; YUM fr
a |

; PF
u~< —_——
Uv

EVALUATION OF
A HYDROHANDLING SYSTEM
FOR SORTING AND SIZING APPLES
FOR STORAGE IN PALLET BOXES

Marketing Research Report No. 948

Agricultural Research Service
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
In Cooperation With

Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station

Historic, archived document

Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

This publication reports research involving pesticides. It does not contain recommen-
dations for their use, nor does it imply that the uses discussed here have been registered.
All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies
before they can be recommended.

Use Postieides

FOLLOW THE LABEL

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable plants,
and fish or other wildlife—if they are not handled or applied properly. Use all pesticides
selectively and carefully. Follow recommended practices for the disposal of surplus
pesticides and pesticide containers.

II

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research on which this report is based was conducted by the Departments of
Agricultural Engineering and Horticulture of Michigan State University of Agricul-
tural and Applied Science under Contract No. 12—14-100-7791(52), as amended, with
the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Many individuals and companies contributed to this project. Much of the design
work was done by Eudell Vis, graduate assistant, Department of Agricultural Engi-
neering, Michigan State University, in cooperation with Fred Durand, Jr., President,
Durand-Wayland Machinery Co., and his engineering staff. The equipment was manu-
factured by Durand-Wayland Machinery Co., Woodbury, Ga. The site and facilities
for testing the hydrohandling system were furnished by the Belding Fruit Sales and
Belding Fruit Storage Companies, Belding, Mich., through the courtesy of W. H. Braman,
President. Installation and operation during the 1966 season was supervised by Mr. Vis.

Paul Bergdolt, graduate assistant, Department of Agricultural Engineering, Michigan
State University, began working on the project in 1966 and continued through the spring
of 1967. The content of his M.S. Thesis, “An Evaluation of a Prototype Apple Hydro-
handling System,” served as a basis for the economic analysis of this report.

Robert Schneider, graduate assistant, Department of Agricultural Engineering,
Michigan State University, supervised operations during the 1967 season.

L. George Wilson, graduate assistant, Department of Horticulture, Michigan State
University, was responsible for major portions of the apple handling and fruit evaluation
studies conducted with the 1966 and 1967 crops.

Many other staff members of the Agricultural Engineering and Horticulture Depart-
ments assisted with this project; their help, together with that of the persons named
above, is gratefully acknowledged.

Trade names are used in this publication solely for the
purpose of providing specific information. Mention of a trade
name does not constitute a guarantee or warranty of the
product by the U.S. Department of Agriculture or an en-
dorsement by the Department over other products not
mentioned.

CONTENTS

Page
Sulimary 2 oe kale eke ee ee ee es eo tree ee 1
Imtroductions 1c ..32- 3055 oe ee ee bee ee et ee ee 1
Design of ‘the hydrohandling system. -..2.2)_ 2.2222. 95S eee 2
Summary of experiments with prototype hydrohandling system________ 4
Costs of the prototype apple hydrohandling system_____________________- 6
Factors considered in the cost-amalysis... 2-40.42. 22ci20 boa ee 8 6
ASSUMPTIONS 2.2.2. S55 To Heide eee nee oe aes ee ee 6
Cost atialiysig. 2.52232 ne fatl ee ens 5 eee a oh a oe i Be ee 7
Cost projections....22 4. wat toe se ie ee ek oe ae 8
Comichisions:<...=s we. sea Awtiaen Se Se ee ee ee eee 10
Preliminary operational test and study of bruising______________________- 10
Capacity of the system su. 1.52% see eee ee te Be ee aa 10
Preliminary bruising study... 22015324524 0s Shee ete tee oes 10
Performance of the prototype hydrohandling system__________________-_- 11
Wy oes OL tests. 225253) 23a Jee ae ee ee se 11
Conmercial operations _ <2 210 2c oe oe oo ye eee eo kee 12
Riis StUdt68s22 250d ee yc cec Goes Bae eee as ee ee 13
Unitormity of pallet box till. 2h ha oe ee ee 13
Brin bruising otudies...264 4:2 acl nse en ates oe ee ees 13
Hxamination of stored fruit (1966 crop)... 222225... esos. eee ee ee! 15
Meéthods amd ame terials xn o52 tee oe Bnew ot Creel Moe ee 15
Wesutes.25. sont ee aes ae ee ees eee 15
Dis@ussi0t.g..5.22e cade eee sone eee aoe ee eee ee eee 16
Tests with 1967-crop apples...2....22.- Si 2oc0 222 oc oe ee ee 16
Component S6stsceve i ok ee ee ea ee eee 16
WrarG hadi eee ata cle ace na on tn dein me ees eee 17
Fruit settling during storage___.__________________-_-_--_----_----- 20
Pri GINO en oa eee coda none aee dence seal ee 21
Diterawire Cited cc. 2 8 esl ee sh ee ee ee 22
Washington, D.C. Issued September 1972

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402—Price 25 cents
Stock Number 0100-2454

EVALUATION OF A HYDROHANDLING SYSTEM
FOR SORTING AND SIZING APPLES
FOR STORAGE IN PALLET BOXES

By D. H. Dewey, professor of horticulture, and B. A. Stout, professor of agricultural engineering, Michigan State Univer-
sity; and JosepH F. Herrick, JR., investigations leader, Transportation and Facilities Research Division, Agricultural

Research Service

SUMMARY

A prototype hydrohandling system for sorting
and sizing apples before storage was designed, con-
structed, and installed at a commercial apple
packing and storage house. The system was based
on completed research covering the development
of a hydrohandling system for sorting and sizing
apples for storage in pallet boxes. Following
installation, the system was tested under com-
mercial conditions to evaluate its performance.
After initial tests, further modifications to the
system were made and tested.

The system was designed to permit sorting,
sizing, and filling apples back into pallet boxes at
a rate of 600 bushels per hour. Test runs indicated
that this volume of fruit could be handled by the
system.

When used in a simulated commercial opera-
tion for about 35,000 bushels of apples, perform-
ance of the hydrohandling system was satisfac-
tory, yet several limitations were apparent. The
handling costs were 22 cents per bushel of fruit,
of which 57.4 percent was for fixed charges. A net
gain of 4 cents per bushel could have been realized
by release of the storage space that would have
been occupied by cull and utility grade fruit, pro-
vided all culls and utilities were removed by pas-
sage of the fruit through the system. Profitable

use could be projected by consideration of volume,
quality, variety of fruit, and of efficiency and
operating rate of the equipment.

Fruit sizing varied in accuracy, with poor
accuracy occurring whenever the underwater sizing
chains carried a relatively large proportion of
apples that should have passed through the chain
openings. Uniform filling of the pallet boxes with
sized and graded fruit was difficult to regulate and
could be attained only by a skilled operator. Over-
filling of the boxes resulted in excessive fruit dam-
age by bruising, whereas underfilling required
hand finishing to utilize the maximum storage
capacity of the boxes.

Apples sampled during regular operating periods
consistently showed that damage by bruising and
skin breaks was relatively minor in comparison
to the damage that resulted previously by har-
vesting, hauling, and dumping. Nonetheless, ex-
cessive damage was sometimes found upon re-
moval of the fruit from long-term storage. Much
of this was due to pressure bruising, which
occurred because of flesh softening when apples
improperly nested against each other during the
hydrofilling operation. McIntosh apples were par-
ticularly susceptible to this kind of damage,
whereas Jonathan and Delicious were not.

INTRODUCTION

Apples in many fruitgrowing areas are taken
directly from orchards and stored in conventional

refrigerated and controlled atmosphere (C.A.)

storage. Modern developments in handling and

storage have increased the potential benefits of

sizing and sorting apples before storing them.
1

yy MARKETING RESEARCH REPORT 948, U.S. DEPT. AGRICULTURE

The use of pallet boxes or bulk handling has in-
creased not only the need for presizing and pre-
sorting, but also the difficulty of presizing and
presorting due to possible damage to the fruit
upon dumping and refilling the pallet boxes. ?

In 1960, Pflug and Dewey (S) * were successful
in using water as a medium for unloading apples.
To learn more about the behavior of apples in
water and to obtain design data for a hydro-
handling system, a study was initiated in 1962
under a cooperative agreement between the Mich-
igan Agricultural Experiment Station and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Matthews (6) in 1963
and Dewey et al. (5) in 1966 presented the results
of this study and suggested design details for a
prototype apple hydrohandling system.

Design of the Hydrohandling
System

The purpose of this hydrohandling system is to
size and sort apples at a rate up to 600 bushels
per hour before placing them in storage. The
apples arrive from the orchard in pallet boxes
and need to be sized, sorted, and returned to
pallet boxes with a minimum of hand labor and
bruise damage. The hydrohandling system was
described in detail by Stout et al. (9) in 1966. The
major components are a flotation dumper, a hydro-
eliminator, a roller sorting table, a hydrosizer,
and two hydrofillers (figs. 1 and 2).

The flotation dumper consists of a tank of water
and a mechanism to submerge pallet boxes of
apples in this tank (fig. 3). An impeller pump with
a capacity of 1,000 gallons per minute circulates
the water and floats the apples away from the
submerged pallet box toward the hydroeliminator.
A surge area 15 feet long and 5 feet wide is pro-
vided between the submerging mechanism and
the hydroeliminator.

