.— __—I--

 

M hr the Dear-0 0' M. *
mu mm W
Bonaid M. Flown“

195.2.

 

 

E
(.1
This is to certify that the {

thesis entitled

"Space Requiremnts in m1]: Processing Plants"

presented by

Donald 1!. Florence

'——-'-‘— ‘r —‘ IV —

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Mo. 3. .0. degree inmal ~
Engineering

WNW

Major prolessor

 

Date November 1 195

 

0-169

 

SPACE REQUIFEl-LEN'I‘S IN

MILK PROCESSING PLANTS

By

Donald M. Florence
M

THESIS

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Agricultural Engineering

1952

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to Professor
A. W. Farrall for initiating this study, and for the guidance and many
helpful suggestions offered during the investigation.

Grateful acknowledgment is due to Dr. W. M. Carleton and Professor
C. W. Hall for their guidance, interest, and valuable assistance through;
out this investigation.

The author is also indebted to Dr. I. Olkin for his counsel and
helpful suggestions in applying the statistical methods for this investi-
gation.

This study could not have been carried out without the aid of the
many dairymen who answered the questionnaire and permitted the writer
to inspect their dairy plants. Also, many thanks are extended to the
dairy equipment manufacturing companies who supplied valuable informa-

tion relating to dairy equipment and dairy plant layout and design.

:‘fl'jiifi'§
4~~t..'.,_‘. .Q

SPACE REQUIREMENTS IN

MILK PROCESSING PLANTS

By

Donald M. Florence

AN ABSTRACT

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Agricultural Engineering

Year , 1952

Approved flafifiafil aid/15;»

n . ’ P! ‘ t . ~- ~ <11 - ' ‘ r ‘L " v-v a

i a mill rrc e Clfl‘ plant n<o f'CnOia must L? con-
sidered, such as svnitgry reouiremrnto, labor roc“ilrrti;i, initial Cfpitsl
. A r v Q‘r ‘ r‘A— ,- - a. ,- ' n ,‘ — 3 J.

1v rcctnett one: era codts, and e<i~ct d Salts volume. Labor coeco,

b"ldinr and cordizucxicn co: .‘., U tmcat Crete, and power COSlH are all

premium and the plant must be cesi*ned to Fecp eucn costs at a mi 21-

9‘3
C +
m

mum. Therefore, the desifn of the milk plant must provide for a hi~hly

‘

ef°icient operation that will ‘roduce a hijh-oUelitr prcéuct at a low sell—

'retione indicated that the SD”CG reanizonents, or

'U
*‘i
43
H
J-
‘1
.3.
.5
'J
‘1
l
H'
,5
<:
)
u)
,4-
l—u.

sizé of the milk plent, l“d a pronounced 8? W0? on V COFETatiRE

l

efficiency. This stUdr was u:.d rta'eii to de ermine a HS+LOC for es iUetin

'l

‘

or predictin: the amount of synce required for a milk processing plant to
handle a given amount of product. ”we maior points investi7ated in tois

stud] are listed below.

‘\
O
'4)
C
J
O
(D
"H
D
C
.10
*1
(D
Q;
r“.)
O
"5
d
‘1
‘. e
H
1.10
D
l
3
in
b
c“
H.
O
U
n
i
Ll
H
J.-
“:1
(T)
Ii
.—+
1-0
0

\ H
O
‘ J
' J
l
O
\D
:1
k)
[-1.
"i
\D
[3.1
.45
O
'1
H
H
‘0
,3
n

h. TPZCe Ecsuircd for 3”Or9”9 ATSCS-
For this stud , a number of nilk Clen*39 l”“dlln7 from FOO to O’OCO

.0

Fallone 0; were selected NVich were coneidered to hove an

efficient operation. A questionnaire was constructed and nailed to 34

CO.

t?
L)

dairy Plants and of the 54, seven were returned to i“: ~uthor.

‘

ylonto were vioitei perqonnllfi and otudiad If too “uthor, cnd of tneoo,

n reloticnohin botween

v
:3
(’)
,7
I
F4
{.2
Ho
)
*3
CL
3
+.
O
3
4)
O
.3
I“
.J
J '14
J
, +
(D
LL
-+
O
O
,7
rs“
n3
J
:3

he vol mo of i;lk honiled daily and the space re aired in t*e vcrious

I 1 u o o - j 1
rocws of the milk nlvnt. TF0 cote eccnired from the oUeitionnaire anc tne

yr,
H
l
(J
,4-
x]
4
F4-
J
‘JI
-L
N)
L
‘13.
(D
’1
if!
0
O
3.
3
H
H
h
Ll;
J
.3
4-
’)

on: crcuo find +5“ rolotionnlin betwnen

n“

(“Ct sonarcs method. Ce cvcroft

, r
(I)
.4-
9’.‘
I)
4
m
*i
t.)-
x13
ff
D
.)
J
*3
J
u—l
:
J
D
M
-L
x
"l
L—l

be.

'it* 09 m‘lk Confiled dfiily woo t E0“ on n F‘Mzr? wtioh was eotimoted

it wow oofiuwoo I“e otcwld hove o t‘eirl‘r occnrote

t3 the olont Operator Gino

o

#0

knowledro op the smount op milk tHn Clont woo nroce sine. -.c olent

I

’ ~ 4‘ ': . '1‘ "‘ ' ~"or ‘1 I- r‘.’ . ~A rx-J" ,~ fi‘y . '2 ‘- 1“ --L .1 I J- ‘5 x
operator 9 cp-nion a.» also re rzoui 1; d to} inins uwet:er or not tic

room“ in the milk “lort were 0? SHF?icient mire. Foomfi HFicH were consid—

ered to b9 lGO m“5‘11 WGT? not inclnood in tho Pinol onolfioio.
A .' ‘ ‘ ‘ “ . - I- . f‘ \ v: .- \ Nr‘ \ 1‘4 . J . 7‘:- :\ 'V
tron t*e eoelgoi, of dwt?, 1t W73 founc tact a g~nercl rclnLlandifl
exiatoi *etveen the vqllono 0? milk h'nfilod d¢]1' t: fFo cilk blont Coo

" .L
motule

C’—
:r
3
’D
a
9
.3
,_L
O
* ‘3
P43
+4
0
O
"i
’3
O
'3
’1
D
{J-
"S
(1:
f)
’1
\J
"I
’3
r.‘
<
.1
_)
‘1
’ x
O
C)
(D
l
-1
J-
:3
'l
u

wosfiinr, milk storOTe, Jr? otororo, boiler, "no cfiice roomS. Pecouoe of
inoutficiont and bi~nlv voriable datd, no relotionohio woo found between

+39 crount 0? mil? hdnfilod daily and tno floor abocc reouired for the

comrreocor, plcnt nointcnonco, locker, nod driver's check rooms.

IT.TIDZ,F7\TYDIY1TC"T

-..L.‘\....‘\AJ_... --ooooooooooooooo00000000000.000.0000
T‘s" _~>Ivv‘:~ :1 inn.

LIL;.«i—.A.-,‘[-r;_ F‘II--£oooooooooooo000000000.oooooooo

Value of effective. degiAznooooooooooo000.00..

Space reouirements in relation to efficiency

U)

ize Of tile pl(:nt..OOOOOIOOOIOO0.0.0.0000...

U)
H.
N
"D

of processing rooms....................

(J
HI
[’1
(D
O
‘4)

reCGj-'Jin: TOOKOIOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00....

U‘
H
'l
(D
O
H.)
’3
,3
LI)
(7"

etriziog room...................
Size of bottle washinc room.................
Size of milk storage room...................
Space for dry storsoe rooms...............5.
lize of o??ice sosce........................

1"?fi‘":ffl C7 o'ivfiv
.‘-.-\'~4 A ~~-\.‘J¢...0.0.I..0.0.00.0.0.0...00......

.r:'_‘ fi'f-T- -'- Ca- (h D“?
P. i-..u¢-i_-."'._.I . L: "‘.._.Aloooooooooooooo

Space reouired for Processing rooms.........
Space required for bottle washing rooms.....
Epace required for milk stora:e rooms.......
:occe required for dry storage rooms........
Spoce re mired for boiler rooms.............
Space reouired for plant ofPices............
onsce rcovired for compressor rooms.........
Space recuired for plant msintensrce shops..

pQCG TG'Uired for lOCk'Qr 1.0017180000000000...

Sosce resuired for driver‘s chock room.

Spice recuired for totsl plsnt

CCTTCL‘F'SIOT’T‘......................
E?CCTIZTDATICTJ FCE FUTVE? STUDY.
APPLYDIX I.......................
Statistical ans ysis of date..
Poceiving rooms............
Processing rooms...........
Bottle washing rooms.......

Milk storsge rooms.........

Dry storage rooms..........

1:011:11?TOOIS...........oo..

List of plsnt descriptions...
APPE7DIX III....................
Plsnt study questionnaire....
LICETATUEF CITiE................

C’T'IZ’P P'P'AF‘L‘TC

DOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOI

. : '
33.1

PI‘QQ

C)
CD

LIFT OF TABLES

Table I Floor space in tbe various workrooms of five well-srrsnfed

T2111: plintSOOOOCOOCOOOO0.0....00....OCOCOOOIOOOOOOOOOOO
Table II Yilk store 0 rooms resuired 9or dsirv plents..............

Teble III Rilocction 0‘ specs for o??ice activities.................

I'3

eble IV Floor seece eteiloble for corores~or rooms in ten zilk

F’lqntf—JOOOCOOOOOOIOIOOOO000......OOOOOOIIOOOOOOOOOOCOOO.

Toble Y Floor socce nviiliblo ?or ssintonanc- sbops in seven
H.111.”T“1“n‘:.¢“........0.0.0....O.0......0.000000000000000.
stle VI Floor specs available for locker rooms in nine milk

plr}ndl:3.......fl.........0......00.000.000.00...OOOOOOOC.

Table VII Floor Specs availOble for driver's check room in seven

milTC hlq.n+q............00.000.00.00000000IOOOOOOUOOOOIO

Table VIII Floor snocc rods
blents Handli-

r. A ‘ I‘ .
lietxde<Wi ’*.' slid ' , “PP qu_

n I

irod in the inroridnt TOCTS 0? milk
'17" 1

M41» ‘n:1w
.4 :. C'-'_.I.OCOIIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.I...........O.I..O.....

()\

IT“T C? IRVIIS IT A?TT"WII I

TOble AI 3p+g used i

-.
¢.

3
O
“7
3...]
F)
C
l...‘
J
_}-
J
')
j
3
O
, o
r +
s

r 1nd icnsxfiri brix+sen

f‘ .2

rollcns 0* milk handled drilv and floor shoes resw red

For tbs various rooms in the milk orocessiné rlont....

stle AII “ovcle cslcnlntions showins tee relction"“i“ tctwcen the

cellons of mil? handled dailv end (no cIre”? of silk

0 O
plTn-t' Zq‘jcelV'rj—ng‘ rno-‘q.....I..O..IOQOOIIOOCOOCOOOOCCCCO

sole AIII ?*°Ults obtained tron caloml'tion: do? the relotionslih

hf‘f‘yrémw ”-f'jlp'hé n'n smfillf l-n-a-l'lpr] An41~7 Qh-i 4-1"; 5100:.

firg'fi Dr‘r “141V.- ‘\IHW+ y‘r.nl.‘|;'J%y\‘fi- 1‘1‘n'un

.--.-. up- ........ . L A . _. ,..’.!-'Oooooooo3.000000...
A

r" ‘, A'TZ' .—. .L.‘ 4.

‘.)]1:3 nil :13CI“"3 e ()9

.loor ores recwired ’or nil? “lent receivinf
'1

p
rocns used in constrvctigg ..~. l.....................

-'“ n In e N.’

I

rsnlts obtained frov celcnletions ”or the relotionsnip
b°+wnen fillons 0? mil? bandled ddil? end tbs Ploor

sroq for milk Plont nrocossins roots..................

Teble AVI Estiwets o” Ploor ereo reswired por rilk “lent “roof""int
1 N . z ' 1 . “fl."
YACW‘ ‘.1-{?d 3n C‘Y‘QJII'Cfll'l‘ :41 0900-9000-0000000000030

Io

able AVII :TsHlts obtoincd from celculetions for t

1 fi Q o I
ortwnvri "”ll(Xl? o? botJltnritilk ivwrilec deilfir'rtd .:c

n.:‘ J--i,. ‘-..._
floor ares .01 mil: Clenc Lott ~ W”‘fillf rcors........

Toblc AVTII Tstircts o? ploor ores re"Uir0d ?or milk ylent bottle
‘ . C .- ~. “_I
‘.‘.'"‘q“l_7l” T‘\O‘”3 Ijnn'd 1T1 COTln'tT'l‘CLZ‘...‘ 14‘”. zrooooooooooono

_’

- a

”oble AIK Fesults obtqined 9roe oslculotions TOT tbe relotiorsbip
between ”ellons 0? milk bendled dsilv end the ”loor
ered reewirsd ior mil“ Plont mil? storsse rooms.......

resUirod Por mil? “lent milk

Table PI istinote 0? Floor area

-\ L14 -\

fl

stors"e rooms used in conetrnctinc vie. A.............
Tible AYI Fnsults obteined ‘ron cslculstiono tor the roldtionsbin

between "ellons 0? milk bundled deilv end the ”loor

are" reswired tor milk hlnnt drv stornre rc0n9-------o

1'?“ £1". jo.ooooooooooo

-eble ATII Tstinotc 0? floor area required For milk nlsnt drv
storoco ' 7

.4).

rooms used in COHRtTUCT.

b

\

O\

«0

\n

Tqble AXIII Pesults obfqinéd from Calculq*ion3 for fhe rrlovd ml
between fnllons 0? milk h9ndl©d dfiilfi and the floor
area refiuired for nil” blnni boiler r0993...............??
Table 171? Yutimote of ploor erfiq ronuirwd for milk rlcnt boiler
rooms unfld in confifruc+3n¢ Fifi. 6.......................94
for the rcloticnnhip
e Ploor
.95

celcnll.

Pnsults obtaincd from
betweén r"1110110; of milk nan.
rc‘uired P01

' 7’ r
.3. 'ur
mllz fill”
fficcs

81‘9““.

'fi
¢

AVVT g tim~*a of floor gram r9~uired for milk hldnt

U)

used in constructing Fi~. 7..........................

Figure
Fifurc
Fifure
Figure
Figure
Figure
F'

l 97.] re

-~.

\J‘l

\fl

Floor

Floor

Floor

Floor

Floor

Floor

Floor

soece
spece

T-r‘r.”
J1. J4.

reyuired
refiuired
recuired
reouired
reouired

required

re“uired

C?

for

for

'A.
Q)
L

for .i

for

for

plant
plant
plont

rlent

processing rooms....

bottle washing rooms

“ilk storage rooms
dry storage rooms.
boiler rooms......

CfdiCeSCOOOOOOOOO.

NTRODUCTION

The dairy industry is one of the leading industries in the field
of food processing. It is of a highly competitive nature and it oper-
ates on a narrow margin. Dairy products play a very important part in
the food habits of the people of this country. Almost everyone utilizes
milk and its products in one form or another. The consuming public is
constantly seeking economical and high-quality products. The manufacturer
that can produce a high-quality product at a relatively low cost will
expand his sales volume, prosper, and survive under present-day compet-
itive conditions.

The modern milk plant is a structure designed for the purpose of
housing the equipment and facilities for processing and handling fluid
milk. Fluid raw milk is usually bought from.individual producers and
shipped to the city milk plant where it is inspected, processed, and
packaged for sale to retail stores, and directly to individual consumers.
In the design of a milk processing plant many factors must be considered,
such as sanitary requirements, labor requirements, initial capital in-
vestment, overhead costs, and expected sales volume. Labor costs,
building and construction costs, equipment costs, and power costs are
all at a premium and the plant must be designed to keep such costs at
a minimum. Therefore, the design of the milk plant must provide for a
highly efficient operation that will produce a high-quality product at

a low selling price.

i In the initial stages of planning, the investigation was designed
to determine some of the desirable basic principles of dairy plant de-
sign and layout. The points that were to be determined are listed be-
low.

1. Space Requirements
2. Layout Principles
. Plant Location

. Arrangement of Rooms

5
4
5. Arrangement of Equipment
6. Ventilating Requirements
7. Lighting Requirements
8. Materials of Construction

Following the review of literature, it was found that some of the
principles regarding the above factors had been fairly well established.
Also, in conducting the investigation, it was discovered that time
limitations would not permit a study of such wide scope.

The information available for determining or estimating the size
of a dairy plant for a given.volume of milk handled, was quite limited.
The review of literature indicated that a few general figures are avail-
able for estimating the total plant size and the size of the rooms in
the plant. However, there was no indication of any study conducted for
the specific purpose of determining space requirements.

It was apparent, however, that space requirements, or the size of
the milk plant, had a very pronounced effect on operating costs, overhead

costs, and the initial capital investment. The space allotted to the

various operations in a milk plant and to the building as a whole,

determines to a large degree the efficiency of the operation. If crowded
conditions are prevalent, workers interfere with each other's duties, good
housekeeping is impaired, and, in general, there is a resulting loss of
efficiency. Excess space, on the other hand, results in additional
unnecessary time being consumed by workers in moving to and from.their
work, higher overhead costs, and higher initial investment. Here again,
we evidence an overall reduction in the plant's efficiency.

The space requirements for the milk processing plant appeared to
be one of the major factors in a design for efficiency. This study
was undertaken to determine a method for estimating or predicting the
amount of space required for a milk processing plant to handle a given
amount of product. For the most part, the investigation was confined
to a study of the smaller plants since it is these that usually are
not able to acquire the services of an engineer or architect. Hewever,
it is not always the small plant that has an inefficient operation.

The major points investigated in this study are listed below.

1. Space Required for Milk Handling and Processing Rooms.

2. Space Required for Auxiliary and Service Departments.

3. Space Required for Plant Offices.

4. Space Required for Storage Areas.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Value of Effective Design

The modern milk processing plant should be designed to house the
facilities of an operation and meet certain sanitary requirements. In
the eyes of the consuming public, the physical appearance of the milk
plant is an important guide in determining cleanliness and also in
determining the quality of the finished product. A.properly designed
dairy plant will tend to make the job of maintaining cleanliness much
easier and will also aid in keeping the employees' morale at a high
level. If the milk plant is overcrowded, housekeeping will be more
difficult, a more disorderly appearance will result, and employees
will find more difficulty in performing their daily tasks. An im-
portant factor to consider in the design of a milk plant is the deter-
mination of the size of the plant to eliminate overcrowding and the
resulting disorderly appearance.

Babcock (2) stated that the milk processing plant should be a
modern sanitary structure of durable construction if it is to satis-
factorily serve its intended purpose. In order that all operations
can be conducted efficiently and economically, it will be essential
not only to install sanitary and up-to-date equipment, but also to pro-

vide for an efficient layout of the building and equipment. Bartlett

(Ref. 5, p. 54) listed the conclusions of Kelly and Clementl, in which

 

I E. Kelly and C. E. Clement. City Milk Plants, Construction and
Arrangement, UcSoDcAo B111. 849, 1920. pp. 5h-550

they stated that modern.milk plants should have a good appearance from
an architectural point of view. Broughton (6) contended that the dairy
plant of the future will have a sparkling sanitary interior, an attrac-
tive modern exterior, and be streamlined for efficient production. A
modernistic, attractive plant has a perpetual advertising value; beauty
is synonymous with construction materials and designs. Broughton (7)
maintained that beauty and efficiency are complementary; the dairy plant
must be attractive inside and out. Clarkson (9) declared that for sur-
vival under present-day competitive conditions, modern design is a hmust'
for all buildings.

It was maintained that the physical maintenance of a dairy plant
is essential not only to protect the owner's investment in the building,
but also to present an attractive looking plant to the public (18). The
majority of consumers are inclined to associate a neat, wellékept plant
with high-quality products, making the appearance of the plant one of
the most effective means of advertisement. Ackerman (1) said that public
confidence and acceptance always follow the more efficient operating
methods and rigid product controls. Although there are many firms and
competition is keen, there will always be a place for the efficient,
welldmanaged plant, whether large or small. The general rule for success-
ful dairy plant operators will be efficient plant operations and narrow
operating margins.

Parker (Ref. 21, p. 54) advanced the policy of a streamlined series
of operations from.the receiving point of the raw material to the ware-
house for the finished product. Congestion of equipment and a maze of

pipe lines are discouraging to the workers responsible for cleanup and

have an important bearing upon effectiveness and economy. A lack of
interest in, and an indifference toward effective sanitary practice
will result from tiresome and involved disassembly and assembly of equip-
ment and pipe lines. It is well to keep in mind that congestion, besides
being aggravating to employees, is irritating to thosecfficials respon-
sible for approving processing and sanitary practices. Erb (10) ac-
knowledged that the first impression a person gets in entering a dairy
plant is the state of housekeeping. Good housekeeping is a very important
part of consumer confidence due to rising standards of living and new
concepts of cleanliness. The dairy processing plant should be immaculate
on the inside, for the state of housekeeping soon becomes public knowledge.
Housekeeping is made more difficult by crowded conditions and too much
volume for the size of the plant but they do not eliminate its existence.
Parker (Ref. 21, pp 14-15) observed that sometimes reference is made
to inadequate washing facilities, improper plant surroundings, badly de-
signed buildings, inadequate lighting, and inadequate ventilation when
classifying food establishments as insanitary. Furthermore, aside from
the Federal food laws, conditions designed to ensure the comfort and
morale, as well as, the health of the employees is included in sanitary
codes and legal requirements. A well-lighted, well-designed, wellekept
dairy plant is a means of impressing upon employees and visitors that
care is being exercised in maintaining clean conditions and surroundings.
Farrall (14) declared that we should aim towards a more compact plant
design and direct our energies toward making the plant easier to keep

clean and sanitary.

Eliminating crowded conditions and maintaining a well-designed plant
for milk processing was believed to be one of the major elements in estab-
lishing a successful dairy manufacturing enterprise. An efficient and
economical Operation is realized when housekeeping is carried out with
ease, and sanitary requirements are met with little difficulty. An effec-
tive advertising medium.for building public confidence is made possible
by utilizing a well-designed and well-maintained plant. To help insure
that the operation will be conducted in an efficient and economical
manner, the employee's morale must be maintained at a high level by
avoiding overcrowding and providing the necessary comforts for his well-
being. A well-designed dairy plant will aid in establishing these de-

sirable characteristics in the milk processing business.

Space Requirements in Relation to Efficiency

The operating efficiency of a.milk processing plant will depend to
a large measure on the amount of space that is allotted to the various
Operations.

A limited amount of space will result in excessively crowded cone
ditions. Plant workers will interfere with each other's duties. Extra
time and labor will be required for maintaining and cleaning the processing
equipment. Time and labor may be wasted because only a limited amount
of product can be handled in a given amount of time. Production will
not be as flexible as the demand and pregress will be hampered, resulting
in an eventual loss of business due to keen competition. Extra costs
for essential materials and supplies will result from the inability to
purchase large quantities at a discount. Time, labor, and costs for

maintenance in case of emergencies may be increased because of the in-

ability to provide adequate spare parts storage. Thus, a limited amount
of plant space will tend to raise time, labor, and material costs and
decrease the operating efficiency.

An excessive amount of plant space will also tend to reduce the
overall efficiency of the operation. Time and labor requirements will
be excessive because of the extra number of steps required in performing
daily tasks. The increase in heating, lighting, refrigerating, and
ventilating requirements will raise overhead costs. Excessive lengths
of piping, extra pumps, and other needed equipment will increase costs.
The added investment in the original building will not be commensurate
with the size of the operation. A plant which is excessively large will
increase overhead costs and the initial investment to a point where the
business may eventually terminate in complete failure.

Farley (12) stated that the common objective in planning dairy
plants is "to process the maximum quantity which can be sold of the
highest quality products at the lowest possible costs". Bixby (h) be-
lieved that in planning a dairy plant one must know (a) the production
the plant is required to handle, (b) the number of products tote handled,
and (c) the method of packaging the products, because they determine (a)
the size of the equipment, (b) the size of the rooms, and (c) the size
of the plant, and the operation must be carried out in an economical
labor day if lowest costs are to be attained.

Bartlett (Ref. 5, p. 44) made an appraisal of all the factors
entering into the price consumers pay for milk. It was found that the
real possibilities for savings are to be found in the more efficient

distribution of milk for most markets in the country. Analysis of milk

distribution based on the itemized costs on ninety—two wholesale companies
and seventy-three home-delivery companies, showed that the low costs of
the more efficient group of companies were largely due to the following
considerations.

1. Efficient layout of plant and equipment.

2. Limiting the number of items handled.

5. Exclusive stops.

4. Large volume per route.

5. Low prices for high quality milk.

6. Large volume per store.

Shubin and Madeheim (Ref. 25, pp. 512—515) stated that because the
floor space of a plant represents an investment, it should be utilized
to its fullest extent. This is particularly true when additional floor
space is costly. A high output per unit of floor space will usually be
the result of an efficient plant layout with a well-integrated and compact
floor plan.

