AN EXPERihlENT IN PACKTIJG OHIO APPLES

by

Chas. W• Hauck, 3\I.Sc. Department of Rural Economics Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station

No. 68

December, 1933 CONTENTS

Page Introduction •••••••••••••••••••.•••••••• 1

Weights and Capacities of Packages. ••••. 2 Displacement of Packages •••••••••••••••. 3

Hauling and Storage Rates •••••••••••••• 4 Package and Packing Costs •.•• •• ••.•••• •• •. 5 Condition of Fruit and Pa-ckages ...... 6

Sales and Returns •••••••••••••••••••••• 7

.Suliiir'...ary ••••••••••••· o •••••••••••••••••• • 8 AN EXPERIMENT IU PACKING OHIO APPLES

by Chas. w. Hauck

This study was undertaken in an effort to contri"bute information concerning certain types of in which apples are or may he packed, including their influence upon sales and returns to growers. The experiments reported herein covered a period of a little more than six months from October 1932 to early April, 1933. The project was entered into jointly by the Department of Rural Economics of the Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, the Arnold and Bailey Orchards at Orland, Ohio, the Industries Association and two member companies, and the General Company of Cincinnati, Ohio. The Arnold and Bailey Orchards provided the fruit used in the experiments. Representatives of the Department of Rural Economics and the Paperboard Industries Association supervised and assisted in the packing and recorded the data. Containers were furnished by the Hummel and Downing Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the Ideal Corrugated Box Company of Parkersburg; West Virginia, the General Box Company of Cincinnati, Ohio, and the Arnold and Bailey Orchards.

The supply of fruit available for the eA~eriments was limited to one variety of apples, Red Delicious. Grading and packing were dono at the orchard during the last week of September and the first week of October, and the filled containers were trucked each day to coniDlercial cold storage in Columbus, a distance of about 75 miles. The fruit was uniform in quality in all lots, being graded to u. s. uo. I specifications.

~uantities packed were as follows:

Table I Lot :No. No. Packed 1 Wooden box (northwest type, western shook) 107 2 Wooden box (northwest type, southern shook) 100 3 Paperboard box ~Western style) 50 4 Paperboard Box cell pack 120 1 s) 49 5 Paperboard box cell pack 96's) 74 6 Paperboard box 10 consumer ) 24 7 'Bushel basket ( ty:9e) 179

Total 583 -2-

Fruit sizes in each lot are shown beloWt

Size of Lot Numbers Fruit r---·-2 3 4 5 6 7 , ___ 56 ·1: 2 64 8 1 72 13 14 4 80 23 16 5 - 88 16 21 3 S6 18 13 74 - 100 9 17 113 3 7 4 120 49 - 125 7 6 11 138 3 1 15 150 3 2 5 163 3

2-1-11~ 3 2-f" 24/!. 96 3" 76 3-~-" 4 Total 107 100 50 49 74 24 179 '------·-,------

All wooden and paperboard were labeled in storage before being offered for sale. Baskets were not labeled.

\7ei~VJ.ts and.Capacj.ti~ of Packag~s Cubical content of the container has an important bearing upon returns. A few ounces or pounds extra in each package may reduce materially the number of packages available for sale, and unless accompanied by a premium for the extra quantity will correspondingly reduce gross retur~s. Five sample con­ tainers from each lot were weighed and averaged both before and after filling.

/a Boxes containing 10 carto~s, each holding 12 apples (in cells) approximately 2-f" in diameter. -3- Table III Average Weight

Lot No. Empty Container Filled Container Net Con- pet. o:f tents basket -----··contents 1 /c:c 7 Lbs. 6 oz. 48 lbs. 14 oz. 41 lbs. B oz. 93 2 /U 8 lbs. 2 oz. 50 lbs. 3 oz. 42 lbs. 1 oz. 93 3 7b 3 lbs.lO oz. 49 lbs. 45 1 bs. 6 oz. 101 4 /c 5 lbs.IO oz. 45 lbs. 9 oz. 39 lbs.l5 oz. 89 5 /C 5 lbs. 8 o:a. 48 lbs. 42 lbs. 8 oz. 94 6 /a 5 lbs.l2 oz. 46 lbs. 2 oz. 40 lbs. 6 oz. 90 7 /C 4 lbs. 5 oz. 49 lbs. 6 oz. 45 lbs. 1 oz. 100

Includes box, cleats, cover, 8 nails, 2 liners and 125 oiled wrappers 11 x 11 inches. Includes box, liner, 4 dividers and 125 oiled wrappers 11 x 11 inches. Includes box, liner, dividers and partitions. Includes , 10 cartons and partitions. Includes basket, liner, pad and cover.

