1 University of Michigan, NBIA, Ohio University and Southern Technology Council, Business Incubation Works. Athens, Ohio: National Business Incubation Association, 1997 2 Linda Knopp, 2006 State of the Business Incubation Industry. Athens, Ohio: National Business Incubation Association, 2007. Spouse wholly own an unincorporated business as com-munity property under the community property laws of a state, foreign country, or U.S. Possession, you can treat the business either as a sole proprietorship or a partner-ship. States with community property laws include Ari-zona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico. PDF “International Cases on Innovation, Knowledge and Technology Transfer” is monograph edited by Dariusz M. Trzmielak and David V. Business Incubation Industry study since it is. Advocates global business incubation with over 2,000 members from more than 60 countries, InBIA is one of the most important bodies with 30 years of legacy for practitioners regarding business incubation 5. InBIA provides the definition for business incubators as follows: “business incubators nurture the. Business Incubation A selective, comprehensive service offering that aims to accelerate the growth of early-stage SMEs 3 www.infodev.org Help with non-core business activities saves time and money Leveraging the credibility of the incubator & the portfolio of entrepreneurs to overcome financing gaps Learning, exchange of ideas.
Adelowo Caleb M. , Olaopa R. O. , Siyanbola W. O.
National Centre for Technology Management (Federal Ministry of Science and Technology) PMB 012, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria
Correspondence to: Adelowo Caleb M. , National Centre for Technology Management (Federal Ministry of Science and Technology) PMB 012, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria.| Email: |
Copyright © 2012 Scientific & Academic Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
SMEs form sizeable proportion of enterprises of most developed and rapidly developing countries because of their contribution to GDP, employment and socio-economic development. Given their limitations of size and resources, SMEs need special attention and assistance to survive and compete in the global market place. Technology Business Incubation (TBI) therefore becomes a constructive intervention process to establish a positive environment that can nurture technology-based SMEs for sustainable development. The success of TBI depends on how the incubators are designed and managed. This paper discusses some of the challenges facing TBIs in Nigeria followed by requisite policy measures to resolving them.
Keywords: TBIs, SMEs, Nigeria, incubatees, Programmes
Cite this paper: Adelowo Caleb M. , Olaopa R. O. , Siyanbola W. O. , 'Technology Business Incubation as Strategy for SME Development: How Far, How Well in Nigeria?', Science and Technology, Vol. 2 No. 6, 2012, pp. 172-181. doi: 10.5923/j.scit.20120206.06.
Article Outline
- 1. Introduction
- 1.1. What then is Technology Business Incubations (TBIs)?
- 1.2. Incubation Process
- 2. Best Practices around the World
- 2.1. The United States
- 2.2. China
- 2.3. Israel’s Technology Incubator Programme
- 2.4. Nigerian Case
- 3. Making TBIs work in Nigeria
- 4. Policy Options for Enhancing and Strengthening Technology Incubation in Nigeria
- 5. Conclusions
- Appendix I
1. Introduction
- Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) constitute a significant part of most economies and make valuable contributions to its growth through innovation and competition[1,2,3,4,5]. They are major, indeed disproportionate, employers of labour and deployers of capital. They do, however, suffer size related disadvantages in access to finance, especially long-term finance and in management, SMEs have only limited management time available for extramural activities. They cannot benefit from scale economies both from the output and input side. Small size is an important constraint for process and product innovations, which are the core of recent competitiveness[2]. Moreover, difficulties in gaining access to tangible and intangible resources, limited access to scientific knowledge, poor management skills, and lack of know-how hamper survival rates among (high tech) new ventures [6,7,8,9,10,11]. These drawbacks that are common to entrepreneurs and new ventures in most developed countries are exacerbated in developing countries due to additional impeding factors, such as lack of human capital, high macroeconomic volatility, and poor functioning formal institutions. Compensation for these disadvantages could level the playing field and enhance the commercial effectiveness of small enterprises. Many of them could also benefit from closer contact with relevant university departments and research institutions. Support programmes range from technical assistance to tax incentives, from direct supply of capital to regulatory provisions, training support to innovation and other types of incentives are important contribution to the survival of small firms in this keenly competitive and knowledge-based economy. Two of the mechanisms employed to nurture and provides these services to small firms for more than two decades are ‘business incubation’ and/or ‘technology parks’. Incubators provide an attractive framework to practitioners in dealing with the difficulties in the process of entrepreneurship summarized above. They can be considered as a remedy for the disadvantages that small and new firms encounter by providing numerous business support services and they are useful in fostering technological innovation and industrial renewal (6,7,12,13). They can be viewed as a mechanism (i) to support regional development through job creation[14,15,16,17], (ii) for new high tech venture creation, technological entrepreneurship, commercialization, and transfer of technology[15,18,19,20], (iii) an initiative to deal with market failures relating to knowledge and other inputs of innovative process[21]. Studies have shown that one third of new firms do not survive the third year and about 60 per cent do not survive the seventh year[22]. This number considerably falls to 15–20 per cent among incubator tenants[23,24,25,26]. For these reasons many countries have increasingly been engaged in establishing incubators.In general terms, tenant firms of technology incubators are start-ups or spin-off firms, which are established specifically to exploit technologies that are develop in the nearby tertiary institutions/research institutes or private laboratories. The proximity of the incubators to the knowledge sources enables the firms to have adequate interactions required to sustain the exploitation of the emerging technologies.
1.1. What then is Technology Business Incubations (TBIs)?
- There are several definitions and approaches to business and technology incubation. Conceptually ‘incubation’ is a more diligent and planned process than clustering or `co-location’ and therefore needs careful attention to the problems of prospective occupants, extending well beyond providing infrastructure and office services (27,41). According to the National Business Incubators Association (NBIA), “Business Incubation catalyses the process of starting and growing companies, providing entrepreneurs with the expertise, networks and tools they need to make their ventures successful. Incubation programmes diversify economies, commercialise technologies, create jobs and create wealth”. The technology incubators generally focus on nurturing technology intensive enterprises and knowledge-based ventures. The technology incubation system (TIs) is variously represented by entities such as Technopolis, Science Parks, Research Parks, Technology Parks, Technology and/or Business Incubators. These entities operate as separate organisations but are mostly integrated with other players in the innovation system. The terms Science Parks, Research Parks and Technology Parks as well as Technology Incubators (TIs), Technology Innovation Centres (TICs) and Technology Business Incubators (TBIs) are used interchangeably in many countries depending on the level and type of interaction between R&D community, venture funding and industry. In this paper the term business incubator will be taken to mean a controlled environment-physical or virtual- that cares, and helps new ventures at an early stage until they are able to be self-sustained through traditional means while TI will apply generically to all the organizational forms for promoting technology-oriented SMEs respectively. The attributes of various constituents of TIs are indicated (see Table 1 of the appendix).The organizational format of TIs also varies and could generally be categorized as public or not-for-profit incubators, private incubators, academic-related incubators and public/private incubators which are referred to as hybrid in most literatures (see table II).Also, TIs may thus have a wide range of goals and objectives giving rise to different forms of incubators specializing in accessing diverse resources as depicted in Figure 1(see Appendix).
1.2. Incubation Process
- The incubation process involves a number of stakeholders and operates in terms of a simple input-output model. The “inputs’’ mainly consist of the inputs made by stakeholders (e.g. provision of finance), management resources, and projects put forward by entrepreneurs; the middle process is known as the “Reactors’’ where various inputs are brought together in the business incubation process through the provision of incubator space and other services to companies while the “outputs’’ is the last process where successful companies graduate with positive job and wealth creation impacts on local economies (see figure II of the appendix). Incubation process, if properly followed, could lead to many benefits. In theory, TIs stimulate the innovation process by linking technology development to market demands, while providing capital for innovation, particularly in start-up enterprises that are deemed too risky for many investors[28,7]. They foster effective interactions among the elements of the National System of Innovation (NSI) and facilitate the commercialisation of research results as well as the acquisition and use of state-of-the-art technologies. Not only this, TIs promote the exploitation of domestic resources which equally lead to the improvement of international competitiveness of national industry. In summary, the benefits of TIs to respective stakeholders are synoptically presented figure III of the appendix.
