Coconut Flour: Technology and Cost of Manufacture

R.D. HAGENMAI ER, P.H. QUINITIO, and S.P. CLARK, Food Protein Research and Development Center, Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas 77843
ABSTRACT
Processing operations are described for production of oil and coconut flour from fresh coconuts. The nuts first are made into white desiccated coconuts in drying plants, and then prepressed, flaked, and hexane extracted in a central facility. White coconut flour that is produced contains 25% protein and only 0.5% oil. The process would be commercially feasible in the Philippines if a coconut flour price of $315 per metric ton were assumed. referred to contains only ca. 0.5% oil. Coconut flour with 15-20% oil has sometimes been referred to as low fat flour in the literature (3). In discussions with knowledgeable persons, it has become apparent that coconut flour with 15-20% oil would have somewhat less market potential.

METHODS AND MATERIALS
Most of the coconut samples used were supplied by the Franklin Baker Company of the Philippines (Manila, Philippines), manufacturers of desiccated coconut. The samples were produced in the plant whose operations were described in some detail by Woodroof (8). In normal production, the coconuts are manually shelled and pared, washed with water, shredded, steam blanched, and dried in a conveyor dryer. Besides samples of commercial type desicc a t e d c o c o n u t , Franklin Baker Company supplied desiccated coconut samples prepared without the blanching step. Samples of both blanched and unblanched coconut were dried at each of 2 different temperatures: a) constant air inlet temperature of ca. 85 C; or b) commercial drying conditions, which consist of initial air inlet temperature of 110 C followed by adjustment to ca. 85 C. A sample of presscake also was supplied. This consisted of white unblanched coconut that was dried, then pressed in a commercial Anderson screw expeller to give a presscake with oil content of 17%. In the pressing operation, the press was cooled and the feed rate controlled in order to limit temperature of presscake to 80 C as it was exiting from the expeller. Samples from the Philippines were shipped to Texas A & M University for further processing and analysis, which took place at the Food Protein Research and Development Center of Texas A & M University, and also at test facilities of Crown Iron Works Company (Minneapolis, MN). Presscake was reduced in size by cracking rolls or hammer mill. The presscake particles then were adjusted to ca. 10% moisture and formed into flakes of 0.3 mm thickness with one pair high flaking rolls. The flakes (bulk density of 0.29 gm/cc) were extracted with hexane at 60 C in a Crown Iron Works Company pilot plant extractor with residence time of 15-60 min, which reduced oil content to 0.4-0.7%. The extracted flakes were desolventized in a steam jacketed ribbon conveyor and finally ground with an impact stud mill to give a white flour, of which 85% passed through a No. 80 sieve. The desiccated coconut used for comparative solvent extraction was white and unblanched with a moisture content of 5%. It was not flaked, but ground to a small particle size so that 92% passed through a No. 20 screen. The flaked presscake was as described. The samples were column extracted for 15 rain at 50 C, using 0.9 liters of sample and 4 liters of hexane, with recirculation, except that the first liter collected was not recirculated. In addition, one liter of fresh hexane was poured through the column just before draining and air desolventizing. For time dependence of extraction, the data in Figure 1, 0.2 liters of sample were column extracted with 0.5 liters of 50 C hexane, without recirculation. The column used measured 4.8 cm inside diameter (ID) by 60 cm tall. The b o t t o m was fitted with perforated plate and sealed on funnel connected to tygon tubing. Oil contents are reported on a dry wt basis. Protein solubilities of coconut samples were determined by mixing 5 g hexane extracted meal with 100 g water. The pH was adjusted, and the samples stirred for 1 ?_ .ur, with 439

INTRODUCTION
