text:
What is your favorite thing about school?
Who is your favorite teacher and why?
"Mr. Weedman because he is an awesome teacher."
What was the last book you read?
"Twightlight series"
What was the last movie you saw?
"Breaking Dawn"
What do you like to do for fun?
"Play basketball."
If you currently subscribe or have subscribed in the past to the Carrollton Democrat, then simply find your account number on your mailing label and enter it below.
Click the question mark below to see where your account ID appears on your mailing label.
ZIP Code: | |


text:
Configure and organize your iPad for maximum productivity. Get tips for reading email, reviewing docs, and giving presentations on the go.
Get to know the 11 top new features in Mac OS X 10.9 Mavericks.
Gives expert tips and techniques for getting the most out of the iPad.
Provides a comprehensive overview of Mac OS X Mountain Lion, complete with insider tips for getting the most out of the operating system.
Reviews Mac OS X Mountain Lion, the latest version of the Apple operating system that offers new features such as AirPlay mirroring, dictation, Gatekeeper security protections, and more.
Provides a comprehensive overview of Mac OS X Lion, complete with key recommendations for getting the most out of the operating system.
Shows how Mac users can create coherent and engaging screencasts.
A Macworld senior editor explores many vital features from Leopard's 300+ updates.
"I went from not knowing how to turn on a computer to learning Outlook, Word, and some Excel. I ended up switching careers from a hands-on job requiring no technical knowledge to administration using Microsoft Office Suite. You were instrumental in helping me to attain that job. Thank you." —Sonya O.
more from our members »

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The Sicilian Ride
Author: Maria Marrocchino (More Trip Reviews by Maria Marrocchino)Date of Trip: October 2011
A Sicilian ride.
On the bus ride from Giardini Naxos to Taormina in Sicily you are sure to witness any or all of the following: Italian cursing, obscene hand gesturing, cars halting and screeching, excessive honking, lots of "whoa's" by the nervous riders and some of the most spectacular views of splendid seas and beaches that one can ever dream of seeing. I've come to love this 15-minute bus ride between the two ancient towns in Sicily. I say 15 minutes but one never really knows how long it will take. This is because the windy uphill street on the way to the famous and charming town of Taormina is narrow and the buses so big that it becomes quite the rollercoaster ride. On one ride, the bus came so close to the other car, it took 7 minutes for us to get through. The stubborn Sicilian bus driver doesn't move, he waits for the car that is confronted by his enormous 6 wheeler to back up, but of course this gets complicated when all the other cars come piling behind, creating quite hysteria on this beautiful curvy street. The skillful bus driver does however, always make it through unscathed at which point the entire bus applauds and yells "bravo". For one euro and 70 cents, this is one of the cheapest and most entertaining things one can do in the rather posh town of Taormina.
Of course this is all smiles and giggles until you are running late to meet your new, charming Sicilian boyfriend in a chic restaurant in Taormina for dinner. Hoping not to have a car confrontation is inevitable. A black SUV tries to sneak by but it's a tight squeeze and so the maneuvering begins. And there I was in my pretty floral summer dress and sling back heels, lipstick in hand, yelling out "vai vai disgraziato", which is not at all lady like, but what can I say, I lost my head, which many people do when they come to Sicily. Perhaps it's the crisp mountain air or the crystal blue seas or the spicy glowing sun that can make you bite your knuckles and join in on the festivities of Italian cursing. After being here for 36 days, I wondered why the transit company doesn't just use smaller buses but it seems all this high paced drama is part of the common Sicilian life. Besides I can't think of a more justified place to lose your head than on this operatic bus ride.
Related Trip Reviews
Italy Trip Reviews Europe Trip Reviews
Send Us Your Trip Review!


text:
This specification describes 18" and 21" (450 and 525mm) Hancor Meter Pits for use as meter enclosures.
Hancor Meter Pits shall be white in color. Meter pits shall be available in 18" (450mm) and 21" (525mm) diameters with a smooth interior and annular exterior corrugations. Based on ASTM D2412 at 5% deflection the pipe stiffness for 18" (450mm) and 21" (525mm) Meter Pits shall be 40 pii and 34 pii respectively. The pits shall be available in precut lengths of 24", 30", 36", 48", (600, 800, 900 and 1200) and in 12' (3.7m) uncut lengths. Meter Pits shall be notched at 0 and 180 degrees at the base of the pit to accommodate inlet and outlet pipes.
Meter pits shall be high density polyethylene meeting ASTM D3350 minimum cell classification 324420 B.
Installation shall be in accordance with Hancor installation instructions or those issued by regional, state, or local agencies.
18" (450mm)
21" (525mm)
21.5" (546mm)
24.5" (622mm)
6.3 lbs./ft. (9.4 kg/m)
8 lbs./ft. (11.9 kg/m)
Home • Ordering • Contact Us • Hot News • Site Map


text:
January 17, 2012Crash Testing Ford's Plug-InJoanne Lipman, The Daily Beast | ||||||
dailybeast.com For more than three years, President Obama has been singing the praises of electric cars. He's repeatedly called for 1 million plug-in and hybrid vehicles on the road by 2015. He's ignored the skeptics who said it was impossible. . . TAGGED: Ford Fusion, The Daily Beast, Transportation, Electric Vehicles, Ford Motor Co. RECOMMENDED ARTICLES


text:
Explore The deep south Trang town The Trang coast The Trang and Satun islands Satun town Share At the south end of Hat Yao is BAN CHAO MAI (also called Ban Hat Yao), a straggle of houses on stilts, which exists on fishing, especially for crabs. From the harbour, boats run regularly across to Ko Libong, and this is the mainland ferry stop on Tigerline's Lanta–Lipe route. The owners of Had Yao Nature Resort by the harbour organize guided and fully insured trips by longtail and canoe through the mangroves to the nearby cave of Tham Chao Mai (B800/person in a group of four or more, including lunch; ten percent discount for guests at the resort); inside are impressively huge rock pillars and a natural theatre, its stage framed by rock curtains. The resort also rents out two-person kayaks (B200 for the first hour, B100/hr thereafter) if you want to do the trip by yourself, with a map and head-torch (B100 rental), as well as offering tours to the local islands, including highly recommended dugong-watching trips to Ko Libong.
More about Thailand Explore Thailand Bangkok The central plains The north The east coast The northeast: Isaan Southern Thailand: the Gulf coast Southern Thailand: the Andaman coast The deep south Inspiration Things not to miss Explore Thailand Itineraries Features Gallery Where Next? Check out The north Book a hostel in Thailand Latest Discussion Essentials Essentials Fact file Getting there Travel via neighbouring countries Getting around Accommodation Food and drink Culture and etiquette The media Festivals Entertainment and sport Spas and traditional massage Meditation centres and retreats Outdoor activities Travelling with children Travel essentials


text:
Connect with Us
What happens in Seattle stays in Seattle | Don Brunell
There's an old saying, "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas." Well, what happens in Seattle should stay in Seattle.
Seattle officials had a bad idea a couple of years ago, and now some state lawmakers want to expand that bad idea statewide.
The bad idea is Seattle's paid sick leave policy that applies to any business with five or more employees, even if that business isn't located in Seattle.
Approved in 2011, the controversial ordinance says that, if one or more of your employees spends more than 240 hours a year — or about 10 percent of their time — in Seattle on business, you must pay them pro-rated benefits, even if your company is located in Everett, New York or Milan, Italy.
To ensure they comply with the law, employers must keep track of every minute their employees are within the city limits of Seattle, delivering flowers, picking up packages, making sales calls or attending a conference or training seminar.
To comply, employers must follow a few simple rules:
- Employers must track the hours of "occasional basis" employees to:
- Determine if the employee meets the 240 hours.
- Track the employee's accrual and use of covered leave.
- "Occasional basis" employees, once covered by the ordinance, remain covered for the current and following calendar year.
- Covered leave may only be used in Seattle (or for time the employee is scheduled to perform work in Seattle).
- Employers must provide to "occasional basis" employees conspicuous and accessible physical or electronic notice of the entitlement to paid sick/safe time, the amount and terms of use, the prohibition of retaliation against employees who request or use paid sick/safe time, and each employee's right to file a complaint if paid sick/safe time is denied or if the employee is retaliated against.
- Employers must retain records of employee time in Seattle, accrued paid sick/safe days, and used sick/safe days for a minimum period of two years.
Just reading the rules is confusing enough. Imagine trying to comply with them.
One wonders why, if this was such a good idea, the Seattle ordinance allows labor unions to request waivers to exempt their employees?
To determine if a policy makes sense, try this simple exercise: transplant the policy to another environment. What if your landlord charged you a different amount of rent each month based on how much time you, your spouse and your kids spent in each room of your house?
Chances are you'd think your landlord had a screw loose.
Seattle officials see nothing wrong with their policy, but one wonders how they'd feel if another city turned the tables. Imagine their reaction if a neighboring city passed an ordinance exempting Seattle companies from their paid leave obligations while their employees were working in that neighboring city.
Seattle officials would likely see such a policy as an outrageous intrusion. Exactly.
Fortunately, the legislation to expand Seattle's overreaching paid sick leave policy statewide didn't make it to a vote.
However, a bill to restrict such policies passed the state Senate. Senate Bill 5726, known as the "city limits" bill, would prevent cities or counties from applying paid sick leave policies unless the employer is physically located in the jurisdiction and covered employees work there at least 85 percent of the time.
The measure passed the Senate March 22 but didn't survive the cutoff in the House.
Lawmakers should take up this common sense limitation again next year or, better yet, reconsider it in the upcoming special session. After all, what happens in Seattle should stay in Seattle.
About the Author
Don Brunell is the president of the Association of Washington Business. Formed in 1904, the Association of Washington Business is Washington's oldest and largest statewide business association, and includes more than 8,000 members representing 700,000 employees. AWB serves as both the state's chamber of commerce and the manufacturing and technology association. While its membership includes major employers like Boeing, Microsoft and Weyerhaeuser, 90 percent of AWB members employ fewer than 100 people. More than half of AWB's members employ fewer than 10. For more about AWB, visit www.awb.org.
Latest news, top stories, and community events,
delivered to your inbox.
Trending Stories Apr 17 - Apr 24
Read the Apr 22
Green Edition
Browse the print edition page by page, including stories and ads.
Browse the archives.