It will be noted that the smallest net weight, approximately 40 pounds of apples, was contained in the paperboard boxes, cell pack 120 1 s, in lot 4 and that the greatest net weight' more than 45 Jounds, was in the paperboard boxes, western style, in lot 3. It should also be said at this point that buyers objected to - this latter container because the fruit was not packed tightly enough and permitted some movement within the packages, a con­ dition which they have alvmys associated with underfilling and short weight. Only 4 of these boxes could be sold as originally packed,. and on December 15th the remaining 46 were repacked and consol. ida ted into 41. After repacking the gross weight averaged 54 pounds and the net weight 50 pounds and 6 ounces. The apparent slackness in the western style paperboard box ·was due to the flexibility of the container. Rigidity necessary to hold the fruit firmly in position and :prevent disarrangement was lacking both in the container and in the dividers between layers. Even after repacking, buyers still evidenced a prejudice against Lot No. 3 and no sales v1ere made. In order to move this lot tho fruit eventually was unwrapped and transferred to tub type bushel baskets, filling 43 of these baskets.

Di s:olac~ent of Packag-es Space occupied by filled containers is of importance in warehousing and transportation. Each lot was measured after stacking in storage in the usual manner, and the dimensions have been converted in the follow·ing table into terms of space occupied by 500 packages. -4- Table IV uisplace- pct.of Lot No. packages 10 long X 10 wide mont 500 basket X 5 high packages displace· ...... ------.(..,_,H,.....e..... i -.cr (Cu • f -·--··--- --n:;-ength) (Vlidth) 0 h'"""'t,_,).----'· t.) ment. 1 16 ft. 4 in. 10 ft. 4 in. 5 ft. 4 in./a 900 65 2 16 ft. 4 in. 10 ft. 4 in. 5 ft. 4 in.ja 900 65 3 16 ft. 4 in. 10 ft.lO in. 5 ft. 7 in./o 988 72 4 15 ft. 6 in. 13 ft. 5 ft. 9 in./f.i 1159 84 5 16 ft.ll in. 11 ft. 6 in. 6 ft. 3 in./'b 1216 88 6 15 ft. 6 in. 10 ft. 8 in. 6 ft. /b 992 72 7 15 ft. 3 in. 15 ft. 3 in. 5 ft .11 in /0 1376 100

/~ Includes 2 x 2 in. strip on floor and 2 layers of builders lath in each stack. IE.. Includes 2 x 2 in. strip on floor and 4 layers of builders lath in each stack. These displacements have been converted in the following table into terms of cubic feet per package and cubic feet per 1000 lbs. of fruit. This latter figure is also expressed in the last column in terms of :percentages of the displacement per 1000 lbs. of fruit packed in standard bushel baskets, giving a read.y comparison botv;eon them and the rectangular containers.

'l'ablc V

Lot- Displacement No. Po..ckages ;BISPlacern~~er lOOO lbs. fruit No. ~er Package ?er 1000 lbs. Cubic feet pet. of·basket fruit ::li snl ac em en t -·--- -Tc-u-.---=-ft.,.--,.)-_;;;;._;·-·- ·---·-- ·---- ·-··-··--"'---·~--- 1 1.8 24.096 43.37 71 2 1.8 23.'774 4~2. 79 70 3 1.976 22.038 43.55 71 4 2.318 25.039 58.04 95 5 2.432 23.529 57.22 94 6 1.974 24.768 48.89 80 7 2.752 22.191 61.07 100 -----

Expense of transportation from packing house to storage vro.s less for tho rectangular packages than for the bushel b~skcts. ~.1 were move::l by motor truck, under contract with the oyrner-opern tor. ]3askcts vrore hauled for 10 cents each and all others for 8 cents each.

storage costs vrere e:.:~actly the srune for every type of cont2.incr used. The storage company chc.rged 5 cents per package por month or 20 cents per :package for the season. They stated th~::.t. had the quantity boon ln.rc;er the rates vlOuld have been lower on the rectangular packages. -5-

P~~~e and Packin~ Cost~ Wide variations existed in costs of containers de1ivered to t:i1e packing house. Paperboard boxes holding 10 small cartons were the most expensive and bushel baskets the cheapest.

The wooden boxes used in Lot No. 1 ·Nere purchased in 1931 but were charged at 1932 quotations. All other containers were secured just prior to harvest time in 1932, and all quotations in the following table are of that date •

. Table VI

-·------~uotation Sept.- Cost ·per Pct.of ·Lot Container 1932 delivered pkg. de­ basket No. at Orland, Ohio livered cost ----- rnollars) {"Doll_a_r_s..,.) ___ 1 7ooden box (N. w. typo, -v-rostern shook) 16'7 .50 per 1000) .22?? 153 i3ox liners 1.80 per 1000) Oiled ap')?le wraP:pers-ll"xl1" .4525 per 1000)

2 Wooden box (H. w. type, 13'7.50 per 1000) .197'7 133 :Jouthcrn shook) :Sox liners 1.80 per 1000) Oiled apple vr.rappers,ll 11 xl1 11 .4525 per 1000)

3 Paperboard box (western style c ompl etc) 130 .oo per 1000) .1866 125 Oil od a:ppl e v~rappers-11 "xll" .4525 per 1000)

4 Paperboard box (cell pack 120's) 222.50 per 1000 .2225 150

Panerboard box (cell pack 96t s) 212.50 per 1000 .2125 143

6 Paperboard box ( holding 12 ap')?lcs) 45.50 per 1000) .5263 354 Paperboard box (shipping container for 10 cartons) 71.35 per 1000) '7 ~)ushel basket (tub typo) 1.525 per doz •j Basket liners 15.00 per 1000 .1486 100 19 11 caps 6.50 per 1000

~:looden boxes v;cro received in the form of shook, and papor­ bo&x~d boxes were rocei vecl collapsed. All lots except No. ? i rnrol ved some time and labor in preparing them for packing. -6- Reliable and comparable data on time and costs of making up each container ready for filling could not be obtained. The employees were ine~~erienced at these tasks, and the number of packages made up was so small that they had little opportun­ ity to develop skill. Equipment for these jobs was not conducive to speed and efficiency. Moreover, the packing house organizat:i.,on, owing to the small crop in this orchard in 1932 and the resulting irregularity of the supply of fruit, had to pe handled more or· less opportunistica~ly; as a cons·equence the :packaces were made up by different employees from time to time as needed. It was noted, however, that under these conditions slightly mora time was required to nail together a wooden box than to assemble a paperboard box, insert the liners and seal the bottom. . ·packing house conditions described above also prevented accurate comparisons of packing costs though it may be said that the crew c·ould wrap and pack in wooden boxes only about one half as much fruit in a day as they could pack in baskets. Cell pack boxes were filled factor than wooden boxes, but not as fast as baskets. The western style paperboard boxes caused the packers more difficulty than any of the other types, owing to the flaps of the cover and to the layer pads or dividers. These boxes were filled more slowly than any of the others.

Closing of a wooden box by use of an improvised lidding ~;ross (which functioned very successfully) required slightly more time than placing the cover on e basket. The p-aperboard boxes were closed and scaled in a little less time tht:>.n the basketfJ.

Condition of Fruit and Packages On the average about 48 hours elapsed from picking to storr..ge. The crop was small and the gr~rding and packing crew was able to keep the fruit cleared ahead of the pickers. There vras no congestion in the packing house and the only delays re­ sulted from slow accumulation of truck load quantities. A few vmoien boxes remained four days in the :packing house after packing, awaiting transportation. storage conditions were favorable. Each lot was examined at intervals of several v;eeks throughout the season. Despite tight sealing of the pap-erboard boxes, no storage scald was apparent at any time in any lot, and no bruising or decay except in Lot No. 3. At time of repacking this lot showed excessiwe bruising, and an occasional decayed apple. The fruit was hard ripe when packed and ripening progressed normally. All lots were disposed of completely before showing evidences of over-~naturi ty and with the exce:1tion of Lot No. 3 all fruit v1as in excellent condition when sold. \lith the cxcepti on of the western style paperboard boxes all packages held up well in storage. stripping between layers did not imprint the paperboard boxes notic-eably. Although -7- stacked 6 and 7 high, bottom layers shovrod no evidence of crushing or sagging. Absorption of moisture in storage by the paperboard boxes was not sufficient to cause damage or to detract from the appearance of tho containers. As previously noted, the western style paperboard boxes lacked rigidity necessary to hold tho fruit firr:1ly in ~position, but this condition v1as as apparent at the top of the stacks as at tho bottom.

Sales anq Retur~ Theco experimental lots vrero sold gradually bot\7cen January 2nd aJ1d A:pril 8, 1933. All sales were made to retailers in Columbus, through a sellinc; agent familiar with that tr2.dc, the sel.ling agent receiving 25 cents a package for selling and deliv­ ery.

Lots No. 3 and 6 were not readily salable in original containers and v1ore repacked. Lot No. 3 as previously stated was first repac1;:od in vJostern style paperbor.:.rd boxes in an attempt to tighten the pack, and then tov-rard the end of the sen.son was again repacked in tub bushel baskets and sold at $1.75 per basket. The consumer cnrtons (Lot No. 6) did not move; nll nero repacked in tub bushel baskets nnd sold at $1.75 per basket.