2. Best Practices around the World
2.1. The United States
- In the year 2000, according to NBIA there were about 900 incubators of all types and models in the United States (Peters et al, 2004) (and as at 2009, it has increased to about 7,500 with almost half in Asian countries[29]). American incubators have had a lot of impacts on their economy over the past fifty (50) years. As per the NBIA estimates, since 1980 the North American incubators have generated 500,000 jobs and every 50 jobs created by an incubator has generated another 25 jobs in the community. Incubator graduates create jobs, revitalise neighbourhoods and commercialise new technologies, which strengthen local, regional and even national economies. The survival rates of the U.S. incubators graduates are in the average of 87% and it have also brought down the start-up cost by nearly 40-50 per cent. Similarly, OECD countries have also reported high survival rate ranging from 80-85 per cent as against 30-35% survival rates of non-incubators start-up firms[30]. Specifically the ‘Silicon Valley-Innovation machine’ has generated 7,000 electronics & software companies; 300,000 top scientists (1/3 born abroad) and many new firms and new millionaires are made almost every month. What makes Silicon Valley work is that there is critical mass of scientists, Technical infrastructure, venture Capital, Risk-taking culture, competition, ethnically diverse and world-class research universities[25]. These resources are very critical for the survival of incubator and the incubatees.
2.2. China
- According to Korean Business Incubation Association (KOBIA) there are over 1,500 incubators in some of the countries of the Asia Pacific region as at 2003 (Table 3). Japan has established nearly 200 incubators, the Republic of Korea has around 330 incubators and China is leading in the region with a figure of 460 while the number has increased to over 1,050 in 2009. India has also established more than 30 S&T entrepreneurs’ parks (STEPs) and TBIs apart from 35 software parks. Hong Kong, China, Singapore, Taiwan Province of China and Malaysia have also invested in technology incubators and parks with the major focus on ICT and biotechnology. In addition, countries such as Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand have also established few technology incubators and other developing countries in the Asia Pacific region have also shown keen interest in the TI programmes. Nearly 80% of the incubators in the region are TIs (see Table 3 in the appendix).The incubators in most of the developing countries are in the early stage of development and the majority of them are supported by the Federal and/or local governments. Some support has also been extended by multilateral and bilateral donor organisations. In some countries such as China, Malaysia, Republic of Korea and Singapore a few high-tech companies have now started investing in incubator programs to foster their R&D activities[31]. The details of incubator graduates (firms) in selected Asian countries are shown in Table 4 (appendix).China has been one of the early protagonists of TBIs. The technology incubation policies and programmes in China basically evolved from the `Torch’ programme initiated in 1988 by the State Council and is implemented by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST). The Torch programme is truly all-embracing. The core mission of the Torch Program is to give scope to the advantages and potentials of China’s scientific and technological forces and accelerate commercialization of high and new technology achievements, industrialization of high and new technology products and internationalization of the high and new technology industry with market as the orientation[32]. The focus of the Torch Program is to create an environment favourable for the development of high and new technology industry, which include such initiatives as formulation of related policies, laws and regulations, establishment of a suitable management and operation system for high-tech industry, exploration of new financing channels including venture capital investment mechanism, developing domestic and foreign information sources, building information networks and formulate long and mid-term development plans as well as implementation plans consistent with objective reality.The programme administration, in consultation with the MOST and other ministries formulate the policies, laws and regulations for the development of high-tech industries, establishes operational mechanisms for the development of high-tech industries, promotes financing sources and venture capital mechanisms, creates information and business networks and also prepares the medium and long term implementation plans. The national government is also supporting high-tech enterprises involved in the implementation of Torch Programme through preferential policies[33]. The Torch programme also implements specific projects for the development and commercialization of new technologies in specialized fields. Most of the high-tech incubators have been established by the administrations for Science and Technology Industrial Parks (STIPs) coordinated and administered by the Torch programme office. Priority areas include new materials, environmental technologies, biotechnology, and aerospace and information technology. Tenant companies are mostly spin offs from universities, R&D institutions, state owned enterprises but ownership typically remains with the parent institution. The Chinese SME Promotion Law has also been a positive development that has enabled the growth of SMEs in China.There are now other incubator types and forms being set up in China with the support from various sources such as government, universities, self-financing and also through public-private partnership. China has been proactive in formulating specific fiscal policies and incentives to encourage both the incubators and their tenants such as providing tax exemption, reduction of income tax, low rentals to attract talented entrepreneurs and start-up companies and also to facilitate international cooperation and financing mechanisms. Besides the national, local governments have also formulated policies and enacted laws for encouraging technological innovation, commercialization of R&D results and promotion of technology intensive SMEs which tacitly support the development of technology business incubation in China[34]. As a result, China is only next to USA in the number of operational TIs. This is the result of strong government back-up, proactive policies, programmes and extensive networking. In China the emphasis is increasingly on the development of technology based SMEs through TIs. At present China’s technology incubators are in a transitional phase from government-owned, non-profit institutions to mixed non-profit and profit ownership. In China, the first TBI formed in 1987 was modelled after best practices used in developed countries and adapted to specifically suit China’s unique business conditions. The objectives are to:i. offer hi-tech start-ups with optimal incubation servicesii. offer an environment for market exploitation and international cooperationiii. training founders of companies to become mature entrepreneursiv. form part of major measures to help develop China’s hi-tech industryChina’s TBIs strengths are as a result of: • Strong government investment (over $2billion) has enabled rapid expansion to 1,600 incubators • Introduction of International Business Incubators (1997) in China, and abroad in UK, USA, Russia, Singapore• Promoting cultural changes from ‘socialist’ to ‘market’• Now becoming vast Real Estate & virtual opportunities• The national development strategy- ‘Torch programme initiative’• Critical mass of scientist and technical infrastructure.The result of the effort of government of People’s Republic of China to develop a virile incubator through the Torch programme generated the result in table 5 of the appendix;In 2008, China earmarked US$3 billion for incubation development to:• Encourage entrepreneurship to bring out the unprecedented tide of technology innovation;• Perfect technology incubation system comparatively;• Become the new beginning, hot spot, brilliant spot for the implementation of indigenous innovation and the development of local economy;The Impacts of this action was that export earnings rose to US$1.5 billion; tenants applied for 17,225 patents over five years; more incubation expertise already being exported (at the invitation of UNDP, UNESCAP and UNESCO); over 200 incubation managers trained; good infrastructure (real estate, information network and venture capital).
2.3. Israel’s Technology Incubator Programme
- Nationwide technology incubator programme was launched in 1991 to utilize the S&T potential of immigrants from the Soviet Union. This was a well-conceived idea to generate employment for the Israelis who returned home after the war and paved way for the development of the economy. Over the years, there have been over 26 technology incubators in Israel which support fledgling entrepreneurs and opportunity to develop the innovative technological ideas and set up new businesses in order to commercialize them. The incubation, having taken the advantage of the infrastructure, venture funds, critical mass of scientists and skilful managers, has generated more than 250 technological projects which were carried out in the i incubators and as at the end of 2006, over 1000 projects had matured and left the incubators while over 51% of the graduates are still in business and have 1,400 employees. The total private investment obtained by the tenant companies is more than 1.5 Billion Dollars of which technology incubators have become massive repositories of potential ideas for new high-tech ventures in the future.The general characteristics peculiar to TBIs in Israel are that: • Tenant firms of Technology Incubators are start-ups or spin-off firms, which are established specifically to Exploit Technologies that are developed most often in the nearby Tertiary Institutions, Research Institutes or Private Laboratories; and• The proximity of the incubators to the knowledge sources enables the firms to have adequate interactions required to sustain the exploitation of the emerging technologies. The success factors include proper selection and monitoring; access to capital; on-site business expertise and milestones with clear policies and procedures particularly the necessary Infrastructure[35].
2.4. Nigerian Case
- The concept of Technology Incubation was introduced to the Nigerian Government by UNDP & UNFSTD in 1988. The Federal Government then commissioned a consortium of 3 firms to advise on the desirability and implementation modality (those 3 firms are NISER, OAU and a private consulting outfit). Eventually, the first TBI in Nigeria was established in Agege in 1993, followed by the ones in Kano and Aba in 1994 and 1996, respectively[36, 38,39]. The choice of these 3 cities was informed by the fact that they are industrial nerve centres in the regions where they are located. These centres were established by the Federal Government to be managed by the Federal Ministry of Science and Technology (FMST) and since then, 12 additional centres have been established across the country. As at 2009, the figure has increased to 25 centres. The objectives of TBIs in Nigeria are;• To boost the industrial base of the country through commercialisation of R&D results, upgrade and enhance the application of indigenous technologies;• To nurture the start-up and growth of new innovative business engaged in value-added and low, medium and high-technology-related activities over a period of time; and• To promote functional linkage between Research and Industry.Adegbite, 2002 summarized the benefits of TBIs in Nigeria as follow; Promotion of indigenous industrial development; Innovation and commercialisation of R&D results from Research institutes and knowledge centres; Economic diversification through the development of SMEs in manufacturing and services; Linkage of SMEs with big businesses by acting as local suppliers thus reducing dependence on imports; and Job creation by new SMEs to reduce unemployment.With these objectives and expected benefits in mind, the country has not gained much from the operation of incubation for a period of seventeen years (1993-2010) as the meagre achievement of the programme is as shown in the table 6; While China and Israel are making significant progress in their respective incubation programmes, Nigeria seems not to be faring well both in terms of impact and growth in incubation. One of the key objectives is to commercialise R&D results while only 7% of the products emanating from our incubation centres (of the 17centres surveyed) can be traced to the research system. It is apparent that there is no proper focus on the objectives and administration of the incubation centres. Also, from policy perspective, China introduced Torch program to speed-up the development of SMEs through their incubation system and this is a good model that Nigeria can emulate.