text:
Authors: Respectively, Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Business, New Mexico State University (MSC 3169, P.O. Box 30003, Las Cruces, NM 88003-8003; firstname.lastname@example.com); Professor Emeritus, Department of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Business, NMSU (email@example.com); Professor, Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Oklahoma State University (Stillwater, OK, 74078; firstname.lastname@example.com); and Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Business, NMSU (email@example.com).
This study examines the feasibility of locating and operating a 2-million-pound-capacity pecan processing facility using a new extraction technology in southern New Mexico. The extraction technology is called the Oklahoma State University/ATEP process, which involves propane solvent extraction to produce two products: pecan oil and a de-fatted gluten-free pecan flour. We completed an in-depth market analysis, consumer product research, financial analysis, and sensitivity analysis. This project appears to be financially feasible, with a projected internal rate of return (IRR) of 18% over a 20-year project life based on paying $4.22 per pound for pecans. However, the price of pecans increased by nearly 40% in 2010 due to a large increase in exports of pecans to China. The IRR approaches zero with current prices of nearly $6.00 per pound. Therefore, it is recommended to delay the investment in such a facility until prices stabilize.
This study seeks to provide an alternative market outlet for pecan producers. This study was based on using a new technology that extracts the oil from pecans to produce two final products: pecan oil and pecan flour. Specifically, this study focuses on the extraction process developed by Ambient Temperature Extraction Partners in cooperation with Oklahoma State University (OSU). The process yields 100% pure oil, which is low in saturated fat and high in heart-healthy unsaturated fatty acids, and de-fatted gluten-free pecan flour. These two ready-for-market products can be sold in the specialty gourmet food industry.
More U.S. consumers are purchasing foods to improve their physical and mental well-being, including heart-healthy and cancer-preventative products (Pirovano, 2010). They are also buying more specialty gourmet foods, particularly coffee, chocolate, specialty oils, cheese, and soft drinks (Wolfe, 2010). Sales of gluten-free products rose by 16% from 2009 to 2010 (Pirovano, 2010). These trends provide an opportunity to position pecan oil and flour in expanding markets.
Methods of Producing Pecan Oil and Flour
There are several techniques for extracting oil from pecans and similar nuts. The three that were considered were 1) mechanical extrusion, 2) traditional solvent extraction methods, and 3) a new solvent extraction method involving propane, referred to as the Oklahoma State University/Ambient Temperature Extraction Partners (OSU/ATEP) process.
Mechanical extrusion is the process of obtaining oil by pressing nuts with a screw press or expeller. This process is relatively simple and is not capital-intensive. The few companies that currently sell pecan oil utilize a screw-press process capable of extracting no more than 65 to 75% of the oil, which then requires filtering and refining, thus eliminating the pecan flavor (Walsh, 2009). This type of extraction is used by low-volume producers and generates heat, which can impair the flavor and nutritive value. The co-product of the screw-pressed pecan oil is a high-fat pecan meal that is high in calories and not shelf stable without refrigeration. Thus, it is not a suitable baking flour substitute. The majority of screw press machines contain moving parts, and maintenance is very expensive (Schumacher, 2007; Dunford, 2008).
The other method of extraction is solvent extraction in which oil is separated by way of a liquid solvent, such as hexane or supercritical carbon dioxide. In this process, the solvent solution solubilizes the oil in the oilseed and then passes through an extractor that filters the solution from the meal. The oil and meal are further processed to separate them from the solvent. This type of extraction is efficient and allows for bulk production.
Hexane extraction methods are not certified for use in organic products because of hexane's potential carcinogenic and neurotoxic properties (Cornucopia Institute, 2010). Consumers of natural and organic foods make up a large portion of the market for pecan oil and flour, thus eliminating the option of using hexane extraction methods.
The supercritical carbon dioxide technique has been considered the next best alternative for extraction because there is no pollution. A disadvantage of this technique is the large capital cost of the extractor vessels, as well as high costs due to the large amount of energy needed to compress the CO2 into a liquid (Schumacher, 2007). However, the CO2 is recycled back through the system, which is a cost-saving advantage (Dunford, 2008).
The process selected for use in this feasibility study was an emerging technology developed by Ambient Temperature Extraction Partners and refined for use with pecans by Niels Maness, professor at OSU. This extraction process, referred to as the OSU/ATEP process, separates the oil from the pecan meat using propane (Maness, personal communication). Ambient Temperature Extraction Partners, LLC, is the company that owns the rights to this process.
The OSU/ATEP process falls under the solvent method of extraction; however, unlike hexane, propane is a non-carcinogenic and non-neurotoxic chemical. This method is cost-efficient because it removes nearly 100% of the oil, resulting in pure oil and a dry, defatted flour product. It was chosen for this study because it yields two marketable products. As with the supercritical carbon dioxide technique, there is no residual solvent left in the oil, and the propane is recycled back through the system. The propane method requires less energy to operate and is conducted with lower pressure and temperature than the supercritical carbon dioxide technique (Maness, personal communication). This process is approved by the USDA and meets the increasingly rigid health and environmental regulations.
Production of Pecan Oil and Flour for Research
The OSU/ATEP process is not yet available for commercial production. New Mexico State University (NMSU) sent a sample of New Mexico pecans to OSU's Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture labs for extraction using their pilot production facilities. Samples of the roasted and non-roasted oil and flour were sent to Silliker Commercial Labs in Chicago for an independent nutritional analysis (Silliker, 2010). The remaining oil and flour were sent to NMSU for use in market research.
Product Description
Pecans are made up of about 65 to 75% oil, depending on location, variety, and growing conditions. Pecan oil consists of mostly unsaturated fats, with oleic (omega-9) and linoleic (omega-6) acids accounting for the largest portion (Toro-Vazquez et al., 1999). The OSU/ATEP process yielded 68% oil and 32% dry defatted gluten-free flour from the raw pecan nuts used in this study. The pecan oil is 100% pure, thus eliminating the need for filtering or other refinement, and is high in unsaturated fats, important omega acids, antioxidants, and vitamin E. The dry defatted gluten-free flour is high in fiber, iron, and calcium, making it a highly desirable flour substitute. These two products are superior in nutritive value compared to most competing products.
Pecan Oil
The pecan oil's main competitors in the market are expected to be virgin olive oil and other gourmet specialty oils. According to Silliker's laboratory analysis, the pecan oil derived from the OSU/ATEP extraction process has 40% less saturated fat than olive oil and three times the amount of "good" polyunsaturated fats, including omega-3s and -6s (Silliker, 2010) (Table 1). Pecan oil also has three times as much Vitamin E as virgin olive oil.
Table 1. Comparison of Oil Benefits
Attributes (serving size 1 Tbsp) | Pecan Oila |
Virgin Olive Oilb |
Grapeseed Oilb |
Walnut Oilb |
Calories per serving | 126 | 120 | 119 | 119 |
Saturated fats | 8.37% | 13.81% | 9.63% | 9.1% |
Monounsaturated fats (Omega-9) | 58.25% | 72.96% | 16.30% | 22.8% |
Polyunsaturated fats (Omega-3 & -6) | 32.94% | 10.52% | 69.63% | 63.3% |
Omega-3 | 1.28% | 0.76% | 0% | 10.4% |
Omega-6 | 31.65% | 9.76% | 69.59% | 52.9% |
Vitamin E (gamma-Tocopherol) | 31.03 mg | 12 mg | 3.9 mg | 0 mg |
Sources: aSilliker Labs, 2010;bUSDA-ARS, 2011 |
Saturated fats are considered the "bad" fats that tend to raise levels of LDL (bad) cholesterol, while monounsaturated and polyunsaturated are "good" fats that help reduce LDL cholesterol while raising HDL (good) cholesterol. All the fatty acids as well as omega-3s, -6s, and -9s are important in a healthful diet; however, omega-3s and -6s are considered essential because our bodies cannot produce these and, therefore, they must be obtained from food or supplements. The body generally produces sufficient omega-9 (American Heart Association, 2011).
It is imperative that these three fatty acids be consumed in balance in order to be most beneficial. Even though grapeseed and walnut oil are good oils that are high in these essential fatty acids, pecan oil is the most balanced oil, with sufficient amounts of all fatty acids as well as a high amount of vitamin E. Vitamin E provides many health benefits, chief among which are anti-inflammatory properties that alleviate and prevent degenerative diseases.
The pecan oil can be produced with a roasted or non-roasted flavor. The raw pecan nuts are roasted before extraction in order to obtain the roasted flavor. Both oil products have identical nutritional characteristics but provide different flavor and aroma profiles. Pecan oil is an ideal healthful choice that can be used in salad dressings and in cooking.
Pecan Flour
Currently, defatted pecan flour is not available in the market. The defatted pecan flour product produced from the OSU/ATEP process is gluten-free and highly nutritious. This pecan flour has fewer calories and carbohydrates, more protein, more iron, and a higher percentage of fiber than rice flour (Table 2). Rice flour is a common flour substitute used by consumers who cannot tolerate wheat gluten; however, it lacks nutritive value compared to pecan flour. As shown in Table 2, rice flour is comprised mostly of carbohydrates.
Table 2. Comparison of Flour Benefits
Attributes (serving size 36 g) | Pecan Floura | Rice Flourb |
Calories per serving | 115 | 135 |
Protein per serving | 15 g | 2 g |
Carbohydrates per serving | 13 g | 29 g |
Dietary fiber | 7 g | 1 g |
Fiber % daily value | 28% | 4% |
Iron % daily value | 20% | 0% |
Calcium % daily value | 6% | 0% |
100% gluten-free | yes | yes |
Sources: aSilliker Labs, 2010;bUSDA-ARS, 2011 |
Market Assessment
We expect the pecan oil and flour will have market potential when sold in consumer-sized packages to retail grocery shoppers. The products also have potential to be sold to food service distributors that supply restaurants. We evaluated both of these potential markets. Survey results and discussions with food service companies and restaurants indicated that selling to the restaurant segment presented greater marketing challenges than selling to consumers shopping in retail food stores. Consumers shopping in retail stores can be educated about the branded products through labels on packages and other forms of advertising, whereas restaurants use the products as ingredients in dishes with little information conveyed to consumers about the ingredients used. Also, many restaurant patrons, particularly those intolerant to gluten, tend not to trust meals prepared in restaurants. Therefore, the following marketing plan is based on selling through retail food stores.
Product Positioning
Pecan oil would be positioned as a healthful specialty gourmet product because pecan nuts are relatively expensive compared to most vegetable sources used for making salad and cooking oils. Also, there is not a sufficient supply of appropriate-sized pecan nuts to produce low-cost oil for the mass market. Pecan flour would be positioned as a healthful gluten-free alternative to wheat flour.
Industry Description and Market Size
According to the Nielsen Company, sales of food products advertising heart-healthy claims involving omega fatty acids increased by 42% from 2008 to 2009. During the same time period, food products claiming high antioxidant content also increased by 29% (Pirovano, 2010).
Sales of gluten-free products in the U.S. rose 74% from 2004 to 2009, and are estimated to increase another 15 to 25% by 2011, with annual revenues of $2.6 billion (Pirovano, 2010). Over 40 million consumers seek out gluten-free products when shopping because their digestive systems do not tolerate gluten or for weight loss reasons. Approximately 15 million Americans are intolerant to gluten, and 3 million have been diagnosed with celiac disease and cannot tolerate any gluten in their diet (Living Without, 2011).
In recent years, retail sales of gourmet foods have grown at a faster rate than the overall food industry, and specialty oils are among the five best performers (Wolfe, 2010). Food industry sources estimate sales of gourmet salad and cooking oils in the U.S. will total $424 million in 2013. Gourmet olive oil sales, the market leader, are forecasted at 85% of this market, with annual revenues of $360 million. Sales of a wide array of specialty nut and vegetable oils make up the remaining 15%, or $64 million.
Market Segments
The primary target market segment for pecan oil is consumers that follow a healthful eating lifestyle. The healthful eating lifestyle segment is made up of the 82 million Americans with one or more cardiovascular diseases and consumers of all ages that focus on healthful eating (Roger et al., 2011). Consumers in this segment have average annual household incomes of $70,000, 84% of the purchasers are female, and the majority have attended college (Healthy Cooking, 2010). A secondary market segment is consumers that seek out unique gourmet food products, particularly for home entertainment.
The primary target market for pecan flour is consumers following a gluten-free lifestyle. Most gluten-free lifestyle consumers have a college degree and average annual household incomes of more than $80,000, and they are active followers of social networking sites for information on gluten-free cooking (Living Without, 2011).
Key Market Influencers
Dieticians, celebrity chefs, health professionals, and the mainstream television media with their daily food and health stories are key influencers in this industry. Consumers' word of mouth influences at least 50% of new food product purchases and, thus, is important in expanding information on healthful food products (Bughin et al., 2010).
Analysis of Market Competition
Pecan oil will be competing with gourmet olive oil, gourmet specialty oils, and other pecan oils for a share of the $424 million gourmet salad and cooking oil annual market.
Olive Oil
Gourmet olive oil sales are the industry leader, with prices ranging from $12 to over $30 for a 500-ml bottle. This market has been supplied primarily by imports from Italy, Spain, and other European countries, with many American companies, including olive companies in California, entering the market in recent years. These high-priced oils are generally not used for deep frying. Gourmet olive oils are sold in most U.S. grocery stores.
Much of the substantial growth of olive oil sales in the U.S. during the last decade has been attributed to public awareness of its health benefits. Popular chefs with cooking shows have also promoted olive oil by educating their audiences on the health benefits of using olive oil.
Specialty Oils
Walnut, pumpkin seed, avocado, sunflower, grapeseed, almond, and many other oils make up the specialty oil segment. Several, but not all, of these oils are heart-healthy and are low in saturated fats. Health food, gourmet specialty food, and many mainline supermarkets typically carry several of these specialty oils. The consumption of these oils is increasing and together is projected to have a $64 million market by 2013.
Other Pecan Oils
Kinloch, La Tourangelle, and Delta are currently three leading pecan oils on the U.S. market. Kinloch and Delta focus exclusively on marketing pecan oil, whereas La Tourangelle, a French company with operations in California, markets a wide array of food oils. Annual sales information for these companies is not available, but based on discussions with specialty product food wholesalers, their combined sales of pecan oil probably do not exceed $2 million annually. These oils are not available in most retail food stores. Most of their sales are through the Internet and select retail stores located in pecan-growing regions. They do not have large budgets for advertising and promotion programs directed toward selling pecan oil.
Market Share—Pecan Oil
We expect a 2-million-pound-capacity pecan nut extraction plant (the size selected for this feasibility analysis) to have pecan oil sales of $7 to $11 million dollars annually depending upon selling prices. This represents about 2.6% of the total gourmet oil market, 3% of virgin olive oils, and about 17% of the other specialty oil sales. These market shares are modest and should be achievable assuming an aggressive marketing plan.
Since olive oil dominates the market, one would expect that most of the market share for a new pecan oil company would come at the expense of olive oil sales. However, since the market for gourmet food oils (including olive oil) is growing, any new, relatively small competitor should not have a substantial impact on current sales of existing olive oil companies.
Market Share—Pecan Flour
Gluten-free flour products are an underserved market. Most of the products currently in the market are lacking in healthful nutrients, do not provide desirable tasting products, or are high in fat content. Discussions with gluten-free consumers and food retailers indicate that there is a large market for the healthful defatted pecan flour.
Consumer Product Research
The NMSU research team worked with the two products to develop recipes for their uses. The pecan oil proved to be an ideal ingredient in salad dressings and sauteing meats and vegetables. The pecan flavor was very distinct and complimented the other flavors in the dressings.
The NMSU research team conducted a group consumer survey with 41 participants on the NMSU campus. Participants were asked to taste products, evaluate nutritional information, and answer a series of questions. The oil taste tests included a blind taste comparison between olive oil and pecan oil, roasted versus non-roasted pecan oil, and salad dressings made with pecan oil. Out of 41 participants, 31 indicated they preferred pecan oil over olive oil during the blind taste testing. After participants were given nutritional information for both products, eight out of the 10 who had previously chosen olive oil changed their preference to pecan oil, demonstrating that nutritional information can influence consumer decisions.
Overall, the test group participants indicated high satisfaction with pecan oil used in bread dipping and in salad dressings.
The pecan flour was used to develop recipes for a variety of gluten-free baked goods, including pancakes, sugar cookies, and breads.
During the same consumer survey at NMSU, participants were asked to taste three different recipes made with pecan flour: pancakes, bread, and sugar cookies. One of the main concerns of gluten-intolerant consumers is the difficulty of finding a tasty flour substitute that mimics the consistency of wheat flour. Ten out of the 41 participants followed a gluten-free lifestyle and indicated that the three products made with pecan flour were exceptionally better in texture and taste than those made from other gluten-free flours they currently use or have tried.
With these results, it is apparent that there is a large interest in these two products on the part of consumers. These results, however, could be biased because all of the participants were New Mexico residents. Because they are new products and consumers know nothing about them, an aggressive advertising and promotional plan will be needed in launching these two products.
Retail Packaging
A 2-million-pound-capacity raw product processing facility will produce approximately 160,000 cases of oil and 140,000 cases of flour. Using suggestions from retailers and wholesalers, this study assumed packaging the oil in two sizes, 250-ml and 500-ml glass bottles, both packed 12 to a case. The flour will be packed in 12-ounce clear plastic bags with six to a case.
Estimated Sales Per Store
Health and gourmet food retailers estimated that pecan oil, being a new product, would probably sell about four cases per month per store on average. Pecan flour sales would also average about four cases per month per store. Using these estimates, the oil and flour products would have to be placed in approximately 2,800 stores, assuming the processing facility is operating at full capacity. The most practical way of reaching this many stores is through selected wholesale distributors.
The primary targets for our gourmet pecan oil and flour will be specialty food stores, including food co-ops, health and natural food stores, and gourmet food stores in the U.S. According to the U.S. Census Bureau's Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2011, there were approximately 28,300 specialty food stores in 2007 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). The total annual sales were estimated at $19 billion in 2009 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). These stores would be the primary target for the pecan oil and flour products since they specialize in gourmet and local food items.
Since the pecan flour is a new product in the market, there is no established retail price; a retail price for the pecan oil can be estimated based on current market prices for existing pecan oils. Positioned in the gourmet category, pecan oil and flour sales volumes are not expected to be highly related to prices. Discussions with health and gourmet food retailers suggested that a retail price point could range from $9.99 to $13.99 for pecan oil packaged in a 250-ml bottle and from $16.99 to $21.99 for a 500-ml bottle. This price range is in line with the lower end of gourmet virgin olive oils and specialty nut and vegetable oils.
The retail price range suggested for pecan flour packaged in a 12-ounce plastic bag could range from $8.99 to $13.99, which is slightly higher than rice flour but on the low end of other gluten-free flour and meal products. The typical gross margins charged by wholesalers for handling gourmet products range from 15 to 25%, and retail gross margins range from 35 to 40%.
Assuming the decision is to price the 250-ml oil product at $9.99 at retail and the 500-ml oil product at $16.99 at retail, the selling price from the processing plant to the wholesalers would be $4.91 for the 250-ml and $8.36 for the 500-ml. Assuming the flour sells $9.99 at retail, the price received by the processing plant would be $4.91 for the 12-ounce package. These prices are assumed by using a wholesale gross margin of 18% and a retail gross margin of 40%.
These prices were used as base prices for this feasibility study. The sensitivity analysis discussed later measures the impact of price changes on profitability.
Sales Projections
Sales projections are based on the prices received at the processing plant. These projections assume all product produced in that year will be sold that year. The number of stores carrying product will be 2,000 stores in Year 1, 2,400 stores in Year 2, and 2,800 stores by Year 3. Achieving these store goals would result in the sales projections as seen in Table 3. Total sales are approximately $9 million in Year 1 and increase to $15.5 million in Year 3.
Table 3. Sales Projections
Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
Oil Sales | $6,682,930 | $9,136,163 | $11,430,156 |
Flour Sales | $2,389,992 | $3,270,125 | $4,091,339 |
Total | $9,072,921 | $12,406,289 | $15,521,496 |
Advertising and Promotional Plan
Launching a new consumer product where almost all potential consumers have not heard of nor tasted the products requires a substantial advertising and promotional program, beginning with the launch of the products (Table 4). The advertising program budget focuses on a combination of print advertisements in magazines read by consumers in the targeted market segments, fees charged by the advertising agency, and social media advertising, including developing advertisements for social networking sites.
Table 4. Advertising and Promotion Expenses
Year 0 | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
Print Advertising Living Without Gluten-Free Living |
$ – $ – |
$19,985 $9,600 |
$19,985 $9,600 |
$19,985 $9,600 |
Miscellaneous Advertising Ad Development Ad Agency Commissions/Media Kit Internet Ads |
$ – $ – $ – |
$30,000 $50,000 $60,000 |
$30,000 $50,000 $60,000 |
$30,000 $50,000 $60,000 |
Total Advertising | $ – | $149,585 | $159,585 | $169,585 |
Promotional Activities Television Cooking Show Sponsor House Party Program Free Product to Retail Stores Coupons Website Recipe Development & Distribution Trade Show: Celiac Show Miscellaneous Promotions |
$ – $ – $ – $ – $ – $ – $ – $15,000 |
$200,000 $168,832 $211,659 $60,000 $15,000 $50,000 $20,000 $100,000 |
$200,000 $84,055 $41,610 $48,000 $10,000 $20,000 $20,000 $100,000 |
$200,000 $83,856 $41,212 $40,000 $10,000 $20,000 $20,000 $100,000 |
Donations American Heart Association Celiac Disease Foundation |
$ – $ – |
$56,782 $25,088 |
$75,709 $33,451 |
$94,637 $41,813 |
Total Donations and Promotional | $ – | $907,361 | $632,825 | $651,518 |
Total Advertising and Promotional | $15,000 | $1,056,946 | $792,410 | $821,103 |
The funds allocated in the proposed promotional program include sponsoring a television cooking show and conducting house parties during the launch phase. The television cooking show that will feature the oil and flour products is one of the largest expenses in the promotional budget. Sponsoring TV cooking shows with a popular chef has proven to be a highly effective method of getting consumers to try healthful new food products.
During the initial months, generating product awareness will be key. This will be done by hosting 1,000 house parties in Year 1 and 500 each in Years 2 and 3. The house party program is designed to create word-of-mouth advertising. The 1,000 house parties scheduled primarily in medium- and higher-income urban areas during the first week of the product launch are expected to inform over 90,000 consumers of the benefits of the oil and flour products within two weeks. The company can contract with a business that provides house party services, which will provide and coordinate the 1,000 party hosts.
Distribution of a free case of product to 2,500 stores in Year 1 and an additional 500 stores each in Years 2 and 3 is necessary to get the products stocked in retail stores at the beginning of the products' launch period. This program would be coordinated by wholesalers distributing to specialty stores and is often used for low-volume gourmet items in lieu of slotting allowances. Free product distribution is the biggest expense in the promotional budget during the Year 1, totaling $211,659.
Other features of the promotional program include participating in a trade show for gluten-free products, coupons as a part of web advertisements, and recipe development. Another major portion of the promotional program goes to donations to the American Heart Association and the Celiac Disease Foundation. According to research done at New Mexico State University, U.S. consumers are willing to pay premiums for a cooking oil product that has a social cause attribute. Research concluded that consumers are willing to pay $1.72 more for a product that donates to a social cause (McLain, 2011).
Technical Feasibility
Assumptions and Specifications
The general assumptions of the project were:
- Capacity: Two million pounds of shelled raw pecan nuts annually.
- Raw Product: Based on using mostly medium-sized pecan pieces, which are currently sold primarily to food baking companies. Pecan pieces are typically 5 to 10% less expensive than whole halves (Zedan, personal communication).
- Product Output Yields: Sixty eight percent of the raw product weight is oil and 32% is dry defatted flour, less a 2% shrink.
- Licensing Fee: The fee for a nonexclusive license to use the technology is $75,000 per year for a facility of this size.
- Project Life: The project life was designated at 20 years with no salvage value at the end of the period.
- Financing: The study assumes self-financing by one or more large pecan processing companies.
- Location: The feasibility analysis assumes the facility would be built in southern New Mexico, which is central to the large pecan-growing region of the southwest U.S. and northern Mexico.
- Operation: The plant will operate two 8-hour shifts per day for 260 days per year.
The pecan oil and flour production plant in this study would utilize the OSU/ATEP process and is based on a capacity of 2 million pounds of raw pecan nuts annually. After preliminary analysis of a 750,000-pound versus a 2-million-pound facility, the 2-million-pound was chosen because much of the equipment needed for the 750,000-pound facility was capable of processing 2 million pounds and could thus achieve economy of scale benefits (Appendix A).
ATEP owns the intellectual rights to the production technology and charges a licensing fee. The fee for a nonexclusive license is subject to negotiations since a facility using this technology has never been built. Based on preliminary telephone conversations with a representative from ATEP, $75,000 per year was used in this study.
The 20-year project life was chosen because most of the capital investments in equipment, buildings, and facilities are expected to have a useful life of at least 20 years.
Manufacturing Process
The OSU/ATEP process yields pure pecan oil and dry defatted pecan flour through propane extraction. Niels Maness of Oklahoma State University recommended requirements for the manufacturing process and selection of equipment. The manufacturing process as specified in this study will be as follows.
- For non-roasted pecan oil and flour, the raw pecan pieces will first be fed into a hopper, which feeds a slicing machine.
- Conveyor belts then run the sliced pecans through the blast freezer, which freeze the nuts so that, when flaked, the oil remains in the pecan piece.
- The blast freezer provides a quick and uniform freezing of the pecan nutmeats, which are then run through a flaking machine with chilled rollers.
- Flaked pecan nutmeats are conveyed to bins that feed directly into the extractor unit.
- The extraction system is comprised of two 600-liter extractors that have a throughput of 3.85 tons per 16-hour day. The extraction system is housed within an explosion containment structure where the propane is flowing and being vaporized. Specifications for this area are a Class I, Division 2 structure, which would provide protection for surrounding structures in the unlikely event of an explosion.
- The pecan nutmeats are fed through the extractor where liquid propane flows through and efficiently extracts the lipids, or oil, leaving dry defatted flour behind.
- The propane is then vaporized off the oil resulting in 100% pure pecan oil. The propane is recycled back into the system for the next batch of raw pecan nutmeats.
- From the extractor, the pecan oil is conveyed into a 1,000-gallon "day" tank and the flour into two 200-ft2 "day" bins.
- These tanks are unloaded at the start of each day into settling tanks for both the oil and flour that feed the packaging equipment.
- The oil is then run through a bottling machine that labels and caps the bottles. A worker will pack 12 bottles to a case.
- The pecan flour is pneumatically conveyed to the flour packaging machine and packaged in plastic 12-ounce bags packed 6 to a case.
- The finished product will be stored in a chilled warehouse with at least a two-week supply in stock. This warehouse is where all order filling and shipping will take place. A two-week supply of raw pecan nuts will also be stored in this warehouse.
The process for manufacturing roasted pecan oil and flour products involves sending the raw nutmeats through the slicer and then through a roaster to obtain the roasted flavor profile. The roasted pecans are then run through the rest of the process in the same manner as the non-roasted pecans.
Plant Size and Production Schedule
The pecan oil and flour processing plant is specified to run two 8-hour shifts per day for 260 days per year. At full capacity, the plant can run 2 million pounds of raw pecan nuts through the system each year. For this study, it was assumed that the plant would operate at 60% capacity in Year 1, 80% in Year 2, and at full capacity by Year 3 and thereafter. It was also specified to package half of the pecan oil in 250-ml bottles and half in 500-ml bottles. The unit production schedule in Table 5 reflects these assumptions.
Table 5. Number of Product Packages Produced by Year
Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
Oil 250-ml bottles 500-ml bottles |
757,093 378,547 |
1,009,458 504,729 |
1,261,822 630,911 |
Flour 12-oz packages |
501,760 |
669,013 |
836,267 |
Prices of Shelled Pecans
The OSU/ATEP method can be used to process many different nuts and oilseeds; however, the specified input for this study is pecan nuts. When pecans are shelled, they come out either as whole halves or pieces, and the pieces typically sell for less than whole halves (Appendix B, Table B1). These halves and pieces are typically classified into three grades based on the nut size and color of meats, Fancy, Choice, or Standard, with Fancy being the highest quality and Standard the lowest (Crawford, 2009). Historically, Choice grade pecans sell at around $0.10 to $0.15 per pound less than Fancy, and Standard sells at $0.15 to $0.20 per pound less than Choice (Zedan, 2011).
In recent years, prices of pecans have increased drastically because of the rapidly growing demand for U.S. pecans in China. In 2009, 25% of the U.S. pecan crop went to China (Wessel, 2011). The prices in 2010 were 75% higher than they were in 2007, with Fancy junior mammoth halves selling at $6.62 a pound (Appendix B, Table B1). This study was based on using Fancy grade medium pecan nut pieces as the base price. A 5-year average was computed and a price of $4.22 per pound was used as the basis for the raw input price (Table 6).
Table 6. Prices of Medium Pieces by Year
Fancy Med. Pieces |
Choice Med. Pieces |
Standard Med. Pieces |
2006 | $4.18 | $4.08 | $3.93 |
2007 | $3.46 | $3.36 | $3.21 |
2008 | $3.44 | $3.34 | $3.19 |
2009 | $4.19 | $4.09 | $3.94 |
2010 | $5.85 | $5.75 | $5.60 |
5-Year Avg. | $4.22 | $4.12 | $3.97 |
Financial Feasibility
Facility Investment Cost
The investment dollars needed for the purchase of land, facilities, equipment, and buildings is estimated at $9,221,052 (Table 7). The equipment makes up the largest part of the initial investment. These consist of the pressurized extractors, slicing machines, roasting oven, bottling line, packaging equipment, and materials handling equipment (Appendix B, Table B2). The costs to transport and install the equipment are included in the equipment category.
Table 7. Capital Investment Summary
Cost | |
Land (3 acres) | $36,000 |
Equipment | $8,115,612 |
Processing and Packaging Building (5,200 ft2) | $156,000 |
Extraction Building (2,000 ft2) | $500,000 |
Warehouse, Shipping, and Office Building (7,808 ft2) | $413,440 |
Total Initial Investment | $9,221,052 |
Table 7 shows the detailed capital requirements for buildings. Three buildings with an office attached totaling approximately 15,000 square feet are needed. These will be metal buildings set on a concrete foundation with concrete floors.
The processing and packaging building will house all the processing and packaging equipment except the actual extraction equipment. The extractor building will be an explosion containment structure that houses the extractors, compressors, and other equipment to handle the propane. This type of building will be classified at Class I, Division 2 building standards. The warehouse and shipping building will be for raw pecan product storage, finished product storage, shipping, and office facilities. The warehouse will be insulated and cooled to 50 °F to keep raw and finished product shelf stable. This warehouse is sized to hold a one-month supply of finished product and a one-month supply of shelled pecans.
Pro Forma Financial Statements
Pro forma financial statements were prepared for the 2-million-pound capacity processing facility (Tables 8–12). The sales projections in Table 3 were entered into the model using the base prices of $4.91 for the 250-ml bottle of pecan oil, $8.36 for the 500-ml bottle, and $4.91 for the 12-ounce bag of pecan flour. Year 0 is considered the startup period and is dedicated to the construction of all the facilities and purchase of equipment. Some promotional and marketing begins in this year to prepare for the launch of the new products.
Pro Forma Income Statement
Total sales are $9 million in Year 1 and increase to $15.5 million in Years 3 and 4 when the facility levels out at full capacity (Table 8). Gross margin increases from $1,738,388 in Year 1 to $3,318,437 in Year 3.
Table 8. Five-Year Pro Forma Income Statement
Year 0 | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | |
Sales Oil Products Flour Products |
$ – $ – |
$6,682,930 $2,389,992 |
$9,136,163 $3,270,125 |
$11,430,156 $4,091,339 |
$11,430,156 $4,091,339 |
Total Sales |
$ – | $9,072,921 | $12,406,289 | $15,521,496 | $15,521,496 |
Cost of Goods Sold | $ – | $7,334,534 | $9,848,534 | $12,203,059 | $12,203,059 |
Gross Margin | $ – | $1,738,388 | $2,557,755 | $3,318,437 | $3,318,437 |
Distribution Expense | $ – | $154,055 | $205,407 | $256,759 | $256,759 |
Marketing Expenses Advertising Promotional Activities Donations Sales Manager Sales Representative Travel Utilities/Telephone/Other |
$ – $15,000 $– $47,500 $– $9,000 $9,000 |
$149,585 $825,491 $81,870 $95,000 $65,000 $30,000 $18,600 |
$159,585 $523,665 $109,160 $100,000 $67,500 $32,000 $19,600 |
$169,585 $515,068 $136,450 $105,000 $70,000 $34,000 $20,600 |
$169,585 $390,000 $136,450 $105,000 $70,000 $34,000 $20,600 |
Total Marketing Expenses | $80,500 | $1,265,546 | $1,011,510 | $1,050,703 | $925,635 |
Administration and Overhead Expenses |
$138,170 | $337,598 | $342,670 | $347,741 | $347,741 |
Amortized Startup Expenses Total Expenses |
$ – $218,670 |
$21,867 $1,779,066 |
$21,867 $1,581,454 |
$21,867 $1,677,070 |
$21,867 $1,552,002 |
Net Income | $ – | $(40,679) | $976,301 | $1,641,367 | $1,766,435 |
Cost of Goods Manufactured
The cost of goods manufactured is estimated at about $7.5 million in Year 1, increasing to $12,244,271 when in full production in Year 3 (Table 9). The cost of raw pecan nuts is based on purchasing the raw nuts at $4.22 per pound. The cost of raw pecan nuts and the finished product packaging are the two largest expense items, accounting for over 90% of the cost of manufacturing. Bottles, labels, plastic packages for the flour, and cardboard shipping boxes are the major packaging cost items (Appendix B, Table B3).
Table 9. Cost of Goods Sold Schedule
Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
Cost of Goods Manufactured Raw Pecan Nuts Direct Labor Packaging Supplies Utilities Propane Repairs and Maintenance Miscellaneous Depreciation |
$5,064,000 $310,750 $1,620,170 $83,400 $2,750 $18,810 $4,000 $442,312 |
$6,752,000 $392,500 $2,160,227 $111,200 $825 $25,080 $6,000 $442,312 |
$8,440,000 $482,500 $2,700,284 $139,000 $825 $31,350 $8,000 $442,312 |
Total Cost of Goods Manufactured | $7,546,192 | $9,890,144 | $12,244,271 |
Less Cost of Free Product for Promotion | $211,659 | $41,610 | $41,212 |
Cost of Goods Sold | $7,334,534 | $9,848,534 | $12,203,059 |
The cost of free product given to selected retail stores for promotional purposes has been deducted from the total cost of goods manufactured to give us the cost of goods sold. The value of these free products is included as a promotional expense in the income statement. The cost of goods sold is approximately $7.3 million in Year 1, rising to $12,203,059 in Year 3 (Table 9). Direct labor expenses are based on employing two superintendents and 13 production and shipping employees at full production in Year 3 (Appendix B, Table B4); these costs total $482,500 in Year 3 (Table 9). Depreciation is also accounted for in the cost of goods sold schedule and was calculated assuming a straight-line depreciation method (Appendix B, Table B5).
Distribution Expenses
The feasibility analysis is based on the processing company paying the cost of shipping the oil and flour products to approximately five wholesale distributors serving specialty food stores throughout most of the U.S. The company would also pay the shipping cost to deliver products to distribution centers for a couple of larger retail chains. The distribution expense is calculated at $0.94 per case for the oil and $0.78 per case for the flour. In Year 1, the distribution expense totals $154,055 and increases to $256,759 in Year 3 (Table 8).
Marketing Expenses
Total marketing expenses are $80,500 in the startup Year 0 and rise to approximately $1 million in Year 3 (Table 8). In Year 4, these costs start to decrease as the house party program is no longer needed and awareness of the products increases, therefore requiring fewer advertising and promotional activities. The advertising and promotional activities and donations are shown in Table 4. In addition to these costs, the marketing expenses include the salaries of the sales manager and sales representative as well as travel, utilities, telephone, and miscellaneous costs associated with their positions.
Administrative and Overhead Expenses
Administrative and overhead expenses are estimated at $138,170 in Year 0. These expenses are needed in the startup year in order to get the facilities ready for production at the beginning of Year 1. In Year 1, administrative and overhead expenses total $337,572 and rise to $347,717 in Year 3 (Table 10). The salary of the general manager, the technology licensing fee, and property taxes are the major expense items in this category. The salaries include Social Security, Medicare, workers' compensation, and some health and retirement benefits. The technology licensing fee is for a non-exclusive license for use of the extraction technology. Property taxes were calculated using the Las Cruces outside-city-limits, non-residential tax rate for 2010.
Table 10. Administrative and Overhead Expenses
Year 0 | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
General Manager | $100,000 | $100,000 | $105,000 | $110,000 |
Technology Licensing Fee | $ – | $75,000 | $75,000 | $75,000 |
Insurance | $4,500 | $18,000 | $22,000 | $26,000 |
Property Taxes | $320 | $81,898 | $77,970 | $74,041 |
Office Assistant (full-time) | $22,050 | $44,100 | $44,100 | $44,100 |
Accounting/Payroll | $ – | $3,000 | $3,000 | $3,000 |
Travel | $8,000 | $8,000 | $8,000 | $8,000 |
Telephone and Utilities | $2,400 | $4,000 | $4,000 | $4,000 |
Supplies and Miscellaneous | $900 | $3,600 | $3,600 | $3,600 |
Total Administrative and Overhead Expenses | $138,170 | $337,598 | $342,670 | $347,741 |
Net Income
