ADR First Implementation

So you're sitting there, having just read my blog entries from 3, 19, 22 and 25 August (you have read them, haven't you?) on ADR-First defect control concepts for potato strips. And you are wondering how in the world to implement such a concept cost-effectively. Here come the answers:

It depends on your situation: assuming you have responsibility for any one specific processing line, whether as an engineer, plant manager or corporate executive. Or maybe just "interested person". Your "situation" means:

* Regarding the area in your line between cutting (whether hydro knives or mechanical or both) and blanching, how old/depreciated is your equipment? What are your plans for possible upgrades to your line? What is the timing?

The more depreciated your line in the area of sorters and ADRs between cutting and blanching, the better ADR-First pays back. If you need to rearrange your line, you may need to write off some of your conveyors decking, etc. If these have already been written down, then they don't impact your capital plan.
If you are already planning on upgrading your line in the near future, the incremental cost of ADR-First vs. the standard approach is often surprisingly low. ADR-First is actually a simpler line, so conveyor costs are reduced vs. "the norm". This offsets the incremental capital of increasing your ADR capacity by 150-200%.

* Over the next few years, how much of your product will be in strip (or steak cut) form, rather than wedges or other shapes not conducive to ADR functionality?

The more strips you run, the better ADR-First pays back. If more than 50% of your product is strips, then ADR-First might be for you. If most of your product is not strips, use the sorter-first approach.

* What is the maximum incoming defect level you expect to see in your raw product over the next few years, say during the worst month of storage season?

If your incoming strip defect level stays below 20% through all of storage season, you can achieve typical product quality with the sorter-first approach. If you see 25% for a few weeks, the payback of ADR-First starts to become attractive. If you see 30% or more defect for more than a few days per year, ADR-First will be critical to your profitability.

* What quality targets are you expecting for your products? Are you intending to sell into markets where very high quality is required (e.g., Japan)?

If you sell much product to Japan, ADR-First will help you avoid those discussions with your customers about product quality. Remember, ADR-First quality can be 400% better than sorter-first (sorter first removes 64% of incoming defect, leaving 36% in the line; ADR-First removes 93% of incoming defect, leaving 7% in the line; 36% is 400+% of 7%).

OK, OK... maybe the math is a bit convoluted, but hopefully you get the gist of the message: regarding defect removal, ADR-First is in a class by itself.

* What is the value of your co-product (what you do with potato material rejected from your strip line) relative to strips? Is there not much value difference, or is your price for strips much higher than your co-product?

ADR-First is about achieving the highest defect removal while at the same time maximizing the amount of raw product that becomes finished strips. For this to make any economic sense, there must be an incremental value for the strips, plus sufficient demand to absorb the additional production economically. If your business is really about co-product as opposed to cuts, ADR-First is not for you. ADR-First is for processors who make most of their money with potato strips.

Lots to digest, I know. But let me know what you all think!

I will be on vacation next week, and so will not post for a few days. Look for something here the week of August 25.

Tim

Stumble It!

Bookmark on del.icio.us

Acrylamide Unknowns

Can we get real? Can we deal with facts, and not assumptions/guesses? Can we limit government to act on what is known?

I am referring to the recent news of the settlement in California with potato chip processors, the most thorough report I've seen is : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Financial-Industry/Chip-companies-settle-acrylamide-lawsuit/?c=%2BlZ8zGql8mrs55yGt7mytg%3D%3D .

Another version is:http://myprocessexpo365.packexpo.com/NST-1-50082183/story.aspx?utm_source=myprocessexpo365&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=enewsletter&ocuid=NTQ5MTA5Nw==-SXWzjM76cNA=

Notice in the latter article: "Acrylamide forms naturally when starchy foods are baked or fried. Studies have shown that the chemical, which also has industrial uses, causes cancer in lab animals and nerve damage to workers who are exposed to high levels. The Food and Drug Administration is researching whether acrylamide in food poses a health risk."

Normally, I think of the FDA as a bit paranoid about food safety, taking a "better safe than sorry" approach that I think serves the US well. The quote above seems to indicate otherwise. I mean, what does "causes cancer" and "nerve damage" mean to you?

I would bet that the reason the FDA has not drawn conclusions is related to acrylamide concentration. I wonder how much concentration was needed to induce cancer in lab animals, or nerve damage in humans? Almost certainly, those would require acrylamide concentrations and levels of exposure that far, far exceed what anyone could imagine acquiring through eating current products. Otherwise, the US FDA would raise the red flag immediately, and control its concentration in all foods.

Of course, leave it to California to lead the charge in litigation sans facts. Targeting a 275 ppb level of acryamide... I wonder how that number was determined? Certainly, not based on experimental studies that determine what safe levels are. Surely, they are simply targeted at reduction without any link to resultant food safety. Lower must be better. But what is sufficient? The question is not yet addressed, based on what I have read.

And the economic consequences of this blind litigation are not taken into consideration.

Not good news for the industry, folks. As you may have already ascertained from reading my other blog entries, I am very much in favor of safe food. But "safe" should be defined and measurable before extreme measures are taken. And government should not be used to bully industry into spending its own money in areas that have no defined, broad public benefit.

Tim

Stumble It!

Bookmark on del.icio.us

Potato Price Pressure

Take a look at this recent article on potato (raw) pricing: http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/Publications/Food-Beverage-Nutrition/FoodNavigatorUSA/Financial-Industry/Low-returns-threaten-potato-supplies/?c=%2BlZ8zGql8mqEpTywG1J1sQ%3D%3D

Seems like this represents more than a short-term blip: potato prices are going to go up, they must go up. What with the Midwest flooding and the trend to increase corn production due to the ethanol craze, supplies are down; with grower costs going up, many will change to other crops. No way but these trends will push prices up.

Question is: how will this affect the industry? How will processors, their suppliers and customers respond?

One result that is obvious: processing efficiency, productivity, yield (or whatever else you want to call it), will become more important than ever before. basically, how do you produce more product with less raw? This involves elimination of waste in areas we have not thoroughly addressed before.

How will we reduce material loss via the peeler? Peeling must happen, of course, but exactly how deep steam peeling goes is a significant driver of yield/recovery. How do we minimize it?

How do we reduce the cube stream volume in the cutter deck area? Produce fewer white cuts, for sure. But also produce fewer short pieces by making smarter cutting decisions with ADRs. Pass a few more minors if, by cutting them out, we create more short pieces. Especially when retaining them in the pass stream will not take us out of grade.

How do we reduce product breakage that creates more short pieces that ultimately get removed?

Lots of people are looking at these and other issues now, and I expect they will do so increasingly going forward. You can find some ideas in my posts below. But make no mistake the health and success of our industry depends on our finding real improvements in yield.

Tim

Stumble It!

Bookmark on del.icio.us