Value proposition for Milmeq automated brisket cutter

Transcription

1 final report Project code: Prepared by: A.CIS.0027 Philip Green Greenleaf Enterprises Harry Schulz - MPA Date published: October 2011 PUBLISHED BY Meat and Livestock Australia Limited Locked Bag 991 NORTH SYDNEY NSW 2059 Value proposition for Milmeq automated brisket cutter Meat & Livestock Australia acknowledges the matching funds provided by the Australian Government to support the research and development detailed in this publication. This publication is published by Meat & Livestock Australia Limited ABN (MLA). Care is taken to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this publication. However MLA cannot accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the information or opinions contained in the publication. You should make your own enquiries before making decisions concerning your interests. Reproduction in whole or in part of this publication is prohibited without prior written consent of MLA.

2 2011 Value proposition for Milmeq automated brisket cutter Final Report- MS8 (GENERIC) Draft 1 MLA project code: MLA Project Coordinator: Automation contact: A.CIS.0027 Chris Ruberg Richard McColl (MIA) Philip Green - Greenleaf Enterprises Harry Schulz - MPA 25/10/2011 2

3 Contents Page GLOSSARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION PROJECT OBJECTIVES DELIVERABLE ITEMS DATA COLLECTION & CALCULATIONS DESIGN AND INSTALLATION CONSIDERATIONS CARCASE SIZE LOCATION OF BRISKET CUTTING TOOL DESIGN DAMAGE TO PRIMALS Other yield considerations HYGIENE AND FOOD SAFETY NO DAMAGE TO OFFAL S CBA DRIVERS HYGIENE STAFF SAVINGS Reduced Training and recruitment Reduced OH&S costs EQUIPMENT COSTS VALUE BENEFIT RESULTS PLANT DRIVERS CBA DRIVERS & BENEFIT TYPE CBA FINANCIAL ANALYSIS FIGURES AND TABLES REFERENCES

4 Glossary Term Brisket cut Caudal Cranial Dorsal Enucleate HSCW MAR MIA NPV OAL OTH (Over-thehooks) Ventral Viscera Description Cut through the middle of the sternum bone: A long flat bone, articulating with the cartilages of the first seven ribs and with the clavicle, forming the middle part of the anterior wall of the thorax, and consisting of the corpus, manubrium, and xiphoid process. Also called breastbone. Caudally: toward the posterior end of the body Refers to the direction toward the head of carcass Belonging to or on or near the back or upper surface of an animal Process of removing kidney from outer membrane and fat deposit for inspection Hot Standard Carcase Weight Machinery Automation Robotics Australian robotics company that develops and sells automation equipment to the meat industry The Meat Industry Association of New Zealand (MIA) is a voluntary trade association representing New Zealand meat processors, marketers and exporters. The MIA is an incorporated society which is owned by its members. The MIA represents companies supplying the majority of New Zealand sheep meat exports and all beef exports. Net Present Value Ovine Automation Limited Richard McColl is the manager. NINE New Zealand meat companies formed OAL, a $16.7 million partnership with a government research fund to further automate sheep processing. The Foundation for Research, Science and Technology is investing half the capital of $8.36 million, with the Meat Industry Research Institute of NZ contributing $1.3 million and the rest coming from the nine industry partners. The companies involved in the consortium are the Alliance Group, ANZCO, Auckland Meat Processors, Bernard Matthews, Blue Sky Meats, Crusader Meats, Progressive Meats, Silver Fern Farms and Taylor Preston. The research will be done by Industrial Research Ltd and Miller s Mechanical (NZ) Ltd, both of which have a record in automation of the meat industry. Over-The-Hooks sales are when the transfer of ownership of an animal takes place as a carcase at the slaughter scale. Value is determined based on an agreed price per kilogram of carcase weight and may include bonuses or deductions for fat or quality parameters. Pertaining to the front or anterior of any structure. The ventral surfaces of the carcass include the brisket /abdomen cavity The soft internal organs of the body, especially those contained within the abdominal and thoracic cavities. 4

5 1 Executive Summary MLA s sheep meat processing automation program includes automated brisket cutting solutions that are in commercial use within the Australian processing industry. An alternative system developed by MIA in conjunction with Real Cold Milmeq is now operating commercially in New Zealand. The New Zealand system uses a scissor cutter in contrast to a rotating knife blade in the Australian system. Whether this technology provides any additional or alternative benefits to the Australian solution is of interest to the Australian sheep processing industry. The carcase specification and dressing standards are somewhat different between the two countries. The NZ technology has application to the Australian processors in terms of technical design but does not provide any additional capability or benefit over the existing Australian system. During the site inspection the system operated quite well on small carcases but was not operating satisfactorily on larger carcases. Unacceptable miss splitting of briskets occurred frequently on sheep in the afternoon shift. A newly designed scissor arm has been installed since the visit and has apparently fixed the problem. The fundamental driver for automating brisket cutting in lambs is to reduce labour and eliminate OH&S risks associated with the current manual process. Automating this process does not provide any other significant benefits. Only companies running two shifts should expect return on investment of less than 2.5 years. 2 Introduction A New Zealand engineering company Millers Mechanical (owned by Realcold / Milmeq) in conjunction with the NZ MIA has developed an automated system for brisket cutting of lamb and sheep carcases. A commercial system is installed at an Alliance abattoir (Mataura) in the South Island. MLA s abattoir automation program has been developing independently to MIA with both Australian and New Zealand equipment manufacturers and has utilised rotating knife technology for brisket cutting over scissor/cleaver cutting which is used in the Milmeq technology. The Australian sheep processing industry are interested in whether the scissor system provides any advantages over the rotating knife system. 3 Project Objectives The primary objectives of this project were to: 1) Benchmark the existing manual method used for processing the lamb carcasses in Australia and quantify the value opportunity that exists for automation (Considering benefits realised in NZ); 2) Quantify the differences between NZ and Australian lamb processing and carcase specifications and their impact on application of the NZ technology to Australia; 5

6 Note this report is not intended as a direct comparison between the NZ system and an MAR brisket cutting solution used in a production environment in Australia. Greenleaf have not observed the MAR system except through videos at the time of writing this report. 4 Deliverable items The key deliverables include: 1. A cost benefit analysis model 1.1. The primary tool used to communicate the costs and saving opportunities (labour, OH&S, product value etc.) 2. This final report 2.1. Summarises the findings of the analysis and explains the design and results of the cost benefit model. 3. Presentation File: 3.1. Video/photo s 3.2. The objective of the presentation file is to provide slides that may be helpful to the client in communicating the value of the automation processes to potential customers or interested parties. 5 Data Collection & Calculations Data collection for the Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) analysis occurred at Alliance s Mataura plant in New Zealand South Island. 6 Design and Installation considerations 6.1 Carcase size A range of carcase weights (~17-26kg in Figure 1) including lambs and sheep were processed while inspecting the system. During the morning shift lamb carcases (<22kg s) were cut neatly and as consistently as any manual operation. During the afternoon shift larger carcases (>22kg s including ewes) were processed but the brisket cutter was not cutting through the sternum consistently. Brisket cutting occurred automatically prior to the evisceration system and inconsistent cuts had to be eviscerated manually as in Figure 1 below due to incomplete cutting of the sternum bone. 6

7 Figure 1: Poor brisket cutting pre-evisceration prevented full testing of carcase weight range 6.2 Location of brisket cutting It is common practice in Australian plants to manually cut the brisket after evisceration. Manual cuts are done either with a hydraulic scissor or with a rotating blade as in Figure 2 while the carcase is hanging neck down. Integrating the brisket cutter with other robotic solutions has an impact on where the brisket system must be located. Figure 2: Manually operated brisket cutting methods (brisket shear and rotating knife) Manual evisceration allows the pluck to be lifted up out of the rib cavity but during auto evisceration offal s are pushed down through the chest cavity; the brisket bone has to be cut for this to occur. As the robotic evisceration arm pushes down the cut sternum allows the ribs to open, making room for the arm 7