Tracy (24) conducted a study of four milk plants in Washington, D.C.
in 1945 to determine why plants in that city have shown low margins, as
compared with many other cities, for receiving, processing, bottling,
selling, and delivery of milk. The results indicated that as the number
of square feet of floor space per hundred gallons of milk handled increased,
the number of manhours required per hundred gallons milk handled also in-
creased. He concluded that a well-planned layout can reduce the capital
cost of milk distribution by minimizing the floor area required per
hundred gallons of milk, in addition to bringing about low unit labor
costs.

Babcock (2) stated that the economy of operation as well as sani-

tation must be taken into account when arranging rooms and equipment.

The arrangement of rooms and equipment should be such that the men can

10

carry out their work with the least possible steps and plant space will
be utilized most economically. Proper arrangement will reduce expensive
lengths of piping and numerous fittings which cause extra labor and also
decrease losses which may result from milk sticking to sides of pipes
and from leaks at pipe connections. Babcock (2) concluded that in a
well-arranged plant it is possible to effect great economies in labor
while a poorly planned plant may result in a continual source of added
expense due to excessive labor requirements. Bartlett (Ref. 5, p. 54)
listed the conclusions of Kelly and Clement.1 They stated that the rooms
in a plant should be arranged to cause the lowest possible expense for
machinery and labor, and also, so that the work should be accomplished
with the fewest possible steps. Labor requirements are increased with
a poorly arranged plant.

Shubin and Madeheim (Ref. 25, p. 72) stated that a reduction of the
total plant space required for a given output of products results from
conservation of floor space. As a result, overhead costs are lowered
and thus, the fixed cost per unit of output is reduced. The extra burden
of having a large building for future expansion will increase the overhead
and daily operation cost so much that the business will be unable to grow
(8). For this reason, the larger sized building that had been planned will
not be able to be used at any future date. Babcock (2) stated that the
rooms in the plant should be large enough to prevent crowding of machinery

and workmen; however, at the same time there should be no unused space.

 

IvE. Kelly and C. E. Clement. City Milk Plants, Construction and
Arrangement, UeSoDvo Bu10 8149, 1920. pp. 54-55.

ll

Excess space requires unnecessary labor in moving milk from one piece
of equipment to another and also requires an added investment.

It was found that a properly designed plant, having the required
amount of space, will aid materially in minimizing the capital investment,

labor requirements, and overhead costs.

Size of the Plant

It has been found that a well-designed plant, the size being a major
factor, has an important bearing on efficiency, cost of operation, over-
head costs, capital investment, and sales appeal. The size of the milk
processing plant will depend upon a number of related conditions. The
most important consideration is, of course, the volume of product handled.
The amount of space required will be determined to a lesser extent by the
method of operation, the type of equipment utilized, and the method Of
packaging the finished product. These various factors, however, are
usually determined in some degree by the volume of product handled.

Mitten (19) stated that the size of a plant is a function of the
amount of milk handled per square foot of floor space. He further stated
that the size would depend upon considerations, such as, the type of pro-
cessing, the storage areas, and other features which are incorporated.
Areas which are generally not included are garages and retail stores.
Ross (Ref. 22, p. 524) maintained that the size of a processing plant
depends entirely on the amount of milk handled and how it is utilized.

Babcock (2) said that the size of the rooms in milk plants and the
floor area required per hundred gallons of bottled milk handled daily
are widely variable. For the most part, lack of standardization, and

construction without due consideration to the important factors which

have a bearing on the size of the rooms, is responsible for this variation.

12

Mortensen (Ref. 20, p. 24) maintained that the requirements for
floor space depend not only on the character and volume of business to
be conducted, but also on the methods of manufacture. He further stated
that there is no definite rule by which the amount of floor space needed
to manufacture a particular volume of finished product, can be calculated.
The floor space required will depend on the kind of machinery installed,
as well as, upon the method of manufacture. One pasteurizer may occupy
twice the floor space of another utilizing the same capacity.

Kelly and Clement (Ref. 16, p. 268) found that no uniformity existed
between the size of rooms and the volume of milk handled because, in
addition to the volume handled, the size required depends on the method

of handling. This conclusion was the result of the data given in Table I.

TABLE :1

FLOOR SPACE IN THE VARIOUS WORKROOMS OF
FIVE WELL-ARRANGED MILK PLANTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quantity Receiv- Bottle Pasteur- Bottl- Total Milk Clean
of Bot- ing Wash- izing ing Area, Storage Bottle
tled Milk Room ing Room Room Handl- Room Storage
Handled (ft.2) Room. (ft.2) (ft.2) ing (ft.2) Room
Daily (ft.2) Rooms (ft.2)
(gallons) (ft.2)
1,000 400 600 500 500 1,800 450 400
1:500 - igloo 500 515 1.625 i550 -
g_5,000 900 1,950 1,590 1,200 4,450 4_11300 #150
4,000 460 1,886 540 100 5,586 L426 §40
6,000 l ,200 L908 720 720 4, 548 1,110 720

 

T E. Kelly and C. E. Clement. City Milk Plants, Construction and
Arrangement, U.S.D.A. Bul. 849, 1920.

13

Kelly and Clement made the following statements regarding the in-
formation presented in Table I.

l. The plant handling four-thousand gallons daily had a comp
paratively small pasteurizing room, although the total area for
handling rooms was ample.

2. The plant handling three-thousand gallons daily had space
enough to handle considerably more than this quantity.

5. The milk-storage room and clean bottle storage rooms in the
plant handling six-thousand gallons daily were hardly large enough
for this quantity of milk, but some milk was sent directly onto
the delivery wagons and so less storage space was required.

4. The figures in the table, besides giving an idea of the space
required, also effectually illustrate the lack of standardization,.
even in.modern plants.

The conclusion.made by Kelly and Clement stating that no uniformity
existed between the size of rooms and the volume of milk handled appears
to be somewhat in error. They stated that the plant handling three-
thousand gallons daily had an excess amount of floor space. If this had
been taken into consideration, the data given in Table I would tend to
show that a direct relationship probably does exist between the floor
space and the volume of product handled.

Bixby (4) asserted that in order to plan a dairy plant, one must
know (a) the amount of product to be handled, (b) the number of products
to be handled, and (c) the method of packaging the product, because they
effect (a) equipment size, (b) room.sizes, and (c) plant size and in
addition the operation must be completed in an economical labor day if
the lowest costs are to be realized. Babcock (2) acknowledged that
construction requires careful study and planning, since the building
represents a large capital investment. Fair (11) advanced the policy
of determining the actual size of the plant in order to insure the lowest

unit production costs. Furthermore, when planning the layout, have a

definite purpose in mind and use models.

14

Kelly and Clement (Ref. 16, p. 268) believed that rooms should be
Of adequate size to avoid crowding machinery or workmen; however, there
should be no excess or unused space. Unused floor space requires extra
labor in.moving from one piece Of equipment to another. Shubin and
Madeheim.(Ref. 25, p. 72) contended that bottlenecks resulting from ine
adequate materials handling, poor locations of work stations; and in-
sufficient capacity Of work stations, inspection stations, and cribs,
may be eliminated by the use of layout engineering and Operation analysis.

Mitten (19) stated that one to two square feet Of floor area per
gallon of milk handled may be allowed for the total plant area for plants
handling over twenty-thousand pounds Of milk daily. For plants handling
less than twenty-thousand pounds daily, up to three square feet per gallon
should be used for the total plant area.

Farrall (15) maintained that the greatest mistake usually made in
the construction of a dairy plant is building it tOO large or too small,
or in such a manner that ready expansion is made difficult. Ackerman (1)
acknowledged that many operations began in small plants with additions
being made as needed and, as a result, little attention was given to
engineering and future plans.

Shubin and Madehsim (Ref. 25, p. 6), Broughton (7), and Mitten (l9)
believed that it is necessary to build the plant originally for the
present volume with an additional capacity to accomodate any expected
increase in sales in the near future. The most important consideration,
however, is to plan the building so that future expansion of the plant
capacity can be had with a minimum loss Of previous investment and with-

out interfering with the Operation (18). Broughton (6) and Farrell (l5)

15

emphasized that it is essential to study the building, the lot, and the
complete layout and determine if it is possible to expand or add another
dairy department. Shubin and Madeheim (Ref. 25, p. 6) and Farrall (15)
declared that excess capacity or tOO large a plant should be avoided.
Farrell (l5) warned that, particularly in a new business, the overhead
costs Of a large building and equipment have been a major factor contrib-
uting to the bankruptcy of many concerns.

Shubin and Madeheim (Ref. 25, p. 515) found that in a layout with a
low percentage of space allocated for the production floor in relation
to the total plant area, a large amount Of space was occupied by non-
productive activities, such as Office space, storage areas, and tool
cribs. They concluded that for average conditions, a desirable floor-
space ratio Of thirty percent Of the space for nonproductive activities
and seventy percent for productive activities may be considered as a
rough estimate. This ratio, of course, will vary from.industry to
industry. It was also stated that in order to eliminate waste areas,
mezzanines might be utilized for Offices, storerooms, inspection cribs,
laboratories, and locker rooms.

Broughton (6) said that hallways and passageways should be avoided
in planning small and medium.sized plants because they are nonproductive
areas. Babcock (2) believed that a.mezzanine or balcony is advantageous
Afrom.the standpoint Of providing extra floor space without increasing
the ground space or man and labor requirements. Broughton (7), Maguire
(l7), and Ackerman (1) preferred the use of one-story buildings because
they are more flexible, require less supervision, save time and labor,

require less space because the equipment is more closely connected, and

l6

permit more floor space per square foot of building. Babcock (2), found
that for small plants, the one—story building was the most popular, and
the next most popular type was the one-story building with a.mezzanine
or balcony. Broughton (17) stated that medium and small plants have
found that multi-level buildings are more costly in operation.

Broughton (6) proposed that long, narrow rooms should be avoided,
because square rooms provide for better arrangement, are the most eco-
nomical, and are readily adaptable to changing conditions.

The size of a milk processing plant was found to be dependent on
the volume of product handled and the amount of space allotted to service
and auxiliary departments. Hallways, passageways, and other nonproductive
areas should be avoided as much as possible because they increase the
capital investment of the building by increasing the floor space, and
may increase time and labor requirements. Mezzanines and balconies may
be utilized to provide space for nonproductive activities without ins
creasing the total plant space and building size. For small and medium
sized plants, the one-story building will require less space, is the most
economical, and can be readily expanded to meet changing conditions. The
rooms in a plant should be as nearly square as possible to give less
expensive construction, to provide a better arrangement, and to allow
for ease Of expansion. The plant should be built originally for the
expected volume with provisions for ready expansion in case of future
increases in capacity. Excess capacity should be avoided in order tO
keep capital investment, overhead costs, and labor requirements to a

minimmm.

17

Size of Processing Rooms

The size of the rooms in the milk processing plant will exert a
profound effect on the capital investment, overhead costs, and labor
requirements. Therefore, it is imperative that the size of the rooms
in the milk plant be determined in.such a manner that capital investment
and Operating costs be kept tO a.minimumt

Mitten (19) found the minimum.allowable floor area required for
processing rooms (A) could be determined by knowing the area (a) occupied
by the equipment. The minimum allowable area, (A) I -:—-. After expansion
to twice the original volume, the area Obstructed by gqigpment should
not be more than one-third the total area. The New York City receiving 1
station specifications stated that in a milk handling room, the equip-
ment should not occupy more than twenty-five percent of the total floor
area (8).

Size Of Receiving Room

Babcock (2) stated that a small receiving room will soon become
cluttered with milk cans and other objects, and will be difficult to
keep clean and attractive. The receiving room in.amall plants should
be Of a sufficient size to handle at least one truck load Of milk in
cans and provide enough space to handle the cans without crowding. The
receiving room in larger sized plants should preferably be large enough
to handle several truck loads of milk in.a short period Of time. Enough
floor space or conveyor space should be provided to handle this amount
of milk until it can be dumped.

It was found that to give maximum efficiency at a minimum cost under

a given set of conditions, some of the points to consider in designing the

18

receiving room were (a) local health board requirements, (b) the volume
Of milk to be handled, especially during the flush season, (c) the method
of delivery, and (d) the amount of floor space, or conveyor space, for
incoming and washed cans (18). Furthermore, sufficient space and equip-
ment must be allowed for the inspection of milk and for handling cans

of rejected milk.

It was said that in many Of the smaller plants, the rotary can
washer, which occupies a small space and can be operated by one employee,
is used (18).

Farrall (15) announced that one of the latest improvements in milk
handling equipment is the bulk handling system as used on California
farms. With this particular system of handling milk, the receiving room,
as such, would be almost entirely eliminated. However, space would need
to be provided for receiving the milk directly from.the tanker trucks.

Most milk plants have storage tanks for handling incoming raw milk
and also, frequently for skim milk and other products.(18). Vertical
tanks, in comparison with horizontal tanks, require less space, but
horizontal tanks require less head room. Most storage tanks are cylin-
drical in shape but some rectangular tanks are used. Rectangular tanks
require less floor space, but they are structurally weak and the reinp

forcement of construction is expensive.

Size Of Pasteurizing Room
It was stated that pasteurizing rooms seldom need to be expanded
because increased capacity can be accomplished by installing greater
capacity equipment (8). However, Broughton (7) believed that even in
the smaller plants the pasteurizing room should never be less than twenty-

four by twenty-four feet.

l9

Babcock (2) contended that space may be reduced in plants processing
large quantities of milk by utilizing high-temperature short-time pasteur-
ization. Bixby (4) stated that plants using batch pasteurization could
change to high-temperature short-time pasteurization and provide great
increases in capacity without requiring more floor space, and because
Of the compact design, could create additional floor space.

According to Maguire (l7) floor space requirements may be reduced as
much as sixty to seventy percent with the use Of high-temperature short-
time pasteurization and, in addition, make a straight line flow even
more efficient. However, as stated by Babcock (2) and Farley (12), even
with high—temperature short-time pasteurization, vat-type pasteurizers
are still needed for pasteurizing cream.and by—products. Babcock (2)
and Farley (12) announced that the line Of demarcation for highptemperature
short-time pasteurization, is at a plant capacity Of 2,500 pounds per

hour with a total capacity Of ten to twelve thousand pounds daily.

Size Of Bottle Washing Room

Broughton (7) stated that the bottle washing room should contain
enough floor space to house the bottle washer and the case washer and,.
in addition, provide enough room.to handle the daily run of all sizes Of
bottles, tO allow sorting Of crates and bottles, and to provide storage
for new bottles and new crates. Mitten (l9) and one sales engineering
department (8) recommended that the size Of the bottle washing room be
approximately equal to the total space occupied by the bottle washer,
the case washer, and the cold storage rooms. It was also found necessary
to allow about seven feet in front Of the bottle washer to provide space

for stacking cases required for the bottles necessary to fill the bottle

20

washing machine (8). Babcock (2), however, believed that the size Of
the bottle washing room would depend on the method of handling the
bottles in the plant. If most of the bottles are sent directly from
delivery trucks to the washer, only enough space is needed for the
bottle washer, conveyors, and workmen. As a rule, however, many Of the
bottles will have to be stored before being washed and sufficient storage
space should be provided.

A sales engineering department (8) recommended that space should
be provided for the expansion of the bottle washing room because an
increase in capacity must be accomodated by an increase in the size of
the room.

Boucher (5) stated that the soaker-type bottle washer is more effi-
cient than the jet-type, however, it requires more floor space for the

same capacity.

Size Of Milk Storage Room

Babcock (2) and Kelly and Clement (Ref. 16, p. 582) maintained that
the milk storage room should provide adequate space for storing all the
milk a plant can handle when running at full capacity plus additional
space for conveyors, cooling units, emergencies, and passageways between
stacks of various kinds of products. It was stated, however, that tOO
large a room is costly and requires additional refrigeration. Babcock (2)
further stated that the size of room needed will depend on the proportion
Of milk held over in storage. Also, if large quantities Ofnilk are stored
in cans, more space will be required because it is impractical to stack
cans more than two tiers high.

Broughton (7) and Mitten (19) found that the size of cold storage

rooms handling round bottles, can be figured on the basis of 5% gallons

21

per square foot. Mitten (19) stated that for square bottles, a factor
of 7% gallons per square foot may be used. The above mentioned calcu-
lations allow space for aisles and fifty percent excess space.

One sales engineering department (8) recommended using approximately
one square foot of space for each case of round bottles or each can shown
on the daily processing requirement analysis. With the use of square
bottles and bottle cases, one-third less space is required. These
figures will allow for aisles and conveyor space when cases are stacked
five high. Cases can be stacked seven high, providing for a forty per-
cent expansion in business.

Babcock (2) recommended that full, quart-bottle cases be stacked
six tiers high and full, pint-bottle cases be stacked seven tiers high.
When cases of round bottles are stacked in this way, approximately two-
thousand gallons of bottled milk in cases can be stacked in an area fifteen
by sixteen, or 240 square feet, exclusive of space for conveyors, passage-
ways, cooling units, and emergencies. If allowance is made for the men
to work and for emergencies, a room.approximately eighteen by twenty feet
would be needed for storing this quantity of milk. If square bottles are
used in place of round bottles, nearly fifty percent more milk can be
stored on a given floor area.

Babcock (2) recommended the approximate sizes of milk storage rooms
required for plants handling various quantities of bottled milk as shown

in Table II.

22

TABLE II

MILK STORAGE RO'MS REQU FED
FOR DAIRY PLANTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gallons of Bottled Size of
Milk Handled Room, feet
500 8x8
4500 lelQ_
1,000 12x15
2,000 18x20
4,000 24x50

 

The figures shown in Table II allow space for the men to work and

space for emergencies.

Space for Dry Storage Rooms

Babcock (2) declared that all milk plants, regardless of size, should
have a place to store washing powders, bottle caps, replacement parts, and
other such items. Small plants may provide suitable storage by having
cabinets located in the by—products room, but large plants will usually
require a separate roam.

It was stated that a clean and orderly stock room, easily accessible,
and large enough to store all the supplies needed daily in the plant, is
one of the first requirements of good housekeeping (18). Adequate shelf
and locker space should be allotted for storing parchment wrappers, milk
bottle caps, clean cartons, cleaning materials, and other similar items.

Broughton (6) said that very few plants of any size have enough

dry storage space. A large dry storage space will effect a saving in

25

time and aid materially in preventing waste and contamination of bottle
caps, washing powder, parchments, and other supplies. Clarkson (9) and
the plant operators manual (8) recommended that adequate dry storage be
readily accessible to the loading platform.and processing rooms. Shubin
and Madeheim.(Ref. 25, p. 515) maintained that storerooms should be
consolidated and overhead space should be utilized for high stacking in
order to reduce inventories.

Shubin.and Madeheim.(Ref. 25, p. #00) proposed that the size of a
warehouse be determined from the inventory and the desired provisions
for future expansion. The optimum.shape is a square building with the
maximum ratio of one dimension to another not exceeding three to one.

A long building results in extra handling and construction costs are
unnecessarily increased.

Broughton (7) and Mitten (19) found the minimum allowable area for
dry storage space to be approximately twenty-five percent of the total
plant area. Broughton (7) further stated that the storage area may range

up to one-hundred percent of the total plant area.

Size of Office Space
Shubin and Madeheim (Ref. 25, p. 216) believed that individual office
space requirements should be determined by the area required for the office
equipment and the activities conducted. A general standard for the alloca-
tion of space for various office activities is given in Table III. The
standard requirements shown in Table III would vary according to the size
of desk used, the arrangement of desks, and the space required for bulky

equipment, such as files and mechanical office equipment.

24

TABLE III1

ALLOCATION OF SPACE FOR
OFFICE ACTIVITIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Office Activity Area (ft.2)
Private office for executives 500
Private office for dept. head or techniggan 250
Space for division head,_chief clerk, etc. 159
Space for stenographer-secretary 50
Space for clericalgwork 40~50

 

1 Allocation of Office Space. Management Review, May, 1940. p. 179.

METHOD OF STUDY

The size of a milk processing plant may depend upon a number of re-
lated factors. The amount of space required may be determined largely by
the volume of product handled, however, the method of handling, the type
of equipment employed, and the method of packaging the finished product
may also require consideration. Of course, the volume of milk handled
will be the foundation for establishing these variables, at least to a
certain degree. It would be expected also, that the rate at which the
product is processed will regulate the size of the equipment to be emp
ployed and thus put its limitations on the necessary space requirements
to ensure proper and efficient handling.

This investigation was suggested for the purpose of determining
the amount of space required for a.milk processing plant to handle a given
amount of milk. It was believed that the volume of milk handled daily
was the most important element in establishing the space requirements.

For this study, a number of plants were selected which were cone
sidered to have an efficient operation. The plants selected ranged in
size from 500 to 11,000 gallons of milk handled daily. However, due
to the limited amount of information obtained from the larger plants,
the only plants considered in this investigation ranged in size from
500 to 8,000 gallons of milk handled daily.

A questionnaire was constructed incorporating the major points of
dairy plant design and layout, including both ice cream and milk plants.
This form.was then sent to 54 dairy plants located in various parts of

the United States.

26

Nine questionnaires, or approximately 27 per cent, were completed and
returned to the author. Of the nine, two were received from ice cream
plants and not used in the analysis. One of the nine returned questionnaires
was not completed in the section referring to room sizes and also the
section on the size and kind of equipment used.

The author personally visited nine other plants in the vicinity of
Lansing, Michiian and gathered the necessary information as outlined in
the questionnaire. Two of the nine plants visited were ice cream manu-
facturing plants and one milk plant was considered too large to be in-
cluded and, therefore, were not contained in the final analysis.

A supplementary questionnaire was later formulated to obtain addi-
tional information regarding the amount of milk handled daily, the number
of units packaged in glass and in paper, the number and kinds of products
handled, and the number of personnel required for processing, offices,
and routes. This form was mailed to eight of the plants which had supplied
information for the original questionnaire. 0f the eight, six were com-
pleted and returned. Two of the supplementary forms were completed per-
sonally by the author.

In this study, an effort was made to obtain a correlation or relation-
ship between the volume of milk handled daily in the milk plant and the
space which was required to handle it. The data collected from the various
milk plants studied, both by mail and by personal visit, were compiled
into one group to obtain an effective sample and statistically analyzed.
The average number of gallons of milk handled daily was taken as a figure
which was estimated by the plant supervisor since it was assumed that

he should have a fairly accurate knowledge of the amount of milk which

27

his plant was handling daily. The plant supervisor's opinion was also
regarded in determining if the rooms throughout the milk plant were of
adequate size to carry out the processing operations.

The size of the rooms as reported in the questionnaire was assumed
to be accurate on these forms received by mail. In those plants studied
by a personal visit, the rooms were measured by the author where floor
plans were not available. If floor plans were made available, the
measurements were taken directly from the plans.

The gallons of milk handled daily and the area, in square feet, of
the several rooms in the milk plant were tabulated and an effort was
made to obtain the best equation and representative curve of the rela-
tionship between these two variables by the least squares method. In the
mathematical analysis, these rooms that were considered too small for
efficient production were not included. Only those areas that were con-

sidered to be large enough were used in making the calculations.

PRESENTATION OF DATA

Space Required for Receiving Rooms

The receiving room in a milk processing plant is designed to contain
the equipment and facilities for handling raw milk which is shipped to
the city milk plant, generally by individual producers, for processing
and subsequent sale to the public. It must be designed for efficient
and rapid handling and also meet rigid sanitary requirements.

The equipment employed in the receiving room varied from plant to
plant, but appeared to follow a general trend. (See Appendix II).

This variation, in part, would depend upon the original design, the number
of producers supplying milk, the amount of milk supplied by each pro-
ducer, and the rate at which the milk is handled in the plant. Generally,
the equipment will include a can washer, a weirh tank with scales and a
receiving tank, and conveyors for handling the incoming and outgoing

milk cans.

From the data collected on twelve milk plants, some general state-
ments can be made in reference to the equipment needed in the receiving
room. It appeared thatthose plants handling approximately 2,000 to 5,000
gallons of milk daily, or less, would find a rotary can washer quite
satisfactory. The capacity of the can washer varied between one can per
minute and six cans per minute. The rotary can washer occupies a small
amount of space and can be operated by one employee (18). In six of the
installations using the rotary can washer, roller conveyors were utilized
to aid in the handling of milk cans, while in the seventh plant no con-

veyors were used in the receiving room.

29

Milk plants that were handling approximately 5,000 to 8,000 gallons
of milk daily required the use of a straight-away can washer. The capacity
of these washers ranged from six to ten cans per minute, depending on
the rate at which the milk was received. All of the installations util-
izing the straight-away can washer had the services of power conveyors
for conveying the milk cans to and from the receiving point.

The weigh tank should be of sufficient capacity to handle approx-
imately all of the largest producer's milk at one weighing. Weigh tanks
are generally supplied in three sizes; 500, 750, and 1,000 pound capac-
ities, although smaller and larger sizes are available. Five of the
plants studied, handling from 500 to 4,000 gallons daily, were using
500 pound weigh tanks, and one plant handling twenty three hundred gallons
daily was using a 750 pound weigh tank. One plant handling 700 gallons
of milk daily did not use a regular weigh tank, but employed a small dump
tank into which the milk was dumped and pumped to the processing room.
The capacity given for the weigh tank in the other five plants was given
either in gallons or in the number of cans it held so that it was diffi-
cult to decide just what size weigh tank was being employed. The size
of the weigh tank should, of course, be determined by the amount of milk
that is supplied by individual producers. Most plants handling less than
4,000 gallons of milk daily will not require a weigh tank with a capacity
greater than 500 pounds.