3. Making TBIs work in Nigeria
- It has been argued by scholars that the primary goal of TBIs in developing countries is to facilitate economic development by improving the entrepreneurial and technological base through supporting technology-oriented SMEs[36,37,38]. Consequently the TBIs present specific features and challenges, which are largely influenced by the local societal, cultural, economic and financial environments. The assessment methodologies of TBIs also tend to differ considerably from the developed economies as the priorities and goals are different. The existing approach for evaluating the performance of TBIs in developed countries essentially focuses on survival rate and jobs created. They also inculcate the entrepreneurship culture in others and bring about wider technological, social and attitudinal changes in the society, which create a multiplier effect[36]. The learning process associated with the incubation process itself is a valuable intangible national asset in strengthening the National Innovation System. Most TBIs programmes however give priority to the material dimension or the physical infrastructure whereas the emphasis should be on value added services. Much still needs to be done in improving the overall performance of TBIs especially in developing countries towards risk minimization, enhancing the operational capabilities and business support services. The broader objectives of incubation must address local and regional economic development; encourageentrepreneurship and employment generation achieved through promotion of innovation in both traditional sectors and emerging fields such as Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and Biotechnology. The survival and success rates could be improved by adopting best practices and strengthening public-private partnership. In this context, strengthening strategic partnership and networking would enhance the capabilities of TIs in rendering quality services to the venture enterprises during the incubation as well as after incubation.
4. Policy Options for Enhancing and Strengthening Technology Incubation in Nigeria
- The review of the global best practices has shown that the programmes of Technology Incubation in Nigeria have not lived up to the expectations for which it was conceived. Many areas of its operation and management are a great departure from the global standard practice and this is responsible for its failure to properly achieve the aim for which it was created to achieve. However, the programme can still be repositioned and re-invigorated with a view to making it more relevant to the developmental needs of the country and at the same time conform to the global best practices.Thus, some of the policy options for furthering the best practice of TBIs in the Nigeria based on the lessons learnt from the selected countries are as follows:(i) Intensifying S&T and R&D initiatives towards strengthening the national innovation system. The proportion of R&D expenditure to GNP in most developing African countries is low. R&D is also constrained by the lack of a critical mass of R&D personnel in many developing countries to innovate and produce new technology. In order to achieve this, there is the need to re-examine the concept of Technology Incubation so as to ensure that the programme is focused on technology value added products and services. In doing this, emphasis should be placed on development of R&D results and their commercialization, development of indigenous technologies, drive start-up rates for technological oriented enterprises, promote indigenous technology clusters, and commercialize the technologies from research institutes and higher institutions of learning [37,41].(ii) Restructuring the financial systems to provide appropriate and alternate types of financing to promote technology intensive SMEs. The venture capital industry is yet to play an active role in the promotion of technology based ventures especially in traditional sectors. This needs to be established to directly provide funds to tenants on a revolving basis as suggested in NCST, 2005 that Federal Government Technology Fund be established and administered by the National Technology Incubation Board to facilitate the funding of the TBI Centres which should be modelled along the Small Business Technology Transfer Programme (STTR) and the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Programme of USA[37].The process of restructuring should also be extended to the operations, management and supervision of TBIs for effective services delivery. To this end, the newly established National Technology Incubation Board should be empowered to provide central coordination, policy formulation; development of operational guidelines; appointment of staff; funding; establishment of new TBIs; and facilitation of development of relocation Centres[37](iii) Creating knowledge enabling industries particularly in the area of ICT and biotechnology. Advancement in ICT will accelerate capital flows into the traditional sectors. Formulating technology and innovation management programmes to accelerate participation of start-ups and SMEs in technology intensive activities.(iv) Accelerating the development of critical infrastructure and importance of e- activities. For instance, for any new incubation centre to operate, certain basic infrastructure should be put in place for effective delivery. The value added of incubator operations lies increasingly in the type of business support services provided to clients and developing this aspect of incubator operations should be a key priority [37,39,41]. There is a widespread acceptance that although the provision of physical space is central to technology incubation concept, it is the quality and range of business support services that should be the main focus. There are four key areas that merit special attention: entrepreneur training, business advice, financial support and technology support[37,40]. In Nigeria, The National Office for Technology Acquisition and Promotion (NOTAP) provides technology support services which could assist TBIs in the development and commercialization of projects. Such support services include patent services; access to patent information in the public domain; technical support in the commercialisation process; and technology advisoryservices.(v) Enhancing public-private partnership (PPP) for establishing and managing TBIs. It has been argued that public authorities have an important catalytic and leadership function and should provide the necessarily guidelines for the establishment and running of technology incubators[37]. The newly established National Technology Incubation Board should issue guidelines and other conditions for the establishment and operation of technology incubators and coordinate their activities to encourage PPP.(vi) The establishment and strengthening of networking among the stakeholders in Nigeria as well as in the African region will assist in improving the quality of services. Strong formal linkages with knowledge institutions both within and outside Nigeria should be encouraged. TBIs should not only be integrated into the local infrastructure but also to national and global sources of technologies and markets[37]. It has also been suggested that an association of Nigerian Technology Incubators, to be facilitated by the National Technology Incubation Board, should be formed to facilitate their interaction.(vii) The international agencies could facilitate technical capacity building among TBIs and also promote technological partnerships at the firm and institutional level. They can also disseminate lessons learnt in promoting technology incubation in selected countries of the region.(viii) From the experience, the existence of formal admission and exit criteria is a defining characteristic of technology incubators and important in ensuring turnover of tenant companies. Therefore, the guidelines on admissions, monitoring and exit should be devoid of any ambiguity. Potential tenants should be required to complete an application document that must include information on specific project proposals, scope, envisaged period of incubation, commercial and technical feasibility of the project, and new technology content while the period of incubation should be limited to a maximum of five (5) years[37].Support services, however small, should be made continuous for graduated firms especially in the provision of loans, counselling and monitoring services.In addition, as a matter of policy, emulate those good global practices in TBIs as deciphered by pursuing:• Clearly defined Objectives and Mission• Strong Advocacy for Government Commitment• Requisite technology transfer policy or intellectual property policy• Recruitment of Entrepreneurial Managers• Selection of Tenants according to “needs and fits “• Tailoring and Leveraging on existing services• Building on local and international linkages• Diversification of sources of finance• Venture capital, Business Angel, etc• Sharing of experience through networking* Performance Evaluation Mechanisms.
5. Conclusions
- From our argument up to this point, it is very clear that understanding the best way to manage innovation is a key element in shaping the competitiveness and economic growth in the emerging knowledge-economy and that the ability of SMEs to participate in and benefit from the knowledge economy is dependent on the extent of linkage with System of Innovation (NSI) in any country. Therefore, developing countries have to evolve their own strategies, policy options and mechanisms for establishing TBIs. There is the need for strengthening of networking among Incubators in order to promote knowledge sharing of best practices; and countries should maximize those factors that gave them both the comparative and competitive advantages. With all efforts directed at the attainment of all these, it is our conviction that the best practice of technology incubation required for the promotion of regional economy through job creation and wealth generation will be achieved.