8 to pass through. Subsequently, installing auto evisceration would require the brisket cutting job to occur before evisceration. The brisket cutting occurs while the carcase is inverted. This is important as the entry point for the cleaver blade into the neck is facilitated by the way the neck opening is presented to the robot in the inverted position. The cleaver cut also enables full separation of the neck and sternum which is required for auto evisceration to operate. If the Milmeq scissor option were used the robot enters from the back while inverted. If a manual brisket cutter or automated saw like the MAR solution were used the cut would be done on the gut side of the chain while inverted. 6.3 Tool design The design of the Milmeq scissor attachment as shown in Figure 3 was the first prototype developed. It operated for the full NZ lamb season and Milmeq claim it achieved an acceptable result for the season until a few months before we inspected it. Scissor cutting bar Scissor action and guiding arm hinge point Guiding arm positions down over brisket Figure 3: Cutter design The NZ development team was well aware of the off-centre cutting on large lambs and were installing a new modified guiding arm after our site visit. The key modifications include a wider gap between the left and right side of the guiding arm and a change in the curvature on the arms. These modifications are intended to better enable the guiding arm to fit over wider briskets on larger carcases to position the cleaver. This was a major lack in capability we observed during our site visit. 8

9 We have not seen the new modifications in operation but MIA report the modified system is now operating effectively on large carcases. Three primary motions were observed in the brisket cutter depicted in Figure 4 including: Insertion of the scissor into the upper carcase cavity entering through the neck. Placing the guiding arm (one either side of the external scissor) down over the breast to position and centre the scissor. Cutting through the breast bone and retracting the cutter. Insertion of Scissor into neck cavity Guiding arms starts to position over breast Guiding arms starts to position over breast Guiding arms stabalise breast as cleaver starts cut Guiding arms stablise breast area of carcase during cut Figure 4: Brisket cutters primary motions Cleaver completes cut and guiding arms retract Note the way the guiding arms lower down on either side of the brisket to position and centre the carcase. On larger carcases the breast is too large for the guiding arm to position correctly and they sit 9

10 on top of the breast rather than down over either side. In these cases there is no stabilising force to stop the carcase twisting at the point where the forelegs attach to the shoulder and the carcase twists during the cut, causing the cleaver to slip off the breast and cut half way across the ribs. 6.4 Damage to primals A consistent automated brisket cut has the potential to increase yield through minimising of off-centre cutting of the sternum bone. However, the inconsistency of cutting in the afternoon shift was far from acceptable. Approximately 25% of the time the cutting bar was off-centre due to the narrower than required guiding arm. When the guiding arm was not able to position over the sternum there was no stabilising force. In these cases the carcase swivelled and the cutting cleaver slipped off the sternum and placed a cut half way between the sternum and the point where the foreleg attaches to the shoulder. Figure 5 shows the difference between a well centred cut on the left and one on the right where the guiding arms were unable to fit down over the brisket to centre correctly. Cut position centred (Left photo); Cut position half way between breast and shoulder (right photo) Cutting line positioned off-centre after the cut in right photo immediately above. When off-centre the cleaver does not cut through the ribs as the rib angle is not perpendicular to the cleaver. Figure 5: Challenges in centring of cut over middle of brisket 10

11 Figure 6: Tolerance from centre line for effective operation of the cutter Note in Figure 6 where effective cutting occurs, the majority of cuts are right on the centre of the breast bone. In some cases the cut is slightly to the left of centre but no more inaccurate than a manual system. The observations from the system in the morning while operating effectively on lambs was that cutting accuracy will be as good as in a manual operation but will not be better than manual operation. Therefore it is unlikely there will be any benefit of yield based on observations (this assumes the major problems observed on large carcases has been overcome and functioning at the same standard as that observed on small carcases) Other yield considerations Although the rotating knife solution has not been observed, it is reported the cut made by the knife closes back up after cutting as compared to the cleaver cut that remains open to some degree as in Figure 6. Less drying out and minimal improvement in shrink loss will occur where the cut surface of meat is covered by the external fat layer. 6.5 Hygiene and food safety During the designing phase of the brisket cutter project the processor members of the OAL consortium made the decision to use cleaver technology over rotating saw. The key reasoning explained to us by Milmeq during the site visit was their focus on preventing carcase contamination. They felt a rotating saw had the risk of flinging material from the cut onto the carcase during cutting and potentially flinging water from the sanitiser via the saw onto the carcase. 6.6 No damage to offal s During manual brisket cutting in some plants the offal s have been removed so there is no risk of damage to offal s. A concern prior to observing the system was the potential to cut offal s (lungs and heart). Milmeq and plant staff mentioned during the site visit that only a few hearts and lungs had been cut during initial prototype development while the robots entry path into the neck cavity was being refined. No damage to offal has occurred since then. They found the inverted carcase position causes offal s to sit in the bottom of the abdominal cavity away from the tool entry and cut position as seen in Figure 7. 11

12 . Figure 7: Carcase inversion causes viscera to move downwards in internal cavity away from brisket cut 7 CBA Drivers 7.1 Hygiene The process of sterilising the robot between each carcase is similar to other robotic installations. There was no perceived difference between the manual or automated processes. 7.2 Staff savings Reduced Training and recruitment The cost of training and recruitment will depend on the staff turnover that a plant experiences for this role, and the challenges associated with filling this role. For some Australian plants savings for this component may be limited, however for other plants facing the challenges of labour shortages or aging employees in these roles the benefits may be higher than the dollar values in Table 1 and Table 2. This recruitment saving does not account for the increasing challenge to find suitable operators who can be trained for this role. Table 1: Recruiting cost per shift 12

13 Table 2: Training cost per shift Reduced OH&S costs Manual brisket cutting is a physical job but given the cutters are on counter weights, the job is not as likely to result in serious back injury as some. Evisceration for example in plants where the viscera trays are offset from the chain involves lifting and twisting of the worker 180 degrees with a full gut. In a lot of plants the benefit to team morale of creating a safe work environment and extending workers useful life in a job through reduced physical strain can be more valuable than the eliminated risk. It is difficult to quantify the cost of OH&S risk from this role. But for the purposes of this CBA the risk of back injury over a 10 year period has been considered half that of evisceration or 40% likelihood. A benefit has been estimated based on eliminating the likelihood of a major back injury over a 10 year period. Table 3: Potential OH&S savings over 10 years 7.3 Equipment costs Replacement of the manually operated system does provide some saving in cost in Table 4 and is offset against the cost of the new system. Estimated equipment capital and operational costs have been provided by the equipment manufacturer and are detailed in Table 5. Given a 15 year life expectancy of the equipment, capital costs (excluding opportunity costs) range from $0.03 to $0.05/hd. The operating costs of the automation equipment are estimated at a further $0.02/hd. This equates to a total operating cost of between $0.05 and $0.07/hd. Table 4: Saving on existing equipment 13

14 Table 5: Expected commercial capital and operational costs of automating lamb brisket cutting 8 Value Benefit Results The following section provides the results of the costs benefit analysis based on the results from the data collection phase. This data is collected from several shifts, and provides broad estimates only. The financial figures provided should be considered against the unique variables for each site specific installation for which the automation technology is being considered. SPECIAL NOTE The precision observed for larger carcases during the NZ site visit was not considered acceptable for Australian requirements. We acknowledge modifications have been made since observing the system but we have not observed those. An assumption has been made that the system is functioning at least as accurately as a manual cutting process and is reflected in the financial figures. 8.1 Plant Drivers For reference the following drivers that are used in the cost benefit analysis are provided in Table 6. Useful working life is used to calculate the cost of capital depreciation of the equipment, and also drives the number of years used for the net present value (NPV) of the investment. For the analysis provided a 14