The expenses in Year 0 are amortized over a ten-year period as they are capitalized as startup expenses (Table 8); these include marketing, administrative, and overhead expenses. As shown in the pro forma income statement in Table 8, the project is forecasted to lose about $41,000 in Year 1 when the plant is only operating at 60% capacity. By Year 3, the net income before taxes is forecasted as $1,641,367 as full production is reached and advertising and promotion expenses decrease slightly. Based on this information, one could conclude that the project has the potential to be financially feasible. However, the income statement was based on the assumption that the project was self-financed by the investors, and therefore no interest expense was included.
Balance Sheet
Five years of balance sheets are provided in Table 11. All sales were assumed to be cash sales with no accounts receivable or inventory held. The fixed assets section includes all buildings, equipment, and land as well as the amortized startup expenses from Year 0. Buildings, equipment, and startup expenses decrease by the depreciation amount starting in Year 1. This project was also assumed to be self-financed, and therefore there are no liabilities incurred.
Table 11. Five-Year Pro Forma Balance Sheet
Cash Flow Statements
According to the pro forma cash flow statements (Table 12), in Year 0 cash outflows total $9,429,722. These outflows were the requirements for purchasing the capital assets and the capitalized startup expenses. Beginning cash matches this amount because it is self-financed and the company put $9,429,722 of cash into the business during Year 0. The cash balance in Year 1 was $423,501 and accumulated to $6,200,140 by Year 4. A 20-year cash flow can be found in Appendix B, Table B6.
Table 12. Five-Year Pro Forma Cash Flow Statement
Internal Rate of Return Analysis
We completed a cash flow projection for the 20-year project life and used it as the basis for calculating the internal ate of return (IRR) for the project (Appendix B, Table B6). The cash flow included replacement of capital items needed during the project life and assumed a zero salvage value at the end of the 20 years. The IRR for the project is 18% when using the base product prices of $4.91 per 250-ml bottle of oil, $8.36 per 500-ml bottle of oil, and $4.91 per 12-ounce package of flour and purchasing pecan pieces at $4.22 per pound (Table 13). The expected average retail price is also shown in Table 13 because changes in the prices the company charges wholesalers directly affect retail prices. The company should not consider raising retail prices much above competitive products.
Table 13. Base Pricing and Internal Rate of Return
Company Price | Retail Price | |
Pecan Oil, 250 ml | $4.91 | $9.98 |
Pecan Oil, 500 ml | $8.36 | $16.99 |
Pecan Flour, 12 ounces | $4.91 | $9.98 |
Raw Pecan Price/Pound | $4.22 | |
Sensitivity Analysis
Prices received for the oil and flour products and price paid for the nuts were determined as the factors most likely to fluctuate from the base assumption. Table 14 demonstrates the effects of changes in pecan prices and changes in selling prices of the products. At the base prices from Table 13, the IRR is 18% and positioned in the middle of Table 14. If product selling prices are 5% lower than the base prices and the base input price remains constant, the IRR decreases from 18% to 11%. If selling prices increase and input prices remain constant or decrease, the IRR increases, leaving this project feasible. However, if the price of pecans increases by 10% (i.e., pecans cost $4.64 instead of $4.22 per pound) and the selling prices remain constant, the IRR drops to 10%. If pecan prices increase any more than 10%, then product selling prices must increase in order to achieve an acceptable IRR.
Table 14. Sensitivity Analysis of Internal Rate of Return
Company Selling Price of Pecan Oil and Flour | |||||
10% Decrease |
5% Decrease |
Base Selling Price |
5% Increase |
10% Increase |
Prices of Raw Pecan Nuts | |||||
20% Decrease | 20% | 26% | 32% | 38% | 44% |
10% Decrease | 12% | 19% | 26% | 32% | 38% |
Base Input Price | 0% | 11% | 18% | 25% | 31% |
10% Increase | 0% | 0% | 10% | 18% | 24% |
20% Increase | 0% | 0% | 0% | 10% | 17% |
Conclusion and Recommendations
Considering the sensitivity analysis, if the base scenario product selling prices can be achieved and pecan nut prices do not exceed $4.22 per pound, the 2-million-pound capacity processing facility would be considered financially feasible. The base scenario assumptions with a projected IRR of 18% would allow debt financing at interest rates of around 12% with a reserve for investor risk premium. If pecan prices increase by 10%, the company could still achieve an 18% IRR if they were able to raise their selling prices by 5%. The company would have some control over the pricing of the oil and flour products given that they are branded gourmet food items.
The biggest risk with this project is the price of pecan nuts. Pecan nut pieces are a commodity, and the company would have to compete in the market for supplies. With a large portion of the pecan supply being exported to China, U.S. shellers are experiencing a shortage of nuts to run through their plants. The current October 2011 price of Fancy medium pecan pieces is around $6.85, Choice at $6.70, and Standard at $6.50. If these were the prices at which pecan pieces had to be purchased today, this project would not be financially feasible.
Another risk this project faces is that, because these are completely new products, it may take longer and cost more to achieve the marketing goals and gain product awareness. If this were true, it would take longer for this project to achieve satisfactory returns on the initial investment. The technology being used is also new and could have unforeseen problems.
If this project had been started three years ago before exports to China caused pecan prices to nearly double, it would have been considered a good investment, particularly for a company or group of companies with their own shelling plants and control over a supply of nuts. Given the current high price of pecans and the uncertainty that they may go higher, it is recommended that the project be put on hold to see what happens to the price of pecans.
This report only considered using the extraction facility to process pecans. The facility can be used to extract oil from a wide variety of nuts and other vegetable products, with almonds and walnuts being prime candidates for consideration. The ability to process other products should mitigate some of the financial risks of the large initial capital investment. Walnut oil and defatted flour have similar health benefits to pecans, and their market strategy would be identical to pecan oil and flour. Evaluating the financial feasibility of processing both pecans and walnuts or almonds would be a useful topic for further study.
This study was a reconnaissance-level feasibility study and not a detailed business plan. If a company were to pursue this endeavor, they would need to perform a full business plan using some of the base assumptions from this study. This business plan would require technical assistance from an experienced food processing engineer to confirm the equipment cost estimates used.
Recommended additional work on this project could pertain to the different risk areas that could affect the feasibility, including different levels of financing to see the effect it would have on the profitability of the project.
American Heart Association. 2011. Meet the fats [Online]. Retrieved April 21, 2011, from http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/FatsAndOils/MeettheFats/Meet-the-Fats_UCM_304495_Article.jsp
Bughin, J., J. Doogan, and O.J. Vetvik. 2010. A new way to measure word-of-mouth marketing [Online]. McKinsey Quarterly, April 2010. Retrieved September 20, 2011, from http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Marketing/Strategy/A_new_way_to_measure_word-of-mouth_marketing_2567
Collins, G., and A. Erickson. 2010. U.S. pecan growers crack into Chinese market [Online]. China SignPost, No. 9. Retrieved September 24, 2011, from http://www.chinasignpost.com/2010/12/u-s-pecan-growers-crack-into-chinese-market/
Cornucopia Institute. 2010. Dirty little secret in the natural foods industry: Toxic chemical use [Online]. Retrieved December 15, 2011, from http://www.cornucopia.org/2010/11/dirty-little-secret-in-the-natural-foods-industry-toxic-chemical-use/
Crawford, T. 2009. Pecan prices and grades [Guide Z-502]. Las Cruces: New Mexico State University Cooperative Extension Service.
Dunford, N. 2008. Oil and oilseed processing II [FAPC-159]. Stillwater: Oklahoma State University Robert M. Kerr Food & Agricultural Products Center.
Healthy Cooking. 2010. Healthy Cooking: 2010 advertising kit. Greendale, WI: RDA Food & Entertaining Affinity.
Living Without. 2011. Living Without: 2011 advertising media kit. Norwalk, CT: Author.
McLain, S. 2011. Understanding consumer preferences for cooking oil products using means end chain analysis and discrete choice experiments [Thesis]. Las Cruces: New Mexico State University.
Pirovano, T. January 26, 2010. U.S. healthy eating trends part 1: Commitment trumps the economic pinch [Online]. Nielson Wire. Retrieved April 20, 2011, from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/healthy-eating-trends-pt-1-commitment-trumps-the-economic-pinch.
Roger, V.L. et al. 2011. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2011 update: A report from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 123, e18–e209. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e3182009701
Schumacher, J. 2007. Oilseed processing: An overview [Briefing No. 86]. Bozeman: Montana State University Agricultural Marketing Policy Center.
Silliker. 2010. Pecan oil and flour nutritional analysis. Chicago Heights, IL: Author.
Toro-Vazquez, J., M. Charó-Alonso, and F. Pérez-Briceño. 1999. Fatty acid composition and its relationship with physicochemical properties of pecan oil. Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society, 76, 957–965.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. Statistical abstract of the United States: 2011, section 22 [Online]. Retrieved September 28, 2011, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/11statab/domtrade.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Estimated annual sales of U.S. retail and food services firms by kind of business: 1998 through 2009 [Online]. Annual Retail Trade Survey. Retrieved September 28, 2011, from http://www2.census.gov/retail/releases/current/arts/sales.pdf
USDA-ARS. 2011. National nutrient database for standard reference [Online]. http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/
USDA-ERS. 2011. State facts sheets: New Mexico [Online]. Retrieved August 24, 2011, from http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/NM.htm
USDA-NASS. "Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 2002-2010 Preliminary Summary" NASS Reports. January 2003-January 2011
Walsh, R. 2009. Healthy but flavorless pecan oil [Online]. Houston Press. Retrieved September 29, 2011, from http://blogs.houstonpress.com/eating/2009/01/healthy_but_flavorless_pecan_o.php
Wessel, D. 2011. Shell shock: China reshapes U.S. pecan business [Online]. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved August 24, 2011, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704076804576180774248237738.html
Wolfe, A. October 14, 2010. Study: 70% of consumers buy specialty food as "treats" [Online]. Progressive Grocer. Retrieved April 21, 2010, from http://www.progressivegrocer.com/top-story-study__70__of_consumers_buy_specialty_food_as__treats_-31387.html
Wright, J., and T. DePhillip. 2010. Comparison of supercritical fluid extraction and pressurized solvent extraction for the recovery of gamma-Tocopherol in walnut oil. LC-GC North America, November 2010 Supplement, 30-34.
Appendix A: Preliminary Analysis of 750,000-Pound Processing Facility
We performed a preliminary reconnaissance-level feasibility analysis for a 750,000-pound capacity processing facility. A facility of this size would require a lower capital investment and fewer raw input needs. The initial capital investment totaled $7.9 million (Appendix A, Table A1), which is roughly only $1.3 million less than the initial investment for the 2-million-pound facility (Table 7). The cost of the equipment remains high because most of the equipment needed cannot be sized down at this time. However, if one were to build this plant, we recommend consulting a manufacturing engineer for more accurate pricing of the smaller equipment.
Sales from this size of plant would be lower and, therefore, could be entirely focused toward gourmet market outlets. The advertising and promotional expenses for the 750,000-pound capacity processing facility would also be lower because of the smaller market segments. Total advertising and promotional expenses would be $577,929 in Year 1, decreasing to $488,923 by Year 3 (Appendix A, Table A2). It was assumed that only 250-ml bottles of oil and 12-ounce bags of flour would be produced by the 750,000-pound capacity plant. Placement of the pecan oil and flour products in gourmet market outlets would allow the plant to raise output prices and still be competitively priced.
With a smaller volume of nuts required, there would be an opportunity to purchase lower-priced pecans, such as off-colored or Standard pieces. The supply of these lower-priced nuts is smaller and is thus more suitable for a plant of this size. Appendix A, Table A3 shows the internal rate of return (IRR) at base prices for the 750,000-pound capacity facility. The base selling prices for both the oil and flour were specified at $5.40 (Appendix A, Table A3). This is a 10% increase from the base prices for the same products produced by the 2-million-pound facility (Table 13). The base pricing of raw pecan nuts is based on a 5-year average of Standard medium pieces of $3.97 (Table 6). The IRR for the 750,000-pound capacity facility is 7% assuming the base pricing (Appendix A, Table A3).
Appendix A, Table A4 shows the sensitivity analysis with regard to the changes in raw pecan nut prices and selling prices of the pecan oil and flour. The base IRR is shown in the middle of the table. In order for this size of facility to be financially feasible, raw pecan prices would have to decrease by 10 to 20% and stay below $3.57 per pound, and selling prices of the oil and flour would have to increase by 10%. With the current rapid increase in the price of pecans, it is recommended not to proceed with this size of facility.
Appendix A, Table A1. Capital Investment Summary for a 750,000-Pound Capacity Facility
Item | Cost |
Land (3 acres) | $36,000 |
Equipment | $7,136,634 |
Extractor Building (2,000 ft2) | $500,000 |
Processing and Packaging Building (4,500 ft2) | $136,500 |
Warehouse, Shipping, and Office Building (4,288 ft2) | $237,440 |
Total Initial Investment | $7,985,134 |
Appendix A, Table A2. Advertising and Promotional Expenses for a 750,000-Pound Capacity Facility
Year 0 | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
Print Advertising Living Without Gluten-Free Living Miscellaneous Advertising Ad Development Ad Agency Commissions and Media Kit Internet Ads |
$ – $ – $ – $ – $ – |
$19,985 $9,600 $25,000 $25,000 $15,000 |
$19,985 $9,600 $12,000 $20,000 $20,000 |
$19,985 $9,600 $12,000 $20,000 $20,000 |
Total Advertising | $ – | $94,585 | $81,585 | $81,585 |
Promotional Activities Television Cooking Show Sponsor House Party Program Free Product to Retail Stores Coupons Recipe Development and Distribution Website Trade Show: Celiac Show Miscellaneous Promotions Donations American Heart Association Celiac Disease Foundation |
$ – $ – $ – $ – $ – $ – $ – $15,000 $– $– |
$200,000 $50,000 $71,545 $24,000 $15,000 $25,000 $20,000 $40,000 $28,391 $9,408 |
$200,000 $40,000 $13,722 $19,000 $10,000 $5,000 $20,000 $40,000 $37,855 $12,544 |
$200,000 $40,000 $13,339 $16,000 $10,000 $5,000 $20,000 $40,000 $47,318 $15,680 |
Total Donations and Promotional | $ – | $483,344 | $398,121 | $407,338 |
Total Advertising and Promotional | $15,000 | $577,929 | $479,706 | $488,923 |
Appendix A, Table A3. Base Pricing and Internal Rate of Return for a 750,000-Pound Capacity Facility
Company Price | Retail Price | |
Pecan Oil, 250 ml | $5.40 | $10.98 |
Pecan Flour, 12 ounces | $5.40 | $10.98 |
Raw Pecan Price/Pound | $3.97 | |
Appendix A, Table A4. Sensitivity Analysis of Internal Rate of Return for a 750,000-Pound Capacity Facility
Selling Price of Pecan Oil and Flour | |||||
10% Decrease |
5% Decrease |
Base Selling Price |
5% Increase |
10% Increase |
Prices of Raw Pecan Nuts | |||||
20% Decrease | 6% | 10% | 14% | 17% | 20% |
10% Decrease | 2% | 7% | 11% | 14% | 18% |
Base Input Price | 0% | 3% | 7% | 11% | 15% |
10% Increase | 0% | 0% | 3% | 8% | 12% |
20% Increase | 0% | 0% | 0% | 4% | 8% |
Appendix B: Supporting Tables
Appendix B, Table B1. Broker Prices of Fancy Shelled Pecans by Year
Fancy Junior Mammoth Halves | Fancy Medium Pieces | |
1991 | $3.71 | $3.51 |
1992 | $3.99 | $3.90 |
1993 | $2.39 | $2.35 |
1994 | $3.62 | $3.56 |
1995 | $2.72 | $2.62 |
1996 | $2.75 | $2.51 |
1997 | $3.06 | $2.87 |
1998 | $4.08 | $4.02 |
1999 | $3.20 | $2.93 |
2000 | $3.05 | $2.78 |
2001 | $2.34 | $2.18 |
2002 | $3.07 | $2.94 |
2003 | $3.85 | $3.66 |
2004 | $4.83 | $4.69 |
2005 | $4.14 | $4.02 |
2006 | $4.30 | $4.18 |
2007 | $3.78 | $3.46 |
2008 | $3.83 | $3.44 |
2009 | $4.80 | $4.19 |
2010 | $6.62 | $5.85 |
Source: Nick Sachs Company, Ltd., personal communications. |
Appendix B, Table B2. Investment Capital Requirement for Equipment
Item | Quantity Needed | Capital Required |
Bulk Dump Station | 1 | $12,000 |
Extraction Equipment | 1 | $7,371,798 |
Roaster Oven | 1 | $265,000 |
Blast Freezer | 1 | $164,804 |
Oil Settling Tanks | 2 | $9,348 |
Pecan Oil Bottling Equipment | 1 | $80,000 |
Flour Settling Tanks | 2 | $19,925 |
Flour Bagging Equipment | 1 | $121,597 |
Forklift | 1 | $15,000 |
Pallets | 350 | $3,500 |
Pallet Racking | 64 | $49,640 |
Total Equipment | $8,112,612 |
Appendix B, Table B3. Packaging Supplies Costs
Price/Unit | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
Oil 250-ml Glass Bottle Carton (price/case)a Label 500-ml Glass Bottle Carton (price/case)a Label |
$0.90 $0.16 $0.35 $1.25 $0.30 $0.35 |
$681,384 $202 $264,983 $473,183 $189 $132,491 |
$908,512 $269 $353,310 $630,911 $252 $176,655 |
$1,135,640 $336 $441,638 $788,639 $315 $220,819 |
Flour Plastic Bag w/ Label Carton (price/case) |
$0.12 $0.09 |
$60,211 $7,526 |
$80,282 $10,035 |
$100,352 $12,544 |
Total Packaging Supplies | $1,620,170 | $2,160,227 | $2,700,284 | |
aCarton costs for oil only account for damaged cartons. It is assumed that cartons received with empty bottles will be reused. |
Appendix B, Table B4. Direct Labor Costs
Position | Salary | # | Year 1 | # | Year 2 | # | Year 3 |
Superintendent | $60,000 | 1.2 | $72,000 | 1.6 | $96,000 | 2 | $120,000 |
Production Employees Extractor Processing Packaging |
$27,500 $27,500 $27,500 |
2.5 2.5 2.5 |
$68,750 $68,750 $68,750 |
3.2 3.2 3.2 |
$88,000 $88,000 $88,000 |
4 4 4 |
$110,000 $110,000 $110,000 |
Shipping | $32,500 | 1 | $32,500 | 1 | $32,500 | 1 | $32,500 |
Total Direct Labor | $310,750 | $392,500 | $482,500 |
Appendix B, Table B5. Depreciation and Maintenance Schedule
Appendix B, Table B6. 20–Year Cash Flow Statement
Year | Initial Investment |
Net Capital Replacement |
Operating Cash Out |
Total Cash Out |
Operating Cash In |
Net Cash | Net Cash Balance |
Year 0 | $9,221,052 | $218,670 | $9,439,722 | $ – | $(9,439,722) | ($9,439,722) | |
Year 1 | $8,649,421 | $8,649,421 | $9,072,921 | $423,501 | ($9,016,221) | ||
Year 2 | $10,965,809 | $10,965,809 | $12,406,289 | $1,440,480 | ($7,575,741) | ||
Year 3 | $13,415,950 | $13,415,950 | $15,521,496 | $2,105,546 | ($5,470,195) | ||
Year 4 | $13,290,882 | $13,290,882 | $15,521,496 | $2,230,614 | ($3,239,581) | ||
Year 5 | $3,150 | $13,331,269 | $13,334,419 | $15,521,496 | $2,187,077 | ($1,052,504) | |
Year 6 | $13,331,269 | $13,331,269 | $15,521,496 | $2,190,227 | $1,137,722 | ||
Year 7 | $13,331,269 | $13,331,269 | $15,521,496 | $2,190,227 | $3,327,949 | ||
Year 8 | $13,331,269 | $13,331,269 | $15,521,496 | $2,190,227 | $5,518,176 | ||
Year 9 | $13,331,269 | $13,331,269 | $15,521,496 | $2,190,227 | $7,708,403 | ||
Year 10 | $17,550 | $13,331,269 | $13,348,819 | $15,521,496 | $2,172,677 | $9,881,080 | |
Year 11 | $13,331,269 | $13,331,269 | $15,521,496 | $2,190,227 | $12,071,307 | ||
Year 12 | $13,331,269 | $13,331,269 | $15,521,496 | $2,190,227 | $14,261,534 | ||
Year 13 | $13,331,269 | $13,331,269 | $15,521,496 | $2,190,227 | $16,451,761 | ||
Year 14 | $13,331,269 | $13,331,269 | $15,521,496 | $2,190,227 | $18,641,987 | ||
Year 15 | $18,150 | $13,331,269 | $13,349,419 | $15,521,496 | $2,172,077 | $20,814,064 | |
Year 16 | $13,331,269 | $13,331,269 | $15,521,496 | $2,190,227 | $23,004,291 | ||
Year 17 | $13,331,269 | $13,331,269 | $15,521,496 | $2,190,227 | $25,194,518 | ||
Year 18 | $13,331,269 | $13,331,269 | $15,521,496 | $2,190,227 | $27,384,745 | ||
Year 19 | $13,331,269 | $13,331,269 | $15,521,496 | $2,190,227 | $29,574,972 | ||
Year 20 | $17,550 | $13,331,269 | $13,348,819 | $15,521,496 | $2,172,677 | $31,747,649 | |
To find more resources for your business, home, or family, visit the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences on the World Wide Web at aces.nmsu.edu.
Contents of publications may be freely reproduced for educational purposes. All other rights reserved. For permission to use publications for other purposes, contact email@example.com or the authors listed on the publication.
New Mexico State University is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer and educator. NMSU and the U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating.
Printed and electronically distributed October 2012, Las Cruces, NM.


text:
- Plush, Ultra-Soft Synthetic Fleece and Ultra Suede
- Stuffed and Quilted for a Plush Feel
- Completely Machine Washable
- Keeps Pets Cool in the Summer, Warm in the Winter
- Available in Seven 7 Sizes
Additional Features & Benefits
- Fits most brands of crates, carriers and houses
- Completely machine washable
- Luxurious "paw pleasing" plush mat
- Non-skid bottom surface keeps bed in place
- Made of ultra-soft synthetic fur, the mat keeps pets cool in the summer and warm in the winter
- Available in six sizes and two colors
- Dimensions: 18"L x 13"W
- For dogs weighing 2-5 lbs.
- Dimensions: 23"L x 17"W
- For dogs weighing 5-11 lbs.
- Dimensions: 30"L x 19"W
- For dogs weighing 26-40 lbs.
- Dimensions: 35"L x 23"W
- For dogs weighing 41-70 lbs.
- Dimensions: 43"L x 28"W
- For dogs weighing 71-90 lbs.
- Dimensions: 49"L x 30"W
- For dogs weighing 91-110 lbs.


text:
I know this will vary because some people remain to their favorite brands regardless of how good the driver is.
I want to know what is your favorite driver and why you enjoy it. I think over the winter I am going to purchase a driver when the '10 go on sale because of the new '11's .
Im between the new Titleist and Cobra drivers. Ive never been a huge fan of Taylor Made driver because the profile when looking down on them. However I will demo almost anything before I make the decision
I hit my driver pretty steady and know I must keep my swing in tact to have the club perform however my driver is a good 5 or so years old and I think I will get a new driver and 3 wood.
What are your opinions.
- Joined: 5/2010, Posts: 154
- Handicap Index: 8.1
- Select All Posts By This User


