Oivltien of Agricultural Scitncti UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LEMONS-FRESH AND PRODUCTS- ECONOMIC PROBLEMS, PRACTICES AND POLICIES Sidney S. Hoos CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION GIANNINI FOUNDATION OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS Mimeograph Report No. 190 July 1956 University of California Division of Agricultural Sciences Agricultural Experiment Station Berkeley, California LEMONS— FRESH MD PRODUCTS- ECONOMIC PROBLEMS, PRACTICES, AND POLICIES Sidney Hoos Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics Mimeographed Report No. I90 J LEMONS—FRESH MD PRODUCTS- ECONOMIC PROBLEMS, PRACTICES, MD POLICIES Sidney Hoos^^ i LEMONS— FRESH MD PRODUCTS- ECONOMIC PROBLEMS, PRACTICES, AND POLICIES Sidney Hoos^^ T able . of ont ents Pag_e Preface • • Introduction 1 Some Facts About the Lemon Industry ...... ....... h Production ..... .«.. h Acreage » ^ Yield 7 Interaction Between Bearing Acreage and Yield . . 7 Utilization of the Crop , 8 Consumption H Lemon Products Imports 12 F.O.B. Prices of Fresh Lemons . 13 On-Tree Returns of Fresh and Processed Lemons ..... 15 Some Problems of the Lemon Industry 18 New and Potential Plantings 19 Market Demands for Lemons and Lemon Products 28 Juice Products Market Potential • Ul Operation of the Lemon Products Marketing Order $6 Surveying the Lemon and Lemon Products Situation . 73 1/ Professor of Agricultural Economics, Economist in the Agricultural Ex- periment Station and on the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, Berkeley. ii Li_st_qf __Table 3 Table Page 1 World Lemon Production 81 2 Production of Lemons, Selected Foreign Countries 82 3 California Lemon Production by Major Producing Counties .... 83 h California Lemon Nonbearing Acreage, Selected Counties 8U 5 California Lemon Bearing Acreage, Selected Counties ...... 86 6 California Lemon Acreage Planted During Indicated Years and Standing in 195U 88 7 Lemon and Lime Trees Moved from Florida Nurseries to Florida Destinations ......... 89 8 Lemon Trees Moved from Florida Nurseries to Florida Destinations .... 90 9 Florida Lemons, Percentage Distribution of Kind of Rootstock by Scion Variety, July 1, 195Wune 30, 1955 • • 92 10 California Lemon Yields, Major Producing Counties 93 11 California Acreage, Yield, and Production of Lemons > 9h 12 Average Size of California-Arizona Lemons Sold as Fresh Fruit 96 13 Size Distribution of California-Arizona Fresh Lemons 97 lli Utilization of California Lemons 98 15 California-Arizona Industry Shipments of Lemons and Percentage Shipped Fresh . 99 16 Production and Utilization of California Lemons and United States Lemon-Juice Imports 100 17 On-Tree Value of California Fresh and Processed Lemons 101 18 United States Per-Capita Consmption Disappearance of Fresh Lemons and United States Per-Capita Availability of Lemon-Juice Products 102 19 United States Per-Capita Production for Consumption of Lemon-Juice Products, Adjusted for Imports 103 20 United States Consumption Disappearance of Selected Beverages 1*^5 t « » iii Table Page 21 Utilization of California-Arizona Lemons 106 22 Production and Utilization of California-Arizona Lemons .... 10? 23 United States Imports of Processed Lemon Products ....... 108 2h United States Exports of Fresh Lemons and Limes by Areas of Destination ..... 109 25 Lemons and Lemon Products, Rates of Duty Under the United States Tariff Act of 1930 and Trade Agreements with Applicable Tariff Paragraph ........... 110 26 Average F.O.B. Prices of Fresh Shipments of California-Arizona Lemons ..... Ill 27 Packs of California Lemon-Juice Products in Various Forms 112 28 United States Production of Laaon Oil 113 29 Consumer Household Purchases of Lemons and Lemon Products ......... liU 30 Average Monthly Prices Paid by Consumers for Lemons and Lemon Products . 115 31 Estimated Cost Per Packed Box of Producing and Marketing California-Arizona Lemons Il6 1 ' • " ? Go.;: iv Pr eface In response to requests from the California Lemon Products Advisory Board and various participants in the citrus industries, the economic status of the lemon industry was investigated with particular reference to the situation in lemon products and the working of the lemon products marketing order operating under the authority of the California Director of Agriculture. This report is a result of the investigation. The studies underlying the investigation are based on economic and statis- tical analyses of available data and marketing inforraation. Much of such data was obtained from the industry organizations. In that respect appreciation is gratefully acknowledged to M. D, Street and F. I. Burrill of Sunkist Growers, Inc., and R. L. MacRae and M. I. Brorvn of the Lemon Products Advisory Board. F. Bennett, Associate Chief, Bureau of Markets, California Department of Agri- culture, and E. B. Pirtle, formerly'- economist in the Bureau of Markets, were helpful in connection with providing records on the development and operation of the lemon products marketing order. Considerable market information and personnel viewpoints concerning the industry were obtained from various indi- viduals in the trade j they must remain unnamed, although acknowledgment is gratefully recorded. The writer is happy to acknowledge with appreciation the aid he has re- ceived in the investigation. He himself, however, must bear the responsibility for the substantive findings, views, and inferences as presented in the report. In the preparation of the report, the author was aided by Chaim Mendelsohn in the compilation of certain dataj and acknowledgment is also given for the typing of the several drafts and the preparation of the stencils by the Giannini Foundation Stenographic Pool under the direction of Mrs. Viola Jank, LMIONS—FRESH AND PRODUCTS— ECONOfflC PROBLEMS, PRACTICES, AND POLICIES Intrgduction The lemon industry, in recent years, has been experiencing some new de- velopments. They include economic as we].l as technological changes. These changes in conjunction with industry operations have resulted in various prob- lems facing those engaged in the growing, shipping, and distributing of lemons and lemon products. The nature of some of these problems and their intensity differs among the various participants in the lemon industry. But certain problems are common to the industry at large, although they have differential short-run and long-run iiipacts on growers, processors, and distributors. Each participating organization and firm in the lemon industry may well be expected to view and judge industry policy and operations in light of its own interests. The organizational structure of the lemon industry— fresh and products— provides a setting whereby the interests of one firm or group of firms are different from the interests of another firm or group of firms. Yet, such a mixture of interests is not unique to the lemon industry. It is a com- mon characteristic of many industry, industrial as well as agricultural, in our economy. The view taken in this report is that its concern is with the lemon indus- try at large. The role or position of particular firms, organizations, or groups of firms is not here considered or evaluated. To do otherwise, would not only be presumptuous In light of the economic and market information avail- able but would also be contrary to the intent of the investigation on which the report is based. The current and prospective econoriiic status of the lemon in- dustry in the aggregate thus provides the general framework of the discussion set forth in the following sections. This does not mean, however, the issues • a sob 2. and developments considered in the report are of no direct concern to indi- vidual firms or organizations. On the contrary, the issues and developments are of such nature that they cut across the interests of all participants in the lemon industry. Each firm or group, however, may consider its awn posi- tion and outlook in light of the over-all industry developments discussed and evaluated here. The structure of the report includes three main sections following this introduction. The first main section, "Some Facts About the Lemon Industry," briefly summarizes certain basic economic trends and developments with which familiarity is necessary as background for the succeeding sections of the re- port. That section, hence, may be skipped over Idghtly or even skipped en- tirely by those well familiar with the industry; those readers less familiar with the basic economic trends of the lemon industry, however, may find the first main section informative in substance as well as for background. The second main section of the report is titled "Some Problems of the Lemon Industry." The discussion there first includes consideration of the economic impact of new and potential plantings of lemons, particularly in terms of the interactions between the fresh and products utilizations. Next are con- sidered the determination and measurement of factors affecting the market de- mands for fresh lemons and products. There, particular attention is given to their interrelations and the question of consumption competition between fresh lemons and juice products. Next is considered the market potential for lemon- juice products, with projections set forth in light of changing population, income, and consumer preferences. Then is considered the California marketing order for lemon products. The discussion is concerned with the operation of the order in relation to its stated objectives. Long-run as well as short-run economic effects are considered, Certa3.n aspects of the relationships between 3. and interactions among the fresh lemon and products markets are discussed as they bear upon the operation of the order. The final section of the report, "Surveying the Lemon and Lemon Products Situation," reviews the lemon industry's economic status. With the earlier sections as background, an over-all look is taken at the situation in the lemon industry. Various topics developed in the previous sections are integrated in terms of their implications and indications for the economic status of the fresh lemon and products industry. Aside from the obvious comment that the report does not consider all of the questions and problems facing the lemon industry, it may be noted that the topics which are discussed were selected for particular reasons. These include reactions from various individuals in the industry and perplexing questions facing them, as well as the author's judgment of the type of report and discus- sion which might aid the industry in its consideration of the current and prospective situation as it bears upon the formulation of industry practices and policies. Some Facts About the Lemon Industry In this section we review various industry trends in light of some sig- nificant facts they bring forth bearing on the situation. Those readers not closely familiar with the lemon industry may gain insight into the current situation from a review of the pertinent trends j but those readers who are familiar with the industry and are well aware of its developments may either scan this section to refresh their memories and obtain the setting for the following sections or they may turn directly to them. Production .— -First, xre shall consider the basic element, total production of lemons in California. For year-by-year detail, reference is made to the appendix tables. The significant features of the trend, however, are outlined in the following summary table: Crop year Calif orn3.a production standard cars, hot boxes per car Five-year average; 19UO-i4l to 19UU-U5 19ii5-ii6 to 191^9-50 1950-51 to l95i4-55 33,202 30,837 33,913 Annual: 1950- 51 1951- 52 1952- 53 33,005 31,527 31,03U 39,655 3li,U83 a/ Preliminary. Source: Based on data in Table 16, column 1, These data indicate that, during the past decade and a half, there has been no noticeably significant trend in total production of lemons. There have 5 been the usual annual fluctuations, but they have occurred around an average trend line which has been pretty nearly horizontal, perhaps rising very slightly in recent years. The five-year-average production of 33,913 standard cars (U06 boxes per car) during 19^0-51 to 195U-55, inclusive, is largely the result of the heavy production in 19SJ>-Sh which was the second largest on record (next only to 19U0-U1). If we adjust the 19U0-U1 to 19UU-lj.5 average for the year 191+0-10-, we obtain an average of 30,911 standard carsj and if we adjust the 19^0-51 to 1951i-55 average for the year 1953-5ii, we obtain 32,ii77 standard cars of produc- tion. Thus, there is some evidence of the production trend tilting up slightly in the past several years. From the production figures alone, one cannot de- rive a basis of estj.mating whether the upward tilt is of a temporary or more permanent nature. For such basis we must turn to the determinants of produc- tion—acreage and yield. Acreage,— To obtain a complete picture of the lemon acreage trend, we should survey the annual figures for a decade or a decade and a half. This cannot be done with sufficient accuracy for our purpose because of the nature of the published data on bearing acreage. The annual data on bearing acreage beginning with 19l;9-50 are not comparable with earlier years because of an in- dustry survey on a revised basis in 19U8-)49, Hence, to deal with comparable data, we consider the following acreage data since 1950-^1 as recorded by the Lemon Administrative Committee which administers the federal marketing order for fresh lemons under the authority of the United States Secretary of Agricul- ture: hi 6. Crop year Bearing acreage Nonbearing acreage Total acreage acres 1950-51 58.239 5,683 63.922 1951-52 59,138 5,756 1952-53 58,U53 5,372 63,825 1953-5ii 57,160 6,679 63,839 195U-55 56,575 6,932 63,507 Source: Table U, column 11, and Table 5, column 11. These data suggest that, during the past five years, lemon bearing acre- age in California has decreased somewhat. The decline has not been significant, about 3 per cent between 1950-51 and 195U-55. But if the trend were to con- tinue, the annual effects could accumulate into a significant change during a relatively brief period. Iilhen we look at California nonbearing acreage during the past five years, we see a tendency toward increase, but this tendency is due to what occurred during only that past several years. Through 1952-53, nonbearing acreage trended down, but in 1953-5U turned up rather sharply and again increased in 195U-55. When the final figure for nonbearing acreage in 1955-56 is available, one may suspect that it will show a further increase. The question of nonbear- ing and newly planted acreage will be considered further in more detail in the following section. Due to the generally opposite tendencies in bearing and nonbearing acreage during the past five years, total lemon acreage has changed relatively slightly. The decrease between 1950-51 and 195)4-55 is only about UOO acres. Thus, for practical purposes, one may premise that total acreage of lemons in California 7. has changed, in net terms, hardly at all during the most recent five years. Whether an increase in total acreage Trri.ll be reflected during the next five years or so depends on whether new plantings will overbalance pulling s. On the other hand, there presently seem to be no obvious reasons why total acre- age Tri.ll trend down appreciably. Yield . — ^We now turn to yield as another determinant of production. The recent trend in California lemon yieldi^ per bearjjig acre is outlined in the following table: Crop year Yield packed boxes per bearing acre 1950-51 230 1951-52 216 1952-53 216 1953-5U 282 195U-55 2hh Source: Based on data in Table 5> column 11, and Table 11, column 7. These data indicate how widely yield has varied within a brief period of five years from a low of 216 in 1951-52 and 1952-53 to a high of 282 packed boxes per bearing acre in 1953-5U. But this is not a new phenomenon. Wide variation in yields has not been unusual in California lemon production. Int eraction Bet ween Beari ng Acreage and Yield . --With a relatively stable bearing acreage in recent years, the variation in yield has resulted in the variation in production. The very large crop in for example, was due to the much increased yield of that year. Tae interaction among California 1/ The yield figures in the tabulation following in the text are based on industry production divided by bearing acreage Tri.th the latter used as recorded by the Lemon Administrative Committee. 8. lemon production, bearing acreage, and yield may well be noted Ti*ien the data are presented as follows: Crop year Production Bearing acreage Yield indexes, 1950-51 = 100 19^0-51 100.0 100.0 100.0 1951-52 95.5 101.5 93.9 1952-53 9U.0 100. U 93.9 1953-5U 120.1 98.1 122.6 lOU.l 97.1 106.1 Source: Based on data in Table S> column 11, and Table 11, column 7. The preceding indexes show how, with a relatively stable bearing acreage in recent years, the year-to-year changes in production have been generally correlated xriLth the year-to-year changes in yield. In other terms, the yield in a recent particular year has in large degree determined the level of produc- tion. The importance of this lies in the fact that, since yields can be ex- pected to vary from year to year and widely so in some years, production may also be expected to fluctuate from year to year and considerably so in some years. This volatile nature of yield, and its resulting effect on production, will be referred to again in the following section dealing m.th current prob- lems facing the lemon industry. Utilization of the Crop . — Because of their significant role in the utiliza- tion of lemon production, we next consider fresh shipments. These fresh ship- ments break down into several major categories: interstate, intrastate, and export. Since conventional practice in the industry is to group exports to 9 Canada with domestic interstate shipments, such procedure is followed in the summary below which outlines the Calif ornia- Arizona domestic fresh shipping situation in recent years: Total domestic shipments TIni+.pd S+.a+.pc! Ppr* r»pn+*. of* and Canada total utilization standard cars^ h.06 boxes per car per cent Annual average: 19U0-U1 to 19Uii-U5 22,175 71.6 19U5-i;6 to 19U9-$0 2O,U50 67.6 1950-51 to l95ii-55 19,U73 57.0 Annuali 1950-51 19,711 59.3 1951-52 20,108 61.5 1952-53 19,285 61.U 1953-5il 19,322 U7.0 195U-55 18,939 5U.6 Source: Based on data in Table 15. Taking fresh shipments to the United States and Canada as they occurred, we find a slight downward trend. During the viar years, fresh shipments were at a relatively higher level, but there occurred some down trend in the im- mediate postwar years. In the past five years, fresh shipments to the United States and Canada, however, have been comparatively stable^-about 19,000 to 20,000 standard cars annually. This stability in fresh shipments resulted primarily from "man-made" allocation to the fresh market in conjunction with the federal marketing order for fresh lemons. The heavy production in 1953-5U noted earlier, for example, did not result in unusually large fresh shipraentsj rather, they were held near historical experience, and the greater than usual production was absorbed by the products outlet. 10 The second column of the preceding table shows shipments to the United States and Canada as a percentage of total production. The downward trend in percentage allocation to the domestic fresh market is clearly noticeable in the table. Of particular note is the situation in 19S3-'Sk reflecting the heavy absorption by the products outlet in that year as referred to previously. This is an extreme example of a significant point: in the face of variable production, fresh shipments have been held relatively stable with the residual supply being shunted to the products outlet. In this type of operation, the primary and active role has been allocation to the fresh outlet, with the sec- ondary and passive role being played by the products outlet as the recipient of "surplus" not shipped fresh. In other terms, the products outlet has been used as a "shock absorber" of the impact from variable production and supply. A clearer picture of the California-Arizona lemon crop utilization in recent years may be gleaned from tlie following table: Fresh shipments Crop year Inter- stated/ Intra- state Exportb/ Total Ship for processing Elimi- nation Total per cent 1950-^1 53.U 5.9 2.1 61. U 37.7 0.9 100 1951-52 55.7 5.8 3.0 6h.$ 3U.il 1.1 100 1952-53 55.9 5.6 3.6 65.1 3h.h 0.5 100 1953-51* U2.6 h.h 5.0 52.0 U7.2 0.8 100 l95ii-55 U9.6 5.0 - - - - 10.5 65.1 3li.l 0.8 100 a/ Includes Canada, b/ Excludes Canada. Source: Based on data in Table 21. 11 Consumption . —In view of the relative trends in fresh shipments and prod- ucts utilization sketched above, it is here appropriate to consider consump- tion. For purposes at hand, it is of significance to compare consmption be- havior in fresh lemons and lemon- juice products. Such comparison is summarized in the following table: United States per-capita consumption of lemons and lemon- juice products Crop year Fresh lemons Lemon-juice products^:/ Total pounds pounds, fresh equivalent pounds Annual average: 193S-39 to I9li0-Ul 19Ul-it2 to 19k$-h6 19li6-U7 to 1950-51 1951-52 to 19S3-Sh U.8 h,2 3.6 0.2 0.6 1.0 2.1 k.e 5.U 5.2 5.7 Annual: 19^6-51 1951- 52 1952- 53 1953- 51i 195U-55 3.9 3.8 3.6 3.6 3.5 l.li 2.0 2.2 2.1 2.U 5.3 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.9 a/ Based on production for consumption of lemon- juice products " adjusted for imports. Source: Based on data in Table 18. The down trend in fresh lemon consumption, per capita, was relieved dur- ing the war years but thereafter continued. The decline between the 1938-19^0 and 1951-1953 averages was about 10 per cent. Aside from consumer preferences which may have undergone change, the rapidly increasing population and its changing age distribution affected the per-capita figures. But in contrast, the lemon- juice products rate advanced substantially, particularly in the more recent years. 12. IiJhen fresh lemons and juice products are combined, including the absorp- tion of juice-products imports, the per-capita rate reveals an up trend dur- ing the past two decades. But during the past three or four years, the over- all per-capita consumption rate has been stable at about 5.8 pounds per capita per year, with a slight decrease in the rate for fresh lemons being offset by a corresponding increase in the rate for lemon- juice products. Lemon Produ c ts Imports .