The purpose of the hydroeliminator is to sep-

! Although this report uses the term ‘‘pallet boxes,”
these are variously referred to in different areas as bulk
boxes, pallet bins, pallet containers, and bulk containers.
Pallet boxes used for apples may hold 16 to 25 bushels
and have approximate outside dimensions of 48 by 40
inches with an inside depth of 30 inches. The pallet boxes
used in this study had a capacity of about 20 bushels.

“Italic numbers in parentheses refer to Literature
Cited, p. 22.

arate the apples smaller than 214 inches in di-
ameter from the system before they reach the
sorting table (fig. 4). A moving sizing chain,
4 feet wide with hexagonal openings of 214 inches
in diameter, submerges all the fruit. The smaller
apples float up through the sizing chain, are
directed into a lateral flume by a current of water,
and are then elevated out of the water by a flight
conveyor and dropped into pallet boxes. The
larger fruit continues under the sizing chain and
returns to the water surface beyond the hydro-
eliminator.

A modified version of a conventional roller
sorting table elevates the apples from the water,
serves as a sorting table, and returns the apples to
the water in the hydrosizer tank (fig. 5). This
sorting table is 4 feet wide; the level sorting plane
is 10 feet long and is divided into six lanes. The
rollers on the sorting table are rubber covered, 214
inches in diameter, spaced on 38-inch centers, have
a reverse roll to rotate the fruit, and are driven by
a variable speed mechanism to provide a trans-
lation rate of 20 to 40 feet per minute.

Workers sorting apples stand on wooden plat-
forms at the sides of the sorting conveyor. The de-
fective fruits are placed on a utility and cull
conveyor, which is a closed loop belt above the
sorting table. The lower belt is for utility apples
which are transferred from the belt to a conveyor
and to a dry pallet box filler which places the
apples in a pallet box. The cull apples are diverted
from the cull belt to a gravity flow chute leading
into a pallet box. Cull chutes were provided at the
sides of the table to increase the capacity and
efficiency of the workers.

The hydrosizer is much like the hydroeliminator
except the chain size allows apples less than 3
inches in diameter to pass through (fig. 6). All
apples are submerged by the chain, and the
smaller ones float up through the chain openings
and are directed into a lateral flume by water
current. Apples 3 inches and larger in diameter
continue under the sizing chain and return to the
water surface in the main flume beyond the
hydrosizer.

Two similar hydrofillers, one for each size of
fruit, are used to return the fruit to pallet boxes.
Each unit consists of a circular water tank, a sub-
merging conveyor, two accumulators, a rotating
rack, and a mechanical lift (fig. 7). Each tank is 10

SIZING APPLES

SORTING AND

HYDROHANDLING SYSTEM FOR

‘OWN [V10}B] (LT) PUB ‘10}VM IOJ YUBY JBvI04S (QT)

‘yuey JozisoipAy ({1) ‘10z1s0apAy (OT)

‘sxo[youpAy (GT) ‘stoAoAuod ZuiZioMqnNs 105 syuvy (py) ‘s1oOAVAUOD BulBsourqns (g]) ‘euny ureur (ZT)

‘ro[[y xoq yor[ed Arp (6) ‘1oAoAUOD AqrTIYN (g) ‘TOABAUOD ][NO puT Ap (2) ‘o[qQvy Burros s9pJor (9) ‘roABAUOD 4YSIY

(¢) ‘ourny yes0qe] (F) ‘Yue Jodunp jo uoKRNuUOD (¢) ‘1OyvUTUTTPOOIpPAY (Z) ‘1aduINp UOTyRIOH ({) Zurmoys uro4sAs ZulpuvsyoipAy od44o}01g—"T aUADIT

SSSA SS

|

“t~

SO

2 —_ —r

Y
HSVul 3WOS B
LINYS 3ZISY30NN

4 MARKETING RESEARCH REPORT

feet in diameter and 8 feet 10 inches deep. The sub-
merging conveyor carries the apples down into the
water and allows them to float up into the accumu-
lators. Each accumulator is 36 inches wide, 44
inches long, 50 inches high, and has a capacity of
25 bushels. While in the tank, the accumulators
rest on a frame mounted on a spindle that permits
180° rotation.

The lift mechanism, similar to the lift on the
hydrodumper, is mounted opposite to the sub-
merging conveyor in the tank. This lift submerges
a pallet box beneath the accumulator in the tank.

BN-27778

Figurr 2.—The prototype hydrohandling system. The
platforms along the sides’ were built for observation of
tests.

BN-27779

Figure 3.—A pallet box of tree-run (unsorted) apples
being submerged by the flotation dumper.

948, U.S. DEPT. AGRICULTURE

BN-27781

Figure 4.—The hydroeliminator at the end of the flotation
dumper tank.

The accumulator comes to rest on the rotating
frame in the tank while the pallet box is submerged
to the bottom of the tank. When one accumulator
has been filled, the submerging conveyor is
momentarily turned off while the accumulators are
rotated 180° on the rotating rack. With the empty
accumulator positioned over the submerging
conveyor, the conveyor is restarted. The filled
accumulator is now over the empty pallet box.
When the lifting mechanism raises the pallet box,
it also lifts the filled accumulator and as the unit
is removed from the water, the apples settle from
the accumulator into the pallet box. At the top of
the lift, the pallet box is in line with roller tracks
and is rolled away as another box is rolled in to
repeat the cycle.

One of the hydrofilling units was automated
through the use of a hydraulic system to rotate the
accumulators, and power rollers are used to move
empty pallet boxes into position and filled boxes
out of position. The other hydrofilling unit is
manually rotated and boxes are positioned by
hand.

Summary of Experiments with Proto-
type Hydrohandling System

The system was designed in 1965, constructed
by the Durand-Wayland Machinery Co., Wood-
bury, Ga., and installed at the Belding Fruit
Storage Co. at Belding, Mich., in time for pre-
liminary operational and bruising tests in May
1966.

HYDROHANDLING SYSTEM FOR SORTING AND SIZING APPLES

Or

Figurb 5.—(A) The roller sorting table (lanes were installed later).
Utility apples are placed on lower belt above the table and are
carried off by a cross-conveyor to a conventional dry pallet box
filler (at left rear). Cull apples are placed on the upper belt and are
diverted to a gravity chute (not visible in picture) at the end of the
sorting table. (B) Cull chutes were added at sides of roller sorting

table to increase efficiency of workers.

Commercial operation of the prototype hydro-
handling system was begun on September 22,

BN785

Ficure 6.—The hydrosizer. Apples are returned to water
from the sorting table for separation into two sizes by
the hydrosizer.

459-575 O- 72 - 2

BN-27783 BN-37537

1966, and the system was in operation throughout
the 1966 season. By November 9, 1966, a total of
35,554 bushels of fruit had been handled with the
system. About 29 percent was removed as utility,
cull, and cider apples, and the remainder was
placed in storage.

Upon removal from storage in the spring of
1967, samples were taken from commercial lots
and evaluated for bruises and other types of dam-
age resulting from the hydrohandling operation.
Because substantial damage was observed, the
system was operated in the fall of 1967 on an
experimental basis with much smaller quantities
of fruit in an attempt to pinpoint the sources of
damage.

A number of mechanical changes were made
before the 1967 season to improve the system per-
formance and reduce labor requirements.

Experimental lots from the 1967 crop were
stored and evaluated for damage during the spring
of 1968.

6 MARKETING RESEARCH REPORT 948, U.S. DEPT. AGRICULTURE

COSTS OF THE PROTOTYPE APPLE HYDROHANDLING SYSTEM

Observations were made under simulated com-
mercial operating conditions during the 1966 sea-
son to obtain a general indication of the economic
merits of the hydrohandling system. During a 7-
week period, a total of 35,554 bushels of apples
were run through the system. The limitations of an
experimental machine and for a single season of
operation must be realized when interpreting
results. This work was reported in detail by
Bergdolt (2) in 1968.

Factors Considered in the Cost Analysis

Expenses for the system can be separated into
two categories, ownership costs and operating
costs. Ownership costs can be subdivided into
depreciation, interest on the investment, insur-
ance, property taxes, and shelter (1). Operating
costs include labor requirements, utilities, main-
tenance, repairs, and additional equipment.

BN-27786

Fiaurr 7.—The accumulator of the hydrofiller in the
foreground is being filled with apples by the submerg-
ing conveyor. The second accumulator has been lifted
from the water tank, together with a pallet box. The
fruit is transferred to the box as it is raised above the
water surface. (Grills and blocks were placed on the
accumulators for testing.) A previously filled pallet box
is shown to the left on a set of roller conveyors.

The use of the hydrohandling system is an
additional operation that does not substitute for
any later operation. If the system could be made
to perform better, it might eliminate further
resorting and resizing in preparing the product
for market. Advantages of the system should
accrue to the producer or owner of the apples. On
the other hand, the storage operator would also
profit from the system by charging a fee for pre-
storage sorting and sizing.