text:
Draw inspiration from these cheerful rooms!
The magic of marble, without the fuss.
Colourful, curated and chaotic? A new approach to family style.
House & Home style experts Michael Penney and Kathryn Bala share insider tips on finding decorating deals, vintage treasures and on-trend collectibles and fabrics, as well as how to display them.
BMW X5 Sport Utility Vehicle The Shops of Ottawa Street in Hamilton


text:
Inside the Kitchen
My daughter and I are going to make halloween cupcakes tomorrow. Thing is I don't want your everyday halloween cupcakes I want something maybe a little diffrent. Anyone have any suggestions for a cupcake recipe from scratch? Thanks
I usually use a cake mix instead of from scratch. Look on FamilyFunMagazine.com which is Disney as they often have neat haloween recipes. Might wantto look up "Hello Cupcake" and see some recipes and decorations. Seems like I have seen ghost cookies stuck in a cupcake and decorated. Just input Halloween Recipes and see what comes up. Good luck.
Pumpkin cake. Use about 1/2c pumpkin, 1 1/2c flour, 1/2c sugar, 1tbsp maple syrup (optional), 1tsp baking soda, 1/2tsp salt, cardamom, cinnamon, nutmeg. You optionally can add in dried fruit, choc chips, nuts, mushed banana, or a couple tbspoons of applesauce if you like. In a bowl combine flour, spices, and baking soda. In a separate large bowl add pumpkin (and any other mashed fruit if using) stir in baking soda, add maple syrup (or other flavor extract if you want), sugar, stir until well mixed. Add dry ingredients to wet ingredients. Mix well, and if you want you can taste to see if you want more spice since there are no raw eggs to worry about. Bake in oven at 350 start checking around 15minutes until cupcakes pass the knife test. They are good with cream cheese icing, cinnamon buttercream icing, or vanilla frosting with seasalt and caramel.