The size of the receiving tank should be large enough to allow for
continuous receiving and will depend on the capacity of the plant and the

rate at which milk is received.

50

Babcock (2) stated that the receiving room in small milk plants
should be large enough to handle at least one truck load of milk in cans
and provide enough space to handle the cans without crowding. Also,
the receiving room in larger plants should preferably be large enough
to handle several truck loads of milk in a short period of time. It
was further stated that sufficient floor space or conveyor space should
be provided to handle the milk until it can be dumped. Sufficient space
and equipment must be allowed for the inspection of the milk and for
handling cans of rejected milk (18).

In most of the smaller plants, it was observed that only enough
conveyor space was required to transport the milk cans between the milk
truck and the receiving point. Only this small amount of conveyor space
was necessary because the full cans were unloaded and empty cans were
reloaded simultaneously at the same point. However, in the larger plants

it was necessary to provide enough conveyor space to handle the largest
load of milk received, since unloading and loading was done at two differ-
ent stations. This added convenience allows for rapid and efficient re-
ceiving of milk.

One of the latest improvements in milk handling equipment is the
bulk handling system as practiced on some farms in California (15). With
this system of handling milk, the receiving room is almost entirely elim-
inated, however, space should be provided for receiving the milk directly
from tanker trucks.

The space required for the receiving room was studied in thirteen

milk plants. The amount of milk handled daily by these plants ranged

from 580 to 7,950 gallons. The size of the rooms and the equipment used,

51

are listed in Appendix II. Two of the thirteen plants stated that the
receiving room was too small and the data was not used in constructing
the curve shown in Fig. 1. The plant handling 975 gallons of milk daily
and the plant handling 4,190 gallons of milk daily each had one fifteen
hundred gallon storage tank located in the receiving room. Hinety-six
square feet, the area occupied by the tank, was subtracted from the total
area of the room for this analysis.

The required amount of floor space for receiving rooms as shown
in Fig. 1 should allow enough area for a can washer, a weigh tank with
scales and a receiving tank, in addition to a sufficient amount of space
to satisfactorily handle all milk cans.

Referring to Fig. 1, the solid line shows the best estimate of the
area, in square feet, for receiving rooms handling from 500 to 8,000
gallons of milk daily. The curve should not be extended beyond the limits
of Fig. 1, since another sample containing larger sized plants might
possibly produce a much different result. The two broken lines shown in
Fig. 1 represent the upper and lower limits of the required area for
receiving rooms. This variation should account for differences in the
type of equipment employed, variations in conveyor space, layout, and other
design features. The variation between the solid line and either broken
line is approximately seventy-two square feet measured on a vertical line.

The amount of floor space required for a receiving room can also be
calculated from the following equation which was used in constructing

Fig. 10

Square feet of floor space

1000 .

800'“

700‘

500*

hoo-

 

\JJ
‘3

2° - 221.6 ,1 0.07082!
(See data in Appendix I)

 

 

0
0

T

1000 2000 5000 4000 5000 6000 7000 9000
Gallons of milk handled daily

Fig. 1. Floor space required for milk plant
receiving rooms.

55

Y6 = 221.6 / 0.07082X

Y0 = the required amount of floor space expressed
in square feet.

X 3 gallons of milk handled daily.
The limitations of this equation are the same as those stated above

for the curve shown in Fig. 1.

Space Required for Processing Rooms

After the milk has been received and weighed at the milk plant,
it is usually pumped to the processing room where it may be stored for
a short time and subsequently processed and packaged for sale. The equip-
ment required for processing milk and its byproducts may vary from plant
to plant. The type of equipment employed will depend on the size of the
operation, the number and kinds of products handled, the method of pack-
aging the finished product, and the method of handling the product. The
processing room, however, should be designed to handle the incoming raw
milk efficiently with a minimum of time and labor and yet produce a high
quality product which will meet rigid sanitary standards.

The data recorded from twelve milk plants ranging in size from 500
to 8,000 gallons daily indicated that the majority of the processing
operations are done in one room. Five of the twelve plants had all the
processing equipment located in one room. One plant handling 975 gallons
of milk daily was equipped with a special byproducts room and the milk
storage tank was located in the receiving room. The plant handling 1,100
gallons of milk daily had a separate room for the milk storage tank and
the pipe washing tank. A separate room was used for housing the milk
storage tank in the plant handling 2,900 gallons of milk daily. A special

byproduct room for the manufacture of cottage cheese and butter,

was utilized in the plant handling 4,190 gallons of milk daily, and the
milk storage tank was located in the receiving room. The plant handling
4,800 gallons of milk daily had the milk storage tanks located in a
separate room. All the processing operations, with the exception of cot-
tage cheese manufacturing, were handled in one room in the plant pro-
cessing 6,400 gallons of milk daily. The cheese vats were housed in a
separate room. Separate rooms were provided for pasteurizing, milk

tank storage, byproducts manufacturing, and bottle filling in the plant
handling 7,950 gallons of milk daily.

Those plants processing approximately 4,000 gallons of milk daily
and less, would probably find one room in which to conduct all pro-
cessing operations sufficient. As the operation becomes larger, it is
advantageous to design separate rooms for tank storage, pasteurizing,
bottle filling, and byproducts manufacturing. This type of layout in
larger plants will allow a better arrangement, better working conditions,
and help to prevent crowding and cluttering of equipment.

The most essential items of equipment that were necessary in all
plants appeared to include pasteurizing equipment, a separator, a method
for cooling the pasteurized milk prior to bottling, and a bottle filler.
It was also obvious that today's milk plant requires the services of a
homogenizer. All of the plants studied included a homogenizer in the
list of equipment.

Milk storage tanks were generally not found in milk plants handling
much less than 1,000 gallons of milk daily; although one plant handling
750 gallons of milk daily was using a 500 gallon storage tank. In the
smaller plants where vat-type pasteurizers are used and the total volume
of milk handled is relatively small, the pasteurizer supplies most of

the necessary storage space.

55

For larger sized plants, especially those using high-temperature
short-time pasteurization, milk storage tanks are usually required since
the milk cannot be processed as fast as it is received and must be stored
for a period of time. Nine plants handling from 975 gallons to 7,950
gallons of milk daily had total storage tank capacities ranging from
fifteen hundred to seven thousand gallons.

The equipment required for pasteurization showed some variation,
but seemed to evidence a general trend. The five plants processing
between 500 and 1,100 gallons of milk daily utilized vat-type pasteurizers.
The total capacity of the pasteurizers for these five plants ranged
between 500 and 600 gallons. One plant handling 4,190 gallons daily and
another processing 4,800 gallons daily each had vat-type pasteurizers with
capacities totaling thirteen hundred gallons. However, it was believed
that these two plants could well"afford to install the high-temperature
short-time system and would find it more satisfactory from the standpoint
of efficiency and floor space requirements.

Those plants handling from 1,165 gallons to 7,950 gallons of milk
daily, with the exception of the two previously mentioned plants, used
the high-temperature short—time method of pasteurization. The capacity
of these systems ranged between 5,000 and 8,000 pounds per hour. Fewever,
with short-time pasteurization, vat-type pasteurizers were necessary for
the processing of cream and byproducts. With this type of pasteurization
the amount of floor space required is reduced considerably.

Maguire (1?) stated that floor space requirements may be reduced as
much as sixty to seventy per cent with the use of high-temperature short-
time pasteurization. However, as stated by Babcock (2) and Farley (12),

even with this system, vat-type pasteurizers are still needed for past-

56

eurizing cream and byproducts. They further stated that the line of de-
marcation for highutemperature short-time pasteurization is at a plant
capacity of 2,500 pounds per hour with a total capacity of from ten to
twelve thousand pounds daily.

The type of bottle filling equipment used appeared to be uniform
throughout all plants. The bottle filling equipment for nine plants handling
from 580 to 2,510 gallons of milk daily had capacities ranging from twenty-
six to one hundred and twenty quarts per minute. One plant processing
4,190 gallons of milk daily had two fillers with capacities of sixty
quarts per minute and eighteen quarts per minute, respectively.

The three largest plants packaged milk in both glass bottles and
paper containers. The plant handling 4,800 gallons of milk daily was
using an eighty-four quart per minute bottle filler and a thirty-five
quart per minute paper carton filler. The bottle filler in this plant
was too small. Another plant processing 6,400 gallons of milk daily was
utilizing a bottle filler with a capacity of 140 quarts per minute,
operated at 110 quarts per minute, and had, in addition, a sixty-five
quart per minute paper carton filler. One plant handling 7,950 gallons
of milk daily was packaging milk with a ninety-seven quart per minute bottle
filler and an eighty-four quart per minute paper carton filler.

Obviously, it would not be feasible nor economical for a small plant
to handle a combined operation for both glass and paper containers. How-
ever, for larger plants, competition may require the production of milk
in both types of containers.

All other minor items of equipment used in the processing rooms for

the plants investigated in this study are listed in Appendix II. It

57

appeared that as the total amount of milk handled increased, there was
a definite trend to use equipment with a greater capacity and therefore,
increase the space requirements.

Seven plants were used in making the analysis of the space require-
ments for processing rooms. The sample is somewhat limited in its scope,
but it seems to provide a good indication of the amount of floor space
required for processing a given amount of milk.

The area for the processing room includes that required for all
operations in the preparation of raw milk and its byproducts for con-
sumption. This area includes that necessary for milk tank storage,
pasteurizing, homogenizing, cooling, bottle filling, byproducts manu-
facturing, and all other allied operations.

The two plants handling seven hundred gallons and 975 gallons of
milk daily produced a small amount of ice cream in addition to the
regular products. It was assumed that this would have little effect on
the total area required for processing and consequently, the areas were
used in making this analysis.

The amount of floor space required for processing rooms for milk
plants handling from 500 to 5,000 gallons of milk daily is illustrated
in Fig. 2. The curve shown should not be extended beyond these limits,
since an analysis including larger plants could possibly give a much
different result.

The solid line shown in Fig. 2 indicates the best estimate of the
average amount of floor space, in scuare feet, required for the process-
ing room. This area includes that required for milk tank storage, pas-

teurizing, cooling, homogenizing, bottle filling, byproducts manufacturing,

58

and all other allied operations in the processing of bottled milk. The
two broken lines on either side of the solid line indicate the upper and
lower limits of the area required for the processing room. It should
be noted that the variation between the solid and broken lines is less
for smaller plants than for larger plants. This could be expected since
the small sized operations usually require only a limited amount of
additional equipment and floor space for the manufacture of products
other than bottled milk.

The area required for the processing room can also be found by

use of the following equation which was used in constructing Fig. 2.

Log10 Yc = 1.125181 / 0.621605 LogloX

Loglo Yc = logarithm to the base ten of the floor
area required, in square feet.
Loglo X : logarithm to the base ten of the gallons of

milk handled daily.

The same limitations are required in the use of this equation as

was mentioned above for Fig. 2.
Space Required for Bottle Washing Rooms

After the milk has been pasteurized and cooled to approximately
58 to 40 degrees Fahrenheit, it is put into clean, sterile bottles and
capped for storage and delivery. A separate room is provided for storing,
sorting, and washing the incoming dirty bottles before they are taken to
the bottle filler for filling. The bottle washing room should be large
enough to accomodate a bottle washer, space for sorting bottles and cases,
and provide sufficient storage space for the daily run of all incoming

bottles. Additional space amy also be required to allow the use of con-

Square feet of floor space

2500 .

2000 ‘

 

Leglo Yc - 1.123101 % 0.621605 Logiox

(See data in Appendix I)

 

 

T 7 I '7 r
2000 5000 ' 4000
Gallons of milk handled daily

Fifi. 2. Floor space required for milk plant
processing rooms.

7

5000

59b

'veyors. In plants where a large number of bottles are handled, it is
advantageous to provide a loop in the conveyor line entering the bottle
washer in order that empty cases, from bottles required to fill the washer,
need not be removed and stored until the washer is emptied.

The size of the bottle washing room should be approximately equal
to the total space occupied by the bottle washer, case washer, and cold
storage rooms (19). In addition, about seven feet should be allowed in
front of the bottle washer to stack the cases required for filling the
bottle washing machine (8). Babcock (2) stated that the size of the bottle
washing room would depend on the method of handling the bottles in the
plant. If most of the bottles are sent directly from the delivery trucks
to the washer, only enough space is needed for the bottle washer, cone
veyors, and workmen. As a rule, however, many of the bottles have to be
stored before being washed and sufficient storage space should be provided.

The seeker-type bottle washer is more efficient than the jet-type,
however, it requires more floor space for the same capacity (5).

The amount of floor space that is required for the bottle washing
room will largely depend on the amount of bottled milk handled, the size
of the bottle washer, and the styles of bottles used. Ample storage space
should be provided for storing cases of bottles and also for the sorting
of bottles and cases.

The soaker-type bottle washer was used in all twelve plants studied.
(See Appendix II). The amount of bottled milk handled daily by these twelve
plants ranged between 580 and 25,100 gallons. The size of the bottle
washers used varied from a four-wide washer w ith a capacity of approx-

imately 52 quarts per minute to a twelve-wide washer with a capacity of

#0

114 quarts per minute. This trend illustrates a general relationship be-
tween the size of the bottle washer and the amount of bottled milk handled
daily. However, the capacity of the bottle washer is governed entirely
by the capacity of the bottle filler.

The method of handling the bottles and cases in the bottle washing
room may also affect the floor space requirements. These plants handling
approximately 2,000 gallons of bottled milk daily generally used case
dollies for transporting the bottle cases in place of the conveyor systems
found in the larger plants. It was assumed that at one time or another
during the day, most of the empty bottles were stored in the bottle wash-
ing room and were not sent directly to the bottle washer as they came in
from the routes.

The square-type milk bottle was used by eleven of the twelve plants
investigated. Only one plant was still using the old style round bottle.
By using square bottles and bottle cases, one-third less space is required (9).

Six of the 12 plants were used in making the final analysis of the
space requirements. The plant handling 50 gallons of milk daily was still
using the old style round bottle. Only plants using the square-type bottle
were used in making the analysis. Two plants handling 975 to 2,510 gallons
of milk daily did not indicate if the room was large enough and were
omitted in the calculations. The actual amount of bottled milk handled
daily by the two plants handling 1,165 gallons and 4,190 gallons of milk
was not known. Also, the bottle washing room for the plant handling
4,800 gallons of milk daily was too small to be considered.

The six plants used in making this analysis were handling approxi-

mately 90 per cent of the bottled milk in quart bottles and the other 10

41

per cent in half-pint bottles. The approximate range was between 85 and
92 per cent for quarts and between 7 and 15 per cent for halfapints. One
plant was bottling about 1.5 per cent in pints while another plant was
handling approximately 1.7 per cent of the bottled milk in ten-ounce
bottles.

Fig. 5 illustrates the amount of floor space required in the bottle
washing room for plants handling from 500 to 5,000 gallons of bottled
milk daily. When the floor space requirements are estimated by the use
of Fig. 5, they should be limited to those plants handling between 500
and 5,000 gallons of bottled milk daily.

The solid line shown in Fig. 5 gives the best estimate of the re-
quired amount of floor space for the bottle washing room. The broken
line on either side of the solid line indicates the upper and lower limits
of the floor space required. The variation between the solid and broken
line is equal to approximately 117 square feet. This variation should
account for differences in handling methods, and variations in the design
and arrangement of the room.

The following equation, which was used in constructing Fig. 5, may
also be used for calculating the approximate amount of space required

for the bottle washing room.

Yc = 585.2 / 0.2050x
Yc 3 square feet of floor space.
X 2 gallons of bottled milk handled daily.
The same limitations should be placed on the use of this equation

as stated above for Fig. 5.

Square feet of floor space

A?

1600‘ Yc - 5F502 K 0.205OX
(See data in Append1X.I)
1h00<

1200‘

1000«

 

 

 

I T T
2000 5000 4000 5000
Gallons of bottled milk handled daily

I
0 ‘ 1000

Fig. 5 Floor space required for milk plant
bottle washing rooms.

Space Required for Milk Storage Rooms

Milk that has been bottled and capped is usually taken directly
to the milk storage room where it is kept refrigerated until delivery.

The milk storage room also generally handles bulk milk in five or ten
gallon cans, packaged cottage cheese, and many other products that are

sold by the dairy. It is good procedure to design the milk storage room
sufficiently large enough to accomodate all the products that are processed
daily plus enough additional space for aisles and conveyors. Some plants,
however, may route their milk directly from the bottle filler to the de-
livery trucks and less storage space may be required.

Broughton (7) and Mitten (19) found the size of cold storage rooms
handling round bottles to be equal to one square foot for each Eé'gallons
of milk handled. Mitten (19) used a factor of 7%-gallons per square foot
of floor space for square bottles. The above requirements allow Space
for aisles in addition to 50 per cent excess space.

One square foot of floor space for each case of round bottles or
each can shown on the daily processing requirement analysis and two-
thirds of a square foot for square bottles and cases was recommended by
one sales engineering department (8). When cases are stacked five high,
the above method will allow for aisles and conveyors.

Since it is impractical to stack cans more than two tiers high,
more space will be required for storing large quantities of milk in cans (2).
It was also recommended that full, quart—bottle cases be stacked six tiers
high and full, pint-bottle cases seven tiers high.

Seven of the 12 plants investigated indicated that they had suffi-

cient floor space in the milk storage rooms; however, one plant was using

round bottles and was not included in the analysis of data. Only those
plants using square bottles were contained in the calculations. The two
plants handling 975 and 2,510 gallons of milk daily did not indicate

whether the room was large enough. It was assumed that the area allowed

for the milk storage room in these two plants was large enough after com-
paring the floor space and the area per 100 gallons of milk handled daily
with that of the other plants studied. Also, the plant handling 2,200 gallons
of milk daily stated that there was some room for expansion in the milk
storage room. It was assumed not to be excessively large and was contained
in the final analysis.

The estimate of the average amount of floor space required for the
milk storage room in plants handling between 500 and 5,000 gallons of
milk daily is illustrated in Fig. 4. The indicated areas allow enough
floor space for storing the daily run of all products in addition to that
required for aisles and conveyors.

The solid line shown in Fig. 4 indicates the best estimate of the
average amount of floor space required for the milk storage room in plants
handling between 500 and 5,000 gallons of milk daily. The broken line
on either side of the solid line indicates the upper and lower limits,
respectively, of the floor space requirements. Some variation is to be
expected due to differences in handling methods and variation in the design
and arrangement of the room. Fig. 4 should be used for estimating the
floor space requirements in milk storage rooms for only those plants using
the square-type milk bottle.

The following equation, which was used in constructing Fig. 4, may

also be used to estimate the floor area required for milk storage rooms.

Square feet of floor space

‘5

1200* Log10 re - 1.07 505 ,1 0.5014535 LoglOX
(Bee data in 'ppendix I)

1000‘

800‘

600‘

hoo~

 

200*

 

 

O V I f r T I I fl

1 T
0 1000 2000 5000 #000 5000
Gallons of milk handled daily

Fig. 4. Floor space required for milk plant bulk
‘ milk storage rooms.

46

Loglo rc = 1.076085 ,1 0.504535 LoglOX

Loglo Ye = logarithm to the base ten of the square
feet of floor area required.
Loglo X = logarithm to the base ten of the gallons

of milk handled daily.

Space Required for Dry S torage Rooms

The dry s torage room should be large enough to suppLy sufficient
storage space for washing compounds, bottle caps, Spare parts, and any
other supplies that are required in the milk processing plant. The ma—
jority of the plants investigated in this study did not have sufficient
dry storage Space. A separate rook should be set aside for the storing
of suPplies, regardless of the size of the plant. By utilizing a separate
room, SUpplies can be purchased in larger quantities at a reduced cost,
inventories are reduced, and waste and contamination are at a minimum.
However, smell cabinets or shelves may be placed at advantageous positions
in the plant to handle most of the supplies for daily requirements.

“abcock (2) emphasized that all milk plants, regardless of Size,
should have a place to store washing powders, bottle caps, replacement
parts, and other such items. He further stated that small plants may
provide suitable storage by having cabinets located in the by-products
room, but large plants will usually require a separate room.

Only a few plants of any size have adequate dry storage Space (6).
However, a large dry storage Space will affect a saving in time, and aid
materially in preventing waste and contamination of bottle caps, washing
.powders, parchments, and other supplies.

Storerooms should be consolidated and overhead Space utilized for

high stacking in order to reduce inventories (Ref. 25, p. 315).

Ercufhton (7) and Kitten (19) found the minimum allowable area for
dry storage space to be approximately 25 per cent of the total plant area.
Broughton (7) stated that this area may ranée up 100 per cent of the total
plant area.

0f the 12 plants investigated, four indicated that the dry storage
area was too small. Three plants did not submit the size of the dry
storage area, and one plant did not indicate whether the room was large
enough.

The plant handling 4,800 gallons of milk daily stated that the dry
storage area was not large enough to handle a 50 day supply of materials.
However, it was assumed that had the storage area been equipped with a
12 to 14 feet ceiling, instead of 8 feet, the amount of space would have
been adequate. Also, the plant handling 700 gallons of milk daily stated
that the storage area was almost large enough. Again it was assumed that

if the ccilin height had been 12 to ls feet, instead of 10 feet 8 inches,

3
the amount of space would have been sufficient. The two plants handling
4,800 and 7,950 gallons of milk daily were packaging milk in paper con-
tainers and required more space for dry storage than ordinarily found in
a plant handling milk in glass bottles only.

Fig. 5 shows the best estimate of the average amount of floor area
required for the dry storage room, as calculated from that found in five
milk plants. As indicated by Fig. 5, there was a very high degree of
variation between the floor area required for dry storage in the plants
investigated. A large amount of variation can be expected due to the

wide variation of items carried by various plants. Some milk plants may

carry a large supply of replacement parts or handle paper containers and

Square feet of floor space

7000;;
60001
5000‘
4000~
5000*
2000-

1000

 

(See data in Appendix I)

 

 

l

I l l T I r I
1000 2000 5000 4000 5000 6000 7000 9000
Gallons of milk handled daily

Fig. 5. Floor space renuired for milk plant
dry storage rooms.

49

others may not. Some plants may be located close to suppliers and not wish
to carry a large inventory, while others may find it necessary to provide
enough space for at least a 50 day supply and perhaps more. However, the
curve shown in Fig. 5 should indicate enough floor space for the average
milk plant having a 12 to 14 feet ceiling in the dry storage room.

The solid line shown in Fig. 5 indicates the best estimate of the
average amount of floor area required for the dry storage room having
a 12 to 14 feet ceiling. The broken line on either side of the solid
line locates the upper and lower limits of the floor area required. Fig.
5 was constructed to be used with those plants handling between 500 and
8,000 gallons of milk daily. It should not be used for plants outside
this range, since another sample incorporating other plants might produce
a different result.

The following equation which was used in constructing Fig. A may
also be used to calculate the floor space requirements for the dry storage

room in milk plants.

Loglo Y5 = 0.455280 ; 0.809050 LoglOX

Loglo Y0 = IOgarithm to the base ten of the
square feet of floor area.
Loglo X 3 logarithm to the base ten of the

gallons of milk handled daily.
The same limitations should be placed on the use of this equation

a8 stated above for Fig. 5.

Space Required for Boiler Rooms
The boiler room in a milk processing plant should be located in a

section of the plant completely isolated from the processing rooms. It

50

should have adequate floor space for a boiler which will supply the re-
quired amount of steam to carry out all processing operations. An ade-
quate supply of steam is usually needed for the bottle washer, the case
washer, the can washer, pasteurizing, water for washing and sterilizing
equipment, and heating the plant.

The majority of the plants investigated in this study had no problems
concerning the size of the boiler room. This room is designed to handle
one piece of equipment and is not confronted with the complex problems
of expansion that affect processing rooms.

0f the 12 plants investigated in this study, three plants did not
make available the size of the boiler room and one plant stated that the
boiler room was too small. Those plants handling between 580 and 1,100
gallons of milk daily had boilers with capacities between 20 and 40 horse-
power depending upon the daily steam requirements. Plants handling between
2,510 and 7,950 gallons of milk daily had boilers with capacities between
120 and 125 horsepower; although one plant handling 6,400 gallons of milk
daily had in addition to a 120 horsepower boiler, a coal-fired boiler with
a 150 horsepower capacity for stand-by service. In general, most of the
boilers being used today in milk plants are either gas or oil fired, thus
reducing the problem of coal dust and ashes usually found with coal-fired
boilers.

Fig. 6 illustrates the amount of floor space required for boiler
rooms in milk plants handling from 500 to 8,000 gallons of milk daily.

The amount of floor space required as indicated in Fig. 6 does not allow
for coal bins or fuel storage. The solid line shown in Fig. 6 indicates

the best estimate of the average amount of floor space required for boiler

Square feet of floor-space

12004

1000 1

200*

 

Loglo Y0 = 0.1h5176 / 0.756160 LoglOX /
(See data in Appendix I) /

 

 

T

I J l T T r T v
1000 2000 5000 #000 5000 6000 7000 9000
Gallons of milk handled daily

Fig. 6. Floor space required for milk plant
boiler rooms.