Profit, or net gain, from utilization of the hydro-
handling system can be considered in two cate-
gories; both apply to storage costs. First, elimi-
nating cull and utility fruit before storage will
reduce storage costs, since the eliminated fruit
does not increase in sale value sufficiently during
the C.A. storage season to pay for the storage
costs. Second, removing cull and utility apples
permits the storage space to be used for U.S. No. 1
and better grade fruit, which will increase in sale
value during C.A. storage and provide a higher
return. This can be regarded as a potential gain
associated with storage and is so considered in the
following analysis.

Assumptions

Bainer (1) outlined a procedure for estimating
the cost of owning and operating farm machinery.
He suggested a straight-line depreciation schedule
with a service life of 10 years and a salvage value
of 10 percent of the initial cost. For a stationary
machine such as a hydrohandling system, a 10-
year life is quite conservative for it is likely that
the components would actually function longer.
With a new type of machine, however, obsoles-
cence may limit the useful life. Therefore, a useful
life of 10 years was assumed.

Interest on the average investment was calcu-
lated at 6 percent. Insurance and taxes were
assumed to be 1 percent of the initial cost as
suggested by Bainer (1). Utility costs (electrical
power and water) were based on current rates for
utilities, $0.02 per kilowatt-hour for electricity
and $0.20 per 100 cubic feet for water. The system
is rated for 65 amps at 220 volts at full power,
which is a requirement of 14.3 kw. per hour. The
system has a water capacity of 20,200 gallons or
2,700 cubic feet. For cost estimating, it was

HYDROHANDLING SYSTEM FOR

assumed that the water was changed after ap-
proximately 20,000 bushels of apples.

The primary benefit of a prestorage sizing and
sorting operation results from the increased value
of the fruit that is actually placed in storage.
Table 1 gives the magnitude of the increase in
market value of fruit after C.A. storage as re-
ported by Nichols (7) in 1965. These values,
which ranged from $0.95 to $1.34 per bushel for
quality fruit and $0.12 to $0.38 per bushel for cull
and utility fruit, were used to calculate storage
cost savings on culls and utility fruit and poten-
tial storage gain for U.S. No. 1 and better fruit.
Based on Dalrymple’s (4) study in 1956, a C.A.
storage cost of $0.55 per bushel was used.

TABLE 1.—Average price differential between fruit
for sale at harvest and at time of removal from
C.A. storage for three varieties of apples '

Variety Grade Price differ-
ential per
bushel

Dollars
MeIntosh______... U.S. No. 1 and better___- 1. 34
Utility._-_______--___ 17
Jonathan_________ U.S. No. 1 and better____ 1. 38
Utility... 2 .38
Red Delicious_____ U.S. No. 1 and better___- . 95
Utility_____- ee . 27
All varieties_______ 16:01 | (Seana en .12

1 Average by Nichols (7) for 1961-1963 season.

Cost Analysis
A. Ownership costs

1. Depreciation—the total cost of the system
was used including the price of the
machine, facilities necessary to accom-
modate it, installation of utilities, instal-
lation of the machine, and incidental
expenses incurred.

Approximate machine price-___-___-_ $30, 000
Concrete slab____________________ 3, 500
Utility installation:

Electricity. _________.__________ 1, 200

Water. < ooze eS ss edee ts secccd 165
Installation of hydrohandling sys-

WOM cc oe tee sue ceeecte ee 2,435

ol Dc) Fi (Ce aac ne i $37, 300
Annual depreciation cost based on 10-year
life is:

SORTING AND SIZING APPLES 7

$37 ,300—$3,730
10

= $3,360

bo

. Average annual interest on investment
Since:
Pi (n+1 :
> (eS =average annual interest
(Where P is investment, 7 is interest
rate, and n is service life.)
Therefore:
$37,300 0.06. /10+1
2 x( 10
3. Insurance and property tax:
0.01 ($37,300)= 370
4. Shelter over sorting rolls:

)=s1,230

800/10= 80
Total fixed ownership___-___- $5, 040
B. Operating costs
TigbOr. 2228 2 ene So etee sh set eeee * $3, 030
Utilities (118 hours of machine opera-
tion) electricity and water________ 40
Maintenance and repair_____________ 90

Additional equipment (3 lift trucks for
3 weeks at $60.00 per week per
CPUCkK) 22 bce l edd ice ee ees 540

$3, 700

1 Cost per year including $3,360 for depreciation.

* Labor costs are based on records of the cooperating
commercial apple packing firm for operating system for
118 hours and handling 35,554 bushels of fruit.

C. Loss due to storage cost of utility and cull frut
Utility and cull apples do not increase in
value adequately to cover the storage cost.
Table 2 gives a summary of utility and cull
fruit removed with the hydrohandling sys-
tem during operations in the fall of 1966 and
shows the loss that would have been incurred
had the same fruit been stored. The loss was
calculated as the product of the number of
bushels removed before storage and the net
loss per bushel resulting if the poor quality
fruit had been stored. The $3,538 loss shown
can be considered a saving attributable to
the hydrohandling system if the cull and
utility fruit were removed before storage and
the same space used for storing premium
quality fruit.

8 MARKETING RESEARCH REPORT 948, U.S. DEPT. AGRICULTURE

TaBLE 2.—Apples removed by use of hydrohandling
system and loss if utility or cull fruit removed were
placed in C.A. storage

Amount Loss if fruit were stored
Variety and grade of apples - _ —
removed ! Per bushel 2 Total
Bushels Dollars Dollars
MelIntosh:
Utility________- 2,516 0.55—0. 17=0. 38 956
Cull___-_-_-_--- 1,388 .55— .12= . 43 597
Jonathan:
Utility__-_____- 551. 55— . 38 17 94
Cull___-------- 2,511 .55— .12 43 1, 080
Red Delicious:
Utility..._..-_.- 1,060 .55— 28 297
Cull 22s 1, 196 . 55 12 43 514
Total_____- O08 oct oucaontanend bcd 3, 538

1 Based on data recorded by the cooperating commercial
apple packing firm for apples removed during the sorting
of 35,554 bu. of fruit.

2 The loss per bushel is the difference between the charge
for storing fruit ($0.55 per bu.) and the expected gain in
value had the fruit been stored.

D. Potential gain in storage space return
Because high-quality fruit increases in value
so as to more than offset the storage charges
during C.A. storage, there is a potential
gain in returns by utilization of the storage
space for presized and presorted fruit instead
of for tree-run (unsorted) apples. This gain
was calculated as the product of the num-
ber of bushels removed and the net gain in
value of apples during storage over storage
cost of U.S. No. 1 or better quality fruit.

McIntosh:
Gain (2,516 bu.+ 1,388 bu.)
($1.34— $0.55) =$8, 084
Jonathan:
Gain (551 bu.+ 2,511 bu.)
($1.88—$0.55)= 902
Red Delicious:
Gain (1,060 bu.+ 1,196 bu.)
($0.95— $0.55) = 2, 541

Total gain, 1966 trials__.___________ $6, 527

E. Summation of 1966 operation
For the operation of the system in 1966 with
35,554 bushels of McIntosh, Jonathan, and
Delicious apples, the costs were:

Fixed ownership__-_ $5, 040
Operating. ________ 3, 700

Total_....... $8, 740

Accordingly, the cost per bushel of fruit
put into the system was $0.25.

The possible benefits in gross return gained
through efficient utilization of storage as a result
of eliminating the low quality fruit before storage
include:

Elimination of loss due to the storage cost

of utility and cull apples_____________ $3, 538
Increase in value of the U.S. No. 1 and bet-
ter fruit stored in the space not used for
utility and cull apples_-_____________- 6, 527
Otay Ss 228 ice Reta ose aes 2 ee $10, 065

This $10,065 benefit offered a potential gain in
gross return of $0.28 per bushel for apples stored
after presizing and presorting. When considered
with the costs of owning and operating the hydro-
system, the possible net gain from sizing and sort-
ing the fruit before storage in 1966 was $1,325 or
approximately 3.7 cents per bushel of fruit
supplied to the system.

Cost Projections

The economic evaluation made by trial use of the
presizing and presorting equipment in 1966 indi-
cated that many variables must be considered to
determine if the method could be economically
justified. Bergdolt (2) subsequently conducted a
computer analysis to consider a range of operating
conditions and costs and to establish guidelines
for profitable operation of the system. Six variables
were considered. Those relating to crop con-
ditions were volume of fruit handled, gradeout
percentages as U.S. No. 1 or better, utility and cull
qualities, and mixture of the three important
varieties stored in. Michigan. Machine and oper-
ating factors were varied according to investment
cost, operating rate, and efficiency of the pre-
sizing and presorting operations. Representative
results are graphically summarized in figures 8, 9,
and 10.

The volume of fruit handled by the system
produced the greatest change in net return; this
is shown in all figures. Throughout the entire
analysis, net return was negative when projected
for an annual operating volume of 30,000 bushels.
Consistently, the projected net return increases as
the fruit volume passed through the system
increases. Therefore, it would be necessary to have
large volumes of apples available to efficiently

HYDROHANDLING SYSTEM FOR SORTING AND SIZING APPLES 9

utilize this method of prestorage sizing and
sorting.