text:
What Does DogFriendly.com Offer? Select From Our Pull-Down Menu Dog-Friendly Hotels & Lodging Dog-Friendly City Guides ...Attractions, Restaurants & More Dog-Friendly Ski Resorts Dog-Friendly Camping/RV Parks Dog-Friendly Beach Guide Dog-Friendly Outdoor Dining Dog-Friendly Attraction Guide Dog-Friendly Park Guide Off-Leash Dog Parks Public Transportation & Dogs Dog Camps Dog-Friendly Events Dog Photo Gallery Dog & Pet Store Dog Travel Guide Books Top 10 Dog-Friendly Cities Top 10 Dog-Friendly Resorts DogFriendly.com's Newsletter Book Reseller Information Advertise with DogFriendly.com Online Press Kit About Us/Contact Us
U.S. Dog Travel Guides
Dog City Guides
Outdoor Dining
Dog Parks
Dog & Pet Store
Campgrounds & RV Parks
Dog Travel Books
Mobile Apps
Dog Photos
Outlaw River and Jeep Tours
Outlaw River and Jeep ToursDog-Friendly Attractions555 Main AvenueDurango,Colorado 81301 970-259-1800 Get Map or Directions This adventure touring company will allowed friendly dogs on private jeep tours for about $100 for a rental and about $160 for a full day rental.
Air Travel
Highway Guides
Books and Ebooks
List Your Property
About Us
Press Kit
Contact Us
Recommend Places