52

rooms. The broken line on either side of the solid line gives the upper
and lower limits, respectively, of the required amount of floor space.
The floor space required for plants outside the range stated above should
not be estimated with the use of the curve in Fig. 6, since another sample
for other milk plants might yield a different result.

The following equation which was used in constructing Fig. 6 may also
be used to estimate the amount of floor space required for milk plant

boiler rooms.

Leglo Yc 3 logarithm to the base ten of the square
feet of floor area required.
Loglo X = logarithm to the base ten of the gallons

of milk handled daily.

Space Required for Plant Offices

The milk processing plant requires a certain amount of office space
in order to carry out the daily business at hand and keep an orderly file
on all records. Records must be kept on all purchases and sales and all
other necessary transactions for the operation of a successful enterprise.

The amount of space that is required for plant offices will depend on
the number and size of the desks utilized, the amount of space required
for files and office equipment, and the arrangement of these items. A
general standard for the allocation of space for various office activities
is given in Table III, p. 24.

0f the 12 plants studied, four did not report on the amount of floor
space available for the plant offices. The plant handling 700 gallons of

milk daily combined the office and the driver's check room into one room;

this plant was not used in the analysis. Of the eight plants reporting,
seven stated that the space allotted to offices was adequate. It was
assumed that the plant handling 975 gallons of milk daily also had adequate
office space. Those plants handling up to 1,100 gallons of milk and over
should not require more than a one man office force or at the most two,
depending on the amount of business transacted.

Fig. 7 indicates the average amount of floor space required for
offices in milk plants handling between 500 and 8,000 gallons of milk daily.
We should not expect the area to decrease for larger plants as is indicated
by Fig. 7. Due to the large variation found in the office space for various
milk plants and the fact that we have a limited sample, this has occurred.
There is no reason to believe that the area should decrease for larger
plants. However, the area as indicated in Fig. 7 should provide a good
estimate of the amount of floor space required for offices in milk plants.

The solid line shown in Fig. 7 indicates the best estimate of the
average amount of floor space required for offices in milk plants handling
between 500 and 8,000 gallons of milk daily. The area for larger plants
should not be estimated from this curve. The broken line on either side
of the solid line indicates the upper and lower limits of the required
area. The variation between either broken line and the solid line is
equal to approximately 98 square feet measured on a vertical line.

The following equation which was used in constructing Fig. 7 may be

used to calculate the floor space required for milk plant offices.

rc =~1h5.2 % 0.4568x - (lo-7 x 560.5x2)

Yc ‘ square feet of floor space required.

X gallons of milk handled daily.

Square feet of floor space

   

 

 

14001 16 . - 1143.185 ,6 0.1456111 - 10'7:<560.I+95x2_ _
(See data in Appendix I) ’z’ \\
'\
4 / __‘ ‘\
~\\‘
1200 ‘ -— ~ ‘ ‘\
\\
'\
\
1000sl
/
‘ The downward curve from 6,000 to
/ 8,000 gallons is due to the inclusion
900- of data from plants of dairy chains
where a large part of the office
J work is done at some central head-
quarters. '
600+
J
#00
q
200.
1
/
C I
I ' T T l I F T
0 1000 2000 3000 hooo 5000 6000 7000 ("000

Gallons of milk handled daily

Fig. 7. Floor space required for milk plant
offices. ‘

The same limitations apply to the use of this equation as was stated

above for Fig. 7.

Space Required for Compressor Rooms

The compressor room is usually located as near as possible to the
cold storage rooms so that the length of refrigeration lines are kept to
a minimum. It is advisable to provide a separate room for refrigeration
machinery so that it may be consolidated for easy maintenance. However,
in some of the smaller milk plants no specific room is provided for housing
compressors.

The size of the compressor room will depend upon the number and size
of compressors necessary to furnish the hourly refrigeration requirements.
In most milk plants, compressors are required to maintain the temperature
of the cold storage rooms, in addition to supplying the necessary amount
of refrigeration for heat exchange equipment. The size of the compressors
should be established accurately from the refrigeration load as it occurs
through the day. In small plants, two compressors should supply all the
refrigeration for plant needs. One is required to maintain the temperature
of the milk storage room and the other is used in conjunction with the
sweet water system. One compressor would ordinarily supply the refrig-
eration requirements, however, with two compressors, less trouble is likely
to occur in case of a breakdown.

A study of 12 milk plants indicated that no general relationship
could be established for the size of the compressor room as determined
from the amount of milk handled daily due to variable and insufficient
data. Table IV shows the floor space available for compressor rooms in

ten milk plan+s investigated for this study.

TABLE IV

FLCC? spies AVATLARL? are orrrrzssos
Peers 1? rev VTLV rrtvss

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

safe. 5? _fifigiref fieem4gt. .
Milk fire“ Isrfe
Plant Handled vidfh Lenmth Wnirht (ss.°) tnov~h?
Gail" M
___ ____-4:QO «_ None “one _ None Zone -
81 _100 _§._0_o__ __1_1§_._0_0. _ _-_-_ a}; ___trot stated
01 #150 1s.00 19.00 ggqu 1A4;_ Yes
E 1,100 ._5 8.95 11.67 as Yes
11.1s 15.67 11.67 192?
H 3,?00 90.00 00.00 10.00 u00 No
I 21§10 20.00 b0.00 14:50 900 Yes
K h,800 19.00 20.00 8.00 greh To
L1 @1100 __21 .510 1 21.92 1 6. 00 _jvsLs Yes

 

 

1Compressors are used for both milk and
ice cream handling.

aArea occupied by a sweet water tank with
a 6,000 pound capacity.
Space Required for Plant Maintenance Shops
The maintenance shop for a milk plant may range from a small cabinet,

with an adequate supply of tools, in a small plant to a liberal sized machine
shop in larse plants. Usually in small milk plants, the plant operator
conducts most of the maintenance and service work while in large plants,
a trained engineer is usually hired. In the modern milk plant, there is
a need for continual and periodic maintenance of equipment so that re-
gardless of the size of the plant, some space should be provided for

handling a supply of tools and equipment.

57

The size of the maintenance shop will depend entirely upon the type
of service work done in the plant and the tools and machinery required to
satisfactorily handle the job. The small milk plant cannot economically
afford a complete machine shop, however, tools should be available in case
of a breakdown and repairs are needed. A suggested list of tools and
equipment for small dairies is recommended by Farrall (Ref. 15, p. 555).

The majority of the plants inveseigated in this study had some type
of maintenance shop available. However, not enough information was avail-
able for determining the size required for plants handling various quantities
of milk. Table V shows the floor space available for plant shops as found

in seven milk plants.

TABLE V

FLOOR SPACE AVAILABLE FOR HAINTENANCE
SHOPS IN 33 1M MITK PLANTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gals. of Size of Room (ftT)
Milk Area Large
Plant Handled Width Length Height (ft.?) Enough?
Daily
A /80 None None None None --
01 750 8.00 9.00 9.00 64 Yes
E 1,100 hone Tone None Tone --
I 2,;10 1?.00 5h.00 1h,§0 61;_ Yes
K h,900 10.00 27.00fi__ 8.00 _ _ngqw we
L1 6,#00 15.35 60.08 12.67__ 917 Yes
M 7,950 50.00 55.00 12.00 1,050 Yes

 

1 P U C I O .
kaintalning milk and ice cream equipment.

\Jl
0)

Space Required for Locker Poems
ocker rooms should be provided for all plant employees, including
bath and toilet facilities. Since it is desirable to have a neat and
sanitary appearing plant, it is necessary for employees to have facilities
for changing from street clothes into white uniforms.

The size required for locker rooms will depend upon the number of
employees needed to handle the processing operations, the type and arrange-
ment of lockers, and the facilities available. In some plants, it was
noted that the locker room was also used for a lunch room. However, where
employees are required to lunch in the plant, it is much better to have a
separate room set aside for this.

Only four of the 12 plants investigated had adequate space for a
locker room. The plant handling 6,400 gallons of milk daily stated that
the locker room was large enough except at noon when employees utilized
it as lunch room. One plant had only toilet facilities available. No
conclusion could be drawn stating the amount of space required for locker
rooms. Table VI illustrates the floor space available for locker rooms

in nine milk plants.

59

TABLE VI

FLOOR SPACE AVAILABLE FOR LOCKER
ROOMS IN NINE MILK PLANTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sale. of Size of Room kft.7
Milk Area No. of Large
Plant Handled Width Length Height (ft.2) Personnel Enough?
Daily
__s. 4580 7.50 15.50 59.00 101 5, Yes
B 100 8.00 8.00 9.00 64 5_ Yes
0 750 __].00 1,00 8.00 49 55 Yes
E 1,100 —- -- -— None —- -:__
R 2,200 8.00 15.00 549.00 120 5 No
I 2,510 8.50 11.85 12.00 152 7 Yes
K 4,800 12,00 18.00 8.00 216 —- Yo
L 6,400 15.00 18.00 15.00 270a 20c to
15,00 11.00 15.00 165b
M 7,250 8.00 12.00 8.00 96 25 Yes
aSpace for lockers.

bSpace for showers and toilets.

cEmployees for both milk and ice cream.

Space Required for Driver's Check Room

The driver's check room is designed to provide the facilities to
aid the route salesmen in keeping records of their accounts and sales to
their customers. The size of the room will depend on the number of sales-
men and the available facilities. In most milk plants, tables may be
utilized to provide sufficient working space, space for keeping records
and route books, and space for handling accounting machines.

The size of the driver's check rooms as found in this investigation

was extremely variable. No definite conclusions could be made regarding

60

the reeuired size. Table VII shows the “me 1t of floor sn0.e available

for driver's check rocm seven milk plants.

.1)
J
.1
'“b
9
75
Q.
p.10

.3

TiTLE VII

“1.1
t"
O
C)
51)

1
'j
3
'1

-uu AVAILKRLE RC? DPIV TR'T
T -
I

L
rumor! 12.3 P"! T" Q‘“'I,""T ‘ '
. " - - . .. _ .-'.-t '

a“... —.-_ .___.-.-_

 

Gels. of Size of Room (ft.)
Tilk Ares T0. of Larce
' s Q o u o a h ‘ i
Plant handled fidth Len~te Height ft ’) Personnel anOqu?

«.4.
O
peel"
_LLJ

 

——-.-~—-—_-_4—.__ _-'.— ‘ _

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_fiL__m_uj59u.mHjLQQ__lifip__uu95pu_a_mf§_ 1m“_lium__u_j93
__B___a_,_ZQQM___}f:99__HZQ£El_i.l21§1____-jY¥Lal_ti.J§____-__iX§ia.“-
_ Q-.. 730 ._“5;£QH_“;9fill.__.ilfll-___- 1f; 5 Yes
lli__i__u 97§""HH_WQ;CQ 11:50 -‘ 113 m_-::l_m.._--_::'
_;i_..,_lilg__iamnfzi5-__§z51_.__JL£2_H__L_§éM__1-“.§_i.____”:9._...
I _ 9::lin__a12;QQH_hlfipp 9°09 199“”a_ 15 Yog
j: .___;LL:32‘ ii.OC AQ:HQ “.00 11:90 :1 “O ___

 

 

 

Space Reduired for TOfel Plant Arga
The tOtQ1 amount 0? floor SPQCG re"vircd for the milk processing
plant Will depend UPOH the individual reeuirements for each room in the

plant. Hot enough information was available on the plants investiga

(F
'3

to make an estimate of the total .lnnt area reeuired to handle a g

i.)-

ven

b

amount of milk. However, by usins the fieures obtained from the estimating
equations derived for the individual rooms, we can approximate the amount
of floor space resuired for the more important rooms in the milk processing
plant. Table VIII shows the estimate of the floor space reeuired in the

important rooms in milk plents handling between 500 and 5,?“0 gallons of

milk daily.

TRELE VIII

FIOCD SPACE FETUTFTD IN THE :FFCRTAXT 900W?
CF TIL? pLATTS HAHDLIWG RbrvEFH
SOP AHD “,000 CAILCTS C? VTLK DAILY

 

.—-—.—.-—-— —.__-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sale. of Receiv- Process- Eottle Total, Milk Dry
Milk ing in; Room Wishing Handling Storage Storage

Hendled Peon (ft.2) Room Rooms Room Room

“ O _ I) q

3.11;; 33;) $33) 1%.?) (Sta) fifty”)

500 9:7 652 495 1i}?! ?74 #33

" CO C :10 [:1

11000 29? #972_ _g’é IJLSl 4_g~9 7:0

2:000 E65 1149: 7Q? 2,64] 552 11350

_3,000 '34 11°?6 ?“2 31552 671 liike

44000 595 24305 1J1§5 #1905 Zfs 94§51

 

j) 000 516 2) 645 1,398 A, 619 £76 eggs

 

CCU LESIONS

l. The floor Spece reeuired for milk plant receivine rooms depended
largely on the number of gallons of milk handled daily for those planes

hendling between :00 end 9,0CO gallons of milk daily.

2. The amount of floor snece required for milk plant bottle washing rooms
was directly related to the amount of bottled milk handled daily for plants

handling between 500 and 5,000 pallons o? bottled milk daily.

5. The gallons of milk handled daily by a milk plant provided a good basis
for estimating the size of the boiler room required for milk processing

plants handling betwee‘ 500 and 8,0CO gallons of milk daily.

Q

4. The amount of office specs required for a milk processin. plent was

C

directly related to the volume of milk handled daily for those plants
handling between F00 and 8,030 gallons of milk daily. However, some
discrepancy was evident in this relationship for larser plants. This
could be due to the small number of plants available for the in estigation
and also to the variability of the space available from plnnt to plant in

the larfer plants.

5. The floor space required for dry storage rooms was related to the callons
of milk handled daily by the milk plant. Although a reletionship was
indiceted, due to the limited number of plants available for the enalysis,

a reliable prediction of the space required could not be made.

6. The size rejuired for milk plant milk store~e rooms appeared to be
directly related to the gallons of milk handled daily for those plants
handlinf between 500 and 5,0’0 gallons of milk daily. The estimate of the
floor space recuired For milk storage rooms was not a reliable one, however,

due to the small number of plants available for making the analysis.

7. The floor area recuired for milk plant processing rooms depended largely
on the gallons of milk handled dlily for those plants handling between

500 and 5,0CO gallons of milk. The estimated area for processing rooms
provides only a rcueh nppreximstion of the required area because the area
for all processing operations, including byproducts manufacturing, were

combined into one fieure.

8. A study by questionnaire is not entirely satisfactory for an investigation
of dairy plant layout and dcsirn. A very small return may be expected,
in addition to the fact that the reliability of the information obtained

is open to cuestion.

1

Q. The volume of products handled by a given plant should be determined

accurately from plant records.

10. An individual study should be made of each processing operation in the
milk plant regardinf the relationship between the floor area and the

cuantity of product handled.

FTCCXNT“DATIOVS FOR FVTVPE STVDY

1. Cbtain the cooperation of a larre number of dairies to take part in

a study of the layout and design of milk plqnts.

2. Define a method for estimzting the operating efficiency of a milk plant.

5. Determine the amount of excess space which may be included in the orizinal
plant design for future expansion without excessively increasing operation

and overhead costs.

4. Determine how much increase in capacity can be had in a milk plant
by installing greater capacity equipment without increasing the floor space

requirements.

5. Determine the total ground space recuired for milk plants handling

various quantities of milk.

6. Determine the number and kinds of products, and the quantity of each,

handled by the average milk plant.

7. Construct operation time schedules for milk plants handling various
quantities of milk and determine good layouts utilizing models or templates

of the equipment.

AP-ENDIK I

Statistical Analysis 0? Data

 

The least squares method of analysis was employed in computing the
equation to represent the relationship between the area required for the
various rooms in the milk processing plant and the gallons of milk handled
daily. Several variations of this method, linear, non-linear, and curvi-
linear regression, were tested in an effort to obtain the est fitting
equation. The data used in the calculations of the space recuirements
for milk processing plants are shown in Table AI.

Sample calculations are illustrated for the statistical analysis
of receiving rooms only. The final results of the statistical analysis
for the processing, bottle washing, milk storage, dry storage, boiler,
and office rooms are given in Tables AV, AVII, AIX, AXI, AHIII, and AKV

respectively.

66

TA? E AI

DATA USED IN CALCULATIONS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
GALLODS OF MILK HANDLED DAILY AND FLOOR SPACE PEOUIPZD

FOR

THE VARIOUS ROOMS IN THE MILK PROCESSING PLANT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gals. of Gals. of Pro Jilk Dry
Plant Milk Bottled cess- Bottle Stor- Stor-
Handled Milk Receiv- ing Washing age age Boiler Plant
Daily Handled ing Poem Room Room Room Room Room Offices
Daily, (rt.9) (ft.?)_gft.¢), (ft.91,(ft.%1(ft.9) Lg:.21
A _550 580 270 700 414 549 155a 162 155
s 700 700 200a ,790 #700 4598 _560 200 560
c 750 575C 125 ,720 960 ,520 820 225a 5524
0 975‘ - 575b 1,162b 608b 502b 255b - 212E_
a 1,100 1,100 172 4569a 507 214a 165£1 204 121
F 1.165_ - 264 1,098 961 102a 416a - -
G 1 2fl0 - 400 — — - — — —
H 2,200 1,900 400 __.942 800 600 - - —
I 2,510 1,570 ,505_ 1,739 scab 691b - 497 _748
J 4,190 - 480 2,152 357 752 5,200 4500 -
K 4,800 - 5512 1,,624a 864a 955a 1,352 _5704 1,248
L 6,400 4,510 5525? ,5,006a 1,439 741a 5,572& 1,017 -
M 7,950 4,120 800 2,9608 1,090 1,550a 5,000 ,1,050 1,200

 

handling from 580 to 7,950 gallons of milk daily.

aRooms which_were too small.

bAdequacy not stated.

cUsed round bottles.

Receiving Rooms

The size of the receiving room was investigated in 15 milk plants

Two plants handling

67

700 and 6,400 gallons of milL daily, respectively, stated that the receiving
rooms were too small and these data were not used in making this analysis.
One plant handling 975 gallons of milk daily did not indicate if the receiv-
ing room was large enough, however, it was assumed to be adequate. The two
plants handling 975 and 4,190 gallons of milk daily each had a 1,500 gallon
storage tank in the receiving room and 96 square feet were subtracted

from the area to allow for it.

The data for the receiving room in the 11 milk plants having adequate
floor space were compared by four various methods of regression. Sample
calculations for the relationship between the gallons of milk handled daily
and the floor space required for milk plant receiving rooms is shown in

Table AII.

68

TABLE AII

S}"PLE ClLCULATIOHS SHOWING THE
PELATICHSHIP B:T”EEN THE GALLOHS
0? MILK HAYDL D DA ILY A.UD THE
AREA OF I-IILK PLIll'T PEG: IVI‘TG ROOMS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gals. of
Milk
Plant Handled Area
X Y
A 7550 270
C 750 105
D 975 27?
__ E l,l00 172
F 1,165 264
G 1,990 400
R 2,200 400
I 2,310 505
J 4,190 4?0
K 4,900 ,512
M 7,929 800

 

Sample calculations for linear rqgression. The following sums were cal-

H
H
\)l
#4
{\J
H
H
0)
O
H
O
O
O
‘0
r0
\ )1
O
b.

culated for making this analysis: ZXY '-'-' 114,542,
212 = 2,05 4 ,857; (2102" - 744, 198, 400; ($.11)?2 2 19,088,161; 71:: 1,755,22
xx : 27,250;21r = 4,569; 7 = 597. 1818; Z = 2,400

The eouation for linear regression is of the form

YC : 8.me (K3).

69

a =ZX_= I = 597.182
n

m 3 nIXY-ZXZY 3
nflLfixF?

 

= (ll)(11+,549,_11§)-(27£2
(120,090,250)-(744,192

m = 0.070317561

,400)

Y0 = 597.182 / 0.708174(K—2,480)

YC : 221.555 / 0. 0705174x
The explained sums of squares,-
EYC2 : 1,997,608
Zhe correlation coefficient,

(r9112?!) -2sz
{frat-:1?- (z x) 23 61th x 1751?]

= (11 i(_4w 542 115 ) (27, 25 0)(4;
yfiIlzzl20, 000, 000 ,250) (744,195 400)]f71111

r

 

 

 

r 3 0.9065

The s candard error of estimate,

firs = ifl-EZC...

n

ifjog’lpnr77‘1_,¥b?7,‘hin

ll

 

 

_é 72.055

0‘78

Q)_
054,5 fi)- (19, 05 “5,1613

Anslmr is of Variance for Correlation Coefficient

 

Source 0? Variance Variance

v-a . ‘2 — O :- ‘r o C /

explained: U” Vc - EYE -¢ 1 = 1 907, C -l,755, 2CC 7 = 232
"III—_"' "TIT—T 1 '

Y'fi *VVN (11 "‘7 ' 2 - f‘, ' .4 4 ‘ O - Z

A" 0' I“ d 0' .3 "’ 2’ Vg‘z‘ ‘ 330223;. 07’12C‘Q71fC " 6, 2 -’

 

n—n 9

70

o v — 2
Total: Efy =119-zzrz 051,_,7 1 7 5,2 7: 31, c 60
n-l 10
F1,9 : ECCICC1.: 412704 (F : 9?.C55 at O.li level)
6 .1,
2/1’4

. . The correlation between the we variables is s ienificent.

Semfle c2lculetiens f r curvilinear regression. The followinr sums were

H
[U
.4
\)
"I
O
M
F<
4:.
\N
O\
‘0
he
“‘4
A\

=14, 542 ,115;

calculated for making this analysis: IX

n
C

112 = 120,000,250; 212 : 2,054,257; ix 1' = 77,176,55.0,:‘-25; 2 5= 716 106 627.“ C1;

2x4

4,892,805,166,191,250; I21 = 1,735,257

The equation for curvilinear regression is of the form
Y0 = a / bx / cx2
The normal enuations for solution are
1. 11‘: n6 I btx I CIX2
4,5@ = 119 I 27,2800 #120 ,000,25
2.:x1 2 six / 51x2 /’c:x§
14,542,115 = 27, 2 Oa ; 120 ,000, 250 b / 716,106,657,450 c
5.1X21 = aIX2 I bzx5 / c214
77,176,520,525 = 120,000,250 a / 716,106,657,450 b ;
4,592,502,166,191,25 00

From the simultaneous solution of the normal equations,

216.909

J

0.07494793

0 -10-9x516.6414
- - Y0 = 216.909 % 0.074947914059251664112

The explained sums of squares

2102 = 1,297,630

71

The index of correlation,

 

 

- 99115CO-1,7§51?’Z__
2:054:987‘117552?87

 

The standard error of estimate,

 

(ya = .ifl2-IY02
n
-.- é 20555974397520

 

11

GS A 72.115

Analysis of Variance for Correlation Coefficient

 

 

 

Source of Variance Variance
2 -"j n —- n .,
EXPlalned= q-CYC = 129911~*0-1125219i] = 191,197
2
Unexplained:d:2ys - 2,054,557-1,227,6“0 = 7,151
8
Total: ¢=2y = 21054;?£]-1,Z:§,297 = 51,260
10
= 5 12 = “.5 1 = P. 25 . 5 9
22,5 1 1, z 11 ,47 ( 1 4., at 0 1, lcv 1)

7,151

. . The correlation between the two variables is significant.

Ssnple calculations for non-linear recression, LorloTp 3 L05lném/ b Loglnx.

 

 

Let X' : Loglcx, Y' = LogloY, and Yc' = LoglOYC. The following sums were
calculated for making this analysis by using the LoglOK and LeglOY in place

of X and Y respectively: tX'Y' : 92.052108;zx'2 = 117.446994;11'2 =

72.425408; (22:0)2 = 1,277.525542; (1:.1")2 = 7912.545055; '17 1" = 72.051567;

72

2x' =55. 740542; :1" = 28.149624; X' = 5.249140; 1}" = 2.558966.

The esuation for this analysis is

YC' ‘ a' I m (K'—X')

a = 2‘1". = Y ' = 2.5559660

m = nzI'Y'-z':'z1"
zx'z- ({X' )32

(11)92.062108£_( (55. 740542332 121255511)

 

 

Z115<117.4 9045—(1,277.75y 67I '2
m = 0.456699
... rc' = 2.55°966 / 0. 456629(x -5.249140)

*4
II

6 1.075087 / 0.4566995'

- 1.075087 { 0.456699L0510X

L"
(O
(tq
H
?’
O
I

The explained sums of squares
1:11;? : 72.506906

Th

w

correlation coefficient,

{’1 = (n)(zx'r')-zx'zr'
{Dang—(21v )ijnzr'Q-(zr'lgj

(3192.0621011-(55 7A0542)(28.14962fl

 

 

 

=.,l|:Z11)(117. 446204)? (1, 277. 506 42)] f(11)(72. 425,408)
47.02 54502 3)]

{a1 = 0.3535
The standard error of estimate

ryls g zyl:_zyl2

 

=éfjg° 42"4105—72jc6206

ry's = ,5 0.102915

75

Analysis of variance for correlation coefficient

 

 

 

Source of Variance Variance
Explained a’§'c = 72.206806-12.O§1561_= 9 275239
1
_O
Unexplained=¢§'s = 22.435409422506906 : 0.0129447
9
_2
Total: qiy' _ 757425408-72.05 567 = 0.0592041
10

OR)
_t-b

F1 9 :0. W5 : 21.286 (F = 22.855 at 0.1% level)
’ 0.1229 47

. . The correlation between the two variables is significant.