The effects of gradeout percentages and cost of
the system (fig. 8) show that as the apples of
higher quality are used the net return decreases.
This is an important factor to consider when the
apples arrive at the storage plant. A quick check
on quality should be made to determine whether
potential gradeout is high enough to justify the
operation. As the initial cost of the equipment
increases, the projected net return decreases.

12

ANNUAL NET RETURN (THOUSAND DOLLARS)

-12

30 70 110
THOUSAND BUSHELS

Ficure 8.—The projected effects of gradeout percentages,
initial cost of equipment, and total volume of fruit on
annual net return from prestorage sizing and sorting of
apples, with 50 percent each of Jonathan and McIntosh
supplied at 300 bushels per hour and sized and sorted
with an efficiency of 65 percent.

©: gradeout of 70 percent as U.S. No. 1 or better
grade, 20 percent as U.S. Utility grade, and 10 percent
as culls.

A: gradeout of 80 percent as U.S. No. 1 or better
grade, 15 percent as U.S. Utility grade, and 5 percent
as Culls.

50,000: initial cost for equipment of $50,000.

70,000: initial cost for equipment of $70,000.

459-575 O- 72 - 3

Figure 9 shows that higher efficiencies of sizing
and sorting will yield a greater net return for the
operation. This is due to the increases in savings
on storage costs and potential storage gains due to
the value increase of the fruit during storage. In-
creased operating rates also increase net return,
especially as the volume of the apples is increased.

The mixture of varieties of fruit utilized in the
system affects the net return (fig. 10). The
Jonathan and McIntosh varieties are more
likely to justify prestorage sizing and sorting
because their increase in value for U.S. No. 1 and
better grades is greater than for Red Delicious
(table 1).

24

20

ANNUAL NET RETURN (THOUSAND DOLLARS)

30 70 110
THOUSAND BUSHELS

Figure 9.—The projected effects of sizing and sorting
efficiency, operating rate, and total volume of fruit on
annual net return from prestorage sizing and sorting of
apples, with 50 percent each of Jonathan and McIntosh,
having a sortout of 70 percent U.S. No. 1 or better,
20 percent U.S. Utility, and 10 percent culls using
equipment of an initial cost of $50,000.

©: sizing and sorting efficiency of 65 percent.
A: sizing and sorting effiiciency of 95 percent.
300: rate of 300 bushels of fruit per hour supplied.
600: rate of 600 bushels of fruit per hour supplied.

10 MARKETING RESEARCH REPORT 948, U.S. DEPT. AGRICULTURE

Conclusions

A possible net gain was indicated as a result of
prestorage sizing and sorting of 35,554 bushels of
apples in a simulated commercial trial of the
equipment in 1966. A theoretical analysis of the
many variables affecting the net gain showed that

not only must an adequate volume of fruit be
utilized, but that the quality and variety of the
apples must be previously assessed as to whether
or not the sizing and sorting operation can be
economically justified. Other important factors to
consider are equipment cost, efficiency of sizing
and sorting, and rate of operation.

PRELIMINARY OPERATIONAL TESTS AND STUDY OF BRUISING

After installation of the prototype hydrohan-
dling system in the spring of 1966, operational
tests were performed with each component to
ascertain if it was functioning properly. Mechan-
ical deficiencies were corrected and adjustments
made as necessary.

ANNUAL NET RETURN (THOUSAND DOLLARS)

30 70 N10
THOUSAND BUSHELS

Ficurer 10.—The projected effects of mixture of varieties
and total volume of fruit on annual net return from
prestorage sizing and sorting of apples, with a sizing
and sorting efficiency of 65 percent, a sortout of 70 per-
cent U.S. No.1 or better grade, 20 percent U.S. Utility
grade, and 10 percent culls, and a rate of 300 bushels
per hour using equipment with an initial cost of $50,000

Mixture of varieties, in percent:

Symbol on Delicious Jonathan MelIntosh
figure
© 25 30 45
A 0 50 50
O 50 0 50
© 50 50 0

Capacity of the System

Test runs using Delicious and McIntosh apples
were conducted to determine the system capacity.
Each component was observed to determine if it
was capable of performing its functions properly
while the system was operating at full capacity.
The maximum capacity of each component is
difficult to establish because the quantity of fruit
reaching one component is limited by those pre-
ceding it. The results in table 3 show that the
design capacity of the system of 600 bushels per
hour could be attained on a sustained basis.
Limiting factors would include such things as
breakdowns and excessive quantities of cull-out
fruit.

TABLE 3.—Capacity checks on apple hydrohandling
system, spring 1966

Number of Equivalent num- Capacity

Test Time pallet boxes ber of pallet per hour !
through system boxes per hour

Minutes Number Number Bushel
M2 eet tees 11 6 32 520
De oe Bhs 35 16 27 440
Qed Patients 71 42 35 560
ee 57 41 43 680
5 ae ee eee 38 29 46 730

1 Assuming 16 bushels per pallet box.

Preliminary Bruising Study

Following the operational check, a _prelim-
inary study of fruit bruising was made to deter-
mine the feasibility of immediately employing
the system on a semicommercial scale.

Methods and procedures

Bruise-free apples ranging in diameter from 2%
to 3% inches were selected on May 12, 1966,
from the top 10 inches of fruit in pallet boxes of
McIntosh that had been in C.A. storage. Apples
having two or three bruises, no greater than one-

HYDROHANDLING SYSTEM FOR SORTING AND SIZING APPLES ll

quarter inch in diameter, were selected, placed
on molded fruit trays within cartons with the
layers separated by foamed plastic pads, labeled,
and returned to cold storage. On May 21, approx-
imately 160 apples (100 small, 60 large) were
assigned to three lots for placement into pallet
boxes. The apples were spray painted with bronze
florist paint for identification. The following
treatments were made:

(1) Hand-filled pallet box with the bruise-
free painted apples placed at random
throughout (check).

(2) Hydrofilled pallet box of fruit of mixed
sizes; the bruise-free apples were placed
in the system at the surge area of dumper;
all fruit were channeled to the ‘small
fruit”? filler by removal of the sizing
chain.

(3) Hydrofilled pallet box of large apples
(at least 2% inches in diameter); same
procedure as (2).

The pallet boxes were returned by lift truck to
refrigerated storage until May 25 at which time
the bruise-free apples were reclaimed by hand
removal of all apples from the pallet boxes. The
marked fruit were returned to trays, padded, and
transported by car to East Lansing.

The test fruits were examined on May 26 and
classified for bruising as none, slight, moderate,
or serious according to the previously used
standard reported in Marketing Research Report
No. 743 (5). Fruit with stem punctures or other
skin breaks were counted separately.

Pressure tests for flesh firmness were made with
the Magness-Taylor tester with a 7/16-inch

plunger at one pared check surface of 10 apples
for each treatment after the final examination
for bruising.

Results

The percentages of damaged apples after
removal from the pallet boxes are given in table 4.

Hydrohandling increased the bruising over hand
filing. It caused approximately 30 percent of the
test apples to be damaged excessively (moderate
and serious bruising) as compared to only 6.8
percent for the hand-filled lot. This damage, how-
ever, could not be considered prohibitive because
of the original poor condition of the test apples;
they pressured 11.4 pounds at the time of the test
as compared to a usual pressure of 18 to 20 pounds
at harvest. It would appear that grading, sizing,
and filling the bins in this manner caused less
damage than would be normally expected for
soft-fleshed apples.

Both of the hydrofilled lots of fruit had 25 apples
with chain marks or narrow shallow bruises caused
by contact of the apple with the links of the sizing
chain. Several were considerably marked, probably
because of rolling under the eliminator chain,
particularly near the end of the run for a given
bin. There were few stem punctures.

TaBLe 4.—Damage to ‘‘bruise-free’ apples due to
handling and placement into pallet box

Method of filling Stem Type of bruising

Test pallet box pune- —— - — —
tures None Slight Moderate Serious
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent

1____ Hand filled
(check) 12 28.0 65.2 5. 6 1,2
2_..- Hydrofilled 1.9 182 560 19.5 6.3
ae _.do_- 2.6 17.3 48.1 27.6 7.0

PERFORMANCE OF THE PROTOTYPE HYDROHANDLING SYSTEM

Commercial operation of the hydrohandling
system was begun on September 22, 1966, at the
Belding Fruit Storage Co. The system was oper-
ated throughout the harvest season as frequently
as labor, fruit, and facilities permitted. The
varieties used were mostly McIntosh, Delicious,
and Jonathan, and a few Rome Beauty. The
testing and evaluation of the system was con-
ducted during periods of full operation of the
equipment by personnel of the Belding Fruit

Storage Co. Operations ended on November 9,
1966.

Types of Tests

Economic considerations have been discussed
previously. The performance tests dealt with
engineering (or physical operations) and fruit
quality factors.

Over 35,000 bushels of apples were hydrohandled
during the 1966 season. Records of the Belding

12 MARKETING RESEARCH REPORT 948, U.S. DEPT. AGRICULTURE

Fruit Storage Co. were analyzed to obtain a
general picture of the flow of fruit through the
system.

Time studies of the various operations were
made to determine labor and equipment required
for moving the fruit through the hydrohandling
system into storage.

In preliminary tests, the difficulty of obtaining
uniformly filled pallet boxes from the hydrofiller
was observed. A test was conducted to determine
the extent of the problem.