text:
Connections Between
Session 1 | SORCE observations of solar radiation - new science results. |
Session 2 | Reconstructions of past solar irradiance and modeled climate reponses. |
Session 3 | Evidence for climate responses to solar variability. |
Session 4 | Interpreting the solar and climate sources of cosmogenic isotope variations, and their relationship to solar irradiance |
Session 5 | Physical processes linking climate, cultural responses, and solar variability |
** Click on presenters' name for the abstract in html format. **
** Click on the presentation title to download the presentation in .pdf format. **
Special Session for Gary Rottman | Speakers Included:
Downloadable Agenda (.pdf)
Downloadable Presentation Abstracts (.pdf)
POSTER SESSIONS (Wed. Sept 14, 4:00-6:00 p.m.):
Downloadable Poster Abstracts File (.pdf)
Session 1: Solar Variability |
Abstract |
Poster |
Aden & Marjorie Meinel University of Arizona, Tucson and Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California and Santa Barbara, California |
Connecting Inferred Solar Microvariability over the Past 200ky with Observed Microvariability of 582 Solar-Class Stars from the ESA Hipparcos Program |
Eun-Hee Lee Yonsei University Observatory, Seoul, Korea |
On the Duration of the Spöerer Minimum |
Phil Judge HAO, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado |
What was the Probable State of the Solar Chromosphereand Corona during the Maunder Minimum? |
Cyclic and Secular Activity Changes in Solar Analog Stars |
Peter Fox |
Variability and Redundancy across the Solar Spectrum |
Spectral Irradiance Modeling and Long-Term Trends |
David Dunham |
Observing the Solar Photosphere from Space using the MDI and HMI Instruments |
Guoyong Wen |
Empirical Orthogonal Function Analysis of Observed and Modeled Solar Spectral Irradiances |
Larry Puga |
The NOAA MgII Core-to-Wing Ratio |
SORCE Data Processing and Data Products |
Session 2: Sun-Climate |
Abstract |
Poster |
The Fossil Record of UV-B in Juncus Seeds and the Relation with Climate Change |
Climate Change and the Expansion of the Northeast China Culture after 960 BC |
David Gregory & Fred Nials |
Solar Variability, Climate, and Human Response: A view from the Southwest |
A Climatological Spectral Study for Diagnosing the Solar 11-Year Signal in the Northern Hemisphere Atmosphere |
Saumitra Mukherjee |
Cosmic Influence on Environment of the Earth |
Connecting the Inverse Correlation between 10Be and GRIP Temperature and Snowfall Accumulation over the Past 200 Ky with Relevance to the Variation of 10Be during the past 80 Ky and to the 40-Ky BP Surge |
Marty Snow |
LASP Interactive Solar Irradiance Datacenter (LISIRD) |
Downloadable Presenter Information (.pdf)
The SORCE Meeting will be at the Durango Doubletree in the Doubletree Ballroom. Check-in for the meeting will begin at the Welcoming Reception beginning at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 13. The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, September 14. The meeting will conclude at approximately 12:00 noon on Friday, September 16.
Presenter Information
ORAL -- Presentation equipment includes an overhead projector, a computer projector, and portable computers (Mac and PC). The computers will have the latest versions of PowerPoint. There is a USB Port, Zip drive, and CD drive available. There will also be a laser pointer available for your use.
The length of your talk (including discussion) is on the agenda. To save time during the meeting, it would be great if you could supply Vanessa George with an electronic version of your presentation in advance of the meeting (by Sept. 9). This would be extremely helpful in avoiding fumbling around with computers during a session. Of course, be sure to bring your own copy to the meeting as well.
An important goal of the SORCE meetings is to foster interdisciplinary exchanges amongst scientists with quite different backgrounds. For this reason we very much encourage speakers to begin their talk with at least a few basic, introductory "tutorial" slides that provide general scientific background and context for the audience. We found that this approach was very well received at the last meeting.
POSTER -- Posters can be set up beginning Tuesday evening at 5:30 p.m. in the Doubletree Ballroom. They will be on display Wednesday and Thursday, September 14-15, with a special Poster Sessions on Wednesday afternoon. Posters will be attached to the meeting room walls in an assigned space. Posters will each be given up to a 6 feet wide x 4 feet tall area (1.8 m x 1.2 m). Materials will be attached to the meeting room walls with special tape, which will be provided. Push pins are not allowed.MEETING SUMMARY
A synopsis of the 2005 SORCE science meeting will be published on-line in EOS's The Earth Observer. For a detailed summary of past SORCE meetings (2003 and 2004), please read the final articles which can be found on-line at the SORCE meeting website. We anticipate that the Durango meeting will be just as exciting, with attendees enthusiastically sharing information, ideas, and opinions
SORCE Science Meeting Dinner
There will be a Science Meeting Dinner Thursday for all attendees at the historic Strater Hotel, one of Colorado's finest turn-of-the-century Victorian hotels. Built in 1887, this beautiful downtown Durango landmark has only gotten better through the years, even becoming a national finalist for Lodging Magazine's prestigious Gold Key Award. Their chef promises a fabulous buffet along with impeccable service. Dr. Mark Vrain will discuss cultural impacts during
the Anasazi period in southwest Colorado, where scientists have studied Chaco Canyon and Mesa Verde. For more information on this special presentation, please click here. |
Tickets: $42. Reservations are required – Please sign up and pay for this event on the Registration Form. Everyone is encouraged to attend, and friends and family are welcome.
Friday, September 16, 1:15 p.m.
Local resident and SORCE co-investigator, Dick White, will lead us through Mesa Verde National Park. This is an opportunity to see and experience a unique culture and beautiful landscape. People living in the area 1200 years ago built elaborate stone villages in the sheltered alcoves of the canyon walls called "cliff dwellings". Mesa Verde National Park is the largest archaeological preserve in the U.S. For more information, visit the Park's website at: http://www.nps.gov/meve/. |
People will be on their own for all expenses and car-pooling. The entrance to the Park is 35 miles west of Durango, and it takes about 45 minutes to get to the archeological sites from the entrance. Dick and a park ranger will escort you through Mesa Verde for the afternoon. If there is enough interest, dinner reservations will be made at the Metate Room in the Far View Lodge, which is located in the Park. Join us for this truly special event!


text:
Benefits of LAP BAND
LOS ANGELES, June 27, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — A paper has recently been published by the American Heart Association based on expert review of recent scientific studies, which states that for some portions of severely and morbidly obese population weight loss surgery can result in long term weight loss and significant benefits in cardiac and other obesity-related risks. The study also notes that recent studies have indicated that bariatric surgery may be able to prolong life span in morbidly obese. LAP BAND® system is the alternative to gastric bypass surgery and has been proven in studies to significantly reduce weight and body mass consistently and steadily with patients maintaining their weight loss over time.
Among the main points in the paper published by the American Heart Association is that for severely and morbidly obese patients who failed medical therapy and are good surgical candidates, weight loss surgery could be a good option. Also, for those who meet the criteria of weight loss surgery there are often significant improvements in maintained weight loss and long-term health, and although there are risks, weight loss surgery is considered a rather safe procedure in centers that perform many weight loss procedures.
LAP-BAND® Adjustable Gastric Banding system is a tool that has helped thousands of people take charge of their weight and their health. Not only it has been proven to result in steady and healthy weight loss, but compared to non-surgical treatments it helps patients keep off the weight for a longer period of time. This procedure is also proven to be safer than gastric bypass surgery and just as effective.
Without cutting or stapling the stomach, LAP-BAND® reduces the capacity of the stomach, restricting the amount of the food the patient can eat at one time. The patients feel full faster and stays full for longer and wind up eating less food. LAPBAND® is the only gastric banding system approved by FDA for patients who have a BMI of at least 30 and suffer from one or more obesity-related comorbid health conditions.
To read more about LAP-BAND®, visit 1 800 Get Thin at http://www.1800getthin.com.
PR by http://www.seocompanyca.com
SOURCE 1 800 Get Thin


text:
/* Style Definitions */
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
Patient Q™ an interactive Queue Management Systems has revolutionized the typically dreaded task of waiting for an outpatient procedure by making it a more informative, interactive experience for both the patient and queue manager. This text based queue system is simple, only requiring a broadband connection and browser, and will create a virtual waiting line for patients, allowing them to keep track of their wait time and place in line. Once they've reached the front of the virtual line, they will be notified via text message by the queue manager that the office is ready for their appointment.
There are many benefits to this type of queue management system for the healthcare industry.
· Increased patient flow – the more informed a patient is, the higher their satisfaction will be. With Patient Q, the patient has the ability to check their status in line, see the approximate wait time, ask for more time (which allows them to stay in line, but move back in the queue if they had decided to get coffee, go to a gift shop, etc.). Patient Q offers a self serve kiosk and with digital display integration.
· More Sanitary – with the virtual queue, patients no longer have to sit in a marked area filled with other ill patients waiting to be called into the office. Instead, they are able to walk around, sit where they want, or, if the wait time is extensive, leave and come back. This will decrease the spreading of germs and infections. More importantly, a recent study showed restaurant coaster pagers tested positive for bacteria due to the number of people handling the pagers each night. As an infection control precaution, health care facilities should go to great lengths to avoid using coaster pagers.
· Less Crowded – on busy days, a waiting room can fill up quickly and make patients uncomfortable. With the Patient Q system, this entire issue would be avoided with the new freedom to move about the facility.
· Walk-Ins – in some cases, an outpatient center allows walk-in appointments which can sometimes cause stress on the already busy schedule. With Patient Q, the work in managing this schedule is done by keeping the appointments organized, orderly, and allowing more efficiency in timely appointments.
· Cost Effective – with this type of management system, there would be less of a need for extra staffing to manage multiple receptionist windows. This system would create much more efficient lines, keeping patients more organized as they wait for their appointment.
Overall, the Patient Q is a major benefactor to any outpatient center, big or small. It is cost effective and increases customer satisfaction; two of the most important points in having a successful business.
The use of cell phones is only growing, the estimated number given by the Mobile Marketing Association has reached 4 billion people owning and using cell phones. Typically 8 out of 10 patients already have a cell phone with them, making the transition to a new system very simple. Also, with many providers offering unlimited text and data plans, this new type of wait system management would be well received by consumers.
In most cases, patients pass their wait times by using their cell phones—talking or texting on them, playing games, checking emails—so the use of cell phones as a way of notifying that their wait is over is a seemingly obvious effective business tactic.
To learn more about how Patient Queue Management Systems for your business or industry visit http://www.queuemobile.com.


text:
lewlewga's Mom Answers Activity
Early pregnancy with slow growing fetus, is it normal?
Most recent answer
Ok, this is what happened to me with my last pregnancy. I knew when I ovulated, when I got pregnant, but my doctor was going off of measu...
posted by
Is it normal for yolk sac to not be visible at 5 week 6 day ultrasound with tilted uterus?
Most recent answer
That's such an important question to just take your doc's word for it. Don't forget that they are human, after all. Please get a second, ...
posted by
a BabyCenter Member


text:
A 36 foot observing tower at Station Stovel.
Image ID: cgs00697, NOAA's Historic Coast & Geodetic Survey (C&GS) Collection Location: Michigan, Alpena County, 2 mi. W. of Hubbard Lake Photo Date: 1905 May 31 Credit: NOAA Central Library Historical Imagery U.S. Lake Survey • High Resolution Photo Available
Publication of the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Adminstration (NOAA), NOAA Central Library NOAA Privacy Policy | NOAA Disclaimer Last Updated: May 12, 2014


text:
Dominique Response: We will be perfectly candid that this garment is somewhat of a risk for a "D" cup. We only added this cup size at the request of customers ( was originally only made for A-C cups) Unfortunately those that are larger than a D cup still attempt to use this garment in that there are no specialty items of this type in larger sizes. Kerri from Kernersville/NC/USA
Country of Origin: Imported
Options for Dominique The Butterfly Convertible Multi-Function Bra 5000 »
Other Dominique Searches: