h e a t i n g times for the batch processes. continuous processes w i t h low U values, coolers, For the such as heaters and the h e a t i n g surfaces w o uld have to be larger to give the same capa ci t y as equipment with high U values. The larger h e a t i n g surfaces would be reflected in higher initial costs. TT Perry, J~Z F . , op. c 11 . , p. 16332. R ef lected in data”> Slcrotzki, E. G. , and W. A. Vopat "Applied E n e r g y Conversion," McGraw-Hill, N. if., 191+5, p- 31+7 • yZ See Glossary for explana ti on of U factor. 51 14-• Refrigeration c o a t . In 191+3 the cost of o p e r a t i n g a compressor was $0.53 per ton-day (1), rental. excluding cost of The operating cost includes a labor cost of $0.00 per ton-day, w h i c h will vary considerably w i th the size of the system. Corrected on the basis of the 1950 Economic the labor charge Index (2) is $0.12 per ton per day in 1950. An investment of $1500 per ton is required for a re­ frigerating system (3)« The annual fixed cost f i g ured at nineteen per cent of the first cost (1+) is $285 per ton, $0.78 per ton per day. or A total cost of $1.35 per ton-day is gotten by a d di ng $0.78 for the fixed cost, $0.1;5? for the operating cost (calculated by subtracting $0.08 from $0.53), and $0.12 for the labor cost. This Is equivalent to an h o u r ­ ly cost of $0,056 p er ton of refrigeration. The total cost will vary consider ably with a change In plant size. Based on a comparison of operating costs for ice-making e q u i p ­ ment of different sizes (5)# Table XII gives the cost of operating the r efrigera tion systems of different sixes of dairy plants. 1. McCoy, Daniel, Editor, Refrigerating Data B o o k , 3rd edition A m e r i c a n Society of Refrigeration Engineers, 1951, p. 61+1. 2. The Economic A l m a n a c , l o c . c l t . 3. Perry, J. H. , o p . ci~t. p . 1631 1+. Moyer, J. A., R e f r l g e r a t i o n , McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1928^ pT 255• 5. Motz, W i l li am H . , Principles of R e f r i g e r a t i o n , Nickerson and Collins Company, Chicago, Illinois, 1926, pp. 590-616. 52 T a ble XII, Cost of Operating Refrig er at i on Systems in Di ff er en t Sizes of Dairies D a i l y Capacity Pounda Refrigerat ion Cost Dollars per Ton -h ou r 80,000 60,000 50,000 1+ 0,000 .0563 .0563 .0575 .0605 .061+3 .0675 30.000 20.000 .0766 15.000 10.000 .0860 The most efficient met ho d of refrigeration in a dairy is by means of an ice builder sweet water system. The initial cost of one small compressor and an ice builder tank is the same as the total cost of a larger direct expansion system (1). The total operating cost, however, of an ice b uilder system is much less than for the direct expansion system because the deman d rate is m u c h less. charge is theoretically slightly more, energy charge The energy but practically the is about the same because of the inefficiency of the compressor m otor from starting and stopping caused by plant delays. The sweet water system was considered to operate at sixty per cent of the electrical cost as the direct expansion. W a t e r is often used to do part of the cooling in the plant. It Is usually nece ss ar y to circulate from three to six times as m u c h water or sweet water as milk to remove heat. 1. Kampman, W. J., "Principles of Mechanical Refrigeration" Mimeograph, University of Illinois nixtension Course, 191+9, p. 15* 1 53 The quantity of r ef r igeration r equired to a c co mplish the coo li ng In different types of cooler was calculated from the efficiency and the U values. £. Labor c o a t s . per hour. All labor costs were figured at ^1.75 Any time a piece of equipment has a capacity that required the attention of a man, but only the actual p h y s i ­ cal labor of one-half a m a n in a later operation, the wasted or inefficiently used time was charged to the improperly sized machine. kept busy, In conventional analysis, if the m a n is not the implication is that he is not doing his share. Some of the evils of time study can be eliminated if the lack of work of the employee is attributed to the machine which he is attending. The fault then lies with the engi­ neer for improperly designing the equipment. Penalizing the incorrectly sized machine aids in selecting the proper piece of equipment on the basis of the operational analysis. E v en though equipment m a y not be designed to utilize fully the w o r k e r ’s time and attention, an efficient plant operator will organize the work schedule to utilize labor fully. Such a procedure requires additional traveling be­ tween equipment for the worker, and is not efficient if it can be avoided. On the other equipment, w hich is too small, such as a can washer the worker could not possibly utilize a small fr action of the delay time when the equipment is slower than the worker. The cleaning time of each piece of equipment includes the disassembly and assembly of the parts. J D a iry a u to m a tic s h o rt-tim e v is o ry was tin g e q u ip m e n t in o p e ra tio n , (H T S T ) la b o r of on th e is as n o rm a lly a h e a te r, p a s te u riz e r, ch arg e d e te rm in e d tim e w h ic h added th e to b a s is e q u ip m e n t. of of as b e in g h ig h -te m p e ra tu re c o o le r, th e th o u g h t cost. etc., The a p e rc e n ta g e had a s u p er­ s u p e rv is io n of th e to ta l la b o r o p era­ 55 VI. A. 1. Dumping. D I S C U S S I O N OP R E S U L T S Receiving Room O p e r a t i o n s The rate of dum pi ng the ten gallon milk cans is the key to the various operati on s room. In the receiving The size of w e i g h can, re ce iv in g tank, and capacity of the can washer should be determined b y the speed at w hich the operator can dump the m i l k cans. In the one-man r e c e i v i n g operations one worker dumps the m ilk cans, weighs and records the w e i g h t of the milk, samples the milk, The and releases the m i l k f r o m the weigh can. equipment in a one- ma n d-.imping o p e r a t i o n is illustrated in Fig. 2. Two different arrangements for the w o r k e r s were used in the two-man rec ei vi ng rooms. In one w o r k arrangement, one worker dump ed the m i l k cans, weighed a n d reco rd e d the weights, and released the m i l k from the w e ig h can, whi le the other worker sampled the m i l k from the w eigh can. arrangement, In another work one p e r s o n dumped the milk w h i l e the other worker weighed, recorded the weight, s a m p l e d the milk, and released the m i lk from the weigh can. Two different work arrangements w e r e u s e d in the threem a n receiving rooms. dumped, In one work a r r a n g e m e n t one person one perso n weighed, recorded, a n d released the milk 56 from fche w e i gh can, whi le the third p er s o n sampled. other three-man w o rk arrangement, m a n dumped, and one m a n weighed, In a n ­ one m a n loosened lids, one sampled, and r e l e a s e d the milk from the w e i g h can. Fig. 2. Equipment in a Typical One-man D u m p i n g Operation The rate of dumping the cans is influenced by the nu m ­ ber of cans p e r producer, p a rticularly for the one-man operations and the m ul t i p l e - m a n operations where there is a delay for w e i g h in g and sampling. The two- or three-man 57 operation can only bo Justified if the subsequent p r o ­ cessing operations are slowed down or stopped because of a slow rate of dumping, w h ic h might occur in a one-man ooeration. The average of several hundred readings in various dairies is used for the basis of the standard time for re ­ ceiving room operations in Table XIII. Table XIII. Standard Time for Receiving Room Operations (Dumper checks quality, unless otherwise specified) Min s . A. For one-man operation Dumping time per can, 0.10 min. Weighing, recording weight, emptying weigh can, 0.13 Sampling time, 0.07 B. For two-man operation (1) One m a n dumping; one man weighing and sampling D u m p i n g time per can, D u m p i n g d e lay time for weighing and sampling between or oducer lots (2) C. One m a n dumping and weighing; sampling D u m p in g time per can, Weighing time for dumper, 0.091 0.06 one ma n 0.10 0.13 F or three-man operation (1) One m a n dumping, one man weighing, one m a n sampling D u m p i n g time per can 0.091 D e l a y for draining w e i g h can between producers lots, 0.02 to 0.06 (2) One m a n loosening lids and checking for quality, one m a n dumping, and one m a n weighing and sampling, same as B (1) above 58 The time Tor w e i g hi n g may be d ec reased f rom 0.13 to 0.095 minutes by using a print-w e ig h device on the scales. At 1952 prices, with labor at sjpl.75 per hour, approximately 1+.8 years would be required for a 1+0,000 po und per day dairy to pay for the added cost of a print- we ig h device. The p o s ­ sibilities of de c reasing weig hi ng errors and the ease to the weigher should be considered in addition to the time saving when c on s i d e r i n g the purchase of a p r i n t - w e i g h device. For the m a x i m u m dum pi ng rates to be attained, cans must be available to the dumper. the milk The trucker cannot be expected to unload cans steadily and loosen lids to supply the dumper w i th cans at a rate exceeding seven cans per minute. In order for the faster operations to be successful, the truckers must help each other in unloading the trucks and loosening the lids. In a three-man receiving operation where a w o r k e r is inside the plant loosening lids and check­ ing odors, as outlined In C (2) of Table XIII, the worker.' & productiveness would be increased if he were placed outside the r e c e i vi ng room and assigned the task of setting the cans on the m il k can conveyor, odors. loosening lids, and checking for Improving the receiving room operation, where the worker Is actually idled, while being envied by his co­ workers, m a y result In unsatisfactory labor relations. such a case, changes should be planned, until an appropriate time. In but not carried out, 59 The d u mp in g procedure has much to do w i t h the rate of emptying the cans, r e c o r d i n g weights and sampling, p a r t i ­ cularly for a one-man operation. The ease of carrying on the work and p r e v e n t i n g milk loss by pr oviding adequate time for drip are important. There was no correlation between the rate of dumping the cans and the amount of milk in the cans. It was found that there was an average of 60 pounds of mi l k in a can, except during the soring months w h e n the weight of milk per can was 72 p o u n d s . If the arrangements In the dai ry are such that the trucker does not loosen the lids, the dumper should loosen a series of c a n lids around the conveyor, dump the cans, and repeat, rather than loosen the lids individually as the cans come to the dump rail. lid The time required to loosen only one is 0.07 minutes; whereas, the average time required to loosen each lid while wal ki ng around the conveyor where several lids are loosened is 0.02 minutes. 2. W e i g h can and receiving t a n k . ly manufa ct u re d in 500, W e igh cans are norma 750, and 1000 pound sizes. Similarly, the w e i g h can m a y be supported by a 500, 750, or 1000 pound scales, predo mi na te ly of the Toledo scale type. The 750 or 1000 pou nd scales m a y be used for the 500 or 750 pound w e igh cans. A question is frequently raised by dairy plant opera­ tors as to how large a weigh can should be used, or the 60 p r a c t i c a b i l i t y of re p la ci ng a 500 pound w ith a 7^0 pound w e ig h can, The or larger. size of weigh can should be determined according to the a m o u n t of milk handled daily and the number of large producers. pounds If all the milk producers there would be no advantage in using a weigh can larg­ er t h a n 500 pounds. pounds shipped less than 500 As the per cent of producers over 500 Increases, and as the number of pounds of m ilk h a n d ­ led d a i l y increases, the value of the labor saved through dumping, Pig. 3 relates the size of dairy in increases. pounds p e r day, per cent of producers less than 500 pounds, and the cost of r e p l ac in g (including installation) the 500 pound w e i g h can with the 750 pound we igh can to the years r e q u ir ed to pay for the added cost by the labor saved. This chart m a y be used for selection of a new weigh can on the same basis. Fig. 3 m a y be used for a one-, two-, or three- man operation. Although the actual length of time saved be ­ tween weighings is less for a two-man operation there are two or th ree m e n involved in the time saving, making the total savi ng practically the same as in the one-man operation. In the one-man receiving room, there is sufficient time for the w e i g h can to drain while the operator is recording the w e i g h t of the milk. In the two- and three-man operations, the s p ee d of dumping is controlled by the time required to drain the weigh can. It is necessary for the person weighing Per cent of milk received in lots less than 500 lb. Yeare to pay for with hourly labor at $1.75 $2.25 50 15 10 7 100,000- Replac ement Cost, Dollari 6 5 4 F0,000 - Milk Handled Daily, Pounds 60,000 Y e * r 400 40,000- 20,000 ^ — 1,5 Example: A dairy receiving 60.000 lb. milk daily with 60 per cent of the milk in less than 500 lb. lots. The replacement cost for a 750 lb. w e i g h can is $350. Labor is $2.00 an hour. Solution: Locate A as shown above, de­ termined by size of dairy and size of shippers. Locate B, which is deter­ mined b y the replacement and labor cost. Along line AB locate C at the appropriate hourly labor charge, and read 3.6 yr. to pay for the 750 lb. we igh c a n • Interpretat i o n : Even though the normal life of a weigh can is 12 yr. the dai should plan to pay for the new equipment by the labor saving within 6 y r . to avoid the possibility of loss through obsolescence• PIG. 3. -CHART FOR DETERMINING YEARS REQUIRED TO O ^ S E T ADDITIONAL COST OF 750 LB. WEIGH CAN IN COMPAR­ ISON WITH A S00 LB. WEIGH CAN BY LABOR SAVED. CWH 6/3/52 the m i l k to observe the m i l k dra in in g out or the weigh can or to observe the hand on the scales before clo si ng the valve after each weighing. In all the plants studied, the mi l k was released from the weigh can through a valve controlled by a manual or air operated h a n d lever. the valve. The lever was a g ain manipulated to close The speed of the operation could be increased and the w o r k of the operator lightened with a foot operated air valve. The time for dra in in g the w eigh can varied considerably as shown by Pig. 5. self-closing valve. This va riation could be eliminated by a The average saving in time would be 0.02 minutes per w e i g h i n g on one-half of the weighings. A 100,000 pound per d a y dairy would have an average of 330 weighings per day. The yearly saving would amount to (3*3 minutes per day) x (365 days per year) x (3 men) x (1 h our per 60 minutes) or 60 h o u r s . At 19.52 prices, three years would be required to p a y for the additional cost (#315) of the self-closing feature of an air-operated valve. Sam pl i ng Is u s u a ll y done m anually wi t h a small hand dip­ per, but can be done with a v a c uu m sampler. no obstructions to sampling. (See Fig. l± ) - There should be The sampling time was found to be 0.07 minutes by either method. The vacuum sampler is often given credit for quicker sampling than the manual dipper method. techniques, In fact, because of poor the vacuum sampler often requires as much as 0.05 MINUTES 0.07 H 0.06 -J 0.05 H 0.04 H 0.03 H o.oi H 100 200 400 300 600 500 MILK IN WEIGH CAN, LB. FIG. 5 . TIM E WITH OPERATOR PERMITTED 14 INCH DIAMETER 7 5 0 LB. WEIGH OUTLET VALVE TO CAN DRAIN CWH 5/20/52 Fig. lj.. Obstruction to Convenient Sampling minutes longer for sampling than the manual dinner method. It isn't ne c essary to justify the additional cost of the vacuum sampler by a saving in labor, however, operator's work is lightened. because the There is still a q u e s ti on by some plant operators regarding the accuracy of sampling. The sample is always taken from the same position in the weig h tank w i t h a vacu um sampler. The position of sampling is claimed by some plant operators to favor a high test for the small producer, and a low test for the large producer b e ­ cause of the tendency of the fat particles to rise to the 65 top of the milk. This undesirable feature c o u l d be elim­ inated by f a s t e ni ng the sampling tube to a f l o a t which would move up and down with the milk. On the other hand, the reliability of v a c u u m sampling has been established by tests of various o t h e r dairies. results of a large Indiana Dairy Plant, in Table XIV. The in 1948, are shown A l t ho ug h this data was f u r n i s h e d by the m a n u fa ct ur er of the vacuu m sampler, the d a t a m a y be obtained from the dairy. Table XIV. Comparison of Vacuum and Hand Sampling (1) Tests obta I n ed by Vac uu m sampler & a n d sampler 4-2 4-2 4.1 4-5 4*4 4-0 6.4 4*4 3 *c 3.9 4.3 3.8 4.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.3 4.1 3.9 4-2 4.8 4.4 4.1 4-2 4.1 4.5 3.9 4.0 6.3 4.3 3.9 U.o 4.3 3.8 4-5 3-4 3.9 4.0 4-3 4-1 3.9 4-2 4.7 4-4 1. Information supplied by the L athrop-Faulson Company in private correspondence of Kay 8, 1952. 66 The size of the r e c e i vi ng tank should be large enough to permit continuous d u m p i n g without delay, w h i c h is usu al ly from two to three times as large as the w e i g h can* A l t h ou gh usually not a t t ai n ed in a plant for a p e r i o d of over 15 minutes, the m a x i m u m rate of d u m p i n g for an average of 5 cans per p r o d u c e r is (7*1 cans per minute) x (60 pounds p e r can)= Lj.26 pounds p e r minute, or 25»£60 pounds p e r hour. the m a n y v ar iables involved, it is difficult to determine the smallest size of r e c e i v i n g tank needed. studied, Because of In the plants the 1500 p o un d r e c e iv in g tank was large enough for the 7^0 p o u n d w e i g h can, and the 1000 p o u nd receiving tank was large e n o u g h for the 500 p o u n d weigh can. The r e c e i v i n g room should be w el l- l ig ht ed to add to the comfort of the workmen. c lean and neat. A we ll -l i gh te d room is usually kept A n example of a pro pe rl y lighted receiving room by natural and artificial light is shown in Fig. 6. 67 Pig. 6. A Properly Lighted Receiving Room Wi t h Natural and Artificial Light The cost of operation of the conveyor, weigh can re­ ceiving tank, Fig. 7. scales, and dumping accessories is shown in The cost of operation includes the cost of labor for cleaning the equipment and for dumping the milk. Pig. 8 shows the unit cost per 100 pounds of m ilk for the opera­ tion. The data for the total and unit cost of the various operations are included in the appendix. 6& YEARLY C OST DOLLARS DAILY C O ST DOLLARS 4 CAPACITY, LB/DAY K5000 100,000 2 80,000 4000 60,000 IO 40,000 - 3000 8 20,000 6 — 2000 4 - IOOO 2 8 0 % OF MILK IN LB. LESS LOTS THAN 5 0 0 5 0 % O F MILK IN LB. L E S S LOTS THAN 5 00 500 W E IG H FIG. 7. 700 CAN 900 C A PA CITY, LBS. TO TA L COST OF OPERATION OF CONVEYOR, DUMPING ACCESSORIES, WEIGH CAN , S C ALES, AND RECEIVING TANK CWH 4 /2 6 /5 2 69 COST IO O PER LB. DOLLARS 0 .0 4 ” CAPACITY, LB/DAY 0 .0 3 — 40,000 0.02 — 100.0Q Q 0 . 0 1 — 8 0 % OF MILK IN LESS THAN 8 0 0 L0. L O T S 5 0 % OF MILK IN LESS THAN 5 00 LB. LOTS 0.002“ 500 WEIGH FIG. 8 . 700 CAN 900 CAPACITY, L B S . U N IT COST OF OPERATION OF C O N V E Y O R , DUMPING ACCESSORIES, WEIGH CAN, SC ALES, AND RECEIVING TANK CWH 4 /2 6 /5 2 70 3- Stralght-away c a n w a s h e r . The capacity of the can washers v a r i e d greatly in different dairies, ranging from 6 to II4. can p e r minute capacities in the plants studied. The size of c an wash er which should be installed is limited by the rate at w h i c h the cans c a n be dumped at the weigh can. one- ma n op er at i on was m u c h more efficient than the two- t h r e e- ma n op eration for receiving. or One m an can easily handle up to 80,000 pounds of milk per day. Even though more labor, usua ll y expressed in man-minutes per 100 cans, for larger rec e iv in g stations, The is required it m a y be imperative to speed up the r e c e i v i n g operation so that the processing which fol­ lows the re ceiving of the milk is not slowed down. The rate of dumping, where the cans from the truck and the w e i g h can are not the limiting factors, is shown in Tables XV and XVI, and Pig. 9Table XV. Number of workers Rate of Dumping, CFM, for Average number minute Dairy 2.5 can 5 can ( 1 ) producer producer A F E H G 1 2 2 3 3 (1) (2) 5.2 6.5 8.7 8.9 8.7 7.1 7.9 9.7 10.0 9.7 (a) Manual weighing (b) Vacuum or hand sampling of cans per for ________ Worker's 7*5 can 10 can tasks producer producer (2 ) 7-6 8.5 10.00 10.5 10.0 8.2 8.9 10.3 10.9 10.3 A B( 2) B( 1) C(l) C( 2) See A cpendix for tyoical layouts of dairy equip­ ment concerned, excluding equipment sizes. See Table XIII for description of tasks of workers in different layout arrangements. i 71 Table XVI. Number of workers Rate of Dumping, Average number minute 2.5 can 5 can producer producer D a ir y (1) 1 2 2 A F L E G 3 CPM, for (a) Print-weigh (b) Vacuum or hand sampling 6.6 7-2 P.? P.9 of cans per for W o r k e r 1a 7.5 10 can tasks producer producer (2) 8#J* 8.3 10.0 10.5 10.0 7.9 P.U 9.7 10.0 9.7 e.7 8.8 9.2 10.3 10.9 10.3 A 3(2) 2(1) C(l) C(2) See previous table for description of (1) and (2) The ra te s in g , fe d is s iz e shown and in th e used to fo r g iv e s s iz e th e o p e ra tin g of th e is b e in g fo r of or can It Is c a p a c ity be XV a n d X V I . c a p a c ity tw o - d u m n in g r a t e s . ra te T a b le s washer o o e ra tio n an can w asher m ust re c o rd in g in to not of a d u rin g th re e -m a n w asher th e o u t, to th a n th e th e re w e ig h in g to or s e le c t la rg e r a re The and o p e ra tio n s . to th e no w e ig h cans can w asher s a m p lin g T a b le p e rm it a d u m p in g s a m p lin g , o p e ra tio n . n e c e s s a ry n e c e s s a ry equal W h ile c a rrie d o n e -m a n la rg e r X V II d e s ira b le can w asher w ith th a n th e d u m p in g w o rk e r. i STANDARD TIME MIN. PER DUMP 73 Table XVII. Can washer size CPM 6 8 10 12 D u m p i n g Rates Obtainable w ith Different Sizes of Can Washers in CPM, Manual Operation, Five Cans per Producer One-man operation Two- ma n operation T hr ee-man operation 5.5(1) 6.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 5.6 7.3 8.9 9.7 9.7 5.8 7.7 9.5 10.3 10.3 The size of can washer can be selected on the basis of the data in Tables XV and XVI which give the standard rate of dumping the cans. From these data it is evident that the eight or ten-can-per-minute washer will suffice for a typi­ cal one m a n operation in Michigan. A can washer larger than ten cans per minute cannot be justified and would be an u n ­ economical investment. A six-can-per-minute washer would be too slow to utilize fully the working ability of one man. A twelve-can-oer-minute washer would be recommended for a twoor three-man operation. In order to select an economical can washer, and 11. see Fig. 10 The size of dairy Is considered In determining the correct selection. The labor requirement charged against the can washer Includes preparing the unit for operation, cleaning the area between loads, and the daily cleaning of 1. The calculated value Is 5-0 CPM. however, one operator was able to obtain 5-5 CPM by moving a can Into c,he washer with an extra movement of his arm between the time of sampling and the time of recording the weight. i DAILY COST YEARLY DOLLARS COST DOLLARS LBS / DAY 4000 I 00,000 80,000 3000 , * 60 00 40 2000 20,000 5 - IOOO 6 8 CAN 10 WASHER 14 12 C A PA CITY, CPM 16 FIG. 1 0 . T O TA L COST OF O P E R A T IO N OF S TR A IG H T-A W A Y CAN WASHER CWH 4/24/52 C O ST . PER IO O LB. DOLLARS LB. / D A Y 03 H 20,000 .02 40,000 60,000 80,000 JO I O O I 6 FIG . I 8 IO CAN W A S H E R II. T 12 C A P A C IT Y , I 14 CPM 16 U N I T C O S T OF O P E R A T IO N O F S T R A IG H T - AWAY CAN WASHER CWH 4/24/52 76 the can washer. In addition, if the c a n washer does not move the cans through as rapidly as the worker can dump them, a charge is made against the washer. For example, assume the w o r k e r can dump 7»1 cans per minute in a particular dairy. The six-can-per-minute washer will permit one to dump 5*5 cans per minute. In this example, the difference in time r e ­ quired for dumping the m ilk at 7-1 and 5*5 cans per minute was charged against the washer. I4.. Rotary can w a s h e r . The rotary can washer is usuall recommended for plants which handle less than 20,000 pounds of mi l k per day. The rotary can washer is built in three and six-can-per-minute capacities. The rotary can washer does not permit as efficient utilization of labor as the straight­ away washer, but has a m uch lower initial cost. One of the major dairy machinery companies claims that the three-can-per-minute rotary washer is as large a unit as one man can operate. dairy plant layouts. This Is undoubtedly true in some In an efficiently arranged layout, with conveyors going to and from the can washer, tests showed that one man can conveniently handle 5.85 cans per minute, or practic al ly 6 cans per minute. The entire cost of the receiving operation with the rotary washer can be calculated from Figs. 7 and 12. The data for both of these figures include charges for one man. 77 DAILY COST DOLLARS 20 YEARLY COST DOLLARS LB./DAY - -7 0 0 0 -6 0 0 0 15- - 4000 10-3 0 0 0 -2000 10.000 - IOOO C A PA CITY, F IG . 1 2 . TOTAL ROTARY COST CAN C PM OF OPERATION OF WASHER CWH 5/8/52 7P COST PER IO O LB. DOLLARS .05 LB. / D A Y .0 4 - .0 3 - .01 — C APA CITY FIG. 13. CPM U N IT COST OF OPERATION ROTARY CAN WASHER OF CWH 5 /8 /5 2 I 79 For the r o t ar y w a s h e r to be used efficiently, and the dump­ ing to be c a r r i e d out rapidly, a m i n i m u m of two m e n are needed in the r e c e i v i n g r o o m for a rotary c a n washer. The entire cost of operation for the two types of washers w h i c h includes all costs, can be compared for different sizes of dairies and d i fferent sizes of equipment, to use as a guide in s el ecting the proper can washer. 5* Conveyor. The desi gn of the conveyor equipment will often limit the e f f i c i e n c y of the other operations in the r e ­ cei vi n g room. In most plan ts w h er e both gravity and power conveyors were used, conveyors. the cans w o u l d lodge at the junction of the two The con ve yo r should be located on the same level or slightly above the truck bed to facilitate unloading. The incoming conveyor should be close to the empty can conveyor at the dump position, if the dumper is checking for quality, so that a short reject line is required (See Appendix, Fig. 3)In some plants considerable difficulty was encountered f r o m the cans p i n c h i n g at the dump. The least difficulty was observed w h e n the cans were dumped at a right angle to the conveyor. W h e n the cans were dumped in the direction of con ve yo r travel, the cans would p i n ch into the dump. The b et te r arrange me nt of the two possibilities is shown in Fig. llj. and Appendix, Fig. 3* k» 5* 6, 8. The length of the conveyor varied greatly In different plants. A n analysis of the optimum length of conveyor was I 80 carried out and is summarized in Pig. 15>. The results are based on rec ei vi n g a 100 can truck load, with the trucker u n ­ loading cans and loosening lids at the rate of seven cans per minute. Two minutes were allowed to move the truck to the empty c an conveyor from the unloading position. speed of fif te en cans pe r minute was assumed. A conveyor The time for e mptying the can for different incoming conveyor lengths from zero to n i n e t y feet for different dumping rates was cal­ c ulated and plotted. The total length of conveyor was ob­ tained by adding the incoming conveyor length to the empty can conv ey o r length ne c essary so that the d u m pi ng rate was not slowed down because of a n accumu la ti on of empty cans on the conveyor. The empty can conveyor includes the length of the washer. For a dumping rate of six cans per minute, the dumping time is the same, regardless of the length of incoming con­ veyor. W h e n e v e r the dumping rate is slower than the speed at which the trucker can unload, there is no advantage to a long incoming conveyor. A v e r y interesting and important relationship exists be­ tween the conveyor length and the dumping time at dumping rates whi c h are above the rate at w h ich cans are placed on the conveyor. per minute, For example, for a dumping rate of eight cans the dumping time is reduced from II4..3 to 12.5> minutes as the conveyor length is increased from zero to thirty feet in length. W he n the incoming conveyor is thirty 81 feet in length, a total conveyor length of 130 feet is r e ­ quired. As the length of the incoming conveyor is increased from thir ty to n i n e t y feet, the time required for dumping does not change, but the total length of conveyor required decreases from 130 feet to 118 feet. As the length of in­ coming conveyor increased, the number of cans remaining for the trucker to unload from the truck decreased. Thus, the trucker could u n lo ad the cans, move the truck to the empty can conveyor, and remove cans from the empty can conveyor sooner th a n if a short incoming conveyor is used. The total conveyor length is decreased as the length of the incoming conveyor is increased beyond thirty feet for a dumping rate of eight cans per minute. In a large operation, with more than one man in the re ­ ceiving room, where the trucks arrive at the plant on a schedule so as to prevent receiving room delays, the trucker c a n unload the cans without loosening lids, at a rate of ten cans per minute. Another trucker can loosen the lids. A rate of ten cans per minute is fast enough to keep the dump­ er suoplied w ith cans in most operations. If the truckers cannot help each other, a double Incoming conveyor could be constructed with a Y-feed at the dump. Two trucks could be u n l o ad in g at the same time, although the dumper would take only one load at a time. Such a procedure would require long Incoming conveyors. i CAN DUMPING RATE 100 6 CPM 16“ 100 14 “ DUMPING “ TIME 12 - 8 CPM MINUTES 100 FOR 10 “ 100 CANS - 138 10 CPM 144 100 134 145 12 CPM 14 CPM 4- NUMBER REPRESENTS TOTAL CONVEYOR LENGTH INCLUDING CAN WASHER, CANS ( | I | | 15 30 45 60 LENGTH OF INCOMING CONVEYOR, FIG. 15. RELATIONSHIP DIFFERENT OF DUMPING TIME LENGTHS OF NECESSARY, CWH 90 7/ 1/52 CANS AND INCOMING CONVEYOR CONVEYOR LENGTH FOR AND DIFFERENT 83 Fig. 11±. Cans D u m p e d at Right Angles to the Conveyor Long empty c a n conveyors often require the truck driver to wait for an excessive length of time for the emp­ ty cans for small loads. This is often of particular im­ portance in the spring of the year when the truck driver may have half-loads because of highway load regulations. Long conveyors, as shown in Fig. 16, m a y require eight minutes for the cans to travel its length. To speed can delivery to the truck, the truck drivers would often lift the cans over one of the conveyor loops, so that the can would travel only one-half of the empty can conveyor length. A cross-over could be designed into the system to facilitate the mo v e ­ ment of the cans. A Fig. 16. 6. a ll in O v e r-a ll la b o r te rm s w h ic h of th e d a ir ie s th e num ber e ffic ie n c y e ffic ie n c y re p re s e n ts s e v e ra l w ith Long E m p t y C a n C o n v e y o r (130 f t . ) in th e a v e ra g e w h ic h th e o r e tic a l o f m en b e i n g w e re re c e iv in g re c e iv in g m a n -m in u te s an of re q u ire d to tru c k e rs lo a d . s tu d ie d e x p e c te d e m p lo y e d room a re la b o r fo r th e ro o m . can The be h a n d le lis te d exp ressed 100 The in r e q u ire m e n ts o p e ra tio n . o ver­ cans, re s u lts T a b le fo r of X V III th e 85 Table XVIII, Over-all Labor Eff ic ie nc y of Receiving Rooms (Manual w e i g h i n g and recording) Goal A c tu al for 5 Major performSize o f ca n p r o d ­ causes ance Cans per can ucers, Workers for Num be r D a i r y m a n - m i n minute washer, m a n - m i n tasks delays workers 100 ca ns ob ta in ed CPM 100 cans (1) (2) 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 h A B C D E F G H I J(3) 17-9 16.6 21.8 18.2 30.U 35.0 3^.2 31.2 78.6 58.8 5.6 6.0 U.6 5*5 6.6 5.7 8.8 9.6 10 12 8 6 7 13 14 13 3 1U.1 1U .1 ll+.l li+.l 20.6 20.6 30.0 30.0 51.2 A A A A B( 1) B( 2) C(2) C(l) (U) a b c d e f g h 1 J a Low cap ac it y clarifier, cans not supplied to dumper r a p i d l y enough, can wash er lid discharge not f u n c t i o n i n g pr op er ly b. Can washe r lid feed not fun ct io ni ng properly, cans p i n c h e d w h e n dumping c. V a c u u m sampler used inefficiently d Small can w a s h e r e Cans supplied to washer too slow, small can washer f Same p e r so n d u m pi ng and weighing; sampler should we igh g Cans suprlied to wash.r too slov.’lj for multiplem a n re ce iv in g room, m a n loosening lids not fully occupied h Cans supplied to dumper too slowly i Not a continuous operation, small rotary can washer j Grader not f u l ly occupied 1. See A p p e n di x Fig. 1 to 9 for typical layouts of d airy equipment. 2. See Table XIII for description of worker*s taska 3. French, Charles E., o p . c 1t . , p . 6. k. One grader, 1 d u m p e r , ’ 1 weight recorder, 1 sampler 86 B. M any d i f f e r e n t a re in p o s s ib le th is th e s e c tio n c o m b in a tio n out in th e of th e Room O p e r a t i o n s s e le c tio n s and p ro c e s s in g ro o m . s h o u ld d e s ig n of ite m s la y o u t o p e ra tio n . The in g ta n k s e le c te d o p e ra tio n . s h o u ld of th e tim e and is P ig . in 1. s e d im e n t th e ta n k is p la n t. re c e iv in g The a c a p a c ity th e c la rifie r pum p p l a c e d c la rifie r • lis ts a tte n tio n fro m back p la n t th e c o m p le te ly re c e iv ­ speed s to ra g e of fo r g iv e in to th e th e b a s is c a rry in c lu d e d Check of to th e of ta n k s speed u tiliz © th e of th e fo r c le a n in g , v a rio u s in c lu d in g ite m s of th e d a iry tim e fo r m a c h in e ry 52. and th e The (S e e of is a fte r fro m F ig . th e is 2 0 ,0 0 0 ta n k c o ld (S e e m ilk u s u a lly m ay be p la c e d F ig . as it p la c e d 1) is in b e tw e e n so t h a t b ro u g h t or near th e in to th e 1 9 )• c la rifie r g e n e ra lly pounds re g u la te d th e c la rifie r s to ra g e c la rifie r la rg e s t has w ill e c o n o m ic a l c a p a c ity ta n k s on th e in c lu d e d m ost a re b a s is e q u ip m e n t w o rk e rs . rem o ved room on th e w h ic h a s s e m b ly , The g iv e n e q u ip m e n t C la rifie r . r e c e iv in g c o rre c t s to ra g e s e le c te d re q u ire d d is a s s e m b ly shown be be of c h a rts th e e q u ip m e n t. th e The o r p ro c e s s in g a b ilitie s The be th e s h o u ld s h o u ld The S u g g e s tio n s th e fro m b o ttle r b o ttlin g w h ic h a rra n g e m e n ts s e le c tin g w ith e q u ip m e n t re c e iv in g to in o p e ra tio n s . p a r tic u la r and a id e q u ip m e n t d e s ire d im p ro v in g P ro c e s s in g by per th e re c e iv in g used in h o u r. The p o s itiv e ta n k and th e d a iry p la n t c a p a c ity d is p la c e m e n t ju s t b e fo re th e of th 87 The o p tim u m o p e ra tio n per is 7«1 p ro d u cer. can, d u m o in g cans W ith d u m p in g at a P la n ts d e fin ite ly c la rifie r la b o r le s s th a n n in g is In d u m p in g per o n ly an h o u r a is In of th a t is of over la b o r. by th e g a llo n ro o m . c e iv in g ta n k c la rify in g m ilk c o n v e n tio n a l The and ta n k m ilk tru c k d e liv e r ie s . w o u ld e lim in a te th e d u rin g of th e th e w h ile c la jrJ L fie r of u s in g th e ru n ­ c la rifie r, m ilk to m ilk m an a g e m e n t. pound d e la y s a h a n d lin g u n p ro cessed t h e o p t im u m re c e iv in g is r e c e iv in g a flo o r th e of c o u ld n e c e s s a ry ta n k w ith th e re ­ fro m th e re ­ of w a itin g room b e lo w m ilk pounds a rac e t o 36,000 p o u n d s c la rifie d , it 8000 th e fro m fro m u n p ro cessed is re c e iv e s n e c e s s ity per of th a n s m a ll th re e -m a n on s iz e lo s t or w ith in A la rg e r m ilk of and lo c a te d cans some m a tte r m e d iu m of in c a p a c ity im p o r ta n t m o re v a lu e 1500 c la rifie r can keep or e q u iv a le n t tw o - fiv e m ilk d u m p in g th e o p e ra tio n is of s e rio u s M o re w o rker re c e iv in g re c e iv in g of a s m a ll pounds of pounds ra te is re c e iv in g 2 5 *5 60 p o u n d p e r h o u r because The th e th e raw a v e ra g e s ix ty not t v e re p la n ts w ith w h ere re p la c e re c e iv in g d a iry 10.0 CPM, w h i c h c e iv in g by of an down b e c a u s e th irty -fiv e th re e -m a n h o u r. 1000 fo r The T h is ta n k o v e rlo o k e d o p e ra tio n , to is re c e iv in g o fte n a o n e -m a n m an u a l 7»1 C F M , a s lo w e d in a 80,000 p o u n d s p e r d a y . ta k e s fo r of s m a ll. re q u ire m e n t th e it nay to o m in u te re q u ire d . s ta n d p o in t, la b o r as is be fo r a v e ra g e ra te w o u ld is per an c la rifie r ra te th e fo r d u m p in g fa rm be u s e d , s to ra g e a ta n k w h ic h as a ta n k . i 88 The clarifier ma y also be plac ed before or a f t e r the homogenizer, as the m i l k leaves the storage on the w a y to be pasteurized. The total and unit cost of operation of a c l a r i f i e r are shown in Figs. 17 and 18. The cost includes s u p e rv is io n amounting to one-tenth of the o p eration time. As long as a p r e ce di ng or f ol lowing o p e r a ti on is not hindered, the small clarifier w i t h a capacity of £ 00 0 pounds per hour is the most economical for dairies h a n d l i n g up to £0,000 pounds per day. The m e d i u m sized clarifier, capacity of 12,000 pounds per hour, with a is the most economical for dairies with a daily c apacity of from £0,000 to 90,000 pounds. For large dairies, w it h a capacity above 9 0 , 0 0 0 pounds per day, the 20,000 pound per hour cl arifier is most economical. If a 20,000 pound per hour clarifier is used in a oneman receiving room, the clarifier would have to be penalized for dela yi ng that operation. including the pen al ty for are shown In Appendix The results of calculations delaying the receiving o p e r a t i o n Table X, w h i c h illustrates the I m ­ portance of considering the other operations when planning. The total cost is smaller for the larger machine b e c au se the cost of the labor saved Is more than enough to pay f or the added initial and operating costs. The total cost w o u l d be smaller for a clarifier w ith a capacity u p pounds per hour, to about 2 £ , 0 0 0 depending upon the cost of a larger clarifier. 89 D A IL Y C O S T DOLLARS YEARLY C O S T DOLLARS LB./DAY 6 100,000 - - 2,000 - 1 ,5 0 0 - 1,000 60.000 5 - 4 - 2 - - 500 I- T I ["T1 I 5000 FIG. IT I T M^ " T • I r » 1 0 ,0 0 0 l5 p O O C A P A C IT Y , L B / HR TOTAL C O S T OF OF C L A R IF IE R i i r 20PO O O P E R A T IO N C WH 4/26 /5 2 90 CO ST PER IO O LB. DO LLA R S LB./OAY .0 5 - .0 4 - .02- .Ol - 60.000 80.000 1 0 0 .0 0 0 5000 FIG. 1 8 . 10,000 CAPACITY, U N IT C O S T O F OF C L A R IF IE R 1 5 ,0 0 0 2 0 ,0 0 0 L B /H R O P E R A T IO N CWH 4/26/52 A s t a n d a r d i z i n g c l a r i f i e r will be of great value in increasing the e f f i c i e n c y of the r e c e i v i n g o p e r a ti on w h e n the m ilk is c o l l e c t e d in a tank truck. It cannot be used for the pre se nt t e n gal l on can r e c e i v i n g room operations, be­ cause all of the m i l k fed into the unit must have the same test. I Pig. 19. 2. E q u ip me nt Located in the R e c e i v in g Room Filter. The cost of f i l t e r i n g can be compared to t of c l a r i f y i n g w i t h o ut rega rd to the amount of sediment r e ­ moved. The capacities of the filters normally go up to 30,000 pounds p e r hour, and w o u l d not retar d the one-man r e c e i v ­ ing operation. Figs. 20 and 21 show the total and unit cost of filtering milk, w h i c h includes a charge for a m o t o r and positive pump. 92 DAILY COST YEA RLY C O ST DOLLARS DOLLARS - 2000 - IOOO 5 - 4 LB. / D A Y 2 - 1 0 ,0 0 0 2 0 ,0 0 0 3 0 ,0 0 0 CAPACITY, L B / H R FIG. 2 0 . T O T A L F IL T E R C O ST OF OPERATION OF CWH 6 /1 6 /5 2 93 COST IO O PE R LB. DOLLARS LB./DAY O.OI - 0 .0 0 5 - 60,000 100,000 i i...... — 10,000 2 0 ,0 0 0 C A PA CITY , FIG. 2 1 . U N IT COST 1 i 3 0 ,0 0 0 L B /H R OF OPERATION OF F IL T E R CWH 6 /1 6 /5 2 9k F i l t e r i n g is ab out o n e - h a l f as exp en si ve as c l a r i f y i n g because a f i l te r costs about o n e - s i x t h as m u c h as a c l a r i ­ fier, w i t h the d a i ly f i x e d costs b e i n g two dollars less, and the labor r e q u i r e d to c l e a n a filt er bei ng ab out o n e - f i f t h as great as for a clarifier. The cost is not the only fac to r to be considered. The m i l k shou ld be f i l t e r e d while cold so that none of the sediment d is solves in the milk. C r e a m m u st be f i l t er ed hot (170° F . ) to p r e v e n t the f i lt er f ro m c l o g gi ng (1). 3. R a w m i l k pl ate c o o l e r . u se d f o r s t o r a ge , before w i t h o u t refrigeration, it is p l a c e d in the s t o ra g e u s u a l l y used for this cooling. h i g h efficiency, W h e n a n insulated the m i l k is cooled tank. A plate tank is A p late cooler is cooler is compact, has a n d because the n u m b e r of plates can be e a s i l y changed has great flexibility. The c o o l i n g is u s u a ll y done w i t h sweet w a t e r because of its economy. not n e c e s s a r y to cool m o r e It is u s u a l l y t han ten degrees F. The c l e a n i n g time u se d for the c alculations an e n t i r e l y m a n u a l c l e a n i n g operation, ing c i r c u l a t i n g me thods. is based on that is, with ou t u s ­ M a n u a l c l e a n i n g Is r e q ui re d once a w e e k w h e n the c l e a n i n g is done da lly w i t h ci r c u l a t o r y methods (2). The p l at e s of the cooler have about one-third the area as the HTST p a s t e u r i z i n g plates. f or c l e a n i n g a c oo l e r plate The time required Is 0.28 minutes. Y~. Far r a i l , A. W., D a i r y E n g i n e e r i n g , John W i le y and Sons, New York, 191+2, nn. 325-3267 2. The M i c h i g a n M i l k Ordinance, Bureau of Dairying, Lansing, Michigan, 19k%> does not per mi t re ci r c u l a t o r y cleaning. On p. 17 Is stated, "Equipment shall be d i s a s ­ sem bl e d and w a s h e d after each op eration and - - The total and u n it cost of* o p e r a t i o n of the r a w milk cooler for a one -m an continuous r e c e i v i n g o p e r a t i o n shown in Figs. 22 and 23- There is little difference are in the total cost for either a 10,000 or 20,000 pounds per hour plate c o ol er for a 2 0 , 00 0 p o u n d dairy. For dairies wi t h capacities above 2 0 , 0 0 0 pounds per day, up to 1 00,000 pounds p er day, the 2 0,0 0 0 p o u n d p e r h our coo le r is the m o s t e con­ omical for a one -m an r e c e i v i n g operation, in spite of the fact that the dumper is slowed d ow n slightly. I4.. Storage t a n k . storage tanks: There are three general types of the Insulated, the cold wall, and the insu la ­ ted w i t h e x p a n s i o n coils p l a c e d in the milk. The storage tanks c a n also be d i v i d e d into vertical and h o r i z on ta l tanks, u s u a l l y cy li nd r ic al in shape. The total and unit cost of o p e r at io n of the three types of h o r i z on ta l storages are shown in Figs. There 2I4. and 2f?. is little difference in the total cost of op era­ tion b e t w e e n the cold wall refrigerated tank and the stor­ age tank w i t h e x p a n s i o n (DX) coils. in the cold w al l tank, If sweet water is used the total cost of op er at io n is reduced s i x t e e n per cent. The cost of u s ing the insulated tank and the cooler m a y be a dded together to compare their cost of op eration w it h the r e f r i ge r at ed tank. The time required to clean the storage tanks was given special attention. The time of cleaning storage tanks is D A IL Y COST YEARLY DOLLARS 96 C OST DOLLARS 4000 IO LB./DAY 93000 876- -2000 543- 2 - I OOO - 3 0 ,0 0 0 10,000 4 0 ,0 0 0 C A PA CITY, L B /H R FIG. 2 2 . TO TAL RAW COST M ILK OF PLA TE OPERATION OF COOLER CWH 5 /2 6 /5 2 J C O S T PER 1 0 0 LB. DOLLARS 0 .0 3 0.02 0.01 - L & / D A Y - 60,000 100.000 1 0 ,0 0 0 3 0 ,0 0 0 CAPACITY, L B /H R FIG. 2 3 . U N IT RAW COST M IL K OF OPERATION PLATE OF COOLER CWH 5/26/52 98 shown in Pig. 26. The small 600 gallon storage tank r e ­ quired more time Tor cl eaning than the 1000 gallon tank. difference This is attributed to the difference in diameter, which affects the ease of cleaning. The 3000 gallon storage tanks are m an u f a c t u r e d in 82; inch and 96 inch diameters, and these two tanks sell for the same price. All the tanks above 3000 gallons have a diameter of 96 inches. The 81;-inch diameter 3000-gallon tank required five minutes less to clean per day than the 9 6 - inch diameter tank. These figures would certainly not apply to all workmen, regardless of height, who c l e an the tanks, but it represents an average time r e ­ quired of workers who were bet we en 5 ft. 8 in. and 6 ft. tall. The saving in cleaning labor for the 82;-Inch diameter tanks must be balanced against the additional building space required in comparison to the 9 6 - i n c h diameter tank. The annual and life saving of the 82;-inch diameter tank as comt pared to the 9 6 - i n c h diameter tank are shown in Table XIX. Table XIX. Saving in Operational Cost of 82;-Inch Biameter Compared .*/ith a 9 6 - I n c h Di am et er Horizontal M i lk Storage Tank. (See App en di x Table V for a complete analysis.) Note: None of the storage tanks above 3000 gallons are made In 82;-inch diameter at the present time. Capacity 81; in. dla. (gallons) 3000 2;000 9000 6000 Annual Saving Dollars 62.00 29.92 - 7.30 -29.90 " ~ life (I F y r T T Saving Dollars 1116 U99 - 131 - 2;99 99 DAILY COST YEARLY DOLLARS COST DOLLARS 10 - - 3000 2000 IO O O IOOO 3000 C A PA CITY, 5000 GAL. FIG. 2 4 . T O T A L COST OF O PE R A TIO N H O R IZ O N T A L STORAGE TANK OF CWH 5/1/52 100 CO ST IO O PER LB. D O LLA R S 0 .0 6 - 0 .0 5 - 0 .0 4 - 0 .0 3 - 0.02 J C O lL OJOI - T T IOOO FIG. 2 5 . T T 3000 5000 C A P A C ITY , GALLONS UNIT CO ST HORIZONTAL O N E FILLING OF O PERATIO N STORAGE DAILY OF TANK C W H 5 /1 /5 2 101 The d a i ry p lant o p e r a t o r can justify the s a v i n g in labor, even tho ug h more f l o o r area is required for tanks up to and incl ud in g 1^.000 g a l l o n capacity. For tanks w ith a capacity above lj.000 g al l o n the added area r e q u i r e d for the 8lj.-inch dia me te r tank is m o r e c o s t ly than the labor saving at 1952 prices. It m a y not be n e c e s s a r y to change the tank diameters in order to save c l e a n i n g labor. The times us e d in Fig. were taken from operators u s i n g their own and not methods. 26 improved Ey u s in ? a c l e a n i n g brush with a long handle, and improving the technique of cleaning, it might be possible to clean the large di a me te r tanks as rapidly as the small diameter tanks. The storage tanks w i t h direct expansion coils required from seven to ten minutes m o r e time per day for cleaning. The additional labor cost is offset by a smaller refrigera­ tion cost in co mp arison to the cold wall tank. ease and comfort of cleaning, tamination, However, the and the p o s s i b i l i t y of con­ if improperly cleaned, are factors w h i c h should be considered. T he v e r t i c a l c y l i n d r i c a l storage tank offers a p ossibil­ ity of saving floor area. The number of d a iry plants using v ertical storage tanks w i t h capacities over 2 000 gallon is limited. The dail y c l e a n i n g saving for the vertical tank, for c i t h e r b o t t o m ^r tor omening, was four minutes. The d a ily total fixed cost for a 2000 gallon vertical storage ✓, 102 M IN U T E S PER D AY ✓ / 50 - 9 6 " dio. w it h D X coils 40 - 30 - 8 4 " dio. 20 IO - - IOOO 2000 3000 C A P A C IT Y , 4000 5000 GALLONS 6000 FIG. 2 6 . T IM E R E Q U IR E D TO CLEAN H O R IZ O N T A L STO R A G E TANK GWH 5 /1 /5 2 103 tank Is $1.92 as c o m p a r e d to $ 2 . 05 Tor the horizontal tank. The total d a i l y savi ng of the 2000 gal lo n v e r t ic al tank is $0.25, w h i c h amounts lars. to a y e a r l y saving of ninety-one d o l ­ In plants where b ot h h o r i z o n t a l and vertical storages of 2000 gal l on c a p a c i t y were used, v ertical storage. the workers f a v o re d the The r o o m c e i l i n g heig h t m ust be considered for the large v e r ti ca l storages. A b ou t two m i n ut e s more were r e q u i r e d f o r c l e a n i n g the 1000 g a l l o n with an outside f i n i s h of stainless steel In c o m p a r i s o n to the enamel finish. The use of air for m i x i n g the m i l k in storage tanks of­ fers a m e t h o d of d e c r e a s i n g the e n e r g y re quirements for m i x ­ ing and for s h o r t e n i n g the time r e q u i r e d for agitation. W h e n u s i n g m e c h a n i c a l agitation, twenty minutes is usua ll y r e q u ir ed to agitate a tank of m i l k with a two hor se po we r Pig. YZ 27. Stork, A C u t -a w ay View Showing Air A g i t a t i o n in a Storage T ank (1) ftalph E., "Air A g i t at io n of Milk," Milk Z - — r-' ^ 10k motor. W i t h air a g i t a ti on (See Fig. 27) it takes about three minutes and requires one-half h o r s ep o we r m o t o r (1 ). 5* Internal tube h e a t e r . Milk m a y be standardized for butterfat by m i x i n g the correct p r o p o r t i o n of low and high test raw milk. A m ore common method, w h e n p e r m it t ed by law (2) is to separate the cream from the skim m ilk and make the milk at the correct test by add i ng cream or skim milk. For separation, m i l k is u s u a l l y heated to 90° F. If the milk is to be vat pasteurized, (3)* it m a y be heated to llj.0o F. The internal tube heater is generally used for heating the m i l k before separation. shown in Figs. The total and unit costs are 28 and 29, and are based on hea ti ng the milk from I4.O0 to 90° F. A steam hea ti ng efficiency of 75 P©** cent was us e d for the basis of the calculations. The a m o u n ts c le a n in g to 1 .2 0 tim e m in u te s depends per on th e num ber of tu b e s and tu b e . Stork, R a l p h E., o p . c l t . p . 36. F o u t s , E . L., a n d T. R . F r e e m a n , D a i r y M a n u f a c t u r P r o c e s s e s , W i l e y a n d S o n s , N . Y», 19^8"^ p * 107 • See d i s c u s s i o n u n d e r s e p a r a t i o n . 1. 2. ln g I 105 DAILY COST YE A R LY D O LLAR S COST DOLLARS LB./OAY 40.000 - 3000 30,000 - 20,000 - 5000 COST IN T E R N A L HEATING L B /H R OF TUBE F R O M IOOO 10,000 C A P A C IT Y , FIG. 2 8 . TOTAL 2000 40 OPERATION OF HEATER T O 9 0 * F. CWH 6/4/52 COST 106 PER 100 LB. DOLLARS LB./OAY 0 .0 3 — 10,000 20,000 30.000 40.000 0.02 0.01 - ~ i 5000 CAPACITY, FIG. 2 9 . UNIT COST IN T E R N A L HEATING I 1 0 ,0 0 0 L B /H R OF OPERATION TUBE F R O M 40 OF H E A TE R TO 9 0 *F. CWH 6/4/52 107 6. Separator. The total and unit costs or the opera­ tion of the separator are shown in Figs, separating m i l k at 90° F, 30 and 31 for The costs are shown for separation rates up to 11,000 pounds per hour. O ne -tenth of the total operating time was charged against the ope ra ti on as super­ v i so ry labor. This could be attained with one separator and h e at er o p e r a t i n g together. some plants Eowever, the supervisory time in is as h i g h as one-third to one-half of the operating time w h e n two or more separators are connected together. The 3.S00 p o u n d per h o u r w a r m m i lk separator is the most economical for volumes up to and including 15*000 pounds per day; the 7*000 p o u nd per hour separator is the most economi­ cal for 20,000 to 1+0,000 pounds per day; the 11,000 pound per hour separator for volumes above 40,000 p o u nd per day. For cold m i lk separation, the 2,000 pound per hour unit is the most economical for volumes up to 10,000 pounds per day; the 4 , 0 00 pounds p er hour unit for from 10,000 to 20,000 pounds per day; the 6,000 pounds per hour unit for volumes above 20,000 pounds per day. The 3,500 pound p e r hour separator requires three-fourths of an hour for cl eaning and the 11,000 po und per hour separa­ tor requires seven-eighths of an hour for cleaning, which amounts to a co nsiderable charge to the operation. The larger separator does not require proportionately more labor for cleaning. 4 108 DAILY COST YEARLY COST DOLLARS DOLLARS LB./DAY h~ 3 0 0 C \ 8 “ \9 \ 7 - \o — 250C LB./DAY 6 - — 200< 5— 5,000 — 1500 3— — IOO< hCOLO MILK H E A T E O I I IOOO F IG . i 3000 i I 5000 C A P A C IT Y , 3 0 . TOTAL COST SEPARATOR 501 T O I 90»F. i J 7000 L B /H R OF ' id,ooo' O P E R A T IO N OF CWH 4/15/52 109 C O S T PER I O O LB. DOLLARS LB O . I O - / D A Y LB./DAY 5,000 009 - 5,00 0 008 - 0 .0 7 - 006 10,000 0 .0 5 - 004 - 10,000 15,000 15,000 0 .0 3 - .£0,000 20,000 0.02 30,000 - 40.0 0 . 0 1 - COLD HEA TED IOOO F IG . 31 . 3000 U N IT MILK T O 50*00 ' 7 0 0 0 C A P A C IT Y , L B / H R COST OF 90* • F. | i 10,000 O P E R A T IO N OF SEPARATOR G W H 4 /1 5 /5 2 110 There are several possibilities of reducing the clean­ ing time. There should be a parts rack u p o n wh ich the parts can be plac ed as they are washed and on w h i c h the parts can be rinsed. The narts rack should be near the separator. A separator for a dairy plant w h i c h would not have to be taken apart e v e r y day for cleaning should be the prime objective of manufacturers. A drain should be close to the separator because of the long p er i o d of time required for washing, d u r ­ ing w h i c h the water is running. The possibility of decr ea s­ ing the c l e a n i n g time by h a v in g two m e n w ork together while c leaning the discs should be investigated. Cold m i l k separation is coming into use. of the separator at 1+0° F. The capacity is a p pr oximately fifty-five per cent of the capacity at 90° F. The problems a ux il ia ry equipment as heating, cooling, as floo r space requirements, involved w it h and piping, as well are considerably less with a cold milk separator. The conventional and cold milk separator can be com­ p a re d by referring to the data in Fig. 30* If it is ne ces­ sary to separate 20,000 pound of milk per day at the rate of 11,000 pounds per hour, the fo llowing da ily costs are obtained: (a ) Separation at 90° -F* Cost ot separating, 11,000 lb. per hr. = $$.01+ Cost of hea ti ng » k*97 Total (not including cooling) 10.01 i Ill (b) C old M il k Separation, U.0° F . tfeed two s e p a r a t o r s T each at 5500 lb per hr. Cost of each for 10,000 lb. per day = U..&5 T o ta l cost =s 9.70 The advantage in f a v o r of cold m i l k separation w o ul d be g r ea te r if cold m i l k separators were available in larger sizes to eliminate the n e c e s s i t y of m ore than one unit. The clean­ ing time required for a unit twice as large could be ex­ p e c t e d to be o n e-sixth greater. 7• HTST Homogenlzer. In the continuous process using the (1) p a s t e u r i z a t i o n ope r at io n the m ilk is heated in the first stage, then it is homoge n iz ed at a temperature b e tw ee n 130° and II4.90 F. The m i l k goes to the plate heaters f or p a s t e u r i z a t i o n a f t e r homogenization. W i t h this arrangement the capacities of each should be the same. H o m o g e n iz at i on of m i l k is carried out at 2000 to 2500 poun ds per square inch pressure. The cost of ho m o g e n i z a ­ t i o n could be reduced seve nt ee n per cent w ith the 2000 gal­ l o n p e r hour unit w h e n h o m o g en iz in g 14.0,000 pounds per day at 1000 pounds per square inch. A n experimental valve de­ sign ed to homogenize at pressures of 1000 pounds per square i nc h has b een studied, and offers considerable promise (2). Not only will a saving in electrical energy result, but a s a vi ng in floor space a nd Initial cost will be realized. The total cost of o p e r a ti on includes a labor charge of o n e - t h i r d of the ope r at in g time for supervision. It appears 371 H 1 gh-1emperature short-time ( See explanation in Glossary) 2. Loo, Ching, The U tilization of Cavitation for Homogenization, U n p u b l i s h e d Doctor of Philosophy disserta­ tion, M i c hi ga n State College, 1952, p. 73- 112 that the s u p e r v is or y time could be reduced co nsiderably by u s in g a pressure re gu la te d control valve to ass are constant pressure at the homogenizer. T h i r t y minutes are required for cleaning the 500 gallon per h o u r unit and forty minutes for cleaning the 2000 gallon p e r h o u r unit. Thirty-two per cent of the cl eaning time is devoted to a s s e m b l i n g the unit for use. A parts rack should be close to the h o m o g e n i z e r for h o l di ng the parts as the h o m o g e n i z e r is disassembled. Manufacturers have done m u c h to improve the ease of cleaning the fcomogenizer. M u c h more can be done. The cost of h o m o g e ni za ti on is shown in Figs. 32 and 33. The cost p e r 100 pounds ranges from $0,011 to $0,095* This agrees w i t h the estimated cost stated by Fouts at 0.10 to 0.20 cents p er quart (1). The cost is important because m a n y dairies charge an extra cent per quart for homogenized milk. 8. P as te ur iz at i on by the h o ld in g p r o c e s s . In this process the m i l k is p l a c e d in vats, heated to ll|.20 F. and h e ld at that temperature for thirty minutes to accomplish p asteurization. The m i l k may be p re heated before it is p l a c e d in vats. Three types of vats are used: the coil vat, the w at e r - j a c k e t e d vat, and the spray jacketed vat. these three Of types the coil vat is not b e i ng installed Yl Fouts, E. L., and T. R. Freeman, Da iry Manufacturing P r o c e s s e s , W i l e y and Sons, N. Y. , 19U^» p. 155* 113 YEARLY COST DOLLARS D A IL Y C O S T DOLLARS 30 h-10,000 20 LB./DAY 5 ,0 0 0 100,000 80,000 IO 60, 000 40,000 20J IO 5POO 1500 IO O O C A P A C IT Y , G A L ./H R . 500 FIG. 3 2 . 2000 TOTAL COST OF OPERATION OF H O M O G E N IZ E R CWH 4/6/52 114 COST PER IOO L B ., D O L L A R S LB./DAY O.IO 5,000 10,000 0 .0 5 20,000 40,000 80,000 0.01 500 IOOO C A P A C IT Y , 1500 G A L ./H R . 2000 FIG. 3 3 . U NIT COST OF OPERATION OF HOM OG ENIZER CWH 4/6/52 I 115 extensively and is favored because it heats the milk r a p i d ­ ly with low temperature water. The m ilk is usua ll y cooled over a surface cooler after batch pasteurization. The total and unit costs of operation of the hol di ng vats are shown in Pigs. 3U ®-nd 35 for heating and cooling through 120° F. and 100° P. The 120° F. temperature d i f­ ference is used for cream whereas the 100° F. temperature difference is used for milk. The process tank is less ex­ pensive to operate than the coil vat because of a lower initial cost and a lower building charge, whi ch makes the fixed costs lower. The utilities for h e a ti ng and cooling are more costly for the coil vat because its efficiency is 75-6 per cent as compared to 89 per cent for the jacketed unit. In addition, the labor for cleaning the coil vat is twice as great as that for the jacketed vessel, as is shown in Fig. 52. As the heat transfer rate through the coil vat is only two-thirds that of the process tank, the area of heat transfer of each piece of equipment was calculated, and the coil vat was penalized for the extra heating time r e ­ quired. It is difficult to select the correct number and size of holding vats. For small batches it is best to have a small p asteurizer rather than to fill a large unit partially. The cost of the operation of the various sized units with different numbers of fillings can be compared by use of the cost charts. The pasteurizers are normally filled three or four times a day. 116 DAILY COST DOLLARS YEARLY COST DOLLARS m u l t i p l y 1 2 0 * F. 4 0 - o a t a BY OBTAIN f o r 0J93 V A L U E S I O O • F. -15,000 T O FOR DIFFERENCE N U M B E R OF FILLINGS DAILY 3 0 - k 10,00 0 20 - h- 5,000 10- HEATING A N D REGENERATIVE IOO 300 5 and 1.19 h o u r s , respectively, exclusive of cleaning between different p r o d u c t s . Five min utes are required for cleaning b e t w e e n d i f f e r e n t products. One and one-half minutes are required for c h a n g i n g the filler f rom quarts to half-pints, and vice-versa. One fifth of the cleaning time of a f i l l e r Is in getting a hose and rinsing the inside of t h e bowl. series of clea ning jets placed inside the b o w l end of the day. as A would de­ crease the cleaning time and add to the c o m f o r t w o r k e r between runs of different products, consumed o f the w e l l as at the 135 P r o p e r l y p l a c e d case conveyors to the storage room, and an adequate space Tor h o l d i n g the fille d bottles, neces sary to utilize labor efficiently. are The e m p t y bottle conveyor from the w a s h e r to the b o t t l e r should be covered to prevent f o r e i g n m a t e r i a l from d r o pping Into the c l ean b o t ­ tles. The conveyors m ust be the correct height to prevent work e r fatigue. The cost of the b o t t l i n g operations In Pig. J4.2 is based on a n e n t i r e l y m a n u a l h a n d l i n g of the bottles f r o m the filler to the cases. The need for r e d u c i n g the labor requirements at the filler has been r e c o g n i z e d by the equipment industry. Dottles m a y be equipped with shoulders w h i c h m a y later be utilized for me c h a n i c a l handling. A semi-automatic c a s i n g system has been developed which an oper ator can use to Increase his as the Vapes system, casing rate. Known Fig. I4I4., it consists of a device w h i c h will enable the operator to case 120 to ll+O bottles per minute, thus d o u bling his w o r k i n g rate (1 ). New h a n d l i n g m e t hods w h i c h will increase the rate of casing, and reduce breakage, d a iry industry. will Inevitably be used in the This factor m ust be considered in selecting new p r o c e s s i n g equipment, not only the filler. Pood 1. Engineering, ” Bottle Handlers Cut Labor, June, 19 52, pp. 127, I8I4-. Breakage,” 136 Fig. Ijlj-. 12. The Mapes S y s t e m of C asi n g Pottles (1) Paper carton former and T i l l e r . M u c h discussion has e v o l v e d around the adv antages and disadvantages of the use of p a p e r cartons for milk containers. w i l l be l i m i t e d to tangible f a c t u a l data. The discussion At present, only a l i m i t e d number of cotrroanies m a n u f a c t u r e the carton f il­ lers, five w h i c h are made in capacities of f r o m twenty to sixtycartons per minute. F r o m the data shown in Figs. paner and ij.6 the cost of the c a r t o n forming and f i l l i n g m a c h i n e operation can be compared 1. to the entire bottle f i l l i n g and bottle washing O p . cIt. 137 DAILY C O S T DOLLARS YEARLY COST DOLLARS IOOOLB ./D A Y 100,000 800-2 8 0 ,0 0 0 8 0 ,0 0 0 600- 400- 200,000 4 0 ,0 0 0 - 120,000 20,000 20010,000 5^0Q.Q_ _ F IL L E R F IL L E R CARTONS FIG. 4 5 . TO TA L COST PAPER 90% RENTED PURCHASED 40 20 PER OF CARTON OF M IL K IN - 4 0 ,0 0 0 60 M IN U T E OPERA TIO N M IL K OF F IL L E R QUARTS CWH 5/26/52 138 COST PER IO O LB. DOLLARS 5 ,0 0 0 L B ./D A Y 5 ,0 0 0 10,000 10,000 i.oo8 0 ,0 0 0 0 .5 0 - 20 CARTONS F IG . 46. U N IT Fl L L E R RENTED FI L L E R PURCHASED 40 PER COST PAPER 9 0 % OF OF CARTON M IL K IN 60 M IN U T E O P E R A T IO N M IL K OF F IL L E R QUARTS CWH 5/26/52 ^ 139 operation. The paper carton operation costs approxi mately $0.61j- more per 100 pounds of m i l k than the glass Tilling operation, and flO.^Ji more p er hundred pounds of m i l k than the glass filling and bottle w a s h i n g operation. ference The dif­ in cost has been realized by the dairies and has re­ sulted in a charge of an extra cent a quart for m il k in the paper carton. Two methods machines. are used for f i n a n c i n g the paper carton They may be purchased or rented. The permanence of the use of the paper carton in the dairy industry was not seen at first. machines. Consequently, most dairies rented their The cost is considerably a purchased machine, cheaper, however, for if it is used throughout its life. unit cost per 100 pounds The is from & 0.05 to $0.10 more for the rented machine. U s u ally an attempt is made to reduce the cost of opera­ tions by replacing a series of operations with one operation. In the case of the paper filler the production costs have increased, and the item has stayed on the market because of customer acceptance, in spite of a higher price. The higher cost of operation is attributed to the fact that the single service paper containers, whose initial cost Is less than glass bottles makes only one trip. The total cost of a quart paper carton is $0.0001 for closing wire, May, and $0.002£ for wax (1). 1. Based on operational costs of a medium-sized dairy, 1952. The c l e a n i n g time filler. Is p r a c t i c a l l y the same as the glass The sixty-five c a r t o n p e r minute m a c h i n e requires 1.10 hours per d a y for cle aning. The labor req u i r e m e n t s could be r e d u c e d by i n c r e a s i n g the e a s e of a s s e m b l y and d i s a s ­ sembly of parts. Further, l a b o r saving could be made by r e ­ ducing the s up e r v i s i o n n e c e s s a r y while the m a c h i n e ating. is o p e r ­ The employee cannot c o n v e n i e n t l y supervise the ma c hine o p e r a t i o n and case the cartons at the same time, ca n be done w i t h the glass f i l l e r . as Further r e d u c t i o n In labor r e q u i r e m e n t can be m ade by l a v i n g the cartons and a c ­ cessories stored close to the machine. rect height, Conveyors of the c o r ­ placed so the c a s e r can quickly Inspect the height of m i l k in the cartons are necessary. handle 6^ quarts in the One m a n can c a r t o n p e r minute. The p a per cartons mus t be stored in a roo m wit h a t e m ­ perature of 75>° F., and a r e l a t i v e humidity of i|0 per cent. The cost for cases and case h a n d l i n g is less oer paper c a r ­ ton than for glass bottles b e c a u s e the same case is used for quarts and half-pints. A substanti al r e d u c t i o n of the cost of the o p e r a t i o n of the c a r t o n filler to compete w ith the glass op e r a t i o n on an economical basis will be m a d e possible only through a re ­ du c t i o n in the conta iner cost. be developed this In the future, seems doubtful. Less expensive containers m a y but w i t h increasing p aper costs, A s u b s t a n t i a l reduction in the cost of the c a r t o n per quart could be accomplished by con- li+1 c e n t r a t i n g the milk. A l t h o u g h consumer acceptance of milk c o n c e ntrated to one-third of* its original volume was not sati s f a c t o r y in tests d u r i n g 19U9 and 1950 along the Pastern coast, Dortunitie s tles. such a procedure would offer excellent op- for r e d u c i n g the cost to compete w i t h glass bot­ The carto n cost per quart could not be reduced great­ ly by u s i n g h a l f - g a l l o n containers (1). 13. Pipe line and a c c e s s o r i e s . line and accessories cludes is shown in Fig. The 5l• cost of the pipe The total cost in­ interest ana d ep r e c i a t i o n on the pipe line, valves, couplings, elbows, and labor required for cleaning, ted on the basis of a sur vey of those items several plants. plant to plant, c a l cula­ included in The length of pipe line will vary from but the values included are for plants wh ich are consider ed to be well-designed. The total daily cost of a pipe line for a 60,000 pounds per day dairy is $13.1|7 of w h i c h $1 2 .9 0 , or ninety-five ner cent is for cleaning labor. Seventy-five per cent of the cleaning time is re ­ quired for the assembly and disassembly of the pipe line. A q u i c k - coupling would be of great value for decreasing the labor requirements and increasing the ease of employee's work. The time required to clean different pipe line lengths and fittings is shown in Fig. 1+7 • 1. Based on price list A-10, June 25, 1^52, the International Paper Company, N. Y. 17, N. Y., quotes quart containers at $10.1+0 per thousand, and half-gallon containers at $19»B0 per thousand. FirS LINE ACCESSORIES inutes 0 .9 1 4 ------ Cleaning valve Tine in Inutes 0.5 0.677 Connect pipe with hexagonal nut and gasket (Add 50$ fo r placing parts on rack) 0.4 0.3 - 0.2 - 0.300 ------ Disasse mble sex agonal nut and piping 0 .1 6 1 -----0.147 0.115 -----0.030 ------ e.i ..ash L and place in rack Nash T and place in rack per 10 f t . of walking with ..ash cap [pipe (Data calculated f r o 01 at least fifty read infs for encn iter.) -r 1 i 1--- 1 i--- 1--- ' --- 1--- r 2 - 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Length of pipe, fe e t FIG. 47. TP'S LS"FIRED TO CLEAN PIPE LI! i---10 :p :d accessories in a dairy 143 It will be p o s s i b l e to reduce tbe c l e a n i n g time c o n ­ s i d e r a b l y by u s i n g oipe w h i c h c an be c l e a n e d in place by r e c i r c u l a t i n g methods. Fased on the d a t a of Table XXI, and a s s u m i n g a n equal investment for glass and stainless steel lines, glass lines c l e a n e d by r e c i r c u l a t o r y methods w ould n e r m i t a daily s a v i n g of &8.90 for a 60,000 p o unds p er day dairy in c o m p a r i s o n to stainless steel lines. Present h e a l t h r e g u l a t I o n s do not p e r m i t u n i v e r s a l use of p e r m a n e n t glass lines. Table XXI. C o m p a r a t i v e Time for C l e a n i n g P e r m anent Glass and C o n v e n t i o n a l Stainless Steel Lines (1) Length, ft. 40 Relative Steel vs. time glass 1/1 2/1 3/1 100 200 900 1000 4/1 S/1 1. Flelschman, F. F., Jr., and E. F. Holland, 11Permane nt Fine Lines Cut C l e an ing C o s t s , ” Food E n g i n e e r i n g , November, 19 91, nr. 98-60. iso C. Bott le W a s h i n g R oo m Glass bottle w a s h i n g . P r a c t i c a l l y all plants use a soa k e r - t y p e bott le w a s h e r w h i c h Immerses the bottles s t r o n g a l k a l i s o l u t i o n Tor a b o u t f i f t e e n minutes. in a Figs. i+8 and I4.9 s how the total and unit cost of o p e r ation of a soaker bottle a nd case washer. The costs include the help n e c e s ­ sary in r e c e i v i n g the empty bottles and a charge for brok e n bottles of four out of a t h o u s a n d for quart bottles, plus utilities. T h e cost bottles a n d cases. includes the cost of storage space for S e l e c t i o n of the washer should be based on its o p e r a t i o n in c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the bottler. The d e l a y time at the w a s h e r is controlled by the de ­ lay time at the bottler. fifteen minutes must be done have The b o t t l e r must be started about before the bottles P l a nni ng to assure the b o t t l i n g operation that it will the size of bottle desired, One m a n u s i n g good m e t h o d s per m i n u t e are needed. at the right time. c an feed 100 quart bottles into the bottle washer. a w a s h e r of a w i d t h in m u l t i p l e s In order to do this, of four bottles is most s a t i s f a c t o r y because four bott les are handled at a time. A r e d u c t i o n in labor r e q u i rements will be accomplished by automatic u n c a s i n g of the bottles w a s h e r (Fig. 5>0). and loading of the One p e r s o n w o u l d be required in the r e ­ c e i v i n g room to check and stack the bottles, same time supervise and at the the o p e r a t i o n of the automatic machine. 151 DAILY COST YEARLY DOLLARS COST DOLLARS LB. /D A Y - 4 0 ,0 0 0 IO O - O? - 3 0 ,0 0 0 - 20,000 - 10,000 50- 35 70 105 140 BOTTLES FIG. 4 8 . T O T A L 90% PE R COST BOTTLE OF 175 AND M IL K 210 245 M IN U T E OF O P E R A T IO N CASE IN OF WASHER QUARTS CWH 5/20/52 152 COST P E R IO O LB. DOLLARS LB . /D A Y 0 .2 4 - 0.22 - 0.2 0 0 .1 6 0 .0 8 0 .0 6 0 .0 4 0.02 - 20 0 IO O BOTTLES 140 200 PER M IN U T E 240 FIG. 4 9 . U N IT COST OF OPERATION OF B O T T L E AND CASE WASHER 9 0 % OF M IL K IN QUARTS CWH 5 /2 0 /5 J 153 A b o t t l e u n c a s e r a nd w a s h e r - l o a d e r has b e e n d e v e l o p e d w h i c h will o p e r a t e at c a p a c i t i e s up to 576 b o t tles p e r m i n u t e and is p r i c e d in v a r i o u s The a u t o m a t i c sizes to sell f r o m $ 1 1 , 0 0 0 to $ 2 0 ,000 (1). e q u ipmen t w o u l d p a y To r itself by the labor r e ­ p l a c e d in a three yea r period. RCA M i lk Sottue . U m c a SER a n d W a s h e r -L o a d e r P r m o ir u l ok O r e r a t io n to mg More om C4.es* co m ** Fig. 50. A u t o m a t i c U nit for U n c a s i n g the Bottles and L o a d i n g of the W a s h e r (2) 1. "Automatic U n c a s i n g and W a s h e r - L o a d i n g w i t h RCA Machine",H M i l k Plant M o n t h l y , May, 1952, pp. 22-23. 2. I b i d ., p . 23. D. R ef r i g e r a t e d Storage Ref r i g e r a t e d bottle and case s t o r a g e . The total cost of operation of the r efrigerated storage is shown in Pig- The area of the cool e r and the quan tity of re fr i g e r a t i o n 5>1. r e q uired were based on the experience of refr i g e r a t i o n engineers in industry (1). The r e f r i g e r a t i o n cost is based on the use of w o o d e n cases. The cost of conveyor and labor cost of f i l l i n g the cooler were loading-out was not included. ments, included, but the cost of The load-out labor r e q u i r e ­ nearly equal to the labor cost of loading-in, shown in Pig. are 5l. The p o s s i b i l i t y of r e d u c i n g the labor requirement cooler is excellent. load-out. in the The milk should be stacked for easy The cases should first be stacked away f r o m the conve yor and then stacked between the conveyor and stacked cases. Observations were made where the operator started s tacking cases next to the conveyor, cases for t he subsequent stacking. through the length of the storage across the width, far tv,en walked around the A c o n veyo r plac ed is more desirable than one so that tve cases need not be carried so . One p e r s o n can handle a storage r e c e iving 0,000 pounds per day in a six hour day with ninety per cent of milk in quarts, in a convenien tly arranged storage. Many plants use twice as much labor. YZ Kampman, W. J., "Principles of Mechanical R e f r igera­ tion," Creamery Fackage Co., ^ i m e o p g a p h of Dairy E n g i n e e r ­ ing Short Course, University of Illinois, 1 9 U 9 • L //-M L . I \S V /W 50 40 30 20 I } " - - - 10PIPE r.i ASS 20,000 60,000 SIZE OF DAIRY, GOST REFRIGERATED OF 80,000 LB / DAY OPERATION OF PIPELINE, STORAGE, $ LOAD- OUT OF CASES 15 5 FIG. 51. TOTAL ^ LINE l£6 E ven w ith a pallet system of handling, sary for a p e r s o n to place it would be n e c e s ­ the cases on the pallets. The time saving w ould come in loading-out the mil k to the d e ­ livery trucks. A labor saving of fifty per cent could be realized (1) by using pallets. A n over-all saving of five dollars a day could be made for a storage h a n d l i n g Lj.0,000 pounds per day. Fallet loaders are available in other industries, w h i c h place the cases on pallets. The use of a pallet loader is not desirable for the dairy plant because of the necessity of maki ng u p pallet loads for tv e delivery trucks of several different products. 1. See discussion of Materials handling in the Review of Literature. M IN U T E S 157 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 o P O S IT IV E - P U M P ------- 10.6 MIN. C E N T R IF U G A L P U M P — 6 .4 M IN . 0 2 0 ,0 0 0 CAN 4 0 ,0 0 0 6 0 ,0 0 0 8 0 ,0 0 0 (3 3 ) (20) L B /D A Y W ASHER 1 0 2000 4000 6000 860O ' lOjOOO LB/HR SEPARATOR 1----- 1----- 1----- r -----T - " f " ■T — T . . 1 ---- 1----T T 5000 1 0 ,0 0 0 1 5 ,0 0 0 L B /H R C L A R I F I E R . FI l T E R , IN T E R N A L T U B E H E A T E R H T S T P A S T E U R iZ E R "» 1 ----- 1 0 f -------- T-T------- " -r----1----- f-- 1---- 1------ r---- ]------ ?---- 1-- r----- ' O 500 W E IG H t -' ■ » -111-I 1-r ——i 1 -< 1 1 0 I ” f 1 I ' ' I"— 1 IOOO 1500 LB. C A N , R E C E IV IN G T A N K 500 IOOO H O M O G E N IZ E R r"r CAPACITY i -i 1 -1 1 1500 G A L /H R ---1 »---- 1---- *----T---- ?---- 1---- '---- 1---- '---- 1 o 200 460 600 PR OCESS T A N K , G C Il 800 G AL. CAP. VAT f------1-1-----r--1-- 1----'-1---1---- '---1---- r---1-r~— i--- 1---->--- 1-- 1--- 1--- ) (j 50 VACUUM BOTTLE Q 10,000 PLATE 15 0 IOO 2 0 0 0PM F IL L E R , C A R T O N F IL L E R W A SH ER ANO AREA 20,000 COOLER, 30,000 SURFACE lB/HR COOLER (N U M B E R IN P A R E N T H E S IS REPRESENTS PER CENT OF T O T A L T I M E REQUIREO FO R ASSEMBLY OF P A R TS ) FIG. 5 2 . T O T A L DAILY C LEANIN G TIME OF PIECES OF DAIRY EQUIPMENT VARIOUS 15?8 VII. A. 1. Cans CFECK LI S T Receiving Room P o m p ing should ■later o n the not p i n c h w h i l e floor dumping. s h o u l d d r a i n a w a y f r o m the o p e r a t o r . T o s e c u r e a r a n i d d u m n i n g r at e , t h e t r u c k e r s h o u l d l o o s e n t he c a n lids; t w o t r u c k e r s m a y w o r k t o g e t h e r in u n ­ l o a d i n g th e c a n s a n d l o o s e n i n g lids. If the t r u c k e r d o e s n o t t he d u m p i n g s h o u l d j u s t one. An a u t o m a t i c c a n lid at rates f a s t e r Cans l o o s e n t h e lid s, th e p e r s o n d o i n g l o o s e n s e v e r a l li ds at a ti me; no t l o o s e n e r s h o u l d be u s e d f o r r e c e i v i n g than 7»0 cans p e r minute. s h o u l d be p e r m i t t e d to d r a i n b e f o r e g o i n g in t o the w a s h e r ; a n e x t e n s i o n s h o u l d be p r o v i d e d o n the c a n w a s h e r to c a t c h the d r i p p i n g s f r o m t h e cans. 2. W e i g h can, scales, weighing, can sampling A s e l f - c l o s i n g v a l v e o n t^e w e i g h c a n s h o u l d be g i v e n c o n ­ sideration. T h e r e is j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r a s e l f - c l o s ­ i n g v a l v e o n th e w e i g h can, p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r a m u l t i n l e m a n operation. An a i r - o nerated valve the w e i g h e r . The A s h o u l d be u s e d to l i g h t e n the w o r k of c o r r e c t s i z e of s c a l e s a n d w e i g h c a n s h o u l d be s e l e c t e d a c c o r d i n g th e the s i z e of a a i r 7yT a n d the s i ze of the producers. scales i n s t a l l e d In a dairy should e i c h e r 75>0 o r 1 0 0 0 m o u n d s . i p e r m a n e n t t a b l e s h o u l d be p l a c e d tion for recording weights. A foot-operated w e i g h can valve sideration . have near control a capacity t^e of sampling posi­ should receive con­ 15>9 The r e c e i v i n g t a n k n e e d not be m o r e t h a n t h r e e t i m e s as l a r g e as t h e w e i g h can; a r e c e i v i n g t a n k t w o t i m e s l a r g e as t h e w e i g h c a n is u s u a l l y s u f f i c i e n t . There The as is l i t t l e j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r a 1 0 0 0 p o u n d w e i g h c a n u n l e s s t h e p l a n t h a s a c a p a c i t y of 6 0 , 0 0 0 p o u n d s o r m o r e p e r d a y w i t h f i f t y p e r c en t of t h e p r o d u c e r s s h i p p i n g l e s s t h a n 5?00 p o u n d lo ts . u s e o f a p r i n t - w e i g h d e v i c e o n the s c a l e s s h o u l d s i d e r e d t o s p e e d u p t he r e c e i v i n g o p e r a t i o n . Che d i a l of t h e s c a l e s e a s y to r e a d . s h o u l d be p o s i t i o n e d so that be it con­ is A p e r m a n e n t p l a c e s h o u l d be p r o v i d e d f o r t h e w e i g h s h e e t s w h e r e t h e y c a n be k e p t in or d e r . In a t w o - m a n o p e r a t i o n , the w e i g h e r s h o u l d be a b l e to see c a n n u m b e r s e a s i l y , w i t h o u t t h e d u m p e r r e t a t i n g the can. D u m p e r s h o u l d be a b l e to see a v o i d r u n n i n g it over. ^ake receiving s u r e t h a t t h e r e are no o b s t a c l e s o b t a i n i n g the s am p l e . Ma n d u m p i n g the can washer washer. tank so t h a t he m a y to e n c o u n t e r w h e n c a n s s h o u l d be a b l e to see d i s c h a r g e f r o m to see if c a n s are o e i n g r e m o v e d f r o m the S a m p l e b o t t l e s s h o u l d be e a s y to o b t a i n , c l e a r l y m a r k e d , a n d f i t t e d w i t h a l i d w h i c h is e a s y to m a n i p u l a t e . h a n d s s h o u l d be u s e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y w h e n s a m p l i n g . 3. Doth Can washer Can washer should operate d u m p i n g sp e e d . The w a t e r a n d s t e a m v a l v e s the o p e r a t o r . as r a p i d l y as w o r k e r ’s n o r m a l should be w i t h i n e a s y r e a c h to s ee of The c a n w a s h e r s h o u l d be c h e c k e d r e g u l a r l y feeding through properly. if l i d s The s p e e d of the r e c e i v i n g o p e r a t i o n m a y be a f f e c t e d b y d i r e c t i o n in wh i ch the lids a r e t a k e n i n t o the w a s h e r . The c a p ( f l a t side) of the lid m a y be f e d Into the c a n w a s h e r to the r i g h t or left. T he lid rack from it is w i t h i n the c a n w a s h e r s h o u l d be e x t e n d e d e a s y r e a c h of the d u m p e r . so are th at 160 The s a f e t y d e v i c e s o n t h e c a n w a s h e r s h o u l d be c h e c k e d p e r i o d i c a l l y to p r e v e n t b r e a k a g e i n c a s e of a n o b s t r u c t Ion. Conveyor T he c o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n t he g r a v i t y c o n v e y o r a n d r o l l e r c o n v e y o r s h o u l d be c a r e f u l l y d e s i g n e d and p e r i o d i c a l l y i n s p e c t e d to p r e v e n t l o d g i n g of the c a n s . The p o s s i b i l i t y of i n c l u d i n g a c r o s s - o v e r b e t w e e n c o n v e y o r l o o n s to f a c i l i t a t e h a n d l i n g s m a l l t r a c k l o a d s s h o u l d be i n v e s t i g a t e d . The i n c o m i n g c o n v e y o r s h o u l d be h i g h e r t h a n t h e bed o f the The o u t g o i n g c o n v e y o r s h o u l d b e c l o s e to the i n c o m i n g c o n v e y o r , b u t t h e r e s h o u l d be s u f f i c i e n t a r e a f o r one t r u c k to be u n l o a d i n g a n d one t r u c k to be l o a d i n g at the s am e time. I n l a r g e o p e r a t i o n s , t he p o s s i b i l i t y of h a v i n g two i n c o m i n g c o n v e y o r s so t h a t t w o t r u c k s c o u l d u n l o a d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y s h o u l d be i n v e s t i g a t e d . Conveyors should not C o n v e y o r s s h o u l d be required. T he incoming and s e l e c t e d so Conveyors should "box in" arranged level with truck. slightly the w o r k m e n . so t h a t a short reject outgoing conveyor lengths t h a t t h e d u m p i n g w i l l not be or lubricated l in e is s h o u l d be be d e l a y e d . regulaiTy. The p i n c h i n g of th e c an s at th e d u m p c a n be e l i m i n a t e d d u m p i n g at r i g h t a n g l e s to the c o n v e y o r . by If the d u m p e r m u s t r e m o v e the lids, t he i n c o m i n g c o n v e y o r shoxild be a r r a n g e d so t h a t he c a n e a s i l y t r a v e l a r o u n d It. There s h o u l d be a c o n v e y o r c o n t r o l n e a r the u n l o a d i n g p l a t f o r m . for the truck driver ’Ti n i m i z e c o s t of c o n v e y o r s y s t e m b y u t i l i z i n g chain whenever possible. a single If c o n v e y o r goes to the o u t s i d e of cl e b u i l d i n g , a m e t h o d l o c k i n g the c a n p a s s d o o r s m u s t be p r o v i d e d . The d o o r s s h o u l d be e a s y to o n e n a i d cl o se . Conveyor should be p l a c e d about 30 to 32 in. above of the f lo o r. 161 5- General receiving room A t r u c k d o o r s h o u l d te p r o v i d e d w h i c h c a n be e i t h e r o p e n e d o r c l o s e d o r b o t h , f r o m t h e c a b o f t h e t r u c k to e l i m i n a t e t h e t r u c k e r f r o m g e t t i n g in a n d o u t o f the truck at the l o a d i n g and u n l o a d i n g p l a t f o r m . The h a n d l i n g o f t w o when designing g r a d e s of m i l k s h o u l d t h e r e c e i v i n g room. A wash basin be should in the r e c e i v i n g be considered r o o m for the dumper. The w a s h i n g o f t e n g a l l o n cans f r o m p r o c e s s i n g r o o m w h i c h m a y h a v e b e e n u s e d in o t h e r o p e r a t i o n s s h o u l d be c o n ­ sidered. T he total and u n i t as a g u i d e t o c o s t s of the o p e r a t i o n s h o u l d equipment selection. The r e c e i v i n g o p e r a t i o n s cessing ooerations. should be u s e d be b a l a n c e d w i t h The trucks b r i n g i n g interfere w i t h n o s it i o n s . in the m i l k f r o m the f a r m s the m i l k route l o a d i n g and The r e c e i v i n g r o o m s h o u l d be p l a n n e d so e a s i l y a d a p t e d to b u l k h a n d l i n g . that it the p r o ­ sh o u l d not return can If a s t o r a g e t a n k is p l a c e d in the r e c e i v i n g r o o m , s h o u l d be p r o v i d e d w i t h a d e q u a t e s iz e to m o v e through. be a door the t a n k a d e q u a t e v e n t i l a t i o n s h o u l d te p r o v i d e d — a m i n i m u m of 300 c u b i c f e e t p e r m i n u t e of a i r m o v e m e n t f o r e a c h c a n p e r miniate c a p a c i t y of the w a s h e r . W i n d o w s h o u l d be p l a c e d by the u n l o a d i n g p l a t f o r m t r u c k e r c a n s e e i n to the r e c e i v i n g room. The r e c e i v i n g r o o m s h o u l d be w e l l artificial light. lighted— natural so t h a t and the 162 B. 1. Frocessing Room Pump A p u m p o f a d e q u a t e c a p a c i t y s h o u l d be s e l e c t e d to m o v e the m i l k as r a o i d l y as t he m i l k is d u m p e d in th e r e c e i v i n g room. A p o s i t i v e p u m p is r e c o m m e n d e d in the r e c e i v i n g r o o m e x c e s s i v e m i l k loss. The centrifugal pump will s o m e m i l k in the r e c e i v i n g t a n k . 