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
<u
a.
in
c
o
Fig. 10. Yield Per Bearing Acre of California Grapes
by Varietal Classes, 1919- 19^49
£ 5
1935
YEAR
1950
YIELD ; Whether it be due to weather, technological knowledge or response to
price-cost outlooks — the changes in the production of grapes which have been so
vexatious are associated closely with parallel changes in yield per acre. Figure
10 shows this clearly. The average yield per acre for all varieties had dropped
to a low of about 2.5 tons per acre in 1931. In 1946, the average yield had
climbed to 6 tons per acre. Increases in tons per acre differed among the varie-
tal classes -— wine from 1.7 to 4 tons; raisins from 3.2 tons to about 6.8; table
grapes from 2.4 tons to about 7.9. As a per cent of the 1931 yields, however, the
varietal classes did not greatly differ. Two facts are clear: (1) this is a long-
run and very stable rate of increase, which is not correlated with the business
cycle; (2) it seems doubtful that the steady upward trend over fifteen years can
be due to weather. It seems logical to assume that since the rise continued dur-
ing the depression period of 1937-1938 and did not greatly accelerate during the
war boom, it is not due to changes in pruning, irrigating, fertilizing or other
output-determinants which would be changed as the expected price of grapes or the
expected price of cost-factors changed with the business cycle. Yields of rai-
sins have been down for one year and the others have decreased over the past
three years. It is not safe, however, to assume that the long-run upward trend —
which started long before the rise in grape prices — has been reversed. It is
possible that the rise in yields is independent of economic outlook and it may be
largely independent of weather shifts. If this rising output per acre — which
explains nearly all the change in output of grapes -- represents increased cul-
tural efficiency, then very large crops may oocur at any time. Acreage is the
same as in 1946. Given the same yields, nearly 3,000,000 tons could be produced
again in any year.
12
Fig. It. Bearing Acreage, Production, Condition of Crop, and Yield Per
Bearing Acre of California Wine - Grape Varieties, 1919- 19149
1920 1925 1930 19J5 1940 1945
CROP YEARS
FRODUCTIOII SUIMARY ; The next four figures have been arranged on a soale such
that the rate of increase in all of the series shown on each chart may be directly-
compared by comparing the slope of the line representing the series. Figure 11
shows that there has been no increase in bearing acreage of wine grapes j that per
cent of full crop reported has not changed much since 1936; that aotual yield per
acre just about doubled from 1931 to 1946, a rate not greatly different from that
of the other varieties; that the calculated full crop which might have been at-
tained with 100 per cent condition and with actual acreage have approximated
750,000 tons; and finally, that aotual production which was only about 300,000
tons in 1931 came close to 700,000 tons in 1946. The acreage v from which this
yield of near 700,000 tons was obtained is still in bearing.
13
Fig. 12. Bearing Acreage, Production, Condition of Crop and Yield
Per Bearing Acre of California Raisin Grapes, I9I9-I9H9
1920 19 25 1930 1935 1940 1945
CROP YEARS
Figure 12 summarizes the history and the implications of total production in
the raisin segment of the grape industry. Again, the rise in acreage when ex-
pressed as a rate or per cent is almost imperceptible. Yet actual output rose be-
tween 1931 and 1946 from less than 800,000 tons to about 1,700,000 tons. The cal-
culated maximum crop which could have been gotten with ideal condition was even
greater. Just as in wine grapes ~ and even to a greater degree in table grapes --
the steep rise in the production line is almost exactly the same as the slope in
the yield-per-acre line. Raisin yields more than doubled. Crop condition seems
to have improved, although it is probable that this is due to biases in reporting
per cent of full crop. The important fact is that this steady increase seems in-
dependent of economic outlook and is probably attributable mainly to improved cul-
tural practices. If that is the case, in any year in the near future, the total
output of raisin variety grapes could again go well over 1,500,000 tons. The
acreage is still in bearing. The cultural practices — regardless of their pos-
sible effects on quality of grape or strength of vine — are still available.
Weather could be good. Taken in combination, the fifteen-year trend which re-
sulted in the huge 1946 out-turn could well be surpassed.
14
Fig. 13. Bearing Acreage, Production, Condition of Crop and Yield per
Bearing Acre of California Table Grape Varieties, 19 19- I9M9
19 20 19 25 1930 1935 1940 1945
CROP YEARS
In the fifteen years of increasing production, the output of the table-variety
grapes almost tripled. The acreage base declined until 1935 and has been fixed
since then. Reported per cent of full crop has been fairly constant since 1937.
The one factor which has changed significantly is yield per acre, which was less
than 2,5 tons in 1931 and more than 7.5 tons in 1946. A crop of table grapes in
excess of 600,000 tons has been produced. Such a crop far exceeds the quantity
which can be sold in fresh table outlets at remunerative prices. It places extreme
pressure on the wineries, to which the output not profitably salable in fresh chan-
nels is traditionally diverted. In the process, it may constrict the traditional
winery outlet for raisin- type grapes and, the value of both raisin and wine grapes
may be depreciated. These same observations are applicable to any one of the three
classes. Both the production and market aspects of these three groups are almost
identical.
15
Fig. IU. Bearing Acreage, Production, Condition of CroD, and Yield Per
Bearing Acre of All Varieties of California Grapes, 1919- 1949
1920 19 25 19 30 19 3 5 19 U0 1945
CROP YEARS
When the three varietal classes are aggregated and a composite picture of
production and its determinants is presented, the essential similarity of trends
in all three segments becomes apparent. Total acreage has remained steady at
about 500)000 acres for nearly twenty years. In the last twenty-five years,
the rise in output to near 3*000,000 tons represents almost a doubling. The
apparent improvement in condition -reports shows up, but the striking series is
the yield per acre. Almost constant prior to 1931 > 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><><a
Tokay
33.3 'Emperor
^IT.l^l
Other Table
Vari et 1 es
g
EES 1
^11. 1^ Muscat
>l2.6#a Tokay
Thompson
Thompson
;:!<l.5::l Other Table
I38.6S | ! Wine Varieties
Shipped Fresh for Juice
mm-,
Wine Varieties
M0 60
PER CENT
Figure 19 on page 22 compares directly the tonnage of grapes used for drying and
for commercial crushing. It shows again that neither table nor wine grapes are
of any importance in the raisin outlet. On the average, in the four years 1945-
48 wineries used almost 1,300,000 tons of grapes each year while the raisin chan-
nel took about three-fourths of that amount with an average annual utilization of
965,225 tons. A little less than a half million tons of raisin variety grapes
including about 150,000 tons of Muscats — went to wineries each year. This was
just a little less than the tonnage of wine grapes used in winery outlets.
The general utilization picture may therefore be summed up by noting the
stability in tonnage going to fresh outlets, the steady decline in fresh shipments
for juice, the long-run rise in utilization \n both the raisin and the winery out-
let, with the latter taking considerably more grapes each year than the raisin
market. Probably most important of all is the difficulty of defining varietal
classes. More than half of the grapes nominally labeled as table varieties regu-
larly and for a long period have gone to wineries. Almost as many raisin grapes
as wine grapes go to wineries. Thus the multi-purpose nature of these grapes
must be recognized and the economic elements involved in the inter-locking mar-
kets for all grape products should also be emphasized.
22
(A)
Fig. 19. Average Annual Utilization of California Grapes for Drying and Commercial
Crush, I9U5 - I9U8 in Tons and as P er Cent of Average Annual Harvested Production
N TONS ( 1945-1948)
ALL
P 1,293,550^
— 425
«g3 11,000^
— 1,800
(B) IN TONS ( 1934-1938)
ALL
RAI SI N
TABLE
WINE
— 6,20 0
160,320^
1,000
^389,6801
200
400
600 800
Tons in thousands
1000
(C) IN PER CENT ( 1945-1948)
OF HARVESTED PRODUCTION
ALL
RAI SI N
TABLE
WINE
(D) PER CENT OF HARVESTED
PRODUCTION 1934-1938
ALL
RAI SI N
TABLE
WINE
— O.I
52.8^
0.2
20
r
40
I
60
I
80
iii'ilil t W i i'i'iH ii/i l h i ' • ii.. . • ■ • ■■ ' ■ I
73 2;i;;;l
20
40
60
80
Per cent
DRI ED
COMMERCI AL CRUSH
100
100
23
Fig. 20. California Harvested Production and Utilization of Wine Grape Varieties
1927 - I9U9
700
CROP YEAR
WINE GRAPES ; Figure 20 shows the major ohanges in recent- years in the wine-
grape utilization. There are, of course, no recorded sales for table use. Use
in dried outlets has always been minor and is virtually disappearing. The sharp
drop in total sales for juioe at the time of repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment
was to be expected. However, there has been a continuous trend downwards in such
sales probably as a result of diminished immigrant population. This trend towards
smaller home-made wine consumption should continue and will probably level off at
a level of utilization considerably below the present rate. Intrastate sales of
wine grapes for juice have become almost negligible. The major outlet is, of
course, commercial crushing, which in three years has absorbed more than one half
million tons of wine grapes in utilization. Ultimately, it would be reasonable
to expect, the commercial winery will be the single commercially-significant
outlet from the view of the industry as a whole. Shipment for juice has taken
less than twenty per cent of the crop in six of the last seven year3. In the
same period, commercial crushing has absorbed more than eighty per cent of wine
grapes. The juice -shipment business developed after 1918 when wine consumption
rose as high as 0.30 gallons per years per capita. During the prohibition
period, therefore, there was some shift over towards wine grapes with especially
good shipping characteristics.
24
ig. 21. California Harvested Production and Utilization of Raisin Grape Varieti
1927 - 19149
700
W35 19 HO H45
CROP YEAI3
RAISIN GRAPES : Nearly all of the economic characteristics whioh are important
to the grape industries as a whole are reflected in the pattern of utilization of
raisin grapes. The 1946 production of about 1,700,000 tons was more than twioe as
large as 1931 output. Production has changed from one year to the next by as muoh
as 500,000 tons. Probably more Important, the amount dried for raisins has fluctu-
ated by as muoh as 600,000 tons from one year to the next. Thus far there has been
no statistical analysis of the determinants of the -distribution of raisin variety
grapes among their various outlets, nor of the effects of alternative patterns of
distribution. The violence of changes was greatest as a result of government
YEAR
direotive during the war. However, prior to repeal, utilisation of grapes for
drying varied mainly with harvested production. Since that time, the year-to-
year changes have not differed in kind but have taken on much greater amplitude.
Thus in 1943, more than 1,600,000 tons of grapes were laid on trays. In 1946,
less than 800,000 tons were dried. The next year, more than 1,200,000 tons of
grapes were used for drying. Purchases by government have in some measure miti-
gated the effects of peak years — the impact of which was worsened by loss of
traditional export outlets. Little can be done to avoid the possible dangers of
very short production which might be induced by high wine prioes. Within the
last decade, less than sixty per oent of the harvested annual production of rai-
sin variety grapes has been dried on four occasions. In one year, more than
ninety per oent was dried. Appendix Chart 21 shows the ohanges in utilization
of raisin grapes as a percentage of harvested production. The violence of shifts
since the war has been far greater than in the decade 1930-39. There is also
an apparent drift towards using a smaller percentage of the larger crop in the
dried outlet. These drastic changes impose a heavy strain on marketing —
although it is possible that they are in faot due in part to loss of markets.
The strain, however, is not confined to raisins alone since the same erratic
change in supplies in the other outlets may be generated with these fluctuations
in utilization for drying.
Figure 21 also shows the striking year-to-year changes in use of raisin-
variety grapes for juice. In 1946, more than 700,000 tons of raisin grapes went
to wineries. In 1949, it appears that less than 200,000 tons were so used. The
tonnage used for juioe varied sharply from year to year prior to the war. How-
ever, the fluctuations were less sharp and the percentage used for wine muoh
lower in pre-war years. Since 1940 more than thirty per cent of raisin grapes
were used in four years. Last year it appears that less than fifteen per oent
of the crop of raisin grapes went to wineries. It is apparent that there is a
perverse alternation in flooding and then possibly in shorting the two major mar-
kets to which this multiple-use grape has long gone.
There has been a slow but steady rise in the use of raisin-type grapes in
the fresh market. This outlet does not show the pattern of fluctuation which al-
ternately overloads and shorts the other markets. In recent years, the percentage
of these grapes going to fresh markets has been climbing towards ten. The fresh-
for-juioe channel is of little oommeroial significance for the raisin variety pro-
ducers as a whole. Small amounts are canned.
California normally has turned out well over half the raisin production of
the world. Figure 22 indicates both that California produotion is highly vari-
able and that its variability is impressed upon the series representing total
world supply. Loss of exports — which like other phases of merchandising is not
considered here — has greatly compounded the problems of the raisin branch. It
is a further reason for concentration by the government of its subsidy operations
in this segment.
There has been a long-time trend downwards in per-capita consumption of rai-
sins in the United States. From a peak of about 2.9 pounds per capita per year,
consumption -- excluding relief distribution — dropped below 2,0 pounds before
the war broke out. It appears that per oapita consumption since the close of the
war has resumed about the same level held prior to its outbreak. The industry
has shown acute awareness of these problems and has organized a variety of pro-
grains discussed in Section III of this report.
27
Fig. 24. California Harvested Production and Utilization of Table Grape Varieties
1927 - I9H9
650 II I I I I
600
500 ■
400
900
200
100
A
....><><
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<P
hort tons
\
\^''
exported
Total ^S^SX^^
consumption ^^JwV^"
irhioh fresh grapes are moved. The sharp drop in 1943 to less than 100,000 tons
of fresh grapes for juice purposes was largely due to war-time shortage of trans-
port facilities. However, prior to the war, there was a long-run trend down in
suoh shipments. The same trend seems to have been renewed sinoe the war ended,
with shipments in recent years at less than 150,000 tons.
Neither exports nor imports of fresh grapes as table fruit have attained
great commercial volume. Exports are still less than 50,000 tons and imports
have thus far not reached even 20,000 tons per year. The Federal Department of
Agriculture has not yet undertaken to subsidize foreign movement of fresh grapes.
Total consumption as table fruit declined moderately for ten years prior to
1944. There followed three successive years of sharply increasing movement in-
volving an increase in annual utilization from less than 350,000 tons in 1944 to
nearly 500,000 tons in 1947. Consumption again fell below 450,000 tons in 1948.
It is of course quite Impossible direotly to compare movements of grapes in the
various channels by tonnage alone since widely differing amounts of processing,
transportation, servioes and packaging are involved among the various uses. How-
ever, United States per oapita consumption of fresh grapes for table fruit has
not inoreased over many years. From about seven pounds per oapita in 1934, there
was a slow drop to about five pounds per oapita per year in 1944 and then a slow
rise to 1947. Fresh table use is the smallest of the three major outlets in
terms of per oapita use of fresh grapes, although as noted above the rates of con-
sumption in the different uses are not easily compared. Nearly twenty pounds per
year per person are oonsumed as wine.
30
Fig. 27. Growers' Total Returns for California Grapes by Varietal Classes
1919 - I9U9
300
1
rotal
' Raisins-^
\ /Win
e
f %.
Tabl
> \
\ ^
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
<x 86 x
South of Bay
Wineries
Disti I leries
There has been a continuous trend downward in the number of active bonded
wineries. This has occurred in the face of a continuous rise in storage cooper-
age and in annual production. The tendency towards large scale operations appears
to have been most striking in the Interior Valley area.
NET FINISHED PRODUCTION ; Total net finished production of wine in the
United States, as shown in Figure 36 for years beginning on July 1st, has climbed
upwards at a remarkable rate since the repeal of the Prohibition amendment and
laws. The rate of increase has been almost linear, or with nearly equal gains
per year in gallons over all years of the period 1933-1948. The rising trend
was interrupted by the war but it seems to have been resumed at about the same
level and the same rate of increase as prevailed before the war broke out. The
maximum production was reached in 1946 with more than 160,000,000 gallons of wine
finished. Since the end of the war, the proportion of total net finished prod-
uction made in California has greatly increased. From the view of the entire
wine industry, extra-California production has beoome a minute fraction of the
total United States output.
The California table wine industry accounts for roughly one-fifth of the
total wine output. The rate and the amount of increase in gallons have been
very small compared to dessert wine. Net finished production of commercial table
wine has fluctuated near a level of 25,000,000 gallons yearly, with a very slight
upward trend apparent over the years since repeal. The war seems to have had no
effect upon the general pattern of production in table wines.
Fig. 36. United States and California Net Finished Commercial Wine Production
1933 — 1948
1935 1940 1945
Years Beginning July I
Net finished production of dessert wines in California has risen meteorically
since 1933. Starting with less than 40,000,000 gallons produced in 1933, more
than 120,000,000 gallons were produced in 1946. Except for the war years, when
disposition of grapes was partly determined by government decision, the rise has
been generally linear or about the same number of gallons inorease per year re-
gardless of the year within the period 1933-1948. Except for the war years, whioh
42
of course are not directly comparable with other parts of this period, there is
a marked tendency for alternate years of high and low net finished production.
The same tendency appears in the table wine series but to a lesser degree, and
it is made less striking by the lower scale of that series. Net finished pro-
duction of dessert wines often differed by as much as 20,000,000 gallons from
one year to the next before the war. production of dessert wines dropped by
more than 40,000,000 gallons in 1947 as compared to 1946. These sharp changes
were not exclusively due to changes in market outlook. They were of course re-
lated to the upward trend in total production of all grapes in California over
these years , There was probably considerable relationship to the year-to-year
fluctuations in output of grapes. But it is probable that a more important de-
terminant of these erratic variations in production — which be it recalled were
shown to have existed in the raisin segment also — was the market-outlook in
either or both of the other two main segments of the industries. There is an
almost systematic pattern of utilization shown in Figure 15 whereby utilization
of grapes varies, with a high year in wine and a low in raisins followed by the
reverse, The year-to-year changes in utilization in these segments often ex-
ceeded the changes in total production of grapes over the same year.
Total net finished production of commercial still wines in California shows
much the same characteristics as its major component — dessert wines. Partly
as a result of production conditions, market outlook or government policy in
other parts of the industry, the total amount produced and therefore required
to be marketed in each year varied sharply = Other industries — particularly
the perennials — are subjected to annual fluctuations in output which are un-
foreseeable, uncontrollable and often unrelated to changes in market demand.
The grape industries are subject to these hazards, but there are two differences.
In these grape industries, total production is traditionally used in full even
if part is rendered unfit by weather or other damage for the channel to which
it was originally intended and even if sale of the total produced supply breaks
the price for grapes in all outlets down to only a little more than the costs
of harvesting and getting them to the outlet. Second, the total supply which
sometimes descends upon any one of the segments may be largely determined by
actual production conditions or expected market conditions in another segment.
As a result, total production before the war has changed by more than 45,000,000
gallons in one year and by more than 55,000,000 gallons in one year since the
end of the war. Storage and re-processing may mitigate the impact of these
changes to some extent, but inventories may be drastically affected by price
breaks due to sharp and unforeseen increases in production. The price of grapes
for all channels is affected in the next harvest season.
The series representing gross production during the harvest season in each
year — as shown in Figure 37 — even more clearly illustrates the impact of
production and of market outlook in other parts of the grape industries upon the
crush, Both the dessert and table wine series in gross production during the
months July to December are larger than net production in the same calendar year.
This is probably due in part to distillation as a phase of fortifying dessert
wines and to other factors.
The relative importance of the different parts of the still wine supply is
shown also on Figure 37. The table white wine series shows a very minor long-run
rise in total production* Relative to its height, the fluctuations in this series
are higher than in table red wines. The drift in table red wine gross production
has been slowly upward. The total net production of California table wines ap-
pears to be less than the gross production series by roughly the amount of the
table white wine series. Neither net nor gross production has increased at the
rate attained in dessert wine production. Both the opportunity to store wines and
Fig. 37. California Gross Still Wine Production by Classes
During July - December, 1937 - 19*18
160 -
Total
YEAR
thus to mitigate the violent impact of variable production upon sale, and the op-
portunity to prooess gross output into other forms have given the wine industry-
partial oontrol over its own wine supply if not its raw materials. As a result,
the fluctuations in net finished production, while perhaps more violent than de-
sirable, are nonetheless smaller in amplitude than the shifts in gross production.
Gross production of dessert wines peaked in 1946 at about 130,000,000 gallons,
which exceeded maximum annual gross production before the war by more than
50,000,000 gallons. Since 1946, production has been alternately high and low.
1949 gross dessert wine production was the lowest since the war ended. It is
doubtful that a downward trend has started. If the general history of this seg-
ment of the industry is repeated, there may be high bidding for grapes in the
early part of the 1950 season with another heavy crush as a result.
Taking all types of still wines as a total, the California industry has shown
a capacity to crush nearly 180,000,000 gallons of wine in a single season. This
occurred in the 1946 season and was followed by a drop to about 105,000,000 gal-
lons in 1947. The pre-war peak gross production was in 1941 with about 110,000,000
gallons. From 1947 through 1949, production has varied from year to year by at
least 35,000,000 gallons.
Thus, in summary, the wine segment has successfully marketed a rapidly ex-
panding output over many years. Both storage and processing of gross production
into distilled materials for fortification have evened out annual supplies. How-
ever, the erratio nature of wine production has by no means been countered by
these methods. In the late fall of 1946, prices of bulk wines at the winery
broke nearly one dollar per gallon on dessert wines and nearly 70 cents on table
wines. This occurred after the size of the 1946 crush became known. It cannot
be over-emphasized that average prices of grapes for raisins, table use and for
wine all broke in the 1947 season when it beoame known that purohase of grapes for
wine would necessarily be curtailed.
1
44
Fig. 38. Grapes Crushed by Cal i torn I a Wineries
Weekly I9M7 by Varietal Classes
120
80
40
1
Dtal
M
/ All wine 1
varieties Wine - \
V/\ Interior
j N,/ Val 1 ey •'^^\
w / ^V. •* *
/ w ^s**"* ^
Table
Raisin — ^«w^s
1
^^^^ •
16 23 30 6 13 20 27 * 11 18 25 I 8 15 22 29 6 13 20 27
AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC.
Week Ending
WEEKLY CRUSH ; The bulk of crushing in the California winery season is con-
centrated within approximately ten weeks from early September to mid-November •
The time-pattern of crushing varies both with the weather conditions for the
season and with the size of the total grape crop. However, by far the bulk of
the crush in seasons for which data are available has been handled within about
ten weeks. Figures 38, 39 and 40 represent the distribution of tonnage crushed
by weeks over the seasons 1947, 1948 and 1949. In all three of these seasons,
the same general characteristics appear. Crushing is reported in light volume by
mid-August. Some crushing in light tonnage, but not reported by the Market News
Service, is believed to be undertaken even earlier. Then after the second week
in September the tonnage crushed accelerates sharply and reaches a peak by about
the middle of October. By the end of the month of October, the volume delivered
to wineries begins to decline rapidly. By the middle of November, the weekly
crush has dropped to very low levels. However, reported crushing continues for
as much as six weeks — or up to the Christmas season. In 1950, crushing of 1949
grapes was reported as late as February 12th. The kinds of grapes and their
origins by area and varietal type show considerable stability at various parts
of the season.
By varietal class, the crushing season seems to differ considerably. Except
for extremely small quantities, wine grapes are not delivered to wineries for
crushing until the winery season is well under way. The very early-season
deliveries are in the main residual to fresh shipping operations. Raisin-variety
grapes delivered early in the season are also apparently residual to the same kind
of operation. The tonnage of early deliveries prior to the winery season's peak
is relatively minor. The protracted deliveries which often go past the next
calendar year are also minor in total volume. To a greater extent than the open-
ing deliveries» these late crushings are mainly of table-grape origin. It is
generally considered that strippings of vineyards and culls out of re -packing
from storage account for most of these supplies.
Fig. 39. Grapes Crushed by California Wineries
Weekly \9W, by Varietal Classes
21 28 4
AUG. ■
11 18 25
SEPT.
11 18 25
DEC.
Week Ending
45
In the 1947 season, peak crushing -was reached in the week ending October
4th with about 110,000 fresh tons of grapes* The crush remained above 100,000
tons through the week ending October 25th. Tonnage then declined sharply
to a level of 10,000 tons in the week ending November 22nd* Crushing in very-
small amounts, consisting mainly of table-variety grapes was reported through
the week ending on December 27th* Early crushing was reported on the week
ending August 16th. Fairly heavy orushing was underway by the week ending
September 6th at which time the delivery of wine grapes was accelerated. Table
grape shipments for winery use were light in the early part of the 1947 season.
The peak of the wine grape movement was reaohed on the week ending on September
27th. By mid-November the wine-grape season wa3 effectively over. Except for
early raisin-variety deliveries from fresh deals, the shipment of raisin grapes
to wineries coincided closely with the deliveries of wine grapes from the Valley.
Table-grape arrivals at wineries were reported in the middle of August but did not
reach maximum weekly tonnage until October 25th at which time the crush of wine
grapes was declining fast. The protracted shipments in December were mainly
table grapes, but their total volume was not large*
The 1948 pattern differed in several respects. There was a single peak of
weekly tonnage reached in the week ending October 23rd, with total deliveries of
175,000 tons reported* Early shipments again began in mid-August and were classi-
fied mainly as raisin-variety grapes. Deliveries of raisin-type grapes reached
a high peak in the week ending October 2nd and declined sharply thereafter*
The maximum weekly deliveries of wine grapes from the Valley and from the state
as a whole were made on October 23rd. Table-grape deliveries peaked on November
46
Fig. MO. Grapes Crushed by California Wineries
Weekly 19149, by Varietal Classes
23rd at about 65,000 tons for the week. The total crush in 1948 was heavy and the
early delivery of raisin grapes in large volume to the wineries indicated the de-
cision of raisin producers to use the wineries rather than the trays for large
parts of the crop in the absence of a raisin program. The late peak in table-
grape deliveries was common to all three years. The lengthy delivery into late
December was largely table grapes, although raisin-grape deliveries were rela-
tively high in that year. It is apparent that not merely the size of the total
crop and of its components but also the utilization of its multiple-purpose com-
ponents affects the pattern of weekly crushing.
The light 1949 crush was much similar in time pattern to the light 1947 crush
except for the five-week duration of heavy crushing in 1947, in oontrast to the
single maximum-delivery week in 1949. Both wine grapes and raisin grapes reached
their peaks on the week ending October 8, 1949. The table -grape peak was reached
two weeks later. The early shipments in mid-August were mainly of raisin-grape
origin. The fairly heavy shipments to wineries in December were largely table
grapes. There appears to be no great difference in the time distribution of wine
grapes from the Valley and from the state as a whole.
Neither the shipments at the beginning nor at the ending of the season .are
significant fractions of the total crush. Early-season shipments include some
table grapes but they are mainly residual to early shipments of raisin-type grapes.
The post-season shipments are largely table-variety grapes including culls involved
in re-packing stored table grapes, late table grapes and vineyard strippings.
SUGAR CONTENT: Considerable information is available with respect to varietal
origin and quality-rating of grapes at different parts of the season for the San
Joaquin area. Data were obtained directly from the commercial records of vintners
indicating the varieties or culls delivered, dates and sugar -readings. Some of
47
these records are shown in summary form in a series of charts in Appendix A
to this report. Fairly wide variations in unloads from the various districts
have appeared. All records are from 1947, 1948 and 1949 operations in the San
Joaquin areas.
Grapes were delivered in 1947 from the Dinuba area as early as August
10th. These were classed as culls. Sugar rating was in the order of 20 per
cent. After September 10th, shipments of Thompson Seedless were received with
sugar in the order of 25 per cent through September 30th, Muscats ranging
about 27 per cent in sugar were also delivered in these weeks. Culls and
Sultanas were received through September with sugar readings in the neighbor-
hood of 20 per cent. A few Alicante and Malaga grapes were received with sugar
over 20 per cent. Deliveries to wineries resumed in late October and ran
through mid-November, These deliveries were mainly culls with low sugar. In
this area, either opening or closing dates or both would have eliminated some
culls — if it be assumed that such elimination is desired. Unless a sugar
minimum of at least 21 per cent were enforced, culls would have continued
through September,
In Livingston, culls only were delivered in small volume and at low sugar
until September 2nd, Then Thompsons only were shipped in large volume at about
23^ per cent sugar through September 25th, Shipments ended abruptly except for
light deliveries of Grenache and Tokay grapes in October, Opening dates alone
could have eliminated culls from the the recorded shipments out of this district
in 1947, However, reports on a single year are of course insufficient accu-
rately to generalize to other years,
•
Kingsburg deliveries did not commence until the second week in September,
The bulk of receipts were Thompsons ranging about 24vr per cent in sugar and
Muscats which began at about 27 per cent and closed early in November after a
ten-day gap at about 25 per cent. Several varieties of wine-grapes were received
with sugar well over 20 per cent for all of them. Sugar readings of Sultanas
rose sharply through September, Late season Malagas were relatively low in
sugar. For this ssason, sugar readings would have had to be set at more than
20 per cent in order to eliminate grapes from winery outlets. Were the sugar
requirement set upwards a small amount to increase the tonnage eliminated, it
appears that elimination would have affected entire varietal classes. These
data do not indicate that sugar requirements could effectively or equitably
have been used in that season for grapes from Kingsburg as a means of con-
trolling either volume or quality of crush.
The Selma shipments were much like those from Livingston. Only a few low-
sugar Sultanas were delivered before September 22nd, The bulk of shipments were
Muscats averaging from 26 per cent at the beginning down to 24 per cent in the
first week of November, A few Malagas reached a sugar content of about 20g per
cent.
Receipts from Parlier were culls running from 22 per cent at the beginning
in early August to 18 per cent after mid-October and until the season ended
in the second week of November. Other shipments were mainly Muscats at 25 per
cent. Late receipts of Malagas were rated at about 20 per cent sugar content.
Opening dates could have excluded some culls. Sugar requirements would have
had to be set at about 23 per cent in order to eliminate culls. Since all other
grapes ran at about the same sugar content, sliding scales of sugar content
could not have been used to control volume.
48
Deliveries to reporting wineries from Exeter were largely culls. Sugar
ratings ranged from about 22 per cent on Septenber 1st down to 18 per cent in mid-
November when deliveries ended. A sugar minimum of 20 per cent would have
eliminated culls received after late September. An opening date could have
eliminated early culls.
Receipts from Woodlake were culls only up until September 31st. Sugar
ranged from 21 to 23 per cent. Receipts after Ootober 10th were also culls but
at less than 19 per cent sugar. September receipts were largely Thompsons at
more than 24 per cent sugar© Malagas ranged higher than 20 per cent sugar.
Sugar requirements would have had to be at least 23 per cent to eliminate most
culls. Sugar ratings could not have effectively or equitably been used to
eliminate volume. Opening and closing dates could effectively have controlled
culls.
The very large Sanger operation consisted of light deliveries of culls
until about September 5th. Thompsons were received in heavy volume thereafter
at about 24 per cent sugar. Muscats, in lighter volume, ranked higher. Malagas
were about 22 per cent and Alicantes rated about 21 per cent. Late season culls
were below 19 per cent. Sliding scales of sugar content as a means of elimin-
ating volume were clearly inapplicable. Opening and closing dates would have
eliminated the light receipts of culls. As in most other districts, receipts
of culls were concentrated at the beginning and ending of the season.
Reedley deliveries, which were largest in volume of all districts surveyed,
support the general conclusion that on the basis of available knowledge neither
quality control nor volume control could be attained through minimum sugar
standards. Culls at 20 per cent sugar were received from August 12th through
September 2nd. Towards the end of the season, culls dropped to about 17 per
cent. Sugar rating on Thompsons rose from about 21 to about 24 per cent through
the season. Muscats climbed sharply in this district from about 22 per cent to
about 28 per cent. Malagas ranged from 21 to 22 per cent. The bulk of receipts
was concentrated in a range of about 4 degrees sugar through most of the season.
Thus to eliminate a stated percentage of the grapes available for crushing
through any practicable change in sugar requirement would not have been possible.
As noted, sugar tests from large commercial concerns were obtained for each
load delivered to the cooperating winery over the three seasons 1947-1949. These
readings have been classified by day and by variety and within these sub-classif-
ications averages have been computed. The following districts of origin were
covereds Reedley, Dinuba, Livingston, Kingsburg, Sanger, Exeter, Snelling, Selma,
Parlier, Woodlake, Lodi, Escalon, Modesto, Atwater, Oakdale, Winton, Hilmar, Denair,
Irwin, Empire, Hughson, Gallaso, Keyes, Turlock, Clements, Ripon, Ceres, Simms
Station, Manteca, Salida, Lathrop, Acampo, Crow's Landing, Ballico, Linden, Linton,
Riverbank, Stockton, Tracy, Cressy, Bellota, Waterford, Delhi. Thus far these
data have merely been classified and the average readings by variety, by district
of origin and by date of delivery have been plotted. Analysis is incomplete,
but thus far there are no indications that sugar-reading will serve effectively
as a major standard for the enforcement of minimum quality. All evidence
indicates that a sliding scale of sugar requirements, to be adjusted upwards or
downwards as the supply permitted to be crushed is adjusted, would not work well.
Data from the northern areas of the San Joaquin Valley for 1948 are also shown
in the Appendix. Deliveries generally begin later in these regions than in the
southern counties of the Valley.
49
In the Modesto area, early shipments began in 1948 with Thompsons only.
These dropped in sugar score from an average of 24 down to about 22 per cent.
There were ten different varieties of grapes received over the season by the
cooperating unit. Carignanes were received continuously from September 27th,
with sugar climbing from first readings of about 21 per cent to 22-jjf- at the end
of the season. A few loads of Malagas, Palominos and Ribiers were below 20 per
cent in sugar. Shipments to the winery were sharply curtailed after November
1st.
In Escalon in 1948, early shipments were almost all Thompsons, increasing
in sugar from a first reading of 20^ to about 23 per cent when the season ended
for these grapes on October 25th. Carignanes ranged from 20 per cent sugar up
to 23 per cent towards the end of the season. A few varieties ranged below 20
per cent. Shipments to wineries had terminated by November 10th.
In Manteca and Salida in 1948, the crushing season ran from mid-September
to late October with relatively few varieties crushed. A sugar minimum of 20
degrees would not have eliminated significant tonnage.
In Lodi, the cooperating winery received nineteen different varieties over
a crushing season running from September 26th through November 15th. There was
no clear sequence of varieties, such as prevailed in the southern areas of the
Valley. Sugar reading for the bulk of deliveries ranged from 18 to 21 per cent.
Very few loads registered below 16 per cent. In this area, there were not the
typical opening shipments of culls in light volume nor wore there the typical
light shipments of strippings and culls from storage after the close of the
wine-grape season.
This much is clear with respect to sugar as a measure of quality and as
a device for its control: there are wide variations by districts and varieties.
There may possibly be wide variations over the years as a function of size of
crop cr date of maturity. Evidence now available indicates that sugar-content
should not be used as a means to control either quality or volume. The data
are collected and preliminary analysis has been completed, but considerably more
work is needed before reliable answers to these questions can be gotten.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION : Production of wine is concentrated in three
regions of the state — the Interior Valley, the Central Coast and a small area
in Southern California. More than half the grapes used for wine in the years
1945-48 were crushed in the six counties of the San Joaquin District, with by
far the heaviest volume concentrated in Fresno County. Nearly 30 per cent of
grapes used for commercial still-wine production are crushed in the Central
Valley. Thus the Interior Valley ~ mainly from Sacramento County south to
Kern County with San Joaquin and Fresno Counties the heaviest — accounts for
more than four-fifths of the grapes which are used commercially in the pro-
duction of wine. The Central Coast uses a little less than one-eighth of the
tonnage, with 9 per cent in the North Bay and 3 per cent of the State total in
the South Bay. Southern California uses some 7 per cent of the grapes crushed.
The Interior Valley dominates in dessert wine, using 90 per cent of the grapes
crushed for that purpose. The Central Coast uses only 4 per cent and Southern
California about 6 per cent of grapes crushed for dessert wines. In table red
wines the Central Coast uses two-thirds of the grapes, with the North Bay area
alone accounting for 58 per cent. The Valley uses about 54 per cent of the
grapes crushed for white table wine. The Central Coast production absorbs about
40 per cent of the erapes used for white table wine. In. summary, utilization
of grapes for wine is clearly concentrated in. a few regions. The Interior
Valley dominates in all segments except table red wines, in which the Central
Coast and especially the North Bay area are the major users of grapes.
50
Fig. Ml. Equivalent Tonnage of Grapes Used in Producing California
Commercial Gross Production of Still Wine, by Districts
July I - December 31, Annual Average I9U5 — 19*18
TOTAL WINE i
11,265,800x^3 (100%) State
DESSERT Wl NE
,066,100fta8 (100%) State
5 9 %) San Joaqu in Val ley
(31%) Centra! Valley
20,600 (2%) North of Bay
64,600 (6%) Southern CaMfomia
17,800 (2%) South of Bay'
TABLE RED Wl NE
(100%) State
San Joaquin Val lev
133,400
16,800 (13%
14,700 (11%) Central Valley
— 77,600 (58%) North of Bay
(9%) | Southern California
(9%) South of Bay
12,500
11,800
TABLE WHITE WINE
65,700 (100%) State
23,200 (35%) San Joaquin Val ley
12,300 (19%) Central Valley
(29%) North of Bay
(6%) Southern Cal ifomia
18,800
3,900
7,500
(11%) South of Bay
1 1 1 1 1
ooncentrated in a few regions. The Interior Valley dominates in all segments
exoept table red wines, in which the Central Coast and especially the North Bay
area are the major users of grapes.
Fig. U2. Average Annual Gross Wine Production by Districts, 19*15-1949
ALL WINE
" State
51
San Joaquin Val ley
W
Central Val ley
(13.6%) North of Bay
9.0 (7.0%) Southern California!
4.6 (3.6%) South of 'Bay
DESSERT WINE
(31.2%)
(100%) State
(59.0%) San Joaquin Valley
Central Valley
1.7 (1.8%) forth of Bay
6.1 (6.4%) Southern Ca I ifom
1.5
(1.6%)
TABLE RED
South of Bay
(100%) State
(12.8%) San Joaquin Valley
(10.7%) Central Valley
(57.4%) North of 'Bay
(10.47c) Southern California
(8.7%) South of Bay
TABLE WHITE
10.5
(100%) State
(37:0%) San Joaquin Valley
(17.9%) Central Valley
(28.8%) North of Bay
(5.4%) Southern Cal ifornia
(10.9%) South of Bay
I I
I I ' '
20
40
60
80
100
120
MILLION GALLONS
The pattern of wine production is slightly less concentrated geographically
than is the pattern of grape utilization. The Interior Valley turns out a little
more than three-fourths of all the commercial still wine production in the state.
On the average in the years 1945-1949, the San Joaquin District produced about
50 per cent of the state total with an annual average production of 63 million
gallons while the Central Valley District produced more than one-fourth of the
state total, with 34 million gallons gross production. More than 80 per cent of
dessert wine production is localized in the Valley with roughly the same percentage
52
distribution between the Central and San Joaquin areas as in utilization
of grapes for crushing for dessert wine production. There is no clear-cut
concentration in gross production of table white wine. The North Bay heavily
dominates in the production of table red wine.
Comparison of the year of heavy crush 1946 with the light year of 1949
indicates that different areas in the state were quite differently affected.
