ft, 1*7 University of California College of Agriculture Agricultural Experiment Station Berkeley 3 California ECONOMIC SITUATION AND MARKET ORGANIZATION IN THE CALIFORNIA GRAPE INDUSTRIES George L. Mehren and Grape Industry Statistics Appendix C Compiled by S. If. Shear \ May, 1950 Contribution from the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics Mimeographed Report No. 107 UNIVERSITY OF CAUFORNU LIBRARY ooujece of ACmrui n *»> I Foreword This report has a single major purpose — to describe the economic base of the California grape industries and the programs which have been developed by growers, handlers and processors* The text is divided into three sections dealing with the main trends in the grape industries and the wine industries and with the industry organizations for support, control or trade pro- motion. There are four appendices for reference. Appendix A contains charts supporting the conclusions of Section I of the text. Appendix B contains nineteen maps indicating the geo- graphic distribution of production and processing in California. Appendix C, which was compiled almost in entirety by S. W. Shear of the Giannini Foundation, is a tabular description of all seg- ments of the industry. Appendix D contains summaries of the laws, the orders and programs through which the industries have at- tempted to stabilize income from grapes. The contribution of Dr. Shear in tabulating much of the statistical data used in this report is gratefully acknowledged. ECONOMIC SITUATION AND MARKET ORGANIZATION IN THE CALIFORNIA GRAPE INDUSTRIES by George L. Mehren Grape Industry Statistics Appendix C Compiled by S. W. Shear TABLE OF CONTENTS I. ECONOMIC SITUATION Pag® Production • •♦••••••••••«».....,........,. 1 Acreage . • 3 Condition 10 Yield 11 Production Summary ...... .......... ........... 12 Utilization ...... .... ........ 16 Wine Grapes. .............................. 23 Raisin Grapes. 24 Table Grapes ........ ................ 27 Prices and Returns • 30 II. THE WINE INDUSTRY Wine Production •••••• 39 Net Finished Production. •••.•».................. 40 Weekly Crush .............. 44 Sugar Content. ............ . 46 Geographic Distribution. ......... ... 49 Wine Stocks 57 Total Supply 58 Apparent Consumption . • 59 Brandy and Spirits 62 Summary, Wine Production ••••••••• 64 Wine Prices. 69 III. MARKET ORGANIZATION Industry Structure . 71 The California Marketing Act of 1937 72 The Marketing Order for Wine ♦ 72 The Marketing Order for Raisin Processors •••• 73 Table Grapes .............................. 73 Summary, Advertising Orders. 74 Marketing Order for Wine Processors. 74 Marketing Order for Grape Stabilization 76 a. The Order 76 b. Efforts to Obtain Stabilization Loan. . 77 c. Tax-free Diversion 78 Stabilization Assessment. ............. • 79 Preliminary Report, Special Study Committee • 80 Minimum Quality ......................... 81 Seasonal Quality. ....... 81 Recommended Amendments. • 82 Summary Grape Stabilization Board ... ..... 82 Price Posting for Wine 82 The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 84 The California Tokay Order 85 The Federal Raisin Order 86 Raisin Support Operations. 88 Proposed Grape Programs. ........................ 89 Summary, Market Organization ... 90 d. e. f. g« h. i. ILLUSTRATIONS Title Figure Page Kumber 1 Grape Production in California and the United States, 1919-1949. . ♦ . 1 2 Varietal Souroes of Total Harvested Production of California Grapes, 1945-1948 • • 2 3 Bearing Acreage of California Grapes by Varietal Classes, 1919-1949. . 3 4 Bearing Acreage of California Wine Grapes by Districts, 1923-1948. . . 4 5 Bearing Acreage of California Raisin Grape Varieties by Districts, 1923-1948. ....... 5 6 Bearing Acreage of California Table Grapes by Districts, 1923-1948 . • 6 7 Bearing Acreage of California Grapes, All Varieties, by Distriots, 1923-1948 7 8 llonbearing Aoreage of California Grapes, by Varietal Classes, 1919-1948.8 9 California Grapes: Per Cent of Full Crop by Varietal Classes as of October 1, 1930-1949 10 10 Yield Per Bearing Acre of California Grapes by Varietal Classes, 1919-1949 11 11 Bearing Acreage, Production, Condition of Crop, and Yield Per Bearing Acre of California Wine - Grape Varieties, 1919-1949 . • • . 12 12 Bearing Acreage, Production, Condition of Crop, and Yield Per Bearing Acre of California Raisin Grapes, 1919-1949. ........ 13 13 Bearing Acreage, Production, Condition of Crop, and Yield Per Bearing Acre of California Table Grape Varieties, 1919-1949 14 14 Bearing Acreage, Production, Condition of Crop, and Yield Per Bearing Acre of All Varieties of California Grapes, 1919-1949. . . . 15 15 California Production and Utilization of All Varieties of Grapes, 1927-1949 * . . . 16 16 Varietal Sources of Grapes in Major Utilization, 1945-1948 ...... 18 17 California Grape Utilization by Varietal Classes and by Major Raisin and Table Varieties, Average Annual 1945-1948, in Tons Fresh Weight and as Percentage of Total Harvested Production by Varietal Class or Variety ........... ...20 18 Per Cent of Each Major Utilization by Major Varieties, Average 1945-1948 , . . . 21 19 Average Annual Utilization of California Grapes for Drying and Commercial Crush, 1945-1948 in Tons and as Per Cent of Average Annual Harvested Production. r , .22 20 California Harvested Production and Utilization of Wine Grape Varieties, 1927-1949 23 21 California Harvested Production and Utilization of Raisin Grape . Varieties, 1927-1949 24 22 World Raisin and Currant Production by Chief Countries, 1925-1949. . . 25 23 U.S. Per Capita Consumption of Raisins and Currants, in Pounds Processed Dry Weight, 1921-1948, Years Beginning September 1 • • . . 26 24 California Harvested Production and Utilization of Table Grape Varieties, 1927-1949 27 25 California Interstate Rail Shipments of Table Grape Stock, by Varieties, 1927-1949 . 28 ii ECONOMIC SITUATION AND MARKET ORGANIZATION IN THE CALIFORNIA GRAPE INDUSTRIES bar George L. Mehren and Grape Industry Statistics Appendix C Compiled by S. W. Shear TABLE OF CONTENTS i« ECONOMIC SITUATION Production l Acreage . ............................... 3 Condition ................ .......... 10 Yield 11 Production Summary . .......................... 12 Utilization . 16 Wine Grapes. .............................. 23 Raisin Grapes. .................. ..... 24 Table Grapes ........ ..... .. 27 Prices and Returns 30 XX« THE WINE INDUSTRY Wine Production 39 Net Finished Production. ••••• ...... 40 Weekly Crush .... 44 Sugar Content. .......... . 46 Geographic Distribution 49 Wine Stocks , 57 Total Supply 58 Apparent Consumption .......... ...... 59 Brandy and Spirits 62 Summary, Wine Production 64 Wine Prices. 69 III. MARKET ORGANIZATION Industry Structure 71 The California Marketing Act of 1937 72 The Marketing Order for Wine .. ....... 72 The Marketing Order for Raisin Processors 73 Table Grapes . ............................. 73 Summary, Advertising Orders. ...... ..... 74 Marketing Order for Wine Processors • 74 Marketing Order for Grape Stabilization. ...... 76 a. The Order 76 b 0 Efforts to Obtain Stabilization Loan. .. 77 o» Tax-free Diversion 78 d. Stabilization Assessment. ............... ..... 79 e. Preliminary Report, Special Study Committee 80 f • Minimum Quality ••••••••• •••••••• 81 g. Seasonal Quality. .••••........,.,.....,.» 81 h. Recommended Amendments. .......... »••• 82 i. Summary Grape Stabilization Board ..... ... 82 Price Posting for Wine 82 The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 84 The California Tokay Order . . 85 The Federal Raisin Order 86 Raisin Support Operations. 88 Proposed Grape Programs. ....... ............ 89 Summary, Market Organization ... • 90 mn n r * *~»^r ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ — — ILLUSTRATIONS Title Figure Page Slumber 1 Grape Production in California and the United States, 1919-1949. ... 1 2 Varietal Souroes of Total Harvested Production of California Grapes, 1945-1948 ••••• 2 3 Bearing Acreage of California Grapes by Varietal Classes, 1919-1949. • 3 4 Bearing Acreage of California Wine Grapes by Districts, 1923-1948. . . 4 5 Bearing Acreage of California Raisin Grape Varieties by Districts, 1923-1948 5 6 Bearing Acreage of California Table Grapes by Districts, 1923-1948 . • 6 7 Bearing Acreage of California Grapes, All Varieties, by Districts, 1923-1948 • 7 8 Nonbearing Acreage of California Grapes, by Varietal Classes, 1919-1948.8 9 California Grapes: Per Cent of Pull Crop by Varietal Classes as of October 1, 1930-1949 • • 10 10 Yield Per Bearing Acre of California Grapes by Varietal Classes, 1919-1949 . 11 11 Bearing Acreage, Production, Condition of Crop, and Yield Per Bearing Acre of California Wine - Grape Varieties, 1919-1949 . • • • 12 12 Bearing Acreage, Production, Condition of Crop, and Yield Per Bearing Acre of California Raisin Grapes, 1919-1949 • 13 13 Bearing Acreage, Production, Condition of Crop, and Yield Per Bearing Acre of California Table Grape Varieties, 1919-1949 14 14 Bearing Acreage, Production, Condition of Crop, and Yield Per Bearing Acre of All Varieties of California Grapes, 1919-1949. . . • 15 15 California Production and Utilization of All Varieties of Grapes, 1927-1949 16 16 Varietal Sources of Grapes in Major Utilization, 1945-1948 ...... 18 17 California Grape Utilization by Varietal Classes and by Major Raisin and Table Varieties, Average Annual 1945-1948, in Tons Fresh Weight and as Percentage of Total Harvested Production by Varietal Class or Variety ......... ...... 20 18 Per Cent of Each Major Utilization by Major Varieties, Average 1945-1948 , , 21 19 Average Annual Utilization of California Grapes for Drying and Commercial Crush, 1945-1948 in Tons and as Per Cent of Average Annual Harvested Production. . . . ....... 22 20 California Harvested Production and Utilization of Wine Grape Varieties, 1927-1949 23 21 California Harvested Production and Utilization of Raisin Grape Varieties, 1927-1949 24 22 World Raisin and Currant Production by Chief Countries, 1925-1949. . . 25 23 U.S. Per Capita Consumption of Raisins and Currants, in Pounds Processed Dry Weight, 1921-1948, Years Beginning September 1 • . . . 26 24 California Harvested Production and Utilization of Table Grape Varieties, 1927-1949 27 25 California Interstate Rail Shipments of Table Grape Stock, by Varieties, 1927-1949 28 ii figure Number 21a Title Page Utilization of California Raisin Grape Varieties as Per Cent of Harvested Production, 1934-1949 . • 17a 22a Average Annual Utilization of Muscats, Thompsons, Tokay, Emperor and Other Table Grapes, 1945-1948 . ....... . 18a 23a Utilization of California Table Grape Varieties as Per Cent of Harvested Production, 1927-1949 ... 19a 24a Distribution of Fresh Grapes for Table Fruit, 1934-1948 20a 25a Average Sugar-Readings by Variety and Date of Delivery, Dinuba, 1947. 21a 26a Average Sugar-Readings by Variety and Date of Delivery, Livingston 1947. . . . "*[••• 22a 27a Average Sugar-Readings by Variety and Date of Delivery, Kingsburg, 1947. 23a 28a Average Sugar-Readings by Variety and Date of Delivery, Sanger, 1947 24a 29a Average Sugar-Readings by Variety and Date of Delivery, Modesto, 1948 25a 30a Average Sugar-Readings by Variety and Date of Delivery, Reedley, 1947 26a 31a Average Sugar-Readings by Variety and Date of Delivery, Escalon, 1948 • • • • • 27a 32a Average Sugar-Readings by Variety and Date of Delivery, Lodi, 1948 28a 33a Annual Average 1945-1948 and 1946 and 1949 Adjusted Gross Commercial Production of Still Wine by Kinds and by Districts. • . • 29a 34a California Adjusted Average Annual Gross Production of Still Dessert and Table Wines by Districts During July 1-December 31, 1945-1948 . 30a 35a Central Coast Gross Still Wine Production as Per Cent of Total State, By Classes, July 1-December 31, 1937-1949 . • 30a 36a Horth of Bay Gross Still Wine Production by Classes During July- December, 1937-1949 31a 37a North of Bay Gross Still Wine Production as Per Cent of Total State, by Classes, July 1-December 31, 1937-1949 ............. 31a 38a South of Bay Gross Still Wine Production by Classes During July*- December, 1937-1949 32a 39a South of Bay Gross Still Wine Production as Per Cent of Total State, by Classes, July 1-December 31, 1937-1949 32a 40a Southern California Gross Still Wine Production as Per Cent of Total State, by Classes, July 1-December 31, 1937-1949. ..... .... 33a 41a Inventories and Apparent Consumption of California Wines in All Markets, 1938-1949 34a 42a Monthly United States Apparent Consumption of California Table and Dessert Wine and of Imported Wine, 1937-1949 35a Appendix B Geographio Distribution of California Grape Production and Processing Map Number Title Grape Aoreage, All Varieties, All Ages, 1948 lb Figure Number 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Title _ Page Grape Aoreage, Wine Varieties, All Ages, 1948 2b Grape Aoreage, Raisin Varieties, All Ages, 1948 3b Grape Acreage, Table Varieties, All Ages, 1948 4b Grape Production, All Varieties, All Uses, 1948 5b Grape Production Used for Dried Raisins, 1948 6b Grape Production Shipped Fresh as Table and Juice Stock, 1948 • • • 7b Total Commercial Grape Crush by County Whe re Grown,. 1948 8b Total Commercial Grape Crush by County Where Crushed, 1948 . • • . 9b Bonded Wineries, February, 1950 •«• •••• 10b Fruit Distilleries, February, 1950 lib Storage Cooperage, December 31, 1949 . 12b Equivalent Total Grape Tonnage Used in Wine Production, 1948 • • • 13b Equivalent Grape Tonnage Used in Dessert Wine Production, 1948 • • 14b Equivalent Grape Tonnage Used in Total Table Wine Production, 1948, 15b Gross Dessert Wine Production, 1948 ...*........<••• 16b Gross Total Table Wine production, 1948 ..........*••• 17b Gross Red Table Wine Production, 1948 . . . •• 18b Gross White Table Wine Production, 1948 •••••• 19b Appendix C Grape Industry Statistics Compiled by S. W. Shear Table Number California Acreage 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 California Bearing Grape Acreage by Varietal Classes, 1919-1949 • lc California Non-bearing Grape Acreage by Varietal Classes, 1919-1948 2o California Grape Acreage by Varietal Classes and For Wine Varieties, by Districts, 1948 ••••••••••••• 3c California Bearing Grape Acreage by Varietal Classes and Districts, 1923-1948 4c&5o California Bearing Grape Acreage by Districts and Varietal Classes, 1923-1948 ........ 6c & 7c California Grape Acreage by Varietal Classes and For Wine Varieties: Per Cent Each Variety of all Varieties, by Districts, 1948 .... 8c California Total Wine Grape Acreage by Varieties, 1936-1948 ...» 9c California Wine Grape Acreage Planted 1935-1948 and Standing in 1948 by Year Planted, by Variety . • . 10c California Total Table Grape Acreage by Varieties, 1936-1948 11c California Table and Raisin Grape Acreage Planted 1935-1948 and Standing in 1948 by Years Planted, by Variety . . . . . . . • • • 12c California Raisin and Table Grape Acreage by Varieties by Districts, 1948 . . . .... California Total Raisin Grape Acreage by Varieties, by Districts, 1936-1948 . . . 13c 14c 13 California Production and Yields California Bearing Acreage, Production, Per Cent of Full Crop and Yield Per Bearing Acre of all Varieties of Grapes, 1919-1949 . , 15o vi Table Number 14 California Bearing Acreage, Production, per Cent of Full Crop, and Yield Per Bearing Acre of Table Grape Varieties, 1919-1949 . . . 0 . 16c 15 California Bearing Acreage, Production, Per Cent of Full Crop, and Yield Per Bearing Acre of Wine Grape Varieties, 1919-1949 ..... 17o 16 California Bearing Acreage, Production, Per Cent of Full Crop, and Yield Per Bearing Acre of Raisin Grape Varieties, 1919-1949 .... 18c 17 California Table and Raisin Grapes, Per Cent of Full Crop as of October 1, by Districts, 1950-1949 • . . . . 19o 18 California Wine Grapes, Per Cent of Full Crop by Crop Reporting Districts as of October 1, 1930-1949 •»••••....... ...20c 21o United States Production and Utilization 19 Grape Production i United States and California by Varietal Classes. 1919-1949 7 * ( 20 Grapes : Production, Total and Having Value, United States, California, and Other States, 1934-1949 .............. 22c 21 Grapes: Farm Disposition, United States, California, and Other States, 1934-1949 • 23o 22 Grapes s Utilisation in States Other Than California, 1934-1949 ... * 24c 23 Grapes: Utilisation in States Other Than California, Per Cent of Production Having Value, 1934-1949 .25c 24 Grapes: Fresh Sales by Chief States, 1954-1948 .....26o 25 Grapes: Crushed for Wine, Brandy, and Juioe by Chief States, 1934-1949 27c California Production and Utilization 26 California Grapes Used for Drying and Commercial Crush by Varietal Classes, Averages 1934-1958 and 1945-1948 ....280 27 California Production and Utilization of All Varieties of Grapes, 1927-1949 I ... 29o 28 California Utilization of all Varieties of Grapes : Per Cent of Harvested Production, 1927-1949 ..... ....30c 29 California Production and Utilization of Raisin Grape Varieties. 1927-1949 51o 50 California Utilization of Raisin Grape Varieties: Per Cent of Harvested Production, 1927-1949 ......... .... 52c 51 California Production and Utilization of Table Grape Varieties, 1927-1949 I .... 55c 52 California Utilization of Table Grape Varieties : Per Cent of Harvested Production, 1927-1949 .................. 34c 55 California Production and Utilization of Wine Grape Varieties, 1927-1949 35c 54 California Utilization of Wine Grape Varieties : Per Cent of Harvested Production, 1927-1949 ••........,.....,,36o 35 California Grape Utilization by Varietal Classes and by Chief Raisin and Table Varieties, Average 1945-1948* 37c 36 California Grape Utilization by Varietal Classes and by Chief Raisin and Table Varieties : Per Cent of Total Production of Each Variety by Use, Average 1945-1948 ...........,.,.38o 57 California Grape Utilization by Varietal Classes and by Chief Raisin and Table Varieties : Per Cent of Totals of Bach Use by Variety, Average 1945-1948 # 39c vii Figure Number Page 38 California Grape Utilization by Varietal Classes and by Chief Raisin and Table Varieties s Per Cent by Variety of Total of Each Use of Raisin Varieties and of Table Varieties, Average 1945-1948 40c Fresh Table Grapes 39 Fresh Grapes Used as Table Fruitt United States Production, Exports, Imports and Consumption, 1934-1948. . 41c 40 California Interstate Rail Shipments of Table Grape, Stock by Varieties, Seasons 1927-1949 . 42c 41 Grapes Fresht United States Exports by Chief Countries of Destination, Years Beginning July 1, Averages 1924-1945, Annual 1939-1948 43c Prices 42 Grower Prices: California Grapes and United States, All Commodities, Average 1935-1939, Annual 1946-1949 . 44c 43 California Grapes: Growers' Total Equivalent Returns for Naked Fruit at First Delivery Point by Varietal Classes, 1919-1949. ... 45c 44 California Grapest Season Average Equivalent Return Per Ton to Growers for Bulk Fruit at First Delivery Point by Varietal Classes, Dollars Per Ton and Per Cent of 1935-1939 = 100, 1919-1949 46c 45 California Grapes, All Varieties: Equivalent Returns to Growers Per Ton for Bulk Fruit at First Delivery Point by Use, 1934-1949. . 47c 46 California Grapes: Returns to Growers Per Ton by Varietal Classes by Type of Utilisation, 1934-1949 48c 47 California Grapes Crushed for Wine and Brandy: Equivalent Returns Per Ton to Growers for Bulk Fruit at First Delivery Point by Varietal Classes, 1930-1949 49o 48 Eastern Delivered Auction Prices Per Package of California Table Stock Grapes by Chief Varieties, 1926-1949. .... 50c 49 Prices Paid by Packers to Growers for Free Tonnage of California Sun-Dried Natural Thompson Seedless and Muscat Raisins, 1909-1949 . 51c Raisins 50 Raisins and Currants: United States Exports, by Countries of Destination, Years Beginning July 1, Averages 1909-1945, Annual 1939-1948 52c 51 Raisins and Currants: United States Production, Exports , Imports and Consumption, Years Beginning September 1, 1921-1948 ... 53c & 54c 52 California Raisins and Currants: Shipments to United States and Foreign Countries and Packers F.O.B. Prices of Thompson Seedless Raisins, Years Beginning September 1, 1921-1948. 55c 53 Raisin and Currants: Yforld Production by Chief Countries, 1909-1949 56c Wine 54 Monthly prices of Table and Dessert Wine Bulk F.O.B. California Wineries, 1934-1950 57c viii Title Figure Number 55 United States Apparent Per-Capita Consumption of Still Wines, Averages, Years Beginning July 1, 1935-1939 and 1945-1948 • . . 56 Still Wine: Apparent Consumption of California Wines in all Markets and Stocks in Bond of all Still Wine in California, December 31, 1938-1949 «.«.. ...»«•»•« 57 Apparent Consumption of Still Wine in the United States, California and Other States: Homemade Wine Production and Taj: Paid Y/ithdrawals of Commercial Domestic and Imported Still Wine, Years Beginning July 1, 1933-1948 58 Apparent Per-Capita Consumption of Still Wine in the United States, California and Other States: Homemade Wine, Production and Tax Paid Withdrawals of Commercial Domestic and Imported Still Wine, Years Beginning July 1, 1933-1949. • • 59 Commercial Still Wine, Net Finished Production, Table and Dessert, United States and California 1933-1949 * . * 60 United States Production, Stocks, Supply, and Disappearance of Domestic Commercial Still Wine, Average 1909-1913, Annual 1933-1949. ... ..»•••.. 61 California Production, Stocks, Supply, and Disappearance of California Commercial Still Wine, Average 1909-1913, Annual 1933-1949 62 California Crush, Gross Wine Production, Storage Capacity and Number of Bonded Wineries and Fruit Distilleries, by Districts, 1940, 1945-1949. 63 California Adjusted Gross Commercial Still Wine Production, Dessert and Red and White Table by Districts, During July 1- December 31, Average 1945-1948* • 64 California State Total Gross Commercial Still Wine, Dessert and Red and White Table, During July-December, 1935-1949 65 California Gross Still Wine Production by Districts, Dessert and Red and White Table July-December, 1937-1949 ••••• 66 California Adjusted Gross Commercial Still Wine Production, Dessert and Red and White Table, by Districts, July 1- December 31, 1944-1949. •• .............. 67 Equivalent Tonnage of Grapes Used in California Commercial Gross Production of Still Wines, Dessert and Red and 7/hite Table, by Districts, July 1-December 31, 1944-1949. • . • 68 Weekly Grape Crush of California Wineries by Varietal Classes and Chief Raisin and Wine Varieties, by Districts, 1949 • . . 69 Weekly Grape Crush of California Wineries by Varietal Classes and Chief Raisin, and Wine Varieties by Districts, 1948. • • . . 70 Weekly Grape Crush of California Wineries by Varietal Classes and '.Vine Varieties by Districts, 1947 ••••••«•••••• 71 Apparent Consumption of California Wines in all Markets, California and Other States, Table and Dessert and Total, Monthly July 1 937-February 1950 . ...... ♦...<>.... 72 United States Wine Imports for Consumption by Kinds, Years Beginning July 1, 1933-1948 73 United States Imports for Consumption of Table Wine Containing 14 Per Cent or Less Alcohol by Chief Countries of Origin, Years Beginning July 1, 1936-1948 •••••••••»•»••• • . • Page 58c . 59c 60c 61c 62c 63c 64 o 65c & 66c . . . 67c » . . 68c 69c - 72c 73c & 74c 75c & 76c . . . 77c • • • 78c 79c 80c - 84c > . • 85c 86c ix Title Figure Pago lumber 74 United States Imports for Consumption of Dessert Wine Containing over 14 Per Cent but Less Than 24 Per Cent Alcohol other than Vermouth, Sake and N.E.S., by Chief Countries of Origin, Years Beginning July 1, 1935-1948. ....«•« 87c 75 United States Imports for Consumption of Vermouth by Chief Countries of Origin, Years Beginning July 1, 1055-1948 ....... .... 88c 75 United States Imports for Consumption of Sparkling Wine by Chief Countries of Origin, Years Beginning July 1, 1934-1948. . * . • 89c Brandy 77 Sparkling Wine: Production and Withdrawals for Consumption, Domestic and Imported, United States and California, Years Beginning July 1, 1933-1949 ...•..•••.....•.....» 90c 78 California Fruit Brandy, IJeutral and Beverage, Supply and Disappearance, Years Beginning July 1, 1909-1913 and 1935-1949 ....... ... 91c 79 California Raisins Used in Making Brandy and Spirits in the United States ..«•»•••••••.••••••••••.•«»• 92c 80 United States Brandy Imports for Consumption by Chief Countries of Origin, Years Beginning July 1, 1934-1948. ••••• • • 93c Appendix D Market Control Part In caber 1 California Marketing Act of 1937. •«••• • »....« o • Id 2 Marketing Order for Wine. ••••••••••••••.•••»*•»* 4d 3 Marketing Order for Raisin Processors 5d 4 Marketing Order for Wine Processors ••••••.••••..«••«. 5d 5 Marketing Order for Grape Stabilization • ••»•••••*•»•••• 7d S Federal Funds for Diversion • »••••••••••••••«•••.• 8d 7 Resale Price Maintenance. .*..••••.....••••.••••• 9d 8 Loss Leaders ••.«••••••••••••••••••••.•••« 9d 9 California Alcoholic Beverage Control Act •••*..••.••*... 10d 10 Mandatory Price Posting or Maintenance. ••••••••«.•••.•« lid 11 Federal Market Control »»•••••«••»••••.»«.•••** 12d 12 Federal Order Regulating Shipments of Tokay Grapes •*•••...*« 13d 13 Order Regulating Handling of Raisins Produced from Raisin Variety Grapes Grown in California ... ...... 14d 14 Agricultural Act of 1949 ••••• ............ 15d 15 Raisin Purchases and Disposition by U. S. Department of Agriculture Agencies, Quantity and Expenditure, Fiscal Years 1935-36 - 1948-49 17d x in 200 3000 800 600 400 200 2000 800 600 I. ECONOMIC SITUATION Fig. I. Grape Production in California and the United States, I9I9-I9U9 400 o o 200 1000 800 / 1 \ j V Raisi Cal i f . V V wine Cal i f . 1 ^ iL^wN y v ....... N5c 400 . / \ \.. \Vir. V V Table, Calif. \ v / ""* XVX ~ ^-v 200 »* , —\- • / X / V \ >r~-^«^<^^V ■ 1920 1925 1930 1935 YEAR 1940 1945 1950 PROIXJCTION t Figure 1 shows most of the important economic characteristics of the grape industries of California. Note first that from the depression year of 1931 to the first post-war year of 1946, total annual United States production almost doubled. This rise from a total output of less than 1,700,000 tons to more than 3,100,000 tons per year means on the average about 200,000 tons more grapes each year. Note also that for all practical purposes the California in- dustry is the national industry. Production in other states has slowly declined to about 200,000 tons per year from a 1931 high of about 300,000 tons. The figure also demonstrates that through this whole period, raisin-type grapes have comprised well over one-half of total production* Production of table-variety grapes has accelerated faster than output of wine grapes and now each type ac- counts for about twenty per cent of all California grapes. This steady increase Fig. 2. Varietal Sources of Total Harvested Production of California Grapes, 1945- I9U8. TOTAL HARVESTED PRODUCTION WINE RAISIN TABLE MUSCAT THOMPSON TOKAY EMPEROR OTHER TABLE 8 CO >o o o PER CENT in production in all branohes has out-raced both the rat© of inorease in popu- lation and in per oapita consumption of grapes and grape products. Figure 1 also shows the second major problem facing these industries which use grapes as raw materials. Annual average output has increased steadily in a dear straight-line trend, but around this trend are violent annual fluctuations both up and down. These ohanges in yearly output have exceeded 800,000 tons. They cannot be foreseen in advance. They cannot be controlled. They are not correlated with annual ohanges in purchasing power or with other market-demand determinants. In tons, the greatest change in output from year to year is in raisin-type grapes, but in percentages the changes are not greatly different among varietal classes. Thus the grape industries must first adjust to a steady long-run expansion of production whioh necessitates continuous expansion of markets. Seoond, they must have a marketing mechanism sufficiently flexible to handle a total output which may be 1,900,000 tons as in 1936 and next year ex- plode to 2,700,000 as in 1937. When this happens, prices for grapes used in all outlets may break drastically. For, third, in this single fruit industry in which total production always finds a home — the varietal classes may be used in several channels. Wine grapes go only for wine but if wine-grape production is heavy, part of the traditional winery market for table and raisin varieties is closed off and table and raisin grape prices fall. If raisin-type grapes are unusually heavy in output, they may flow over into table and vintner markets. High output or low markets for any varietal olass transfers almost its full im- pact to the other two groups. Prosperity and depression in one part of the grape industry means prosperity or depression respectively in all parts. 3 Fig. 3. Bearing Acreage of California Grapes by Varietal Classes, I9I9-I9H9 500 400 o 300 200 ^ Total 1 0 - i — - - - Raisin / f • M — •< mm t Wine - — Tabled ••«••*•••••••••••• ■ — ■ 1 1920 19 25 19 30 193 5 19 40 19 45 YEAR The steady long-run expansion of output and the erratio annual changes both can be due only to one of two factors; acreage and yield. However, condition may best be considered apart from yield because it reflects weather in the main, while yield changes seem to reflect steadily improved culture, ACREAGE i The third chart makes clear beyond doubt that acreage- ohanges in any or the three varietal classes is not responsible either for the continuous ex- pansion or the wide annual shifts in grape production. There has been a very small increase in bearing acreage in all three varietal classes since 1931. Their aggre- gate effect has been so little that it is not far wrong to assert that acreage in all classes has for all practical purposes been constant. Thus production must have climbed over the years and shifted so widely from year to year largely be- cause of changes in yields per acre. The stability of bearing acreage in total and by varietal class is largely due to the same stability over the years when acreage is considered by district or by varieties within each broad varietal class. Onoe the boom of the late 1920 «s had passed, the grape industries settled down into an acreage pattern much like the present. Fig. 4. Bearing Acreage of California Wine Grapes by Districts, 1923-1948 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 YEAR The geographic distribution of grape-produotion is indicated in several text charts. It is further shown in Appendix A, in which the first fifteen charts re- late to acreage, and in Appendix B, where a series of maps is included. The state is divided into several distriots in considering acreage, yield, production and utilization of the different classes of grapes and their products. The San Joaquin Valley District — whioh dominates both wine and grape production — includes the counties of Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare and Kern. The Central Valley Distriot comprises the counties of Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Calaveras, Tuolomne and Amador. The Sacramento Valley District takes in the counties of Shasta, Siskiyou, Tehama, Glenn, Butte, Colusa, Sutter, Yolo, Yuba, Nevada, Placer and El Dorado — although production has fallen to zero in some of these counties. These three distriots together are called the Interior Valley in this report. The South- ern California District inoludes the eight oounties which lie south of the Tehachapi Mountains. The Central Coast is divided into two sub-districts. The North Bay is oomprised of Humboldt, Mendocino, Lake, Sonoma, Solano, Napa and Marin counties. The South Bay includes Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Benito, San Fran- cisco, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties. 5 Fig. 5. Bearing Acreage of California Raisin Grape Varieties by Districts, 1923- / 320 300 80 60 40 20 200 80 60 40 20 100 80 60 40 I- 20 - . / / / H / / San Joaqui n Val ley v — U- J - { Sacramento Valley f Southern Cal i fornia Central Valley uenirai YEAR Changes in bearing acreages of wine grapes in the several districts have been minor in recent years. Some apparent changes are probably due to changes in methods of reporting aoreage. The Central Coast District is the major wine grape area, but the Central Valley and the San Joaquin Districts together have for many years held about sixty per cent of all the wine-grape acreage in the state. South- ern California has maintained an almost constant acreage at around 30,000. The Sacramento Valley Distriot, which was never important, has almost disappeared from the industry. The San Joaquin Valley District is the heart of the raisin areas. No other district is of real importance. There have been no major changes in the last two decades in total bearing acreage of the raisin varieties. Fig. 6. Bearing Acreage of California Table Grapes by Districts 1923 - I9M8 80 II I I I ' ' ' I 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 YEAR Bearing acreage of table-variety grapes is concentrated in the Interior Valley, with the San Joaquin District dominating. The increase in recent years in this region has about balanced the decrease in acreage in the Central Valley, Other districts appear to be retaining the very minor acreage they have long con- tained. In total, acreage is quite constant. The increased annual output of table grapes apparent in Figure 1 must therefore also be due to an increased yield per acre over the past two decades. When bearing acreage of all varieties is aggregated for the several districts, as is shown in Figure 7, several striking facts appear. The San Joaquin Valley is far and away the major district. This dominance is overwhelming when the acreage 7 Fig. 7. Bearing Acreage of California Grapes, All Varieties, By Districts, 1923- 19^48 1925 1930 1935 19U0 1945 YEARS of the Central Valley District, which exceeds that of any area other than the San Joaquin, is added to get the total acreage in the Interior Valley.' Second, no dis- trict of any importance has greatly expanded plantings in recent years and none has been so adversely affected by production or marketing conditions as to retire any significant volume of acreage. The Central Coast and the Southern California Dis- tricts have each not much more than a tenth of the bearing acres now concentrated in the San Joaquin Valley alone, and even less when compared to the Interior Valley as a whole. But there has been no change in thi's relative status over the past twenty years. The Sacramento Valley alone has lost acreage, but there has never been heavy acreage there. The non-bearing aoreage situation is also quite stable. For the fifteen years immediately after the 1931 low, there was very little shift in any segment of the industries. Total non-bearing acreage climbed fairly sharply in the last years of the war. This climb represented increased plantings in all three of the main varie- tal classes. Non-bearing acreage in none of the varietal classes poses a serious threat to the stability of production in the near future. Fig. 8. Non-Bearing Acreage of California Grapes, bv Varietal Classes, 1919-1948 When regarded by districts rather than by varieties — as in Figures 4, 5, and 6 — it becomes clear that acreage of all varietal classes in most districts has been constant, or that changes in one varietal class compensated for opposite changes in others. There have been nearly 220,000 acres of raisin-type grapes bearing in the San Joaquin Valley for twenty years. Table grapes have run about 40-50,000 acres and wine varieties about 25,000 acres with little change in any oomponent. About half the acreage in the Central Valley is in wine grapes. Table grapes — like wine grapes — have declined slightly but still are more than twice as heavy as raisin varieties. The Central Coast District grows practically nothing but wine-variety grapes. There is no perceptible trend yet apparent, with decreases in the last two years after more than ten years of continuous expansion. Southern California is dominantly a wine-grape area. Diminished acreage in table grapes has balanced a slight rise in raisin-varieties acreage, but the total in these two classes is not great. Total acreage in the Sacramento Valley has been decreas- ing since 1929. Since 1940, less than 750 acres in all varietal classes have been in bearing. Zinfandel, Carignane and Alicante Bouschet are the major wine varieties, with Mission, Golden Chasselas, Grenache and Petite Sirah in a secondary group. Of vines standing in 1948 and planted between 1936 and 1948, the heaviest plantings occurred during 1944-1947. This is also true when red-wine grapes and white-wine grapes are separately considered. The red-wine acreage in the Central Valley is almost the same as that on the Central Coast. The much smaller total of white- wine types is concentrated on the Central Coast. For wine varieties as a whole, acreage stands about as follows: Central Coast, 60,000; Central Valley, 50,000; Southern California, 40,000 and San Joaquin Valley, 35,000. Thus the Interior Valley in total has the most acreage of all areas. There has been little change in the volume or distribution of wine-grape acreage regardless of how it is considered. 180 CROP YEARS 9 Almost the whole of the raisin industry lies in the counties of Merced, Tulare, Madera, Kings, Fresno and Kern which comprise the San Joaquin Valley Dis- trict, About five per cent of the bearing acreage of these varieties in the whole state lies in Southern California, Of 46,000 acres of Muscats, less than 5,000 acres are in Southern California and the rest are in the San Joaquin. Of 200,000 acres of Thompsons, more than 180,000 acres are in the San Joaquin with about 8,000 acres in both the Central Valley and in Southern California„ Of the acreage standing in 1948 and planted between 1936 and 1948, there is a concentra- tion of plantings about 1940 and a far heavier peak in the age groups planted in 1945-1947. For the state as a whole, acreage of all raisins increased about 13,000 acres or about five per cent over the 1936 total up to 1948, This repre- sented a decrease of about 19,000 acres or 29 per cent in Muscats and of 4,500 acres or 41 per cent in Sultanas, offset by an increase of 35,000 acres or 21 per cent in Thompson Seedless. The San Joaquin Valley accounted for an increase of 9,753 acres which represented gains of about 30,000 in Thompsons and decreases of about 17,000 and 4,000 respectively for Muscats and Sultanas. Southern California and the Central Valley showed small gains in Thompson acreage which offset slight decreases in Muscats. The major shift in this segment is the drop in Muscats, While the productive plant lies mainly in the southern San Joaquin Valley, per- centage increases in acreage have been greater in other areas. The dominance of raisin-variety grapes in the history of total production of all varietal classes over the past two decades indicates that there has been a faster acceleration in yields per acre than in some other classes, but no serious shift in tho distribu- tion or size of total acreage. There are three outstanding varieties among the table grapes. Tokays have held quite constant for fifteen years at from 26,000 to 27,000 acres. Emperor grapes have climbed sharply from about 17,000 acres in 1936 to about 31,000 acres in 1948. White Malagas, the third major variety, have decreased at a little less than the rate of increase in Emperors. Red Malagas, Ri biers and all other varie- ties combined have increased slowly and now all stand in the order of 6,000 acres to 8,000 acres. The stability of total acreage, the shift out- of White Malagas and the shift into Emperors are the most striking recent changes in this segment t Plantings appear to have peaked in the late war years, as in the other groups. Most of these new plantings were Emperors, Tokay, Red Malaga and Ribier plantings have not greatly shifted. About two-thirds of the table varieties grow in the San Joaquin District. About thirty per cent of the acreage lies in the Central Valley, The only other area of commercial significance is Southern California, with less than five per cent of the total. Nearly all of the Emperors are in the San Joaquin District, Nearly all the Tokays are in the Central Valley, The White Malagas also are nearly all in the San Joaquin District. Neither the doubling of total annual output of grapes or the violent changes in total output from year to year — which have required continuous market expan- sion and frequent adjustment to sharp changes in total output among the three segments — can be attributed to shifts in the acreage base of this industry, For the state as a whole, there have been no serious changes in total acreage in any of the three varietal classes. The total of each variety in the various geo- graphic districts has been remarkably constant. In wine grapes, the Central Coast has a little more acreage than does the Central Valley. The Interior Valley as a whole is the major wine grape region. The raisin industry is almost wholly in the San Joaquin. The Interior Valley produces by far the bulk of table grapes. No major change has occurred in the acreage standing in any of these districts. Explanation of the marketing problems of the grape industries must be sought in other factors. 100 95 90 85 80 75 5 5 65 60 55 50 45 0 Fig. 9. California Grapes: Per Cent of Full Crop by Varietal Classes as of October I, 1930- I9H9 t I n J /; \\\ i A \7; \ ^v>. 1930 1935 1940 1945 YEAR CONDITION: Both the upward drift of production and its annual fluctuations could conceivably be explained by similar changes in the determinants of crop con- dition. Annual weather variations would be the major determinant. Despite the improbability of any consistent twenty-year pattern of weather change, there is a clear-cut upward trend in reported per cent of full crop. This may be due to quite unconsoious tendencies to confuse the effects of weather and other determi- nants of yield. Comparison of Figure 9 with Figure 1 indicates a fairly close relationship between total production and the reported per cent of full crop and also between annual variations in output of each of the three varietal classes. These relations merit further statistical study. Per cent of full potential crop realized seems to have varied most in raisins and least widely in the wine varie- ties. For all three classes, extremes in reported per cent of full crop have been greatest in the Sacramento Valley. The relative variation by varietal class and by district is shown in Charts 16, 17 and 18 in Appendix A. It is clear that all of the variation in output in all classes seems — again for all practical purposes — to originate in changes in yields per acre. It would be logical to assume that year-to-year changes in per cent of full potential crop reported as harvested would vary among districts and varietal classes. However, the steady upward drift would not be expected, and its existence is most puzzling. 11 Changes in yield per acre might be expected to originate also from two other main factors — the steady increase in knowledge of output-determinants and the changes in business outlook. These in conjunction with changes in such factors as fertili- zer-costs, irrigation and other costs, might lead to changes in annual yields per acre. r yield rose without real interruption up through 19^6. If this rise is not due to random variation in weather conditions, then the peak production of 19^6 again might be reached. The duration of this trend of rising yields and its apparent independence of the economic fluctuations of the period suggest that the rise is founded on techno- logical improvement in grape culture. The grape industries should therefore recognize that at any time they may be faced with extremely heavy yield in all segments and therefore with very heavy total production. Market organization should be oriented towards three production characteristics of the industries: expanding output; erratic changes in output; and substitutability among the varietal classes . Fig. 15. California Production and Utilization of all Varieties of Grapes 1927 - I9M9 1935 1940 1945 YEAR UTILIZATION ; Figure 15 shows all three of the production characteristics from which many marketing difficulties seem to have come. Expanding and erratic pro- duction have already been analyzed. The third factor — the use of some grapes in two or three outlets — is also demonstrated. The chart shows that there are really four major markets for California grapes and that all of them are closely interrelated. Grapes may he dried for raisins j crushed commercially; sold fresh for home crushing or other juice; and sold for fresh table use. There have been major changes in most of these utilizations. The table market has grown steadily but at a much slower rate than the production of table-variety grapes. At the peak year of 1947, about 450,000 tons went into table outlets. The relatively minor an- nual fluctuations in tonnage sold in these channels should be considered against 17 the wider annual variations in production of table grapes shown in Figure 1. This means therefore a wide annual fluctuation in the tonnage of table variety- grapes diverted to wineries. When considered as a percentage of total harvested production, no trend in utilization of the table varieties appears. On the aver- age, about thirteen per cent of harvested grape production goes into these out- lets, and deviations from this average level show no systematic pattern . There is a long-run shrinkage in the utilization of grapes for juice other than commercial crushing. Even in the five years prior to the repeal of the eighteenth amendment to the Federal Constitution, shipments for this purpose were falling radically. Since 1933, grapes used for this purpose have dropped slowly from about 200,000 tons to about 100,000 tons. It is probable that as immigrants from wine-drinking countries become fewer, this outlet may shrink even further. The utilization of grapes for commercial crushing has changed in three main ways. As would be expected, there was a precipitous rise after repeal to more than 800,000 tons by 1935. Since then there has been a slow upward drift except for the three war years 1942-44. But most striking and of most economic signi- ficance is the fact that the amount crushed in successive years has differed by as much as 600,000 tons of grapes or 60,000,000 gallons of wine. These year- to-year changes in tonnage crushed have not been related to the market outlook for commercial wine. To some measure they have been related to changes in the total production of grapes. To a greater degree they have been related to fac- tors affecting production and demand in the raisin and table segments. Low price expectations in these two segments, bad weather in the raisin industry, heavy pro- duction in either raisin or table varieties, low supports in raisins or stringent market controls can and have meant heavy diversion of grapes to wineries. The relationship of utilization for raisins versus commercial crush is clear from Figure 15. Expressed as a percentage of total harvested production, there has been a slight drift upward since 1934. More serious is the wild fluctuation in the percentage of total production which has gone to wineries each year. This percentage has varied from les6 than thirty to more than fifty over the last decade. When total juice utilization is considered, the fluctuations are much the same. The important economic fact is the absence of relationship between a heavy crush and conditions in the wine industry alone. Vintners and raisin handlers have both had their supplies largely determined by conditions in other industries and inventory-values have shifted in response to the same influences. The raisin segment shows the same pattern as the wine outlet, with heavy- crushes generally occurring in years when the lay of raisins was light and vice versa. Percentage-wise, the violence of fluctuations is about the same as in the winery channel. The lay of raisins apparently responds to a variety of fac- tors determining the expected price levels for grapes as raisins, as wine and in some measure as grapes for fresh table use. If wine inventories are high or wine demand low, their effects may spill over into the raisin and table markets by inducing a heavy lay of raisins or heavy diversion to table use. Thus adverse market conditions in the winery segment immediately create adverse effects on the other two markets. Prices per ton of all kinds of grapes vary in almost exactly the same way. This is due to the fact that if prices in table use or wineries are high relative to prospective raisin prices, growers will divert from raisins until the raisin price rises and the table and winery prices fall and equal returns in all outlets are gotten. A heavy production of wine grapes can adversely affect prices for raisin and table grapes despite being unsuitable for sale in those markets through lowering prices in the winery channel and thus inducing heavier than normal utilization in the other two outlets. 18 Fig. 16. Varietal Sources of Grapes in Major Utilization, I9U5-I9H8 Shipped Fresh, Table Use, Total Wine Raisin Table Muscat Thompson Tokay Emp e ro r Other Table Processed, or for Processing - Dried Commercial Crush 19 Figure 16 indicates in a different way the same interdependence in utiliza- tion. More than thirty per cent of shipments for fresh table use are grapes which can also be dried for raisins. One-third of fresh shipments for table use are Emperors but Thompson Seedless comprise 29 per cent of 1945-48 sales. This is more than Tokays at 19 per cent or of all other table varieties combined at about 17 per cent. Only raisin varieties may be used to make raisins. Thompson seedless are the dominant source with more than 90 per cent of total raisin pro- duction and Muscats comprise about 5 per cent. For all processing other than drying, wine grapes constitute over 40 per cent of the total, raisin grapes about 37 per cent and the rest are table grapes. Thompson grapes comprise nearly a quarter of the processed grapes. Muscats and Tokays make up about one-eighth each of the total. For commercial crush, Muscats and Tokays are each about one- eighth of the total and Thompsons are again about one-fourth. About three-fourths of the grapes shipped fresh for juice are wine varieties. Almost all of the re- mainder are Muscats. Thus when it is asked what grapes are used in the various channels, it is clear that raisin and table grapes are and have long been used interchangeably in fresn shipments for table use. Thompson, Tokay and Emperor grapes constitute the bulk of these shipments. On interstate shipments for juice, Muscats which are classed as a raisin variety account for a fourth of the supply. For commercial crushing, almost equal parts of the total supply — about three- eighths each — are made up of wine and raisin varieties, and about a fourth are table grapes. Muscats, Thompsons and Tokays dominate here. In terms of utiliza- tion, there appear to be no grapes limited only to table outlets. Similarly, the so-called raisin varieties traditionally constitute large fractions of the raw materials for other uses. Wine grapes are the only ones which can be used in the single channel, but even so changes in the supply of wine grapes affects the prices gotten for other grapes in the same ways and for the same reasons as wine grapes are affected by the others. In 1945-48, there were about 500,000 tons of wine grapes and nearly 150,000 tons of Muscats, about 310,000 tons of table grapes and 340,000 tons of seedless raisin grapes used for commercial crushing on the average each year. Figure 17 on page 20 asks this question: what are the major uses made of the three varietal classes and of the main varieties in each one of them? In the three years, 1945-48, commercial crush accounted for nearly 1,300,000 tons of grapes or 46 per cent of the crop. About 34 per cent or 965,000 tons were dried. About 400,000 tons or 14 per cent were shipped fresh for table use. About 150,000 tons on the average over the four years went out each season as fresh shipments for juice. About 82 per cent of the wine varieties went to wineries and the remainder for home crushing. Nearly 60 per cent of the raisin varieties were dried, nearly 30 per cent went into wineries, about 8 per cent for fresh table use and about 2 per cent for juice. Some 47 per cent of table grapes were used for table consumption and nearly 53 per cent of them went into wineries. It is therefore inappropriate to regard such products as grown for table use only or even to look upon the winery outlet as a by-product. A channel long- used and receiving over the years more than half of production must be considered by growers, in determining whether to plant table varieties, as a regular and legitimate channel. By varieties, it is equally clear that varietal classifi- cations are often purely formal. Three-fourths of Muscat tonnage is used for juice and only one-fourth for drying. Only two-thirds of the Thompson Seedless production is dried and nearly a quarter goes to wineries. Almost 70 per cent of Tokay production went to wineries in these years. More than 60 per cent of table grapes other than Tokays and Emperors are crushed for juice. In the face of long and regular sale of raisin-variety grapes to both table and juice out- lets, and of table-variety grapes to wineries, it is difficult to classify these multi -product grapes in any single class. It has been estimated that of the 20 Fig. 17. California Grape Utilization by Varietal Classes and by Major Raisfrv and Table Varieties, Average Annual 19*15- I9H8, In Tons Fresh Weight and as Percentage of Total Harvested Production by Varietal Class or Variety ALL VARIETIES Shi ppeo fresh, table use [&%&%%399,000£%j (l4.i%) Drying Commercial crush Shipped fresh, juice use| $£399, 000^3 U4.l%) 1 | ~T 965,000 | (34.2%) 149,000 (5.3%) WINE VARIETIES Commercial crush Shipped fresh, juice use ;:;^;i;449 1 ooo;:;;;;| (8i.8%) 109,000 (17.9%) Shipped fresh, table use Dry i ng Commercial crush Shipped fresh, juice use RAISIN VARIETIES 123,000 1 (7.6%) 963,000 glj: jil: 483. OOOiljiiT " ( 29.7 % ) (45.7%) 38,000 (2.3%) I TABLE VARIETIES I Shipped fresh, table use [^276,000^1 (46.9 %) Commercial crush :j;3 1 1 ,000"|T| (52.8%) Shipped fresh, table use Dry i ng Commercial crush Shipped fresh, juice use Shipped fresh, table use Drying Commercial crush MUSCATS 7,000 (3.0%) 47,000 (19.9%) 144,000 (61.0%) 38,000 (16.1%) I THOMPSON SEEDLESS 116,000 (8.7%) (59.2%) ;;;;;;|3i8,oo6j!£l Shipped fresh, table usel 75,000 (31.5%) (23.7%) TOKAY 887,000 ~| (66.1%) Commercial crush l-i-l-j-j-i-i-lj 163,000 (68.5%) I EMPEROR Shipped fresh, table usel Commercial crush I;::! Shipped fresh, table use Commercial crush 133,000 (76.0%) 42,000 (24 7o) I OTHER TABLE VARIETIES 68,000 |(38.6%) 106,000 (60.2%) i i _J I I I I I X 200 400 600 800 THOUSAND TONS 1000 1200 21 650,000 tons of table and raisin variety grapes other than Muscats going to wineries, some 450,000 tons are used for high-proof brandy, about 50,000 tons for unfermented juice and concentrate and only about 150,000 tons for wine on the average each year. Fig. 18. Per Cent of Each Major Utilization by Major Varieties Average 19145 - I9M8 SHIPPED FRESH, TABLE USE Fo r D ry i n g Commercial Crush [29. l[ Thompson &^!8.8><>l2.6#a Tokay Thompson Thompson ;:!<>< Harvested production Fresh table A As/ jygg. W ill Commercial crush Dried \ 1930 1935 1940 CROP YEARS 1945 TABLE GRAPES t Harvested production inoreased at a faster rate from 1932 through 1946 than did either the wine varieties or raisin grapes. A little more than 200,000 tons were harvested in 1931; in 1946 about 650,000 tons had been har- vested. The rate of increase was greatest here, but the fluctuations from one year to the next appear to be of a lesser order than in the other two segments. In the last three years, production has fallen off more than 100,000 tons per year. This represents almost wholly a deorease in yield per acre since there have been no important changes in the bearing aoreage of these varieties. There are only two important uses for table variety grapes. Fresh table use and commercial crush account for almost exactly equal parts of the crop. A very small tonnage is dried, although this very minor utilization appears to be disap- pearing completely. Fresh table use deolined during the great depression. Imme- diately after repeal, the utilization of table-variety grapes in winery ohannels was greatly expanded and by 1935, the tonnage used in wineries exoeeded that sold for table use. Sinoe 1935, winery use has exceeded table use in tons in six years. In reoent years, the division has been almost equal. The roughly equal YEARS division of table grape utilization between table and winery outlets has been maintained sinoe 1935. Thus both series hare consistently increased. Less than 200,000 tons were used in each of the two outlets in 1935, but by 1946 it had climbed to about 300,000 tons each. As a percentage of total harvested production, utilization in commercial crush has exceeded interstate fresh shipments in all years but two sinoe 1937. Interstate shipments for juice and sales for drying are both less than one per cent of the crop. Intrastate fresh sales for table use have declined slowly to a level of about seven per cent of harvested production. Less than five per cent of Muscats are used for table fruit. Less than ten per cent of the Thompson Seedless harvest is so used, although this is almost as large in tons as the Emperor deal. About thirty per cent of Tokays and about seventy-five per cent of Emperors in recent years have gone to fresh sale for table utilization. For all other table varieties combined, less than forty per cent of harvested production is sold for fresh use. Sales of fresh grapes in various outlets fluctuate sharply from year to year. Total sales to fresh markets trended downward quite sharply from 1934 through 1943. Then total sales — which includes all varieties of grapes and also includes uses other than table consumption climbed sharply until the downturn of 1948. Sales for fresh-table-use-only dropped from about 475,000 tons in 1934 to about 350,000 in 1944 and before the 1948 break had climbed again to about 525,000 tons. Farm-home use has been quite stable. It is, how- ever, a small outlet and since 1934 has dropped from about 60,000 tons to about 35,000 tons. The homemade wine market is the second most important channel in 29 Fig. 26. U.S. Per Capita Consumption and Distribution of Fresh Grapes as Table Fruit. I93U- 1949 500 f\*^ Fresh table ^ / \ use on1 y V/' A\ / #^ * *• uoo •U* \ A 5 y