Sample calculations for non-linear regression, Y0 = a / b LOg1OX. Let X' =

 

LoglOX. The following sums were calculated for making this analysis by
using the LoglOX in place of X:ZX'Y = 14,767.50581F1fix'2 3 117.446994;
‘1122 2,054,887; (xx )2: 1,277.5865 42; (11)? = 191,088,161; YIY - 1,755,287;
:12 = 55. 740542;!1 = 4 ,9,56 . = 5.249140; 3? = 597.182
The equation for this analysis is
Y0 = a K m (X'-§‘)

a =21 - 7f = 597.182

n

 

 

m 1’ IVY-1X 'ZY
uni-(11162
= £11)(141767.595818)-£55.749542)(4,5691
(115(117.446994)—(1,277.5865427
m = 455.025505

- 597.182 ; 455.025 (X'-5.249140)

o

4‘1
0
I

455.025x'-1,009.778

K:
O
H

You 455. 02 5Log102 {-1, 009. 778

74

The explained sums of squares,
tYC2 = 1,982,935
The correlation coefficient,

r92 : @(zx'n-zx'tr
‘\/ Ext-X'ZGX‘ RWY-(”VJ

- £11} (11576:! sow-(:5 .740542) (4,562
W11)(117.41:599A)—(1,277.53654233 [(11)(2,051+,€~E.7-(19,o.9.e,,161]

F2 = 0.8804

 

 

 

The standard error of estimate,

6&3 = fifig 4K0
' n

= g[2,051+,287-1,982,995

'V 11

6'33 = ,5 80.850

 

 

Analysis of Variance for Correlation Coefficient

 

 

 

Source of Variance Variance
Explaim“ 0:595, = messes-1,1553% - 247,696
1
Unexplained:‘::§,iS : Q’ORLJE:ZTlJQfQJOQZ = 7,939
9
Tm“ f?“ = 2,954,8-fi7-14135123 = 51,960
10
F1 9 = 941,606 = 51.005 (F = 22.955 at 0.1% level)
, n
7,9V9

. . The correlation between the two variables is significant.

Results for receiving_rooms. Table AIII lists the results obtained from
the calculations for the relationship between the gallons of milk handled

daily and the required floor area for milk plant receiving rooms.

75

FESULTS CETAIUTD FRCM CALCULATICHS
F0? TWE FFLATICKifilP BFTWWFN GALLCNS CF
MILK HAIDLED DAILY AND THE FLOCF AFZA
FOP KILK AFT PECTIVIH3 FCCl-Iq

————.—.—— ._ ___. _——_- —_ -- _.._..——.*_...__-- .- ___ .. --- —-..- _—

 

_—

 

 

.——— - .a--.._._.—.- -_-.-—..._...._- --___ _— __- '—

 

.----_

 

 

 

Eatimating Standard -Correlation
Equation Error of Coefficient
Estivate
1. YO = 221.555 / 0.070F~'~17L::( firs = g 72.055 r = 0.9065
2. Y0 - 216.909 / 0.0749479X
-lO-9:<516.61¥13’22 firs = 5 72.115 10: 0.9061

 

5. Leglc‘fc '2 1.075087 / 0.1156699105er 03's g 0.102915 fl = 0.8585

 

1;. YC : Z155.C25L031OX-l,009.778. (3,8 é 90.7.50 {2 : 0.9904

 

Ecuation (l) was assumed to represent the best relationship between
the gallons of milk handled daily and the floor area required for milk
plant receiving rooms. (See Table AIII).

Equation:(l) and (2) indicated almost equally, a satisfactory re-
lationship between the gallons of milk handled daily and the amount of
floor space required for the receiving room. The degree of the relation-
ship is expressed by the correlation coefficient which, when equal to
1.00, indicates a line that describes the relationship perfectly. Also,
by squaring the coefficient for equations (1) and (2) it was observed that
approximately 82 per cent of the variation in the floor space over the
range of plants studied was explained by the relationship of square feet
to gallons of milk hgndled daily. The remaining 18 per cent of the variation
is due to other factors, such as arrangement of equipment, type of equipment,

and method of handling.

76

The standard error of estimate indicated that for the 11 plants
used in the analysis, the amount of floor Space recuired for receiving
rooms could be expected to vary within about {.72 square feet of the
estimated value for approximately 68 per cent of the plants when the area
is estimated by either eouation (l) or (9). If this range were extended
to include about 95 per cent of the plants studied, we could expect to
estimate the floor space requirements to within about i 144 ssuare feet
of the actual amount resuired.

The reliability of the relationship was esually well expressed by
either equation (1) or (2). However, by introducing a third constant,
as was done for esuation (2), the reliability of the results is reduced.

IT“

-nis gives the same result as reducing the size of the sample.

The degree of relationship between the floor area and the gallons
of milk handled daily was not as well defined by equation (5). Approx-
imately 70 per cent of the variation in the floor area was explained by
esuation (3) for the relationship of floor area to rallons of milk handled
daily. The floor area would be expected to vary between / 5e and - 42
souare feet of the true value for ahout 6" per cent of the plants handling
5C0 Tallons of milk daily and between / 195 and - 1;? severe feet for
about 69 per cent of the plants handling 9,000 rallons of milk daily.

Approximately 71 per cent of the variation in the floor area was
explained by the relationship of souare feet to sillons of milk handled
daily as expressed in equation (4). The estimate of the floor area would
be expected to varv between i 91 ssuare feet of the reouired amount when
estimated by esuation (A), for approximately 6? per cent of the plants
studied.

Therefore, esuation (1) provides the heat estimate of the amount of

Q

floor space reruirea for milk plant receivins rooms as rv-rnlained by

77

the relationship of sauere feet to gallons of milk handled daily for
those plants handling between 500 and 5,000 gallons of milk daily.

Equation (1) indicated that a general relationship existed between
the gallons of milk handled daily and the floor space required for milk
plant receiving rooms. However, due to variations in arrangement of
equipment, type of equipment, and methods of handling, the area reouired
for receiving rooms is quite variable. An estimate of the floor space
required, when using equation (1), would be expected to vary within £ 72
square feet of the actual value for approximately 69 per cent of the
plants and within {_144 souare feet for approximately 95 per cent of the
plants.

Because of the variation in the area re-uired for milk plant receiving
rooms, a precise prediction refardinq the floor space requirements cannot
be made. However, the area reeuired, when calculated from the relation-
ship of square feet of floor space to gallons of milk handled daily, should
prove to be a satisfactory estimate.

Table AIV shows the estimate of the averafe amount of floor space,
with upper and lower limits, required for milk plant receiving rooms as
calculated from the estimatin: ecuation, YC = 221.555 / o.o7o917ux. The
upper and lower limits for the required area were determined by adding
i 72 square feet to the estimated area. This amount of variation in the
floor area can be expected to include approximately 59 per cent of the

plants studied.

78

TlRLR ATV

T1”T”'”“ C“ WIP
.4 ' ' _ - , \_,

'-.A_‘. $44

PCP NIIH FLAT? *0*I?TV? PFC"3
Q

137 *7 no‘vomwrv‘rr >7“ 1" "
_t—D I. . \.."v-‘..z_4-', K-’ . I.-J : IJ . 1

 

 

3913. of
211k Floor Area Fefivired (ft.?)
Handled

73" , . . '
Jeilg ivy. “Hi. yin.

 

 

 

 

 

_ 12999... W :F' .21.
9,000 A_§5fi__ _;:5 901
“loco 424 506 342

__5129“ 595 __577 12:5.

 

6,000 647 71? “ 27L

 

7,000 717 7°C 645

9 CG. OK
.4000 7.. ._ 0 0‘0 716

 

 

Process'nr Rooms
The size of the processing rccm was investi"eted in 12 milk plants
handling from 550 to 7,950 gellonn of silk dsily. Those planis handling
1,100; 4,900; 6,bCC, and 7,95C gallons of milk daily, resycctively, had
processing rooms wnicn were too small and were not included in the anal-
vsis. Cne plant handling C75 fellons of milk daily did not indicsce if
the processing room was larfc enough, however, it was assumed to Le 0d-
equate. The two plants handling 975 :sllons and 4,190 gellons of milk
daily each had a 1,500 gallons stor re tank in the receiving room and 96

scuare f at were suttrscted from the receiving room area and odded to thct

of the processing room.

1

, ~‘\ ‘ A Q q ha. ‘ _, ' .
ne 9 :q for t1u p10.ensin7 room includes tfie eren for rnCtCHrizinC,

13.

u , _th "~A ~_ J. r u u ‘_ ‘ . . o _
milk Link stor 4e, 00t.ln fillin-, b/nroducts anqucturin", cool. in” he

milk prior to bottle-fillinq, benefenininC, end all e‘rCr a lied O“€r?t10n3.

Feeults for pr cereing_recp3. Table AV lists the results oltained from

 

the calculations for the reletioninip between the rsllons cfm ilk handled

deilv end tre rerired floor erre for milk plant DroeeCsin: '00??-

a

T“*' nr~«' n=vvv*1-r-jrwvz
p—v ‘~ 'V'?‘ "1‘. “—Q 1.: ‘Cfr’
.-. I. -> ~ “~t »;* ”-110 J
(C ill” “1 ”it‘*TV A"W’**TFW(CQ

[xi-EA FC? XIIK FL~‘~..""_C FTC??? _""T_"C} PFC?)

 

 

 

-—.~—,-—-_-——._-. — .._.. ._—_..__ - —-_..._._._._~_ g...“ -._..-— - -_ .-
__v———-—-———.._-m - ”N--- _w--_

 

 

”um..’_‘ -«-~-_._« -.— - -—- .—

‘stiw‘*~nr Standerd CorrelC ti on
Zunetion Trrer of Coeddicient

 

 

-- -—.-- ...-1

 

 

 

1. Y6 = 551.510 g 0.:17‘151 (E, = g 154.155 r = 0.0516
2. LogloYC = 1.1Cf1C1 / 0.691505Log102 y :1 0. 0b57b9 /’= 0.0691

 

Equation (T) we: assumed to more nearly represent the relationdnip
between the gallons of milk nnndl d deilye end the floor er: s refiuired
for milk plant proceeiing rooms. (3e? Te le AU).
3%; etiCn (0) CCve a slightly betier meeture on tke decree of relation-
ship between the area required for milk plCnt rrooeCC‘r‘ rooms and the
Callons of milk lvandle d deilv. The correlation coefpicienta were 0.0516
and 0.?501 for enuetions (l) and (2}, respectively. A coedPicient of 1.00
indicates a perfect reletionchin. .lso, approximetely $1 Cnd CL per 0: nt
of the variation in the Floor area, over the ran e of plant 3 studied, was

explained by the relationship of square feet to :Cllons of .C Ml: hrndled

' - I w a
daily, by equations kl) ane (9), respectively.

80

q

The re uired amount 0: floor spsce, when estimeted by ejuetion (1),
could be eXpected to vary between £_134 souare feet of the aplUfil value

0 studied. If this ren e were ertended to

H)
O
'1
(7\
'9
H
O
:7)
L3
(4'-
O
' '3
c}-
.54
Q
vr-<
H
J
:3
1.

include spiroxinetely ‘5 per cent 0? the plents studied we should expect
this estimnte to very between i 5?? scuere feet of the qctusl value.

When eeuation (9) is used, the estithe of the reCuired emount of
floor specs would be expected to very within npnrorimstely / 70 and — 65
sauere feet of the actual volue for 6° per cent of the plants hendling 500
fallons of milk daily and within / sea and — ?55 svuere feet of the ectunl

value for 69 per cent of those plents hendling 5,00? gallons of milk daily.

xtended to include approximatelv 95 per cent of the

(T)

If these limits are
plants studied, tnose slants hCndling 500 gallons of milk daily would be

C+od to show a veristion of tron / leO to - 196 seuare feet from the

(D

exp
correct amount while plants handling 5,000 gellons of milk daily would be
expected to vary between / 59h and - 550 scuere feet of the actual em unt
of floor area required.

Yduatien (2) we“ selected as the one best representing the relation-

1

ship between tne sauere feet of floor snsce require

0:

for milk plsnt proc-
essing rooms and the gellons 0? milk hCndled daily. This esuation enneeer
to show a better representation 0? the date.

A lerfe amount of variation between the size of processing roons for
milk plents was quite evident due to variations in the number of products
hendled, and also variations in the type end arrangement of the equipment
employed. There is considers le doubt us to the reliability of the estinete

of the area for processing rooms, since the area includes that reCuired for

ell processing operationC, including bvproducts nCnqucturinC end milk tank

Fl

storage. Also the plents used in this studr includfd some which had high-
tenpersture short—time pesteurizaticn in addition to vet pasteurization,
and some which did not. Therefore, the estimate of the area reevired

for the processing rooms can only be used as a very rough approxinstion.
It does show, however, thet 9 general relationship exists between the
amount of product hsndled daily and the floor area resuired for milk plant
processing rooms.

Ts<l

(D

AVI shows the estimate of the averefe amount of floor space,
with upper and lower limits, refiuired for milk plant processing rooms

as calculated from the estimating ecuqtion, LoglOYC = 1.1??101 / 0.621505
LoglOK. Ehe upper and lower limits for the recuired area were determined
by adding {_0.045749, the loserithm of the error of estimstion, to the

10 srithm of the estimqted area and then obtaining the anti-logarithm.
This amount of variation in the floor area can be expected to include

approximately 69 per cent of the plants studied.

Vsttral-

L13
0

*J
' ‘J
C“
(3

- .; cs A??fi Peep F‘D
FOE MILK PLAYT P? casein: spots
USED IN cone“ = TIVG FIG. 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gels. of
Yilk Floor Area Required (ft.9)
Handled
Daily; Avg: Vex. Min.
#530 632 702 532
1,000 915 1,991 975
A one 144.07 1L~ i7 1 25%|]
5.0“” 1,926 2,1A0 1:725
A,oco 2,703 l,§59 2,912,

 

Bottle Washing Rooms

The size of the bottling washing room was investigated in 12 milk
plants handling from 580 to 7,CEO gallons of milk daily. One plant han-
dling h,€00 gallons of milk daily indicated that the bottle washing room
was too small and was not included in the analysis. In addition, the
amount of bottled milk handled daily was not known for three other plants
and consequently they were omitted from the analysis. Also, the plant
handling 2,510 callons of milk daily did not indicate if the bottle washing
room was laree enough and this plant was not included in the analysis of
the data. The plant handling 750 gallons of milk daily was using round
bottles and only those plants using square lottles were included in the
calculations. This analysis was based on the gallons of bottled milk

handled daily.

Results for bottle washing rooms. Table AVII shows the results obtained
from the calculations for the relationship between the gallons of bottled

milk handled daily and the required area for milk plant bottle washing

 

 

 

 

 

 

rooms.
TABLE AVII
F‘KTL°€ CBfAIHTD FECY CALCULATICNS
FOR THE PTLATIO"?¥TF B?TWEET GAILOVé CF
ECl;LED HTLK HAHDLZD DAI.Y AND TH? FLCCF
AFVA FOR MIL? FLAVT ECTiL? WAGUTVG FfCMS
Estimating Standard Correlation
Equation Error of CoefdiCient
Estimate
1' - -’_: ‘- | - ._ _ y '
1. lo — 9.5.151 ,1 0.20;,009: fig - g 117.1.“1 r - .9414

 

2. LoglOYc = 1.355 91 / 0.475529Log10x '3 g c.1ool'JL7 fl: 0.9060

It

 

85

Equation (1) was assumed to give the best estimate of the floor
area reouired for milk plant bottle washing rooms. (See Table AVII).

The degree of relationship between the floor area and the gallons
of bottled milk handled daily was explained more satisfactorily when
using equation (1) than when using equation (2) for estimating. The
correlation coefficients, which are a measure of this degree of relation-
ship, were 0.041h and 0.9060 for equations (1) and (2), respectively. A
perfect relationship is indicated by a coefficient of 1.00. Also, by
squaring the coefficient, it was observed that approximately 89 and 82
per cent of the variation in the floor space for bottle washing rooms was
explained in the relationship of square feet of area to gallons of bottled
k handled daily by equations (1) and (2), respectively.

The amount of variation in the estimated results was much greater
when expressed by enuation (2) than when expressed by equation (1). For
eouation (l), the estimated amount of floor space would be expected to
vary within A 117 square feet of the actual value for 6? per cent of the
plants studied. This variation in the estimated amount of floor space
would be increased to i 93# ssuare feet if approximately ,5 per cent of
the plants were to be included within the limits of variation.

When equation (2) is used, the variation to be expected between the
actual and the estimated amount of floor space reeuired for bottle washing
rooms would be within / 259 and - 154 sauare feet for 6° per cent of the
plants handling 500 gallons of bottled milk daily and within / 601 and
- EFQ seuare feet for 6° per cent of the plants handling 5,000 gallons
of bottled milk daily. If the rense of variation is extended to include
approximately 9; per cent of all plants, the above variations would be

dOUbledo

84

Eouation (l) was selected to represent the best estim~te of the floor
area retuired for milk plant bottle washing rooms because the error of
estimation was much smaller than for eouation (9).

There appeared to be a general relationship between the si7e of milk
plant bottle w¢shinc rooms and the tailors of bottle!J rilh handled daily.
1 "crieticn of f 1‘7 severe feet for the estimated floor area i: not
excessivsl" lerse wlen considerin~ the size of bottle washins rooms.

This amount of variation is due to differences in methods of hendlinr

bottle noses in the bottle washins room and also due in part to the limited

size of the sample. However, the area as estinoted by eouation (l) in this

section should provide a bottle washing room of adesuate size handlinr
the ejuare-type milk bottle.
moi 1'3 hirI-I (,1, ." +w pat. 4C, p J.‘|'.3 _ 0,,(3 0'“ .1 J- .0 T1 or If. (3
luD - n. l sno 8 use -1 ime e oi the ever, u anoint oi - cor sp.cc,

with upper and lower limits, reouired for milk plant bottle washing rooms

as calculated by the estimatinw eéuation, Y0 = 595.151 K 0.904005%. The

upper and lower limits for the reouired area were determined by addinj f

117 souare feet to the estimated area. This amount of variation in the

Q.
,+
0

floor area would be expects include aonroxiratel'r 69 per cent of the

lants studied.

’1’

85

TRQLT AVTIT

‘j‘firv 'V‘lfl'r '1 v1 v: '3" 'I‘ ‘T/‘f' 3 fl
.4 I .1 1 C. \Q :4 CF‘ :‘ L'CCI . ‘5‘. . .‘L F- I- .o
FCF IfILI’ Fifi-.771“ BCTTL‘? i‘c’-".‘%'~’l’ETG

FCC-f"? IVY-D I? CC‘TT’FTFUCF'I”? FIE- 5

 

 

 

 

’"Eiia.‘sf‘“"‘—‘"""'"""" "
“ottled Floor Area Fe"uired (ft.?)
Yilk
Handled
“"111! .ach. _ ‘.:?:._--.._.___‘*'_i_n.oo_
Eco h°e 60° s67

'
———J——.—-_- _....——.—— — _-—.—-—— ._ J—l_._. —-_—-.__ —. .. —-.— _.———_—-‘——‘—

f‘. O ,/
14:90 5'5 701+ -i_-i£22

 

 

-——-— -fi--... --_._‘___. _-.._—_ _—.. __-~--~

o 000 - _ 7”0 007 579

 

 

Yilk Storage Poona
The size 0? the milk storafie room wes investireted in 1? milk plents

hendlinj from 5“O to 7,050 gallons of milk daily. Five 0? the plants in—

dicated that the milk storage room was too smell end these were not in-

N

O

cluded in the analysis of date. The two plants hendlinf ,75 end 9,;10
gallons of milk daily did not indicete whether the milk storefe room was
large enough, however, the? were both assumed to be adeqvete in size. The
plant handling 750 gallons of milk daily was using round bottles and was
also handling a smell smownt of milk in paper containers. Only those plants

4L1

handling milk in square bottles were included in the an: ysis.

esults for rilk stornre rooms. Table Ali shows the results obtained Irom

”—— H --

the calculations for the relationship between the rallons 0? milk hendled

daily and the reouired area for milk store:e rooms.

TifLZ AIK

nerves (“seams Feet-f 01.1011. -'1.'_?_"If‘"*9

FCE THE F7LATIC77VTP P“TVTET SKILCTS'
OT KIIK KiYDLSD DAILY £73 THC FLOOR
AREA F:""ITTD FCT KI’K FLATT

\f 7f ifit'f‘ . Ifi:‘ Af‘fo
3.111“. 3 .; \. F A J _.I 1:11. a. .0

 

 

 

Estimating Standard Correlation
Equation Error of Coefficient

 

 

1. YO = 251.046 ,1 0.1367771): GS = g 72.015 r = 0.9214
2. Loqlo‘rc = 1.076085 / 0.50h53.51,oglox y's = g 0.060596 {9: 0.9522

 

 

Equation (2) was assumed to represent the best relationship between
the Gallons of milk handled daily and the floor area reauired for milk

bl-
storage rooms. (See Table All).

The degree of relationship between the floor area and the gallons
of milk handled daily was more satisfactorily exnlained when using enuation
(2) than when using equation (1), however, the ditference was small, as
indicated by the correlation coefficients. It was also observed that
approximately 85 end 97 per cent of the variation in the floor space for
milk storage rooms was explained by the relationship of souare feet of
area to gallons of milk handled daily when estimated by equations (1) and
(2), respectively.

The amount of floor space, when estimated by esuation (1), may be
expected to very between £.72 seuare feet of the actual value for approx-
imately 95 per cent of the plants studied.

The range of variation to be expected between the actual and the

estimated amount of floor space required for milk storage rooms would be

97

within / 41 and — 56 square feet for approximately 68 per cent of the plants
handling ECO gallons of milk daily, and within % 151 and - 114 snuare feet
for 68 per cent of those plants handling 5,030 gallons of milk daily, when
the areas are estimated by equation (2). If the ranre of variation were
extended to include approximately 95 per cent of all plants, the variations
stated above would be doubled.

Equation (2) indicated a slightly better relationship between the
floor area and the gallons of milk handled for milk storace rooms than
did equation (1). Ecuation (2) also showed a lesser amount for small
plants and a greater amount for larger plants in the variation between
the actual and the estimnted amount of floor space required. A larger
variation, however, would be expected for the larger plants. Therefore,
equation (2), probably provides the best estimate of the floor area.

The size of the milk storage room appeared to be directly related
to the gallons of milk handled daily by the milk plant. The variation
of the estimate was probably due to differences in the number of products
handled, the method of hendlinr the finished products, the arrangement of
the room, and the heirht at which cases of milk are stacked. Also, some
of the variation is undoubtedly due to the small number of plants avail-
able for making this analysis. The area as estimated by equation (2)
should provide sufficient floor space for the milk storage room handling
milk in the square-type milk bottle.

Table AX shows the estimate of the average amount of floor space,
with upper and lower limits, renuired for milk plant, milk storage rooms
as calculated from the estimating equation, LongYc = 1.076C85 / 0.3045f5L0310X.

The upper and lower limits for the estimated area were determined by adding

é 0.060596 to the logarithm of the estimated value and then determining
the anti-logarithm. This variation in the floor area would be expected
to give a range of area which would include that for approximately 68

per cent of the plants studied.

T -BLE AX

ESTI"ATE 0F FLOOR AFFA FEQTIP.
FOR MILK PLANT H-ITK STCFP'G ' RCO? 3 JEED
IU CLUS"?L .CTI"} :. 4

"JD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gals. of

Milk Floor Area Required (ft.2)
Handled

Daily Avg. Ma:.. Fin.

500 27a 515 2§§

1,000 geg LA7 332
2,000 552 634 490
s§,000 677 .179 e_532.
Agmo Ajep Etc $1
¥§,ooo 876 11007 Zé?

 

Dry Storafe Rooms
The size of the dry storaje room was investigated in ten milk plants

handling from 500 to 7,050 gallons of milk daily. Four of the plants

indicated that the dry storage room was too small and these were not

0

included in the analysis of data. The plant handling ,75 gs allons of” milk
daily did not indicate whether the milk store ge room was larfe enough and

was omitted from the calculations.

Results for dry storage rooms. Table AYI shows the results obtained from
the calculations for the relationship between the gallons of milk handled

dai y and the required area for milk plant dry storage rooms.

ma: :7 av

-ab- ' :l-JL

P73YLT3 CBTLTTTD FFCY C’LCYLATICYS
FCP. TH; PTL "IC‘Y‘TTP “QC'TZ'IT GKLLCYS
CF NILE . ThL D DAILY ATE THE FLCCR

APLA FTQITFTD F0? MILK PLAHT

DPY STCE3?Z RCCKS

 

 

-

1st1m1+1rc t'10srd Correlation
Equation _'rror of Coefficient

 

 

 

2. Loglo‘fc == o.4s=a2f~‘o ,1 O.°0905CL0§10X «,r's = g 0.2014713. ,0 - 0.9677

 

 

quatioh (2) was the only eeuation showing a sati sfactorfg relationship

between the gallons 0? milk handled daily and the tloor area required for

milk plént dry storage rooms. (See Table axI,.
The difference between the reliability of the two estimates, as shown

ents, was so extreme that selection could be

E30

by the correlation coem1
made on the basis of this alone, recalling that a coefficient of 1.00 in-
dicates a relationship which is perfect. Approximately 36 and 75 per cent

of the variation in the floor spece for milk plant dry st orsge rooms, wien es -
timated by eeuations (l) and (2), respectively, was explained by the re~

lationship of snuare f3et of area to gallons of milk handled daily. 133

other 64 and 25 per cent of the variation was due to other factors. There-

fore, equation (2) was the only one showing any degree of relationship be-

tween th etwo variables.