Bruising is a major hazard in any prestorage
handling operation. For a hydrohandling system
to be successful, bruising must be minimized. A
series of tests were conducted to identify and
quantify the bruising problem.

Commercial Operations

Fruit came from many orchards to the hydro-
handling system in regular pallet boxes. Enough
boxes were accumulated to insure a long enough
run to justify assembly of a crew. Because the
equipment was new and relatively untested and
the personnel were learning new jobs, many oper-
ational problems were encountered. Although this
testing was conducted under commercial con-
ditions, the data should be interpreted as an
experiment.

The results of the commercial operation during
the fall of 1966 are summarized in the following
tabulation:

Fruit quantities handled

Tree-run apples supplied: Bushels
McIntosh}. . 2220.52 6 oes ee ee eee 15, 552
Delicious: 22 22st see os Se eee ee 9, 864
Jonathan. 22-222 Se ee ee ec es 8, 334
Rome Beauty___________-- ee 1, 296

Ot). oc ce et Solu Dee See ek 35, 046
Sort-outs at eliminator and sorting
table as utilities, ciders, and culls-___ 9, 710

Yield of sized and sorted fruit at hydrofillers
Diameter of 24% to 3% inches____ 25, 358
Diameter of 3% inches and larger_____- 99

Total... __. : 25, 457
Overrun unaccounted for______________- 121

Workers utilized
Maximum

5

MAnImMuUMe 5) oS ee eee eee GO= ass 7
Wsia See ee aa) aera ener doz-.— 13-15
Total operating time for systems____~ hours __ 118

Average hydrohandling rate
bushels per hour__ 301
Overall labor cost for fruit supplied

dollars per bushel__ _0. 0738

The actual operating rate averaged slightly
above 300 bushels per hour. Preliminary system
capacity checks (table 3) indicated much higher
operating rates when the sorting operation was
omitted. During sorting, it was often necessary to
reduce flow rates to enable the sorters to remove an
adequate amount of low-quality apples. Also, the
actual operating rate reflects downtime due to
equipment malfunction, as well as reduced oper-
ating rates while workers were learning their jobs.

Furthermore, because of their intermediate size
this season, most of the apples were passed to
only one filler unit, which sometimes limited the
overall operating capacity of the system. As shown
in the tabulation above, only 99 bushels of apples
314% inches and greater diameter went to the
filler, whereas 25,358 bushels were handled at the
small fruit filler.

The most successful run from an operational
standpoint reflects what the system should be
ultimately capable of handling. It occurred on
October 12 when 1,134 bushels of Delicious apples
were hydrohandled in 2 hours, resulting in an
operating rate of 567 bushels per hour. With a
crew of 13 workers, this run resulted in a labor
cost of 3.7 cents per bushel compared with the
overall season average of 7.3 cents per bushel of
fruit supplied to the system. In this run, all of the
sized and sorted apples were returned to pallet
boxes by one filler, thereby demonstrating the
capacity of the filling unit.

The number of workmen was generally 13 to 15.
The maximum number was employed as follows:
forklift operators, three; dumping, one; sorting,
six; filling, two; leveling and labeling filled boxes,
two; and supervising, one. The number was re-
duced to 13 by eliminating two women sorters;
still further reductions were accomplished by using
fewer sorters, one less person for leveling and
labeling, and one less forklift truck operator.

HYDROHANDLING SYSTEM FOR SORTING AND SIZING APPLES 13

Time Studies

Operations were timed during actual working
hours. These were broken down into elements, and
an average time per clement was determined. Ob-
servations included three forklift trucks, the
dumper and filler operations, and the sorting
table workers. The results are presented in
table 5.

During normal operations, all three forklift
trucks could keep ahead of their job assignments

TABLE 5.—Time required for various operations

Element Base time Fatigue Productive

allowance ! time

Pallet boxes of fruit:
Unload from truck and

move to temporary Afsinutes Minutes Minutes
storage_........------ 0. 95 0. 06 1. 01
Move from temporary stor-
age to dumper-_---__-- hit . 05 . 82
Empty fruit from pallet
DOXKCS..c., sshcecceneewe 1, 22 . 08 1. 30
Move filled boxes from hy-
drofiller to leveling
OCR 22225556 sees 57 04 61
From leveling area to tem-
porary storage_--.---_- 1. 16 . O7 1, 23
Empty pallet boxes:
Move from dumper to tem-
porary holding area___ —. 52 . 03 . 55
Move from dumper to hy-
drofiller and return__-_ 1. 00 . 06 1. 06
Pallet box dumping:
Lower box into water-_--_- 17 (7) At
Emptying fruit from box____ 1. 22 . 08 1. 30
Raise empty box__.-------- .17 (?) .17
Raise hydraulic holddown
andremove empty box... 14 . O01 2 15
Position full box on lift_____ . 19 .O1 . 20
Lower hydraulic holddown__ ——. 07 .01 . 08
Hydrofilling:
Raise lift to transfer apples__ . 51 (2) .51
Remove full box and replace
empty box__--___-_-----_.. 24 . 02 . 26
Lower lift into tank________ . 48 (2) . 48
Wait for accumulator to fill__ 1. 88 . 12 2. 00
Stop submerging conveyor
and rotate frame__-_-_- . 31 . 02 . 33

1 Fatigue allowance calculated as 6.3 percent of base
time. Two 10-minute breaks bring total fatigue allowance
up to 10 percent (3).

2 Fatigue allowances not assigned to machine-dependent
times.

and were often idle waiting for work. The waiting
times for the lift trucks given as a percentage of
total time were as follows: 43.6 percent at the
dumper, 49.9 percent at the filler, and 61.0
percent moving empty boxes from dumper to
filler.

The reasons for idle time at the sorting table
were for changing full utility fruit boxes, change-
over of varieties, breakdowns, excess of apples at
fillers, or insufficient flow of apples over the
table.

Study made of the sorting table resulted in the
following distribution of work time and idle time
per hour:

Element Minutes
Wotk. ie. c5 sce coke eesast 43.3
1 Kc | (ae Ae a ere 16. 7

Total_____ eeeeeessecres 60. 0

Uniformity of Pallet Box Fill

A major problem in operating the hydro-
filling component was the determination of the
extent of fill of the accumulators. Much incon-
sistency in pallet box fill resulted. An under-
filled pallet box results in wasted storage space,
whereas an overfilled box can cause serious
damage or spillage.

The fullness of a pallet box was determined
by weight. An empty box was weighed, marked,
and placed in the hydrofiller. After filling the
pallet box was weighed again. Subsequently, the
fruit were leveled in the box and apples added or
removed as necessary, then the final weight was
recorded before transport to storage. The
results of the bin filling tests with Delicious and
McIntosh varieties are given in table 6.

Several methods, based on the buoyancy of
apples, were tried to improve the uniformity of
fill (2). No method was completely satisfactory
because the specific gravity of apples varies
slightly from one variety to another.

Fruit Bruising Studies

The primary interest at the time of fruit harvest
was to immediately determine the possible damage
caused by the hydrohandling system on fresh
picked apples. For this purpose bruise-free apples

14 MARKETING RESEARCH REPORT 948, U.S. DEPT. AGRICULTURE

Taste 6.—Pallet box filling tests with Delicious
and McIntosh apples

Box Quantity of fruit Adjust-

Test capacity! placed in box Fill ment
by hydrofiller necessary
Delicious
Bushels Bushels Percent Pounds
We as eee oe 20. 1 22. 3 111 —93
Oke Se ken ees 21.8 20. 2 93 +68
Seeceeeseeecess 20. 5 18. 7 91 +76
4___ ee 22. 1 22, 2 101 =)
Average._ 21. 1 20. 9 99 nee
McIntosh

West stceen ose 19. 6 13. 9 71 +245
Qos Soe geese 19.8 18.5 93 +56
Qe necie ote ad 19. 7 20. 7 105 —43
Bees oleae ek 19. 6 18. 7 96 +41
5 eae RRR EN RD 20, 2 20. 1 99 +5
On 2 eects eos 19. 7 20. 9 106 —51
hn amees Bete oe 19.3 18. 4 95 +41
Bi ces bebe sadoe 18.8 18. 8 100 0
Sec. ee ere 19. 1 18. 8 98 +11
WO. S222 ne tees 19. 4 18. 0 93 +60
] LEO eae rae an oO 19.7 18. 4 93 +53
D2 2 oes A 19. 1 aby Ga 88 +87
Ws cente scree = 20. 2 16. 9 84 +141
14 a2 eee 19. 7 17. 3 87 +106
Average__ 19. 6 18.3 93 aaa

1 Determined from inside dimensions of each box.

were used in 14 tests; whereas, in another six
tests, bruising was evaluated on the basis of
changes that occurred in commercially handled
samples selected throughout the system.

Methods and procedures

The bruise-free apples were selected in the
orchard, carefully picked, and stored on padded
trays in shipping cartons. They were painted
with fluorescent red spray paint, dried, and im-
mediately employed in an experiment. The apples
were inserted and retrieved within the system
during its use as a commercial operation, then
evaluated for damage after several days of
storage at 32° to 40° F. Bruising was classified
subjectively for each fruit and indexed for numeri-
cal value (table 7).

