IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/uamsmr/313408.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cost Comparison of Five Institutional Food Delivery Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Karitas, James J.

Abstract

In this study, costs are compared for several methods of delivering combined loads of frozen foods and groceries from local warehouses to food service establishments. Five basic systems were studied and costs were developed for a fleet of 12 vehicles with 18-foot truck bodies. Costs were based on delivering 3,900 cases per peak day to 300 customers, with an average order of 13 cases. Frozen foods ranged from 20 to 50 percent of the truckload and groceries and some nonfrozen perishables comprised the remainder. The basic delivery systems were (1) noninsulated, nonrefrigerated trucks with 17.5-cubic foot insulated containers, (2) noninsulated, nonrefrigerated trucks with 50-cubic foot insulated containers, (3) partly insulated, partly refrigerated trucks with fixed bulkhead, (4) fully insulated, 50-percent refrigerated trucks with movable bulkhead, and (5) fully insulated, fully refrigerated trucks with insulating blankets. Several methods were compared based on annual ownership, operating, and labor costs. The findings were as follows: At the 20-percent level of frozen foods, using noninsulated, nonrefrigerated trucks with 50-cubic foot insulated containers resulted in the lowest cost—$22,299 lower than the highest cost method. At the 30-percent level, this method also produced the lowest cost—$26,864 lower than the highest cost method. At the 40-percent level, using partly insulated, partly refrigerated trucks with fixed bulkhead resulted in the lowest cost. At the 40- and 50-percent levels, respective costs were $11,981 and $7,273 lower than the highest cost method. At all levels, using fully insulated, fully refrigerated single-compartment trucks resulted in the highest cost. Differences between the higher cost of movable over fixed bulkheads were $7,328 at the 30-percent, $5,183 at the 40-percent, and $2,472 at the 50-percent levels. Because of this nominal difference and the obvious flexibility of movable bulkheads, an operator may decide to use the movable bulkhead. Regardless of the level of frozen foods, labor costs between the methods only varied about $7,363 annually, whereas ownership and operating costs combined varied about $28,475.

Suggested Citation

  • Karitas, James J., 1978. "Cost Comparison of Five Institutional Food Delivery Systems," Marketing Research Reports 313408, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Transportation and Marketing Program.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:uamsmr:313408
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.313408
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/313408/files/mrr1092.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.313408?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hoke, K.E. & Buxton, F.K., 1989. "Cost Comparisons For Carbon Dioxide And Mechanical Multi-Temperature Refrigeration Systems On Highway Trailers," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 20(1), pages 1-10, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:uamsmr:313408. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/amsgvus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.