2. S t o r a g<— e to a v o i d leave tank A d e q u a t e c a p a c i t y s h o u l d be a v a i l a b l e f o r s t o r a g e . In one p l a n t s i x p e o p l e w e r e d e l a y e d f o r one a n d o n e - h a l f h o u r s in on e d a y b e c a u s e o f i n s u f f i c i e n t s t o r a g e . A storage 3. tank is n e e d e d which is e a s y to get into. Pomogenizer A.n a u t o m a t i c d e v i c e f o r a d j u s t i n g a n d m a i n t a i n i n g t h e h o m o g e n i z e r p r e s s u r e is n e e d e d to d e c r e a s e t he s u p e r v i s o r y t ime . E f f o r t s s h o u l d be assembly and directed toward d e c r e a s i n g the d i s a s s e m b l y of the u n i t . time of L o w p r e s s u r e ^ e a n s of h o m o g e n i z a t i o n offerp a m e t h o d of r e ­ d u c i n g th e p o w e r r e q u i r e m e n t s of h o m o g e n i z a t i o n . l_i. There Glass filler and carper s h o u l d be s u f f i c i e n t s p a c e a r o u n d few e m p t y cases and bottles. the The p o s s i b i l i t y of u s i n g r u b b e r b a s e c r a t e s the b o t t l e s to p r e v e n t b o t t l e b r e a k a g e S h o u l d be i n v e s t i g a t e d . The glass f i l l e r s of the r a t e d timed operated capacity. at about Cns m a n s h o u l d te a b l e to notties p e r minute. inspect and One m a n c as e quart should A foot operated re a b l e to £0 case conveyor control should p e r s o n d o i n p - the c a s i n g to r e l e a s e the s t o r a g e room. filler for a or a p a d u n d e r curing casing eighty per 60 to bottles cent quart per minute. be u s e d by the the c a s e s to go to 163 A water valve and d r a i n should be close to the filler b e ­ cause It Is ne c e s s a r y to wash and rinse the bottler several times a day. The h o o d i n g o p e r a t i o n should be checked r e g u l a r l y because it is the m a j o r source of delays at the filler. The bottle caps should be close to the place of use. The use of a s e l f - c l e a n i n g and/or r i n s i n g device for the filler should be investigated. 5>. There Paper carton former and filler is a tendency toward inefficiency and pape r fillers are used. Check efficien c y is being obtained. w h e n both the glass to see if m a x i m u m Tenting a carton filler costs about ten cents more per 100 pounds of m i l k than w h e n p u r c h a s i n g a carton filler, If the filler is used throughout Its life. Careful analysis should be made to determine which method of fi n a n c i n g a carton filler would be most economical in a parti c u l a r plant. paper carto n machine runs at about eighty per cent of its rated capacity. The naner cartons, wax, a d wire should be stored close to the filler. A two-wheeled cart is best for m o v i n g the supplies becaise it can be moved over a hose easier than a four wheeled cart. The carton should be inspected for fullness doing the casing. by the person Storage for paper cartons should be mainta i n e d at 75° F and [|0 ner cent relative humidity. 6. General p r o c e s s i n g room Equipment should be placed so that the pipes can be easily lined up for ass e m b l y There should be a m i n i m u m number of hexagonal nuts and connect i o n s . Instruments should be m o u n t e d where there Is no danger of brea k i n g while c l eaning eqiipment. Instruments and gages should be placed where they can be e a s i l y seen. 16/+ Flant should be designed to permit all p r o c e s s i n g on one floor. Dry storage should be near pr o c e s s i n g room. ihloor drains should be nroDerly placed so that w o r k m e n need not walk through water. Doors should be fitted so that they open and close easily. Doors to toilet rooms must not open into the p r o c essing room. Sills should slone down from the win d o w at a forty-five degree angle on the inside to prevent accumulation of dust. Milk leakage and wastage should be eliminated. The number of manufactured products should be held to a minimum. Too m a n y manufactured products will increase the unit cost of production. Dili: returned to the plant from the delivery routes should be utilized. The equipment should be laid out foi* function. An operation time schedule should be prepared. The processing should be done in one shift. C. -ottle w ashing v irh post cases should be used to prevent .ottle breakage. the bottle was h i n g room should be laid out so that one man can handle cases and bottles at the filler. Clean tottles should be protected from the contaminating spray of bottles being fed into the machine. A cover should be placed over the clean bottle conveyor to keep dirt from, falling into the bottles. A means should be provided for inspecting the cleanliness of the tottles. The bottle washer should be started from ten to fifteen minutes before the bottles ere needed at the filler. in extra case of empty bottles should be placed beside the bottle filler operator to supply tottles to replace the broken ones. In a twelve cottle wide washer there is room for four cases in front of the operator. 165 The conveyors and bottle equipment should be inspected for sharp edges which may scratch the bottles and later cause breakage. The conveyor line speed from the washer to the filler should be synchronized to nrevent clashing of bottles. The possibility of cushioning the w ork surfaces where bottles are handled should be investigated. D. Conveyors Refrigerated Storage should go all the way into the storage. A long narrow storage, comparatively sneaking, with the same conveyor for incoming and outgoing milk is desirable i1he crates should be placed away from the conveyor, thfe storage filled toward the conveyor. and then If there are nossibilities for expanding the business, the storage should be designed to be used for cases con­ taining quart bottles to be stacked five cases high, then may go to seven or eight cases high to expand the use of the storage; pints may go un to ten cases high. Loading-out time may ce reduced by use of pallets. Refrigerated storage designs should include consideration for present or future use of pallets for leading out. E. 1. Utilities Steam requirements The cleaning water should not be heated excessively for the first rinse. Open steam lines should be used for easy maintenance. Condensate should be returned to the boiler. Equipment should be used as close to rated capacity as possibl The feed water should be checked and treated conscientiously. The exhaust gas from the roiler should be checked to de­ termine efficiency of burning of the fuel and measures taken to improve utilization of fuel. The agitator in the regular pasteurizer should be started before heating to prevent burning-on. 166 The steam valve of the can washer should be turned off after use and between loads for some washers. heonomical boiler units should be selected. The initial cost of a single boiler is less expensive than ttoo smaller ones. The lower operating cost of two smaller boilers is o f t e n sufficient to balance the difference in initial cost because of seasonal variations in use. 2. Refrigerat ion two small compressors should be used instead cf one large one. One for sweet water, one for storage cooler. The method of h a n d l i n g the milk should be analyzed to minimize ope n i n g of the doors. Can-oass doors should be used whenever possible. Cold water should be used generously for cooling w hen available. 3. Water The use of a cooling tower for condensing water should be c ons i d e r e c . Valves should be used on the end of tv e cleaning hose for turnin? off and on. P. 1. Miscellaneous Items Cl eaning excessive r i n s i n g of the outsioe nbrts should be avoided. The equipment carts should be handled as little as possible. As carts are disassembled and washed, they should be placed on a wash rack on which the parts may be rinsed. W&ter should be convenient for cleaning &'d rinsing. The possibilities of using high velocity jets for clean­ ing equipment should be Investigated. The p o s s ibi l i t y of Placing the water hose on a self-wind­ ing reel should be Investigated. Prom three to four minutes are required to wrap the hose after use. A water valve should he placed on the cleaning end of tv e hose . The water hose should not cross an alley. 167 2. Mil k losses The dump rail In the r e c e i v i n g room should not be too high. Proper gasket connections on the pipe line and equipment should be used. The bottles should not be filled too full. A drip e x t ens i o n should be used on the w a s h e r to prevent the solids and fats from ent e r i n g the sewer. Adequate drainage of the m ilk can into the w e i g h can should be nrovided. Adequate use should be made of the milk returns. The clarifier and au x i l i a r y equipment should be large e n ough to take the m ilk from the r e c eiving can as quickly as It Is dumned so that milk will not run on the floor. 168 VIII. M A C H I N E R Y SELECTION It Is u s u a l l y necessary Tor an industry to justify changes In equipment by economical returns. i f i c a t i o n for a change At least, in equipment can be completed more intelligently If a dollar value of costs and returns available. These costs Include not onl\ the original cost of the equipment, labor, just­ floor space, utilities, One of the most popular is the difference but the difference in in etc. items in the jargon of m a n u ­ facturing concerns is "la cor saving." In order for labor saving to be profitable, ployed on another operation, once his original task is the w o r k e r must be gainfully em­ simnlIfled. There are beneficial changes which do not show a financial return. Changes that provide leisure, comfort of the worker, add to the and reduce the hazards of the worker, are often necessary even though the changes would not be justified from a purely economical analysis. The over-all process cost should be used as the econom­ ical basis of equipment selection. l'he same equipment would not be chosen for an operation in all plants, as an opera­ tion is only one part of the entire nrocess. to that of Table XXII, A form, similar filled out and totaled for several 169 CWH 8 /3 /6 2 fa ) Ta^lf XXII XJ>IIT COST ANALYSIS DA IK Y PLANT OPERATIONS P la n t Av 1 - Arrangement x’ro^ osal C h a rt H o. I E q u ip m e n t 1 2 3 4 I Type 5 6 2T37 j late 7 ’Torr.oK*n ire 1 10 11 C a p a c it y 75, 19 52 E s t im a t e d cost per 100 lb s * ( D o lla r s ) M is c e lla n e o u s I n f o r m a tio n Convent- 5 00 5 0,2 m i l k in icnal reigh can lots less 51" 3 trhign Can v ^ p ’i^r away 8 Cl M 20, 00*) 10 (Clar if i<“r yer hr Plat <■> Insul­ ated 9 J u n i* 0. 014 0* 0145 0.0104 0.014 6 0.0406 7 5 00 Is i Inclui ing cl-aning 0.0191 o i T'P:.: 9 1' c u *'r t g 1 H 6° 6 0 ■°Pi.r 9 1* quarts 9.1 01 3t'-> in . Ste^l I i p - 1 in Hass f iller Tacuurr ^ot tl- and case rash*' '3oa’pl2,000, salvage value = $700 Area requirement = 175 sq. ft. (other 25 sq. ft. can be u tilized for an other operation) Electrical c o n s u m p t i o n = 5 kwh. Steam co n s u m p t i o n = 15 P F P . Labor requirement, operating = 1 m a n per hour cleaning. = 1/2 hr. per day Daily op e rating time = L|_ hr. The annual operating; costs of each piece of equipment are summarized valid, in Table XXIII. For the comparison to be the present piece of equipment must be sold for $3*000. Otherwise, the annual cost of the depreciation and interest is greater than estimated. In addition, new piece of equipment must include the cost of instal­ lation . the cost of the X X II I it-ML ;JT SEaI-CI ION <3s tfi D a i r y P l a n t P la n n in g C a r l W. H a l l 173 Old E q u ip m e n t B 1E q u ip m e n t A• A n n u a l P lx e d C o s ta 1o T a x e s , ln s u r a n o e , a. 2. 4c 3 l x C ' 90 B u ild in g ( F i g * 5^ ) ( F ig . 55 ) b. E q u ip m e n t In te re s t, 4 a. B u ild in g bo E q u ip m e n t ( E ig • • 6 ) ( F i g . 57 ) I1 r 0 0 7 ■' _■ c r ’ 1 I 75 R e p a ir s , m a in t e n a n c e , % s u p p lie s , (Fig." 4 36 5 —' l_ 55 500 P70 1 75 16 0 55 750 1 32 0 4 c0 I 1463 °165 7555 2 5 55 (F lg © 57 ) 4 ) T o t a l F ix e d B, % A (F lg*53 ) b. E q u ip m e n t D e p r e c ia t io n , a. S. B u ild in g lic e n s e s , L C o s ts a. O p e r a t in g p > < c X b. C le a n in g , a s s e m b ly , d is a s s e m b ly 1 0 50 5 1Q 1 c° 145 1 7^7 A n n u a l P r o d u c t io n 1 o Labor C o s ts 2. E le c tr ic ity ( F ig « So S tea m 4. R e f r ig e r a t io n 6» V .a to r 6 O th e r, it e m is e i ( 5if ~ 5o ) r • n c '* } ( a ) ________________ o o __________________ (c)__________________ T o t a l P r o d u c t io n C. T o t a l A n n u a l O p e r a t in g C o s ts D. D iffe r e n c e C o s ts i n A n n u a l O p e r a t in g C o s ts , T je e s t E x p e n s iv e E q u ip m e n t I I 3 7 -/l 3 1 I 5 5 06 3 019 ^p/ 174 ANNUAL TAXES, AND NEW COST OF COST OF INSURANCE, L IC E N S E S ( D o lla r s ) BU ILD IN G (D o lla rs per cu.ft.) - 600 -o 4 .00 - - 500 - 400 3 .0 0 <*0, 5-, 2.00 - - 300 200 1.00- OO FIG . 5 3 . CHART FOR D E T E R M IN IN G A N N U A L COST OF T A X E S , I N S U R A N C E , AN D L IC E N S E S FOR B U IL D IN G C W H 5/22/52 175 NEW COST A N N U A L C O S T OF (1) TA X E S , IN S., L I C E N S E S (2) R E P A IR S , MAIN T . , S U P P L IE OF E Q U IP M E N T (D o lla rs ) (Dol la rs ) 2 5 ,0 0 0 “ -200 20.000 - 15 ,0 0 0 “ -4 0 0 10,000- -6 0 0 5,000 -8 0 0 - -1000 FIG. 5 4 . CHART FOR D E T E R M IN IN G ANNUAL COST OF ( I ) T A X E S , IN S U R A N C E , L IC E N S E S (2) R EPA IR S ,M A IN T E N A N C E , S U P P L IE S FOR E Q U IP M E N T C W H 5/22/52 4 Salvage Original Value D o lla rs per Cu.Ft. ANNUAL DEPRECIATION I.OO-i (Do I lars) 3.50 - 400 0.50 3.00 v 2.50 -300 2.00 1.50 1.00 -200 0.50 0 ■ Key FIG. 5 5 . CHART A FOR D E T E R M IN IN G B U IL D IN G THE ANNUAL D E P R E C IA T IO N 100 OF CWH 5 22/52 / 9/OT - SALVAGE O R IG IN A L VALUE VALUE D o lla rs ANNUAL DEPRECIATION Dol l a r s Dol l a r s 80003 0 ,0 0 0 - 6000- -200 4000- 20,0002000 - 0 -40 0 - 0,000600 800 OOO 200 FIG . 56. CHART OF FOR D E T E R M IN IN G D E P R E C IA T IO N OF ANNUAL COST E Q U IP M E N T CWH 5/21/52 S a lv a g e Original value value of of building building Dollars per cu. ft. D o lla rs per cu. ft. 300-1 . ANNUAL .v INTEREST Dollars 2.00 - 0 50 . - 400 1.00- -300 .00 0 -200 Key -100 DETERMINING FOR A BUILDING ANNUAL COST OF IN T E R E S T IN V E S T M E N T 5 23/52 / 178 GWH 179 SA LV AG E VALUE Dol I a r s O R IG IN A L VALUE ANNUAL IN T E R E S T IDollars) D o lla r s O-t - IOO 3 0 .0 0 0 — -200 -3 0 0 20,0005000- 400 500 10.000- 600 10,000J 700 800 900 Key IOOO FIG. 58. CHART COST FOR OF DETERMINING IN T E R E S T I NVESTMENT ON ANNUAL EQ U IP M E NT C W H 5/21/52 180 COST, D O L L A R S DAILY YEARLY E L E C T R IC IT Y WATTS HP. -0 .6 0 6000 H 200 5000- - -0 .5 0 -7 .5 I5 0 0 . 4 0 4 0 0 0 - - 5.0 - 4.0 030 3000o . Changing position of controls 186 1U3UL (a) Present M e t h o d Fig. 63. (b) Proposed Method Operation Analysis Chart 187 6. Redistributing the work 7. E l i m i n a t i n g unnecessary work 8. Ch anging equipment. A p r o d u c t i o n schedule should be developed, the one shown in Fig. 614-. similar to The operation analysis of each worker should be based on the o r o d u c t i o n schedule. can often be made work. Changes in the D r o a u c t i o n schedule to balance the The u t i l i t y use should also be balance, particularly for steam and electricity. electricity, Fig. 65 illustrates the steam, w a ter and refrigeration r e quired for the p r o ­ duction schedule shown in Fig. 6I4.. Consider balancing the utility requirements by: 1. C h a n g i n g oroduction schedule 2. C h a n g i n g equipment Ooerational plans and proposed layouts should be made for exoected future capacities. If this Is done, will be much easier and less expensive expansion to carry out. The operational plans should be recorded and the p roposed lay­ out photogr a p h e d so that new management personnel can be aware of the plans. 188 *?'' CAMfc OA'i * ■|r* *«'•»• C4»*C'tT » m i > ■Q»W» 'to l * Iit'OuTwt M «M**M c a m t tOA A O t TANK M O 9 <900 tAi_ (I*»00 t.a)C4PA« o o z o >- ta. z (E O >LU > 10 CPM W A SH ER LU Z o o e> o o v _ y A , ‘K 5 0 0 L B . S C A l lES 5 0 0 LB . W EK N CAN c □ --P. 0 . PU M P S A M P LE S O C L A R IF IE R DAIRY II A 11 ONE MAN RECEIVING ROOM SCALE= 1/4 "= r CWH 3/18/52 1 cr o >UJ > z o o < o I2 C P M W ASHER cr o >UJ ■> z o o o U l “D P. D. P U M P UJ cr < o IO O O LB 5 0 0 LB o o CWH 4/2/52 n F IG . 2 DA IR Y "B" R E C E IV IN G SCALES W EIGH CAN ONE M A N ROOM n PLATE COOLER cn Ui _i < o CO 8 CPM CLARIFIER W A S H E R Q. P. 0. P U M P CO ►— 02 UJ UJ > o z o IaJ FIG. 4. D A I R Y 1/4 ONE r MAN RECEIVING ROOM C W H 6/9/52 $ lu / 7 — rI CPM W A S H E R o o z o z 750 LB. W B G H CAN /'/lOOO / WEIGH FIG. 5 . DAIRY "E" RECEIVING I/4" = LB PRINT SCALE TWO ROOM MAN CWH 6 0 0 0 GAL. STORAGE PLATE COO LER CENTRIFUGAL P U M P 13 C P M WASHER o o UJ 500 LB. WEI GH CAN P L A T F O R M ELEVATED 18 INCHES N C O M I N G FIG. 6 . DAIRY ROOM CONVEYOR "F“ TWO MAN RECEIVING CWH 5/19/52 I/4 I o CPM o WA S H E R z 14 o CONVEYOR UJ 7 5 0 LB. WEIGH CAN INCOMING I00< Q. RECEIVING THREE ROOM MAN C W H 4/1/52 13 C P M WAS HER PIT a: o v z cr o o CENTRIFUGAL > o o PUMP o z o LU 5 0 0 LB. WEIGH CAN o ELEVATED cr S A M P L E FIG. 8. DAIRY ROOM ,/A" s »' " H M THREE RACK MAN RECEIVING CWH 5/19/52 W AS H TANK E L E V A T O R CAN S STACKED H E R E A F T E R 5 0 0 LB. PRINTWEIGH O U M P E D SCALES DUMP 3 C P M R O T A R Y 500 LB. D O U B L E WEIGH W A S H E R GAN □ C A N S CARRIED cr FILTER UJ L O A D I N G z o o P L A T F O R M o O o FIG. 9. DAIRY ROOM 1/4" * M n THREE MAN RECEIVING C W H 6/7/52 A p p e n d i x Table I M i l k F r o d u c t i o n on Farms by States, Wisc ons in New York Minnesota C alIf ornia Iowa P ennsy l v a n i a Mich iran 15,568,000,000 8 ,700 ,000,000 8,320,000,000 5,972,000,000 5,921,000,000 5,800,000,000 5,677,000,000 A p p e n d i x Table Number of M i l k Dealers 'Tew 1’ork 1 ennsylvania California Illinois Obio • ‘.uttor's Note: 19^9 19U9 (1) lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. II 'ey States, 19U9 (1) 19 37 1019 1002 956 656 T-'innesota and Wisconsin have only 5l5 and 616 milk dealers, respectively, these two states carry on extensive p r o c e s s i n g of milk, which is the reason that the number of milk dealers is low even thousrh the m ilk p r o d u c t i o n Is hiffh. (1 ) ublishin;-- Company, Dairy Industries C a t a l o g , Olsen A^nendix Table Economic Year 1920 1921 1922 1923 19 2*4 All c ommodities Foods Indexes for Different Items Pase : 1926 = 100 . Fuel an.d 1 i pjit ing Petals and metal products Pldg. naterials Labor 163.7 96.8 107.3 97.3 92.0 1*49 .*4 117.5 102.9 109.3 106.3 150.1 97.*4 97.3 108.7 102.3 102 9*4 89 95 99 103.2 101.7 100.0 9 *4.7 9 *4.1 95.*4 99 100 100 101 103 89.9 79.2 71. *4 77.0 86.2 101 9*4 95.7 95.7 9*|. *4 85.3 86.7 95.2 90.3 90.5 100 101 112 112 113 95.6 99. *i 9*4.8 103.2 121 133 156 176 185 15*1. k 97-6 96.7 137.*1 90.6 107.6 98.1 92.7 91.C 1929 1926 1927 1928 1929 103.5 100.0 95.*1 96.7 95.3 100.2 100.0 96.7 101.0 99.9 96.6 100.0 88.3 8*4.3 1930 1931 1^32 1933 193*4 66. *1 73.0 6*4.8 65.9 7*4.9 90.5 7*4 •6 61.0 60.6 70.5 78.5 67.5 70.3 66.3 73 -3 92.1 8*4.5 1939 1936 1937 1938 1Q 39 80.0 80.6 86.3 78.6 77.1 83.7 82 .1 85.5 73.6 70.*4 73.5 76.2 77.6 76.5 73.1 86.*4 87.0 19*;0 78 .6 71.3 19U1 19*4-2 19U3 19*1*4 87.3 98.8 103.1 10*4.0 62.7 99 .6 106.6 1 0 *4 . 9 71.7 76.2 78.6 19*4 3 19*46 19*47 105.8 1°U9 121.1 192.1 165.1 155.0 106.2 130.7 168.7 179.1 161.6 1950 161.5 166.2 19*48 87.6 III (1) 83.0 100.0 96.3 97.0 100.5 80.2 79.6 86.9 103.8 103.8 103.8 110.2 111.*4 115.5 90.1 10 * .7 13*4-2 131.7 10*4.7 115.5 195.0 163*6 170.2 132.6 123.7 135.0 1*40.0 133.2 173.6 1*46.5 80.8 83.0 6*4.0 117.8 82 82 97 1 $8 196 226 2*46 259 270 The Economic Almanac 1951-2, The (1) ’laclonal Industry Conference P o a r d , 2*47 Fark Avenue, New York, r:. Y. r>. 110. Appendix Table IV (1) Currents and ' Vattage or Various Types of Induction Motors at Full Load FF . 1 ... s inglephase 110 v . 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 5.6 10 20 30 1+9 616 1100 2200 3300 514-00 0.8 1.1+ 2.9 1+.3 6.6 7-5 67 69 130 176 212 7360 9800 114-300 191+00 23200 9.6 12.8 16.7 25.3 30.5 18600 260 296 336 362 26600 32760 37180 1+2020 37 •U 1+2. d 1+8.6 51+.9 26100 29600 33500 1+06 620 612 1220 1+1+660 66200 89320 131+200 56 .1+ 6 9 .O 35600 51+200 116 .0 175.0 116500 10.0 15.0 2u .0 2 b. c 30.0 35.0 1+0.0 1+5.o 5 o.o 75.0 100.0 150.0 Watts I threephase 1+1+0 v. Watts 1+88 855 1770 2620 14.030 [4.680 7800 111+00 151+00 22700 72000 (1) Ibbetson, W. S., :■lectrical 1 ovier L n ^ i n e e r s 1 handbook, ^liemical Fublishing Company oT- be w Fork, Inc . 30 > +97 13I+, source of current values. Arr-endix iatle V Daily Cost of Operation and caving of 84 in. and 96 in. Diameter Porizontal Insulated v'ilk Storage Tanks, dollars— yav 7, 1952 Capacity, gallons Diameter, Inches 3000 54 96 liOOO 64 96 64 6660 $Q0C 96 81; 96 Depreciation and interest on tanks Depreciation and interest on build in ms Taxes, insurances, licenses Repairs, maintenance, supplies 1.05 1.05 1.15 1.15 1.34 1.34 1.51 1.51 0.34 0.33 0.69 0.67 0.57 0.57 O .46 0.42 0.6 2 0.78 0.63 0.63' 0.58 0.50 0.99 0.93 0.73 0.73 0.68 0.59 1.14 1.06 0.82 0.82 Cleaning labor 0.67 1.07 1.25 0 -U•i—1 1.49 1.61 1.80 1.90 electricity 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 Total costs •5 Do 3.76 4.39 4.46 5.21 5.19 6.04 5.97 Annual yearly savins of 64 in. diameter Life (16 yr.) saving a. b. c. 62 25.55 1116 1|59 -7.30 -25.55 -131 -459 Labor at 91.75 Lame insulation and bolding temperature was assumed for both tanks Same initial cost for large and small diameter tank of the same capacity was assumed Appendix Table VI Conveyor, Weigh Can, Scales, L s o l v i n g Tank D imp i ng A c c •33 .r,r I 3 (One-Man Feceiving Operation) Daily Cost of Operation, Dollars--May 28,1982 STze“ of W e i h Can, lbs . ___________________________________________ 500 780 100Q T7 Flxe'cT’Costs Insurance, taxes, licenses 0.83 0.89 0.67 Denreciation and interest on building 0.09 0.10 0.07 Depreciation and interest on weigh can 0.28 0.81 0.87 0.20 Denreciation and Interest on scales 0.20 0.20 0.62 0.62 0.62 Denreciation and interest on conveyor Depreciation and Interest on 0.28 0.37 receiving tank 0.28 0.0? Denreciation and Interest on accessory 0.07 0.07 Fenairs, maintenance, sunnlies 0.70 0.79 0.68 Total fixed costs " 2.0 6 3.39 11. I reduction Costs (a) 50 uer cent of milk in less than 800 round lots 20, 000 pounds rer day 8 0 ,000 pounds rer day 60, 000 rounds rer day 80 ,000 rounds rer day 100, 000 rounds rer day (b) 68 per cent of milk In less 800 round lots mounds per day rounds rer d a y r ounds rer day pounds per day rounds per aay 7.73 9 .60 3.03 8 .60 6 .22 7-78 9.88 3.00 8 .76 6 .67 e .10 10.16 3.03 8*73 6.83 7.97 9.93 3.08 8-78 6.83 7.93 9.88 2.99 8*87 6.21 than (c ) 80 rer cent of milk in less than 500 pound lots 20.000 rounds rer day [4.0,000 rounds rer day 60.000 pounds rer day 80.000 rounds rer day 100,000 rounds rer day ill. Total Dost (a) 80 rer cent of milk 800 round lots 20.000 rounds 80.000 rounds 60.000 rounds 80.000 rounds 100,000 rounds 3.02 8-72 6.81 8 .09 10.09 3.09 3 .1 7 3 .1 3 8.Q8 8.08 8.09 6.72 6.71 6.68 6.86 6.89 6.88 10.38 10.28 10.28 in less dian rer day rer day rer day rer day rer day 8 .6[4 8*9^ 6.82 7*38 7•83 7.99 9.03 9.17 9*61 10.71 10.69 11.13 12.71 12.86 12.97 Anr.endix o CD 3 o O on O'd O noO-P- r\j o ® H k l> It ^ 3 o C O OO 0 o o o o o o p ® 0 0 0 00 3 3 P ct 311 3 X S O p 3 & O p 3 a to to OO O 3 3 P 3 3 3 a o* Pto CO CO H O O H, C + m 3 M O O O o 0 0 OO OO oo o p 00 0 3 P 3 3 3 3 3 O O0 0 0 H p 0 J p P O 3 3 3 3 3 ct q. co CO co h* H S' 1 3 3 1 '3 X "3 3 33 3 3 3 3 33 m 3 3 33 3 H p. p. a a a CD P P (D CD ts> ^ v* ^ p p a P- p p P P p P V) VJ VfV 3 ® 3 ® ® i1 ® CO CO 3 *••• t o o o o o o o o o o • • • * • o o o o o (— ' *— ' I— ' I— ' f\J U> O P o o o a o • • ♦ • • o o c o o H H H ro Vo U P O 'O G O O O o o « • I • • o o c o o H H H IVU P "V J W M U ) M 3 H 3 CO CO cn 1 O p 3 p p p p p . W3 0 tfl to CO CO CO mp 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 p p 3 ap 3 to H-to 3 p o- JD P CD CD p MO ^ ® h m -A 03 CO M CO P 3 Ct CD rr P M o cdo'P ro o ® O O O O O 3 to to to to to 0 OOOOOO o O O o o o p 0 0 0 0 0 3 P 3 3 ’3 33 O 0 O 0 OM p C p P p O 3 3 3 3 3 cr p p p p P co ® 3 ct o o o o o • ♦ * • • o o o o o HHHMW uj -P" .a m m o • o H c o • • o o H H VtjXr O >31 3 to CO 00 00CO M 3 13 3 3 H X ® ® ® ® O 3 3 3 3 3 M 3 p> P* P p p P*P* CD JD JD M vj 03< ® ® <5 cd o ® 3 ct OH, M O 3 o no Q 'P ro o ® O OO O O 3 «• «• <• » w 3 OOOOOO o o Cn o o M M f\j H \0-sl A 4 • • ' • VA VA M 0 3 o m o-F^ro o ® O O O O O 3 to to to to to "A OOOOOO O O OC O 3 0 0 00 0 3 P 3 d 333 3 O O 0O OH p p pp p O 3 3 3 3 3 0p p p p P co CO CO COCO CO 3 1 1 3 1 ® ® ®® ® 3 3 33 3 p, p p p P p p pP P Oj f<4 f\J OnO-OVA • • • « • H M H u> m o m o (7s CCH-TVA - 3 'J H P C r - 3 M 3 o • o H o » H- 3 M M rv o -o - jva • • • • • o-i o -P~ o -o sO0*J sD vO • M H X 3* JD M H U ) M 3 ODO' • • • • ♦ ro -C ro o O t 3 C+ o o o • * • o o o H HU> \A nD O • O 3> a 3* JD -3 rou> o ro ro-0 co!\) • 3 ct CO CO -0 i> H W O H o o • • o o rOVA OM o ® M H v>j m ->0 m o • • • • * MCjjvO M-pA -o ro ro-p“ Vjj 6 Continued O O O OO O'd O ad O-P* ro o ® O O OO O 3 H on Table ct O NJT U1 T3 Appendix Table V.LI Straight-Away Can W a s h e r — Daily Cost or Operation, Dollars Summary of Data--April 23* 1952 c I. Fixed Costs Insurance, taxes, licenses Depreciation and interest on building Depreciation and interest on equipment 1erairs, maintenance, supplies Total II. Iroduction Costs Utilities 20,000 lb.per day 40,000 lb.per day 60,000 lb.per day 60,000 lb.per day100,000 lb.per day Size of "an ..9si e r , cir r 10 12 14 0. 96 0.79 0.89 0.93 1.01 1.35 c .34 0 .r5 0.61 0.66 0.71 o.ft 0.82 0.93 1.11 1.14 1.21 1.74 2.17 0.90 2.77 0.38 3.19 0.60 3.33 0.63 3.56 0 .9 c 4 •8'i 0.84 1.67 2.51 3.33 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 1.67 2. 91 3.33 1.67 2.91 3.33 1.67 2. 91 3.33 1.67 2.31 3.33 4.18 4.18 4.16 4.18 4.18 0.81 1.6' 2 .8: 3 .3 ; 4 .1 * 1.04 1.60 0.73 0.97 1.20 1.49 1.79 0.67 0.83 1.02 1.29 1.49 0.67 0.83 1.02 1.23 1.49 0.67 0.89 1.02 1.29 1.49 0.6' 0.8' 1.0; 1 .2 1 1.4! 1.67 2.64 3.71 1 .91 1. 61 2.62 3.93 4 •98 9.63 1.91 1.9 2 .5; 3.9. 4.3' 3.6, Labor 20,000 lb.ner day 4-0,000 lb.per day 60,000 lb.ner day 60,000 lb.per day 100,000 lb.ner day 2.13 2.73 3,30 Total 1 roduction Costs 20,000 lb.ner day 40,000 lb.per day 60,COO lb.per day 80,000 lb.ner day100,000 lb.ner day- 1.88 3.26 4.64 6 .06 7.4^ ill. Total Costs 20,000 lb.per 40,000 lb.ner 60,000 lb.ner 80,000 lb.per 100,000 lb.per day day day aay day IV. Unit Cost ner 100 pounds 20,000 lb.per day 40,000 lb.ner day 60,000 lb.ner day 80,000 lb.ner day 100,000 lb.ner day 16 4-09 9.43 6.61 6.23 9.69 4.62 9-93 4.34 3.41 6.48 7. 39 8.70 2. 92 3.33 4.38 9*63 4.70 3.71 4.66 6.72 6.88 7.93 7.77 8.82 0.021 0.022 0.024 0.014 0.014 0.013 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.010 0.010 0.010 0. 010 0.009 0.009 6.87 8.98 2.92 3.33 4-38 3.63 9.09 6.3 6.10 7 .y 8.4 7.11 8.16 9.4 9.21 10 .3 0.024 0.026 0.03 0.013 0.012 0.010 0.009 0.013 0.012 0.010 0.009 0.01 0.01, 0.01 0.01 Appendix Table VIII Rotary Can Washer--Daily Cost of Operation, Dollars Summary oT Data--May 8, 1932 Washer Size, ..... —CFM ^ .... "3 -- ‘ I. Fixed Costs Insurance, taxes, licenses Depreciation and interest on buildings Depreciation and interest on equipment Repairs, maintenance, supplies Total II. Froduction Costs Labor 10,000 lb.per 20,000 lb.per 30,000 lb.per 14.0,000 lb.per 90,000 lb.per 60,000 lb.per III. day day day day day day 0.31 0.37 0.20 0.20 o.i+6 0.22 0.62 0.30 " r.1+9 1.19 2.19 3 .2249.23 7.00 10.23 13 .1+0 ■ 1.38 2.19 3.01 3.80 1+.60 3.82 Ltilities 10,000 It.per day 20,000 lb.per day 30,000 lb.per day 14.0,000 lb.per day 30,000 lb.per day 60,000 lb.per day 1.16 1.16 2.30 2.30 3.^6 2+. 60 3.71+ 6.68 3 -2+6 2^.60 3.724 6.88 Total 10,000 lb.per day20,000 lb.per day30,000 lb.per aay 1+0,000 lb.per day30,000 lb.per day 60,000 lb.ner day 3.33 3. 91+ 8.71 11.60 19.99 20.28 2. 3242+.2+9 6.2+7 8.1+0 10.32+ 1+.92+ 6.73 9 .90 12 .79 17.18 .hi 1+.03 9.98 7.96 9 .89 11.83 11+. 19 0.01+324. 0.0337 0.0330 * M "1P O 0. 02+03 0.0299 0.0263 r\ r\0 10 L'otal Cost 10,000 lb.per 20,000 lb.per 30,000 lb.per 1+0, 000 lb.per 30,000 lb.per 60,000 lb.per day aay day day dayday IV. dnit Cost per 100 pounds 10,000 lb.per day 20,000 lb.per day 30,000 lb.per day 2 1 12.70 Appendix Table IX C larifier--Daily Cost of Operation, Dollars Summary of Data--April 26, 1962 j.. r Ixed Costs Insurance, caxes, licenses Depreciation and interest on building Deprec i a t i o n and interest on equiorrient Renairs, maintenance, supplies Total II. Froduction Costs Utilities 10,000 lb.per 20,000 lb.oer 40,000 lb.per 60,000 lb.per 80,000 lb.per 100 ,O^O ill.per La bor 10,000 lb.per 20,000 lb.per 140,000 lb.rer 60,000 lb.per 80,000 lb.per 100,000 lb.per Total 10,000 lb.per 20,000 lb.per 80,000 lb.ner 60,000 lb.ner 60,000 lb.per 100,000 lb.per I I I . Total Costs 10,000 lb.per 20,000 lb.per 140,000 lb.per 60,000 lb.rer 80 ,000 lt.rer 100,000 lb.per day day day day day day dav day day day day day day day day day day cay day day day dayday day IV. Unit Uost per ICO pounds 10,000 lb.per day20, I100 lb.per day I40,000 lb.ner day60,COO lb.per nay 80,000 lb.per day 100,000 lb.per day Size of c l a r i f l e r ,lb/hr 7,000 : IF7000 20,000 0 .Ii2 0.49 0 .62 0.30 0.32 0.32 1.06 1.26 1.60 0 .62 “2-.Jo 0.61 "2766 0.74 " '5."OB 0.06 0.11 0.22 0.36 0.1*3 0.60 I .46 1.76 2 .21* 2.76 3.23 3.76 1. 614 1.66 0 1{ 3.10 3*66 h -36 3.81, I4.16 6 •76 6.60 6.96 0 .0I4 0.08 0.03 0.16 0 .21+ 0.31 O.kO 0.19 0.23 1 •66 1.71 2.00 1 .69 1.68 1.86 2.30 2. 66 2.86 2 .08 2.27 2.36 1 .69 1.79 2.16 2.64 2.87 3.26 1.62 1.74 1.98 2 .27 4.2? 6.6 7 4 •66 4.70 4.82 6.06 6.36 6.22 0.06 0.12 0.30 2.60 2.66 6.66 6.°6 6.66 0.0470 0.0076 0.0627 c. 0223 0.0121 0.0087 0.00 69 0.0067 0.0069 6.6 0.0366 c . 0206 0.0119 0.0090 c .7 3 0.0241 0.0126 0.0069 0.0069 O . O O 67 Appendix Table X Clarifier--Daily Cost of Operation, Dollars (When used in one-man receiving room where volume received is controlled by clarifier) Summary of D a t a — June 11+, 19 62 "Size "of c l a r i f i e r ,lb/hr — ~FO/OPP" Penalty for delaying receiving of milk (add to nroduction costs) 10,000 lb.ner day 20,000 lb.ner day 140,000 lb.ner day 60,000 l b .ner day F 0,000 lb.ner uay 100,000 l b .ner oart- 1-75 3.90 0.77 1 .6I4. 0.18 7.00 1 0 .60 H 4.00 17 .60 3.08 U.62 6.16 7.70 0.36 0.72 1.08 l.hlj. 1.80 Total Costs 10,000 lb.per a ay 20,000 lb.ner day 60,000 It.rer 60,000 l b .ner P 0,000 l b .ner 100,000 lb.ner IV 2.68 co O • rp II (See Table IX) 0 II Total Fixed Costs • C\J I Unit r'ost ner 100 10,000 lb.ner 20,000 11 .n e r 140,000 lb .^er 60,000 lb .ner 80,000 lb.ner 100,000 lt.ner day day day day round s day day day day day day 6.79 7.66 11.76 16.90 10 .96 214 .16 0.0680 0 .03 F 3 0 .029k 0.0266 0 .02/49 0.02142 6 .OI4 6.01 I4.88 7.92 9 .8I4 11.71 13 .6I4 6.78 6.143 6.16 7 .02 7.63 0.0600 0.01488 0.0301 0.02 69 O . C H 4.6 0.01C7 0.0088 0.0198 0.01614 O.OII4.6 0.0136 0.0076 Acpendix Table XI Filter--Daily Cost of Operation, Dollars (Including positive pump, m o t o r )--June 16, 1952 Capacity, lb. per hr. ______________________________________ 3500 1 6 ,6 0 6 2 0 ,0 0 b 5 0 ,0 0 0 Iroduction Costs 20,000 lb.cer day 60,000 lb.cer day 60,000 lb.cer day 50,000 lb.cer day 100,000 lb.cer aay Total Costs 20,000 lb.cer 6-0,000 lb.per 60,000 lb.cer 6 0 ,0 0 0 lb.cer 100,000 lb.cer day aay day day aay Pnit Cost cer 100 pounds 20,000 lb.cer day 6 0 ,0 0 0 lb.cer day 60,000 lb.cer day 60,000 lb.cer day 100,000 lb.cer day 0.11 0.15 o .ie 0.20 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.29 o .k o 0.66 0.52 0 .1k 0.20 0.23 0.5?' 0.77 ■~rr.-89 0.97 1.17 1.37 1.57 1.77 1.36 o.dk 2.1.2 3-66 U.50 5.56 1.32 1.69 2.06 2.63 1.9k 2.96 1.71 1.86 2.09 2. 06 2.26 6.02 5.06 6 .1 0 0.0097 0.0075 0.0067 0.0063 0.0061 2.66 2 .63 3-20 2 .6 6 2 .6 6 H O O 0.26 " . I. Fixed Costs Insurance, taxes, licenses Depreciation and Interest on building Decreeiation and interest on equipment Repairs, maintenance, sunclies Total 1.10 1.23 1.36 1.69 1.62 2.10 2.23 2.36 2.69 2.62 0 .0 0 8 6 0.0093 0.0105 0.0052 0.0061 0.0036 0.0032 0.0051 0.0037 0.0031 0.0027 0.0055 0.0039 0.0031 0.0026 Appendix Table Xll Paw Milk Plate Cooler (with pump and motor) (including penalty for one-man operation) D a i l y Cost of Operation, Dollars Summary of Data--^ay 26, l b 52 Capacity, i f : p er hr. 10,000 20,000 30 ,T5F0 F F 7000 day cay dayday aay IV. TJnit Cost per 100 pound for 10° P. Cooling 20,000 lb.per aay 8 c,goo lb.per day 60,000 lb.cer day80,000 lb.per day 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 1 b .p e r c a y _______ 0.63 O.llj 0.11* 0.12* 0.12* 0.68 O .87 1.22* 1.2*7 0.32 0 .2|2 1.2:9 1.65 0.58 2.51 1.75 3. 50 8.25 1.35 1 .52 1 -2*2* 1 .56 1 .62* 1-70 1.67 1.73 7.00 p •7(p v 1.67 1.60 1.81 2.08 1.92 1.91 2.67 2.27 2.31 2*. 10 2.36 2 .2*7 3.2*3 2*.13 5.01 f.ll 5.2*1 6.37 7.07 7.95 6.05 - 2: .2*2 6 .17 7 .Q2 9.67 5.25 3.35 2*.07 5.00 5.12 2*.16 5.91 7 .66 9. 2|1 2*.12 2*. 87 5.16 8.9 5 5.86 6 . 58 7.91 7.63 11.16 5.0 7 6.92 7 .10 • Total Cost 20.000 lb.per 14.0,000 lb.per 60.000 lb.per 80.000 lb.per 100,000 lb.per 0.55 r- III. Froduction Costs Labor ( including penalty for rate of r e c ’g 2 0 ,uG 0 lb.per day 2*0,000 lb.per day 60,0CG lb.per day 80.000 lb.per day 100.000 lb.per day Total production Cost for 10° P. Cooling 20.000 lb.per aay 2*0,000 lb.per day 60.000 lb.per cay 80.000 lb.per day 100.000 lb.per day 0.2*2 0 II. 0.35 0 I. Fixed Costs Insurance, taxes, licenses Depreciation and interest on buildings D epreciation and interest on equipment Repairs, maintenance, supplies Total 2.92* 1.55 0.0201 0.022*0 0.0270 0.0150 0.0102*. 0.011.6 0.0157 0.0128 0 . 006 8 0 . 0066 ' 0 . 0068 0.0116 0.0065 0.0062 0.0062 0 . 0 1 1 2 0.OO53 O.oOpl 0.00 51 0.0210 A r r e n d i x Table Xill h or iz o n t a l dtorape Tank (based on one f i l l i n g p er day) Summary of Data- - Da i ly 'ost of Operation, Dollars, T-rav 1, 1952 Capacity, Gallons ___________________ ______________ 6 o a loco ,' 2 Dt),o " " 3 o ^ T ^ o “ g o ' t x r ' s o u p I. Insulated Storage Tank /. ^ixed Costs Insurance, Taxes, licenses D e n r e c i a t i o n and interest on buildings D en r e c i a t i o n and interest on equipment P.enairs, Ma intenance, sunnlies Total B. P r o d u c t i o n Costs electric ity Labor Total C. D. II. Cold Total Costs T nit Cost ner 100 l b s . 0.35 0.10 0.67 0.36 1.48 0.38 0.14 0.68 0.37 0.53 0.25 0.82 0.45 1.57 2.05 T . T 2 " 0.67 0.33 1.05 0.57 0.78 0.42 1.15 0.63 2.98 0.93 0.50 1.34 0.73 1.06 0.59 1.51 0.82 3.50 3.58 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.53 0.47 0.74 1.07 1.40 1.61 1.90 0.57 0.52 0.80 1 .14 1.48 1.69 1.99 2.05 2.09 2.65 3.76 4 . 4 6 5.19 5.97 .0396 .0232 .0165 .0146 .0130 .0120 .0116 .all iank (DC) A. r'ixed Costs insurance, taxes, licenses D e n r e c i a t i c n and interest on buildings D e n r e c i a t i o n and interest on equipment Lenairs, maintenance, supplies Total P. Iroduc ti o n Costs electricity Pe fr i t e r a t i o n Labor Total 0.42 0.10 0.85 1.83 0.46 0.18 0.86 0.47 1.95 0.62 0.25 1.05 0.56 2.50 0.76 0.33 1.25 0.68 3.02 0.04 0.64 0.53 0.05 1.00 0.47 0.06 1.81 0.74 0.07 2.05 1.07 3.61 1.05 0.50 1.66 0.90 4.11 1.19 0.59 1.84 1.00 4 . £>2 0.0 6 2.44 1.40 0.08 2.73 1.61 0.08 2 .8 8 0.91 0.42 I.48 0.80 r.TT“ r:^“ 2T5T“ r.T9"3.9? k'-hz 1.90 m m n d ix T a b le A m Continued 600 C. Total Costs j. T'nit Cost ner 100 lbs. 3 . 01* . 0?°0 Capacity, Oallons 10O0 2cc0 30CQ L o o p 5coo 6fl0u 3.1*7 5.11 6.21 7-53 6-53 9 -U8 .0366 .0297 .0214 .0219 .0198 .0184 Ill .DX R e f r i g er a te d Coils A. nixed Costs Insurance, taxes, licenses Depreciation, Interest on bu i l d i n g D e p r e c i a t i o n and interest on equipment repairs, maintenance, supplies Total r-. P r od u c t i o n Costs electricity re f r i r e r a t i o n Labor Total C. Total Cost D. '"nit Cost ner 100 lbs. 0.1*3 0.10 0.86 O.li 7 r .86 0.1*7 0 . 11* 0.88 O.iifi 1.9?' 0.01* 0.05 C.L0 0.59 0.70 0.67 T7TI 1.31 3.00 3.28 .0981 .0383 0.66 0.25 1.16 0.63 2.70 0.79 0.33 1.31* 0.73 3.W 0.92 0.1*2 1-50 0.82 7.66 1.10 0.50 1.75 0.97 1*.32 1.25 0.59 1.99 1.08 WT. 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.09 1.00 1.62 2.03 2.19 2.60 0.95 1.38 1.61 1.87 2.17 2 . 6 1 3 - 6 7 3.7'2' i j . l l * i*.Bb 1* .71 6.26 7.38 8.1*6 9-77 .0272 .021*2 .0215 .0197 .0190 Appendix Table XIV Internal Tube Feater (heating from I4.O no 90° F. for separating) Summary off Data--Daily Data Cost of Operation, Dollars, June [4., 1992 JTanacTty lb. ner hr. I. Fixed Costs Insurance, taxes, licenses Depreciation and interest on building Depreciation and interest on heater repairs, maintenance, supplies Total 9 ,000 ' 11,000 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.09 U72F 0.09 0.06 0.11 0.U0 0.99 0.69 0.76 0.77 0.97 0.93 2.02 U-01+ I4..OI4. 6.06 6.06 6.06 2 .14.2 b* 63 2-67 6-69 6.6 3 0.06 II. froduction Cost Labor 10.000 lb.per day 20.000 lb.ner day 30.000 lb. per day 60.000 lb.per day utilities 10.000 lb.per day 20.000 lb.per day 30.000 lb.per uay [4.O, 000 lb. per ray Total Production Cost 10.000 lb.per daj 20.000 lb.Per day 30.000 lb.per cay ilOjOOO lb.Per ray III Total Cost 10,000 lb .per dav 2 0 , 0 0 0 lb.per aay 30,000 lb.per day 6 0,000 lb.per day V . IV 6.8!| 9.09 lb.per lb.per lb.per lb.per 2.02 6.06 9.01 2.70 2.79 U.91 7.12 9.33 6-97 per 100 lb. ’nit. Cost C 10.000 20.000 30.000 [4.0,000 0.61 day day day 0.027 0.02 9 day 0.023 0 . 02b 7.19 9.33 0.026 0.029 0.026 0.023 Arnendix i'able XV Separator (milk heated to 90° F.) Summary of Data D a i l y Cost of Operation, Dollars, April 26, 1952 — — 0 ar>ac^ t y , rb. per iir. _________________________________________________ 3,$00 7000 11,000 I. Fixed Cost Insurance, taxes, licenses D eprec i a t i o n and interest on building Denrec i a t i o n and interest on equinment lenairs, maintenance, supnlies L'otal 0.1+2 0.30 0.1+9 0.32 0.52 0.32 1.06 1.26 1.50 0.52 0.61 0.71+ - z . w '2".'68 "“3 :cps II. Production Costs Utilities 5 ,ooo lb .ner 10,000 lb.ner 15,000 lb.ner 20,000 lb.per day day day dav 0.06 0.11 0.16 0.22 0.01+ 0.07 0.11 0.11+ 0.03 30,000 l b .ner 1+0, 000 lb.ner 5 o,ooc 1 b .n e r 60,000 lb .ner 100,000 1L .ner or 5,000 lb.per 10,000 l b .ner 15,000 lb.ner 20,000 lb.ner day day day day danV 0.32 0.1+3 0.56 0.61+ 0.22 0.27 0.34 0.1+1 0.68 0.16 0.22 0.26 0.31 0.51 day day da^ day 1. o6 1.P6 2.10 2.32 1.56 1.7P 1.P2 1.93 1.60 1.71 30,000 lb.per day i+c,000 l b .ner day 50,000 lb.ner day 60,000 l b .ner day 100,000 lb.ner day al I reduction C68 e .0336 .0269 .0231 .0197 .0202 .0182. .0160 .0192 .0155 .012| 1 .0130 1.89 1.96 3.264 L'otal Cost 3,000 lc.rer 10,000 lt.per 13,000 lb.ner 20,000 lb.ner Unit Cost ner IOC) rounds 3,000 lb.ner c a y 10,000 lb.cer day 13,000 lb.ner S a y 20,000 lb.rer c a y 30,000 lb.ner day 240,000 lb.rer day 30,000 l b .ner day .0333 8.13 .0363 .0269 A o n e n d i x Table XVII. F o m o g e n i z e r — Summary of Data 200 1. Fixed costs Insurance, t a x e s , licenses D e p r e c i a t i o n and interest on b u i l d i n g D e p r e c i a t i o n and interest on equip m en t 1 enair, mainten a nc e , sunolies ‘T otal II. P r o d u c t i o n Costs Utilities 5,000 lb.ner 10,000 lb.ner 20,000 lb.ner 1*0,000 lb.ner 60,000 lb.ner 80,000 lb.per 100,000 lb.ner Capac ity, gall ons per h o u r 500 1,050 1,500 0.25 0.21* 0.37 0.2Q i. i5 0.1-3 0.1*1 0.60 0.1*6 1.92 0.1*9 o .5 i 0.68 0.51* 2.22 0.56 0.77 0.61 2.1*9 day day dav\r baybay aay day 0.16 0.30 0.60 1.20 0.18 0.35 0.67 1.36 2.06 2.76 0.18 0.35 0.68 1.38 2.07 2.76 3.1*1) 0.17 0.33 0.66 1.37 2.06 2.75 3.26 0.67 1.37 2.06 2.75 3.25 0.16 0.32 0.66 1.36 2.06 2.71* 3.26 day day dar day day day day 2.65 1*.28 7.90 il*.fio 1.60 2.26 3.50 6,25 9 .26 11. 80 1.35 1.76 2.62 4.31 7.01* 7.79 9.1*0 1. 1*2 1.77 2.1*3 3.80 5.10 6.50 7.90 1.31 1.51* 1.99 2.90 [*.15 1*. 70 5.65 1.23 1. 1*1* 1.79 2.1*3 3.12 3.80 1*.1*6 3.96 5.73 9.65 3.70 i|.53 6.09 3.75 1)-33 5.52 1*.08 It -59 5.58 l*.6l 1*. 73 5.10 5.79 0.55 0.69 0.77 0.93 0 .71* 3.13 0.17 0.33 0 .71* 0.77 1.02 0.81 "T31f ■ Labor 5,000 10,000 20,000 1*0,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 lb.ner lb.ner lb.ner lb.ner lb.ner lb.ner lb.per III. Total Costs 5,000 lb.ner day 10,000 lb.ner day 20,000 lb.ner day 5.00 5.79 A n n e n d i x Table XVII C o n t i n u e d 200 4 0 , 0 0 0 lb.rer day 17 ± i • «*-✓ 60,000 lb.ner day 8 0 , 0 0 0 lb.Der day 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 lb.ner day Capacity, gallons ner h o u r 500 COO 1 ,0 6 0 1,500 9 .8 3 13.21; 16.14; 7.66 2 f06ff 7.40 9.34 10.86 12.03 7.13 8.82 9.88 11.06 .0820 .0460 .0279 .0191 .0920 .0800 .0289 .0980 .081 .0289 .0178 .0161 .0186 .0132 .0120 7.91 11.31 12.77 9.68 1 1 .71| 18.06 13.68 .0 7 8 0 Costs lb.ner lb.ner lb.ner lb.ner lb.ner 60,000 8 0 , 0 0 0 lb.ner 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 lb .ner 8,000 10,000 20,000 40,000 day day day day day day da\’ i' .0790 .0570 .01;80 .Ci;29 .071;0 .0i;50 .030 k .0238 .0220 .0208 .01-30 . 0 2 76 .0198 .0170 .0160 .0 1 81 .0 1 47 .01 37 .0 1 8 8 .0 1 4 0 .0 1 24 .0111 A^ren di x i’able XV i 1 1 . M p h iemnerature Lhortime i a s t e u r i z e r - - 3 u m m a r y of Data Daily Cost of t n e r a t i on, D o l l a r s — v ay 6, 1952_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Capacity, a p a c i t y , ilb d .. ner n e r hr. n r .c Ttrm— 1. Dixed Costs insurance, taxes, licenses Depreciation, interest on building Denreciation, interest on equipment i.enairs, m ai ntenance, sunrlies Total il. I r od u ct io n Costs Labor (no delay nenalties) 20.000 lb.ner day 4 0 . 0 0 0 lb.ner day 60.000 lb.per aay 80.000 lb.ner day 100.000 lb.ner day utilities 20.000 lb.ner day 4 0 . 0 0 0 lb.ner day 60.000 lb.ner day C O,000 lb.ner day10 0 . 000 lb.ner day Total 20, 000 lb,,ner day 1(0, 000 lb,,ner davi 60, 000 lb,,ner day p o ,000 lb,,ner dav 100, 000 lb.,oer day ife , !££& 8,000' 1 2 ,0 0 0 6.31 4.00 4.87 8.91 6.80 7.88 4.10 4.96 8.66 6.11 7.06 4.31 3.01 8.58 6.06 6.76 3.87 6.47 9.06 12.04 18.06 3.87 6.46 9.05 12.03 18.08 3.86 6.44 9.02 11.98 14.99 3.55 6.42 8.99 11.92 14.98 7.1^9 11.97 18.98 20.34 2i| .92 7.87 11.33 14.96 18.83 22.90 7.66 11.40 14 • 68 18.09 22.08 7.86 11.43 3-4 • 54 17.98 21.71 0.89 0.13 2.20 1.06 4 . 2 ir ... 1.09 0.16 2.76 1.29 4.50 7.30 10.83 13.12 3.92 8.50 6.89 8.30 9.86 3.98 6 .i;e 9.07 12.06 8.08 13.78 lc .90 "goyogor 1.39 0.16 3 .5 8 1.70 6. £3 0.73 0.13 1.78 0.85 1 .4 9 28.18 i 6' , w 1.37 0.16 3.21| _ a p p e n d i x L'afcle XVIII C o n t i n u e d ~ l* t 000 Capacity, lb. n er hr. H'fT)00 lSTffOQ 1 6 , 0 0 0 20,060 5.71 11.87 17.27 23.39 8 .01* 11.77 9 .1*1 12.87 16.25 20.13 21*. 62 29.20 .0588 . 01*06 .0335 .0308 .0292 III. Total Cost 5 , 0 0 0 lb.ner day 2 0 , 0 0 0 lb.ner day 1*0 , 0 0 0 lb.ner aav 60,000 lb.per day p 0,000 lb .ner day 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 lb .ner day T’nit Cost n e r 100 2 0 , 0 0 0 lb.ner 5 0 , 0 0 0 lb.cer 6 0 , 0 0 0 lb.ner 80,000 lb.ner 100,000 lb.ner pounds day day day aay day 26.67 .0576 •oil32 .03Q0 .035? 16.63 20 . 2 6 21*. 13 26.20 9.80 13.97 17.71 20.99 2k . 1*0 26.36 10.77 11*. 89 18.26 21.37 21*. 61 28.51* . 061*1* .01*16 .0338 .0302 .0282 .0698 .01*1*3 .0350 .0305 . 0281* .0731* . 01*56 .0356 .0310 .0285 Process bank (for temperature ifTerence of 120° F.. no regeneration; mult ip ly total cost by 0.93 for 100 F .) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sum ma ry of D a t a — Daily Xost of Operation, Dollars, Fay 19, 1952 Capacity, gallons 160 200 ' k00 600 1,5£0 Ar^entiix .able XiX. J. mixe d Costs Insurance, taxes, licenses Denreci at i on , and interest on building D e p r e c i a t i o n and interest on equipment Total II. irodu ct io n Costs (a) h e a t i n g from 1+0 - 160° F. utilities, daily (1) One f i l l i n g (2) Two fillings (3) Three fillings (4) Fo u r fillings Labor, daily (1) One f i l li n g (2) Two fillings (3) Three fillings (1+) Four fillings (b) Cooling fr o m 160 - i|0° F. Utilities, daily (1) One f i l l i n g (2) Two fillings (3) Three fillings (4) Four fillings Labor, Daily (1) One filling (2) Two fillings (3) Three fillings (4) Four fillings 0.12 0.03 0.28 0.56 0.20 0.09 0.37 'OTW' 0.28 0.13 0.53 1.19 0.43 0.16 0.83 0 5 '" 0.34 0.68 1.02 1.36 0.68 1.36 2.04 2.72 1.36 2.72 4.08 5.44 2.04 4.08 6.12 8.16 3.33 6.66 9.99 13.32 0.66 0.96 1.26 1.56 0.68 0.98 1.28 1.58 0.72 1.02 1.32 1.62 0.77 1.07 1.37 1.67 0.85 1.15 1.45 1.75 0.35 0.71 1.05 1.40 0.71 1.42 2.13 2.84 1.41 2.83 4.23 5.64 2.12 4.25 6.36 8.48 3.46 6.91 10.38 13.84 0.30 0.60 0.90 1.20 0.30 0.60 0.90 1.20 0.30 0.60 0.90 1.20 0.30 0.60 0.90 1.20 0.30 0.60 0.90 1.20 ' 0.51 0.18 1.06 2.26 A m end ix rai le \I •. ontinued III. Total Costs (a) -eating from 1*0 - 160 (1) One filli ng (2) Two fillings (3) Three fillings (1*) Four fillings IV. Pnit Cost (1) (2) (3) (1*) One fill i ng Two fillings Three fillings Four fillings 1.56 2.20 2.81* 3.1*8 2.20 3.18 1*.16 5.14 3.27 1*.93 6.59 8.25 1*.65 5.99 9.33 11.67 6.1*1* 10.07 13.70 17.33 *0.65 1.31 1.95 2.60 1.01 2.02 3.03 l*.oi* 1.71 3.1*3 5.13 6.81* 2.1*2 U.85 7.26 9.68 3-76 7.51 11.28 15.01* 2.21 3.51 It- 79 6.05 3.21 5.20 7.19 9.18 1*.Q8 8.36 11.72 15.09 7.07 10.81* 16.59 21.35 10.20 17.58 21*.98 32.37 0.256 0.205 0.186 0.176 0.181 0.151 0.139 0.133 0.11*5 0.121 o . lil* 0.110 0.137 0.111 0.107 0.103 0.119 0.102 0.097 0.093 F. (b) A d di ti o n a l Cost for Cooling from 160 (1) One f i l l i n g (2) Two fillings (3) Three fillings (1*) Four fillings (c) P e a t i n g and C o o l i n g (1) One f i l l i n g (2) Two fillings (3) Three fillings (1*) Four fillings TOO Capacity, g a l l o n s ____ 200 1*00 600 1,006 1 A p pe n di x Table XX. Process Tank ( Te mperature differ e nc e 100° F. Use of regeneration) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ S umm a ry of D a t a — Pall} Cost of operation, Collars, June 17> 1952 Capacity, gallons,. 400 I 00 O 100 200 600 I. Fixed Costs (See Table XIX) Feat e x c h a n ge r wi t h pump Total 1.64 0.56 2.50 3*66 0.64 2.50 3.34 1.19 2.50 3.69 4*34 1.27 2 . IP 3.09 2.30 2.98 4.18 5-49 00 1.63 2 .88 4 . IT 5.38 6.06 7.94 8.00 10.51 4 -3 3 5.24 6.15 7.06 4.97 6.22 7.47 8.72 5.99 7.87 9.87 11.63 7.32 9.83 12.34 11.85 9.0 0 12.69 16.38 20.07 0.500 0.305 0.240 0.205 0.289 0.174 0.142 0.104 0.182 0.114 0.145 0.128 0.095 0.085 0 .0 9 5 0.080 0.072 0.074 0.063 0.059 2.26 2 .50 4 *7 6 2.50 11 . P r o d u c t i o n Costs, u s i n g regeneration, labor and utilities One f i l l i n g daily Two fillings daily Three fillings daily Four fillings daily III. Total Costs, h e a t i n g and cool i ng One f i l l i n g daily Two fillings daily Three f i l l i n s daily Four fillings daily IV. Frit Cost n e r 100 pounds, h e a t i n g and c o o l i n g One filling daily Two fillings daily Three fillings daily Four fillings daily 4 .2 4 7.93 11.62 15.31 If c o o l i n g is done with a c om p ac t -t yp e surface cooler, add the fix ed costs of the cooler to the total cost of the process tank to ob t a i n the total cost of o p e r a ­ tion of the two nieces of equipment. A p p e n d i x iatle XXI. I. II. Square and K e c t a n gu l ar Coil Vat (Ideating from i|0 - 160° F.) Summ a ry of D a t a — D a l'■l y Cost of O p e r a t ion, Dollars, Majr 15< 1992 C a p a c i t y , ~ g a ons Boo~ T0o0“ 00 &CT 200 i+OQ Fixe d Costs Insurance, taxes, licenses Depreciation, interest on buildings Depreciation, interest on equipment Aeoairs, m a intenance, supplies Total F r o d u c t i o n Costs 0 (a) r e a t i n g from I4.O - 160 F, Utilities Cne f i l l in g daily Two fillings daily Three fillings daily Four fillings daily Labor One f i l l i n g daily Tw o fillings daily Three fillings daily Four fillings d^Lly Total p r o d u c t i o n cost One f i l l in g daily Two fillings daily Three fillings daily Four fillings daily (b) Cooling from 160 - ^0° F Utilities Cne f i l l i n g daily Two fillings daily Three fillings daily Four fillings daily 0.39 0.16 0.59 o>3U T750 o.5i 0.26 0.72 M L 1-91 0.62 0.36 0.69 0.i|0 0.81 0.89 1.00 0 . h 7 0 4 2 0 156 T72S 2755 4.80 7.20 9.51] 9. 6 0 1 2 . 7 2 3.98 7.96 11.91; 15.92 1.71; 1.86 2.3k 2 . 9k 246 3.51; 3.66 3.20 1.25 1.85 245 3.05 1.39 1.99 2.^9 3.19 1.55 2.15 2.75 3.35 2.05 345 lj.85 6.25 2.99 5.19 7.39 9.59 3.95 1;.92 6.95 8.70 9.95 1 2 4 8 12.95 16.26 0.83 1.66 249 3.32 1.66 3.32 498 6.61; 2.50 3.31 5.00 6.62 7.50 9.93 10.00 13.21; 1.60 240 2.80" 3.18 6.36 240 1.60 3.20 i|.80 640 0.80 0.77 045 3.06 5.81; 1042 15.00 19.58 l4-.ll; 8.28 1242 16.56 ’ ..•To XXL "J it in-13d "^end I 200 ~ III. Labor One fill inf: daily Two fillings daily Three fillings daily hour fillings daily Total I r o d u c t i o n Cost for c o o l i n g after T e a t i n g in coil vat One f i l l i n g daily Two fillings daily Three fillings daily hour fillings daily Capacity, ’gallons m r 14.00 m 0.60 1.20 1.80 2.1*0 0.60 1.20 1.80 2.1*0 0.60 1.20 1.80 240 0.60 1.20 1.80 240 0.60 1.20 1.80 2.1*0 143 2.86 14-29 5.72 2.26 1+.52 6.78 9*01*. 3.10 6.20 9.30 12 4 0 3.91 7.82 11.73 15.61+ !+.?!+ 948 11+.22 18.96 Total Costs (a) ^ e a t i n g from L 0-160 F. 345 One f i l l i n g 1+.95 Two fillings 6.35 Three fillings 7.75 Four fillings (b) Additional cost for cooling same as il(fc) (c) v eat inc. end c o o l i n g I+.98 Cne filling 7.81 Two fillings 10.61+ Three fillings 134 7 Four fill inns 1+.90 7.10 9.20 11.50 6.21 9.21 12.21 15.21 742 11.20 4 .9 ? 18.76 6.61+ 13.22 17.80 22.38 7.16 11.62 18.98 20.51+ 9.31 15.1+1 21.51 27.61 11.33 19.02 26.71 31+40 13.38 22.70 32.02 1+1.31+ ' nit. Cost (a) u eati n g only One f i l l i n g Two fillings Three fillings Four fillings 0.11+3 0.103 0.089 0.031 0.121 0.089 0.079 0.071+ 0.109 0.082 0.073 0.068 0.100 0.078 0.069 0.065 0.206 0.114 0.122 0.113 '■.^nendix l’atle XXI Cont i n u e d Capacity, gallons 2 CO ~~ ' 1+00 " " 60C 806 (c) Featinp and cooling Cne f i l l i n g Two f i l l i n g s Three f i l l i n g s Four f i l l i n g s 0.29 0 0.227 0.206 0.196 0.208 0.169 0. 1 5 5 0.160 0.181 0.1 50 0.139 0.1 34 0.165 0.139 0.130 0.125 1000 0.156 0.132 0.124 0.121 Anpendix Table XXII Compact Type Surface Cooler (After pasteurizing, cooling from H 4.5 to I4.O0 F. ) Summary of Data-- D a l l y Cost of Operation, Dollars, Nay 27> 1952 Capacity, I d . per hr. _________________________________________________________ 3 6 , 6 6 6 hb,ttO I. Fixed Costs Insurance, Taxes, licenses Denreciation, interest on building Denreciation, interest on equipment Renairs, maintenance, supnlies Total II. III. Production Costs Labor 2 0 . 0 0 0 lb.ner day 14.0 , 0 0 0 lb.cer day 60.000 lb.ner cay P'C,G0C lb.ner day 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 lb.per day Total Production Cost 2 0 . 0 0 0 lb.ner day [4.0 , 0 0 0 lb.ner day6 0 . 000 lb.ner day8 0 ,0 0 0 lb.ner day1 0 0 . 0 0 0 lb.per day 0.95 0.07 2 .I4.O O .98 l+.I+O T7J2. 1.25 0.15 [4 .10 1.51 TT 6 T 1.08 1 .[4.6 0.87 0 .89 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.14-7 1.14-8 1.14-9 1.50 6.99 12.86 16.80 22.15 2 7 .U 1 7.26 13.12 17.05 22.39 27.6^ 7.6U 13.50 17.1+3 22.77 28.02 11-39 17-26 21.20 26.55 31. 61 12.58 18. bU 22.37 27.71 1U.65 20.51 Zl+.i+ll 29 .78 35.0 " 0.81 0.83 0.65 1.15 0.11 2.90 1.16 Total Cost lb.ner lb.ner 60.000 lb.ner 6 0 . 0 0 0 lb.ner 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 lb.ner 20.000 [4.0 , 0 0 0 s t ; er I C C ww.r. v j t e r d . o v i i vlbh do d C day day day day da; , r.n•: o S o ' F . , O d e n ' F. 60.000 lb.per 6 0 . 0 0 0 lb.ner 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 lb.ner day dayr day 0.035 0.033 0.037 0.036 0.032 0.033 O.OI4.I 0.037 0.035 Appendix Table XXIII R e f r i g e r a t e d Storage (with w o o d e n crates) Summary of D a t a — D a i l y Cost of Operation, Dollars, 5/27/52 Pounds of m i l k han d l e d daily __________________________________2Q,o0o 3 0 ,0 0 0 14.0,600 6 0 ,0 0 0 I. Fixed Costs Taxes, insurance, licenses Depreciation, inter­ est on building Depreciation, inter­ est on equipment Repairs, maintenance 1 supplies Total Production Costs Refrigeration Labor cost (into cooler) Total Cost 8 0 ,0 0 0 0.20 0.30 0.1*0 0.57 0.79 0.1*6 0.69 0.91 1.36 1.82 0.12 0.11+ 0.17 0.22 0.26 0.08 0.86 0.11 1.21*. 0.11* 1.62 0.20 2.35 0.26 5.15 5.80 7.66 9.35 13.20 17.00 8.22 12.30 16.15 21*. 50 32.50 21.19 2 7 . 1 2 1*0 . 0 5 52.63 11*. 88 Unit Cost (not including load-out) 0.071*1* 0.0706 0.0678 0.0665 0.0658 A r re nd i x Table XXIV. Glass F i l l i n g and C a p p i n g — S u m m a r y of Data Daily Cost cf Operation, Dollars, May 21, 1952 Size No. valves--No. C a p p i n g heads IS-----15=5— ' ---- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ F i l l i n g rate in ots. ner mln._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1^0_____ 65______ 135 I. Fixed Costs Insurance, taxes, licenses D e p r e c i a t i o n and interest on building D e n r e c i a t i o n and interest on bottler repairs, maintenance, supplies Total A. II. 0.52 0.15 1.0? 0.56 T13& ' 0.61} 0.20 1.26 0.66 *"2.75" 1.00 0.31* 1.94 1.00 a m 6.10 Based on 50 trips per milk bottle Produ c ti on Costs Labor Cost 1. 100 per cent quarts 20,000 lbs. ner day 4 0 , 0 0 0 l b s . per day 60,000 lbs. per day 80,000 lbs. per day 100,000 lbs. per day 100 per cent half-ru n t s 20,000 lbs. per aay 4 0 , 0 0 0 l b s .p e r day 60,000 lbs. per day 8 0 , 0 0 0 l b s . per day 100,000 l b s . per day 7.20 13.90 20.60 27.50 34-40 6.02 10.20 10.40 14.30 18.60 22.60 1 4 .55 18.90 23.00 22.10 4 4* 0 0 65.50 13.90 26.00 38.10 14.10 87.00 50.10 26.2 5 38.30 50.60 109.00 61.90 62.50 A p p e n d i x Table XXIV C o n t i n u e d — lage 2 Size No. valves- ■fro. caorine; heads ■ZETT nro — F i l l i n g rate in qts. per mln. T o t a l F r o a u c t i o n Cost 1 . 100 pe r cent qi 2 0 , 0 0 0 lbs. pe r day 4 0 , 0 0 0 lbs. per day 60,000 lbs. per day 8 0 , 0 0 0 lbs. p er day 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 lbs. per day 2 . 100 pe r cent half- p in ts 2 0 , 0 0 0 l b s . per day 4 0 , 0 0 0 lbs. pe r day 60,000 l b s . per day 8 0 , 0 0 0 lbs. per day 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 lbs. per day III. 1. 2. Cost ICO p er cent q marts 2 0 , 0 0 0 lbs. per day 4 0 , 0 0 0 lbs. per day 60,000 lbs. per day 8 0 , 0 0 0 l b s . per day 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 lbs. per day 100 per cent half-r)ints 2 0 , 0 0 0 lbs. per day 4 0 , 0 0 0 lbs. per day 60,000 lbs. per day 8 0 ,0 0 0 lbs. per day 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 lbs. per day 135 _ 4 2 ____ 33. 74 66.98 97.22 32.54 63.24 93.78 133.66 167.10 124.68 103.12 206.04 308.56 411.08 9 4. 8 4 187.88 280.92 514.10 466.60 155.40 373.86 32.61 63.42 94.08 124. 9 4 155.45 95. 0 0 1 8 8 .0 5 290.00 374. 2 0 4 67 . 0 0 36.04 36.04 35.30 69.28 66.00 99.52 135.96 169.40 96.54 127.44 129.22 158.16 159.73 105.42 208.34 97.60 190.64 99. 28 192.33 310.86 283.68 376.62 294.28 413.38 516.40 469.36 36.89 67.70 98.36 378.48 471.26 A p p e n d i x Table XXIV C o n t i n u e d — Page 3 Size No. valves- -No. c a p p i n g heads Unit Cost pe r 100 pounds 1. 100 p e r cent quarts 20.000 lbs. per day 1*0,000 lbs. per day 60.000 lbs. per day 80.000 lbs. pe r day 100.0 00 lbs. per day 2. ICO pe r cent h al f- p in t s 20.000 lbs. pe r day 1*0,000 lbs. p er day 60.000 lbs. p e r day 80.000 lbs. pe r day 100.000 lbs. per day ■p. Based on 25 trip s per milk bottle Total Cost 1. 100 per cent quarts 20.000 lbs. per day 1*0,000 lbs. per day 60.000 lbs. per day 80.000 lbs. per day 100.000 lbs. per day 2. 100 per cent h a lf-p in ts 20.000 lbs. per day i+0,000 lbs. per day 60.000 lbs. per day 80.000 lbs. per day 100.000 lbs. per day 0 .180 0.173 0.166 0.162 0.169 0.527 0.521 0.518 0.516 0.516 1*7-31 91.82 133.33 181 .01* 225.75 127.80 253.10 378.00 502.90 628.30 i IV. i— i F i ll in g rate In qts. per min, 10 1*0 85 0.177 0.165 0.161 0.159 0.158 0 .1*88 O.U77 0.1*71 0.1*70 0.1*69 1*6.57 88.51* 130.39 172.52 211*.51 119.98 23540 350.82 1*66 .11* 581.26 28-8 135 0.185 0.169 0 .161* 0.161 0.159 0 .1*96 0 .1*81 0.1*71* 0.1*73 0.1*71 1*8.16 9 0 .21* 132.17 171*.30 216.08 121.66 237.09 361 .1*2 1*68.00 563.18 A p p e n d i x Table XXIV C o n t i n u e d — Fage 1* No. valves--No. capping heads 10 il*-l* — _________ Filling rate In qts. per min._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1*0_ _ _ _ _ 85_ _ _ _ _ _ 135 Unit Cost per 10O pounds o t milk 1. 100 per cent quarts 0 .21*1 20,000 lbs. per day 0.237 0.233 0.221 1*0,000 lbs. per day 0.229 0.225 0.220 0.222 60,000 lb s per day 0.217 0.217 80,000 lbs. per day 0.226 0.216 100,000 lbs. per day 0.216 0.226 0.215 . 100 per cent h a lf-p in ts 20,000 lbs. per day 1*0,000 lbs. per day 0.639 60,000 lbs. per day 0.632 0.630 80,000 lbs. per day 100,000 lb s . per day 0.629 0.628 0.599 0.589 0.585 0.583 0.581 0.608 0.593 0.602 0.585 0.583 C. Data for Figs. 1*2 and 1*3—90 per cent of the milk in quarts; 10 per cent in h a lf-p in ts Total Cost 20,000 lb s . per day 1*0,000 lbs. per day 60,000 lbs. per day 80,000 lbs. per day 100,000 lbs. per day 51*.36 107.95 157.80 53.91 103.23 152.1*3 201.88 213.23 266.01 251.69 0.272 0.269 0.269 0.263 0.261* 0.266 0.256 55.51 101*.93 155.09 203.67 252.79 Unit Cost 20,000 lbs. per day 1*0,000 lbs. per day 60,000 lbs. per day 80,000 lbs. per day 100,000 lbs. per day 0.251* 0.252 0.252 0.278 0.262 0.260 0.251* 0.253 A p p e n d i x Table XXV Paper Carton Filling Summary of Data--Daily Cost of Operation, Dollars, 5/26/52 Cartons per minute ___________________________________________________ 20 35 65 I. W h e n rarer carton machine purchased Is A. Fixed Costs Insurance, taxes, licenses Depreciation, interest on building Depreciation, interest on filler i-.epairs, maintenance, supplies Total roduction Costs Utilities 1 . 100 per cent quarts 5,000 lbs.per day 10,000 lbs.per day 20,000 lbs.per day 2+0,000 lbs.per day 60,000 lbs.per day 80,000 lbs.per day 100,000 l c 3 .per day 2 . 100 per cent half-pints 5,000 lbs.per day 10,000 lbs.per day 20,000 lbs.per day 2+0,000 lbs.per day 60,000 lbs.per day 80,000 lbs.per day 100,000 lbs.per day Labor 1 . 100 per cent quarts 5,000 lbs.per day 10,000 lbs.per day 20,000 lbs.per day 2+_0,000 lbs.per day 60,000 lbs.per day 80,000 lbs.per day 100,000 lbs.per day 2. 100 per cent half-pints 5,000 lbs.per day 10,000 lbs.per day 2 .1+8 [4.. 10 6.20 0 .21+ 0.30 0.59 16.00 5.75 10.80 3.06 7.70 5.15 11.53 ’2757J5 ""7S72FT 0.2+5 0.2+3 0 .2+0 0.86 0.83 1.65 3.16 14-. 60 7.114 7.6Q 1.57 2.92+ 5.58 6.96 0.76 1.38 2.60 3.78 5.03 6.29 0.99 1.96 3.92 7 .2+4 0.95 0.^8 1.82 1.69 3.52+ 3.20 6.08 8.88 11.82 12+.78 6.75 13.50 3.88 2+.21 6.68 10.88 9 .62 1U.52 12.76 18.18 15.92 7.75 27.00 15.50 PI,, nn 31.00 2.15 k .30 8.60 17.20 25.80 81.00 246.50 106.00 62.00 136.00 77.50 32+. 2+0 2+3.00 27.00 15.55 524-.00 31.10 8.38 16.75 endix Table XXV C o n t i n u e d — Pape 2 Cartons per minute 20.000 lbs.per day 1+0,000 lbs.per day 60.000 lbs.per day 60.000 lbs.per day 100,000 lbs.per day Total P r o d u c t i o n Cost, utilities, labor, cases cartons, paraffin, wire 1 . 100 p e r cent quarts 5.000 lbs.per day 10.000 lbs.ner day 20.000 lbs.per day 1+0,000 lbs.per day 60.000 lbs.ner day 80.000 lbs.ner day 100.000 lbs.ner day 2. 100 ner cent h alf pints 5.000 lbs.per day 10.000 lbs.ner dap 20.000 lbs.ner day 1+0,000 lbs.ner day 60.000 lbs.ner day 80.000 lbs.ner day 100.000 lbs.ner day C . Total Cost 1. 10C per cent quarts 5.000 lbs.per day 10.000 lbs.ner day 20.000 lbs.per day 1+0,000 lbs.ner day 60.000 lbs.per day 80.000 lbs.per day 100.000 lbs.ner day 2. ICO p e r cent half-pints 5.000 lbs.ner day 10.000 lbs.ner day 2 0 . 0 0 0 lbs.ner day 1+0,000 lbs.ner day 60.000 lbs.ner day 80. 0 0 0 lbs.ner day 100.000 lbs.ner day 108.00 216.11 321+.00 1+32.00 51+0.00 38.28 62.20 33.50 121+.1+0 67.00 186.60 100.50 21+6.80 131+.00 311.00 167.50 35.39 76.91 1^2.95 70.63 11+1.37 305.76 2 8 2 .51+ 1+58.50 1+23.61 6 1 2 . 31+ 66I+.78 761+. 19 705.76 132.71 121.22 265-1+0 21+2.36 530.80 1+81+. 62 1061.20 968.81+ 1591.52 11+51.86 2122.01+ 1937.06 2652.58 21+21.32 1+9.81 86.01+ 161+. 1+8. 317-29 1+70.03 623.87 775-72 55- 71+ 90.98 33.63 67.21 131+.28 268.1+0 1+0 2 .1+8 ^36.63 670.79 113.98 227.88 1+55-56 910.81+ 1366.03 1821.31+ 2276.68 61+.12 97-70 161+.77 161.72 302.89 298.89 1+1+3.96 1+32.97 56- .:' 567.12 726.31 701.28 11+1+.21+ ll+l.57 11+1+.1+7 276.93 262.71 258.37 51+2.33 501+.Q7 1+86.07 1072.73 989-19 91+1.33 160 3 . 0 5 11+72.21 1306.51 2133-57 1957-1+3 1651.83 2661+.11 21+1+1.67 2307*17 Dm 'nit Cost ner 100 pounds 1. 100 ner cent quarts 5.000 lbs.per day 10.000 lbs.ner da;, 2 0 . 0 0 0 lbs.ner day 0.996 0.880 0.622 1.1 llj C.910 G.C 09 1.282 0.977 0.823 A p p e n d i x Table XXV Continued--Pp.ge 3 20 14.0.000 lbs.per day 60.000 6 0. 0 0 0 100.000 2. 100 per 5,000 10.000 20.000 14.0.000 60.000 lbs.per day lbs.per day lbs.per day cent h a l f pints lbs.per day lbs.per day lbs.per day lbs.ner da\T lbs.ner day 60.000 lbs.ner day 100.000 lbs.per day Cartons per minute 35 65 0.793 0.763 0.779 0.776 0.757 0.73° 0.731 0.726 2.66 2.76 2.71 2.66 2.67 2.66 2.66 2.63 2.63 2.52 2.1+9 2.1+8 2.1+6 2.1+1+ 59.25 106.93 202.26 392.83 583.33 771/ .81+ 9 61;.. 56 61+. 33 107.93 196.0 5 371.52 51+6.78 722.35 897.8 5 1.181 1.2 87 1.080 0.71+7 0.722 0.709 0.701 2.89 2.58 2.1+3 2.35 2.33 2.31 2.31 II. V a lues for Fig. 1+5 and 1+6, Ninety ner cent of the m ilk in quarts, ten n er cent In half-nints 5,000 10,000 20,000 1+0,000 lbs.ner lbs.ner lbs.per lbs .ner 60,000 lbs.ner 80,000 lbs.ner 100,000 l b s .per day dan day day day day day Cost ner 100 pounds 5,000 lbs.ner day 10,000 l b s .ner d av c 20,000 lbs,^er day I4.0 ,000 lbs.per dav** 60,000 lc s.per day 80,000 lbs.per day 100,000 lbs.per day III. '.-/ben naner cart o n machine 1.069 1.011 O .982 0.972 0.968 0.965 0.960 0.929 0.911 0.903 0.896 72.16 113.77 196.90 363.13 529.32 69 5. 59 861.22 1.1+03 1.138 0.935 0.908 0.682 0.869 0.861 is rented Fixed Cost Insurance, taxes, licenses Depreciation, interest on bu i l d i n g Ferairs, m a i n t e n a n c e ,supplies Total 2.1+8 1+.10 0.21+ 3*06 — 5776 0.30 6.20 0.59 5.15 7.70 5T55--- 115.1+9 A n n e n d l x T a b l e XXV Contlnued--Fage 6 Cartons per minute 20 35 65 E. F r o d u c t i o n Costs Dase nlus n r o d u c t i o n rental less discount) for carton inach ine 1. 100 n e r cent quarts 9,000 lbs.per day 10,000 lbs.ner day 20,000 lbs.ner day 60,000 lbs.per day 60,000 lbs.per day 100 ner cent half'-pints 9,000 l b s .per dav 10,000 lbs.ner day 20,000 l b s .per day 60,000 lbs.ner day 60,000 lbs.ner dan Total I r e d u c t i o n Costs ICC per cent quarts 9,000 lbs.per day 10,000 lbs.per day 20,000 l b s .per aay 60,000 lbs.ner day 60,000 lbs.ner day V 100 ner cent h alf nints 9,000 lbs.per day 10,000 lbs.ner day 20,000 lbs.ner day 60,000 lbs.ner day 60,000 l b s .ner dan C . Total Cost 1. ICO ner cent quarts 8,000 Its.ner day 10.000 lbs.ner day 20.000 lbs.per day 14.0,000 lbs.ner day 60.000 lbs.ner day 2. 100 ner cent half-nlnts 9,000 lbs.ner day 10.000 lbs.ner day 20.000 lbs.ner uay [{.0,000 lbs.ner day 60.000 lbs.ner day 11.96 19.90 16.90 26.20 36.90 19.70 19 .70 23.69 28.30 37.60 27.70 27.70 30.26 6 1 .6 C 66-70 19. 92 IQ .70 23.69 27.70 17.89 26.29 66-90 63.99 30.22 6 7 .00 69.86 99.09 90.33 169.02 310.86 661.21 92.01 169.89 331.96 69 3.00 6.9 *69 29.39 39.88 90.80 69 *6 9 61.33 96-91 166-92 309.80 667.18 161.68 160.92 266.09 297.23 691.66 916.86 1106.10 1019.86 961.66 1699.07 1817.91 1639.67 168.23 283.29 997.09 88.62 97.79 179.63 337.76 698.78 66-66 99.88 176-^7 320.39 I47O .76 75. B2 109.140 179.01 32U.29 U61.67 196.01 196.17 190.67 271.72 279-60 2 P 9 .03 062.63 90 9.9 9 926-39 1 1 1 D .^8 102 9.39 976.13 16 6 0 .8 9 192?.06 1669 .Q6 A A^nendix Table XXV C o n t i n u e d — Fage 5 Cartons ner minute 20 “ 55' ....05 D. Unit Cost rer 100 pounds 1. 100 ner cent quarts 5,000 lbs.ner day 10,000 lbs.ner day 2 0 , CC0 lbs.ner day 40,000 lbs.ner day 60,000 lbs .per day 2 100 ner cent h a i r - p i n t s 5,000 lbs.per day 10,000 lbs.ner day 20,000 lbs.per day 1+0,000 lb s.ner day 60,000 lbs.per day 1.110 0.976 0.878 0.81*4 0.825 . 3.08 2.69 2.814 2.78 2.76 1.292 0.999 C.673 0.601 0.765 3.01 2.76 2.622 2. 56 2.51+5 1.516 1.094 0.695 0.611 0.766 3.12 2.72 2.529 2 .1+4 2.417 IV. W h e n Q0 ner cent of milk in quarts, 10 ner cent in hali'-nints, m a c h i n e rented A. Total Cost 5.000 Its.per day 10.000 lbs. ner day 20.000 lbs.ner day 40.000 lbs.ner day 60,GC0 lbs.ner day E. Unit Cost ner 100 oounds 5.000 lis.^er day 10.000 lbs.ner day 20.000 lbs.ner d a 7. 1+0,000 lbs.ner day 60.000 lbs.ner day 65-46 116.91 214-35 415- 8 5 61°.11 1 1 1 1 1 30c i69 072 039 025 74-12 117.148 209.55 390.86 576.3° 63.86 125.63 211.70 389 .47 560.50 1 -582 1.677 1.173 1 .0q8 C.977 0.961 1.05Q 0.9 1 J> 1.256 0.931+ Arrendix Table XXVI. Soaker Dottle and Case basher— Summary of Data _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ bally Cost of operation, Dollars— May 20, 1952_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Capacity, EfK _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 24~...... t T " i i t r h -i I. Fixed Costs Insurance, taxes, licenses Depreciation, interest on building Depreciation, interest on bottle washer Depreciation, interest on case washer Repair, maintenance, supplies Total Troduction Costs A. Labor 1. 100 per cent quarts 20,000 lbs.per day 40,000 lbs.per day 60,000 lbs.ner day60,000 lbs.ner iay 100,000 lbs.per day 2. 100 per cent half-pints 20,000 lbs.per day 40,000 lbs.per day 60,000 lbs.per day 80,000 lbs.ner day 100,000 lbs.per day Utilities 1. 100 per cent quarts 20,000 lbs.per day 40,000 lbs.ner day 60,000 lbs.ner day 80,000 lbs.ner day 100,000 lbs.per day 1.89 143 2.74 047 1 .1c 743 945 16.60 2340 30 .01* 37.30 30.60 59.00 61.1*0 115.00 114.00 2.81; 5.66 fl.52 11.36 11*. 20 2.77 2.01; 2.95 0.59 1.67 10.65 3-96 2.61 1;. 60 0.62 14.47 9.69 17-21; 23.81; 31.21; 37.71; 38.18 31.21; 59.14 61.61; 115.4 UP. 4 31.68 $9.88 82.2 8 11$.88 148.88 2.61; 2.17 4.34 6.51 8.68 10.8$ 5.26 7.92 10.56 13.20 10.33 17.68 24.28 31.68 1 140" $.50 3.19 $.71 0.67 3.03 18.10 8.80 7.76 5.80 $.$4 11.80 9.49 0.72 0.69 4.81 5.81 28.29 ” ' 3 2 3 3 10.77 11.21 18. $6 2$.16 32. $6 39.06 25.60 33.00 39.50 32. $6 60.76 82.72 83.16 116.32 116.76 149.32 149.76 33.00 61.20 83.60 117.20 150.20 18.12 24.72 72.12 38.62 32.12 60.32 2.08 4.16 6.24 8.32 10.40 2.01 4.02 6.03 8.o4 10.05 11.65 19.00 1.96 3.92 5.88 7.84 9.80 Arrendix Table TXV1 Continued— I ape 2 i| — ------- Capacity, SfK 106 2. 100 per cent half-pints 20.000 lbs.per day [{.0,000 lbs.per day 60.000 lbs.ner day 80.000 lbs.per day 100.000 lbs.ner day C. Total rroduction costs, including bottle breakage 1. 100 per cent quarts 20.000 lbs.ner day i|0,000 lbs.per day60.000 lbs.per day 80.000 lbs.per day 100.000 lbs.ner day 2. 100 ner cent half-pints 20.000 lbs.ner day [*0,000 lbs.ner day 60.000 lbs.ner day 80.000 lbs.ner day 100.000 lbs.ner day III. Total Costs 1. 100 ner cent quarts 20.000 lbs.ner day 1*0,000 lbs.ner day 60.000 lbs.per day 80.000 lbs.per day 100.000 lbs.ner day 3-76 7.56 11.3U 15.12 21.00 3.50 7 .00 10.50 14.00 17.50 27.06 14.73 27.12 37.82 50.59 38.66 51.00 63.00 62.44 36.78 70.06 99.34 136.92 36.94 70.64 98.94 138.24 176.94 lli.58 180.00 22.21 34-71 45.45 58.22 70.63 24.75 37.14 48.6? 61.02 72.46 2 .9 0 5.8o h o 2.77 5.54 8.31 m 2.69 5.38 2.64 7-92 10.56 5 .26 11.60 14.50 11.08 6.07 10.76 11.75 13.45 11.20 14-79 26.62 37.69 49.56 60.53 15.15 15.51 26.86 27.18 37.86 38.09 49.64 49.60 60.52 60.61 15.90 27.12 38.38 50.04 36.76 37.0« 37.84 6 .7 0 70.08 97.58 136.28 174-38 29.26 41.09 52.16 64-03 75.00 60.80 37.25 70.26 70.54 97.63 97.83 97.52 136.20 136.28 136.56 172.07 174-21 172.40 43.80 56.47 66.36 77.69 48.83 60.05 71.31 62.97 93-73 33.24 44.98 55-96 67.74 78.62 88.90 70.88 A p p e n d i x t a b l e XXVI C o n t i n u e d — t a r e 3 Capacity, 24 2. 100 ^er cent half-pints 20.000 lbs.ner day 40.000 lbs.ner day 60.000 lbs.ner day P0,000 lbs.ner day 100.000 lbs.per day 3. 90 per cent of milk in quarts; 10 per cent in half-pints 20.000 lbs.ner day 40.000 lbs.ner day 60.000 lbs.Der day 80.000 lbs.per day 100.000 ]bs.ner day 60 46.96 80.86 108.76 100" "W. ll;0 " 200 240 44.41 78.99 107.27 146.66 167.63 186.96 91.26 84.56 112.06 160.76 186.86 23.40 27.07 31.46 30.10 40.60 45.44 51.63 67.05 82.33 64.69 58.15 72.70 35.44 49.32 61.94 76.40 86.39 87.78 0.146 0.103 0.166 0.112 0.093 0.085 0.07^ 0.219 0.141 0.111 0.097 0.009 0.244 0.150 0.119 0.104 c .094 0.276 0.222 0.193 0.193 0.190 0.327 0.247 0.210 0.206 0.203 0.354 0.259 0.217 0.212 0.205 148.26 69.74 83 .9 ] IV. Vnit Costs ner 100 pounds 1. 100 per cent quarts 20.000 lbs.ner day 40.000 lbs.ner day 60.000 lbs.ner day 80.000 lbs.ner day 100.000 lbs.ner day 0.087 0.076 0.123 0.092 0.001 0.073 0.071 0.076 0.072 0.080 0.076 2. 100 per cent in pints 20.000 lbs.ner day 1(0,000 lbs.ner day 60.000 It s.ner day 80.000 lbs.ner day 100.000 lbs.ner day 0.222 0.196 0.180 0.103 0.107 0.234 0.202 0.161 0.185 0.167 0.256 0.211 O.lll 0.085 O.I87 0.189 0.109 55.19 65.54 66.36 98.83 115.73 126.12 154.30 164-57 190.17 202.50 45.97 60.71 72.35 86.56 70.77 103.81 130.45 169.49 205.33 51.02 64-43 77.22 91.62 100.26 104^89 An r e n d l x i/aile .-(XVI C o n t i n u e d — ia^e 1; Capacity,BPM zq--- gg— ipg• ii|0 — m 3. 90 per cent of milk in quarts 20.000 lbs.ner day IqO,000 lbs.per day 60.000 lbs.per day 00,000 lbs.per day 100,000 lbs.per daj 0.117 0.096 0.086 0 .081; 0.082 0.255 0.229 0.152 0.161 0.097 0.091 0.177 0.123 0.103 0.121 0.128 0.096 0.086 0.088 0.108 0.100 0.116 0.105 0.138 0.101 0 .111; 0.091 0.087 0 .081; '"m 0.187 line Line — oumm.ary of Data ailv Cost of oneration, Ji I. Stainless Steel A. Fixed Costs Taxes, insurance, licenses Depreciation, interest on pine Ferairs, maintenance, sunolies i'otal 0.06 0.06 0.18 0.08 " t ; 3? " ' 0.11 0.25 0.11 0.32 0 .1k 0.13 0 1ounds of milk per day 2U 7iefflr IfO/WO" 6o, 0oo t ' M o i r 00 00 a >LV1i . »-> An^endix fable 0.40 0.15 O .48 o.ie 0.22 O.kk "15757 “ " 6771" ' '6i8r ~ E. Froducticn Cost Labor 6.90 9.90 12.90 18.90 18.90 C. Total Cost 7.22 10.34 13.47 16.61 19.75 D. Cnit Cost ner 100 pounds 0.036 0.026 0.022 0.021 0.020 r . Jroauction Cost Lator 2.90 3.57 I{.00 4.60 5.18 C. Total Cost 3.32 4.01 4.17 5.51 6.03 D. Tnit Cost ^er 100 rounds 0.0166 0.0100 0.0076 0.0069 0.0060 II. Glass Lines Cleaned in I lace by Circulation A. Fixed Costs, same as above XIII. GLOSSARY pa t c h or h o l d i n g p r o c e s s - a m e t h o d of* p a s t e u r i z a t i o n in which the m i l k Til Held In batches at a temperature of li+.3° P. Tor 30 minutes to destroy the bacteria. This method Is b e i n g replaced rapidly by the FTST method of pasteurization. EPF r e p r e s e n t s b o i l e r h orsepower. A boiler is rated on the b a sis of the q u a n t i t y of w a t e r it will evaporate. A b o i l e r h o r s e p o w e r is eq u i v a l e n t to the evaporation of 31+-5 pou n d s of w a t e r per h our at 212° F. PFM r e p r e s e n t s bottles per minute. It Is a term used to de­ s i g n a t e the c a p a c i t y of a bottle washer or bottle f i l ­ ler, or rate of h a n d l i n g bottles. C apital r e c o v e r y - The u n i f o r m annual payment ne c e s s a ry to r e c o v e r a n i n v e s t m e n t with interest. The capital re ­ c o v e r y is c a l c u l a t e d on the basis of the fo l l o w i ng re­ lationship : C a p i t a l r e c o v e r y (first cost - salvage value )(CRF) + (salvage v a l u e )(interest rate) C l a r i f i e r - A c e n t r i f u g a l device w h i c h is used for removing f o r e i g n m a t e r i a l f r o m m i l k in m u c h the same manner in w h i c h c r e a m Is r e m o v e d from milk. Tany clarifiers and s e p a r a t o r s have i n t e r c hangeable parts. Cold w a l l - A type of s t o r a g e tank in which the cooling is done by c i r c u l a t i n g the coolant In the walls of the tank. CPy r e p r e s e n t s cans p e r minute. The term Is used for d e s i g n a t i n g the s p e e d of o p e r a t i o n of a can washer, a n d other o p e r a t i o n s where cans must be handled. It is a l s o u s e d to de s i g n a t e the c a p a c i t y of a carton filler in cartons p e r minute. CPM is also used to designate the c a p a c i t y of a case w a s h e r in cases per minute. Crf r e p r e s e n t s c apital r e c o v e r y factor. It is a value which m u l t i p l i e d by the investment gives the annual uniform p a v m e n t plus' i nterest req u i r e d to repay an investment. «/ DX represents direct-exnansion. It is used to describe a m e t h o d of r e f r i g e r a t i o n in which the refrigerant changes state f rom a liquid to a gas to accomplish cooling. Most large systems use ammonia as a refrigerant Fixed c o s t s - Those costs w h i c h rem a i n relatively constant regardless of the plant production. Interest, deprecia­ tion, taxes, and insurance are examples of fixed costs. Gallons pe r h o u r - It is a term which represents the equipment capac i t y , such as a homogenizer. Fowever, most con­ tinuous flow equipment is rated in pounds per hour. One gallon of m i l k weighs 8.^9 pounds. FTST represents h i g h - t e m r e r a t u r e short-time. The FT ST is a continuous m e t h o d of pasteurization. Pasteurization is carried out by h e a t i n g to 160° F. and m a i n t a i n i n g the temperature for 1^ seconds. Insulated storage t a n k - A type of storage tank w h i c h contains three to four inches of insulating material in the wall. Milk is cooled oefore it is placed in the tank, usually with a plate cooler. Operational cost - The same as the p r o d u c t i o n cost in this dissertatIon. F. D .pump - represents positive displacement p u m o , often expressed as positive pump. The P. D. pump is used for m o v i n g milk w h enever it is necessary to move a fixed volume of milk per unit time. Processing cost- the cost of p u t t i n g the product in a saleable Form. It does not include the cost of the raw ma t eria l for the product. Production costs -These costs which depend on the volume of milk processed in the plant. Labor, utility, and bottle costs are included in p r o d u c t ‘on costs. iweet water-The term is used to designate water that has been refrig e r a t e d which has no salt content. Sweet wa ter can be used to cool a product d own 3k° F. If there is salt in the r e f r i g e r a t e d water, the solution is known as brine, w h i c h can be used for cooling; below the f r e e z i n g point of water. Tons of refr i g e r a t i o n -This term is used to designate the capac ity oT r e f r i g e r a t i o n equipment. A ton is the amount of r e f r i g e r a t i o n accomplished by melt ng one ton of ice. If cooling is accomplished at the rate of 200 Dtu. per minute, the equipment is said r.o have one ton ref r igeration capacity. T o tal cost- Siam of fixed and o r o d u c t i o n costs. Unit cost- The cost of an ooe r a t i o n (or nrocess) expressed in terms of a s t a n d a r d unit q u antity of milk, such as cost ner nint, per quart, or p e r 100 pounds. The unit cost was e x p r e s s e d in dollars p e r 100 pounds in this dissertation. The cost per 100 pounds can be c o n ­ v e n i e n t l y c a l c u l a t e d on a quart basis by d i viding bv fifty. TJ value- represents the over-all heat transfer coefficient e x p r ess e d in British Thermal Units ner hour-square footdegree f’ahranheit. Variable c o s t s - Those costs w h i c h are obtained by adding the cost of* n r o d u c t i o n and the cost of the milk. X IV . LIST OF R E F E RENCES Lci>or Periodicals and "bulletins French, Charles E . , "Work Simplification in the Dai r y Plant" Cherry-Eurrell Circle, March- A p r i l 1952, po. 3-7. French, Charles E . , " S t r e a m l i n i n g R e c e i v i n g Operations," Food E n g i n e e r i n g , January 1952, p. 99. Fleischman, F. F., Jr., and R. F. Holland, "Permanent Pipe Lines Cut Cleaning Costs, "Food Engineering, November 1951, p p . 56-60. v orrison, R. W., " S i m p l i fication In a n Ice Cream Operation," Ice C r e a m R e v i e w , June 19 51, P P • 152-153• Nadler, Gerald, "Time and M o t i o n Study in a Canning Flant," Food I n d u s t r i e s , February 19 50, p p . 236-237* Shiff ermiller , .Villiam E. , "A Time and ^ot ion Analysis of Cleaning Operations in M ilk Plants," Thesis for Master of Science, T'ichiRan State College, 1950, p. 1+1+. Proctor, F . , "Labor Saving Methods in British M ilk Bottling Dairies," Proceedings of XII International Dairy Con-ress, Volume lj, 191+° , p. 11+5* Dunlop, F. G. , "Work Simplification Pays Off," Food Industries, Octooer, 191+9, p p . 1356-1350; ’’ovemLer 191+9 , pp. 1514-8-1552. R o s s m o r e , m ., and R. S. Aries, "Time and M o t i o n Study in the Chemical Process Industries," Chemical and E n g i n e e r i n g N e w s , October 1 9 U 7 , op5 311+£- 31 Ml • Babcock, C. J., "Operation and vanage^er.t of f-ilk Plants," United States D e p a r t m e n t of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., C ircular 260, Revised 1.91+7, P. 8. Blorksten, J., "Time and M otion Studies for Chemists," Chemical and E n g i n eering N e w s , Volume 21, 1014.3 , p. 1321+. Davidson, J. P., C. K. Shedd, E. U. Collins, "Labor Duty In H a r v e s t i n g of Ensilage," A g r icultural E n g i n e e r i n g , 191+3, P. 29 3. V a n Pechman, W., ’’R e v i s i o n and Exoans ion of Operating; S t a n d a r d s , ” C h e m i c a l and E n g i n e e r i n g News, October 10, 191+3, x>P- 1621-1625.--------- ---Felling, E. 0., ’’Changed Layout Saves & 2 5 0 0 , ” factory M a n a g e m e n t , F e b r u a r y 191+0, pp. 61+-65. Clement, C. E. ’’O p e r a t i o n and M a n a g e m e n t of Milk F l a n t s , ” U n i t e d States D e p a r t m e n t of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., Cir c u l a r 260, 1933, P P • 16, 38Books Carroll, Fhil, H o w to C h ar t T i m e s t u d y D a t a , McGraw-Hill B oo k Co., 1950, pZ 57• Mundel, M. York, E. , M o t i o n and Time Study, I P 50, p p . 171, 186., 36^. F r e n t i c e - K a l l , New E a r n e s , R. M. , M o t i o n and Time Study, W i l e y and Sons, N e w York, T91+8, P p . 7, TT, 72/ Alford, L. F., and J. P. Bangs, Pr o d u c t i o n F a n d b o o k , Rona l d Press Company, New York, 191+7, PP - 71+1+, 769, 1+76 Sommer, Hugo, M a r k e t ^ i l k and Fieleted P r o d u c t s , Second Edit on, O l s e n P u b l i s h i n g Company Co". , 1771+6, p . 606. M orrow, Robert L. Time and M o t i o n Study E c o n o m y , Ronald P u b l i s h i n g C o m p a n y , NO Y . , 1^1+6, p p . B l , 101. Pres grave, Ralnh, Book Comoa ny, The Dyn a m i c s 19 i+5, P- of Time S t u d y , McGraw-Hill 195- Carroll, Phil, Time Study for Cost Control, Second Edition, M c G r a w - H i l l Book Company, New York, 191+3, or. 70, 82, 100 . Ut i l i t i e s P e r i odic a l s a n d b u l l e t i n s K a m p-an, W. J., " P r i n c i p l e s of M e c h a n i c a l R e f r i g e r a t i o n , 11 Mim e o g r a p h , U n i v e r s i t y of Illinois E x t e n s i o n Course, 1*4-9, p. 15. Kramer, A. W., "How v any E o i l e r Units for a S m all Plant," Power G e n e r a t i o n , Chicago, Illinois, N o v e m b e r 19*4-8, p. 82. _________ " O p e r a t i n g T i m e Schedule," P l a n n i n g Plant Sales E n g i n e e r i n g , C h e r r y - B u r r e l l C o r p o r a t i o n , Chicago, 19U8, p. 1. cowen, John, "Feat T r a n s f e r in Dairy M a c h i n e r y , " Arricultural E n g i n e e r i n g , J a n u a r y 1930, pp. 27, 30, 31; F e b r u a r y 19 3 0 , no . 71-7*1-• Books nrown, G. G . , et. al. Unit O p e r a t i o n s , Wil e y New York, 19.91, ppT TJUT, *f25 • and Sons, McCoy, Oaniel, Editor, R e f r i g e r a t i o n D ata B o o k , T h ird Edition, A m e r i c a n S o c i e t y of i.efriger-at ing Engineers, 19 91, p . 6*|1 • Perry, John, P., C h e m i c a l E n g i n e e r s 1 H a n d b o o k , M c G r a w - H i l l Book Company^ N e w York, 19 5 0 p p . If8, 37531, 1633• Kent, R. P., M e c h a n i c a l Engineers* h a n d b o o k , J o h n W i l e y and Sons, N e w York, l9*f9, P ~ 7 6-165 j 6-18. Ryan, W. E’., "Tower Plant C onstruction," E n g i n e e r i n g , A u g u s t 19*1-7, p « 116. P o w e r Plant Gaffert, Gustaf A., S t e a m Power S t a t i o n s , M c G r a w - H i l l Company, New York^ 19*4-6, p7 506. Book Skrotzki, F . G . , and W. A. Vopat, "A p p l i e d E n e r g y C o n v e r s i o n , M c G r a w - H i l l Book Company, New Kork, 1Q U 5 > n. 3*4? • Brown, A. I., and S. M . Marco, McC-raw-u ill Book Company, I n t r o d u c t i o n t o Feat T r a n s f e r , New York”, 19*4-2, o . l*|if"7 Ibbetson, W. S., Electrical P o wer E n g i n e e r i n g H a n d b o o k , Chemica l P u b l i s h i n g Company oT New Y o r k 7 I n c ., New Kork, IB 3° , p » 13*4* Moyer*, J. A., Jiefri^eratlon, McGraw - H i l l Book Comoanv. York, 19 2 F," o. New Pernald, Rov ert H., and George Crrok, Engine e r i n g of Fower Plants, Third Edition, ■Tc Graw-HIlT Book Company, New York, 1927, p f . 303, 1+02. -otz, W i l l i a m F., P rinciples of Refri^erat ion, Nickerson and Collins Como any, Chicago, il 7 i n o i s , 1926, pp. 590-616. □ebhardt, George P., Steam Fower Plant E n g i n e e r i n g , John W i l e v and Sons, New York, 1922, p o . 88i+-b5b. Pulldings Periodicals and bulletins _______________ "Annual Reoort on C o n s t r u c t i o n C o s t s , ” En g i n e e r i n g News R e c o r d , M a r c h 23, 1^50, P. 1Aj1+-153. __________________ ” Notes on Plant L a y o u t , ” M imeogranh, Purrell C o m o a n y , Chicago, Illinois, 191+9. Cherry- Plombergsson, , ’’D i s c u s s i o n of General Frinciples for the D e s i g n of Dairies of D i f f e r e n t Size and Production C a o a c i t v , ” Proceedings XII International D a iry Congress, Vol. 3,* 191+9, r. 573. ^itten, Horace, L. , ’’Functional D e s i g n of Fluid T'ilk P l a n t s , ” TJnoublished Thesis for -'aster of Science, Mic h i g an State College, lbl+c, . 16, 30, 33, 1+3* Pabcock, C. J., ’’G n e r a t - o n and ,ranacement of 7'ilk P l a n t s , ” U n ited States Denartment of agriculture, Washington, D. C., Circular 260, 191+7, PP • 1+, 77* Curry, Norval F., "The Adaption of Farm Buildings to Meet Changes in Farm O p e r a t i o n s , ” U npublished Thesis for Ma ster of Science, Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa, 191+6. Eooks Means, Robert Snow, Puildlng C o n s t r u c t i o n Cost Data Published by the Author, D u r b u r y , M a s s a c h u s e t t s , 19 50. P u l v e r , F. E. C o n s t r u c t i o n Estimates and C o s t s , M c G r a w —Fill Pook C o . , Mew Yor+T, 191+7, PP • 1+63* Ross, f . E., Care and H a n d l ing of M i l k , Orange Judd Co., New YorkT 19 39, p P • Eidman, F. L. , Economic Control of Engine e r i n g and M a n u f a c t u r i n g , Me Graw-Fill Pook C o . , NT Y . , I’ 9 3c>, p * 67. Equipment Periodi c a l s and bulletins Loo, Ching, " U t i l i z a t i o n of Cavitation for Homogenization of Milk," U n p u b l i s h e d thesis for F h . D ., M i c h i g a n State College, 1952, o . 73. Carter, P. m . s and A. Bradfield, "Consider the Conveyor Line," M i l k D e a l e r , January 19£2, pp. 1|8, U 9 , 96-57. ___________________"Bottle Handlers Cut Breakage," Pood E n g i n e e r i n g , June, 1952, o p . 127, lBlp.w Stork, R a loh E . , "Air A g i t a t i o n of ^ilk," June 19 52, o. 36. Milk Plant Monthly ______________ "Automatic U n c a s i n g and Washe r - L o a d i n g with RCA M a c h i n e ," M i l k Flant M o n t h l y , M ay, 1952, po. 22-23* Batchelor, R. L . , "Porta le Re c e i v i n g R o o m Operations," S o u t h e r n D a i r y Products J o u r n a l , May 1951, po. 70-72, 76. Schwarzkopf, V., "Weighing, Sampling, and Testing," American Mil k R e v i e w , August and September 19 50. Parkin, I. P., "Dairy Plant housekeeping," M o n t h l y , May, 19l|9 , P* 69* Mjik Plant Mitten, Horace L., "Functional D e s i g n of Fluid Milk Plants," U n n u b l i s h e d Thesis for M a s t e r of Science, M i c h i g a n State College, 19^8, 0 0 . 73 - 7I4.. Thomnson, C. L . , "Plant O o e r a t i o n and Their Efficiency," Mi l k Plant M o n t h l y , May, 19ip8 , op. 38 -lj.l. Cornell, F. G . , Jr., "New Dairy M a c h i n e r y and Equipment," M i l k Plant M o n t h l y , M a r c h 19U8, p. 92. MaC-uire, Walter, "Flant Efficiency T h r o u g h Work Simnlification," Milk Plant M o n t h l y , February, 19ip7* p. 1+6. Schwarzkopf, V., "An Efficient R e c e i v i n g Room," National Butter and Cheese J o u r n a l , February 19lp7 • Clement, C. E . , "Equipment for City ” ilk Flants," United States D e o a r t m e n t of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., Circula r Q 9, Revised, June, 19ij1, 0 0 . 1-3* Books Perry, J. H . , Chemical E n g i n e e r s 1 H a n d b o o k , Book Company, iPH ¥. , 19 51, pT 1 6 3 1 . McGraw-Hill ________________ Man ua l or M il k P l a n t O p e r a t o r s , Milk Industry Foundation, Washington, D~. D . , 1949. Fouts, L. L . , and T. R. Freeman, P r o c e s s e s , W i l e y Brothers, Bartlett, Roland W., The M i l k N. Y., 1946, P. ITTi D a i r y Manufa c t u r i n g Y. , T 9 4 b , P p . 107, Industry, F a r r a l l , A. W., D a i r y E ng i n e e r i n g , 1942, n o . 325-326. a 123, 155. Ronald Press Co.. W i l ey Brothers, N. Y. . Plant Layout a n d M a t e r i a l s Handling Periodicals and b u l letins "Bulk D a n d l i n g of M i l k , ” .jestern Dairy Journal, June T~, T9 52, p. 11. * Gemmill, A. V., "Four Eig M o d e r n i z a t i o n Benefits," Engineering, M a r c h 1952, pp. 4 Q -52, 214, 216. hood Alkire, m . , "Flant Layout a n d the Use of Templets and Models," m i m e o g r a p h of t a l k p r e s e n t e d at the Central Illinois S e c t i o n of S o c i e t y of Au t o m o t i v e .ingineers, Springfield, Illinois, O c t o b e r 22, 1951. Ferry, R. I., "Tank Truck C o l l e c t i o n of l,ilk for Farms," A g r i c ul t u r a l E n g i n e e r i n g , Septem b e r , 1951* p. 480* Gemmill, Arthur, "They Call it the W o r l d ’s Most *'0