Sample sizes varied from 30 to 172 apples,
with 50 fruits being most commonly used. Pres-
sure tests were made after the final examination
for bruising with the %,-inch tip of the Magness-
Taylor tester. Apples with skin breaks were
counted without regard to the bruising damage.

Tests conducted without bruise-free apples re-
quired sampling of the apples at the appropriate
points to determine the possible increase in dam-
age due to passage through one or several com-
ponents of the system.

Sixteen tests were made with McIntosh, two
with Jonathan, and two with Delicious apples.

Results

The entire harvesting and hydrohandling opera-
tion for presorting and presizing the apples re-
sulted in bruise index values that never exceeded
2.0, or, in other words, caused more than ‘‘slight’’
damage. No individual component of the sys-
tem caused damage in excess of the ‘‘trace”’
classification employed in these tests.

The amount of skin breaks (4 to 6 percent of
the apples), except for some lots of nonselected
apples, was minor. Flesh firmness values for
McIntosh during these tests were 14.9 to 18.8
pounds.

Jonathan and Delicious apples were relatively
free of bruise damage that could be attributed to
the hydrohandling equipment. Damage by han-
dling through the system for ‘“‘bruise-free’’ apples
slightly exceed the ‘trace’? amount. None of the
apples received moderate or severe damage. Flesh
firmness amounted to 18.7 pounds for Jonathan
and 16.4 pounds for Delicious.

TaBLE 7.—Descriptions and assigned values em-
ployed for apple bruising

Degree of Diameter of a Diameter of an Index
bruising single bruise aggregate of bruises value of
bruising
Inch Inch
INONG eae eee oe Less than 0.5___ 0
Trace______ Less than 0.5___ 0.5-0.75_._____- 1
Slight______ 0:65-0:75. 002. 8 O60 2 bt ox3 2
Medium____ 0.76-1.0________ LAIN 2b 22 2a 3
Severe_____ Greater than Greater than f

1.0: 1.25.

HYDROHANDLING SYSTEM FOR SORTING AND SIZING APPLES 15

EXAMINATION OF STORED FRUIT (1966 CROP)

Apples hydrohandled on a semicommercial basis
in the fall of 1966 were disappointing in fruit
quality, condition, and packout yield when re-
moved from C.A. storage and prepared for market;
therefore, hydrohandled apples were examined
and compared with apples from the same orchard
that had not been sized and sorted before storage.
The apples had not been selected at harvest for
poststorage examination, therefore, truly com-
parable treated and untreated pallet boxes could
not be selected; however, all of the fruit was
labeled for date of harvest and orchard as well as
variety so that pallet boxes representative of
handling procedures could be taken.

Methods and Materials

Apples grown in 1966 were removed from C.A.
storage in March and April 1967. Five pallet boxes
each of hydrohandled and nonhydrohandled
McIntosh and Delicious apples and four pallet
boxes each of Jonathan apples were sampled. A
sampling rack permitted the removal of the apples
from one quadrant of the pallet box without dis-
turbing the other apples. Samples consisted of 25
apples at the top, middle, and bottom of each
pallet box. Each apple was immediately examined
and classified for bruising, skin breaks, decay, and
flesh firmness by the procedures described pre-
viously.

Results

The data expressed as percentages of damaged
and decayed apples and values of bruising index
and flesh firmness are summarized in table 8.
Hydrohandling resulted in a slight increase in the
percentage of McIntosh and Jonathan apples with
moderate and severe bruises and a considerable
increase for Delicious. A similar relationship oc-
curred in the bruising index, which reflects the
overall amount of bruising. Bruising at the top
and bottom of the hydrohandled pallet boxes
always exceeded damage at the middle. This would
be expected at the bottom because of the weight
pressure of the other apples. The great amount of

TaBLE 8.— Condition of hydrohandled and tree-run
apples removed from C.A. storage in March and
April 1967

Variety, treatment,

at Moderate Bruise Skin Fruit Flesh
and position

and severe index! breaks rot firmness

in pallet box bruising
McIntosh
Hydrohandled: Percent Numbers Percent Percent Pounds
Top... -....=- fans 8.8 1.74 16.8 2.4 10.2
Middle___________ 5.6 1.67 16.8 .8 9.9
Bottom______-_-- 19.2 1.98 31.2 1.6 10.5
Average_______- 11.3 1.80 21.6 1.6 10.2
Tree-run:
Tops =2.2.22sc.5 4.0 1.34 11.2 2.4 10.6
Middle________-_-- 8.8 1.60 . 6 0 ats
Bottom________ 15.2 1.96 7.2 1.6 10. 4
Average_______- 93 168 93 13 £4108
Jonathan
Hydrohandled:
TOP... 262435-x 14.4 1.75 9<£.3 3. 12.9
Middle__________- 8.5 6383.4 5.1 2.7
Bottom. <22...2 24. 6 89 8.5 7. 11.6
Average--__-- -_ 15.8 1.76 7.1 5. 4 12.4
Tree-run:
WoOpsts.— 2 ssc 5. 2 78 12.5 1.4 13.0
Middle_.________- 2.5 1.74 5.6 1.4 £13.0
Bottom......2..- 13.8 1.67 7.0 .0O 12.2
Average________ 13.8 1.73 8&4 9 12.7
Delicious
Hydrohandled:
Top_<---..-~<-+- 5.6 1. 34 3. 2 8 12.6
Middle___________ 16 1,24 .8 .8 12.7
Bottom _.....--.- 8.0 146 4.0 48 12.9
Average-__-_---- 5.11385 27 2.1 12. 7
Tree-run:
TOP. .-6ac¢-cf25-% 0 107 24 2.4 11.7
Middle___________ .8 .94 0 8 12.2
Bottom__________ 4.8 114 1.6 16 119
Average-_-_-_--- 1.9 105 413 #16 11.9

1 See table 7.

16 MARKETING RESEARCH REPORT 948, U.S. DEPT. AGRICULTURE

bruising at the top is attributed to the poor
accuracy of fill, which required the addition or
removal of apples to achieve a level fullness of the
pallet boxes.

Skin breaks due to stem punctures and other
mechanical injuries were considerably increased
by hydrohandling for McIntosh and_ slightly
increased for Delicious over tree-run apples.
Jonathan skin breaks were affected only slightly
by hydrohandling, but fruit rots were greatly in-
creased. Hydrohandling, however, increased only
slightly the amount of fruit rots for the other two
varieties.

The firmness values indicate that the treat-
ment lots within each variety were fairly compar-

able in flesh texture and unaffected by hydro-
handling.

Discussion

These observations indicate that fruit damage
was increased by the hydrohandling treatment.
Bruising of Jonathan was greater than for
McIntosh, even though this variety is normally
considered to be firmer and more resistant to
bruising damage than McIntosh. Since many
variables affect bruising and other damage, a
critical evaluation of the effects of the system
can be accomplished only with lots of fruit
selected and treated under controlled conditions
from harvest through storage.

TESTS WITH 1967-CROP APPLES

The excessive damage noted for hydrohandled
apples upon removal from C.A. storage prompted
the decision to omit further semicommercial trials
of the system in 1967. Instead, small-scale experi-
ments were made to determine possible causes of
bruising and other mechanical damage and to
pinpoint the sources of damage. They included
tests of the individual components of the system,
comparisons of apples stored tree-run and after
bhydrohandling, and examinations of settling in
pallet boxes during the storage period.

Component Tests

Methods

Component tests were made with two runs of
five pallet boxes each of McIntosh and a single
run of five pallet boxes of Jonathan. A fourth trial
with Delicious was started, but terminated after
three pallet boxes were tested because of adverse
weather. All fruits were picked in 1967 during the
period of optimum maturity for long-term storage
in nearby orchards (McIntosh, September 22 and
29; Jonathan, October 6; Delicious, October 13).
The apples for each run were selected from a
single orchard block, handled as separate pallet
box lots, and treated within 1 day following har-
vest. The apples of a pallet box were dumped and
passed continuously through the system into the
accumulator, during which time samples of 100
fruits each were taken at random at the dumper
tank, at the sorting table, and after passing

through the sizer. After all apples of a bin had
reached the accumulator, the equipment was
stopped and the apples were removed from one-
quarter of the accumulator using a sampling rack.

One-hundred fruits were taken at random
throughout the quadrant from top to bottom of
the accumulator, the rest were returned to the
accumulator. The filling operation was then com-
pleted by transferring the apples from the accu-
mulator to the pallet box. The fruit in the quad-
rant of the pallet box opposite to that sampled at
the accumulator were removed, and a 100-apple
sample was taken from top to bottom. The apples
of all pallet boxes were sampled in the same
manner.

The apple samples were placed in molded pulp
trays of 25 fruits capacity as they were taken
from the system; four trays were placed in a poly-
ethylene film-lined carton with plastic foam pads
placed between each tray. The filled cartons were
transported by car to East Lansing and stored at
32° F. until examined during November and
December, and again in mid-March, for bruises
and other mechanical damage.

