Wolfe hasn’t been around lately, but I found a relevant quote from him in another thread discussing the Behemoth:
That’s a pretty important detail in this discussion.
If maintaining that pace required 3 full-time sock packers plus 2-3 people efficiently running the extractor, then the throughput number is not just a machine number. It’s really a full labor-supported system throughput number.
That’s not really a knock by itself. At that scale, of course labor and material handling matter. But it does show why crew size, sock count, biomass prep, loading/unloading, and full-day averages need to be included when people talk about throughput.
Otherwise the headline number makes it sound like the machine alone is doing the work, when in reality the whole material handling workflow is a huge part of whether that number is achievable.
To me it begs the bigger buyer-side question: if the achieved pace is around 100 lb/hr and it requires a 5-6 person workflow to sustain it, how much of the value is coming from the machine itself versus the labor/material handling system and crew built around it?
That matters even more if we’re talking about a machine anywhere near the ~$1MM price class. At that point it isn’t just “can it run?”, it’s whether the machine itself materially improves throughput, labor efficiency, and total production economics compared to simpler/cheaper systems with larger/wider material columns and the same level of crew support.