90

The amount of floor Sr"ce, when estimetcd by eoustion (2), may be expected

.“unre feet of the actual value hor snnrox—

(4'
O
'4
5n
'1
1..
‘1
L3.
( +
:3
‘k
"3
(7\
In.)
(D
:5
Q.
I
H
J:-
N)

o f 1 1 o a o

instelv :9 per cent of those plonts Fondlin: FOO gellons of milk dn1ly and

within % 2,455 and - 1,554 scuare feet of the ecturl velue for approriflete-
"“l

z... ~ 0 . .
1y 3* per cent of tnose plants handlint 9,090 fellons of milk daily. inis

of

LJ-
:5
c}-
77‘
(‘J
’1
kJI
N
(D

lerre amount of vorietion was due +o the extreme difference
the dry storoee rooms found in milk ylents end else, to the limited number
of plants {HCIULFd in the "nelvsis.

I. ‘ ' ’1 ‘ -‘ v r‘ x o a- < . I: - e. In“ -. u -‘ . . ‘ u - V
9ecoxse o: tne ler e lqu.g C vczi~t:cn ”a? o in mil: olent dry

'F’
.1
ex.

33
4+-
'D
O

storeee rooms, 9 rclivkle P the spec: re wirements cennot be
mnoe.
stle mYIl shows the estinete 0* too oversee stount of floor sr'oe,

with upper and lower limits, reouired for milk plant dry stornfe rooms es

slculnted from the estinetin; equation, LOSlOYc = O.AEEQCO / 0.50C0501031CY.

._J

(11

The unoor end lower li»its for the required arse were determined or s sin:

é 0.2OA515, the loferithm of the estimvting error, to the loonrithm of the

estimoted ores and then determinin~ the enti—lo~oritnn. The range of area

CL
(4-
O
H-
:3
CD
1...!
C‘
,U;
Q
L.
’V)‘
"3
(+
*1
U)
C)
\1
FJ.
3
‘L
D.

r4.

contained within these l'nits would be exrocte

For spnroximntely 6” per cent of ell Plants.

91

mm -7 *‘ 1‘!
v ~Q ‘I I

14
!--4

7'7”" "‘."'.‘ -."I V.“ “ T". 75'7““ ff
;‘ I ..i C“ :LCC- A JA L- 'I D
T". 1'? Yr AT?" F". rui- 7- Ah

PC: hLTK Flu“. D ; 3iC:5;'

FCCIE U130 IX CCT3TEUCTIY3 FIG. 5

 

 

 

 

*Vv ~r a,,r. "n~, t'4-n

.xf ‘1 -I O .‘,. O -' L...
C'f‘ "717' /r~’. n-
3 ! _ , 4 .
AC 41/ ~ r ( (1

 

 

 

 

I no : n: ’ C’ "n o o

\_‘L\ x O 1.1--1—,‘) .4 1 .' 9-1.—
7 hp 2 (ff : ’“n o 0’0

‘ j -- C -41 J . h—.—‘ , lb ( ‘1

 

 

 

Data were uvri1~ole fcr briler rooma from nine milk flnnfs Evnzling
from 5‘0 to 7,‘SO gallons of milk daiIV. The plant hindlinm 7

boiler room wos too smrll and

Cf
J
U)
H.
N
O)
O
Pb
4.
)
’3

or milk diily oiited that

was not used in this anslrsi

(.0

F
L—

i 0 f“. ‘ V. ‘ i w - ‘ ‘
rooulfa for rcilrr roown. idols AfIII edovg ire oavlts outmined from

 

the crlculations for tke relationship b tween the fiqllons o? wilk %"n31 d

daily 9nd +he rejuired area for milk plcnt boiler rooms.

IITLT A"TII

--.L.-

ITerts C?”AT*TD FPCfi C LirIITIC"s

FCF II: F L46 CICfiI? B'twizf GAILC“3
CF KILK Hr"iL U LAIfY AT? THE FICCR

Affll 337Vl373 TC? ”ll" PLATT
iCILER 3""“3

A\\_r\JA’—

— ~— --

 

..—- ————_*_———_ -—-.-- —

 

 

Estimating Strandsrd Eorielation
Eiuetion Error of Coeffi_cient

Lstinete

 

1. Y0 = 99.210 % 0.126C99x 03; g'74.C09 r = O-Q751

Q

 

 

---—.—. a——-

2. LoglOYC =0.1A:175 / o. 7.21 CLo 1C:{ (”'8 g O.C§¢74h /9'= c.r°05

-—.—-——————-— "-_—_.__.——

 

 

 

Equation (?) was assumed to rerresent the most satisfactory relation-
ship between the gallons of milk hcndled daily and tne floor area reiuired
for milk pl nt boiler rooms. (See Totle AKII I).

be ifference between tie reliebilitr of the two estimates was
practically nefligible, as explained by the correlation coefficient. Yben
estimated by esustions (l) and (9), respectively, 9ppr0"imetely 95 end 95

per cent of the variation in the floor space for milk plant boiler rooms

W38

0

xplsined by the relationship of snuare feet to gallons of milk handled
daily, indicating a very reliable relationship.

We smoxznt of floor space, w Ien estimated b;r equation (1), may be
expected to vary between £_74 square feet of the ectusl ve lue for the

f‘

pe_ce required in approwinntely 6‘ per cent of all plants and between

C)

£ 149 square feet in approximately 95 per cent of all plents.

O

The ranje of var 1O “ti on to be evnccted between the actual and the
estimsted amount of floor space required for milk nlsnt boiler rooms would

‘

be within / ?O and - 17 square feet for epproximstely 69 per cent of all

plants handling 500 gallons of milk daily, and wit in / 155 and - 154
scuare feet for approximately 6q per cent of those plants handling 8,000
gallons of milk daily, when the areas are estimated by equation (2). If
this range of variation were extended to include approximately 95 per cent
of all plants, the variations stated above would be doubled.

The size of the boiler room was found to be directly related to the
gallons of milk handled daily by milk plants. The variation in the esti-
mated floor area was probably due to some differences in the original de—
sign, and also, in part, to the small size of the sample available for
making this analysis.

Table AXIV shows the estimate of the average amount of floor space,
with upper and lower limits, required for milk plant boiler rooms as
calculated from the estimating equation, LoglOYc = 0.145176 / 0.736150Log10X.
The upper and lower limits for the required area were determined by adding
A 0.059744, the IOgarithm of the estimating error, to the logarithm of the
estimated value, and then determining the anti-IOgarithm. Approximately
68 per cent of all plants would be expected to be included in the range of

area bounded by these limits.

TAZLZ AXIV

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:3 IRATE 0F Ftcos A??i TiffilfiD
F0: MILK PLANT 30: as peers USED
1: 0 ISTRTCTIYG ?IG. 6
Gals. of
Milk Floor Area Required (£t.9)
Handled
Daily AV". hex. Win.
.500 155 155 119
1,000 995 9‘9 10‘
9,000 87h Ago -96
7 c: !.
l-‘IOCO J 5 57.9 1+?
4,000 ésh 716 5%;
$1000 7§5 Pb; 641
ggoeo Fbl 064 7‘2
. O C
7,000 0L1 ,0 0 s0
0 3 :
~yxe lit? igos $01

 

Plant Offices
Data were qvailable for plant offices from eight milk plants handling
from 5?0 to 7,950 gallons of milk daily. The plnnt handling 975 gallons
of milk daily did not indicate if the space allotted to plant offiices was
large enoueh, however, it was assumed to be adequate. The plant hnndling
700 gallons of milk daily included the driver's check room in the space

allotted to offices and this plant was omitted from the analysis.

Results for plant offiices. Table AXV shows the results obtained from the
calculations for the relationship between the gallons of milk handled daily

and the reouired area for mil“ plant offices.

'I‘;\:IJ: .L'L. 1:0]

PF?UL"3 CBTAITTTD FRCH CALCULA.”IO"3
FOP. TEE F'L-l"'T"""T’TP ? 'T‘:‘."33Z‘T GAI LOT-.73
OF MILK HALTDLFD DAIIY PHD "H3 FLOOF
ATEA FFFUIRFD F0? XILY PLANT CF ICFS

 

 

Estimating Standard Correlation
Estations Error of Coefficient

Fstimate

 

1. YC = 151.976 % 0.159€90X firs _ 1+ r = 0.97014

ll
H\
H
"7
O\
O
“O

 

 

n
C)
H
\J

o
\1
. I")
~4

07;:-

n yr :../‘> r) .7 I ”‘1' I) r? p, gr ,.I
do LOQ10-0 .on.OL.i7“t % Oofb7a.1LOC1C \ ',' 3

 

_' 1 f) //
40";.....»6O.1r‘95r-fc 0 x a = x 08.0w F, = 0.97, 65

9-)

 

equation (3) we: assumed to represent the most se “is "ectorr relnf tion
ship between the fallons of milk hendlei dailf and the floor area reeuired
for milk plant offices. (See Tatle XV).

The degree of relationship between the floor area and the gallons
of milk handled daily was much better exnlained by eeuation (5) as indi-
cated by the correlation coefficients. Anproximntely 81 and 79 per cent
of the variation in floor space for plant Offlices was exnleined bv eeuations
(l) and (0}, respec*ivelv, b" the relet IOT"““ of nevare feet to gallons

c hendled daily, while nbovt 9H ner cent of tee verie tion was ex-

- nation (F).

When es Mi ated h" ecuntion (1), tie amount 0? floor space refiuired

k—J

of mil

(J
;.J
3
Ho
3
f D
Q;
U"
‘4
I)
)

for plant officee mey be expected to vary between f 107 severe feet of

'43

the actual value for apnroximet mel, 6? per cent of (111 plants. he difference

~
U

1 o

oetween the actual and the estinnted amount 0? floor snoce for plant offices,

when estimated by envetion ( ), me] me ex neC‘ed +o verr within / 70 and - 46

qev~re fire+ ier e“ n'? cent on all nlwrte ““ndlin- g’“ ”elloni o? m”

/ -. /
daily end Within 1 77* erd — “l; c,‘:re “'et Per 0“ b*r c”nt 0? ”ll “lentfi

)
_10

s I n N a o o o C o
T””511““ ‘9?“0 r“°.ll<3‘-"..“:. of r11? d"ll7. The vur1o+*en “"?0ctvo in the “loor

.)

"roe when eetim~ted hv ewnotion (7), would 10 within f 0° eonqre feet of
the actual value when nrrroximctelr 69 rer cent 0? all plintfi are includ;d.
If the above roncce were evtcnded to include nnnrowirntelv G5 per cent of
all plente, the amount of varietion in the floor area between

and the estindtc velvet would he doubled. Since the relotionoh n between

the floor area end the fillons of milk hdndled deilv wee nnch more antis-

4-

‘octorilv exploined by 8”Ufitl0n (5) end 9110, the estimniin~ error was

03

sneller, cspccielly for the 17T“GT plants, tnis edvntion wds selected a
the one providinn the bmfit catinqte ob the office ennce re‘vired for milk
plenta.

Due to the emnll nnnber of elonts need in the enclveifi, and 9120

the variatilitx in the floor qrcce nveilotle ?or oPFices in the lor~er

W

cotion of the optice sp~ce requiremente For the lor~er plents. -ne es—

tinoted valuen indicoted thet the floor snnce re virer for plant of4iccs

incroqeed with on incr nsine nlnnt capacity for plants hendlinf we to
opprovinwtely 6,C7C fallone of milk daily. For rl°n+o handlinr over 6,COO
rallons of milk daily, the area rewuire decreeeed with an increasin:
plant capacity. It mirnt be expected that the area would increase at a
decreasing rate, but it is impracticel to exnect the reonired area to de-

crease with an increased plant capacity. Therefore, the upner limits of

this eetnnote, nrohably beyond a plant cenQCity of approvimntely 5,0TO

(D

gallons dfiily, cannot be depended uncn to Prodnce 9 very relieble entiret

r-H' N"? V . l J— . \ (x J‘ J‘ "‘ ‘
-oble “VI snows the eicit be 0? tie overooe owount of floor spree,

with unorr and lower limits, re wired For milk plent o?fices :3 calculated

1 o .o o _ ,-—- —. ‘ — ~/ I "9
from too estivotino e"uet1on, YO - — 1L?.195 / O.L74’ll{ - lO 7KfoC.405x .

The upper end lower limits for tne refiuired area were deterrined bk oddin:

¥ 9‘ s were feet to the estineted arez. This amount of variation in the

h-

estinnted area should five a renfe waich would be ernected to include the

/ A
‘ .
. -

J
“i
Q

J
0)

“b
O
’1

D

’ ‘1

"J
*1

O

,4

H.

i

3
(F
(.
H
<‘l

per cent of all plente.

TAlL? AYVI

.L

:3;IV:T: CF eLcce Ari: F?“VI??D
F0? HILK PLXYT owe ‘73 t
I: ccvefevrr'*“1 F11 7

7

J..._ .4

 

 

 

 

3318. of

Yilk Floor Area Peouired (rt.?)
Hendled m

E ily Av". Yer. Kin.

 

 

 

 

1,cco :7” 4576 1“o
/
01C~‘O 590 774 5:"?

 

 

 

 

 

APPZUDIK II

List of Plent Descrlptions

 

Plont A

Plant A, constructed in 1949 to hendle approximetely 3,5CO gallons
of milk daily, was a one-story structure processing 500 gallons of milk
daily. Milk was bottled in the square—type bottle with approximately
1,000 nuerts and 1,500 half-pints of milk produced daily. In addition,
approximately 80 pounds of cottnee cheese were processed daily.

The products handled were whole milk, homogenized vitamin D milk,
chocolate milk, chocolate drink, cereal mix, coffee cream, whipping cream,
buttermilk, cottage cheese, and skin nilk.

Th employees consisted of one non for the office, four route men,
and three men handling the processing operations.

Tue following information lists the size of the various rooms and

the esuipment rejuired for the milk plent.

o o o u "' ,1. O
Rece1v1ns room. The receiVin: room was 171 ft. wide x 20 ft. long x 14

 

ft. high and was considered to be lsree enough. The following equipment
was listed for the receiving room.

I. weigh tank, (50 gels.)

2. Rotery can wesher, (4 0pm.)

5. Poller conveyors for receiving and returning cans

Processing room. The dimensions for the processing room were 20 ft. wide x

5; ft. long x 1h ft. high. This room was assumed to be sufficiently large.

The equipment required for processing is listed as follows.
1. Preheater, (4,000 lbs. per hr.)
2. Pasteurizers, (2 at 200 gels. each)
5. Homogenizer, (200 gal. per hr.)
4. gurface cooler, (2,500 lbs. per hr.)
5. Bottle filler, (26 qts. per min.

6. Cheese vat, (50 gal.)

A

eparator-clarifier, (1,000 lbs. per hr.)

7. f

\1

Bottle weshin: room. The size of the bottle washing room was 19 ft. wide x

 

25 ft. long x 14 ft. high and was considered to be adequate in size. The
esuipment indicated for the bottle washing room was as follows.

1. Seeker—type bottle washer, (A-wide, 52 bpm)

2. Compressors, (2 at 2 hp)

. Cases of bottles handled on dollies

\N

u. . 1 . 1
511k storaee room. The milk storage room was 15; ft. Wide x 22 e'ft. long x

 

9 ft. high and was assumed to be larfe enough. Milk was stored in square-

type milk bottles.

Dry stcrase room. The dry storage room was approximately one-third as

 

larfe as necessary and was 10 ft. wide x 13% ft. long x 14 ft. high.

Office space. This plant had an office 8% ft. wide x 19 ft. long x 9 ft.

 

high and was considered to be large enough.

Driver's check room. A sufficiently lerce driver's check room was available

 

which measured 7 ft. wide x 13% ft. long x 14 ft. high.

100

Boiler room. A #0 horsepower oil—fired boiler was located in a 12 ft. wide

 

"1 o o a
x 123 ft. long x 14 ft. hiqh room. This room was canaldered to be adequate

in size.

Locker room. A small room 7% ft. wide x 13% ft. long x 9 ft. high was
I D -.

 

available as a lavatory and shower room, and was sufficiently large.

Plant B

Plant 8, processing approximately 700 gallons of milk daily, was
a one-story plant constructed in 1947 to handle 750 gallons of milk daily.
Kilk was bottled in square-type bottles with approximately 2,b00 quarts
and 1,200 half-pints being bottled daily. In addition, approximately
80 pounds of cottage cheese per day and 10,000 gallons of ice cream per
year were being processed.

The products handled were grade A and B milk, raw milk, homogenized
vitamin D milk, chocolate milk, buttermilk, light cream, heavy cream, and
orangeade.

This operation required three men for processing, two office workers,
and six route salesmen.

The following information gives the size of the rooms for this plant

and the equipment recuired to carry out the processing operations.

Receivin" room. The size of this room was stated as being 10 ft. wide x

 

20 ft. long x 10 2/5 ft. high. The operator indicated that this room
should probably be 15 ft. wide. The list of equipment for the receiving
room was as follows.
1
1. Rotary can washer, (1: cpm)

2. Dmm3tafl<

lOl

Processingproom. An adequate sized room for processinr was available which

 

1 0 Q 6, n ‘ a
measured 175 ft. wide x 40 ft. long x 10 2/9 ft. nigh. Tee equipment re-
quired for processing included:
1. Clarifier, (6,000 113. per hr.)

Separator, (5,500 lbs. for hr.)

(0

anjeurizerg, (5 at 1:0 pal. each)

\N
o

:-

Cheese vats, (“0 gal.)

5. Homesenizer, (400 gal. per hr.)

6. chinet cooler, (h,000 lbs. per hr.)
7. Bottle filler, (2,000 qts. per hr.)
8. Batch freezer, (5 gal.)

9. Ice cream psc‘ase filler, hand operated

'-, o . o 1 9 I
settle washin:_room. The bottle washing room was 17; ft. wide x 40 ft.

 

long x 10 2/5 ft. high and was nssumed to be larre enough. The following
ejuipment was located in this room.

n,

P: g . I . ‘l
l. soake -type bottle washer, (4 Wlde; 2,200 oph)

Kilk stornze room. The milk storage room was sufficiently larse and measured

 

0 F1._ 0 a if. 0 J.
1h ft. wide x 22 ft. long x *fi'ft. “1:0. milk was handled in ssuare bottles.

Dry storace room. This room was indicated as being just about large enough.

 

r11

lne dimensions were 15 ft. wide x 20 ft. long x 10 2/5 ft. high.

I... rm 1

Office and driver s check room. -18 size of tnis room was 19 ft. wide x

 

20 ft. long x 10 2/5 ft. ‘ish and was considered to be larse enOUfh.

E0 51 r r we . A :0 hOTSO“OW3T horizoniel, n c'°~‘ unit boiler wee located

 

in a snf“icienily ler e room measurin: 10 ft. wide x 90 ft. lon: X 10 2/5 ft.

‘ in ,.‘ ‘ . ‘ I, _. - .
Comeze: or room. This room neesured 5 ft. Wide X 19 ft. hifih enr we: ene-

 

busts in size. e “ ollowinj comnressors were loeflted in this room.

1. Cue, 3 En. (Freon-12

?0 1’0, 2 14?. (TrFO‘I-‘l )
7 C5" r‘. 7 7 I...’ H . o '3
(‘0 l.'), f“ I). K 1 C 110114C)

f"

Locker room. l;u size 0? the locker room was 9 ft. wide x ' ft. lonf x

 

414. i :-.1. " - .on' - 4. 3,.
9 re. e..n sne wps of su-i1cien- SlzCo

o n a ' . 1 I .
lent C was a one-s _ r" built orifiinelly in lCe? to nendle L50 r‘Qllons

one were wade to

O
H.)
E?
}..'o
H
w
H.

daily. In 1070, a new buildinf wee erected, aldit
the original plant, and the complefe le'oui was rehrrens'd to heidle 7: 0
he msjoriif of the milk was boifled in tie round-
'pe boutle wits enproxieetely ?,CCO nusris, lCC hints, and l,C;” self-
?inis beiné bot led daily. Afiproxinetely £00 cuqrts were landled in paper
conteinere. In addition, about 10,060 gallons of ice cream were proce:ssed
yearly.

The products h"ndle d were merke t milk, cot+ec< cheese, but‘ermilk,
ice crser, orenje drink, and c“ecolste nilh.

Three men were emnloyed to handle processin“, one wee reerirrd ‘or

fhe o??ice, end €ire were needed as routs eelevnen.

Q‘. ‘.D 4L. lvfi‘, 1"- v? 'J_‘_‘J. ‘ _.‘ .P‘r p Q Q A ‘0 _‘
i e inrormsbien llonud U.10a he re: i'fi 27.9 o- +w¢ +n~ v Iiou.

‘ : J-‘-.,- J .fl - '. . \~ A ‘P‘V‘ . ‘4
feino in L43 rlin; end t.- enviyrent ru.uiiod.

heceivipr room. The receivinf room wes 13 9%. wide x 1? 9t. lonf x

 

?5*V end we: cons dered to *1 lnrse enou~h. “he enuiwwrnt re wired

1 '~'Y'n.;l;-‘n 1n‘l1x’ (riflp 1“.)

roller onvvevnv~

Fhvwnruwvirr‘ rocwc. ‘.ve (ii?****iorr1 or

..-..—. -- -- ___ __-

.:e firecre in? room were 17 ft.

 

-—

Pa
O

A? it. lon~ Y 1’ Pi. hi“h end i+ wee assumed *o be e“?Ficien*lT lore“.

erminweni re rired ior srcces'in' is lisfed he follows.
1. ‘7 ate n'v~e--':"c:-‘i_i::‘, (1? TC? 11:. per hr.)
2. Sepnretor-cldrifier, (¢,0?0 lbs. T”? hr.)

2 ". r V .r‘ o 7 ‘r ~¢
,. -111 at02~ e .rnk, ( Co til.)

5. Cheese vat, (1C0 f"l.l

/ co 0 r‘ V
O. fiOfiOfWDLZST, (flCC rel. per 1r.)

7. Plefe cooler, (§,CCO lbs. per hr.)

-\ I 'A
go+*l“ V"““WN“ “0C”. he "170 of ihe ioiile weihin" roe” He‘ )0 ft
"A A. ‘ _ , . ~ . ‘ ‘ ‘ M u qu .

X is ft. lone x 1. ft. ni~h one it wee conricered +0 0; (do {2‘s in
WV 0

Lee :“u event inriceted for the noifle wee
l. Seeker—iwne hotile washer, (32 to h’ s 3. :er min.)
f‘
(2

'. Roller conveyor for cases from woszer to filler.

. Tower conveyor for bottles from wosher to filler.

"'—. " J“ r‘ v- r‘ 77.1. ' r 4- nr ~- ‘ v ‘ D. . r- v I ‘rw ' v -I‘ _
nilg scor L3 r ~m -ne milk JuOlth zoom wee on? loiseilj 131 e and no.3urod

)L o
-.._ - .-........

4
)
3
.b
a-
O
P-J
O
.15
x
N
x
”J
#-
O
"I‘
IJ
.
HI

7| J. o ‘ _
1 [-1 f LI 0 'IIIrl Q 8 .‘L C \' a.

1C4

TYH’ siorm“%7 room. .pi‘rc vH?rc inn) r0033: for c:“' S‘OIT‘“Z and {guc tofcl.z:r:a

- ‘ H . A r l- - - rumr 1 . s r 7 “fl v' ‘ ‘ hr fl "‘
w: con id rel to us {co uniilo Cne room mccaLrec a it. hlde A a. it. long

“3
0
’fi
( +
O
F4
O
,:)

l

g:

’7
’fi
(4-
.

o n -c Q ./ -
:c 10 f3:. 51 fi:, v 1119 i*xo o“31r TOCflllf”3 1x3 ft. vuxlo x

roiler rcov. ,uis room, wWichvas lorio “nouii, woo 13 ft. wide x 17 ft.

 

long x 9 ft. hi h. It containrd c 20 Forsorower boiler which woo neiumcd

(’1 -_-.Av- ‘ah a -u -< u A .
\JC’. . 1.1“ "-301 10 .E‘_.
m

___‘_____ uiS room mewsurod 1? ft. wide X 1? ft. lonf x 9 ft. hi:h
and wos considered to be sufFicionfly lorjo. The followinb comprcecorc
were used for both milk ¢nd ice cream monolinf.

1. Ca: 10 hp. comprcscor

9. Cnc 20 “p. com“r83?0r

‘7 0 J- ‘.
-u" ll‘l‘. ’l“3".7?l"lC‘-‘ S ‘0’}.

 

- F' A a r‘ R .-- ‘ 1 r»‘ ( ' . ‘
Lockor room. lhe locks? loom w o 19? o onox n 9nd mecsyred 7 ft. W108 x 7

ft. lon: x c f*. Fifh.