Coconut flour is the name commonly applied to the food-grade product made from the coconut endosperm by drying to make desiccated coconut, followed by removal of oil by pressing and/or solvent extraction to give coconut meal. The coconut meal is finally milled to give the flour. A bench scale preparation is described by Claudio, et al. (1). In many cases, the brown seed coat, ot testa, is pared off to give white coconut meats before the endosperm is dried. The composition of coconut meal, which includes the brown seed coat or testa, has been reported by Samson, et al., (2) to be 25% protein (Nitrogen x 6.25), 7.7% crude fiber, and 4.7% ash, moisture and oil-free basis, and average values for 3 preparations. Coconut flour has good nutritive value and contains no known substances present at toxic levels, as do some other oilseeds. Miranda, et al., (3) reported corrected rat assay protein efficiency ratio (PER) at 10% diet protein level, true digestibility (TD), and net protein utilization (NPU) values. For coconut flour without testa the values of PER, TD, and NPU were 2.8, 81, and 52 respectively. However, the 2 samples were prepared from different coconut sources by different methods. Butterworth and Fox (4) report TD of 78 and NPU of 46 for meal containing testa which was prepared with maximum processing temperature of 40 C. However, they reported lower nutritive value for samples of meal heated to 90 C or above. Rao, et al., (5) reported TD of 83 and biological value of 70 with h u m a n subjects (children) with coconut meal containing testa. Food preparations containing coconut flour have been developed by the National Institute of Science and Technology (Manila). These foods include noodles, snacks, weaning foods, and some native recipes (6). In addition, coconut flour has been used at the 3-5% level in large scale preparation of the Nutribun, a bread-like product (7). The production of coconut flour is viewed as an alternative to copra manufacture, which results in a protein product, copra meal, that is dirty, unsanitary, scorched, and, in general, unfit for human consumption. Potential world production of coconut flour without testa, at 5% moisture is equal to 40% of world production of coconut oil, which in recent years has been over 2 million metric tons annually. Despite published information concerning nutritive value and food applications, the current commercial production of coconut flour is zero. Commercial production appears to be contingent upon more food applications research, and also on knowledge of costs and technology of production. The purpose of this paper is to present information on cost and technology of production of low fat coconut flour, with the goal of developing coconut flour as a food product. It should be noted that the low fat coconut flour herein

it was assumed that the coconuts processed contain 25% shells. The unblanched samples had protein solubility equal to that previously reported for coconut dried at 40 C (2). If product specifications for coconut flour require high protein solubility. 31% coconut water. except where noted.. b = measure of yellowness =plus. It is a well k n o w n fact that severe pressing can produce oilseed cakes that have dark color and . extracting with solvent. the protein in unblanched samples was 58% soluble.-coco. R E S U L T S A N D DISCUSSION and Properties of White Coconut Flour a Average value Range 21-28 7-11 0.. The relative wts of meats. import duties. The drying step is patterned after desiccated coconut operations. however. With 85 C air inlet temperatures or with commercial drying conditions the results were the same. All prices and costs are on a mid-1974 basis.RDED~ 2. TABLE I Composition FIG..5 5-8 C r u d e p r o t e i n (N x 6 . The proposed plant is assumed to be located in the Philippines because of the quantity of coconuts produced there. _. pressing.0 % © I TRUCKTRANSPORT !l g :3 O3 hi =. Each point represents... with high protein solubility. Coconut flour with high protein solubility could be used for further processing to produce isolates. Equipment manufacturers were contacted to determine suitability.uT WATER~SC. f r o m 0 ( b l a c k ) t o t 0 0 ( w h i t e ) . 2 5 ) (%) C r u d e f i b e r (%) Oil (%) Ash (%) Bulk d e n s i t y (g/cc) b Hunter color values L a b 25 9 O. 3 s a m p l e s .1-0. e a c h a n a l y z e d t w i c e .000 g. b L = Measure" o f w h i t e n e s s . and 44% meats with testa. one observation. Extraction of oil from flaked presscake.. Factors and equipment prices were based on price trends and observed correlation between prices of fresh coconuts and coconut The process as described consists of unit operations welt known in the oilseeds processing industry. Nitrogen content of filtrate was determined by Kjeldahl analysis. The process here proposed consists in combining these operations so as to produce a white. and installation were estimated with factors (9. 1.. capacity. shells.7 4-6 0. for which standard equipment is available. and others. These are the blanching and drying steps.36 90-93 -0.V~TIZEV f ~ COCONUT FLOUR IO 20 40 60 80 tO0 ZOO EXTRACTION TIME (SECI FIG.10). recovering solvent. Flow diagram for proposed process. Phillipines).6 7 aBaSed o n 5% m o i s t u r e c o n t e n t . nutritious coconut flour. then extracted 2 more hours. For oil content determination. Another critical unit operation in the oil recovery plant is the pressing operation.S S 0. Phillipines). costs of shipment. Reported results are the average of at least 2 observations. Local costs in the Philippines were estimated with the help of information from San Miguel Corporation (Manila.33 91 -0.Samples were extracted with fresh hexane at 50 C for time indicated.30-0. blue=minus. 2. The meats with testa are 50% moisture and contain 69% oil on a dry wt basis.440 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN OIL CHEMISTS' SOCIETY DEHUSKED COCONUTS | VOL. oil. Initial oil content was 17°/. Fraction of nitrogen extracted was assumed equal to fraction of protein extracted.o o o I I I I CENTRAL OIL RECOVERY PLANT OIL t I It~:SOt. periodic readjustment of pH with NaOH solutions.. Color measurements were made with a Hunter color difference meter. ground. The normal desiccated coconut process includes 2 heating steps considered critical to product properties. and water are quite variable for different types of coconuts (12). and the extraction step is patterned after prepress solvent extraction of copra. which are those commonly used for manufacture of desiccated coconut. as previously computed (11). it presumably will be necessary to replace the blanching step with some other microbiological kill step. For purposes of estimating production.' The prices of buildings were estimated directly. The protein in blanched samples was 26% soluble at pH 7. The dryers are Proctor and Schwartz. green=minus.5. however. Laboratory analyses followed 1970 Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) methods. Franklin Baker Company (Manila. blanching caused a large decrease in protein solubility. transporting dried coconut. prices. and hopefully make the estimates applicable to processing in other countries as well.. The effect of blanching was determined by comparing samples dried with and without blanching. the values used are average values for Philippine coconuts (13).. Model SCF Conveyor Dryers.5 z (ONE OF FIVE) z © 2. although this never has been demonstrated. However.7 t o -0. ~ ' ' ~ " SHELLS (BURNED FOR FUEL) Y . whereas. samples were extracted 2 hours. drying. flour with high protein solubility may prove to have superior functional properties. then filtered.5 ttl I-O ¢J l -I 1. a = measure of redness=plus. low-fat. Samples were centrifuged 15 rain at 16. preparing flakes.. and milling to a flour. Two possibilities are milder heat treatment or use of chemical bactefiocide. 52 © DRYING PLANT SHELL AND PARE~______~ ] . and energy consumption for the major processing steps of grinding. if possible. which indicated that protein solubility was not reduced when coconut was desiccated commercially. Large taxes recently imposed on coconut processors in the Philippines have been ignored in this analysis in an attempt to free the estimates from local tax laws. In addition.

Clnctudes equipment for conveying.000 109.2 2.0 6.400 21. and oil handling equipment.500m 2) and land Central oil recovery plant Screw prepresses u Screw press for dried parings d Cracking and flaking mills Solvent extractor e Flour mill Oil storage tanks (10 day.000 40. et al. 1975 HAGENMAIER ET AL: COCONUT FLOUR TABLE II Anticipated Plant Capacities in Metric Tons Each Plant Tons/hr Tons/day Drying Plants a Input Coconuts.400 57. and offices. 0.6 3. H o w e v e r e f f i c i e n t e x t r a c t i o n is also n e c e s s a r y for t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f l o w fat flour. 17% oil) Output Oil c White flour (5% moisture.000 260. T h e d a t a suggest t h a t c o m m e r c i a l t y p e screw prepresses b e u s e d t o give p r e s s c a k e w i t h ca. l o w p r o t e i n s o l u b i l i t y .2 3.000 140. TABLE III Estimated Equipment Costs and Energy Consumption Equipment costs (dollars) Drying plants (per plant) Prebreaker and cutting mills Dryers (conveyor) a Boiler 7m tons steam/hr b Miscellaneousc Total equipment Buildings (2. shop.900 2. (3) i n d i c a t e d t h a t c o c o n u t presscake h a d g o o d n u t r i t i v e value. A f t e r e x t r a c t i o n . 10% oil) aAssuming 250 days/year x 22 hr/day. E f f i c i e n t e x t r a c t i o n o f oil is p r i m a r i l y o f i m p o r t a n c e f r o m t h e v i e w p o i n t o f e c o n o m i c s . laboratory.900 10. fTen hopper bottom pressurized bulk trucks.4 2. the effect of protein solubility on food applications has not b e e n d e t e r m i n e d . dIncludes conditioning equipment. 56% at p H 8. without husk Intermediate products Shells White meats (50% moisture) Parings (50% moisture) Output 441 All S Plants Tons/yr 285. if b l a n c h i n g were e l i m i n a t e d a n d pressing were c o n t r o l l e d .000 8. conveyors. T h e s e data indicate good protein solubility when compared to p u b l i s h e d data for s o l u b i l i t y o f c o c o n u t m e a l p r e p a r e d w i t h o u t excess h e a t (2).5.000 Electricity consumption (kw) 35 115 0 50 200 160 420 70 20 50 0 0 75 795 0 aAssuming separate dryers for white meats and parings. was o b s e r v e d t o b e w h i t e a n d have p r o t e i n s o l u b i l i t y o f 9 4 % a t p H 10.000 220.000 57.5% oil) Parings presscake (5% moisture.000 35.000 450. private c o m m u n i c a t i o n .000 230.1 0. T h e w o r k b y M i r a n d a .000 912. However. V e r a s e s t a k u l . elncludes solvent recovery system and meal desolventizer. 1 9 7 3 ) has s h o w n t h a t p r o c e s s i n g can r e d u c e c o c o n u t p r o t e i n s o l u b i l i t y w i t h o u t m a r k e d l y a f f e c t i n g color.000 180. C o m p a r i s o n s were m a d e i n t h e r e s i d u a l off c o n t e n t o f d e s i c c a t e d c o c o n u t a n d f l a k e d presscake.6 4.s output) Boiler (3m tons steam/hr) b Miscellaneous Total Buildings (6000m 2) and land Transportation equipment Trucks f 52. 17% oil. (5% moisture) Extraction plant Input Dried white meats Driee parings Intermediate product Prepressed white meats (5% moisture.400 57.3 8. and 5% from extraction.000 16. oil b e i n g t h e p r i n c i p a l p r o d u c t . T h e r e f o r e .400 8.000 70.0 1.000 382.4.700 42.0 2. bAssuming 300 days/year x 24 hr]day. No e v i d e n c e is available t h a t h i g h p r o t e i n s o l u b i l i t y is s u p e r i o r t o l o w solubility. a n d 4 2 % at p H 6.4 228 57 87 13 71 46 6.000 470.000 71.000 88.0. c o c o n u t f l o u r w i t h h i g h p r o t e i n solubility could be prepared by minimizing processing heat.5 0. Presscake w i t h 17% off c o n t e n t .000 30. Work (S. 20% from pressing of parings.7 191 28 72 143 60 10 Coconut water Dried white meats (5% moisture) Dried parings.000 60. COil from 3 sources: 75% from prepressing white meats.NOVEMBER. p r e p a r e d as described. bThe boiler burns coconut shells for fuel.0 0.000 t 00.900 17.. capacity 28 m 3 (7m tons) each. and electricity for lighting and ventilation.

081 8.000 200. n o t s h o w n . T h e s e d a t a suggested t h a t p r e p r e s s i n g a n d / o r flaking r e s u l t e d in suffic i e n t cell d i s r u p t i o n t o facilitate h e x a n e e x t r a c t i o n o f rem a i n i n g oil. steam 382 b 182 Miscellaneous 669 b 365 Engineering and overhead Subtotal 5. whereas. raised s o m e d o u b t s a b o u t t h e feasibility o f processing without the prepressing operation. T h e slow p e r c o l a t i o n of h e x a n e t h r o u g h t h e roller milled d e s i c c a t e d c o c o n u t .000 90.133.000 60.13/liter) Insurance and property taxes d Miscellaneous Subtotal alncludes cost of transporting dried coconut and fringe benefits.000 106.000 10.000 60. t h e flow t h r o u g h t h e flaked p r e s s c a k e was fast e n o u g h for t h e c o m m e r i c a l t y p e solvent e x t r a c t o r used.000 160.000 13.000 100. T h e flaking roils b e c a m e covered w i t h oil.000 35.633.055.000 984. suggested t h a t c o m p o s i t i o n was s o m e w h a t variable.000 200. Numbers in parentheses indicate number of personnel.270 11.292 560 1. T h e results s h o w n i n F i g u r e 1 i n d i c a t e t h a t o n l y ca. H o w e v e r .037/kw hr) Miscellaneous Insurance and property taxes d Subtotal 700.T h e h e x a n e flow t h r o u g h t h e flaked p r e s s c a k e was 0 . accounts payable (1 month) Labor.01/kg) Hexane losses ($0. desiccated c o c o n u t h a d residual oil o f ca. t h e oil c o n t e n t o f presscake was l o w e r e d t o 0. in early w o r k .000 45.000 1. 2 m i n o f e x t r a c t i o n were r e q u i r e d t o r e d u c e residual oil in presscake flakes t o 1%.332 2. T h e oil p r o d u c e d is a p r e m i u m oil w i t h - .6%.000 Direct Operating labor (70) Supervisors (10) Maintenance (20) Personal services for oil recovery plant a Amount ($) 40. t h e s a m p l e was slurried w i t h h e x a n e f o r 3 0 m i n . h a d residual oil cont e n t o f 0.000 100. at $0.350 1.20/liter) Maintenance supplies c Electricity ($0.28/ton) Transportation to factory b Maintenance supplies Electricity ($0.000 110. T h e f a c t o r s responsible f o r t h i s v a r i a b i l i t y s e e m e d t o b e m a t u r i t y a n d v a r i e t y o f c o c o n u t processed.018/kw hr) Diesel fuel for trucks ($0. c2% of fixed capital.000 23. T h e data in T a b l e I give analysis of c o c o n u t f l o u r witho u t testa. I n c o n t r a s t .000 87. water. TABLE V Annual Operating Expenses (t 974) Personal services for 5 plants a Amount ($) Direct Shelling (1430) Paring (1430) Other operating (300) Supervisors (75) Maintenance (30) Indirect Administrative (35) Technical (20) Purchasing ( 11 ) General (50) Other Coconuts ($35.8%. as described.000 Indirect Administrative (30) Technical (15) Sales and purchasing (30) General (30) Other Flour packaging material ($0.1 liters/rain.084 1. T h e s e a n d o t h e r data.000 175. bAssuming average distance hauled of 30 km.000 10.000 100.910 912 Equipment (fob cost) 325 b 155 b Shipment and import duties Buildings and land 900 450 764 b 547 Equipment installation 382 b 274 Distribution of power.3 m m a n d 0. 10% a f t e r 15 m i n e x t r a c t i o n . and supplies (2 weeks) Inventory and accounts receivable for products (1 month production Subtotal Total capital: fixed capital and working capital aCost of 5 identical plants. a fine p o w d e r was prod u c e d b y successively passing d e s i c c a t e d c o c o n u t t h r o u g h 2 pairs of roller mills. For these reasons t h e p r e p r e s s i n g step was i n c l u d e d in t h e p r o p o s e d process.000 65. This material.000 20. d3% of fixed capital. F o r t h e e x t r a c t i o n o f t h i s finely g r o u n d material.814 900 70 1. p o u r e d o n t o a fine m e s h screen. w h i c h was o n l y 35% o f t h e flow t h r o u g h desiccated c o c o n u t .05 m m .885 Working capital Raw materials. These were averages o f 4 o b s e r v a t i o n s w i t h a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f oil c o n t e n t o f 10% o f t h e r e p o r t e d result.09/km-ton.000 15.311 656 564 1.000 210.75/ton handling costs.000 35.442 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN OIL CHEMISTS' SOCIETY TABLE IV Estimation of Total Invested Capital Drying a plants (drs x 103) Central oil recovery plant (drs x 103) Transportation of dried coconut (drs x 103) 470 80 0 0 0 0 47 597 VOL. utilities. 4 -+ 0.000 700.000 106. plus $0. A t t e m p t s t o flake d e s i c c a t e d c o c o n u t w i t h o u t prepressing r e s u l t e d i n failure. w h e n e x t r a c t e d w i t h h e x a n e . a n d t h e solids w a s h e d w i t h fresh hexane. H o w e v e r . spaced at 0. 52 Fixed Capital Total (drs xlO 3) 3. bCalculated as percentage of equipment cost. a n d also t h e passage o f fines i n t o t h e h e x a n e filtrate.300 2.000 175. t h e oil c o n t e n t o f t h e d e s i c c a t e d c o c o n u t was r e d u c e d t o 10%.

the fiber is sold as one of the components of coconut flour. as such. and. 3. Most evaluations of coconut flour to date have been limited to nutritional analysis.000 102. . Fox. A .900 tons at $275.. A. Butterworth.000 5. and J. 7. This being an equal trade off. 12.H. a n d H. More information is needed now regarding food uses and market value of the coconut flour. Dumada-Ug. 21:59 (1968).R. Of all the economic data presented. that with the highest uncertainty is the market value of the protein product. Processing. 9. MY. Nutr. Philippines.N. albeit at the expense of more difficult sanitary and quality control. I. JAOCS. Miranda. Biology. especially labor. both in quantity and commercial value. L Gonzales. The economic data pertinent to coconut processing are dependent on inflation rates. Mattil. This paper has been devoted to technology and cost of production. the flour price of $315/metric ton is about the m i n i m u m value to permit a reasonable return on investment.802. 8. Mahadeviah. inflation rates undoubtedly will make these numbers obsolete in a short time. Abdon.000 368. for making food Amount ($) Annual revenue Oil (42. which produces coconut flour as a by product.M.. " McGraw-Hill. it was not entered in the cash flow. M. J. J.W. Products. J. and G. the real market value of coconut flour can only be determined after more samples are made and evaluated. Chandrasekhara. Nutr. R. On the other hand. $ 2 5 / m T of h u s k e d c o c o n u t s . A system in which coconuts were dried with smaller drying units positioned nearer the coconut trees would be expected to reduce transportation and drying costs substantiatly. The selling price of coconut flour so calculated was $315/m ton. Hagenmaier.000 17. Furthermore. M.000 15.181. Nutr. 1963.R." Manila. Perry. Annual operating expenses are shown in Table V.900 tons at $60 a) Total r e v e n u e A n n u a l expenses 11. 137ff.. with the income from copra buying the fresh nuts. Connecticut.633. 13.D. 1975 ] . The process costed out consists of a combination of the described unit operations as depicted in Figure 2. Manila.A. Emata. Westport. 10. pp. Philippines. R. are based on typical coconut compositions and assume no losses of material in processing. 1970. shown in Table II. taxes. L. The figures shown in Table III are direct estimates of equipment costs. This compared to the price of $500[m ton calculated from coconut skim milk solids obtained from aqueous processing of coconuts (11). Total invested capital was estimated as shown in Table IV. K. R." The AVI Publishing Co. C. Cater.. Samson. 2 2 : 1 0 3 (1969).M. and annual cash flow in Table VI. Expt. F.G. "7. the coconut oil was the principal product of coconut processing. " C o c o n u t Statistics.H. J. Such a system..F. However. Zuniga. in the prepress solvent extraction process. K.F. However.R. energy consumption. C. However. Cater. Capulso.C. which have not yet been determined. Engel. "'NIST Technical Bulletin No. Coconuts rejected as spoiled were expected to constitute ca. 2. Manalac.4:29 (1974). 52:1 (1975). Khaund.. J. " M o d e r n Cost-Engineering Techniques. New York. Phil. 1969. T. namely white coconut flour. 1970. 214ff.G. to reduce cost of hauling fresh coconuts and to permit utilization of laborers over a wider geographical area. 17:455 (1963). J.C. Woodroof. 19"/0.1 a) Coconut Flour (17. Food Sci. p. The plant capacities.C..G. fob plant.. 3:163 (1965).. is currently under investigation at Texas A & M University. T. The hypothetical arrangement consists of five identical drying plants and one centralized oil recovery plant.435. Gonzales. contribute substantially to overhead costs. C.000 20% grade copra. These are all highly variable and can have important effects on actual return on investment. R.000 175. Phil. it should be noted that this comparison is highly dependent on market value of the protein products.. Mattil. L C . B.M. Philippines. 5. 1% of the total.M.900 tons at $ 315a) Parings meat (2.. 36:725 (1971). 1970. dela Fuente. However. 13. Coconut flour made from food grade copra would be expected to require much lower price to give a comparable return on investment. For the process as analyzed.S. United Coconut Association o f the Philippines.. Santos.. 26-17.. 1970. particularly if the meats were pared to make a white product. calculated as income from oil and protein product minus farm price of coconuts. which was the same rate of return calculated for aqueous processing of coconuts (11). and building costs.H. One of the largest direct costs is transportation of the fresh coconuts to the drying plants.000 2.000 Operating expenses Drying plants (includes coconuts) Oil recovery plant Depreciation (8% sinking fund) Drying plants (10 years) Oil recovery plant (10 years) Trucks (5 years) Total expenses Net return Rate of return (pre-income tax) b aBulk prices. the estimates as presented are sufficiently general to give an indication of the major expenses anticipated for processing in the typical coconut producing country. also calculated for mid-1974. this comparison was somewhat misleading because no income was assumed from sale of the high fiber product obtained by aqueous processing. Popper. NY." National Institute of Science and Technology.000 199." Edited by R. Equipment costs were based on FOB US prices of mid1974. However. S. H. Indian J. A more meaningful comparison of the 2 processes would seem to be value added. and M. Claudio. 1975 H A G E N M A I E R ET AL: COCONUT F L O U R TABLE VI Calculation of Rate of Return 443 out the high free fatty acid content of coconut oil derived from normal copra. 6. It was assumed that spoiled coconuts are dried and sold as copra. bNet return plus total capital. and K. N e w York. and local costs will vary with location. PAG Bu11." McGrawHill B o o k C o m p a n y . [ Received March 14.616.133. Brit.000 1.. The selling price of coconut flour was adjusted to give 20% pre-income tax rate of return. the costs of the drying plants represent 60% of the total fixed capital. United Coconut Association of the Philippines. In both processes the value added was ca. REFERENCES 1. and other local costs. "Chemical Engineer's H a n d b o o k . Indira. 4. " C o c o n u t s : Production. The operation described is a vegetable oil plant. " C o c o n u t : Its Agricultural Perspective in Coconut Production. Manila. with large drying plants. Doraiswamy. p.L.. 11. Rao.NOVEMBER..639. 80. Although this article emphasizes the coconut flour product.A. The drying operations are dispersed for two reasons.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful