Can batch vessel size unlock Michelin star quality in food processing?
Can batch size unlock Michelin star quality in food processing? Chris Brooks, Development Chef at OAL takes a look at the difference the size of cooking vessel can make and whether we can overcome the compromise with robotics?
The level of engineering and automation across food manufacturing is incredible, but from a chef's perspective, there has been little change in the way we cook products. I think technology can help food manufacturers emulate a head chef of a Michelin star restaurant, given the same ingredients of course!
In terms of cooking quality, one of the key stumbling blocks is the size of batches. Traditionally, there is a compromise between efficiency and quality in relation to the size of cooking vessels but robotics enables highly efficient small batches.
Want to see if you can deliver Michelin star quality products in your facility? Get in touch and you find out how you can work with Chris to come up with the right recipe.
McKinsey Report: where will automation replace humans in food manufacturing
Food service and manufacturing sit at the top of a recent McKinsey report that analysed work activities rather than occupations as a predictor of automation. By identifying jobs with predictable physical work, data processing or data collecting, they were able to assess the technical feasibility of automation.
By breaking down jobs by activities, up to 59% of time spent at work in the US is highly susceptible to automation. Further analysis suggested that food service and manufacturing were more suited to automation than others i.e. many activities within food manufacturing are highly susceptible to automation.
Technical feasibility of automation in food
The McKinsey report highlights food manufacturing and food service as highly susceptible to automation due to the activities involved in the jobs (see figure 1). The main driver for this is the high amount of time people spend on predictable physical work. Often in food factories, people will undertake a high number of predictable activities such as lifting product, moving ingredients etc. (see figure 2).
In our experience, the trend fits for our customers who manufacture a smaller range of SKUs and have already been able to automate a high number of the predictable activities. This is in contrast to chilled food manufacturing, where upwards of 40 SKUs can be produced per day and predictable and unpredictable activities become intertwined.
One major part of the puzzle will be splitting out the predictable from the unpredictable physical work, thus enabling higher levels of adoption of robotics. For instance, lifting ingredients into a saucepan is a predictable task but judging the taste of the food requires the expertise of a chef, hence it isn’t so susceptible to automation.
We’re working with the University of Lincoln to develop robotic systems that provide manufacturers the flexibility to split out the predictable from the unpredictable thus enabling greater levels of automation. APRIL, our robotic chef installed at the National Centre for Food Manufacturing enables this flexibility by breaking down activities in a different way to traditional manufacturing processes.
Food Manufacturing 2030 Conference
If you’re interested in how automation and robotics could change food manufacturing, join us at the “Food Manufacturing 2030 Conference”. Learn and discuss the future of food manufacturing with industry leaders whilst OAL’s robotic chef APRIL cooks up lunch.
Click to register for the Food Manufacturing 2030 conference
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Three ways robot chefs will improve product quality in food manufacturing
Bridging the gap between chef’s table and ready to eat meals is an ongoing challenge for food manufacturers. Retailers and consumers expectations for high quality/gourmet food products is ever increasing with product quality critical to business success.
Traditionally one route to emulating a chef is the use of highly labour intensive industrial-scale kitchens but these generate food safety and operational risks. Flexible automation and robotics manufacturing cells present new opportunities to close the gap and offer restaurant quality food on an industrial scale.
The APRIL robotic chef uses state of the art cooking and material handling technologies to process ingredients with real care. Robot chefs will emulate chefs in three key ways:
Products are poured not pumped
Precise batch cooking and process control
Process flexibility
1) Products are poured not pumped
In a chef’s kitchen there are no pumps or pipework for the food to be transferred through, yet typically in food manufacturing, product will pass through many pumps and pipes before it’s packaged. Pumps and pipes cause damage to product through abrasion on the pipe wall and the pumping action itself, particulates will disintegrate and quality will be lost. The APRIL robotic chef doesn’t have pipework or pumps and simply pours product for transfer to other vessels (saucepans) and fillers, just like a chef. For example, one of the most challenging to handle ingredients are whole raspberries, when passed through pumps and pipework they break down into pieces. When using a robotic chef we can keep the integrity of the raspberry whole.