\ \ ^ 1920 1925 19J0 1935 1940 1945 YEARS PRICES AND RETURNS t One measure of the health of the various grape industries is the level of price as compared to prices in other fields and to the costs of things used by grape producers. Similarly, total returns to growers or to other groups who participate in the processing or production of grape products would be a useful index. Thus far it has not been readily possible to calculate either to- tal or net receipts at any stage other than at growers point of first returns. In view of the large number of different kinds of buyers of grapes it would be ex- pected that changes in the relative profitability of grape enterprises would soon be shown by similar changes in prices and returns to grape growers* On this as- sumption, Figure 27 may be taken to indicate the general drift of returns in all branches and at all levels of these interlocked industries. The near-identity of changes in prices by varietal class, by variety, and by utilization support the validity of this reasoning. At the end of World War I, the farm value of grape production in California was about seventy-five million dollars. The peak was reached in 1920 at a little less than ninety million dollars. Then followed the long slow decline — a sort of a creeping and protraoted depression when the rest of the economy was in boom. In 1932, total returns were less than $25 millions. The olimb during the war was phenomenally fast, far exoeeding the rise in the first war. Returns went nearly to $200 millions in 1944 and then broke but recovered in 1946 and climbed to the astronomical level of more than $260 millions. Then in one year, returns fell more than sixty per cent from the 1946 peak to just about $100,000,000. There was another slight break in 1948 and a further decline in 1949 to a value of about $80,000,000. This is the "grape problem. n It is also the "raisin problem" and the "wine problem." These price and income falls occurred in the face of elimination of up to nearly 500,000 tons of grapes in one year through government purchase of raisins* It was shown in the analysis of acreage as a determinant of production, that the acreage in California grapes as a whole, and also when considered by varietal classes, by districts and even by most varieties has been remarkably oonstant. Thus Figure 27 also indicates roughly the relative changes in income per aore from grapes as a whole and by varietal classes. It cannot be taken to indicate net incomes since the input of other factors per acre of land seems to have varied widely over the years. These violent changes in level of total receipts and even the long depression of income prior to the war are not unique to these industries. They are nonetheless generally agreed to be undesirable especially in those areas in which the grape industries are the major sources of community income. The basic objectives of the integrated series of grape programs discussed in Section III should be to make it possible for grape producers, processors and handlers to earn inoomes of a desirable level and reasonably free of the sharp fluctuations which have occurred in the past. Since 1925, total receipts from raisins have exceeded receipts from either wine or table grapes, and the differential appears to have widened in recent years. The returns to growers at first delivery point from wine grapes and from 32 Fig. 29. California Wine Grape Varieties: Returns to Growers Per Ton by Type of Uti I ization, I 934-1 949 1935 19W 1945 CROP YEARS table grapes appear to have been almost .equal for nearly twenty years. Sinoe acreage of the two types is different, as is yield per acre, the gross receipts per acre from table grapes are larger. Costs are also larger in growing table grapes. Bases for calculating net incomes are not presently available without considerable further study. There is a close similarity in the behavior of the total returns series for the three varietal classes over the last twenty years. By the time of repeal, which coinoided with the first recovery stages in the great depression, the prices of the three varietal classes oscillated closely to- gether. Prior to repeal, the advantage in price for wine grapes ranged from $25 to $40 per ton. Since then there has been only one marked deviation from near- identity among the three series. Prices of same raisin grapes during the war years 1943 and 1944, when free play of the market was impeded by government pric- ing, did not rise to the boom levels reached by wine and table varieties. The peak in 1944 took prioes of the wine and table varieties into the neighborhood of $110 per ton. These prices broke again sharply in 1945 but recovered to the level of about $100 per ton in 1946. Raisin prices rose with the others in this second rise. Then the large crop of 1946, which mainly refleoted itself in swol- len inventories of wine, made its effects upon growers apparent in 1947. In the one year, prices on the average orashed about $55 per ton to the level of $35 per 33 Fig. 30. California Raisin Grape Varieties: Returns^ to Growers Per Ton By Type of Utilization, I93H - I9M9 1935 1940 1945 1950 YEARS ton. Prices to growers also fell slightly in 1948 and again in 1949. These price falls affected all varietal classes. The closeness of variation in all of them is testimony to the fact that grapes may he used for many different purposes. If the prices in different utilizations differ by more than the cost of getting the grapes from the lower priced to the higher priced outlet, such a shift will occur and will continue until net prices on the vine are equalized from all possible channels into which the grape may go. Thus a short crop of wine grapes — the single varietal class with only one major use, — or a rise in wine demand, would lead to a rise in price for the other two varietal classes. A heavy orop or low demand for wine — as witness 1947 — will lead to a fall in prices of all grapes. The same conclusions are applicable to the effects of a ohange in either supply or market conditions for raisin or table varieties. The close similarity of price behavior among the three varietal classes is due to the fact that all of them to some degree and some of them to a great de- gree may be used in several outlets. Therefore when the prices received on the average for the various channels are compared by varietal class, the logically expected close relationship shows up. 34 Fig. 31. Table Varieties, California Grapes, Returns to Growers^ Per Ton By Type of Utilization, 1934 - I9M9 — i i 1 i i i ■ i i i 1 i 1 1 1*35 1940 1945 1950 YEARS Wine grapes are now sold mainly for crushing and the only other large outlet is interstate shipment for juice. The average prices received at first delivery point are almost the same at every year. This means that wine-grape growers de- cide where and how much to move into each outlet by the same criteria used by any merchant of any product which has multiple uses. He will divert to whichever ohan- nel shows the higher on-vine value per ton. Such diversion will inorease the sup- ply and therefore bring down the price and that outlet. At the same time it will shorten the supply and raise the price in the outlets from which the diverted fruit is drawn. This process is profitable only so long as the price differences between alternative outlets exceed the differential costs associated with sale in the alternative outlets. The season average returns to growers of raisin-variety grapes when expressed in terms of dollars per fresh ton at grower's first delivery point show not quite so close a relation among the different outlets as do wine grapes. This may be due to the fact that packing and selling costs up to the first delivery point are quite different for interstate or intrastate fresh shipment for table use as op- posed either to laying on trays for raisins or delivery to a winery for crushing. Aside from the price-control years, there are fairly stable differentials among the alternative channels of use. This indicates that the expected equalization of on-vine price probably occurred. Were it not to occur, it would be necessary either to assume that growers were unaware of prioe differentials or were unable to capitalize upon them — which may have been true under price control. Average returns to growers of all grapes have been about the same as those received for raisins in the past three years. Government purohase of raisins may be assumed to achieve its objective of stabilizing returns to growers in all the segments Fig. 32. Prices a/ of California Grapes, by Varietal Class, Crushed For Wine and Brandy, 1930-19149 120 1930 1935 19H© 1»45 YEARS since the interrelationship of prices is so clear. It is not certain by any means however that benefits are equally distributed throughout the industry. The raisin- grape series also indicates that price and income fluctuations have been excessively violent in all segments. They indicate further that depression in one segment means depression in the other two. The break in wine-grape prices in 1947 after the stuffing of inventories in 1946 was similar in all arms of the grape industries. The behavior of prices in the table grape segment is much like that in raisin- grapes. There are fairly stable differentials in prices to growers from the vari- ous outlets, probably representing the fairly stable differences in costs to growers of entering the alternative channels. It is probable that subtraction of the costs directly associated with sale in each specific channel would yield almost equal prices on the vine for all parts of the total supply. The general pattern of fluc- tuation in all table-grape prices is quite similar to the other two classes. Prices at first delivery point have declined somewhat less than prices for grape products involving less expense in packing and packaging. However, the prices for table grapes crushed for juice have broken to the same low levels prevailing elsewhere, and the average price for all uses is about the same as the average for the other two segments. Fig. 33. EASTERN DELIVERED AUCTION PRICES PER PACKAGE OF CALIFORNIA TABLE STOCK GRAPES BY CHIEF VARIETIES, 1926- 19149 **** Flsures 32 811(1 33 8how a different aspect of the close interrelationship of different elements in these industries. Here the question asked is: for a given utilization of grapes, how are the prices of different varietal classes or varie- ties txed together? Grapes crushed for wine or brandy yield — and have yielded since seasons prior to repeal — about the same price per ton whether they be raisin, wine or table varieties. So far as this outlet is oonoerned, the long-established utili- zation of such grapes as Tokays and Musoats for wine and Thompsons for fresh table shipments makes precise or exolusive olassifioations impossible. The single marked deviation appears to be the war period when unusually heavy production of raisins, relative to tonnage used in other channels, occurred as a war phenomenon. The same heavy use of seedless grapes for raisins appears to have shorted them in the table grape market. For those same years are the ones when Thompson shipments for fresh table use almost disappeared and prices of Thompson grapes for this use rose high relative to other table shipments. On the whole, grape prices for winery or distillery use are identical. This means either that growers and vint- ners are irrational in distributing the crop, or that over the wine industry as a whole the varietal classes are almost perfectly substitutable. Figure 33 indi- cates that eastern prices for table stock are closely tied together. Regardless then of how the price and returns picture is regarded in these industries, the same conclusion seems to appear. For better or for worse, the grape industry is a single industry composed of several closely related parts. 37 Theremay be little immediate market competition among the products of grapes. That is to say, a heavy wine inventory in any season may not affect the willing- ness of consumers to pay for a given supply of raisin or table grapes. Lost ex- port markets, withdrawn government supports or other factors which might slow down trade movement of raisins would probably have little effect upon the demand in that season for wine or for table grapes. And were weather or heavy sales of competing goods or any other factor affecting fresh table sales — excepting a drop in consumer buying power which is probably common to all markets — to re- sult in lowered demands for table grapes, the other two main channels should not immediately suffer. But were any of these situations to occur, the other two would suffer its effects in the next production period, just as raisin and table grape prices broke in 1947 after wine inventories were flooded in the bumper year of 1946. Since the same raw materials may be used in a large measure for both dessert and table wines, the same price behavior should be expected. This is not idle theorizing. Look back over the last seven charts and note that returns and prices in all sectors change almost identically. So long as growers are able to estimate the prices which they can get for grapes in the various uses, they will all aim at the uses in which expected price on the vine is highest. By so aiming, they will bring down the higher prices as supplies sent into those uses go up and by the same token raise the prices in the channels from which the grapes are di- verted. The process should ~ and it most obviously has — continue until field prices run about the same for all kinds of uses for given grapes. It is there- fore not wise to assume that because there is no immediate market substitution among the different uses, no relation exists among the industries. It is wrong to assume that because in any use the grapes of different varieties are not per- fectly substitutable technically, a change in supply or price will not affect all grapes going into that use. If grapes are technically substitutable at all, a change in one segment will affect all others. And this has clearly been the case. Yintners would not pay the same average prices per ton for all varietal classes if they were not on the average technically identical in terms of commercial pro- duction. In terms of industry organization, this interrelationship among grape uses on the production side means that no program should be set up which does not pro- vide methods to regard adjustments made or contemplated in other parts of the in- dustry. There are legal and administrative limitations upon the scope of the various programs which may be undertaken. Growers, processors and handlers must operate within these legal limitations and they must also regard the history which lies behind this industry. They are all faced with the same three prob- lems; without any increase in acreage, there has been and may continue to be a steady increase in aggregate production in all three varietal classes; without any correlation to changes in market demand, growers must expect sharp changes in output from year to year; grapes are highly substitutable as raw products for many different uses and a change in demand or production in any segment will therefore have much the same effects upon all kinds of grapes in all kinds of uses. Growers, processors and handlers should therefore realize that there is no solution of any of these three problems in any segment of the industry unless there is a simultaneous solution in the other two. t J Wine inventories in 1950 should be light and the large surplus pool of rai- sins will probably have been eliminated through the diversion and subsidy agree- ment with the federal government. Unless total production reverses the drift of the past three years and resumes its long upward trend, there should be no further distress this season in this industry in which grape prices have broken from $100 to $30 since 1947. However, it is possible that wineries again may assume a heavier-than-desirable portion of total production in an effort to rebuild in- ventories. The raisin market could in fact conceivably be shorted in such a 3fc process. The industries must therefore consider the allocation of supplies among the three main channels as a matter of self interest to all groups. Government may aid in eliminating surplus raisin stocks; but an excessively large crush in 1950 would not be eliminated by government purchase and prices of grapes and wine might both suffer from unsold wine inventories in 1951, II THE WINE INDUSTRY Fig. 3*1. Average Storage Cooperage as of December 31, I9H7-I9U9 By Districts State GALLONS WINE PRODUCTION ; The California wine industry now has a storage capacity, including fermenters, for more than 300,000,000 gallons of wine. In the San Joaquin Valley District alone there are nearly 140,000,000 gallons or 45 per cent of the total cooperage in the State. The Central Valley District can store more than 80 million gallons which is more than a quarter of the state's storage facilities. Together the districts comprising the Interior Valley thus maintain more than 70 per cent of the storage capacity in the wine industry. A little less than 50 million gallons may be stored in the North Bay region of the Central Coast area. Including the South Bay area, the Central Coast District accounts for about 18 per cent of capacity. With 25 million gallons and 8 per cent of capacity, Southern California is the other important area in the production of wine. There were 375 active bonded wineries in the state in 1949 and 111 fruit distilleries. The geographic pattern of winery-location differs sharply from the geographic distribution of storage cooperage. Storage cooperage is heaviest in San Joaquin and Fresno Counties. Wineries are concentrated in Napa and Sonoma Counties in the North Bay area of the Central Coast. There is also a heavy concentration in Santa Clara County, and wineries are fairly numerous in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. In the Interior Valley, the wineries — like the storage capacity — are localized in Fresno and San Joaquin Counties. However, as a fraction of storage capacity, the number of wineries is muoh less in these districts than on the coast. This of course means a far larger capacity per winery in the Interior Valley districts than on the Central Coast. The fruit distilleries are most heavily localized in the Interior Valley. Scale of operations therefore differ widely among regions of the state. 40 Fig. 35. Active Bonded Wineries and Fruit Distilleries By Districts, I9M9 State x47% 1 m AW 1 EH San Joaquin Vat ley Central Val ley North of Bay Southern California 2*' %» 1940 1945 1950 YEAR The Interior Valley is the source of by far the largest part of total gross wine production. Aside from the war years when government authority affected the utilization of the grape crop, there has been a clear drive upward since the time of repeal. Nearly 140 million gallons were produced in 1946. Production in the last year was the lowest since 1944, but there is no sign that a permanent down- trend has set in. Figure 45 shows the very sharp fluctuations in yearly gross production to which this region — and therefore the entire grape industry is subject. Table red wine and table white wine show no discernible trend in gal- lons. They are a minor part of the total output of the Interior Valley. Both series have exceeded l\ million gallons per year in gross production, and table white wine exceeded 10 million gallons in 1946. Both classes have leveled off in the neighborhood of 5 million gallons or less since then. Gross production has increased from one year to the next in this district alone by more than 50 million gallons. It has also decreased by as much as 60,000,000 gallons from 56 Fig. 46. Interior Valley Gross Still Wine Production as Percent of Total State, By Classes, July I - December 31, 1937 - I9U9 100 19*0 1942 194* ~ 1946 YEARS one year to the next. By far the greatest part of the variability in the total gross production for the Interior Valley is attributable to variation in the gross production of dessert wine since this is so large a part of the regional output. The growth in total California production also parallels this series again because the Interior Valley is so large a part of the state in terms of output. However, the rate of growth in the Interior Valley has not been much greater than the rate of increase in the state as a whole, which means that other areas have not fallen behind significantly. Figure 46 shows the production of the three classes of still wine in the Interior Valley as percentages of total production m the state for each year from 1937 through 1949. The striking series is des- sert wine production. There has been a very slow rise in the percentage of state production turned out in the Valley, increasing from about 85 per cent to about 90 per cent over a dozen years. There is very little year-to-year fluctuation in this series, which indicates that the Valley is affected about the same as other areas by weather or other output determinants . There has been no trend in the percentage of table red produced in the Valley, running fairly steadily be- tween 20 and 25 per cent of the state total. In the relatively small total pro- duction of table white wine, the Valley has increased relative to other areas, with gross production ranging from 40 to 55 per cent of the state total in this class. Except for the South Bay, most districts have pretty well held their own. 150 Fig. U7. July I Stocks of California Commercial Still Wine 1933 - 19119 57 1935 1940 Years Beginning July I 1945 1950 WINS STOCKS t Since repeal, the stocks of commercial still wine from California on hand as of July 1st each year have inoreased sharply. During the four war years, stocks fell with production. Immediately after the ending of the war, the pre-war trend appears to have been resumed. Total stocks now range in the order of 140 mil- lion gallons which represents an increase of about 100 million gallons since the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. July 1st stocks of dessert wines now run in the neighborhood of 100 million gallons, from a 1933 level of about 10 million gal- lons. Stocks of table wines have also increased in a linear trend up to about 40 million gallons but the rate of increase is very much less than for dessert wines. Variability around the trend is greater in terms of gallons for the dessert wine series than for stocks of table wines. It is not possible to predict how long this uniform upward trend in stocks may be expected to oontinue. 58 (0 Fig. 48. Total Supply — July 1st Stocks P of California Commercial Sti us Net Finished Production I Wine, 1933- 1949 1935 y Preliminary estimate. 19 HO Years beginning July I 1945 TOTAL SUPPLY : Stocks of wine on hand as of July 1st plus net finished production during the next twelve months may be defined as the total merchantable supply over that period. This series looks much like the other indices of the growth of the wine industry. There has been a steady upward trend in total sup- ply, interrupted by the war, but resuming again the pre-war rate of increase. Total supplies have increased since repeal from about 60 million gallons to cur- rent levels of about 250 million gallons. There has been less variability from year to year in the series for supply than in either stocks or gross production, since both storage and processing of gross production are used to lessen the im- pact of erratic variations in production or utilization of grapes which lead to erratic variations in gross production of wine. Dessert wine supply has also grown in an uniform manner, and has reached 190 million gallons. The total sup- ply of table wine has just about doubled — while the far larger supply of des- sert wine has just about tripled — since 1933. The table wine supply has also increased very uniformly. To the extent that these series are free of the fluc- tuations in the raw materials series, the wine industry by careful management has freed its selling-market of alternate overloading and famine. Fig. M9. Home-made Wine Production and Tax-Paid Withdrawals of Commercial Still Wine for Consumption in the United States, 1933 - 19148 150 ' ■ | ■ ■ ' 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1935 1940 1945 Years beginning July I • APPARENT CONSUMPTION t Produotion of home-made wine shows a steady down- trend"! There was a sharp dip during the war years when transportation facilities were regulated. It is estimated that consumption is now running in the neighbor- hood of 20 million gallons from a 1933 estimate of about 35 million gallons. With- drawals of table wine from commercial sources peaked in 1943 but have declined since then* Dessert wine withdrawals have risen uniformly, almost in a straight line, since 1933. From initial withdrawals of about 10 million gallons in 1933, usage has increased to more than 90 million gallons in the year 1948-1949, Thug in terms of rate of expansion as well as in terms of amount marketed, the des- sert wine segment may be distinguished from the table wine segment. The three components of the industry — home-made wine, commercial table and commercial dessert wines — have risen to an annual' total about 140 million gallons apparent consumption. 60 Fig. 50. Disappearance — Total Supply Minus Year-End Stocks — Of California Commercial Still Wine, 1933 - I9M8 Disappearance of commercial wines is an approximation to actual consumption* This series has also climbed steadily, with relatively less fluctuation than in gross annual production of wine or grapes. In the 1948-49 years more than 110 million gallons were moved. The table wine series climbed slowly to a peak of a little more than 25 million gallons and has since declined slowly. Disappearance of dessert wine has reached more than 90 million gallons per year. The only major downturn in disappearance of dessert wines occurred during the war. Inventories and apparent consumption in both dessert and table wine classes appear to be quite closely related over the years. Monthly consumption may be only roughly approximated by reference to monthly tax-paid withdrawals. Monthly withdrawals of dessert wines show a steady upward trend but there are very wide fluctuations, which are probably not reflected in actual consumption. Such with- drawals of dessert wine have recently exceeded 10 million gallons per month. Table wine withdrawals are running somewhat less than two million gallons per month since 1946. Withdrawals of imported wines have been less than one half million gallons monthly since 1946. The trend upwards in consumption of dessert wine has been continuous. Fig. 51. Per Capita Home-made Wine Production and Tax-Paid Withdrawals of Commercial Still Wine for Consumption in the United States and California 1933 - 19148 61 4.0 1935 1940 Years beginning July I 1945 Per-capita consumption of wines in the United States has more than doubled since 1933. Average apparent consumption is now about one wine gallon per person per year. Consumption of commercial dessert wines accounts for about five-eighths of this amount. Except for the dip during the war shortage, consumption of commer- cial dessert wine has been steadily rising. Per capita consumption of home-made table wines appears to have dropped from about one-quarter gallon per year to about one-eighth gallon per person per year. Per capita annual consumption of commercial table wines peaked at a little more than a quarter gallon during the war but has since declined slightly. Per-capita consumption in California has 62 fallen from a 1935 level of four gallons per year to less than two gallons in 1948. Part of this per capita decline in the large California market is probably due to entry of new populations into California from other parts of the nation. How much of it is due to price policies, competition from other goods or other causes is not known. The per capita consumption of grapes has been expanded faster through the dessert wine segment of the grape industries than through any other branch. Fig. 52. California Raisins Used in Making Brandy and Spirits In the United States, 1938- 19*18 BRAITOY AND SPIRITS : Almost all of the brandy made in California is made from grapes^ The exact amounts so used are difficult to determine since reports are made in terms of gallons of materials for distillation and such materials vary widely in alcoholic level. It is therefore a difficult task to convert such data back to equivalent tons of fresh grapes. Raisins have never been a major source of raw materials for distillation. Minute amounts are used directly in wine. The pre-war peak in raisins was 21,000 tons used for brandy or spirits which is the equivalent of about 85,000 tons of grapes. In 1945, about 33,000 tons of raisins - or 130,000 equivalent tons of fresh grapes — were so used. This wartime utiliza- tion has shrunk greatly. Only about 7,000 tons of raisins were used for brandy or spirits in 1948, Less than 1,000 tons were used in wineries. It does not ap- pear that raisins have constituted an important source of supply. Data are not available to indicate the degree — if any <*m to which rain-damaged or other damaged raisins, packing-house sweepings or other raisin residues are diverted to wineries or distilleries. Fig. 53. California Fruit Brandy Total, Beverage and Neutral: Gross Production, Stocks, Supply and Disappearance, Years Beginning July I, 1933 - 1949 £ 1 ■ ■ ■ I I I 1 1 L 1 I I 1939 1944 1949 YEARS Figure 53 summarizes the production and marketing of brandy for beverage and fortification purposes combined since 1933. Stocks increased sharply in 1939 through industry programs. There has been a slight down-trend in the amounts on hand since then. Gross production has climbed sharply from less than ten million gallons per year to more than 40 million gallons in the peak year of 1946. Gross disappearance has been almost equal to gross production. The total gross supply has therefore closely followed the gross production series. There have been three relatively low years since the 1946 peak. The fruit brandy market is largely a grape brandy market. The grape brandy market is largely tied to fortification of dessert wines. Brandy for beverage purposes has fallen to about two million proof gallons per year in both produc- tion and disappearance. Production and disappearance of neutral spirits for for- tifying dessert wines have grown sharply and steadily. In recent years produc- tion has been about 30 million gallons . The making of grape brandy and spirits may therefore be expected to follow about the same development as the production of dessert wines. There is considerable year-to-year fluctuation in gross output of brandy. Gross disappearance is very closely correlated with the production series. Most of the variation in both output and use is in the neutral spirits for fortification. Beverage brandy shows fairly wide annual variations around the downward trend. Fig. 5W. California Fruit Brandy Beverage and Fortification: Gross Production and Disappearance, Years Beginning July I, ! 933- I 949 YEARS SUMMARY, WINE PRODUCTION * Figures 55, 56 and 57 summarise the development and the current status of the California wine industry since 1933. Production and marketing of table wines, disregarding the past few years, have grown steadily since commercial activity again expanded with repeal of the Prohibition amendment and laws. Net finished production over the full period has shown only a very slight expansion, if any. Production was in the order of 20 million gallons in 1933 and had exoeeded that level by 1937. In the last ten years, net finished production has dropped below 20 million gallons on three oc- casions. Disappearance of table wines was at a lower level than net finished pro duotion in the years immediately following repeal. There was thus a slow but steady increase in disappearance of table wines through 1942, with more than 25 million gallons moving in that year. Since then there has been a gradual down- turn with disappearance per year running olose to 20 million gallons. Both the series representing stocks on July 1st of eaoh year and total supply — stocks plus net finished production — have olimbed rapidly. Since repeal, stocks on hand had risen from about 10 million gallons to about 40 million gallons in eaoh of the last three years. Total annual supply has risen at about the same rate. Supply was about 30 million gallons per year in 1933. In the past three years, it has risen to more than sixty million gallons. The annual fluctuations around this rising trend have not been excessively severe. Fig. 55. Table Wine: Production, Stocks, Supply and Disappearance of California Commercial Still Wine, 1933- !9H9 65 70 60 in °50 «j m .2 30 20 10 \ ^' .• y "V^ Disappearance — v 1 ••• * ished production 1 I 1 I 1 1935 ■g. Preliminary estimate. 1940 Year Beg inning July I 1945 1950 The spread between stocks and total supply has widened as compared to the early years of the industry. In the face of slightly decreasing consumption since 1942, stocks have continued to rise. The gap between consumption and stocks, and consumption and supply as well, remained fairly constant up to the first years of the war. Since then both gaps have widened somewhat. Figure 56 shows the same basic data for dessert wine production and consump- tion. Several differences as compared with the table wine series are immediately apparent. The rate of increase has been greater. There are yet no signs of a downturn in any of the trends. The effect of the war years upon production was greater than in table wines. Net finished production had reached about 80 million gallons before the war broke out. In 1946, the dessert wine industry turned out a net finished produc- tion of about 120 million gallons. Except during the war years, when stocks fell well below disappearance, the industry has carried stocks of almost the same amount as is consumed in a year. Stocks of table wines considerably exceed one- year's consumption. The trends in net finished production and disappearance have been about the same. Annual total supply of dessert wines exceeded 190 million 66 * Preliminary estimate. Year Beg inning July I gallons in 1948. Total supplies during the year 1949-1950 will probably be less than 180 million gallons. Total supply has increased at a faster rate than disap- pearance. This has been necessary in an expanding industry. There appears to have been a remarkable stability in the rate of increase in production and in the long-run relationships prevailing between stocks, production and disappearance* The structure of the commercial still wine industry as a whole is summarized in Figure 57. From storage and fermenter cooperage of about 70 million gallons in 1933, the industry had reached a storage capacity of 310 million gallons by 1947. This is more than a four-fold increase in fourteen years. There has been no increase in cooperage in the last two years. Up until 1941, the rate of in- crease in storage cooperage and in total supply were almost identical. From 1933 through 1941, cooperage increased at about 17^- million gallons per year and total supply rose at about the same rate. Capacity was expanded at the pre-war rate during the four years in which production was limited. Cooperage was increased at an accelerated rate in 1945 and 1946. The rate of expansion in cooperage thereafter leveled off as a result of the decelerated production of wine in the past three years as compared to 1946. The maximum total supply of all wines was reached in 1948, when more than 250 million gallons were available. Estimated total supply for the 1949-1950 year is between 230 and 240 million gallons. Net Fig. 57. Total Production, Stocks, Supply, Storage Cooperage, and Disappearance of California Commercial Still Wine, 1933-191© 67 320 280 - 240 . ° 200 . as C 5 160 c o 120 - 80 - 40 - 1935 Preliminary estimate. 1940 Year beg inning July I 1945 1950 finished production of still wines has increased steadily since repeal but at a lower rate than either total supply or storage cooperage. Total stocks have run at about the same level as net finished production and total wine disappearance. Disappearance has been subject to less erratic annual variations. Net finished production for 1949 is roughly estimated at 85 million gallons. Net disappear- ance may run in the neighborhood of 120 million gallons. The immediate outlook is for relatively short stocks especially of dessert wines for July 1st of 1950. The size of the crush cannot be predicted. Total grape production cannot be pre- dicted. However, grape production could range from 2,500,000 to 2,800,000 tons from the same acreage which has turned out production of this magnitude before. The outlook in other utilizations cannot be predicted, and this is a major deter- minant of the size of the crush. CO 69 WINE PRICES t There is no official series for wine prices. In consequence, a series was prepared from a variety of sources. Several large wineries per- mitted access to their books in order to determine monthly average returns per gallon. A large banking organization and a federal lending agency also made their records available. Weights were assigned to the different components of the table wine series in proportion to their relative monthly withdrawals. The resulting average monthly prices series does not list the actual prices for bulk wine at the winery over the years 1934-1949. It is not possible to determine the degree to which the series deviates from the actual average prices. However, there was relatively little difference in the prices reported by the various collaborating agencies. Thus the price series should at least indicate the general drift, and roughly the relationship between dessert and table wines which has prevailed over the past fifteen years. Dessert wine prices were more than §1.20 on the average for bulk wine f.o.b. the winery in 1934. Table wine prices were about 80 cents. Both sets of prices declined rapidly in 1934. Dessert wines settled down at between 50 cents and 55 cents until mid-year of 1937. Table wines averaged about 30 cents per gallon over that period. Then followed a slow decline in both classes of wine with dessert wines reaching a low of less than thirty cents in 1941. Table wines reached a low of 20 cents a gallon through 1940 and started to rise, in early 1941 a few months ahead of the dessert series. Prices of dessert wines broke through one dollar per gallon in early 1946. By the end of 1946 table wine prices had broken through 80 cents per gallon. By midsummer of 1946 dessert prices were spiralling upwards. Table wine prices lagged a little behind in their rise. Dessert prices reached a peak of about $1.45 shortly after the crushing season. Table wine prices reached $1.10. This was the year of the heavy crush. Harvested produc- tion in California was nearly 2,900,000 tons. More than 1,600,, 000 tons were crushed in response to high winery prioes and uncertain raisin outlook. Prices broke in both series. By the time of the 1947 crush, bulk prices for both types were below 50 cents per. gallon. After the short crush in 1949, both price series turned up. Prices in 1950 will depend on a variety of circumstances. Inventories are short and rate of consumption is high. The outlook in the next year will, however, be affected by general business conditions, which cannot now be predicted. The size of the grape crop will affect the size of the crush. The outlook in the raisin and table-grape segments will even be more important. Ill MARKET ORGANIZATION 71 INDUSTRY STRUCTURE : The production and marketing characteristics of the grape and wine industries are not unique to businesses using grapes as raw materials. Output of many perennial crops has increased over long periods. Nearly all such perennials vary widely in year-to-year production and such variation bears little relation to changes in market outlook. Fresh table grape shippers are in general required to start cars to markets on the basis of price expectations to which they may all react alike and thereby overfeed or starve this outlet for short periods. This problem of rate-of-flow and geographic distribution of fresh products is common to many industries. Sale of low-quality or poor packs in response to short-run market opportunity by a few shippers may and does damage the whole market not merely in grape products but in many other commodities. Even the multiple-use attributes of grapes, which so closely tie the various elements of the grape industry, exist to some degree in the canning industries, the milk industry and in other agricultural groups where well-developed by-products outlets exist. There are, however, at least two ways in which the grape industries differ from most of the other farm industries with all or some of these characteristics. First, there is a com- pelling tradition in the grape industries that all produced output — even where residual to some major marketing channel or where damaged • — shall be used — and even if price for all or most parts of the supply drops to the costs of harvesting and packing. Second, there is greater complexity in the structure of the grape industry than in most others — in the sense that there are more integrated and interdependent parts among which there is rather easier shifting of raw materials than in most similar industries. The grape industries have long recognized the three primary sources of instability in income which are attributable not to economy-wide factors like consumer buying power or to changes in consumer attitudes or to changes in the status of competing goods or other demand determinants, but rather to factors inherent in the grape industries and subject at least to partial control by the grape industries. First, there has been the necessity to expand markets as the technology of production continuously improved. Output from a constant acreage expanded faster than the market. Thus two types of trade promotion developed. Private advertising has been undertaken in all segments. Two of the segments have used state laws for industry-wide promotion. All elements of the indus- tries have set up programs to control sales and thus free the market from the impact of uncontrollable variations in the annual supply of raw materials. One fresh table-grape deal has long controlled both rate of flow to the fresh market and minimum quality of shipments. The raisin and wine groups have both developed supply control programs and both are inquiring into quality control. The wine industry has availed itself of resale price maintenance and loss leader laws. This complex and extensive fabric of organization has not been developed out of a liking for the frictions and occasional inequities which must accom- pany controls. They arise from necessity, which must be frequently demonstra- ted if the programs are to be maintained. Industry organization is by no means complete. It is difficult to appraise accurately in any specific situation the relative gain from stabilization as compared to lost individual control over enterprise. There are thus widely different views among persons, areas and enterprises with respect to the fundamental desirability of industry stabiliza- tion. These are respectable differences which are slowly being resolved. The biggest gap in the fabric is the inability to protect the major utilizations against flood induced by short supplies and high prices, which lead growers to flood one outlet and short another. This section describes the major programs of which the grape industries have made use e 72 THE CALIFORNIA MARKETING ACT OF 1937 ; Two state laws authorize control over intrastate handling of grapes or wine. However, the Agricultural Producers Marketing Act may not be applied to grapes grown in the thirteen coastal coun- ties. The California Marketing Act of 1937 — a police power act to prevent economic waste, develop more efficient and equitable marketing methods and main- tain agricultural purchasing power — authorizes programs to correlate sales and demand, establish orderly marketing, facilitate uniform grading and proper preparation for market, hold or expand markets and eliminate or reduce economic waste. Upon finding from the transcript of the required public hearings that proposed regulations will tend to achieve these objectives and are approved by the industry then with the aid of Industry Advisory Boards the Director of Agriculture may effectuate programs to: (1) measure and control surpluses (except for hermetically sealed products) and equalize their burdens; (2) limit quantities handled in total or by grade or size; (3) allot amounts acquired from producers; (4) allot amounts handled; (5) establish marketing or processing periods; (6) establish surplus, stabilization or by-products pools, sell their contents and distribute net returns, arrange and operate financing and other collateral functions, and levy assessments to raise stabilization funds; (7) set minimum standards not below those defined in the Agricultural Code, and estab- lish grading and inspection services; (8) advertise, promote sales or lessen trade barriers; (9) prohibit unfair practices; (10) finance tree or vine removal on low-yielding acreage; (11) engage in research. Programs directly affecting only handlers or growers need be approved by a large majority of handlers or growers respectively. Both groups must approve if both are directly affected. Procedures and conditions for collection and disbursement of administrative, advertising or stabilization funds are carefully specified. Enforcement is effeotuated through the authority of the state goverment.^/ Under this law, there are four programs affecting grapes or wine. TICS MARKETING ORDER FOR WINE t An Advisory Board of nineteen processor mem- bers administers this order, assisting the Director in assessment, collection and administration of funds; in collection of necessary information and in co- operation with other California grape programs. An Advertising Subcommittee of seven members of the Advisory Board assists the Director in advertising, dealer servioe, trade promotion, publioity, market development and expansion, prevention or modification of trade barriers (including negotiations with governments) and researoh into wine distribution. Under both the governing statute and this order, advertising matter may not contain false or unwarranted claims, refer to trade or brand names or disparage other farm products. Assessment rates may not exceed one and one-half cents per gallon on dessert wine and three-quarters of one cent on table wines nor four per oent of gross dollar value. The order is . effeotive until June 30, 1951 unless sooner terminated as provided in the Act.il/ The Marketing Order for Wine has been extended three times since its initiation on October 24, 1938. The Board, its Manager and the Director of Agriculture administer national sales promotion campaigns, distribute point-of-sale advertising material, super- vise field personnel in all large wine markets, develop educational programs, attempt to lessen trade barriers, and conduct research in medical aspects and market distribution. Two members of the Subcommittee on Advertising review all trade promotion matters. Offices for sales promotion and supervision of six Western and Mountain states field representatives are located at San Francisco. Eight field representatives work out of the Central Division offices in Chicago l/ See Appendix D, Part 1 for a detailed summary of this statute. See Appendix D, Part 2 for a summary of the Wine Marketing Order* I 7? and six under the Eastern Divisa^tn office at Hew York City-, The Board's Sales Promotion Department either acting directly or through its advertising counsel, which has been retained continuously since 1938, prepares xnd distributes point- of-sales material and booklets. The Wine Institute, under contract to the Advisory Board, studies production, sale, distribution and consumption of grapes and wine, maintains continuous marketing surveys and operates publicity programs and a wine study course. Assessments are collected at the maximum permitted rates of one and one-half cents per gallon on dessert wines and three-fourths of a cent per gallon on table wine prepared for market, The total budget for 1948-49 was a little more than s;l,500,000, Major items were: national advertising, $736,000; advertising printed materials, $105,000; field staff, $128,000; marketing surveys, $169,000; research, $83,000; wine study, course §56,000; administrative expense, $142,000, It is expected that about the same budget will be expended on similar activities in the future ,V THE MARKETING ORDER FOR RAISIN PROCESSORS: This order, which became effec- tive oh June 28, 19TD, is" intended to increase demand for raisins processed within California, An Advisory Board of seven processor-members, financed by an assessment rate of f^X) per ton, may administer programs to expand sales, hold or create markets, assemble and present market information, negotiate with gov- ernments or contract for research in production, processing or marketing of raisins., Two advertising agencies have been engaged. The 1949 campaign was aimed towards expanding utilization of raisins in the confectionery outlet and by bakeries, which once used about half the volume of raisin production. Both a National and a Regional Raisin Harvest Festival were coordinated with trade- journal advertising, point-of-sale display and consumer-pack promotion. The Board took part in the 1949 Baking Industry Exposition. It has activated a Bakery Service Department to contact and assist bakers in production, merchan- dising and promotion of raisin bakery goods, A nation-wide Raisin Bread Contest was held. Recipe research and publication were conducted through the California Dried Fruit Research Institute, Studies of distributive and manufacturing out- lets, of consumer habits and preferences and of trade inventories were undertaken with the United States Department of Agriculture and the California Bureau of Markets, 2/ The Director of Agriculture must approve all contracts, rates, commissions and payments upon audited claims for both the wine and raisin advertising orders. There has been extensive discussion of graver participation in the raisin adver- tising program* TABLE GRAPES: There is no industry-wide program for expansion of demand for table grapes, although individual shippers advertise for their own account. The Tokay Marketing Agreement, as a federal instrument, does not provide for demand expansion, Producers of Imoeror grapes rejected a proposed federal order in 1948, A tentative draft of a proposed state marketing order setting seasonal minimum grades of midsummer fresh grapes excepting Tokays and Qnporors but not l/ Report of the Wine Advisory Board to the Grape Study Committee. December 9, T949 c San Francisco, Calif. 