..
(B
5.1
O
3
>4
'3
t
_L
o

CFTic: {:(CQ. TFio plcnt hcd an office 1" ft. wide x l?

 

hijh which wcs considered to be svf?icienily lir"e.

. ' AP r ‘\ ‘A "\ ’1. ‘(H’ '
“11ver s C.TCL racn. A clock room CCEaldBTSd to co c£:.L

8136’ W318

f3
(4‘
(3
PJ.
L3

5“
,_)
H.
l
V)
.

availaile which mccfiurod 4 ft. wide x A ft. long x 9 ft.

Plant D

Plant D wrs a two-eiory pl"nt, osccmont 9nd ground floor, built in

1°50 to kondle 9,?50 collons 0? milk daily. At he fine of this study

105

975 gallons of milk dsily wes bein: processed. In addition, this plant
wes processing anprcxinstely EO,FCO gallons of ice cream per year.

‘

of tee various rooms

(I)

The indormaticn listed below indicates the siz
found in the plqnt and the ecuinment recuircd. No resnonse wcs given

indicating whether or not the rooms were larcc enouwh.

 

R;ceivinc room. The roceivinc room was 15 ft. wide X 29 1/5 ft. lone.
The followin: esuioncnt was listed for this roon.

2. Weiqh tcnk, (50o lb.)
5. Clerifier, (soc gel. per hr.)
h. rilk storsce ten}, (1,600 gel.)

5. Foller conveyors for receiving end returning cans

U _‘ o 1 0 -~ _‘ o
PTOCCGGlfi:¥TCOTo ”his room was 20: ft. wide x 92 ft. lonf. The ecuipmen‘

 

required included.

1. Sehsretor, (190 s"1. per hr.) too smell

'\J
.
'13
un
CD
4-
‘ D
it
*1
‘Jo
f“.
(D
’1
C0
‘0
A
\N
{o
(+.
\ )l
'53
O
|’ I 1
_. J
H
O
p)
:3
CL
H
(D
(+
H
to
O
U C}
' 'J
H
C
v

Homegznizer, (400 gel. per hr.)

‘0!
o

r:

Plate cooler, (500 gal. per hr.)

Bottle filler, (50 cts. per min.)

\n
O

ngrcduc+s room. This room was measured in two sections becsuse of the

 

"1 u c O f‘ 1 1.
shape. The dimensions were 11 9/5 ft. Wide x lwfi ft. long plus 115 ft.
wide x 95 ft. lone. The only ecuinment listed for this room wss.

1. Patch freezer, (10 Ncl.)

2. Ice cream pickets filler, hand operated

Bottle weshinr room. The size of the hottle washing room was 19 ft- wide

 

x 32 ft. lone. The eouipnent listed for this room was 98 f0110W80

l. Soaker-type washer, (6 wide)

.
?. Case wesner

1’.
A

ullk stora~e room.

 

. 1
Wlde X 94f ft. lonf.

trucks.

Office space. This plant had an of‘ice 1‘

 

Driver's check room.

 

The dimensions listrd for this room were 12 1/5 ft.

Roller conveyors were used for loading delivery

I

’he dry store‘s room measured 12 1/6 ft. wide x 19 1/6

a 1
I

ft. wide x 163 ft. long.

/’ J.

I'T‘J

O O 1
lne room available measu-ed 9 ft. Wlde x 12 'ft. lone.

Basement. The basement was utilized for refrigeration, boiler room,

maintenance shop, end truck storage. Some of the equipment listed was

as follows.

1. Cne, 5 hp. compressor

2. Two, 10 hp. compressors
3. One, 15 hp. compressor

4. Cne, 20 hp. boiler

Plant E

Plant E was a one-story plant handling approximately 1,100 gallons

of milk daily. All milk was handled in the souare-type milk bottle.

Four men were employed to handle the processing,

14..

h

H.

l

('0

one

was

re-

quired for the office and six were required to handle the milk routes.

The informttion listed below indicrtes the size of the rooms in the

plant and the equipment available to handle the processing operations.

Feceivin;_room. The receiving room was 11% ft. wide x 15 ft. long x 11 2/5

A

ft. high and was considered .0 be larje enough. The equipment recuired in-
cluded.

1. Rotary can washer, (5 cpm.)

2. Weigh tank, (500 lbs.)

. Roller conve or for receivins cans
) .-

Tank storare room. This room was 14% ft. wide x 15 ft. long x 11 2/5 ft.

 

high and was adequate in size. The eouipnent used we as follows.
1. Milk storage tank, (1,5CO gal.)

2. Pipe washing tank

Processing room. The processing room was smaller than recnired and was

 

14% ft. wide x 2% 1/6 ft. long x 11 2/5 ft. hifh. The eduipment rsouircd
included.
1. Separator, (7,000 lbs. per hr.)

zers, (1 each at 100, 200, & SQO gel.)

'0
'3
U)
C"
(D
C
"i
H.

\)l

. Homogenizer, (400 gal. per hr.)
h. Plate Cooler (6,COO lbs. per hr.)

5. Bottle filler, (49 ets- per min->

Bottle woshins room. The size of this room was given as being 15 ft.

 

- 1. .. . 1 . /
wide x 21: ft. long x 9 ft. hlgn plus a section 11- ft. wide X 10 ft.
long x 9 ft. high. This L-shaped room was considered to be sufficiently
large to handle all incoming bottles. The following eouipmcnt wcs listed

for this room.

1C8

\

1. Soaker-type bottle washer, (8 wide, 55 bpm)

2. Cases of bottles handled on dollies

Kilk storage room. The milk storase room was too smell and cases of milk

 

o r 3 o I o .3.
could not be stored on dollies. lhls room measured 14 ft. Wide x 15; ft.

C

ft. h

‘Jo

.q
I‘ll‘

lon_ x 3h.

1
Dry storage room. The dry storage room was too smell and measured 11? ft.

 

wide x 14% ft. lon: x 11 2/5 ft. hich.

Office space. This plant had an office 11 ft. wide x 11 ft. long and it

 

was considered to be sufficiently large.

Driver's check room. The room available measured 5 2/5 ft. wide x 9 5/6

 

1 . ‘ O 0
ft. long x 75 ft. hips and was not adequate in Size.

w
’

Poiler room. A »O horsepower res-fired boiler was located in a room 11 1/5

/

 

ft. wide x 19 ft. lone x 11 9/5 ft. hirh which was assumed to be larse enoush.

‘fi ' 1 o w
Compressor room. This room measured 6, ft. Wlde x P 5/6 ft. long x 11 2/9

 

ft. high and was smple in size. One 7% horsepower compressor was available.
In addition, a space 11 1/5 ft. wide x 14 2/5 ft. long x 11 2/5 ft. high

was occupied by a 6,0?0 lb. capacity sweet water tank.

Plant F
Plant F, a one-story structure built in 1949 to hcndle approximately
2,325 gallons per day, w's processing 1,165 gallons per day. This plant

was still in the process of remodeling. L'Ik was handled in the ssuare—

(.

type milk bot 1e. In addition, approximately 20,000 oallons of ice cream

were processed vearlv and EFO

‘

Four men were recvired to hencle the proces ins operations.

. ‘ .0 41.4 A.
pcunos 0; costs e

'v! 8

-

e proc

essed weeRTV.

A—Y
n

The followine internation lists the size of the various rooms and the

eeuipment resuired for handline all processin: operations.

1

H

Poceivins room. The receivin* room was

 

nifh and was considered to be lar~e snowsh.
listed for tne receiving room.
1. Rotary can washer, (5 cans)

finish tank

'\.)

. calence 1291117., (2C0 F81.)

, \

\J}

h. Foller conveyors for receiving and returning cans

~ .- as. .4 Via“ .. ~' 1-.
Plocws»lnl room. -hls room was measuled in tnlee

 

variable shape. The sections measured were 9C Pt.

wide x

/
)h'
,

12 1/5 ft. high, 7 ft. wide x 27 ft. long x 12 1/5 ft. hieh,

O .I ~ I
Wide x l0 fz/o ft. lonf x l? l/j ft. hl~h and were cons

cientlv larse. The esuipment recuired tor procos

1. Mil? stornre tank, (1,QFC cal.)

.J

. Separator, (¢?O ~01. per hr.)

F1

”.T “

\N

4. P are ri7er, (5 st 900 so]. ee.h, 1 st
5. Ioanenirer, (”,7CC lbs. per hr.)

6. Cheese vat, (lCO col.)

7. ?ot+le filler, (’0 its. per min.)

-la

7. M“Sl tank wi;n power brush

C‘. Urv storaco cup card

.1.;. pasteurizer, (3,”‘" lbs. per hr.)

.h . 1
L_ ft. wide x 10“ ft. lone X 9 ft.

The followins eluipment was

and 6 ft.

110

10. Power conveyor Prom washer to filler For bottles

11. Feller conveyor Prem wvsher to tiller to storafio for cases

”Title. washin” roe“. “V" sire e.“ “4 istifle. went-ins noon. we: siven in
two sec ions ttegnso 0° the Vari"h1e share 09 t?» roe". Cno section wns

._ \ C . '.. ' I .‘.I

97> 2/5'. f't. wide :r 9?- e/é Pt 10717 7: 12 1/‘?- m Men “M other was 14
ft. wide x 50 ft. lone x 1? 1/3 ft. high. This room was considered to be

adeeuote in sise. lee eanipnent indicated for the bottle walhins room

.4
.
Q)
'7
J

.'er-tvne bottle washer, (9 wide, 40 bum)

0. bottle cases handled on dollies

Kilk storsfe reon. The milk storate room was 12 ft. wide I 1

-.—— ..

U\

ft. lor: x

 

~5f ft. hi~h end was much too small. Vili w's handled in the s were-type

bottle.

Urv storeee recn. Lhe dry storaee room was also too small and wee 1‘ ft.

c——-. --.——..—.—A—.—_ ”_- ..___~

wide x 26 ft. lone X j ft. hifn. It was necessary to have most of the

H.

paper suopl

§ A

es stored bv the supplier and have them ordered as needed.

Other rooms. This plant was in the process 0? remodelins and had planne

___—w -_—_-.._._. .-

a new boiler room which would contain the compressor room and the mainte-

1
nnnce 3’1?

’73

. In addition, the new plans called for lnr~er storese rooms,
new locker roona, ottices, and retail store. The other eeuipment is listed

below. ,

;.J

. One 5 hp. compressor

h)

. Cne, 95 hp. coal-fired Boiler, standby

\ J
O
('3
Q
KD
U
n
3
Y
J
I
O
LJo
1.4
I
H,
LJ.
’1
D
Q;
rr
0
H.
}_.J
(D
‘1

111

Plant 3, nrocessine ennrexirstely 1,9?“ snllons ner dev op mil?, wes
s five-story blent built in l?20. Vow additions neve been made since that

ess. In addition to bendlinz milk,

Ho
L5

time to scccmodete 7n exnsndinr bus

this nlent processed approximately 125,000 rellons of ice cream Veerlv

J.

3

plus some cotteee cheese. Six men were roeuired to nendle all processing
operations.

The onlr information evsileble from this plant was that for the re-
ceivinq room. This room msesvred 90 ft. wide X Q0 ft. lone x 10 ft.

bijn and wee considered to be swfficientlv lerfe.

Plant H
Plant H, processing approximately 2,?oC gellons of milk daily, wos a
one-story plant constructed in 1947 to handle ?,CCF sellons of milk deily.
Since that tine, a cbenje hes been made in the pesteurirqtion enuipment and
raw milk storeee to eccomodste the incredse in production. Milk was bottled
in ssuere—type bottles with ennroxinstely 6,0LO suerts, 200 pints, and 2,:CO
half-pints being bottled daily.

The products handled in sddition to milk were buttermilk, chocolste

u
H

k.

W

‘
lJo

1k, beevy crass, linbt cream, cereal mix, cottere cheese, and skim mi
Three men were ennIO'ed to handle processins, two were renuired for

the office, and six were needed es route salesmen.

The information listed celow ststes the size of the various rooms

found in the plant and the equipment refiuired.

 

isnk

considered to be lerie enougn.

, J. > V '7
l. Boxer: can wesner, (p cens)

2. Veigh tank, (5 cons)
5. Roller conveyors for receiving

roqg. The dimensions for

J- .. .
SLOTS G

 

lon:

provide epdce for one, 5,000 gallons stories tsnk.

made

Processing room.

x 10 ft. high. It was considered

to add another tank.

 

measured 25 ft. wide x 30 ft. long x

for processing included.

1. Clerifier, (900 gal. per hr.)

m ’ o o
oerarator, teir tifht)

The receivinf room was 90 ft. wide X

this

An adequate sized room for processing was

12 ft. hiyh.

90 ft. lone X 12 ft.

The equipment required included.

end returning cens

room were 1? ft. wide 16 ft.

to be sufficiently large enough to

Provisions were being

.1

available which

ghe equipment required

5. H.T.3.T. pesteurizer, (600 gal. ner hr.)

roog.

 

x 12 ft. high and was assumed to be larse enough.

was located in this room.

Power conveyor from

Soaker-type bottle washer, (3 wide)

of bottles are handled on dollies from trucks to

The bottle washing room was 20 ft. wide x #0 ft. long

The following equipment

casher to filler for bottles

Roller convevor from washer to filler for cases
I

115

Hilk storsce room. The milk storage room had space for expansion and

 

measured 20 ft. wide x 50 ft. long x 9 ft. high. Vilk was hendlcd in

scuare bottles.

Q9§2£2212r room. This room measured 20 ft. wide x 20 ft. long x 12 ft.
high and was considered to be too small. The following compressors were
located in this room.

1. One ammonia compressor, (4x4)

2. One smmonin compressor, (5x5)

Locker room. The size of the locker room was 8 ft. wide x 15 ft. long x

 

9 ft. high and it was too small.
The boiler room, dry storage room, and ofPices were located in a
separate building constructed since the plant was originally built. A

25 horsepower fps-fired boiler was available as a steam.generator.

Plant I

Plant I, a two-story plant constructed in 1949 to handle 750 gallons
of milk per hour, was processing approximately 9,510 gallons of milk daily.
The second floor of this plant was used for dry storage and oifices. Milk
was bottled in square-type bottles with approximately 9,920 quarts, 1,790
third-quarts, 265 pints, 5,100 half-pints, and 575 quarts in bulk being
handled daily.

The products handled were grade A milk, homogenized milk, skim milk,
buttermilk, light and heavy cream, and chocolate milk.

The employees consisted of six men for the office, thirteen route men,

and seven men handling the processing operations.

11h

Receiving room. The receiving room was 15 ft. wide x 59 2/5 ft. lone x

 

‘1_ o o ‘ . n I
14; ft. hifh and was considered to be lnr"e enoucn. ihe following ecuipment
was listcd for the receiving room.
1. Strsichy-sway can washer, (9 cpm)

c. Weifh tank, (7:0 lbs.)

Processing room. The dimensions for the processing room were 59 2/5 ft.

 

wide x 46 1/5 ft. lon: x 1k; ft. high. This room wes assumed to be
sufficiently lsrje. The equipment recuired for processing is listed as
follows.

1. Pre-heater, (11,000 lbs. per hr.)

2. Clarifier, (6,500 lbs. per hr.)

5. Stornfe tanks, (2 at 5,000 gal. each)
4. H.T.3.T. Pasteurizer, (6,500 lbs. per hr.)

Pssteurizers, (2 at 200 gel. each)

\fi

6. Homogeniser, (4,200 lbs. per hr.)
7. Milk cooler, (25,C00 lbs. per hr.)

Bottle filler and hooder, (120 qts. per min.)

03
0

Bottle washing_room. The size of the bottle washing room was 25 ft. wide

 

_1 o I I I O
x 57; ft. long x 10 ft. high and it was considered to be adequate in Size.
The equipment indicated for the bottle washing room was as follows.
1. Soaker-type bottle washer, (90 bpm)

2. Case washer, (120 cases per min.)

Milk storafe room, The milk storage room was 19 ft. wide x 56% ft. long

 

x 8 ft. high. It wcs not indicated whether the room had adequate space.

115

,

Eoiler room. A 125 norsenower oil-fired boiler was located in a room

 

' :1. ',1 1 o u u u
14 ft. Wide x 355 ft. long X 147 ft. high wnich was conSidered to be

~ .4

adejuate in size.

. . n1
chpressor roog, Zhis room measured 20 ft. wide x 40 ft. long x leg-ft.

 

1

hign and was adequate in size. The following compressors were located
in this room.

1. Two 5x5 compressors

1
2. Two 6yxc-‘compresso:s

Xeintenance shcg, The snop occupied a space 18 ft. wide x is ft. long x

 

I1. ‘ 0 ‘l o a
14s ft. sign and was sufficiently large.

1h

Locker room. The locker room was of adeouate size and measured 83 ft.

 

wide x 17 5/6 ft. long X 12 ft. high and provided facilities for seven men.

a u s o -v j. '
Office srdcs. This room measured 22 ft. Wide x 94 ft. long x Fp‘ft. high

 

and was considered to be lcrfe enough.

Driver's check rqgg. Adesuate snace was available in a room 10 ft. wide

 

x 19 ft. long x 3 t. high.

Plant J
Plant J, a two-story plant constructed in 1070, wee handling approx-
imately 4,1?0 gallons of mi k daily. Che second floor was utilized for
dry storase and locker rooms. In addition to milk, this plant was producing
approximatelv 500 gallons of ice cream per day, 5,000 to 3,500 pounds of

butter per week, and cottage cheese.

116

The information listed below gives the si7e of the rooms and the

equipment reduired for hendling the milk.

Feceivinrr room. The receiving room was 1? ft. wide x 72 ft. lonq x l?

.1

 

ft. high end was consid”red to be larfe enoujh. ihe equipment required
included.

1. Ftreifht-awav can washer, (5 cpm

9. weigh tank, (see lbs.)

7‘ '34. ass to; 1! 1 KOO (“‘01

/. |_~bor- e x «’11., ,',/‘~/ ._(,~ 0

4. Power conveyor for receiving and returning cans

Processine room. The dimensions for the processing room were 52 ft. wide

 

x 44 ft. long x 12 ft. high and it was assumed to be sufficiently larfe.
The e~uipment renuired for processins is as follows.

1. Preheater
2. Separator, (7,000 lbs. per hr.)

200 gal. and 2 at 200 gal. each)

/

5. Pasteurizers, (5 at

4:-

Cream vet, (200 gal., coil)

Balance tank, (100 gal. on hydraulic lift)

O\\fl

. Plate cooler, (10,000 lbs. per hr.)

Vomoqenizer, (900 gal. per hr.)

N
0

Bottle filler, (l3 qt. per min.)

(0
O

‘0

Paper machine, (50 qt. per min.)

" ('11
J!

nvnroducts rcom. .ne size of this room was l“ ft. wide x 56 ft. lonc x 12
W / ._J

 

ft. high and it was large enough. The equipment included:

1. heese vets, (2 at 500 cal. each)

(-

2. Rutter churn, (600 lbs.)

117

Zgfitle weq:jn" room. The bottle washinf room measured 20 ft. wide X 55
ft. long X 12 ft. hi.“h 9nd w s cen‘t.dsred to be andssus, e in size. The
equipment indicated was as follows:

1. doeker-twpe botfle wes“er, (5 wide)

2. Case w“*her

T‘lh storsfgrrggm, The milk storese room handled approximately 5,500 sellons

0? milk d ily, meesured 15 ft. wide x 47 ft. lon: x 9 ft. hish and was

.1—

eisumed to be lsrse enou~h. Vilk wee hcnd_ed in moth "loss bottles and

pener containers.

"1

Drv stor'"e room. -ne dry storefs room was lsr~e enouvh and measured 52

ft. wide x 100 ft. long x 12 ft. high. The area occupied bv this room

was s unl to the total area 0‘ the processing plant.

?Tiler roc3. A 125 horsepower oil-fired boiler was located in a room 20

—.—- -——.—0.

ft. wide x .5 ft. long wlsich was assumed to be ode7uate in size.

Plant K, a two-story plant witi a mezzanine, was origl nnlly built
in 1913 and expanded by rearrenjenent in 19 57 to hendl e apnrsximately
2,?00 gallons of milk per dsv. At the time of this investisntion this
plant was hendlins b,000_: allons 0: milk per day.

kl n was handled in both the sewers—type bottle nndpsper containers.
.

l.e follox. ing information fives the size of the rooms for this plant

and the equipment renuired to carry out the processin

d"?
O
‘3
«D
*1
,s
(4.
’40
O
’3
J)
O

fl .

k

h
71;.)
,.

O 0
w-r— Yf‘.

11

r.
i

Q 0 .
roam. ~14 roe“ v triev'W1e

_——-—- _—.--————_—.—.»n

v

0 ‘
1‘1 Cl

7' 5? ft.

lene x 11 ff. hirh

and wve

a In I ‘4 ~ \
z ’“ enc rzeeiled

Q
r‘ .‘2'3 33;.

connidsred to be 1er e enouih.

The liet of evarment Cor the TCCClVinT room v”? 0: Pollowi.

l. Bireijht-ewev cen weeher, (4 on“)

r: o C l "‘51 1. i" 111.17.

7. Fewer convetor for receivin~ on” ratnrr“n” cons
Tank nt§i§;e_£gg§,_ This room nercnrrd'lp ft. wide x ?4 ft. lone x 15 ft.
hirh end was considered to he eircuete in Ri"e. The o~ninment reduired
wee e3 follows.

1. Utcrvfie tenhs, (1 7t ?,000 Cal.; 2 at 1,000 eel. eech)

?. Turtece cooler, (h.CC0 ltfi. per
Frrce air” room. The nrcceeeinc room we
I‘ _L O A. O _ : O
1; ”c. hi d eno, in addition, contained
u ‘ TI H p 1- : -1- '7'”.
x 1. it. lon X C it. ml d. -ne area

r~ _)

L? \H

‘11

The eeuirrent need

fl

clerifier, (19,000

.h Ar n; .
301.131 .‘ 001 ,

C? f‘r“
/' , C IV

Preheetere, (15,000 lbs. per hr.

r“L~“ 0.11 n!‘ 'l
PTJLoUIILGTC, (5 at (CC 7‘13. en

Erlence tank, (4C0 gel.)
Horogeniuer, (1,100 gel. p

Surface cooler, (0,000 lbs. rer

.se crrton f

available for processing

hr.)

:2 5 ft. wide x 526 ft.

q tolcony meefiurinn 16

wee too

)

.,
031;

l at 100 :11.)

v

iller, hand operated

 

t: .L. A ”1-: .. . ,w r?“ ‘ ..~ Fawn ,_ ‘ w- x, nn- v
rcal: we: in zoom. -ne cotcle w-sn n, room did not LJVC sui iCicnt
‘ a I. 2 v 13- a v.1
01cc end r€:sured 24 -t. wine X ,5 ft. lone X 1 ft. .3 1. Che eoiifimcit
incluccd:
_‘" - - 1' J ’3‘“ V'. ‘6 .0
1. nether-tyne wot.1e wee-er, (1? side, 1C per min.)
n'.-_ v 11"
2. on e meager
T 7‘.» ., ‘ nl- °
;. rower conve ore for cases and bottles from WTUHCr to filler
‘1. ' 3 fl p-w‘ o H h n < . ' " -
“111 Ctore r roe). ine milk “tor ”e room ”94 2o ft. wide X )6 ft. lcng X
q

9f ft. high and did not hrve sufficient capacity.

2 storefe rccm. The dry st rrge room was loos,ed in the basement and
wes not lerre enoueh to hdndle a 5o day supply of materiel. This room
measured 24 ft. wide X 59 ft. 1on5 X C ft. hirh plus an area 50 ft. wide

/

X 5' ft. Ion: X F ft. hifh.

kl)

oiler room. The boiler room we: edeeuste in sis< and meesurcd 22 ft.

 

 

wide X 52 ft. lone.

F.)
U\
H)
(+-
o

Cp‘ice enfice. The of?ices were located on a mezranine meaaurinj

 

.Jo
O
Ho
0
:3
c!-
H
:1

wide X 4Q t. long X 7 ft. high and were considered to be snff

P"

Locker room. ine locker room was 12 ft. wide X 18 ft. long X 8 ft. hirh

 

and was assumed to be too smell.

if
'r‘.

.-..

}_Jo

ntzncnce shcg. This room measured 10 ft. wide X 27 ft. long X 9 ft.

 

high and did not contain sufficient space.

120

Flint L

Plant L wes a one-story plent hendling opprOXimetely 6,400 gallons

I‘m

of nilk daily in addition to processing between 100,000 end 150, 00 gallons
of ice cream pcr ycsr n.d l,°00 pounds f cot‘ece cheese per week. Kilk

sjuare—tvpe bottles and paper containers with approx-

.\ .'
‘A.

was processed in bot}

.J

imctely 16,200 euerts and 3,900 half—pints hsndled in gless bottles daily,
and 5,800 quart, 1,500 pint, end 1,300 lO-ounce paper containers hendled

d-ily.

‘4)

The products handled in the milk plent were premium milk, reculer
milk, homogenized milk, hom0fenized vitamin D milk, skim milk, chocolate
milk, light and heevv cream, buttermilk, orange drink, and cottage cheese.