The evaluations for damage were made by one
person in November and December and two per-
sons in March. Each fruit was classified as “‘Tela-
tively free of bruising” or ‘‘bruised.’’ The latter
classification included all apples with moderate to
severe damage according to previously used stand-
ards (6) and were considered unmarketable,
according to U.S. Grade No. 1 standards, because

HYDROHANDLING SYSTEM FOR SORTING AND SIZING APPLES 17

of this damage. In addition, the apples were clas-
sified and counted as sound if free of injury, or
damaged if injured by at least one skin puncture
or break. Rotted fruits were counted and dis-
carded at the first examination, then totaled with
the rots of the second examination. The data
were statistically examined using analyses of vari-
ance for the three runs of five pallet boxes that
were completed.

Results

Fruit damage varied significantly by runs, but
this was primarily a variety effect with McIntosh
of runs 1 and 2 more seriously affected by bruising,
skin breaks, and fruit rots than the Jonathan
apples of run 3. There were significant increases in
damage by bruising and skin breaks—but not by
fruit rots—by the several components of the
system. These are illustrated in figure 11. Large
amounts of damage due to bruising were present
on the apples as they were received and removed
from the pallet boxes at the dumper. When ex-
amined initially in November and December and
again in March, damage amounted to 25.9 percent
and 32.7 percent, respectively. The greater amount]
of bruising seen in March was due to additiona
handling and, possibly, a more critical examina™
tion. In general, the results for components were
similar at both inspections. By Tukey Test of the
data, the bruising damage at the first inspection
was significantly greater at the accumulator and in
the refilled pallet box than at the dumper; at the
second inspection, significant differences occurred
only between the dumper and sorter and between
the dumper and accumulator. Considerable bruis-
ing had occurred before initial sampling at the
dumper due to harvesting, transporting, and
dumping in these tests. The amount of damage
that occurred within the system was relatively
small in comparison to the initial amount. Con-
sistent sequential increases by components as
normally expected were either absent or obscured
by variations between pallet boxes.

Skin breaks in fruit of the second run (McIntosh)
exceeded those of the third (Jonathan) and first
(McIntosh) runs by highly significant amounts.
These apples averaged 14.6 pounds in flesh firm-
ness, whereas the McIntosh of run 1 were 15.8
pounds and the Jonathan of run 3, 18.5 pounds.
Significant differences (at the 5-percent level)

48

NOVEMBER-DECEMBER EXAMINATION
GBM) MARCH EXAMINATION

w
an

24

_—
rR

MODERATE AND SEVERE BRUISING
(PERCENT OF APPLES)

DUMPER

SORTING AFTER
TANK TABLE SIZING

WITHIN WITHIN
ACCUMULATOR BOX

Ficure 11.—Relative total bruising damage to apples
removed from hydrohandling system at various points
and held in cold storage in 1967-68.

occurred only between the dumper (6.2 percent
damaged by skin breaks) and the refilled bin
(9.2-percent damaged).

Fruit rots by March were 4.3 percent for run 1
(McIntosh), 7.4 percent for run 2 (McIntosh),
and 2.0 percent for the Jonathan of run 3. Signifi-
cant differences occurred only between runs 2 and
3. Fruit condition seemed to be a more important
factor affecting rot than damage from skin breaks.

Fruit Handling

Comparisons were made of fruit damage, set-
tling, and decay during long-term C.A. storage for
apples stored tree-run (control), dipped in water
(submerged), and passed through the hydro-
system (hydrohandled). Each handling treatment
was subdivided into treatments with and without
a scald inhibitor and fungicide drench treatment
before storage.

Methods

Five pallet boxes each of McIntosh on Septem-
ber 28, Jonathan on October 5, and Delicious
on October 6 were treated. The bins of each
variety were selected from a single orchard
block. The apples of the submerged handling
treatment were covered with a wire mesh screen
fitted to the top of the pallet box and then sub-
merged with the bin remaining in an upright
position in the water of the filling tanks so as to
permit all apples to become buoyant within the

18 MARKETING RESEARCH REPORT 948, U.S. DEPT. AGRICULTURE

bin. The apples were then removed and drained.
The hydrohandled apples were run through the
entire system without sorting and returned to bins
at the hydrofillers. The controls were not dipped
or handled. Five pallet boxes of each variety and
handling treatment were stored without further
treatment, whereas, another five pallet boxes of
each were passed through the drench system used
at the packing house for application of 1,000
parts per million diphenylamine (DPA) in a
water solution as a storage scald inhibitor. This
solution also contained captan at the rate of
0.66-pound of actual material per 100 gallons of
water as a fungicide. The solutions were exten-
sively used for other apples before being used for
the experimental lots, and therefore, were prob-
ably high in disease organism content. The apples
were stored immediately in commercially operated
C.A. and cold storage rooms.

Damage to the fruit was assessed when the
apples were removed from storage and prepared
for marketing in late March to early April.
Random samples of at least 100 fruits were taken
by each of two persons from the hydrodumper
tank after the apples were floated from the bins
at the beginning of the sorting line, and rated as
“free of bruise damage” or ‘‘bruised,” using the
moderate and severe standards as described pre-
viously. All fruit with decay were removed and
counted.

Results

McIntosh apples were seriously damaged by
bruising as a result of submerging and hydro-
handling (fig. 12), whereas the Jonathan and
Delicious apples were not. Damage to McIntosh
by all of the treatments exceeded the correspond-
ing treatments of the other two varieites by
highly significant amounts. Control (untreated)
McIntosh had approximately 16 percent of the
fruit damaged by bruising; to this, the relatively
careful submerging treatment in the enclosed
pallet box increased the number of damaged
apples by approximately 11 percentage points.
The hydrohandling system caused an increase
of 20 percentage points in bruising over the control
so that over 36 percent were found to be damaged
when the apples were dumped after removal from
storage. The maximum percentage of bruised
apples for Jonathan was 7.5 percent, for Delicious
slightly less than 6 percent. For these varieties,
there were no significant treatment differences.

40

GR ucintosu
V_ JONATHAN

35 DELICIOUS

30

25

20

MODERATE AND SEVERE BRUISING (PERCENT OF APPLES)

HYDROHANDLED

CONTROL SUBMERGED

Fieure 12.—Bruising damage to apples after C.A
storage in relation to prestorage handling treatment and
variety in 1967-68.

Other tree-run and hydrohandled McIntosh
apples, which had been treated and stored on
September 19, were examined in March after C.A.
storage for bruising according to vertical location
within the pallet box. The fruit was removed by
hand from one quadrant of the bin, and 97 to 174
apples examined and classified from the top,
middle, and bottom of the pallet box.

The data (table 9), as was true for that of the
previously described test, showed that hydro-
handling greatly increased bruising. Here there
was less than 10 percent of the apples with medium
or severe bruising in the tree-run pallet boxes,
whereas 22.4 to 28.2 percent of the hydrohandled

HYDROHANDLING SYSTEM FOR SORTING AND SIZING APPLES 19

TaBLE 9.—Brwising of McIntosh apples in various
positions of pallet bor

Position in pallet box,

Treatment apples damaged Box
: - a aRnEaT PaaS = mean !
Top Middle Bottom
Percent Percent Percent
Control (untreated) _- 7.7 8.3 9.5 8.5
Hydrohandled_____ 22. 4 24. 1 29. 7 25. 4
Mean 2 P yg | 16. 2 19. 6

' Box means were different at 1-percent level.
2 Treatment means showed no significant differences.

apples were damaged. Bruising tended to increase
from the top to the bottom of the pallet box,
but not significantly. There was a large amount of
variation in bruising within as well as between
pallet boxes.

The relative amouuts of fruit rot as deter-
mined by count of affected apples per bin are
plotted for varieties and handling treatments in
figure 13. Hydrohandling caused a highly sig-

toa
So

WITHOUT DRENCH
GH Da Pius

CAPTAN DRENCH

Wn
i)

e~'
©

RO
&

ROTTED APPLES (NUMBER PER PALLET BOX)
w
S&

HYDRO -
CONTROL SUBMERGED HANDLED

nificant increase in fruit rot over submerging and
control (fig. 13, left), whereas the submerging and
control treatments were similar. For varieties
(fig. 18, right), McIntosh exceeded the others by
highly significant amounts. Jonathan and De-
licious did not differ in decay. Drenching the
fruit with a DPA and captan solution increased
rotting of apples over those which received no
drench treatment; apparently, the captan was of
inadequate strength to prevent a buildup of
viable disease inoculum in the drench solutions.

Significant interactions occurred for ‘Handling
treatments Drench treatments’? and for
“Variety %< Drench treatments’ (fig. 13). As

previously shown for bruising, the McIntosh
apples were particularly susceptible to rot after
passing through the hydrohandling system.
The packinghouse yields by variety for the
five pallet boxes of each treatment are summa-
rized in table 10. The treatment differences in
bruising and rotting noted above were not re-
flected in these yields. The commercial evaluation
under these circumstances was probably less

JONATHAN DELICIOUS

McINTOSH

Figure 13.—Relative number of apples developing rot during C.A. storage as affected by handling treatment and variety
in 1967-68.

20 MARKETING RESEARCH REPORT 948, U.S. DEPT. AGRICULTURE

critical than the experimental examinations. The
yield of U.S. No. 1 McIntosh was considerably
lower than for Jonathan and Delicious; however,
it was not evident as to whether this was due to a
lack of red coloration, fruit damage and defects, or
other grade factors.

Fruit Settling During Storage

There were indications the previous season that
fruit bruised during storage, probably upon aging
as the flesh softened. To measure this possibility,

TABLE 10.—Packinghouse record of yield from
experimental pallet boxes of apples

Grade of sorted fruit dumped
U.S. No.1 U.S. Utility Cull

Variety and prestorage treatment

McIntosh
Control: Percent Percent Percent
Without drench_____________ 53. 8 44, 6 1.6
DPA + captan drench__-_-_-__- 67.3 31.1 1.6
Submerged:
Without drench________- _-.. 48.7 49. 7 1.6
DPA + captan drench__----- 56. 6 41.9 1.5
Hydrohandled:
Without drench_____________ 5b. 2 43. 1 1%
DPA + captan drench_-___ 50.8 46. 9 2.3
Jonathan
Control:
Without drench_____________ 81.1 16.7 2. 2
DPA + captan drench_______ 82. 2 16. 7 11
Submerged:
Without drench_____________ 84. 1 14.8 11
DPA + captan drench___--_- 85. 6 12. 2 2.2
Hydrohandled:
Without drench_____________ 79. 3 17. 4 3.3
DPA + captan drench_-_---_- 83. 2 15. 6 1,2
Delicious
Control:
Without drench____________- 73. 4 26. 3 we
DPA + captan drench_______ 75.1 24. 4 m5)
Submerged:
Without drench____________- 86. 4 13. 6 .0
DPA + captan drench__-_--__- 70. 2 28. 7 11
Hydrohandled:
Without drench_____________ 75. 0 24, 7 xo
DPA + captan drench__---__ 77.3 21.6 1

all pallet boxes of the above test were measured
for fullness before and after storage. Settling was
determined as the change in height of the fruit as
measured at 20 points located by holes in two
racks laid diagonally across a pallet box from
corner to corner. McIntosh and Jonathan settled
considerably, Delicious only slightly. Hydrohan-
dling resulted in more settling than the other
treatments; submerging caused no more settling
than the control (table 11).

The ‘Variety > Handling” interaction was
significant. Within varieties, hydrohandling had
no effect on McIntosh, but hydrohandling signif-
icantly increased settling over the other two
treatments for both Jonathan and _ Delicious.
Within treatments, McIntosh settling exceeded
Delicious settling for the control and submerged
lots, but not for the hydrohandling treatment.
Drenching did not affect settling.

Considering all varieties together, there was
a highly significant correlation of bruising and
settling, p=0.37; when evaluated separately, a
significant positive correlation (p=0.42) occurred
for Jonathan, but not for the other two varieties.
Rots and settling for all varieties were correlated,
p=0.427**; individually by variety, they were
McIntosh, p=0.36*, Jonathan, p=0.64**, and
Delicious, p= 0.53**. The variety with the greater

* Significant at the 5-percent level.
** Significant at the 1-percent level.

TABLE 11.—Séettling of apples in bins after handling
treatment at harvest and during storage until
spring

Handling treatment

Variety _ Mean !
Control Submerged Hydro-
handled
Centimeters Centimeters Centimeters Centimeters
MelIntosh.__ 2.7 2) 1. 3. 2 2. 7a
Jonathan_-_ 1.6 16 3. 6 2. 3a
Delicious... -.2 ay) 2:/0 =itb

1 Mean values not followed by the same letter are dif-
ferent at the 1-percent level of significance.

HYDROHANDLING SYSTEM FOR SORTING AND SIZING APPLES 21

amount of fruit rot (McIntosh) showed the
least relationship of settling to rotting.

Flesh firmness values (table 12) of the apples
before and after storage possibly explain the
bruising differences noted for varieties. McIntosh
and Jonathan had similar flesh firmness upon
removal from storage and, also, similar settling
values in the bins. Delicious came out of storage
3 pounds firmer in pressure than the other
varieties and had less bin settling. Flesh firmness
at harvest for McIntosh was 3.9 pounds less than
for Jonathan and Delicious. These data suggest
that the Jonathan, because of good firmness at
harvest, nested against one another by slippage
in the hydrohandled bins as they were placed
into storage or shortly thereafter. Most of the
settling reflected this nesting of the fruit, plus some
with small pressure bruises upon subsequent soft-
ening. For McIntosh, we believe that the rela-
tively soft flesh permitted little nesting through
slippage, so that practically all settling resulted
from the development of large pressure bruises
where the fruit contacted each other at one or
two points, rather than at the three or more
points that occur with nesting during the dry
filling of pallet boxes.

Fruit Sizing

Following the operation of the hydrohandling
system on several occasions, the accuracy of the
sizing components (eliminator and sizer) was
checked with samples of fruit that had gone
through the sizer without passing through the

TABLE 12.—Flesh jirmness in pounds for apples at
harvest and upon removal from storage in the
spring

Time of measurement

Variety ——— oe sain
Harvest time After storage
Pounds Pounds
MelIntosh______._------__-- 14. 6 12.5
Jonathan___________-_-___-- 18. 5 12.5
Délicious.....-20cesseseccece 18.8 15.5

chain openings. The results are summarized in
table 13. Accuracy of sizing was determined by
the relative quantities of apples that did and did
not pass through the openings.

Relatively few of the apples employed in these
tests were less than 214 inches in diameter;
consequently, the fruit did not compete or inter-
fere much with each other while passing through
the openings, and a good rate of accuracy was
achieved. At the sizer, however, great quantities
of apples had to pass through the openings
(probably 80 percent of the McIntosh and 95
percent of the Jonathan). This overcrowding
resulted in poor sizing efficiency. The effect of
uniformity in size upon efficiency was demon-
strated by reruns of Jonathan (table 13). When all
apples that should have gone through the elim-
inator chain openings were run alone, only 75 per-
cent passed through the chain. When all apples run
through the 3}-inch sizing chain were less than
3; inches in diameter, approximately the same
amount (73 percent) passed through the openings.
These results bear out the observations of the
previous season that this style of underwater
sizing is inefficient unless a small percentage of the
apples present are small enough to pass through
the openings, as would generally be true at the
eliminator.

TABLE 13.—Sizing accuracy of hydroeliminator and
hydrosizer components as percentage of properly
sized fruits

Component
Variety and test number +
Eliminator ! Sizer?

McIntosh: Percent Percent

OSU Woo ok es ee 100 44

NSU 22 cwdeeneseuctsme tices 100 45
Jonathan:

Test 3__-___-___-_-_---_------ 100 30

Mest 4%. 22 eci one Scekenetoseus 75 73

1 Diameter, 214 inches.

2 Diameter, 314 inches.

3 Test 4 was a rerun of apples that had been similarly
sized at either the eliminator or sizer in test 3.

22 MARKETING RESEARCH REPORT 948, U.S. DEPT. AGRICULTURE

LITERATURE CITED

(1) Barner, R., Kepner, R. A., and Barerr, EF. L.
1955. PRINCIPLES OF FARM MACHINERY. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. 571 pp.
(2) Berepott, P. F.
1968. AN EVALUATION OF A PROTOTYPE APPLE
HYDROHANDLING sysTEM. M.S. Thesis,
Mich. State Univ.
(3) Carmen, H. F., and OupEenstapt, D. L.
1964. THE CHANGING MICHIGAN FRESH APPLE

PACKING INDusTRY. Mich. Agr. Expt.
Sta. Res. Rpt. 23.
(4) DaLRYMPLE, D. G.
1956. MARKETING CONTROLLED ATMOSPHERE

APPLES. Cornell Univ. Agr. Expt. Sta.

AF 1028.
(5) Dewry, D. H., Strout, B. A., MartHews, R. H.,
Bakker-ARKEMA, F. W., and Herrick, JosepnH F.,

JR.

1966. DEVELOPMENT OF A HYDROHANDLING SYS-
TEM FOR SORTING AND SIZING APPLES FOR
STORAGE IN PALLET BOxES. U.S. Dept.

Agr. Market. Res. Rpt. 743, 31 pp., illus.

(6) Marruews, R. W.
1963. A HYDRO-HANDLING SYSTEM FOR PRESORT-
ING AND PRESIZING APPLE FRUITS. M.S,
Thesis, Mich. State Univ.

(7) Nicuots, J. P.
1965. SOME ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS OF SORT-
ING AND SIZING APPLES FOR BULK STORAGE.
M.S. Thesis, Mich. State Univ.

(8) Pruue, I. J.. and Dewey, D. H.
1960. UNLOADING SOFT-FLESHED
BULK BOXES. Mich. Agr.
Quart. Bul. 43(1):132-141.

FRUIT FROM
Expt. Sta.

(9) Strout, B. A., Dewey, D. H., Vis, E. G., and Herrick,
JosepuH F., Jr.
1966. A PROTOTYPE HYDROHANDLING SYSTEM FOR
SORTING AND SIZING APPLES BEFORE STOR-
AGE. U.S. Dept. Agr. Agr. Res. Serv.
ARS 52-14, 12 pp., illus.

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE :1972 O—459-575

=

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
BELTSVILLE, MARYLAND 20705

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

POSTAGE & FEES PAID
United States Department of Agriculture