Appendix I
| Figure 1. Goals, Types and Resource endowments of TI |
| Figure 2. Incubation Process |
| Figure 3. Benefits of TBIs to Stakeholders |
|
|
|
|
|
|
References
| [1] | Doi, N. and M Cowling (1998), The Evolution of Firm Size and Employment Share Distribution in Japanese and UK Manufacturing: A Study of Small Business Presence. Small Business Economics, 10: 283–92. |
| [2] | European Commission (2000), The European Observatory for SMEs. Sixth Report. Enterprise Policy. |
| [3] | Lundin, N. et al (2006), The Role of Small Firms in China’s Technology Development. Working Papers Series 227, Stockholm: European Institute for Japanese Studies. |
| [4] | Jäckle, A. E., and Li C. A. (2006), Firm Dynamics and Institutional Participation: A Case Study on Informality of Micro Enterprises in Peru. ’Economic Development and Cultural Change, 54 (3): 557–78. |
| [5] | Wennekers S. and Thurik A. R. (1999), Linking Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth, Small Business Economics, 13: 27–55. |
| [6] | Allen D. N. and Rahman S. (1985), Small Business Incubators: A Positive Environment for Entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business mmanagement, 23July): 12–22. |
| [7] | Smilor and Gill (1986), Cited in Lewis, D 2001. Does Technology Incubation Work? A critical Review. Rutgers University, Review of Economic Development Literature and Practice. No. 11. US Economic Dept. of Administration. |
| [8] | Miller R. and Cote M. (1987), Growing the Next Silicon Valley. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. |
| [9] | Nowak M. J. and Grantham C. E. (2000), The Virtual Incubator: Managing Human Capital in the Software Industry’. Research Policy, 29 (2): 125–34. |
| [10] | Gassman O. and Becker B. (2006), Towards a Resource-Based View of Corporate Incubators, International Journal of Innovation Management, 10 (1): 19–45. |
| [11] | Peters, et al (2004), The Role of Incubators in the Entrepreneurial Process’. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29 (1): 83–91. |
| [12] | Allen D. N. and McCluskey R. (1990), Structure, Policy, Services and Performance in the Business Incubator Industry, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, 15 (2): 61– 77. |
| [13] | Stephanie Pals (2006), Factors Determining Success/Failure in Business Incubators: A Literature Review of 17 Countries |
| [14] | Joshua M., Joseph B. And Lena T. (2010), Research on the state of Business incubation system in different countries: Lessons for Uganda. AJSTID Vol.2 No.1 pg. 190-215. |
| [15] | UNDP Human Development Report 2001, Making New Technologies Work for Human Development. Oxford University Press. |
| [16] | Thierstein A. and Wilhelm B. (2001), Incubator, Technology and Innovation Centres in Switzerland: Features and Policy Implications. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 13 (4): 315–31. |
| [17] | Roper, S. (1999), Israel’s Technology Incubators: Repeatable Success or Costly Failures. Regional Studies, 33 (2): 175–80. |
| [18] | Mian S. A. (1994), Are University Technology Incubators Providing a Milieu For Technology-Based entrepreneurship? Technology Management, 1: 86–93. |
| [19] | Phillips, R. G. (2002), Technology Business Incubators: How Effective as Technology Transfer Mechanism? Technology in Society, 24: 299–316 |
| [20] | McAdam M. and McAdam R. (2008), High Tech Start-ups in University Science Park Incubators: The Relationship between the Start-Up’s Lifecycle Progression and Use of The Incubator’s Resources. Technovation, 28 (5): 277–90 |
| [21] | Colombo, M. G., and M. Delmastro (2002), ‘How Effective Are Technology Business Incubators: Evidence from Italy’. Research Policy, 31: 1103–22. |
| [22] | Chandra A. (2007), The role of HRD in Business incubation centres. Available at www.midwestacademy.org (last assessed May,2010) |
| [23] | Bruton G. D. (1998), Incubators as a Small Business Support in Russia: Contrast of University-Related U.S. Incubators with the Zelenograd Scientific and Technology Park. Journal of Small Business Management, 36: 91–94. |
| [24] | Adegbite, O. 2001. Business Incubators and Small Enterprise Development: The Nigerian Experience. Small Business Economics, 17 (3): 157–66 |
| [25] | Lalkaka R. (2002), Technology Business Incubators to Help Build an Innovation-based Economy. Journal of Change Management, 3 (2): 167–76. |
| [26] | Abetti, P. A. 2004. Government-Supported Incubators in the Helsinki Region, Finland: Infrastructure, Results, and Best Practices. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29 (1): 19–40. |
| [27] | Kiridena S. (2001), The Concept and Future of Technology Incubation, Asia Pacific Tech Monitor, Jan-Feb 2001 |
| [28] | Tornatzky, et al. (1996) cited in Lewis, D 2001. Does Technology Incubation Work? A critical Review. Rutgers University, Review of Economic Development Literature and Practice. No. 11. US Economic Dept. of Administration. |
| [29] | Lalkaka R. (2009), National Innovation Systems: The Roles of Academia, Enterprises and State. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Volume 3, No. 2. |
| [30] | Scaramuzzi E. (2002), Incubators in Developing Countries: Status and Development Perspectives, Info Dev. Program, The World Bank, May 2002 |
| [31] | Agarwal S.P (2001), Strengthening Technology Incubation System for Creating High Technology-Based Enterprises in Asia & the Pacific (ST/ESCAP/2137) |
| [32] | Lakshminarayanan, K. (2004), Strengthening Strategic Partnership in Promoting Technology Incubation Systems for the Competitiveness of SMEs in the Asia-Pacific Region. A Study Report. |
| [33] | Shi Yu (2004) Strategic Partnership in Promoting Technology Incubations System for SMEs, Country report of China, ESCAP Regional Workshop, 18-20 October 2004, Shanghai, China. |
| [34] | ESCAP Report Part-III (2002), Presentations made by Chinese Experts in the National Workshops on Promoting Business and Technology Incubation for Improved Competitiveness of Small and Medium-Sized Industries through Application of Modern and Efficient Technologies (ST/ESCAP/2323) |
| [35] | Hackett and Dilts (2004a), A Systematic Review of Business Incubation Research, Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 55-82. |
| [36] | InfoDev (2008), Financing Technology and Entrepreneurs & SMEs in Developing Countries: Challenges andOpportunities. India Country Study, Internet Source Accessed on 12.09.2008 athttp://www.infodev.org/en/Publication.545.html |
| [37] | National Council for Science and Technology (NCST) (2005), Report of the review of operations of the Technology Incubation Centres in Nigeria submitted to the Federal Ministry of Science and Technology (FMST), Nigeria |
| [38] | Lalkaka R (2001), Best Practices’ in Business Incubation: Lessons (yet to be) Learned. International Conference on Business Centres: Actors for Economic & Social Development Brussels, 14 – 15 November 2001. |
| [39] | ESCAP Report Part-IV (2002), Presentations made by Indian Experts in the National Workshops on Promoting Business and Technology Incubation for Improved Competitiveness of Small and Medium Sized Industries (ST/ESCAP/2323). |
| [40] | Siyanbola W. O. (2005), Promotion of Industrial Development in Nigeria through Technology Business Incubators (TBIs): Current Status, Challenges and Prospects. Being a keynote address presented at the 1st Lagos State Science and Technology week October 17-22, 2005. |
| [41] | Willie O. Siyanbola, Olalekan A. Jesuleye, Caleb M. Adelowo and Abiodun A. Egbetokun (2012), Coordination, Monitoring and Impact Evaluation of Technology Incubators in Nigeria. Disruptive Technologies, Innovation and Global Redesign. IGI Global USA. |
Packaging fresh fruits and vegetables is one of the more important steps in the long and complicated journey from grower to consumer. Bags, crates, hampers, baskets, cartons, bulk bins, and palletized containers are convenient containers for handling, transporting, and marketing fresh produce. More than 1,500 different types of packages are used for produce in the United States and the number continues to increase as the industry introduces new packaging materials and concepts. Although the industry generally agrees that container standardization is one way to reduce cost, the trend in recent years has moved toward a wider range of package sizes to accommodate the diverse needs of wholesalers, consumers, food service buyers, and processing operations.
Packing and packaging materials contribute a significant cost to the produce industry; therefore it is important that packers, shippers, buyers, and consumers have a clear understanding of the wide range of packaging options available. This factsheet describes some of the many types of packaging, including their functions, uses, and limitations. Also included is a listing, by commodity, of the common produce containers standard to the industry.
The Function of Packaging or Why Package Produce?
Skip to The Function of Packaging or Why Package Produce?A significant percentage of produce buyer and consumer complaints may be traced to container failure because of poor design or inappropriate selection and use. A properly designed produce container should contain, protect, and identify the produce, satisfying everyone from grower to consumer.
PACKAGING POINTS Recyclability/Biodegradability. Variety. Sales Appeal. Shelf Life. |
Containment
The container must enclose the produce in convenient units for handling and distribution. The produce should fit well inside the container, with little wasted space. Small produce items that are spherical or oblong (such as potatoes, onions, and apples) may be packaged efficiently utilizing a variety of different package shapes and sizes. However, many produce items such as asparagus, berries, or soft fruit may require containers specially designed for that item. Packages of produce commonly handled by hand are usually limited to 50 pounds. Bulk packages moved by forklifts may weigh as much as 1,200 pounds.
Protection
The package must protect the produce from mechanical damage and poor environmental conditions during handling and distribution. To produce buyers, torn, dented, or collapsed produce packages usually indicate lack of care in handling the contents. Produce containers must be sturdy enough to resist damage during packaging, storage, and transportation to market.
Because almost all produce packages are palletized, produce containers should have sufficient stacking strength to resist crushing in a low temperature, high humidity environment. Although the cost of packaging materials has escalated sharply in recent years, poor quality, lightweight containers that are easily damaged by handling or moisture are no longer tolerated by packers or buyers.
Produce destined for export markets requires containers to be extra sturdy. Air-freighted produce may require special packing, package sizes, and insulation. Marketers who export fresh produce should consult with freight companies about any special packaging requirements. Additionally, the USDA and various state export agencies may be able to provide specific packaging information.
Damage resulting from poor environmental control during handling and transit is one of the leading causes of rejected produce and low buyer and consumer satisfaction. Each fresh fruit and vegetable commodity has its own requirements for temperature, humidity, and environmental gas composition. Produce containers should be produce friendly - helping to maintain an optimum environment for the longest shelf life. This may include special materials to slow the loss of water from the produce, insulation materials to keep out the heat, or engineered plastic liners that maintain a favorable mix of oxygen and carbon dioxide.
Identification
The package must identify and provide useful information about the produce. It is customary (and may be required in some cases) to provide information such as the produce name, brand, size, grade, variety, net weight, count, grower, shipper, and country of origin. It is also becoming more common to find included on the package nutritional information, recipes, and other useful information directed specifically at the consumer. In consumer marketing, package appearance has also become an important part of point of sale displays.
Universal Product Codes (UPC or bar codes) may be included as part of the labeling. The UPCs used in the food industry consist of a ten-digit machine readable code. The first five digits are a number assigned to the specific producer (packer or shipper) and the second five digits represent specific product information such as type of produce and size of package. Although no price information is included, UPCs are used more and more by packers, shippers, buyers, and retailers as a fast and convenient method of inventory control and cost accounting. Efficient use of UPCs requires coordination with everyone who handles the package.
Types of Packaging Materials
Skip to Types of Packaging MaterialsWood
Pallets literally form the base on which most fresh produce is delivered to the consumer. Pallets were first used during World War II as an efficient way to move goods. The produce industry uses approximately 190 of the 700 million pallets produced per year in the United States. About 40 percent of these are single-use pallets. Because many are of a non-standard size, the pallets are built as inexpensively as possible and discarded after a single use. Although standardization efforts have been slowly under way for many years, the efforts have been accelerated by pressure from environmental groups, in addition to the rising cost of pallets and landfill tipping fees.
Over the years, the 40-inch wide, by 48-inch long pallet has evolved as the unofficial standard size. Standardization encourages re-use, which has many benefits. Besides reducing cost because they may be used many times, most pallet racks and automated pallet handling equipment are designed for standard-size pallets. Standard size pallets make efficient use of truck and van space and can accommodate heavier loads and more stress than lighter single-use pallets. Additionally, the use of a single pallet size could substantially reduce pallet inventory and warehousing costs along with pallet repair and disposal costs. The adoption of a pallet standard throughout the produce industry would also aid efforts toward standardization of produce containers.
In the early 1950s, an alternative to the pallet was introduced. It is a pallet-size sheet (slipsheet) of corrugated fiberboard or plastic (or a combination of these materials) with a narrow lip along one or more sides. packages of produce are stacked directly on this sheet as if it were a pallet. Once the packages are in place, they are moved by a specially equipped forklift equipped with a thin metal sheet instead of forks. Slipsheets are considerably less expensive than pallets to buy, store, and maintain; they may be re-used many times; and they reduce the tare weight of the load. However, they require the use of a special forklift attachment at each handling point from packer to retailer. |
Depending on the size of produce package, a single pallet may carry from 20 to over 100 individual packages. Because these packages are often loosely stacked to allow for air circulation, or are bulging and difficult to stack evenly, they must be secured (unitized) to prevent shifting during handling and transit. Although widely used, plastic straps and tapes may not have completely satisfactory results. Plastic or paper corner tabs should always be used to prevent the straps from crushing the corners of packages.
Plastic stretch film is also widely used to secure produce packages. A good film must stretch, retain its elasticity, and cling to the packages. Plastic film may conform easily to various size loads. It helps protect the packages from loss of moisture, makes the pallet more secure against pilferage, and can be applied using partial automation. However, plastic film severely restricts proper ventilation. A common alternative to stretch film is plastic netting, which is much better for stabilizing some pallet loads, such as those that require forced-air cooling. Used stretch film and plastic netting may be difficult to properly handle and recycle.
A very low-cost and almost fully automated method of pallet stabilization is the application of a small amount of special glue to the top of each package. As the packages are stacked, the glue secures all cartons together. This glue has a low tensile strength so cartons may be easily separated or repositioned, but a high shear strength so they will not slide. The glue does not present disposal or recycling problems.
Pallet Bins. Substantial wooden pallet bins of milled lumber or plywood are primarily used to move produce from the field or orchard to the packing house. Depending on the application, capacities may range from 12 to more than 50 bushels. Although the height may vary, the length and width is generally the same as a standard pallet (48 inches by 40 inches). More efficient double-wide pallet bins (48 inches by 80 inches) are becoming more common in some produce operations.
Most pallet bins are locally made; therefore it is very important that they be consistent from lot to lot in materials, construction, and especially size. For example, small differences in overall dimensions can add up to big problems when several hundred are stacked together for cooling, ventilation, or storage. It is also important that stress points be adequately reinforced. The average life of a hardwood pallet bin that is stored outside is approximately five years. When properly protected from the weather, pallets bins may have a useful life of 10 years or more.
Uniform voluntary standards for wood pallets and other wood containers are administered by the National Wooden Pallet and Container Association, Washington, DC. Additionally, the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, publishes standards for agricultural pallet bins (ASAE S337.1).
Wire-Bound Crates. Although alternatives are available, wooden wire-bound crates are used extensively for snap beans, sweet corn and several other commodities that require hydrocooling. Wire-bound crates are sturdy, rigid and have very high stacking strength that is essentially unaffected by water. Wire-bound crates come in many different sizes from half-bushel to pallet-bin size and have a great deal of open space to facilitate cooling and ventilation. Although few are re-used, wire-bound crates may be dissembled after use and shipped back to the packer (flat). In some areas, used containers may pose a significant disposal problem. Wire-bound crates are not generally acceptable for consumer packaging because of the difficulty in affixing suitable labels.
Wooden Crates and Lugs. Wooden crates, once extensively used for apples, stone fruit, and potatoes have been almost totally replaced by other types of containers. The relative expense of the container, a greater concern for tare weight, and advances in material handling have reduced their use to a few specialty items, such as expensive tropical fruit. The 15-, 20-, and 25-pound wooden lugs still used for bunch grapes and some specialty crops are being gradually replaced with less costly alternatives.
Wooden Baskets and Hampers. Wire-reinforced wood veneer baskets and hampers of different sizes were once used for a wide variety of crops from strawberries to sweetpotatoes. They are durable and may be nested for efficient transport when empty. However, cost, disposal problems, and difficulty in efficient palletization have severely limited their use to mostly local grower markets where they may be re-used many times.
Corrugated Fiberboard
Corrugated fiberboard (often mistakenly called cardboard or pasteboard) is manufactured in many different styles and weights. Because of its relativity low cost and versatility, it is the dominant produce container material and will probably remain so in the near future. The strength and serviceability of corrugated fiberboard have been improving in recent years.
Most corrugated fiberboard is made from three or more layers of paperboard manufactured by the kraft process. To be considered paperboard, the paper must be thicker than 0.008 inches. The grades of paperboard are differentiated by their weight (in pounds per 1,000 square feet) and their thickness. Kraft paper made from unbleached pulp has a characteristic brown color and is exceptionally strong. In addition to virgin wood fibers, Kraft paper may have some portion of synthetic fibers for additional strength, sizing (starch), and other materials to give it wet strength and printability. Most fiberboard contains some recycled fibers. Minimum amounts of recycled materials may be specified by law and the percentage is expected to increase in the future. Tests have shown that cartons of fully recycled pulp have about 75 percent of the stacking strength of virgin fiber containers. The use of recycled fibers will inevitably lead to the use of thicker walled containers.
Double-faced corrugated fiberboard is the predominant form used for produce containers. It is produced by sandwiching a layer of corrugated paperboard between an inner and outer liner (facing) of paper-board. The inner and outer liner may be identical, or the outer layer may be preprinted or coated to better accept printing. The inner layer may be given a special coating to resist moisture. Heavy-duty shipping containers, such as corrugated bulk bins that are required to have high stacking strength, may have double- or even triple-wall construction. Corrugated fiberboard manufacturers print box certificates on the bottom of containers to certify certain strength characteristics and limitations. There are two types of certification. The first certifies the minimum combined weight of both the inner and outer facings and that the corrugated fiberboard material is of a minimum bursting strength. The second certifies minimum edge crush test (ETC) strength. Edge crush strength is a much better predictor of stacking strength than is bursting strength. For this reason, users of corrugated fiberboard containers should insist on ECT certification to compare the stackability of various containers. Both certificates give a maximum size limit for the container (sum of length, width, and height) and the maximum gross weight of the contents.
Both cold temperatures and high humidities reduce the strength of fiberboard containers. Unless the container is specially treated, moisture absorbed from the surrounding air and the contents can reduce the strength of the container by as much as 75 percent. New anti-moisture coatings (both wax and plastic) are now available to substantially reduce the effects of moisture.
Waxed fiberboard cartons (the wax is about 20 percent of fiber weight) are used for many produce items that must be either hydrocooled or iced. The main objection to wax cartons is disposal after use— wax cartons cannot be recycled and are increasingly being refused at landfills. Several states and municipalities have recently taxed wax cartons or have instituted rigid back haul regulations. Industry sources suggest that wax cartons will eventually be replaced by plastic or, more likely, the use of ice and hydrocooling will be replaced by highly controlled forced-air cooling and rigid temperature and humidity maintenance on many commodities.
In many applications for corrugated fiberboard containers, the stacking strength of the container is a minor consideration. For example, canned goods carry the majority of their own weight when stacked. Fresh produce usually cannot carry much of the vertical load without some damage. Therefore, one of the primarily desired characteristics of corrugated fiberboard containers is stacking strength to protect the produce from crushing. Because of their geometry, most of the stacking strength of corrugated containers is carried by the corners. For this reason, hand holes and ventilation slots should never be positioned near the corners of produce containers and be limited to no more than 5 to 7 percent of the side area.
Interlocking the packages (cross stacking) is universally practiced to stabilize pallets. Cross stacking places the corner of one produce package at the middle of the one below it, thus reducing its stacking strength. To reduce the possibility of collapse, the first several layers of each pallet should be column stacked (one package directly above the other). The upper layers of packages may be cross stacked as usual with very little loss of pallet stability.
There are numerous styles of corrugated fiberboard containers. The two most used in the produce industry are the one piece, regular slotted container (RSC) and the two piece, full telescoping container (FTC). The RSC is the most popular because it is simple and economical. However, the RSC has relatively low stacking strength and therefore must be used with produce, such as potatoes, that can carry some of the stacking load. The FTC, actually one container inside another, is used when greater stacking strength and resistance to bulging is required. A third type of container is the Bliss box, which is constructed from three separate pieces of corrugated fiberboard. The Bliss box was developed to be used when maximum stacking strength is required. The bottoms and tops of all three types of containers may be closed by glue, staples, or interlocking slots.
Almost all corrugated fiberboard containers are shipped to the packer flat and assembled at the packing house. To conserve space, assembly is usually performed just before use. Assembly may be by hand, machine, or a combination of both. Ease of assembly should be carefully investigated when considering a particular style of package.
In recent years, large double-wall or even triple- wall corrugated fiberboard containers have increasingly been used as one-way pallet bins to ship bulk produce to processors and retailers. Cabbage, melons, potatoes, pumpkins, and citrus have all been shipped successfully in these containers. The container cost per pound of produce is as little as one fourth of traditional size containers. Some bulk containers may be collapsed and re-used.
For many years, labels were printed on heavy paper and glued or stapled to the produce package. The high cost of materials and labor has all but eliminated this practice. The ability to print the brand, size, and grade information directly on the container is one of the greatest benefits of corrugated fiberboard containers. There are basically two methods used to print corrugated fiberboard containers:
- Post Printed. When the liner is printed after the corrugated fiberboard has been formed, the process is known as post printing. Post printing is the most widely used printing method for corrugated fiberboard containers because it is economical and may be used for small press runs. However, postprinting produces graphics with less detail and is usually limited to one or two colors.
- Preprinted. High quality, full-color graphics may be obtained by preprinting the linerboard before it is attached to the corrugated paperboard. Whereas the cost is about 15 percent more than standard two color containers, the eye catching quality of the graphics makes it very useful for many situations. The visual quality of the package influences the perception of the product because the buyer's first impression is of the outside of the package. Produce managers especially like high quality graphics that they can use in supermarket floor displays.
Preprinted cartons are usually reserved for the introduction of new products or new brands. Market research has shown that exporters may benefit from sophisticated graphics. The increased cost usually does not justify use for mature products in a stable market, but this may change as the cost of these containers becomes more competitive.
Pulp Containers. Containers made from recycled paper pulp and a starch binder are mainly used for small consumer packages of fresh produce. Pulp containers are available in a large variety of shapes and sizes and are relatively inexpensive in standard sizes. Pulp containers can absorb surface moisture from the product, which is a benefit for small fruit and berries that are easily harmed by water. Pulp containers are also biodegradable, made from recycled materials, and recyclable.
Paper and Mesh Bags. Consumer packs of potatoes and onions are about the only produce items now packed in paper bags. The more sturdy mesh bag has much wider use. In addition to potatoes and onions, cabbage, turnips, citrus, and some specialty items are packed in mesh bags. Sweet corn may still be packaged in mesh bags in some markets. In addition to its low cost, mesh has the advantage of uninhibited air flow. Good ventilation is particularly beneficial to onions. Supermarket produce managers like small mesh bags because they make attractive displays that stimulate purchases.
However, bags of any type have several serious disadvantages. Large bags do not palletize well and small bags do not efficiently fill the space inside corrugated fiberboard containers. Bags do not offer protection from rough handling. Mesh bags provide little protection from light or contaminants. In addition, produce packed in bags is correctly perceived by the consumer to be less than the best grade. Few consumers are willing to pay premium price for bagged produce.
Plastic Bags. Plastic bags (polyethylene film) are the predominant material for fruit and vegetable consumer packaging. Besides the very low material costs, automated bagging machines further reduce packing costs. Film bags are clear, allowing for easy inspection of the contents, and readily accept high quality graphics. Plastic films are available in a wide range of thicknesses and grades and may be engineered to control the environmental gases inside the bag. The film material 'breathes' at a rate necessary to maintain the correct mix of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and water vapor inside the bag. Since each produce item has its own unique requirement for environmental gases, modified atmosphere packaging material must be specially engineered for each item. Research has shown that the shelf life of fresh produce is extended considerably by this packaging. The explosive growth of precut produce is due in part to the availability of modified atmosphere packaging.
In addition to engineered plastic films, various patches and valves have been developed that affix to low-cost ordinary plastic film bags. These devices respond to temperature and control the mix of environmental gases.
Shrink Wrap. One of the newest trends in produce packaging is the shrink wrapping of individual produce items. Shrink wrapping has been used successfully to package potatoes, sweetpotatoes, apples, onions, sweet corn, cucumbers and a variety of tropical fruit. Shrink wrapping with an engineered plastic wrap can reduce shrinkage, protect the produce from disease, reduce mechanical damage and provide a good surface for stick-on labels.
Rigid Plastic Packages. Packages with a top and bottom that are heat formed from one or two pieces of plastic are known as clamshells. Clamshells are gaining in popularity because they are inexpensive, versatile, provide excellent protection to the produce, and present a very pleasing consumer package. Clamshells are most often used with consumer packs of high value produce items like small fruit, berries, mushrooms, etc., or items that are easily damaged by crushing. Clamshells are used extensively with precut produce and prepared salads. Molded polystyrene and corrugated polystyrene containers have been test marketed as a substitute for waxed corrugated fiberboard. At present they are not generally cost competitive, but as environmental pressures grow, they may be more common. Heavy-molded polystyrene pallet bins have been adopted by a number of growers as a substitute for wooden pallet bins. Although at present their cost is over double that of wooden bins, they have a longer service life, are easier to clean, are recyclable, do not decay when wet, do not harbor disease, and may be nested and made collapsible.
As environmental pressures continue to grow, the disposal and recyclability of packaging material of all kinds will become a very important issue. Common polyethylene may take from 200 to 400 years to breakdown in a landfill. The addition of 6 percent starch will reduce the time to 20 years or less. Packaging material companies are developing starch-based polyethylene substitutes that will break down in a landfill as fast as ordinary paper.
The move to biodegradable or recyclable plastic packaging materials may be driven by cost in the long term, but by legislation in the near term. Some authorities have proposed a total ban on plastics. In this case, the supermarket of the early 21st century may resemble the grocery markets of the early 20th century.
Produce package standardization is interpreted differently by different groups. The wide variety of package sizes and material combinations is a result of the market responding to demands from many different segments of the produce industry. For example, many of the large-volume buyers of fresh produce are those most concerned with the environment. They demand less packaging and the use of more recyclable and biodegradable materials, yet would also like to have many different sizes of packages for convenience. Packers want to limit the variety of packages they must carry in stock, yet they have driven the trend toward preprinted, individualized containers. Shippers and trucking companies want to standardize sizes so the packages may be better palletized and handled.
Produce buyers are not a homogeneous group. Buyers for grocery chains have different needs than buyers for food service. For grocery items normally sold in bulk, processors want largest size packages that they can handle efficiently - to minimize unpacking time and reduce the cost of handling or disposing of the used containers. Produce managers, on the other hand, want individualized, high quality graphics to entice retail buyers with in-store displays.
Selecting the right container for fresh produce is seldom a matter of personal choice for the packer. For each commodity, the market has unofficial, but nevertheless rigid standards for packaging; therefore it is very risky to use a nonstandard package. Packaging technology, market acceptability, and disposal regulations are constantly changing. When choosing a package for fresh fruits and vegetables, packers must consult the market, and in some markets, standard packages may be required by law.
| Apples 45 lb 11⁄8 bushel cartons, loose 40 to 45 lb cartons, tray-pack 40 lb bushel cartons, tray- or cell-pack 40 lb bushel cartons, loose 40 lb cartons, ten 4 lb bags 40 lb cartons, eight 5 lb bags 40 lb cartons, sixteen 8 count trays, over wrapped 38 to 42 lb cartons, loose 37 to 43 lb cartons, cell-pack 36 lb cartons, twelve 3 lb bags 20 lb half-bushel cartons, loose | Blueberries 11 lb flats, twelve 1 pint cups 9 lb flats, twelve 250 gram cups 5 lb flats, twelve 8 oz baskets |
| Asparagus 30 lb pyramid cartons/crates, bunched or loose 28 lb cartons/crates, bunched 25 lb lugs/cartons, loose 24 lb cartons, sixteen 11⁄2 lb packages 21 lb lugs/cartons, loose 20 lb pyramid cartons/crates 20 lb cartons, bunched 15 to 17 lb pyramid cartons/crates, bunched or loose 14 lb cartons, loose 12 lb cartons, loose 12 to 13 lb cartons/crates, bunched 11 lb cartons/crates, loose | Broccoli Bunched 21 lb cartons/crates, 14s and 18s Crown-Cut 20 lb cartons, loose Florets 10 lb film bags 5 lb film bags |
Beans Snap Beans Yellow wax beans | Brussels Sprouts 25 lb cartons, loose 10 lb flats/cartons |
| Beets 50 lb mesh bags 45 lb wirebound crates/cartons, bunched in 12s 38 lb cartons/crates, bunched in 12s 35 lb half crates, loose 32 lb 4⁄5 bushel crate 25 lb bags, loose 20 lb cartons/crates, bunched in 12s | Cabbage Savoy Chinese |
Carrots Bunched Baby whole | Cantaloupe 1,000 lb pallet bins 800 lb pallet bins 80 lb jumbo crates 60 lb 13⁄4 bushel cartons 54 lb cartons 45 to 50 lb wirebound crates 40 lb cartons/crates 40 lb 11⁄9 bushel cartons/crates |
| Cauliflower 60 lb wirebound crates 50 lb cartons/crates (Long Island Type) 25 to 30 lb cartons,12s and 16s film-wrapped and trimmed | Keygen free download for pc. Eggplant Chinese Italian Japanese |
| Corn 50 lb cartons/crates/bags 42 lb cartons/crates/bags 37 lb mesh bags | Grapes Muscadines |
Cucumbers Slicers Greenhouse | Greens 30 to 35 lb 12⁄5 bushel and 13⁄5 bushel crates 20 to 25 lb bushel baskets/crates/cartons 20 to 25 lb 12-24 bunches per crates/cartons |
| Melons Casaba and Crenshaw 32 to 34 lb cartons, 4s, 5s & 6s 48 to 51 lb flat crate, 5s & 6s | Honeydew 35 lb flat crates 30 lb cartons |
| Okra 30 lb bushel baskets/crates/hampers 23 lb 3⁄4 bushel hampers 15 lb 1⁄2 and 5⁄9 bushel baskets/crates/lugs/clamshells | Lettuce Boston Bibb Looseleaf Romaine |
| Onions, bulb 50 lb cartons/bags/crates, loose 50 lb cartons, containing ten 5 lb bags 48 lb cartons, containing sixteen 3 lb bags or 24 2 lb bags 45 lb cartons, containing fifteen 3 lb bags 40 lb cartons, containing twenty 2 lb bags 40 lb cartons, loose 36 lb cartons, containing twelve 3 lb bags 32 lb cartons, sixteen 2 lb bags 25 lb bags/cartons, loose 24 lb cartons, containing twelve 2 lb bags 10 lb bags, loose | Peppers Jalapenos and Chilies |
| Onions, green 28 lb cartons, bunched 12s, bulb-type 20 lb cartons/crates, bunched 24s, bulb-type 13 lb cartons, bunched 48s 11 lb cartons, bunched 36s | Potatoes 100 lb bags 50 lb cartons/bags 50 lb carton, containing five 10 lb or ten 5 lb bags |
| Peaches 38 lb 3⁄4 bushel cartons/crates 35 lb cartons 26 lb cartons 25 lb 1⁄2 bushel cartons/crates 22 lb 2-layer carton 11 lb crates/flats,1-layer tray pack 10 lb cartons 9 lb cartons,1-layer | Pumpkins 1,000 lb bins 50 lb cartons/crates/bags 25 lb 1⁄2 bushel cartons/crates |
Peas Snow, China, Sugar, Sugar Snap Southern | Radishes Bunched |
Squash Winter | Spinach 32 lb 12⁄3 bushel cartons/crates 25 lb bushel carton/crates 20 lb cartons, 24s 12 lb bags 10 lb 24 quart baskets 8 lb cartons, twelve 10 oz bags |
| Sweetpotatoes 800 lb bulk bins 40 lb cartons/crates 40 lb cartons, containing eight 5 lb bags 20 lb boxes 10 lb boxes 5 lb cartons/bags | Tomatoes Cherry Mature Green Greenhouse Plum or Roma |
| Watermelon 1,000 lb pallet bins 100 lb cartons 85 lb cartons, various counts 40 lb cartons 35 lb cartons (Mickey Lee) | Turnips 50 lb bushel basket/bags 40 lb cartons, bunched 25 lb half-bushel baskets/cartons/crates/bags 24 lb cartons, twenty-four 1 lb bags 20 lb cartons, bunched 12s |
Back Haul. The return trip from delivering produce or any item to its destination. For efficiency, truckers try to limit empty unproductive (known as dead-heads) back hauls.
Bulk Container. A container designed to contain a relatively large quantity of produce. Bulk containers are used in conjunction with a shipping pallet but are normally separate from the pallet. Bulk containers may carry up to 2,000 lb of produce. Compare to pallet bin.
Bulk Produce. Produce handled in generally truckload lots but not in small containers such as cartons, bags, etc. Bulk produce may be transported in gondolas, dump trucks, or refrigerated vans. Bulk produce is mostly used for processing.
Container. Any type of box, carton, bag, or bin used to form a package of produce. See package.
Corrugated Fiberboard. Common packaging material made from a layer of corrugated fiberboard sandwiched between two additional layers of fiberboard. Sometimes mistakenly called pasteboard or cardboard.
Microsoft office free download mac. Microsoft Office 2019 16.29 Mac Torrent Features: PowerPoint users can use Morph transitions, in-click sequence, and they cna export to 4k, That said, you may be one of the ones that need the capability to export 4K videos from Windows. Therefore, this is one of. Microsoft Office 2016 mac torrent is the latest and the outdated of Microsoft office for mac 2016 torrent. If you are a data entry user or a writer, Manager then you need Microsoft Office so badly.
Carton. A container of various construction, but usually made from corrugated fiberboard or possibly plastic, that generally contains fifty pounds or less of fresh produce.
Cold Chain. Most types of produce require continuous postharvest refrigeration for maximum quality maintenance. On-farm refrigeration, refrigerated transport, the buyer's refrigerated receiving warehouse, and refrigerated retail displays all form the cold chain.
Controlled Atmosphere Package. An engineered package where the interaction between the produce and the packing material actively regulates a beneficial mix of environmental gases. See Modified Atmosphere package.
Count Packing. Packing method in which a certain specified number of sized and graded items are placed in the carton.
Fiberboard. A paper material usually made by the kraft process having a thickness greater than .008 inches. Fiberboard may contain additional materials for strength and resistance to water.
Field Packing. A packing method in which all harvesting, grading, and packing functions are performed at the same time in the field or orchard.
Food Service. An enterprise whose function is to supply food items, including fresh produce, to institutions, restaurants, and increasingly, grocery outlets.
Forced-Air Cooling. Forced-air cooling is a commonly used cooling method that utilizes specially constructed portable fans or rooms to draw chilled air horizontally through pallets or stacks of packaged produce. A properly designed forced-air cooling system is fast, energy efficient and relatively inexpensive. It may be utilized on most types of produce.
Fresh-Cut. A value adding process where fresh produce is shredded, trimmed, sliced, or otherwise prepared for consumer use. Fresh-cut produce is generally prepared by a processor or retailer and requires increased attention to sanitation, packaging, handling, the storage environment and labeling. Also called pre-cut or ready-cut.
Hundredweight. A unit of one hundred pounds. Abbreviated Cwt.
Hydrocooling. Cooling freshly harvested produce by flooding, immersing, or spraying with large quantities of cold water. Compared to other cooling methods, hydrocooling is fast and generally thorough. Hydrocooling is limited to those produce items that will tolerate liquid water.
Icing. Cooling fresh produce by the addition of crushed ice or a slurry of crushed ice and water over the top of a load or to each individual package. This method is limited to those produce items that are not harmed by contact with ice.
Layer Packing. Packing method where the entire package of produce is packed in orderly layers.
Lug. A sturdy container, often wholly or partially of wood, designed to have high stacking strength. Lugs are often used for soft fruit such as grapes, berries or tomatoes that are easily damaged by crushing.
Face Packing. A packing method where most of the container is loose or volume filled except for top layer. Items in the top layer are arranged in an orderly pattern for appearance.
Master (flat). A type of carton designed to contain smaller, usually consumer size, units of produce. Masters designed to contain 8 quarts or 12 pints or half pints are commonly used with strawberries and other small fruit.
Mixed Load. A single truck load of fresh produce consisting of two or more products shipped together. The use of mixed loads reduce transportation costs but care must be exercised to prevent ethylene or odor contamination.
Modified Atmosphere Packaging. A method of packaging in which the produce is packed in a sealed container into which a specific mix of gases are introduced. The container only prevents the gases from escaping and does not regulate the mix.
Pallet Bin. A bulk bin made integral to a pallet for the transport of bulk produce. Pallet bins may be made of wood, plastic or some other sturdy material and are primarily intended to be used between the field/orchard and packing house.
Packout Rate. The portion, often expressed as a percentage, of harvested produce actually packed for shipment. That portion not packed is referred to as culls.
Package. Any type of filled box, carton, bag, or bin of product. See container.
Packing House. A facility designed to wash, grade, or trim harvested produce but primarily to place the produce into containers suitable for sale.
Postharvest Handling. Any operation performed after harvest constitutes postharvest handling. Among these operations are washing, grading, packing, storing, cooling, transporting, and marketing.
Precooling. Precooling is the practice of cooling bulk produce prior to grading and packaging although the term has been used to describe cooling at any time before transport. The practice of true precooling is gradually fading since precooled product has an opportunity to warm during subsequent operations. The broader term 'cooling' has now almost replaced 'precooling.'
Room Cooling. Room cooling is the practice of storing bulk or packaged produce in a refrigerated room for an indefinite period. By the processes of conduction and convection, the heat is gradually removed from the produce. Because the outside of the containers cool more rapidly than the inside, the cooling is uneven and slow. The cooling rate of room cooling may be sufficient for many not very perishable produce items such as potatoes, cabbage, or root crops, however, it has proven unsatisfactory for many very perishable items such as strawberries, blueberries, and snap beans.
Shipper. An individual or company that transports produce from the grower to the buyer. Growers, packers, or buyers often assume their own shipping function.
Software server pulsa elektrik gratis dari. Slip Sheet. A sheet of material, roughly the size of a pallet, of corrugated fiberboard, plastic, or a combination of these materials designed as a replacement for a shipping pallet.
Stacking Strength. The ability of a container to resist a specified vertical load without significant deformation.
Weight Packing. Packing method where a specified minimum weight, but not necessarily number of produce items, are packed in a container.
Vacuum Cooling. When warm produce is placed inside a closed container and reduced to a partial vacuum, a small portion of the water in the produce evaporates, causing a cooling effect. Vacuum cooling is fast and may be utilized very effectively on packaged produce. It is generally more effective on those items with a large surface area to weight ratio such as lettuce and various greens.
Vibration Fill Packing. A packing method designed to reduce bruising and scuffing of the produce. After filling, the package is gently vibrated to maximize product density and stability.
Volume Fill Packing. Packing method where a specified volume of produce is packed in the container. Both the number of individual produce items and the weight may vary in volume fill packing.
Ashby, B.H., et al. 1987. Protecting perishable foods during transport by truck, Handbook no. 669. USDA, Office of Transportation. Washington, DC.
Erdei, William H. 1993. Bar codes: design, printing and quality control. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Hardenberg, R.E., A.E. Watada and C.Y. Wang. 1986. The commercial storage of fruits, vegetables and florist and nursery stocks. USDA Handbook 66 (revised). Washington, D.C. GPO.
McGregor, B.M. 1987. Tropical Products Transport Handbook, Handbook no. 668. USDA, Office of Transportation. Washington, DC.
Mitchell, F.G., R. Guillou and R.A. Parsons. 1972. Commercial cooling of fruits and vegetables, Manual 43. California Agricultural Experiment Station. Davis, CA.
Moline, H.E., ed. 1984. Postharvest pathology of fruits and vegetables: postharvest losses in perishable crops, publication NE-87. California Agricultural Experiment Station, Davis, CA.
Nicholas, C.J. 1985. Export handbook for U.S. Agricultural Products, Handbook no. 593. USDA, Office of Transportation. Washington, DC.
Nonneck, l .L. 1989. Vegetable Production. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. New York.
O'Brien, M., L.L. Claypool, S.J. Leonard, G.K. York and J.H. McGillivray. 1963. Causes of fruit bruising on transport trucks. Hilgardia, vol. 35, no. 6. University of California. Davis, CA.
Paine, F.A., ed. 1987. Modern Processing, Packaging and Distribution Systems for Food. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.
2006 State Of The Business Incubation Industry Pdf Printer Free
Patchen, G.O. 1969. Effects of vent holes on strength of fiberboard boxes and fruit cooling rate, ARS 52-34. USDA-ARS. Washington, DC.
Parsons, R.A., F.G. Mitchell and G. Mayer. 1972. Forced-air cooling of palletized fresh fruit. Transactions of the ASAE. 15(4):729-731.
Pierce, L.C. 1987. Vegetables: Characteristics, Production and Marketing. John Wiley and Sons. New york.
Stephens, J.M. 1988. Manual of Minor Vegetables, Bulletin SP-40. University of Florida. Gainesville, FL.
State Of The Business Report
Stokes, D.R. 1974. Standardization of shipping containers for fresh fruits and vegetables, Handbook no. 991. USDA-ARS. Washington, DC.
1993. Uniform voluntary standard for wooden pallets. National Wooden Pallet and Container Association. Washington, DC.
1982. Wirebound boxes and crates, Bulletin 419. Package Research Laboratory. Rockaway, NJ.
2006 State Of The Business Incubation Industry Pdf Printer Wirelessly
2006 State Of The Business Incubation Industry Pdf Printer Paper
1992. Fibre Box Handbook, 20th ed. Fibre Box Association. Rolling Meadows, lL.
2006 State Of The Business Incubation Industry Pdf Printer Software
This publication was sponsored by the Energy Division, North Carolina Department of Commerce, with State Energy Conservation Program funds, in cooperation with North Carolina State University. The opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed herein are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of the Energy Division, North Carolina Department of Commerce.
Find more information at the following NC State Extension websites:
2006 State Of The Business Incubation Industry Pdf Printer Offline
Publication date: Sept. 1, 1996
AG-414-08
2006 State Of The Business Incubation Industry Pdf Printer Driver
N.C. Cooperative Extension prohibits discrimination and harassment regardless of age, color, disability, family and marital status, gender identity, national origin, political beliefs, race, religion, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation and veteran status.