Twenty men were employed to handle processing, twelve were recuired
for the office, and approximdtely forty-five were needed as rcute selcsnen.

The infernstion listed below states the sirm of +he verious rooms

J

found in the plant and the ecuipmenc reouired.

o o I o o 1, o -v '-
PeceiVing room. The receiving room was 17 'ft. wide X 90 ft. long X 19

 

ft. high and was considered to be too small. The equipment reeuired included:
1. Streisht-swey can washer, (10 cpn)
2. Weigh tang, (500 lbs.)
5. Clerifier, (po,cc0 lbs. per hr.)

4. Power conveyors for receiving and returning cans

O ‘ O I ' O 1 0
Processing room. The dimensions for tne proceSSing room vere 25; ft. wide

 

1,1. I I O 1
x 52g-ft. long X 12%-ft. high plus a balcony measuring 17% ft. wide X 17;

o o g (‘3_ o ,.I1
ft. lonf X 9 ft. hlfh. In addition, an area 1'2 ft. wide X L# “ft. long X.

)

12 1/5 ft. hich was available for the ccttnee cheese packing and bottle

‘
.—

191

filling operations. The total area was too srall for a satisfactory operation.
The equipment reeuired for processing is as follows:

1. Storsse tanks, (1 at 5,000 cal. and 1 at 2,0C0 711-)

2. Separator, (12,000 lbs. per hr.)
5. ..i.3.l. pasteurizer, (20,0C0 lbs. per hr.)

p

Pasteurizers, (l at 1,000 991.; 5 at 500 gal.; h at 200 gal. each)
5. Cabinet cooler, (15,000 lbs. per hr.)

5. Honorenizers, (l at 20,050 lbs. per hr.; 1 at 600 gal. per hr.)

ff“

inis room, used for manufacturing cottage cheese, measured

9' reducts room.

n3

 

1? ft. wide x 28 ft. long x 1h ft. high and was sufficiently large. The

ecuipment located in this area consisted of two, BOO-gallon cheese vats.

Bottle weshine room. The size of the bottle washing reom was 26 1/5 ft.

 

wide x as 2/5 ft. long x 1? 2/5 ft. hirh and it was considered to be lurfe
enorfh for the present operation. The equipment listed was as follows:

1. Beaker-type bottle washer, (12 wide, 11% bpm)

9. Case washer

5. Power conveyor for receiving cases from trucks

‘I

.ilk storege room. The milk storage room was too small to satisfactorily

 

handle all products. This room, divided into two areas due to the variable
shape, measured 17% ft. wide X 45% ft. long x 7 5/5 ft. hirh plus 5 ft. wide

x 14 ft. long x 7 5/5 ft. high. A cold diffuser located in this room occupied
approximately 25 ssuare feet. A power conveyor was used to handle milk cases

into and from this room.

122

Iry storase rogm. The area allotted to dry stornfe was considered to be
too small. For milk processing, the following areas were available for
dry storage: (a) 29% ft. wide x 69 2/5 ft. 10nd x 12 2/5 ft. hiéh, (b)

45 1/6 ft. wide x 90% ft. long x 12 ft. high, and (c) 14 ft. wide x 17 ft.

long x 16 ft. hieh.

Boiler room. A 120 horsepower pas-fired boiler and a 150 horsepower coal-

 

. . . . i . _ .
fired standby 00116? were located in a room 26g-ft. wide x 68 7/4 ft. long,

which was adequate in size.

Com.rigsor room. The compressor room was 17 ft. wide x 21%-ft. long x
16 ft. hifh and was sufficiently larae. The following compressors, for both
the milk and ice cream operations, were located in this room.

1. Three 50 hp. compressors

2. One 20 hp. compressor

P

heintensnee shop. The room for maintenance work was of edeauate size and

 

measured 15% ft. wide x 60 ft. lonj x 19 2/5 ft. high.

Locker room. The area allowed for lockers was 15 1/6 ft. wide x 19 ft.

 

long x 15 ft. high, and that allotted to showers and a lavatory measured

11 ft. wide x 15 1/6 ft. lon: x 15 ft. high. This room was considered to

be too small to provide adeeustc facilities for 24 men.

Plant M
Plant M, processing approximately 7,950 gallons of milk daily, was
a two-story plant originally constructed in 1923 to handle 4,000 pallons
of milk daily. Since that time, additions, new buildings, and rearransements

have been made to handle the increased production. Milk was handled in

both severe—type glass bottles and paper containers with approximately

14,100 quarts, FPO lO—ounce bottles, and h,500 half—pints hqndled in glgqs

(_

and 5,900 quarts, #50 pints, and 2,000 lO-ounce handled in paper containers.

L

wr-
,—

In addition, approxi”etely 910 pounds of cottafe cheese were processed
daily.

Twenty-five men were employed to handle processing, seven were re-
duired for the office, and fifty-one were needed as route salesmen.

The followinf information r‘ives the size of the rooms for this plant

and the edwipment recwired to carry out the proeessing operations.

1

.eceivingirocm. ine sins of this room was stated as being 20 ft. wide x

 

40 ft. wide x 9 ft. hi~h end was considered to be large enough. The list
of efiuipmcnt for the receiving room was as follows:
1. Straisht-swey can washer, (F ent)

Q o Wei 71:1 tall}:

5. Power conveyors for hendlin: cans

"snh store“? room. This room measured 20 ft. wide x 36 ft. lone x 9 ft.

 

nieh an. contained sufficient floor specs. pour stornrs +snks were locntcd

here with a total cepscity of 7,000 gallons.

f'l‘l

Eggieurisinf room. :ne pcstewrizin; room

’4

ass ufficiently lerse and nonsured

 

was indicated as follows:
1. Clerifier, (19,000 lbs. per Fr.)
9. P.T.3.C. Pasterriser (9,000 lbs. per hr.)

5. Honosenizer, (900 rel. per hr.)

. wide x ’5 ft. long x 12 ft. hi h. The equipment re wired for processirg

121+

4. qut9 cooler

t:

/

. Bolonce took

 

Eoffle ?illi“~ FOOT. This room did not hov“ fdeénote spoce dn% raisurod
20 ft. w‘de x ?5 ft. 10n~ x 13 ft. %i~“. ”he eouiovent locotod horo woo
as follows:

1. F7ҤT corton mocking

f", 4-
" . I'D;

d

Jle filler, (C7 o‘n. per min.)

E
I

"t

. Power conveyors from :illorq fo cooler

\\)J

1 o /
ijgpfiwc+1 roofi, Tao LHorodncts room was 90 Pt. mlde x CO ft. loo? x 1?

—-—

€t. hi~3 ord woo too swoll for eTfiTcient hroduction. "he ebu4pvent mend

inoluflod:

_' '
1. C“’€7’T‘.":", vqt.., (9 of “CO rm] 00'“,

O . l

7. T‘”Rrfifor, (7ynflfl 3"“ “P” hr.)

‘. O

Ififjf;'i;i!fill_lfomo ””nnic:'ofi dn=or v0" ovoilfibie for Foftle w":*?n~
1"? C TC‘ ‘ a 70 15.1: o "1‘ an Y 7/ {3+ 0 101.?- ?‘r n 0‘ 0 ‘fl: “1,1. (Tl-'9 [‘01101": 1?“ fi“17“1“7fl°n+1
woo loootod in fFiq roor:

1. SooPnr—tvpo ootile wrn*er, (Q4 to 9° by?)

9 fl¢g¢ v*oVer

V’l? o+oro"r roow. idofiwote “loo? orco won not provided 1n 9 office :0 €t.

_ .o ._ -- .. W---“

wide x 45 ft. Ion: x " ft. ki*h +0 of?éctivolv handle 011 Products.

. _ 2
Fr" otor~~n rooW. TFC rooma ova*1dble Por fir? fitoro~o Nonnuréfi 40 9+.

i
o

. -— . a /
W110 x v ft. lowsr I 10 of. “:‘b and 90 f+. wwdo x WC P.

10 T+

1+
0
H
O
'3

%
. 4

“ion "no nrovifled a 9v095oiont “movnt o? 3F“ce.

1:25

 

9oilor room. 1 170 *0?35“O“or oil-9*rcd boilor who loonifi in on odecvote
o o —.v r. o w r— r\

3176 racr W’FCUTIHT in ?t. Wldb Y 3) Ft. 10hr " 1 Pi. 53””.
A .- _ '7 . . q 7 - A. ~o
>““PT”GGCT roow. Tr? corfirosxor room won 2p 3+. W159 z 50 ff. Ion! A 12

I " ‘ __ a u A J. -v 4 _‘ r O _ ‘ ‘ fl
ft. h1~o, woo s:f-1C-—nu1¢ 131 e, on} COWden‘d 019 coworoa~or.
1 r 0 V f! 11.0.- _c . H o a o :r _o '
r31n*endnoe fidon. DU;LLCL€0 .oéco v63 “rOV1du8 1n 9 room ‘0 ff. vole X
—_-. ----_ —- -_-_-..-—_—_..‘_ ‘ ‘
-r r- '
73 ft. 100: K 12 ft. hick.

—- o A h n

Locbor room. 9%13 room mooqurod ~ ff. wide x 1? ft. 10h: x : ft. hioh

and won considorod 1nr~e enouoh to orovids facilities for twontv-?ive mo..

\

N
'3

Qffiififififififflfin A roor - ft. wido x *0 ft. 10?? x 0 ft. hi"? providod omnle

Privor': choc? room. The roin office qu also Itiliuod as a drivor check

_-..-_ —‘ - -.----——~.~

room and sufificient SDTCG was not ovailable for this.

8.

9.

10.

11.

APPENDIX III

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE STUDY OF DAIRY PLANTS

Name of plant
Location of plant
Plant manager
Give location in relation to the nearest city or town.
What is the average daily production of your plant?

A. Milk - gals. per day______, or lbs. per day

B. Ice Cream - gal. per year

C. Other (Cheese, butter, etc.)
What is the present maximum daily gapegity_of your plant?

A. Milk - gals. per day , or lbs. per day

B. Ice cream - gals. per year

C. Other (cheese, butter, etc.)
What was the maximum output on any one day in 1950?

A. Milk - gals. per day , or lbs. per day

B. Ice cream - gals. per year

C. Other
For what capacity was the plant originally built?
Date built . Did it handle the amount designed for?
Has the plant ever expanded? . How was it expanded? (Addition,
new building, rearrangement, etc.)

Was the above method of expansion satisfactory? . Please explain.

Do you believe that a plant should be built large enough originally, to
accomodate an increase in production, or should it be built just large

enough to handle the known capacity with provisions to permit additions

as needed?

12.

15.

11+.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

21.

22.

1?7

Is the present plant site large enough to allow for a building expansion?
. Draw a simple sketch of the plant and plant site showing its

limitations.

Do you believe that the plant site should be large enough to permit

ready expansion on a one floor level? . Please explain.

Are the rooms arranged to obtain efficient use of labor and efficient

operating conditions? . Please explain.

Can the plant operation, as a whole, be easily supervised? . If

not, why not?

What type of delivery schedule do you maintain (every other day, three

day week, etc.)? . How many days per week is the plant in operation?

Is the storage tank capacity large enough for normal Operating conditions?
. Does the storage tank capacity provide enough flexibility to

take care of emergencies, such as, a decline in sales or a breakdown?

Do you think that the tank capacity should provide for such emergencies?

How much space, in general, is left between pieces of processing equipment?
. Is this sufficient for proper maintenance and cleaning?

At what distance from the walls is processing equipment?

Is this satisfactory?

What methods are used for the mechanical cleaning of sanitary pipe lines?

Are they satisfactory?

What methods are used for holding milk lines in place?

Where are the water, steam, and refrigeration lines located? (In walls,

tunnels, suspended from the ceiling, etc.) Is this method satisfactory?

. How would you change?

25. Size of rooms

128

 

Type of room

ength

Width

Height

Amt. prod. handled
or stored

Large enough?
Yes or No

 

 

Receiving

 

Tank storage

 

Pasteurizing

 

Byproducts

 

Filling

 

Milk storage (cooler

 

Bottle washing

 

Mix room

 

Freezer room

 

Hardening room

 

Dry storage

 

Boiler room

 

Compressor room

 

Laboratory

 

Shop

 

Locker rooms

 

Office space

 

Retail store

 

Driver's check-in

 

Garage

 

Loading docks

 

Unloading docks

 

Other

 

“a

 

 

 

 

 

 

129

24. List major items of equipment

 

Can washers

ize or capacity

Large enough?
Yes or No

    

 

Weigh tanks

 

Pre-heaters

 

Clarifiers

 

Storage tanks

 

Separators

 

Pasteurizers

 

Cheese vats

 

Hemogenizers

 

Coolers

 

Fillers

 

Bottle washers

 

Case washers

 

Freezers

 

Flavor vats

 

Fruit feeders

 

Ice cream pkg. filler

 

 

Specialty tanks

 

Compressors

 

Boilers

 

Other

 

 

 

 

 

 

25.

26.
27.

51.

\N
m
o

150

Are conveyors used? . Do you feel that they are efficient and
economical? . Where are they used? (State whether powered or
roller).
Give the location of floor drains in processing rooms.
How many floors does the plant have? . Is this layout satisfactory?
Explain. What is each floor used for?
What type of ventilation is employed? Is this satisfactory? Explain.
What type of lighting is used in processing rooms? Is this satisfactory?
What type of window construction is used in processing rooms?
A. Glass block
B. Steel sash and frame
C. Wood sash and frame
D. Aluminum
What materials are used for floor construction?
A. P“ocessing rooms
B. Milk stora§e___._
C. Bottle washing rooms
D. Freezing room:
What materials are paid for well construction?
A. Exterior walls-
B. Interior walls_.”_*_
Draw a simple sketch indicating the flow pattern for products and
packages (label the various stations).
Do you have a retail store?____~", Is it desirab1e1_"~__. Explain
If you were to build now, in order to obtain maximum operating efficiency,

what suggestions do you have relative to the following items?

A. Building materials
Floors
Exterior walls
Interior walls
Window construction
B. Placement of drains in processing rooms.
C. Type of electric lighting.
D. Use of conveyors.
E. Refrigeration system and layout.
F. Dumber of floors for the plant.
G. Ventilation.
H. Arrangement of rooms in relation to each other.
I. Other suggestions.
What questions would you like to have answered?
If it is possible, would you provide us with detailed floor plans of
your plant layout? If this is not possible, would you provide us with
a simple sketch of the layout; label individual rooms and give the
dimensions. Any plans will be returned to you after a reasonable
period of time.
Thnber of men handling processing?
Number of hours worked per day?
If you feel that it is not too confidential, could you state the cost
of processing alone per 100 lbs. of milk? . Per lOO gals. of

ice cream?

2.

5.
4.

5.

10.
ll.

12.

15.

DAIRY PLANT STUDY
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONNAIRE

Please indicate the average daily amounts for the following items.
Milk received daily, gals. or lbs.
Total products pasteurized daily, gals. or lbs.
Total products held in storage tanks daily, gals. or lbs.
Total products handled in milk storage (cooler) daily, gals.

a. Please indicate the total number of units handled in the milk
storage daily for the following.

1. Paper containers 2. Glass bottles
quarts quarts
pints pints
half-pints half-pints

Total products bottled daily.
a. Paper containers gals.
b. Glass bottles gals.

1. Please indicate the total number of units bottled daily.

a. Paper containers b. Glass bottles
quarts quarts
pints pints

half—pints half-pints

Total number of bottles washed daily, units. Round Square

Please list the various products that you process.

 

NUmber of monwhapdling processing

\
\\ \

Approximate numbeg of office personnel
Number of route men utilizing the driver check-in room
Name of plant

Address

Plant manager ___

9.

10.

ll.

l2.

15.

14.

LITERATJPE CITED

Ackerman, H. A. Common Causes For Inefficiency in the Ice Cream

Industry. Journal of Milk TechnolOgy 9:546—550. November / December,
1946.

Babcock, C. J. Construction and Arrangement of Milk Plants. United
States Department of Agriculture, Washington, Circ. 800, January,

Bartlett, . W. The Milk Industry, Ronald Press 00., New York, 1945.
282 pp.

Bixby, G. 8. Planning Your Dairy Plant. Cherry-Burrell Corp., Sales
Engineering Dept. Publication. Mimeograph. October 17, 1949.

Boucher, B. A. Planning, Construction, and Maintenance of Modern
Dairy Plants. Milk Plant Monthly 57(5):?6-78. May, 1948.

Broughton, C. W. Dairy Plant of the Future; Construction Materials
and Design. Milk Plant Monthly 55(5):26-28 K. May, 1946.

Dairy Plant Layout. Milk Plant Monthly 57:90-98. June, 1948.

Cherry-Burrell Corp. Notes on Plant Layout. Sales Engineering
Depart. Mimeograph. October 2, 1949.

Clarkson, H. P. Design for Merchandising. V. The Small Pasteur-
izing Plant. Milk Plant Monthly 57(5):4A-A5. March, 1948.

Erb, J. H. Good Housekeeping in the Dairy Plant. The Dairy

Conference February C-lf, 1949. Department of Dairy Technology,

Ohio State Universit‘ Columbus, Ohio. Mimeoora hed abstract. 55 .
. 3 p /

Fair, E. w. Short Cuts to Better (Milk) Plant Layout. Milk Plant
Monthly 56(5):94. May, 1947.

Farley, J. W. Factors to be Considered in Planning the Milk and
Ice Cream Plant. Reprint. Cherry-Burrell Circle, March / April, 1946.

Farrell, A. W. Dairy Engineering, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
new York, 1942. 405 pp.

“_Trends in Dairy Plant Engineering. Journal of Milk Technology
8:45-47. January, 1945.

Farrall, A. W. Mew Developments in Dairy Equipment. The Dairy
Conference February 9-l§, 1948. Department of Dairy Technology,
Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Mimeographed abstract. 55 pp.

1‘

a.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

Kelly, E. and C. E. Clement. Market fiilk, ed. 2, John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., New York, 1951. 430 pp.

Kaguire, W. Plant Efficiencies Through Work Simplification. Milk
Plant Monthly 56(2):46-5o, 66. February, 1947.

Milk Industry Foundation. Manual for Milk Plant Operators,
Washington, 1949. 594 pp.

Mitten, Jr., H. L. Functional Design of Fluid Milk Plants. M. S.
Thesis, Michigan State College, 1948. 218 numb. leaves.

Uortensen, M. Kanagement of Dairy Plants, The HacMillan Co., New
York, 1929. 558 pp.

Parker, M. E. Food-plant Sanitation, ed. 1, chraw-Hill, New York,

1948. 447 pp.

Ross, H. E. The Care and Handling of Milk, Oranfe Judd Co., New
York, 1959. 417 pp.

Shubin, J. A. and H. Madeheim. Plant Layout, Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
New York, 1951. 455 pp.

Tracy, P. H. Chap. 15. Measuring the Efficiency of Market Milk
Plants. Bartlett, R. W., Editor. The Milk Industry, Ronald Press
Co., New York, 1946. 252 pp.

1.

\O
o

10.

ll.

15.

14.

15.

Orrin": PT.“ .4 v‘rpps
-.-—-¢\ $LL-r “3.4-1.1.4

17

Anon. A Man named Dean Came to Chicago With an Idea. Milk Plant
Monthly 55(1):2§-27. January, 1946.

Conveyors Mean Efficiency Plus. Ice Cream Field 57(5):52-55.
March, 1951.

Creamland Dairies, Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico. Milk Plant
Monthly 58(11):;6-58. November, 1949.

Here are Eight Prize-Winning Design Ideas for Your New Dream
Plant. Milk Dealer 29(1):;6-7 ;. January, 1940.

Modern Air Conditioned Plant. Ice Cream Review 51(4):42~45.
April , 191t8 0

New Model Plant Combines Public Relations Value and Low Cost
Operation. Milk Plant Monthly 56(12):58—4o, 106. December, 1947.

Newest Unit, Dairy Co-op. A'ssn. Milk Plant Monthly 54(12):
28, 52. December, 1945.

Plant Designed for Straight Line Flow. Ice Cream Trade
Journal 47(2):42-44. February, 1951.

Streamlined Processing for Quality Control Production. Milk
Plant Monthly 56(8):52-58. August, 1947.

Apple, J. M. Techniques in Plant Layout, rev. ed., Michigan State
College Press, East Lansing, Michigan, 1949.

Plant Layout and Materials Handling, Ronald Press Co., New
York, 19500

Boan, J. The Hillcrest Dairy Plant at Columbia, Missouri. Milk
Plant Monthly 56(5):96—98, loo—102. March, 1947.

Bowen, J. T. Dairy Engineering, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New
York, 1925.

Burn, G. A. H. Engineering Features of Pasteurizing Plants and
Equipment. Journal of Milk Technology 5: 9. January, 1942.

Cherry-Burrell Corp. Hardening Room Floor Space Requirements.
Sales Engineering Department; Planning Plants, Ice Cream Plants,
p. 1. March 15, 1951.

 

 

D
O
- ,
«n
o
o I
0 o
\
.
. . . ...
O
O o .
-
u
1 . .
O
O
D I
.
I c Q o
O n
-
O o
O n
,.
O n g
V
U a .
o .

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

24.

25.

26.

27.
28.

29.

50.

51.

156

Cherry-Surrell Corp. Suggested Plans for Ice Cream Plants, Flow
Plan, and Operational Details. Sales En ineering Department;
Planning Plants, Ice Cream Plants, pp. 2-11, 41-42, 70. March 29, 1951.

Model Continuous Butter Making Plant. Sales Engineering
Department; Planning Plants, Creameries, p. 50. April 5, 1951.

Suggested Plans for Milk Plants. Sales Engineering Department;
Planning Plants, Milk Plants, pp. 50-56. April 5, 1951.

Clark, G. Cascade Gold Star Dairies of Yakima, Washington. Milk
Plant Monthly 58:26-29. September, 1949.

Farley, J. N. Planning the Modern Ice Cream Plant. Ice Cream
Field 49(1):46-47, 50. January, 1947.

Flagg, H. Conveyor Extension Cuts Truck Loading Time. Milk Plant
Monthly 58(5):52—54. March, 1949.

Gemmill, A. V. Advanced Engineering is Emphasized in New Dairy.
Food Industries 20:1117-1120. August, 1948.

Modernization Ups Food-Plant Output to 155%. Food Industries
21(5):568-591. May, 1949.

They Call It the World's Modern Dairy. Food Engineering
25275:60-71. July, 1951.

Hard, D. H. Helpful Suggestions for Planning Your New Plant.
National Butter and Cheese Journal 57:41. March, 1946.

Johnson, G. R. New Approach to Plant Planning. Ice Cream Review
55:48 %. April, 1950.

Ibid. 55:45-44 /. July, 1950.

Mandt, P. H. Labor Saving Creamery Products Plant. National Butter
and Cheese Journal 40(7):24~26, 46-48. July, 1949.

___ Remodeling Increases Capacity, Leaves Room To Spare. National
Butter and Cheese Journal 59:26-29 /. September, 1948.

Some Interesting Dairy Plant Layouts. National Butter and
Cheese Journal 57(10):42-45, 68, 70. October, 1946.

May, R. J. Plant Layout and Design. Ice Cream Reveiw 29:52 /.
Margh, 1946.

Miller, R. Conveyor System Improves Loading Ef‘iciency. Milk Plant
Monthly 53:76-78. April, 1949.

u
I
I
.—
I
l
I
~
, r,
u
.-
O
D
n
0

ti

137

Mitten, Jr., H. L. Milk Plant Layout. Milk Plant Monthly 59(5):75.74.
March, 1949.

Norton, R. P. and H. G. Dunlap. Introducing Work Simplification.
Ice Cream Review 51(4);40—41, 82, 84. November, 1947.

Southmayd, R. T. Problems in the Design and Layout of Dairy Plants.
Milk Dealer 56(6):156, 158, 140-142. March, 1947.

Thom, E. Ideas for Ybur Plant Construction Scrap Book. Ice Cream
Review 51:58-59 /. August, 1947.

_Automatic Operation; Carnation Co.'s Oakland Ice Cream Plant
Most Modern in West. Ice Cream Review 55:40-41 %. April, 1950.

Thomasson, H. L. Effective Plant Design. American Milk Review
10(10):68-69. October, 1948.

Thomsen, L. C. Construction and Maintenance of Dairy Products
Plants. National Butter and Cheese Journal 55:16-18. Iarch, 1942.

Ibid. 55:27-50. April, 1942.

Increasing Plant Efficiency. Ice Cream Review 55:48 /.
March, 1950.

 

 

.‘ ‘ :1 i . l: . ‘I > ‘
. ‘ ~ mu
V-RBOM U0 ' " 4
l‘ ‘ ' ‘ ~ . l‘
\ l ‘
. . . \
' 5‘ P .
INTER-”3&6? LUAA'
N0 . S; :i M it 7 I N
:054 “ ””9 ‘4
U
I
7‘
3
x
I . I r I.
v.) I ‘r‘ ‘
1 .
r, ’- I, ‘ l . I - ll
. I (It .
1 '\ " a a". , ‘ '. ." K '\: ’I .‘h' l;
‘ 'r ~ ~ . I ’l I o .1 - ‘
. - r _A ,_ , Y .

 

 

 

 

"my @1111 my 1111113171111“