— Because of the role and position of lemon prod- ucts imports, to be referred to again later, here it is relevant to outline their recent situation. The importation of lemon products is not a new phe- nomenon. There is a long record of lemon products imports Into the United States. But in recent years, there has occurred a shift in the type of lemon products coming into the country. Lemon oil now enters in much less volume than 25 or 30 years agoj and citric acid which at one time entered in large volume has practically ceased in recent years. Lemon peel, crude, has a vari- able import history but in the past two years record-level imports entered. Lemon peel, candied, during the 1920' s and 1930 's was imported in substantial volume but during the past five years has averaged much less. A significant change has occurred in concentrated lemon- juice imports. The situation there, as well as for the other lemon products, is shown for the postwar years in the following tabulation which outlines the United States im- ports of processed lemon products: I 13. Lemon peel Lemon juice Calendar year Lemon oil Citric acid Crude Candied Concen- tratedi:/ Uncon- centrated thousanc pounds thousand gallons 19U6 71 0 182 0 0 0 19U7 51 0 681 1 0 0 19U3 2U2 0 50 2h 2 0 19li9 iBh 0 200 3 387 2 1950 209 11 587 3 733 3 1951 292 0 1U6 1 BU7 8 1952 37 0 561 10 67h 3 1953 lli^ 0 1,897 2 1,799 0 I95ii 106 0 1,9U2 6 2,U06 0 a/ The imports of concentrated lemon juice are shown in terms of single- strength equivalent gallons # Source: Based on data in Table 23 « The very sharply increased level of concentrated lemon- juice imports is, per- haps, the outstanding feature of the changing import situation in lemon prod- ucts. Its significance lies in its impact on the lemon- juice products market discussed in a following section. Here, we note and underline the recent upward trend in imports of concentrated lemon juice, F.O.B. Prices of Fresh Lemons . — Before considering the relative returns from fresh and processed lemons, as part of the background, we briefly review the contrasting f.o.b. prices in winter and summer fresh lemons outlined in the folloxiring tabulations Period, F.o.b, prices of fresh lemons Excess of average annual average for indicated periods Average winter price Average summer price summer price over average winter price dollars per packed box 1925-1929 3.88 h.70 0.32 1930-193U 2.81 3.95 l.lh 1935-1939 3.31 3.66 0.35 19iiO-19iiU 3.83 U.31 0.1^8 19ii5-19ii9 5.5ii 5.72 0.18 1950-195ii 5.92 6.06 O.lit 1950-51 5.82 5.88 0.06 1951-52 6.06 6.67 0.61 1952-53 5.93 6.52 0.59 l953-5ii 6.10 5.75 -0.35 195U-55 5.67 5.1i7 -0.20 Source: Based on data in Table 26. First may be noted that the general trends in the f.o.b. prices of winter and summer fresh lemons have been somewhat similar and that the year-to-year changes in both series have generally been in the same direction. But the av- erage differential between the winter and summer prices appears to have been undergoing somex'fhat of a change. There is evident some tendency for the spread between the winter and sum- mer prices to narrow? such tendency has occurred to such an extent that during the years 1953-5U and 195U-55 the average winter price exceeded the average summer price, a situation opposite from that which "normally" prevailed in earlier years. Whether the trend in the differential between the summer and 15. winter f.o.b, prices of fresh lemons reflects a dampening of demand for fresh summer lemons relative to fresh winter lemons is not fully clear. Such an in- terpretation may have a substantive basis. But the e3q)lanation cannot be framed wholly in terms of the impact of lemon-juice products on the fresh lemon market because the trend in the changing price differential is evident before juice products obtained their prominence of recent years. The most one might infer is that the impact of juice products has reinforced a trend which already pre- vailed. On-Tree Returns of Fresh and Processed Lemo ns. — Novj, we turn to the rela- tive on-tree returns of fresh and processed lemons. It is returns or value at the on-tree level which are of basic concern to growers. The historical record of on-tree prices is summarized as follows: Crop year On-tree returns of fresh and processed lemons Fresh shipments Processed dollars per packed box Annual average; 1925-2Fto 1929-30 2.8ii 0.31 1930-31 to 193U-35 2.21 0.05 1935-36 to 1939-UO 2.18 0.28 19U0-i|l to 19UU-1;5 2.39 0.19 19i;5-U6 to 19l;9-50 3.21 0.10 Annual: 1950-51 3.21 0.2U 1951-52 3.69 0.77 1952-53 3.71 1.98 1953-5U , 3.38 0.ii5 l951;-55^ 3.01 -0.18 a/ Preliminary. Source: Based on data in Table 17. 16. The above summary clearly outlines the general situation xjhere growers have found and necessarily relied upon the fresh market as the mainstay of their lemon crop income. Yet, the increased returns from the products outlets beginning in 19k9"$0 and continuing on at a higher level than in the earlier years until 19Bh-5S, particularly the record processed return in 1952-53, at- tracted unprecedented attention to lemons for processing. The increased re- turns from processing lemons during 19k9-^0 to 19$3-^h stemmed more from the greater production of higher valued lemon products than from the increased volume of lemons processed. The relative on-tree total lemon returns from the fresh and processed out- lets may further be contrasted by the data in the following summary tabulation: Crop year Total on-tree value Fresh as per cent of total value Fresh Processed million dollars per cent Annual average: 19l40-iil to 19lili-U5 21.7 0.8U 96.0 19U5-U6 to 19U9-50 27.3 o.oh 99.0 Annual: 19U9-50 26.8 ii.2 86.5 1950-51 26.6 1.2 95.7 1951-52 31.0 3.U 90.1 1952-53 30,h 8.7 77.7 1953-5U , 28.7 3.U 89.it 1951;-55^ 27. U -0.8 103. li a/ Preliminary. Source: Table 17. Here, again, is evident the highly favorable position taken by returns from processed products during a number of recent years, particularly 19li9-50, 1951-52, 1952-53, and 1953-5it. But in 195U-55 the situation returned closer 17. to the more usual one which prevailed prior to 19k9'$0. It is this type of interaction between the fresh and products markets, and their relative returns, which is a focal point of reference and interest in the following sections for which the materials summarized hereto serve as background. 18. Some Problems of the Lemon Industry To provide a bird's-eye view of the statistical picture vihlch may serve as a brief recapitulation of the facts sketched in tlie previous section and also serve as a theme around which this section may be developed, the following tabulation on production and utilization of lemons is here presented: United Total juice Juice sales States sales from Total Cali- from do- imports domestic Marketing fornia-Arizona Sold fresh mestic pro- of juice and import year production Domestic a/ I Export duction products sources thousand standard carloads—fresh e quivalent basis, U06 1 Doxes per car 19U8-U9 25.6 19.3 .217 U.3OI O.32U U.625 19U9-50 25.8 17.9 .250 6.111 0.609 6.750 1950-51 33.2 19.7 .697 5.813 0.687 6.500 1951-52 32.7 20.1 1.003 9.313 0.585 9.898 1952-53 31.U 19.3 1.121 9.1;38 1.U81 10.919 1953-51; , Ul.l 19.3 2.053 8.813 2.011 10.82li 195U-55^ 3li.7 18.9 3.662 10.500 2.0]4l 12. 5U a/ Includes Canada, b/ Excludes Canada, c/ Preliminary. Source: Based on data in Tables 16, 21, and 22. The data in the above table reflect a large number of influences. Among them the following are selected for consideration in this section, in view of their significance for the current and prospective development of the lemon in- dustry: new and potential plantings of lemon acreage in the California-Arizona desert area and Florida as well as importations from foreign production; mar- ket relationships between fresh lemons and lemon products; the longer term mar- ket potentials for lemon- juice products; and consideration of the lemon products marketing order and its operation. 19. New and Potential. Plantings .— Along with the improved returns to lemon growers in some of the recent years compared with the earlier ones, consider- able interest was generated in new plantings of lemon acreage. The higher level of on-tree returns from fresh shipments during the 19^0-51 to 1953-5U period, particularly in conjunction with unprecedented levels of on-tree re- turns from lemons used in products, attracted much attention. Many who had not previously considered lemons as a production alternative began to give serious attention to the crop, and some went forward vrlth plantings. As a re- sult of the situation, rumors of new plantings not only in Arizona but also in parts of California and in Florida "ran wild." With little substantive basis, many "statistics" of new lemon acreage and plantings circulated in the industry. Rumor fed on rumor. And beneath this situation, which at times approached hysterical proportions, was a real fear in the minds of many established grow- ers that, in the matter of a few years, the potential production of lemons would lead to ruinous returns to many producers. To investigate the factual situation and to analyze its impact on the industry, a review of the develop- ment of new acreage and plantings as a basis for potential production is neces- sary. In the consideration of lemon production which may be viewed as potentially new sources of supply for the fresh market as well as for products, the follow- ing areas are considered in turn: Yuma Mesa of Arizona, Salt River Valley of Arizona, Florida, desert area of California, certain foreign countries, and finally the historically important lemon-producing area of Califomia, The Yuma Mesa of Arizona, a recognized citrus area, has contrasting high- temperature summer months and relatively cold periods in the winter months. As part of the desert area, the Yuma is characterized by sandy soil which does not hold water well. Yet, with irrigation developments, water is not in short sup- ply and the cost of irrigation water likely averages less per acre per year than in California lemon-producing areas. 20. The new plantings of lemons in the Yxxma are in large part on acreage that otherwise would likely be used for alfalfa as an alternative, and perhaps some acreage could go to early grapes. Due to Arizona state regulation which re- quires Arizona-grown nursery stock, the limitation of its supply in several past years probably slowed down plantings. It has been reported that most of the recent Arizona plantings have been of the Lisbon variety on rough lemon rootstock. When an attempt is made to tie down in specific terms the extent of new plantings in recent years, it is difficult to separate hearsay from facts. No firm data are available. An acreage and age of trees survey is now in process, and it is expected that in the autumn of 1956 results of the survey will be available. After evaluating a substantial number of "informative reports," it appears that on the Yuma Mesa there are now about 3,000 acres of lemon trees in total of which only about 200 acres are as much as ten years old and about another 300 acres between five and ten years old.'^ As to the production potential in the Yuma, no one really knows. With adequate and relatively inexpensive water, adaptable soil, and appropriate tem- peratures, the physical base for much expanded production may well exist, A tripling of new acreage could accumulate within a decade if the economic in- centive prevails. But the Yuma lemon crop is harvested once a year in the late fall and early winter, and many think of the crop as one planted primarily with lemon products in view as the market outlet. Thus, one may infer, from such grounds, that the interest in further plantings in the Yuma may be related to the economic status of the lemon products market. 1/ Acknowledgment is gratefully expressed for the informative observations from C. W. Van Horn, Associate Horticulturist, Yuma Experiment Station, Uni- versity of Arizona, 21. The Salt River Valley of Arizona has also attracted attention where new plantings of lemon trees have been occurring. The water situation there is probably less favorable than in the Yuma. The main sources of water include the Salt River, gravity flow contained behind a series of dams, and water pumped from wells. Since the water table has been falling, the cost of water pumped from wells, especially deep ones, has been increasing in recent years. Weather conditions in the Salt River Va].ley area are highly variable con- sidering the extent of the acreage involved. Daily changes in ten^jerature are fairly substantial, and not infrequently in some sections frost protection is required at times. Hot, dry weather in the summer and prewinter months requires substantial application of water. Frost damage occurs irregularly and scattered as in I9U9 and 19^0 as well as in 19^3 and 19$k» During the past several years, the use of orchard heaters and wind machines has increased. Present acreage of lemons in the Arizona Salt River Valley is estimated at about 1,100 acres out of a total of about 15,000 acres of citrus. As in the Yuma, the lemon crop is harvested once a year during the October-December period. Some observers express the view that, with respect to new citnis plantings in ihe Salt River Valley, more land will be planted to oranges than to lemons, Yet^ the curtailment of cotton production in the Valley could accelerate interest in lemons as one of the alternatives. Where citrus has been replaced by top-worked lemons, it appears to have been grapefruit, particularly in the warmer parts of the Valley, There is little question that, from the physical side, lemon acreage in the Salt River Valley can expand further and substantially so in relative terms. Yet, freeze damage is a real hazard, and the water situation cannot be ignored. In terras of returns close to those of, say, 1951-52 and 1952-53, however, in- ducement can well exist for further planting. With last year or this year as a 22. base for comparison, considering returns for products a primary outlet for the Valley crop, the inducement is much less attractive. For both the Yuma Mesa and Salt River Valley areas of Arizona, the physi- cal base for further plantings is clearly evident. The outcome depends on the situation with respect to potential earnings which are now considerably less than three or four years ago. Marketing problems rather than production prob- lems appear to be the major determinant of prospective planting intentions in Arizona. It is only in the past several years that Florida has attracted attention as a source of lemon supplies. This increased attention has coincided with the growth in the higher valued lemon products as concentrate for lemonade and has followed certain years when supplies for concentrated lemonade were light. In prior years it was recognized that Florida could grow lemons, although not varieties and qualities conventionally acceptable for commercial fresh shipment. But where product appearance and keeping quality is of minor importance and idiere other characteristics are of greater importance as for fruit destined only for processing right after harvest, Florida lemons could assume a differ- ent position. Their potential volume for use in products manufacture certainly cannot be dismissed lightly. Some indication of the augmented interest in lemon plantings in Florida during recent years is suggested by the following tabulation which shows lemon and lime trees moved from Florida nurseries to Florida destinations since 19h9SOt Year (July- June) Lemons Limes 1950- 51 1951- 52 1952- 53 1953- 5U number of trees 6,875 7,351 6,0U0 6,908 31,621 63,333 21,180 17,206 25,696 35,256 87,232 71,559 Source; Table 7. 23. These data reflect a relatively sharp increase in lemon plantings, particularly in 1953-5U and 19$h-S^. "Whether the up trend idll continue is not yet fully clear, but what is clear is that interest in lemon plantings has been excited in Florida, In the summer of 19$h, the federal citrus statistician in Florida is re- ported to have summarized the situation then along the following lines: There were (in 195U) only a very small number of producing lemon trees in Florida, although "much interest" was being shown in the crop and some 600 to 900 acres were planted the previous fall and winter, and also some budding on old stumps took place. He remarked, however, that although the "lemon deal looked hot" with California's large crop in 19Sh, it (the lemon deal in Florida) "may cool off." Other reports available indicate a feeling of certain interests active in Florida along the lines of "a veiled threat that they /^alifomia/ wouldn't enjoy this monopoly for too many years." Allegedly steps were in progress "to have produced a new lemon just fit for the processors." It is reported that some acreage of grapefruit was being budded to lemons. Although authoritative figures are difficult to obtain, it may be a reasonable estimate that as of now about 3,000 acres of new plantings of lemons are in Florida. It has been reported that this year some $0,000 boxes of Florida lemons will be processed into juice. It is reasonably clear that, from the view of physical ability, Florida can successfully grow lemons for processing for which they are best adapted not only because of their natural characteristics but also because they are a one- set crop which must be harvested during a relatively brief period. With the economic incentive pushing Florida growers, they could easily have 7,000 to 10,000 acres of new plantings within a few years. But last year and this year have not yielded the economic incentives of several previous years. Thus, in Florida as well as in Arizona, the production potential exists. 2lt. To aggregate the new domestic plantings of lemons outside of California in the past several years, the following tabulation of ranges is set forths Yuma Mesa of Arizona 3,000 to 3,500 acres Salt River Valley of Arizona 1,000 to 1,$00 acres Florida 2,500 to 3,500 acres 6,500 to 8,500 acres Thus, we arrive at a range of 6,500 to 8,500 acres with about 7,500 acres as a "likely" figure. This compares with about 7,000 acres nonbearing and about 57,000 acres bearing in California in ISSh-SS as reported by the Lemon Adminis- trative Committee. These conqiarative figures, by themselves, tell only part of the story. Since the new plantings and prospective production surveyed above are best adapted in terms of physical nature of the lemons produced for processing, the direct impact is on the processed products market for several reasons, includ- ing the important one that the flow of lemons into products is not controlled in Arizona or Florida as in California. Yet, important indirect effects can spill over into the fresh shipping market, also, because in terras of economic op- erations the fresh and processed markets are now closely interrelated and much more so than in the prewar and immediate postwar years. With respect to new plantings of lemons in the California desert area, there apparently has been much confusion. After considerable investigation, we have been able to locate only minor acreages which have in fact been planted "a few hundred acres." In specific terms about 600 acres, including nearly 100 acres from five to seven years old, can be docuraented. Yet, more than a few individuals apparently believe that more new lemon acreage is in prospect for the California desert area. 25. There seems to be reasonable agreement that water is no serious problem in the desert area under present conditions. With Colorado River water now in the desert area, there seems to be plentiful water at a reasonable charge. The thought is that there is room for considerable new development before water could be expected to come in as a limiting factor. Most observers agree that the cold winter temperature, with the resulting risk of freeze damage to the trees, is the major uncertainty and is likely to be the main limiting factor in new lemon development in the California desert area. (The extreme summer heat apparently is no problem.) Yet, there is dis- agreement as to how severe a limitation the risk of freeze damage places on the potential for lemon expansion in the area. For example, some observers are of the view that there are sufficient warm sections, as in the Goachella, where lemons can be groxm successfully to allow for a considerable expansion in that section. It may be noted that until relatively recently some soil specialists have maintained that the coarser sandy soils of the desert area were not suitable for citriculture , This view was presumably based on the idea that the coarser soils would permit too fast a rate of water seepage which would make for heavy leaching of fertilizer. With the abundance of cheap water, however, there seems to be no worry about water loss through seepage, and techniques of ferti- lizer application have apparently been developed which make for more efficient use of fertilizer. The lemons which have been planted on the coarser soils in Goachella apparently are doing rather well. Thus, there presumably is a sizable acreage of lighter soils which could be brought under cultivation with the water supply now available. With respect to crop alternatives in the desert area, in addition to lem- ons, mention may be made of grapefruit, grapes, vegetables (tomatoes, sweet corn, early beans, asparagus, carrots, lettuce, and melons), alfalfa, cotton, and 26. pasture. Presumably, grains are not excluded by physical considerations, al- though economic considerations put them rather low on the scale. In general the list of alternatives can likely be limited to those competing directly for the warmer soils as grapefruit, grapes, and vegetables produced for the early fresh market (early tomatoes, sweet corn, early beans, and maybe asparagus). Some observers speculate that livestock feeding could become more important in the desert area, with water available for pasture, and vrith hay being shipped into the area. As in the Arizona areas referred to above, California desert lemons are primarily "a one shot harvest deal," iidth the economic outlook depending a good deal on the strength of the lemon products market. Some observers ex- pressed the view that prospective growers are waiting and watching the plant- ings X'jhich have already been made in the desert. Barring extensive freeze damage in the near future and if the products market were to resume a highly favorable status, there could be relatively substantial expansion in lemon acre- age. But a severe freeze in the near future could dampen considerably the en- thusiasm for lemons. It may be that the single important physical factor is winter temperature, yet, there is uncertainty as to how serious a hazard is freeze damage in fact. When potential new plantings and production are considered, developments in foreign countries must not be neglected. The impact from such supplies on the domestic market can be direct and real. Such has already occurred to a not inconsequential degree on the domestic lemon products market as has been noted in a previous section dealing with imports. Italian production of lemons is new recorded at about 8,000,000 to 9,000,000 boxes annually. But in the middle 1920' s and early 1930' s, Italian production varied around 12,000,000 to 15,000,000 boxes a year and at times went higher. With the economic incentive at hand and our tariff structure and 27 trade policy trending as in recent years, Italian production could well increase and provide additional "export surplus" in the form of products destined for this market.^ In addition to Italy, leraons from Chile, Spain, and Turkey enter in world commerce. Development of lemon products facilities in such countries is not a matter to be discarded or taken lightly. The impacts from such poten- tialities are of direct concern to the outlook for the products market as a profitable or even a "break even" outlet for domestic-grown lemons. In consideration of potential production from new plantings of leraons, historically important producing counties in California as Ventura, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, San Bernardino, and Orange among others require attention. Under appropriate circumstances the potential of such areas can exceed the areas sur- veyed above. Reliable data on nonbearing acreage of lemons in California since 19$0-5l show a relatively substantial increase for the past two years. And to- tal lemon acreage in the state is now under the level of a decade earlier. These earlier levels can be regained if growers anticipate profitable opera- tions from such expansion. As one conservative observer commented, "if new potential acreage and production is the question at issue, we can expand plenty right here at home in the Coastal and other old areas faster and in greater ton- nage than most people realize— all we need is the promise of earnings," The thought there expressed has much to it, and with a series of profitable years in both the fresh and products markets, one can expect further increases in new plantings and nonbearing acreage in the established lemon-producing areas in the state. Moreover, lemons from such sources are not "one shot harvest deals" primarily for products but rather have direct impacts on both the fresh and products markets. 1/ J. Henry Burke estimated that by I96O-6I the Mediterranean area (Italy and Spain) will attain a production of 17,500,000 boxes of lemons compared with 10,300,000 boxes estimated for 1955-56 in that area. See, Burke, J. Henry, "Mediterranean Citrus Crop Outlook for the 1955-56 Season," Foreign Agriculttu'e Circular (Washington: Govt. Print. Off., October 26, 1955)^ (U. S. Department of Agriculture.) (FCF 5-55.) 28 Market Pemands f or_ Lemon s, _ffld_ Lern^^^ nature of the demands for fresh lemons and lemon products serves as one of the major connecting links between the production-marketing of the crop and the income received from it. The market demands for lemons, fresh and processed, express the relation between quantities the markets will absorb at various prices under certain specified conditions. Also of significance is how the demands are affected by those con- ditions and how the money income from the crop varies in response to changes in the volumes marketed. The general nature of the demand for fresh lemons is well understood from earlier studies and from market experience. Here, we are concerned, however, with the market interactions between the demands for fresh and processed lemons, for reasons discussed elsewhere in the report. To throw light on this question, the following procedure is adopted: First, we briefly comment on what is meant by "demand" in economic termsj then we review some statistical evidence bearing on the demand relations between fresh lemons and lemon products. In that re- spect attention is initially given to fresh lemons and total processed leraonsj that is followed by consideration of the demand relations between fresh lemons and particular juice products purchased by consumers. The term "demand" is frequently used as equivalent to the quantity of a product, say, lemons which has been sold or the market has taken. A more ac- ceptable and useful interpretation is that which refers to the relation between a schedule of prices and a corresponding schedule of quantities, both schedules pertaining to a particular product in a particular market. Hence, "demand" is representative of various quantities of a product that would be purchased at various corresponding prices in a given market, at a given time, and under given conditions. Those given conditions include tastes and preferences of buyers or potential buyers, amounts of income or money available for expenditures on all goods, and prices of other goods and services. Thus, in a strict sense, the 29. "demand" for a particular product pertains to some given situation in which all influences, except price and quantity of the particular commodity, are given and fixed. In such a context it can be argued that, for a given demand, price and quantity of the particular comraodity vary inversely^ the lower the price the larger the quantity that would be taken, the higher the price the smaller the quantity that would be taken. So are constructed demand schedules which are mathematically represented by demand equations and graphically pictured as demand curves. Always in the background of such demand curves, however, and influencing their shape and position are the given conditions such as income and tastes of the buyers, prices of other products, and the characteristics of the particular market. In the consideration of many problems in lemon marketing, the nature of the demand for lemons is of crucial importance. This arises for two reasons. First, there is the question as to how changes in quantity and changes in price are related for a given lemon demand situation represented by its corresponding demand schedule or demand curve. Second, there is the question as to how the lemon demand schedule as a whole responds to changes in the level of factors such as income and temperatures. The relations between price changes and quantity changes for a given demand schedule are often expressed by the phrase, "elasticity of demand with respect to price," T-diich we shall refer to briefly as "price elasticity." In precise terras price elasticity at a point on the demand schedule measures the percentage change in quantity which occurs in response to the corresponding percentage change in price. In more specific terms the price elasticity equals the percent- age change in quantity divided by the corresponding percentage change in price; the changes should be small since the price-elasticity coefficient pertains to the relationship at the price-quantity point from which the changes are con- sidered. Therefore, the price elasticity may, and usually does, vary from point to point on a given demand schedule. 30. VJhen the absolute value of the price-elasticity coefficient is greater than one at a certain point on the demand schedule, the demand is said to be "elastic" for the price-quantity combination at that point; when the absolute value of the price-elasticity coefficient is less than one at a certain point on the demand schedule, the demand is said to be "inelastic" at that point; and vhen the price-elasticity coefficient is equal to one, iiie demand is said to be of "unit elasticity." Whether the demand is "elastic" or "inelastic" is of prime importance to marketing plans and decisions. The elasticity nature of demand reflects the behavior of gross money revenue from sales as they are increased or decreased. Although it is not necessary here to prove the following relations, it can be shown that, wtxen the price and quantity change on a given schedule, the result- ing gross revenue increases or decreases depending upon the price elasticity. When the demand is elastic at a given price-quantity combination on the demand schedule, a small decline in price results in an increase in total money revenue from sales; but when the demand is inelastic at a given price-quantity point, a small decline in price results in a decrease in total money revenue sales. Conversely, a small increase in price from an elastic point on the demand sched- ule results in a decrease in total revenue, and a small increase in price from an inelastic point on the demand schedule results in an increase in total money revenue from sales. Such effects of price and quantity changes on total revenue make it clear why it is helpful to have indications of the price-elasticity coefficients when considering marketing practices. With knowledge about the values of the price elasticities for lemons, for example, one may draw infer- ences as to the money effects associated with the marketings of different quan- tities of lemons. 31. Many familiar with and concerned m.th lemon marketing have observed from their market experience that the demand for fresh lemons tends to be inelastic, that is, not only do somewhat decreased shipments to market bring a somei'Aiat higher price per unit but total returns are increased. The reasons offered have been various, but in essence they pertain to the nature of the market de- mand for lemons. Economic-statistical studies of the demand for fresh lemons have been reported in various studies.^ They agree and confirm that fresh lemon market demand has been and continues to be inelastic from the view of total seasonal marketings. Since fresh summer and fresh winter lemons are affected by differing mar- ket characteristics, it may be worth x^hile first to consider them separately. Economic-statistical analyses of fresh summer lemons generally indicate their having inelastic demand at the f.o.b. level of the marketing system. The de- gree of inelasticity may vary from season to season, but in most seasons, price inelasticity prevails at the f.o.b. level. When fresh winter lemons are con- sidered separately, we find that their f.o.b, demand also tends to be inelastic. The degree of inelasticity varies from season to season, depending upon the par- ticular market situation in a given season but generally the price inelasticity of the demand clearly emerges. Vlhen the retail and on-tree levels of marketing are considered, along with the f.o.b. level, we again find a tendency for price inelasticity as character- istic of the demand for fresh summer lemons. In fact, we find that the earlier the marketing stage considered, the greater is the inelasticity of demandj de- mand at the on-tree level is less elastic than the demand f.o.b. level which, 1/ Hoos, Sidney, and R. E, Seltzer, Lemons apd jigJ'^Rji?0-'^jj:g"'^s» Ch anging E_conp,mjjL ^6ls^"'^l°"s^lP-5 (Berkeley: 19S2), 78p. ( CaliYoraia Agricultural Experi- ment Station Bui. 729.) Hoos, Sidney, Price-Elasticities of Fr esh and P rocessed Lemons (Berkeley: University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences, Agricultural Ex- periment Station, January, 1955) * Hp. Processed. 32. in turn, is less elastic than the demand at the retail level. Such interrela- tions for the price elasticities at the various marketing stages are accounted for by the behavior of marketing margins and costs. So far we have reviewed in general terras the economic-statistical sea- sonal demands of fresh lemons, summer and winter. Now, we turn to the demand relations between fresh and processed lemons. And to get as close as the data permit to the situation as it bears on grower returns, we consider some results of studies on the demands for fresh and processed lemons at the on-tree level of demand. The volume of lemons and processed products taken by the market during the year as a whole is undoubtedly determined by a large number of factors. Among such many influences, several stand out as the more important as prices, income, and extreme variation in weather temperature. It should not be presumed that those are the only influences but rather that they are included among the major factors which can be measured. From an economic-statistical view, they serve as a basis for estimating, as a helpful approximation, the market demand for lemons and their products. Since we are here interested in the interrelation and interaction between the fresh and processed outlets for lemons, the influences of both the fresh and products markets should be reflected in the demands. In that way measur- able relations between the two outlets may be observed and an approximation ob- tained of the degree of consumption competition between them. This is first done by constructing and analyzing the statistical market structure of demand for fresh lemons. Here the volume of fresh lemon shipments is statistically re- lated to the on-tree price of fresh lemons, the on-tree price of processed lemons, a measure of temperature, and a time trend idiich includes other factors 33. whose combined influence is reflected by a smooth and persistent linear trend over time.^ In verbal terms the statistical market-behavior equation may be sum- marized as follows. When fresh shipments are related to their on- tree price, the on-tree price of processed lemons, a temperature index, and a time trend: A 10-per cent change in the on-tree price of fresh shipments, by itself, with other factors held constant, is associated with an average change in the opposite direction of about 2.3 per cent in the marketing-year total fresh shipments. A 10-per cent change in the on-tree price of processed lemons, by itself, with other factors held constant, is associated with an average change in the opposite direction of about 0.1 per cent in the marketing-year total fresh shipments. 1/ The corresponding statistical equation, fitted by the method of least squares, is as follows: figures in parentheses are t-ratios, and primes denote logarithms to the base 10, = Marketing-year total fresh shipments (in millions of boxes). = On-tree price for (in dollars per packed box equivalent). Y = On-tree price for marketing-year total volume processed P (in cents per packed box equivalent). W = Index of idJiter (December-February) temperature (1931-32 " 100). T = Time, origin at 1923-2U. See Hoos, Sidney, Price-Elasticities of Fresh and Processed Lemons (Berkeley: University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences, Agr cultural Experiment Station, January, 1955)* Hp. Processed. 3k. A 10-per cent change in the index of winter temperature, by itself, with other factors held constant, is associated with an average change in the opposite direction of about 6 per cent in the marketing-year total fresh shipments. Although the market-behavior equation reflects an upward shift in the market demand for fresh lemons, the upward shift describes the situation which has generally prevailed over the past txiTO and one-half or three decades. If the postwar years, by themselves, are considered, tliat is, the past decade, then the situation is more aptly described as one where the market demand for fresh lemons has decreased, the market demand for lemon products has increased, and the market demand for total lemon usage (fresh and processed) has remained about stable. These above statistical results provide a basis for the inference that not only is the seasonal market demand for fresh lemons "inelastic" (within the range of operations, sriialler total fresh shipments yield larger on-tree returns than do larger fresh shipments) but also the inference that an increase in the on-tree price of processed lemons, by itself, tends to be associated with a decrease in the seasonal total volume of fresh shipments, indicating that the fresh and processed utilizations are to a noticeable extent competi- tive. These findings follow from the market equation where the volume of fresh shipments is viewed as the element to be explained. Further results are now presented from a market equation where the volume of processed lemons is viewed as the element to be explained. Here, the annual volume of processed lemons is 191 noi^s; ■aof!.«I 35. statistically related to the on-tree prices of processed and fresh lemons, re- spectively, a measure of national income and a time trend.i''' In verbal terms the statistical market-behavior equation for the volume of processed lemons may be summarized in the follovxing terms. When the volume of processed lemons is related to their on-tree price, the on-tree price for fresh lemons, a measure of national income, and a time trend: A 10-per cent change in the on-tree price of processed lemons, by itself, with other factors held constant, is associated with an average change in the opposite direction of about 1 per cent in the marketing-year total volume processed, A 10-per cent change in the on-tree price of fresh lemons, by itself, with other factors held constant, is associated with an average change in the opposite direction of about 20 per cent in the marketing-year total volume processed. 1/ The corresponding statistical equation, fitted by the method of least squares, is as follows: x' = -0.189 - 2.036y' - 0,0951' + 1.3551* + O.OlOTj R » 0.826 P (U.336)^ (l.2U9)P (2.855) (I.008) figures in parentheses are t-ratios, and primes denote logarithms to the base 10. Xp = Marketing-year total volume processed (in millions of boxes), = On-tree price for X^ (in dollars per packed box equivalent), Y = On-tree price for marketing-year total volume processed P (in cents per packed box equivalent). I = Index of United States disposable personal income (19U7-19li9 = 100), T = Time, origin at 1923-2U, See Hoos, Sidney, Price-Elasticities of Fresh and Processed Lemons (Berkeley: University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences, Agri- cultural Experiment Station, January, 1955), Hp. Processed. 36. As the index of national income changes, with other factors held constant, the volume of processed lemons tends to change in the same direction. Over time there has been an upward shift in the market absorption of processed lemons, although the upward shift has been more pronounced in recent years. These results again provide analytical grounds for the inference that the processed and fresh outlets of lemons are competitive in demand and utllizationj also, the statistical evidence suggests the existence of some degree of in- elasticity in the market demand structure for processed lemons. The economic- statistical evidence summarized and considered above for the seasonal totals of fresh lemons and processed lemons bears upon the nature of their aggregate demands and, for that reason, is pertinent for the subject of this section. Growers and marketers of lemons need be concerned with the in- terrelations of fresh lemons and lemon products j and the concern is of growing importance, for only with a clear picture and understanding of the interactions between the two outlets for lemons can their interrelations best be taken ad- vantage of in the marketing of the lemon crop. The results surveyed so far, however, pertain to the marketing year as a whole and to total lemons processed. Another approach from the view of fresh shippers and distributors of lemon products is to consider, say, summer lemons for the fresh market in relation to specific lemon products. That is next done for summer lemons and canned lemon juice to be followed by summer lemons and frozen concentrated lemonade. With the use of monthly data on consumer household purchases of fresh lem- ons and canned (including bottled) lemon juice, a market-behavior equation was constructed relating the household purchases of canned lemon juice to the retail store price of canned lemon juice, the retail store price of fresh lemons, and 37. the level of summer (May-October) temperature .^^ In verbal terms the meaning of the equation may be stated as follows: A 10-per cent change in the retail store price of fresh lemons, by itself, with other factors constant, is on the average as- sociated with a change in the same direction of about 20 per cent in the consumer household purchases of canned leraon juice. A 10-per cent change in the retail store price of canned lemon juice, by itself, with other factors constant, is on the average associated with a change in the opposite direction of about h per cent in consumer household purchases of canned lemon juice. A 10-per cent change in the summer (May-October) mean maximum temperature, by itself, with other factors constant, is on the average associated with a change in the same direction of about 39 per cent in the consumer household purchases of canned lemon juice, 1/ The corresponding statistical equation, fitted by the method of least squares, is as follows: y' = -8.513 + 2.128x' - 0.U21X* + 3.876x'j R = 0.878| ^ (2.635)-^ (1.027)^ (6.891)^ figures in parentheses are t-ratios, and primes denote logarithms to the base 10, = Consumer household purchases of canned and bottled lemon juice (in thousands of cases). X-j^ = Retail store price of fresh lemons (in cents per dozen). = Retail store price of canned leraon juice (in cents per 5i-ounce can equivalent) . X^ e Mean maximum monthly temperature (May-October). These unpublished results for fresh lemons and canned lemon juice were developed by Dr. G. M, Kuznets from published data on consumer purchases col- lected by the Market Research Corporation, The xjriter is indebted to Dr, Kuznets for permission to draw upon and cite these results. 38. These summary results suggest the existence of consuiaption competition be- tween fresh lemons and canned lemon juice during the six-month period (May- October) when so-called suriimer lemons are marketed. As the price of fresh lem- ons advances, other conditions given and fixed, the consumers tend to shift from fresh lemons to canned lemon juicej and as the price of fresh lemons de- clines, other conditions given and fixed, the consumers tend to shift from canned lemon juice to fresh lemons. These tendencies reflect aggregate market experience for the country at large, although particular consumers or groups of consumers certainly may react otherwise. Yet, it is with total market ef- fects that we are here concerned in the demand relations between fresh lemons and canned lemon juice. To supplement the preceding results, we now consider the market-behavior relations between fresh lemons and frozen concentrated lemonade during the sum- mer period ijhen both types of products, fresh lemons and frozen lemonade con- centrate, generally experience expanded sales reflecting seasonal temperature influences. Here, the per-capita household purchases of fresh lemons are re- lated to the retail price of fresh lemons, the retail price of frozen concen- trated lemonade, average summer temperature, and the availability of frozen concentrated lemonade in retail outlets. The time unit consists of the three- month period (April-June), followed by the three-month period (July-September), for each of the variables listed previously. 39. Wiidi the use of published monthly data on consumer purchases and prices, a market-behavior equation was developed and may be summarized as follows:^^ A change of 10 cents per dozen in the retail store price of fresh lemons, by itself, with other factors held constant, is as- sociated with an average change in the opposite direction of about 1,5 boxes of fresh lemons per 1,000 capita per three-month summer period. A 3-cent change in the retail store price of frozen concen- trated lemonade (6-ounce can), by itself, with other factors held constant, is associated with an average change in the same direc- tion of about 2.S boxes of fresh lemons per 1,000 capita per three- month summer period. A change of 10° F, in the average summer temperature, by itself, with other factors held constant, is associated with an average change in the same direction of about l.U boxes of fresh lemons per 1,000 capita per three-month summer period. 1/ The corresponding statistical equation, fitted by the method of least squares, is as follows: X, = -3.2ii3 - O.l^ijX, + O.SitOX. + 0.138X. - 0.076X, j E = 0.91j ^ (2.U20)-^ (2.753)^ (2.573)'^ (2.786)^ figures in parentheses are t-ratios^ the equation reflects a series of April-June and July-September three-month periods, respectively, for each of five geographical regions. X- = Quantity of household consumer purchases of fresh lemons, per 1,000 capita per three-month period (in boxes). =• Retail store price of (in cents per dozen). X- e Retail store price of frozen concentrated lemonade (in cents per 6- ounce can) . X- = Average temperature in April-June and July-September, respectively (in degrees Fahrenheit). X, = Measure of retail store availability of frozen concentrated lemonade in ^ April-June and July-September, respectively (in per cent of retail stores) . These unpublished results for fresh lemons and frozen concentrated lemonade were developed by Dr. G. M. Kuznets from published data on consumer purchases col- lected by the Market Research Corporation. Again, the writer is indebted to Dr. Kuznets for permission to draw upon and cite these results. liO. A change of 10 points in the measure of retail store availa- bility of frozen concentrated lemonade, by itself, with other factors held constant, is associated with an average change in the opposite direction of about 0.7$ boxes of fresh lemons per 1,000 capita per three-month summer period. These summary results confirm the view that, under average market condi- tions and for the country at large, not only are the consumer purchases of fresh summer lemons inversely related to their retail store price and directly related to the level of summer temperature—two demand-behavior characteristics known from earlier studies and market experience—but the results also suggest two ad- ditional market-behavior characteristics; consumer household purchases of fresh summer lemons and frozen concentrated lemonade are con^setitive in consumption demand, and as the availability of the frozen concentrated lemonade increases (or decreases) in retail stores, there also occurs a decrease (or increase) in the consumer household purchases of fresh lemons. Thus, from a market distribu- tion as well as a price view, there appears to exist a tendency toward competi- tive interaction among fresh summer lemons and frozen concentrated lemonade. These, as the other statistical results, do not prove the existence of certain economic tendencies; yet, the results do provide evidence on the issues under consideration and are not inconsistent with the hypothesis that during the summer months fresh lemons and frozen concentrated lemonade are competitive in consumer purchase behavior. Although other evidence of an opposite nature can be cited, that presented here may be received as sufficiently suggestive so that the lemon industry might well give careful consideration to the effects of both the short-run and long-run market interactions between fresh lemons and lemon- juice products. giit ffi'r.i The economic-statistical relationships set forth and discussed above re- flect the average situation during the period investigated. Thus, the results are generated by past market developments. Further, the results reflect aver- age tendencies from a mixture of short-run seasonal and long-run changing trend influences, for each season has its own peoularities as well as reflecting longer term trends. For short-run projections as well as analyzing the current situation, statistical relationships of the type considered above can be help- ful. But for long-term projections, those results have various limitations and should be supplemented by other analyses, particularly when considering a "new" product as frozen concentrated lemonade which is subject to early accelerated market growth and consumer acceptance. Juice Products Market Potential . — In the previous pages of this section, we discussed the economic-statistical demand situation with reference to lemon products and their relation to fresh lemons. As noted there, such analyses of economic relationships are short term in character. They reflect and are con- strained by the market relationships prevailing during the period in which the statistical data are generated. For examination of the current situation and for projection over short periods into the future, such analyses are helpful particularly when used in conjunction with other market information. Over longer periods of time in the future, uncertainties of varying magni- tudes exist in the long-run basic determinants of demand. Among such determi- nants are population groxrth trends, age distribution, national and per-capita money income in real as well as current dollar terms, relative prices of com- petitive and complementary products, and particularly consumer tastes and pref- erences which are a function of a complicated set of influences not now fully understood by students of consumption and psychology. h2. Although there are alternative methods of projecting long-term market potentials, the procedure followed here may be sketched in the following terras. First, we review the comparative trends in consumption disappearance of several products considered to be competitive in demand, at least partially so, with frozen lemonade. Then are reviewed some major long-term demand determinants, with consideration given to their projection into the future. With these mate- rials as a basis, projections are set forth with respect to the long-term con- sumption-demand disappearance of frozen concentrated lemonade and total lemon- juice products. It should not be necessary, although it certainly is advisable, to empha- size here that making long-term projections in the economic sphere is a highly treacherous activity and definitely more dangerous for those who believe and follow the projections than for those who make them. Yet, without projections of the sort made here, the investigation and report would be seriously incom- plete from the view of those for whom the report is prepared and intended. Fur- thermore, the bases of the projections are set forth so that those who are in- terested may vary them and adjust the results accordingly or even conjure their own projections as they so desire. There is some doubt as to what prepared cold drink beverages are in fact competitive in demand with frozen concentrated lemonade, and an even more dif- ficult question concerns the varying degrees of competition among the several products. Lemonade is more of a speciality item than a staple or necessity. Further, its seasonality of consumption and its demand sensitivity to higher ranges of summer temperature may well be greater than for other cold drink products. Yet, for comparative purposes, the consumption-disappearance trend of frozen concentrated lemonade may be contrasted with items as carbonated beverages, fermented malt liquor, frozen concentrated orange juice, and frozen concentrated grape juice. -^G IB- \'9i e U3. Each of these drink products has a different background and history and has in large part been influenced by differential impacts of economic and de- mand development. Carbonated beverages, for example, have a long statistical record back to lQh9 ^en the consumption rate is estimated to have been 1.6 bottles per capita per year compared with a rate of 175 bottles per capita per year now. Fermented malt liquors, generally referred to as beer and ale, have even a longer historical record, but their long-tem consumption development was made subject to prohibition legislation and the current trend begins with 1933-3U. Frozen concentrated lemonade and orange juice, as well as grape juice, reflect postwar developments. With these diverse backgrounds, there is the question as to how the various products may be compared in terms of production-disappearance trends. For pur- poses of comparison here, the respective rates of the products are first set forth below in terms of per-capita index numbers, with the base (lOO) for each product varying as follows: the base for fermented raalt beverages is set at 1933-31; when legal prohibition was droppedj the base for carbonated beverages is set at 1933-3U to compare vrith fermented malt beverages and also not to delve too far back historically^ and the bases for frozen lemonade, orange juice, and grape juice are set at years near when those products were introduced in volume and for Trtiich records of consumption are available. With these specifications, the indexes are as set forth in the follomng table: hh. Per-Capita Indexes of United States Consumption Disappearance of Selected Beverage Products Year ^axpa'i'd with- drawals of malt beverages (July- June) Consumer household purchases ( October-September) of frozen concentrated Carbonated beverages (calendar year) Orange juice ] Grape juice ( Lemonade per-capita indexes; base (100) varying as indicated 193li-35 100 100 1935-36 115 116 1936-37 129 172 1937-38 125 211 1938-39 119 236 1939-LO 121 278 19hO-lil 120 3IU 19iil-ii2 137 iil8 153 396 -'-7'+-' '+'4 172 li3U 19hii-li'^ -'-7'4M- 179 I46I 19li5-L6 j-714^— 18U 19li6-)t7 177 U15 181 U73 -1-7 M-O -14.7 176 100 SIS 1 Q)iQ-,iXn -L7U7-?U 168 2U8 508 1950-51 165 386 100 100 U95 1951-52 165 6iil 157 210 510 1952-53 163 66U 193 275 5U5 1953-5U 162 788 212 262 556 195U-55 870 237 327 5U6 Source: Based on data in Table 20. Although each of the beverage products considered above has its oxm trend, each has trended upward. The per-capita index for carbonated beverages has continued to go up in contrast with the per-capita index for fermented malt liquors which has failed to hold the record levels attained during the five years following World War II, The phenomenal trend of frozen concentrated orange juice is reflected in its per-capita indexes in the preceding tabulation. This is perhaps one of the most outstanding production-marketing developments in the food industry during the 20th century. But the record so far attained by frozen concentrated lemon- ade is also an enviable one, particularly so for a highly specialized item. In fact, in terms of relative growth, the historical performance of frozen concen- trated lemonade, in its first five or six years, surpasses the corresponding historical performance of the other beverages (excepting frozen concentrated orange juice) in their first half-dozen years of recorded development. Thus, in comparative and relative terms, the statistical record of market penetration attained by frozen concentrated lemonade is a strong one when compared with other specialty beverage products, excluding frozen concentrated orange juice. The market experience of the several products may be reviewed again but now on a somexirhat different basis. If we consider the developments beginning in 1950-51, the record unfolds as in the following tabulation: ■ TS d h6. United States Per-Capita Consumption Disappearance of Selected Beverage Products Taxpaid Carbonated Consumer household purchases ( October-September) Year withdrawals of malt beverages (July- June) beverages comsumption (calendar year) Frozen concentrated orange juice Frozen concentrated grape juice Frozen concentrated lemonade barrels bottles boxes a/ gallons boxes£/ 19h9-SO 0.562 162.0 U.U (00 J u.uuo/o — c/ 0.122U7 0.01019 0.0038it8 1951-52 0.550 162.7 Oo20)4U9 0.01596 0.008071 1952-53 0.5U3 17ii.O 0.21086 0.0196ii o.oioii59 1953-5U 0.5i;2 177.5 0.25028 0.02158 0.010063 17ii.2 0.27593 O.O2U17 0.012581 uer-capita indexes, 1950-51 ° 100 1950-51 100 100 100 100 100 1951-52 100 103 167 157 210 1952-53 99 110 172 193 275 1953-5U 98 112 20U 212 262 195U-55 110 225 237 327 1955-56 a/ Equivalent packed boxes of fresh oranges, b/ Equivalent packed boxes of fresh lemons, c/ Data for complete year not available. Source: Based on data in Table 20. From the above tabulation may be noted that? since 1950-51 when frozen con- centrated lemonade was introduced in any substantial amount for which household consumption data are available, it has grown at a faster rate than the other juice products listed. In substantial part that reflects the behavior of a U7. "new" product which has been favorably accepted by the public. Yet, frozen concentrated grape juice is about the same "age" as frozen concentrated lemon- ade, although the former did not grow as rapidly as lemonade. Thus, so far the rate of market penetration and consumer acceptance of frozen concentrated lemonade has been certainly near historic for that type of a specialty product. With the above sketch of historical trends in the production disappearance of various beverage products, we now go forward with consideration of projec- tions. In this respect it is necessary to outline the basic determinants in- volved and premises on which they are considered. Here, we are faced with the future trend in population and its structure, the course of gross national product and its related disposable personal income, and the changeable and changing pattern of consumption and consumer preferences. The projection of the national population numbers cannot be made with con- fidence, particularly in view of developments during the period of the past two decades with its population upsurge. The population outlook to many is now different from what it appeared in the 1920' s and 1930' s. Then, with birth rates falling as they had for two centuries, it was widely thought that by 1975-1980 our national population would have reached its peak. But, unexpect- edly, the long downward trend in birth rates was reversed^ shortly after 19U0, a marked upward turn in births set in. In the emergency atmosphere of war and postwar adjustment, this new development was little noticed until toward the end of the 19U0's. As this upward trend was sustained in recent years, many have come to the view that a new and radically different population prospect is 1/ Hoos, Sidney, and Varden Fuller, Trends an d Prospects; Deciduous Fresh Fruits (Berkeley; University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences, Agricultural Experiment Station, April, 122p. (Giannini Foundation Mimeographed Report No. 176.) Processed. ii8. emerging. But it is, of course, premature to know with confidence how stable is the new and recent trend in population. Barring catastrophic events, we can anticipate certain developments about the national population between now and, say, 1975* Most of those who will be parents between now and then are already born. In fact, from now until around 196$, most children will be born to parents whose birth occurred in the depres- sion years. Since that was a decade of low birth rates, it follows that the limited childbearing population between now and 1965 will impose limits on the number of births even if family size does rise and remain high. The number of women in the 20 to 39 age group vlll remain about constant until after 1965 at idiich time the numerous births of 19h$-19SS will commence to enter that age category. There will be the potential for a really explosive population upward surge after 1965 should early marriage and large families be popular at that time. The projections of the national population may be at different degrees of high, depending on -whether one assumes the continuance of recent birth rates or a gradual return to the prewar level, or an even more extreme assumption— that births might drop low enough to fit the long-time prewar trend line. These national population projections to 1975 may be set at the following levels: high, 230,000,OOOj medium, 22O,00O,000j and low, 210,000,000, Along with the growing numbers of consumers, the capacity for gross con- sumption has also risen. As our economy has grown more productive, higher levels of money and real income have been generated in the hands of consumers. Greater investment in capital goods, technological progress, and a more highly skilled labor force are all important factors which, combined with relatively full employment in recent years, have had their influence on our enhanced ability to produce and consume. The prospects are favorable to a continuation of this expansion in the next two decades. U9. The gross national product, all goods and services produced by the United States economy, increased from $10U, 000,000, 000 in 1929 to $365,000,000,000 in 1953, or by 3^ times. The physical output of the nation has not, however, really expanded to such a large extent. The 1953 figure of $365,000,000,000 contains a substantial amount of inflation because 1953 prices were about 65 per cent higher than those of 1929. In terms of constant dollars, using the 19^7 price level as a standard, the comparison becomes about $1^9,300,000,000 for 1929 and $306,600,000,000 for 1953, or an increase of 105 per cent over the period. This increase was not due merely to a larger population. Even in per-capita terms, the real output of the United States economy has increased by almost three fifths from 1929-1953. And the real income of individuals also rose dur* ing the period, the increase in per-capita real income before taxes being about 60 per cent although higher taxes have whittled the increase do\m to Uh per cent. Several public and private agencies have made long-range estimates of the development of the American economy. These estimates, though different in particulars, agree that the future poses a great potential for economic growth. The President's Materials Policy Commission, for example, forecasts a 100-per cent rise in production from 1950-1975. With the prospect of more than 200,000,000 persons in the United States by 1975, this forecast implies a gross national product of about $2,650 per capita, which is 52 per cent higher than the 1950 figure. This can be considered as an indication of the nation's in- creasing economic strength, but it does not provide an estimate of consumer purchasing power. To obtain this we must examine another measure— per-capita disposable income. During the past 30 years, per-capita disposable income has averaged about 75 per cent of per-capita gross national product. However, this figure is af- fected by the relatively lower tax rates of the 1930 's, which we are unlikely i 50. to experience again in the foreseeable future. In view of the high defense expenditures now incurred by the federal government and their probable con- tinuance for the next few decades, it seems reasonable to expect a correspond- ing maintenance of present high taxes. Thus, the 75 per cent of gross national product left in the hands of consumers for their disposal seems a little too generous. In fact, durjjig the last five years, this proportion has averaged only 71 per cent due to the higher taxes necessary to support the defense es- tablishment. Assuming no tax increases but only a maintenance of the present structure in 1975j per-capita disposable income should be about I48 per cent higher in 1975 than it was in 1950, or Ul per cent higher than the level of 1953. A growing population ixrith rising incomes strongly implies the prospect of vigorous markets for consumer goods in the years to come. How much significance is there in such prospects for food demand and particularly for fruit beverages? We know generally that, ^*ien people in low-income categories obtain an in- crease in income, they may spend as much as one half of their additional income on food. But in the higher income categories, an increase in income has much less effect on food demand — perhaps no more than 10 per cent of increased in- comes in these categories is spent for food. It is generally accepted in the United States— all food commodities and all income groups combined— that the ad- ditional outlays for food which accompany increases in income are in the vi- cinity of 20 to 25 per cent of the income increase. That is to say, in other words, that for each dollar of a dditional disposable income in the hands of con- sumers 20 to 25 cents will be spent for more food. The income reaction is not the same for all food commodities — some will increase more than the over-all av- erage, some less, and some may not increase at all. Moreover, as is logical to expect when the general income position of the economy becomes even more favor- able, the proportion of additional income dollars spent on food will decline. 51. With the potentials of population growth and income rise that are now In prospect^ it is expected that the demand for food by 1975 may very well be 50 per cent higher than in 1950. This results from an estimated population growth of 36 per cent between 1950 and 1975* accompanied by a 10-per cent increase in per-capita food demand vAiich is based on the expectation of higher incomes. How much of this increase in total food demand can we expect to be chan- neled into fruit juices? This question is almost impossible to answer pre- cisely. Demand for individual items tends to fluctuate much more from year to year than that of broad classes of items. Thus, though total food consumption— or possibly even total fruit consumption— may exhibit a fairly steady trend, there is much interchange within the group such as a substitution of margarine for butter, peaches for apples, etc. It may be helpful, nevertheless, to see how consumers have behaved in regard to fresh and processed fruits in the re- cent past. From this we may be able to draw some indications about how they are likely to spend incomes in future years. In the spring of 19U8, the U. S. Department of Agriculture made a nation- wide snrvej of the food consumption of urban families.-^ It was found that fruit took 8 cents of the consumer's food dollar, and 5 of these 8 cents was spent on noncitrus fruits. Of the total expenditure for fruits other than cit- rus, about 62 per cent was spent on fresh fruit, 26 per cent on canned fruit, 5 per cent on canned juices, and the remainder on frozen and dried products. There were pronounced seasonal differences in the consumption of Truit, Also, there are differences in food consumption from one part of the cciantry to another, but most of these are in foods other than fruit. There is, however, some indication that southern families consume less frozen and canned fruits 1/ U. S. Department of Agriculture, Fpod_ Cons umption of Urban Families in the United States (Washington: Govt. Print/ Of f . , 195^ ) . ( Agricultural Bui. Id.' T3'2.y AlsoVU. S. Department of Agriculture, Fruit Sel ecti ons of City Families (Washington, D. C: 1950), 17p. Processed!! (Commodity Summary No. 9.) 52. and juices than those of other regions. To some extent, this is a reflection of the lower per-capita income level of the South, Income has a very important influence in deterndning consumer choices among various foods. Obviously, persons with higher incomes can afford to buy more food than low- income groups. For example, the group of urban families in the nationwide survey with incomes between $1,000 and |2,000 spent $17 a week for food in the spring of 19hQ compared with $31 by the group with incomes be- tween $5,000 and $7,500. The increase in food outlays by higher income groups tends to be in the form of higher quality, higher priced items, more processed foods, and more eating away from home in restaurants. All of this indicates that the food pur- chases of high- income groups differ from those in low- income groups not so much by an increase in quantity but rather by a different selection of foods. Among the food commodities to which consumers respond most readily, if they have the incomes, are frozen and fresh fruits. The 19U8 survey indicated that the quantity of these items consumed in the home can increase as much as 3 per cent with 10 per cent higher incomes. Dried fruits, on the other hand, tend to be less important to the higher income families, and canned fruit consumption increases with incomes up to about $3,000 per year (19U8 price level) beyond idiich point it tends to level off, American families do not have rigid and fixed consumption habits and pat- terns. This lack of rigidity is perhaps one of the most outstanding and sig- nificant features of our economy. The great changes that have occurred in our manner of living within recent decades have had their impact on every phase of economic life. The changes in food needs and preferences are certainly not the least important of these impacts. booi ns 53 liJhere formerly our working force in many industries and occupations was engaged in energy-consuming physical labor, we now use machines that consume other forms of energy than food. In consequence, an increasingly large propor- tion of our occupations are sedentary. Centrally heated offices, factories, and homes have meant that less energy is needed to maintain body temperatures. At the same time, people are apparently becoming more weight conscious. All of these developments mean a decrease in the need for energy-rich foods. Yet, the capacity of the hvunan stomach and the physiological appetite level remain much the same. We continue to consume about the same total pound- age of foodstuffs per capita as we did half a century ago. The adjustment that has taken place is to substitute foods that have appetite appeal and nutri- tional components other than carbohydrates for part of our previous energy-rich diets. This shifting in the composition of the average diet is a gradual process likely to continue for many years to come. In addition to the factors that were mentioned above, a further influence in the same direction is the groimig numbers and proportions of people in the older age categories. In coming years it is expected that the number of persons aged 6$ and over will increase almost twice as rapidly as the total population. This, of course, is in consequence of improvements in medical science that have increased survivals into the older age categories. Decreased need of energy-rich diets by older people and by a population that has less arduous physical work to do is a matter that should have far- reaching significance for the fruit industries. Fruits are a very satisfactory substitute for foods that are high in carbohydrate. The role which could be played by lemon- juice products, particularly frozen concentrated lemonade, in this changing pattern of food consumption depends in large part on the manner in Tihich the lemon products industry takes advantage of the situation; the potential will exist, but whether it will be realized can only be conjectured. When we consider projection of consumption rates for frozen concentrated lemonade, we are faced with a special type of problem, flaking projection of consumption rates for a "new" product, particularly one which apparently "caught on," is a different type of problem from one of making projections for an "old" long-time established product. For the "new" product, the early growth factor is significant. In relative terras the "new" product can be expected to reflect a strong growth factor aside from population and income effects but due to mar- ket penetration and extension dxiring the earlier years. Then, a "leveling out" often prevails as the pi-oduct becomes established. This type of development may be expected with respect to frozen concentrated lemonade. To some observers the projections set forth below may seem unnecessarily conservative and to others the rates may seem grossly overoptimistic . Which view is valid only time will tell. Yet, for the purposes of this report and talcing a view of "reasonableness" in light of the complicated setting of price relationships and consumer preferences which have an impact on the rates, we shall go forward with the estimates set out in the following tabulation. Now we are ready to bring together the several strands of projections to note what their combined outcome suggests in terms of market potentials for frozen concentrated lemonade. But first it is necessary to realize that the projections are not predictions; rather, they are indicators of potential de- velopments in light of historical escperience and considered likelihood as to the future of the United States economy. 55. 1955 Range of projections to 1975 Factor base High ... Medium Low Population (eating out of civilian supplies) Millions Per cent 16U.1| 100 230 ll+O 220 13li 210 128 Disposable personal income, per capita (in 1955 constant dollars) Dollars Per cent 1,630 100 2,700 166 2,280 lUO 1,860 IIU Disappearance-consumption rate, per capita, of frozen concen- trated lemonade (household use) Gallons Per cent 0.065 100 0.120 185 0.100 15U 0.08 123 Total disappearance-consumption of frozen concentrated lemonade (household use) Thousand gallons Per cent 10,686 100 27,600 258 22,000 206 16,800 157 Disappearance-consumption rate, per capita, of lemon-juice prod- ucts, including imports (in pounds fresh equivalent) Pounds Per cent 2.2 100 h.o 180 3.3 150 2.6 120 Total disappearance-consumption of lemon- juice products, includ- ing imports (in pounds fresh equivalent) Million pounds Per cent 361.68 100 920 2Sh 726 200 5U6 150 These projections, in addition to being based on the population and income levels shown in the tabulation, also are based on assumed relations between in- creases in income and increases in consumption as vrell as premises that national productivity and employment generally reflect current peacetime conditions and that no marked changes occur in consumer's preference structure. Modification of the national economy, in light of accelerated national defense activities, for either a "hot" or "cold" war certainly would make invalid the projections. Under such conditions or other situations bringing forth a strong and discon- tinuous shift in the price structure and national economic relationships, pro- jections of the type considered here would be Inappropriate. But for the pres- ent type of peacetime conditions, anticipated to continue as noted above, the projections may be suggestive of the longer term market potential for lemon- juice products. 56. Operation, of ihe Lemon Products Marketing Order . ■■~0n March 10, 19$1, the California state marketing order for lemon products became effective. Thus, it is now about five years that the industry has had ej^erience with the order. With such experience at hand, it is pertinent to reviex^/ developments and ac- tivities under the order to provide a basis for evaluating its effectiveness in light of its objectives. The order itself includes language which sets forth the objectives stated in broad and general terms. They include: to improve marketing conditions for lemon products j to prevent loss of income due to unstable markets^ to provide benefits of industry-supported research; to conduct common sales promotion and market- development programs j and to eliminate "unfair trade practices" within the industry. In the lemon marketing year 1950-^1 when the products order was introduced, there was an unusually large supply of lemons for processing. In terms of the trade, a "big surplus" existed. It was in this setting that some proponents of the order visualized its primary objective as being one to equalize the burden of surplus disposal among the primary producers of lemon products. Other pro- ponents visualize the priinary objective of the order as being one to stabilize raw product prices, narrow their range of variability, and especially to pre- vent sharp breaks in raw product and manufactured product prices. And still other proponents had additional objectives in mind as volume stabilization and market expansion. The language of the order was written so as to permit such objectives, although not necessarily all at the same time. The administrative structure and operation of the lemon products order is now briefly sketched as background material. (Those readers familiar with this material should skip this and the folloimag several paragraphs.) The Lemon Products Advisory Board, composed of appointments by the California Director of Agriculture from industry nominations, recommends to and assists the Director 57. with respect to the operation of the order. The Board's duties and powers in- clude administration of the order; making recommendations to the Director con- cerning the orderj receiving and reporting of order violations; recommending amendments to the Director; assisting the Director in the assessment and col- lecting of funds from the industry to finance the order's operation; collecting industry and market information; keeping records of meetings, operations, and decisions; and employing the personnel necessary to perform the Board's duties and to exercise its powers. To provide information to the Board necessary for its operation, it re- quires all California processors dealing in lemons or lemon products to submit weekly reports on specified activities. This includes processors involved in the processing or selling of stabilization pool fruit or concentrate. The Board, in turn, makes weekly summaries of specified industry operations. At the beginning of each marketing season and from time to time thereafter, the Board is required to examine the economic and marketing conditions affect- ing lemons and lemon products. On the basis of such information, a proposed statement on marketing policy is prepared which includes a recommendation as to the percentage of lemons acquired by processors to be designated as free and stabilization pool tonnages, respectively (the total of the free and stabiliza- tion percentages equals 100 per cent) . The recommended percentages are reviewed by the Director who has the authority to approve or change them. Once the free- tonnage volume is established for any marketing season through approval of the Director, it cannot be reduced for that marketing season; nor can the free-tonnage percentage , once established, be reduced during that season "except as is re- quired by changing crop conditions to derive the free-tonnage volume by applying the free-tonnage percentage to the total tonnage of lemons for processing actually 1 58. acquired or estimated to be acquired by all processors during such marketing season.""-^ Free-tonnage lemons held or acquired by a processor may be disposed of by him in any way he desires. But stabilization pool lemons acquired by a proc- essor are held by him for the account of the Board and subject to restriction of the order in the form of fresh lemons or in processed form if the latter has been approved by the Board, Without prior approval of the Board, the processing of lemons in the sta- bilization pool is prohibited. The Board, at the beginning of each marketing season and from time to time thereafter, considers what products are to be ap- proved and what portions of the available tonnage in the stabilization pool are to be used for the respective products. During the period from October 1 to a fixed date between March 1 and May 30, the Board may authorize lemons to be sold from the stabilization pool for use as free tonnage. That period may be extended by the Board if, in its opinion, th^ price stability of lemons or lemon products is not unduly affected. How- ever, no lemons from the stabilization pool may be authorized for sale by the Board at any time if free-tonnage lemons are available on the open market at equal or lower prices than the price set by the Board for stabilization pool tonnage. An exception is that lemons may be sold from the stabilization pool at a lower price for manufacturing into lemon oil, pectin or other peel or pulp products, and such restricted use of the juice therefrom as the Board may require. The Board may at any time set or change the price for stabilization pool tonnage, although the order specifies that Board action with respect to changing the price should not endanger the "price stability" of lemons or lemon products, 1/ California State Bureau of Markets, Ma rketing Order for Lemon Products , as Amended, Effective September 1955 (Sacramento: State Print, Off,, 59. In addition to the aggregate volume control sketched above, the Board may recomiaend the setting or changing of minimum grade or size regulations for lem- ons acquired by processors, or for the stabilization pool, or for any particu- lar leraon products. Here, as for other provisions, final decision is with the California Director of Agriculture, Other provisions in the order need not be sketched here for the purposes at hand. The brief sketch given above, nevertheless, clearly indicates that the Board has or can have firm control over the volume of California lemons processed in total or even in specific products. Yet, such control is limited to California lemons available for processing. Lemons available for processing in or from other states or imported lemon stock for products from other coun- tries are beyond the control of the Board. Because of such leakages, the Board in fact has less control than may be thought by those not appreciative of the realized and particularly the potential supply sources outside of California, The operation of the order in terms of free and stabilization tonnage per- centages, as well as stabilization pool prices, is set forth in the tabulation on the following page. In 1951-52, the first full year of the order, the sta- bilization pool percentage was initially set at 65 per cent and by steps re- duced to 31 per cent at the end of the season j in 1952-53 the stabilization pool percentage began at 35 per cent and the season ended with no stabilization tonnage; in 1953-5U the stabilization was set and maintained at kO per centj in 19ShS5 the stabilization pool tonnage was originally set at 75 per cent and had been lowered to 58 per cent by the end of the seasonj and in the 1955-56 season, the beginning percentage for the stabilization pool was U2.5 per cent, was dropped to 30 per cent in December, 1955i and reduced again to 27 per cent in April, 1956. 60. California Marketing Order for Lemon Products, as Amended, Free- Tonnage and Stabilization Pool Percentages 1 For marketing Date of order Free-tonnage percentages Stabilization pool tonnage percentages j season per cent 1 1950-51 3-I0-51 Up 1951-52 10-23-'3l op 1951-52 3-21-'52 Uo 60 55^ 1951-52 6-27-52 62-1 37| 1951-52 7-18-52 00 ji- 1951-52 IO-2U-52 PJ. 1952-53 11- 3-52 65 35 1952-53 U- 1-53 72 28 1952-53 5-11-53 78 22 1952-53 6-15-53 1952-53 7- 1-53 inn n l953-51i 10- 2-53 60 UO 25 75 195U-55 3-2ii-55 33 67 195U-55 U-20-55 36 64 195U-55 5-2U-55 i;0 60 195U-55 6-21-55 h2 58 1955-56 10- 3-55 571 U2| 1955-56 12-12-55 70 30 1955-56 U-17-56 73 27 Stabilization Pool Prices Approval date of price change Price per standard ton, f.o.b. packing house 10- 23-51 l-lU-52 7- I8-52 8- 25-52 11- 17-52 10- 6-53 9- 28-51+ 10- 6-55_ , 5-28-56i/ dollars 62.50|^ 78.5o|^ 90.00g^ 90. 00^'/,/ 90.00^/2/ 85.00|^ 60. 00?^ 60.00iv 55. Ooi' a/ No advertising program in effect. b/ Includes $12.50 per ton C.L.I. (California Lemon ]hstitute) and " L.P.A.B. (Lemon Products Advisory Board) advertising. c/ Includes 113.50 per ton C.L.I, and L.P.A.B. advertising. d/ Price allowance for early delivery: November and December, 1952, and January, 1953, $5«00 per standard ton; and February, 1953, $2.50 per standard ton. e/ Excludes $15.00 per ton C.L.I, and L.P.A.B. advertising, f/ Excludes $1U.00 per ton C.L.I, and L.P.A.B. advertising, g/ L.P.A.B. meeting date. Source: Information from California State Bureau of Markets. I i I ii '."\ 61. As noted earlier, an important operating provision of the lemon products order is that the free-tonnage volume, once established, cannot be decreased during the marketing season. The objective of that provision, apparently, is to guard against a situation where the Board might increasingly restrict the flow of lemons into processing as the season progressed. Such a view has a sense of validity on the premise that, at the beginning of the marketing season, the Board has an accurate prooection of the season's over-all supply and demand situation. Due to uncertainties and miscalculations, however, in the volume shipped fresh and particularly its distribution over the season in the import situation in the current and prospective markets, as well as in the size of the crop, the Board and industry does not have at the beginning of the season accurate projections of the total tonnage which could be processed. The order requirement that the free-tonnage volume — once set early in the season— cannot be reduced during the season may encourage the Board initially to set the free tonnage conservatively with the view that if adjustments are necessary they can be made as the season progresses. That, in effect, is what happened during three out of four past full marketing seasons. The view may be expressed that if the order were amended so that the Board, with the approval of the Director, might increase or decrease — within permissible or available limits— the stabilization volume during the season (with corresponding changes in the free-tonnage volume ), the Board might have less inducement initially to set the stabilization percentage unnecessarily high at the beginning of the marketing season. The currently effective order permits the free- tonnage percentage to be changed up or down during the season as changing crop condi- tions require, but the free-tonnage volume cannot be reduced during the season. By amendment the order might be changed to permit increased or decreased free- tonnage volume during the season as required by contingencies in addition to changing crop conditions. With an amendment of that type, the Board would have 62. somewhat more flexibility in its operations and, at the same time, permit the Board to tailor the size of the stabilization pool so as to accommodate the current and prospective situations as they develop. Since the language of the order stresses "price stability" as a major ob- jective, it is pertinent to review what has occurred with respect to prices and returns. The stabilization pool prices are those over which the Board has direct controlj over other prices the Board has only indirect and partial in- fluence. The record of stabilization pool prices is summarized in the preced- ing tabulation. The prices shown there are in tenns of standard tons, f.o.b, packing house basis. In connection with "price stability," there is the important question- stability for whom? It is valid that the stabilization pool prices have varied less over time than the stabilization pool percentages. But that may bear lit- tle on the question at hand. Is "stability" sought in consumer products prices, f.o,b, products prices, or prices paid by processors for lemons, or on-tree returns received by growers for lemons processed? In comparison with other manufactured food products, consiuner prices of lemon- juice products have been relatively stable. And in terms of f,o,b. prices, those of lemon- juice products also cor^jare favorably with other processed fruits. Yet, at both the consumer and f.o.b. levels, the prices of lemon- juice products have not been markedly more stable than those of other processed juices, perhaps with the exception of processed orange juice. In terms of the legislation on idiich the state lemon products order is based, there is the presunption that the "price stability" referred to in the order pertains primarily to grower prices and returns from processed lemons. In that context the evidence is mixed. It is true that, during several of the years of the order's existence, grower on-tree returns from processed lemons were at higher than previous levels. The extent to which that was due to the i'i Tit .0.0 oe' 63. order itself or due to the introduction and rapid market penetration of a new product, frozen lemonade concentrate, cannot be wholly untangled. Yet, it is likely that the effects of the order were substantial. But although higher grower on-tree returns from processed lemons were attained, if not maintained, substantial price stability to growers was not introduced. During the past five or six years, the relative variation in on-tree grower returns from proc- essed lemons has not on the average been raarkedD.y less than in earlier periods. But such evidence may not be wholly convincing since it is impossible to know what the situation would have been had the order not been in effect during the recent years. Whatever the reason, price stability to growers for processed lemons has not resulted in a significant manner as a result of the lemon products order. That may not, however, be serious. One may question the validity of "price stability" as a goal in itself. From the view of those who seek the decrease of uncertainty, price stability is an attractive goal. But price stability itself often can be attained only through the creation of other types of un- certainty which may even be less attractive than price instability. From the view of growers and also processors and distributors, a more ra- tional goal than price stability is income maintenance and growth. One may set forth the view that the operation of the order might be oriented in the direc- tion of income effects rather than price effects. It is true that, when price oriented, the order's operation does have an impact on income. Yet, with in- come maintenance and growth as a direct orientation rather than an indirect one, a more basic and meaningful objective is established. Miile commenting on the order and its operation, the question of inter- relations between the stabilization pool percentages and prices recomraended by the Board to the Director for approval may be considered. First, it may be noted that the stabilization percentages by themselves tell only part of the 6U. story. The actual tonnages, resulting from the application of the percentages, are more meaningful as influences on products prices and the flow of lemons into processed products. Examination of the data suggests no definite and unique relation between the stabilization percentages and prices as they have behaved over time. During the first year of the order, there was a rough tend- ency for the stabilization pool percentages and prices to trend in opposite di- rections; but such tendency did not continue. Control by the Board over both stabilization pool percentages and prices gives it a different type of influence than if only either the percentage or price were controlled. Yet, if the Board can change either the percentage or price, or both simizltaneously, there is the burden on the Board of maintaining some appropriate relatD.onship between the percentages (and corresponding vol- umes) and prices of the pool. But what is an "appropriate" relationship? In the language of the order, the "appropriate" relationship presumably is to be one consistent with "price stability," although the significance of income ef- fects has been noted above. When the stabilization pool percentage is decreased, assuming no revision in the projected crop or total volume available for processing, the effect is "to ease" the supply situation in lemons for products. This increased supply of lemons for products by itself tends to depress the market value of lemons for processing and, in more or less time, also the market value of lemon prod- ucts. But if the pool stabilization price is maintained at a fixed level or increased while the stabilization percentage is decreased, the price effect tends to dampen the supply effect as far as "easing" the supply situation is concerned. In effect there are several distinct economic situations with respect to relationships between stabilization pool percentages and prices. (Here, we premise that changes in the percentage or price are made for reasons other than (6. adjusting for a miscalculation in the projected volume of lemons available for processing.) Since the stabilization pool volume cannot be increased during a given marketing season, it can only be decreased or maintained at its initial level. Thus, varying the stabilization percentage can only ease the short- run (mthin the marketing season) supply situation. The order, however, per- mits the Board to raise or lower the stabilization pool price. Raising the pool price tends to raise the market value of processing lemons, and lowering the pool price tends to lower the market value of processing lemons — such ef- fects being dependent on the existence of a situation where no open-market lemons are available at prices different from that of the stabilization pool. In other terms the effectiveness of the stabilization pool price, with re- spect to its impact on market developments, depends not only on the availa- bility and current market price of free tonnage of California lemons but also of lemons from other states and imported supplies. Only when the Board does in fact regulate the total flow of lemons into processing does the stabiliza- tion pool price have full meaning and inqjact. On the bases outlined above, the sets of relationships among the stabili- zation pool percentages and prices may be summarized as follows: Stabilization pool Effect on market supply Percentage Price (a) No change Increase Tightened (b) No change Decrease Eased (c) Decrease Increase ? (d) Decrease Decrease Eased (e) Decrease No change Eased 66. As the individual marketing seasons are examined, case (a) is found to have occurred only once when the stabilization pool price was increased on January 7, 1952, while the pool percentage was maintained at its current level. Case (d) occurred in 1955-56 when both the stabilization percentage and price were decreased. The outcome of case (c) depends on the relative impacts of percentage and price changes for the stabilization pool; the market supply could be tightened or eased, or if the decrease in stabilization pool percent- age were accompanied by an increase in the pool price just sufficient, there could result no net effect on the market supply. The essential point is that every permissible combination of stabilization pool percentages (and corresponding volumes) and prices is unique in terms of actual or potential impact on market prices. In view of the practical diffi- culties of establishing appropriate relations between stabilization pool per- centages and prices, some observers have suggested alternative methods of opera- tion. There is the view that the Board should not be concerned with or set a stabilization pool price j rather, the Board should set and change stabilization percentages only. If the Board decreases the stabilization percentage and thereby makes available an increased volume of processing lemons, they should-- this view maintains—be sold by the Board to the highest bidder. Thus, rather than setting pool prices directly, the Board would through its control of the stabilization percentage affect only supply directly and then accept the price resulting from that supply and the prevailing market demand. Such a view may be coupled with the one noted earlier hereby the Board would be permitted to raise stabilization volumes in order to offset other types of miscalculations or uncertainties as well as in the size of the lemon crop. 2-4 :.(0 bfixWOOO CVBi srLt irc 3b X 67. Some detailed consideration has been given to stabilization pool percent- ages (and volumes) and prices. This was done not only because they are the primary price- and income-affecting provisions of the lemon products order but also because they probably are the least understood generally and certainly the most criticized. During the period of several years ago when the demand for processing lemons was strong and the supply situation was very tight, un- satisfied sources of demand viewed the operation of the stabilization pool as the basic root of difficulty. During the past year or so with a more or less comfortable supply situation, criticism of the supply control provisions of the lemon products order have been less prevalent and pointed. Thus, industry- wide attitudes toward the order and its provisions vary according to the strin- gency of the supply situation and the availability of lemons for processing. As was noted earlier, some observers view the goals of the lemon products marketing order to include equalizing the burden of surplus disposal among the primary producers of lemon products. The order as it has operated may be in- terpreted as tending in that direction. Yet, the question may be and has been asked whether the order has any effect on equalizing the burden of supply shortages in those years when they occur. As presently witten, the language of the order does not explicitly refer to that point. If the supply situation were sufficiently tight writhout the control fea- tures of the order operating, the burden of supply deficit would be distributed among the industry participants as if there were no order in existence. In such a supply context, the order in its supply control provisions would be sterile or neutral. But when a relatively tight supply prevails through the effect of the order's stabilization pool features, the distribution of the im- pact from the created supply situation is related to the total acquisitions of processing lemons by the respective firms. In such a case firms bear the bur- den in relation to the California lemon tonnage which they have been able to 9d &I0OW snolc 'to sroli -rr 68. acquire unless they succeed in drawing upon supplies from other areas. To reach other results, either the order would have to be drastically amended or the competitive market structure of the industry would have to undergo sub- stantial modification. Neither of such alternatives, particularly the latter, is a subject of relevance for the purpose of this report. Rather of relevance here is the operation of the order within the economic context and industry structure presently existing. So far in this section, we have considered the lemon products order by itself as an independent, institutional vehicle for the lemon products indus- try. In terms of economic operation and effects, however, the order cannot be isolated from the rest of the lemon industry, including the fresh market sphere. In terms of economic interaction, lemon products and fresh lemon mar- keting, or in terms of supply and demand, lemon products and fresh lemons are interdependent parts of the same industry. What occurs in one sphere of the industry has carry-over effects to the other sphere either in the short run or in the long run. From a strictly logical viewpoint, both the fresh and processed spheres of the lemon industry should operate under a single and the same marketing order on the premise that orders are to be in existence. For legal and insti- tutional reasons, the fresh shipping part of the California-Arizona lemon in- dustry operates under a federal marketing order, inaugurated in 19U1, while the California lemon products part of the lemon industry operates under a Cali- fornia state marketing order. Yet, from the viex-f of the California lemon indus- try at large, the economic objectives and operations of the two orders should be consistent with each other. Within the present framework of operations, the seasonal and week-to-week flow of fresh shipments of fresh lemons from California-Arizona is controlled by the federal marketing order "prorate" committee representing the fresh 69. lemon shippers. Prior to or early in the season, the committee surveys the crop prospects and investigates economic conditions. With such materials as a basis, a season marketing policy is prepared which sets forth the expected to- tal crop and planned fresh shipments therefrom. As the season progresses and the size of the crop becomes more certain, and as economic conditions unfold and develop, the marketing policy statement is revised in light of the current and prospective situations. Weekly prorates are authorized to respective ship- pers with the intention that the sum of the weekly prorates during the season will aggregate to the planned seasonal total to be shipped fresh. A significant aspect of the fresh lemon prorate is that the prices of fresh lemons are influenced by regulating the seasonal total and intraseason flow of fresh lemons to market. Although movement into products channels is considered, the prime attention is directed to the flow of fresh market ship- ments, their prices, and retumsj prices and returns from lemon products are considered only indirectly. In other terms, the fresh lemon prorate does not directly grapple with the problem of allocating the total seasonal supply of lemons between the fresh and processed markets so as to attain clearly specified objectives of price and income returns from the entire crop. The fresh lemon prorate directs its primary attention to influencing the aggregate volume and particularly the week-to-week shipments of fresh lemons in view of price ob- jectives; and the utilization distribution between the fresh and processed out- lets is secondary. As has been noted earlier, the market demand for fresh lemons tends to be "inelastic," that is, mthin the range of usual operations, smaller total ship- ments bring higher gross f.o.b. or on-tree returns than do larger shipments for given levels of consumer income, temperature, and prices of competitive prod- ucts. For this reason the fresh lemon prorate committee has authorized for shipment to market seasonal totals less than the entire crop. Such a shipping 'Cl£ St-- ^ g« ' 70. policy and practice is followed, in the minds of some, to prevent "breaking the market," but a more basic reason is to increase seasonal total gross income from the fresh market. The difference between the crop and total fresh shipments has traditionally- been left as a residual to be absorbed by the products outlets. In the prewar and immediate postwar years when the products market was dominated by low-value lemon products, returns were negligible or very small from the products. But beginning in 1950 as the higher valued juice products (frozen concentrated lem- onade and single-strength lemon juice) grew in volume, products returns in- creased to record levels. With the introduction of the California lemon products order, the products part of the industry put itself in a position of controlling the flow of Cali- fornia lemons available for processing into various products. Such control was oriented toward regulating the flow of processing lemons to the higher valued juice products so as to prevent "breaking their market price." However, the evidence is not clear whether such regulation was effectuated so as to bring the raaxjjtium return from processed lemonsj the market experience and resulting statistical data for the higher valued juice products are not yet adequate to provide a necessary base for testing statistically the nature of the economic outcome. The allocation of the lemon crop to fresh market through the fresh lemon prorate has resulted in somewhat stable year-to-year seasonal fresh shipments in recent years. But this has occurred in the face of expanding national popu- lation, production, erqjloyment, and income; thus, in relation to the changing economic status of the country at large, fresh lemon consumption has lagged be- hind. On the other hand, the growing availability and consumption of lemon- juice products manufactured from California and other domestic lemons, as well as imported lermn stock, when added in equivalent units to fresh lemons results in an expanding per-capita consumption of lemons and lemon juice. •90 ■J liio-i: 71. Since the lemon products outlet must absorb in some way the crop residual not shipped fresh, the lemon products order committee is faced with a very com- plex situation. It has no complete control over the volume of processing lem- ons available, and since it also has no control over imports or domestic sup- plies for processing from outside California, it is faced with tailoring the flow of California processing lemons into juice products under a highly un- stable situation. If the flow of California lemons regulated into juice prod- ucts is restricted so as to enhance their price and returns, importations of lemon- juice stock are encouraged and domestic plantings in new as well as older areas are promoted. On the other hand, if supply regulation of products manu- factured from California lemons were not practiced, products prices returns would likely sagj and although importations and new plantings would be dis- couraged to an extent, the potentially lower priced lemon-juice products would generate even greater consumption competition with fresh lemons and be subject to adverse criticism from fresh lemon shippers. Thus, the nature of the situation in the institutional and economic con- text within which the lemon products order operates is such that it is subject to scrutiny certainly and perhaps denunciation no matter what course of action is followed. Even though some and potentially an increasing amount of such ad- verse criticism might be irrational (assuming that the present type of order is in operation), the effects on industry relations and operations are not of long-run benefit to those concerned. Rather, what is called for is more con- structive consideration of the basic problems facing the lemon industry. These problems include recognition of the interlocking of the fresh and products markets and the corresponding operation of the two orders in terms of economic objectives and effects— if not in administrative and legal terms^ and utilization of the crop and its allocation between the alternative outlets so 72. as to approach maximuin income returns from the total crop— subject to the coi straints of consumption competition between fresh lemons and juice products, effects of imports and their potential growth, effects on new plantings in virgin and established areas, and the long-run output and income position of the industry in light of the nation's growth and economic expansion. Essen- tial characteristics of these problems have been considered in various parts of this report. 73. Suryeylng_ the Lemon and Lemon Products Situation The previous sections were concerned with presenting a review of industry- trends and discussing several significant problems and potential developments facing the lemon and lemon products industry. The reader may derive from the earlier sections implications and conclusions which bear upon the current and particularly the future economic status of the industry. In this section we take a broad over-all look at developments as they im- pinge upon the relationships between the fresh lemon and products markets. This is necessary since a significant problem facing the lemon industry con- cerns the relationships of and interactions between the fresh and products mar- kets. The bases for the implications and indications of the survey in this section, hence, are set forth in the preceding sections, the substance of which the reader advisably should be familiar mth in order to follow the necessarily brief survey presented here. Many in the trade believe that their primary interest is in only the fresh market or only the products market. The validity of such views is questionable even in the short run. The fresh and products markets, in fact, are so closely bound together with respect to direct interaction that in reality they comprise a single economic market. Thus, when considering the general economic situa- tion in the lemon industry, there does not exist a separate fresh lemon produc- tion marketing problem and a separate lemon products problem. In terms of an economic and marketing framework, there exists a set of closely interlocked problems . Our survey may be considered in terras of events when significant market relationships were evident. During the hot weather period of July and August of 1955, the volume of shipments absorbed by the fresh market increased very slightly compared with the seasonal summer shipments of earlier recent years. 1 7U. But the price experience with respect to fresh lemon shipments was rather dis- appointing. This does not necessarily indicate, however, a depressed consumer demand for lemons and lemon products. The market absorption of lemon- juice products must be added to the fresh shipments. With the two combined, fresh lemons and lemon- juice products in terms of fresh equivalent, the total market disappearance increased. This is in line with the discussion of consumption trends in fresh lemons and lemon- juice products in an earlier section. It is reasonably clear that there is consumption competition between fresh lemons and lemon- juice products (frozen concentrated lemonade and canned single- strength lemon juice). Although the degree of consumption competition cannot at this stage of market development be measured precisely, there is reasonable evidence that such competition prevails to a significant extent in the hot weather periods. Furthermore, it may be that the degree of competition is likely stronger now than several years ago Kdien frozen lemonade concentrate was in its "infancy." And if the degree of competition changes, it is more likely to increase than decrease unless recent and current market-price and consumer-preference relationships reverse their trends. Presently, however, no reason for such reversal is apparent. In over-all terms and with the influence of the federal marketing order on fresh shipments, about 18,000 to 19,000 cars of fresh lemons are shipped annually. This annual rate has in recent years been remarkably stable due primarily to the operation of the federal marketing order for fresh shipments. These fresh shipments are used by consumers in a wide variety of uses in addi- tion to juice and for homemade beverages. For juice and beverage uses, con- sumers have been buying some frozen concentrated lemonade and canned single- strength juice manufactured domestically from imported base stock. In terms of fresh equivalent, the r-rte of ].emon products imports now amounts to about 2,000 cars annually. These importations must be added to the manufacture of 1$. lemon- juice products from domestic lemons to derive a juice figure which, idien combined with fresh shipments, indicates the over-all disappearance of lemons in the country. The significance of lemon- juice products imports and their potential growth was considered earlier. They are referred to here again to indicate that imports of lemon- juice products affect the domestic fresh market, as well as the domestic products market, due to the consumption competition be- tween the fresh and juice products markets. When the total disappearance of lemons (fresh and processed in cans and bottles, domestic and import origin) is compared with population growth, it appears that total usage and population grotrth have been about in line with each other in recent years. What decline has occurred in fresh lemon consump- tion has just about been offset by the increase in juice products consumption. But it should be noted that the lemon industry as a x^hole does not appear to have reaped significant gains from the expansion in national income during the same recent years. If prices and returns had increased in the face of a stable per-capita over-all disappearance, there would have been evidence of an e:q)an- sion in per-capita demand. But, as shown earliei; grower returns have not trended upward in recent years. Thus, although gross disappearance and popula- tion growth are keeping about in line with each other, neither the gross dis- appearance nor the returns to growers reflect a strong positive effect of the increasing national income. The total disappearance of domestic lemons may be separated into several major categories. The historically important and still largest outlet by far is the fresh market. This year about 19,000 cars will be shipped to the states in this country and Canada and about 3,500 cars exported. For the 19,000 cars, we estimate an on- tree return of about $3.15 or #3.20 per packed box, and for the 3,500 cars exported, an on-tree return of about $2.50 per packed box. Da'ilB sdr rairi/f;—;:. 3SO_ rjD em. ■fBn.i 76. These estimated returns for fresh shipments may be compared with esti- mated returns for products this year. Lemons manufactured into juice products are likely to yield about 80 cents per packed equivalent box, on- tree basis j and lemons manufactured into citric acid may yield a negative return of about minus $0 cents per packed equivalent box, on-tree basis. On an f.o.b. packing house basis, these returns correspond to about $^0 per ton for juice lemons and |15 per ton for lemons going into citric acid. These figures are not certain or precise, but they are suggestive and forcefully \mderline the significance of crop allocation aiaong the alternative outlets. In view of the comparative grower per-box returns from fresh and processed lemons noted above, the uninitiated might ask: "Then why not send all the lemons to fresh market?" The answer is well known to those familiar with the economic characteristics of fresh lemon shipments. Economic statistical studies as well as market experience clearly indicate that the market demand for fresh lemons is what is called "inelastic" j within the usual range of experiaice, in- creased seasonal fresh shipments will not only result in decreased prices per box but also result in decreased total returns. As a reflection of that type of relationship between market price and total returns, the entire crop for a long time has not been shipped fresh j as shown in the first section of the re- port, processed products have for a long time been used to absorb that part of the crop not shipped fresh. In historical institutional terms, one of the major reasons for introduc- ing the federal marketing order for fresh lemon shipments was to provide a vehicle for enforcing industrywide proportional compliance with the regulation of fresh shipments. And in the establishment and operation of the federal order, the grower- shipper interests supporting the order were well aware that lemons kept off the fresh market and channeled into products outlets would yield only small, if any, returns. Thus, the existence of a grower returns ... 3[tC:.-j. 90j.I. aria flJ^-' 77. differential in favor of the fresh market is not a recent development; rather, it is a reflection of the industry's intended and planned operations to obtain increased returns from the crop. Hence, the situation in the past five or six years in certain respects is not different from the earlier years. But in terms of the structure of the products market, a significant change has occurred. With the growth in frozen concentrated lemonade and canned single- strength lemon juice, the products outlet is now made up of a larger proportion of high-value products. It is due to these higher valued products that grower returns from processed lemons at- tained the relatively favorable levels in some of the recent years. In other terms as the products took on some of the use characteristics of fresh lemons, there was a tendency for products returns to yield returns closer to those of fresh. But at the same time, there was generated a degree of consumption com- petition between the fresh lemon and juice products markets. Thus, there arose a different type of problem with respect to allocation of the crop among the fresh and products outlets. Previously, the two outlets were substantially in- dependent in consumption demandj but now the two outlets have become signifi- cantly if not completely interdependent in consumption demand. The consmption competition referred to above may be illustrated with reference to homemade lemonade from fresh lemons and home use of frozen concen- trated lemonade. From the view of the household consumer and in terms of cur- rent retail prices, lemonade made from fresh lemons and lemonade made from frozen concentrate cost about the same on an equivalent quart of lemonade basis. Further, for many consumers the frozen concentrated lemonade provides use conveniences sought by contemporary home managers. The same applies to canned single-strength lemon juice, the household cost of which is currently extremely favorable in terms of cents per ounce of lemon juice compared with 78 juice home squeezed from fresh lemons. This situation is much different from viiat was generally characteristic of relations between the fresh lemon and processed markets in the prewar years. As the federal marketing order for fresh lemon shipments was utilized to regulate the floK of fresh lemons from the California-Arizona producing areas to the receiving markets, the California state marketing order for lemon prod- ucts was introduced with one of its major objectives to regulate the manufacture and flow of juice products into trade and consumption channels but which also directly affects prices and returns from processed lemons. In the majority of the years since 19^0, although with important exceptions, the available supply of California lemons for processing was more than adequate to provide lemon- juice product packs which would be absorbed by the market without substantially depressing the market price for juice products. The products order was in- tended to "equalize the burden" of "surplus" lemons for products or to cushion price breaks in lemon- juice products. The order was framed with the implica- tion that, since the dominant source of supply was from California lemons, the state marketing order could provide a mechanism for controlling the supply pressure of juice products. Significant leakages from supply sources outside of California apparently were not fully envisaged. As discussed in a previous section, the importation of lemon stock for the domestic manufacture of juice products has tended to increase. This was as- sociated with the increased demand for processing lemons in relation to their supply and price situation and particularly because of the limited period when a relatively "tight" situation prevailed in the available supply of California lemons for juice products manufacture. Some producers of lemon- juice products drew upon imports because of unavailable domestic stock or because what was physically available could be purchased only at prices above the import plus tariff price structure. Hence, a leakage was widened in the supply source for lemon stock usable in the manufacture of juice products. 79. Another leakage was also created by the increased value of processing lem- ons. Areas in this country that had not produced lemons previously became po- tential suppliers. One of the previous sections outlines the situation as it has been developing in the desert area of California-Arizona and in Florida. The lemons from the desert section of Arizona and from Florida, being thought of as primarily suited for products use, thus bring pressure on the lemon- juice supplies. Although the actually realized volumes from those areas so far have been small (percentagewise), the production potential of such areas is very substantial and likely could be realized with the encouragement of anticipated returns. Hence, such supplies for products in conjunction with imports create a sphere of supply pressure beyond the control regulation of the California state lemon products marketing order. As the California lemon products order has been operating in most years, not only has a price floor been established for California lemons processed into juice products, but in addition, the order has indirectly afforded price protec- tion to competing areas. In addition to benefiting from such price protection, areas as Italy, Florida, and Arizona enjoy lower lemon-producing cost struc- tures than most growers in California, One may suspect that Italian producers of lemon- juice stock can profitably land their supplies into this country over the tariff even with the price effects of the California lemon products market- ing order. And one may suspect that new producing areas in Florida once es- tablished on a going basis can profitably supply lemons for juice processing. These developments not only bear upon the lemon- juice products market but also on the fresh lemon market. This is so because of the consumption competi- tion between lemon- juice products and fresh lemons. Further, as juice supplies originating from areas outside California assume increasing volume, there de- velops a relatively restricted market outlet of value for California lemons to be processed into juice products. • or cfx &6 noidi'.itia arid' Eahxliijo snoic^ose e;. edi !< Isljr; J. betxae v.-Cj lo nil is bao\Qo .Tfttrro t;f' ., ' KSt^j ^t'.or" iTnrfi- '••^'ff,* 'f^rt '"^^r^^ ."^^^VT' r'""* ■^'f^^'^ --t-i.;' ^-^^oiT " 10 M^4i(^Xj.i-.i^v 9t9f!+ .e-s.iii.ov .311? 80. The developments sketched above mean, in essence, that the economic mar- keting setting in which the California lemon industry now operates differs in some important respects from earlier years. Not only does there result effects on the potential earnings of California lemon growers, but also there are sig- nificant changes in the economic framework mthin which operate the federal marketing order for fresh lemon shipments and the state marketing order for lemon products. The implications for the marketing orders were discussed in some detail in a previous section. In the over-all survey in this section, it may be noted that the current situation in conjunction xcLth recent and potential developments emphasizes the importance of considering the fresh and processed markets and their respective marketing orders as closely interrelated dimensions of an es- sentially single economic market. Rather than thinking and operating in terms of obtaining as large as possible returns from the fresh market with the crop residual to be left for the products market and then operating it so as to ob- tain as large as possible returns from it independently, the industry faces the problem of developing an integrated system of operating the interdependent fresh and products market. Such a system should be oriented toward a dynamic economic setting in which the lemon industry finds itself. Actual and potential changes in production areas, changing patterns of consumer income, tastes and consump- tion behavior, and international trade impacts as well as technological develop- ments are among the influences of which the industry must be aware. The short- run view should be tempered with the long-run prospects of the industry which of necessity operates in a competitive and changing economic environment. TABLE 1 World Lemon Production Year United States | Italy j World total" thousand packed boxes. 1919-20 4,532 1920-21 5,641 1921-22 4,377 3,783 1922-23 1923-24 6,432 1924-25 5,301 1925-26 7,317 1926-27 6,861 1927-28 5,419 1928-29 7,620 1929-30 6,109 1930-31 7,950 7,696 1931-32 1932-33 6,704 1933-34 7,295 10,747 1934-35 1935-36 7,878 1936-37 7,579 9,304 1937-38 1938-39 11,106 1939-40 ll,9o3 I94O-4I 17,230 1941-42 11,720 1942-43 14,880 1943-44 11,050 1944-45 12,633 1945-46 14, 500 1946-47 13,800 1947-48 12,900 1948-49 9,900 1949-50 11, 500 13,450 1950-51 1951-52 12,800 1952-53 12,590 1953-54 16,130 1954-55 14,000 1955-56 13,200 10,588 10,099 12,067 13,316 12,150 12,801 13,080 16,151 13,015 13,038 15,079 15,154 11,283 18,598 13,024 11,155 10,253 8,247 8,662 11,330 9,694 9,897 9,860 9,204 7,lv55 6,800 6,400 7,100 8,100 7,400 8,900 8,931 8,658 8,399 8,911 8,018 8,122 15,854 16,366 17,251 18,735 20,198 19,984 22,482 25,033 20,643 23,^35 23,911^ 25,837 21,732 28,128 23,203 25,491 22,236 20,676 23,289 27,917 27,193 32,942 27,224 30,714 24,363 24,200 25,700 26,500 28,000 24, 500 25,800 29,792 29,720 29, 4o8 33,379 29,882 3/ a/ Data not available. Sources: Sunkist Growers, Statistical Information on the Citrus Fruit Industry , and U. S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Crops and Markets (Washington: Govt. Print. Off., July, 19Sh, and January, 1956). 1 1,S9Y ■ ! ;^ ■ ( ""*■ ■ *■ 1 - ^ *. 9-0,0 i4d,? V- J , ( : c CO r 1 '"• J?" . '■ - ■'L < V , ,. ^ Ci^Acpr 1 • ; ■ 1 1 .~>(^'.-. : \ .I?itC. . : 1 • 4c : ' li ■ < C * ^ or "i C" i ^- V. 1- C v.-*- 1 '>-8rPC ! Fo; ■ - - - 04.!-(-'r>r i £•■• . . V?8,Q 1 0S8 P ' ' ■ 086 ,4i r . 1 1 ^ >. ^ i \ COS.f'- , 008, a ■•■■jJ_44Pr ■ ■ 00? 4 ' 008, A. i OOC^b^ 001 ,e 1 00? . ! ' •Ait*;. ooe,?:. 1 ■ ■■ 1 f ! p.'ii.SI I/P 8 288, 810,6 [ ;oo,4i 1 " V. .' SSI ,6 i TABLE 2 Production of Lemons, Selected Foreign Countries Crop year " Spain r Greece Argentina Chile Lebanon Israel Turkey Algeria Union of South Africa thousand boxes Five-year average : 1935-36 to 1939-UO hk6 371 250 88^ 7U 102 ll;2 19U5-U6 to 19U9-50 1,108 633 1,3U0 610 hl6 288 260 131 180 Annual: 19U7-U8 19U8-U9 19U9-50 1950- 51 1951- 52 1952- 53 1953- 5U I95I1-55 1955-56 1,083 1,339 812 870 l,li3l l,6i;2 l,87li 2,205 1,015 1,305 U77 635 315 911 861; 899 1,085 1,209 1,179 1,11U 1,131; 1,350 1,1;00 1,770 1,690 1,690 1,535 1,U53 1,500 s/ 658 l,ll;6 1,167 1,11;6 928 928 812 li35 725 c/ 135 580 3U8 290 U35 522 U35 li50 ii35 1;50 353 500 105 130 172 25U 220 295 373 350 232 311; 359 2i;U 193 i;21 667 U70 755 865 102 92 159 186 2U1; 291 2l;7 290 290 320 188 182 191 208 212 176 218 2l;9 261 £/ a/ Includes Syria. b/ Production in Palestine, c/ Data not available. Sources: U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service from the records of Foreign Agricultural Service, and U. S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Crops and Markets (Washington: Govt. Print. Off., 1956). ro Th?o ! ■ i : \.oqr:!. 83. TABLE 3 California Lemon Production by Major Producing Counties Los San San Santa Year Angeles Orange Riverside Bernardino Diego Barbara Ventura thousand packed boxes 1929-30 l,l46il 722 322 767 932 292 970 1930-31 2,006 1>7U8 861 502 1,010 72I1 922 382 1,283 1931-32 5714 I465 738 358 l,3l;7 1932-33 867 3I48 780 739 293 976 1933-31; 1,985 726 563 837 599 I422 1,183 l,7l45 193U-35 2,063 897 li68 9104 551 835 1935-36 2,021 905 56I4 821 827 599 l,60l4 1936-37 1,538 566 379 597 14214 710 2,101; 1937-38 1,75U 929 3514 533 686 1,013 1,076 2,1432 1938-39 2,620 2,667 839 610 787 837 2,298 1939-140 1,230 1,836 5814 876 1,117 1,386 2,550 19li0-lil 3,2it5 900 1,766 971 1,882 1,1431; lj,822 19lil-i42 2,351i 1,251 1466 1,272 1,338 3,308 19li2-i;3 3,115 1,381 728 1,286 l,3l4l 2,079 1;,789 19143-101 2,365 1,0314 601 1,198 1,110 1,238 2,898 I9I4I4-I45 2,795 1,382 l,ll4l 802 1,139 l,2l47 l,09i4 1,265 1,1;91 3,338 19145-146 2,920 2,5214 72I4 1,191 1,1314 2,003 1,953 1;,863 I9I46-J47 1,202 700 I;, 805 19i47-ii8 2,08l4 1,127 6I4I 903 l,0l49 1,991; 14,882 19I46-I49 l,8i42 832 752 701 763 1,373 3,9l45 I9I49-50 2,068 759 I470 730 622 1,599 14,157 1950-51 2,319 2,150 1,073 8I47 1,082 1,090 l,90it 1951-52 818 736 1,032 988 1,81;2 a, 880 1952-53 2,260 788 767 1,169 822 1,686 14,363 Source: Calculated from data issued by Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, Southern California Crops and Markets. (Annual statistical supplements.) 1 _ _ , f ■ ■ . . i <"■ ; ■ - . . -J m 0X0,1 . '.<■ - ■ .L .. 'c m- :o;-; • sous ■v - 015 •<>.-aeQ : - m Of 'Sit . :,.6,i ! f r *" r ;i • 1- - , i . ' ■ - SCO,.! ■ J^ 88V TABLE h California Lemon Nonbearing Acreage, Selected Counties Tulare Los Angeles Orange Riverside San Bernardino San Diego Santa Barbara Ventura Other Total 1 J 2 3 h d > 6 7 8 9 10 acres 1937 1938 166 181 179 2,10U ! 1,812 l,ii62 9h9 675 U58 266 2li9 2h6 l,26ii 1,351 1,137 2,079 1,859 1,88U 2,9l;5 2,629 2,933 5,05h ii,576 5.289 165 155 89 U,992 13,li87 13,677 19hO 19I1I 19ii2 19ii3 I9U; 205 180 178 187 133 1,303 1,150 802 600 5ii2 352 3U3 312 272 189 186 1U3 200 197 1U8 960 766 236 135 1,996 1,793 1,563 l,la3 651 2,957 2,760 2,387 2,08ii 1,515 5,859 6,175 5,670 U,890 3,507 91 132 108 107 112 13,909 13 , aU2 11,761 9,716 6,932 19W 19ii6 19li7 19ii8 191^9^ II43 101 112 12ii 126 lilO 338 302 380 297 loU 111 225 331 333 153 186 151 226 2ii8 83 81 118 1I;8 173 322 200 197 262 32ii 1,202 1,095 1,206 l,ijl3 1,516 2,lil5 1,832 2,330 3,117 U,016 103 53 h6 3h h It, 935 3,997 1^,687 6,035 7,037 1950 1951 1952 1953 195I1 13ii 123 139 116 133 281 230 229 110 8U 329 325 207 105 1U6 2i;8 29i^ 280 327 298 2U0 271 262 287 3ii6 300 517 I468 )435 175 1,763 1,709 1,630 1,611 1,573 5,283 5,620 5,510 5,817 5,659 h 3 3 3 9 8,582 9,092 8,728 8,811 8,723 5,683 5,756 5,372 6,679 6,932 (Continued on next page.) 1 ;. . • i 1 J ) Table U continued. a/ Acreage estimates from 19U9-1953 may not be iidiolly comparable >rf.th "Uiose of earlier years because of the results of revised surveys completed since 19U8 in the various important producing counties. Sources: Cols. 1-10: 1937-1953— California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Acreage^E st imate s , C alif omia Fruit and Nut Crops, 1919-1953 (Sacramento: State Print. Off., April, 1956), 225p. (Cali- fornia Department of Agriculture Special Publication 257— supplement.) I95I-!— Calif omia Crop and Livestock Reporting Service , Acre apie Estim ate s , C al if ornia . Fruit and Mut Crops, 195a (Sacramento: State Print. Off., June, 195^). Col, 11: As reported by Lemon Administrative Committee. TABLE 5 California Lemon Bearing Acreage, Selected Counties Year Tulare Los Angeles Orange Riverside San Bernardino San Diego Santa Barbara 1 Ventura j Other Total 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 B I 9 10 11 acres 1937 1938 1939 1,111 1,151 1,163 10,l8ii 10,715 11,211 6,792 7,135 7,lil2 3,523 3,530 3,U99 5,105 5,256 5,528 5,235 5,760 6,500 3,5U7 i;,ii35 i;,620 10,1^59 ll,Oi|l ll,06ii 9oo 975 723 U6,922 h9,99^ 51,720 19iiO 19iil 19ii2 19l;3 19l4li 1,132 1,16U 1,186 1,196 1,262 ll,it70 11,631 11,930 12,086 12,200 7,li70 7,295 7,262 7,29U 7,352 3,569 3,6ii3 3,63ii 3,6ii2 3,659 5,695 5,895 5,981i 6,165 6,216 6,795 6,930 7,020 7,290 7,165 5,050 5,630 6,130 6,720 7,ii60 10,9ii6 ll,li98 12,ii3ii 13,298 llt,97li 712 6Qh 677 527 522 52,839 5U,370 56,257 58,218 60,810 19h$ 19h6 19h7 191^8 . 19U9^ l,2ii6 1,229 1,236 l,2ii2 1,239 12,209 12,228 11,969 ll,U6ii 10,718 7,hh2 7,U21 7,030 6,539 5,156 3,675 3,60li 3,579 3,li66 3,2ii3 6,203 6,lii3 6,079 5,898 5,718 lykSO 7,330 6,920 6,310 5,U75 7,905 7,095 7,000 7,080 7,230 16,269 17,330 17,582 17,515 17,32U 535 58ii 510 507 510 62,9ijii 62,96ii 61,905 60,021 56,6U3 1950 1951 1952 1953 19Sh 1,061 1,165 92I4 9hl 97h 10,l4iiO 10,092 9,861 9,^66 8,771 U,938 li,798 1,832 1;,666 li,6l5 3,23ii 3,190 3,106 3,072 3,099 5,679 5,535 5,512 5,Uii8 5,30li 5,U10 5,070 li,800 n,399 h,Uli9 7,2itO 7,ij78 7,600 7,909 7,080 16,876 17, m 17,598 18,150 I8,31ii ii75 331 329 325 325 55,353 5U,833 5ii,565 5ia,376 52,931 58,239 59,138 58,U53 57,160 56,575 (Continued on next page.) f Coi'VJ:^;'^:;;:? ou 3^6x4: lis tit-) 1. -i.J'^j ! Tr-^O : ym 1 t: r:- - r . ■ 1 1. j.Sl' I- r.' .. 0 j*TT.:r' • - .^','.1,1,', J i ■■• i< 1 ■ "i ~- ■- .- 1 i 1 , ,. , ,■ ., ,.'•„■ . • . . • I .J «r 1 . - - — .. IT ^ ■ "" "T Table 5 continued. a/ Acreage estimates from 19U9-19^U may not be wholly comparable with those of earlier years because of the results " of revised surveys completed since 19U8 in the various Miportant producing counties. Sources! Cols. 1-10: 1937-1953— California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Acreage Estma tes, California Fruit and Mut Crops, 1919-19^3 (Sacramento: State Print. Off., April, 19'55) , 225p. '(California Department of Agriculture Special Publication 257 — supplement.) 1951; — California Crop and Livestock Reporting Senrice, Acreage E stimates, Calif oi-nia Fruit and Nut Crops, 195U (Sacramento: State Print. Off., June, 1953T. (Annual issues.) Col. 11: As reported by Lemon Administrative Committee. T3" C»- 88, TABLE 6 California Lemon Acreage Planted During Indicated Years and Standing in 19$h CSIiX* U-XO— A r»T»*3 3 CfP Age of trees pxctnuea pxanoeo. in years T Q ^ Q rtT» o fa T»l T ay* XOj ( po C\j or more 7 J UXi| 21- -25 XXj XOJ 16- ■20 18. ill XVJ s XLf ? Ill 9 XU- ■xp ■? 91 19iil 1,750 13- -lU 2.8U 19U2 926 X C- "XJ5 1.50 61i9 XX- .1 9 *X£ i.o5 19Uii 7ii3 xu- 'XX 1.20 9- -10 w • 744 8- 7 1 Q1i7 x,p ( t 7" - 8 t • pp 19U8 1,978 6- - 7 3.21 X71+7 1 702 P" . 6 2.76 195() 2,281 ), c ' p 3.70 1951 1,366 - u 2,22 X, top 2- - 3 2.05 1953 tr, XUO 1. . 2 •? J18 l,6i46 1 year or less 2.67 in 1951^ 6l,6SU 100.00 Per cent of total acreage Total bearing 85.9 acreage in 195I|. 52,931 Total nonbearing li+.l acreage in 195It 8,723 61,651; 100.00 Source: Based on data in California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Acreage Estimates, California Fruit and Nut Crops, 195U (Sacramento: state Print. Off., June, 1955). (Annual issues.) : lii v.- ; -. ( .i . « -i. 1 1 0 ' J. ,j. TABLE 7 Lemon and Lime Trees Moved from Florida Nurseries to Florida Destinations Year (July-Jme; Limes Lemons number of trees 1920-29 8,3U8 2,020 1929-30 8,5U7 1,907 1930-31 11,187 3,031 1931-32 25,687 3,771 ii,313 1932-33 17,785 1933-3U 140,616 22,U38 193U-35 33,666 11,400 1935-36 61,207 1 23, o5U 29,U72 1936-37 19,381 1937-3° Pn mil -L^ , U'J / 1930-39 ii7,U32 8,600 6,U35 1939-iiO 26,899 26,550 2,961 19U1-U2 lii,hl2 2,751 19U2-li3 lU,ii06 2,229 3,287 l9ii3-UU 11,931 15,190 19iiU-U5 2,109 19U5-U6 20,87U 1,970 6,328 19U6-U7 3U,755 19U7-U8 26,392 33,635 U,22U 19U8-U9 5,923 6,875 19U9-50 21,180 1950-51 17,206 25,696 7,351 1951-52 6,0l;0 1952-53 35,256 6,908 1953-5U 87,232 71,559 31,621 63,333 I Source: Savage, Zach, Movanent of Citrus Trees from Florida Nurseries (Gainesville; Univer- sity of Florida, College of Agriculture, Agriciiltural Experiment Station, 1955), 3Up. (Agricultural Economics Mimeographed Report 56-i;.) '11 'r.uXii t.rw fii-in'-OJ. : j.-jii.'0O TABLE 8 Lemon Trees Moved from Florida Nurseries to Florida Destinations Year (July- June) 1928- 29 1929- 30 1930- 31 1931- 32 1932- 33 1933- 3U 193U-35 1935- 36 1936- 37 1937- 38 1938- 39 1939- UO 19U0-U1 19U1-U2 19U2-U3 19U3-UU 19UU-U5 l9U5-h6 19U6-U7 19U7-U8 19U8-U9 19U9-50 1950- 51 1951- 52 1952- 53 1953- 5U 195U-55 Variety Villa Franca Perrine Meyers Sperriola Ponderosa Other lemons U89 12 u 353 131 l|21 785 1,028 3o oUO 6U5 o53 1,701 361 lo,oOU 192 o,o00 2U,13a i,93U 255 1, jDU 258 13,777 239 0,291 1,355 215 1,585 139 62 U 3,U17 lu8 259 Q'JQ 7jy 139 mu 130 1,066 1,178 296 198 112 2hh 720 65 9 771 86 3 1,7U7 70 5 1,981 50 3,061 52 3,200 3,567 8U 16 31 2 2,826 3,66U 100 31 '5 7,858 2,709 10 11,136 number of trees Total 1 1 I 155 1,252 2,020 i 15/ l,2oo l,90f 1 I6U 1,661 3,031 1 1 lo2 1,679 3, 1 f 1 1 223 138 1,392 2,909 U,313 322 i 716 7U 1,770 11 , uoo 1 29U 230 o 19, Jol i 856 310 1 1 I.n7 1 201 <:U1 U, juy ft Ann o,l4.^p 1 101 3OU l,OpU o< T 1 1 vv>/;. *^ ^. o 1' . j I - ■ ■ ; iO % 0; 5"! . f rm 1 1.; t ^. ■ 139 t i J95 >MAJ i -* ' ; * t T ; 1 ( S*050 i I 9h. TABLE 11 California Acreage, Yield, and Production of Lemons Total acreage Bearing acreage Yields Production t Yield Year Acres Index Acres Index ; per bearing ' acre Index Pro- duction Index 1 2 3 \x ! 5 6 1 7 8 thou- sands 1935-1939= 100 thou- sands 1935-1939= 100 ^ packed ! boxes H 1935-1939= 100 j thousand j packed i boxes 1935-1939= 100 1919- 20 1920- 21 1921- 22 1922- 23 1923- 2U 192li-25 1925- 26 1926- 27 1927- 28 1928- 29 1929- 30 1930- 31 1931- 32 1932- 33 1933- 3U 193ii-35 1935- 36 1936- 37 1937- 38 1938- 39 1939- 1^0 I9U0-UI 19i;l-ii2 191;2-1j3 19h3-hh 19UU-1;5 i 19U5-U6 1 oil A I."? l9h7-kB 19kQ-h9 J 19it9-5o^ 1950- 51 1951- 52 1952- 53 1953- 5U l95ii-55 ii6.0 ii6.7 i;6.9 li6.5 ii6.2 1;5.8 1;5.2 )4ii.7 Uii.5 )45.2 1;5.8 i;7.8 50.2 53.0 55.1; 58.0 58.8 59.8 61.9 63.5 65.U 66.7 67.8 68.0 67.9 67.7 67.9 67.0 66.6 66.0 63.7 63.9 63.9 63.3 63.2 61,6 1 7U.3 75.5 75.8 75.1 7U.7 7i4.0 73.0 72.2 71.9 73.0 71;. 0 77.2 81.1 85.6 89.5 93.7 95.0 96.6 100.0 102.6 105.7 107.8 109.6 110.0 109.7 109.1; 109.7 108.3 107.6 106.6 102.9 103.3 103.3 102.3 102.1 99.5 35.6 38.3 1;0.5 Ul.o 1;1.2 1;1.3 l;i.6 la. 6 Ul.O 1;0.9 i;0.5 1;0.7 1;1.0 1;0.8 UO.l; 1;1.1 1;2.1 1;3.6 1;6.9 50.0 51.7 52.8 5i;.l; 56.2 58.2 60.8 62.9 63.0 61.9 60.0 56.6 55.1; 51;.8 5U.6 5i;.l; 52.9 i, 76.0 81.7 86.1; 87.5 87.9 88.1 88.8 88.8 87.5 87.3 86.1; 86.8 87.5 87.1 86.2 87.7 89.8 93.0 102.2 106.7 110.3 112.7 116.1 119.9 121;. 2 129.7 13l;.2 13l;.2 132.1 128.0 120.8 118.2 116.9 116.5 116.1 112.9 i 127 ! Ili7 1 108 92 156 128 176 165 132 186 151 195 188 161; 180 261 185 171; 198 222 232 326 215 265 191 207 *— ^ 1 230 219 208 167 201 2i;2 231; 231 i 296 1 261 1 i 1 62.8 72.7 53.U 1;5.5 77.2 63.3 87.0 81.6 65.3 92.0 71;. 7 96.1; 93.0 81.1 89.0 129.1 91.5 86.0 97.9 109.8 111;. 7 161.2 106.3 131.0 91;. 5 102. k 113.7 108.3 102.9 82.6 99.1; 119.7 115.7 lll;.2 ll;6.i; 121.7 i ii,532 5,61;1 i;,377 3,783 6,1;32 5,301 7,317 6,861 5,1;19 7,620 6,109 7,950 7,696 6,701; 7,295 10,7l;7 7,787 7,579 9,301; 11,106 11,983 17,200 11,700 11;, 900 11,100 ll;,5oo 13,800 12,900 10,000 ll,i;00 13,1;00 12,800 12,600 16,100 13,800 1;7.1; 59.1 1;5.8 39.6 67.3 55.5 76.6 71.8 56.7 79.8 61;. 0 83.2 80.6 70.2 76.1; 112.5 81.5 79.3 97.1; 116.3 125.5 180.1 122.5 156.0 116.2 151.8 ll;l;.5 135.1 103.6 119.3 ll;0.2 13l;.0 131.9 168.5 ll»l;.5 (Continued on next page.) 10 A aiaiolisIsO iafcnaa ' 0 • 1 • - - 5.: ii.C 5.» Sxi. i t^/i 1.001. a..;.. O00.0.C - i •'; rr.> Y.r C<'.. c - , til. > 06S x&s i •op . A i ■■' liV r r r ' till ! rr . o« ^0 , " ■ « , ■ V.od X , ■ 0*0X1 Y.^OX : e.o? ^^,<^r r V- . ^.Td ( O.Ca ■ Oi., O.Td i.SCX Q.Xi O.GSX O.Gd b,boi O.db 8.C5X 5.6X1 i ' f,.E_OX 5.0X1 ■ I.' ' X. . ■ :''ib 1 « ixen no bsirnidnoD) 95. Table 11 continued. a/ Acreage data for years beginning with 19ii9-50 may not be wholly comparable with those of earlier years because of the results of revised surveys com- pleted since 19U8 in the various important producing counties. Sources: Acreage from California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Acreage Estimates, California Fruit and Nut Crops, 1919-19^3 (Sacramento; State Print."^f., April, 19^6), 225p. (California Department of Agriculture Special Publication 257— supplement.) Production from Sunkist Growers, Sta- Information on the Citru s Fruit jrndustjy . (Annual issues.) Yields computed by dividing bearing" acreage into production. 195U-55 total and bearing acreage from California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Acreage Estimates, California Fruit and Nut Crops, 19^h (Sacrfmento: State Print. Off., June, 1955)T'"TAnnual issuesT) ~~ .J Oil -^sir; •• ^,. ■ >r-v.* -'•-'^ ..... TABLE 12 Average Size of California-Arizona Lemons Sold as Fresh Fruit Number of Number of lemons per lemons per Year packed box Year packed box 1925-26 325 19liO-hl 360 1926-27 329 19U1-U2 351 1927-28 3Li6 19li2-U3 356 1928-29 388 19U3-UU 3hl 1929-30 353 19UU-U5 3i;2 1930-31 3ii9 19U5-U6 3U9 1931-32 355 19l;6-U7 352 1932-33 36U 19l;7-U8 355 1933-3li 373 19U8-U9 376 1931- 35 358 19U9-50 361 1935-36 372 1950-51 35U 1936-37 377 1951-52 356 1937-38 358 1952-53 350 1938-39 366 l953-5h 3h6 1939-140 360 195U-55 3U6 Source: Compiled by Sunkist Growers, 1 1 . . .,;c I 1 t t • if I 1 ' ■ 1 -P i d\>P • < 'iCi t ©01X702 97, TABLE 13 Size Distribution of California-Arizona Fresh Lemons Per cent each size was of total shipped Size Si 7,P Size Size Size Size Size 1 Size Average size Year 180 210 252 300 360 li32 ii90 588 1937-38 0.1 0.6 3.l4^ 32.1 36.6 5.1 li.l£/ 357.9 1938-39 0.1 0.8 ii.5 27.5 39.ii 17.5^ 6.6 3.6BJ 366.0 1939-Uo 0.1 0.9 5.1 30.0 39.6 I5.ii 5.8 360. ii 19U0-lil 0.1 1.7 9.8 30.7 3ii.9 15.1 5.6 2.1^ 351.2 19iil-U2 0.1 1.8 8.9 28.7 35.2 l6,h 6.8 2.1 355.8 19h2-h3 0.7 5.1 15.9 25.6 29.2 16.0 6.0 1.5 3iil.li 19h3-hh 0.7 3.7 12.9 25.2 31.0 I6.it 7.3 2.8 351.8 19hh-hS 1.0 3.9 13.9 27.3 31.6 15.2 5.9 1.2 3h2,3 19k5~k6 o.U 2.5 10.7 25.9 37.0 18.1 5.1 0.3 3ii8.8 19ii6-U7 0.3 1,8 9.0 26.7 38.0 18.1 5.8 0.3 351.7 19U7-U8 0.3 2.2 9.7 2h.9 36.6 19.2 6.9 0.2 35I1.7 19ii8-li9 0.3 l.h 7.0 21.6 33.6 20.5 11.5 ii.l 376.0 19ii9-50 0.1 1.3 7M 26.9 37.1 17.1 7.7 2.ii 56l.il 1950-51 0.1 l.ii 8.5 28.2 37.7 16.7 6.5 0.9 35ii.O 1951-52 0.2 1.7 9.5 26.il 36.3 17.1 7.6 1.2 356.0 1952-53 0.1 2.0 10.3 30.6 3it.3 lii.6 6.8 1.3 350.0 1953-51; 2.3 10.9 31.2 3h.h Ih.h 5.8 1.0 3ii6.0 i951i-55 0.1 2.0 9.6 32.ii 35.2 IU.3 5.5 0.9 3I46.O a/ Size 2iiO. b/ Includes size liii2. c/ Includes size 5i;0; also 1937-38 includes 0.3 per cent smaller than 588j and 1938-39, 0.1 per cent smaller. Source; Compiled by SunkLst Growers. 1 I I 0 a itk~B imro'tllfc': tj a. ('4 v'A*^ 1 I • i r r ! r i c. O.S i TABLE Ik Utilization of California Lemons 98. Year Total sales Fresh sales Processed and eliminated thousand packed boxes 1919- 20 1920- 21 1921- 22 1922- 23 1923- 2]; 192it-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 19liO-i|l 19l;l-ii2 19i|2-li3 19h3-lih 19l|ii-li5 19it5-li6 19ii6-li7 19h8-h9 19ii9-50 1950- 51 1951- 52 1952- 53 1953- 5ii 19Bh-$S h,S21 5,630 1^,366 3,772 6,ii21 5,290 7,305 6,8ii9 5,ii06 1,(>01 6,095 7,936 7,682 6,690 7,281 10,733 7,773 7,565 9,290 11,092 11,969 16,719 II, 705 III, 865 11,035 12,535 13,785 12,855 9,995 ll,i;00 13,500 12,800 12,600 16,100 lit, 000 ii,038 5,037 li,085 3,676 5,26ii 5,821 k,m 5,629 5,701; 5,21*7 5,7li2 6,191; 7,181; 7,1|22 6,533 7,761 7,777 8,327 8,863 7,870 9,61*0 9,261* 9,635 9,115 9,371 8,1*69 7,780 7,800 8,300 8,1*00 8,200 8,500 9,100 1*83 593 281 96 1,157 515 1,1*81; 2,315 511 2,033 1*66 2,232 2,1*35 91*8 1,087 3,51*9 351 1,032 1,529 3,315 3,61*2 7,856 3,835 5,225 1,771 2,900 5,321 l;,l*ll; 1;,386 2,215 3,600 5,200 l*,liOO l*,i*oo 7,600 1*,900 Processed as per cent of total per cent 10.7 10.5 6.1* 2.5 18.0 9.7 20.3 33.8 9.5 26.7 7.6 28.1 31.7 11;. 2 ll;.9 33.1 1*.5 13.6 16.5 29.9 30.1; i;7.0 32.8 35.1 16.0 23.1 36.9 32.0 3l;.l 22,2 31.6 38.0 35.5 35.6 1;7.1 35.3 Sources! U. S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics and U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service, Citrus Fruits; Production, Farm Disposition, Value , and Utilization of Sales (Washington, D. C), (Annual issues.) froc- essed, Als(% Sunkist Growers, Statistical Information on the Citrus Fruit Industry. (Annual issues.) 8.£?. t • 1, F •'^ 0 ^ ••,11* SCO. I ...<■_■,( ii.sr •• : [ ^.>c XT':,? : ^.s^ 08r J u - ooai6 ! 005*8 !■■•;"■■ .: 1 1 0-00 1 cc- ■ -or ! TABLE 15 California-Arizona Industry Shipments of Lemons and Percentage Shipped Fresh Tear United States Canada Total fresh shipments to United States and Canada California- Arizona utilization Fresh shipments to United States and Canada as per cent of total utilization 1 2 3 li 5 standard cars. ii06 boxes per car per cent 19lil-ii2 19l;2-li3 19U3-iiU 19UU-1;5 18,1;00 22,3ii3 21,703 21,U26 1,182 1,108 1,182 1,355 19,582 23,li5l 22,885 22,781 29,097 37.017 28,232 30,578 67.3 63.1; 81.1 7l;.5 19U5-U6 19116- li7 19117- it8 19118- li9 19lt9-50 20,76ii 21,311 20,278 19,070 17,305 1,281 1,059 320 271 591 22,Oli5 22,370 20,598 19,311 17,896 35,775 33,321 31,972 25,631; 25,822 61.6 67.1 61;. 1; 75.5 69.3 1950- 51 1951- 52 1952- 53 1953- 5U 195I4-55 I8,82li 19,lii7 18,371; l8,i;60 17,957 i 887 961 911 862 982 19,711 20,108 19,285 19,322 18,939 33,2i;0 32,722 31,1405 1;1,103 31;, 711 59.3 61.5 61.1; 17.0 51;.6 Sources: Compiled by Sunkist Growers from data issued by the following agencies: Col, 1: Column 3 rainua colunin 2. Col. 2: U. S. Department of Gonmerce. Cols. 3"!;: Leiuon Administrative Committee. 1 i - , i I J b J.^ii . ^P3r J \ ■ '■> i > - . . cJT 1V30_; J ^ o ■-/ seisin ?.iJ J • e-r ■ . ^<^^ m. / , ' ^ 'r'"- •>"-'_ ; ■ 3s . T.V ... -i i O 1 • ■ i ( i i i ^ !, :: f ... r - ■ ■> ■ ' ■ • ; nfTiJsspq'oJJ ,1 . G&ut at fbfST 100. TABLE 16 Production and Utilization of California Lemons and United States Lemon-Juice Imports Year Total production Fresh use 1938- 39 1939- iiO 19110- iil 19111- Ii2 19^2-1^3 19h3-hk 19iUi-U5 19hS-he 19l;6-ii7 19k7-hQ 19l8-!i9 19)49-50 1950- 51 1951- 52 1952- 53 1953- 5a / l95U-55^ Juice from doirestic and import sources Juice imports 27,3)40 29,557 142,365 28,818 36,700 27,09i4 31,0314 35,7lU 33,990 31,773 2ii,631 28,079 33,005 31,527 31,03it 39,655 3)4,1483 standard cars, lt06 boxes per car Total of fresh, juice, and imports 19,212 20,l4l43 21,921 19,i;58 23,61t5 22,906 23,6145 22,Ul4 23,153 20,936 19,212 19,212 20,iil43 20,690 20,197 20,936 22,l4ll4 188 375 1,750 1,125 3,313 1,625 2,813 3,313 2,375 3,813 it,625 6,750 6,500 9,898 10,919 10,82U 12,5iil 32I4 609 687 585 2,011 2,0iil 19,ii00 20,818 23,671 20,583 26,958 2)4,531 26,1458 25,727 25,528 2i4,7li9 23,837 25,962 26,9l43 30,588 31,116 31,760 314,955 a/ Preliminary. Sources: Compiled by Sunkist Growers from data used by the following agencies: Cols. 1-2: U» St Department of Agriculture. Col, 3: Col. hi Col. 55 1938-39 to 19)49-50~calculated cars of juice packs (U, S. Department of Agriculture) and imports (U. S. Department of Commerce ) . 1950-51 to 195U-55 — calculated cars of juice sales (Lemon Products Advisory Board) and imports (U. S. Department of Commerce) . U. S. Department of Commerce. Computed — column 2 plus column 3, 4AT . I r, - DO 30. TABLE 17 On-Tree Value of California Fresh and Processed Lemons Fresh Processed Per cent On— tre e On— tree On-tree iresn 01 On-tree On-tree On-tree Year voj-unie price price value total value ,, .... . Volume price price value X c. ■3 J a 7 1 u c 0 y million dollars dollars milli on million dollars dollars million boxes per box per ton dollars per cent boxes per box per ton dollars 19l;0-lil 8.9 1.57 39.72 llt.O 95-9 8.3 .07 1.77 .6 19iil-ii2 7.9 1.70 U3.01 13. U 95.0 3.8 .19 I1.8I .7 19U2-1;3 9.6 2.82 71.35 27.1 95.1 p«3 • CO 6,50 l.u 7 • J5 7R oil 07 1.7 .li7 11.89 .8 19iiii-U5 9.6 2.59 65.53 2ii.9 97.3 3.0 .2I1 6.07 ,7 19U5-u6 9.1 2.22 56.17 20.2 106. 9 5.1; -.2li -6.07 -1.3 19ii6-ii7 9.U 3.07 77.67 2o.9 lOii.3 -.28 -7.08 -1.2 19U7-ii8 8.5 3.02 76. Ul 25.7 106.6 It.U -.36 -9.11 -1.6 19U8-ii9 7.8 14.50 113.85 35.1 99.7 .05 1.27 • 1 7 ft ft CO . 0 ftA c; 2.6 1.60 Uo.liS h.2 1950-51 8.3 3.21 81.23 26.6 95.7 5.1 .2I1 6.07 1.2 1951-52 8.U 3.69 93.36 31.0 90.1 h,h .77 19.1;8 3.1i 1952-53 8.2 3»7l 93.86 30. 14 77-7 h.h 1.98 50.09 8.7 i953-5ii / 8.5 3-36 85.51 28.7 89.li 7.6 .U5 11.39 3.1i 19511-552/ 9.1 3.01 76,15 27.U 103, li U.9 -.18 -I1.55 -.9 a/ Preliminary. Sources: Compiled by Sunkist Growers from data issued by the following agencies! Cols. 1-2: U. S. Department of Agriculture. Col. 3: Computed; 25.5 boxes per ton. Col. hi Computed, coluim 1 times coluim 2. Col. 5* Computed; fresh value divided by total value. Cols. 6-7: U. S. Department of Agricult'ore . Col. 8: Computed, 25-3 boxes per ton. Col. 9s Computed, column 6 times column 7» cor b- • . -3: . . • e-i- GOT' LOT- i 1 ! • i 8'- 1 9'- ■? ' Ae*i5 1 92* a" .5.* •5a A A P 1 *i' - • Vf ! .1 Ai'$A ^- 0 • T ' of * y ■ , , . , . . « ■■. y: « . • r -. ■ r j J^i'^-vs b' Vis N J ' SA*j" .13 cS • i •sr « .-i ■ .i'',. ; ! box, pox bei. fOij 19U2-13 5.0 .8 5.8 19ii3-UU ii.9 •ii 5.3 19i;ii-U5 5.1 .7 5.8 19ii5-l;6 .8 5.5 19ii6-U7 U.7 .5 5.2 19ii7-li8 .8 5.2 19ii8-li9 h,l 1.0 5.1 19ii9-50 3.9 l.ii 5.3 1950-51 3.9 i.U 5.3 1951-52 3.8 2.0 5.8 1952-53 3.6 2.2 5.8 1953-5U 3.6 2.1 5.7 195I1-55 3.5 2.i4 5.9 1952-53 to l95i;-55 average : 3.6 2.2 1 5.8 Sources: Compiled by Sunkist Growers. Col. 1: U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. Col, 2: From Table 19. TABLE 19 United States Per-Capita Production for Consumption of Lemon-Juice Products Adjusted for ImportsS' United States xotaJL imports, Calculated lemon tonnage equivalent popula- united Packs of lemon- s ingle - of packs and imports "tion eat- otates juice products strength Canned Frozen Year Canned Frozen Con- and con- single- s ingle - Con- United capita ( Wovember- single single cen- centrate strength strength Fresh cen- States October) strength strength Fresh trate juice juice juice juice trate imports Total Total suppxies use 1 2 3 \ 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 thousand gallons. thousand single- poxmds. cases. strength fresh 2h No. 2 equiva- million million equiva- cans thousan i gallons lent thousand tons pounds persons lent 1938-39 59 b/ b/ b/ 3 3 6 132.7 .04 1939-1^ 12o b/ b/ b/ 2 6 £/ 6 12 134.0 .1 191+0-U1 29^+ b/ b/ 192 13 15 2b 56 .4 228 b/ b/ 99 1 10 8 c/ 18 36 133.3 19li2-i^3 29 b/ b/ 682 3 1 52 i/ 53 106 130.6 .8 19I13.44 111 b/ b/ 277 5 21 26 52 130.3 .4 191^2^.45 330 b/ b/ 393 15 c/ 30 i^5 90 130.9 .7 19'+5-it6 627 219 2? 280 28 3 22 53 106 140.3 .8 19^6-47 327 151 168 15 2 2 19 38 76 144.6 .5 19^7- ifS 1^92 231 151^ 2 22 3 2 'c/ 61 122 147.2 .8 1948-1«.9 148 389 20 2 2 i^5 5 7^ 148 149.6 1.0 19^9-50 518 2,2525' 11^2 611*^/ 736 23 26 2 ^7 10 108 216 152.3 1.4 LFAB juice sales, all productsj 7 1950-51 82U 93 11 104 208 153.2 1.4 1951-52 703 1^9 9 158 316 155.5 2.0 1952-53 1,777 151 23 174 348 158.3 2.2 1953-5^ 2,lH3 30 171 342 161.3 2.1 195^-55 2,l+i^9 168 31 199 398 164.3 2.4 (Continued on next page.) "5 ov j Th^-J ' 1 t ■ r 1 Tv:" V.- . -. j i T^f^'iR ; T^p -ps — — "■ 1 f>y ITT Sd r- — ' — ^- — ■ . * D \ P\' P\ ^ 1 590 s .'. V " ^ i ^ t ; " "r ■ , , L , - m * < ■ ' cat;?' • ■ ■ -s.-jfesTiq ,^ ., ^ ' — ..-0133 6<3nj AST- ' t Si^ HO' > i ■• T " ... I ._ 1? „, t- — .r Of 5l) - ^ p ■ ' i •• Table 19 continued. a/ Industry sources say exports of juice products are negligible except dviring war years for which period data are not available . b/ Data not available. c/ Less than ^00 tons equivalent. d/ Contains l,700jOOO gallons lemonade base. e/ Contains 9^,000 gallons frozen concentrate. f/ Lemon Products Advisory Board. Sources: Compiled by Svmkist Growers from data issued by the following agencies: Cols. l~k: U. S. Production and Marketing Administration. See Hoos, Sidney, and R. E. Seltzer, Lemons and Lemon Products, Economic Status, 1931 (Berkeley: 1951) ^ hQp. (Statistical Supplement to Cali- fornia Agricultural Experiment Station Bui. 729.) Col. 5 J U. S. Bureau of the Census, United States Imports of Merchandise for Consumpt ion, FT 110 (years 1938-39 to 19^+9-50 are calendar-year summaries) . See Hoos, Sidney, and R. E. Seltzer, Lemons and Lemon Products, Changing Economic Relationships, 1931-52 (Berkeley: 1952), T^P- (California Agricultural Experiment Station Bui. 729-) Cols. 6-10: Calculated, using as equivalents: 1 ton of lemons equals 75 gallons of juice, equals 22.22 cases {2h No. 2's), equals I3 gallons concentrate, and equals 90 gallons lemonade base; except 1950-51 to 1953-5^ based on Lemon Products Advisory Board conversions of 7^-3 gallons per ton in I95O-5I and 1951-52, 76.05 gallons per ton in 1952-53, 8I.09 gallons per ton in 1953-5^> and 78.3 gallons per ton in 195^-55. Col. 11: Total of colvmins 6-10. Cols. 12 and ik: Calculated. Col. 13: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics (Washington: Govt. Print. Off.), except 195'+-55 estimated. Figures are July 1 estimates. (Annual issues.) ^ o •pr CCT ;6r ;on Tir iddit-?;?* COT- QCJ?" J-jr: £rA3':rT3PT.6 ' T"^ couprurfGg- 0 (?.s^f^B TABLE 20 United States Consumption Disappearance of Selected Beverages Year Total taxpaid "with- drawals of malt beverages (fiscal year, July-June) 195^-55 1955- 56 1956- 57 1957- 58 1958- 59 1959- to 19140-^^1 19U1-42 1942-U3 1946-I17 19U7-I48 l^kQ-k9 19I19.50 1950- 51 1951- 52 1952- 55 1955-5^ 195*^-55 thousand barrels 42,229 1*8,760 55,592 55,926 51,817 55,014 52,799 60,856 68,656 76,970 79, 591 81,287 82,629 86,995 85,809 85, 512 85,246 84,294 84, 559 85,747 Frozen concentrate, consumer purchases Lemonade (crop year, October-September) Orange juice (crop year, October-September thousand packed boxes, fresh fruit equivalent 582 1,258 1,629 1,595 2,028 4,657 11,719 18, 522 51,566 52,842 59,621 44,489 Grape juice (crop yeaj7, October-September) thousand geillons 1,014 1,552 2,457 5,059 5,4l6 5,896 Cairbonated beverages (calendar year) million bottles, 24 bottles per case 4,055 4,725 7,057 8,707 9,883 11,592 15,210 17,772 16,885 18, 571 19, 500 17,500 18,515 21,61lO 24,257 24,509 24,042 25,052 27,181 28,268 28,2ij0 Soiirces: Col. 1: Cols. 2-4: Col. 5: U. S. Brewers Foundation, Brewers Almanac (New York: 1955)- U. S. Agricultiiral Marketing Service, Consumer Purchases of Fruits and Juices (Washington: Govt. Print. Off.). (Monthly issues.) Processed. The data reflect consumer household purchases. American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages, Members ' Information Bulletin, May 1, 1955- o vn Q0A4:- ■£;^iaf ouZ')- - "--5. > - ^ '■ • acirrr.' v ' i.' -;r. " 66,: ?"? Srtf - ^ •. i ■ v.- ■ (./ids' J ■.'.JO j i ;• 1 ^'9aQ - Sit'OvtS j nt's^i i ! 1 1 i ( j rd^T^-Jii ■., , - -> 1 ! 1 j T~''STO ' '.-A ; i 1 fyioh-fimjq p^jj^j. •1 - JOTfTTOIT P0££TS£. ■ coDceufs,;.. ; 106. TABLE 21 Utilization of California-Arizona Lemons Fresh use Year Inter - state^/ Intra- state Export^ Total Ship for processing Elimi- nation standard cars, U06 boxes per car 19111- li2 19112- U3 19U3-iiii 19hk-hS 19hS-kS 19116- li7 19117- ii8 19118- ii9 19119- 50 1950- 51 1951- 52 1952- 53 1953- 5U 1951i-55 17,888 21,033 20,77ii 20,li5l 19,8ii9 19,909 18,532 17,079 15,8^0 17,736 18,222 17,517 17,519 17,219 i 1,695 2,la8 2,111 2,330 2,196 2,161 2,066 2,262 2,056 1,975 1,768 1,802 1,720 1 107 230 Ii76 nh h96 h30 277 217 250 697 1,003 1,121 2,053 3,662 19,690 23,681 23,361 23,555 22,5ia 22,800 20,875 19,558 I8,lii6 20,i*08 21,109 20,li06 21,37ii 22,601 i 9,221 12,932 ii,78l 6,908 13,072 10,3514 10,695 5,751 7,lil;8 12,5it7 ll,2ii6 10,771 19,389 11,831 187 hoh 89 111; 162 168 iiOl 325 229 285 368 229 339 279 a/ Includes Canada. b/ Excludes Canada, Source: Compiled by Sunkist Growers frm records of Lemon Administrative Com- mittee . Xed-oT i ■ -I VCJ' Of s svo,a 005 1 TYS o>5^«^x ; TX2 cjf^ei 1 052 \Qd £00 J. ITT. 01 ISI.X ■ —t 1 666 JX S;i-XiJv;X i eco,is iti.OS ^ii8t?X • ^iSt5X :tjx .C5tTX TABLE 22 Production and Utilization of California-Arizona Lemons 107. lear (November- Total October) Domestic Export fresh Products Eliminated Total 19U5-U6 19li6-U7 19U7-Ii8 19U8-U9 19li9-50 1950- 51 1951- 52 1952- 53 1953- 5U l9Sh-B$ 1955-56^' a/ 19145-46 19U6-i;7 19i47-U8 19118- It9 19119- 5o 1950- 51 1951- 52 1952- 53 1953- 5U 195U-55./ 1955-56^ l9U5-lt6 19U6-U7 19U7-U8 19118- U9 19119- 5o 1950- 51 1951- 52 1952- 53 1953- 5U 195U-55 . l955-56i/ boxes 8,950,270 9,082,220 8,362,788 7,852,i4lt6 7,265,370 8,002,666 8,162,630 7,829,30U 7,8Ua,732 7,689,23li 7,592,200 201,376 17ii,580 112, U62 88,102 101,500 282,982 ii07,2l8 U55,126 833,518 l,ii86,772 1,583,1400 9,151, 6U6 9,256,800 8,U75,25o 7,9Uo,5U8 7,366,870 8,285,61i8 8,569,8U8 8,28U,U30 8,678,250 9,176,006 9,175,600 5,307,232 14,203,318 i4,3U2,170 2,3314,906 3,023,888 5,0914,082 14,565,876 14,373,026 7,871,93U 14,803,386 U, 181, 800 65,772 68, 208 163,212 131,950 92,97i4 115,710 lii9,U08 92,97l4 137,6314 113,2714 121,800 cars, 1406 boxes per car 22,Oi45 22,370 20,598 19,3i4l 17,895 19,711 20,105 19,28U 19,322 18,939 18,700 1496 I430 277 217 250 697 1,003 1,121 2,053 3,662 3,900 22,5l4l 22, 800 20,875 19,558 18,1145 20,i408 21,108 20,l405 21,375 22,601 22,600 13,072 10,353 10,695 5,751 7,l4U8 12,5147 11,2U6 10, 771 19,389 11,831 10,300 352,720 357,920 329,568 309,1456 286,320 315,376 321,680 308,5i4i4 309,152 303,0214 299,200 7,936 6,880 i4,l432 3,1472 14,000 11,152 16,0148 17,936 32,8148 58,592 62,1400 tonsb/ 162 168 1402 325 229 285 368 229 339 279 300 360,656 3614,800 3314,000 312,928 290,320 326,528 337,728 326,1480 3lt2,000 361,616 361,600 209,152 165,6148 171,120 92,016 119,168 200,752 179,936 172,336 310,2214 189,296 1614,800 2,592 2,688 6,U32 5,200 3,66U U,560 5,888 3,66U 5,U2i4 I4,l46l4 14,800 la, 5214,650 13,528,326 12,980,632 10,i407,l40l4 10,1483,732 13,l495,l4l40 13,285,132 12,750,1430 16,687,818 114,092,666 13,li79,200 35,775 33,321 31,972 25,63)4 25,822 33,2140 32,722 31,1405 141,103 314,711 33,200 572,1400 533,136 511,552 l4lO,lUl4 1413,152 531,8iiO 523,552 502,1480 657,6148 555,376 531,200 a/ Estimated. b/ Converted at 16.0 tons per car. Source: Lgnon Administrative Committee. (Annual reports.) . vex " i i eit. ■ - ! ""-"1 : '..>. d'^. ,105 1 1 ' i *i?.v,W4J,ox i , -C-'-t,'..' - , ^ac... ■ p. - ■ ^. ? ■ oos'tS. . • r f .,ox jr. -H r 1 , 11 ■ ■■ J 1 ac- ■^"^ '; i c 1 oos^it:8.C xe^x 0 VCdt- 0, : Qf.^x Oii^X 0 X[,-..'iU <.i-v.JL 0 828,. stp,txj- Oii^x 545X 0 >i^:x ... ^. I 0 01 oa io? eair Kooriti 'ioI;': Ic- a:^xoq■•^J e.:<.- ' ' : ' "■ tBuansO sdi lo TABLE 2h 109. United States Exports of Fresh Lemons and Limes by Areas of Destination Other Total coun- a/ United European Other tries other Season-^' Canada Kingdom countries countries than Canada Total thousand boxes£/ Five-season averages 1930- 193U 1 a 51 79 2 06 1935-1939 161 37 38 236 582 19iiO-19iii; ii89 c/ 3 18 22 510 19ii5-1950 289 9 25 3li 323 Seasons 1930-31 211 57 57 268 1931-32 189 hh 233 1932-33 120 1 37 38 158 177 c/ 51 51 228 I93I1-35 3hl ll"B 21 66 205 5U6 1935-36 297 257 20 60 337 63ii 1936-37 21ii c/ c/ h2 h2 256 1937-38 3i49 269 72 30 371 720 li33 279 92 27 398 831 1939 -iiO U39 £/ 2 29 31 ii70 19iiO-iil ii77 ii 2h 38 515 19lil-li2 I;83 £/ 3 Ih 17 500 19li2-ii3 ii52 ii 13 17 it69 1*85 — 1 7 8 li93 i9ua-i;5 5it6 3 2h 27 573 19li5-ii6 523 2 53 55 578 19l6-ij7 i;30 29 17 he i;76 19ii7-ii8 133 1 22 23 156 19/48-1^9 Hi; 1 18 19 133 19ii9-50 2U5 15 13 28 273 1950-51 357 102 23 125 li82 1951-52 388 1 186 \xk 231 619 1952-53^, 37ii 183 51 23ii 608 1953-514^/ 352 25 531; 5U 613 965 a/ Season beginning November 1 of the year. b/ Converted from pounds to boxes, 79 pounds per box. c/ Negligible. d/ Preliminary. Sources: U. S. Agricultural l^Iarketing Service and records of Foreign Agricultural Service. •. •noxiartUssa- lo sbsiA vd ssniJ fans enoirol rie'si'? lo ednoqxa eats.t2 jj^+iaU i ' .. . 1 .'3 U: ^ i'' r . • 0X5 \o ■ -, 'i esc ■Je p-s: Xt- ^8x Be rj£X 15 xj YTX "Jr.? r.lr ''IS osv Of il ' ^. ■ ( ■ ■ ^- ^ Nr. pr ' - , . • VI C r '. , : ,« . . j: - ^i YI SS i V r • 8X arx 8'" r;SX SOL X2-05^^-- ITS f . r r 1 S5€ .xod Tsq 3fcni/6q ,.B9xocf oi ebnuoq moil bsii^vnoO \d .V.iJ3ni?niX9-3*l \h 110. TABLE 25 Lemons and Lemon Products, Rates of Duty Under the United States Tariff Act of I930 and Trade Agreements with Applicable Tariff Paragraph Rate 03 C duty Tariff Commodity Tariff Ant of 1930 ijixecX'ive uPaQe agreement rate para- graph Lemons ^fresh^ 2 wdi uO X UliU 1 a/ X4 cenus per pound— 7)1 Concentrated lemon juice 70 cents per gallon on the unconcentrated natural fruit Juice content 35 cents per gallon on the unconcentrated nat.uTal fnn +. , juice content-' 806 (b) Unconcentrated lemon Juice, containine less than 4- npr cent alcohol 70 cents per gallon 20 cents per gallon—'^ 806 (a) Lemon peel: crude, dried, or in brine 2 cents per pound ll' cents per pound— 739 Lemon peel; candied, crys- tallized, glace, or other- wise prepared or preserved 8 cents per pound a/ 6 cents per poxind— ' 739 Lemon oil (essential or dis- tilled), not containing alcohol 25 per cent ad valo- rem 17§ er cent ad valo- reB\a/ 58 Terpeneless lemon oil (essential), not containing alcohol 25 per cent ad valo- rem 172 P®^ cent ad valo- rema/ 58 a/ General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) (Annecy), effective May 30, 1950. b/ General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) (Geneva), effective January 1, 19U8. Sources: Compiled by U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service from Schediae A, Statis- tical Classification of Commodities Imported into the United States (Washington: Govt. Print. Off., 195U)j U. S. Bureau of the Census and U. S. Tariff Commission, United States Import Duties (Washington, D, C: 1952 and supplement thereto). ~5^^•.c. 1 ^^"^^ ttsnl Is ifc-.+^a it no •-■tilSO C 3q, 55 ninisinoo Jon . ...0 ncmoC easir' TABLE 26 Average F.O.B. Prices of Fresh Shipments of California-Arizona Lemons 1 ! Year 1 Winter price ( No vemb er-Apr il ) j Summer price 1 (May-October) dollars per packed box 3.28 2.1;3 2.05 5.11 i-ycL—cc 3.U8 U.U7 ii.20 5.23 TOO -J oil 2.38 2.7ii T nol. oc* 3.87 li.93 3.33 3.23 1926-27 2.73 1.88 T no "7 o Q k.Bl U.86 ly<:o-29 3.58 5.36 i 1 oOn ■on U.9U 5.18 1930-31 3.09 U.50 TOOT DO 1931-32 2.U9 U.Ui 1932-33 3.09 3.60 1933-3U 3.20 3.85 193U-35 2.18 3.39 T no o/C 1935-30 3.75 U.U9 1936-37 3.82 U.87 1 no T 0 Q 1937-30 3.U9 2.82 1930-39 2.51 3.07 1939-Uo 2.99 3.0li 19U0-al 2.1+3 3.19 n nl T 1 0 19al-U2 3.21 3.31 19ii2-[t3 ii. 30 ii.8l 19i43-UU U.52 19Ui-ii5 h.67 U.76 X^UJ— UD i*.70 U.18 19U6-U7 U.89 5.65 19I47-U8 U.78 5.89 19U8-U9 6.1i9 7.3U 19U9-50 6.85 5.55 1950-51 5.82 5.88 1951-52 6.06 6.67 1952-53 5.93 6.52 1953-514 6.10 5.75 195I1-55 5.67 5.U7 Source: Sunkist Growers, Statistical Information on the Citrus Fruit Industry . (Annual issues.) r;^ni\-i (Ida rias^"^ "io aaoii-l .fl.O'.'! eitG'ie^A •'V Hfj. . 16. ii xs.r (-1 1 ■ 4-i 01.^- erit no rtoii^iiin'^'; . ^..^ TABLE 27 Packs of California Lemon -Juice Products in Various Forms / o a/ Season— Concentrate for lemonade Concentrated lemon juice Processed single - strength lemon juice Chilled single - strength lemon juice Frozen Nonfrozen Frozen Nonfrozen^/ Frozen Nonfrozen^/ thousand gallons I9I4O-IJ.I 192 992 99 770 682 98 277 575 i9J4.lt.-45 595 l,lllt- i9i4.5_i^6 280 2,116 26 ±^k6-h^ 2hh 151 1,104 168 l9i+7-lt8 kk6 251 1,660 15^ 19148-1^9 579 179 1,552 ll»8 19I4.9-50 1,702 91 523 3h9 1,7^48 142 1950-51 5,^^37 391 205 1407 455 1,263 36 1951-52 5,751 1+22 317 lK)5 805 1,671+ 61 1952-55 8,628 I485 57^ 589 900 2,121 70 1953- 5^^ 9,81^5 U76 1,516 I489 98I+ 1,319 66 1951^-55 8,268 271 908 586 79^^ 1,971 90 a/ November 1-October 5I basis for seasons 191*0-41 through 1951-52. The 1952-55 season is on an 11 -month basis, November 1 to September 50^ because of the change in the pack year to an October i-September 50 basis for the seasons following 1952-53 b/ Reported as 1*0° Brix prior to 1950-51 season. c/ Converted from cases 24 No. 2's (as reported through 1949-50) to gallons, 3-575 gallons per case. Sources: Seasons 1940-4l through 1949-50 from emnual survey conducted by Fruit and Vegetable Division, U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service; seasons I95O-5I through 1954-55 from reports of Lemon Products Advisory Board. ■■ iV \, '-■.oritcse; gcoreo; .ppx-onv So 1 -or 1 t ei ; SO? pi.- dr : ^ri-s ] ; 15 - "ci>5 1 ^ J. ' 1 ; Ob ; ' ... .......J j ^^^^^\ C<"'''"<"t-i. 113. TABLE 28 United States Production of Lemon Oil Cold pressed Distilled Total oil Crop year oil oil production povinds OOc jOUU 63,281 PAI c'l.Q o6u,5uo 26,a82 89,763 1936-37 261,373 129,91a 391,287 1937-38 329,297 851., 763 113,113 180,165 aa2,aio 1938-39 l,03a,928 1939-liO 798,ii70 l,iiii5,027 268,906 1,067,376 19i;0-iil 182,897 1,627,92a 19i4l-i|2 7^7,571 lll,a67 859,038 19ii2-ii3 86U,593 112,323 976,916 a55,699 369,399 86,300 119, a55 18a, 7a5 \^Ux-\6 5lU,82l 66a, 276 19ii5-it6 1,006,576 1,191,321 969,376 19ii6-ii7 912,852 56,52a 19ii7-ii8 8ii6,05ii 70,012 ai,095 916,066 19ii8-ii9 ii25,780 a66,875 19ii9-50 53ii,70h 150,88a 685,588 1950-51 882,58a 189,106 215, ia7 1,071,690 1951-52 696,982 912,129 1952-53 72a, a62 199,331 190, a59 923,793 1,503,927 1953-51; l,313,a68 Sourcesi Based on records of Exchange Lemon Products Company, Southern California Citrus Foods, and estimated production of other processors on basis of average yields and tonnage handled. IxO flora-. o-A ZBt&^it b~c.l(ii- S.b> 1.0 io - no t:xouh(yiq •• i'J Ah'' Tc-C • ■■ .jc„pi>-9r • , . ■ > ' . .. agannoj bnfs sbX9i:^i oaeisv/s "io alsfid no eioaaoooiq t9rf.?o ?to TABLE 29 llh. Consumer Household Purchases of Lemons and Lemon Products X uein axLu nion un 1950 1951 1 1952 1953 1954 1955 thousand boxes 0 anuary 172 193 206 220 223 234 it' A 1 r\ Till 1 if euruary 204 200 202 229 246 251 cn 242 224 218 240 278 252 Apr IX 249 246 251 254 321 307 May 320 314 308 322 352 407 519 466 577 575 706 587 •Till V 512 584 598 616 738 754 August 464 497 452 552 545 610 September 257 300 269 351 352 337 ucxoDer 236 236 219 274 252 228 iMoveniDer 201 192 193 213 225 207 204 209 199 232 243 216 thousand equivalent cases. 24 No. 2 's o vx cii^OLi j-^lwJLi JUiCc 37 41 50 40 40 47 40 h5 42 32 36 ^^5 vial CII 37 36 49 38 43 fl^X XX. 37 48 56 35 50 47 May 48 63 67 49 57 73 June 96 86 137 112 111 83 ■Till V 112 103 212 140 110 136 August 67 81 130 106 93 96 beptemoer hi ^5 81 56 46 34 42 46 45 50 3^ 31 ^3 41 39 43 32 35 35 37 41 31 thousand gallons 87 80 121 121 r eoruary 69 94 114 136 lyiarcn 80 116 139 194 «.pnx 129 159 230 321 May 212 350 514 881 June 795 1,096 1,638 1,551 July 1,379 1,630 1,769 2,493 August 822 1,204 1,172 2,184 September 215 355 763 525 720 October 156 167 267 244 230 November 106 115 162 167 174 December 72 80 102 127 147 Source: Compiled by U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service, Consumer Purchases of Fruits and Juices (Washington: Govt. Print. Off.). (Monthly issues.) cj-ax.-rarA —VP TJ.-. Average Montlily Prices Paid TABLE 30 115. by Consumers for Lemons and Lemon Products Item and month ^1950 1951 , 1952 1953 1954 1955 cents per dozen Lemons (fresh) January 61.3 44.8 47.4 46.3 47.5 46.2 February i^S.l 48.1 47.8 47.2 46.0 44.0 March 46.9 45.9 45.9 45.8 42.9 April 40.8 42.3 42.9 43.8 43.8 41.3 May 42.4 44.5 44.2 42.7 43.7 41.9 Jxine 45.5 41.8 45.6 45.6 44.1 40.4 July 44.4 40.4 51.5 46.8 42.7 41.8 August 40.3 43.5 47.8 43.4 42.5 41.6 September 41.8 45.0 45.4 48.0 43.2 42.7 October 40.5 45.2 45.7 45.8 45.1 43.9 November 40.8 46.7 45.3 46.6 46.8 45.5 December 42.8 46.8 46.4 47.0 45.0 46.8 cents per 5 ^-ounce can Canned single- strength lemon .juice January 12.4 11.8 10.1 11.7 13.0 13.7 February 13.2 12.9 10.6 12.1 13.0 13.3 March 13.3 12.0 10.5 11.8 13.3 13.1 April 13.2 10.6 9.8 11.4 12.7 13.7 May 13.4 10.4 9.8 11.9 13.0 13.2 June 12.9 10.0 9.7 12.3 13.0 12.9 July 13.4 10.4 10.1 12.1 13.5 12.6 August 14.1 9.8 10.6 12.1 13.6 12.7 September 13.4 10.4 11.2 13.1 14.3 12.5 October 10.7 9.7 12.0 13.4 14.1 11.8 November 12.0 10.3 11.2 12.7 12.8 12.9 December 12.2 10.1 11.2 12.6 13.1 12.5 cents per 6- ounce can Frozen lemonade January 15.4 17.3 17.5 16.2 February — 15.9 17.0 18.9 15.9 March 16.1 16.9 17.4 15.5 April 15.5 17.1 17.3 15.3 May 15.1 16.7 16.5 14.3 June 15.4 16.7 16.2 l4.0 July 15.9 17.0 15.9 13.6 August 17.0 17.3 15.7 13.9 September 16.4 17.6 17.6 15.1 13.3 October 14.9 17.6 17.2 15.7 14.0 November 14.4 17.0 18.4 15.4 14.0 December 14.3 17.0 17.5 16.0 14.3 Source: Compiled by U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service^ Consumer Purchases of Fruits and Juices (Washington: Govt. Print. Off.) . (Monthly Issues.) E*i>u£)Oi'-i oOOTfiJ bfs. , «J 'iol sit:-' 'id -^t.> t:; 116. TABLE 31 Estimated Cost Per Packed Box of Producing and Marketing California-Arizona Lemons Total cost Cost at Selling Trans- Total produc- packing and portation mar- ing and ir ICK- naui- house Pack- adver- to keting market- ing ing door ing tising blanket cost ing 1 dollars per packed box 1 6k kn .Uo 2.10 .93 .16 1.31 2 .cSo li CA 4 . pO -L OJ kl .UO 1.80 .88 .11+ 1.31 rs Qa I+.I3 ■1- • jy .Uo 1.79 • 90 • 15 1^31 2 .70 4.15 1 1Q?7-?R ■L • ( J •30 • Uo 2.13 .85 .19 1^31 r\ Qa 2 .CiO 4.53 ' 1Q?8-?Q 1 kO i • 'Vy • 39 .Uo 1.89 • 85 .16 1.31 2.77 '+.20 j-ycy- j\j i »op • J ( .Uo 2.28 • 85 • 19 1.31 2.70 '+.63 ■1- • jO qA 00 A C 1.82 .84 • 17 1.31 2.76 4.14 1Q^1-?P 1.40 ^ik .05 1.79 • 83 .18 1.32 2 .72 4.12 19^2-^^ ■'-yj^ jj 1 18 .Op 1.52 .75 .17 1.29 2.55 3.73 1 in . JU .05 1.^5 .73 • 17 1.25 2.50 3.00 07 • ( AC • Op 1.23 • 78 .16 1.25 2.51 3 .^+2 1 ?fi ■31 • J-1- AC •Op 1.62 .77 • 17 1.25 2.55 3 •oi lQ^6-^7 -L •U^ ^k AC •Op 2.08 • 85 .18 1.18 A ^A 2 .oO }i AA 4 .2y ■^yj 1 1 ^0 J. • j\J • j5 AC •Op 1.65 .80 .16 1.22 0 cQ 2 . pO •3 AA 3 "OO 19^8-^Q ^y jy 1 PI • je AC .Up 1.50 .81 .18 I.2I+ 2 .dO 0 At 3.01 *-y J y T-v-* 1 ^fi X . JO ■31 AC • Up 1.72 .80 .17 1.21+ 2.57 3-93 1914.0-14.1 81 •3^ . JU nk 1.15 .85 .18 I.2I+ 0 ^1 d .01 3.4^ 1914.1-1+2 1 lU , X . X^T / • 1'- ■3^; • J? AC • Up 1.5^^ 1.01 .18 1.26 0 Ac ti .op 0 AO 19liP_k^ ko .UD 1.27 1.11 .19 1.28 3^13 ■3 Ac 3.05 19^3-^*^ 1 Ik X • X*r ' .uo 1.75 1.20 .20 1.26 3^27 li kl 4 .41 19'+i^-i^5 1.13 .60 .07 1.80 1.21+ .20 1.31 3.1+2 4.55 191+5-I46 1.17 • J 1 06 1.80 1.32 .23 1.32 J •P^ h 67 191^6-47 1.35 .60 .07 2.02 1.1+1 .21+ 1.1+1 3.73 5.08 19^+7-^+8 1.33 .6i+ .07 2. 01+ 1.53 .25 1.60 I+.09 5.1+2 19^+8-1^9 1.9*^ .67 .07 2.68 1.59 .27 1.66 1+.26 6.20 19^+9-50 1.32 .65 .08 2.05 1.55 .28 1.69 1+.25 5^57 1950-51 1.16 .66 .08 1.90 1.60 • 31 1.69 1+.34 5^50 1951-52 1.18 .70 .08 1.96 1.62 • 30 1^75 1+.1+5 5^63 1952-53 1.1+6 .71 .08 2.25 1.56 .26 1.76 1+.37 5^83 1953- 5\,, 195l+.55b/ l.OU .65 .08 1.77 1.45 .32 1.78 1+.28 5.32 1.25 .71 .09 2.05 1.1+6 1.78 1+.38 5^63 a/ Prior to I9I+2-I+3, cultural costs were imputed to fresh shipments; beginning with 19l+2-l+3j cultural costs have been imputed to total production. b/ Preliminary. Sources: California Citrus League. (Annual reports.) Sunkist Growers, Statistical Information on the Citrus Fruit Industry . (Annual issues.) i