15 discount rate of 7% is in the NPV calculation. Number of head processed/ day and days of operation are used to calculate the total number of head processed per annum. All drivers are adjustable in the provided excel file. Table 6: Drivers used for estimating the value benefit 8.2 CBA Drivers & Benefit Type Based on results from analysis work in section 6 the following frame work for quantifying the value of automated brisket cutting is presented in Table 7. All figures have been calculated on a per head basis, and then extrapolated by the number of head per year being processed to calculate total expected benefit /year. The technology has the capability to deliver a benefit of up to $0.07/ hd at a cost of $0.02/hd, delivering approximately $0.05/hd of net benefit. Table 7: Cost and Benefit summary 15

16 Table 8 and Figure 8 communicate the type of benefits that the automated brisket cutter is realizing, and its contribution to the total benefit. It is important to note that the value benefit identified is the result of cost reduction as opposed to increased value. This is import because it shows that investment in this automation solution will take longer to pay back compared with automation projects that also create value, usually through yield improvements. Table 8: Contribution of individual value drivers to total benefit 120% $ % 80% e lu a v l ta 60% to f o % 40% 20% $0.07 $0.06 $0.05 $0.04 $0.03 $0.02 $0.01 d h / $ 0% Increased product value Reduced Processor Costs $0.00 Figure 8 Contribution of benefit type, value add vs. cost saving opportunity 16

17 8.3 CBA Financial analysis Based on the results outlined in the previous section the following cost benefit analysis is provided in Table 9. A gross return (including costs saved, and value added) of $0.07/hd is identified as a potential benefit of the automated brisket cutter. Based on the expected commercial value of the equipment of $238,000, and the operating costs estimated by the manufacture, a total annual cost of $0.02/ hd is calculated based on processing 1.8 million head per year. Overall this results in a net benefit of $0.05/hd and a total benefit to the plant of $89,000 per annum. This produces a payback period of 2.68 years, and a Net present value of the investment at $711,000 based on 15 years of operation. Table 9: Financial analysis of cost benefit results 17

18 9 Figures and Tables TABLE 1: RECRUITING COST PER SHIFT TABLE 2: TRAINING COST PER SHIFT TABLE 3: POTENTIAL OH&S SAVINGS OVER 10 YEARS TABLE 4: SAVING ON EXISTING EQUIPMENT TABLE 5: EXPECTED COMMERCIAL CAPITAL AND OPERATIONAL COSTS OF AUTOMATING LAMB BRISKET CUTTING TABLE 6: DRIVERS USED FOR ESTIMATING THE VALUE BENEFIT TABLE 7: COST AND BENEFIT SUMMARY TABLE 8: CONTRIBUTION OF INDIVIDUAL VALUE DRIVERS TO TOTAL BENEFIT TABLE 9: FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF COST BENEFIT RESULTS FIGURE 1: POOR BRISKET CUTTING PRE-EVISCERATION PREVENTED FULL TESTING OF CARCASE WEIGHT RANGE... 7 FIGURE 2: MANUALLY OPERATED BRISKET CUTTING METHODS (BRISKET SHEAR AND ROTATING KNIFE)... 7 FIGURE 3: CUTTER DESIGN... 8 FIGURE 4: BRISKET CUTTERS PRIMARY MOTIONS... 9 FIGURE 5: CHALLENGES IN CENTRING OF CUT OVER MIDDLE OF BRISKET FIGURE 6: TOLERANCE FROM CENTRE LINE FOR EFFECTIVE OPERATION OF THE CUTTER FIGURE 7: CARCASE INVERSION CAUSES VISCERA TO MOVE DOWNWARDS IN INTERNAL CAVITY AWAY FROM BRISKET CUT FIGURE 8 CONTRIBUTION OF BENEFIT TYPE, VALUE ADD VS. COST SAVING OPPORTUNITY References Norton, K. and M. Rafferty (2010). Work, skills and training in the Australian red meat processing sector. Adelaide, Workplace Research Centre, University of Sydney: 45.