| Literature DB >> 35011113 |
Collins Wakholi1, Shona Nabwire1, Juntae Kim1, Jeong Hwan Bae2, Moon Sung Kim3, Insuck Baek3, Byoung-Kwan Cho1,4.
Abstract
To minimize production costs, reduce mistakes, and improve consistency, modern-day slaughterhouses have turned to automated technologies for operations such as cutting, deboning, etc. One of the most vital operations in the slaughterhouse is carcass grading, usually performed manually by grading staff, which creates a bottleneck in terms of production speed and consistency. To speed up the carcass grading process, we developed an online system that uses image analysis and statistical tools to estimate up to 23 key yield parameters. A thorough economic analysis is required to aid slaughterhouses in making informed decisions about the risks and benefits of investing in the system. We therefore conducted an economic analysis of the system using a cost-benefit analysis (the methods considered were net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), and benefit/cost ratio (BCR)) and sensitivity analysis. The benefits considered for analysis include labor cost reduction and gross margin improvement arising from optimizing breeding practices with the use of the data obtained from the system. The cost-benefit analysis of the system resulted in an NPV of approximately 310.9 million Korean Won (KRW), a BCR of 1.72, and an IRR of 22.28%, which means the benefits outweigh the costs in the long term.Entities:
Keywords: automatic grading; cost-benefit analysis; sensitivity analysis; slaughterhouse
Year: 2021 PMID: 35011113 PMCID: PMC8744721 DOI: 10.3390/ani12010007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animals (Basel) ISSN: 2076-2615 Impact factor: 2.752
Figure 1Proposed system: components (a) and setup (b).
Figure 2Schematic of operations from image acquisition to final yield predictions.
A summary of the fixed and variable costs incurred in the project.
| Classification | Specifics | Computation | Total (KRW) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fixed Costs | System cost | Price of procuring system | 79,465,566 |
| System installation | Technical team (2 people) × daily wage (260,121) × 5 days = 2,601,210 | 2,601,210 | |
| Overhead rail modifications | Cost of 10 m of overhead rail (7,030,000) + installation labor costs (1,253,000) = 8,283,000 | 8,283,000 | |
| Cost of space/land occupied by system | Area required by system (17.5 m2) × Average price of land per m2 (196,657) = 3,441,498 | 3,441,498 | |
| Variable Costs | Operational costs | Electrical costs (15,160,339) + Internet costs (270,000) + administrative costs (12,624,009) = 28,054,348 | 28,054,348 per year |
| Maintenance costs 1 | RFID tags replacement (641,200) + Software updates (6,119,700) = 6,760,900 | 6,760,900 per year | |
| Maintenance costs 2 | Repairs for PC and NAS (489,930 + 433,000) + Replacement cameras (6,299,593) = 7,222,523 | 7,222,523 in 4th and 8th years | |
| Total fixed costs incurred at the beginning of the project | 93,791,273 | ||
| Total variable costs incurred every year | 34,815,248 | ||
| Total variable costs incurred in 4th and 8th years | 7,222,523 | ||
Figure 3Trend of average weight of live beef cattle produced in Korea since 2011 (source: KOSIS [44]).
Figure 4A sigmoid curve used for computing the increase in gross margin over the project’s life.
Figure 5Projected beef cattle production costs using the base rate (based on the national improvement target rate) and a new rate based on the utilization of our system.
Summary of the parameters and respective values considered for sensitivity analysis.
| Parameter | Base Value | Values for Sensitivity Analysis |
|---|---|---|
| Discount rate | 4.5% | 2.5–6.5%, intervals of 0.5% |
| Initial investment | 93.8 million KRW | −20–20%, intervals of 10% |
| Number of Employees relieved | 1 employee | 0, 1, 2 |
| % Costs saved due to breeding practice optimization | 0.5% | 0%, 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% 1.0% |
| Avg. carcass throughput | 2385 carcasses/year | 2100–3500, intervals of 350 |
A summary of the CBA of the project.
| Particulars | Details | |
|---|---|---|
| Analysis target: Online image-analysis beef carcass yield estimation system | ||
| Costs | Fixed costs | System price + installation: 82,066,776 KRW |
| Overhead rail adjustment: 8,283,000 KRW | ||
| Land/space cost: 3,441,498 KRW | ||
| Variable costs | Operation costs: 28,054,348 KRW per year | |
| Maintenance costs: Varying amount | ||
| Benefits | Direct | Labor reduction: 67,631,460 KRW per year |
| Indirect | Cost saved due to breeding optimization: Varying | |
| Others | Accessible online database | |
| Food safety improvement | ||
| Worker safety | ||
| Analysis methods | NPV, IRR, BCR | |
| Discount rate | 4.5% | |
| Sensitivity analysis |
Change in discount rate (2.5–6.5%, intervals of 0.5%) | |
|
Initial investment (−20–20%, intervals of 10%) | ||
|
Number of Employees let go (0, 1, 2) | ||
|
Costs saved due to breeding optimizing (0.0%, 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75%, 1%) | ||
|
Avg. carcass throughput (2100 to 3500, intervals of 350) | ||
Project cash flows (in KRW) and CBA results.
| Period | Benefits | Costs | Depreciation Cost | Net Present Benefits | Net Present Cost | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Opening day | 0 | 93,791,273 | 0 | 0 | 93,791,273 | |||
| Year 1 | 42,661,258 | 34,815,248 | 17,088,042 | 40,824,170 | 49,668,220 | |||
| Year 2 | 43,375,820 | 34,815,248 | 15,189,371 | 39,720,538 | 45,790,727 | |||
| Year 3 | 47,323,028 | 34,815,248 | 13,290,699 | 41,469,009 | 42,155,079 | |||
| Year 4 | 65,941,358 | 42,037,771 | 11,392,028 | 55,295,873 | 44,804,164 | |||
| Year 5 | 114,430,653 | 34,815,248 | 9,493,357 | 91,824,997 | 35,555,486 | |||
| Year 6 | 154,742,291 | 34,815,248 | 7,594,685 | 118,825,946 | 32,566,407 | |||
| Year 7 | 166,505,582 | 34,815,248 | 5,696,014 | 122,353,040 | 29,768,828 | |||
| Year 8 | 168,399,562 | 42,037,771 | 3,797,343 | 118,416,067 | 32,230,570 | |||
| Year 9 | 168,319,081 | 34,815,248 | 1,898,671 | 113,262,655 | 24,704,959 | |||
| Total | 971,698,633 | 421,573,553 | 85,440,210 | 741,992,295 | 431,035,714 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||||
Figure 6Plot of the project net cash flow over the project’s life.
Figure 7Sensitivity analysis results for each parameter and how they vary: (a) NPV, (b) BCR, and (c) IRR.