2) Process flexibility
Traditional manufacturing often faces the compromise between the desired process steps and equipment available. Desired recipes are amended to match the available cooking processes often to the products detriment. For a traditional cooking system with a steam jacket and homogeniser there is a high cost to adding new devices due to the engineering works required. Often vessels are one size fits all with limits on process flexibility.
Robotic chef systems by contrast enable the use of multiple processing devices that aren’t restricted to a specific vessel. The interoperability of the system (ability to interface with new devices) means it’s very easy to add new cooking technologies at a low cost, whilst increasing utilisation of devices by processing in parallel. For instance, a new device can be easily added to a manufacturing cell to produce more exotic products, a frothing device for manufacturing frothy soup.
3) Precise batch cooking and process control
Automated robotic chef’s offer unparalleled cooking consistency stemming from the use of PLC automation and control. Without any human interaction a products desired cooking steps can be followed precisely offering more consistent flavours and colours. A relatively small batch size of 500kg means product is cooked evenly and quickly with advanced heating and mixing technologies like Steam Infusion, effectively eliminating over processing.
Robotics chefs are coming on stream now, make sure you enjoy the benefits. If you would like to learn more about APRIL sign up for our launch event on Thursday 28th April 2015 at the National Centre for Food Manufacturing, Holbeach UK or if you would like to talk to someone please call one of the APRIL specialists at OAL.
For the latest updates, click to follow us on:
Three ways robot chefs will reduce capital costs in chilled food manufacturing
Traditionally fully automated manufacturing cells require significant capital investment because of the complexity of the processing equipment required. Dedicated robotic chefs, like APRIL, will significantly reduce both the initial capital investment and ongoing running costs shortening return on investment.
The APRIL robotic chef uses state of the art cooking and material handling technologies to process ingredients with real care. Robots have a proven track record for cost cutting in other industries and APRIL chefs will reduce the capital costs of chilled food manufacturing in three key ways:
Utilisation of high-value assets
Factory footprint reduction
Use of simplified equipment
1) Utilisation of high-value assets
By increasing fixed asset utilisation food manufacturers can increase revenue and return on capital. By way of example, typically cooking vessels must all have the same high-value processing devices on each kettle. If I have 10 kettles each with a homogeniser, sadly the nature of batch processing means the homogeniser will typically have a utilisation of 5%. APRIL systems process in parallel allowing utilisation to exceed 70%, for the same application only one homogeniser is required. Not only does this save money initially but also on ongoing maintenance costs.
Traditional Processing Vessel Arrangement
2) Factory footprint
The smaller the factory footprint the smaller the costs of building and running the factory. Within food manufacturing, chilled high and low care areas have a high cost per square meter. APRIL manufacturing cells will typically be less than 40% of a traditional system footprint. This means a considerably less expensive chilled food manufacturing facility to build and run over time.
3) Simplified equipment
In many food manufacturing processes significant investment is required in order to automate processes due to complex equipment and product routing. This not only is costly but creates significant cleaning and maintenance challenges. Robot chefs can simplify these processes minimising the complexity and equipment used, in doing so reducing investment and ongoing maintenance, cleaning costs and adapting to future product lines. The reliability and maintenance of the Robotic chef is staggering with projected downtime of less than 15 minutes in a year and little more than 1 hour’s maintenance. The APRIL robotic chef uses dedicated vessels requiring no pipework or valve matrices or pumps making it very easy to clean and avoid cross contamination issues.
Robotics chefs are coming on stream now, make sure you enjoy the benefits. If you would like to learn more about APRIL sign up for our launch event on Thursday 28th April 2015 at the National Centre for Food Manufacturing, Holbeach UK or if you would like to talk to someone please call one of the APRIL specialists at OAL.
For the latest updates, click to follow us on: