'sv^'"|"/,. A Publication of The College of Agriculture /I I \ ^ \ \J UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA CANNED CLING PEACHES REVISED ANALYSIS OF F. 0. B. PRICE RELATIONSHIPS Sidney Hoos and R. D. Aplin 3=> CO jn CO c z < m 7i tn -\ >o '/I 0 > -n 0 z CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION GIANNINI FOUNDATION OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS Mimeographed Report No. 145 Marcli 1953 i. CANNED CLING PEACHES REVISEr ANALYSIS OF F.O.B. PRICE RELATIONSHIPS Sidney Hoosi/ and R. D. Aplin^/ CONTENTS Page Introduction, ............. .«...., 1 Data 2 Results 5 Note 6 Table 1. F.O.B. Prices of Canned Cling Peaches and Related Economic Variables .».. 7 Table 2. Actual and Estimated F.O.B. Prices cf California Canned Cling Peaches, Choice No. 2|, 192U-25 to 1951-52 8 Table 3. F.O.B. Prices of Canned Fruits, from 192li-25 9 Table U. Construction of Revised Index of Prices of Canned Fruits Competing with Canned Cling Peaches 11 Table 5. Canners' Domestic Shipments of Canned Fruits, from 192i;-25. . . 12 Table 6. Canners' Pack, Carry-Over, Shipments, and Exports of California Canned Cling Peaches, from 192ii-25 llj. Table 7, Canners' Pack, Carry-Over, Shipments, and E:!q)orts of Pacific Coast Canned Pears, from 192lx-2^ l6 Table 8. Canners' Pack, Carry-Over, Shipments, and Exports of California Canned Apricots, from 192li-25 18 Table 9. Canners' Pack, Carry-Over, Shipments, and Exports of California Canned Freestone Peaches, from 192^-25 ....... 20 Table 10, California Canners' Pack, Carry-Over, Shipments and Exports of Canned Fruit Cocktail 21 1/ Professor of Agricultural Economics and Economist in the Experiment Station and on the Giannini Foundation. 2/ Research Assistant on the Giannini Foundation. •a > , ii. Page Table 11, Index of Competing Canned Fruit Prices Adjusted hy United States Nonagricultural Income (l?ii7-19)j:9=100) and Canners' Carry-Over of Clings as Per Cent of Shipments* . ♦ , 22 Table 12. California Canned Cling Peaches, Multiple Regression (Least Squares) Equations and Auxiliary Constants (l92ii-25 to 1951-52, Excluding 19l^l-li2 to 19h6-h7) 23 Figm-e 1. Average Net Relation of F.O.B, Price (Choice 2^) to: A, Domestic Shipments of Cling Peaches , , 27 B, United States Disposable Income 27 C, Competing Canned Fruit Prices, 28 ■ ■•■r;- CANNED CLING PEACHES REVISED ANALYSIS OF F.O.B. PRICE RELATIONSHIPS Sidney Hoos and R, D, Aplin INTRODUCTION It is now a quarter of a century since a formal agreement waa first made among participants in the canning peach industry of California to stabilize the production-marketing of canned cling peaches. That first agreement was concerned with grading and was formalized by a legal agreement between various canners. Since then and with the introduction of federal and state marketing programs, formal agreements were in effect for most years; exceptions were 1929, 1932, 1935, 1938, and the war years 19U3 to 19it5.-^ This is not the place to consider in detail the various marketing agreements, orders, and programs. But it is pertinent to note that when the programs — whether under federal or state jurisdiction — were initiated, the legislation permitting them specified that various types of economic analyses were called for to support the introduction and continuation of the programs. In that respect, the California canned cling peach industry used various types of economic information. Included with such information were various economic- statistical analyses of f.o.b, prices of canned cling peaches. Those reports, issued annually since the late 1930 's, except for the war years, vrere used "by growers, canners, distributors, and purchasers of canned cling peaches. The reports were used, along with other economic and market information, to evaluate the current market situation and appraise its outlook. In order to provide the cling peach industry with market information, the economic-statistical analyses of the f.o.b, prices of canned cling peaches were 3/ "Preliminary Report by W. 3. Everts, Manager, Cling Peach Advisory Board, Covering Operations of the 19^2 Season," Cling Peach Advisory Board, September 9, 1952, San Francisco, California, Hoos, Sidney and J, N, Boles. Lo ng-Term Trends in the Canned Clingstone Peach Industry . Berkeley, 1952, Processed. (Calif, Univ. Col. of Agr, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, ^^imeographed Report 129) V 2. revised periodically. Revisions at times were minor, and at other times more significant. The intent was to make available the most recent analysis that the current circumstances and available information permitted,^ DATA The objective of this report is to introduce major revisions in the economic-statistical analysis of factors affecting the f.o.b, prices of canned cling peaches. Developments in the canned fruit industries call for their adequate reflection in the analysis, and research for and with market inform- ation has made it possible now to introduce appropriate changes in the analysis. Thus, in a sense the economic-statistical analysis is brought more in line with current needs. The market information developed with the use of the report thereby may be put on a firmer basis. The revisions introduced may be briefly indicated as follows r the index of competing canned fruit prices has been broadened by adding canned fruit cocktail and canned freestone peaches; the relative weights applied to prices in the index of competing canned fruit prices have been revised to reflect the current relative importance of the various canned fruits; the index of United States nonagricultural income has been replaced by an index of the United States disposable income; and the base periods for the indexes of competing canned fruit prices and income have been shifted from 1935-1939 to 19li7-19U9. The index of competing canned fruit prices has been broadened by adding canned freestone peaches and canned fruit cocktail to the three fruits pre- viously included in the index, canned apricots, canjied pears, and canned pineapple. The base period of the index has been shifted from the 1935-1939 j^/ The latest issue in the series is Hoos, Sidney. Statistical Analyses of the Annual Average F.O.B. Prices of Canned Clingstone Peaches, 192i;-25 to 1951-52 . Berkeley, 1952. (Calif, Univ. Col. of Agr. Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, i-iimeographed Report 132) A supplementary report is Hoos, Sidney, and J, N. Boles, Selected Statistics on California Clingstone Peaches for the 1952 Canning Season , Berkeley, 1952. Processed, (Calif, Univ, Col. of Agr. Exp, Sta.l 3. period to that of 19h7-19h9, This shift in base period from the prewar to recent postwar years is in line with current developments in other index numbers and has already been introduced in various statistical series issued by the federal government. In addition, the prices of the canned fruits in the index have been given new weights, reflecting the relative importance of the indi- vidual fruits as measured by their annual shipments. It may be noted that these changes in the index make it more acceptable in the sense that it reflects current developments. Another change introduced concerns the measurement of national income re- flected in the analysis. In the reports issued during the recent postwar years, an index of United States nonagricultural income, with the average for 1935-1939 = 100, was used. For the years beginning with 1929-30, that index now has been replaced by an index of United States disposable personal income, with the average for 19i;7-19U9 as the base. The disposable income is derived from personal income by adjusting for tax obligations. The new base period was introduced for the same reason as noted above for the price index of competing canned fruits. It is deemed desirable to introduce the new index since many users of the report — especially the Cling Peach Advisory Board — use disposable income figures in review of the market situation. Thus, the inclusion of dis- posable income in the analysis should help to coordinate it with the other income information used by the industry. During the latter half of the 1930' s and also during the postwar years, fruit cocktail developed and then maintained a significant position as one of the major canned fruit items. The expansion in the production and sale of canned fruit cocktail emphasized the need for inclusion of its price in the index of competing canned prices. This was not done earlier since appropriate price data for canned fruit cocktail were not available. More adequate data have now been compiled and analyzed. Accordingly, fruit cocktail has been sxis--iri#i.w " ^ijj '^^.^ jU;;-;: , 'j.t.:J j.,- '.j^ • • ■ ,i . ■ ^.^ . ■ ' ■ •xnbrrJt: vt; • - .. rr-es'^ bom- .cj-lrt"- ■-•.■10 .pLy ■ "'v nox+Lrcrt jT-o f'}. b^nr-: r bovk^iinv^n r;-?r . . ■.''if. ';r>';,fTf".v c-rroN '*'on • ■;"!.?.*■? sifff? vrfsnr n^f^h ^ " ■ r'l. ; ,^4{i|Ut*v.b son r. introduced into the index beginning with the year 1936-37; adequate price data for earlier years are not available* The absence of fruit cocktail from the index for the years prior to 1936-37 does not impose a serious limitation, however, since in those years the volume of canned fruit cocktail was relatively less significant. Although canned freestone peaches are not packed in as large volume as are canned cling peaches, there is evidence that competitive demand relations exist between canned freestone and canned clingstone peaches.^ The new index of com- peting canned fruit prices includes canned freestone peaches beginning with the year 19U0-i|lj earlier years were not included because of the unavailability of appropriate price data. The price data used for canned freestone peaches are f,o,b, prices of California Elberta peaches which are the most important variety of canned freestone peaches in recent years. Comparable price data for Cali- fornia Elbertas are not available for earlier years. Price data during those earlier years are available for canned Lovells, the most important variety of freestones then canned. Since Elbertas are the canned freestone of most im- portance now, the Elberta prices were used for freestone peaches during the postwar years. The statistical data used in the report are given in complete detail in the appended tables. The footnotes to the tables explain the sources of the data and how the various series were constructed. But here it is pertinent to note that the price data for canned cling peaches, canned apricots, and canned pears, as well as the postwar data for canned fruit cocktail, are industry average prices reflecting actual experience of the canneries as reported to the Cling Peach Advisory Board or its preceding and associated agencies. The price 5/ Hoos, Sidney, and W, G, 0' Regan, Statistical Analyses of Competitive Relations Between Canned Clingstone and Canned Freestone Peaches . Berkeley, 19U9. Processed, (Calif. Univ, Col. of Agr, Exp, Sta,) ■ nr. 5. data for canned fruit cocktail in the prewar years, canned freestone peaches, and canned pineapple reflect published quotations supplemented by trade in~ formation. Comparative checks of those published data suggest that they are appropriate for use in the analysis in the sense that their year-to-year changes are indicative of the market price behavior. RESULTS Using the revised data indicated above and shown in more detail in the appended tables, the economic-statistical analysis was revised. Various for- mulations of the relations between the f.o.b, prices of canned cling peaches and the various market factors related to them were considered. The results of some of these formulations are summarized in Table 12, Careful consideratio of the various sets of results, giving attention to the combined views of economics, statistics, and marketing — as well as practical problems in the use of the results — suggests the presentation of the formulation whose results are described belowj that formulation not only compares very favorably with others, but also has the advantage that it carries on the general understanding developed in the industry in recent years. The results of the revised analysis selected for presentation may be summarized as follows, indicating the average market relations prevailing durini the period analyzed (equation 8, Table 12). A change of 1,000,000 cases (2h No. 2-1/2 basis) in the domestic movement of California canned cling peaches, with both United States disporable income and competing canned fruit prices held constant, was on the average accompanied by a change in the opposite direction of about 15 cents a case in the f.o.b. price (choice No, 2-1/2) of canned cling peaches. An increase of 10 per cent in the index of United States dis- posable income, with both the domestic movement of California canned ■Lot ^: 6. cling peaches and the prices of competing canned fruits held constant, was on the average accompanied by an increase of about 37 cents a case in the f.o.b. price (choice No. 2-1/2) of Cali- fornia canned cling peaches. A change of ten points in the index of prices of competing canned fruits, with both the domestic movement of California canned cling peaches and United States disposable income held constant, was on the average accompanied by a change in the same direction of about 22 cents a case in the f.o.b. price (choice No, 2-1/2) of canned clingstone peaches. The above average price relationships are summarized in the preliminary report at this time so as to provide a convenient background for the canned cling peach industry in its discussions preparatory to the 19S3-^h season. As the current season comes to a close and market data reflecting its experience become available, another report including the data for 1952-53 will be developed. That report, it is presently intended, will include a price analysis developed along the same general lines as the one here summarized. Note ; The formulations of price relationships summarized in Table 12 include the results of some experiments with variables not explicitly referred to in the above comments. Such variables include canners' carry-over at the beginning of the current season, and in terms of its level in relation to the current season's shipments as well as in relation to the just-past season's shipments. Other formulations continue the inclusion of U, S, nonagricultural income, but with the new base period of 19h7-^9h9 ) rather than introducing the index of U, S, disposable income. Another variation replaces the index of competing canned fruit prices with an index of competing canned fruit shipments to reflect the impact of the market situations in canned fruits other than canned cling peaches, A detailed comparative analysis of these various formulations is not intended here. It may be noted, however, that in terms of application and utility in projection the formulation whose price relationships are summarized above compares favorably with the other formulations, and has the advantage of being related to an hypothesis of market price behavior which is generally familiar to the industry. Yet, continued development of and eijqDerimentation with various formulations are intended so as to approach one which is adequately acceptable from the combined views of economics, statistics, and marketing. -jrisO 'io (3\i-2 ,0' Ic not Joo'iib {sV- •--tq ,d. 5S i.ff-^.- . . jv 7. TABLE 1 F.O.B, Prices of Canned Cling Peaches and Related Economic Variables F.o.b, price Domestic inoveitient Index of United of canned of California States dis- Index of com- Marketing year^ cling peaches cling peaches posable peting canned June through May (choice 2-I/2) (2uNo, 2-1/2 basis) income fruit prices 1 2 3 ii dolLars per case millions of cases 19U7-19ii9=100 192U-25 U.72 U.6O7 1925-26 li.23 7.U8ii 37.5 186.8 1926-27 u.io 8.599 38.3 188.7 192 l-2o 3.U5 10.867 38.6 i76.il 1920-29 3.50 IO.U90 169.8 1929-30 U.57 7.U83 ill. 7 177.3 ^-5 1 36,5 168.0 1931-32 2.80 5.976 29.6 159.7 1932-33 2.15 8.IU0 2I;,8 I8ii.3 I933-3U 2,ii9 7.iil5 25.9 199.U I93U-35 2.88 7.685 29.3 189.8 1935-36 2.66 8.1^52 33.2 163. U 1936-37 2.79 9.358 36.7 lii7.0 1937-38 3.11 6.85ii 36.5 157.5 1938-39 2.Uii 10.127 36.3 139.ii 1939-UO 2.56 8.673 38.7 li;3.U 19iiO-iil 2,U3 11.U33 U3.8 125.3 (War years) 19i;7-U8 U.78 13.81^3 95.6 108.2 19U8-U9 5.10 12,382 102.1 102.8 19li9-50 U.07 15.8U9 102.3 89.5 1950-51 5.17 11;. 305 ll6.1i 90.1 1951-52 5.53 13.U02 123.0 8i;.9 Sources: Col. 1: Table 3> column 1. Col. 2: Table 5> column 1. Col, 3: Table k, column li. Col. hi For sources and method of construction, see Table U. 1^ r , - ■ 1) - -. ; , - f 4 1 r v.. -Ml • ■■ ; • ' . f ■- » i i f i '»-■.' j 1 i 1 -. - • :-Y... ! t TABLE 2 Actual and Estimated F.O.B, Prices of California Canned Cling Peaches, Choice No. 2-1/2, 192li-25 to 1951-52 OExcluding 19iil-ii2 through 19ii6-it7) oune Tinrougn iiay Actual price Estimated price Difference: column 1 minus column 2 Percentage Ql X xercfic^tr* UUXUiiUi ^ do pel Uciio UJ- UUXUilUX X 1 2 3 dollars per case per cent it.72 5.13 -.Ul ft 7 li.23 3.92 .31 7 '3 f •J T OOA 0 7 u.io 3,00 1 09 7 9 A X7 3.2o .If )i 0 j-7<;o— o r'A 3.50 3.34 .10 )• 6 1929-30 a. 57 U.12 9.8 1930-31 3.20 3.13 .07 2.2 1931-32 6.1 1932-33 2.15 2.16 -.01 - 0.5 2.1i9 2.78 -.29 n 6 —xx. 0 2.88 3.00 -.12 - 2.66 2.78 -.12 - ii.p 2.79 2.67 .12 1937-38 3.11 3.26 -.15 - 1;.8 1938-39 2. Ill; 2.3U .10 h.l 1939-liO 2.56 2.90 ■ -.31; -13.3 19U0-lil 2.1;3 2.55 -.12 - U.9 (War years) 19ii7-li8 U.78 ii.83 -.05 - 1.0 19ii8-U9 5.10 5.19 -.09 - 1.8 . 19it9-50 il.07 li.37 -.30 - 7.U 1950-51 5.17 5.12 .05 1.0 1951-52 5.53 5.36 .17 3.1 Sources: Col. 1: Table 1, column 1. Col. 2: Estimated by use of data in Table 1 applied to equation (8) in Table 12. Col. 3: Column 1 minus column 2, Col. U; Columji 3 as per cent of column 1. ' 1 ■ ) : i '.__';.T" " ■ i TABLE 3 F.O.B. Prices of Canned Fruits, from 192k-2$ 9. Marketing year, June through May California cling peaches [choice 2-|) California ^ricots Pacific Coast pears Average all grades and sizes California freestone peaches (Elberta choice 2i) California fruit cocktail (choice 2-g-) Hawaiian pineapple (sliced fancy, 2^- f.o.b, .San Francisco) 192ii-25 1925- 26 1926- 27 1927- 28 1928- 29 1929- 30 1930- 31 I 1931-32 1932- 33 1933- 3I1 193)4-35 1935- 36 1936- 37 1937- 38 1938- 39 1939- I4O 19U0-ia (War years) 19li7-U8 19l48-ii9 19U9-50 1950- 51 1951- 52 Sources: Col. 1: Col, 2j Col. 3: I4.23 i^ao 3.1^5 3.50 I;.57 3.20 2.80 2.15 2.i;9 2.88 2.66 2.79 3.11 2.56 2.U3 ii.78 5.10 ii.07 5.17 5.53 3.91 3.72 3.85 3.97 3.67 3.97 3.32 2.6U 2.23 2.37 3.I47 2.93 2.75 3.02 2.55 2.77 3.23 5.20 it.55 h.li I4.83 5.29 dollars per case 5.ii0 ^,hh it.3l k,6o U.13 h.82 3.53 2.82 2.148 2.61i 3.05 2.92 2.92 3.07 2.77 3.27 3.06 7.07 7.37 5.15 6.90 6.iin 3.20 5.60 6.10 5.08 6,10 6,20 3,90 il.OO 3.1iO 3.75 3.35 6.90 6.65 5.70 6.65 6.68 5.20 U.30 ii. 70 it.20 h.ho ii.70 U.oo 3.00 3.10 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.80 3.it0 3.60 3.60 6.10 6.80 6.ii0 6.80 6.80 Based on data compiled by the Cling Peach Advisory Board from reports by California canners as reported in Hoos, Sidney, Statistical Analysis of the Annual Average F.O.B. Prices of Canned Clingstone Peaches, 192ii-25 to 1951-52. July, 1952, Giannini Foundation Mimeographed Report 132. Compiled by Cling Peach Advisory Board from reports by canners as re- ported in Hoos, Sidney, Statistical Analysis of the Annual Average F.O.B, Prices of Canned iipricots, 1926-27 to 1951-52. July, 1952, Giannini Foundation Mimeographed Report 133. For years 192k-2$ , 1925-26 and 19UC-[tl from Hoos, Sidney and Irving Dubov, Indexes of Competing Canned Fruit Prices. Giannini Foundation Report, October, I9I49, . Compiled from canner reports by Canners League of California and Northwest Canners Association, as reported in Hoos, Sidnev, Statistical Analysis of the Annual Average F.O.B. Prices Pacific Coast Canned Pears, 1926-27 to 1951-52, July, 1952, Giannini Foundation Mimeographed Report 135. For years 192ii-25, 1925-26, and 19i40-i4l from Hoos, Sidney and Irving Dubov, Indexes of Competing Canned Fruit Prices. Giannini Found- ation Report, October, 191^9. (Continued cn next page.) •.sfaf..-. .f ■ "I inf.? /not; 10, Table 3 CL>ntlnned, Col, ht California Fruit News, supplemented by trade information. Col. 5: Years from 1936-37 to 19U0-lil, published quotations from California Fruit News. Years from 19ii7-Ii8 to 19^1-^2 based on information compiled by the Cling Peach Advisory Board from canners reports. Col, 6: Hoos, Sidney, Statistical Analysis of the Annual Average F.O.B, Prices of Canned Clingstone Peaches, 192it-C5 to l?5l-52, July, 1952, Giannini Fotr.id.n t,i on M.ii.-eog replied Report 132, fslnio'i lI/>Q ■; -..Sli .4 . i t-O TABLE h 11. Construction of Revised Index of Prices of Canned Fruits Competing with Canned Cling Peaches Marketing Weighted average year, prices of competing United States dis- June canned fruits posable income poiTi'nP'hi TiCf nnrrnpH through J-zUXXctX fa rie±aTjx ves Billions Index f* "Tin "h TiT'nr'p'^ May j^ci. UciDC! T oil 7 li 0=1 of dollars 1 oil 7 1. 0— 1 r\r\ 0 c 3 1, a 192l;-25 5.0iil)i All A 34.P 1925-26 3 f«p 186.8 1926-27 1. Jifin? L|.*L|.UU ( 10 97 71 7 30.3 188.7 1927-28 lit c ci-j Aft no UO. U)r JO.O 176-ii 1928-29 ii.2200 68.37 75.1 Uo.i 169.8 1929-30 ii.58m 73. 9U- 78.1 lil.7 177.3 1930-31 3.8019 61.32 68. a 36.5 168.0 1931-32 2.9298 1^7.26 55. ii 29.6 159.7 1932-33 )ic; 7n oil P I8ii.3 I933-3U "^1 6)1 199. li I93I+-35 3.1ili69 "^1^ 60 00 T 189.3 1935-36 PU. CP Ao 1 00 0 33.2 1936-37 3.3i;52 53.96 68.6 36.7 1937-38 3.5628 57.ii7 68.3 36.5 157.5 1938-39 3.1380 50.61 67.9 36.3 1*^9.11 1939-liO 3.iiii07 55.50 72.1i 38.7 lU3.il 19i|0-lil 3.U020 5ii.87 82.0 1^3.8 125.3 (War years) 19U7-1;8 6.Ull;9 103. Ii7 178.9 95.6 108.2 19U8-ii9 6.5078 10U.97 191.1 102.1 102.8 19^9-50 5.6766 91.56 191.5 102.3 89.5 1950-51 6.J4986 ioii.82 217.8 II6.U 90.1 1951-52 6.U772 ioii.U7 230.2 123.0 81i.9 bources: Col. 1: Col. 2s Col. 3s Col. hi Col. 5: Canned fruit (other than clings) prices weighted by their corresponding shipments. F.o.b. prices (other than clings) given in Table 3 weighted by corresponding domestic shipments given in Table 5. Ci^luim 1 figures expressed as percentages nith 19l47-19ii9=100. Based on income data published in U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Survey of Current Business, Years 192U-25 through 1928-29, U.S. Non- Agricultural Income; 1929-30 through 1951-52, U.S. Disposable Personal Income. Column 3 figures expressed as percentages with 19U?-19ii9=100, Column 2 as a per cent of column k» • * - • - . ... i 1 ■ •■ ■ i. < - ■ I « 4 . ■ — ■• 1 1 ! • t 1 1 ( f r * ■ ! * • 4 TABLE 5 Canners' Domestic Shipments of Canned Fruits, from 192U-25 12. Marketing year, June through May Cali- fornia cling peaches Cali- fornia apricots Pacific Coast pears Cali- California fornia freestone [ fruit peaches ! cocktail Pinef/ apple Total Total J excluding California cling peaches 1 T 192U-25 1925- 26 1926- 27 1927- 28 1928- 29 1929- 30 1930- 31 1931- 32 1932- 33 1933- 3ii 193li-35 1935- 36 1936- 37 1937- 38 1938- 39 1939- i;0 19i;0-l4l (War year^ 19l;7-l48 19hQ-h9 19U9-50 1950- 51 1951- 52 U,607 iMh 8,599 10,867 10,k90 7,ii83 9,257 5,976 8,lii8 7,U5 7,685 8,it52 9,358 6,85U 10,127 8,673 ll,li33 13,81i3 12,382 I5,8ii9 lh,305 13,U02 thousands of cases; 2h No. 2-1/2 basis" 7 1,235 1,755 2,038 1,779 2,195 2,259 2,183 l,5iil 1,521 1,U77 1,951 2,992 2,901 2,562 2,6iiO 2,012 2,lil5 3,528 3,072 3,566 3,37i; l,01ii 1,293 1,957 1,637 2,170 2,383 2,617 1,990 2,200 2,767 2,98U 2,670 3,997 2,681 3,111; 2,768 i;,l50 U,866 3,660 5,613 14,815 i;,35U 1,233 1,291 1,690 1,1;93 1,896 2,U7l 1,U50 1,589 2,070 2,151 8,770 6,732 7,021 8,003 6,Ui8 6,611 6,611 7,li65 8,603 7,876 7,616 8,99a 9,525 6,270 8,327 7,500 8,600 10,u00 9,100 8,200 10,100 11,500 10,100 11,500 11,900 12,i;00 11,500 13,i;67 17,lii3 20,059 22,886 22,731 19,7iil 23,051 19,032 18,139 20,5U3 19,6ii6 21,673 28,197 23,125 26,073 26,332 3U,776 lil,285 39,U92 hh,9h& l;li,985 Ul,51i9 8,860 9,659 ll,U6o 12,019 12,2)41 12,258 13,79ii 13,056 9,991 13,128 11,961 13,221 18,839 16,271 I5,9ii6 17,659 23,3ii3 27,lili2 27,110 29,099 30,680 28,lli7 Packers and importers shipments for domestic civilian consumption. Table 6, column 7. Table 8, column 7« Table 7, column 7. Table 9, column 7. Table 10, column 3, For years 192ii-25 and 1925-26, average of the corresponding two-year packs compiled by Pineappl Growers Association of Hawaii as reported by trade sources. For years 1926-27 through 1933-3il, from Wellman, H.R., Statistical Analysis of the Annual Average F.O.B. Prices of California Canned Apricots, 1926-27 to 1936-37^ June, 1937, Giannini Foundation mmeo- graphed Report 60. Figures are shipments from Hawaii to United States for July through June and converted at 55 pounds per case. Sources: Col. 1: Col. 2: Col. 3: Col. kt Col. 5: Col. 6: (Continued next page.) •i r. - : -1+) 1 " . '44 "1 - ' ir ■ ; r 13^ Table 5 continued. For years 193)i-35 through 19U9-50, Packers' and Importer's Shipments for Domestic Civilian Consumption, Fruit and Vegetable Canning In- dustries, 193h-3$, Industrial Series No, l5, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, U., S., Dept. of Commerce, and Canned Fruits and Vegetables Industry Reports, Office of Industry and Commerce, U. S« Dept., of Commerce from: Pineapple Grower's Association of Hawaii, Bulletin No, 207. For years 1950-$1 and 19^1-52, as compiled from trade sources. Col, 7i Sum of columns 1 through 6, Col. 8: Column 7 ndnus column 1, Ik. TABLE 6 Canners' Pack, Carry-Over, Shipments, and Exports of California Canned Cling Peaches, from 192ij.-25 Marketing year, June through May Pack ! Canners' stocks on hand at be- ginning of year Total supply Canners' stocks on hand at end of year Total movement from canners hands United States exports 1 Domestic movements 192li-25 1925- 26 1926- 27 1927- 28 1928- 29 1929- 30 1930- 31 1931- 32 1932- 33 1933- 3ii 1931-35 1935- 36 1936- 37 1937- 38 1938- 39 1939- 10 19U0-iil (War years) 19U7-li8 I9U8-I49 I9I49-50 1950- 51 1951- 52 1 2 3 i k f ^ 6 7 tl lousands of cases] 2h No, .2-1/2 basis 10,U99 lk,h39 7,72k 13,17U 8,3U9 6. kill 10,2lili 8,258 10,850 10,236 12,205 9,Uh6 10,579 9,608 15,309 li;,650 16,525 lii,iil7 19,li;5 1,391 709 kk9 3,730 1,322 3,109 1,629 3,922 h 826 1,359 2,389 1,836 1,929 1,U98 5,578 2,737 2,690 U56 1,2U7 3,061 2,058 531 1U,229 15,761 10,833 1U,803 12,271 X J- y C.Li.\J 11,603 10,61i7 12,686 12,165 13,703 15,02U 13,316 12,299 15,765 15,897 19,585 16,1;75 19,676 709 kk9 3,730 1,322 3,109 1,629 3,922 U,826 2,389 1,836 1,929 l,li98 5,578 2,737 2,690 779 1,2U7 3,061 2,058 531 3,ia8 12,907 12,652 9,20k 10,881 7,iiU5 0 Rfil y,oux 9,2lli 8,811 10,757 10,667 8,125 12,287 10,626 11,520 1U,518 12,836 ^ 16,332^ lii,77lV. 13,8J42S' 2,OiiO 2,162 1,721 1,62U 1,1|69 1,799 1,126 2,305 1,309 1,271 2,160 1,953 87 675 k9x ii83 U66 UUO 14,607 7,U8i4 8,599 10,867 10,U90 7,1483 9,257 5,976 R T)iR u , x^u 7,i4l5 7,685 8,1452 9,358 6,85U 10,127 8,673 11,1433 13,813 12,382 \ I5,8i;9 ' 114,305 13,1402 : .... . I ^ Excludes government school lianch purchases of B65,000 ck-jts in Jun&'j, i9l49-March, 1950, and an additional 331,000 cases in j^ril, 1950. If school lunch purchases were included, total movement would be 17,528,219 cases». Excludes government purchases of 1,172,766 cases. If government purchases were included, total movement would be l5,9l43 , 675 cases, _c/ Excludes government purchases of 2,l4l6,000 cases (1,970,000 quartermaster and l4L|,6,000 school lunch),. If government purchases were included, total movement would be 16,258,1400 cases. Sources: Cols, 1, 2, and kv Canners League of California as reported in Hoos, Sidney and J, N». Boles » Selected Statistics on California Cling- stone Peaches for the 1952 Canning Season, July, 1952, Giannini Foundation Mimeographed Report, (Continued on next page.) >Jfi~ rt'- \3 -.'..IF ' 15. Table 6' continued. Col, 3: Column 1 plus column 2, Col, 55 Column 3 minus column Col, 6: U, S, Department of Commerce, Monthly Summary of Foreign Commerce of the United States, as reported in Hoos, Sidney. Statistical Analysis of the Annual Average F.O.B, Prices of Canned Clingstone Peaches, ■ I92I4-25 to 1951-52, July, 1952, Giannini Foundation Mimeographed Report 132, (All ejqsorts considered to be clings since no breakdown between clings and frees available, ) Col, 7: Column 5 minus column 6, For years 192ii-25, 1925-26, and 1926-27, from Hoos, Sidney and Irving Dubov, Indexes of Competing Canned Fruit Prices, Giannini Foundation Report, October, 19li9, as compiled by Canners League of California and Cling Peach Advisory Board, J. 16. TABLE 7 Canners' Pack, Carry-Over, Shipments, and Exports of Pacific Coast Canned Pears, from 19214-25 Canners' Marketing stocks Canners' i OX/ ax vear. on hand stocks mo vemeni' June at be- on hand from through ginning Total at end canners' States Domestic May Pack of year supply of year nanus exports movements 1 2 3 u c 0 7 thousands of cases j 2 1 '^T^^ 0 1/0 U wo, C"!/ llii 1939-UO I1.OO li3U57 280 i;>177 1,U09 2>768 I9I1O-UI U,i5o (War years) 19li7-li8 5,622 200 5,822 726 5,096 230 U,866 19li8-U9 3,831 726 U,557 761 3,796 136 3,660 5,613 , 19li9-50 5,U59 761 6,220 6,ii96 iiU8 5,772 159 1950-51 6,oU8 iiiiS 566 5,930 215 ii,35iy 1951-52 6,215 566 6,781 1,575 5,206 95 a/ Excludes 900,51i9 cases in 1950-51 and 758,000 cases in 1951-52 purchased by U. S, Defense Department (Quartermaster Corps). If quartermaster purchases were in- cluded, domestic shipments would amount to 5,715,000 cases in 1950-51 and 5,111,679 cases in 1951-52. Sources J As reported in Hoos, Sidney, Statistical Analysis of the Annual Average F.O.B, Prices of Pacific Coast Canned Pears, 1926-27 to 1951-52, July, 1952, Giannini Foundation Mimeographed Report 135! Cols. 1, 2 and U: Compiled from reports of Canners League of California and Northwest Canners Association, Col, 3: Col. 5: Column 1 plus column 2. Column 3 minus column k» 'JO ■ • I ; ' r 1 t- • ■ K *- f . ^— . sis ■ \ '. i 17. Table 7 continued. Col. 6: Compiled from U, ,S, Department of Commerce, Monthly Summary of Foreign Commerce of the United States. (Exports converted at U5 pounds per No, 2-1/2 equivalent case, April-May, 19^2, exports estimated) as reported in Hoos, Sidney, Giannini Foundation Mimeographed Report 135. Col, 7: Column 5 minus column 6, For the years 192U-25, 1925-26, and 19iiO-Ul, from Hoos, Sidney and Irving Dubov, Indexes of Competing Canned Fruit Prices. Giannini Foundation Report, October, 19ll9^ as compiled by Canners League of California and Cling Peach Advisory Board, TABLE 8 18. Canners' Pack, Carry-Over, Shipments, and Exports of California Canned Apricots, from 192)4-25 Marketing Canners' stocks Canners ' Total 1 year. on hand stocks movement i June at be- on hand from j United through ginning Total at end canners | States Domestic May Pack of year Supply of year hands | exports movements , 1 2 3 h 1 7 192li-25 1925- 26 1926- 27 1927- 28 1928- 29 1929- 30 1930- 31 1931- 32 1932- 33 1933- 3I1 193h-3S 1935- 36 1936- 37 1937- 38 1938- 39 1939- UO 19ltO-iil (War years) 19ii7-U8 19U8-lt9 19it9-50 1950- 51 1951- 52 3,227 2,960 1,991 it, 023 1,951; 2,006 1,805 2,iil6 l,77ii 3,l6i; 2,899 5,553 I,5ii7 3,338 3,063 U,65i 2,307 3,661 U,538 thousands of cases; 2k No, 2-1/2 basis 298 315 21 liOl 952 I5ii 1,189 5U6 515 323 167 227 Qhh 228 2,305 528 279 639 1,508 532 115 3,2li8 3,361 I[,177 3,lli3 2,552 2,320 2,739 l,9Ul 3,391 3,7li3 5,781 3,852 3,866 3,3i;2 5,290 3,815 ii,l93 li,653 315 21 iiOl 952 15U 1,189 5U6 515 323 167 227 228 2,305 528 It79 639 1,508 532 115 6iU 2, QUI 2,U09 2,789 2,988 2,597 2,037 1,997 2,572 l,71ii 2,51i7 3,515 3,ii76 3,321; 3,387 2,703 3,782 3,283 U,078 i;,039 809 630 59U 729 Ulii ii96 li76 538 237 596 523 575 762 288 25U 211 135 1U5 1,235 1,755 2,038 1,779 2,195 2,259 2,183 1,5U1 1,521 2,031; 1,U77 1,951 2,992 2,901 2,562 2,6UO 2,012 2,U15 3,528 3,072 , 3,566a/ 3,37i£/ a/ Excludes United States government (quartermaster) purchases of 375,561; casesj if government purchases were included, total domestic shipments would be 3,9l;2,072 cases, b/ Excludes United States government (quartermaster) purchases of 520,000 cases; if government purchases were included, total domestic shipments would be 3,891;, 217 cases. Sources: As reported in Hoos, Sidney, Statistical Analysis of the Annual Average F.O.B.. Prices of Canned Apricots, 1926-27 to 1951-52, July, 1952, Giannini Foundation Mimeographed Report 133$ Col, 1 through 5s Compiled by Canners League of California,. Col. 6: Compiled from U,. S, Eepartment of Commerce, Monthly Summary of Foreign Commerce of the United States. (Exports converted at ii5 poimds per No, 2-1/2 equivalent case.) April-May, 1952, exports estimated,. (Continued on next page.) r, i'^fi X. ' ■■■ 't V ' • ■-■-4 ; ' ' ■ ■scriijsy&iiJ' • .' ' . J, J' .MO 19. Table 8 continued. Col, 7s ■ Column 5 minus column 6, For years 192ii-25, 192^-26, and 19liO-[tl from Hoos, Sidney and Irving Dubov^ Indexes of Competing Canned Fruit Prices, Giannini Foundation Report, October, 19U9, as compiled by Canners League of California and Cling Peach Advisory Board, 20. TABLE 9 Canners' Pack, Carry-Over, Shipments, and Exports of California Canned Freestone Peaches, from 192ii~2^ i ' Marketing year, June through May Pack Canners ' stocks on hand at be- ginning of year Total supply Canners ' stocks on hand at end of year Total movement from canners ' hands 5/ 1 2 3 h th ousands of cases; 2U No. 2-1/2 basi s I92U-25 1 996-97 1927-?fi i. 193 3i>U 40 1929-30 376 iiO Ul6 5U 19 30-31 120 ^ 7)1 00 cy 1931-32 72 29 101 19 1932-33 23 19 a2 2 1933-3ii 65 2 67 2 193U-35 3U0 2 3l;2 21 1935-36 365 21 386 112 1936-37 U75 112 587 69 1937-38 l,0ii3 69 1,112 U35 1938-39 376 li35 811 26y 1939-i;0 882 269 1,151 273 19UO-I4I 1,13U 273 l,ii07 17U (War years) I9U7-I48 1,U97 Ul 1,538 2ii8 19U8-U9 1,708 2li8 1,952 265 19ii9-50 l,ii99 265 1,761; 271 1950-51 1,677 271 l,9ii8 52 1951-52 2,793 52 2,81i5 37i; 1,030 1,027 hkl 296 310 362 iU5 82 ho 65 321 27lt 518 677 51^2 878 1,233 1,291 1,690 1,1;93 1,896 2,U71 a/ No exports of canned freestone peaches are reflected^ exports of all canned peaches are considered as clings since no breakdown between exports of clings and frees is available. Sources; Cols, 1, 2, and \xt Canners League of California as reported by Hoos, Sidney and J, N. Boles, Selected Statistics on California Clingstone Peaches for the 1952 Canning Season, July, 1952, Giannini Foundation Mimeographed Report, . Col, 3s Column 1 plus column 2, Co35% 5: Colurnn 3 minus column ii. . For years 192lj.-25, 1925-26, and 1926-27 from Hoos, Sidney and Irving Dubov. Indexes of Competing Canned Fruit Prices, Giannini Foundation Report, October, 19ii9, as compiled by Canners League of California and Cling Peach Advisory Board, TABLE 10 21. California Canners^ Fack, Carry-Over, Shipments, and Exports of Canned Fruit Cocktail Marketing year, June through May Direct pack Remanu- factured pack Canners' carry- over on hand at beginn- ing of year Total supply Canners* carry- over on hand at end of year Total move- ment from canners' hands^/ United States exports Domestic shipments 1 2 3 h ... ., 5 .. . 0 7 8 thousands of cases, 2h No. 2- 1/2 basis 1936- 37 1937- 38 1938- 39 1939- bO 19hO-hl 2,221 1,968 3,580 ii,262 228 75 73 98 336 1,295 288 2,595 3,61i2 3,337 3,9ii2 5,108 336 1,295 288 7U7 587 2,259 2,3li7 3,Olt9 3,195 ll,521 809 758 979 l,Ohh 73 i,U5o 1,589 2,070 2,151 h,m ^ar years) 19U7-i;8 19U8-U9 19ii9-50 1050-51 1951-52 9,32l4 9,75i; 6,135 6,810 8,999 125 85 Uli5 302 62 299 3,016 2,10U U90 9,511 10,139 9,596 9,217 9,ii88 299 3,016 2,01ii U90 2,335 9,212 7,122 7, 1492 8,727 7,153 hh2 390 U71 72h 705 8,770 6,732 7,021 8,003 6,lili8 Movement figures may not be precisely consistent with other figures due to rcimding errors. Sourcesi Cols. 1, 2, 3, and 5: Based on records of canners as compiled by Canners League of California and published in its numbered bulletins. Sum of columns 1, 2, and 3» Column h less coliomn 5. U, S, Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. Monthly Summary of Foreign Commerce of the U. S., June, 1936-December, 19ii7. U. S, Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Report FTi;10, U, S, Exports of Domestic and Foreign Merchandise, January, 19i;8-May, 1952. Col, kt Col. 6: Col, 7: Col. 8: Column 6 minus column 7 r- 22. TABLE 11 Index of Competing Canned Fruit Prices Adjusted by United States Nonagricultural Income il9h7 -19h9=100) and Ganners' Carry-Over of Clings as Per Cent of Shipments Index of com- Index of peting canned United fruit prices States adjusted for Canners' carry-over June TP*! Trp*^ nf* nonagri- United States of clings at be- thr ouph C OHID P "fc i nc' \w/ \Jl 1 W U i. lev cultural nonagricultural ginning of year as Mav 0 CLl 11 i.^ \Ji A. J, KiLjL vO income income per cent of shipments in year m year 19l;7-19h9=100 just closed just opened 1 2 3 h 5 192U-25 81.32 31;. 7 23ii.i; 2U.9 30.2 1925-26 70,06 37.6 186.3 0 K 1926-27 72.27 38.5 187.7 6,0 5.2 1927-28 68.09 38.8 175.5 h3.h 3U.3 1928-29 68.07 U0.3 168.9 12.2 12.6 1929-30 73. 9U hO,h 183.0 29.6 Ui.5 1930-31 61.32 35.6 172.2 21.8 17.6 I93I-32 a7.26 29.0 163.0 h2,h 65.6 1932-33 h5.70 22.8 200.U 80.8 59.2 1933-3ii 51.6U 2I4.8 208.2 16.7 18.3 193li-35 55.60 27.2 20i|.U 32.2 31.1 1935-36 5h.25 30.0 180.8 23*9 21.7 1936-37 53.96 35.5 152.0 22.8 20.6 1937-38 57.i47 3lt.5 166.6 16.0 21.9 1938-39 50.61 3ii.l IU8.U 81,U 55.1 1939-iiO 36.6 151.6 27.0 31.6 i9Uo-ia- 514.87 I1O.7 I3I1.8 31.0 23.5 (War years) 19U7-U8 103. U7 95.3 108.6 2.9 3.3 19i;8-li9 IOI1.97 101.5 103. U 9.0 10.1 19ii9-50 91.56 103.2 88.7 2U.7 19.3 1950-51 10i|.82 116.6 89.9 13.0 lU.ii 1951-52 10ii.U7 128.5 81.3 3.7 i U.o SourcesJ Col. 1: Table i)., column 2. Col. 2» Based on monthly income data as published in U, S, Eept. of Commerce, Survey of Current Business » Monthly issues and revisions. Col, 3! Column 1 divided by column 2. Col, \x\ Table 6, column 2 divided by column 7 of preceding year. Col. 5s Table 6, column 2 divided by column 7 for same year. i — ! > i 1 ■. ■ t. • . , ■ ; ! "■■ ■ • O.d ■,»■-■ • ■ i ■ • * 1 J ■ ■ T ; J "( II 1 . - ■ ■ i Q ro - ! .'. . - .Li' 1 r i ■ • ■ - . \ , i ' ■ \ i - '* • • ■■ 1 — ■ - - '. r iiO.. I TABLE 12 California Canned Cling Peaches Multiple Regression (Least Squares) Equations and Auxiliary Constants (1924-25 to 1951-52, Excluding 1941-42 to 1946-4?) Equa- Depend ent Independent variable sf;/ tion No. vari- ablef:/ Constant X2 logX^ X4 ] ^5 ^7 R net regression coefficients, vith their corresponding t-ratios in parentheses and beta coefficients in brackets 1 Xl -12 . 546544 -0.165791 ( 4.150204) [-0.456888] 8.795729 (17.745819 [ 1.9153*+1] 0.020649 (6.573821) [0.828945] 0.975 2 ^1 - 0.028735 -0.157817 ( 3.9^5067) [-0.434914] 0.753501 (0.736765) [o.l64o8i] 0.055952 (6.689227) [1.076505] 0.975 3 h -12.73^+^55 -0.167645 ( 4.013719) [-0.461998] 8.881282 (14.027351) [ 1.933971] 0.020912 (6.100146) [0.839500] 0.010688 (0.227416) [0.014215] 0.973 ^1 -Ld. .oyyooo -0.167898 ( 3.988305) [-0.462695] 8.875514 (14.145272) [ 1.932715] 0.020800 (6.300203) [0.835014] 0.000707 (0.217697) [0.014050] n Q'7'i 5 ^1 -12.698562 -0.164385 ( 3.933525) [-0.453014] 8.847249 (14.983710) [ 1.926560] 0.020881 (5.971650) [0.838242] 0.000678 (0.172731) [0.011278] 0.973 6 ^1 - 7.298782 -0.193359 ( 5.211035) [-0.532860] 8.985765 (17.818401) [ 1.956723] -0.000118 ( 6.698000) [-0.799536] 0.975 (Continued on next page.) ro . .i . Table 12 continued. ... , j Equation No. Dependent variable^:/ Independent variablesf;/ - Constant X2 logX^O 1 ^11 ^ R net regression coefficients, t-ratios m parentheses j and beta coefficients in brackets 1 7 ^1 - 8.897763 -0.195426 ( 4.937304) [-0.5385563 -0.000143 ( 7.265389) [-0.970461] 10.158878 (16.662804) [ 2.113395] 0.972 8 ^1 -13.163448 -0.153483 ( 3.761821) [-0.422970] 8.942665 (17.851122) [ 1.860381] 0.022261 (7.615164) [0.850345] 0.974 L Independent variables^:/ Equation No. Dependent , variable-' Constant logX^ logx^^ R 9 logX-L 1.920994 -0.376174 ( 3.413930) [-0.391223] -0.657144 ( 6.456612) [-0.883532] 1.050602 (14.172448) [ 1.810717] 0.957 10 logX^ - 3.799934 -0.269983 ( 2.883304) [-0.280784] 1.184033 (17.293769) [ 2.040687] 1.214587 (8.585503) j [1.190621] 0.973 (Continued on next page.) • -■ • • • f" V'"' r- ! • ' — * ■a '•' 1 -J- , - Table 12 continued. Equation No. Dependent , variable^/ Independent variablesf:/ Constant logXg logX^ logXj^ logXg logX^ R net regression coerricients, t-ratios in parenttieses and beta coefficients in brackets 11 logX^ -3.670558 -0.294241 ( 3.179647) [-0.306012] 1.176199 (16.075619) [ 2.121938] 1.171821 (7.631864) [1.206547] 0.972 12 logX^ .-V 1.1. r~ r— r— F -3.445575 -0.290058 ( 3.146232) [ 0.301662] 1.125995 (13.034391) ( 2.031367] 1.106079 (6.723956) [1.138856] -0.017985 ( 1.080562) [ 0.066304] 0.973 13 logX^ 1.741865 -0.368902 ( 3.643745) [-0.383660] 0.949615 (15.500108) [ 1.713167] -0.573729 ( 6.349133) [-0.771381] 0.964 a/ Specification of variables: X-j^ = F.o.b. price of California canned cling peaches (choice 24 No. 2-l/2), in dollars per case (Table 1^ column 1) . X2 = Canners' domestic shipments of California canned cling peaches, in millions of cases, 24 No. 2-l/2 basis (Table 1, column 2) . X^ = Index of United States nonagricultural income, 1947-1949^100 (Table 11, column 2) . = Index of competing canned fruit prices, adjusted by index of United States nonagricultural income, 1947-1949=100 (Table 11, column 3) . X^ = Weighted average price relatives of competing canned fruits, 1947-1949=100 (Table 4, column 2) . Xg = Canners' carry-over of cling peaches at beginning of marketing year, in millions of cases, 24 No. 2-l/2 basis (Table 6, coliomn 2) . X^ = Canners' carry-over of cling peaches at beginning cf marketing year, as per cent of shipments in year just closed, in per cent (Table 11, column 4) . ro (Continued on next page.) • I 1 To.-> '' •».r..'- . i I -■T , ''^ • • ^,->_^ I 1 ■ I • ■ ! i , , , ■ \ i 1 1 X 1 J ■) 4 ■ t ■ t 'i i ■i L , 1 . . , 1 . ■ . i 1 4 1 -J Table 12 continued. Xq = Canners' carry-over of cling peaches at beginning of marketing year, as per cent of shipments in year just beginning, in per cent (Table 11, column 5) • Xq = Canners' domestic shipments of competing canned fruits, thousands of cases, 2k No. 2-l/2 basis ^ (Table 5, column 8) . X^Q = Index of United States disposable personal income, 1947-19^^100 (Table 1, column 3) . ^11 ~ I^evised index of competing canned fruit prices, adjusted by index of United States disposable personal income, 1947-19^5^100 (Table 1, column k) . ■■'O •iig63ft;-ot /p;!- r^:v^•r-r^- v-'r.\f^ rrr-^ ^-.LA^ v,-r: • ■ -r- - •7 27 FIGURE 1 Average Net Relation of Cling Peaches F.O.B. Price (Choice 2|) to: A, Domestic Shipments of Cling Peaches j B, United States Disposable Income; C, Competing Canned Fruit Prices. (For period 192h-2$ to 1951-52, excluding 19iil-U2 to 19li6-U7^ ^ (D 0 CO 01 «I (D O Ph Xr> = Canners' Domestic Shipments of Cling Peaches (million cases, 2h No. 2^ basis) or Figure 1 continued. 28 ^1 = Index of Competing Canned Fruit Prices (19U7-19U9 = 100) I