Tho sales agent reported that his trade did not take kindly to any of the paperboard containers at the outset, due primarily· to unfamiliarity with those types. To·v'Jarct the end of the scanon, hovrcver, the cell packs (Lots Uo. 4 nnd 5) wore accepted by retailers vri thout question. These lots brought $1.75 per box regul2.rly throughout the season, except 15 boxes of 120's (Lot No. 4) that wore sold for $1.50 par box.

About one half of tho wooden boxes (lots No. 1 and 2) wore sold at $2.00, the remainder going at $1.75. There v~s no differ­ ence in price due to differences in type of shook, both VIestcrn :-:~nd southern boxes selling alike. Those sold throughout at the sctmo prices as Fancy Ytestern boxed Dol icious of tho same sizes.

The tub baskets (Lot No. 7) sold more readily th2.n any of tho others. Practically all of those brought $1.75 each, with only 7 baskets selling at $1.50 each. The Columbus rctr.il trade has long boon famili2.r with Ohio apples packed in bushel baskets.

During tho l)oriod in which this fruit wns being offered, apples of like qw:~li ty c:md sizes wore retailing at around 5 cents per pound in Columbus. The selling agon.t reported thn.t he might have sold a few of tho consumer cartons (Lot No. 6) if the price h2.d been ro('J.uced so thnt tho retailer could sell them nt 20-25 cents 11er cnrton. With approximately 4 pounds of fruit in each cnrton, and bushel baskets vrholesa.ling at $1.115, or slightly lcss th8.n 4 cents a pound, the cc.rtons would h11.vo had to be priced 2.t '"'-bout 15 cents each to the retn.ilers to interest them. Ovmers of the fruit vrere unwilling to SC',crifice whc.t YJC'..S intended as a prmnium package, and elected to transfer the fruit to better kno\71:1 containers of loss cost and which could be sold with less effort. -8- It will be noted that wooden boxes brought an average gross premiwn of 13 cents a package over bushel. baskets. The sales agent reported difficulty in moving these boxes, however, so lone as he still had a supply of bushel baskets. Table VII

LoT-Ho. ·of Gross Re~urns Gross Returns less Packing cost No. Pack- Total Av. per AV. per AV· per pound aces ~kg. . pkg. of fruit ---·---··------rD'O lla rs) lDo1lars) ---·(Dollars) (Dollars) (pet. of basket returns) 1 107 199.75 1.87 1.6423 .0396 112 2 100 187.50 1.87 1.6723 .0398 113 3 50/a 82.25 1.64 1.4534 •032 91 4 49 82.00 1.67 1.4475 .0362 103 5 74 129.50 1.75 1.53?5 .0362 103 6 24/b 36.75 1.53 1.003? .0249 71 7 179- 311.50 1.74 1.5914 .• 0353 100

Total 583 1029.25 1.76 1.5553 .0362 103 ---··------·------/a J?our original packages sold @ $1.75. The remainder . repacked into 43 baskets and sold e $1.75. /b Repacked into 21 baskets and sold@ $1.75.

1. Bushel baskets contained more fruit than any of the rectangular packages used, with the exception of the ·western style paperboard boxes. see Table 3. 2. Baskets occupied more space than the rectangular packages. Wooden boxes required the least space. See Tables 4 and 5. 3. Bushel baskets cost less than other types of containers used. Tho most expensive were cartons holding 12 apples, 10 cartons in each shipping container. See Table 6. 4. Bushel baskets wore packed and closed more rapidly than others. Western style paperboard boxes caused packers some difficulty owing to the cover flaps and layer dividers. Wooden boxes required about twice as long to pack as bushel baskets. 5. Vvestern style paperboard boxes lacked rigidity nee essary to hold the fruit firmly in position. Buyers objected to this lot because of what they termed trslack pack". -9- 6. Condition of the fruit in storage was satisfactory in all lots, except for bruising in the western style ' paperboard boxes, due no doubt to shifting and extra handling in repacking. 7. Paperboard boxes were hard to sell, probably because they were unfamiliar to the trade in Columbus. Western style vaperboard boxes and consumer cartons had to bo~repackcd in other containers in order to dispose of them. Wooden boxes did not sell as readily as bushel baskets. 8. wooden boxes brought the highest returns per pound of fruit. Eliminating those lots which were repacked into other conte.iners, bushel baskets brought the lowest returns per pound of fruit. Sec Table 7~