These differences are probably as much due to different patterns of utilization
as to differences in the regional impact of weather* The San Joaquin Valley-
produced more than the average annual production in 1945-1948 in all wine, in
dessert wine, in table white and table red wines in the heavy year of 1946*
The Central Valley produced more wine in all four categories in 1946 than in
the average year, commanded a larger percentage of total production in the
state but lost ground percentagewise in dessert production despite increased
gallonage* The North Bay region also increased production in all classes
when measured by gallons but fell behind in percentage of total production of
all three classes • The South Bay region of the Central Coast also increased
in gallons produced but fell behind in percentage of state production in all
categories. In the light year of 1949 the San Joaquin fell slightly in its
percentage of all wine produced, increasing its percentage command in table
wines but decreasing very slightly the percentage of dessert wine produced*
The Central Valley fell behind in table wine but more than made up the diff-
erence in dessert wine e So far as these two very different years are concerned,
there is no indication that years of bumper crops affect the various regions
very much differently., It is probable that regional differences in weather may
lead to significant differences in regional production. It is also more prob-
able that differences in utilization of table or raisin variety grapes over the
years will have greater effect than weather on the relative status of the various
regions*
There have been no great changes in the relative positions of any district
since repeal. This conclusion is clearly apparent when production by districts
is considered as a percentage of the state total for dessert wines, table red
wines and table white wines*
The trend in total production of still wines in the Central Coast area was
upward to the peak year of 1946 when gross production in that district was about
28,000,000 gallons. Production has been off to pre-war levels of a little more
than 20,000,000 gallons gross production since then. There has been almost no
long-run change in annual output of dessert wines, which have ranged in the
neighborhood of 3,000,000 gallons. Table white wine production has been in the
order of 4,000,000 gallons with a slight upward drift sinoe 1937. Table red
wine has also drifted upward at about 14,000,000 gallons. Percentagewise,
there has been a very slow and very minor decrease in the amount of dessert
wine produced here when compared to the state total. The same very slow and
very minor downward trend appears in the table red and the table white series
when Central Coast production is expressed as a fraction of state output in
those classes. These changes in the relative status of this district are shown
in Appendix Figure 35* The gross production series for the North Bay area has
shown a long-run upward trend from which no significant departure has yet
appeared. This trend is due mainly to increases in table red production. As
a percentage of state output, the North Bay has lost no ground in either table
red or table white gross production. The decline in dessert wine production
has been minor in both gallons and percentage. The South Bay, except for the
past three years, has held almost exactly steady in gallons produced. However,
in this expanding element of the grape industries, steady output in gallons has
meant a decline relative to other areas. Total gross production at a little more
than 4,000,000 gallons shows wide annual fluctuations hut no marked trend. Table
red wine output has declined, but the decrease has been offset except in the last
three years by increased output of both table white and dessert wines. The per-
centage of the state total of table white produced in the South Bay has dropped
from about 15 to about 10 per cent over the past 12 years. Table red has dropped
from about 13 per cent to about 8 per cent of the state total of gross produc-
tion in these classes. Appendix Figures 36 through 39 show these changes in pro-
duction in the Horth and South regions of the Central Coast District. They may
be summarized briefly by noting that the greater part of the decline in the rela-
tive status of this district is due to faster growth in other parts of the state.
The North Bay area shows no important decline in its status. The South Bay has
declined fairly sharply in the percentage of wine produced.
Production in Southern California shows three main attributes: no clear trend
in gallons produced; a slight upward trend in table red wine but fairly pronounced
downward drifts in both dessert wine and table white wine when expressed as percent-
ages of the state total in those classes; wide and erratic year-to-year variations
in the gross production of dessert wine. Total gross production was 11^ million
gallons in 1946 but was only some e£ million gallons in 1947. These variations
are largely due to changes in dessert wine output. Gros3 production of table red
wine has climbed slowly from about li million gallons in 1937 to nearly 3 million
in 1949. Table white wine at less than a half million gallons has been decreasing
slowly. The percentage deoline has been sharpest in dessert wine falling from 10
to 5 per cent of the state total since 1937. The table red wine series has climbed
from about 6 per cent to almost 15 per cent of the state total. Table white wine
has decreased sharply. Figure 44 shows the wide changes in gallons produced, es-
pecially in dessert wine. Even sharper fluctuations appear when production is
expressed as a percentage of the state total. Both dessert and table red wine
output has changed by as much as 5 per cent of the state total in one year. The
table white series changed even more sharply.
■
Fig. U5. Interior Valley Gross Still Wine Production by Classes
During July - December 1937 - 19^48
55
120
80
40
|\~- Total
A A
\j& • Dessert
Table, rec
TaCle, white
>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 <rn Advisory Subcom-
mittee „ the Advisory Board may recommend to the Director the-, quantity of grape
products or of grapes by varietal class which should be acqtdred. for diversion
with stabilization fund monies • If funds are adequate, the Board may recommend
with concurrence of at least two thirds of its members the establishment of a
surplus-diversion pool to receive, handle and dispose of surplus grape? or grap^
products* Yfhen the Director finds that such a proposed diversion pool is
l/ See Report on Marketing Order for Wine Processors to Grape Study Commit-
teeT December 9, 1949 »
Z/ As of March 15, 1950, minor amendments were effectuated clarifying the
waning of "preparation for market" specifically to -ixclude transfer to a vin-
egar works for processing into vinegar and further +:« exclude transfer of pro-
cessing material for distillation in consonance with the intent of the Marketing
OrdeJ. for Wine, for Wine Processors and for Grape Stabilization,
-5/ See Appendix D, Part 5 for a concise summary of this Orders
77
reasonable and consistent with the goals of the law, he may authorize the Board
to take title to any grapes or grape products received and to operate the pool.
With approval by the Director, pooled supplies may be disposed of in noncompeti-
tive channels as the Board finds consistent with maintenance of a stable market.
Expenses of pool operations are borne by administrative funds available for that
purpose and from net proceeds from sales. Net proceeds may be credited to a
revolving fund to be used either in stabilization operations or to be prorated
back to processors.
With approval by the Director, the Board may conduct or cause to be con-
ducted research into production, processing or distribution of grapes or grape
products,, These studies may include analyses of causes of surpluses, methods
of eliminating surpluses and procedures for stabilization in the whole industry
or in one or more of its segments.
For the purpose of acquiring grapes or grape products, the Board may recom-
mend assessments not exceeding sixoenrfcs per gallon on high-proof or brandy,
three cents per gallon on dessert wine and one cent per gallon on table wine.
Administrative and research assessments may not exceed one fifth of one cent per
gallon on brandy, high-proof and grape concentrate; one tenth of one cent per
gallon on dessert wine and one thirtieth of one cent per gallon on table wine.
Advance assessments up to 25 per cent of these maximum limits are authorized.
The Board may augment funds through federal or other agencies and may further
hypothecate stabilization funds or either the contents of the stabilization
pool or by obligations to it.
Advance assessments of 25 per cent of the maximum allowed rates for stabi-
lization and the full administrative and research assessments were collected.
Operating rules and regulations were made effective on October 1, 1949 and
amended on January 9, 1950 to authorize establishment of a surplus diversion
pool, assessments for stabilization funds and definition of proof gallons.
b„ EFFORTS TO OBTAIN STABILIZATION LOAN . ~ Many activities intended to
contribute to the two goals — research and stabilization — have been under-
taken^!./ An application was submitted on September 26, 1949 for a loan of
:.;3,00'0 i 000 from the United States Commodity Credit Corporation secured by the
obligations on vintners for stabilization assessment. The Grape Stabilization
Advisory Board then considered that funds available for grape diversion through
price-support of raisins by the Commodity Credit Corporation or through its own
power to raise funds by stabilization assessments might be inadequate to elimi-
nate the threatened 1949 surplus — which fortunately did not materialize. It
was therefore proposed that a federal marketing order be formulated, to provide
for diversion of surplus grapes other than raisin varieties into noncompetitive
channels,, Nonrecourse loans to the extent of $3, 000, 000 were also requested.
The single source of funds available to the United States Department of Agricul-
ture was the 30 per cent of gross custom receipts of the preceding calendar year
allocated to the Secretary by Section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of
1935, as amended. These funds must be used mainly to encourage exports, to
increase domestic consumption through diversion from normal channels and to make
production payments to producers on perishable nonbasic crops on which price
support is not mandatory..^/ Representatives of the Stabilization Advisory Board
were advised by the U. S. Department of Agriculture that benefit or diversion
payments could be made only out of Section 32 funds; that diversion payments on
l/ See Report on the Marketing Order for Grape Stabilization to the Over-all
Grape Study Committee, December 9, 1949, San Francisco, Calif.
2/ See Appendix D, Part 6, for a summary of Section 32 of the Agricultural
Adjustment Act of 1935, as amended.
78
raisins constituted the maximum possible support for California grapes; and that
all Section 32 funds were already committed. The Department considered that
were funds available,, neither off-grade grapes nor any grape products could be
diverted through federal funds; that federal policy did not contemplate outright
elimination of edible perishables % and that processing of grapes into grape
juice for school-lunch use did not appear feasible ,V
The request for a loan was authorized by the California Marketing Act which
permits negotiations with federal agencies for funds to augment the stabiliza-
tion fund and authorizing the Stabilization Board to hypothecate funds already
received or due under stabilization-assessment obligations „ Receipts of stabi-
lization assessments over the next twelve months were to be used as security,,
Programs designed to stabilize the wine, raisin and grape industries were out-
lined. The purpose of the requested loan was to improve returns to growers
either by diverting excessive tonnage of grapes from crushing or by removing
excessive supplies of wine out of commercial channels 0 It was expected that
1,200,000 tons of grapes would be available for crushing ™ an expectation
which did not materialize only because the crop was short and the raisin outlet
was both controlled and supported. Assessments were to be levied as wine was
prepared for market. Funds would be needed mainly — if at all - from about
September 1st through November 1st in order to divert grapes from crushing.
If diversion became necessary „ the Advisor/- Board would contemplate several
possible adjustments? diversion of packing house culls, strippings, wet damaged
or other low-grade grapes; purchase on the vine of surplus or damaged grapes;
diversion into noncompetitive by-products; removal of excess wine from inven-
tory; and purchase and removal of intermediate grape products, such as juice or
The application of the Advisory Board was explained by an officer of the
California Bureau of Markets, who described in detail the state wine order,
their operations and the statutes under which they function,^/ On December 2,
1949, the Director of the Fruit and Vegetable Branch of the U. S, Production
and Marketing Administration stated that the Board of Directors of the Commodity
Credit Corporation would not favor a loan until assessments had actually been
levied and collections initiated. It was therefore recommended that assessments
be levied immediately in order to build up a fund for 1950 which would be
one of the requirements for obtaining direct assistance from the Department,
such as a CCC loan."^/ The loan proposal was declared to be "inapplicable to
operations during the current season." It was suggested that if a loan were
needed in 1950 that negotiations commence early in the season.
c 0 TAX-FREE DIVERSION . The Grape Stabilization Advisory Board also
prepared proposals for discussion with the Alcohol Tax Unit of the U. S. Bureau
l/ Grape Stabilization Advisory Board. Memorandum of conferences with U, S.
Department of Agriculture Regarding Additional Funds for Grape Stabilization,
2/ Memorandum Application. To Fruit and Vegetable Branch, TJ, S. Department
of Agriculture and Commodity Credit Corporation from Grape Stabilization Advis-
ory Boardo Subject; Fully secured loan of $3,000,000 for grape stabilization.
3/ Letters W. J. Kuhrt, Chief, California Bureau of Markets to S. R. Smith,
Director, Fruit and Vegetable Branch, U. S. Production and Marketing Administra-
tion, September 26, 1949,
4/ Letter; S. R. Smith to W. D. Sanderson, Acting Manager, Grape Stabiliza-
tion Advisory Board, San Francisco 3, California, December 2, 1949,
79
of Internal Revenue to eliminate wine if necessary through a diversion pool
without payment of tax.l/ Diversion could be effectuated through: dumping of
wine; dilution with water to reduce alcohol and then dumping; distillation;
export; denaturing by boiling or by concentration; vinegar manufacture; de-
struction as of unsalable grade; manufacture of dealcoholized wine; impounding
for later removal; destruction as "unavoidable loss" under amended law. As
the Internal Revenue Code now stands, no outlet for any significant volume of
wine could be used free of tax. The Alcohol Tax Unit must impose the tax ex-
cept where specific exemption is provided. Unspoiled wine may not now be di-
verted without payment of tax. Therefore, a bill was introduced which would
authorize the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to declare wine unmerchantable
and to authorize its elimination free of tax as unavoidable loss, 2/ However,
delegation to a federal official of power to determine unavoidable" losses may
mean invalid, assumption of powers vested in the California Director of Agri-
culture by California law. Efforts are being made to resolve this apparent
conflict. Unless and until it becomes possible legally to eliminate surplus
wine without tax obligation the present rates of 15 cents and 60 cents per
gallon on table and dessert wines respectively and ^9.00 per gallon on dis-
tilled spirits will probably render such diversion excessively costly.
d. STABILIZATION ASSE S SMENT . — Assessment for stabilization directly
affects vintners only and may therefore legally be recommended by two-thirds
of the members of the Grape Stabilization Advisory Board. Actual expenditure
of the funds cannot be approved by the Director until a specific plan for a
diversion pool and the economic report supporting its establishment have been
approved by at least two-thirds of the membership of the Advisory Board, Cer^
tain products may not be purchased for diversion: raisins are not defined as
a grape product; packaged fresh grapes might not be approved by the Director
of Agriculture since they are an edible and already packaged product; subsidized
exports of grapes or grape products may not be legally valid; destruction of
sound ripe grapes is widely disapproved. Use of funds for vine removal in-
volves a host of serious economic and administrative difficulties which are
not yet fully analyzed* Diversion of culls or products residual to other ship-
ping operations, or vineyard strippings or other damaged grapes through stabi-
lization payments as and if necessary has been suggested as a phase of the ac-
cepted policy to eliminate lowest quality raw materials.
The Committee on Research Procedure of the Grape Stabilization Advisory
Board requested the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics to analyze
the stabilization fund. 3/ The Giannini Foundation recommended immediate asscse-
ment but deferred use 6F the funds,, The stabilization fund must be regarded
as a reserve for contingencies — * mainly associated with heavy offerings of
grapes for crushing — to be available for use if needed and to be returned to
vintners if not so needed. Such funds may usefully be disbursed only if they
l/ Grape Stabilization Advisory. Report on Conference with Alcohol Tax Unit
on Removal of Surplus Wine— Tax Free, Washington, D 9 C Week of September 26,
1949.
2/ H. R. 6320 9 81st Congress, 1st Sessions October 4, 1949. To clarify
and - extend the authority of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue with respect
to unavoidable losses of wine»
3/ Shear, S»T« and H„R. Wellman. The Grape Stabilization Fund. Considera-
tions as to Its Collection and Use e November 25, 1949® 6p 9 Processed 9
80
are available when neededo Only funds which have been collected and loans se=
cured by assessment-obligations can be used to divert grapes© Loans cannot easily
be obtained unless stabilization assessments hav® actually been collected* Sur-
plus diversion pools may be established only if adequate funds are available or
may be obtainede The order does not rsqui re— and could not reasonably requi re=
-that precise plans for use of stabilization funds be formulated at the time of
collection* Many different contingencies may arise and a variety of diversion
techniques may therefore be appropriate. None may be effective^ however;, unless
the contingency fund is available should an emergency materializes There is no
indication that surplus diversion of grapes or grape products other than liqui=
dation of the surplus raisin pool will be necessary at least until crop and mar=
ket conditions affecting the 1950 crop become known—and not even then unless
crisis situations develop either in production or marketing or both s Stocks of
old wine and brandy were larger on September l s 1949 than on September l g 1948
by the equivalent of about 100,000 tons of grapes. However, the light" 1949 crush
and accelerated sales since September 1949 resulted in smaller stocks on January
1, 1950 than a year earlier. Thus, unless there is heavy production or poor mar-
ket outlook or both in any segment, or the federal government sharply cuts down
raisin support, there should be little need for stabilization in 1950 3 These
contingencies cannot be foreseen. However, none of them is impossible. .Should
such emergency occur, it could be mitigated only if the funds were already avail-
able to finance diversion and to facilitate obtaining additional money through
credit if needed,, For these reasons, and further because more wine could be el-
iminated through diversion of grapes than through diversion of wine„ the Giannini
Foundation recommended that the assessments be levied and funds be collected
either to finance surplus diversion and to serve as a basis for federal loans, or
to be refunded if not needed. On December 28, 1949 the Grape Stabilization Ad-
visory Board recommended to the Director of Agriculture that stabilisation assess-
ments be levied* Assessments at the rate of one cent per gallon on table wines,
three cents per gallon on dessert wines and six cents per gallon on brandy, high-
proof and concentrate were approved by the Director and made effective as of Jan-
uary 9, 1950 to run through December 31 a 1950.
. e f PRELIMINARY REPORT , SPECIAL STUDY COMMITTEE. — This agency of the Grape
Stabilization Advisory Board recommended, that stabilization assessments be levied
at maximum rates, 1/ but be used only for direct stabilization within the wine
industry 5 specifically excluding purchase of raisins or packaged fresh grapes,
payment of export subsidies or destruction of sound, ripe grapes • The Special
Study Committee recommended study of vine pulling, despite its awareness that a
marketing order which had been approvedj, financed and administered by growers
would be necessary. If vine pulling were demonstrated to be desirable and prac=
tical, an amendment was advocated facilitating assistance by the vintners to such
a grower-controlled program. Amendments were recommended, authorizing, by var-
ietal class and district, both permanent minimum standards of quality to be met
by all grapes received for crushing and sliding seasonal standards of quality
through which the tonnage crushed could be controlled in volume and constituency.
It was expected that stabilization funds could be used to finance inspection and
diversion of grapes which could qualify under permanent minimum standards but did
not meet the seasonal standard^ The general policy from which these recommenda-
tions stemmed— to assure that if limitation were necessary, the least desirable
grapes would be eliminated— has been reaffirmed often* The general policy of the
Board may thus be summarized: to maintain a stabilization fund, augmented by
credit froa other sources if necessary and desirable ; use of funds directly within
the wine industry? unequivocal specification of uses to which funds may not be
l/ Report of Special Study Committer, Grape Stabilization Advisory Board
December 28, 1949 e 3p c Processed,,
83
put; facilitation of acreage adjustment as possible; use of quality limitation
to effectuate limitation as possible; elimination of wine if necessary only
after lifting of the tax obligation through amendment of the Internal Revenue
Code; and frequent statement of general stabilization policies guiding the
recommendations of the Board.
f. MINIMUM QUALITY. — It was hoped that minimum standards of quality in
terms of sugar and of defects could be used to eliminate tonnage and simultane-
ously to improve quality of wine. However, sugar content varies in significance
for various utilizations and for different classes. Standards which differed as
among table wine, dessert wine, distilleries or other outlets could not easily
be policed. Such standards must be directly relevant to the quality of the con-
trolled commodity. Sugar content is apparently not unequivocally related to
quality of distilled spirits. The second possible basis for permanent or season-
al standards was defects. Inspection and certification for freedom from defects
requires skilled inspectors. They would be almost impossible to enforce without
serious interference with normal commercial operations. Therefore, a committer
was established by the Grape Stabilization Advisory Board to work with technolo-
gists, state officials and the Giannini Foundation to appraise the possibilities
of formulating minimum standards for use in the 1950 crushing season, l/ The full
information necessary to recommend promulgation of permanent minimum standards
was not available. Establishment of opening or closing dates appeared to be an
alternative way to control quality of grapes received for crashing .2/ Tentative
conclusions were reached that relatively little volume would be eliminated
through defining the crushing season. However, very early receipts in parts
of the Central Valley appeared to be comprised largely of culls from fresh
shipping operations and to be low in sugar.. 'Wine grapes would not be affected
by closing or opening dates. The small-volume, low-quality receipts' of grapes
protracted for as much as two months after the peak of crushing are comprised
mainly of residues from fresh shipping operations. Thus, definition of a crush-
ing season to which commercial operations would be restricted is a means whereby
relatively low volumes of low-quality products may be eliminated. Equity issues
are involved in application of opening dates since some fresh operations depend
on winery outlets. Closing dates should involve less difficult equity problems.
g. SEASONAL QUALITY.— The Special Study Committee also studied the feasi-
bility of controlling volume crushed by limitation of crushing each season to
particular grades of grapes by variety and district as a phase of its general
policy that where limitation is necessary, grapes adversely affecting wine
demand should be first eliminated .3/ Quality standards to control volume must
have several attributes: one or a Tew standards should be sufficient; inspection^
grading and certification should be inexpensive and compatible with normal
l/ Minutes of Meeting. Special Study Committee. Grape Stabilization
Advisory Board. 3p. Mimeographed. January 30, 1950. p. 2.
2/ Sections E and F, Amendment T f2. Proposed amendments to the Marketing
Order for Grape Stabilization. California Bureau of Markets. Draft of
March 23, 1950. p. 6.
3/ "...also that the Board consider the adoption of seasonal sliding scales
so Ifhat standards above the minimum standard could be set to meet crop conditions
and that consideration be given to the use of Stabilization Fund monies to pur-
chase and divert grapes higner tnan the minimum, bub which fail to meet the season-
al standard." Draft of Recommendations to the Grape Stabilization Advisory Board.
December 12, 1949.
132
grower and vintner operations j there should be no serious inequities as between
varietal classes, areas, times of the season, utilization and types of operations;
a small change up or down in the standard should bring a small and calculable
change up or down in the tonnage eligible for crushing; an entire varietal class
or outlet must not be snuffed off by a small rise in the seasonal standard. The
quality-attributes of the grapes must be closely related to the quality of wine
in order to meet the reqirements of the law. The quality standard must also be
meaningful and enforceable with respect to each of the dry wine, dessert wine,
distilled spirits or other products outlets. While data necessary to appraise
the probable effects of using quality standards could not be gotten prior to
1950, committees were designed to inquire into alternative methods.
h. RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS .— On December 28, 1949 a Special Study Committee
of the Grape Stabilization Board was established to inquire into possible amend-
ments, especially permanent minimum standards and flexible seasonal quality
standards. After consultation with several other study agencies the Committee
recommended as follows; that no effort be made to effectuate permanent minimum
standards at present but that research continue; that experiments testing the
operational feasibility of minimum standards be conducted in 1950; that authority
to establish opening and closing dates after a two-thirds majority vote be given
to the Board; that no dehydrated grapes be used in wine; and that the Board be
authorized to determine a diversion percentage separately for wine and non-wine
varieties of grapes. V It is doubtful that these proposals will be submitted to
referendum in 1950,
i» SUMMARY— GRAPE STABILIZATION BOARD.— The Advisory Board has been quite
active during the several months in which it has operated. After failure to ob-
tain a Commodity Credit Corporation loan because stabilization funds were not a-
vailable as security and as token of willingness by the industry to help itself,
the Board levied stabilization assessments at the maximum levels to collect a
fund of approximately three million dollars. This fund may be used for diversion
in 1950 as and if needed. The Board has carried on continuous research into the
economic aspects of eliminating low-quality grapes and into alternative methods
whereby tonnage crushed may be limited if necessary. Arrangements were completed
for preparation of a report on 1950-51 marketing control programs. Tentative
arrangements have also been made for long-run inquiries into basic economic
problems facing all the grape industries.
PRICE POSTING FOR WINE? Legal authority exists in both state and federal law
for resale price maintenance of wine sold in a branded container. The Miller-
Tydings Act and the underlying state laws together assure exemption. from prose-
cution under the Sherman Act or the Federal Trade Commission Act for contracts
stipulating resale prices or requiring agreement for resale price maintenance by
1/ Report of Special Study Committee of Grape Stabilization Advisory Board.
February 28, 1950. See also Amendment #1, sub-sections rt e n and "f" of Section A
of Article I, defining wine and non-wine varieties to which all suggested regu-
lations would be applied separately. California Bureau of Markets. Proposed amend-
ments to the Marketing Order for Grape Stabilization. Draft of March 23, 1950.
p. 1. The same set of proposed amendments specified standards for determining
grapes or grape products in surplus by major varieties and by utilization, and
after consultation with the Growers Advisory Sub-Committee to recommend to the
Director the quantities to be acquired with stabilization funds. Uniform di-
version percentages separately for wine and non-wine varieties were also proposed.
The amendments were tabled on April 18, 1950 by the Advisory Board.
83
the buyer, l/ These laws also define advertising, offering to sell or selling at
a price other than that stipulated in the contracts as unfair competition. Sale
below cost or locality price-discrimination is prohibited by the Unfair Practices
Act. 2/ The California Alcoholic Beverage Control Act provides that no contract
shall be illegal merely because the buyer guarantees resale price maintenance or
because resale price is stipulated by the seller. vVillful sale at less than the
contracted price is unfair competition and is actionable at the suit of any person
damaged thereby. It is provided that all distilled spirits shall be sold under
contract and no licensee may violate such contract. Manufacturers of distilled
spirits and brandy, rectifiers and wholesalers must file and maintain price lists
and sales must be made in compliance to such lists. 3/ Except for wine sold in
bulk and not bottled by the seller for the purchaserT" extra-California sales,
inter-corporate sales among related companies, sales to growers, rectifiers or
consumers for on-premises consumption, to other wholesalers without control over
brand or to a primary distributing agent who has posted scheduled prices, wine
nay be sold or resold only at prices stipulated in effective posted price sched-
ules or in effective fair trade contracts. 4/ Price schedules must be posted on
controlled brands if resale price is not controlled by a fair trade contract.
7/holesalers must post selling prices if brands are controlled or if they are pri-
mary distributing agents or if resale price is not governed by a fair trade con-
tract. Extra-California sellers must designate a California licensee to post
prices to wholesalers and must designate a licensee handling imported wine to ex-
ecute a fair trade contract and to post prices. Off-sale retailers controlling
brands must also post prices. The contents of schedules of selling and resale
prices are specified in detail. Selling price schedules must indicate the basic
case price to wholesalers and retailers and the bottle price to consumers. Re-
sale price schedules per basic case to retailers and by bottle to retailers and
consumers must also be shown. Discounts are limited to specified reasons and must
also be shown in posted schedules. Fair trade contracts must also show this same
information. Either posted price lists or contracts may be changed by filing re-
visions either upward or downward between the first and tenth days of each month
or in order to meet competition only. Prices may be revised downward only to the
level of competition but no lower up to the twentieth day of the month. Such chan-
ges become effective on the first day of the next month. Posted prices are avail-
able for public inspection by the fifteenth day of the month. Except for producers
selling only to consumers at licensed premises where prices are posted, price sched-
ules or authorized changes therein must be published or distributed by mail.
Closeout or damaged good sales are authorized only by permit from the Board of
Equalization. Price discrimination and sales below cost are prohibited.
Thus vintners owning brands may avail themselves of the same protection against
below-cost sales accorded to all handlers of branded products. They must specify
selling and resale prices. They are tr.ereby able to prevent precipitous declines
in price and further to protect brands as symbols of price and quality. The
l/ See Appendix D, Part 7 for a concise summary of the Fair Trade Law. The
KilTer-Tydings Act - Pub. No, 314, 75th Congress, 1st Session, 1937 (15 USCA) -
makes such contracts binding in interstate commerce.
2/ See Appendix D, Part 8.
3/ Appendix D, Part 10.
4/ Appendix D, Part 10.
84
economic effects of such price techniques have not yet been adequately analysed*
There may be cumulative and retaliatory monthly decreases in prices. Rigidity
in prices may constrict sales at consumer levels. However, assurance of stabil-
ity to handlers may induce more aggressive handling than could otherwise be at-
tained*
The wine industry has achieved a variety of techniques to stabilize returns
under state law: long-range industry- financed advertising of wine and raisins
designed to lift long-run demand as the trend of total production continues up-
wards control over the volume of wine sold; collection of funds for diversion of
grapes from wineries j provision for research into causes and control of surpluses
in any part of the industry. In addition, there are several federal programs
affecting the raisin and table grape segments.
THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937 < This statute is intended
to assure orderly marketing of designated commodities", including grapes and both
raisins and wine as products of grapes, within interstate or foreign commerce.
The goals of the act are the acheivement of parity prices, the protection of con-
sumers and the maintenance of minimum standards of quality and maturity. Agree-
ments are voluntary contracts between the Secretary and handlers of any product
and may contain any terms not otherwise illegal. Orders are applicable after
prescribed procedures for proposal, formulation, hearing and approval by producers
and handlers — or under unusual circumstances without approval by handlers — to milk,
fruits, nuts, vegetables and specified general crops and their products except for
canning or freezing. These orders apply to the entire production area and enforce-
ment is obtained through the federal courts. No federal order may regulate,
prohibit or in any way affect advertising* Orders may provide for limitation of
amounts handled by class or in total; allotment of amounts acquired or handled by
handlers; measurement and disposition of surpluses and equalization of their bur-
dens; reserve pools; inspection; prohibition of unfair practices or methods;
price filing; other necessary and consistent terms. Where intrastate trade has
been found in public hearings to be an integral element in the flow of inter-
state or foreign trade, it too may be regulated through a federal program. Provi-
sions for assessment and termination are also set out in the law. 1/
There have been several grape programs under this statute and the laws from
which it developed. A program providing for price filing and surplus control in
raisins was effectuated in 1934. 2/ Tokay grapes were regulated for two years
after- 1933 under a program providing for quality control and rate-of-flow controls.
3/ Arkansas grapes were once regulated by grade and by rate of flow 0 4/ Tokay grapes
l/ See Appendix D, Part 11 for a summary of this statute. The basic differences
from the state law are threes no provision for advertising; no provision for pro-
duction control; no mandatory provision for handler approval,
2/ Agreement #44 and License #59,
3/ Agreement #11, License #9.
4/ Agreement #76, Order #25.
85
have been continuously regulated since 1940 by a program authorizing controls over
quality, maturity, rate of flow and shipping, l/ Wine has never been marketed or
processed under a federal program althaugh proposals for an order were considered
in 1948, Two segments of the grape industry presently avail themselves of federal
programs— Tokay grapes for fresh shipment and California raisins*
'ilHj CALIFOPJIIA TOKAY ORDER; This order, amended twice, lias been effective
since 1940,, There was an earlier federal program effective in the years 1933-1935,
There are two production districts to which separate regulations may apply. An
industry Committee of seven producers elected by growers from seven districts
administers the program with advice from a Shippers Advisory Committee of seven
shippers representing various factors in the industry. Specific duties and powers
are assigned to the Committee in administering the program and in recommending
regulations to be effectuated by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture,
Each season an annual report must be published outlining expected production
and marketing conditions and the regulations contemplated for the ensuing season.
After reference to standards listed in the order, the Committee may recommend and
the Secretary may make effective regulations: limiting shipments to particular
grades and sizes; establishing minimum standards of quality or maturity or both
in terms of shipping quality, edibility, appearance, maturity or a combination
thereof: regulating volume of daily shipments through retention of cars at assembly
or storage points, if grade-size regulation appears to be inadequate; regulation
of volume through loading or packaging holidays and limiting shipments by truck.
Provisions for administration, allotment if necessary, equity among growers and
districts, reports and records and enforcement are detailed in the order»2/
The table-grape industry is organized both through cooperatives and trade
associations which conduct regular advertising and promotional activities. The
Tokay order is, however, the single organized table-grape program operating under
law. This industry is closely related to the winery outlet. Since 1940, fresh
shipments have averaged about 4,300 cars annually. The percentage of annual pro-
duction shipped fresh has ranged from 27 to 61 and has averaged 38, This means
that the percentage of total production used in wineries has varied violently.
The program has had two broad goals: (1) to protect demand in the fresh outlet
by enforcing minimum standards of quality; and (2) to regulate the average daily
volume and to prevent either heavy gluts or famines. Harvesting and packing
facilities have expanded rapidly, F or this reason, rate-of-flow regulation has
been re-enforced by packaging holidays authorized by a 1941 amendment. This pro-
cedure appears to have affected picking and packing operations adversely in some
cases. Further, question has arisen with respect to the effects upon returns of
retention of cars— most of which are already sold at shipping point either at
railroad or cold storage assembly points. Preliminary discussion indicates that
control over pack-out rather than release of cars may be desirable, although the
proration aspects of such control could not easily be achieved. In consequence
of these unresolved issues, the operation of the program has been submitted to
study in an effort to determine the impact of existing procedures and to suggest
alternative regulations ,3/
1/ Agreement #93, Order #51,
2/ See Appendix D, Part 12,
3/ Minutes. Industry Committee. October 27, 1949, Lodi, California,
86
The grade regulation enforced until 3S49 was TJ.S. #1 with tolerances for
minor defects in the Florin area* The 1949 regulation permitted 2 per cent-
fewer defects than previously,. The car-ccncentration plan is designed to smooth
out fluctuations in daily shipments and to assure an average daily level of
shipments which will not be too high 0 Cars may be held no longer than 72 hours,
If concentration points are clogging up, packaging holidays may be invoked to
prohibit packaging of grapes except for diversion to cold storage for shipment
after the season ends 0 Loading holidays prohibit loading for shipments to rail
assembly points. Together, the duration of such holidays may not exceed 48
hours. Wartime expansion of packing and shipping facilities has apparently re-
sulted in a four-day shipping capacity taxing the capacity of a seven-day mar-
ket 0 1/ In addition to the formal programs , the Tokay Industry has instituted
thinning and other cultural activities designed to enhance quality* 2/
The close relation of this fresh deal to the wine outlet is obvious. Ten
cooperative wineries, three large commercial wineries and several other plants
have been built in the Tokay area. Tonnage of Tokays processed for wine is a
small part of the total crush* However, this one regulated table unit exempli-
fies the impact upon wineries of the total table segment, which in recent years
has diverted more than one=half of its total production to the winery outlet.
Heavy production or lorn demand in its own or in competitive segments may result
in heavy utilization in wineries,
|gg FEDERAL RAISIN ORDER ; This order became effective on August 18,
1949,V The Raisin Administrative Committee, made up of fourteen producers and
processors, recommends to the Secretary of Agriculture regulations on all hand-
ling of raisins. An Advisory Board of forty-six producers and packers advises
the Administrative Committee „ After open meetings at which verbatim record is
kept, a market policy must be formulated by July 5th and filed with the Secre-
tary by July 15th c Copies are distributed to all directly affected persons.
After reference to specific factors affecting raisin prices, the Committee may
recommend the percentage of the amount handled in any or all classes of raisins
as free tonnage, without restriction except for record keeping. Surplus tonnage
must be held at all times under the control of the Committee to be disposed in
specified noncompetitive channels only. Reserve tonnage may be sold back to
handlers in whole or part up until June 1st either to the surplus pool or to
free tonnage as determined by the Committee, at prices approved by the Secretary
and not less than the average price on free tonnage by variety at the date of
sale e Minimum grade requirements may be set for surplus or reserve tonnage.
Either or both pools may be used as collateral for loans.
Lost export markets and heavy production had rendered large-scale govern-
ment support necessary in the raisin segment. This, of course, diverted grapes
which could have affected adversely either winery or fresh table supplies 0
Sequestration of the raisin surplus and equitable distribution of its burden
were generally considered necessary for continuation of government assistance
to the grape industries through purchase of raisins,
l/ Tokay Grapes and Tokay Marketing Agreement 0 Report of the Industry Corn-
mi tfee to the Grape Study Committee. December 9, 1949, San Francisco, Calif.
2/ Summary of the 1949 shipping season, Tokay Marketing Agreement. Lodi 9
CalTfornia, January 13, 1950, 5p, Processed,}
3/ See Appendix D, Part 13, See also Title 7 Agriculture . Chapter X, Pro-
duction and Marketing Administration, (Marketing Agreements and Orders) Part 989.
Handling of raisins produced from raisin variety grapes grown in California.
Administrative Rules and Regulations*
8?
The raisin crop was allocated by varieties to the three pools aa follows;—
Free
Reserve
Surplus
per cent
3
Thompson Seedless
k9
20
Muscat and Valencia
66.6
33-3
0
Bleached (all varieties)
50
50
0
Sultanas
1*9
20
3+
Thus nearly one-third of the Thompson Seedless raisin production was removed
entirely from regular channels. About one-f ifth -went to reserve. The U. S.
Department of Agriculture agreed to lend $60 per ton on reserve tonnage and
further to make advance payment of $60 per ton on surplus tonnage against an
$80 per ton subsidy under the Raisin Diversion Agreement.
The reserve pool was intended to provide flexibility. The prohibition of
sale at less than the current average price plus carrying charges was intended
to protect packers 1 and other handlers 1 inventory-values and thereby mitigate the
price depressing effects of tonnage which was not unequivocally segregated from
the market. Operating rules require report of weighted average prices by handlers.
I o /
Total 19^9 production should be in the neighborhood of 265,000 tons.-/ On
March 1st it appeared that most of the reserve tonnage would be used prior to
June 1st in commercial channels. The Administrative Committee had sold all of
the reserve Muscats, the bleached varieties and the Sultanas and about 50 per
cent of the natural Thompsons in the reserve pools. Approximately 70,000 tons
of Thompsons and Sultanas went into surplus pools. About one -half this tonnage
had been sold by March 1, 1950. About one-half had been sold to the British
Ministry of Food and the remainder mainly for livestock feed. Nearly $6-5 mil-
lions had been disbursed from reserve and surplus pool operations of which more
than $3.5 millions was paid through advances of $60 per ton by the federal gov-
ernment on deliveries into surplus pools. The remaining $20 per ton of the federal
subsidy and the expected return of somewhat less than $20 per ton on diversion
sales will be paid out at the end of the season. On March 1, 1950 progress pay-
ments had been made of approximately $1.8 millions on sales from reserve of
Muscats and bleached varieties, about $1 million on reserve Thompsons and about
$50 thousand on reserve Sultanas.
Proposals for amendments have been circulated and it is expected that admini-
strative frictions Inevitable in any control plan, especially in the first years,
will be lessened.
—I "Report of the Raisin Industry Program." Paul L. Johnson, Mgr. Federal
Raisin Administrative Committee. December 9, 19^9 . p. 3- The Secretary accepted
the recommendations of the Committee except for Thompson Seedless, for which he
increased the free tonnage and decreased the surplus percentage presumably on the
basis of a revision downward in the estimated production of raisins from that
variety of grapes. Both the order and the operating rules provide for deferral
of meeting surplus obligation under safeguard of surety bond. Handlers may re-
quest that raisins .damaged by rain or other natural causes be received by the
Committee for disposition by the Committee without being charged against reserve
or surplus obligation.
£/ "A Progress Report on the Raisin Industry Programs." Paul L. Johnson, Mgr.
Federal Raisin Marketing Agreement. February 27, 1950.
88
RAISIN SUPPORT OPERATIONS s Raisins ware purchased by the United States as
a means of supporting the grape market as early as the 1935-1936 fiscal year 0
Authority for such purchase operations has rested on several laws, of which
Section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935 has been the most important
source of fundsoi/ There is specific authority for price support of grapes,
raisins and wine in Title III of the Agricultural Act of 1949 0 2/ Support for
basic commodities com, wheat, cotton, rice s peanuts and tobacco — is manda-
tory at levels not less than the sliding scales set out in Title I<> 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\ =f m o r- co
YEAR
Ta
Fig. 8a. Bearing Acreage of Grapes in the Southern
California District by Varietal Classes, 1923-1948
Aw
W i ne
V
/ \...^
w J \ ••••• A _ — .
_ y y— ✓ \
y
' 1 '
I I I
J L
*••••••••••••#. '
c*\ =t lo v£> 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
<r\ =t ir>\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^^\ <y^ o> 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
\<!
\ i
•
•
19U0
YEAR
1945
1950
15a
Fig. 19a. Utilization of all Varieties of
California Grapes: Percent of Harvested
Production, 1927-1949
3
■o
o
■o
0
co 30
c
CD
o
40
20
10
Commerc ial
Crush
\Total Fresh
Table use
Dried-
^ V
1935
I I I I
1940 1945
CROP YEARS
I I I
YEAR
Fig. 21a. Utilization of California
Raisin Grape Varieties as Percent of
Harvested Production, I93U-I949
— Dried
1
/
Commerc ial
— ^"crush
!\
/
t
\ A r n
V Vv Tab
— •■"
:\ i\
* / .1
nterstate '
u ice
£
1934 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
42 43 44
YEAR
45 46 47 48 49
18a
MUSCATS
THOMPSONS
TOKAY
EMPEROR
FIG. 22a. AVERAGE ANNUAL UTILIZATION OF MUSCATS,
THOMPSONS, TOKAY, EMPEROR AND OTHER TABLE GRAPES,
1945 - 1948
OTHER TABLE GRAPES
FRESH
DRIED
CRUSH
FRESH JUICE
FRESH
DRIED
CRUSH
FRESH
CRUSH
INTERSTATE TABLE
INTRASTATE TABLE
FRESH
CRUSH
INTERSTATE
TABLE
FRESH
CRUSH
INTERSTATE TABLE
— I — i —
O
o
o
o
o
—J
o
CO
o
o
o
o
o o
PERCENT OF TOTAL PRODUCTION OF EACH VARIETY BY USE.
ISHIPPED FRESH-TABLE USE,
I TOTAL
rTTTTTI PROCESS ED OR FOR PROCESS I NG-
IDRI ED
COMMERCI AL CRUSH
ISHIPPED FRESH FOR WINE, BRANDY
|AND JUICE
ISHIPPED FRESH FOR TABLE USE,
I I NTERSTATE
ISHIPPED FRESH FOR TABLE USE,
INTRASTATE
19a
Fig. 23a. Utilization of California Table
Grape Varieties as Percent of Harvested
Production, 1927-1949
3 0
'V
— Inters
\
tate Fresh
\ 1 ^ —
ommercial Crush
Vv
•
v V
Intersta
Juice
te /
^-1 ntrastat
..*c .... ,
e Fresh
— •
1927 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
YEAR
9
Fig. 25a. Average Sugar-Readings by Variety and Date of Delivery, Dinuba, 1947
-™ ~ • Thompson
* Muscat
x Al icante
©Malaga
. culls
_ — + Sultana
/
I
[ ,
: V
w
v is
i
I
/
/
/
A
. «
If
1 1 r-
10 15 20 25
1947 August
A
—r-
30
— i—
10
15
September
— r—
20
—r~
25
— I —
30
10
15
October
— i —
20
25
30
10
November
Fig. 26a. Average Sugar-Readings by Variety and Date of Delivery,
Livingston, I9U7
Thompson /
Cull 1
* Grenache
] i .. Tokay
j
/
i
\
i
\
I I I I I I ■ » ■ I I I I I I I I I I I ( I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Tl I I I I I I I I I '
10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25
1947 August SeptemDer October
30
29
28
Fig. 27a. Average Sugar-Readings by Variety and Date of Delivery,
Kingsburg, 1947
27 ■
26
1
01
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
• Thompson
• Carignane
■ — * Muscat
+ Sultana
•— - - Feher Szages
____ 9 Malaga
. A A 7 VUV
Malvaisie
x Alicante
® Palomino
i AA
V »
©
V
5 10 15 20
1947 September
25
30
10 15 20
October
25
30
5 10
November
15
Fig. 28a. Average Sugar-Readings by Variety and Date of Delivery, Sanger, I9U7
• Thompson
. Carignane
•* cul Is
. • Malaga
» Al i cante
■ * Muscat
■ • Feher szages
* Pet ite si rah
% Malvaisie
I®
v
• • •
J 'J* M
\
A/
/
15
1947
i
20
-f —
25
August
30
■
10
1
15
September
20
25
30
10
15
October
i
20
— T
25
I
30
5 10
November
15
Fig. 29a. Average Sugar-Readings by Variety and Date of Delivery,
Modesto, 1948
- • Thompson
— — — • carignane
. q Z infandel
• Malaga
. • Grenache
- Valde
*— i ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r— , — , ,
!3 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10
1948 September October November
Fig. 30a. Average Sugar-Readings by Variety and Date of Delivery, Reed ley, I9U7
• Thompson
• Carignane
culls
• Malaga
• Alicante
• Muscat
• " Feher Szages
•• • Zinfandel
,. + Sultana
• 9 Palomino
I*
A
V
w * H At
/V ••■ \jViu ?
• ■ i
7, \
v h/
V*
v 7
14 - r
II
1947 August September October November
Fig. 31a. Average Sugar-Readings by Variety and Date of Delivery,
Escalon, 1948
m • Thompson
- • Carignane
- 9 Palomi no
September October November
Fig. 32a. Average Sugar-Readings by Variety and Date of Delivery, Lod i , 1948
25
24
23
22
21
20 .
£ 19-
0)
I
S> 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 <t OX O £ WW
A A
4. O
>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.
<?/ Yield, col, 2, divided by per cent of full crop, col. 5.
d/ Preliminary estimate as of December 1, 1949.
SOURCE j Compiled by S. IT. Shear, Gianninl Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of Cal-
ifornia, March 1950, from reports of the California Crop Reporting Service except cols. 6 and
7 are approximate hypothetical full crops calculated by S. H. Shear as stated in footnotes
0 and d.
16c
APPENDIX TABLE 14
CALIFORNIA BEARING ACREAGE, PRODUCTION, PER CENT OF FULL CROP, AND YIELD
PER BEARING ACRE OF TABLE GRAPE VARIETIES, 1919 — 1949
Crop
Year
Bearing
Aoreage
Production Estimates
Per Cent
of Pull
Calculated Full or
100$ Crop
Yield Per
Bearing
Acre
Final
Estimate
Preliminary
NOV. 12/
Crop
Nov. 12/
Production^,/
Yield Fer
k ft /
Acre 0 /
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Acres
Tons
%
Toru
1
1919
53,000
3.8
204,000
95
1920
57,000
3.6
203,000
82
1921
61,000
3.0
186,000
69
1922
66,000
4.4
289,000
92
1923
75,000
4,1
305,000
340,000
82
415,000
c c
3.5
1924
91,000
4.0
366,000
300,000
70
a oft AAA
429,000
A 1
4. 7
1925
108,000
3.8
415,000
404,000
72
C £1 AAA
sol ,000
3. d
1926
117,000
3.0
355,000
395,000
65
■ AO AAA
608,000
3. C
1927
120,000
4.0
480,000
468,000
78
C AA AAA
600,000
C A
3.0
1928
116,000
4.1
478,000
460,000
80
575,000
C A
5oO
1929
111,000
2.8
306,000
327,000
62
527,000
A t
4.7
1930
104,000
3.7
388,000
358,000
86'
416,000
A A
4.0
1931
97,000
2.4
229,000
221,000
S3
417,000
A O
4.3
1932
92,000
3.4
317,000
317,000
72
440,000
a a
4.8
1933
87,000
3.1
270,000
270,000
65
415,000
A Q
4.8
1934
83,000
3.6
296,000
266,000
64
C AAA
416,000
C A
3.0
1935
80,000
4.6
372,000
367,000
78
471 ,000
C O
1936
78,000
4.2
324,000
324,000
69
470,000
6.0
1937
79,000
5.3
85
469,000
5.9
1938
79,000
5.7
447,000
403,000
84
480,000
6.1
1939
78,000
D.I
400,000
370,000
74
500,000
6.4
1940
78,000
5.9
460,000
424,000
80
530,000
6.8
1941
80,000
6.1
482,000
407,000
75
543,000
6.8
1942
80,000
5.1
409,000
437,000
73
599,000
7.5
1943
79,000
7.0
5 53,000
498,000
88
560,000
7.1
1944
80,000
6.4
513,000
482,000
79
610,000
7.6
1945
80,000
6.4
512,000
513,000
83
618,000
7.7
1946
80,000
7.9
630,000
529,000
84
630,000
7.9
1947
81,000
7.6
620,000
612,000
85
720,000
8.9
1948
85,000
7.0
592,000
606,000
81
748,000
8.7
1949
90,000
5.8
515,000 2/
578,000
75
771,000
8.6
a/ Current production, col. 4, and per Cent of full crop, col. 5, as of November 1, 1949-1941 and as
of Ootober 1, 1942-1949. See footnote to table 19 for list of table varieties,
b/ Current production, col. 4, divided by per cent of full crop, col. 5.
c/ Yield, col. 2, divided by per cent of full crop, col. 5.
d/ Estimate of December 1, 1949.
Sources 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. V». Shear as stated in footnotes c and d.
17c
APPENDIX TABLE 15
CALIFORNIA BEARING ACREAGE, PRODUCTION, PER CENT OF FULL CROP, AND YIELD
PER BEARING ACRE OF WINE GRAPE VARIETIES, | g | g 1 9 49
Crop
Year
Bearing
Acreage
Production Estimates
Calculated full
Yield Per
Bearing
Acre
Final
Preliminary
Nov. 12/
rer oerYG
wl full UrOp
Nov 1 a /
or 10O*,
/5TQP
Production^'
Yield Per
Acre£/
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Acres
Tons
*
Tons
1919
95,000
4.1
396,000
93
1920
99,000
3,4
338,000
90
1921
102,000
3.1
314,000
69
lytc
108,000
4.2
454,000
400,000
102
392,000
3.6
1923
117,000
3.3
385,000
428,000
90
476,000
A 1
4. J
1 QOA
1 0"J Ann
l£7,UO<J
2.4
305,000
350,000
70
500,000
3.S
1 QO^
14U,UUU
3.2
442,000
385,000
82
470,000
3.4
1 J^b
155,000
2.6
412,000
414,000
82
505,000
3. 3
17U>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 Carȣ/
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,<OU
loo Af\n
i^o $ yu<j
9 ^
£ jO
169,000
170,000
56,400
33,2
113,600
600
114 , 200
3,200
117,400
1.9
262,000
205,000
59,900
29.2
145,100
700
145,800
3,300
149,100
2,4
195,000
175,000
48,600
27.3
126,400
500
126,900
3,100
130,000
2,1
171,000
175,000
44,700
25,5
130,300
500
130,800
3,500
134,300
2.1
203,000
200,000
56,400
28,2
143,600
400
144,000
3,000
147,000
2,4
182,000
185,000
54,700
29,6
130,300
300
130,600
3,100
133,700
2.1
247,000
210,000
71,000
33,3
139,000
200
139,200
2,400
141,600
2.2
290,000
210,000
78,000
37,2
132,000
200
132,200
2,000
134,200
2.0
245,000
230,000
57,500
25.0
172,500
100
172,600
1,700
174,300
171,000
200,000
45,700
22.8
154,100
100
154,400
500
154,900
209,000
190,000
48,700
25,5
141,300
100
141,400
100
141,500
2,\
254,000
250,000
78,600
31.4
149,300
0
149,300
100
149,400
2.31/
401,000
345,000
117,400
34.0
197,400
0
199,400
e
197,400
3.01/
310,000
320,000
96,400
30.1
197,800
100
197,900
197,900
3,l£/
241,000
210,000
49,400
23.5
155,600
0
155,600
140,600
%
155,600
140,600
2.3£/
2.9
193,000
306,000
180,000
280,000
40,500
146,000
22.5
52.0
139,500
134,000
1,100
0
134,000
M
134,000
1.9
232,000
210,000
72,000
34.3
138,000
138,000
138,000
1.9
Averages s
1909=13
1924-28
1929-33
1934-33
Annual J
192i
1922
1923
1924
192S
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
193?
1933
1934
1935
1936
193?
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
tons, Pro-
s shipments
y Produotion data are to the nearest l s 000 tons, shipments, ool, 2 to the nearest 5,000 tons, and exports and imports to the nearest 100
~ duotlon is sweat-box or natural condition weight, all other data are net prooessed weight and differ from following table 51 whioh give
in equivalent sweat-box weight.
b/ Exports and 1wiorts for 1909-1913 are for years beginning July I. o/ Data not available, d/ Per oent of produotion. e/ Currant imports were
20 tons or less annually 1943-1947. f/ Consumption 1942-1945 for oTvilian population only in ools. 6, 8, 10, & 11.
(Continued)
CJl
o
54c
APPENDIX TABLE 51 - Continued
Souroej Compiled by S. W. Shear, Gianninl Foundation of Agricultural Economios, University of California.
April 1950 from official and bast unofficial data available. Shipments total.. Col. 2 and to U. S.
Markets i.e. U. S. Consumption, Col, 5 ( Col. 2 minus Col. 3 ) are rounded tothe nearest 5,000 tons
and exports Col, 3 to the nearest 100 tons. Shipments are those primarily for human consumption
as raisins. However ools. 2, 5, 7, 9, & 10 include any raisins used for making home-raade aleoholio
be*rage» 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 and distilleries for making brandy during 1935-1948 (see table 79)
exoept the following tonnage diverted to by-products by industry prograns is exoluded from those
columns; 1933, 15,000 tons of Musoats to distilleries; 1935, 5,000 tons to by-productsj and 52,000
tons of 1938 orop to stock feed or distilling in 1938 & 1939. Col. 2 equals the sum of cols. 3 plus
5 except for 1942-1945, Col. 2 includes and Cols. 5, 7, 9 & 10 excludsall government shipments for
our military personnel at home and abroad and for Red Cross exports. Cols. 5, 7, 9, * 10 for 1942-
1945 are not exactly comparable to those for other years for civilian consumption only from a
processed table compiled by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics in 1949 on Raisins and Dried
Currants: United States Supply and Distribution, pack years 1941-1947, Data of all other years
in Col. 5, 7, 9, & 10 include consumption by our military personnel and any government finanoed
tonnage for relief. Over 11,000 tons were distributed through the Blue Stamp Plan in 194C and 1941 while
direct domestic relief, mostly for school lunches and other institutional feeding was in tons;
1937, 15,000} 1938 about 10,000; 1939, 45,000j 1940, 33,000; 1941, 9,000; 1947, 7,500: and 1948.
Col. 3 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 UNRRA and ECA. Commercial
exports only were 40,200 tons in 1947 and 19,500 in 1948; the additional tonnage purohased by our
government and shipped abroad for foreign relief was about 118,000 tons of the 1947 crop and
59,000 tons of the 1948. The 118,000 tons is shown as shipped during the September 1947 through
August 1948 but some of it was actually shipped in the year beginning September 1, 1948.
(
APPENDIX TABLE 52
CALIFORNIA RAISIN AND CURRANT SHIPMENTS TO UNITED STATES AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND PACKERS'
F.O. B. PRICES OF THOMPSON SEEDLESS RAISINS, YEARS BEGINNING SEPTEMBER I, 1921-1948
Beginning
Septo 1
Grand
Total
To Domestic Markets
Exports, Lend -Lease and Foreign Relief
P O K. Pries
Thompsons
Per Pound
Total and
Canada
United
States
Canada
Total
United
Kingdom
Other
Countries
Including
Canada
Excluding
Canada
1
2 (3+4)
3
4
5
6 (5-4;
7
8 (6-7)
9
J
;quivalent sweat-box weight,
short tons of
2000 pounds
Cents
155,000
13V, /UU
loc onn
12b, 2UU
14, DUU
29,800
15,300
1 1 nnn
li,UUU
a ^nn
1922
1 J- ' , AAA
190,000
153, 500
135,000
18, 500
55,000
36,500
on at\(\
£U,4Ui>
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 /<JO
581,695
818,426
1,403,111
544,472
O OAQ
588,124
938,462
1,529,505
548,296
1 79 Q ACt&
O O PA 1 1 "7
£ j*T t*U $1 J /
579,064
819,798
1,403,266
543,565
1 n PTX . 6.99
606,202
828,100
1,439,619
913,487
691,084
1,161,674
1,858,960
1,271,993
740,494
1,136,919
1,884,150
1,123,150
3,193,437
4,320,714
72«.,622
1,228,952
1,972,406
1,044,708
3,636,494
4,686,688
7*268,342
11,806,885
19,141,453
9,030,214
26,783,684
35,e48,652
570,367
1,012,758
1,588,244
666,754
2,248,570
2,920,207
512,216
898,254
1-41V19T
841 9?C
2,231,702
3,073,940
583 , 8 51
1,021,529
1,608,405
887,059
2,637,670
3,52.5,962
530,175
836,244
1»370.?90
1 \JJ , /
2 , 467 , 737
3,233,096
570,995
911,011
1,489,280
660,683
2,268,560
2,930,865
561,802
826,482
1,396,506
713,685
2,146,166
2,860,934
514,911
739,983
1,259,871
658,726
1,963,55:
2,623,256
599,622
821,130
1,427,624
854,404
2,689,920
3,546,937
583,745
925,316
1,516,041
1,148,031
3,695,431
4,846,399
643,183
1,113,16?
1,765,878
1,292,785
4,492,758
5,792,857
713,931
1,052,426
1,781,734
1,520 , 763
4,331,081
5,862,356
694,358
1,088,836
1,804,128
1,121,254
3,814,677
4,944,396
7,079,176
11,247,133
18,421,394 .
.1,129,118
34,987,832
46,161,207
(Continued)
APPARENT CONSUMPTION OF CALIFORNIA
STATES, TABLE AND DESSERT AND
WINES IN ALL MARKETS, CALIFORNIA AND OTHER
TOTAL, MONTHLY JULY 1937-FEBRUARY 1950
Year
and
Month
U.5» Net Import;
Foreign Wines
Still and
Sparkling
Win* Produced in California
Consumed in U.S«*/
Still Wine
Table
Desser
Consumed in California
Still Wine
Table
DessertV
Still and
SparKllng
Consumed in Other States
Still Wine
Table
DessertV
Sparkling
1940
January
February
Maroh
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
De camber
Total
1941
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
Ootober
November
December
Total
1942
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
Ootober
November
December
fatal
Wine Gallons
336,838
1,433,029
4,034,443
593,872
1,090,587
250,902
1,424,662
4,232,464
565,994
937,376
266,080
1,369,559
4,171,646
576,355
984,924
277,358
1,415,534
3,623,024
581,725
927,568
344,648
1,368,246
3,688,756
580,420
893,842
765,128
1,430,765
8,160,960
660,548
2,066,062
224,464
1,155,488
2,212,201
485,364
465,113
116,555
1,313,351
2,806,741
596,807
603,121
166,949
1,818,792
4,693,208
598,704
755,582
303,862
2,269,717
5,494,518
683,957
1,028,728
250,997
2,264,526
7,018,375
732,026
1,204,667
301,376
2,066,815
6,009,928
731,275
1,223,442
3,607,157
19,330,484
56,146,264
7,407,047
12,133,212
129,977
1,522,034
4,342,132
59*, 3 51
1,096,734
113,710
1,527,098
4,778,822
564,098
950,442
146,565
1,695,653
5,625,322
627,844
1,166,814
141,162
1,555,375
5,482,081
617,734
1,090,333
164,345
1,528,558
5,252,191
573,022
1,008,687
130,369
1,586,446
6,407,506
596,715
1,215,330
173,802
1,617,141
5,295,532
651,685
1,078,712
92,955
1,719,273
5,075,570
627,359
998,940
143,005
2,136,141
6,784,202
704,075
1,240,418
194,000
2,352,099
6,388,537
698,696
1,080,195
161,000
2,252,663
5,636,353
716,706
1,010,253
225,000
2,375,771
6,055,106
714,893
1,130,310
1,815,890
21,868,253
67,123,354
7,685,222
13,066,868
cc on a
Ob , 804
1,634,786
5,399,880
581,236
1,045,844
56,607
1,239,039
5,828,175
518,418
1,057,926
63,598
1,913,958
6,878,285
617,894
1,181,066
56,546
1,903,157
5,866,089
628,228
1,041,280
58,223
1,674,575
5,003,881
577,825
847,514
42,549
1,586,873
5,183,756
562,398
879,832
41,926
1,635,800
5,854,479
539,729
790,214
49,808
1,808,560
5,984,677
527,124
913,318
73,633
2,357,167
7,259,333
690,190
1,577,548
104,317
2,575,687
6,608,834
717,812
1,402,949
154,815
2,301,728
6,104,057
637,349
997,888
235,388
2,732,092
6,545,470
816,601
1,193,458
1,024,214
23,363,423
72,516,921
7,414,801
12,928,837
1,691,267
1,513,537
1,566,746
1,514,641
1,486,171
2,758,480
954,917
1,206,760
1,364,718
1,724,423
1,962,514
1,986,621
19,730,795
1,692,836
1,518,239
1,802,867
1,713,442
1,591,439
1,820,716
1,741,733
1,640,238
1,965,184
1,797,934
1,743,454
1,870,451
20,898,585
1,629,508
1,579,136
1,802,287
1,672,012
1,423,335
1,445,772
1,335,962
1,452,528
2,266,692
2,140,031
1,654,096
2,032,517
20,458,976
839,157
2,943,856
3,786,700
858,668
3,295,088
4,155,759
793,204
3,186,722
3,981,865
833,809
2,695,456
3,530,524
787,826
2,794,914
3,584,244
750,217
6,092,898
6,846,270
670,124
1,747,088
2,418,913
716,544
2,203,620
2,927,205
1,220,088
3,937,626
5,166,503
1,585,760
4,465,790
6,069,204
1» 532, 500
5,813,508
7,376,676
1,335,540
4,736,486
6,142,530
11,923,437
43,963,052
55,986,413
929,683
3,245,343
4,182,660
963,003
3,828,380
4,800,684
1,067,809
4,458,508
5,532,186
937,592
4.392,048
5,333,109
955,536
-.,2 43 , 504
5,210,403
989,731
5,192,226
6,188,302
965,456
4,216,820
5,194,793
1,091,920
4,0/5,630
5,179,673
1,432,066
5,543,784
7,008,544
1,653,403
5,303,342
6,992,253
1,535,957
4,626,100
6,191,483
1,660,878
4,874,796
6,557,431
14,183,031
54,006,486
68,3 76 , 521
1,053,550
4,354,036
5,416,196
720,621
4,770,249
5,496,969
1,296,064
5,697,219
6,998,462
1,274,929
4,824,809
6,105,492
1,096,751
4,156,367
5,259,091
1,024,475
4,303,924
5,331,940
1,096,071
5,064,265
6,167,735
1,281,436
5,071,359
6,360,263
1,666,977
5,681,790
7,360,662
1,857,875
5,205,885
7,081,674
1,664,382
5,106,169
6,790,664
1,915.491
5,352,012
7,291,023
15,WJ,622
59,586 s -"84
75,660,171
3>
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<J
JoU( HDD
298,134
10,942
930
128,065
14,496
a art a
y, ouo
OJtQ 7
35,739
10,925
18,353
18,175
2,001
4,285
7,992
14,278
19,024
22,730
i QA t 1 O A K
23,964
39,054
57,198
1,871
0
14
12,022
79,513
116,169
61,315
9'5 / ,UoO
OQR OKA
307,139
19,727
22,198
40,293
1,812
??,088
12,968
19,071
114,960
10,976
Annual j
52,550
1935
1,072, 8*8
514, M4
281,043
15,369
2,337
162,915
16,720
9,207
2,935
1,526
14,027
1937
970,649
449,401
304,728
12,935
824
153,740
15,338
8,752
1,753
2,042
7,202
13,934
1938
1,015,125
503,144
287,512
9,934
179
172,516
12,937
10,455
3,215
881
3,454
10,898
1939
1,041,236
655,143
319,250
5,532
329
23,089
12,990
10,818
4,303
222
3,529
6,040
907 ft4Q
cu / , OH
77,269
16,293
17,737
26,715
4,871
7,009
7,289
10,641
13,244
2,923
1941
190,887
80,970
16,282
7,131
17,447
16,290
719
4,126
9,017
11,348
25,176
2,381
1942
222,723
55,207
13,816
9,350
19,888
12,124
414
1,720
7,670
20,845
18,653
63,035
1943
598,808
13,233
8,945
43,722
86,649
3,663
0
43
4,082
87,423
189,133
161,915
1944
301,173
10,057
2,982
40,974
42,507
788
0
0
3,352
109,066
70,903
20 , 544
1945
380,426
86,455
57,264
32,466
42,438
1,163
0
0
28,634
42,050
88,471
1,485
1946
972,070
384,845
336,128
25,991
29,099
8,580
1,564
12,756
15,941
45,454
104,610
7,102
1947
568,268
145,683
213,861
13,983
24,330
34,268
832
20,537
9,614
4,434
89,571
11,155
1948
1,030,922
327,034
371,429
19,208
13,156
73,030
3,041
32,971
13,348
7,325
150,700
14,670
a/ Data for July 1936 through December 1941 include dutiable imports only as non-dutiable not available by countries by months, for January 1942 to
date non-dutiable imports are ineluded beoause they are not segregated by countries monthlyo Non-dutiabls imports are less than one per oent of the
total in most yearso Thoy are admitted free (1) as an act of international courtesy to dlplotnatlo 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/ "Other" includes the following significant gallonages
Frenoh lloroooo - 1942, 52, 134j 1943, 91, 849} 1944, 17980
Algeria - 1943, 26, 952| 1946 , 2.418 U947 , 4,596jl948 , 5,328.
o/ Year 1936 oovers June 15, 1936 to June 30, 1937o
Souroes Compiled by So W. Shear, Glannlnl Foundation of Agricultural Eoonomios, University of California, Berkeley, April 1950, directly or indlreotly
from latest revised monthly reports of the Uo S. Dept. Commerce, Bureau Foreign and Domestio Commerce or the Census Bureaus 1936-1943 from
compilations of the Wine Institute from Depart:aent of Commerce records of revised monthly data by oountrleso
APPENDIX TABLE 7»
UNITED STATES IMPORTS FOR CONSUMPTION OF DESSERT WINE CONTAINING OVER IH% BUT LESS THAN M% ALCOHOL
OTHER THAN VERMOUTH, SAKE AND N.E.S. BY CHIEF COUNTRIES OF ORIGIN, YEARS BEGINNING JULY I, 1936-1918
Year
Total*/
• - w
— — — ■ j
Beginning
Spain
Madeira
Portugal
France
Italy
Greece
United
Australia
Argentina
Chile
Other
July 1
and
Kingdom
Azores
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Win* Gallons*/
Averages t
1936-1939
897*320
550,304
6,367
130,626
1Q2,628
49,508
11,456
13,669
3,430
719
329
28,284
1940-1942
713,924
494,070
10,146
170,085
19,709
4,760
3,162
423
330
1,012
312
9,915
1943.1945
4,053,667
1,579,239
136,112
2,125,293
8
12,907
45
922
40,448
57,545
866
100.282
sb w p a> 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<?6
1 ft i qf> ?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.