2/ See "Report of the Raisin Industry Program," by Paul L. Johnson, Manager, CalTfornia Raisin Advisory Board, December 9, 1949 and "A Frogress Report on the Raisin Industry Programs," February 27, 1950* 74 providing for trade promotion has been circulated^ Truck-posters advertising fresh grapes were displayed in a few cities in September 1949 by the California Grape and Tree Fruit League and the United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Associa= ti on . 1/ SUMMARY , ADVERTI S DIG ORDERS ; Industry-wide advertising programs are oper- ating m two segments of the grape industry »- in wine for twelve years , Adver- tising of fresh table grapes has been widely advocated,, Output of grapes has increased in all three sectors but per-capita consumption of grapes through two of them has not increased. These are long-run programs intended to counter the long=run increase in annual production but not to adjust either to sudden changes in production or in demand. Other methods must be used for these pur- poses 0 MARKETING ORDER FOR WINE PROCESSORS s This order, effective on June 20 , 1949, provides a means to control the quantity of wine sold and shipped each year during the period July lst=February 28th, inclusive t as and if necessary <, Thus it is possible in some measure to mitigate the effects of irregularity in the production of grapes upon the volume and rate of wine sales a 2/ After con- sidering marketing policies for dessert and for table wines, separately recom- mended by two subcommittees each composed of five processors of the respective type of wine s the Advisory Board of seventeen processor-members must set out its own marketing policy by July 25th., and must further recommend to the Director the percentage of wine on hand as of July 1st, which may be prepared for market prior to the next March lst 0 The order is applicable to processors engaged within California on United States Bonded Winery, Storeroom or Field Warehouse premises for commercial pur= poses in receiving, grading,, fermenting, distilling, preserving, grinding, crushing., or changing the form of grapes or grape products into wine or in re= ceiving., grading,, storing, aging or treating wine, Wine is defined as in the Internal Revenue Code and Regulations,. Dessert wine contains alcohol in excess of 14 per cent but not in excess of 24 per cent by volume. Table wine contains from per cent to 14 per cent alcohol by volume, Processing means producing wine j crushing grapes for winej making must or pure boiled or condensed must from grapes for wines fermenting grape must into wine; fortifying or blending wines; blendingj, filtering, clarifying, cellar treatments aging, storing or warehousing of wine; and preparation of wine for markets Preparation for mar- ket ~ to which the regulation applies — » means either placing wine in movable containers or removing wine from bonded premises, except solely for transfer to another bonded premise which is located within California and is owned by the processor, an affiliate or subsidiary and solely for the purposes of additional distillingj, blending,, filtering, cellar treatment or repackaging; and except when transferred to any other bonded premise solely for aging„ storing or ware^ housings Processing material wine used solely in the rectification of dis= tilled spirits «« is not subject to these regulations- Free inventory is the quantity of dessert or table wine on hand or in transit on June 30th within California to a bonded premise,, determined by physical inventory as prescribed by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Acquired inventory is the quantity of dessert or table wine acquired from the free inventory of another processor between July 1st and the next February 28th Reserve inventory is wine other than free l/ Report of the California Grape and Tree Fruit League to the Grape Study Committee c December 9 S 1949 Q San Francisco,, Calif 0 2/ See Appendix D, Part 4 for a summary of this order 0 75 or acquired inventory "but doea not include the excess over free inventory in the event that the marketable supply is set at more than 100 per cent of free inven- tory o Any free or acquired inventory placed into movable containers in the processing of "processing material wine" is subject to regulation. By July 10th, each processor must file a sworn statement of his June 3°th free inventories of dessert and of table wine.V On or prior to July 20th, the Dessert and Table Wine Subcommittees must recommend to the Advisory Board the total quantity --in terms of percentages of free inventory --of each type of wine to be marketed in all or part of the market ing season . Data supporting this recommendation must be submitted to the Board. Then after considering the reports of the Subcommittees , the Advisory Board must prepare by July 25th a detailed marketing policy report in which the total quantities of dessert and table wine -- again in terms of percentages of free inventory — to be prepared for market between July 1st and February 28th are separately recommended . At least three fourths of the membership of the Board must concur if recommended sales of either type are less than 90 per cent or more than 110 per cent of free inventory. Limitation to less than 80 per cent of free inventory for either type also requires approval by at least 65 per cent of directly affected pro- cessors who have returned ballots to the Director within fifteen days after being mailed by him. In making its recommendations, the Advisory Board must consider: The quantity of dessert or table wines available; free inventory; normal requirements for consumption; buying power; prices of competing goods; prices paid by farmers; and production and utilization of grapes. The Director must find that limitation of the quantity of wine prepared for market will tend to attain the goals of the California Marketing Act of 1937 and will not result in the marketing of less dessert or table wine than is needed by consumers. The marketable percentage of free inventory must be set by August 5th or by August 20th if a vote by processors is necessitated. The Director notifies the Advisory Board which in turn advises each processor of the percentage of free inventory and the quantity he may prepare for market. Between November 15th and November 30th, the marketing policy must be reviewed by the Board which upon concurrence of three fourths of its members may recommend, prior to December 1st, that the percentage of free inventory authorized for sale be increased. If such a recommendation is accepted by the Director, he must adjust the revised quanti- ties permitted to be sold by a uniform rule on or before December 10th, if possi- ble. The order specifies that no processor could prepare for market between July 1, 19^9 and February 28, 1950 more than 100 per cent of his free inventory on July 1, 1949 plus free inventory acquired from other processors. The order authorized preparation for market of 100 per cent of free inventory for the period July 1, 19^9 to March 1, 1950. Assessments may not exceed one tenth or one twentieth of one cent per gallon on dessert or table wines respectively. The 1949-50 budget was $96,300 including contingency reserves. Administrative expense may in no case exceed 2^ per cent of gross sales by processors. One suit attacked the order as unconstitutional and discriminatory. The Court ruled that no valid case was at issue. This order aims primarily to protect wine sales against changes in wine production -- where such changes are often due to heavy production or poor mar- ket outlooks in segments over which wine processors have no influence. It may 1/ On December 8, 1949 the Board recommended an additional inventory report each year as of December 31. The Director added this requirement through amend- ing the Operating Rules and Regulations as of December 29, 1949. Eacl1 processor reports monthly on his inventory position and a perpetual inventory record is maintained by the Board. 73 10 discourage sale of green wine « Handlers of wine with no inventories as of ■T ily 1st ure free to purchase from free inventories of other processors. The j-ogram is simple • Jt is inexpensive tc operate and tc -mfo -ceo Difference* in production and marketing conditions between the two broad tyoef? of wine are rec igiiizedc There is a minimum of interference with the business judgment of vintners 0 While the open period from March 1st through Tune -30th may have dis- advantages, it provides for flexibility in the operations of processors ■ The jrder does not, however, protect ttie wife industry against the effects of ex - seasitse or erratic variations in the tormage of grapes <■-• °ushei 0 V In short, oal-s of wine can be controlled through this instrument., but 2ao^ production or inventories o THE MARKETING ORDER FOR GRAPE STABILIZATION i a. THE ORDER. — This order, ^'furtive September 16 g 1949, regulates grapes and grape products eligible for diversion for stabilisation purposes and defined to include; dessert wine; tf.ble wine; brandy and high-proof, distilled wine„ prodv< its or residues of grapes containing more than 24 per cent alcohol by volumes processing material ine, used solely in rectification of distilled spirits and grape concentrate, lehydrated or partially dehydrated must except as used in nonalcoholic beverages. 9aisins are not included^ Regulation applies to "preparation for market" ffhich means either placing wine, brandy, high-proof or grape concentrate .in T.ovable containers or removing su ?h products from bonded or other premises ex- cept for removal to other premises within California for additional processing and except for removal of processing material wine B jV The ord«-r is administered by an Advisory Board of nineteen processors as- sisted by a Growers Advisory Subcommittee of thirty-five producers » The Board has two broad functions! first, the establishment and operation of surplus- iiversion facilities and second*, the conduct of research,,^/ The Board itself either investigates or arranges for the investigation of marketing conditions affecting grapes or grape products. It may d-termine the '">r tts by varietal c uss or by utilization, referring at lea«t tc these stan- lards j available or i orthcoming supplies of table, "ai^in and win- grapes ? inventories of wine and other grape products; raisins; demand for grapes and grape produotsj current and prospective prices? and --ther orders, programs, laws, funds on other factors which might affect the supply or utilisation of grapes or grape products • After consultation with the Growe Designated non-basic commodities — wool, including mohair; tung nuts j honey j Irish pota- toes ; whole milk; butterfat and its products — must be supported as specified in Title II,, Other nonbasic crops — in which grapes and grape products would be included — may be supported at not more than 90 per cent of parity price insofar as funds are available after mandatory support requirements have been mete The Secretaiy must be guided in his decision to support nonbasic products by several standards? the supply of the product as against its market demands supports on related products; availability of funds; national importance of the commodity j ability to dispose of stocks acquired in support operations; temporary loss of export markets; ability and willingness of producers to keep production or sales in line with demands The Secretary may require compliance by producers with acreage allotments and with specified production goals and marketing prac- tices as he - determines necessary „ These required practices may include marketing agreements and orders as necessary terms of eligibility for price support,, The 30 per cent of customs receipts in the preceding calendar year made available about $100 millions each fiscal year for price support or other similar func- tions. to be used mainly for nonbasic perishable crops not listed for mandatory support© Raisin purchases for relief and substandard diversion from 1935-36 through 1938-39 never exceeded 15,000 tons per year 0 Since 1939-40, when nearly 75,000 tons of raisins were purchased mainly for relief, government has been a major purchaser of raisins Jy The postwar purchase program is particularly impressive Nearly 120,000 tons of raisins — or almost a half million tons of grapes — were diverted,, Nearly 60,000 tons of raisins — or a quarter million tons of grapes — were so eliminated in 1948~49 0 The diversion program in 1949-50 was integrated directly into the opera- tions of the Federal Raisin Order 0 A Raisin Diversion Agreement was effectuated as a means to aid the grape industries through diversiono^/ Payments were made to the Committee at a maximum rate of four cents per pound natural condition weight on raisins meeting the minimum requirements set out under the federal l/ See Appendix II, Part 6 0 2/ See Appendix II, Part 14 Q 3/ Recorded purchases are shown in Appendix II, Part 15 s Operations in 1947-48 and in 1948-49 are shown in detail „ See United States Department of Agriculture. Raisin Diversion Agreement, QJHD 95a Amendment Number 1 0 Also see Exhibits A-B and l-2„ Fiscal year 1949- 50. Diversion is authorized in Clause 2 of Section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935 0 89 order and set aside as surplus for diversion in approved channels Advance payments of a maximum of three cents per pound on surplus raisins properly stored and insured were authorized. All other net proceeds from handling surplus raisins must be held until the advance payments are cleared. Payments may be made on no more than 100,000 tons thus involving a maximum outlay of $8 millions for the year. Sales under the agreement are not authorized after June 30, 1950 and diversion must be accomplished no later than October 1, 1950.jv Safeguards to assure proper diversion are set out in detail, including signed acknowledgement by the purchaser of full delivery and of use in desig- nated channels . Net receipts of the surplus pool are prorated back to contribu- tors at a uniform rate per ton. Uniform contracts are provided for all trans- actions. Liquidated damages paid by the buyer to the seller may be imposed for failure properly to divert ($200 per ton) and late diversion or non-diversion ($85 per ton). Prorated payment to growers through April 3, 1950 from government advances on diverted raisins, and on sales from reserve and surplus pools amounted to more than $8 millions ,W Uearly half the total surplus pool had been sold before March 1, 1950. These raisin programs have been the single method whereby the federal gov- ernment has supported the grape industries. They extend — under various legislation and policies — back some fifteen years and have accounted on occasion for large fractions of total raisin production. Government operations are intended to benefit all elements of the grape industries through shortening supply in the one segment whose major raw product may be utilized as grapes, vane or raisins. There seems to be little disagreement that industry-wide bene- fit is obtained through raisin support. However, the relative effects of diverting raisins upon table grape, wine and raisin operations are not yet assessed. PROPOSED GRAPE PROGRAMS : In addition to the six marketing orders, the price posting and price-support operations discussed above, several other pro- grams are currently being discussed. Expansion of raisin advertising to acquire larger funds and to include growers as contributors and in management of adver- tising is being considered. Sales promotion for fresh table grapes on an industry basis has been discussed but no indications of imminent effectuation are apparent.' A tentative state order for grade control for midsummer fresh grapes (not inclu- ding Tokays, Almerias and Emperors) his been circulated.^/ A board of eight growers and five handlers from five districts would be authorized to limit ship- ments by varieties to particular grades ranging from the minima in the Agricul- tural Code to U.S. Wo. 1. Proposals have also been drafted to amend the Grape l/ Processing into industrial alcohol, livestock feed or pharmaceuticals; direct livestock feeding; other approved uses outside of regular channels. 2/ The period for utilization of diverted raisins was extended to October 31 in order to assure a year-round supply to animal feeders 0 3/ Periodic reports of operations under the marketing order and the diversion agreement are available in the Raisin Industry News, published by the Federal Raisin Administrative Committee. Fresno, California. 4/ Proposed Marketing Order for California Fresh Table Grapes. 90 Stabilization Order in three ways • (a) definition of wine and non-wine grapes to which regulations could be applied separately; (b) establishment of surplus diversion pools for grapes or grape products with uniform diversion percentage; (c) establishment of crushing period .V SUMMARY ; Some segments of the industry have experimented with market or- ganizations extending beyond cooperative structure over several decades . Some have been continuously under controls sanctioned by law since 1933. There are two advertising orders, wine and raisins. There are two wine controls, one over sale and one authorizing purchase for diversion of grapes or grape products 0 Tokays are the only fresh table deal under regulation. Raisins are regulated through a federal surplus-control order. Wine prices may be posted and resale prices controlled. Federal price support through raisin purchase dates back fifteen years. There are several proposals for extension of these programs to other commodities or other functions. l/ Proposed amendments to the Marketing Order for Grape Stabilization. State of California, Bureau of Markets. Draft of April 7, 1950 for consideration by the Grape Stabilization Advisory Board. 9p. Mimeo, 91 IV SUMMARY Production of all varietal classes of California grapes increased heavily from 1931 to 19^6, almost exactly doubling total supply in that period. The industry has not increased in terms of acreage . Yield per acre alone accounted for the full increase . The pattern of increase in yield indicates that its origin is technological and not related either to economic outlook or to weather. Therefore the capacity to produce total California crops ranging from 2,500,000 tons upwards must be acknowledged. As in all other perennials, year-to-year changes in yields per acre may place strain on the marketing mechanism by sudden, drastic, unforeseen and uncontrollable changes in the amounts of grapes available. In terms of actual utilization it is difficult precisely to classify any variety of grape except those which are suitable only for crushing into wine . Wine and table varieties each constitute about 20 per cent of production and raisin varieties account for about 60 per cent of production. Table grapes are utilized mainly for fresh table use and for wineries, with about equal division of the crop. There is violent fluctuation in the amount and in the percentage of the total production of raisin varieties going into raisin production and wineries. The tonnage crushed and the tonnage dried vary more from year to year than does total production either of all grapes or the separate varietal classes. If wine inventories are short, consumption brisk and prices rising, prices paid for heavy crushes have drawn sufficient table and raisin grapes into wineries to make it impossible to market the resulting wine production at prices covering the high cost of raw materials. Similarly a short raisin crop or good market outlook may draw more grapes than can profitably be sold to the trays and leave the wineries short. There are two facts with respect to prices and incomes which should be stressed. First, both price and incomes in all segments have been critically unstable as a result of variations in volumes going into the various channels. Second, the behavior of prices is precisely the same in all varietal classes and except for differential costs of entering various channels, the same in all utilizations. Thus no segment has been immune from instability. The wine industry in the past several years has used more grapes than either of the other two outlets. Production has reached 160 million gallons in a single year. The crushing season is clearly defined with very early and very late tonnage representing mainly grapes residual to non-winery operations. Presently available data do not indicate that any grape characteristics now known could serve as effective bases for controlling the quality of wine or limiting the volume of the crush. (In general, all areas and all classes of wine enterprises have fairly well held their own in the years since repeal when wine production has expanded rapidly and continuously.) The dessert industry has grown fastest and now accounts for about four-fifths of output. Per capita con- sumption of table wines has not been greatly accelerated. There has been a steady increase in per capita consumption of dessert wines . The grape brandy industry is tied very closely to fortification of sweet wines . Wine prices rose fast and high to a peak in 19^6. More than 1,600,000 tons were attracted to the wineries in that year. Within a few months dessert wine prices had broken as much as $1.00 per gallon and a drop of about 50 cents occurred in table wines when the size of the crush became known. In the next harvest season, the price of grapes to growers broke from more than $100 per ton to about $35 per ton and has sagged slightly in the two years since then. Following the peak prices and heavy crush of 19^6, total returns to growers fell from more than $260 millions * 92 to about $100 millions in a single year and have since dropped to about $85 millions. These breaks affected all groups, since grapes will be diverted to the highest price outlets and the result of such diversion has been price equal- ization in all uses. The causes of such instability have not been eliminated. The loss in value of wine inventories in 19^6 was staggering. The^re are differences of opinion in the industries with respect to the need for controls or for industry organization, and also with respect to the proper distribution of its benefits and burdens. However, there is a complex and compre- hensive pattern of programs arising from the long history of income depression or fluctuation in these industries. There are two advertising orders — wine and raisins — under state law designed to counteract the increasing long-run pro- duction by accelerating per capita consumption. Sale of wines may be controlled for eight months of the year. A stabilization fund has been collected to finance diversion from wineries if and as necessary. Provision now exists for mandatory price control in wines, and the resale price maintenance or loss leader laws may also be invoked on branded wines . Tokay grapes are controlled under a federal order. A federal raisin order regulates total commercial sales. This order is integrated with a federal purchase or diversion program in raisins running back fifteen years which has sought to benefit the entire grape industry through removal of as much as a half million tons of grapes from the market in a single year. The support of raisins is not mandatory under the law. Thus the effects of increasing production, erratic changes and violent swings in utilization from one segment to another have been recognized by the industry. This pattern of programs is the result. The outlook for 1950 is basically good. Raisin surplus will probably have been largely eliminated under terms of the subsidy program. Wine inventories will be light, and apparent con- sumption increased sharply at the low prices prevailing in early 19^9- The major danger lies in mal-distribution of the crop as between the various outlets. It is possible that high wine prices may lead to heavy crush and a light lay of raisins unless precautions against such utilization are taken. Wine is being held in order to register free inventory on June 30, 1950. The very light crush of 19^9 and very high consumption at low 19^+9 prices have depleted inventories . The imm ediate danger in the industry appears to center around the wine market. Vintners may attract a very heavy crush, especially if raisin demand is low or the prospect of support is poor. High grape, prices may draw heavy tonnage leading to a crush larger than can be sold at prices justifying the prices paid for grapes . Thus sequence has happened before . The way in which grapes are allocated in 195° especially between wine and raisins, is the crucial factor in determining the level of grape prices in 1951. University of California College of Agriculture Agricultural Experiment Station Berkeley , California Economic Situation and Market Organization in the California Grape Industries George L. Mehren Appendix A Auxilliary Figures Table of Contents Figure Titles of Figures Pages Number la to 15a Grape Acreage la - 12a l6a to 18a Per Cent of Fall Crop 13a - l^a 19a. to 2ka. Utilization 15a - 20a 25a to 32a Average Sugar Readings 21a - 28a 33a to hOa. Wine production 29a - 33a kl& to k2a Wine Consumption 3^a - 35a May, 1950 Contribution from the G-iannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics Mimeographed Report No. 107 I la Fig. la. California Acreage of Major Wine Grape Varieties, 1936- I 9U8 60 40 w CD i_ o < o o o 20 Z infandel Carignane — ■ — • — ■ i^^f , - — Mi ssi on Al icante Bouschet t • ■ • • ■■■■ Pet i te si rah Golden Chasselas Grenache 1936 1938 1940 1942 YEAR 1944 1946 1948 3a FIG. 3a. CALIFORNIA WINE GRAPE ACREAGE BY VARIETIES BY DISTRICTS, 1948 STATE CENTRAL COAST CENTRAL VALLEY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY STATE CENTRAL COAST CENTRAL VALLEY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY STATE CENTRAL COAST CENTRAL VALLEY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY STATE CENTRAL COAST CENTRAL VALLEY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA! SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY SACRAMENTO VALLEY STATE CENTRAL COAST CENTRAL VALLEY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY /H- 17,269 Z INFANDEL CARIGNANE ALICANTE BOUSCHET 25,199 ALL RED WINE VARIETIES ;29,299j 4,380 ALL WHITE WINE VARIETIES 26,064 ALL WINE VARIETIES STATE CENTRAL COAST CENTRAL VALLEY SOUTHERN CAL1 FORN I A SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY f%35,7!9 58,593.V.v, ^50,496 139,657 188,939 40 80 120 1000 ACRES 160 200 STATE FIG. 4a. CALIFORNIA RAISIN GRAPE ACREAGE BY VARIETIES AND BY DISTRICTS, 1948. MUSCATS '46,256; SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY E4Q,538fl SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA J-*— -4^749 STATE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY CENTRAL VALLEY |h 8,841 SOUTHERN CALI FORN I A 8,187 THOMPSON SEEDLESS J 198,758 ^181,159^ TOTAL SEEDLESS STATE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY CENTRAL VALLEY SOUTHERN CAL I FORN I A STATE 8.976 9,166 %I9I,462 210^209 RAISIN VARIETIES 50 100 150 1000 ACRES FIG. 5a. CALIFORNIA TABLE GRAPE ACREAGE BY VARIETIES AND BY DISTRICTS, 1948 WH ITE MALAGA STATE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY CENTRAL VALLEY -956 SOUTHERN CAL I FORN I A — 837 STATE CENTRAL VALLEY tj^.24,916^^ TOKAY EMPEROR STATE ^WWW^3I,0I7) SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY E%?%^30,386%%1 STATE SAN JOAQUIN VALLi-Y CENTRAL VALLEY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ALL TABLE VARIETIES YEAR 6a Fig. 7a. Bearing Acreage of Grapes in the Central Val ley District by Va r i e ta I C I asses , 1923-1948 70 65 60 55 50 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 J / --; i A X^^-Wine Table J w — s.. k ^ Ra is in 11,1 cr\=*m^o r-- co a-, o w («\ ^ in \o r-» co o o «h c\j r— CO O O -HOJCA^^^^COOO I C\i On 0*> On On On On On OnOnOnOnOnOnOnOn On On On On On On On On YEAR Fig. 9a. Bearing Acreage of Grapes in the San Joaquin Valley District by Varietal Classes, 1923 - I9U8 1 " / / • a isin • / • 1 1 • • \ • \ • ■ f ■ \ • \ 1 — • ■ - / / ..• — •* -Tabl e •»...••••••••••••' ,„•••••••••••••••• - mfm * 1 '* ^wine 320 300 280 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 \o r-cooo-i-tcNcrx:* m vo r-- oo O o *h cr\ 4- io n n cm w cmcnj oa tn f\ ir\ (A (A a\ =± =* =* =t m # =* o\oso\o^o\(y\0\Q\iy\0\(y^^\ o t> o> o\ o\ o» o YEAR Fig. 10a. Bearing Acreage of Grapes in the Sacramento Valley District by Varietal Classes, 1 923- 1 948 \ I I / Raisi n Wine x \ J Table 11 j- an: USKSIJSf. 2 HN ' , ^ i * ln,^l r-C0<>O--lf\J(r\=» at oo YEAR 10a Fig. Ma. California Acreage of Major Varieties of Red Wine Grapes by Year Planted 1938- 1948 and Standing in 1948 o o O 1940 1942 1944 YEAR PLANTED 1946 1948 Fig. 12a. California Acreage of Major Varieties of White Wine Grapes by Year Planted 1 938- 1 948 and •Standing in 1948 in i_ a 2 jtfhite Wine "varit ies 1 *k \ / \ / \ / \ / \ 1 > i V — / / ✓ j^Golden ^•^Chasselas V \ N. \ -Burger N ^^^^ * "~ i 1940 1942 1944 1946 1948 lla Fig. 13a. California Acreage of Major Varieties of Raisin Grapes by Year Planted 1938-1948 and Standing in 1 948 V) L O o o Fig. 14a. California Acreage of Major Varieties of Table Grapes by Year Planted 1938-1948 Standing in 1948 6 k Al 1 Table ^ Var iet ies ^—Emperor 1 — i i i i — I Red Malaga \ O 1940 1942 1944 1946 1948 FIG. 15a. ACREAGE CHANGES OF CAL I FORN I A RAISIN GRAPES IN ACRES AND AS PERCENT OF 1936 ACREAGE BY VARIETIES AND MAJOR DISTRICTS, 1936-1948 STATE MUSCA TS ^ ■ 19,123 | (-29 2%)| 1 1 SULTANA -rrrT-SS -4,561 (-41.2%) llijiiiji >r+ i f , 3%i§i ALL RA|sm var|et|es THOMPSON „ +35,292 HH SEEDLESS I I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (+ 3 33t%) ALL RAISIN VARIET,ES MUSCATS(-22*9%) lllli (+ + I43 8 7%) TH0MPS0N SEEDLESS SACRAMENTO VALLEY ALL RAIS IN-2,155 VARIETIES(-73.3%)| THOMPSON " 1,285 | SEEDLESS(-70.l7o) - eiR SULTANA (-95 9%) I I 101 MUSCATS (_, 9>|% ) CENTRAL VALLEY (+28 9%) ALL RA1S ' N VARIETIES i?& 2 !?5 » THOMPSON SEEDLESS (+34.2%) MUSCATS -17,404 (-30.0%)! SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY ALL RAISIN VARIETIES +9,753 '(+4.4%) SULTANA -3,994 (-41.9%) I 1 H+29,516 j(+l9.5%)^M THOMPSON SEEDLESS X -20 -10 10 20 1000 ACRES 30 40 13a Fig. 15a. California Wine Grapes: Percent of Fu Crop by Districts as of October I, 1930-1949 100 75 *. 50 o 25 1950 Fig. 17a. California Raisin Grapes: Percent of Full Crop by Districts as of October I, I930-I9U9 100 1930 1935 1940 YEAR 19U5 1950 ika. ig. 18a. California Table Grapes: Percent of Full Crop by Districts as of October I, 1930 - 1 949 100 1930 1935 1 Southern counties i San Joaquin Valley It * ■ i / t / | .w- Sacramer State «T to val ley \ 17 14 - 13 * 12 16 - X 15 ■ 30 1948 September , 0 Thompson . Carignane * Tokay x Al icante * Zinfandel * Petite Si rah A// \ / J V _— Berger ♦ Verdal — Petite Bouschet a Mission ._ • palomino * Ribier * Black Prince r V — ... > Maltera ■— — • Malaga ♦ Camich ion * Muscat ... a Emperor — «. Sultana A / V \ .-o V / V A •4 A V V • \ -'I * -r- 5 10 15 October 20 25 30 15 10 November 15 29a FIG. 33a. ANNUAL AVERAGE 1945-194-8 AND 1946 AND 1949 ADJUSTED GROSS COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION OF STILL WINE BY KINDS AND BY DISTRICTS STATE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY CENTRAL VALLEY NORTH OF BAY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOUTH OF BAY STATE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY CENTRAL VALLEY NORTH OF BAY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOUTH OF BAY STATE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY CENTRAL VALLEY NORTH OF BAY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOUTH OF BAY STATE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY CENTRAL VALLEY ||| NORTH OF BAY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOUTH OF BAY ALL WINE (35.2%) 2.1 (18.7%) (28.7%) 0.7 (5.9%) 13 (11.4%) 1945-1948 (47.0%) (13.1%) ( 29.5 %) 0.2 (2.2%) 0.6 (8.1%) 1949 30a FIG 34a. CALIFORNIA ADJUSTED AVERAGE ANNUAL GROSS PRODUCTION OF STILL DESSERT AND TABLE WINES BY DISTRICTS DURING JULY I - DECEMBER 31,1945 - 1948 ALL WINE DESSERT STATE INTERIOR VALLEY CENTRAL COAST SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 102,878 76.1% 23,327 17.3% :=:=:=: 3 1,492 90.3%£ 3,647 3.6% 6,135 6.17. STATE INTERIOR VALLEY CENTRAL COAST SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TABLE RED 2,783 8.2% TABLE WHITE 6,032 :•: 54.0%;:; 4,481 40.1 % 663 5.9% THOUSAND GALLONS Fig. 35a. Central Coast Gross Still Wine Production as Percent of Total State, by Classes, July I- December 31, 1937 - I9U9 Fig. 36a. North of Bay Gross Still Wine Production by Classes During Jiuly - December 1937-1949 22 0 L i i i i i i i i i i . . 1940 1945 1950 YEAR Fig. 37a. North of Bay Gross Still Wine Production, as Percent of Total State, by Classes, July I - December 31, 1937-1949 32a Fig. 38a. South of Bay Gross Still Wine Production by Classes During July - December 1 939- 1 949 ° 3 A V \ 's . v -^Table Red s y ^ — — ^yC^% Arable white ^^,« ^Dessert 1940 1945 1950 YEAR Fig. 39a. South of Bay Gross Still Wine Production as Percent of Total State, by Classes, July I - December 31, 1 93 7- 1 9U9 20 i 1 ' 1 0 I 1 1 — ■ 1 1 r— 1 1 ' 1 " *~ 1 !936 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 1948 YEAR 33a Fig. 40a. Southern California Gross Still Wine Production as Percent of Total State, by Classes, July I - December 31, 1937 - 1949 20 15 A _/_r J \ Table White Table Red 10 Dessert-^ : "V J •••\ / / A — 1 — ^£^k>? A- x 1936 1938 1940 1942 YEAR 1944 1946 1948 Fig. 41a. Inventories and Apparent Consumption of California Wine in All Markets, I938-I9H9 CALENDAR YEARS Fig. 42a. Monthly United States Apparent Consumption of California Table and Dessert Win e and of Imported Wine, 1937-1949 10 V) o C3 193 7 1 93 8 University of California College of Agriculture Agricultural Experiment Station Berkeley, California Economic Situation and Market Organization in the California Grape Industries by George L. Mehren Appendix B Geographic Distribution of California Grape Production and Processing Map Title of map Pages Number 1 to 4 Grape acreage lb to 4b 5 to 7 Grape production 5b to 7b 8 to 9 Crush 8b to 9b 10 to 12 Wineries, distilleries, storage cooperage 10b to 12b 13 to 19 Wine production 13b to 19b May, 1950 Contribution from the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics Mimeographed Report No. 107 1 lb Map Grape Acreage, All Varieties, All Ages, 1948 | DKL NORTS^, / SISKIYOU MODOC rV«»*J J SHASTA ImumbolotI / LASSEN f TRINITY J Y^TEMAAIA ii Y x ;/ PLUMAS IVMENDOClNO M - - * UJ GLENN 1 ^X/f SIERRA • \ l^COLUSA 1 V- fyf^^ NEVADA State total So. California & Central Coast So. California Central Coast North of Bay South of Bay- Interior Valley — Sac' to Valley Central Valley San Joaquin " Per cent 100.0 CL DORADO SAN FRANCISCOI bOAotpNi r «" SANTA .",CLARA LAR1 l«ONTUI«V > AN LUlt OBISPd L •AN BfflNAROINO TV? VeNTORA\ ' LOS ANOCLEI Acres 539,800 21.8 117,800 10.8 58,200 11.0 59,600 7.3 39,700 3.7 19,900 78.2 422,000 1.1 5,900 16.3 87,800 60.8 328,300 <"/ / / > > > > ONE DOT = I ,000 ACRES 2b Map 2. Grape Acreage, Wine Varieties, All Ages, 1948 3b Map 3. Grape Acreage, Raisin Varieties, All Ages, 1948 DEL NorrcJ *'«K'vou V> TEHAMA if E ■ ( GLENN I | BUTTE \\ aCOLl/S* & State total Per cent 100.0 So. California & Central Coast 5.6 So. California 5.1; Central Coast 0.2 North of Bay 0.0 South of Bay 0.2 Interior Valley 9k.U Sac 'to Valley 0.3 Central Valley 3.6 San Joaquin " 90.5 Acres 256,500 111, 300 13,900 Ii00 100 300 21*2,200 800 9,1*00 232,000 CONTRA . COSTA IAN FRANCISCOl SAN f 0^ V UOAQUIN^ SANTA 1 CLARA J, MERCEO 1 8AN> k BENlT '••Ht-Vmss Hi. :> •••••• \ AN LUIS OBISpA f BARBARA L * 'lo» ANOELE. SAN BERNARDINO V ✓ RIVERSIDE ONE DOT = I ,000 ACRES SAN 01 COO Map 4. Grape Acreage, Taole Varieties, All Ages, 1948 DEL NORTE,, I GLENN II' It- ^COLUSA Si ^ Per cent State total 100.0 So. California & Central Coast So. California Central Coast North of Bay South of Bay Interior Valley Sac 'to Valley Central Valley San Joaquin " Acres 9U,500 5.7 5,U00 5.0 U,700 0.7 700 0.3 300 O.U Uoo 9U.3 89,100 0.6 600 29.5 27,900 6U.2 60, 600 EL DORADO IAN mANCIBCOj /.V MA«IPO»A M6RCC0 FRESNO • ■ .v »• • • r— ItuLAr! fsjR*. AN LU)t OBISPO • « L SAN BERNARDINO / RIVERSIDE ONE DOT = I ,000 ACRES Map 5. Grape Production, All Varieties, All Uses, 1948 5b Per cent State total 100.0 So. California & So. California Central Coast North of Bay South of Bay Interior Valley Sac' to Valley Central Valley San Joaquin " Fresh tons 2,857,000 8.8 252,000 4.1 117,000 4.7 135,000 3.7 105,000 1.0 30,000 91.2 2,605,000 0.3 8,000 20.0 571,000 70.9 2,026,000 ONE DOT = 10,000 FRESH TONS 6b Map 6. Grape Production Used for Dried Raisins, 1948 State total — — — — - So. California ft Central Coast So. California Central Coast North of Bay South of Bay Interior Valley Sac 'to Valley Central Valley San Joaquin " Per cent — 100.0 Fresh tons 894,000 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 894,000 0.0 0 2.8 25,000 97.2 869,000 tAH rHANCIICOl ONE DOT = 10,000 FRESH TONS Map 7. Grape Production Shipped Fresh as Table and Juice Stock, 1948 7b 4( SIERRA Per cent State total 100.0 So. California & Central Coast 3.5 So. California 3.5 Central Coast North of Bay- South of Bay Interior Valley Sac' to Valley Central Valley San Joaquin " 0.0 0.0 0.0 96.5 0.0 18.3 78.2 EL DO HA DO (AN FRANCISCOl JoXJuiNl TUOLUMNE v.* . » » ... • . KERN SAN BERNARDINO *? V*r\/ / f t > > > . ientoRaX lo » anqeles / Fresh tons 547,000 19,000 19,000 0 0 0 528,000 0 100,000 428,000 8b Map 8. Total Commercial Grape Crush by County Where Grown, 1948 Oil •Mara, El DORADO State total So. California & Central Coast — So. California Central Coast North of Bay South of Bay Sac' to Valley Central Valley San Joaquin " •Ml MIANCItCOl Per cent Fresh tons 100.0 1,386,000 16.8 233,000 7.0 98,000 9.8 7.6 2.2 135,000 105,000 30,000 83.2 0.6 31.8 50.8 1,153,000 8,000 440,000 705,000 .VIC J TULA" AN LUIt 0»l»»4 . • KtUN ■ ■ ■ -J! ' U 333 ; (AN ■■RNAMMNO ONE DOT = 10,000 FRESH TONS AN OHOO • Map 9. Total Commercial Grape Crush by County Where Crushed, 1948 ^TEHAMA Hglenn Per cent C+ a+ p total — inn o So. California & Central Coast 16.2 So. California Central Coast 10.7 North of Bay- 8.U South of Bay- 2.3 Interior Valley 83.8 Sac 'to Valley 0.0 Central Valley 30.0 San Joaquin " 53.8 Fresh tons 1,386,300 22^,200 75,600 11*8,600 116,100 32,500 1,162,100 200 iii5,5oo 7U6,UOO 10b Map 10. Bonded Wineries, February, 1950 lib Map II. Fruit Disti I leries, February, 1950 12b Map 12. Storage Cooperage, December 31, 1949 Per Thousand cent gallons State total 100.0 309,337 So. California & Central Coast 28.8 89,173 So. California 8.1 25,087 Central Coast 20.7 61;, 086 North of Bay 10.5 U7,908 South of Bay 0.2 16,178 Interior Valley — 71.2 220,161; Sac 'to Valley 0.0 ll±7 Central Valley 26 „ 3 81, 208 San Joaquin » Uh.9 138,809 IAN FRANCISCO! TUOLUMNE MARIPOSA V? KH LUit OBISPd ■ANTA BARBARA ' » n/ / t > > > > venturaX uo» anoele» SAN BERNARDINO V / ONE DOT = 1,000,000 GALLONS Map 13. Equivalent Total Grape Tonnage Used in Wine Production, 1948 DEL [|l GLENN ill BUTTE «X State total So. California & Central Coast So. California Central Coast North of Bay- South of Bay Interior Valley— - Sac 1 to Valley Central Valley San Joaquin " Per cent - 100.0 Tons 1,346,300 16,8 226,100 5.4 72,100 11.4 154,000 9.0 120,500 2.4 33,500 83.2 1,120,200 0.0 200 28.5 384,000 54.7 736,000 14b Map 14. Equivalent Grape Tonnage Used in Dessert Wine Production, 1948 DEL NORTE j \MENOOCiNO VCrCHAMA ]i ft V ' il , BUTTE "^k II JglENN | vv/ L Ij^OLUSA 1 -vr State total So. California & Central Coast — So. California Central Coast North of Bay- South of Bay Interior Valley — Sac' to Valley Central Valley San Joaquin " Per cent - 100.0 8.0 4.7 3.3 1.8 1.5 92.0 0.0 31.5 60.5 Tons 1,168,200 93,200 54,700 38,500 20,700 17,800 1,075,000 0 367,600 707,400 EL DORADO *AN francisco! CONTRA COSTA | ALAMED 4§f *C> JOAQUIN ^ OAQU1N fVTANltLAUS^^ mahipO.A w me I TULARE I KINGS J 1 •AN LUIS OBISPd / Santa Barbara _ VENTURAX LOS ANGELES t / / SAN BERNARDINO / RIVERSIDE ONE DOT = 10,000 TONS ' SAN OIEOO IMPERIAL Map 15. Equivalent Grape Tonn age Used in Total Table Wine Production, 1948 Per cent Tons State total 100.0 178,100 So. California & Central Coast 7^.6 132,900 So. California 9.8 17,1*00 Central Coast 6U.8 115,500 North of Bay $6.0 99,800 South of Bay 8.8 15,700 Interior Valley 25-U ii5,200 Sac 'to Valley 0.1 200 Central Valley 9.2 16,U00 San Joaquin " 16.1 28,600 16b Map 16. Gross Dessert Wine Production, 1948 Per cent State total 100.0 So. California & Central Coast 8.0 So. California U.7 Central Coast 3.3 North of Bay 1.8 South of Bay l.«J Interior Valley — 92.0 Sac » to Valley 0.0 Central Valley 31.5 San Joaquin " •AN rRANCItCol Thousand gallons 110,989 8,860 5,199 3,661 1,966 1,695 102,129 0 3h,92k 67,205 ONE DOT = I ,000,000 GALLONS Map 17. Gross Total Table Wine Production, 1948 Ihumboldt) SHASTA PLUMAS | BUTTE ' PLACER EL DORADO MONO IAN FRANCISCOI MOAQUIN1 ^•TANIlLAuA/^ A1||potA A INVO FRESNO MONTB RSV" AN LUIS OBISPd .J •AN BERNARDINO / / / / / Per Thousand cent gallons State total 100.0 30,282 So. California & Central Coast 7U.6 22,596 So. California 9.8 2,955 Central Coast 61+. 8 19,61*1 North of Bay 56.0 16,961 South of Bay 8.8 2,680 Interior Valley — 25.1+ 7,686 Sac' to Valley 0.1 37 Central Valley 9.2 2,793 San Joaquin " 16. 1 l+,856 I7b ONE DOT = I ,000,000 GALLONS LAN 01 COO IMPERIAL 18b Map 18. Gross Red Table Wine Production, 1948 Per cent State total 100.0 So. California & Central Coast 79.8 So. California 9.9 Central Coast 69.9 North of Bay 61.3 South of Bay 8.6 Interior Valley ~ 20.2 Sac' to Valley 0.1 Central Valley 9.5 San Joaquin " 10.6 Thousand gallons 23,221 18,527 2,295 16,232 lU,2la 1,991 3U 2,210 2,U5o IAN FRANOSCol k ALAMEO I X ftTANtSLAU^pf MARIPOSA JJj^MERCEO SANTA CLARA I BENC? FRESNO Ikings '1 I L ' s^l IV } > > } } > > * VENTURA\ LOS ANGELES / •AN ■CHNAHDINO / / / / ONE DOT = 1,000,000 GALLONS Map 19. Gross White Table Wine Production, 1948 1 9b Per cent State total 100.0 So. California & Sac 1 to Valley Central Valley San Joaquin " tAN FRANCISCO Thousand gallons 7,061 57.6 4,069 9.3 660 48.3 3,409 38.5 2,720 9.8 689 42.4 2,992 0.0 3 8.3 583 34.1 ; 2,406 ONE DOT = I ,000,000 GALLONS University of California College of Agriculture Agricultural Experiment Station Berkeley, California Economic Situation and Market Organization in the California Grape Industries by George L. Mehren Appendix C Grape Industry Statistics as of May, 1950 compiled by S. W. Shear Table of Contents Table List of Tables Page Number Number 1 to 12 California Acreage lc to 14c 13 to 18 California Production and Yields 15c to 20c 19 to 25 United States Production and Utilization 21c to 27c 26 to 38 California Production and Utilization 28c to 40c 39 to 41 Fresh Table Grapes 41c to 43c 42 to 49 Prices 44c to 51c 50 to 53 Raisins 53c to 56c 54 to 76 Wine 57c to 89c 77 to 80 Brandy 90o to 93c May, 1950 Contribution from the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics Mimeographed Report No. 107 lc APPENDIX TABLE I CALIFORNIA BEARING GRAPE ACREAGE BY VARIETAL CLASSES 1919 - 19^9 Crop Year Total Varietal Class2/ Wins Tabid Raisin 1 2 3 4 Eearing Aeres 1919 291,600 95,500 53,500 142,1 500 1920 307,600 98,500 56,700 152,- 100 1921 331,900 102,400 61,000 1922 363,600 108,300 66,300 189,000 1923 409,500 117,100 74,800 217,600 1924 469,600 126,900 90,900 251,800 1925 527,300 139,700 108,200 279,400 1926 564,800 155,400 117,100 292,300 1927 579,000 170,000 119,800 289,200 1928 577,200 179,800 116,400 281,000 1929 565,700 187,600 111,300 266,800 1930 546,300 187,800 103,800 254,700 1931 527,200 183,800 96,600 246,800 1932 515,100 182,000 92,100 241,000 1933 497,800 176,000 86,800 235,000 1934 487,900 173,100 82,900 231,900 1935 479,200 168,700 80,000 230,500 1936 473,200 165,500 78,100 229,600 1937 481,200 167,000 78,600 235,600 1938 485,000 167,300 78,900 238,800 1939 483,600 166,100 78,300 239,200 1940 481,900 164,400 78,400 239,100 1941 487,300 164,900 79,600 242,800 1942 489,700 165,100 79,500 245,100 1943 490,400 165,200 79,400 245,800 1944 490,700 163,200 80,000 247, ! 500 1945 493,000 165,100 79,800 248,100 1946 493,500 165,300 79,500 248/ roo 1947 500,000 169,000 81,100 249,5 100 1948 . 497,900 175,100 84,700 238, C K)0 1949^/ 489,600 167,800 90,100 231," roo a/ Chief varieties Included in each class by the Crop Reporting Service according to the most usual use for each variety are: Raisin: Thompson Seedless, Muscat, Sultana, and Currant. Table; Tokay, M ala g a, toper or, Red Malaga, Cornichon, Almeria, Ribier, Wine: Zinfandel, Alicante Bouschet, Carignane, Petite Sirah, Mission, Uataro, and several minor black and white varieties. b/ Preliminary estimates for 1949. Source: Compiled by S. W. Shear, Clannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, March 1950, from U.S.D.A., 3.A.E., Fruit and Nuts, Bearing Acreage 1919- 1945, and California Crop Reporting Service, Acreage Estimates California Fruit and Nut Crops, annual reports for 1947 and 1948 and preliminary estimates for 1949 of June 1950, APPENDIX TABLE 2 CALIFORNIA NON-BEARING GRAPE ACREAGE BY VARIETAL CLASSES 1919 - 1948 Crop Year Total Varietal Class*/ Wine Tabid Raisin 1 2 3 4 Acres Not In Bearing 1919 69.800 13,800 13,100 42,900 1920 103,700 19 s, 900 13, 300 65,500 1921 140,700 27,100 30,200 83,400 1922 167,400 33,700 42,400 91,300 1923 163,700 40,900 44,400 78,400 1924 129,100 45,600 33,800 49,700 1925 89,400 43,900 19,800 25,700 1926 62,000 38,000 11,300 12,700 1927 45,700 29,300 7,600 8,300 1928 33,600 22,000 5,500 6,100 1929 26,100 16,600 4,400 5,100 1930 20,800 12,300 3,300 4,700 1931 18,900 10,700 3,000 5,200 1932 18,700 8,800 2,600 7,300 1933 22,100 9,000 2,500 10,600 1934 28,500 10,200 2,800 15,500 1935 31,500 10,800 3,400 17,300 1936 29,200 9,500 3,800 15,900 1937 24,300 7,600 4,600 12,100 1938 25,000 6,400 5,800 12,800 1939 27,500 6,100 6,200 15,200 1940 27,100 5,900 5,300 15,900 1941 22,700 5,600 4,100 13,000 1942 20,000 6,400 3,600 10,000 1943 18,000 6,800 3,200 8,000 1944 21,800 9,600 3,900 8,300 1945 38,400 18,100 8,300 12,000 1946 49,500 21,300 11,500 16,700 1947 57,800 • 22,500 13,600 21,700 1948 41,900 13,800 9,700 18,400 a/ The chief varieties included in each class by the Crop Reporting Service in accordance with the most usual use for each variety ares Raisin: Thompson Seedless, Muscat, Sultana, and Zante Currant-, Tables Tokay, Malaga, Emperor, Red Malaga, Coraiohon, Aimer-la. p Rlbler 0 Wines Zinfandel, Alicante Bousohet, Carignana, Petite Sirah, Mission, Mat&ro, and several minor black and white varieties,* Source; Compiled by S, W„ Shear, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Eoonoraios, University of California, Maroh 1350, from estimates of the California Crop Reporting Service* APPENDIX TABLE 3 CALIFORNIA GRAPE ACREAGE BY VARIETAL CLASSES AND FOR WINE VARIETIES BY DISTRICTS, 1948 State Interior Valley a/ Southern California &/ San Joaquin San Joaquin central Sacramento Central Variety total Total and Central Valley Valley Valley Coast Total Dessert b/ Non«dessert 1 2(3+6} 3(4+5) 4 5 6 7 8(9+10) 9 10 Acres, bearing and non-bearing All varieties 539,821 421,937 416,080 328,285 87,795 5,357 59,648 58,236 8,894 49,342 Table varieties 94,417 89,059 88,461 60,566 27,895 598 694 4,664 730 3,934 Raisin varieties 256,465 242,189 241,404 232,000 9,404 785 .361 13,915 8,164 5,751 Muscat 46,256 41,175 40,966 40,538 428 209 332 4,749 0 4,749 Wine varieties 188,939 90,689 86,215 35,719 50,496 4,474 58,593 39,657 0 39,657 Wine total 188,939 90,689 86,215 35,719 50,496 4,474 58,593 39,657 0 39,657 Red total 162,875 80,996 76,616 29,299 47,317 4,380 47,344 34,535 0 34,535 Zlnfandel 47,624 21,785 20,297 2,845 17,452 1,488 17,269 8,570 0 8,570 Carignane 36,597 22,767 22,441 8,586 13,855 326 11,104 2,726 0 2,726 Alioante B 25,199 18,865 18,375 8,391 9,984 490 3,077 3,257 0 3,257 Mission 13,874 5,508 4,912 1*832 3,080 596 726 7,640 0 7,640 Mataro 7,463 1,778 530 221 309 1,248 1,812 3,873 0 3,873 retite Slrah 6,046 1,285 1,254 426 828 31 4,723 38 0 38 Grenaohe 8,480 4,108 4,089 3,329 750 19 643 3,729 0 3,729 Others 17,592 4,900 4,718 3,669 1,049 182 7,990 4,702 0 4,702 White total 26,064 9,693 9,599 6,420 3,179 94 11,249 5,122 0 5,122 G. Chasselas 0/ 8,453 4,001 3,971 2,394 1,577 30 2,377 2,075 0 2,075 Burger 3,578 1,542 1,542 739 803 0 769 1,267 0 1,267 Oolombar 0/ 1,463 95 93 17 76 2 1,352 6 0 6 P. Riesling 0/ 777 43 43 33 ID 0 727 7 0 7 Others 11,793 4,012 3,950 3,237 713 62 6,014 1,767 0 1,767 a/ For Counties Included in each district see footnote to acreage, table 4. b/ Imperial and Riverside oounties plus unofficial estimates for Borega Valley in San Diego County, assuming no Musoat or wins varieties grown in dessert valleys. 0/ Varietal names are those used by the California Crop Reporting Service in the source quoted and differ from the names preferred and used by the Viti» oulture Division of the University as follows 1 Palomino preferred to Golden Chasselas, Savignon Vert to Colombar and Sylvaner to Franklin Rieslings Source t Compiled by S. W. Shear, Glannlnl Foundation ofl Agricultural Economics University of California March 1950 from California Crop Reporting Service, unpublished county acreage estimates by varieties comparable to published oounty acreage by varietal classes in Aoreage Estimates, California Fruit and Nut Crops as of 1948, o 4c APPENDIX TABLE , CALIFORNIA BEARING GRAPE ACREAGE BY VARIETAL CLASSES AND DISTRICTS 1923 - 1948 All j Varieties Wine Varieties a/ San State total Central Southern Sacramento Central Joaquin Central Year Coast California Valley Valley Valley Coast L i o Z •> A 5 6 7 Bearing Acres 7 rtO O 1923 JOi 7*»1 434 | 371 45,428 20,047 2,026 28,975 17,701 400 19Z4 310,096 48,890 ol Ann 21,209 1,120 O O IOC 33,125 18,900 565 1 lie cfl^ cno 397,092 CO OCA 03, 869 24,455 1,448 17 OOO 37,702 21,694 con 080 1920 040,761 en acq 07,039 30,377 1,869 Al tin 41,070 26,482 onn BOO l7£ / 003,404 An Ann 27,464 1 qua 1,964 AA 1 A3 *vO, 1 OO on nan 00,060 A1 1 \ Ol / 62 1 ,900 27,637 o,OU7 AA C40 30,340 oo 7 no 02,108 013 1929 006,640 AO oon 02, £ 00 28,810 A A1%i\ 4,420 AA 3AA 04,000 33,721 ccn OOO 1900 C/io QCO 349, oo2 Al 009 Ol, 022 27,636 4,273 AA 1 "3 A 03,100 32,271 AAO 336 j 1931 530,758 38,488 27,344 4,033 cc oof 63,227 31,522 c oc boo 1932 525,040 59,059 29,215 3,910 62,566 31,310 586 1933 504,552 59,049 34,690 2,438 58,276 27,078 576 1934 499,186 59,063 34,576 2,470 58,008 26,487 con 080 1935 485,714 57,594 30,715 1,695 56,054 25,460 984 1936 469,525 56,079 28,070 1,158 53,449 24,279 879 1937 481,689 57,853 29,364 1,143 54,057 24,506 902 1938 487,453 59,407 30,105 1,030 54,166 24,174 844 1939 488,428 59,824 30,278 816 53,871 23,464 819 1940 482,345 60,001 26,254 529 53,510 23,165 922 1941 486,291 60,472 29,979 571 51,282 22,808 823 ] 1942 489,747 60,855 30,251 566 50,786 22,717 858 1943 489,297 60,883 30,549 566 50,721 22,654 847 1944 490,289 61,442 28,354 557 51,088 23,006 847 1945 493,263 61,690 29,515 557 51,342 23,706 844 1946 495,276 62,035 28,679 554 50,810 23,936 784 19470/ 19480/ 500,051 497,889 60,818 55,094 29,985 38,007 540 531 50,999 52,097 25,769 28,503 642 606 (Continued) APPENDIX TABLE H Corti J CALIFORNIA BEARING GRAPE ACREAGE BY VARIETAL CLASSES AND DISTRICTS 1923 - 1948 Tab A«a Yari6fcia9 a/ Raleln Varieties a/ San Southern Sacramento Central Joaquin California Valley Vallav Vallav 8 o 11 3,606 310 36-353 5,007 523 39,055 SO 09ft 8,513 795 48 0111 11,152 976 54 fl53 ?i oi a 12,976 709 49 169 12,783 752 AO fi H ft 10,911 848 £4 BIO 10,599 695 59.616 8,614 404 36,1X2 59(928 7,977 410 35,130 53,140 7,365 383 32 8 2?2 48,035 7«1S6 386 31,289 47,539 5,570 338 29^53? 47,228 4,234 285 28,712 43 8 420 4,407 288 29^156 44 8 270 4,402 286 29,007 44,614 4,390 272 29^002 44,S30 4,799 191 28,507 44,702 4,295 191 27^540 45^,964 4,300 178 26,789 46,672 4,176 176 26,728 46,714 4,083 184 27»li9 47,139 4,076 178 26^S19 46,040 3,933 177 26j,83§ 47,343 3,936 161 27,292 48,935 4,415 159 27,517 51,914 Central .12. Southern California -13- Saerarteutt' Central Vail ay | Valley .14- .15. 4 4 no 106 105 105 105 105 105 105 403 430 440 429 404 393 307 296 296 299 294 320 331 296 6,065 8*342 12,829 15(919 10^198 10,120 9,947 8,873 8,543 7,695 5,562 5,555 7,387 9(419 199119 10(995 10,781 10,494 9,729 9,602 9,505 8,991 9*218 10^624 10,940 10,222 8,800 9*533 11,880 11,908 12,993 13,098 13,161 7*593 6,299 6,029 4,133 4,117 2,847 1,844 1,755 1,729 1,63? 719 720 703 716 711 711 713 628 568 4*350 6,800 12,760 13,541 9*805 8,920 8,615 9 r *« 8,191 7,87§ 7,50? 7,50? 7(494 7,378 7,644 8,05? 8,272 8,593 8,635 8,641 8,650 8,698 8,814 8,960 8,984 9 9 J2B 5/ Sae footnotes to acreage tables 1 and 2 for varieties included in eaoh elaas and table 4 for counties included In eaoh districts b/ State total exceeds the sua of district totals as acreage of a few minor counties were omitted fro* district totals given* 0/ Actual acreage changes from preliminary 1947 data to 1948 are not so great as indicated in several instances for a few counties because 1948 data art based on mora complete survey than 1947 data, for which comparable revisions have not yet been made® Sources Compiled by S* W„ Shear, Gianni nl foundation of Agricultural Economies, University of California, March 1950, from published estimates of the California crop and Livestock Reporting Service, subject to revision in recent years,. 6o APPENDIX TABLE 5 CALIFORNIA BEARING GRAPE ACREAGE BY DISTRICTS AND VARIETAL CLASSES 1923 - 1918 State*/ Central Coast&/ Southern California^/ Sacramento Valley-/ Year _ / t „ / All All RaisinS/ Tabled All Raisin Table Wine All Raisin Table Wine 1 2 3 4 5 6 ) 8 9 10 11 12 13 Bearing Acres 1923 434,371 45,828 ■ 400 45,428 30,318 6,065 3,606 20,647 10,136 8,800 310 2,026 1924 516,698 49,455 m 565 48,890 34,558 8,342 5,00? 21,209 11,182 9,533 523 1,126 1925 597,592 54,553 4 680 53,869 45,297 12,329 8,513 24,455 13,431 11,880 795 1,448 1926 646,761 58,463 4 800 57,859 57,345 15,816 11,152 30,377 14,753 11,908 976 1,869 1927 635,464 61,135 110 617 60,408 50,638 10,198 12,976 27,464 15,586 12,993 709 1,984 1928 627,955 63,012 108 615 62,289 50,560 10,120 12,783 27,65? 16,85/ 13,098 752 3,00? 1929 606,843 62,985 105 650 62,230 49,668 9,947 10,911 28,810 18,419 13,161 848 4,420 1930 549,862 61,985 105 558 61,322 47,108 8,873 10,599 27,636 12,461 7,593 695 4,273 1931 530,758 59,179 105 586 58,488 44,501 8,543 8,614 27,344 10,736 6,299 404 4,033 1932 525,040 59,750 105 586 59,059 44,887 7,695 7,97? 29,215 10,349 6,029 410 3,910 1933 504,552 59,730 105 576 59,049 47,617 5,562 7,365 34,690 6,954 4,133 383 2,438 1934 499,186 59,748 105 580 59,063 47,316 5,555 7,185 34,578 6,973 4,117 386 2,470 1935 485,714 58,981 403 984 57,594 43,672 7„387 5,570 30,715 5,880 2,84? 338 1,695 1935 469,525 57,388 430 879 56,079 41,720 9,415 4,234 28,070 3,28? 1,844 285 1,158 1937 481,689 59,195 440 902 57.853 43, 89^ 10,119 4,40/ 29,364 3,186 1,755 288 1,143 1938 487,453 60,579 428 844 59,407 44,902 10,395 4,402 30,1,35 3,054 1,729 286 1,030 / go A oa 61,047 404 819 59,824 45,449 10,781 4,390 30,278 2,725 1,537 272 816 1940 482,345 61,316 393 922 60,001 41,547 10,494 4,799 26,254 1,439 719 191 529 1941 486,291 61,602 307 823 60,472 44,003 9,729 4,295 29,979 1,482 720 191 971 1942 489,747 62,009 296 858 60,855 44,153 9,602 4,300 30,251 1,447 703 178 566 1943 489,297 6J,025 296 847 60,883 44,230 9,505 4,176 30,549 1,460 716 178 566 1944 490,285 62,584 296 847 61,442 41,437 8,991 4,083 28,354 1,446 711 184 55/ 1945 493,263 62,82? 294 844 61,890 42,809 9,218 4,076 29,515 1,446 711 178 557 1946 495,276 63,139 320 784 62,035 43,236 10,624 3,933 28,673 1,444 713 17? 554 1947*/ 500,051 61,791 331 642 60,818 44,861 10,940 3,936 29,985 1,329 628 161 540 19482/ 497,889 55,996 296 606 55,094 52,644 10,222 4,415 38,007 1,258 568 159 531 a/ State total exceeds the sum of district totals as acreage of a few minor counties omitted from distriot totals given. b/ Counties included in each districts ~entral Coast — Mendocino Lake, Sonoma, Napa, Marin, Contra Costa, Alameda, Sar/;i Clara, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, San Benito, Monterey, San Luis Obispo. Southern Callfornla =^Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, San Diego, Imperial, Sea Joaquin Valley s-Ma reed, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare, Kern. Sacramento VB.ll8,y -»Yuba, Sutter, Colusa, Butte, Glenn, Tehama,, Central Valloy -~Aaador, El Dorado, fiacor, Yolo, Solano, Sacramento, ton Joaquin, Stanislau3» o/ See preceding acreage tables, 1 and 2 for varieties included in eaoh class* d/ Actual acreage changes from preliminary 1947 data to 1948 are not so great as indicated in several instances for a few counties because 1948 data are based on a more oomplete survey than 1947 data for which oomparable revisions have not yet been made. Source: Compiled by S. W. Shear, Oianninl Foundation of Agricultural Eoonomies, University of California, .March 1950, from published estimates of the California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, subjeot to revision in recent years. ( Continued ) 7c APPENDIX TABLE 5 (Cont'd) CALIFORNIA BEARING GRAPE ACREAGE BY DISTRICTS AND VARIETAL CLASSES - 1948 Central Valley*/ San Joaquin Valley*/ All Raisin Table Wine All Raisin Table Wine 14 15 16 17 16 19 26 21 Bearing Aeres 69,678 4,350 36,353 28,975 277,081 222,960 36,420 17,701 78,980 6,800 39,055 33,125 341 ,083 272,155 50,028 ie,9uo 98,503 12,760 48,011 37,732 384,170 298.327 64.149 OZ AAA 21 , 094 110,064 13,541 54,853 41,670 404,288 305,888 71,918 Zo,4oZ 100,157 9,805 42,169 48,183 406,337 301,120 75,137 «A AOA 30,000 106,639 8,*20 41,179 56,540 369,308 287,582 69,618 112,083 8,615 39,102 64,366 362,142 263,611 64«810 33,721 111,737 8,862 37,937 65,138 315,158 223,271 59 o 61 6 32,271 109,530 8,191 36,112 65,227 305,389 219,939 53,928 31,522 105,572 7,876 35,130 62,566 303,057 218,607 53,140 41 41 A 31,310 98,055 7,507 32,272 58,276 290,861 215,748 48,035 27,078 96,804 7,507 31,289 58,008 287,012 212,986 47,539 0£ JOT «6,4o7 93,075 7,484 29,537 56,054 283,861 211,173 47,228 OC A c A 23,40U 89,539 7*378 28,712 53,449 276,530 208,831 43,420 24,279 90,857 7,644 29,156 54,057 283,452 214,676 44,270 Z4,9U0 91,230 8,057 29,007 54,166 286,481 217,693 44,614 1A 1 1 A 24,174 91,145 8,272 29,002 53,871 286,906 218,912 44,530 99 AHA 90,610 8,593 28,507 53,510 286,270 218,403 44,702 99 1 JEK 87,457 8,635 27,540 51,282 290,593 221,821 45,964 22,808 86,216 8,641 26,789 50,786 294,769 225,180 46,872 22,717 86,099 8,650 26,728 50,721 294,372 225,004 46,714 22,654 86,917 8,698 27,139 51,068 296,784 226,639 47,139 23,006 86,675 8,814 26,519 51,342 298,383 227,018 48,040 23,706 86,605 8,960 26,835 50,810 299,729 227,931 47,343 23,936 87,275 8,984 27,292 50,999 303,681 228,957 4B,93S 25,769 88,742 9,128 27,517 52,097 298,135 217,718 51,914 28,503 See footnotes on preceding pege 0 8c APPENDIX TABLE 6 CALIFORNIA GRAPE ACREAGE BY VARIETAL CLASSES AND FOR WINE VARIETIES PER CENT EACH VARIETY OF ALL VARIETIES BY DISTRICTS, 1948 State Total Interior Valley*/ Central Coast Southern California 1 / Total San Joaquin & Central Valley San Joaquin Central Valley Saora- nento Valley Total Desert^ 'Non- Desert 1 2 (3+6) 3 0+5) 4 5 6 7 8 (9+K 1) 9 10 Per Cent of District Total Aores of All Varieties, Bearing and Non- •Bearing 111 Varieties 100, 0 100.0 100.0 100,0 100. 0 100.0 100. 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 TaHl * 17a a+< * - 17.5 21.1 21.3 18.4 31.8 10.2 1.2 8.0 8.2 8,0 47.5 57,4 58,0 70.7 10,7 13.4 0,6 23.9 91.8 11.7 8,5 9.3 9.8 12,3 0.5 3.6 0.5 8.2 0 9.6 if Ui v eurxo w. es 35,0 21.5 20,7 10.9 57.5 76,4 98.2 68.1 0 80.3 Wine, Total 35.0 21,5 20,7 10,9 57,5 76,4 98.2 68,1 o 80,3 Red, Total 30.2 19.2 18.4 8.9 53,9 74.9 79,3 59,3 0 70.0 tlnfandel 8.9 5.2 4.9 0.9 19,9 25.4 + 28.9 14.7 0 17.4 Carlgnane 6.S 5.4 5,4 2.5 15,8 5.5 18.6 4.7 0 5.5 Alio ant* Bouse he t 4.7 4.5 4.4 +2.5 11.4 8.4 5.2 5.6 0 6.6 Mission 2.6 1.3 1.2 0.6 3.5 10,2 1.2 13.1 0 15.5 liataro 1.4 0.4 0,1 0,1 +0.3 a. 3 3,0 + 6.6 0 7,8 Petit* Sir ah 1.1 0,3 0,3 0.1 0,9 0.5 7.9 0.1 0 0.1 Grenaohe 1.6 1.0 1.0 1,0 0.9 0,3 1.1 6.4 0 7.6 Others - 3.2 ♦ 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 3.1 13,4 8.1 0 9.5 White, Total 4.8 2.3 2.3 2.0 3.6 1.6 18.9 8,8 0 10.3 G. ChasselasS/ 1.6 0.9 1.0 - 0,8 1,8 0.5 4.0 3.6 0 4.2 Burger ColombarS/ F. RiesllngS/ + 0.6 0.3 0.1 y V d/ V d/ 0.9 0,1 */ S 0 1.3 2,3 1.2 ¥ i/ 0 0 0 y Others 2.2 1.0 0,9 1.0 0.8 1,1 10.1 3.0 0 3.5 a/ For counties included in each district see footnote to aoreags table 4, V Imperial and Riverside counties plus unofficial estimates for Borega Valley in San Diego County, assuming no lliscat or wine varieties grown in desert valleys. */ Varietal names are those used by the California Crop Reporting Service and differ from the names preferred to Golden Chasselas, Sauvigon vert to Colombar, and Sylvan to Franken Riesling, d/ Less than one tenth of one per oent. Sources Computed by S. W. Shear, Gianninl Foundation of Agricultural Economies, University of California, March 1950, from total bearing and non-bearing acreage data from the California Crop Reporting Servioe in the preveding table 5. APPENDIX TABLE 7 CALIFORNIA TOTAL WINE GRAPE ACREAGE BY VARIETIES, 1936-1948 Variety 1948 1947 1946 1945 1944 1943 1942 1941 1940 1939 1938 1937 1936 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 fatal acres » Bearing and Non-bearing*/ Wine, total 188,939 191,477 187,797 184,664 174,194 172,360 170,580 170,866 169,358 174,994 175,593 174,607 171,575 Redp total 162,875 165,208 163,091 161,761 154,981 155,549 154,327 155,164 153,702 159,445 160,608 160,189 158,182 Zlnfandel 47,624 48,323 49,583 51,047 50,349 51,099 51,109 51,347 51,637 53,307 53,741 53,898 53,343 Alicante B» 25,199 26, 506 26,492 25,891 25,606 26,743 26,747 26,872 28,193 29,321 29,884 30,339 30,240 Mataro 7,463 6,883 7,400 7,696 7,692 7,729 7,771 7,780 7,576 8,143 8,247 8,228 7,977 P» Sirah 6,046 7,557 7,610 7,685 7,721 7,601 7,523 7,560 7,541 7,819 7,720 7,546 7,508 Mission 13,874 12,133 11,548 11,891 10, 906 10,312 10,182 10,197 9,740 10,971 10,837 10,767 10,164 Grenaohe 8,480 7,348 6,472 6,093 4,229 3,646 3,507 3,474 3,002 3,269 3,213 2,995 2,980 Carlgnane 36,597 36,298 35,378 34,129 32,051 31,825 31,149 30,981 30,971 30,854 31,196 31,099 30,729 Other 17,592 20,160 18,608 17,329 16,747 16,594 16,339 16,953 15,040 15,761 15,770 15,317 15,241 White, total 26,064 26,269 24,706 22,903 18,893 16, 811 16,253 15,702 15,655 15,549 14,985 14,418 13,393 G» Chasselas]*/ 8,453 8,767 7,893 7,507 5,072 4,446 4,203 4,162 4,102 3,996 3,587 3,232 3,020 Burger 3,578 3,729 3,649 3,393 2,987 2,931 2,895 2,827 3,033 2,981 ?,888 2,750 2,117 F« Riesling^/ 777 815 833 627 574 516 517 522 498 506 512 505 507 Colombarb/ 1,463 1,490 1,463 1,-U 1,480 1,440 1,470 1,505 1,515 1,603 1,572 1,545 1,545 Other 11,793 11,468 10,868 9,865 8,780 7,476 7,168 6,6 86 6,508 6,463 6,426 6,286 6,204 a/ All data are preliminary and subject to revision* b/ Varietal names are those used by the California Crop Reporting Ser\doe in the source quoted and differ from the names preferred and used by the Vitieulture ~ Division of the University as follows) Palomino preferred to Golden Chasselas, Savlgnon vert to Colombar, and Sylvaner to Franken Rieslings Souroet Compiled by S» W. Shear, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economies, University of California, March 1950, from annual Issues of California Crop Reporting Service, Acreage Estimates of California Fruit and Nut Crops. APPENDIX TABLE 8 CALIFORNIA WINE GRAPE ACREAGE PLANTED 1935 - 1 948 AND STANDING IN 1948 BY YEAR PLANTED BY VARIETY Totals planted Variety^/ 1937 1948 1935 1939 1935 1948 iyfl / 1 Q 1945 1943 1942 1941 1940 1939 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Aores Planted li i Years Inc loated Still Standing in 1948 Wine, Total 46,676 12,208 51,857 1,252 5,931 6,439 11 ,439 5, 304 1,818 2,997 2,181 2,144 1,975 Red, Total 32 ( 566 8,477 35,826 788 4,329 4,530 7 ,599 3,330 1,140 2,308 1,869 1,456 1,453 Zlnfandal 5.250 2,583 6,342 130 552 518 761 322 296 236 553 391 410 Alicante B. 2,182 326 2,305 48 329 593 515 191 77 72 28 126 61 Mataro 407 268 512 0 0 53 0 18 0 6 142 25 32 P. Si rah 549 319 706 34 30 13 19 155 28 19 16 73 30 Mission 5,011 1,508 5,456 130 576 502 1 ,134 691 163 307 186 259 342 Grenaoho 5,702 681 5,815 107 93 7 647 2 ,002 443 57 795 44 102 134 Carignane 8,339 1,367 9,023 140 1,097 1,488 2 ,357 911 361 330 696 226 263 Other 5,026 1,425 5,667 199 808 716 811 599 158 493 204 254 181 White, Total 14,110 3,731 16,031 464 1,602 1,909 3 ,984 1,974 678 689 312 688 522 G. Chasselaa*/ 5,777 1,431 6,507 179 579 997 2 .053 629 64 189 97 269 200 Burger F. Riesling' 1,461 481 1,615 1 117 204 406 71 149 116 22 46 111 404 121 495 10 106 74 52 67 12 25 20 8 0 Colombar*/ 388 171 S3S 37 81 50 49 70 53 16 0 8 17 Other 6,080 1,527 6,879 237 719 584 1 ,424 1,137 400 343 173 335 194 a/ Varietal names are those used by the California Crop Reporting Servioe in the source quoted and differ from the names preferred and used by the Viticulture Division of the university as follows: palomino preferred to Golden Ch&sselaa, Savigon vert to Colombar and Sylvaner to Franken Rieslings Sources Compiled by So W. Shear, Glannlnl Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, March 1950, from California Crop Reporting Servioe, Acreage Estimates of California Fruit and Nut Crops as of 1948. APPENDIX TABLE 9 CALIFORNIA TOTAL TABLE GRAPE ACREAGE BY VARIETIES 1936 - 1948 Year Table, Emperor Tokay Rod Ribler Whits Not Conoord Total Malaga Malaga Speolfied 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 Bearing and Non»Boaring Aores 1936 81,424*/ 17,243 28,587 4,983 4,168 20,942 5,068 1»433 193' 83,139 18,107 27,186 5,131 4 b 253 20,999 6,143 M20 1938 84,691 20,497 27,036 5,128 4,228 20 , 389 6,105 1,303 1939 85,019 21,505 27,050 5,197 4,229 19,651 6,086 1,301 1940 84,334 21,541 26,682 5,592 4,357 18,813 6,326 1,021 1941 82,284 21,491 26,290 5,280 4,312 17,810 6,134 967 1942 81,445 21,599 25,518 5,245 4,445 17,434 6,237 967 1943 81,575 22,420 25,497 5,172 4,528 16,825 6,169 964 1944 82,619 22,963 25,835 5,413 4,677 16,571 6,204 956 1945 86,801 25,962 26,132 5,722 5,219 16, 510 6,291 965 1946 91,250 28,243 26,790 6,368 5,873 16,352 6,628 991 1947 94,670 30,547 27,017 7,130 6,296 16,101 6,615 964 1948 94,417 31,017 26,608 7,855 6,550 14,225 7,136 1,026 Per Cant Acreage of Each Taristy of All Table Varieties *>/ 1937 16.C&/ 21.8 32.7 6.2 5,1 25-2 7,4 1.6 1946 16. 8*/ 30,9 29.4 7.0 6.4 17.9 7.3 1.1 1947 17.0*/ 32.3 28.5 7.5 6.7 17.0 7,0 1.0 1948 17.5^/ 32.9 28.2 8.3 6.9 15.1 7.6 1.1 Percentage 1946 Acreage Of 1937 1946 109.8 156.0 98.5 124.1 133.2 77.9 107,9 75.1 1947 113,9 168.7 99.4 139.0 148.0 76.7 107.7 73.0 1948 113,6 171.3 97.9 153.1 154.0 67.7 115.2 77.7 *_/ The 1937 report shows a total of 646 aores more of table varieties planted 1936 and earlier than the 1936 report, indicating underenuaeration for 1936 of at least 646 aores, gxoept col. 1 is per oent total acreage of table varieties of all varieties,-, Sour oe I Compiled by S. W. Shear, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, Berkeley, Maroh 1950, from the following soureest 1936 U.'S* Dept. Agr. , A.A.A., California Fruit and Nut Acreage Survey 1936, Stat. Bui. No. 1, Jan., 1938j 1937*1948 Calif. Crop and Uvestook Reporting Servioe, Aoraage Estimates Calif. Fruit and Nut Crops, annual issues. to APPENDIX TABLE 10 CALIFORNIA TABLE AND RAISIN GRAPE ACREAGE PLANTED, 1935-1948 AND STANDING IN 1948 BY YEARS PLANTED, BY VARIETY Totals Year Planted Variety 1937 - 1935 = 1935 - 1948 1947 1946 1945 1944 1943 1941 1940 1948 1939 1948 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Acres planted in Years Shown and Still Standing in 1948*/ I Table, Total 28-663 9,128 32,058 1,382 3,993 4,300 5,319 2,522 1,174 1,372 1,480 1,388 1,131 1* Except 11 ft 12 21, 928 8,641 30,917 1,311 3,933 4,133 5,138 2,434 1,141 1*356 1,443 1*357 1,116 2. Sun of 8,9,10, 11 10,203 3*068 11,816 865 1,547 1,390 1,743 1,213 317 489 734 400 409 3 . Sum of 8*9, A 10 9,656 2,688 10,961 845 1,498 1,293 1,589 1,7? 5 297 486 764 376 395 4. Sum of 8,9, & 11 8,328 2,576 9,643 342 1,408 1,035 1,449 1,113 27? 361 733 349 325 5. Sum of 8 & 9 7.731 2,196 8,738 322 1,359 938 1,295 1,025 252 358 718 325 311 6. Emperor 1S,J9? 5,052 16,623 404 2,059 2,301 1,017 1,010 743 744 457 836 611 7, Ribier 2,880 901 3,833 62 381 S44 552 299 101 126 222 145 110 8c Red Malaga 3,654 1,003 4,268 299 1,066 490 408 494 103 7A 89 238 7 7 9, Tokay 4,127 1,193 4,520 23 293 448 887 531 149 280 629 87 234 10* Not Speoified 1,875 492 2,173 S23 139 355 294 100 45 123 46 51 84 11. White Malaga 547 330 855 20 49 97 154 88 20 3 20 24 14 12o Concord 188 107 286 51 6 65 7 13 13 17 7 1 Raisin, Total 58,567 25,625 69,208 2,998 8,332 7,111 7,179 4,281 2,911 3,043 2,928 4,800 3,820 lo Musoat 5,524 1*692 6,342 210 906 631 660 674 167 522 283 597 183 2- Other (1-2) 53,043 23 ,933 62,866 2,738 7,426 6,480 6,519 8,607 2,744 2,521 2,54» 4,203 8*637 8» Thompson 51,035 22,570 60,143 2,661 7,325 6,376 6,373 3,397 2,450 2,425 2,519 4,047 3,529 4s Sultana 312 209 390 105 21 16 10 8 5 1 15 1 5 0 Other (6*7) 1,695 1,154 2.,333 22 101 83 130 200 286 91 125 141 107 6* Currant 984 869 1,482 22 90 70 69 28 70 68 100 106 69 7. Other 265 285 851 11 13 71 17* 216 23 25 36 38 «_/ NOte» Plantings of raisin and table varieties shown as still standing in 1948 were approximately the same as original plantings 1933-1948 as almost none of these younger plantings had been pulled by 1948 0 5o«e*3«8 Compiled by So W. Shear, Gianni n.l Foundation of Agricultural Economies, university of California, March 1950, from California Crop Reporting Services Acreage Estimates California Fruit and Nut Crops as of 1948 0 APPENDIX TABLE I I CALIFORNIA RAISIN AND TABLE GRAPE ACREAGE BY VARIETIES BY DISTRICTS, 1948 Table, total 1. Except 11 * 12 2. Sun of 8,9,10,11 3. Sum of 8,9, 4 10 4. Sum of 8,9, & 11 5. Sun of 8 a 9 6. Emperor 7. Rlbier 8. Red Malaga 9. Tokay 10. Not Specified 11. White Malaga 12. Concord Raisin, total 1. Muscat 2. Seedless, total 3* Except Currants 4. Thompson Seedless 5. Sultana 6. Currants 7. Other - ■ - Interior Vallev i Variety and group State Total Total San Joaquin 4 Central San Joaquin Valley Central Valley Sacramento Valley Central Coast 1 2 3 (4+5) 4 5 6 7 ithern California Total Dessert Valley Non- dessert 94,417 79,166 55,824 41,599 48,688 34,463 31,017 6,550 7,855 26,608 7,135 14,225 1,025 256,465 46,256 210,209 207,172 198,758 6,520 3,037 1,894 89,059 73,340 51, 810 38,463 46,520 33,173 30,835 6,041 7,251 25,922 5,290 13,347 372 242,189 41,175 201,014 197,978 190,548 5,608 3,036 1,822 Acres, Bearing and Non-bearing Total 88,461 74,927 51,359 38,112 46,213 32,966 30,806 6,009 7,233 25,733 5,146 13,247 287 241,404 40,966 200,438 197,40? 190,000 5, 581 3,036 1,821 a/ Imperial and Riverside oounties plus unoffioial estimates for Borega Valley in San Diego in dessert valleys. 10 60, 566 27,895 598 694 4,664 730 3,934 48,019 26,908 413 604 3,222 423 2,799 24,206 27,153 451 573 3,441 568 2,873 11,915 26,197 351 532 2,604 286 2,318 20,100 26,113 307 198 1,970 563 1,407 7,809 25,157 207 157 1,133 281 852 30,386 420 30 13 168 45 123 5,718 291 32 59 450 92 353 6,992 241 18 10 594 265 329 817 24,916 189 147 539 16 523 4,106 1,040 144 375 1,471 5 1,466 12,291 956 100 41 837 282 555 256 31 85 49 605 25 580 232,000 9,404 785 361 13,915 8,164 5,751 40,538 428 209 332 4,749 88 4,661 191,462 8,976 576 29 9,166 8,076 1,090 188,507 8,895 576 29 9,165 8,076 1,089 181,159 8,841 548 23 8,187 8,059 128 5,539 42 27 6 906 17 889 2,955 81 0 0 1 0 1 1,809 12 1 0 72 0 72 county assuming no Muscat or wine varieties grown SOURCE » Compiled by S. K. Shear, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Eoonomlos, University of California, March 1950, from California Crop Reporting Servioe, unpublished county acreage estimates by varieties eomparable to published county data by varietal olasses in aerea/re estimates, California Fruit and Nut Crops as of 1948. o APPENDIX TABLE 12 CALIFORNIA TOTAL RAISIN GRAPE ACREAGE BY VARIETIES, BY DISTRICTS 1936 — 1948 All raisin Muscat Other Thompson Seedless Sultana Subtotal Currant Other All raisin Muscat Other Thompson Seedless Sultana Subtotal Currant Other Changs 1936 to 1948 5.3 29.2 18.0 21.6 41.2 17.6 2.9 204.5 73.3 4S.9 77.4 70.1 95.9 77.0 100.0 96.6 1948 1936 Aores bearing It Non-bearing State Total 12,965 19,123 32,088 35,292 4,561 30,731 85 1,272 256,465 46,256 210,209 198,758 6,520 205,276 3,037 1,894 243, 500 65,379 178,121 163,466 11,081 174,547 2,952 622 Sacramento Valley 2,155 177 1,978 1,285 635 1,920 30 28 785 209 576 548 27 575 0 1 2,940 386 2, 554 1,833 662 2,495 30 29 Change 1936 to 1948 1948 * 1936 8 Aores bearing & Non-bearing Central Coast 36.2 7.8 85.9 48.9 53.8 50.0 100.0 100.0 205 28 177 22 7 29 82 66 361 332 29 23 6 29 0 0 566 360 206 45 13 58 82 66 Change 1936 to 1948 10 1948 11 1936 12 Aores bearing & Non-bearing Southern California Central Valley 28.9 19.1 32.6 34.2 2.3 34.0 9.0 75.5 2,108 101 2,209 2,255 1 2,254 8 37 9,404 428 8,976 8,841 42 8,883 81 12 7,296 529 6,767 6,586 43 6,629 89 49 33.1 22.9 113.7 143.7 9.2 117.1 66.7 25.6 3,464 1,413 4,877 4,828 76 4,904 2 25 13,915 4,749 9,166 8,187 906 9,093 1 72 San Joaquin Valley 4.4 30.0 16.5 19.5 41.9 15.8 7.5 374.8 9,753 17,404 27,157 29,516 3,994 25,522 207 1,428 232,000 40,538 191,462 181,159 5, 539 186,698 2,955 1,809 10,451 6,162 4,269 3,359 830 4,189 3 97 222,247 57,942 164,305 151,643 9,533 161,176 2,748 381 Source! Compiled by S. tf. Shear, Giannlnl Foundation of Agricultural Eoonomics, University of California, March 1950, based on U. S. D. A., Agricultural Adjustment Administration, California Fruit and Nut Aoreage Survey as of 1936 and California Crop Reporting Serviee unpublished county Aoreage Estimates by varieties oomparable to published county aoreage by varietal classes in aoreage estimates, California Fruit and Nut Crops as of 1948. 15c APPENDIX TABLE 13 CALIFORNIA BEARING ACREAGE, PRODUCTION, PER CENT OF FULL CROP AND YIELD PER BEARING ACRE OF ALL VARIETIES OF GRAPES 1919 - 1 949 Crop Year Bearing Yield Production Estimate Da M f AM. Calculated full per 0 f fill 1 or 100$ crop Acres bearing crop, . Nov. .fy Final Productions' Preliminary Of Nov. IS/ Yield per acrec/ 1 c 3 4 5 6 7 0 0 Lores Tons % Tcr.s 4.6 1,345,000 94 qAD AAA 4.1 1,273,000 90 AAA 332 9 UQ0 3.5 1,149,000 66 1922 364,000 5.0 1,806,000 96 1923 410,000 4.9 2,007,000 1,691,000 90 1 ft70 OOO. 4.6 19*. 4 470,000 3.3 1,535,000 1,550,000 69 0 ?aa 000 A O 527,000 3.9 2,050,000 1,989,000 75 £ , 0 0 c , vw G O 1920 565,000 3.7 2,069,000 2,050,000 74 9.770 OOO A o 1927 nO AAA 579^000 4.2 2,406,000 2,372,000 84 0 fV>A OOO 4.V ly^o 577*000 4.1 2,366,000 2,327,000 84 2.770 OOO 4 ft etc nfln DODyUUU 3.2 1,827,000 1,775,000 66 2 Cflo OOO At ft 1 Q"30 CAfi aaa 4.0 2,181,000 2,091,000 84 2.489 000 A A l->oi / jUlAJ 2.5 1,320,000 1,296,000 54 2.400 000 Kl C AAA Dlt3 t uuu 3.7 1,926,000 1,882,000 75 2.509.000 1 Q^"7 xy jo >t A O AAA 4ya^uoo 3.3 1,660,000 1,559,000 65 0 3Gfl 000 A ft AOO AAA 3.5 1,700,000 1,507,000 65 9 Tlfl AOO t I"TA AAA 4/y^uuu 4.6 2,194,000 2,065,000 80 2,581,000 5.4 x you yllfl AAA 4/OjUUU 3.6 1,714,000 1,656,000 63 2,629,000 5.6 iyo/ A Ol AAA 401^000 5.1 2,454,000 2,409,000 89 2,707,000 5.6 1 QUA ^ QC AAA 4o3^UUU 5.2 2,531,000 2,331,000 85 2,742,000 5.7 1939 484 ,000 4.6 2,228,000 2,173,000 76 2,859,000 5.9 i A it a 194U A /-1 y\ AAA. 482,000 4.7 2,250,000 2,281,000 77 2,962,000 6.1 1941 487,000 5.2 2,547,000 2,411,000 83 2,905,000 6.0 1942 490,000 4.4 2,160,000 2,300,000 7fi 3,026,000 6.2 1943 490,000 5.7 2,789,000 2,610,000 91 2,868,000 5.9 1944 491,000 5.1 2,514,000 2,414,000 79 3,056,000 6.2 1945 493,000 5.4 2,663,000 2,678,000 87 3,078,000 6.2 1946 494,000 6.0 2,958,000 2,628,000 85 3,092,000 6.3 1947 500,000 5.7 2,836,000 2,826,000 82 3,446,000 6.9 1948 498,000 5.7 2,857,000 2,526,000*2/ 2,773,000 81 3,423,000 6.9 1949 490,000 5.2 2,767,000 77 3,594,000 7.3 a/ Current production, col. 4, and per cent of full crop, ool. 5, as of November 1, 1919-1941 and of October 1, 1942-1949. y Current production, col. 4, divided by per cent of mil crop, ool, 5. UUU 2.9 487,000 470,000 87 540,000 3.2 iy co 1 oU,UUU 2.7 482,000 470,000 84 560,000 3.1 i 000 1 do ftrtn 168,000 2.3 428,000 427,000 73 585,000 3.1 1930 168,000 2.6 486,000 511,000 81 631,000 3.4 ion 1931 184,000 1.7 316,000 341,000 60 568,000 3.1 19o£ 182,000 2.1 388,000 388,000 68 571,000 3.1 1933 176,000 2.3 402,000 373,000 66 565,000 0. c 1934 173,000 2.7 474,000 442,000 75 589,000 1 A 3,4 193b 169,000 3,4 569,000 530,000 83 639,000 3, 0 1936 166,000 2.9 472,000 468,000 72 650,000 3.9 1937 167,000 3.7 609,000 572,000 87 657,000 3.9 1938 167,000 3.8 639,000 589,000 86 685,000 4.1 1939 166,000 3.1 522,000 548,000 75 731,000 4.4 1940 164,000 3.1 517,000 608,000 81 751,000 4.6 1941 165,000 3.3 549,000 583,000 81 720,000 4.4 1942 165,000 2.9 474,000 537,000 79 680,000 4.1 1943 165,000 3.5 575,000 531,000 87 610,000 3.7 1944 163,000 3.5 563,000 535,000 81 660,000 4.0 1945 165,000 3.8 619,000 554,000 84 660,000 4.0 1946 165,000 4.1 684,000 611,000 84 727,000 4.4 1947 169,000 3.1 517,000 578,000 74 781,000 4.6 1948 175,000 3.5 620,000 609,000 79 771,000 4.4 1949 168,000 3.1 527,O0Q d / 593,000 76 780,000 4.6 a/ Current production, col. 4, and per cent of full orop, ool. 5, as of November 1, 1919-1941 and as of October 1, 1942-1949. See footnote to table 19 for list of wine varieties, b/ Current production, col. 4, divided by per cent of Tull crop, col. 5, 0/ Yield, col. 2, divided by per cent of full crop, col. 5. &/ Estimate of December 1, 1949, Source: Compiled by S. W. Shear, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, March 1950, from reports of the Crop Reporting Service except cols. 6 and 7 are approximately hypothetical full crops calculated by S. W. Shear as stated in footnotes c and d. 18c APPENDIX TABLE 16 CALIFORNIA BEARING ACREAGE, PRODUCTION, PER CENT OF FULL CROP, AND YIELD PER BEARING ACRE OF RAISIN GRAPE VARIETIES 1919 — 1949 Crop Year Bearing Acreage Yield Per Bearing Production Estimates rer Uonw Calculated Full or 100$ Crop Final Preliminary of Nov. 12/ oi run crop M A ,r 1 a/ NOV. XZJ Production^/ Yield Per Acre£./ Aore 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Acres Tons Tons 1919 143,000 5.2 745,000 98 1920 152,000 4.8 732,000 90 1921 168,000 3.8 649,000 67 1922 189,000 5.6 1,063,000 100 1923 218,000 6.0 1,317,000 91 1924 252,000 3.4 864,000 900,000 65 » itnr (Vin 1*385,000 c c b. 3 1925 279,000 4.3 1,193,000 1,200,000 73 1,644,000 c ft 5,9 1926 292,000 4.4 1,302,000 1,241,000 75 1,655,000 5,7 1927 289,000 5.0 1,439,000 1,434,000 85 1,687,000 3,8 1928 281 ,000 5.0 1,406,000 1,397,000 85 1 C A A f\f\f\ X j 644 jUUU £ ft 1929 267,000 4.1 1,093,000 1,021,000 65 1 .571*000 5.9 1930 255,000 5.1 1,307,000 1,222,000 84 1,455,000 5.7 1931 247,000 3.1 775,000 734,000 52 1,412,000 5.7 1932 241,000 5.1 1,221,000 1,177,000 79 1,490,000 6.2 1933 235,000 4.2 988,000 916,000 65 1,409,000 6.0 1934 232,000 4.0 930,000 799,000 61 1,310,000 5.6 1935 230,000 5.4 1,253,000 1,168,000 80 1,460,000 6.3 1936 230,000 4.0 918,000 864,000 58 1,490,000 6.5 1937 236,000 6.1 1,429,000 1,438,000 91 1,580,000 6.7 1938 239,000 D.U X j** t *3 1 \J\J\J i _•?•?<) .000 85 1,575,000 6.6 1939 239,000 5.5 1,306,000 1,255,000 77 1,630,000 6.8 1940 239 , 000 5.3 1,273,000 1,249,000 75 1,665,000 7.0 1941 243,000 6.2 1,516,000 1,421,000 86 1,652,000 6.8 1942 245,000 5.2 1,277,000 1,326,000 75 1,768,000 7.2 1943 246,000 6.8 1,661,000 1,581,000 93 1,700,000 6.9 1944 247,000 5.8 1,438,000 1,397,000 79 1,768,000 7.2 1945 248,000 6.2 1,532,000 1,611,000 90 1,790,000 7.2 1946 249,000 6.6 1,644,000 1,488,000 85 1,751,000 7.0 1947 250,000 6.8 1,699,000 1,636,000 87 1,880,000 7.5 1948 238,000 6.9 1,645,000 1,558,000 82 1,900,000 8.0 1949 232,000 6.4 l,484,00Q d / 1,596,000 79 2,020,000 8.7 a/ Current production, ool. 4, and per cent of full crop, col. 5, as of November 1, 1949-1941 and as of October 1, 1942-1949. See footnote to table 19 for list of raisin varieties, b/ Current production, col. 4, divided by per cent of full crop, col. 5. o/ Yield, ool. 2, divided by- per oent of full orop, col. 5. d/ Preliminary estimate as of December 1, 1949, Source: Compiled by S. W. Shear, Glannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, March. 1950, from reports of California Crop Reporting service, except ools. 6 and 7 are approximate hypothetical full orops calculated by S. W, Shear as stated in footnotes c and d. APPENDIX TABLE 17 CALIFORNIA TABLE AND RAISIN GRAPES, PER CENT OF FULL CROP AS OF OCTOBER I, BY DISTRICTS, 1930- 1949 Year Averages i 1930-1939 1930.1934 1935-1939 1940-1944 1945-1949 Annual i 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 Table Varieties Raisin Varieties Distriot Number and Name a/ Sacramento Valley 5A San Joaquin Valley 3 and 6 Sierra Mountain Southern Counties State Sacramento Valley 61 53 69 69 80 84 17 58 51 57 58 48 82 79 78 84 49 57 73 80 88 78 80 80 72 72 67 77 80 82 84 51 74 63 63 79 69 82 83 74 78 78 75 88 79 85 84 86 81 75 Per Cent of Full Cropb/ 5A San Joaquin j Southern Valley j Counties 64 55 72 7Q£/ 851/ 85 37 75 50 30 70 50 62 85 95 80 55 3/ 80 95 75 74 71 76 80 80 84 64 83 66 60 31 78 74 75 73 73 80 77 89 82 77 88 76 78 82 71 65 76 79 82 84 48 73 62 60 77 67 81 82 75 78 75 73 88 79 85 84 85 81 75 70 64 77 72 82 87 36 62 71 66 60 63 85 80 75 83 63 73 73 68 80 80 80 84 87 73 66 80 82 85 82 50 80 61 57 81 62 91 85 80 73 87 75 94 81 92 85 88 82 79 75 74 76 77 76 78 70 87 73 64 83 66 78 84 68 71 77 75 81 83 71 83 72 71 81 State 73 66 79 82 85 82 50 80 61 57 80 62 90 85 80 73 86 75 93 81 91 85 87 82 79 a/ Official districts as used by the California Crop Reporting Servioo in reporting per oent of full crop are as followsi No. It North Coast —~ Del Norte* Humboldt, and Mendooinoj No<> 4; Bay and Central Coast *»« Lake, Sonoma, Napa, Marin, San Franoisoo, San Mateo, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Luis Obispo; No* Si Saoramento Valley »— Tehama, Butte, Yuba, Glenn, Colusa, Sutter, Yolo, Solano, and Sacramento, NOc 5Ai San Joaquin Valley »>— San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, and Kernj Nose 3 and 6s Sierra Mountain -==- Modoc south through Inyo of very minor importance in grape growing} No. 8t Southern — Counties south of Tehaohapi Mountains, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Imperial, San Diego, and Orange o Note that orop reporting distrlots in this table differ from those used by S. W» Shear elsewhere in this report on acreage, production, and crush, exoept for southern California. Moreover, the Central Coast district as used by Shear oorresponds to Crop Reporting District 4, exoept that Humboldt and Mendooino are lnoluded in ito b/ No offiolal oounty or district estimates of tonnage of grape production or yield per bearing acre are available so these estimates of per cent of full orop are included. They are the only offiolal historical series giving approximate relative indications of grape yields per bearing a ore by dlstriotSo They are averages of individual opinion-estimates of voluntary orop reporters who cooperate with the state and Federal Crop Reporting Services See footnote to table 19 for list of table and raisin varieties!. o/ Four* year average, d/ Two-year average, e/ Dash indicates no data reported, Sourcei Compiled by~S. W. Shear, Gianninr Foundation of Agricultural Economioa, University of California, from October issues of California Fruit and Nut Crop Report of California Crop Reporting Servloe. to o 20c APPENDIX TABLE 18 CALIFORNIA WINE GRAPES, PER CENT OF FULL CROP BY CROP REPORTING DISTRICTS AS OF OCTOBER I, 1930 — 1949 * District Number and Name?/ — IV — 4 5 5A 3 and 6 8 Tear North Coast Bay & Central Sacramento San Joaquin Sierra Southern State Coast Valley Valley Mountain Counties 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Per Cent of Full Crop^/ Averages: 1930-1939 69 70 72 76 70 76 74 1930-1934 62 65 65 71 67 70 69 1935—1939 77 76 79 81 73 81 79 1 940-1 r 4 4 76 80 79 84 75 81 81 1940-1S49 72 77 78 82 86 78 79 Annual t 1930 56 72 81 86 88 77 80 1931 cr Do Dj 'aft DO JO 1932 70 60 65 68 59 82 67 1933 53 56 63 68 65 65 65 1934 74 81 67 74 65 58 73 1935 84 81 83 83 86 83 82 1936 64 58 74 72 70 82 70 1937 81 84 84 87 68 81 84 1938 82 85 88 85 70 82 84 1939 72 71 67 79 70 79 76 1940 75 80 80 83 75 75 80 1941 74 80 76 84 50 82 81 1942 78 80 78 79 80 80 79 1943 70 85 84 89 85 83 86 1944 85 76 78 83 85 84 81 1945 85 85 84 86 90 73 83 1946 68 84 82 86 85 84 84 1947 55 72 79 80 90 63 74 1948 85 77 70 81 85 76 79 1949 71 70 86 77 85 83 76 a/ Official districts as used by the California Crop Reporting Service in reporting per cent of full orop are as follows: No. 1. North Coast — Del Norte, Humboldt, and Mendocino. No. 4. Bay and Central Coast Lake, Sonoma, Napa, Marin, San Franoisco, San Mateo, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clam, Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Luis Obispo. Ho. 5. Sacramento Valley — Tehama, Butte, Yuba, Glenn, Colusa, Sutter, Yolo, Solano, and Sacramento. No. 5A. San Joaquin Valley — - San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, and Kern* Nob. 3 and 6. Sierra Mountain -— Modoo south through Inyo of very minor importance in grape growing. No. 8. Southern — Counties south of Tehaohapi Mountains, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Imperial, San JJiego, and Orange, Note that crop reporting districts in this table differ from those used by S. ff. Shear elsewhere in this report on acreage, production, and crush, except for southern California. Moreover, the Central Coast district as used by Shear corresponds to Crop Reporting District 4, except that Humboldt and Mendocino are included in it. b/ No Official oounty or district ostimatos of tonnage of grape production or yield per bearing acre ■ are available so these estimates of per oent of full orop are inoluded. They are the only official historical series giving approximate relative indications of grape yields per bearing acre by districts, They are averages of individual opinion-estimates of voluntary orop reporters who cooperate with the state and federal Crop Reporting Service, See footnote to table 19 for list of wine varieties. Sources Compiled by S. W, Shear, Giannlni Foundation of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture, University of California, April 1950, from October issues of mimeographed California Fruit and Nut Crops, California Cooperative Crop Reporting Service. 21c APPENDIX TABLE 19 GRAPE PRODUCTION: UNITED STATES AND CALIFORNIA BY VARIETAL CLASSES 1919 - 1949 United States Total Other States Total California Crop Year Varietal Class! ,/ Total Raisin Table Wine 1 * 9 c 3 4 5 6 Hvoi clgco ; Thousands of Sho ^ Tons, Fresh Weighty/ 1 > 734 218 1,516 901 237 378 1924-1928 £ gOcl COO 2,085 1,241 419 425 1929=1933 9 on 1,783 1,077 302 404 1934-1938 2 j 346 997 2,119 1,195 371 553 1945-1948 3,005 Aft 2,828 1,630 588 610 Annual j 19X9 1,574 229 1,345 745 OCiA cut 396 1920 1,520 247 1,273 732 203 338 1921 1,268 119 1,149 649 186 314 1922 2,084 278 1,806 1,063 289 454 1923 2,226 219 2,007 1,317 305 385 1924 1,774 239 1,535 864 366 305 1925 2,200 150 2,050 1,193 415 442 1926 2,384 315 2,069 1,302 355 412 1927 2,592 186 2,406 1,439 480 487 1928 2,653 287 2,366 1,406 478 482 1929 2,086 259 1,827 1,093 306 428 1930 2,458 277 2,181 1,307 388 486 1931 1,647 327 ± % 0 C u TIC / /t> 229 316 1932 2,233 307 1,926 1,221 317 388 1933 1,939 279 1,660 988 270 402 1934 1,958 258 1,700 930 296 474 1935 2,477 283 2,194 1,253 372 569 1936 1,897 183 1,714 918 324 472 1937 2,726 272 2,454 1,429 416 609 1938 2,671 140 2,531 1,445 447 639 1939 2,449 221 2,228 1,306 400 522 1940 2,466 216 2,250 1,273 460 517 1941 2,725 178 2,547 1,516 482 549 1942 2,396 236 2,160 1,277 409 474 1943 2,965 176 2,789 1,661 553 575 1944 2,712 198 2,514 1,438 513 563 1945 2,781 118 2,663 1,532 512 619 1946 3,160 202 2,958 1,644 630 684 1947 3,036 200 2,836 1,699 620 517 1948 3,044 187 2,857 1,645 592 620 19492/ 2,702 176 2,526 1,484 515 527 a/ Includes harvested and unharvested production, b/ The chief varieties included in each class by the Crop Reporting Service acoording to the most usual use are: Raisins Thompson Seedless, Muscat, Sultana, and Zante Currant. Tables Tokay, Malaga, Qnperor, Red Malaga, Cornichon, Almeria, Ribier. Wines Zinfandel, Alioante Bouschet, Carignane, PetiteSirah, Mission, Mataro, and several minor black and white varieties. 0/ Preliminary estimates of Deoember 1, 1949. See California tables 27, 29, 31 and 33 for later 1949 estimates, utilization based on more complete utilization data than available when offioial production estimates as of Deoember 1, 1949 were made. Sources Compiled by S. W. Shear, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, March 1950, from offioial estimates of the California Crop Reporting Service and the United States Crop Reporting Board, 22c APPENDIX TABLE 20 GRAPES: PRODUCTION, TOTAL AND HAVING VALUE, UNITED STATES, CALIFORNIA, AND OTHER STATES, 1934— 1919 Production Year Total*/ Having value of United California Other United California Other Harvest States States States States Sf 1 2 3 4 5 6 Short Tons Averages : 1934.1938 2,345,940 2,118,600 227,340 2,343,940 2,118,600 225,340 1935-1939 2,444,210 2,224,200 220,010 2,442,290 2,224,200 218,090 1940-1944 2,652,840 2,452,000 200,840 2,652,360 2,452,000 200,360 1945-1948 3,005,425 2,828,500 176,925 3,002,365 2,825,500 176,865 Annual i 1934 1,957,600 1,700,000 257,600 1,957,200 1,700,000 257,200 1935 2,477,450 2,194,000 283,450 2,477,150 2,194,000 283,150 1936 1,897,350 1,714,000 183,350 1,897,350 1,714,000 1937 2,726,150 2,454,000 272,150 2,716,850 2,454,000 262,850 1938 2,671,150 2,531,000 140,150 2,671,150 2,531,000 140,150 1939 2,448,950 2,228,000 220,950 2,448,950 2,228,000 220,950 1940 2,466,450 2,250,000 216,450 2,464,050 2,250,000 214,050 1941 2,724,900 2,547,000 177,900 2,724,900 2,547,000 177,900 1942 2,395,500 2,160,000 235,500 2,395,500 2,150,000 235,500 1943 2,965,250 2,789,000 176,250 2,965,250 2,789,000 176,250 1944 2,712,100 2,514,000 198,100 2,712,100 2,514,000 198,100 19452/ 2,781,400 2,663,000 118,400 2,769,400 2,651,000 118,400 1946 3,159,500 2,958,000 201,500 3,159 , 500 2,958,000 201,500 1947 3,036,400 2,835,000 200,400 3,036,400 2,836,000 200,400 1948 3,044,400 2,857,000 187,400 3,044,160 2,857,000 187,160 1949=/ 2,701,500 2,526,000 175,500 2,701,500 2,526,000 175,500 a/ Total production, 1945, includes 12,000 tons (fresh basis) of California raisin grapes lost on drying — trays by rain damage, excluded from production having value. b/ "Other states" calculated by subtracting California data from United States totals. States for which so little production that annual estimate not made and hence excluded from totals for the United States and "other" states because no estimate available are (1) for all years, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Mississippi, Louisiana, Montana, Wyoming, and Nevada; and (2) excludod only since 1946$ Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Wisoonsln, Nebraska, Delaware, Maryland, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Oklahoma, Texas, Idaho, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. o/ Preliminary official estimates a3 of December 1, 1949. Later unofficial estimates of California production for 1949 are given in tables 27, 29, 31, and 33 on California utilization based on more complete 1949 utilization data than available when December 1 offloial estimates were made. Source: Compiled by S. V. Shear, Gianninl Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, Berkeley, February 1950, from U. S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Fruits (non-citrus ) Produoti on, Farm Di sposition, V alue and Utilization of Sal es. Processed: (1) May 1948, pp. 79-80 for data 1934-194T7alSb similar California data, 1909-1933); "(?) July 1948, pp. 24-25 for 1945 data; (3) July 1949, p. 20 for data 1946-1940. APPENDIX TABLE 21 GRAPES: FARM DISPOSITION, UNITED STATES, CALIFORNIA AND OTHER STATES 1934 — 1949 Year of Harvest Farm Disposition Farm Household Use United States California Other States*/ Sold United States California Other States*/ Averages: 1934- 1533 1935- 1939 1940-1944 1945-1948 Annual* 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949*y Short Tons 42,790 3,520 39,270 2,301,150 2,115,080 186,070 40,842 3,480 37,362 o a r\'\ It A ft 2,401,448 2,220,720 1 ft ft ■**»• ft 180,728 3b,4S0 3,060 32,390 2,616,910 ft A A ft ft A fti 2,448,940 167,970 28,548 2,700 25,848 2,973,818 2,822,800 151,018 49,090 3,600 45,490 1,908,110 1,696,400 211,710 47,690 3,500 44,190 2,429,460 2,190,500 238,960 39,290 3,500 35,790 1,858,060 1,710,500 147,560 45,420 3,500 41,920 2,671,430 2,450,500 220,930 32,460 3,500 28,960 2,638,690 2,527,500 111,190 39 , 350 3,400 35,950 2,409,600 2,224,600 185,000 36,720 3,300 33,420 2,427,330 2,246,700 180,630 34,750 3,300 31,450 2,690,150 2,543,700 146,450 36,970 3,300 33,670 2,358,530 2,156,700 201,830 31,760 2,700 29,060 2,933,490 2,786,300 147,190 37,050 2,700 34,350 2,675,050 2,511,300 163,750 26,590 2,700 23,890 2,742,810 2,648,300 94,510 32,800 2,700 30,100 3,126,700 2,955,300 171,400 27,100 2,700 24,400 3,009,300 2,833,300 176,000 27,700 2,700 25,000 3,016,460 2,854,300 162,160 26,850 2,700 24,150 2,674,650 2,523,300 151,350 a/ "Other states" calculated by subtracting California data from United States totals. States producing so little that annual estimate not made and hence exoluded from totals for the United States and "other" states are ; (1) for all years, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Vermont, NoHh Dakota, South Dakota, Mississippi, Louisiana, Montana, Wyoming, and Nevada; and (2) excluded only since 1946: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Delaware, Maryland, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee 5 Alabama, Oklahoma, Texas, Idaho, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. b/ Preliminary official 1949 estimates as of December 1, 1949. Later unoffioial estimates of California production for 1949 are given in tables 27, 29, 31, and 33 on California utilization based on more oomplete 1949 utilization data than available when Deoember 1 official estimates were made. Source: Compiled by S. If, Shear, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University Of California, Berkeley, April 1950, from U. S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Fruits (non- citrus) Production, Farm Disposition, Value and Utilization of Sales . Prooessed; (1) May 1948, pp. 79-80 for data 1934-1944 (also similar California data 1909-1933); (2) July 1948, pp. 24-25 for 1945 data} (3) July 1949, p. 20 for data 1946-1948 0 24c APPENDIX TABLE 22 GRAPES: UTILIZATION IN STATES OTHER THAN CALIFORNIA 1931 — 1919 Farm Disposition Utilization of sales Year of Produotion Total Production of Value Farm Home Sold Fresh Sale 82/ Processed TotalS,/ Harvest Use 1 2 3 4 5 6 Short Tons Averages : 1934=1933 227,340 225,340 39,270 186,070 130,407 55,663 1935-1939 220,010 216,090 37,362 180,728 115,208 65,520 1940-1944 200,840 200,360 32,390 167,970 63,302 104,668 1945-1948 176,925 176.865 25,848 151,017 35,925 115,092 Annual i 1934 257,600 257,200 45,490 211,710 164,146 47,564 1935 283,450 283,150 44,190 238,960 186,096 52,864 1936 183,350 183,350 35,790 147,560 96,586 50,974 1937 272,150 262,850 41,920 220,930 145,914 75,016 1938 140,150 140,150 28,960 111,190 59,292 51,898 1939 220,950 220,950 35,950 185,000 88,150 96,850 1940 216,450 214,050 33,420 180,630 82,450 98,180 1941 177,900 177,900 31,450 146,450 57,800 88,650 1942 235,500 235,500 33,670 201,830 74,580 127,250 1943 176,250 176,250 29,060 147,190 48,120 99,070 1944 198,100 198,100 34,350 163,750 53,560 110,190 1945 118,400 118,400 23,890 94,510 27,160 67,350 1946 201,500 201,500 30,100 171,400 42,950 128,450 1947 200,400 200,400 24,400 176,000 39,950 136,050 1948 187,400 187,160 25,000 162,160 33,640 128,520 1949^/ 175,500 175,500 24,150 151,350 a/ California is the only state drying grapes. Processed in "other" states is largely orushed for ~ wine, brandy, and unfermented and frozen juice. Source reports fresh sales as inoludlng small quantities canned in a few states. However, Washington data do not, as its canned is known to be included in total processed and not in fresh sales given here. Canned in Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania is also included in "processed" although source states that the small quantities oanned in states other than California are included in fresh shipments, b/ Preliminary offioial estimates for 1949 as of December 1, 1949. Source i Compiled by S. W. Shear, Gianni ni Foundation of Agricultural Eoonomies, February 1950, from U. S. Bureau of Agricultural Eoonomies, Fruits (Non-citrus) Production, Farm Disposition, Value, and Utilization of Sales. Processed: (1) May 1948, pp. 79-82 for data 1934-1944 (also similar California data 1909=1933$ (2) July 1948, pp. 25-26 for 1945 dataj (3) July 1949, pp. 20=21 for data 1946-1948. "Other state3" calculated by subtracting California data from United States totals. States produoing so little that annual estimate not made and henoe excluded from totals for the United States and "other" 3tate3 are (1) for all years, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Mississippi, Louisiana, Montana, Wyoming, and Nevada; and (2) exoluded only since 1946s Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Wisoonsin, Nebraska, Delaware, Maryland, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Oklahoma, Texas, Idaho, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. 25c APPENDIX TABLE 23 GRAPES: UTILIZATION IN STATES OTHER THAN CALIFORNIA PER CENT OF PRODUCTION HAVING VALUE, I93IM949 Year of Harvest Farm Disposition Utilization of Sales Pt*o rti i ft "h i t%n of Value farm Hone Use Sold Fresh Sales**/ Processed Total2/ 1 2 3 4 5 Per Cent of Production Having Value 1934^,938 100«0 17.4 82.6 57.9 24.7 1935-1939 100.0 17.1 82,9 52,8 30.1 1940-1944 100.0 16.2 83,8 31.6 52.2 1945-1948 100.0 14.6 85.4 20. 3 65.1 Annuals 1934 100.0 17.7 82.3 63.3 18.5 1935 100.0 15.6 84.4 65.7 18.7 1936 100.0 19.5 80,5 52.7 27.8 1997 ion 0 15.9 84,1 55.5 28.6 1938 100.0 20.7 79.3 42.3 37.0 1939 100.0 16.3 83.7 39.9 43. 8 1940 100.0 15.6 84.4 38.5 45.9 1941 100.0 17.7 82.3 32.5 49.8 1942 100.0 14.3 85.7 31.7 54,0 1943 100.0 16.5 83.5 27.3 56.2 1944 100.0 17.3 82.7 27.1 55.6 1945 100.0 20.2 79.8 22.9 56.9 1946 100.0 14.9 85.1 21.3 63.8 1947 100.0 12.2 87*8 19.9 67.9 1948 . 1949^ 100.0 13.4 86.6 18.0 68.6 100.0 14.9 85.1 &/ California is the only state drying grapes. Processed, "other" states is largely orushed for ~ vine, brandy, unfennented and frozen Juice. Souroe reports fresh sales as including small quantities canned in a few states. But Washington does not as its oanned is actually included in total processed and not in fresh sales given here 0 Canned, Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania, also inoluded in "processed" although source states that the small quantities canned in states other than California are includod in fresh shipments, b/ Based on preliminary offioial estimates as of December 1, 1949, Source* Computed by S. W, Shear, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, Fruits, (Non-citrus) Produotion, Farm Disposition, Value and Utilization of Sales. Processed. (1) May 1948 for 1934-1944 (gives similar California data 1909-1933); (2) July 1948} (3) July 1949. "Other states" calculated by subtracting California from United States totals. States for which so little produotion that annual estimate not made and hence excluded from totals for United States and "other states" ares (1) for all years, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Mississippi, Louisiana, Montana, Wyoming, and Nevada; and (2) excluded only since 1946s Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Conneotiout, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Delaware, Maryland, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Oklahoma, Texas, Idaho, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. o GRAPES: FRESH APPENDIX TABLE 24 SALES BY CHIEF STATES, 1934- 1948 Year Harvest United States Total California States Other Than California Total New Jersey Pennsyl- vania Ohio New York lilohigan Arkansas Washington Other 4 ./ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Short Tons, Fresh Weight Averages % 1934-1933 623, 107 492 ,700 130 ,407 h 722 10, 924 13,270 29 ,611 32, 624 5, 456 2*320 34, 480 1935=1939 DXOg 707 501 ,500 115 ,207 1, — ,528 9, 507 11,970 26 ,107 27, 418 4 ,208 2,085 32, 384 1940 *1944 546, 202 482 ,900 63 ,302 1 ,110 5, 098 5,140 7 ,090 15, 190 2 ,575 1,494 25, 604 1945-1948 580, 375 544 ,450 35,925 822 Is 650 3,000 5 ,525 8, 555 962 1,778 13, 633 Annual s 1934 633, 146 469 ,000 164 ,146 1 ,790 13, 802 14,300 33 ,609 48, 900 8 ,000 2,555 41, 190 193 5 671, 196 485 ,100 186 ,096 2 ,440 16, 696 22,400 44 ,899 46, 596 6 ,280 3,215 43, 570 1935 576, ,286 479 ,700 96 ,586 1 ,720 6 ,610 11,750 17 ,526 23, 990 4 ,670 2,400 27, 920 1937 683, 914 538 ,000 145 ,914 1 ,930 12. 860 15,300 33 ,793 37, 584 6 ,740 1,627 36, 180 1938 550, 992 491 ,700 59 ,292 830 4, 650 2,600 IB ,228 6, 050 1 ,590 1,804 23, 540 1939 601, 150 513 ,000 88 ,150 820 6 ,720 7,800 16 ,090 22, 870 1 ,760 1,380 30, 710 1940 633 ,250 550 ,800 82 ,450 1 ,130 7 ,550 6,800 8 ,390 23, 360 3 ,100 1,250 30, 880 1941 623 ,500 565 ,700 57 ,900 1 ,050 4 ,500 4,100 6 ,700 9, 490 2 ,620 1,190 28, 150 1942 593, ,730 519 ,200 74 ,530 1 ,190 6 ,700 5,800 9 ,590 19. 500 2 ,300 1,440 28, 060 1943 42 5, ,620 377 ,500 48 ,120 980 3 ,540 3,500 4 ,350 13, 100 2 ,610 1,490 18, 550 1944 454 ,860 401 ,300 53 ,560 1 ,200 3 ,200 5,500 6 ,430 10, 500 2 ,250 2,100 22« 330 1945 525 ,260 498 ,100 27 ,160 440 400 600 2 ,860 3» 730 750 1*910 16, 420 1946 559 ,650 516 ,700 42 ,950 1 ,240 2 ,400 3,500 6 ,880 9, 300 500 1,580 17, 550 1947 659 ,150 619 ,200 39 ,950 870 1 ,800 4,500 6 ,080 14, 150 580 1,840 10 s 130 1948 577 ,440 543 ,800 33 ,640 740 2 ,000 3,400 6 ,230 6, 990 2 ,020 1,780 10, 430 a/ "Other" states, pole 11, Include all not listed In table exoept following minor producer* for which estimates not available, are excluded in all years: Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Mississippi, Louisiana, Montana, Wyoming and Nevada. Following states lnsluded before 1947 but exoluded sinoe 1946* Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Delaware, Maryland, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Okl&hoaa, Texas, Idaho, Colorado, New Mexloo, Utah. Souroes Compiled by So We Shear, Gianni ni Foundation Agricultural Koonoralos, University of California, Berkeley, March 1950, from U* S=» Bur*, Agr° Economics, Fruits (Non-oltrus) Production, Farm Disposition, Value and Utilization of Sales . Processed! (1) May 1948, for 1934-1944 (also similar California data 1909=1933)} (2) July 1948, for 1945; (3) July 1949 for 1946=194S 3 APPENDIX TABLE 25 GRAPES: CRUSHED FOR WINE, BRANDY, AND JUICE BY CHIEF STATES, 1934- 1949 Year of Harvest Averages t 1934-1938 1935.1939 1940=1944 1945-1948 Annual i 1934 1935 1936 1937 1933 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1346 1947 1948 1949V United States Total California States Other Than California Total New Jersey Pennsylvania Ohio New York lllohigan Arkanf as 792,463 736,800 55,663 838,721 773,200 65,521 976,688 872,020 104,668 1,408,642 1,293,550 115,092 577,564 530,000 47,564 939,864 887,000 52,864 544,974 494,000 50,974 986,016 911,000 75,016 913,898 862,000 51,898 808,850 712,000 96,850 1,094,180 996,000 98,180 1,208,650 1,120,000 88,650 723,350 596,100 12 7,250 889,070 790,000 99,070 968,190 858,000 110,190 1,237,350 1,170,000 67,350 1,780,350 1,651,900 128,450 1,102,050 966,000 136,050 1,514,820 1,386,300 128,520 887,800 Washington 10 Other*/ 11 Fresh Weight, Short Tons 480 4,726 6,310 29,555 7,708 1,410 3,140 2,334 606 5,709 8,370 33,271 8,638 2,150 4,323 2,454 1,162 9,562 10,060 44,434 20,080 5,170 11,904 2,296 735 11,675 6,125 48,105 18,390 8,080 18,610 3,3 72 270 3,198 5,600 24,851 10,000 500 1,445 1,700 340 4,554 6,000 30,481 5,084 480 2,375 3,550 400 5,270 7,250 24,984 8,000 770 3,080 1,220 730 3,340 10,500 37,347 10,956 3,500 3,343 3,300 660 5,270 2,200 30,112 4,500 1,800 5,456 1.900 900 8,110 15,900 43,430 14,650 4,200 7,360 2,300 1,350 6,950 12,500 47,490 12,940 4,100 10,370 2,480 1,250 5,600 7,500 39,420 15,460 6,500 11,020 1,900 1.190 12,000 11,000 58,410 24,800 4,900 12,860 2,090 940 9,560 9,200 33,320 27,500 3,500 12,900 2.150 1,080 13,700 10,100 43,530 19,700 6,85C 12,370 2,860 290 4,600 3,000 26,820 8,600 3,700 17,050 3,290 960 14,600 7,000 56,000 20,000 9,500 17,140 3,250 830 14,300 8,700 52,300 26,550 11,120 18,810 3,440 860 13,200 5,800 57, 300 18,410 8,000 21,440 3,510 b/ Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Mississippi, Louisiana, Montana, Wyoming and Nevada* Following states lnoluded before 1947 but exoluded since 1946s Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Delaware, Maryland, Florida, Kentuoky, Tennessee, Alabama, Oklahoma, Texas, Idaho, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah. No 1949 data available exeept California commercial crush as reported by the Wine Institute in its Fourteenth Annual Wins Industry Statistical Survey, Part 1, March 1, 1950c _ Sources Compiled by S. Wo Shear, Oiannini Foundation Agricultural Economics, University of California, Berkeley, March 1950, from U. S= Bur 0 Economics, Fruits ^Kon~t lt.r us Produetlon, Farm Disposition, Value and Utllltatlcn of Sales. Processed i (1) May 1948 for 1934-1944 (also California data 1909-1933 )| (2) July 1948 for 1945j (3) July 1949 for 1946 194 Q„ Agr (also similar po o 28c APPENDIX TABLE 26 CALIFORNIA GRAPES USED FOR DRYING AND COMMERCIAL CRUSH BY VARIETAL CLASSES AVERAGES 1934- 1938 AND 1945-1948 Varietal Class Dried Commercial Crush Total Raisin Table Wine Total Raisin Table Wine Ton si/ 965,225 963,000 425 1,800 881,500 874,400 6,200 Per Centfa/ Tons*/ Average 1945-1948 Avorage 1934-1938 41.6 73.2 1.7 0.2 736,800 186,800 160,320 389,680 Per CentV 34.2 1,293,550 45.8 59.2 483,350 29.7 0.1 311,000 52.8 0.2 499,200 81.2 34.8 15.6 43.2 70.5 a/ Equivalent fresh weight in tons. b/ Per oent utilized of harvested production of varietal group. See table 19 for list of varieties in each varietal class. Source: Compiled by S. W. Shear, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, university of California, Iferch 1950, from official data of the California Crop and Uvestook Reporting Servioe. APPENDIX TABLE 27 CALIFORNIA, PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION OF ALL VARIETIES OF GRAPES, 1927-19*9 Used fresh for Juloe Fresh table use Crop Harvested Drledi/ Other year production*/ Conned Total Commercial Total Within Inter- Inter- Within Total oruah state state state state 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A vo rages i Short to ns, fresh we lght 1927-1929 2,121,100 2,100 1,045,300 704,100 81,600 622,500 48, 700 573,800 "\a Ann JD9f OvU 1930-1932 1, 610,000 700 848,900 499, 700 69,200 430, 500 67,500 363,000 991 onn JOj ouu Ofin 7 in tOU ( fJ\J 1942-1944 2.487.700 14,500 1,289,600 879,300 748,000 131,300 6,000 125,300 1945-1948 2, 825 , 500 19, 575 965,225 1,442,150 1,293,550 148,603 5,000 143,60!) Annual % l 7Ai nnA X, /VJ,UvU o onn £, cUu 695,200 739,200 530,000 209, 200 27,000 182,200 220,900 42, 500 263, 400 1935 2,194,000 2,400 816,000 1,123,100 887,000 236, 100 18,700 217,400 210,100 42,400 252,500 1936 1,714,000 3,200 733,600 687,300 494,000 193,300 20,300 173,000 247,400 42,500 289,900 1937 2,454,000 7,500 994,000 1,136,100 911,000 225,100 11,300 213,800 270,300 46, 100 316,400 1938 2,531,000 5,000 1,168,800 1,048,000 862,000 186,000 17,200 168,800 261,400 47,800 309, 200 1939 2,228,000 11,000 988,600 934, 8)0 712,000 222,800 12,400 210,400 240, 400 53,200 293,600 1940 2,250,000 11,300 688,600 1,223,200 996,000 227,200 11,100 216,100 2 71,100 55, 800 326,900 1941 2, 547,000 18,000 840,000 1,338,100 1,120,000 218,100 8,800 209, 300 300,203 50, 700 350,900 1942 2,160,000 16, 400 1,025,000 798, 500 596,100 202,400 8,100 194, 300 273,700 46,400 320,100 1943 2,789,000 13,000 1,605,800 851, 500 790,000 61,500 5,500 56,000 280, 300 38,400 318, 700 1944 2,514,000 14,000 1,238,000 988,000 858,000 130,000 4,300 125,700 239,500 34, 500 274,000 1945 2,651,000 11,000 969,200 1,319,800 1,170,000 149, 800 5,200 144,600 297,600 53, 400 351,000 1946 2,958,000 14,300 772,400 1,792,200 1,651,900 140, 300 4,000 136,300 325,600 53,500 379,100 1947 2,836,000 23,000 1,225,100 1,129,000 966,000 163,000 6,300 156,700 394,700 64,200 458,900 1948 2,857,000 30,000 894,200 1,527,600 1,386,300 141,300 4,500 136, 800 333,800 71,400 405,200 1949°' 2,482,000 25,000 1,051,600 1,012,300 887,800 124, 500 4,500 120,000 326,000 67, 100 393,100 a/ Excludes unharvested at no value, tonsi 1927, 98,600; 1928, 153,000; 1930, 433,000; 1931, 10,000; 1932, 154,000; 1933, 3,000; 1945, 12,000. b/ Inoludes dried wine and table grapes probably finally used for Juloe, also a few raisins. a/ Preliminary unofficial estimates for 1949 based on more oomplete utilization data than available when preliminary official estimates as of December 1, 1949 were made. Source! Compiled by S. W. Shear, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Eoonomlcs, University of California, March 1950, from reports of California Crop Reporting Servioe, except segregation of fresh Juloe and table stock in all years, ooramercial crush 1927-1929 and harvested 1927 and 1929 are estimates by S. W. Shear. IV) APPENDIX TABLE 28 CALIFORNIA UTI L1ZATJON OF ALL VARIETIES OF GRAPES: 19 27 — 19 49 PER CENT OF HARVESTED PRODUCTION Crop Year Harvested production Canned Dried Used Fresh for Juice Total Commercial Crush Total Other Within State Inter- state Fresh Table Use Inter- state Within State Total Averages i 1927-1929 1930=193? 1942--1944 1945-1948 Annual | 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949*/ Per Cent of Harvested production 100,0 .1 4».d 3.8 100.0 .1 52.7 31.0 4*3 100.0 0 6 51.4 35 t 6 30 E 0 100.0 .7 34.1 51=1 45.8 100.0 .1 40 c9 43c5 31.2 100,0 a 37.2 51.2 40 r. 4 100.0 .2 42^8 40 a 26.8 100*0 o3 40.5 46.3 37.1 100.0 s 2 46 1,2 41^4 34.1 100,0 .5 44.4 41-9 31.9 100.0 .5 30.6 54.4 44.3 100.0 o7 33 s O 52,5 44-0 100.0 .8 47o4 37.0 27*6 100.0 »5 57.6 30.5 28 3 2 100.0 49„2 34^1 .6 39.3 100 rA •4 35 6 49o9 44.1 100,0 .5 26.1 60-6 55c9 100,0 „B 43 2 39„9 34»1 100.0 1.0 31.3 53,5 48,5 100 ,0 1.0 42,4 40*3 35,9 29.4 26.7 5.6 5.3 12.3 10c 8 11.3 9.2 7*3 10.0 10.1 8 .-. 5 9,4 2-2 5,2 5.7 5 .7 5,7 5,0 5 0 2.3 4.2 s3 .2 U6 .9 1: ? 05 .7 *6 .5 ,3 o4 o2 c2 .2 .2 .2 o2 27.1 22.5 5o3 10.7 9,9 10,1 8.7 6,6 9.4 9.6 8.2 9.0 2 S 0 5^0 5^5 5.5 5*5 4o8 4 = 8 15.8 13.9 10.7 12.0 13.0 9.6 14.4 11.0 10.3 10.8 12.0 11.8 12,7 10.0 9 0 5 11,2 13.9 13>9 11.7 13.1 10 1.6 2.3 1.7 2ol 2.5 1,9 2o5 1.9 1.9 2-4 2*5 2o0 2.1 1.4 1.4 2»0 2.3 2.3 2.3 2*7 11 17.4 16.2 12.4 14.1 15.5 11.5 16o9 12.9 12.2 13.2 14.5 13.6 14c e 11.4 10.9 13,2 12.8 16.2 14 s 2 15-8 ~ Deoember 1, 1949 were made. Source* Compiled by S. W. Shear, Glannlnl Foundation of Agricultural Eoor.on.los, March 1950, from tonnage data to Pg^**^**^^^, the California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, except segregation of fresh Juice ar.d table stock in all years, oo«*».rolal era* 192;.1929 and harvested 1927 and 1929 estimates by S° t« Shear. APPENDIX TABLE 29 CALIFORNIA PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION OF RAISIN GRAPE VARIETIES, 1927-1949 Crop Year Harvested production*/ Canned DrledJ>/ Totaio/ Used Fresh for Juloe 2/ Commercial Crush Inters tatei/ Fresh table Use Inter -Stated/ within State Total Averages! 1927»1929 1930=1932 1942*1944 1945=1948 Annual; 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 ' 1945 1946 1947 1948 19492./ 1,292,700 987,700 1,458,700 1,62 7,000 930,000 1,253,000 918,000 1,429,000 1»445,000 1,305,000 1,273,000 1,516,000 1,277,000 1,661,000 1,436,000 1,520,000 1,644,000 1,699,000 1,645,000 1,430,000 Short Tons, Fresh Weight 2,100 700 14,500 19,575 2,200 2,400 3,200 7,500 5,000 11,000 11,300 18,000 16,400 13,000 14,000 11,000 14,300 23,000 30,000 25,000 1,014,700 830,400 1,286,000 963,000 684,000 612,000 728,000 988,000 1,160,000 980,000 684,000 836,000 1,016,000 1,604,000 1,236,000 964,000 772,000 1,224,000 892,000 1,050,000 198,000 95,000 118,300 521,100 167,200 351,500 102,700 334,100 182,900 221,600 477,500 544,000 147,100 35,800 17?, 000 442,700 747,800 319,300 574,600 226,900 18,500 12,900 95,000 483,330 142,000 305,000 67,000 276,000 144,000 17/,0C0 410,000 494,000 95,100 35,800 154,000 411,700 71?, eoo 274,300 534,600 192,900 169,600 73,300 23,300 37,750 25,200 56,500 35,700 58,100 38,900 44,600 59,500 50,000 52,000 0 10,000 31,000 35,000 45,000 40,000 34,000 66,700 11,200 77,900 49,700 11,900 61,600 35,000 4,900 39,900 101,400 21,925 123,325 61,700 14,900 76,600 65,300 11,800 77,100 72,100 12,000 84,100 87,000 12,400 99,400 84,100 13,000 97,100 74,400 19,000 93 , 400 81,300 18,900 100,200 102,000 16,000 118,000 89,000 8,500 97,500 6,000 2,200 8,200 10,000 4,000 14,000 84,300 18,000 102,300 90,600 19,300 109,900 109,700 23,000 132,700 121,000 27,400 148,400 102,000 26,100 120,100 a/ Chief varieties included are Thompson Seedless, Muscats, Sultanas, and Currants. Excludes unharvested tons: 1928, 60,000; 1930, 319,000, of irhich 316,000 were purchased and left on the vine; 1932, 21,000; and 1945, 12,000. b/ In addition to total fresh grapes used for Juloe (col. 4), roughly 36,000 fresh tons a year of dried raisins were used for alcoholic beverages, 1927-1932. Much fewer raisins probably have been used thus since repeal, o/ Includes snail amounts estimated used in state for home wine making 1927-1932 (col. 4 minus ools» 5 and 6). d/ Interstate Juloe shipments as shown are largely Muscats, only a few are eaten fresh. e/ Preliminary estimates for 1949 based on more complete utilization data than available when the official preliminary production estimates as of December 1, 1949 were made. Source i Compiled by S. W. Shear, Giannlnl Foundation of Agricultural Eoonomlcs, March 1950, from reports of California crop Reporting Service, except segregation of fresh Juloe and table stook In all years, and ooramercial crush before 1933 partly estimated by S. W. Shear. oa o 8 APPENDIX TABLE 30 ° CALIFORNIA UTILIZATION OF RAISIN GRAPE VAR I TIES: PER CENT OF HARVESTED PRODUCTION, I927-19H9 Used Fresh for Juice Fresh Table Use Crop Harvested Canned Dried Total Commercial Inter- Inter- Within Total Year Production • ■ Crush State State State 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Per Cent of Harvested Production Averages i 1927«1929 100*0 0.2 78*5 15.3 1.4 13a 5.1 0,9 6*0 1930=1932 100.0 0.1 64a 9*6 1.3 7.4 5*0 1.2 6*2 1934-1936 100.0 0.3 73.2 19.2 15.6 3 f.6 6.2 1.1 7.3 1936-1940 100*0 0*6 71 ;2 20.7 17.0 3.7 6.3 1.2 7.5 1942-1944 100.0 1.0 88,2 8.1 6.5 1.6 2.4 0.3 2.7 1945-1948 100,0 1.1 59a 32.2 29.9 2.3 6*3 1.3 7*6 Annual t •1934 100.0 0.2 73.6 18.0 15.3 2.7 6.6 1.6 8.2 1935 100.0 0.2 64 s 8 28*9 24*4 4*5 5.2 0.9 6.1 1936 100.0 0.3 79*3 11.2 7a3 3*9 7*9 1*3 9.2 1937 100*0 0.5 69a 23*4 19.3 4a 6a 0.9 7.0 1938 100.0 0.3 80 3 12.7 10,0 2.7 5.8 0.9 6.7 1939 100.0 0.8 75*0 17*0 13*6 3.4 5.7 1.5 7.2 1940 100 .-0 0*9 53.7 37*5 32 8 4*7 6.4 1,5 7.9 1941 100.0 1.2 55.1 35,9 32*6 3,3 6*7 ia 7.6 1942 100.0 1.3 79 £ 6 11*5 7.. 4 4.1 6*9 0.7 7.6 1943 100.0 0.6 96*6 2.1 2.1 .0 0.4 0.1 0*5 1944 100.0 1.0 86a 11.9 10a 1.2 0.7 0*3 1.0 1945 100.0 0.7 63*4 29.1 2?a 2.0 5-6 1*2 6*8 1946 100.0 0.9 46*9 45.5 43,4 2 1 5.5 1*2 6,7 1947 100.0 1*4 72sO 18*8 i6a 2.7 6*5 1.3 7*8 1948 100.0 1.8 54.2 34*9 32.5 2.4 7*4 1*7 9a 1949*/ 100.0 1.9 73.4 15.8 13.4 2.4 7a 1,8 8,9 a/ Preliminary estimates for 1949 based on more oomplete utilization data than available when the offioial preliminary production estimates as of December 1. 1949 were made. Source i Computed by S. W. Shear, Giannir.1 Foundation of Agricultural Eoonomlos, University of California, March 1950, from tonnage data in companion table from reports of the California Crop Reporting Servloe, except segregation of fresh Juico and table stock in all years and commercial crush before 1933 partly estimated by S- W. Shear* APPENDIX TABLE 31 CALIFORNIA PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION OF TABLE GRAPE VARIETIES ^, 1927-1949 Used Fresh for Juice Fresh Table Use Crop Year Harvested Production*/ Dried]?/ Total Commerolal Crush Inter-State Inter-State Within Stated/ Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Short Tons, Fresh Weight Averages i 1927-1929 368,800 19,000 58,200 30,100 28,100 266,200 23,400 291,600 1930.1932 1942-1944 1945-1948 250,700 491,700 Ran. cfin 11,300 3,500 425 40,300 223,800 112. 850 19,900 220,100 311 .000 20,400 3,700 1,850 174,200 229,500 236. 5?* 24,900 34,900 IB 700 nJ U£ 1 WW 199,100 264,400 275,225 Annualt 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 19491/ 296,000 372,000 324,000 416,000 447,000 400,000 460,000 482,000 409,000 553,000 513,000 512,000 630,000 620,000 592,000 515,000 9,200 3,600 5,400 5,800 6,800 8,000 4,000 3,800 8,600 1,800 0 0 400 1,100 200 1,600 100,000 193,000 112,800 193,200 22e,100 191,800 229,300 245,300 177,800 240,700 253,000 263,300 360,400 292,700 335,000 248,400 89,000 192,000 105,000 191,000 224,600 187,000 227,000 243,000 174,800 235, 700 250,000 260,300 358,600 290,700 334,400 247,400 11,000 1,000 7,800 2,200 3,500 4,800 2,300 2,300 3,000 5,000 3,000 3,000 1,800 2,000 600 1,000 159,200 144, eoo 175,300 183,300 177,300 166,000 189,800 198,200 164,700 274,300 229,500 213,300 235,000 285,000 212,800 224,000 27,600 30,600 30,500 33,700 34,800 34.200 36,900 34,700 37,900 36,200 30,500 35,400 34,200 41,200 44,000 41,000 186,800 175,400 205, 600 217,000 212,100 200,200 226,700 232,900 222,600 310,500 260,000 248,700 269,200 326,200 256,800 265,000 a/ Chief varieties included in table grape production are Tokay, Malaga, Emperor, Red Malaga, Cornlohin, Almeria, Rihler and Concords Data Given ~ exclude the following unharvested tonnages i 1927, 98,600 (estimate by S. W. Shear)) 1928, 75,000) 1930, 74,000; 1932, 108,000; and 1933, 3»000 o b/ Dried table grape varieties presuna.bly are used for Juice purposes eventually. 2_/ Probably very few table grape varieties are used for home wine making in California and all intrastate use as given in col* 7 assumed as used for fresh table purposes, d/ Preliminary unofficial estimates for 1949, based on more complete utilization data than available when latest official preliminary production estimates a? of December 1, 1949 were made* Source* Compiled by S. W* Shear, Giannlni Foundation, University of California, Maroh 1950, largely based on reports of California Crop Reporting Service exoept segregation of fresh Juice and table stook in all years, commercial crush before 1933, and harvested production 1927 and 1929 partially estimated by S. A. Shear* w w o 34c APPENDIX TABLE 32 CALIFORNIA UTILIZATION OF TABLE GRAPE VARIETIES: PER CENT OF HARVESTED PRODUCTION, 1927-1949 Crop Year Harvested Production Dried Used Fresh for Juioe Fresh Table Use Total Commercial Crush Inte r- State Inter- State Within State Total _L_L Per Cent of Harvested Production Averagess 1927-1929 1930-1932 1942-1944 1945-1948 Annual i 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 19492./ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 5.2 4.5 0.7 0.1 4.1 4.0 8.0 2.6 6.1 5.7 4.6 3.1 1.0 1.7 1.4 1.5 2.0 0.9 0.8 2.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.3 15.8 16.1 45.4 54.0 18.6 12.7 16.2 19.3 13.1 14.4 39.9 33.8 51.9 34.8 46.4 51.0 48.0 49.8 50.9 43.5 43.5 49.3 51.4 57.2 47.2 56.6 48.2 8.2 7.6 72.7 6.3 79.0 O.U 8.1 69,5 9.9 79.4 A A Q 44. 0 0.7 AC 1 46.7 7.1 bJ.B til i bo. 7 U. o Oft A da. 4 e. c 0. 5 45.9 12.1 6.5 71.2 6.1 77.3 6.9 5.8 77.8 5.5 83.3 4.8 11.4 68.1 7.7 75.8 9.1 10.2 70.6 7.5 78.1 1.7 11.4 71.6 9.2 80.8 12.9 1.5 65.6 14.3 79.9 38.9 1.0 46.3 9.2 55.5 30.1 3.7 53.8 9.3 63.1 51.6 0.3 38.9 8.2 47.1 32.4 2.4 54.1 9.4 63.5 45,9 0.5 44.1 8.1 52.2 50.2 0.8 39.7 7.8 47.5 46.8 1.2 41.5 8.5 50.0 49.3 0.5 41.3 8.0 49.3 50.4 0.5 41.1 7.2 48.3 42.8 0.7 45.1 9.3 54.4 42.6 0.9 49.6 6.6 56.2 0.6 44.7 48.7 6.0 50.7 50.8 0.6 41.7 6.9 48.6 56.9 0.6 37.3 5.4 42.7 46.9 0.3 46.0 6.6 52.6 56.5 0.1 36.0 7.4 43.4 48.0 0.2 43.5 8.0 51.5 a/ Preliminary unofficial estimates for 1949 based on more complete utilization data than available when latest official production estimates as of December 1, 1949 were made. Source: Computed by S. ff. Shear, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, March 1950, from tonnage data in companion table from reports of the California Crop fieporting Service, except segregation of juice and table stock in all years, commercial orush in most years, and harvested production in 1927 and 1929 partly estimated by 5. W. Shear. 1 APPENDIX TABLE 33 CALIFORNIA PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION OF WINE GRAPE VARIETIES 1927 - 1949 Crop Year Harve: Pro due Used Fresh for Juice y :ted ,tion£/E/ Drled£/ Total Commercial Crush Other Total Inter. State Within State Averages} 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Short Tons, Fresh Weight , j 1927-1929 459 j 700 11 700 xx , / yu AAP pVKJXJ 33 j 100 414 ,900 376, 000 38. 900 1930-1932 371, 700 7. POO tf\A |Ow oc oO, auo 328 ,000 269, 300 50, 700 1942.1944 537j 300 100 m7 vJ/ 9 c O'vj AT) *f oC j yuu 104 ,300 98, 300 6j 000 1945-1948 610 j 000 QUO AC1Q 109 ,000 104, 000 5, 000 Hi mutt J. J xy<£ / 487, 000 10,000 477 ,000 29, 000 448 ,000 412, 000 36, 000 i-'cO 464, 000 12,000 452 ,000 47, 200 404 ,800 367, 000 37, 800 1 09Q 428, 000 13,000 415 ,000 23, 000 392 ,000 349, 000 43, 000 1 ' ou 446, 000 7,100 438 ,900 23, 400 415 ,500 357, 000 56, 500 X jox 306, 000 12,400 293 ,600 26, 000 267 ,600 208, 000 59, 600 1Q3? 363, 000 2,000 361 ,000 60, 000 301 ,000 243, 000 58, 000 1 JOO 402, 000 one 401 ,200 242, 000 159 ,200 125, 800 33, 400 1QW 474, 000 2,000 472 ,000 299, 000 173 ,000 146, 000 27, 000 10*?S A JO J 569, 000 400 568 ,600 390, 000 178 ,600 159, 900 18, 700 1936 472, 000 200 471 ,800 322, 000 149 ,800 129, 500 20, 300 1 o / 609, 000 200 608 ,800 444, 000 164 ,800 153, 500 11, 300 X JO c 639, 000 2,000 637 ,000 493, 400 143 ,600 126, 400 17, 200 1 Jo J 522, 000 600 521 ,400 348, 000 173 ,400 161, 000 12, 400 1940 517, 000 600 516 ,400 351, 000 165 ,400 154, 300 U, 100 1941 549, 000 200 548 ,800 383, 000 165 ,800 157, 000 8, 800 1942 474, 000 400 473 ,600 326, 200 147 ,400 139, 300 8, 100 1943 575, 000 0 575 ,000 518, 500 56 ,500 51, 000 5, 500 1944 563, 000 0 563 ,000 454, 000 109 ,000 104, 700 4, 300 1945 619, 000 5,200 613 ,800 498, 000 115 ,800 110, 600 5, 200 1946 •684, 000 0 684 ,000 580, 500 103 ,500 99, 500 4, 000 1947 517, 000 0 517 ,000 401, 000 116 ,000 109, 700 6, 300 1948 19492/ 620, 537, 000 000 2,000 0 618,000 537,000 517, 447, 300 500 100,700 89,500 96, 85, 2C 00 0 0 4, 4, 500 500 a/ Excludes unharvested tonnagesj 1928, 18,000; 1930, 40,000; 1931, 10,000; and 1932, 25,000. b/ Chief wine varieties inoluded by the Crop Reporting Service according to the most usual use are Zinfandel, Alicante Bousohet, Carignane, Petite Sirah, Mission, Mataro, Grenache, Golden Chasseles, Burger, Colombar, and Franken Riesling. Presumably all California grapes so classified a3 striotly wine varieties, inoluding those dried, are crushed commercially or otherwise used for wine, brandy, and other Juice purposes and practically none consumed for fresh table use. e/ Preliminary estimates for 1949 based on more complete utilization data than available when latest official preliminary production estimates as of December 1, 1949 were made. Source: Compiled by S. W, Shear, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, March 1950, from reports of California Crop -Reporting Service, except commercial crush before 1933 partly estimated by S. W. Shear. APPENDIX TABLE 3t CALIFORNIA UTILIZATION OF WINE GRAPE VARIETIES: PER CENT OF HARVESTED PRODUCTION, 1927- m$ Used Fresh for Juice 1 Other Crop Harvested Dried Total Commercial Total Inter-State Within Year Production Crush State 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Per Cent of Harvested Produotion Averages * 1927-1929 100.0 2.5 97.5 7.2 90.3 81.8 8.5 1930-1932 100.0 1.9 98.1 9.8 88.3 72.5 15.8 1942-1944 100.0 0.0 100.0 79.9 20.1 19.0 1.1 1945^1948 100.0 0.2 99.8 81.2 18.6 17.7 0.9 Annual 8 1927 100.0 2.1 97.9 5.9 92.0 84.6 7.4 1928 100.0 2.6 97.4 10.2 87.2 79.1 8.1 1929 100.0 3.0 97.0 5.4 91.6 81.5 10.1 1930 100.0 1.6 98.4 5.2 93.2 80.1 13.1 1931 100.0 4.1 95.9 8.5 87.4 68.0 19.4 1932 100.0 0.6 99.4 16.5 82.9 66.9 16.0 1933 100. 0 v. C fiO ? 1Q fi 11 1 OX. 0 8.3 1934 100.0 0.4 99.6 63.1 36.5 30.8 5.7 1935 100.0 0.1 99.9 68.5 31.4 28.1 J# o 1936 100.0 0.1 99.9 68.2 31.7 27.4 4.3 1937 100.0 0.0 100.0 72.9 27.1 25.2 1.9 1938 100.0 0.3 99.7 77.2 22.5 19.8 2.7 1939 100.0 0.1 99.9 66.7 33.2 30.8 2.4 1940 100.0 0.1 99.9 67.9 32.0 29.9 2.1 100.0 0.0 100.0 69.8 30.2 28.6 1.6 1942 100.0 0.1 99.9 68.8 31.1 29.4 1.7 1943 100.0 0,0 100.0 90.2 9.8 8.9 0.9 1944 100.0 0.0 100.0 80.6 19.4 18.6 0.8 1945 100.0 0.8 99.2 80.5 18.7 17.9 0.8 1946 100.0 0.0 100.0 84.9 15.1 14.5 0.6 1947 100.0 0.0 100.0 77.6 22.4 21.2 1.2 1948 100.0 0.3 99.7 83.5 16.2 15.5 0.7 19492/ 100.0 0.0 100.0 83.3 16.7 15.8 0.9 a/ Preliminary unofficial estimates for 1949 based on more complete utilization data than available when official preliminary production estimates as of Eeoember 1, 1949 were made. Souroes Computed from tonnage data in companion table from reports of the California Crop Reporting Service, except commercial orush type before 1933 partly estimated by S. H. Shear. APPENDIX TABLE 35 CALIFORNIA GRAPE UTILIZATION BY VARIETAL CLASSES AND BY CHIEF RAISIN AND TABLE VARIETIES AVERAGE 1945-1948 Clo33 and Variety Harvested Production, Total Shipped Fresh, Table Use Total Prooessed or for processing Shipped Fresh For Table Use Total For Drying For Prooesslng, Not Dried Total*/ For Wine, Brandy and Juice Total Comma roial Crush Shipped Fresh£/ Out of State In State 1 2 3 4 5 8 6 7 9 10 Tons, Fresh Weight 1. AH varieties 2,826,000 399,000 2,427,000 965,000 1,462,000 1,442,000 1,293,000 149,000 339,000 60,000 2-. Win* 610,000 0 610,000 2,000 608,000 608,000 499,000 109»000j>/ 0 0 2,216,000 399,000 1,817,000 963,000 854,000 834,000 794,000 40,000 339,000 60,000 1,627,000 123,000 1,504,000 963,000 541,000 521,000 483,000 38,000 101,000 22,000 5« Table 589,000 276,000 313,000 Lo/ 313,000 313,000 311,000 2,000 238,000 38,000 6> Raisin 1,627,000 123,000 1,504,000 963,000 541,000 521,000 483,000 38,000 101,000 22,000 7* Muscat 236,000 7,000 229,000 47,000 182,000 182,000 144,000 38,000 1,000 6,000 3e Seedless 1,391,000 116,000 1,275,000 916,000 359,000 339,000 339,000 0 100,000 16,000 9* Thompson 1,341,000 116,000 1,225,000 887,000 338,000 318,000 318,000 0 100,000 16,000 10 o Sultana 34,000 0 34,000 13,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 0 0 0 11» Other 16,000 0 16,000 16,000 mm 0 0 0 12 • Table 589,000 276,000 313,000 mm 313,000 313,000 311,000 2,000 238,000 38,000 13 . Tokay 236,000 75,000 163,000 0 163,000 163,000 163,000 0 64,000 11,000 14. Emperor 175,000 133,000 42,000 0 42,000 42,000 42,000 0 122,000 11,000 15- Other 176,000 68,000 108,000 mm 103,000 108,000 106,000 2,000 52,000 16,000 */ "Processing, not dried", oolumn 5, lines 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9 include 20,000 tons of Thompson Seodless used for oanninge b/ Shipped fresh for Juioe, column 8, lines 1 and 2 was all shipped out of the state exoept 5,000 tons of wine varieties to in-state markets, *J Dashes indicate less than 500 tons 0 Souroet Compiled by S. W. Shear, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, Berkeley, December 1949, from official and best unofficial data involving some conversions, estimates and adjustments. Lines 1-6 and 12 oaloulated from offioial reports of the California Crop and Livestock Reporting Servioe. Varietal breakdown in other lines as follows i Col. 7, from reports of the Wine Institute, Col. 4, from reports of the Dried Fruit Association of California,, Cols. 8 and 9, largely from Market News Reports. Col. 10, approximate est! nates, o APPENDIX TABLE 36 CALIFORNIA GRAPE UTILIZATION BY VARIETAL CLASSES AND BY CHIEF RAISIN AND TABLE VARIETIES: PER CENT OF TOTAL PRODUCTION OF EACH VARIETY BY USE, AVERAGE 1945-1918 Varietal Class and Variety 1« All varieties 2 , fine 3i Raisin 4 Tablj> 4 U Raisin 5, Table 6, Raisin 7 i Muscat 8 Seedless 9^ Thompson 19m Sultana 11. Other 12 . Table 1$. Tokay 14. Empero." 15- Other Harvested Production, Total Shipped Fresh, Table Use, Total Total Processed or for proe e s s lrg For Drying For processing, not dried TotaW For wine, brandy A .lutce Total Commercial Crush Shipped Fresh**/ 8 Per Cent of Total Production of Each Variety by Use 100 s 0 14.1 85.9 34.2 51.7 51.0 45,7 5.3 12,0 2,1 100=0 0.0 100,0 0.3 99,7 99.7 81.3 17,9 0.0 0,0 100.0 18.0 82 oO 43.5 38.5 37.6 35 8 1.8 15.3 2,7 100,0 7.5 • 92.4 59.2 . 3J,2 32,0 29,7 2.3 6.2 1.4 100.0 46o9 53 1 53, 1 53,1 52.6 0.3 40,4 6.5. 100,0 ?.e 92,4 59.2 33.2 32,0 29,7 2.3 6*2 1.4 100 ,0 3 .0 97,0 19.9 77.1 77\l 61.0 16.1 0,4 2.6 100.0 8.3 91,7 65*9 25.8 24*4 24.4 0.0 7.2 1*1 100,0 8.7 91,3 66.1 25.2 23 ,7 23.7 0.0 7.5 1.2 100,0 0,0 100.0 38.2 61*8 61,8 61.8 0.0 0,0 0.0 100,0 0,0 100,0 100.0 ■MM 0.0 0.0 0,0 100.0 46r.9 53-1 •S«e 53.1 53.1 52.8 0,9 40,4 6.5 ioo .0 31.5 68.5 0.0 68.5 68,5 68,5 0.0 26.9 4.6 lOOr.O 76,0 24.0 0.0 24 o 0 24.0 24.0 0.0 69,7 6,3 100.0 3C6 61.4 61.4 61.4 60.2 1.2 29.5 9.1 Shipped Fresh For Table Use Out of State In State 10 CO o a/ The 20,000 tons of Thompson Seedless canned inoluded in oolum 5, lines 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9, constitute 0.7 per oent of production of all varieties; 0.9 per oent of produotlon of raisin and table varieties combined} 1.2 per oent of production of raisin varieties and 1.5 per oent of Thompson Seedless productions b/ The 5,000 tons of wine varieties shipped fresh to in-atate markets inoluded in oolum 8, lines 1 and Z, were 0.2 per oent of the harvested pro. ~ duotlon of all varieties and 8.2 per oent of harvested produotion of wine varieties, o/ Less than 0.35 per oent. Souroe* Compiled by S. w. Shear, Giaimini Foundation of Agrioultural Eoonomios, University of California, Berkeley, Deoember 1949, Computed from tonnage data in companion table 1. APPENDIX TABLE 37 CALIFORNIA GRAPE UTILIZATION BY VARIETAL CLASSES AND BY CHIEF RAISIN AND TABLE VARIETIES: PER C EMT OF TOTA LS OF EACH USE BY VARIETY, AVERAGE 1945-1948 Varietal C las s and Variety Harvested Production » Total Shipped Fresh , Table Use, Total Prooessed or for Processing Shipped Fresh Total For Drying For Prooesslng, Not Dried if ?r Mine, Brandy and Juloe For Table Use Totaia/ Total Commercial Crush Shipped FreshV Out of State Tn State 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Per Cent of Totals of Eaoh Use by Variety 1* All Varieties 100.0 r 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100,0 100.0 2, Wine 21.6 0.0 25.1 0.2 41,6 42.2 38.6 73.2°./ 0.0 0.0 3. Raisin & Table 7 8-. 4 100.0 74.9 99.8 53.4 57.8 61.4 26.8 100.0 100.0 4, Raisin 57-6 30,8 62.0 99.3 37,0 3S.1 37.3 25,5 29.8 36.7 5. Table 20.8 69 0 2 12.9 21.4 21.7 24.1 1.3 70.2 63*3 6 Raisin 57-6 30 8 62.0 99.8 37.0 36.1 37,3 25.5 29.8 36.7 7, Muscat 8.4 1.7 9.4 4.9 12.4 12.6 11.1 25.5 0,3 10,0 6. Seedless 49.2 29ol 52,6 94.9 24,6 23,5 26.2 0,0 29.5 26.7 9 Thompson 47,4 29.1 50.5 91.9 23.1 22.0 24.6 0.0 29.5 26-7 10 < Sultana let 0.0 1.4 1.3 1,5 1.5 1.6 0.0 0,0 0.0 11. Other 0.6 0.0 0.7 1.7 „ •mm « • 0.0 0.0 0.0 it. Table 20.8 69.2 12.9 21.4 21.7 24.1 1,3 70.2 63*3 13. Tokay 8.4 18,8 6.7 0.0 11.1 11.3 12.6 0.0 18.9 18.3 14* Emperor 6,2 33,3 1.7 0.0 2.9 2.9 3.3 0.0 36,0 18,3 15. Other 6.2 17,1 4.5 7.4 7.5 8.2 1.3 15.3 26.7 a/ Of the tonnages used for processing not dried (oolumn 5, lines 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9) the 20,000 tons of Thompson Seedless oanned constitute 1.4 per cent of all varieties so used] 2.3 per cent of the combined total of raisin and table varieties so used; 3.7 per cent of raisin varieties so used and 5,9 per cent of Thompson Seedless so used. b/ Of the total shipped fresh for Juice (column 8, lines 1 and 2) 4.6 per cent went to California markets and 95.4 per cent to out-of-state markets. o/ Wine varieties shipped fresh to in-state markets were 3.4 per cent of total fresh shipment* to all markets for juice, d/ Dashes indicate less than 0.05 per cent, Sourcet Compiled by S. W. Shear, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Eoonomlos, University of California, Berkeley, December 1949. Computed from basio tonnage data, in companion table 1, OJ to o APPENDIX TABLE 38 CALIFORNIA GRAPE UTILIZATION BY VARIETAL CLASSES AND BY CHIEF RAISIN AND TABLE VARIETIES: PER CENT BY VARIETY OF TOTAL OF EACH USE OF RAISIN VARIETIES AND OF TABLE VARIETIES, AVERAGE 1945- 19 48 Processed or for Processing For Processing, Not Dried Shipped Fresh jFcr Wine, Brandy and Juice For Table Uea Varietal Harvested Shipped Fresh, Total For Total Class and Production o Table Use, Drying Total Commercial Shipped Out of In Variety Total Total Crush Fresh State State 1 2 3 4 . 5 6 7 8 9 10 Per Cent of Total of Eaoh Use of Raisin Varieties by Variety 1. Raisin 100,0 100 oO 100.0 100.0 100.0 100,0 100.0 100,0 100 0 ,0 100.0 2. Muscat 14.5 5.7 15.2 4.9 33 ,6 34*9 29.8 100 .0 1.0 27 3 3. Seedless 85„5 94.3 84.8 95a 66 = 4 65a 70.2 0.0 99.0 72.7 4. Thompson 82.4 94.3 81.4 92.1 62.5*/ 6i a 65,8 0.0 99.0 72.7 5. Sultana 2a 0.0 2.3 1.3 3.9 4.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 6. Other 1.0 0.0 ia 1.7 b/ 0.0 0-0 0.0 Per Cent of Total of Kaon Use of Table Varieties by Variety 7. Table 100,0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100,0 100,0 100.0 100.0 ■ 100.0 100,0 8. Tokay 40,4 27.2 52a 0.0 52 a 52 a 52,1 0.0 26.9 28 9 9 9, Emperor 29»^ 48.2 13 v 4 0.0 13.4 13,4 13.5 0.0 51.3 29*0 10 Other 29,9 24.6 34.5 34,5 34.5 34,1 100*0 21.8 42 a a/ Of the tonnages used "for processing, not dried" (column 5, lines 1, 3 and 4) the 20,000 tons of Thompson Seedless canned constitute 3.7 per oent of all raisin varieties so used) 5.6 per oent of all seedless varieties so used} and 5.9 per oent of Thompson Seedless so used - b/ Dashes Indicate less than 0 o 05 per oent. Sources Compiled by S. W. Shear, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, Berkeley, December 1949. Computed from basio tonnage data in companion table 1. APPENDIX TABLE 39 FRESH GRAPES USED AS TABLE FRUIT: UN I TED STATES PRODUCTION, EXPORTS, IMPORTS AND CONSUMPTION, 1934 — 1948 united State* Production Not Commercially processed Consumed Fresh as Table Grapes Fresh California Fresh Exports United States Consumption*/ W Years Sales to Farm Sales Grapes for Table to Production United States BOffllWlAiZ Fresh Home and Farm Homemade Use Foreign Not f pons Total Per Population July 1 Market Use Home Use Wine Onlya/ Countries Exported Capita Deo. 31d/ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 (1 r Z) (3 - 4) (5 - 6) (7 * 8) 1 Short Tons of 2,000 Pounds 1 AAA T i 1,000 lbs. lbs. 1,000 •» Averages t 1934-1938 623,107 42,790 665,997 209,940 455,957 26,907 429,050 6,277 435,327 A«vA A A 870,327 6.78 128,564,116 1945-1943 581,965 28,298 610,263 150,775 459,488 37,426 422,897 7,907 430^604 861,608 6.0 142,804,000 i\I LI ILiCVX 5 633,146 48,090 682,236 209,200 473,036 17,856 4,618 459,798 919,596 7.25 126,864,958 AjO J 671,196 47,690 718,886 236,100 482,786 18,675 AC, A llfl 6,684 470»794 941,588 7.37 127,719,716 X? JO 576,286 39,290 615,576 193,300 422,276 23,058 6,978 406,196 812,392 6.32 128,474,994 1 0*17 17<9 / 683,914 45,420 729,334 225,100 504,234 3 5,014 6,466 475,686 951,372 7.35 129,154,587 1938 550,992 32,460 583,452 136,000 397,452 39,923 357,524 6,639 364,163 728,326 5 ,59 130,406,323 1939 601,150 39,350 640 , 500 222,800 417,700 29,980 387,720 5,700 393,420 786,840 5,99 131,456,245 1940 633,250 36,720 669,970 227,200 442,770 30,523 412,247 5,112 417,359 834,718 6.30 132,560,843 1941 623,500 34,750 658,250 213,100 440,150 32,102 408,048 5,058 413,106 826,212 6.18 133,588,443 1942 593,730 36,970 630,730 202,400 428,350 2 2,026 406,324 2,326 408,650 817,300 6.10 134,041,664 1943 425,620 31,760 457,380 61,500 395,880 23,752 372,128 1,054 373,182 746 , 364 5 59 133,580,283 1944 454, boO 37->050 491,910 130,000 361,910 2 2,402 339,508 4,145 343,653 687,306 5*22 131,73J,291 1945 525,260 26,590 551,850 149,800 402,050 29,066 372,984 6,156 3*9,142 758,284 5., 54 136,845,000 1946 559,650 32,800 592,450 140,300 452,150 36,091 416,059 10,372 426,431 852,862 6.01 141,915,000 1947 659,150 27,100 686,250 153,000 523,250 47,186 476,064 7,171 483,235 966,470 6.67 144,948,000 1948 5 H, 440 2 7,700 605,140 141,300 463,340 37,359 426,481 7,927 434,408 868,816 5,89 147,551,000 a/ Data given on consumption for fresh table use only includes the small but unknown quantity of sales of fresh grapes grown in states other than California used for home-made wine. b/ Beoause of lack of readily available data, the small shipments to noncontiguous territories are exoluded from exports in col. 6 and included in consumption in ools. 9, 10, and 11. During 1930-1940 these varied from 600 to 1,200 tons a year or a little over .01 per cent of total U. S. consumption as shown. o/ Imports for consumption only exoept general imports January through Deoember 1947. However, the two are practically the same for twelve -month periods beginning July 1. Cubic feet converted to pounds by multiplying by following factors] Argentina and Chile, 36; Spain, 24; Belgium, 10; Italy and Canada, 40; Union of South Africa, 16; all others, 20. d/ Population of continental United States Includes armed foroes at home and abroad exoept those normally outside continental United States who are estimated on the basis of the numbers stationed abroad at census dates; war years* 1941-1948 exclude armed forces serving abroad but include those stationed in the states. AH years exolude population of noncontiguous territories^ Source* Compiled by S. W° Shoar, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economicn, University of California, Berkeley, March 1950. Very largely from offioial data of the Uo S. Department of Agriculture and the U. So Department of Commerce. 0 to o CALIFORNIA INTERSTATE APPENDIX TABLE HO RAIL SHIPMENTS OF TABLE GRAPE STOCK BY VARIETIES, SEASONS 1927-1949 Crop YearJV 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 193 f. 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1046 1947 1948 1949^/ Total of Varieties Listed Table and juloe Juloe Stook*/ Table Stock Thompson Seedless Table Varieties Total Number of Car»£/ Malaga Tokay Red Malaga Rlbler y Cornlohon Almerie^/ Emperor^/ Others/ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 27,714 28,326 23 s 007 25,218 18,059 15 t 498 1,3,861 16,003 14,545 17,728 18,497 17,331 17,055 19,760 19,580 17; 969 18,841 15,578 18,890 20,971 24,316 20,441 19,28E 2,116 1,885 2 s 802 2,755 2,109 287 238 771 90 556 178 232 334 167 160 202 47 308 192 114 90 44 70 25,596 26 (,441 20,205 22,463 15,950 15,211 13,623 15,232 14,^55 17,272 18,?19 17,099 16,721 19,573 19,420 17,767 18,794 15,270 18,698 20,857 24,226 20,397 19,219 4,882 4,049 5,036 4,707 3,120 3,980 3,285 4,169 4,459 4,946 5,862 5,424 5,057 5,763 6,475 5,769 385 697 5,109 5,754 6,785 7,523 6*052 20,714 22,392 15 y 169 17,756 12,822 11,231 10,338 11,063 9,996 12,226 12,457 11,675 11,664 13,810 12,945 11,998 18,409 14,573 13,589 15*092 17,441 12,874 13,167 7,054 7,044 4,679 4,186 3,895 2,173 1,967 2,261 1 S 764 1,987 1,691 1*447 896 1,426 873 899 2,243 1,563 1,568 689 670 252 173 6,811 7,445 5,440 7,670 3,978 3,982 4,024 3,792 3,478 4,265 4,273 4,304 4,202 5,163 4,098 3,931 5,088 4,379 3,102 4,593 5,134 3,138 4,022 116 133 225 202 342 402 289 593 765 594 840 662 542 719 725 521 1,450 1,266 815 1,493 1,254 794 468 ==d/ 203 227 289 175 292 340 341 359 343 317 312 440 567 818 765 654 811 657 570 530 689 618 374 342 210 158 94 118 129 183 186 173 143 109 137 102 79 133 137 150 125 78 50 113 249 142 177 123 112 68 44 81 106 128 162 223 89 278 210 290 117 334 363 145 291 400 5,302 6,247 3,520 4,63C 3,805 3,860 3,530 3,780 3,293 4,579 4,703 4,402 4,96E 5,664 6,163 5,705 8,273 6 ,,120 6,609 6,820 9,370 7,708 7,500 629 656 789 346 242 255 191 183 148 171 277 182 376 306 219 63 168 222 370 184 86 43 24 b/ 1/ d/ V Source "Other" varieties are nearly all unspecified but delude a few Black Prince and Rose of Peru. "Other- in earlier years probably include some shipments of listed varieties not es completely segregated as in recent years 0 Juiee stook shipments are not inoluded in ools* 3-13 for wietiM listed but shown only in total in col. 2» _„,«.. m« Includes season-* shipments after December 31 for years beginning 1927 for Emperors, 1935 fcr Almerle, and 1941 for Rlbler and all varl. ,i.s 1946, Net carload weights, MOtpt for teuton loads from desert valleys in southerr California, w«re approximately as follows* 1927, 13^6| !3o9| 1929, 14.0js 1930=193l 9 )2 6 5j 1932=1933, 12.0? 1934=1940, 14,0; 1941=1949, 15,4* Carious of Juloe stock are heavier than that of tabic Stock. Dashes indicate if any Inoluded lis "other*" j Preliminary data for 1949 involving estimated shipments after April 15 for RSbier, Almerla end Emperor- Compiled by S. W, Shear, Giarmini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, Berkeley, April 1950 from latest reports of California Federal-State Market News Service on Interstate Rail Passings of California Deciduous Tree Fruits and arap.s «c«pt ■hipments after December 31 for seasons before 1940 are approximate estimates by S. Wo Shear* 1927=1934 from delivered auction sales* 1935=^909 Trom Ca^fornia cold storage holding, a. of December 31| 1940-1945, passings of all varieties after December 31 prorated ty Da ember dl cold storage ho, ding, by van.ty Beginning 1946 the Market News Service reports rail passings by variety after December 31. Carlo*, rail passing out of Calif ornia by fright and express loads of 5 tons or more. Data exclude water shipments from California and the incw-asingTc" significant truck movement of recent years. (For basic data 1936-1 "48 and notes on them see table 9, p. 24 of Federal-State Market News Servitej Marketing California Gropes and Raisins 1948 season. July 1 '«•) GRAPES FRESH: APPENDIX TABLE 41 UNITED STATES EXPORTS BY CHIEF COUNTRIES OF DESTINATION YEARS BEGINNING JULY I AVERAGES 1924-1945, ANNUAL ,939-1948 Averages Annual for 12 months beginning July 1 1924- 1930. 1934- 1941= Destination 192 tfi/ 1933 1933 1945 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Declared Net Export Weight, Short Tons of 2,000 Pounds ■ Grand Total 16,78? 16,682 26,906 25,870 o a n on 30,523 32,102 22 ,026 23,752 22,402 29,066 3o,U 37,3b» Europe j Total loo 1,576 3 4 S 172 1 AO iUo a U U V 3 1 cue United Kingdom 127 1,394 7,116 2 2,661 86 9 0 0 0 0 1,300 md 1/ Other 39 182 1,181 1 1,511 22 0 0 0 0 3 285 am Ireland 0 ~b/ — — »- 0 0 0 0 mm ~ mm Prance 1 o/~ 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 =.= mm\ mi Germany 11 ~ 20 46 -*> 0 0 0 0 0 0 mm mm IN B W IB i^AGLI KJ U 6 13 35 mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mm mm Da I i9 4 t \m 0 4 o/ mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 mm mm mm — JWo J all 21 121 517 mm 737 0 0 0 0 0 mm 285 — o/ 17 292 mm 762 0 0 0 0 0 -m mm o/ 5 2 mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 mm =». mm mm S> 4 y-k I on/4 r in x ana 0 2 266 -= 8 0 0 0 0 0 mm mm — — II A y A u A u A V u vie r £/ 7/ 9 1 4 22 0 0 0 0 3 16,616 15,106 18,609 25,867 25,808 30,415 32,093 22,026 23,752 22,402 29,063 34,506 47,176 37,359 Canada 11,724 10,666 11,970 21,147 15,567 20,594 22,105 17,756 20,805 19,787 25,304 25,638 23,845 24,734 Other 4,892 4,440 6,639 4,720 10,241 9,821 9,988 4,270 2,947 2,635 3,759 8,868 23,331 12,625 Newfoundland • and Labrador 28 98 145 129 Latin America 3,901 2,298 3,206 4,261 7,165 7,926 8,375 4,162 2,752 ? ,426 3,592 6,969 12,008 8,165 Mexico 1,140 630 1,001 2,569 4,046 3,896 3,656 3,472 2,293 1,621 1,802 3,328 3,078 1,080 Cuba 2,302 944 994 697 1,024 1,104 1,305 244 218 604 1,116 1,258 2,140 2,246 Brazil 10 4b 503 457 992 1,567 1,984 24 0 14 264 1,476 1,759 863 Other 449 676 708 536 1,103 1,359 1,430 422 241 187 410 907 5,031 3,956 Phlllippir.es 490 865 960 113 1,134 796 564 0 0 0 0 1,270 8,895 3,241 New Zealand 89 200 368 354 2 Other 384 1,077 2,105 346 1,588 1,099 1,049 108 195 209 167 529 2,283 1,090 •/ Calendar years, aa July 1 year exports by destination not published, b/ Dashes Indicate data not segregated > If any, probably included in "other'' o/ Less than a ton* Source t Compiled by S» W. Shear, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, Berkeley, April 1950, from official data of Us S •• Cepts Commerce, directly from its publications or indirectly from publications of the U« S* Dept. of Agriculture: o 44c APPENDIX TABLE 42 GROWER PRICES: CALIFORNIA GRAPES AND UNITED STATES ALL COMMODITIES, AVERAGE 1935-1939, ANNUAL 19*6-4949 Crop Years PRICES RECEIVED BY CALIFORNIA GROWERS Average 1935-1939 1946 1947 1948 1949 Dollars Per Ton, Fresh Basis*/ Dried Raisins 14 82 33 34 31 Crush, All Commercial 14 91 30 30 27 Wine Varieties Shipped Fresh Table Varieties Shipped Fresh 17 100 35 36 30 25 117 63 53 39 16 91 36 36 32 Per Cent of 1935-1939 = 100 All Grapes, All Uses 100 569 225 225 200 Dried Raisins 100 586 236 243 221 Crush, All Commercial 100 650 214 214 193 Wine Varieties Shipped Fresh 100 588 206 212 176 Table Varieties Shipped Fresh 100 468 252 212 156 UNITED STATES GROWER PR ICES b/ Prioes Tleoeived, All Commodities 100 250 272 246 224 Prioes Paid, All Commodities 100 186 210 207 198 Farm Wage Rates 100 334 356 362 3532,/ a/ Growers' returns per equivalent fresh tons for naked fruit first delivery point. b"/ United States relatives of prioes received and prices paid by growers are simple averages of data for 12 — months beginning September, except date, for 1949 are simple averages for 4 months September 1949 through January 1950. c/ Two-month average October 1949 and January 19 50. Sources Compiled by S, W. Shear, Glaiinini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, Iferch 1950, from official data of the California Crop and Livestook Reporting Service and the U. S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics. • 45c APPENDIX TABLE 43 CALIFORNIA GRAPES: GROWERS' TOTAL EQUIVALENT RETURNS FOR NAKED FRUIT AT FIRST DELIVERY POINT BY VARIETAL CLASSES, 1 9 )g | 9 i^g Crop Year 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1 9*»0 I9NI 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 19^8 1949 Tota I 73,675 86,705 66,588 60,990 45,285 48,296 55,960 49,030 54,680 35,538 43,465 33,650 26,503 20,765 26,683 29,788 28,365 32,735 46,606 32,463 30,470 34,831 57,036 72, 187 169,363 194,083 149,876 267,789 102,082 101,797 79,616 Varietal Class*/ ft i ne Table Raisin Tota I Marketed fresh Thousands of dollars_/ 19,800 25,350 25,748 27,560 15,400 19,215 26,520 18,540 21,915 1 1,600 14,980 8,920 5,814 4,356 7,940 6,968 6,714 8, 166 12,789 8,051 7,412 8,530 12,133 14,789 44,792 62,493 38,564 71,136 17,268 22, 134 15,705 15,300 15,225 14,880 13, 140 12,200 14,640 6,300 8,500 8,788 10,478 10,7 10 6,541 8,084 3,344 3,952 6,956 5,208 8,197 9,069 7,957 5,960 7,498 12,821 18,282 55,079 56,430 29,696 62,055 28,272 21,016 16,017 38,575 46, 130 25,960 20,290 17,685 14,441 23, 100 21,990 23,977 13,460 17,775 18, 189 12,605 13,065 14,791 15,864 16,443 16,372 24,748 16,455 17,098 18,803 32,082 39, I 16 69,492 75, 160 81,616 134,598 56,542 58,647 47,894 1,720 2,320 3,480 4,050 3,260 3,920 7,580 4,440 6,877 3,020 4,660 6,861 2,465 2,847 3,598 4,920 5,116 3,705 9,261 4,275 5,216 8,953 14,212 10,414 3,728 13,260 32,693 74,382 16, 150 28,765 13,622 Dried 36,855 43,810 22,480 16,240 14,425 10,521 15,520 17,550 17, 100 10,440 13, 115 I 1,328 10, 140 10,218 11,193 10,944 11,527 12,667 15,487 12, 180 I 1,882 9,850 17,870 28,702 65,764 61,900 48,923 60,216 40,392 29,882 34,272 a/ Chief varieties included in each class by the Crop Reporting Service according to the most usual use are: Thompson Seedless, Muscat, Sultana, and Zante Currant. Tokay, Malaga, Emperor, Red Malaga, Cornichon, Almeria, and Ribier. Zinfandel, Alicante Bouschet, Carignane, Petite Sirah, Mission, Mataro, and several minor black and white varieties. Raisin Tab le: W i ne: b/ Includes growers' returns for dried fruit sold in dried form. Source of data: Compiled by S. I. Shear, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, March 1 950, from official reports of the California Crop Reporting Service. APPENDIX TABLE 4t CALIFORNIA GRAPES: SEASON AVERAGE EQUIVALENT RETURNS PER TON TO GROWERS FOR BULK FRUIT AT FIRST DELIVERY POINT BY VARIETAL CLASSES, DOLLARS PER TON AND PERCENT OF 1935-1939= 100, 1919 — I9H9 All Varieties WineS^ Varieties Tables^ Varieties Raisin Varieties*/ All Varieties Wine arietles Table Varieties Raisin Varieties Crop Year Sales for All Uses Not Dried-*/ Dried°/ Sales for All Uses Not Dried Dollars Per Ton Fresh Weight 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Averages i 55.72 1935-1939 15,50 15.38 18.76 14-54 16.62 13.94 1947-1949 34.37 32.97 37 AC 33 = 77 35.57 32.67 130.67 Annual | 1919 54.80 50.00 75.00 51.80 40.00 52.50 210 ;00 1920 68.10 75.00 75.00 63.00 40.00 65.00 260.00 1921 58.00 82 c CO 80.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 160.00 1922 35. eo 65.00 60.00 19- 10 30.00 17.50 70.00 1923 22.60 40.00 40.00 13c 40 20.00 12.50 50.00 1924 31.50 63.00 40.00 16.70 20.00 15.75 63.00 1925 29.20 60.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 80.00 1926 23; 90 45*00 25,00 16.90 20.00 16.25 65.00 1927 24.20 45 e 00 26.00 16.70 23-00 15.^00 60 00 1928 16.10 25.00 26.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 40.00 1929 23.80 35.00 35.00 16.30 20.00 15.25 61.00 1930 16.30 20-00 20.83 13.90 12.80 14 ,75 59i00 1931 20.20 19.00 35.30 16.30 24.90 15.-00 60.00 1932 11.70 12 -CO 16 e 0J 10.90 18.73 9.75 39 00 1933 16.10 19.75 14.80 15.00 17.30 14,35 57*40 1934 17.50 14o"0 in "%ft 1/ on r\r\ S O ■■ UU 64.00 1935 12.90 11.80 14.00 13.10 11.60 13.95 55..80 1936 19.10 17.30 25.30 17.60 19.50 17.40 69c60 1937 19.00 21.00 21,-60 17.30 21 e 00 15,68 62-70 1938 12.80 12 c 60 17.60 11.40 15.00 10.50 42.00 1939 13 ,70 14,20 14.90 13,10 16,00 12 15 48.50 1940 15.50 16 o 50 16.30 14.60 15.20 14.40 57.60 1941 22.40 22.10 26.60 21.20 20.90 21.38 85.50 1942 33.40 31.20 44*70 30.60 39.90 28.25 113.00 1943 60.70 77.90 99.60 41.60 65.40 41.00 164.00 1944 77.20 111.00 110.00 52,30 66.30 50.00 200.00 1945 56.50 62.30 58.00 53.70 58.80 50.75 203.00 1946 90.60 104.00 98.50 81.90 85.30 78.00 312.00 1947 36.00 33,40 45.60 33 r 30 34,00 33 00 132.00 1948 35-60 35.70 35.50 35.70 38.20 33.50 134.00 1949 31.52 29.80 31.10 32-30 34.52 31.50 126.00 Per Dry Ton Per Cent of 1935-1919*100 100. 222. 354, 439c 374. 231. 146. 203. 188c 154. 156o 104. 154. 105. 13Co 76, 104- 113. 83. 123. 123e 83. 88. 100. 144c 216 e 392 r 498o 364. 584. 232 230. 203. 100. 214. 325c 488. 533. 423c 260. 410. 390 0 293. 293 c 162- 228c 130. 124. 78c 126- 96. 77. 112. 136 s 82 o 92. 107. 144c 203. 506. 722. 405. 678o 217. 232. 194. 10 100 , 199o 400 o 400. 426. 320. 213. 213. 107« 133. 139c 139. 187* 111. 188. 85. 79. 125. 75, 135c 116 c 95. 79. 87o 142 o 238. 531. 586. 309. 525. 243. 189c 166. 11 pi 100. 232c 356. 433. 275o 131. 92o 115. 138. 116. 115. 69. 112. 96. 112. 75. 103. 118. 90- 122, 119c 78, 90 102c 146c 210 288. 360. 369,- 563. 229. 246. 222. 100. 214. 241. 241. 241. 180. 120. 120. 120 r 120. 138. 60. 120. 77. 150. 113. 104. 120* 70. 117* 126. 90c 96. 91. 126 c 240c 394. 399. 354 0 513. 205. 229,- 208. Dried 100. 234. 377. 466. 287 8 126. 90. 113. 144c 117. 108. 72 , 109 106* 108. 70. 103. 115. 100. 125* 112. 75* 87. 103,, 153. 203. 294. 359. 364* 560. 237. 240. 226. a/ See footnote to table 43 for list of varieties inoluded in each varietal olass. b/ Not dried are shipped fresh for table and Juice, oanned and crushed by California wineries, o/ Dried prioe oonverted to fresh equivalent by dividing by four. Source t Compiled by S. W. University of California, Maroh 1950, ools. 1-7 from official reports of the United States and Shear, Glanninl Foundation of Agricultural Economics, California Crop Reporting Servloes) ools. 8-13 computed. 47c APPENDIX TABLE 45 CALIFORNIA GRAPES, ALL VARIETIES: EQUIVALENT RETURNS TO GROWERS PER TON FOR BULK FRUIT AT FIRST DELIVERY POINT, BY USE, 193*— I9t9 Sales to Fresh Markets Prooesse d Crop U1 / All Out- In- Canned Dried*/ Crushed Year Sold*/ Fresh State State 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Dollars Per Fresh Ton^ 1934 17.50 21.40 21.60 20.40 20.00 15.95 16.10 1935 12.90 61.70 ■L O. 3v l r nn ■L 9* W l n nn id. yb 10.00 1936 19.10 23.80 24.00 22.00 25.00 17.40 17.10 1937 19.00 25.60 26.20 20.50 27.00 15.70 18.60 1938 12.80 22.20 22.50 19. 80 21.00 10.50 10.60 1939 13.70 17.40 17.60 15.70 15.00 12.10 13.20 1940 15.50 20.90 21.10 19.30 17.90 14.40 13.20 1941 22.40 28.90 29.10 26.70 25.00 21.35 19.90 1942 33,40 47.30 47,60 45,00 34.00 28.25 30.30 1943 60.70 109,00 109.00 110.00 49.00 41.00 77.60 1944 77.20 113.15 113.51 109.58 55.00 50.00 100.00 1945 1946 56.50 71.07 70.20 77.84 62.00 50.77 55.10 90.60 109.47 110.04 104.59 75.00 78.00 90.70 1947 36.00 50. 87 50.70 52.23 57.00 32.99 29.80 1948 35.64 52.06 52.95 46.35 48.50 33.51 30.30 1949 31.53 39.47 39.20 41.20 38.70 31.49 26.73 a/ Prices received by growers per dry ton of raisins included on frosh basis at 4 to 1 drying ratio. Sources Compiled by S. W. Shear, Giannini Foundation of Agrioultural Economics, University of California, March 1950, from offioial data of United States and California Crop Reporting Servioe. 48c APPENDIX TABLE 46 CALIFORNIA GRAPES: RETURNS TO GROWERS PER TON BY VARIETAL CLASSES BY TYPE OF UTILIZATION, 1934— 1949 Crop Year Iter ka tad Fresh All Sold Interstate Intrastate Dried Crushed 1 2 a 4 5 Dollars Per Fresh Tons*/ labia Varieties^,/ 1934 23,50 27.00 26.20 12,38 17.00 1935 14.00 24.10 17.00 11.00 6.00 1936 25.30 30,30 26.00 13.50 16.20 1937 21.80 28.20 21.00 14.25 16.00 1938 17,80 26.00 23.70 11.00 10.50 1939 14.90 19.20 15.60 11,00 11.00 i QAn ly^u 16.30 22.00 20.00 11.00 11.00 1941 26.60 37.50 26.80 17,80 17.50 1942 44.70 59.00 47.70 25,00 29.70 1943 99.60 113.00 114.00 37,00 , 82.00 1944 110.00 114.00 105.00 m b/ 107.00 1945 58.00 74.00 79.00 42.00 1946 98,50 118.00 106.00 71,00 85.00 1947 45.60 63.00 65.00 26.00 25.70 1948 35.50 53.00 51.00 36.00 22.40 1949 31.10 39.00 39.00 28,50 22.50 Vine Varieties 1934 14,70 16.30 14.40 13,75 14.00 1935 11,80 12.50 12.00 11.25 11.50 1936 17.30 17.30 17.30 11.50 17.30 1937 21.00 22.00 21.00 13.50 20.60 1938 12.60 20.00 15,00 11.00 10.60 1939 14.20 15.00 13.90 9.00 13.90 16.50 20.00 15.00 13.00 15.00 1941 22.10 22.30 22.00 18.00 22.00 1942 31.20 33.30 30.00 28.50 30.40 77.90 77,00 78,00 -b/ 78.00 111.00 108.00 112.00 112.00 62.30 64.00 62.00 55.00 62.00 1940 104,30 100.00 105.00 to 105.00 1 OA1 1947 33.40 35.00 34.00 m 33.00 1 OAO 1940 35,70 36.00 36.00 36.00 35. 70 1949 29,80 30.00 30.00 22.50 29.80 Raisin Varieties 1934 17.10 20.00 20.00 16.00 20.00 1935 13.10 14.00 14,00 13-.95 10.50 1936 17,80 20,50 19.10 17.40 17.50 1937 17,30 28.00 18.60 15,68 17.20 1938 11.40 20.00 15.00 10.50 10.50 1939 13,10 19.00 17.00 12.12 14.00 1940 14.80 21.00 20.00 14.40 13.00 1V41 21.20 25.10 24.00 21.38 19.40 1942 30.60 46.50 44.00 28.25 30.30 1943 41.80 220.00 110.00 41.00 43.50 1944 52.30 130.00 149.00 50.00 54.00 1945 53.70 69.00 79.00 50.75 55.00 1946 81.90 103.00 102.00 78.00 82.00 1947 33.30 39.00 33.00 33.00 29.40 1948 35.70 63.00 40.00 33.50 30.00 1949 3?. 30 45.00 47.00 31.50 25.30 a/ Season average eq liivalent returns jar ton to growers for bulk frui ; at first delivery point. b/ Dashes lndioata no sales. Source: Compiled by S. W. Shear, Giannini Foundation of Agrioultural Economics, University of California, March 1950, from State and California Crop Reporting Service, APPEND I X TABLE 47 CALIFORNIA GRAPES CRUSHED FOR WINE AND BRANDY: EQUIVALENT RETURNS PER TON TO GROWERS FOR BULK FRUIT AT FIRST DELIVERY POINT BY VARIETAL CLASSES, 1930— 1949 Varietal Class*/ Va riotal Class*/ Crop All Wine Tablo Raisin All Wine Table Raisin Vabv* t itir Varieties '/apl sties Dollars Per Ton Per Cent of 1935 -1939 s 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1935=39 13 93 14 ..78 11.94 13 94 100. 100o 100. 100, 1947 =49 28.93 32 83 23 53 28.23 208„ 222. 197. 202. Annuals 1930 16*80 22 00 14.00 10.15 121, 149. 117, 78. 1931 17.50 17.00 18.00 20.00 126, 115. 151 -. 144. 1932 6.20 7.00 5.00 5.00 45- 47. 42. 36. 1933 16.40 20.50 8.70 14.40 118a 139. 215, 103. 1934 16.10 14.00 17.00 20.00 116o 95, 142. 144. 1 Ol c l9.it) 10.00 11.50 6.00 10.50 78o 50. 75, 1936 17,10 17,30 16.20 17,50 123, 117e 136- 126. 1937 18.60 20.60 16.00 17.20 134. 139, 134-, 123. 1938 10.60 10.60 10.50 10.50 76- 72, 88n 75. 1939 13-20 13,90 11.00 14.00 95, 94. 92« 100. 1940 13-20 15.00 11.00 13,00 95^ 102« 92, 93, 1941 19.90 22 ,00 17.50 19.40 143 149. 147, 139. 1942 30.30 30.40 29.70 30,80 218t 206. 249. 221. 1943 77,60 78.00 82.00 43,50 558. 520, 687- 312, 1944 100 .00 112,00 107.00 54.00 719* 758. 896e 387. 1945 55,09 62.00 42,00 55.00 396:, 420, 352 0 394. 1946 90.73 105, ,00 85,00 82.00 653, 710- 712. 568. 1947 29.78 33,00 25,70 29.40 214. 223 i 215* 21 lo 1948 30,29 35.70 22.40 30,00 218a 242« 188. as* 1949 26.73 29.80 22,50 25.90 192. 202, 188. 182. a/ For varieties lnoluded in eaoh varietal olass see footnote to table 43c Souroes Compiled by S. Wo 3hear» Oiannlni Foundation of Agricultural Eoonomios, univorsity of California, March 1950, from official data of the United States and California Crop Reporting Services to a APPENDIX TABLE M-8 EASTERN DELIVERED AUCTION PRICE PER PACKAGE OF CALIFORNIA TABLE STOCK GRAPES BY CHIEF VARIETIT1ES, 1926-1919 All markets (11 or 13 )*/b/ New York market*/ Crop year 1926 1927 1926 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 193 S 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 Thompson Malaga Tokay Red Malaga Ribier Cornichon Almerla Emperor 8 All table stock 10 Emperor 11 dollars por paokageg/ 1 1£ i. » AO 1.1ft 1.43 — d/ — d/ 1.23 1.36 1.22 1.40 1.17 1 -OS 1.17 1.34 1.85 1.05 1.48 1.37 1.42 2.19 1.26 1.31 1.18 1.15 1.79 1.67 0.98 1.53 1.22 1.59 1.93 1.71 1.26 1.27 0.90 1.10 1.17 1.43 0.94 1.42 1.11 1.18 1.65 1.51 1.10 1.52 1.15 1.34 1.79 1.74 1.29 1.37 1.14 1.14 1.37 1.37 1.04 1.53 1.28 1.37 1.71 1.71 1.36 1.48 1.12 1.19 1.53 1.49 1.18 1.36 1.10 1.15 1.43 1.51 1.07 1.36 1.12 1.11 1.44 1.44 1.11 1.44 1.08 1.17 1.33 1.57 1.13 1.73 1.35 1.43 1.97 1.87 1.43 2.47 1.81 1.99 2.81 2.48 2.03 5.29 2.93 2.69 4.40 3.31 2.45 5.56 3.06 2.59 4.07 3.56 2.72 5.29 2.45 2.31 2.87 2.67 2.40 4.04 2.35 2.75 4.73 3.54 2.60 2.85 1.67 2.02 3.17 2.77 1.81 3.20 2.05 2.11 3.66 3.07 1.97 2.87 2.15 2.02 1.99 2.71 1.98 1.45 1.35 1.91 1.64 i.e4 1.70 1.59 1.73 1.70 1.66 2.13 3.04 3.23 4.66 3.02 4.26 2.69 2.77 2.93 1 t A iiJO 1.28 1.42 1.47 1.41 1-15 1.30 1.43 1.53 1.42 A*lJ 1.19 1,30 1.41 1.28 1-6? Aevt 1.44 1.56 1.53 1.56 X a JD 1.22 1.31 1.29 1.31 1.61 1.44 1.62 1.76 1.60 1.11 1.13 1.18 1.15 1.19 lo34 1»29 1.26 1.58 1.34 1.67 1.43 1.50 1.72 1.47 1.35 1.27 1.33 1.47 1.31 1.54 1.47 1.53 1.65 1.50 1.36 1.36 1.42 1.51 1.40 1.42 1.30 1.37 1.54 1.33 1.35 1.28 1.36 1.48 1.33 1.29 1.31 1.40 1.47 1.38 1.80 1.66 1.75 1.87 1.72 2.82 2.39 2.51 3.06 2.38 3.20 3.35 3.29 3.28 3.29 4.02 3.72 3.94 4.42 3.69 2.81 2.68 2.73 2.66 2.66 3.60 3.64 3.84 4.12 3.75 2.54 2.61 2.72 2.73 2.72 2.66 2.87 3.08 3.02 3.10 2.58 2.64 2.66 a/ c/ v New York market data cover, complete season for all years. -All market," data cover complete ^^J 9 ^^^ JT' 1944 through .econd or third weeks of December 1931-1935, only through first week of November 1926-1930. All market pri *s lor s P other late\arletie. marketed in significant volume after December 15 are therefore too incomplete to be representative of * V °^ on f for earlier years. New York price, usually are significantly higher than for other markets, they are included because sales ^complete j^ 0 ™ for Z year, deluded are available Including the increasing large quantities sold after December 31 in recent years usually through February and ocooeionally a few in March and April. These are largely Emperors, Almerla, and Ribier. All markets oover sales for 11 markets 1926-1933 and 13 for 1934-1949* packages vary somewhat in size and net weight of contents. Dashes indicate prices not available, presumably almost none of variety marketed in earlier years. APPENDIX TABLE H9 PRICES PAID BY PACKERS TO GROWERS FOR FREE TONNAGE OF CALIFORNIA SUN-DRIED NATURAL THOMPSON SEEDLESS AND MUSCAT RAISINS, 1909— 1949 Crop Year Thompson Muscat Crop Year Thompson Muscat Crop Year Thompson Muscat 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1916 1919 1920 1921 1922 Dollars Per Ton Dollars Per Ton 43 60 108 66 79 93 100 132 138 138 240 296 168 73 33 55 75 62 70 67 73 85 97 106 208 223 116 54 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 49 62 75 62 57 43 68 60 70 41 56 61 56 65 51 61 84 66 50 43 62 49 60 21 53 56 54 70 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 19422/ 1943*/ 1944*/ 1945°/ 1946 1947 1948 1949 Dollars Per Ton 61 64 50 50 45 45 55 57 84 93 110 110 155 165 180 195 210 220 310 320 125 120 130 150 137 150 a/ Support prices of A,M^a and celling prices of O.P.A< 1942-1944. Prioas aotually paid growers averaged slightly higher than oelling } prices shown for 1944, Thompson prices ranged from $180 to $185 a ton in 1944a b/ Prices paid to growers: in 1945 given here exoeeded A«M»A« support prioes of $205 for natural Muscat and $190 for Natural Thompson Seedless • Sources Compiled by So W» Shear, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Sconomlos, University of California, March 1950 Weighted average price3 of free tonnage of natural raisins available to the trade (excluding sales of bleaahed and of surplus for distilling and other by-products) paid growers by Sun Maid 1913 -1924 and by Sun Maid and other packers for other years* Estimates 1932=1949 are preliminary subject to minor revision, based upon Raisin Market Information Bulletins of the Federal -State Market News Servioe, Saoramento, California, and trade sources. O APPENDIX TABLE 50 RAISINS AND CURRANTS: UNITED STATES EXPORTS BY CHIEF COUNTRIES OF DESTINATION YEARS BEGINNING JULY I, AVERAGES 1924- 1945: ANNUAL 1938-1947 cn ro o Averages Annual p Years Beginning July 1 D&stlnatlon 1934* 1926 1933 1938 1945 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1946 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Short Tons, Net Dry Weight TOTAL 79?, 300 56 ? 722 60 ,985 to /i a 70944,0 76,622 63,386 43,166 50*666 73,579 118,754 Q'j -yr\ r\ ~J*/» J 55,303 30,369 139*639 66 9 435 Europa Total cn kao AO "ICC 49 ,222 AO AA*' Oc jj'WO 66,343 51 ,644 34,100 39,631 63*368 1 f IO £ AC AUaf^04» 73*010 33,570 f, AAA / 3*008 ICS, 367 52 ,738 United Kingdom OfA AAA 25 5 656 19,150 30,208 36*715 CO 1 7f> 68,871 24,564 16,324 12 ,1?6 22 ,252 Other OA 11 £ C'Vj /it) <: J .,j4o 23 9 566 36,325 3*892 2*916 1 OP 1AO. 4,119 H* 1J3 9,006 6*684 9O,Z01 30 ,486 Ireland 423 1,050 2 ,052 616 3*032 3,640 2,918 870 0 0 2*211 2*674 0 2 9 798 Franoe 898 1*844 3 ,735 39 4,717 549 0 0 0 0 Tor? 1 6 530 36 Germany 6,163 7,719 1 ,151 6 625 10 0 0 0 0 0 28 10 84,962 19 »736 Netherlands 7,480 3*128 4 ,627 751 8,729 10,811 0 0 0 0 902 2,85? 384 142 ' 242 Belgium 1,667 1,046 2 *560 562 3,910 ?,361 0 0 0 0 1,663 1,148 710 6,406 3 ,498 Sweden 2,658 4,301 5 «040 243 7,356 8,440 536 690 a/ 0 ;/ 526 2,344 50 0 Norway 494 314 1 .305 265 2,316 2,602 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 1,326 b/ 9 1 Denmark 1,174 792 694 1 2,419 1,741 2 6 0 0 0 0 2 54 143 Finland 166 304 974 0 1,602 769 332 0 0 0 0 0 8 22 15 Switzerland 3 32 240 534 676 1,231 90 1,350 0 173 710 436 475 1,034 738 Other 1,590 818 1 ,188 303 943 340 19 a/ 196 170 672 478 71 3,052 3 ,277 Except Europa 26,758 14*566 11 ,763 15*973 10,279 11,742 9,066 11,035 10,211 16,105 20,780 21,733 7,361 31,252 13 ,697 Canada 18,814 7*214 3 ,444 10*482 2*790 4,524 3,001 3,340 7,144 12,135 1 c O OC 15,236 14,534 881 20,044 7 ,881 Other 9,944 7,352 6 ,319 5,491 7,489 7,216 6,065 7,695 3,067 3,970 5,524 7,199 6*480 11,208 5 9 816 Newfoundland 4 Labrador 324 310 411 1*021 537 833 730 1,340 940 305 1,218 1,303 324 565 702 Latin America 1*925 1*652 1 ,735 2,039 1,961 2,251 2,242 3,469 634 1,056 2,381 2,656 3,366 5,?C4 2 ,558 Mexico 87? 327 420 636 504 611 630 696 250 563 502 1,176 1,022 478 639 Cuba 120 111 249 233 310 372 307 388 66 113 404 194 528 216 486 Other 933 1,214 1 ,066 1*168 1,147 1,268 1,305 2,383 318 380 1*475 1*286 1,816 4,510 1 ,433 New Zealand 2,709 2,301 1 ,311 1 1,063 614 60 a/ a/ »/ a/ 4 0 1,720 2 Other 4,986 3,089 4 ,862 2 ,,430 3,928 -.520 s,os« 2,886 1,493 2,609 1*925 3,236 2,790 1,719 2 ,063 Less than one tone b/ Dashes indicete not segregated, if any ineluded in "other*. Sour.es Compiled by Sc W. Shear, Gianninl Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, April 1950, dire.tly or indirectly from latest revised reports of the Uo So Department of Commeree but largely from compilations of the Office of Foreign Agricultural Relations published in the Uo So Department of Agriculture Annual Agricultural Statistics and latest year from its Foreign Agricultural Trade*, RAISINS AND CURRANTS APPENDIX TABLE 51 UNITED STATES PRODUCTION, EXPORTS, IMPORTS AND CONSUMPTION YEARS BEGINNING SEPTEMBER I, 1921—1948 Years beginning Sept. 1 Ct dlfornia Raisins Raisins Currants Raisins and Currents Exports Consumption ProduotlonS/ Shipments ftuantlty Per cent U.S. Consumption Imports Consumption Imports Total Par Capita Shipments Total 2 3 4 5 (2-3) 6 7 (5+6) 8 9 (7+e) 10 Sweat Box*/ Short ton* of 2,000 pounds net prooessed weighti/ 72,000 o/ y$ uuufi l 9 *d/ co nnn O 9 p\J\J\J C.A 0*tp f\J\J id, yyu on 7nn Ov) f\J'J 237,600 23 / jtAJVJ on oon 36 iO 1 ion icq inn 1 £c 9 on 9 a 206,600 i on nnn OVJ ,s A J £. $ 30 J loo e \ -J\J iOO|) /OU 9 9 213,600 ou y you 1JH| JUL 1 C|DUV i ^ 7-i fin 9 1 145,000 145,000 27,600 19,0 ii:',4co 10 ,000 127,400 23,900 151,300 2.8 237,000 175,000 50,900 29,1 124,100 5,600 129,700 7,800 137,500 2.5 290,000 180,000 42,200 23,4 137,800 2,700 140,500 9,600 150,100 2.7 170,000 205,000 48,600 23 . 7 156,400 4,800 151,200 7,300 168,500 2.9 200,000 220,000 66,600 30.3 1S3,<00 3,000 156,400 7,100 163,600 2,3 272,000 226,000 76,500 34,0 148,400 1,600 1*0,000 6,000 156,000 2,6 285,000 965 . 000 99,100 37.4 165,900 900 166,800 5,600 172,400 2,9 261,000 270,000 110,200 40,3 159,300 1,300 151,100 4,600 165,700 2,7 215,000 200,000 61,500 30 a C 133,500 700 139,200 4,300 143,500 2,3 192,000 200,000 61,800 30»9 ioo,Z0U l, ic i nn ID, 1UU lUo O 1923 195, 000 168, 400 149, 400 19,000 45,600 26,600 1 Q inn lo, 300 7o3 1924 dd0 9 OOU 1 a~t f aa lo/,oOO 167, 600 on nn/i 52, 400 32,400 14, 800 17, 600 7»4 1925 Z4U, 000 1 nc QAA lab, 300 ICO AAA loo, 000 1 "7 inn 72,000 54,700 23,700 31,000 7.3 1926 245,000 182,400 162,300 20 , 100 82,700 62,600 28, 500 34, 100 608 1927 285,000 199,600 17 8,000 21,600 107,000 85,400 37,700 47,700 5.6 1928 290.000 193.400 171.000 22,400 119,000 96,600 37, 500 59,100 4.4 1929 215,000 162,900 148,600 14,300 66, 400 52,100 19,100 33,000 4.9 1930 215,000 160, 100 148,200 11,900 66,800 54,900 21,700 33, 200 4.7 1931 185,000 131,000 124, 100 6,900 60,900 54,000 24, 100 29,900 5.1 1932 220,000 160,700 155,300 5,400 64,700 59,300 26, 500 32, 800 3.3 1933 190,000 143,300 137,500 5,800 52, 500 46, 700 17, oUO O Q tiAn 4.2 1934 190,000 145,800 141,800 4,000 48, 200 44,200 l q (inn lo, oUU oc ac\c\ c O, 4UU 4.3 1935 220,000 163,500 159,100 4,400 60,900 56,500 28,500 28,000 A 1 4.1 1936 200,000 144,800 140,900 3,900 59,100 55, 200 26,000 29,200 a a 4.0 1937 225,000 151,200 148,300 2,900 76,700 73,800 32,000 41,800 4.0 1930 225,000 143,700 140,700 3,000 84,300 81,300 34,100 47,200 3.7 1939 250,000 192,900 187,900 5,000 62,100 57,100 16, 200 40,900 3.4 1940 215,000 168,900 165, 700 3,200 49,300 46,100 34,600 11, 500 4.3 1941 205,000 156, 400 152,400 4,000 52,600 48,600 38,600 10,000 6.0 1942 275,000 170,600 162,000 8,600 84,900 76,300 73, 100 3,200 7.8 1943 375,000 230,100 215,000 15,100 126,800 111,700 105, 300 6,400 7.8 1944 350,000 232,000 215,000 17,000 104, 100 87,100 73,800 13,300 7.9 1945 230,000 182,200 170,000 12,200 53,300 41,100 27,800 13,300 7.9 1946 195,000 151,400 151,200 200 43,800 43,600 27,500 16,100 18.0 1947 305,000 169,700 146, 300 22,900 158,200 135,300 2,200 133,100 8.5 1948 230,000 159,700 151,500 8,200 78.500 70,300 24,000 46,300 8.5 Souroet Compiled by S. ■« Shear, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, April 1950, from official and best unofficial data available. Total shipments and to the United States are rounded to nearest 5000 tons in Cols. 1 and 3 and exports Cols. 4-8 to the nearest 100 tons. Equivalent sweat-box weight is net processed weight divided by 0.92, Shipments are those primarily for human consumption as raisins. However Cols. 1 and 3 inolude any raisins used for making home-made alcoholic beverages roughly estimated at about 9000 dry tons a year during 1927-1932 (in footnote to table 29) and probably about as much in earlier Prohibition years and presumably include the small tonnage used by commercial wineries & distilleries for making brandy during 1935-1948 (see table 79) except the following tonnage diverted to by-products by industry programs is exoluded from Cols. 1 end 3i 1933, 15,000 tons of Muscats to distilleries; 1935, 5000 tons to by-produotsj and 52,000 tons of 1938 crop to stock feed or distilling in 1938 & 1939. Col. 1 » Equals the sum of Cols. 3 plus 5 except for 1942-1945, Col. 1 include? and Col. 3 excludes all government shipments for our military personnel at home and abroad and for Red Cross exports. Col. 3 - Shipments for 1942-1945 are not exactly comparable to those for other year3 as they are for civilian consumption only from a table oompilcd by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics in 1949 on Raisins and Dried Currants} United States Supply and Distribution, pack years 1941-1947 o Data for all other years in Col. 3 include consumption by our military personnel and any government financed tonnage for relief. Over 11,000 tons were distributed through the Blue Stamp Plan in 1940 and 1941 while direct domestic relief, mostly for school lunches and other institutional feeding, was, in tonsi 1937, 15,000} 1938 about 10,000} 1939, 45,000} 1940, 33,000} 1941, 9,000} 1947, 7,500; and 1948, 3,900. Col. 4 - Commercial exports only to Canada for all years. Cols. 5-8 - Commercial exports only 1921-1940 but 1941-1945 includes lend-lease totalling at least 280,000 tons, also 1945-1948 includes overseas relief shipments of UKRRA and ECA. Commercial exports only were 40,200 tons in 1947 and 19,500 in 1948} the additional tonnage purchased by our government and shipped abroad for foreign relief wa3 about 118,000 tons of the 1947 orop and 59,000 tons of the 1948. The 118,000 tons is shown as shipped during September 1947 through August 1948 but some of it actually was shipped in the year beginning September 1, 1948. Col. 9 - Prices 1921-1929 CT are averages of packers' actual sales prices, 1921-1923 for all varieties and 1924=1929 for Thompson Seedless only. Data for 1930-1941 and 1946-1948 are gi estimates based on weekly quotations in the California Fruit News of packers' f.o.b. prices of ohoice bulk Thompsons} 1942=1945 are O.P.A. ceiling prices. APPENDIX TABLE 53 WORLD RAISIN AND CURRANT PRODUCTION BY CHIEF COUNTRIES, 1 909- 1949 Currants*/ Raisins Year Raisins and Greece Australia Total f nl 4 fA-»4 n a/ Turkey Australia South Greeoe Spain Iran Harvested Currants*/ (Smyrna) Afrioa*/ and Crete (Persia) 1 2 S 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Averages 3 Short Tons, N atural Dry Weight 1 QHO -1 Q1 ^ 404,900 174,600 4,100 226,200 71,700 54,900 7,100 1,300 15,000 21,300 55,000 493,700 136,300 10,700 346,700 203,800 40,103 16,300 5,700 15,003 19,500 43,800 598,900 159,100 13,700 426,100 246,600 47,800 37,900 5,400 2P,200 26.300 41,900 523,700 127,700 19,600 376,400 197,800 51,000 53,900 6,500 21,100 16,700 29,400 1 Q 5 C _ "I QOQ 616,400 135,700 21,400 461,300 233,400 73,900 60,300 10,300 32,700 14,500 36,200 AtinuaA i i7£0 538,600 167,000 13,100 358,500 200,000 32,500 28,600 5,300 18,500 33,500 40,000 625,100 183, 500 13 9 500 428,100 272,000 39,200 25,100 5,400 16,500 25,900 44,000 1 00 7 648,800 141,500 13,000 494,300 285,000 56,000 49,000 5,400 24,600 25,800 48,500 1 Q9fl 611,300 160 s 000 8,000 443,300 261,000 49,300 27,600 5,600 25,600 25,200 49,000 1 QOQ 570,800 143,400 21,200 406,200 215,000 62,000 59,100 5,300 16,000 20 9 900 28,000 524,800 147,400 21,200 356,200 192,000 38,900 59,700 5,000 15,000 17,600 28,000 1 Oil 414,700 73,700 19,600 321,400 169,000 29,700 37,000 6,400 15,000 16,300 48,000 l o^o 605,900 142,200 19,300 444,400 262,000 71,600 46,200 6,400 22,000 21,200 15,000 536,000 125,100 18,400 392,500 195,000 60,700 68,700 8,600 28,000 11,500 20,000 537,600 150,000 20,000 367,600 171,000 54,000 57,900 6,400 25,500 16,800 36,000 632,400 168,000 23,500 440,900 203,000 87,000 51,400 8,000 35,500 21,000 35,000 Avav 552,900 133,000 13,300 406,100 182,000 71,200 56,700 9,200 29,500 17,500 40,000 587,400 131,900 20,400 435,100 247,000 48,000 59,400 10,700 27,000 11,000 32,000 693,800 123,700 23,200 546,900 290,000 82,000 79,500 12,400 34,000 13,000 36,000 load 626,500 122,000 27,000 477,500 245,000 81,000 54,700 11,100 37,500 10,200 38,000 1940 534,700 134,000 27,800 372,900 171,000 33,000 79,300 12,000 30 j, 700 9,400 38,000 1941 513,400 102,300 19,000 391,900 209,000 40,700 70,400 10,700 21,500 6,600 33,000 1942 536,100 54,300 23,700 458,100 254,000 55,000 79,900 13,700 19,900 8,200 27,500 1943 704,600 44,900 23,300 635,900 401,000 77,000 78,000 13,400 17,600 10,400 38,500 1944 594,300 55,000 28,400 510,900 309,500 49,500 77,600 13,300 17,600 10,400 33,000 1945 494,400 41,800 19,700 432,900 241,000 71,500 56,500 12,600 9,400 8,600 33,300 1946 473,100 62,200 15,700 395,200 193,000 60,500 65,400 13,500 20,900 6,100 35,800 1947 556,900 94,500 12,700 459,700 306,000 33,000 50,500 10,500 26,400 11,300 22,000 1948^/ 559,900 77,000 19,300 463,600 232,000 77,000 70,100 10,500 25,300 6,900 41,800 1949b/ 568,000 94,600 20,100 453,300 263,000 66,000 44,100 9,000 3.1,900 9,600 29,700 South Afrioa of about 1,000 tons but excludes Argentina and Chile raisin production of 6,000 to 8,000 tons in reoent yearso b/ Data for foreign countries for 1948 and 1949 are preliminary as of October 1949, and subject to considerable revision for 1949 for all but Australia and South Africa. Sources Compiled by S. W. Shear, Giannlnl Foundation of Agricultural Eoonomios, University of California, March 1950, from California Crop Reports, and exoludes dried grapes other than raisin varieties. Foreign production largely from reports of Office of Foreign Agricultural Relations. U. S< Dept A£T*, released currently by It and the t'eritr instate Market News Service at Sacramento, which also include estimates for minor countries not shorn in this table. APPENDIX TABLE 54 MONTHLY PRICES OF DESSERT AND STILL TABLE WINES, BULK, F. 0. B. CALIFORNIA Jan. Feb. i Mar. ■■ April May 1 June July Aug. Sept. Oot. Nov. Dec. Year Cents Per Gallon Still Table Wines, Red A White 1934 82,5 82.5 72.5 72,5 79 Q 79 £ 52,5 Aft ft Aft ft Aft ft 1935 30,0 4 30.0 30.0 30-0 30.0 30 0 30 «0 30 ,0 30 ,0 27,5 1936 30.8 27. 7 28,5 28,5 28,0 27*3 27.2 2C.7 27,3 26 8 26,4 27,5 193/ 1918 27,6 27,4 27,9 26,0 27,5 27,2 26.6 31.5 27,5 28,6 26,8 26,9 24.9 25,5 24.7 24,3 94 9 25 ,0 24 >5 24,1 24,5 24 .3 19.0 1939 20,5 20.5 20,1 20.4 20.2 21,3 21,5 19,2 19,3 19,3 19.3 19,9 1940 19.9 19,6 20,4 20.) 20.7 20 .2 19,7 20 Z 20,4 19,9 21,2 20 .3 1941 37.1 17 .9 37 ;5 36 ,5 36 5 37,0 37 3 8 23 2 22,1 22,4 22,2 23 5 1942 23,7 24,0 24,2 24.8 2S,8 26 5 24 ,8 24,3 26. 0 26 3 29.7 29.4 1943 1944 1945 1946 63-3 69.5 67,2 67,3 66,4 75 6 66,4 83,9 64,3 84.2 99,7 95.5 1947 111.0 95,0 96 ,1 77,7 71.9 53 .4 55 1 49,8 49,1 44,1 43.6 44,5 1948 43.2 43 ,0 46,7 40.2 43,3 43,9 43,4 43,3 43,6 42,5 42,7 44,3 1949 40.0 40,0 40,0 40.0 40,0 40,0 40,0 38,2 40 ,0 36,0 36,5 37.0 1950 37.5 37,5 38 ,0 Dessert VIM „« a nine 3 1934 122.5 122.5 112.5 112.5 Ll < . i 119 £ 82,5 A9 <; Q 0 t O C „ J Or. 1935 62.5 62.5 51,2 62.5 52.5 62,5 51.2 47,5 62,5 51.2 51,2 50 2 1936 53.5 53 ,2 52,8 53,3 54,8 51.5 49,5 50,2 50.2 50.2 50,2 51,3 1937 50 ,0 51.2 51,8 53,2 52,2 51.5 48.3 45.5 47,5 46.0 46,5 45.5 1938 44.7 43.7 43 ,7 48 ,5 40,7 40,0 39,3 39,7 40,0 39,7 39,3 34.2 1939 1940 34.5 34,9 34.5 32,4 32,5 32.5 31,4 31,5 31.2 31,5 31,4 32.6 32.5 32.1 32,3 32,2 32.1 32,7 31.7 32.1 31,9 29,9 29.9 29.3 1941 29.7 29.7 29.7 26,5 30,2 29*6 29,6 30.4 31,4 32,2 32,8 33.0 1942 35,7 35,8 35.5 36,0 36.0 35-8 35 ,8 35.9 35,7 37,0 43,6 43,5 1943 1944 1945 1946 91.0 98.2 95.4 100-7 108,6 100,4 108 1 2 103.2 120 .6 131.8 145,9 130,4 1947 125.7 127.1 127,6 96^0 71,8 57,8 54,1 48,7 46.9 46 ,4 48,1 45. 1 1948 49.5 48.6 47,4 48.2 49,5 49,3 48.6 48,7 48,4 49,4 48,2 45 ,6 1949 41.2 41,2 41,2 41.2 40,5 37,5 37,5 37,0 41.0 45 ,0 1950 44.5 47 ,0 41.2 49.5 55.5 Source t Compiled by the Qiannini Foundation, February 1950, from records of fron six to eight wineries except data beginning Ootobor 1949 are simple averages of weekly prices based upon the Federal -State Market News Bulk Wine Market Information Bulletins, Table wine prloos are average of white and red excluding the lower prioes quoted on lighter-colorod red. Dessert wino3 exclude vermouth. 01 -a o 58c APPENDIX TABLE 55 UNITED STATES APPARENT PER-CAPITA CONSUMPTION OF STILL WINES, AVERAGES, YEARS BEGINNING JULY I, 1935—1939 AND 1945—1948 Averages Types' Per Cent Change 1935-1939 1945-1948 Gallons Per Capita Commercial and Homemade, Total .78 .96 ♦ 23 Commercial Only, Total^/ .52 .80 + 54 Dessert, Over 14# .35 .60 + 71 Table, Not Over 14?S .17 .20 + 18 Table, Homemade .25 .16 - 36 Table, Total*/ .42 .36 - 14 a/ Data include vermouth but exclude all sparkling wine. b/ Imports of foreign wine included which averaged 2,5 per oent of United States consumption of commercial wine during 1945-1948 or approximately .02 gallons per capita of which .015 were dessert and .005 were table. Sources Compiled by S, W. Shear, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, Berkeley, November 1949, largely from official reports except homemade wine is estimated from California shipments of "juioe" grapes. 59c APPENDIX TABLE 56 APPARENT CONSUMPTION OF CALIFORNIA WINES IN ALL MARKETS AND STOCKS IN BOND OF ALL STILL WINE IN CALIFORNIA DEC. 31, 1938-191(9 Apparent Consumption In All Markots&/ California Stocks 1 Deoeraber 3l£/ l Bond stm ■ Fine Still ft Sparkling Siill Wine Yofitr Table Dessert?/ Table Dessert 6 ./ 1 0 b&X 1 9 4 5 Thousand Gallons Thousand Gallon S 1938 + 16,298 38,591 54,889 44,998 68,238 113,236 1939 18,226 46,235 64,461 41,587 74,295 115,882 1940 19,349 56,146 75,495 45,414 98,663 144,077 1941 21,868 67,073 + 88,941 53,187 109,919 163,106 1942 23,363 72,517 95,880 48,874 74,469 123,343 1943 23,688 49,134 72,822 52,072 71,225 123,297 1944 23,399 50,826 74,225 53,431 79,173 132,604 1945 20,538 59,821 80,359 55,691 99,642 155,333 1946 27,441 94,437 + 121,878 57,114 128,011 185,125 1947 17,688 68,207 85,895 55,350 128,660 184,010 1948 20,053 87,848 107,901 55,969 147,107 203,076 1949 21,497 95,826 117,323 53,748 118,160 171,908 a/ Apparent consumption is state tax-paid sales within California plus tax-exempt sales and all shipments to points outside of California, inoluding the small quantity exported, b/ Inventories are stocks of California-produced wine in California bonded wineries, bonded storerooms, and bonded warehouses only, as shown by unaudited reports of the U. S. Treasury Department* c/ Dessert wine inoludes vermouths d/ Preliminary estimates of December 31, 1949 stocks. Source*- Compiled by S. W. Shear, Giannini foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, March 1950, from Wine Institute, Annual Wine Industry Statistioal Surveys, Part 1. APPENDIX TABLE 57 APPARENT CONSUMPTION OF STILL WINE IN THE UNITED STATES, CALIFORNIA AND OTHER STATES: HOME-MADE WINE PRODUCTION AND TAX-PAID WITHDRAWALS OF COMMERCIAL DOMESTIC AND IMPORTED STILL WINE, YEARS BEGINNING JULY I, 1933 - 1948 For e onsuraption In United States*/ In California In Other States Dessert I odru Grand over 14 Table , not over 14 he tri. nnl nu total Total per cent per oent aloohol July 1 Commercial Homemade Total Total Commercial Homemade Total CoiiLTieroial Homemade 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Thousands of fine Gallons, 000 Omitted Average j 1935=39 100,414 67,525 45,399 22,126 32,889 55,015 22,874 20,477 2,397 77,540 47,048 30,492 1945-48 137,450 114, 826 85,642 29,184 22,624 51, 808 19,547 18.797 7tO 96,030 21,874 1933 51,948 17,328 10,874 6,454 34,620 41,074 13,010 8,000 5,010 38,938 " £ ■- 0 00 cin Aif-J't 70,903 37, 843 24,481 13,362 33,060 46,422 21,650 17,600 4,050 49,253 9(1 * 943 lots 86,198 50,183 33,135 17,048 35,015 53,063 23,957 21,152 2,805 62,241 00 n^l •J 0 9 C J.U 1935 95,667 65,832 43,765 22,067 29,835 51,902 23,942 20,897 3,045 71,725 HI pW&9 On 7 on 19^ 7 99,067 64,402 42,078 22,324 34,665 56,989 21,523 19,828 1,695 77,544 44,574 32,970 1938 99,951 70,731 47,254 23,477 29,220 52,697 22,340 19,760 2,580 77,611 1939 121,189 86,479 60,765 25,714 34,710 60,424 22,608 20,748 1,860 98, 581 65,731 32,850 1940 126,405 91,635 64,621 27,014 34,770 61,734 21,288 19,623 1,665 105,117 72,012 33,105 1941 137,925 104,610 74,285 30,325 33,315 63,640 21,785 20,465 1,320 116,140 84,145 31,995 1942 144,035 112,325 74,875 37,450 31,710 69,160 20,906 19,691 1,215 123,129 92,634 30, 495 1943 105, 580 96,085 58,005 38,080 9,495 47,575 17,658 16,833 825 67,922 79,252 8,670 1944 114,942 95,442 64,195 31,247 19, 500 50,747 20,162 19,517 645 94,780 75,925 18,855 1945 136,915 113,665 81,743 31,922 23,250 55,172 20,470 19,690 780 116,445 93,975 22,470 1946 129,003 107,898 79,152 28,746 21,105 49,851 17,780 17,180 600 111,223 90,718 20,505 1947 138, 430 113,815 87,876 25,939 24,615 50, 554 19,295 18,350 945 119,135 95,465 23,670 1948 145,453 123,928 93.797 30,131 21, 525 51,656 20,642 19,967 675 124, 811 103,961 20,850 1949£/ V W V 18,615 675 17,940 7 " 1 — £ 1 — • 1 — I S_ . I 1 1 I I 1 I * a/ During 1909-1913 Jo S» oommeroial wine consumption averaged 49,445,000 gallons - dessert 19,198,000 table 30,247,000 - and very little homemade wine was made. b/ Uo So Tax=paid withdrawals of domestio still wine during July 1, 1949 - January 31, 1950 exceeded the average for the corresponding seven months of tho two preceding years by about 17 per cent for all still wine and dessert wine and 21 per cent for table wine. The rates of increase are not likely to be as high for the last five months and for the whole year as these for the first seven months. The rates of increase are not likely to be as high for the last five months (February - June) and for the whole season (July-June) as the rates for the first seven months (July .January). Sources Compiled by S. W. Shear, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Eoonomios, University of California, April 1950, largely from offioial reports,, Caloulated by addition or subtraction except oolso 3, 4, & 9. Cola. 3, 4j Imports for consumption, tax-paid and tax free, plus tax=paid withdrawals of wine produced in U. S. from U. S° Bureau of Internal Revenue reports. Dessert covers all vermouth, inoluding the small production of rectifying plants and also sake imports. Col. 5i Estimated homemade from California grapes shipped fresh for "Juloe" and dried wine and table varieties, converted at 150 gallons per fresh tons; excludes homemade wine from grapes produced in other states. Col. 9i Estimated at 150 gallons per fresh ton, from wine varieties taken by fresh markets in California Col. 81 Sun of monthly data of state tax-paid sales within California as compiled by the Wine Institute from California Board of Equalization reports (see Wine Institute annual Wina Industry Statistical Surveys Part I i monthly releases on sales.) APPENDIX TABLE 58 APPARENT PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION OF STJ LL WINE IN THE UNITED STATES, CALIFORNIA AND OTHER STATES: HOMEMADE WINE PRODUCTION AND TAX-PAID WITHDRAWALS OF COMMERCIAL DOMESTIC AND IMPORTED STILL WINE, YEARS BEGINNING JULY I, 1933 — 1918 For Consumption In United States*/ In California In Other States Years Total Dessert Over Table net over 14 Per Cent Beginning Grand 14 Par Cent Alcohol Total Commercial Homemade Total Commercial Homemade July 1 Total Commercial Homemade Total 1 1 2 3 i 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Wine Gall ins Per Capita Averages i 109*^0.0 .77 .52 .35 .17 .25 .42 3.54 3.17 .37 CO .38 .25 ±»^«?— *»o .96 .80 .60 on • lb .Jo 1,97 1.90 .07 .PA CO .72 .16 Annual j 1933 • 41 .14 .09 .05 .27 .32 o on 1 1C .32 AO 0 A 1934 u •ob .30 .19 .11 .26 .37 o a ■a CD ©DO .41 1 1 OA 1935 .67 .39 .26 .13 .28 .42 3.S7 A0L • **© .51 OA Ol •ml 1936 .74 .51 .34 .17 .23 .40 3.92 3.42 .50 .59 .37 .22 1937 .77 •50 .33 .17 .27 .44 3.22 2.97 .25 .63 .36 .27 1938 .76 .64 .36 .18 .22 .40 3.31 2.95 .38 .63 .41 .22 1939 .92 .66 .46 .20 .26 .46 3.28 3.01 .27 .79 .53 .26 1940 .95 .69 .49 .20 .26 .46 2.97 2.74 .23 .84 .58 .26 1941 1.04 .79 .56 .23 .25 .48 2.86 2.69 .17 .92 .67 .25 1942 1.08 .84 .56 .28 .24 .52 2.57 2.42 .15 .98 •74 .24 1943 .79 .72 .43 .29 .07 .36 2.06 1.97 .09 .70 .63 .07 1944 ,88 .73 .49 .24 .15 .39 2.26 2.19 •07 .77 .62 .15 1945 1.00 •83 .60 .23 .17 .40 2.19 2.11 .08 .91 .74 .17 1946 •91 .76 .56 .20 •15 •35 1.83 1.77 .06 .84 •69 .15 1947 •96 .79 .61 .18 .17 .35 1.94 1.85 •09 .88 .71 .17 1948 .99 •84 .64 .20 .15 •35 1.94 1.88 .06 .91 .76 •15 1949 y y y .12 .06 a/ During 1909-1913 U* S. oommeroial wine consumption per capita averaged 0.52 gallons «- dessert 0.2, table 0.32 *m and very little homemade wine, ~ was made* b/ United States tax-paid withdrawals of domestic still wine during July 1, 1949 - February 28, 1950 exceeded the average for the corresponding eight . months of the two preceding years by about 17 per oent for all still wine ; 16 for dessert wine and 22 per cent for table wine. Source i Computed by S. W. Shear, Giannlnl Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, March 1950, largely frora« official reports. Calculated from data in preceding table by dividing by December 31 population of continental u. S. (excluding armed foroes overseas) as reported by the U. S. Bureau of the Census. o 62c APPENDIX TABLE 59 COMMERCIAL STILL WINE: NET FINISHED PRODUCTION, TABLE AND DESSERT UNITED STATES . AND CALIFORNIA, 1933-1949 Year Total£/ a/ Dessert-' Table!/ July 1 United United United States California States California States California Thousands of wine gallons, 000 omitted 1 2 3 4 5 6 1933 39,239 35,679 17,583 16,052 21,656 19,627 1934 41,980 37,005 27,311 25,928 14,669 11,077 1935 69,821 65,690 55,363 54,013 14,458 11,677 1936 51,978 46,679 36,481 34,700 15,497 11,979 1937 95,237 85,351 59,415 57,302 35,872 28,049 1938 60,393 50,342 38,318 35,581 22,075 14,761 1939 80,782 71,478 58,571 55,304 22,211 16,174 1940 113,998 100,818 82,865 79,008 31,133 21,810 1941 118,182 105,198 82,139 77,820 36,043 27,376 1942 66,926 53,930 39,098 35,851 27,828 18,079 l7*tO 88,412 74,008 47,171 46,715 41,241 27,293 1944 99,315 84,616 62,368 60,511 36,947 24,105 1945 110,414 103,543 81,758 81,169 26,656 22,374 1946 181,703 161,518 124,127 121,377 37,576 30,141 1947 100,685 94,522 77,987 77,006 22,698 17,516 1948 h/ 136,383 129,930 108,410 107,318 27,973 22,612 1949^ 98,000 91,000 76,000 75,000 22,000 16,000 a/ Data exclude vermouth and all sparkling wines. b/ Rough forecast of 1949 production. Source: Compiled by S. W. Shear, Clanninl Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, Berkeley, April 1950, from calculations based on the latest data of U. S. Bureau of Internal Revenue as reported in December Annual Vine Industry Statistical Surveys of the Wine Institute. Calculated as follows; United States 1933-1942 equals year-end stooks in bond plus withdrawals tax-paid for domestic use. and tax-free for export and family use, minus stooks beginning of year; California 1933-1948 equals gross production minus diversion to other uses and excess of allowed losses over not allowed. APPENDIX TABLE 60 UNITED STATES PRODUCTION, STOCKS, SUPPLY, AND DISAPPEARANCE OF DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL STf LL WINE AVERAGE 1909 -1913, ANNUAL 1933 -1949 Stocks, July 1*/ Net Finl shed Production^/ To tal Supplyaj t Disappearance*/ Years Total Dessert, Table , Total Dessert, Table, Total Dessert, Table, Total Desserts Tabl<* 9 Beginning Over 14$ Not Over Over 14$ Not Over Over 14$ Not Over Over 14$ July 1 Alcohol Alcohol 14$ Alcohol 14$ AA^cnox A 4* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 44 me Thousands of Wine Gallons, that is, 000 Omitted Averages 1909*43 »= 52,924 20,074 32,850 mm AQ AAfk IO 1 OR •art 047 1935=39 60 0 002 46,020 33^982 71,652 49,630 22,022 151,654 95,650 56 « 004 04,343 A * 111 4o^A ^4 C&t)"J£ 1945-48 129^164 81,232 127,29S 98,070 29,226 255,460 179,302 76,158 4.-L ' ? 1 © aA -99 q 9 a nn<% eO^UUj Annuals 1933 44 , W / 39,239 17,583 21,656 64,781 29 9 180 35^601 O.Slfi Oq*J J S 1934 cn Icq 1 Q &A4 Ay, 00^ 41,980 27,3U 14,669 92,148 46,975 45,173 35 .671 * J) * */v 12^275 1935 56,47/ 23,579 32,898 69,821 55,363 14,458 126,298 78,942 47,S56 47,826 31,855 15*971 1936 78,545 47,096 31 j>449 51,978 36,481 15,49? 130,523 83,577 46,946 Oef ^379 /A 4,0 / 1937 68,128 42,369 25,759 95,287 59,415 35 3 872 163,415 101,784 61,631 61,399 39*920 21,479 1938 102,016 61,864 40,152 60,393 38,318 22,075 162,409 100,182 62,227 67,567 44,990 22,577 1939 94,842 55 3 192 39,650 80,782 58,571 22,211 175,624 113,763 61,861 82,379 57,583 24,796 1940 93,245 56,180 37,065 113,998 82,865 31,133 207,243 139,045 68,198 89,356 62,331 27,025 1941 117,887 76,714 41,173 118,182 82,139 36,043 236,069 158,853 77,216 L02,874 72,293 30,581 1942 133,195 86 j) 560 46,635 66,926 39,098 27,828 200,121 125,658 74,463 109,090 71,512 37,578 1943 91,031 54,146 36,885 88,412 47,171 41,241 179,443 95,38' 78,126 85,130 41,717 37,483 1944 94,313 53,670 40,643 99,315 62,368 36,947 193,628 116,038 77,590 90,904 59,281 31,623 1945 102,724 56,757 45,967 110,414 • 81,758 28,656 213,128 138,515 74,623 L11,U4 76,939 34,185 1946 102,014 61,576 40,438 161,703 124,127 37,576 263,717 185,703 78,014 103,506 76,949 26,557 1947 160, 211 108,754 51,457 100,685 77,987 22,696 260,896 186,741 74,155 L13,138 88,898 24,290 1948 147,708 97,843 49,865 136,383 108,410 27,973 284,091 206,253 77,838 121,505 94,505 27,000 1949V 162,586 111,748 50,838 98,000 76*000 22,000 260,000 188,000 72,000 a/ Data exclude vermouth and all sparkling wines exoept the very small product* wi of these, 1909=1013 9 b/ Rough forecast of 1949 production and supply* Souroe 8 Compiled by So Wo Shear, Giannlni Foundation of Agricultural Economics, university of California, Berkeley, April 1950 j Cols* 1=3 j From latest reports of the Uo So Bureau of Internal Revenueo Colso 4=6 a Calculated from latest reports of Uo S< Bureau of Internal Revenue; 1933=1942 year=end stocks in bond (ools e 1=3) plus withdrawals tax=paid for domestic use and tax-free for export and family use minus stocks beginning of year (oolso 1=3) g 19434948 estimates of the Wine Institute, 12th and 13th Annual Win* Industry Statistical Survey Part Ills Pa 7« Cols. 7»9 » Calculated) July 1 stocks (cols* 1=3) plus production (oolso 4=8)» Colso 10=12« Calculated} supply (oolso 7=9) minus year-end stocks (cols* 1»3)» s o APPENDIX TABLE 61 CALIFORNIA PRODUCTION, STOCKS, SUPPLY AND DISAPPEARANCE OF DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL STILL WINE, AVERAGE 1909-1913, ANNUAL 1933-1949 Years Stooks, July la/ Net finished productions'' Total Supply.2/ Dis appearance^ beginning Dessert, Table, Dessert, Table,, Dessert, Table, DeS3QIt, Table, July 1 Total over 14$ not over Total over 1454 not over Total over 14$ not over Total ovar 14$ not over aloohol 14$ alcohol M5< aloohol 14$ aloohol 14* 1 2 3 4 5 c O 7 8 9 10 11 12 Thous snds of wine gallons, tha t is, 000 omitted Average I 1909=13 == wm mm 43,595 19,161 124,434 mm KB mm 1 935 «39 67,886 40,678 27,208 63,903 47,330 16,528 131,794 88,058 43,736 57,939 41,696 16,243 1945 -48 109,592 72,619 36,973 119,646 96,338 23*258 229,238 169,007 60,231 105,176 83,458 21,716 Annual: 193 J 22,620 10,351 12,269 35,679 16,052 19*627 56,299 26,403 31,596 12,974 8,640 4,334 1934 43,447 17,239 26,208 37,005 25,928 11 , U / 7 80,452 43,167 37,285 33,066 22,842 10,224 1935 47,386 20,325 27,061 65,690 04,Ui3 1 1 IITT ll.$o f 1 113,076 74,338 38,738 45,206 31,696 13,510 1936 67,870 42,642 25,228 46,679 34 , /U'J 1 1 Q7Q 114,549 77,342 37,207 58,21?. 40,574 17,538 1937 56,337 36,768 19,569 85,351 D / ,OW 1 141,688 94,070 47,618 54,363 38,718 15,645 1938 87,325 55,352 31,973 50,342 35,581 14,761 137,667 90,933 46,734 57,155 42, 528 14,587 1939 80,512 48,305 32,207 71,473 55.S04 16,174 151,990 103,609 48,331 74,759 54,862 19,897 1940 77 , 231 48,747 28,484 100,318 79,008 21,810 178,049 127,755 50,294 78,511 60,355 18,156 1941 99,538 67,400 32,138 105,198 77,820 27,378 204,736 145,220 59,516 91,719 69,779 21,940 1942 113,017 75,441 37,576 53,930 35,851 18,079 166,947 111,292 55,655 91,112 64,530 26,532 1943 75,835 46,762 29,073 74,008 46,715 27,293 149,343 93,477 56,356 69,377 46,082 23,795 1944 79,966 47,395 32,571 84,616 60,511 24,105 164,582 107,906 56,676 80,202 58,731 21,471 1945 84,380 49,175 35,205 103,543 81,169 22,374 187,923 130,344 57,579 101,692 76,115 25,577 1946 86,231 54,229 3?, 002 151,518 121,177 30,141 237,749 175,606 62,143 97,322 76,157 21,165 1947 140,427 99,449 40,978 94,522 77,006 17,516 234,949 176,455 58,494 107,642 88,833 18,809 1948 127,328 87,622 39,705 129,930 107, U8 22,612 257,258 194,940 62,318 114,047 92,726 21,321 1949^/ 143,211 102,214 40,997 91,000 75,000 16,000 234,211 177,214 56,997 a/ Data exclude vermouth and ell sparkling wine3 except the very small produotlon of these, 1909-1913, b/ Rou£h forecast of 1949 net production and supply based on gross produotlon 6 months only July 1 • December 31, 1949. Sourcei Compiled by S. W, Shear, Gianninl Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, Berkeley, April 1950. Cols, 1-3 t Prom latest reports of the U, S, Bureau of Internal Revenue. Cols. 4-6 » Calculated from latest data of Bureau of Internal Revenue, see Wine Institute 12th & 13th Annual Wine Industry Statistical surveys. Part III, P, 7 for data 1940-194e. Net equals gross production minus diversion to other uses and exoess of allowed losses over not allowed. Cols. 7-9 1 Calculated; July 1 stocks (cols, 1-3) plus production (cols. 4-5) . Cols. 10-121 Calculated; supply (cols. 7-9) minus year end stocks (cols, 1-3). 65c APPENDIX TABLE 62 CALIFORNIA CRUSH, GROSS WINE PRODUCTION, STORAGE CAPACITY AND NUMBER OF BONDED WINERIES AND FRUIT DISTILLERIES BY DISTRICTS, 1910, AND 1915-1949 Distriot ■ ana Crush Year a/ t T,.1** 1 Hbm 91 ^ tJuly l-ueo. oi ) Crushed for vine u ranuyw' Cross Wine Production?/ Storage cooperage , Dec. 312/ Active bonde dl' Total Dessert Table Wineries Fruit distilleries Red White 1 2 3 4 7 n Tons Thousand Gallons Number State, total 1949 887,760 iuu^34y TO CI C 72, 310 OA ACT ZU,Uo / 7 ICC 7,700 O. ~IA O /4 ill 1948 1,386,283 l >ii on 141 , I 11 111 .U L? O t OOl 7 A AT /,Uol 115 1947 965,956 104,458 78,417 19,348 6,693 309,966 384 117 1946 1,651,926 178,089 130,697 28,285 19,107 IOC CAA 285,500 390 lie 115 1945 1 1 en OAQ 1,109 ,o**y lie A7C o*f , J J C 19,837 11,846 240,599 401 115 1940 995.981 20,362 7,008 196.235 459 101 North of Bay 1949 80,680 13,841 725 10,824 2,292 47,908 114 11 1948 116,121 18,927 1,966 14,241 2,720 48,063 117 12 1947 86,522 14,940 1,482 11,131 2,327 48,778 118 12 1946 131,815 21,548 2,178 14,587 4,783 47,896 124 11 1945 111 A7jI 111,074 17,989 2,196 12,786 3,007 45,863 127 1 o 12 1940 1 Ac CQO 106, 50£ 17.431 4f| 70J. 1,860 13,039 2,532 41,970 138 11 South of Bay 1949 20,213 2,976 719 1,625 632 16,173 OC C D 1948 32,520 4, 375 1,695 1,991 689 lb, 4 iv QA OH O 1947 27,824 4,182 1,453 1 ICC 1,735 Q1A 9/4 i 7 not O / ft 0 1946 45,691 6,370 2,094 Z,149 0 1 Of £,lc / l a noi 1O,0&1 AA ig 1945 33,816 4,980 1,526 2,155 1,299 16,114 91 7 1940 4,573 1,564 2,008 1,001 14,586 112 7 Southern Cal. 1949 DO OflO uO}C7>j 9,199 6,037 2,992 170 25,087 66 23 194o 8,154 5,199 2,295 660 24,579 64 23 194/ 6,427 3,786 2,165 476 24,924 64 23 1 OAC 1940 11,573 8,398 2,357 818 25,415 70 29 1945 105,589 9,515 7,154 1,662 699 25,322 72 29 1940 76,841 8,740 6,603 1,433 704 20,035 89 Zo Central Valley 1949 25,257 22,383 1,852 1,022 81,412 52 32 1948 <1 E 7An 410, /OU 37,765 34,924 2,255 586 79,861 63 32 1 QA1 1947 "31 7 01 / jO£0 31,531 29,161 1,354 1,016 80,019 66 34 1946 401, ID/ 44,723 35,867 4,523 4,333 71,543 64 32 1945 361,283 31,004 26,724 1,842 2,438 59,702 67 32 1940 290,938 30,142 25,257 3,130 1,755 49,577 72 26 San Joaquin Val. 1949 454,764 49,076 42,652 2,774 3,650 138,809 47 40 1948 746,371 72,050 67,205 2,439 2,406 139,522 50 42 1947 477,450 47,378 42,535 2,943 1,900 139,218 49 42 1946 919,935 93,875 82,160 4,669 7,046 123,825 44 37 1945 558,087 53,187 47,392 1,392 4,403 93,598 44 35 1940 489,216 44,804 43,036 752 1,016 70,067 43 32 a/ Counties included in districts: North of Bays Mendocino, Napa, Sonoma, Humboldt, Solano. South of Bay: Alameda, Contra Costa, San Franoisoo, Santa Clara, Monterey, San Benito, San Mateo, Santa Cruz & San Luis Obispo. Southern California: Los Angeles, San Bernardino, San Diego, Riverside, Ventura. San Joaquin Valley: Fresno, Kern, Madera, Tulare, Merced, Kings. Central Valley: Saoramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Amador. Central Valley inoludes the small orush in Sacramento Valley of 246 in 1949, 241 in 1948, 283 in 1947, and 2743 in 1940. Fbr list of counties in districts see footnotes to table 65. (Continued) APPENDIX TABLE 62 - Cont i nued b/ fresh grapes only crushed for both wine and brandy, July 1 - December 31 exoluding dried raisins and all other fruits and fruit products. c/ Commercial gross still wine production are preliminary data for 6 months only JuJjy 1 » December 31 making no allowance for losses for diversion for distilling and other by-product uses, for increases resulting from amelioration and fortification etc Gross production of red table for all years is unadjusted, as reported in Wine Institute bulletins, and white table wine and dessert is adjusted for 1945-1949 by removing sherry and other dessert wine stock from white table wine production as reported by Institute and adding it to dessert wine production, as reported by Institute after raising it to approximate the equivalent gallonage after fortifioation by dividing it - the dessert stook by 0,85. d/ Storage capacity, including fermenters, usable for storage. «/ Number of aotive bonded wineries in February, March or April of the year following exoept for August 1940. Souroet Compiled by S. W. Shear, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, March 1950 from Wine Institute Annual Wine Industry Statistical Surveys, Part I. APPENDIX TABLE 63 CALIFORNIA ADJUSTED GROSS COMMERCIAL STILL WINE PRODUCTION, DESSERT AND RED AND WHITE TABLE BY DISTRICTS, DURING JULY l-DECEMBER 31, AVERAGE 1915 - 1948 Other Dlstriots Wine State Total Interior Valleyfi/ Total Central Coast*;/ Southern California?/ Class 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1000 » s of Gallons £ of State Totals 1000 "3 of Gallons Jo of State Totals 1000' 3 Of Gallons % of State Totals 1000 «3 of Gallons # of State Totals 1000 '3 Of Gallons £ of State Totals Total 135,123 100.0 102,878 76.1 32,245 23.9 23,327 17,3 8,918 6.6 Desser^/ Table^/ 101,274 33,849 100.0 91,492 11,386 90.3 9,782 9.7 3,647 3*6 6,135 6,1 100.0 33.6 22,463 66.4 19,680 58e2 2,783 8.2 Red 22,673 100,0 5,354 23™6 17,318 76,4 15,199 67.9 2,120 9.4 White 11,176 100.0 6,032 54.0 5,145 46.0 4,481 40.1 663 5.9 a/ Interior valley includes the 26 interior valley and foothill counties - Siskiyou on the north through Kern and Inyo an the south or the subdistricts " of Sacramento Valley, oentral or intermediate valley and San Joaquin Valley. b/ Central coast includes 16 counties north and south of San Francisco Bay =- Humboldt on the north through San Luis Obispo on the south, o/ Southern California inoludes the 8 oountles south of Tehaohapi Mountains. . d/ Gross production is preliminary for 6 months only July 1-Deoember 31, making no allowance for losses for diversion for distilling and other by-product uses, for increases resulting from amelioration and fortifisation etc. Gross production of red table for all years is unadjusted, as reported in Wine institute bulletins, end white table wine and dessert is unadjusted for 1937-1944 but adjusted for 1945-1949 by removing sherry and other dessert wine stook from white table wine production as published, and adding it to dessert wine production, as published, after raising it to approximate equivalent gallonage after fortification by dividing it — the desert stook « by 0.85. Source i Compiled by S. W. Shear, Gianninl Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, Berkeley, March 1950, from Wine Institute Annual Wine Industry Statistical Surveys, Parts I, Wine Institute Bulletins 374, 304, 272, 413 and 415, O 68c APPENDIX TABLE 64 CALIFORNIA STATE TOTAL GROSS COMMERCIAL STILL WINE PRODUCTION DESSERT AND RED AND WHITE TABLE DURING JULY-DECEMBER, 1935-1949 Year State Total (July 1- Deceraber 31) Dessert*/ Tab Le RedV Table White a/ Total 1000 Gallons Per Cent of ToteJb/ 1000 Gallons Per Cent of Total£/ Gallons Per Cent of Total£/ 1000 Gallons Averages i 1937-1941 60,495 68.7 19,086 22.5 7,888 8.8 1945-1948 101,274 74.9 22,673 16.8 11,176 8.3 135,123 Annual t 1935 53*900 73.7 -0/ . «/ 73,000 1936 37,091 69.8 • m ■ 53,160 1937 57,780 63.2 23,504 25„7 10,139 11.1 91,423 1938 35,765 63.3 16,338 28.9 4,423 7.8 56,526 1939 53,429 72.5 15,195 20.6 5,076 6.9 73,698 1940 78,320 74.1 20,362 19.3 7,008 6.6 105,690 1941 77,181 70.2 20,032 18.2 12,793 11.6 110,006 1942 36,582 58.9 18,018 29.0 7,547 12.1 62,147 1943 45,484 56.6 26,734 33.3 8,159 10.1 80,427 1944 59,696 65.6 21,973 24.2 9,314 10.2 90,982 1945 84,992 72.8 19,837 17.0 11,846 10.2 116,675 1946 130,697 73.4 28,285 15.9 19,107 10.7 178,089 1947 78,417 75,1 19,348 18.5 6,693 6.4 104,458 1948 110,989 78.6 23,221 16.4 7,061 5.0 141,271 1949 72,516 82.3 20,067 " 20.0 7,766 7.7 100,349 a/ Gross produotion is preliminary for 6 months only, July 1-Deoember 31, making no allowance for losses for diversion for distilling and other by-produot uses, for increases resulting from amelioration and fortification etc. Gross produotion of red table for all years is unadjusted, as reported in Nine Institute bulletins, and white table wine and dessert is unadjusted for 1937*1944 but adjusted for 1945-1949 by removing sherry and other dessert wine stock from white table wine produotion as published and adding it to dessert wine produotion as published, after raising it to approximate equivalent gallonage after fortlfieation by dividing it - the dessert stook - by 0.85. ( b/ Per oent of state total gross wine produotion. \ o/ Dashes indicate no segregation of white and red dry wine produotion reported for 1935 and 1936 vintage. Source i Compiled by S. W. Shear, Glannlni Foundation of Agricultural Koonomios, University of California, March 1950, from Vine Institute Annual Wine Industry Statistical Surveys, parts I, Vine Institute Bulletins 374, 304, 272, 413 and 459. APPENDIX TABLE 65 CALIFORNIA GROSS STILL WINE PRODUCTION BY DISTRICTS DESSERT AND RED AND WHITE TABLE JULY — DECEMBER, 1937—1919 North of Bayfi/ Year Deaeerti/ Table Red£/ Table WhiteV Total (July 1- Deo. 31 ) 1,000 Gallons Per oent of State 1,000 Gallons Per cent of State 1,000 Gallons Per cent of St a te 1,000 lauie neu i&Die wnixe Gallons ■ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Averages t 1937*1941 1,716 2,8 11,323 59.3 2,406 30.5 15,445 1945-1947 1,952 2.0 12,835 57,1 3,372 26.9 18,159 1945-1948 1,956 1.9 13,186 58.2 3,209 28.7 18,351 Annual i 1937 1,498 2.6 12,479 53.1 c. , J ~J I 16,929 1938 1,608 4.5 9,858 60.3 1,919 43 .4 13,385 1939 1,626 3.0 9,154 60,2 1,546 30,4 12,326 1940 1,860 2.4 13,039 64.1 2,532 36.1 17,431 1S41 1,989 2.6 12,083 60.3 3,080 24.1 17,152 1842 1,231 3.4 11,072 61,4 2,362 31.3 14,665 1943 1,049 2.3 14,966 55.9 2,865 35.1 18,680 1944 1,095 1.8 11,972 54,5 2,860 30.7 15,927 1945 2,196 2.6 12,786 64,5 3,007 25.4 17,989 1946 2,178 1.7 14,587 51,6 4,783 25.0 21,548 1947 1,482 1.9 11,131 57.5 2,327 3<.8 14,940 1948 1,966 1.8 14,241 61.3 2,720 38.5 18,927 1949 725 1.0 10,824 53,9 2,292 29.5 13,841 flen+.Tvl Canst. Tnt.!*/ Averages t 1937-1941 2,827 4.7 13,680 71.7 3,436 43.6 19,987 1945*1948 3,648 3.6 15,199 67,0 4,481 40.1 23,328 Annual I 1937 2,541 4.4 15,447 65.7 3,899 39.4 21,987 1936 2,597 7.3 12,071 73,9 2,664 60.2 17.332 1939 2,427 4.5 11,077 72,9 2,189 43,1 15,693 1540 3,424 4.4 15,122 74.3 3,533 50.4 ZZ.079 1941 3,369 4.4 14,683 73,3 4,794 37.5 22,846 1942 2,167 5.9 12,872 71 ,4 3,614 47.9 18,653 1943 1,997 4.4 17,373 64.9 4,187 51.3 23,557 1944 2,201 3,7 14,020 63.8 4,054 43,5 20,275 1945 3,722 4,4 14,941 75-3 4,306 36.3 22,969 1946 4,272 3.3 16,736 59.2 6,910 36.2 27,918 1947 2,935 3c7 12,886 66.6 3,301 49.3 19,122 1948 3,661 3.3 16,232 69.9 3,409 48.3 23,302 1949 1,444 2.0 12,449 62.0 3,924 37.6 16,817 (Continued) APPENDIX TABLE 65 (cont'd) CALIFORNIA GROSS STILL WINE PRODUCTION BY DISTRICTS DESSERT AND RED AND WHITE TABLE JULY — DECEMBER, 1937—1949 —3 O o Year .(July 1 - Deo. 31) Dessert^/ 1,000 Gallons P«r cent of State Dessart South of Bay*/ Table Red*/ 1(000 Gallons Per oent of State Table Red Table Whit Total 1,000 Gallons Per cent of State Table White 1,000 Gallons Averages t 1937-1941 1945-1948 Annual I 1937 1936 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 Averagest 1937-1941 1945-1948 Annual l 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1,155 1,692 1,043 989 801 1,564 1,380 936 948 1,106 1,526 2,094 1,453 1,695 719 5,491 6,134 5,776 4,420 5,058 6,603 5,599 4,501 5,319 6,111 7,154 8,398 3,786 5,199 6,037 1.9 1.7 1.8 2.8 1.5 2.0 1.8 2.5 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.9 1.5 _1*0_ 9.1 6.1 10.0 12.3 9.5 8.4 7.2 12.3 11.7 10.2 8.4 6.4 4.8 4.7 8.3 2,357 2,013 2,968 2,213 1,923 2,083 2,600 1,800 2,407 2,048 2,155 2,149 1,755 1,991 1.625 12„4 8.9 12.6 13.6 12.7 10.2 13.0 10.0 9.0 9.3 10.9 7.6 9.1 8.6 8 «1 Southern California*/ 1,352 2,120 1,418 1,057 1,265 1,433 1,585 1,353 2,280 3,078 1,662 2,357 2,155 2,295 2,992 7.1 9.4 6.0 6.5 8.3 7.0 7.9 7.5 8.5 14.0 8.4 8.3 11.2 9.9 14.9 1,030 1,272 1,047 745 643 1,001 1,714 1,252 1,322 1,194 1,299 2,127 974 689 632 930 663 1,171 534 1,088 704 1,157 364 451 671 699 818 47o 660 170 13.1 11.4 10,3 16.8 12.7 14.3 13.4 16,6 16.2 12.8 11.0 11.1 14.6 9.8 8.1 11.8 5.9 11.6 12.1 21.4 10.1 9,0 4.8 5.5 7.2 5,9 4.3 7.1 9.3 2.2 (Continued) 4,543 4,977 5, CSS 3,947 3,367 4,648 5,694 3,988 4,677 4,348 4,980 6,370 4,182 4,375 2,976 7,774 8,917 8,365 6,011 7,411 8,740 8,341 6,218 8,050 9,860 9,515 11,573 6,427 8,154 9,199 APPENDIX TABLE 65 (Cont'd) CALIFORNIA GROSS STILL WINE PRODUCTION BY DISTRICTS DESSERT AND RED AND WHITE TABLE JULY — DECEMBER, 1937— I9Y9 Intorior Valley*/ Dessert^/ Table RedJ2/ Table WhlteV Total Yesr 1,000 Gallons Per cent of State 1,000 Gallons Per cent of State 1,000 Gallons Per oent of State (July 1 - Dec. 31) Dessert Table Red Table White 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Averages! 44.6 59,708 1937-1941 52,132 86.2 4,055 21,2 3,521 1945-1948 91,492 90 ,3 5,354 23.6 6„03f. 54,0 102,878 Annual s 61,071 1837 49,463 85,6 6,639 28,3 4,969 49,0 1938 28,748 80.4 3,210 19.6 1,225 27.7 33,183 1939 45,942 86,0 2,853 18.8 1,799 35.5 50,594 1940 68,293 87.2 3,807 18.7 2,771 39,5 74,871 1941 68,213 88,4 3,764 18,8 6,842 53 ? 5 78,819 1942 29,914 81,8 3»793 21.1 3,569 47,3 37,276 1943 38,168 83,9 7,131 26,6 3,521 43.2 48,820 1944 51,384 86.1 4,874 22.2 4,589 49,3 60,847 1945 74,116 87,2 3,234 16,3 6,841 57.7 84,191 1946 118,027 90.3 9,192 32.5 11,379 59.6 138,598 1947 71,696 91 .4 4,297 22,2 2,916 43.6 78,909 1948 102,129 92.0 4,694 20,2 2,992 42.4 109,815 1949 65,035 89.7 4,626 23,1 4,672 60.2 74,333 (Continued) -3 O APPEND I X TABLE 65 (confd) CALIFORNIA GROSS STILL WINE PRODUCTION BY DISTRICTS DESSERT AND RED AND WHITE TABLE JULY — DECEMBER, 1937 — 1949 Year (July 1 - Deo. 31) Averages t 193/ -1941 1945-1948 Annual > 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 Des3e Central Coast plus Southern California 1,000 Gallons 1 8,363 9,782 8,317 7,017 7,485 10,027 8,968 6,668 7,316 8,312 10,876 12,670 6,721 8,860 7,481 Per cant if State Dessert 13.8 9.7 14.4 19.6 14.0 12.8 11.6 18.2 16.1 13.9 12.8 9.7 8.6 8.0 10.3 Table Re 1,000 Gallons 15,032 17-318 16,865 13,128 12,342 16,555 16,268 14,225 19,653 17,098 16,601 19,093 15,051 18,527 15,441 Per cent of State Table Red 78.8 76.4 71.7 80.4 81.2 81.3 81,2 78,9 73.4 77.0 83,7 67.6 77.8 79.8 76.9 Table Whit 1,000 Gallons 4,367 5,145 5,170 3,198 3,277 4,237 5,951 3,978 4,638 4,725 5,005 7,728 3,777 4,069 3,094 Per cent of 55.4 46.0 51.0 72.3 64.5 60.5 46.5 52.7 56.3 50.7 42.3 40.4 56,4 57.6 39.8 Total 1,000 Gallons 27.761 32,245 30,352 23.343 23,104 30,819 31,187 24,371 31,607 30,135 32,484 39,491 25,549 31,456 26,016 a/ Counties included in districts, Central Coast* North of Bay» Mendocino, Napa, Sonoma, Humboldt, Solano. South of Bay« Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisoo, Santa Clara, Monterey, San Benito, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and San Luis Obispo. Southern California! Los Angeles, San Bernardino, San Diego, Riverside, and Ventura. Interior Valley! Sah Joaquin Valleyi Fresno, Kern, Madera, Tulare, Meroed and Kings. Central Valleyt Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Amador. b/ Gross production is preliminary for 6 months only July 1-December 31, making no allowanoe for losses for diversion for distilling and other by-produot uses, for increases resulting from amelioration and fortification etc. Gross production of red table for all years is unadjusted, as reported in Wine Institute bulletins, and white table wine and dessert is unadjusted for 1937-1944 but adjusted for 1945-1949 by removing sherry and other dessert wine stook from white table wine produotlon as published, and adding it to dessert wine production as published after raising it to approximate equivalent gallonage after fortifioation by dividing it— the dessert stock— by 0,85. Souroei Compiled by S. W„ Shear, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, Maroh 1950, from Wine Institute Annual Wine Industry Statistical Surveys, Parts I, Wine Institute Bulletins 374, 304, 272, 413, and 459. APPENDIX TABLE 66 CALIFORNIA ADJUSTED GROSS COMMERCIAL STILL WINE PRODUCTION, DESSERT AND RED AND WHITE TABLE BY DISTRICTS, JULY l-DECEMBER 31 1941-1949 Districts' TotalS/ Dessert^/ Table Total Red White!/ 1 2 3 4 5 Thousand Gallons Average 1945-1948 Average, 1945-1948 State total 135,123 101,274 33,850 22,673 11,177 Interior Valley 102,878 91,492 11,386 5,354 6,032 Southern California 8,917 6,134 2,783 2,120 663 Coast Counties 23,328 3,648 19,681 15,199 4,482 North of Bay 18,351 1,956 16,396 13,186 3,210 South of Bay 4,977 1,692 3,285 2,013 1.972 102,878 91,492 11,386 5,354 6,032 Pnntr&l VnAlev 31,269 31,669 4,586 2,493 2,093 Can .loanuln Vallev 66,622 59,823 6,800 2,861 3,939 1949 1949 State total 100,349 72,516 27,833 20,067 7,766 Interior Valley 74,333 65,035 9,298 4,626 4,672 Southern California 9,199 6,037 3,162 2,992 170 Coast Counties 16,817 1,444 15,373 12,449 2,924 North of Bay 13,841 725 13,116 10,824 South of Bay 2,976 719 2,257 1,625 632 illliHI 1UI VdXJLDjf 74,333 65,035 9,298 4,626 4,672 font t*q 1 Vol 1 AV 25,257 22,383 2,874 1,852 1,022 Can Jofinnin Vallav 49,076 42,652 6,424 2,774 3,650 1948 1948 -. State total 141,271 110,989 30,282 23,221 7,061 Interior Valley 109,815 102,129 7,686 4,694 2,992 Southern California 8,154 5,199 2,955 2,295 660 Coast Counties 23,302 3,661 19,641 16,232 3,409 North of Bay 18,927 1,996 16,961 14,241 2,720 South of Bay 4,375 1,695 2,680 1,991 coo Interior Valley 109,815 102,129 7,686 4,694 2,992 Central Valley 37,765 34,924 2,841 2,255 586 San Joaquin Valley 72,050 67,205 4,845 2,439 2,406 1947 1947 State total 104,458 78,417 26,041 19,348 6,693 Interior Valley 78,909 71,696 7,213 4,297 2,916 Southern California 6,427 3,786 2,641 2,165 47 fi ft/ w Coast Counties 19,123 2,936 16,187 12,886 3,301 North of Bay 14,941 1,483 13,458 11,131 South of Bay 4,182 1,453 2,729 1,755 974 Intarlor vol ley 78,909 71,696 7,213 4,297 2,916 P _ 4- — , 0 1 ViT 1 aw uBTrcr&i vansy 31,531 29,161 2,370 1,354 1,016 ban jo&quin vcuisy 47,378 42,535 4,843 2,943 1,900 1946 1946 State total 178,089 130,697 47,392 28,285 19,107 Interior Valley 138,598 118,027 20,571 9,192 11,379 Southern California 11,573 8,398 3,175 2,357 818 Coast Counties 27,918 4,272 23,646 16,736 6,910 North of Bay 21,548 2,178 19,370 14,587 4,783 South of Bay 6,370 2,094 4,276 2,149 2,127 Interior Valley 138,598 118,027 20,571 9,192 11,379 Central Valley 44,723 35,867 8,856 4,523 4,333 San Joaquin Valley 93,875 82,160 11,715 4,669 7,046 (Continued) 74c APPENDIX TABLE 66 - Continued DlstrlotS^ Total£/ Dessert^/ Table | Total Red Whlte£/ 1 2 3 4 5 Thousand Gallons 1945 1945 State total 116,675 84,992 31 ,683 19,837 11,846 Interior Valley 84,191 74,116 10 ,075 3,234 6,841 Southern California 9,515 7,154 2 ,361 1,662 699 Coast Counties 22,969 3,722 19 ,247 14,941 4,306 Mn »*+Vi «f Tin 17,989 2,196 15 ,793 12,786 3,007 4,980 1,526 3 ,454 2,155 1,299 Tm4aw4 am If is 1 1 a ^ r xnionor vfxiioy 84,191 74,116 10 ,075 3,234 6,841 uenxra.1 Volley 31,004 26,724 4 ,280 1,842 2,438 SMui Joaquin valley 53,187 47,392 5 ,795 1,392 4,403 1944 1944 State total 857 59,696 31 ,286 21,972 9,314 Interior Valley 60,847 51,384 9 ,463 4,874 4,589 Southern California 9,860 6,111 3 ,749 3,078 671 Coast Counties 20,275 2,201 18 ,074 14,020 4,054 North of Bay 15,927 1,095 14 ,832 2,860 South of Bay 4,348 1,106 3 ,242 11,972 1,194 Interior Valley 60,847 51,384 9 ,463 4,874 4,589 Central Valley 25,375 20,317 5 ,058 2,366 2,692 San Joaquin Valley 35,472 31,067 4 ,405 2,508 1,897 •J For list of counties in distrlots see Table 65. b/ Gross production is preliminary for 6 months only, July 1 to Deoember 31, making no allowance for losses for diversion for distilling and other by-produot uses, for increases resulting from a amelioration and fortifioation etc. Gross production of red table for all years is unadjusted, and white table wine and dessert is adjusted for 1945-1949 by removing sherry and other dessert wine stock from white table wine production as reported by Institute, and adding it to dessert wine production as reported by Institute after raising it to approximate equivalent gallonage after fortification by dividing it - the dessert stook - by 0.85. Soureei Compiled by S. W. Shear, Giamini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, March 1950 from Wine Institute Annual Wine Industry Statistical Surveys, Part I. 75c APPENDIX TABLE 67 EQUIVALENT TONNAGE OF GRAPES USED IN CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL GROSS PRODUCTION STILL WINES, DESSERT, AND RED AND WHITE TABLE BY DISTRICTS JULY | - DECEMBER 31, 191*4-19*9 Wins Production, Gross Table District*/ Total Dessert Total Red White Iqulvalen t tons fresh grai es 1 2 3 4 5 Average 1945-1948 Average 1945 - 1948 Stats, Total 1,265,100 1,066,000 199,100 133,400 65,700 Interior Valley 1,030,100 963 : 100 67,000 31,500 35,500 Southern California 81,000 64,600 16,400 12,500 3,900 Coast Counties North of Bay South of Bay Interior Valley Central Valley San Joaquin Valley 154,200 117,100 37,100 1,030,100 360,400 669,700 38,400 20,600 17,800 963,100 333,400 629,700 115,800 96,500 19,300 67,000 27,000 40,000 89,400 77,600 11,800 31,500 14,700 16,800 26,400 18,900 7,500 35,500 12,300 29,200 1949 1949 Stats, Total 927,000 763,300 163,700 118,000 45,700 Interior Valley 739,300 684,600 54,700 27,200 27,500 Southern California 82,100 63,500 18,600 17,600 1,000 Coast Counties North of Bay South of Bay Interior Valley Central Valley San Joaquin Valley 105,600 84,800 20,800 739,300 252,400 486,900 15,200 7,600 7,600 684,600 235,603 449,000 90,400 77,200 13,200 54,700 16,800 37,900 73,200 63,700 9,500 27,200 10,800 16,400 17,200 13,500 3,700 27,500 6,000 21,500 1948 1948 State, Total 1,346,400 1,168,300 178,100 136,600 41,500 Interior Valley 1,120,200 1,075,000 45,200 27,600 17,600 Southern California 72,100 54,800 17,400 13,500 3,900 Coast Counties North of Bay South of Bay Interior Valley Central Valley San Joaquin Valley 154,100 120,500 33,500 1,120,200 380,100 735,900 38,500 20,700 17,800 1,075,000 367,600 707,400 115,500 99,800 15,700 45,200 16,700 28,500 95,500 83,800 11,700 27,600 13,300 14,300 20,000 16,000 4,000 17,600 3,400 14,200 1947 1947 State, Total 978,500 825,400 153,100 113,800 39,300 Interior Valley 797,100 754,, 700 42,400 25,300 17,100 Southern California 55,300 39,800 15,500 12,700 2,800 Coast Counties North of Bay South of Bay Interior Valley Central Valley San Joaquin Valley 126,100 94,800 31,300 797,100 320,800 476,300 30,900 15,600 15,300 754,700 306,900 447,800 95,200 79,200 16,000 42,400 13,900 28,500 75,800 65,500 10,300 25,300 8,000 17,300 19,400 13,700 5,700 17,100 5,900 11,200 (Continued) APPENDIX TABLE 67 (Cont'd) EQUIVALENT TONNAGE OF GRAPES USED IN CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL GROSS PRODUCTION STILL WINES, DESSERT, AND RED AND WHITE TABLE BY DISTRICTS Wine Production, Gross Distrlot*/ Table Total Dessert Total Red White Equivalent Tons Fresh Graj 5es 1 2 3 4 6 1946 1946 5taxe a iota.1 1*654*600 1*375,600 278,800 166*400 112*400 Interior Valley 1*363*400 1,242*400 121,000 54,100 66*900 southern California 107*100 88,400 18*700 13,900 4,800 Coast Counties 184,100 45,000 139*100 98*400 40*700 North of Day 136*900 22*900 114,000 85*800 28,200 South of Bay 47,100 22*000 25.100 12*600 12. 500 Interior Valley 1*363*400 1*242,400 121,000 54*100 Ac ivyi Ow * Central Valley 429*600 377,500 52,100 26,600 £0*DvU San Joaquin Valley 933,700 864*800 68*900 27*500 1945 1945 Stata. TrttA.1 1*081*100 894,700 186*400 116,700 69,700 Interior Valley 839,500 780,200 59*300 19,000 40,300 Southern California. 89,200 75,300 13*900 9,600 4,100 voasx uountios 152*400 39*200 113*200 87,900 25.300 North of Bay 116*000 23*100 92*900 75,200 17,700 South of Bay 36,400 16*100 20*300 12,700 7*600 Interior Valley 839,500 780,200 59*300 19,000 40*300 Central Valley 306*500 281,300 25,200 10,800 14*400 San Joaquin Valley 533,000 498,900 34,100 8,200 1944 J 1944 ; suite; total 812,500 628,400 184,100 129,300 54,800 Interior valley 596*600 540*900 55,700 28,700 27,000 Southern California 86*400 64,300 22,100 18*100 4,000 Coast Counties 129*500 23,200 106*300 82,500 23,800 North of Bay 98,700 11*500 87,200 70,400 16,800 South of Bay 30,800 11,700 19*100 12,100 7,000 Interior Valley 596,600 540,900 55,700 28*700 27,000 Central Valley 243,600 213,900 29,700 13. ,900 15*800 San Joaquin Valley 353,000 327,000 26,000 14*800 11,200 Sourest Computed by S, W. Shear, Oiannini Foundation of Agrioultural Zoonomlos, Maroh 1950, from gallonage data in preceding table 67 on gross wine produotion July l-fleoember 31 adjusted 1945-1949- by removing sherry and other dessert wine stook from white table wine produotion as published and adding it to dessert wine production as published, after raising it to approximate equivalent gallonage after fortlfioation by dividing it - the dessert stook - by 0.85* Conversion factors, gallons per ton table wine 170 and dessert wine 95». Data do not include an estimate of tonnage used in making beverage brandy and any neutral spirits not used for fortifying the adjusted gallonage of dessert wine during 6 months July 1 ■ Deoember 31. a/ For list of counties in districts see footnote to table 65. APPENDIX TAbLt 68 WEEKLY GRAPE CRUSH OF CALIFORNIA WINERIES BY VARIETAL CLASSES AND CHIEF RAISIN AND WINE VARIETIES BY DISTRICTS, 1949 Week Ending Raisin Varieties Table Viae Varieties All Varieties Per Cent of All \ rarieties Muscat Seedless All All State )istriots±/ Cumulated Raisin Table Vine Interior Valley Central Coast Southern California Weeks Quantity Per Cent Stats Totals State Totals 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 i 3 5 Tons Per Cen1 To August 20 0 9,037 9,037 4,881 499 499 0 • 14,417 14,417 1.8 62.7 33.8 3.5 ft 27 101 3,357 3,458 1,770 3,534 3,534 0 0 8,762 23,179 2.3 39.5 20.2 40.3 Sept. 1 451 8,094 8,545 1,120 6,864 6,636 0 228 16,529 39,708 4.8 1.7 6,8 41.5 tr 9 190 9,340 9,530 2,138 11,008 8,625 466 1,917 22,676 62,384 7,6 42.0 9.4 48.6 »"•• 17 840 16,324 17,164 4,201 24,072 17,503 1,523 5,046 45,437 10 7,821 13.1 37.8 9.2 53.0 ti ■ 24 3,908 20,302 24,110 5,839 39,736 24 , 542 8,340 6,854 69,685 177,506 21.5 34.6 8.4 57.0 Oot. 1 6,410 23,973 30,383 13,593 60,312 36,074 15,611 8,627 104,288 281,794 34.1 29.1 13.1 57.8 n e 9,038 24,625 33,663 29,047 65,107 39,251 17,780 8,076 127,817 409,611 49.6 26.4 22.7 50.9 n 15 15,773 15,108 30,881 39,358 62,061 40 , 548 13,086 8,427 132,300 541,911 65.6 23.3 29.8 46.9 n 22 15,387 5,996 21,383 48,199 47,052 33,500 5,406 8,146 116,634 658,545 79.7 18.3 41.4 40.3 f 29 6,821 2,748 9,569 42,900 36,359 27,951 1,565 6,843 88,828 747,373 90*5 10 3 48.3 40.9 NOVo 5 3,265 833 4,098 21,007 14,913 10,123 148 4,442 40,018 787,391 95.3 10.2 52o5 17,3 fl 12 911 265 1,176 8,160 2,999 2,200 32 767 12,335 799,726 96.8 9.5 66c! 24.3 tl 19 607 136 743 7,676 1,376 1,376 0 0 9,795 809,521 9S.0 7.6 78.4 14.0 r» 26 624 45 669 4,536 316 316 0 0 5,521 815,042 98.7 12.1 82.2 5.7 Deoo 3 1,337 72 1,409 4,256 11 11 0 0 5,676 820,718 99.4 24.8 75.0 .2 fr 10 3 56 59 3,311 33 33 0 0 3,403 824,121 99.8 1,7 97.3 1.0 rf 17 0 147 147 1,706 0 0 0 0 1,853 625,974 100.0 7.9 92.1 0.0 a/ The tUstrtat boundaries used by the Market News Serviee are approximately the same as used by Shear in this and other tables on tonnage crushed. Season totals ; Sum of weekly*/ 65,566 Revised slightly'/ 65,054 Peroent of final*/ 93-8 Final*/ 69,313 140,458 140,695 105,4 133,546 206,024 243,698 376,252 252,922 63,957 59,373 825,974 ) 205,749 246,788 376,078 252,932 63,675 59,471 828,615 ) 101.4 104.0 84,0 93.0 66.2 75.7 93,3 ) 202,859 237,379 447,522 272,857 96,112 78,553 887,760 ) See footnotes Appendix Table 70 for further explanation. Source j Compiled by S. W. Shear, Giannini Foundation of AgrlouUural Eoonosdos, April 1950, from U.S.D.A. P«M.A.» Fruit and Vegetable Branch Weekly Grape Crush Report No. 18, December 21, 1949, and No. 19, February 1, 1950. -a 2 APPENDIX TABLE 69 WEEKLY GRAPE CRUSH OF CALIFORNIA WINERIES BY VARIETAL CLASSES AND CHIEF RAISIN AND WINE VARIETIES BY DISTRICTS, 1948 Week Ending Raisin Varieties Table Vine Varieties All Varieties Per Cent of All Varieties Muscat Seedless All All State 8y Dlstrlots*/ By Weeks Cusulated Raisin Table Wine Interior Valley Central Coast Southern Calif. Auantily Per Cent otala Sta1 .» Totals State T 1 2 3 4 5 0 7 a O g 10 11 12 13 14 t ons Per Cent T o Aug* 21 0 6,879 6,879 3,120 0 It V 0 — . 0 9,999 9,999 .8 68.8 31.2 0 a 28 23 2,019 2,042 1,741 1,287 1,287 0 0 5,070 15,069 1.2 40.3 34.3 25,4 Sept. 4 430 3,981 4,411 2,213 2,504 2,553 0 51 Q Till 24,297 1.9 47.8 24.0 28.2 ■ 11 91 6,455 6,546 2,215 4,402 2,774 0 1,628 13,163 37,460 2.9 49.7 16.8 33.5 tt 18 536 23,759 24,295 2,372 11,350 6,660 76 4,612 38,517 75,9/7 5.8 63.1 7.4 29,5 ft 25 4,793 69,546 74,339 7,252 19,037 10,367 268 8,402 100,628 176,605 13-5 73.9 7.2 18.9 Oat* 2 10,180 78,919 89,099 7,604 32,624 22,317 849 9,458 129,327 305,932 23.6 68.9 5.9 25.2 m 9 17,300 66,284 83,584 10,641 42,346 29,660 4,070 8,616 136,571 442,503 34, 1 61.2 7.3 31.0 M 16 19,642 51,006 70,648 14,629 55,329 36,324 10,393 8,612 140,606 583,109 44.9 50.2 10,4 39.4 ft 23 22,673 35,519 58,192 40,223 72,127 45,691 20,433 6,003 170,542 753,651 58.0 34.1 23.6 42.3 ft 30 21,458 23,319 44,777 50,524 71,857 47,382 20,465 4,010 167,158 920,809 70,3 26,8 30. £ 43*0 Nov. 6 22,231 10,425 32,656 56,522 57,859 40,390 14,942 2,527 147,037 1,067,846 82.2 22.2 38.4 39.4 m 13 11,939 4,057 15,996 64,930 43,259 32,062 10,979 218 124,185 1,192,031 91.8 12*9 52.3 34.8 ■ 20 5,147 2,838 7,985 41,858 20,077 17,878 2,115 84 69,920 1,261,951 97.1 11.4 59.9 28.7 27 924 960 1,884 13,222 4,608 4,359 227 22 19,714 1,281,665 98.6 9.6 67*0 23. .4 Dec. 4 1,073 950 2,035 4,563 1,185 1,185 0 0 7,773 1,289,438 99.2 26.1 58.7 15.2 M 11 1,139 1,103 2,242 2,723 190 190 0 0 5,155 1,294,593 99.6 43 .,5 52.8 3.7 ft 18 493 163 656 2,569 1 1 0 0 3,226 1,297,819 99.9 20-4 79.6 0.0 ft 25 0 0 0 1,465 0 0 0 0 1,465 1,299,284 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Season Totals t Sura of weekly b / . 40,074 388,182 528,256 330,886 440,142 301,080 84,819 54,243 1,299,284) See footnotes Appendix Table 70 for Revised slightly 6 ./ 141,459 384,371 525,830 330,351 446,810 308,461 84,610 53,732 1,332,991) further explanation Per Cent of Flnali/ 95.-9 99.3 98.4 98.3 86.4 96.7 63,6 82.5 94.0) FinalS/ 147,559 387,050 534,609 334,369 517,305 318,455 133,734 65,116 1,386,283) Sources Compiled by S. W. Shear, Giannlnl Foundation of Agricultural Eoonomlos, University of California, April 1950, from Federal-State Uarket News Service, Marketing Grapes and Raisins, 1948 season, p* 66-67. APPENDIX TABLE 70 WEEKLY GRAPE CRUSH OF CALIFORNIA WINERIES BY VARIETAL CLASSES AND WINE VARIETIES BY DISTRICTS, 19,1,7 Week finding Raisin All Table Wine Varieties All Varieties, State Per Cent of All Varieties All State By Districts* 1 By Cumulated Raisin Table Wine Stat* Totals Interior Valley Central Coast Southern California Weeks Quantity Per Cent State 1 otals 1 2 3 4 5 6 j 8 9 10 11 12 Tons r si own m To An? 16 7,504 4,402 3,331 ■ j .:■ ■> ■ OA n 15,287 1.7 49.1 28.8 22 a l ft 23 3,815 2,286 4,623 4,592 31 0 10,724 26,011 2.9 35-.6 21.3 4S.1 ft 30 6,595 1,497 6,364 5,906 136 387 14,458 40,469 4.5 45*6 10,4 44.0 Sept* 0 13,3*1 1,820 10,772 7,240 1,243 2,482 25,941 66,410 7.4 51.4 7.1 41.5 n 13 26,050 5,190 37,753 25,120 7,023 6,101 69,001 135,411 15.2 37.C 7*5 54.7 ft 20 35,449 3,730 50,319 30,516 12,132 8,163 94,^96 228,909 25.6 37.5 9.2 53. c ft 27 29,259 14,934 63,660 36,492 18,728 8,737 107,853 337,762 37.9 27 f l 13.9 59 r O Oct. 4 31,842 22,263 54,946 34,124 13,92? 7,165 109,051 446,813 50.1 29*2 20.4 50.4 i« 11 24,453 33,200 41,787 29,267 6,451 6,294 99,440 546,253 61.2 24,6 33.4 42.0 it IS 22,175 42,636 38,914 26,083 5,205 5,727 103.72S 649,978 72 .6 n 25 16,ei7 58.C01 30,814 26,731 1,828 2,406 105,632 755,610 84.7 15.9 54.9 29,2 Nov? 1 9,158 32,915 15,827 15,334 144 349 57,900 813,510 91.2 15.8 56,9 27.3 « 8 3,806 23,405 10,349 10,269 80 64 37,560 851,070 95.4 10.1 62.3 27.6 ti IS 890 14,642 5,562 5,562 0 22 21,094 872,164 97.7 4.2 69.4 26.4 rf 22 496 8,824 1,268 1,288 0 0 10,608 882,772 98.9 4.7 83.2 12.1 n 29 55 5,318 193 193 0 0 5,566 888,338 99.6 1.0 95.5 3.5 Dec. 6 42 2,862 15 15 0 0 2,919 891,257 99.9 1.4 98.1 0.5 rf 13 5 813 0 0 0 0 818 892,075 99-95 0.6 99.4 0.0 M 20 0 258 0 0 0 0 258 892,333 99.99 0.0 100-0 O.C ■ 27 11 0 0 0 0 11 892,344 100.0 O.C 100.0 O.C Season i otals % Sura of Weekly*/ 231,752 204,023 376,tt7 261,091 66,952 47,e97 892,344 Revised Slightly?/ 248,163 28S,?30 374,241 264,462 66,591 43,186 908,634 Per Cent of Final!/ 90.5 98.5 93.3 100,0 64.9 87.9 94.1 ttlMO*/ 2/4,323 290, 6!0 400,903 249,173 102,653 49,157 965,956 a/ The Distrlot boundaries usod by the Market News Service are approximately the same as used by Shear in this and other tables on tonnage orushed in this report. "E/ Sua of uncorrected weekly data given above as reported currently by the Market News Servioe. 0/ The "revised slightly" season totals of the Market News Service given differ in 3ome instances from the sum of the current weekly date, because of later riiror revisions. d/ Per Cent "revised slightly" season totals of the Market News Servioe of final totals of the Wine Institute. Over 100 per oent reported for Interior Valley ~ probably due to incorreot classification of weekly data. e/ Flral data as reported by the Wine institute Twelfth Annual Wine Industry Statistical Survey, Part I. They are more complete than those reported to the ~ Market News Service, but only see^on totals and no weekly data reported. Souroe* Compiled by S. W. Shear, Giennini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, April 1950- from Federal-State Market News Servioe, Marketing Graper end Raisins, 1946 season, r° 66-67. -0 CD O o o Year and Month 1937 July August September October November December Total 1938 January February liaroh April May June July August September October November December Total 1939 January Fe bruary March prll Wiy June July August September October November December Total APPENDIX TABLE 71 APPARENT CONSUMPTION OF CALIFORNIA WINES IN ALL MARKETS, CALIFORNIA AND OTHER STATES, TABLE AND DESSERT AND TOTAL, MONTHLY JULY 1937-FEBRUARY 1950 Foreign Wines U.S. Net Imports Still and Sparkling 248,2S'3 197 r 137 2 4? ,041 384,470 455,999 658,345 2,192,515 225,780 206,319 273, f64 242,666 221,425 220,425 166,095 160 s 658 216, 2G2 378,278 488,586 613,385 3,415,763 268,895 212,162 312,198 335,429 264,847 241,890 173,828 177,466 502,701 427,833 458,239 553,552 3,929,040 Consumed In UoS« a / Still Wine Tabls. Dessert*/ 1,216,133 1,4C4,239 1,730,926 2*323,157 2,113,213 1,761,090 10,348,758 1,120,777 1,069,362 1,372,638 1,099,609 1,134,214 1,126,167 1,136,420 1,1^2,629 1,519,689 1,963,077 1,863,644 1,770,330 16,298,556 1,237,141 1,353,436 1,470,910 1,293,929 1,231,678 1,275,487 1,173,637 1,454,026 1,731,776 1,935,968 2,234,694 1,815,612 18,208,294 2,275,303 2j280»482 3,430,133 4,353,150 4,845,666 4,369,429 21,554,163 2,707,812 2,385,516 3,472,011 2,309,735 2,605,759 2,478,120 2,667,866 2,693,420 3,352,198 4(1722,328 4,330,356 4,865*446 38,590,569 3,261,328 3,129,956 3,659,199 3,303,981 3,179,571 2,972,648 2,703,535 3,511,058 4,620,747 5,605,920 5,3 83 , 509 4,903,513 46,234,965 Wire Produoed in California Consumed in California. Consumed in Other States Still Win* »>xii.jL ano Sparkling Still . Wlr.a Still and Table Desser^/ Table Dessert^/ Sparkling 4 5 g 7 8 9 Wine Gallons 506,959 758,067 1,269,187 709,174 1,517,236 533,146 841,292 1,380,116 871,093 1 AOQ 1 Oft *> OlO ICC 575,174 958,943 1,537 9 792 1,155,752 9 yi"*i ion 665,231 1,127,930 1,797,692 1,457,926 q one OOA 708,940 1,287,802 2,006,761 1,404,273 3,557,864 4,972,471 702,674 1,332,697 2,050,239 1,056,416 3,036,732 4,101,652 3,692,124 6,306,731 10,041,787 6,656,634 507, 64£ 1,010,472 1,523,619 612,929 507,424 945,184 1«455«050 561«918 589,504 1,051,001 1,642,677 783,134 9 AO\ Al ft *3 OAR Q"2 / 581,229 966,137 1,550,667 518,380 X j J 'f 0 £ J jO 1 flfi9 Q'»A A $ (50. 570,052 901,760 1,478,423 564,162 1 7ft*J QQQ 9 OA 13 TAJi t ysvOf / CD O D CD M O (Cont'd.) APPENDIX TABLE 71 (Cont'd) APPARENT CONSUMPTION OF CALIFORNIA WINES IN ALL MARKETS,. CALIFORNIA AND OTHER STATES, TABLE AND DESSERT AND TOTAL, MONTHLY JULY 1937-FEBRUARY 1950 oo Year and Month Foreign Wines U. 3. Net Imports Still and Sparkling Wine Produoed in California Consumed in U» S«^/ Still Vflne Table Dessert Consumed in California Still Wine Table Dessert Still and Sparkling Consumed In Other States Still Wine Table Dessert Still and Sparkling 1943 January February jiaroh April May June July August September Ootober November Deoember Total 1944 January February March April May June July August September Ootober November December Total 1945 January February Maroh April May 113,638 149 s 596 191,705 194,321 240,314 238,514 280,724 292,623 354,384 569,569 705,037 855,815 4,186,314 833,340 933,537 976,280 1,097,922 1,033,994 977,515 551,679 446,070 289,608 371,411 324,433 337,135 8,172,929 248,096 272, 774 251,913 225,923 263,762 3 ° 5 ° 8 S b/ Wine Oallons 2,253,920 2,213,906 2,434,402 2,118,539 1,981,634 1,938,886 1,773,050 1,840,337 1,450,960 1,610,738 1,867,519 2,199,052 23,687,943 2,017,181 1,945,549 2,357,393 1,986,196 2,510,448 1,995,484 2,028,547 1,887,162 1,544,920 1,601,971 1,870,744 1,653,830 23,399,425 1,889,961 1,820,609 1,886,156 1,873,293 1,435,524 5,704,205 4,923,742 4,327,185 4,282,033 4,079,103 4,020,090 3,589,804 4,100,204 3,107,194 3,324,867 3,389,872 4,285,876 49,134,175 3,792,153 3,656,652 4,474,446 3,493,839 5,011,729 3,974,473 3,552,486 4,303,385 4,016,194 4,696,111 4,470,417 5,383,674 50,825,564 5,336,934 5,251,466 5,769,044 5,162,071 5,160,925 562,741 581,044 605,733 572,815 551,011 634,487 546,002 600,207 461,381 482,151 469,099 653,316 6,719,987 486,918 531,657 524,609 536,987 614,516 553,724 516,654 600,344 444,931 450,382 484,126 447,215 6,192,063 527,433 477,011 457,512 476,614 403,309 1,083,338 881,688 887,676 749,802 719,808 827,986 602,871 899,994 628,470 792,706 534,894 1,049,756 9,659,489 \ ,6,617,124 784,732 806,748 836,975 643,912 1,053,748 775,637 755,940 1,089,303 820,025 1,207,475 1,126,250 1,382,570 11,283,313 17,706,964 1,611,019 1,007,918 1,146,506 990,723 1,020,943 1,653,672 1,470,394 1,507,512 1,334,033 1,288,850 1,488,904 1,169,701 1,526,728 1,109,132 1,293,259 1,024,680 1,750,259 1,287,707 1,360,989 1,377,322 1,202,922 1,690,727 1,340,044 1,284,740 1,719,106 1,286,655 1,675,521 1,628,528 1,852,703 2,148,889 1,506,140 1,618,207 1,481,394 1,435,151 16,967,956 i 9,474,686 1,691,179 1,637,862 1,826,669 1,545,724 1,430,623 1,304,399 1,227,046 1,240,130 989,579 1,128,587 1,398,420 1,545,736 4,620,367 4,042,054 3,439,509 3,532,231 3,359,295 3,192,104 2,986,933 3,200,210 2,478,724 2,532,161 2,854,978 3,236,120 1,530,263 1,413,892 1,832,784 1,449,209 1,895,932 1,441,760 1,511,893 1,286,818 1,099,989 1,151,589 1,386,618 1,206,615 17,207,362 119,542,251 1,362,528 1,343,598 1,428,644 1,398,679 1,032,215 3,007,421 2,849,906 3,637,471 2,849,927 3,957,981 3,198,841 2,796,546 3,214,082 3,196,169 3,488,636 3,344,167 4,001,104 3,775,915 4,243,548 4,622,533 4,171,348 4,139,982 6,331,478 5,695,959 5,277,517 5,095,445 4,809,209 4,530,091 4,242,304 4,467,401 3,495,346 3,703,113 4,279,719 4,831,646 56,759,228 4,561,929 4,296,648 5,505,946 4,342,002 5,885,965 4,663,936 4,347,641 4,548,374 4,334,044 4,685,651 4,777,312 5,237,833 57,187,286 5,160,706 5,622,104 6,081,617 5,595,545 5,193,369 (Continued) Year and Month June July August September October November Oeoember Total 1946 January February March April May Jun« July August September October November December Total 1947 Januajpy February March April May June July Auguest September October November December Total APPENDIX TABLE 71 (Cont'd) APPARENT CONSUMPTION OF CALIFORNIA WINES IN ALL MARKETS, CALIFORNIA AND OTHER STATES, TABLE AND DESSERT AND TOTAL, MONTHLY JULY 1 937- FEBRUARY 1950 Foreign Wines U. So Net Imports Still and Sparkling Wine Produced in California Consumed in U* S Still Wine Table Dessert Consumed in California Still Wine Table Dessert Still and SparKling Consumed in Other States Still Wine Table Dessert 8 ° b/ Still and Sparse ling Wino Gallons 170 , 308 1,154,499 4,202,98-i 320,526 853,081 1,183 ,971 833 «97? Op H7j 3V J 4-911 ^fi^ *♦ it < A ■L 9 Di) C 102,044 1,087,860 3*860,654 314,306 712,941 1,044,9/3 77 J.«5S4 1 1 j , j n ^^147-71 * o, l*t r , # Lo -i QAf. QCl 149,485 1,033,512 3,891,699 286,52 7 710,411 1,024,014 746„985 £ , J OA , C OO O $ l I C p k 7 140,896 1,105,575 3i,289,038 275,651 439,431 723,800 829,925 2,849,607 3,710,768 245,114 3,156,452 5,302,992 413,173 691,917 1,119,543 2,745,274 4,611,075 7,426,487 344,559 2,120,734 6,676,450 528,978 1,486,532 2,052,292 1,591,756 5,189,918 6,853,533 289,731 1,969,358 6,066,896 445,023 1,362,331 1,856,090 1,524,335 4,704,565 6,277,586 2,704,710 20,537,534 59,821,153 4,926,068 12,033,753 17,196,469 15,611,466 47,737,400 63,852,423 297,902 1,864,562 6,632,143 499,791 957,562 1,467,250 1,364,771 5,674,581 7,077,638 160,904 1,887,990 6,901,684 451,123 1,172,769 1,635,043 1,436,867 5,728,915 7,201,772 314,150 2,518,520 9,183,523 521,031 1,883,523 2,419,029 1,997,489 7,300,000 9,326,341 364,382 2,607,275 8,617,385 587,636 1,740,885 2,344,600 2,019,639 6,876,500 8,924,330 541,704 2,551,970 7,487,847 523,920 1,310,614 1,847,791 2,028,050 6,177,233 8,241,692 469,528 2,640,540 7,722,432 514,356 1,257,553 1,795,317 2,126,184 6,464,879 8,641,046 580„128 2,082,817 6,968,779 409,663 1,069,607 1,493,382 1,673,154 5,898,972 7,617,117 470,698 2,458,129 7,711,274 481,637 1,204,637 1,707,447 1,976,492 6 , 506,537 8,545,033 357,471 1,968,283 7,762,21V 455,960 1,016,827 1*483,985 1,512,323 6,745,385 9» 303,466 489,152 2,362,306 8,75/,153 506,659 1,182,180 1,722,203 1,855,649 7t,574,97'» 7 ,) ■ — J 7 1; , 554,996 2,254,360 8,340,427 601,591 1,287,829 1,926,640 1,652,769 7,052^598 8,770,902 415,314 2,244,516 8,352,621 524,632 1,114,472 1,668,395 1,719,684 7,238,149 9,012,438 5,016, 22.7 27,441,?70 94,437,380 6,076,199 15,198,658 °1 C V1»082 21,363,071 79,238,722 101,173,758 274,^93 1,785,757 5,378,035 508,745 623,925 1,343,330 1,277,012 4,554,110 5,843,989 238,045 1,300,630 4,311,412 323,803 468, 160 794 s 9?3 976,e22 3,843,232 4,829,397 273*669 1,483,624 4,304,684 360,835 741,794 1,128,250 1,102,789 3,562,890 4,679,194 179,365 1,074,034 3,979,224 316,306 604,061 923,828 757,728 3,375,163 4,141,66C 185,015 1,038,194 4,039,106 305,640 594,572 909,173 732,554 3,444,534 4,190,875 140,832 1,153,128 4,561,368 310,074 748^081 1,063,386 843,054 3,813,287 4,661,977 108,698 1,162,484 5,046,n"'72 344 ,,098 750,297 1,301,777 818,386 4,296,475 5,126,116 125,694 1,163,409 5,376,030 313,534 775,561 1,094,694 849,875 4,600,369 5,466,315 215,558 l»495,773 6,478,512 332,214 982,569 1,323,695 1,163,559 5,495,943 6,670,487 20?,628 1,986,481 9,034,787 495,615 1,275,228 1,785,253 1,490,866 7,759,559 9,285,958 166,050 2,058,045 B,342,?77 4M U 923 1,159,439 1,593,866 1,543,222 ? r 182,638 8,857,191 156,806 l,986,4e8 7,355,158 489 P 574 1,039,411 1,546,468 1,496,814 6,315,787 7,844,596 2,267,273 17,688,047 68,207,205 4,535,366 9,963,218 14,610,843 13,152,581 58,243,937 71,597,763 (Cont'd*) APPENDIX TABLE 71 (Cont'd) APPARENT CONSUMPTION OF CALIFORNIA WINES IN ALL MARKETS, CALIFORNIA AND OTHER STATES, TABLE AND DESSERT AND TOTAL, MONTHLY JULY 1937-FEBRUARY 1 9 50 Foreign Wines Wine Produoed in California Year U* S. Net Consumed in u. s4h/ Consumed in California Consumed in Other States and Month Imports Still Wine Still Wine Still and Still \ fine Still and Sparkling Still and Table Dessert Table Dessert Sparkling Table Dessert Sparkling 1 2 3 y 4 5i/ 6 7 e y 9 Wine Gallons 1940 January February Uarch April Kay Juno July August September Ootober November Deoember 262,044 172,076 224,568 206,428 190,372 ? Id CIO 156,722 221,1 1 6 257,076 306,723 295,295 391,617 1,657,720 1,454,298 1,675,804 1,618,004 1,626,415 1,391,354 1,257,888 1,280,986 1,621,694 1,999,134 2,249,187 2,220,544 7,337,189 7,008,146 8,063,857 7,766,467 6,179,329 6,667,169 5,051,260 6,383,381 8,169,278 8,279,740 9,436,154 7,485,720 356,804 332,210 450,192 418,225 378,607 423,199 322,958 406,524 465,491 494,961 541*025 581,790 1,185,989 974,617 1,380,15? 1,264,083 906,880 1,136,137 804,932 1,120,991 1,178,663 1,146,866 1,295,707 1, A<:4,U3 I 1,549,102 1,310,404 1,839,876 1,677,959 1,299,784 1,572,909 1,135,212 1,534,461 1,661,304 1,654,526 1,855,589 1,300,924 1,122,088 1,225,612 1,199,779 1,247,808 968,155 934,930 874,462 1,156,203 1, 504,173 1,700,162 A, Oo O, / 6,161,200 6,033,329 6,683,705 6,512,364 5,272,449 5,531,032 4,246,328 5,262,390 7,010,615 t loo 071 8,140,447 6.161.68'' 7,469,599 7,176,512 7,922,357 7,726,817 6,531,918 6,513,076 5,199,946 6,156,184 8,194,324 Of O /** y c 50 9,682,061 8,024,292 Total 2,900, 53 7 20,053,036 87,847,690 5,171,986 13,509,254 16,826,468 14,881,050 74,338,436 89,471,399 1949 January February Maroh April May June July August September October November Eecember 235,032 242,178 274,578 269,554 247,819 205,228 160,908 158,889 223,040 426,145 420,886 1,737,060 1,626,770 1,994,177 1,651,128 1,566,293 1,418,147 1,338,260 1,624,085 1,825,964 2,372,171 2,245,926 2,096,886 7,613,178 7,597,233 8,363,564 7,509,923 6,585,703 6,927,808 5,971,731 7,428,229 8,182,593 10,244,222 9,806,251 9,595,757 430,307 461,253 500,565 446,185 428,389 483,562 404,524 530,852 559,921 564,978 578,598 591,081 1,311,7/45 1,228,024 1,301,609 1,122,687 1,004,749 1,072,821 960,136 983,904 1,352,200 1,669,158 1,247,276 1,523,524 1,751,207 1,693, 59E 1,809,651 1,575,03C 1,439,677 1,568,405 1,371,074 1,528,46? 1,924 , 535 2,256,026 1,646,P9I 2,137,440 1,306,753 1,165,517 1,493,611 1,204,943 1,137,903 934,585 933,735 1,093,233 1,266,044 1,807,194 1,667,330 1,505,806 6,301,434 6,369,209 7,061,955 6,387,236 5,580,954 5,854,987 5,011,594 6,444,326 6,830,393 8,575,065 8,558,975 8,072,233 7,628,092 7 , 554 , 778 8, 575, 562 7,604,982 6,732,474 6,799,149 5,956,419 7,550,752 8,118,436 10,416,830 10,260,057 9,601,155 Total 3,194,555 21,496,869 95,826,192 5,980,215 14,777,833 20,502,014 15,516,654 81,048,361 96,796,726 1950 January February 264,000 259,000 1,687,210 1,713,657 9,166,255 7,336,319 457,894 414,79? 1,391,520 833,315 1,857,739 1,253,158 1,429,316 1,298,865 7,774,734 6,503,004 9,221,170 7,814,949 a/ Consumed in United States and the small quantity exported. ~/ De»8tr1 wine include* vemouth. Souroej Compiled by Glannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, April 1950, from Wine Institute Annual Wino Industry Statistical Surveys Part I. Years Beginning July 1 APPENDIX TABLE 72 UNITED STATES WINE IMPORTS FOR CONSUMPTION BY KINDS, YEARS BEGINNING JULY I, 1933- 1948 Total Champagne and Other Sparkling Totel Table > 14 Per Cent or Less Still Wines Dessert, Over 14 Per Cent and Not Over 24 Per Cent Aloohol Total Vermouth*/ Total Kxeept ftrrouuth Sakai/ N.e.s.a/ Other 10 Averages: 1936. 1939 1940-194? 1943-1945 1946.1948 Annual: 1933 1934 1935 1936V 1S37 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 Wine Gallons 4,010,783 1,728»104 5,361,462 3,169,904 3,155,381 2,731,608 2,803,710 4,233,068 3,596,754 3,670,760 4,542,551 2,200,778 1,194,985 1,788,550 8,910,764 3,753,122 3,420,499 4,159,396 2,247,422 3,102,895 574,864 151,746 165,012 348,660 352,453 288,647 282,267 598,407 543,070 513,544 644,437 258,108 89,541 107,595 89,818 65,209 340,007 401,817 233,823 410,340 3,435,919 1,576,356 5,196,450 2,821,244 2,802,928 2,442,961 2,527,443 3,634,661 3,053,684 3,157,216 3,898,114 1,942,670 1,105,444 1,680,955 8,820,946 3,687,913 3,080,492 3,757,579 2,013,599 2,692,555 1,024,960 268,417 426,802 857,086 1,072,828 970,649 1,015,125 1,041,236 391,640 190,887 222,723 598,808 301,173 380,426 , 972,070 568,268 1,030,922 2,410,959 1,307,939 4,769,648 1,964,158 ,0/ 2,561,833 2,083,035 2*142,091 2,856,873 1,551,030 914,557 1,458,232 8,222,138 3,386,740 2,700,066 2,785,509 1,445,331 1,661,633 1,387,656 563,981 714,207 1,000,495 1,000,000 911,372 944,000 1,390,257 1,153,912 1,227,284 1,779,171 766,103 436,542 489,298 688,892 626,081 825,650 1,199,667 765,233 1,036,585 1,023,303 743,958 4,055,441 963*663 1,171,576 929,123 914,807 1,077,707 784,927 478,015 968,934 7,533,246 2,758,659 1,874,416 1,585,842 680,098 625,048 122,924 27,881 41 209 120,480 172,033 145,478 145,181 124,661 112,063 109,770 76,752 6,891 0 0 0 124 0 0 628 3,059 2,153 1,733 21,326 500 2,200 2,200 33,180 1,822 3,611 3,624 3,118 3,203 140 4,623 124 450 10,782 15,944 37,257 897,320 713,924 4,053,667 942,126 -o/ 1,023,215 802,640 799,113 964,313 705,057 467,921 968,794 7,528,623 2,758,535 1,873,342 1,575,060 664,154 587,163 a/ Vermouth 1933 and N.s.s. 1933.1935 estimated by S. W. Shear. N.9.J. approximate totals - imports from only Hong Kong, China, Poland and Danzig - the ohief sourses slnos 1935, b/ Sake totals 1933-1934 assumed as imports of all wine from Japan, as sake 1935-1941 was all or nearly all imported from Japan and total imports from Japan were nearly all sake* •/ Dashes indicate data not reported separately* d/ Year 1936*37 oovers June 15, 1936- June 30, 1937 and hence includes June 15-30, imports also included in data for preceding year beginning July 1, 193S, Sooroes Coaplled by S. W, shear, Giaimijii Foundation of Agricultural Eoonomios, University or California, Berkeley, April 1950, iireotly or indirectly from latest revised monthly reports of U. S* Depto Comeroe, Bureau Foreign and Douestlo Comaeroej 1933-1935 from monthly mimeographed releases, Imports of Distilled Uquors, Wines, and Cordials, by Countrlesj 1936=1948 from compilations of the *ine Institute from Department of Coaneroe reoords of final monthly data by oountrles. Imports for consumption, total - dutiable plus the snail amount free of duty (less than 1 per oent of total in most years). APPENDIX TABLE 73 UNITED STATES IMPORTS FOR CONSUMPTION OF TABLE WINE CONTAINING 14* OR LESS BY CHIEF COUNTRIES OF ORIGIN, YEARS BEGINNING JULY I, 1936-1948 ALCOHOL Year Est gtar.ing Chile Otherb/ July 1 Totala/ Franc* Italy Spain . tugal uermany Hungary Greece Switzerland Argentina 1 2 j 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Wine a a Hons*/ 7,051 20,856 1 Q^A_1 0 t Q i ^4 $ Vo We— 1946-1948 942,126 544,077 16,402 299,461 4,295 40,177 7,214 4,555 3,438 6,535 857 15,115 Annual i 1936»/ 1,023,215 598,558 6,448 118,675 95,980 56,777 15,773 54,676 9,067 2,212 417 64,632 1937 802,640 502,311 4,383 124,544 86,030 52,043 9,502 0 4,555 335 860 18,077 1938 799,113 491,248 6,364 133,096 95,620 43,821 10,363 0 16 254 0 18,311 1939 964,313 609,098 8,253 146,190 132,883 45,391 10,187 0 84 75 38 12,114 1940 705,057 512,536 6,550 120,714 40,857 8,790 5,164 0 793 30 193 9,430 1941 467,921 340,435 5,652 89,662 16,346 4,255 3,480 433 188 487 48 6,930 1942 968,794 629,240 18,235 299,880 1,926 1,235 843 820 10 2,520 698 13,387 1943 7,528,623 2,474,388 306,676 4,440,811 9 0 134 10 59,671 52,569 250 194,105 1944 2,758,535 1,122,653 66,612 1,344,534 0 19,538 0 2,755 39,337 73,466 2,271 87,369 1945 1,873,842 1,140,675 35,048 590,536 15 19,183 0 0 22,337 46,601 76 19,371 1946 1,575,060 918,377 34,111 527,548 4,749 42,878 6,126 1,315 8,864 17,167 0 13,925 1947 664,154 366,414 6,412 216,393 3,552 39,530 5,657 6,234 7 1,746 666 17,543 1948 587,163 347,441 8,683 154,441 4,585 38,122 9,859 6,116 1,442 692 1,904 13,876 a/ Data exclude vermouth, sake and noSoSo Data for June 1936 through December 1941 inolude dutiable imports only as non-dutiable not available by countries by monthso For January 1942 to date non-dutiable imports are included because they are not segregated by countries in monthly reportso Non-dutiable imports are less than one per cent of the total in most yearso They are admitted free (1) as an aot of International courtesy to diplomatic representatives of foreign oountries (2) for ship supplies of vessels for use outside the three mile limit, and (3) as a produot of the Philippine Islandso b/ "Other'* includes the following gallons from Mexico* 1942, 2,850j 1943, 190,522; 1944, 54,690; 1945, 7,643 J 1946, 2,992 0 o/ Year 1936 oovers June 15, 1936 to June 30, 1937o Souroej Complied by S. #. Shear, Giannlnl Foundation of Agricultural Eoonomlos, University of California, Berkeley, April 1950, from compilation by the Wine Institute from Uo So Depto Comneroe reoords of final revised monthly imports by oountries* 88o APPENDIX TABLE 75 UNITED STATES IMPORTS FOR CONSUMPTION OF VERMOUTH BY CHIEF COUNTRIES OF ORIGIN YEARS BEGINNING JULY I, 19 35- 19 ^8 Year Other Tulv 1 o uxjr x TotalS/ Chile Argentina Franoe Italy Spain 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Wine gallons^/ Averages j * 7,004 1936-1939 1,00/ jOOO c p 47 453,456 924,975 2,168 1940-1S42 □ 0 0 , y ox 108.978 137,907 15,677 17,522 1943-1945 714,207 53,126 559,966 38,549 7,230 24,318 31,018 194G-1948 1,000,495 13,394 190,792 297,435 490,505 1,839 6,530 Annual* -*J 1935 , 944,000 311,000 611,000 22,000 1936— 1,390,257 0 169 446,553 921,677 6,771 15,067 1937 1,153,912 22 0 366,392 782,701 1,182 3,615 1938 1,227,284 0 0 398,835 824,306 336 3,807 1939 1,779,171 0 0 602,045 , 1,171,215 385 5,526 1940 766,103 75 251,502 177,406 302,241 26,122 8,757 1941 436,542 146 238,100 81,275 85,651 20,517 10,853 1942 489,298 397 361,472 68,252 25,830 392 32,955 1943 688,892 881 583,840 434 2,018 17,158 84,561 1944 628,081 67,323 551,645 1 301 1,061 7,750 1945 825,650 91,174 544,414 115,212 19,372 54,735 743 1946 1,199,667 29,968 542,972 310,372 307,914 3,520 4,921 1947 765,233 8,186 19,382 254,902 480,891 840 1,032 1948 1,036,585 2,029 10,022 327,032 682,709 1,156 13,637 a/ Data for July 1934 through December 1S41 include dutiable imports only as non-dutiable not available by counties by months. For January 1942 to date non-dutiable imports are included because they are not segregated by Countries monthly. Non-dutiable imports are less than one per cent of total imports in most years. b/ Year 1936 covers June 15, 1936 through June 30, 1937. 0/ Dashes indicate if any included in "Other". Sources Compiled by S. W. Shear, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, Berkeley, April 1950 directly or indirectly from latest revised monthly reports of the U. S. Department of Commerce; 1936-1948 from compilations of the Wine Institute from Department of Commerce records of final monthly revised imports by countries. Data for 1934 involves minor estimate of non-dutiable imports. 89c APPENDIX TABLE 76 UNITED STATES IMPORTS FOR CONSUMPTION OF SPARKLING WINE BY CHIEF COUNTRIES OF ORIGIN YEARS BEGINNING JULY I, 1934-1948 Year beginning July 1 Total*/ Chile Argentina France Italy Spain Portugal Other Wing gallo nsS/ Averages: 1936-1939 563,656 121 155 540,398 13,160 487 8 9,327 1940-1942 150,222 1,891 13,493 128,389 2,884 260 1,051 2,254 1943-1945 165,012 10,269 29,306 102,802 1,622 7,088 11,130 2,795 1946-1948 348,660 5,153 4,560 306,992 24,179 1,388 4,984 1,404 Annual: 1934 285,589 0 0 221,467 6,512 0 0 0 1935 278,638 0 6 237,116 4,775 0 0 °t 1936 564,783 30 292 521,564 15,960 977 8 25,952i 1937 538,749 73 66 522,104 13,344 362 20 2,780 1938 509,936 185 199 493,225 12,454 383 5 3,485 1939 641,154 196 57 624,701 10,864 224 0 5,092 1940 254,216 909 10,308 232,814 6,784 223 1,577 1,601 1941 88,854 2,532 12,995 69,023 984 259 847 2,214 1942 107,595 2,231 17,176 83,330 883 298 730 2,947 1943 89,818 6,131 36,282 11,953 0 9,234 19,812 6,406 1944 65,209 10,914 31,676 6,650 0 8,385 6,572 1,012 1945 340,007 13,762 19,959 289,802 4,865 3,645 7,006 968 1946 401,817 7,942 9,195 350,756 29,663 2,889 1,147 225 1947 233,823 2,522 3,249 204,258 16,674 727 3,811 582 1948 410,340 4,995 1,236 365,963 24,200 548 9,992 3,406 a/ Data for July 1934 through December 1941 include dutiable imports only as non-dutiable not given by countries monthly. For January 1942 to date non-dutiable imports are included because they are not segregated by countries monthly. Non-dutiable imports are less than one per oent of total imports in most years. They are admitted free (1) as an act of international courtesy to diplomatic representatives of foreign countries (2) for supply of vessels for use outside the three mile limit, and (3) as a product of the Philippine Islands. b/ Of "other" United Kingdom supplied 12,718 gallons in 1936. Source: Compiled by S. W. Shear, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, Berkeley, April 1950 directly or indirectly from latest revised monthly reports of the U. S. Department of Commerce: 1933-1935 from monthly «ime3grrphed releases, Imports of Distilled Liquors, Hints and Cordials, by Countries; 1936-1948 from compilations of the Wine Institute from Department of Conmeroe records of final revised monthly imports by countries. 90o SPARKLING WINE: APPENDIX TABLE 77 PRODUCTION AND WITHDRAWALS FOR CONSUMPTION, DOMESTIC AND IMPORTED Years beginning July 1 Averages: 1933-1935 1936-1940 1941-1944 1945-4948 Annual: 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1930 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1946 1949 Stocks, Production Withdrawals for consumption in United States , net Total (5+6) a/ Domestic wine, tax paid- Imports tax paid and free Total Natural / sparkling— Califg^iift wine— U. S. July 1 United ( States JaUfornla 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 thousands of gallons (000 omitted) SO 587 308 279 -4/ 4202/ 67 618 512 117 948 505 443 92 916 1,275 414 1,230 88 1,148 1,088 350 1,539 1,546 524 1,716 358 1,360 1,331 427 476 108 636 352 284 -3/ 88 451 269 67 553 289 264 63 464 361 120 572 282 290 51 539 442 67 963 568 395 59 582 446 71 904 543 361 65 662 304 95 831 514 317 260 73 647 435 106 1,063 644 419 345 88 660 867 226 981 258 723 655 174 794 1,161 321 968 90 878 827 217 1,050 946 282 1,212 108 1,104 1,048 306 882 1,417 539 1,438 90 1,348 1,255 474 936 1,477 480 1,328 65 1,263 1,222 405 1,132 1,925 653 2,172 386 1,786 1,749 592 1,225 2,324 916 1,951 402 1,549 1,518 523 1,975 909 169 1,255 234 1,021 999 261 1,823 1,028 358 1,493 410 1,003 1,059 331 1,743 a/ Tax paid Champagne, other natural sparkling wine, and artifically carbonated wine, converted at 20 taxable units per gallon. b/ Reported U. S, "withdrawals" and "disappearance" of sparkling wine 1934-1946 averaged practically the same but California withdrawals totaled 255,000 gallons less than disappearance, an average of nearly 20,000 gallons a year. c/ Champagne and other natural sparkling wines. Artificially carbonated is the small difference between Cols. 6 and 7. d/ Dashes indicate no segregation reported before 1938, so average 1936-1940 is for years 1938-1940 only. Source: Compiled by S. W. Shear, Glannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, Berkeley, Ifarch 1950 from official reports of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, U. S. Treasury Department except imports for consumption, duty paid and tax free, from official reports of the U. S. Department of Commerce. APPENDIX TABLE 78 CALIFORNIA FRUIT BRANDY, NEUTRAL AND BEVERAGE, SUPPLY AND DISAPPEARANCE, YEARS BEGINNING JULY |, 1909-1913 AND I933-I9W Year Beginning July 1 Total, Beverage and Neutral Stooks July 1 Production Gross b/ Supply Gross Disappear anoe Gross Sf Neutral ror rortirying Dessert wine Total Dlsappearnoe Used in California Used In Other States Production Gross Be vo rage bran ay Disappearance o/ d/ Production Gross 1/ Fresh Fruit Used Averages 8 1909-1913 1935-1939 1940=1944 1945=1948 Annual -i 1933- 34 1934- 35 1935- 36 1936=37 1937=38 1938=39 1939- 40 1940- 41 1941=42 1942=43 1943=44 1944.45 1945=46 1C46-47 1947=48 1948=49 1949=50 3 (1 = 2} 5(6+7) 9 (4 . 5) 2,510 6,111 11 9 997 9.146 1,209 2,353 2,738 3,732 2,985 4,136 16,966 15,878 13,590 13,821 9,111 7,585 7,934 8,800 9,910 9,941 8,335 7,489 19,392 22,777 34,318 7,035 9,292 19,233 11,945 21,234 26,867 17,683 24,754 28,350 15,465 20,733 24,584 33,145 43,276 25,091 35,760 20,829 Thousands of Proof Gallons (Substantially Same As Tax Gallons) 9,999 25,504 34,774 43,464 6,244 11,645 21,971 15,677 24,219 31,003 34,649 40,632 41,940 29,286 29,844 32,169 41,079 52,076 35,001 45,701 29,164 7,434 16,764 24,366 34,218 5,891 8,907 18,239 12,692 20,083 14,037 18,771 27,042 28,119 20,175 22,259 24,235 32,229 42,166 25,060 37,366 15,251 20,232 30,679 4,690 7,345 16,625 10,943 18,608 12,629 17,448 24,715 24,776 13,144 15,292 26,54? 38,509 23,399 34,265 5,024 14,937 19,100 30,462 4,600 7,200 16,300 10,732 18,242 12,353 17,056 24,228 24,394 12,826 15,026 19,028 26,327 38,281 23,227 34,013 314 363 217 90 145 325 211 366 276 392 487 382 318 266 215 228 172 252 5,024 16,278 18,835 30,776 4,711 7,992 17,545 10,506 18,716 18,084 16,540 22,451 24,816 11,371 15,920 19,617 28,104 37,552 23,884 23,566 2,410 1,514 4,875 3,539 1,201 1,562 1,614 1,749 1,475 1,408 1,323 2,327 3,343 7,031 6,967 4,705 5,737 3,657 1,661 3,101 10 2,465 3,114 3,942 3,512 2,324 1,300 1,688 1,439 2,518 8,783 1,143 2,303 3,534 4,094 4,813 4,967 5,041 5,724 1,207 2,194 1,200 11 Tons 62,000 78,000 98,400 90,500 58,000 32,000 42,000 36,000 63,000 220,000 29,000 58,000 88,000 102,000 120,000 124,000 126,000 143,000 30,000 55,000 30,000 a/ Stooks in California special and bonded warehouses before 1933 but inbonded only since then* b/ About 99 per cent of California brandy is made from grapes. aj Gross disappearance is considerably greater than UoS. consumption of California beverage brandy* d/ Withdrawals from bonded warehouses in other states assumed as made in California* e/ Gross production estimates of 1949 for 6 months only, July l=Deoember 31, from Wine Institute 14th Annual Wine Industry Statistical Survey Part I, ~ llaroh 7, 1950. Souroes Compiled by S. W. Shear, Giannini Foundation, March 1950, from annual reports of U* S. Commissioner of Internal Revenue except 1949 produotlon, •ee footnote e/* Segregation of beverage and neutral brandy estimated. 92c APPENDIX TABLE 79 CALIFORNIA RAISINS USED IN MAKING BRANDY AND SPIRITS IN THE UNITED STATES Reported as used at^/ Years beginning July 1 (July 1-June 30) Total Distilleries Wine ries^/ 1 2 3 Dry tons 1935-36 4,920 £/ 1936-37 8,904 1937-38 3,648 1938-39 4,148 1,489 2,659 1939-40 21,377 4,829 16,548 1940-41 10,533 3,529 7,004 1941-42 6,332 2,739 3,593 1942-43 10,571 2,844 7,727 1943-44 17,452 5,114 12,338 1944-45 29,930 6,901 21,029 1945-46 33,226 10,004 23,222 1946-47 14,007 5,576 8,431 1947-48 11,007 6,358 4,649 1948-49 6,603 6,075 728 a/ All or very nearly all the California raisin tonnage reported was used by California distilleries and wineries and very little or none in other states* b/ Raisins used by wineries are presumably for distilling material for making brandy and neutral spirits mostly finally used for fortifying dessert wine. c/ Dashes indicate no data given in Annual Reports. Sources Compiled by S. W. Shear, Giaimlnl Foundation of Agricultural Economics, March 1950, from Annual Reports of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue of U. S. Treasury Dept. APPENDIX TABLE 80 UNITED STATES BRANDY IMPORTS FOR CONSUMPTION BY CHIEF COUNTRIES OF ORIGIN YEARS BEGINNING JULY I, 1934-1948 V.Q. i «etr Total£/ Franoe Spain Portugal Union Argentina. Chile Greeoe Other Beginning SOUTH July 1 Africa 1 2 3 A *f N 6 7 Q o Proo f Gall on s£ / Averages : 1936-1939 769,567 818,000 22,607 138 484 0 38 16,120 13,180 1940*1942 452,023 182,281 72,156 160,420 28,119 1,165 5 2,501 4,976 1943-1945 2,460,379 165,049 810,117 1,354,873 51,906 11,408 14,110 44 32,872 1946-1946 629,091 389,578 80,978 125,373 15,044 847 3,994 1,520 11,757 Annual a -y 1934 457,466 394,366 14,015 49,087 1935 462,104 415,076 15,671 31,357 1936 793,608 708,185 28,870 274 5 0 24 31,391 24,859 1937 701,236 637,299 28,624 122 229 0 0 23,291 11,571 1938 700,253 666,944 13,750 85 1,251 0 120 6,625 11,478 1939 883,173 855,572 19,085 71 452 0 7 3,173 4,813 1940 503,553 375,941 85,823 20,024 14,040 256 2 3,152 4,315 1941 261,817 80,530 57,206 88,349 31,151 379 14 1,459 2,729 1942 590,701 90,371 74,640 372,888 39,165 2,860 0 2,893 7,884 1943 3,852,583 4,977 1,263,716 2,445,861 51,078 22,375 4 132 64,440 1944 2,324,120 16,573 835,847 1,332,828 70,816 10,193 30,661 27,202 1945 1,204*436 533,597 330,787 285,930 33,825 1,656 11,666 6,975 1946 958,398 538,378 150,703 232,293 27,958 1,247 2,936 1,378 3,505 1947 381,222 245,286 39,266 75,927 9,030 915 516 1,124 9,156 1946 547,653 385,067 52,966 67,900 8,144 379 8,530 2,057 22,610 a/ Data inolude dutiable and non-ctutl*ble importse January 1942 to date non<=dutlatle imports are not segregated by countries monthly. Non=dutlable imports are less than one per cent of total imports in most years • They are admitted free (1) as an act of international courtesy to diplomatic representatives of foreign countries (2) for ship's supplies of vessels for use outside the three-mile limit and (3) as a product of the Philippine Islands. b/ Dashes indicated if any included in ''other". Soureei Compiled by S. W, Shear, Glannlnl Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, April 1950, directly or indirectly from latest revised monthly reports of the U. S. Dept. Commercei 1933-1935 from isonthly mimeographed relaases, Imports of Distilled Liquors, Wines and Cordials, by Countries} 1936*1948, from compilations of the Wine Institute from Dept. of Commerce records of final revised monthly imports by countries. University of California College of Agriculture Agricultural Experiment Station Berkeley, California Economic Situation and Market Organization in the California Grape Industries by George L. Hehren Appendix D Market Control Part Number Subject Matter Pages 1 to 5 6 California Legislation and Programs Federal Price Support Price Control Federal Legislation and Programs Federal Subsidy Id 8d 9d 12d 15d 7 to 10 11 to 13 14 to 15 May, 1950 Contribution from the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics Mimeographed Report No. 107 Appendix D. Part 1. California Marketing Act of 1937 Id 1300 c 10 Legislative policy; (a) Unreasonable, unnecessary economic waste as a result of marketing amounts exceeding reasonable and normal demands; dis- orderly marketing! improper preparation; lack of uniform grading or classing; unfair methods of competition; inability to hold or to develop or expand markets — all jeopardize continued production and prevent fair farm return. Farm purchasing power has been and again may be relatively low. Farm people therefore have low living standards and thus increase tax burdens on others, (b) Therefore the state aids in preventing waste, to develop more efficient and equitable methods and to restore purchasing power, (c) Farm marketing is affected with the public interest and this is a police power act* . 1300.11 Purposes t (a) Correlate marketing with demand; (b) establish orderly marketing; (c) uniform grading, proper preparation; (d) hold markets, expand or develop markets and prevent, modify or eliminate trade barriers; (e) eliminate or reduce economic waste. 1300.12 Definitions ; Agricultural Commodity, any and all agricultural, horticultural, viti cultural (including wine) and vegetable products in natural state or as processed including bees and honey but not timber or timber products. Processor, changing form to prepare for market, marketing or associated activities but not manufacturing another product from an agricultural processed product. Distributor (does not include retailer handling already regulated product); Retailer, may also be distributor; Advertising and sales promotion, usual meanings plus trade promotion; prevention, removal or modification of trade barriers, in- eluding negotiations with and presentation of facts to state, federal or foreign governments. Wine has always been specifically considered an agricultural com- modity since the Act was passed. 1300.13 (a) Orders administered by Director, (b) Director on own or at instance of others may hold public hearings prerequisite to issuance of order, (c) Uotice of hearings is specified for all producers and handlers or others affected, setting forth: date and place of hearing; commodity and area to be covered; testimony and evidence to be received. Public testimony under oath. Verbatim record. Handlers may be required after notice to give information on name, address, amount handled, names and addresses of producers who may be af- fected and quantities handled therefor. The Director may proceed on the basis of available replies. Lists compiled are conclusive. Information shall not be made available for private purposes. Director may enter agreements which bind signers with processors, distribu- tors, producers and others engaged in handling. Requirement to prepare lists is not binding. Written request for termination provisions are not applicable to agreements. 1300.14 Standards ; (a) Before issuing for assent an order correlating supply to demand by restricting the quantity of any or all grades, sizes, qualities or conditions, Director must find proposed regulations: (1) necessary to correlate supply-demand, maintain or re-establish prices such as to keep production high enough to meet normal needs; (2) will approach equality of purchasing power at rate as rapid as feasible; (3) be within law and will con- tribute towards its declared purposes; (4) protect consumers by limitation to extent necessary for declared purposes only, (b) In making findings the Director 2d must consider when relevant j available supply; normal consumption; cost of production; purchasing power; prices of competing goods; prices of goods bought by farmers, (c) If only rate of flow; grade size or condition; uniform grading inspection: elimination of unfair practices; trade promotion or advertising; or research— Director need only find that provisions are reasonably calculated to attain goals of order; in conformity to Act; consumers protected by limitation of use to degree necessary; (d) Must make findings in (c) on basis of hearing record, official data or information from institutions . of recognized standing, 1500 o 15 (a) Advisory Board mandatory— -Producers only are members if order affects producers only; handlers only are members if order affects handlers only; both if groups are affected. Number set by Director. On recommendation of Board,, Director may appoint one member to represent the public or the Department of Agriculture, Boards get expenses only. May; enter contracts or agreements; employ personnel, including attorneys in private practice, fix pay and terms of employment j incur expenses as approved by the Director. Duties: administer order with approval of Director; recommend rules and regulations; receive and ifranit complaints of violations; recommend amendments; assist in assessment and collection; assist in collection of data, (b) Permitted terms of orders: (1) Surplus. Determine extent by grade, size or quality. Provide for control., dispo- sition and equalization of burden* Among other methods, may use stabilization funds for diversion except for hermetically sealed products. May assess producers or handlers or both therefor. (2) Limitation on quantity to be marketed or processed or bandied by grade, size or quality by uniform rule. (3) Allotment by grade, size or quality of amounts acquired from producers by handlers according to past performance, current control or both. (4) Allotment of amounts handled by grade a size or quality by past performance., current control or both bases. (5) Defining the period or periods during which products may be handled, (8) Es- tablish surplus, stabilization or byproducts pools; sell, distribute net returns; handle by grade, size, quality or condition if desired: cannot sell contents of pool in competitive channels; may go to relief or charity. May sell in regular channels consistent with stable market. By-products pools may go only into by-products outlets. Boards may arrange and operate storing financings grading, packing, servicing, processing, preparing for market, selling, disposing of con- tents but may not engage in commercial warehousing, ^oard holds content of pool,. May pledge for loans. May assess producers to raise equalization fund* (7) May establish grading and inspection service; may set standards of quality, condition, size cr pack but not below current minimum standards set out in law. (8) Adver- tising; sales promotion; prevention, removal or modification of trade barriers; plans may not refer to brand or trade names, make unwarranted claims or disparage other agricultural products. (9) Prohibition of any trade practices found unfair and detrimental after hearings, (10) Production adjustment payments from funds collected from all commercial growers of the product within the state, supple- mented if desired and possible by funds received from federal, state or other agencies for this purpose, No tree or vine pulling if acreage yield higher than state average in three preceding years, (11) Research in production, processing or distributions 1300.16 Formulation and effectu at ion: (a) (1) Assent of handlers of 65 per cent volume or 65 per cent by number except in canning fresh fruits or vegetables or canning or packing dried fruits, in which case order or amendment must be ap- proved by 65 per cent number and volume e (2) Orders or amendments directly af- fecting producers or produce remarketing require: (A) 65 per cent of producers with 51 per cent of volume; or (B) 65 per cent of volume by 51 per cent of producers; or (C) 51 per cent by number in referendum and volume in preceding season., Director may choose between assents and referendum in determining ap™ proval» Referendum period is 60 days, method (C) applies to percentage casting 3d votes in referendum. May extend period up to 30 days 0 (3) Assent of cooperative is assent of producer-members. (4) Hearing record is basis of finding on time necessary to receive assents and choice between referendum or assents if pro- ducers are direotly affected, (b) Subject to above limitations, the Director may issue orders regulating producer marketing, processing, distributing or handling of any commodities in any manner by any persons, (c) May terminate at end of current season if after hearing, Director finds order is not consistent with declared policy and on written request of 40 per cent of producers and handlers by number and volume if announced prior to date specified in order, (d) Substantive amendments require full procedure. "Minor amendments" clari- fying meaning only may be effectuated by the Director, (e) Notice is required for effectuation, suspension, amendment or termination, (f ) On recommendation of Board, the Director may formulate rules and regulations. 1300.17 Expenses ? (a) Uniform assessments may be levied on all persons directly regulated, not exceeding 2g per cent gross dollar sales by producers nor 2^ per cent gross dollar purchases by handlers or processors. Producers only are assessed if order regulates producers only; handlers only; or both if both are regulated. Advance assessments and postseason adjustments are providedo (b) Additional trade promotion assessments may not exceed 4 per cent of gross dollar volume of sales 0 Commodities may be assessed in both unfinished, and processed form but no one need pay more than one assessment. Advance "assessments up to 25 per cent may be levied. Postseason adjustments are provided, (c) A combined assessment may be levied up to 6g per cent of dollar volume, with proportions going to administration and advertising set by the Boards, (d) Moneys are deposited in banks. Annual audits. Unused funds may be prorated back to contributors or oredited prorata to their accounts for next year. Small re- mainders may be used to cover cost of subsequent programs for the same commodity. Otherwise to State Treasury. 1300.18 May limit areas of applicability if all persons of like class are covered, 1300.19 Violations : (a) Misdemeanor, $50. to $500, fine; imprisonment 10 days to six months 6 Each day a separate offense, (b) Civil liability up to |500, for each suit deposited to account of program, (c) Violations may be referred to Attorney- General or Director may call administrative hearingo Director may dismiss complaint or refer to Attorney-General or issue cease and desist order, Attorney-General may bring action for criminal or civil offense or for injunction. Courts may issue temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and permanent injunction after trial. If suit resolved in favor of state, defendant may bear costs. Misdemeanors: false or fraudulent reports; information on names of sellers and volumes handled. Penalties are concurrent and alternative and cumulative with all other penalties. Statute of limitation, two years, 1300.20 Assessments are personal debts. Up to 10 per cent may be added for collection of expense, 1300.21 Board members are liable only for own acts of crime or dishonesty, 1300.22 Books and records may be required. Information is confidential, 1300.23 Preliminary deposits may be required of applicants for order with reimbursement if effectuated. 1300.24 Parallel orders and committees to federal programs are authorized, responsible to Director for intrastate activities. May confer with other states or federal officials for uniformity, issue joint orders, joint hearings. Defense 4d 1300 ,25 Retailers are exempted except insofar as engaged in processing or distri crating. Appendix D. Part 2. Marketing Order for Wine I. "Act": California Marketing Act of 1937. "Area ": State of California. "Processor"; person engaged in U.S. bonded winery, storeroom or field warehouse for commercial purposes in receiving, grading, fermenting, distilling, preserving, grinding, crushing, or changing grapes into wine for market, or in receiving, storing, agin.:;, or treating wine or in preparing wine for market. ".Tine " : product of fermenting grape must, on U.S. bonded premises, with or without addition or abstractions, including wine as defined in Chapter 26, Subchapter B, Section 3044 of Internal Revenue Code and regulations thereunder and in laws of California and includes Champagne, sparkling wine, carbonated wine, vermouth, aperitif wines if containing not less than \ per cent or more than 24 per cent alcohol by volume. "P es s or t wine ": contains over 14 per cent alcohol by volume. "Table wine ": 14 per cent or less alcohol by volume. "Processing": producing wine; crashing grapes for wine; making must or pure boiled or condensed must from grapes for wine; fermenting grape must into wine; fortifying or blending wines: blending, filtering, clarifying, cellar treatment, aging, storing or warehousing; receiving wine for further distilling, blending, filtering, clarifying, cellar treatment or repacking; for aging, storing or warehousing. "Preparation for market": placing wine in movable containers except for transfer to other U.S. bonded .premises in California solely for farther or additional processing. "Marketing season" : July 1 - June 30, II. vTine Advisory Board: 19 processors. Ho more than three vacancies per- mitted. Majority is' quorum. In addition to standard powers and duties: assist in assessment and collection and administration of funds: assist in collection of necessary information and data; cooperate with and coordinate activities with other California grape programs. Advertising Subcommittee of seven members to assist the Board and the Director in administering advertising and sales promotion program. III. Advertising, Sales Promotion, Research: Establish plans for advertising and sales promotion to maintain, expand "or create markets and for research in distribution, Ma.y include: advertising; dealer service; trade promotion; pub- licity; market development and expansion; prevention, modification or removal of trade barriers, including negotiations with state, federal or foreign officials; research studies of methods of wine distribution — provided that advertising makes no reference to brand or trade name and makes no false or unwarranted claims or disparages any other agi~i cultural commodity. Advertising Subcommittee submits plans for approval by Board and submission to Director, Funds are disbursed in conformity thereto. IV. Assessments : One and one-half cents per gallon on dessert wine and three quarters of one cent per gallon on table wine at times set by Director. Rates must be reduced if fund exceeds or is about to exceed maximum percentage of gross dollar volume of sales by all processors authorized by the Act. Proportion allocated to administrative purposes may not exceed percentage authorized by Act. V. Effective through June 30, 1951 unless sooner terminated. Effective June 25, 1948. Rules and Regulations lt> Monthly statements of wine prepared for market by each processor. 5d 2* Itemized account of assessments due monthly payable upon sale or removal of wine. Appendix D. Part 3 Marketing Order for Raisin Processors Effective June 28 , 1949 I. "Raisins" — grapes of Thompson Seedless, Muscat and Sultana varieties, currants of the Zante variety or other varieties of grapes or raisins from which "a part of the natural moisture has been removed either by sun-drying or arti- ficial dehydration, including bleached raisins ■ "Processor" — any person engaged within the State of California in "receiving, stemming, grading, sorting, cleaning, seeding, packing or otherwise preparing raisins for marketing in any form." II • Advisory Board, seven processor members, one from a cooperative handling at least ten per cent of total volume, to administer order, recommend rules and regulations, receive complaints of violatibns, recommend amendments, assist in the collection of funds and of information, keep records and appoint employees, III. Prepare and administer, subject to approval by the Director, plans and programs to expand sales, maintain existing markets and create new markets without reference to brands, without disparagement of other farm products and without un- warranted claims. The Board may investigate possibilities for increasing demand, assembling or disseminating market information or educational information designed to improve quality, present facts or negotiate with governmental agencies and may contract with qualified persons for the performance of these functions,, TV. With the approval of the Director, the Board may "conduct or arrange for research in marketing, production or processing of raisins. V, Combined administrative and promotional assessments may be levied but not in excess of $l o 00 per ton on all natural condition raisins reoeived by processors or equivalent if "other basis is used and proportion for advertising may not exceed limit set at law. Appendix D. Part 4. Marketing Order for Wine Processors I. Definitions ; "Processor" — commercial, U.S. Bonded winery, U.S. Bonded Storeroom, Uo S. Bonded field warehouse — receiving, grading, fermenting, dis- tilling, preserving, grinding, crushing or changing the form of grapes into wine or in some status, receiving, grading, storing, aging or treating Of wine. "Wine" — product of fermentation of grape must on U.S. Bonded wine premises, with or with- out addition or abstraction as defined in Ch. 26, Sub Ch. B, Sec. 3044, Internal Revenue Code and in laws of California containing not less than per cent or not more than 24 per cent alcohol by volume. "Dessert wine " — alcohol content in ex- cess of 14 per cent, "Table wine " — 14 per cent or less alcohol. "Processing material wine " — as defined in Sec. 178,174, Regulations 7, U.S.B.I.R, used solely in rectification of distilled spirits. "Processing " — producing wines; crushing grapes for wine; making must or pure boiled or concentrated grape must for wine; fermenting must into wine; fortifying or blending wines; blending, filtering, clari- fying, cellar treatment, aging, storing or warehousing; reoeiving wine for further distilling, blending, filtering, clarifying, cellar treatment, repackaging; receiv- ing wine for aging, storing or warehousing; preparation for market, "preparation for market " — placing wine in moveable containers or removal of wine from premises above defined — except for transfer to subsidiary or affiliate for further distill- ing, blending, filtering, cellar treatment or repackaging; except same for purposes of 6d aging, storing or warehousing; except processing material wine solely for trans- fer or removal, except for free inventory and acquired inventory. " Free inventory " — gallons in inventory on June 30. " Acquired inventory" — acquired and moved into premises between July 1 and March 1 from free inventory only of other pro- cessors, "Reserve inventory" — wine gallons of inventory other than free or acquired inventory physically possessed as between July 1 and March 1* II. Wine Marketing Advisory Board: 17 processor-members. Duties and powers: administer j recommend rules and regulations; report violation complaints; recommend amendments; assist in assessment and collection of funds; collect data; keep records; cooperate with other grape boards* Dessert wine Subcommittee : 5 dessert wine processors; formulate marketing policy for dessert wines in' ensuing season by July 20; recommend total quantity in percentages of dessert wine based on inventories of processors during season or any part. Must submit supporting data. Table wine Subcommittee: 5 table wine processors. Formulate and recommend marketing policy by July 20. Recommend total quantity to be prepared for market by all processors on basis of inventories. Submit supporting data, III. Marketing Policy 1949-1950: Any processor may prepare for market between July 1, 1949 and March 1, 1950 dessert 'or table wines equal to 100 per cent free and acquired inventory. No reserve inventory shall be prepared for market before March 1, 1950. Inventory statements must be sworn by July 10, 1949 as of June 50, 1949, Marketing Policy, Subsequent Seasons : Every processor must file sworn inventory as of June 30 by July 10. After considering recommendations of Dessert and Table Subcommittees, the Advisory Board must set out proposed policy by July 25, including total quantity in percentage of free inventory to be prepared for market from July 1 through following February. Recommendations of less than 90 per cent or more than 100 per cent of free inventory require concurrence of three fourths of the members of the committee. The same approval is required for GO per cent or less of free inventory recommendation and at least 65 per cent of processors casting ballots within 15 days of dispatch thereof must approve such recommendation. Standards: quantities available for preparation for market; free inventory as of July 1; normal market requirements; purchasing power; competing goods prices; prices paid; estimated crush based on total production estimated and estimated sales fresh, raisins, brandy or other products. Director shall fix quantities to be prepared for market by all processors if necessary to correlate supply and demand and if it will not result in less than sufficient wine being prepared to meet reasonable demands. Regulations must be under uniform rules and be set out prior to August 5, If ballot is necessary, determination must be made by August 20, Immediate notice must be given by the Direotor to the Board and thence to individual processors of amounts authorized for preparation. Polioy must be reviewed between November 15 and 30, Increase in percentage only may be recommended on three-fourths vote of Board up to November 30, The Director may effectuate this increase up to December 10. Processors may prepare for market the permitted amount of wine plus acquired inventories only. Operating Rules and Regulations Duties : (1) Determine amounts which may be prepared by a processor between 7d July and February, (2) Obtain necessary reports, (3) Recommend percentages of free inventory which may be prepared for market „ Commercial records ; Must be kept available for three years. Inventory Reports t As of June 30. Wine Movements ; Not later than 20th of next following month, by table, dessert, Tree, acquired and reserve; (1) Inventory on first of month, (2) Wine produced, (3) Free' inventory received and sources thereof, (4) Reserve inventory received for aging, storing or warehousing and sources thereof, (5) Other addi- tions to inventory, (6) Wine prepared for market, (7) Other transfers or removals , ( 8 ) Adjustment of inventory, (9) Inventory on last of month. Records ; (1) Transfer of free inventory, (2) Receipt of free inventory, (3) Transfer and/or receipt of reserve inventory, (4) Wine returned for recondi- tioning, return to bond, out-of-state wine added to inventory, (5) Quantities used in processing material wine, (6) Transfers for distilling, blending, filter- ing, cellar treatment or repackaging. Effective September 16, 1949. Io Definitions ; "Grapes" — fresh or processed received by processors for processing and products obtained therefrom s "dessert wine" — over 14 per cent alcohol by volume; "table wine" — 14 per cent or less; "brandy and high-proof" — distilled wine, products or residues of grapes containing over 24 per cent alcohol by volume; "processing material wine" — used solely in rectification of distilled spirits. "Grape Concentrate" — dehydrated or partially dehydrated must except as used in nonalcoholic products. II. Advisory Board s 19 processors; maximum of three vacancies; majority is quorum 0 Growers Advisory Subcommittee: 35 producers, nominated at public hearing and with reference to districts, varieties, volumes and types of organi- sations • III. Surplus Diversion Pool and Facilities s (A) Board shall investigate or cause to be investigated economic and marketing conditions and determine the size of surplus of grapes and grape products by varietal class and utilization^ considering at least: (a) available or to be' available supplies Of table, wine and raisin varieties; (b) inventories of wine, brandy, high-proof, grape con- centrate, other products and by-products; (o) raisins; (d) current and prospec- tive consumer and market demands for products in (b) and (c); (e) quantities by varieties needed by utilization; (f ) current and prospective prices by utiliza- tions; (g) existing or prospective orders, programs, laws, funds, financing or other factors which might affect the supply, disposition or diversion of grapes or grape products or by-products. Must consult with Growers' Advisory Subcom- ' nittee. Submit report to Director. On basis thereof may recommend, by variety, quantity of grapes or products or -the percentage in surplus which should be bought for diversion with stabilization money. Board by two-thirds vote of full membership may recommend diversion pool if funds are adequate, (b) Director may approve reports and recommendations if he finds them reasonable and tending to effectuate declared policy. (C) On recommendation and approval, Board shall establish a surplus diversion pool for receiving, handling and disposal of grapes Appendix D. Part 5, Marketing Order for Grape Stabilization mm 3d or grape products. (D) With approval by Director, Board may dispose of pooled supplies in channels not directly competitive at times and in manner as Board finds consistent with maintaining stabilized marketing conditions. (E) Surplus diversion pool expenses borne by available administrative funds and pool proceeds. Hot proceeds may be credited with approval of Board and Director to pool revolv- ing fond to be used in same way as stabilization funds or be refunded prorata, IV* Research and survey studies in production,, processing or distribution of grapes or products, including causes of surplus, elimination thereof, proce- dures for stabilisation in whole industry or segments, may be financed by Board. 7. Assessments^ (A) For acquiring grapes or products and for diversion, Board may reconihend assessments not greater per gallon than $.06, brandy and high-proof; $.03, dessert wine; $.01, table wine. Paid as directed by Director over time recommended by Board. ' (B) Administrative and research assessments, not greater than one fifth of $.01, brandy, high-proof and grape concentrate; one tenth c.f $.01 on dessert wine; one thirtieth of $.01 on table wine. (C) Advance assessments up to 25 per cent of maxima are authorized, (D) Funds may be augmented through federal or other agencies and stabilization funds grapes or products in pools or obligations to pay into the pool or into stabilization funds may be hypothecated therefor. Rate of Assessm ent for Administration and Research for Grapo Stabilization : Per gallon; one tenth (l/lO) of one (1) cent, dessert wine; one thirtieth (1/30) of one (1) cent per gallon, table wine; one fifth (l/5) of one (1) cent per proof gallon on brandy, high-proof and grape concentrate. September 16, 1949 through June 50, 1950. Advance Administration and Research Asses sment Deposit: Twenty- five per cent (25%) of total assessment rate of l/l20 of $.01 or $.0000825 on table wine, l/40 of $.01 or 1.00025 on dessert wine, l/20 of $.01 or $.0005 on grape concen- trate and l/20 of $.01 or $.0005 per proof gallon on brandy and hi da-proof. Per gallon on amount prepared for market between September 16, 1949 and June 30, 1950. Operating Rules and Regulations Effective October 1, 1949 ; Order under California Marketing Act of 1937. Effective September 16, 1949. Principal pur- poses: (1) Research and survey studies; (2) investigate and cause to be investi- gated economic conditions affecting the industry and to determine the surplus by variety and utilization; (3) consult with Growers' Advisory Committee before making recommendations; (4) recommend surplus diversion pool as provided in order; (5) recommend diversion purchases of grapes or products by amount or percentage; (6) arrange for or operate necessary storing, financing, grading, servicing, processing, preparing for market, selling or disposing of diversion pool, holding title to contents of pool; (7) administer stabilization fund and recommend disposition of net proceeds. Assessments for Stabilization Fund ,; Effective when recommended by Board and approved by Director, dates for beginning and termination of assessments for stabilization fund and for establishment of surplus diversion pool, pates at six cents, grape concentrate, brandy and high-proof (proof gallon); three cents on dessert wine; one cent on table wine. Appendix D. Part 6, Federal Funds for Diversion Section 32, Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935, as amended : Amount appro- priated each fiscal year equal to 30 per cent of gross customs receipts in 9d preceding calendar year, kept in separate fund and used by the Secretary of Agriculture only to: (1) encourage exports through benefit or indemnity pay- ments on export losses or by payments to producers on part of production required domestically; (2) diverting from normal channels by benefits or indemnity pay- ments, donations or other means to increase utilization among low-income consumers; and (3) making production payments in connection with normal produc- tion for domestic consumption* Not more than 25 per cent of the funds available in any fiscal year may be used for any one commodity or its products. Funds are administered by the Secretary. Funds may cumulate over fiscal years up to $300,000, 000 0 Funds shall be used mainly for perishable nonbasic commodities not listed in title II of the Agricultural Act of 1948. Appendix D. Part 7. Resale Price Maintenance Part 2, Division 7 f Business and Professions Code — Stats. 1941, Ch. 526 Ch. 3. Fair Trade Contracts, 16901 . a. Producer is grower, baker, maker, manufacturer or publisher, b. Commodity— any subject of commerce , 16902. a* No contract relevant to sale or resale of commodity branded or in branded container is void or illegal for reason of; (1) resale price stipulation; (2) requirements for agreement for resale price maintenance by buyer. b 0 Ex- ceptions; closeout, deteriorated, court order sales. 16903,, Applicable to products sold through vending machines if bear producer's or owner's brand. 16904 . Advertising, offering or selling at price 'other than stipulated in con- tract is actionable as unfair competition. 16905. Not applicable to contracts between producers or between wholesalers, or between retailers. Appendix D. Part 8 Loss Leaders Part Z g Division 7, Business and Professions Code — Stats. 1941, Ch. 526. Ch. 4 Unfair Trade Practices 17001 . To protect against monopolies and to encourage competition by prohibiting unfair, dishonest, deceptive, or destructive competition. 17021.' Person; person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business trust, company,, corporation, municipal or other corporation. 17022. Sell includes to sell, offer or advertise for sale* 17023 . Give includes to give, offer or advertise intent to give. 17024. Article or product; article, product, com- modity, thing of value, service or output of a service trade. Exceptions; motion picture films licensed for exhibition; products with rates set by Public Utilities Commission and products connected therewith; products of public utili- ties and products connected therewith on which rates would have been set by the Public Utilities Commission if sold. 17025 . Vendor; works on, renovates, alters, improves personal property of another person. 17026. Cost of produc- tion? includes raw materials, labor and all overhead expense. Cost of dis- tribution; invoice or replacement cost, whichever is lower, to the distributor or vendor plus his cost of doing business , 17027,, Forced, bankrupt or closeout sales invoices may not be used in calculating cost of doing business unless advertised as bought in stated quantity at forced or bankrupt sale. 17028 . Ordinary channels ; ordinary, regular and daily transactions leading to transfer of title. 17029. Cost of doing' business or overhead expense; all costs, in- cluding without limitation labor, rent, interest, depreciation, selling cost, maintenance, delivery, credit, licenses, taxes, insurance and advertising. 17030 . Loss leader (a) sold at less than cost to increase sales of other mer- chandise and (b) where misleads purchasers or prospective purchasers or (c) where diverts trade. 17031 0 Locality discrimintion ; selling product at dif- ferent prices in different geographic areas. lpd Article 3, Offenses. 17040. Creation of locality discrimination intended to destroy competition or prevent new competition is unlawful, 1 7041 . Locality discrimination based on cost differences due to grade, quality or quantity or transport cost are legal. 17042 . N6 prohibitions on: customer selection; functional classification of clients; functional price differences. 17043 . Illegal to sell below cost or give away any article to destroy competition or injure competitors. 17044 . Includes loss leaders. 17045 . Secret or discrimi- natory rebates, refunds, allowances, commissions, unearned discounts in money or otherwise to injure competitors or to prevent or destroy competition are illegal* 17046 . Coercion in effectuating violation is illegal, 17047 . Soli- citation of voilation is illegal. 17048 . Collusion is illegal. 17049 . Any locality discrimination or sales below cost in violation of spirit and intent of statute is illegal. 17050 . Exceptions: close out or prevent loss; damaged or deteriorated goods with notice to public; court order; bona fide meeting of competitor's price by seller or manufacturer. Must keep such excepted stock separate and marked and advertising must show number of items. 17051. Contract violating these terms is invalid. Article 4. Civil Liability, 17070 . Person or trade association may enjoin violation or seek damages, 17071 , Proof of locality discrimination or sales below cost and injurious effeot is presumptive evidence of intent to destroy competition or injure competitors, 17072 , Established cost survey by trade in particular area is competent evidence in proving costs of individual member. 17073. Proof of average over-all cost plus cost of production to producer or plus invoice or replacement (whichever lower ) ifo? distributor is presumptive evi- dence of average total cost. 17074 . HJC tariffs are presumptive of delivery costs. 17075 . Evidence of prevailing wage scale is admissible to show low wages lead to low prices to injury of competition. 17076 . Services performed free or at less than cost shall be charged at prevailing rates in determining costs for actions hereunder. 17077 . Raw material costs are also presumed to be prevailing average in community. 17078 , Temporary restraining orders may be issued on application or upon hearing for issuance of preliminary injunction. 17079 . Further restraints may be issued as neoessary. 17080, Every article is covered by interim or final injunction. 17081 . Plaintiffs need not file bonds for injunction. 17082 . Heed not prove actual or threatened damage or injury. But such damages may he claimed in seeking injunction. 17083, Depositions may be taken. Books and records may be subpoenaed. 17084. Inspection of book3 by plaintiff may be ordered and if refused, allegations of plaintiff are taken as fact. Immunity in other prosecutions. 17095 . Agents are equally liable with principals, 17096 . Need only prove Unlawful intent of principal in action against agent. 17100, Fine of $100-1,000, imprisonment up to six months. 17101 . Necessary only to prove intent of principal. Appendix D. Part 9 California Alooholic Beverage Control Act. Sec 55,5, Fair Trade Contracts t a. No contracts relevant to beverages branded by producers or owner's brand and in competition with other similar beverages shall be illegal if they contain provisions for: (1) Resale price maintenance guarantee by buyer, (2) Resale price stipulations by producer or seller, b. Such contracts shall imply resale free of price terms for: (1) Closeout sales if notice is given and brand owner gets ten days advance oppor- tunity to buy up stock. (2) Damaged or deteriorated beverages or containers with public notice of sale. (3) Sale by officer under court order, c, Willful or knord-ng sale at a price less than that stipulated in contract, whether or not seller is a party thereto, is unfair competition and is actionable at suit lid of any person damaged thereby,* d« Hot applicable to contracts between producers or between wholesalers or between retailers, Sec, 55.6 Fair Trades Contracts and Price Posting ; Sec. 55.5 is applicable to containers, cartons, cases or bottles. All distilled spirits sold at retail shall be and other beverages may be sold under contract* No licensee may violate any provision of such contracts * Distilled spirits and brandy manufacturers, rectifiers and wholesalers shall file and maintain price lists showing prices at which spirits are sold. Sales must be made in compliance thereto. Appendix D» Part 10 Mandatory Price Posting or Maintenance Sec. 5565. Alcoholic Beverage Control Act: a. Can sell or resell only at prices required by: (1) effective posted price schedule; (2) effective fair trade contract* b e Exemptions: (1) Bulk— except where bottled by seller for pur- chaser; (2) Extra-state sale; (3) Inter-corporate sales among related corporations: (4) Sales to growers, rectifiers , consumers for on-premises consumption; (5) To other wholesalers where brand is not controlled; (6) To primary distributing agent who has posted scheduled prices, c. State may be divided into areas. For north- ern California and southern California areas, specified selling and resale prices; may have minima in net total area, but no lower than specified prices in northern California area. d. Fair trade contracts and posted prices: (1) Post price schedules if resale price not controlled by fair trade contract. Make fair trade contract, file resale price schedule if controls brand. Growers, wine rectifiers and rectifiers • (2) Wholesalers— post selling prices if controls brand or is primary distributing agent or if resale price not governed by fair trade contract; must file fair trade contract and post prices if he controls brand. (3) Extra- California sellers must designate California licensee to post prices to wholesalers and (4) Must designate one licensee handling imported wine to make fair trade contract and post prices « (5) Off-sale retailers controlling brand must post prices* e. Contents of schedules of selling and resale prices: (1) General: (a) Name, address of licensee; (b) Extra-California brand owner or seller for whom schedule is filed; (c) Date; (d) Trading area or areas covered; (e) Re- strictions on distribution or resale; (2) Identifying information: (f) Brand name; (g) Secondary brand; (h) Form of labels; (i) Class, type of wine; (j) Vintage date if on label; (k) Special or gift package; (1) Number of bottles in case; (m) Size of bottles. (3) Prices by trading areas, (3A) Selling price schedules only; (n) Basic case posted price to wholesalers and retailers; (o) Basic price to retailers and consumers by the bottle « (3B) Resale price schedules only: (p) Basic case resale price to retailers; (q) Basic bottle resale price to retailers and consumers 9 (4) Discounts and charges: (r) Quantity discounts to retailers and consumers; (s) Prompt payment discounts to retailers, if any; (t) Broken case charge to retailers c Fair trade contracts must contain same schedule or information. f« Prices,, Basic posted and basic resale price includes all legal charges other than California sales tax. Selling and resale price are basic sell- ing and resale price less discounts plus broken c ase charge as in schedule. Price to retailers and consumers shall be as in effective fair trade contract. If bottles for buyer under bottler's label, price as in schedule for wine so labelled. Not more than three prices to same class of purchasers for wine differing in secondary brand name, form of label or other way not related to class, types, vintage date, package, g. Discounts in cash only and at terms specified in Act. h. Contracts and schedules must be filed by 10/15 to take effect by ll/l/49. Thereafter filed by 10th of any month. Monthly changes to be filed on or before 10th<> Hay lower up to 20th of month to meet competition, but no lower,, Must file changed 12d contracts in same way. Effective first day of next month. i. Available for publio inspection by 15th. j. Except for growers selling only to consumers at licensed premises where prices are posted — must publish price schedules or changes therein by months or distribute by mail, Jc. Closeout sales or sales of damaged wines only by permit of Board, on conditions set out in Act. 1, Below cost sale or price discrimination is prohibited, m. Circumvention is prohibited. Definitions: p. "Bottled" — one gallon or less. "Class" and "type"'— as defined by U. S. Treasury or California Department of Health. Sec. 55.6. Hi stilled Spirits Fair Trade Contracts and Prioe Posting . All distilled spirits sold at retail shall and any other beverage may be sold under Sec. 55.5 with wine under 55.61TJ Sales of distilled spirits to retailers must be made in com- pliance vath a filed price list. Appendix D. Part 11, Federal Market Control The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, 7 U.S.C., 1940 ed., 601 et seq, (Sections relevant to fruits, nuts, vegetables and general crops, ) Policy declarations { :Not intended for production control; intended to be effective regardless of validity of any part of other relief or adjustment legis- lation; intended to protect farm credit and farm purchasing power through achievement of orderly marketing in the public interest. Objectives t To achieve parity prices as defined in AAA aot of 1938, as amended, with base periods for tobacco and potatoes August 1919 - July 1929 and other commodities August 1909 - July 1929 if satisfactory 1909-1914 data are unobtainable; to protect consumers by approaching parity gradually and permitting no regulation intended to hold prices above parity; to establish and maintain minimum standards of quality and maturity. ' Applicability } To individuals, partnerships, corporations, associations or other business units ; areas within the United States and possessions with speci- fied exceptions; to any trade within or which substantially burdens, obstructs or affects stream of interstate or foreign commerce; agreements are applicable to any commodity; orders are applicable to designated fruits, vegetables, nuts, milk and general crops, not for processing except for olives and asparagus and including both raisins and wine; to handlers only, except for milk; not applic- able to entire production area if several regional orders are feasible with different terms for regions as necessary; orders apply to same persons in same way as agreement on which public hearings have been held; no prohibition, regula- tion or restriction of advertising may be applied . Terms ; Permitted t Agreements, not specified. Orders, in total or by olasses, or time periods, providing methods for or: limiting quantity handled; alloting amounts acquired or handled by handlers on basis of past performance or current control; determining, equalizing and disposing of surplus; operating reserve pools; providing for inspection; special limitation and allotment proced- ures for hops. Mandatory , one or more: prohibition of unfair trade practices or unfair methods of competition; price filing; administration of order; other consistent and necessary terms, Admini strati on : Notice and public hearings on proposed order; findings by Secretary that proposal will tend to achieve goals of act; approval of agreement by handlers of 50 per oent of volume and of order by two thirds of producers or by producers of two thirds of volume, or over failure or refusal by handlers to 13d approve agreement tending to prevent effectuation of goals of act and order is only feasible means thereto and is approved by producers of two thirds of vol- ume. (Special provisions for approval in California citrus programs.) Enforce- ment through fine, civil suit or injunction in district courts and other remedies at law or equity,, Appeal to Secretary and review in equity if sought 9 No prosecution of handler for acts during pendency of appeal in good faith. Pro- rated assessments for expenses deemed reasonable and likely to be incurred. ' Books and records disclosed to Secretary as necessary on confidential basis. Programs may operate in conjunction with state programs. Tariffs may be adjusted if imports interfere with program,, Termination by Secretary or at end of season if favored by majority of producers. Appendix D. Part 12. Federal Order Regulating Shipments of Tokay Grapes. Agreement #93. Order #51. Effective August 20, 1940, Amended August 24, 1941 and March 1, 1949 0 Previous program Agreement #11, License #9. All Tokay grapes produced in California. Two prorate districts . Regulates shipment to any point outside California. Base period, August 1919-July 1929. Shippers Advisory Committee, three handlers shipping more than 250,000 packages in previous year, three other handlers and seventh member elected by other six together with Industry Committee for one year term to recommend regu- lations and advise Industry Committee 0 Seven producers, one each from specified areas chosen on basis of one vote per grower in one district only for one season term on Industry Committee to act as intermediary between the Secretary and the Industry; keep records; investigate production and marketing conditions and engage in research; furnish information requested by the Secretary; cause its books to be audited at least annually; select officers; select employees; give notice of meetings to Secretary; submit annual budget to the Secretary; redefine prorate or election districts if necessary with approval of Secretary; delegate limited authority to employees; establish committees or subcommittees; determine marketing policy after reference to stated factors: administer the terms 'of the Order; make and effectuate administrative rules and regulations; receive, in- vestigate and report to Secretary complaints of violations; recommend amendments to the Secretary, five members for quorum or passing action. Marketing policy report to the Secretary referring to estimated production by districts, general quality and size, possible or expected demand in various outlets, competing goods; expected recommendations for regulation. Industry Committee may recommend and Secretary effectuate limitation of shipments to particular grades and sizes by districts and to minimum standards of quality or maturity or both for the entire area in' terms of shipping quality, edibility, appearance, maturity or any combination, including the data and analysis on which the recommendations rest. Federal-State Inspection Service certification is requiredo If grower is required to eliminate more than average percentage for district or area through no fault of own, he may petition for permission to ship sufficient volume meeting minimum standards but not meeting particular limitation in order to equalize his and the average percentage of elimination. When Industry Committee finds supply will be irregular and grade-size limitation is inadequate, it may recommend retention of cars at assembly points, regulation of loading or packaging or limitation of shipments by trucks, speci- fying the regulation period, expects average daily and daily maximum shipments, daily advisable shipments. Cars may be held at either rail or cold storage points. Alternative methods for release from assembly points are specified. 14d No oar may be held more than seventy-two hours. No limitation of loading to zero may exceed forty-eight hours. In such periods, truck shipments may be limited to grapes previously packaged and with permit. Overshipments and under- shipments may be made up on the next day. Detailed reports and records are re- quired. Relief and charity shipments are exempted. Appendix D. Part 13. Order regulating handling of raisins produced from raisin variety grapes grown in California Agreement #109, Order #89, effective August 18, 1949, No amendments. Regulates any handling outside of California, although the Secretary has found that all handling is either in or directly burdens, obstructs or affects the flow of interstate or foreign commerce. The Raisin Advisory Board is constituted of thirty-six producers from fif- teen election districts, seven packers distributed among cooperative and commercial enterprises and varying by volume of business for staggered terms of three years. This Board nominate^ members of the Administrative Committee j advises it with respect to marketing policy; surplus and reserve percentages} and other matters on request. The Raisin Administrative Committee is comprised of eight producers including one producer of varieties used in Golden Bleach raisins, four packers distributed by volume and by commercial or co-operative affiliation, one dehydrator and one processor, for one year terms. Quorum is nine and passing vote is majority of members present. The annual marketing policy must be adopted prior to July 5 and filed with recommendations to the Secretary by July 15. Meetings are open and policy statements must be distributed to all affected persons. Regulations may differ by variety. Recommended free, reserve and surplus tonnage — based on analyses of supply, including carry-over; trade demand; current prices; trend and level of consumer income; price trends; and other pertinent factors — submitted to Secretary by July 15 with verbatim record of discussions at open meeting after public notice. Free tonnage may be handled without restriction except for record keeping. Reserve and surplus tonnage must be held at all times by handler in storage under specified conditions to account of Committee until relieved by delivery to Committee or otherwise. Deferred withholding of reserve and surplus storage to November 15 by posting bond to the value of deferred obligation or by other methods as prescribed. Minimum grade requirements may be set out separately for reservo and surplus tonnage by variety and by natural condition or packed raisins. If reserve or surplus tonnages are sold, each handler may buy pro- rated amount determined by his reserve or surplus obligation as fraction of total. Payments for handling reserve and surplus tonnage as set by Committee. Reserve and surplus tonnage may be pledged by Committee for loans. Advance and other payments made out of loan to handlers on basis of surplus or reserve ob- ligations by variety. Reserve tonnage may be sold, to handlers by Committee after specified dates on basis of prices approved by Secretary and not less than average price on free tonnage by variety to date of sale. Reserve tonnage unsold by June 1 becomes surplus tonnage. Committee may dispose of surplus tonnage so as not to interfere with commercial channels and must dispose of it by specified dates. Natural Muscat or Valencia raisins may be substituted for Layer Muscat surplus obligation. Regulations for handling damaged raisins shall be set out each year. 15d Reports must be made as f ollows : Natural condition and packed raisins by varieties and locations held as of July 1 or on request of Committee. Weekly report by varieties from handlers shewing: acquisitions ; reserve and surplus obligations; locations of such tonnage; cumulative totals. On request, names and addresses of persons from whom raisins acquired or other information as needed. Records must be kept as required. Inspection for verification of reports and records is authorized. Appendix D. Part 14 Agricultural Act of 1949 Public Law 439. Ch 0 792. 81st Congress. 1st Session, II. R. 5345 Title I — Basic Agricultural Commodities. 101. Secretary is authorized and directed to support prices to cooperators who have not disapproved marketing quotas as follows: a. Tobacco, corn, wheat, rice, b. Cotton, peanuts, c. For tobacco, support at 90 per cent if marketing' quotas in effect, d. (1) If pro- ducers have not disapproved marketing quotas, support at not less than 90 per cent in 1950 if marketing quotas or acreage allotments are in effect, (2) Sup- port at not less than 80 per cent for 1951 crop. (3) Support at 50 per cent if marketing quotas are disapproved except for tobacco for which no support. (4) Support to corn cooperators outside commercial area at 75 per cent of commercial area support. (5) Price support may be made available to noncooperators but not at higher levels than received by cooperators, e. Section 2, act of 7/28/45 (59 Stat 506) is in effect. Title II— Designated Nonbasic Agricultural Commodities. 201. Without regard to Title III, the Secretary may and must support wool (including mohair), tung nuts,, honey, Irish potatoes, milk, butterfat and products of milk and butterfat as follows: a. Wool (including mohair) through loans, purchases or other oper- ations, between 60 per cent and 90 per cent, to encourage yearly output of about 360 million pbunds of shorn wool. b. By same means, 60 per cent to 90 per cent for tung nuts, honey and Irish potatoes, c. Whole milk, butterfat and their products between 75 per cent and 90 per cent as necessary to obtain adequate supply through loans on or purchases of products of milk or butterfat. Title III— Other Nonbasic Agricultural Commodities. 301. Through loans, pur- chases or other operations the Secretary may support other commodities at not more than 90 per cent. 302, Without restricting to such commodities, support shall go to producers of storable nonbasics with agreement, order or quota programs at not more than 90 per cent or less than minima indicated on price-supply schedule in figure 1, or less if mandatory supports require funds or reference to 401(b) standards makes lower minima desirable. Title IV— Miscellaneous, 401, a. Secretary shall use CCC or other means available, b. Amounts, terms, conditions and extent to which operations are carried out are determined by the Secretary. Must consider in deciding on sup- port or level thereof: (1) supply versus demand; (2) price supports on other goods and feed value equivalents of feed grains in terms of corn; (3) availability of funds; (4) perishability; (5) importance; (6) ability to dispose of stocks; (7) loss of exports; (8) ability and willingness of producers to keep supplies in line with demand 0 c. Compliance with acreage allotments, production goals and marketing practices may be required, d. Support price is based on parity at beginning of marketing year or season for products so marketed and as of January 1 for others. 402. After notice, hearings and findings of necessity to alleviate or prevent shortage in public' interest or national security, scheduled maxima may be exceeded. 403. Grade, type, staple, quality,, location and other factor 16d adjustments in support as necessary to make national average price as defined in act. 404. The Secretary may use CCC services and facilities including con- tract procurement for Section 32 and for Section 6, School lunch programs. May make advance payments to CCC. 405. No recourse against producers for loan value deficiencies unless fraud. Recourse exists for deficiencies in grade, quality, quantity stored on farm or delivered, failure properly to preserve or care for or failure or refusal properly to deliver. 406. Insofar as practi- cable., supports for field crops shall be announced prior to planting and for others prior to marketing season or January 1 for products not marketed on season, with support level not exceeding estimated legal maximum and not reduced if legal maximum exoeeds announced support. 407. CCC must deter shifting of inventory burden to it. Cannot sell stocks at less than 5 per cent plus reasonable carry- ing costs over current support, except for: a. new or by-products uses; b. peanuts and oilseeds for oil; c. seed or feed if no substantial damage to program; d. waste or deterioration threat; e. sales to establish basis for claim of fraud; f. export; g, wool; h. other than primary uses. 408, a. Commodity is storable if commercially stored or can be stored over time required by support operations, b. Cooperator— basic: acreage not knowingly in excess of allotment under Title III of MA or for corn outside commercial area in compliance with eligi- bility conditions set by Secretary, c. Basic: corn, cotton, peanuts, rice, tobacco, vfheat. d. Nonbaslc: all others, e. Supply percentage: available supply divided by normal supply at beginning of marketing season from latest date, by Secretary, f. Total supply of nonbasics: carry-over at beginning of market year plus estimated production during calendar year "plus estimated imports, g. Carry-over, nonbasics: quantity on hand in U. S. at beginning of marketing year not including production in current calendar year including processed supplies if found necessary by Secretary, h. Normal supply nonbasic: (1) estimated domestic consumption plus (2) estimated exports plus (5) allowance for carry-over equal to average carry-over in preceding five years adjusted for abnormal conditions, changes in marketing conditions or operation of program, current trends in consumption a3 deemed necessary by Secretary, i. Marketing year — set by Secretary to include time when substantially all of crop is marketed. j« Any term in AAA of 1938 has same meaning here. 409. a, "Prices" in "adjusted base price" of 301(a)(1)(B) of AAA of 1938 as set by Agricultural Act of 1948 includes subsidy payments under Emergency Price Control Act of 1942. b, "Parity index" in same now includes vmges paid hired farm labor, c. For 1950, no parity price for basics may be lower than as computed by old formula. 411. Section 32, AAA of 1935— .funds shall be used mainly for perishable nonbasics other than those in Title II of 1948 act. 412. Determinations by the Secretary not inconsistent with the CCC Charter Act are final and conclusive, 416. To prevent waste, stored products may be used by Munitions Board or other federal agency on terms in publio interest to pay for products not produced in the United States. Products not so used may be made available at storage point at no cost other than delivery on order to: school lunch, Indian affairs, federal, state and local pxiblic welfare agencies; second, private agenoies for United States relief; third., private agencies for non-United States relief. 417. Banks for Cooper- atives may lend up to SO per cent for new storage construction if CCC will lease new structures up to 75 per cent for three years and additions uo to 75 per cent for two years. The Central Bank for Cooperatives may lend on* same terms. Sections 418-419 deal with rice. Appendix D, Part 15 Raisin Purchases and Disposition by U. S. Department of Agriculture Agencies, Quantity and Expenditure, Fiscal Years 1935-36 - 19U8-I49 Fiscal year ( Till v 1 — June 30) Agency Pure :hases Disposition Quantity, weight Expenditure Quantity, processed weight Expenditure Outlet 1935-30 FSCC tons dollars tons dollars Substandard diversion 6,22U 97,693 6,22h 97,693 1936-37 0 0 — — 1937-38 FSCC 15,000 1,190,1437a/ Relief purchases 1938-39 FSCC 10,100 9l46,8lW Relief purchases 1939-hO FSCC 71,862 5,313,535a/ 73,138 l,3h9 375 5,103,035 209,000 1,500 Relief purchases Food stamp plan Red Cross exports 19I4O-I4I SKA 20,582 1,117, 308a/b/ 1/4,100 1413 6,069 General commodity purchases Red Cross exports Food stamp plan 19Ul-U2c/ AMA 62 , 817c/ 14, 967, 875c/ 51,729d/ li,283 76l,OOOe/ Lend lease Food stamp plan 19U2-W FDA 87,289 13.952.733f/ 30,811 K / Lend lease 19143-aij OD 87,916 19,lil5,;32f/ 105,2142 12,553h/ loUty Lend lease Cash sales Hawaii program r.rr. 71 )i ?ft)if / lUjl/Uj d U14X / 73,072 388 7,169 12 Lend lease Hawaii Cash sales UNRRA 19W-h6 PMA 2,1j70 6l6,ll4hf/ 7,893 51 2,282 Foreign shipments UNRRA Cash sales including price- support program 1916-17 267 Foreign shipments 191*7-148 CCC 118,0771/ 18,992,795 7,205 School lunch, institutional feeding 19U8-U9 CCC 59,030 9,537,665 149,693 li,l427 14,1483 3,361,9314 181,839 697,332 Price-support program ECA (Sec. 32 funds) Exports (Sec. 32 funds) School lunch (Sec. 32) ( Continued on next page . ) a/ Includes transportation, processing, and other handling charges, b/ Does not include expenditures under Food Stamp Plan. c/ For period March 1$, l°bl to June 30, l Q Ii2; includes 38,1470 tons natural condition raisins valued at $2,690,128. d/ For period April 29, 19Ul to June 30, 191*2. e/ For period July 19Ul to December 19Ul only; quantity and value purchased with blue stamp by participants in Stamp Plan, f/ FoC.Bo costo g/ Lend-lease shipments for calendar year 19h2 amounted to lil,993 tons. Agricultu ral Statistics, 19h3. p 0 523. h/ For period January to June 19U4 only c "Cash sales" include deliveries to armed forces, American Red Cross, Veterans Administration, War Surplus Administration, foreign relief programs, direct distribution to United States civilian groups, such as school lunch, relief agencies, under Sec. 32 funds. i/ Includes price-support program and general supply program. (Sales to armed forces, individuals and cor- porations to prevent spoilage, Economic Cooperation Administration, foreign governments for cash. 126,li00 tons were contracted for but 8,32U tons were cancelled. Army bought about 2,300 tons, making total purchases 120,377 tons.) Sources of datas Compiled by Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, Univ. of Calif., April 1950. 1935-36: Agricultural Statistics, 19h2. p. 811. 1937-38 and 1938-39 i Annual Reports, FSCC. 1939-llOs Report of Administrative Officer in Charge, Surplus Removal and Marketing Agreements, I9I1O, tables 1, 3, 7, and 9. 19UO-ljl8 Report of Administrator, SMA, 19ll, table Ij volume data on file with W. Allmendinger, P.M.A., Fruit and Vegetable Branch. 19Ul-h2s U. S, Department of Agriculture, AMA, Monthly purchase reports (mimeo.), March 19h2, August 19U2. SMA, Economic Analysis Division, "Purchases of Foods Under Food Stamp Plan and Direct Distribu- tion of Foods" (mimeo.), 19U1-U2. I9I42-I43 = 19li8~li9* Purchases? Monthly purchase reports (mimeo.) issued by W.F.A. (F.DoA., O.D., C.C.C.), PMAj also I9U7-I48 and 19U8-U9 purchases from W. Allmendinger, PMA, Fruit and Vegetable Branch. 19U2-143 - 19Uh-k5t Dispositions Monthly reports of agricultural commodities delivered at shipside for export under Lend-Lease Act (mimeo.), issued by A.M.A., W.F.A., (F.D.A., O.D., C.C.C.). 1915-U6 - 19I46-I47? Dispositions P.M. A., monthly delivery reports (mimeo.). 19U8=U9i Dispositions P.M.A., Report of Fruit and Vegetable Branch, Fiscal 19h9 (Aug. 19l9), Table VIII.