Seed Grain Deterioration

A rural electrician had installed some new equipment in a large farm. The installation required the interruption of the power supplied to sections of a building used primarily for seed grain storage. Power was returned to the building late on a Friday afternoon but several large motors drew sufficient current that they were equipped with special manual starters that were unknown to, and hence not activated, by the contractors workers.

In subsequent days and weeks the seed grains failed to make a number one rating in classification tests. The farm management sought substantial financial compensation from the electrical contractor for their failure to re-start the equipment, which the management ascribed as the primary cause of the grains mediocre rating.

Examination of the facts revealed that the equipment, which was not restarted until the Monday after the power interruption, was to prevent grain spoilage that had not occurred. Further investigation together with examination of weather records and field moisture measurements indicated that the grain crop had been harvested too soon and was very wet when taken off the fields. Textbooks on agricultural sciences explained the inverse relationship between seed grain longevity and moisture content of the seeds. A mathematical model was constructed from the numbers published in the textbooks that established the relationship between grain moisture content and probable storage life. When the moisture content values, as recorded at the time of harvest were all entered into the model it was demonstrated that the bulk of the harvest was so wet that it deteriorated below primary status days before the electricians arrived on the scene.

In reviewing the case with several local farmers we were told that there was no need for either a computer or mathematical model our problem was "common knowledge"


Plastic Food Trays

A food producer sustained some large costs and had their integrity questioned when a series of "pieces of glass" were found in their products. In response to the first complaints a "no glass in the plant" policy was instituted at the production facility. Shortly after implementation of the new policy a further complaint from an individual was received and was amicably settled monetarily. A third incident involved numerous complaints and prompted the product's distributor to initiate a product re-call and a cessation of purchasing and distribution. In addition to possible customer loss the foodstuff producers were faced with heavy transport, storage, damage and disposal costs.

Examination of the "glass" found in the foodstuff indicated that the foreign material was plastic. The food trays in which the goods were shipped were manufactured from a plastic approved for food usage. The plastic had the required flexibility and did not stick to the foods at room temperature. The goods however were shipped and stored in a frozen state and at freezing temperatures the plastic turned into a brittle glass like material, which stuck tenaciously to the product. When the frozen foods were pulled from the trays in a factory test run, virtually every piece tested broke the trays and in ten percent of the tests, small fragments of broken plastic tray stuck to the foods.