Labor Requirements and Costs for Harvesting Tomatoes. Zhengfei Guan, 1 Feng Wu, and Steven Sargent University of Florida

Similar documents
2015/16 Harvesting Charges for Florida Citrus: Picking, Roadsiding and Hauling

An Overview of the U.S. Bell Pepper Industry. Trina Biswas, Zhengfei Guan, 1 Feng Wu University of Florida

Harvesting Charges for Florida Citrus, 2016/17

Calculating the Costs of Bur Management

AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Oregon State College Uta. A. Schoenfeld, Director Corvallis. Circular of Information No.

Economic Contributions of the Florida Citrus Industry in and for Reduced Production

Harvesting Stonefruit

Tomato Production Guide for Florida: Harvest and Handling 1

McDONALD'S AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY

2016 STATUS SUMMARY VINEYARDS AND WINERIES OF MINNESOTA

Cotton Crop Maturity Determination

QUARTELY MAIZE MARKET ANALYSIS & OUTLOOK BULLETIN 1 OF 2015

July marks another month of continuous low prices

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF WINE AND VINEYARDS IN NAPA COUNTY

Cost of Establishment and Operation Cold-Hardy Grapes in the Thousand Islands Region

Results and Discussion Eastern-type cantaloupe

Figure 1: Quartely milk production and gross value

HARVEST Tuesday, 13 March 2018

Coffee market ends 2016/17 coffee year in deficit for the third consecutive year

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF WINE AND WINE GRAPES ON THE STATE OF TEXAS 2015

Downward correction in coffee market as supply prospects improve

Fair Trade and Free Entry: Can a Disequilibrium Market Serve as a Development Tool? Online Appendix September 2014

THIS REPORT CONTAINS ASSESSMENTS OF COMMODITY AND TRADE ISSUES MADE BY USDA STAFF AND NOT NECESSARILY STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL U.S.

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE FLORIDA CITRUS INDUSTRY IN

The Incidence of Greening and Canker Infection in Florida Citrus Groves from September 2007 through August

Cotton Crop Maturity Determination

Steve Sargent Extension postharvest horticulturist Horticultural Sciences Department University of Florida-IFAS.

GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE

Acreage Forecast

Midwest Cantaloupe Variety Trial in Southwest Indiana 2015

Harvesting Soybean. Soybean Loss. John Nowatzki Extension Agricultural Machine Systems Specialist

POTATOES USA / SNAC-INTERNATIONAL OUT-OF-STORAGE CHIP QUALITY MICHIGAN REGIONAL REPORT

The Economic Impact of Wine and Grapes in Lodi 2009

Post Harvest Handling of Storage Vegetable Crops

The 2006 Economic Impact of Nebraska Wineries and Grape Growers

VineAlert An Economic Impact Analysis

Silage Corn Variety Trial in Central Arizona

UNDERSTANDING CHINA: THE PECAN EXPORT MARKET & TOTAL CONSUMPTION

Citrus Fruits 2014 Summary

Kelli Stokely Masters of Agriculture candidate Department of Horticulture Oregon Wine Research Institute

Evaluation of 15 Specialty Pepper Cultivars In Southwest Michigan

The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois,

Record exports in coffee year 2017/18

Testing Tomato Hybrids for Heat Tolerance at West Tennessee Experiment Station, Jim E. Wyatt and Craig H. Canaday. Interpretative Summary

2012 Organic Broccoli Variety Trial Results

Orange Forecast. By: Taylor Erlbaum Sadamitsu Sakoguchi Ika Widyawardhani

Influence of GA 3 Sizing Sprays on Ruby Seedless

Notes on the Philadelphia Fed s Real-Time Data Set for Macroeconomists (RTDSM) Indexes of Aggregate Weekly Hours. Last Updated: December 22, 2016

FOR PERSONAL USE. Capacity BROWARD COUNTY ELEMENTARY SCIENCE BENCHMARK PLAN ACTIVITY ASSESSMENT OPPORTUNITIES. Grade 3 Quarter 1 Activity 2

California s Farm Labor Market: The Case of Raisin Grapes Philip Martin, UC-Davis and Bert Mason, CSUF May 4, 2008

SELF-POLLINATED HASS SEEDLINGS

Subtropical Fruits. Subtropical Fruits Include

QUARTERLY REVIEW OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THE DAIRY INDUSTRY 1

OF THE VARIOUS DECIDUOUS and

Coffee market ends 2017/18 in surplus

UPPER MIDWEST MARKETING AREA THE BUTTER MARKET AND BEYOND

Double Crop Soybean Production System The Syngenta Story SW Ontario REWARD VS REAL RISK

Florida Citrus Outlook and Production Trends Presented to the International Citrus Beverage Conference September 21, 2016

Pomegranate Production and Consumer Analysis

2003 NEW JERSEY HEIRLOOM TOMATO OBSERVATION TRIAL RESULTS 1

Empacadora DEL Golfo Plant Veracruz, Mexico

MARKET ANALYSIS REPORT NO 1 OF 2015: TABLE GRAPES

Federal Milk Market Administrator U.S. Department of Agriculture. H. Paul Kyburz, Market Administrator

Fruit and Tree Nuts Outlook

CaffèOro SpA. Roberto Cigolini Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering Politecnico di Milano

Uniform Rules Update Final EIR APPENDIX 6 ASSUMPTIONS AND CALCULATIONS USED FOR ESTIMATING TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Results from the 2012 Berry Pricing Survey. Science Bldg., Ithaca, NY 14853

Growing divergence between Arabica and Robusta exports

Chapter 3. Labor Productivity and Comparative Advantage: The Ricardian Model. Pearson Education Limited All rights reserved.

WHAT WE ARE LEARNING TODAY

The Economic Impact of the Craft Brewing Industry in Maine. School of Economics Staff Paper SOE 630- February Andrew Crawley*^ and Sarah Welsh

Record Exports for Coffee Year 2016/17

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF BEER TOURISM IN KENT COUNTY, MICHIGAN

Monthly Economic Letter

Washington Vineyard Acreage Report: 2011

Chapter 3. Labor Productivity and Comparative Advantage: The Ricardian Model

Preview. Introduction (cont.) Introduction. Comparative Advantage and Opportunity Cost (cont.) Comparative Advantage and Opportunity Cost

Preview. Chapter 3. Labor Productivity and Comparative Advantage: The Ricardian Model

western Canadian flaxseed 2003

Buying Filberts On a Sample Basis

Preview. Introduction. Chapter 3. Labor Productivity and Comparative Advantage: The Ricardian Model

National Apple Orchards Census 2007

Fleurieu zone (other)

Determining the Optimum Time to Pick Gwen

Fruit and Tree Nuts Outlook

California s Farm Labor Market: The Case of Raisin Grapes Philip Martin, UC-Davis and Bert Mason, CSUF May 17, 2010

Fruit and Tree Nuts Outlook

An Annual Report by ShipCompliant and Wines & Vines. Direct to consumer. Wine Shipping Report

Specialty Cantaloupe Variety Performance

Coffee market continues downward trend

4.5 CSA Crop Planning

Evaluation of 15 Bell Pepper Cultivars in Southwest Michigan

Irradiation of seeds of Pineapple orange resulted in the generation of a mutant,

ALBERTA CRANE OWNERS ASSOCIATION

Grape Growers of Ontario Developing key measures to critically look at the grape and wine industry

Title: Report, High Tunnel Fresh Market Slicer Tomato Variety Trial 2010

Preview. Introduction. Chapter 3. Labor Productivity and Comparative Advantage: The Ricardian Model

Improving Capacity for Crime Repor3ng: Data Quality and Imputa3on Methods Using State Incident- Based Repor3ng System Data

Report To The Oregon Processed Vegetable Commission

Research - Strawberry Nutrition

Transcription:

Labor Requirements and Costs for ing Tomatoes Zhengfei Guan, 1 Feng Wu, and Steven Sargent University of Florida Introduction Florida accounted for 30% to 40% of all commercially produced fresh-market tomatoes in the United States. Before 2007, Florida ranked first in the production of fresh-market tomatoes. In recent years, its tomato acreage has been trending lower and it has fallen slightly behind California in tomato production. In 2015, Florida produced 950 million lbs of tomatoes on 35,000 acres (USDA, 2016). Florida produces field-grown tomatoes from October through June each year, with the greatest production in April and May and again in November to January. Almost every southern county in the state grows tomatoes. The majority of fresh-market tomatoes in Florida are hand-harvested at the mature-green stage with specific criteria on size, color and defects. The harvest crew needs to be trained and supervised so that immature, over-mature, defective, and decayed tomatoes are left in the field (Sargent et al., 2005). ing tomatoes is labor-intensive and costly. Tomatoes are usually harvested two or three times, and sometimes four times, over the season depending on weather, market, and labor availability. The Florida Tomato Committee estimated that about 33,000 workers are needed to hand pick 31,500 acres of fruit in 2013 (Florida tomato Growers Exchange, 2017). Due to escalating labor costs, harvesting costs are also increasing. In order to examine hand harvest efficiency and calculate the cost of harvesting tomatoes, we conducted a harvest timing study at the end of 2015. This article presents the timing study and the results. ing Operation Tomato harvesting at a commercial farm is usually done by workers hired by the farm or through labor contractors. One harvest crew generally consists of 24 pickers and two dumpers. Each crew covers six rows on either side of the flatbed truck carrying full-size field bins on it. Each picker picks tomatoes on one side of the rows and places them into a plastic bucket which holds 30-35 lbs of tomatoes. After filling the bucket, pickers carry the filled bucket to the truck and pass it to the dumpers (Figure 1). Then the dumper empties the fruits into the bin and gives one plastic coin to pickers for counting. Pickers take the coin and return to the picking place in the row to continue harvesting. The time completing the picking cycle depends on the harvest speed, fruit density, and the distance of the row being picked to the truck. A flatbed truck can transport 22-24 filled bins and each bin holds about 1,000 lbs of fruit. To minimize the walking distance of 1 Contact author: guanz@ufl.edu; 813 419 6590. 1

FE 1026 pickers, the truck is positioned in the field near the crew and moves along with it. Once the field trucks with the pallet bins have been filled, they are transported to the packinghouse. Figure 1. Hand harvesting green tomatoes at a commercial farm Timing Study The timing study was performed for harvesting of the winter-season tomatoes in Southwest Florida. We studiedd the harvest of conventional round tomatoes at the same farm during December 4-23, 2015. The tomato varieties were FL91 and HM1823. Tomatoes are usually planted on different dates, so the first harvest occurred at different times. We were able to observe and record times from the first to the fourth harvests of specific fields during thatt time window. At each harvest, pickers were identified along with the row distance from the truck, and the time was recorded in filling the bucket, walkingg to the truck to have the bucket dumped, and returning to the picking place in the row. We timedd 5-8 picking cycles for each randomly- a chosen picker and calculated the average for each task of the picking cycle. Table 1presents summary of times completing each task for male and female pickers, and table 2 presents times for pickers by distance to the truck. The results show that the time completing one picking cycle increases with the number of times the crop is picked. Pickers used 74, 84,122, and 140 seconds to complete one picking cycle in the four harvests, respectively. There are usually manyy tomatoes for harvest in the first picking, and pickers spent only about 49 seconds to fill one bucket. Tomatoes in the second picking are less dense, and pickers took 58 seconds to fill the bucket. In the later two pickings, tomatoes are 2

usually smaller and fewer, and pickers need longer time to identify tomatoes meeting the harvest criteria. Therefore, the filling time substantially increased, to 97 and 112 seconds for these two harvests. The combined time of delivering tomatoes and returning to the picking place was relatively stable for the first three harvests, about 25 seconds. The time in the last harvest increased to 28 seconds. A possible reason is that pickers realize that time saved in walking does not make a big difference in the entire picking cycle and therefore slow down. We observed that male pickers seemed to take less time than female pickers in the first harvest, and the difference narrows down in the later harvests. Male pickers took 73, 82, 119, and 139 seconds to complete one picking cycle in four harvests, while female pickers needed 78, 87, 133 and 142 seconds. However, given the smaller number of females in the sample, there are not enough observations to test for statistical difference after controlling for distances to the truck. Table 1. Average Time of Completing Each Task for Male and Female Pickers (seconds) 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Observed Fill Walk to Return to Pickers Bucket truck row Total Male 12 46.4 12.5 13.9 72.8 Female 3 58.3 9.8 10.2 78.3 Average 49.1 11.9 13.0 74.0 Male 13 57.2 11.2 13.1 81.6 Female 8 58.8 13.2 14.7 86.7 Average 57.9 12.2 13.9 84.0 Male 10 94.4 11.5 13.3 119.2 Female 3 104.0 13.3 15.6 132.9 Average 96.6 11.9 13.8 122.4 Male 14 111.5 12.3 15.0 138.7 Female 6 111.6 14.2 16.1 141.9 Average 111.5 12.9 15.3 139.7 Pickers closer to the truck spend less time in walking (Table 2). We divide the distance of pickers to the truck into three categories: Close, Middle and Far. The first and second rows beside the truck are defined as Close, the third and fourth rows are the Middle, while the fifth and sixth rows are defined as Far. Pickers at the far rows have to walk longer to carry tomatoes to the truck and thus spend more time. Non-filling times (the sum of walking to truck and returning to the row) in the first harvest were 20, 23, and 30 seconds for pickers at the close, middle, and far rows, respectively. In the subsequent harvests, the time ranges from 22-25, 25-31, 35-36 seconds for pickers at these three categories. 3

Table 2. Average Time (seconds) of Pickers at Different Distance from the Truck Distance Fill Bucket Non-filling Walk to truck Return to row Sub-total Total Close 56.3 11.3 8.5 19.8 76.2 Middle 48.5 11.5 11.8 23.4 71.9 1st Far 46.4 13.6 16.4 30.0 76.4 Close 55.2 10.4 12.1 22.5 77.7 Middle 54.8 11.0 13.9 24.9 79.8 2nd Far 72.3 16.1 19.3 35.3 107.6 Close 96.1 9.7 11.8 21.5 117.6 Middle 97.9 15.0 15.5 30.5 128.5 3rd Far 97.0 16.1 19.2 35.4 132.4 Close 121.1 11.2 13.3 24.5 145.6 Middle 105.8 13.1 16.1 29.2 135.0 4th Far 103.3 16.6 18.2 34.8 138.1 Note that the total is the sum of time of filling bucket and non-filling activities. Cost Pickers are paid a piece rate for each bucket they deliver to the truck. In the first and second harvests, the piece rate pickers received was 60 cents per bucket. Our data suggest that pickers could pick 30-33 buckets per hour, meaning the average hourly earnings during active harvesting were about $18-$20 per hour. More skilled pickers could pick as many as 250-300 buckets in a typical 6-hour workday. In the later two harvests, the piece rate increased to 75 cents per bucket since the harvesting efficiency declines significantly due to the smaller number and size of tomatoes. Pickers harvested 17-20 buckets per hour. In addition, dumpers in the crew were paid at a daily rate of $100, while truck drivers were paid at a rate of $120 per day. For a standard working group with 24 pickers, two dumpers and one driver, in a typical workday they could pick 4,752, 4,320, 2,880, and 2,448 buckets in four harvests and receive a collective total wage of $3,071, $2,812, $2,380, and $2,056, respectively, which are calculated with corresponding piece rates for each harvest. However, not all harvested tomatoes meet grading standards for shipment. In the packing house, cull tomatoes are removed. Assuming a 30% cull rate, to produce 1,500 boxes per acre (25 lbs per box) of marketable tomatoes with 700, 500, 200, and 100 boxes from four harvests, growers have to pay pickers a total of $539, $387, $197 and $100, respectively, based on corresponding piece rates. The total picking cost sums up to $1,223 per acre. In fact, it costs employers more than this amount due to workers waiting time counted as hours worked, which was not included in this study. In addition, the workers in this timing study were hired through labor contractors, which will receive an additional payment on top of the wages paid to workers. 4

References Florida Tomato Growers Exchange, 2017. Tomato 101 Fact Sheet. Available at: https://www.floridatomatoes.org/tomato-101/. Greenhouse, S. 2014. In Florida Tomato Fields, a Penny Buys Progress. New York Times, April 24, 2014. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/business/in-florida-tomato-fieldsa-penny-buys-progress.html?_r=0. Sargent,S. A., J. K. Brecht, and T. Olczyk. 2005. Handling Florida Vegetables Series - Round and Roma Tomato Types. EDIS document SS-VEC-928. Horticultural Sciences Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, IFAS, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ SS-VEC-928. USDA, 2016. Quick Stats. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricutlural Statistics Service, Washington, D.C. 5