UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE FRESH PLUM INDUSTRY EMIL RAUCHENSTEIN BULLETIN 459 October, 1928 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRINTING OFFICE BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 1928 CONTENTS PAGE Summary and conclusions 3 Object of this study 4 The importance of the plum industry in California 5 Distribution of plum trees in the United States 6 Distribution and trend of bearing acreage in California 10 Shipments of plums 12 Trend in California shipments 12 United States shipments by regions 13 United States shipments by months 14 Competition with other fruits 15 Canned plums 17 Prices of plums 18 Seasonal variations 18 Prices by varieties 22 Prices and quantities sold : 23 Net prices to growers 26 ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE FRESH PLUM INDUSTRY 1 EMTL RAUCHENSTEIN2 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Plums rank fourteenth in value among California fruits and thir- teenth in bearing acreage. Their value is 3 per cent of that of the orange crop — the crop having the highest value — and the bearing acreage occupied is 10 per cent of the raisin-grape acreage — the crop having the largest acreage. Plum trees are widely distributed throughout the United States, but only the three Pacific Coast states and Idaho produce many that enter commercial channels. More than one-half of the plum shipments come from California, and the proportion as well as the amount is increasing. One-half of the bearing plum acreage in California in 1927 was in the four contiguous counties, Placer, Sacramento, Solano, and San Joaquin. Increases have been very rapid in Tulare and Fresno counties which, in the same year, made up approximately one-fourth of the acreage in the state. From 1921 to 1927 the bearing acreage of plums in California increased from 19,715 to 33,827, an increase of 72 per cent. A bearing acreage of 38,800 is estimated for 1930. Interstate shipments of plums from California increased from 465 carlots in 1895 to more than 5,000 in 1923 and 1926. On an average each year the shipments were 6.624 per cent greater than the preced- ing year. Most of the plums in the United States shipped during June and July come from California. In August and September the bulk of the plums come from Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. Carlot shipments of mixed deciduous fruits, apples, pears, cantaloupes, and peaches in the United States during June, July, and August have increased rapidly from 1920 to 1927. Plums make up but a small 1 Economic aspects of the dried-prune industry are considered in a separate study by Dr. S. W. Shear of the Division of Agricultural Economics, to whom the author is particularly indebted for considerable of the data on plum prices and quantities sold, used in the present study. Assistance in statistical computations was rendered by Miss Gladys E. Platts, statistical clerk, and Mr. George L. Horen- stein, student assistant. 2 Associate Agricultural Economist in Experiment Station. 4 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION proportion of the shipments of all of these fruits, averaging approx- imately 7.0 per cent of the total in June, 3.5 per cent in July, and 4.0 per cent in August. Nearly all plums are consumed in the fresh state. Only 4 to 8 per cent are canned, the bulk of which come from California. The early California plums usually bring high prices in New York when they first come on the market. As the supplies increase prices rapidly decline. The later varieties bring some recovery in prices, especially when the supplies become limited towards the end of the season. The varieties bringing the highest prices at New York from 1925 to 1927 were Kelsey, Wickson, President, Beauty, and Formosa. The Diamond and Tragedy rank high among those on which complete records are available since 1917. In selecting varieties for planting, however, it should be noted that there are considerable variations from year to year in the rank held by the different varieties, and further, that other factors such as adaptability of the variety to the region, cost of production per crate, the problem of pollination, and labor distribution, must be considered as well as the price the variety is likely to bring. The average annual price of California plums on the New York market is largely affected by the quantities sold. Large quantities generally bring low prices and small quantities high prices. To a considerable extent this also holds for the individual varieties. The trend in prices (adjusted for changes in price level) has been approx- imately on a level since 1920. The trend in quantities sold has been upward. Since shipments of other fruits as well as plums are increas- ing rapidly, prices in the future are not likely to average higher than those obtained since 1920. Of course the fact that plums make up but a small part of the total fruit supply available during the summer may lead some growers to conclude that even a marked increase in the supply of plums would not have a noticeable effect on price. Preliminary studies, however, indicate that plum prices are affected much more by the quantities of plums coming onto the market than by the quantities of other fruits available. OBJECT OF THIS STUDY The object of this study is to present and to analyze the available data on plum production, crop movement, relation to other fruits, utilization, and the relationship between supply and price, in order to obtain some basis for judging the economic outlook for the industry. BuL. 459] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE FRESH PLUM INDUSTRY THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PLUM INDUSTRY IN CALIFORNIA The average farm value of the plum crop in California for the years 1926 and 1927 (see table 1) was $2,170,000 or fourteenth in the list of California fruits. The orange crop leads the list with a TABLE 1 Value of Fruit Crops in California* (Average of 1926 and 1927) Rank Crop Value (in thousands of dollars) (Dec. 1) Per cent of value of oranges Oranges Wine grapes Lemons Raisins (dried) Peaches Nuts (almonds and walnuts) Prunes Apricots Table grapes Pears Raisins (marketed fresh) Apples Cherries Plums Olives Figs 77,047 19,958 19,636 19,495 15,887 15,480 14,150 10,788 9,312 8,375 5,775 5,426 2,880 2,170 1,080 734 100 26 25 25 21 20 18 14 12 11 7 7 4 3 1 1 * Data from California cooperative crop reporting service. California Annual Crop Report 1927, p. 3 (mimeograph), January 4, 1928. TABLE 2 Estimated Bearing Acreages of Fruit Crops in California, 1927 Rank Crop Acreage Per cent of raisin grape acreage 1 349,660 185,543 166,864 165,199 161,797 150,822 145,580 80,724 58,138 55,325 45,132 43,179 33,827 2*4,670 12,593 100 2 53 3 48 4 Prunes 47 5 Nuts 46 6 43 7 42 8 Apricots 23 9 17 10 16 11 Figs 13 12 Lemons 12 13 10 14 7 15 4 Data from Kaufman, E. E., California crop report for 1926. California Dept. Agr. Spec. Pub. 74:26. 1927. b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION a value of $77,047,000 and wine grapes are second with a value of $19,958,000. Hence the plum crop was 3 per cent as valuable as the orange crop, and 11 per cent as valuable as wine grapes. Comparisons on the basis of bearing acreage for 1927 are shown in table 2. Here plums rank thirteenth in the list of California fruits. Raisin grapes lead the list with 349,660 acres, while oranges are second with 185,543 acres. Plums comprise 33,827 acres, or 10 per cent of the raisin-grape acreage. DISTRIBUTION OF PLUM TREES IN THE UNITED STATES Plums are probably the most widely distributed tree fruit in the United States. Some of the native varieties are exceedingly resistant to cold and drought. These hardy native varieties, however, do not enter into commercial channels to any great extent, but are of con- siderable importance in home consumption. Those varieties which attain larger size and possess finer dessert qualities enter into commer- cial channels. More than half of these are grown in California, where the climate is less severe than in the north central and north Atlantic states. The distribution of plum trees in the United States for the years 1910, 1920, and 1925 is shown by states and sections in table 3. The United States Census combines plums with prunes regardless of whether the fruit is used fresh or dried. However, since California, Oregon, and Washington are the only states which dry any consider- able quantities of prunes, the data on plums as given in table 3 have not been changed from those given in the United States Census except in the case of the three Pacific Coast states. For these states estimates have been made from the state data on production and acreages of plums and prunes so as to obtain figures comparable with those given for the rest of the United States. The methods used in making those estimates are explained in the footnote to table 3. The estimates must be considered only as preliminary for Oregon and Washington, sub- ject to correction as soon as a more accurate basis can be obtained for making these estimates. In a general way the distribution of plum trees in the United States outside of California resembles that of apple trees. 3 The number of plum trees, however, is approximately only one-tenth as great as the number of apple trees and the area devoted to plums is probably less than one-twentieth of the apple area. s Eauchenstein, Emil. Economic aspects of the apple industry. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 445:18, 19. 1927. BUL. 459] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE FRESH PLUM INDUSTRY TABLE 3 Number of Plum Trees, Bearing and Non-Bearing, in the United States by States and Sections, 1910, 1920, and 1925 (In Thousands) States and sections 1910 1920 1925 1. New England states: 66 36 49 65 7 43 266 1,247 70 1,238 2,555 1,335 745 742 718 177 3,717 402 1,400 1,102 55 440 535 751 4,685 31 99 232 360 214 104 419 56 1,515 484 608 264 340 1,696 47 25 30 49 3 25 179 951 42 1,001 1,994 589 267 353 520 180 1,909 297 409 673 61 177 149 212 1,978 7 53 154 239 146 65 174 45 883 340 329 121 99 889 33 17 21 51 4 27 Total 153 2. Middle Atlantic states: New York 975 41 895 Total 1,911 3. East north central states: Ohio 588 277 Illinois 395 565 250 Total 2,075 4. West north central states: 320 482 614 69 South Dakota 176 Nebraska 180 Kansas 236 Total 2,077 5. South Atlantic states: 5 Maryland 51 District of Columbia Virginia 174 West Virginia 208 North Carolina 156 South Carolina 51 Georgia 220 Florida 82 Total 947 6. East south central states: Kentucky 254 Tennessee 268 Alabama 99 Mississippi 91 Total 712 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Table 3 — (Continued) States and sections 7. West south central states: Arkansas Louisiana Oklahoma Texas Total 8. Mountain states: Montana Idaho Wyoming Colorado New Mexico Arizona Utah Nevada Total 9. Pacific states: Washington* Oregon* California! Total TOTAL UNITED STATES 1910 1920 911 363 307 191 124 92 632 311 254 1,349 724 630 3,083 1,522 1,283 36 29 19 401 633 719 12 16 12 212 108 73 94 62 56 20 23 38 159 74 64 10 7 7 944 952 988 627 357 404 1,009 576 650 1,623 2,583 4,339 3,259 3,516 5,393 21,720 13,822 15,539 1925 * Data on number of plum trees in Washington and Oregon were obtained by subtracting estimates of the number of prune trees from the totals of plum and prune trees given by the census. Estimates of the number of prune trees were made by taking the data on prune production from U. S. Dept. Agr. Dept. Cir. 416:36, 1927. Critchfield, Burke H. Demand, marketing and production of Oregon and Washington prunes, (with several corrections from the California Fruit News annual statistical numbers), aad the data on acreage, calculating the normal trend of production from 1910 to 1926, and assuming the acreage back in 1925, 1920, and 1910 to be in the same ratio to normal production as in 1926. The plum acreage thus calculated was divided between Washington and Oregon in proportion to the fresh plum shipments from these states from 1920 to 1927. t Data on number of trees for 1920 and 1925 are based on estimated acreages from Kaufman, E. E. California crop report for 1926. California Dept. Agr. Spec. Pub. 74:25, 26, 1927, counting 109 trees to the acre and adding 37 per cent for non-bearing trees. Estimates for 1910 are based on shipment data (table 6) which showed a trend represented by the equation log j/=3. 209733+0. 028092. Converting this to acreage trend and using the mean of bearing acreages 1914-1926 as the starting point centered at the year 1920 gave log j/=4.316997+0.02809z. Conversion to number of trees is then made as for 1920 and 1925. Data for 1925 compiled from U. S. Census of Agr. 1925:48-51. Data for 1910 and 1920 compiled from 14th Census of U. S. 5:866. 1920. The trend in the number of plum trees from 1910 to 1925 in most of the states is similar to the trend in the number of apple trees during the same period. In those states where plums are produced in small farm orchards as a side-line to a general farming business, the number of trees has decreased 50 per cent, in many cases, from 1910 to 1920. From 1920 to 1925 there was little change in most of these states. California and Idaho are the only important plum producing states which showed consistent increases in the number of trees from 1910 to 1925. California had 1,623,000 trees in 1910 and increased them to 4,339,000 in 1925. Idaho had 401,000 trees in 1910 and 719,000 in 1925. BUL. 459] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE FRESH PLUM INDUSTRY TABLE 4 Bearing Acres of Plums in California, by Counties, 1921-1927 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 District No. 1 : Del Norte Humboldt 100 10 150 10 7 37 20 100 10 150 10 7 37 27 110 10 150 10 7 37 27 120 10 150 10 7 37 27 130 12 150 10 7 40 32 135 17 150 10 7 10 13 135 Mendocino 17 District No. 2: Shasta 75 Siskiyou 10 Trinity 7 District No. 3: Lassen 2 Modoc 13 Plumas District No. 4: Alameda 200 25 200 25 200 25 200 25 205 25 200 25 200 Contra Costa 40 Lake Marin 9 9 37 75 10 32 22 400 9 38 75 10 42 22 900 9 40 75 10 53 22 1,400 9 40 100 15 78 22 1,400 9 45 100 20 105 22 1,400 20 Monterey 45 Napa 75 10 60 22 400 50 San Benito 20 147 San Mateo 76 Santa Clara 1,450 Santa Cruz Sonoma 200 117 23 8 2,394 2,700 164 10 689 50 820 78 50 108 70 1,212 35 1,209 250 117 23 10 2,528 3,810 170 10 900 50 1,200 78 50 108 70 1,364 104 1,644 300 117 23 13 2,564 3,810 176 10 900 50 1,309 114 75 109 92 1,414 114 2,037 350 117 23 15 2,600 3,810 183 10 896 50 1,700 150 100 110 114 1,464 124 2,429 550 121 23 15 2,798 3,865 228 25 1,100 50 2,500 553 100 111 142 1,546 135 3,387 550 289 23 15 2,800 4,270 246 26 1,175 50 3,000 203 110 171 203 1,601 133 3,387 550 District No. 5: Butte 280 Colusa 23 Glenn 18 Sacramento 3,050 Solano 4,420 Sutter 307 Tehama 30 Yolo 1,225 Yuba 50 District No. 5a: Fresno Kern 1,060 Kings 100 Madera 315 Merced 285 San Joaquin 1,752 Stanislaus 174 Tulare 5,129 District No. 6: Alpine 200 78 400 10 25 210 82 400 12 27 210 82 425 12 27 210 15 450 12 27 220 15 475 16 27 225 17 500 16 27 225 Calaveras 17 Eldorado 450 Inyo 16 27 Mono 197 6,769 200 6,809 212 6,841 225 6,873 255 7,352 265 7,465 268 7,512 6 6 5 5 6 10 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Table 4 — (Continued) 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 District No. 8: 462 663 663 663 676 611 604 10 294 186 15 131 229 20 135 255 23 140 278 23 13 23 161 273 20 13 23 186 275 20 16 35 161 295 20 12 13 13 16 State 19,715 22,432 23,800 25,398 29,055 30,171 33,827 Data from: California Crop Reporting Service. Estimated bearing acres of plums in California. 1 p. (mimeo.). 1927. The total number of trees in the United States in 1925 was 15,539,000. Of these California had 4,339,000, or approximately 28 per cent. The middle Atlantic, east north central, and west north central states had approximately 2,000,000 plum trees in each group in 1925. In the west south central states 1,283,000 trees were reported in the 1925 Census. The south Atlantic and mountain states had nearly 1,000,000 trees in each group, and the east south central group had slightly over 700,000. DISTRIBUTION AND TREND OF BEARING ACREAGE IN CALIFORNIA During the seven-year period from 1921 to 1927 the bearing acreage of plums in California increased rapidly, as shown in table 4. Beginning with 19,715 acres in 1921 plums increased to 33.827 in 1927, or 72 per cent. The increase was most rapid in Tulare County which increased from 1,209 to 5,129 acres during this period, while Fresno County was next with an increase from 820 to 3,100. Santa Clara County shows a rapid rate of expansion beginning with 400 acres and increasing to 1,450. Placer County had the largest acreage during the whole period ending with 7,512 acres in 1927, an increase of approximately 800 acres in seven years. The four counties, Placer, Sacramento, Solano, and San Joaquin, east and north of Suisun Bay (see figure 1) included approximately 50 per cent of the bearing acreage in California. If we include Tulare and Fresno counties in addition to the previous four counties we have 74 per cent of the total BUL. 459] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE FRESH PLUM INDUSTRY 11 acreage in the state. Three additional counties, viz., Santa Clara, Yolo, and Kern, have more than 1,000 acres each. The total acreage in these nine counties was 28,698 acres, or 85 per cent of the total. Plum Bearing Acreage in California, 1927 u LWIIII \ v fi *y ^T \><^ \ K»K>i \\\ j^^m*' L " \ V. L \ * /Dot --200 Acres Fig. 1. — One-half of the bearing plum acreage in California is in the four con- tiguous counties of Placer, Sacramento, Solano, and San Joaquin and one-fourth is in Tulare and Fresno counties. (Data from table 4.) According to E. E. Kaufman 4 there will be further increases in acreage for the state as a whole, reaching 38,800 acres in 1930, an increase of 15 per cent above the 1927 acreage. * From a letter to the writer, dated July 18, 1028. 12 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION SHIPMENTS OF PLUMS Trend in California Shipments. — The growth of the plum indus- try in California is well shown by the record of interstate carlot ship- ments from 1895-1926 (see table 5 and figure 2). In 1895 shipments amounted to 465 carlots and in 1926 they amounted to 5,221 carlots. TABLE 5 Interstate Shipments of California Plums, 1895-1927 Year Shipments* Shipments* Shipments* in carlots in carlots in carlots 1895 465 1906 1,220 1917 2,651 1896 407 1907 1,039 1918 2,483 1897 742 1908 1,763 1919 2,918 1898 542 1909 1,527 1920 2,564 1899 885 1910 1,552 1921 3,113 1900 1,158 1911 1,366 1922 3,498 1901 936 1912 1,775 1923 5,247 1902 1,473 1913 1,668 1924 2,882 1903 1,145 1914 1,907 1925 3,709 1904 1,053 1915 2,225 1926 5,221 1905 1,391 1916 1,999 1927 4,085 * Shipments from 1895 to 1920, inclusive, are from north of the Tehachapi only. Data for 1895 to 1926 from Kaufman, E. E. California crop report for 1926. California Dept Agr. Spec. Pub. 74:21. 1927. For 1927 from preliminary esti- mates by N. I. Nielsen of the California Cooperative Crop Keporting Service. Interstate Shipments of California Plums in Carlots, 1895-1927 Carlots 4000 2000 JO | I00O — < , -Trend ^ 600 ^T-Shipme, ?As 400 zoo 1695 1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1950 Yean Fig. 2. — In 1900 California shipments first exceeded 1000 carlots while in 1923 they exceeded 5000 carlots. On an average each year increased 6.624 per cent over the preceding year. The equation for the trend line is log y = 3.209733 -f 0.014045x. (Data from table 5.) BUL. 459] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE FRESH PLUM INDUSTRY 13 In 1900 shipments exceeded 1,000 carlots for the first time, and in 1915 they passed the 2,000 mark. More than 3,000 carlots were shipped in 1921 and more than 5,000 in 1923 and 1926. Neglecting the irregular fluctuations from year to year a steady growth in shipments can be noted. This is shown by the straight line in figure 2, which shows the long-time trend. This indicates an average annual increase for the whole period of 6.624 per cent, i.e., each year the normal shipments were 6.624 per cent greater than the preceding year. Judging by the estimated increases in acreage up to 1930, the trend of shipments will probably continue upward at the same rate for several years more. TABLE 6 Caklot Shipments of Plums in the United States by Eegions, 1920-1927 Oregon, Washington, Rest of California and Idaho United States Total 1920 2,564 1,812 1,076 5,452 1921 3,113 3,216 159 6,488 1922 3,498 1,991 1,086 6,575 1923 5,247 4,101 446 9,794 1924 2,882 1,730 674 5,286 1925 3,709 2,113 424 6,246 1926 5,221 3,136 540 8,897 1927 4,085 3,068 102 7,255 Data for California are interstate only from Kaufman, E. E. California crop report for 1926. California Dept. Agr. Spec. Pub. 74:21; for 1927 preliminary estimates from N. I. Nielsen of the California Cooperative Crop Eeporting Service. Other states from 1920-1926 mimeo. sheets (unpublished) of U. S. Bur. Agr. Econ.; for 1927 from current issues of Crops and Markets. United States Shipments by Regions. — The total plum shipments in the United States from 1920 to 1927 fluctuated considerably from year to year. In 1920 only 5,452 carlots were shipped compared with 9,794 in 1923 (see table 6). There is no marked trend up or down. California shipments amounted to 48 per cent of the total in 1920 and 1921. The proportion supplied by California increased to 59 per cent in 1925 and 1926. In 1927 California supplied 56 per cent of the total shipments. Shipments from Oregon, Washington, and Idaho amounted on an average to slightly more than one-third of the United States total shipments. The trend in these states is about on a level. Shipments from the rest of the United States originate mainly in New York and Michigan. The shipments of plums from these states is declining. In 1920 they supplied nearly 20 per cent of the total 14 UNIVERSITY OP CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION shipments, but in 1926 only 6.1 per cent. Truck shipments have undoubtedly increased during this time but no accurate records of them are available. United States Shipments by Months. — During the eight-year period from 1920 to 1927 the peak of California plum shipments came in June each year with the exception of 1922 and 1927, when TABLE 7 Caelot Shipments of Plums in the United States, by Months, 1926-1927 Months California* Oregon, Washington, and Idaho Rest of United States Total 1926 373 2,649 1,857 333 9 6 9 3 12 337 173t 379 2,658 July 155 1,694 1,279 8 2,015 2,039 1,625 181 Total 5,221 3,136 540 8,897 1927 1,314 1,840 926 5 20 4 6 55 17 1,334 July 1,844 969 1,940 159 1,901 2,000 176 Total 4,085 3,068 102 7,255 * Data for California compiled from California Fruit News, current issues 1926, 1927. Slight adjust- ments in monthly shipments were made to make totals check with California Crop Report totals, t This figure contains 5 carlots shipped in November. Data, except for California, compiled from Crops and Markets, current issues. it came in July. In table 7 and in figure 3 data for 1926 are some- what more typical of the distribution of shipments by months than those for 1927. In 1926, 2,649 carlots or approximately one-half of California plum shipments for the year came in June, slightly over one-third in July. August and May shipments were 333 and 373 carlots, respectively. Nearly all of the plums shipped in the United States in May, June, and July came from California. In August and September the ship- ments from Oregon, Washington, and Idaho comprised more than 80 per cent of the total United States shipments in 1926 and slightly more than one-half in 1927, in spite of the late season in California. BUL. 459] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE FRESH PLUM INDUSTRY 15 Shipments from the rest of the United States reached their peak in September in both years, but made up only a small part of the total for any month. Monthly Carlot Shipments of Plums in the United States, 1926-1927 May June July Aug Sept Oct flay June July Aug 5ept Oct Fig. 3. — Nearly all of the plums shipped in the United States during May, June, and July come from California. In August more than one-half of the total come from Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. The September shipments largely come from these three states. (Data from table 7.) COMPETITION WITH OTHER FRUITS Large quantities of a variety of fruits are shipped during the months of June, July, and August when plum shipments from Cali- fornia are important. Those which are of considerable importance in competing with plums and are seasonal in their movements are shown in table 8 and figure 4. The general trend of shipments of all fruits is upward. No data are given for mixed deciduous fruits during 1920 and 1921. Some plums are included in this class of fruits, ship- ments of mixed deciduous fruits from California being estimated as consisting of 40 per cent plums. 5 s Estimate of O. W. Holmes, State Department of Agriculture. 16 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION During the month of June plum shipments averaged 1,099 carlots, slightly less than 7 per cent of the 16,213 carlots — the average June Shipments of all of the fruits shown in table 8. In July the carlot shipments of plums averaged 3.5 per cent of all the fruits, and in August slightly over 4 per cent. TABLE 8 Carlot Shipments of Specified Fresh Fruits in the United States, for June, July, and August, 1920-1927 Year Plums Mixed deciduous Apples Pears Canta- loupes Peaches Total JUNE 1920 778 1,126 486 1,114 829 1,332 2,141 982 262 436 1,117 509 912 942 1,205 1,202 6,700 7,900 10,371 10,193 11,862 10,078 6,239 11,512 1,550 4,000 3,184 2,384 1,873 4,951 2,209 5,409 9,290 1921 13,462 1922 821 2,213 1,134 1,040 895 722 460 1,114 228 16,439 1923 17,527 1924 16,838 1925 18,343 1926 12,689 1927 19,827 JULY 1,055 943 1,291 938 605 882 1,330 1,256 1,862 2,543 1,598 1,776 1,888 938 1,855 1,207 2,592 3,360 2,362 2,895 3,840 1,731 2,677 1,694 1,659 3,973 2,887 3,929 6,237 2,296 5,451 8,669 10,173 6,043 8,311 9,737 6,949 9,656 6,900 17,938 9,300 21,813 7,541 25,118 10,963 27,820 14,603 30,366 17,932 37,151 21,709 41,953 12,938 28,815 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 Data from Crops and Markets, Monthly Supplements, current issues, 1924- 1927. No data on mixed deciduous fruit until 1922. AUGUST Peach shipments in July and August showed the most rapid increase of all of the fruits during the period 1920 to 1927. The last four years showed almost a 100 per cent increase over the first four years. BUL. 459] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE FRESH PLUM INDUSTRY 17 Carlot Shipments of Specified Fresh Fruits in the United States 1920 21 22 23 24 23 26 27 28 29 1920 21 21 25 24 25 26 27 28 29 1920 21 22 25 24 25 26 27 28 29 June July /lugust Fig. 4. — Large quantities of other fruits are shipped during the three months when most of the California plums are marketed and the trend of these is upward. (Data from table 8.) CANNED PLUMS 6 Most of the canned plums in the United States come from California. Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Washington can com- paratively small quantities of them. The quantities canned in California from 1906 to 1926 and the proportion which they make up of the total crop in the state are shown in table 9. The quantities canned vary widely from year to year. Thus in 1908 270,000 cases were canned while in 1909 the number dropped to 103,000. The trend of total quantities canned from 1906 to 1926 is slightly upward. For the first ten years, 1906 to 1915, the average annual pack was 155,883 cases, and for the last ten years, 1917 to 1926, it was 184,999. The increase in canned plums has not been as rapid as the shipments (see table 5) and hence the proportion of the total crop that is canned seems to be declining as shown by the last column of table 9. With the exception of the first year in which this proportion is shown, 1919, the canned plums comprised from 4 to 8 per cent of the total crop. 6 For a discussion of the varieties canned, and the possibilities of using plums in other ways see Cruess, W. V. The utilization of surplus plums. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 400:1-21. 1926. 18 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 9 Quantity and Proportion of California Plum Crop Canned, 1906-1927 1906-1916 1917-1927 Canned plums Year Canned plums Total production fresh (tons) Proportion f Year Thousands of cases Thousands of cases Equivalent fresh* (tons) total production per cent 1906 224 170 270 1917 1918 1919 270 149 280 1907 1908 4,667 42,000 11 1 1909 103 1920 165 2,750 35,000 7.9 1910 95 1921 141 2,350 42,000 5.6 1911 188 1922 182 3,033 48,000 6 3 1912 202 1923 164 2,733 69.000 4 1913 79 1924 91 1,517 39,000 3.9 1914 131 1925 179 2,983 51,000 5.8 1915 95 1926 229 3,817 71,000 5 4 1916 85 1927 137 2,287 57,000 4 * 60 cases canned plums equal one ton fresh. f Proportion of canned to total production obtained by dividing the fresh equivalent of canned plums, by the total production. Data compiled from Kaufman, E. E. California crop reports for 1925 and 1926. California Dept/Agr. Spec. Pub. 63:26. 1926; and 74:23. 1927. PRICES OF PLUMS Seasonal Variations. — California plums are sold on the New York market for a period of from twelve to fifteen weeks. As a rule prices start at a high point at the beginning of the season as limited quan- tities of the early varieties come on the market. As the quantities increase, prices of the early varieties decline rapidly and continue to go down after the quantities of these varieties decline (see table 10). The later varieties coming on the market are usually of better quality and bring higher prices. The Beauty plum was first on the market in 1926, and brought an average of $2.23 a crate the first week ending June 4. The follow- ing week, with increased receipts, the price dropped to $1.39. During the next two weeks receipts fell off, but prices continued to decline. The Formosa plums experienced one exception to this trend in the third week, when prices recovered temporarily with a decline in receipts. The Tragedy plum came on in large quantities the fourth week of the season and brought better prices than the early varieties which were brought into competition with it. Still later varieties like the Kelsey and President generally brought good prices late in the season. The total volume of sales at New York of the eleven varieties BUL. 459] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE FRESH PLUM INDUSTRY 19 8? (** 5-1 a 5-( a s H o fi 3? ^ re s P ow to to »-> CO to 1— ' to to >-> to ►- *- re ~J 2 CO C33 O CO 03 CO to Ol Q.0V COC73COtOOlOOH-4>. re S'^ 1 g* H ?r o re p_ 3 B: . 5' TO 00 _ re 3 Ol "to © -J oo -a "oi to 30 tO 03 CO S 2,3 ~ CO »4 »1 M © o re cr en O Ol O Oi Oi o » re W c cT ^i ^ to to 2,^ 03 s oo oo oo to OO Ol S m II re re V Oi Ol Oi to to 2.^ cs in O O Oi o M «* K CO i-l M to i re re o; to !-> to 4*. OO OO CO Oi CO h- --j co SfsS re ^TO p. re P C *• ?^ Cr re re >cj 9 ? ~ M M W Id a ,_. h- co i-> 5 O OO CO CO x O h- h- CO ►i e S2.3 °-3 00 Oi 03 Ol to ^1 re -. C3 CO 00 43. JO re cr o Oi O Oi © 3 «> re g " -1 re a " !*>• tO 03 © to ^ re re re TO oi o! CO CO it, H O O CO 1— O 03 CO oo O O Oi o ^3 Set •sj to to 4*- -~I 03 GO ■-) o Q, re to 1 3 i **■'' oo to -J CO ^1 « f /. «• si re 2.3 TOTO cr re re iQ '^'re' $ "© Oi "co Vl 4»- Ol O CO CO CO S-2,3 re cr co re -o H Ol M 1^ |_> 03 CO CO Cn O Ol Ol Ol 00 3 o re ^ ■ V, Oi tO Ol 43- t > 2.-C < re co to a » Xj ►— 43. ►- oo to oo to 2,3 SS- re re CO 1 uc il>. Cn to Cn 3 0O ►- c -« »OH i c re >o CO ~j "co o MOdif -J S 2,3 ft €« X O m M O C» Oi - g t^ H OO CO Z> © O Oi re ""cr t» (X, o ; M tJ CO oo CO 3 c 3 K Oi S Cn S w «• 2.W < '"'re' re e to 3. re CO to K- — Ol ^J Ol re ^to sr ^1 4, 4* 3 fc o to H- Ol re CO l-i 2,3 CL ffi Cn s OO 00 -i 3 SS- re re CO O C73 CO CO 03 ■ i 3 Oi to OO o o to O O O Ol Ol O CO 03 _ _ o ? CO <-t p 3 Ol H- 4». < J. 1 Ji Ol *. -i c ►- ^1 43. "c o J> >i s oo S2.3 43. P M Ol t» ( n B f. OO CO re c" « re SJ O Ol o Jl 3 Ji © Oi 1 p M ! 2- c A «» : re 2 re tJ &3. o _ o M Cn M CO o Oi : 3.1 2.2 $15 vl § .O Ol " 2.-C -i TO n 2 3" re 2 re^TO CO < re 3 O to i— ^1 43. k- : to H- tO 35 O CO CO re Q. « ~ O CO tO 4* ■-» a3 i i o M ilk M Cn Ol 23 S9- S2 to o ? ' 3 Ol m v] O S Ol oo to to 53 X 33 ►— ►i e t o tO 03 ^J CO ^J ^- Ol Ol oo e a P- "to S2.3 c 3 o o o o o o H OJ CO ^ -1 o &. oo re o* to o o «3. o Ji o p •"d Cn 12 g!i Zr re re t: TO re re Q. to << M •• '■* 2.-0 5 re" ' 2. « _. ^ ►- — ►- to H- tO H- — to Ji to Oi 4>. CO O0 CO -J w CO CO CO O 33 - 1 33 » to O CO STs'S » 95 ** c 3 -J oo CO to to to n, re """re' re 20 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION shown in table 10 equals approximately 13 per cent of the total plum shipments from California in 1926, and hence constitute a fair sample of the crop. A fairly representative picture of the seasonal movement at New York can be obtained by averaging for all of the first weeks, second weeks, etc., during the period 1921 to 1927, the sales and prices of the five important varieties, viz., the Burbank, Climax, Diamond, Grand Duke, and Tragedy. These are shown in table 11 and figure 5. The TABLE 11 Average Quantities of Five Varieties of Plums* Sold at New York by Weeks [of the Season] and Prices Obtained, 1921-1927 Sales Price Week of the season Number of crates Per cent of average Dollars Per cent of average j 2,870 20,458 49,618 58,003 42,080 34,269 26,938 18,179 21,481 17,397 7,903 2,817 724 12.3 87.9 213.1 249.1 180.7 147.2 115.7 78.1 92.2 74.7 33.9 12.1 3.1 2.13 1.72 1.73 1.51 1.66 1.69 1.64 1.76 1.66 1.46 1.45 1.54 1.64 128.3 2 103.6 3 104.2 4 91.0 5 100.0 6 101.8 7 98.8 8 106.0 9 100.0 10 88.0 11 87.3 12 92.8 13 98.8 23,287 100.0 1.66f 100.0 * Includes Burbank, Climax, Diamond, Grand Duke, and Tragedy plums, t Unweighted average. The weighted average is $1.64. Data for 1921-1924 compiled from summaries of the Stewart Fruit Co. taken from New York Daily Fruit Beporter, current issues; for 1925-1927 from Hansen, Carl J. Market News Service U. S. Dept. Agr. and California Dept. Agr. Mimeo. reports from San Francisco, current issues. latter also shows total weekly shipments of plums from California for the same period. The quantities sold increased during the first four weeks while the price declined. For the rest of the season the volume of sales declined somewhat irregularly. The marked decline in sales in the eighth week was accompanied by a slight recovery of prices which declined again as sales increased. Toward the end of the season the quantities sold fell off greatly, and the prices made a moderate recovery. Shipments, which included all varieties, increased up to the fifth week, after which there was practically a steady decline to the end of the season. BUL. 459] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OP THE FRESH PLUM INDUSTRY 21 Comparison of Weekly Shipments of Plums from California and Weekly Auction Sales of Five Varieties at New York, Average 1921-1927 600 500 400 300 200 100 70 60 50 <40 30 i Si 20 —/- r^s* vpme nte N » \ — *A K t 1 \ »»_ / X / s^ / NT 1 r \ ^ V 1 \ ++ v x 1 i 1 \ 1 \ i+—Aue1ion 5 ales \ 1 \ 1 / \ 1 1 \ I 1 V f \ f \ 1 X \ y. . ^-D^-.V \ >iLi ss ^" _^ \ \ \ V Price $ 2.00 1.50 LOO 5 6 7 8 9 Weeks of season 10 IZ 15 Fig. 5.— Volume of sales of Burbank, Climax, Diamond, Grand Duke, and Tragedy plums at New York are approximately proportional to shipments through- out the season. The price trend is downward as the season advances with some recovery as the later varieties arrive, and as supplies become very short (Data from table 12.) 22 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Prices by Varieties. — There is considerable variation in the average price which the different varieties of plums bring on the New York market, and the rank based on price often changes from season to season. There is no certainty, therefore, that the variety which has brought the highest price for one or more years will continue to bring the highest price. It is of some interest, however, to compare the prices which eleven of the important varieties of California plums have brought, during the last three seasons, 1925- 1927. Table 12 shows the simple averages of the weighted annual prices of these varieties arranged in order from highest to lowest, with the earliest and latest dates of sales. TABLE 12 Average Prices of Plums at New York, 1925-1927, by Varieties and Earliest and Latest Dates of Sale Rank • Variety Average price Earliest date Latest date 1 Kelsey $2.25 1.96 1.87 1.72 1.70 1.67 1.66 1.54 1.50 1.45 1.45 July 17 June 25 July 30 May 27 June 4 July 3 | June^ll June^l6 June 4j July 16 June 4 Sept. 4 2 Aug. 12 3 Sept. 15 4 July 8 5 July 15 6 Aug. 26 7 Aug. 12 g Aug. 12 9 Aug. 19 10 Sept. 10 11 Climax July 15 Data compiled from Hansen, Carl J. Market News Service. U. S. Dept. Agr. and California Dept. Agr. Mimeo. reports from San Francisco, current issues. The three highest varieties, Kelsey, Wickson, and President are medium or late varieties. The fourth and fifth (Beauty and Formosa) are among the earliest. Prices have been compiled since 1917 on the Diamond, Tragedy, Burbank, Grand Duke, and Climax and are shown in table 13. The records over the longer period, 1917 to 1927, show that the Tragedy has usually brought a higher price than the diamond. The Grand Duke ranks higher and the Burbank lower for the eleven-year period than for the last three years. In choosing a variety for planting, however, other factors besides the price of the past three years or the past eleven years must be considered. Some of these factors are: 1. The adaptability of the variety to the region. There would be no advantage in trying to grow an early variety in the cooler parts of the plum-growing area. BUL. 459] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE FRESH PLUM INDUSTRY 23 2. The cost of production per crate depends largely upon the yield per acre. Some of the varieties yield more heavily than others and hence can be produced at lower costs per crate. 3. Some varieties are self-sterile or inter-sterile and hence must be planted with varieties which will bring about proper fertilization. The work of Professor Hendrickson of this station gives detailed information on this point. 7 4. A combination of varieties which will distribute the labor evenly over a long period of time is usually advantageous in an orchard. Prices and Quantities Sold. — There is a fairly consistent relation- ship between the quantities of plums sold from year to year and the average price obtained for them. For the first four years of the period 1917 to 1927 this relationship is not so evident because of the fact that the general price level was changing considerably and was unusually high during this period compared with the price-level from 1921 to 1927. In order to have the prices of plums comparable from year to year they were adjusted for these changes in the price level by dividing the annual prices by the corresponding July index num- ber of all commodities, compiled by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. This index number as given in the source (see footnote to table 13) is calculated relative to the 1910 to 1914 period taken as equal to 100. The price level in 1927 was approximately 50 per cent above the 1910 to 1914 base, hence the prices after being divided by the corresponding index number were multiplied by 1.5 which adjusts them all approximately to the 1927 price level. These adjusted prices are shown beside the actuals in table 13 and are charted with sales in figure 6. During seasons when large quantities were sold low prices usually prevailed, and, with the exception of the first three years, in seasons during which small quantities were sold high prices prevailed. Thus in 1923 and 1926 large quantities resulted in low prices per crate, and in 1921, 1924, and 1927 small quantities of all varieties resulted in high prices. The coefficient of correlation between quantities and prices varies from — 0.3 to — 0.6 for the individual varieties and amounts to — 0.8 for all five varieties. Perfect inverse correlation would be indicated by — 1.0. * Hendrickson, A. H. Plum pollination. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 310:1-28. 1919. Further experiments in plum pollination. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 352:247-266. 1922. 24 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 13 Auction Sales at New York, Actual and Adjusted Price of Five Varieties of Plums, 1917-1927 Diamond Grand Duke Climax Year Crates Actual price Adjusted* price Crates Actual price Adjusted* price Crates Actual price Adjusted* price 1917 44,891 $1.37 $1.08 56,184 $1.41 $1.11 56,516 $1.38 $1.08 1918 18,360 1.94 1.45 31,765 1.96 1.47 53,489 1.60 1 20 1919 25,020 2.08 1.45 37,430 1.80 1.25 65,412 1.83 1.27 1920 14,985 2.57 1.57 26,732 2.50 1 53 47,245 2.62 1.60 1921 28,575 2.38 2.49 33,090 2.06 2.15 78,155 1.37 1.43 1922 34,130 1.38 1.31 60,795 1.44 1.37 80,765 1.39 1.32 1923 68,650 1.17 1.14 77,620 1.31 1.28 89,280 1 63 1.59 1924 30,165 1.68 1.68 42,010 1.85 1.85 46,355 1.91 1.91 1925 36,500 1.82 1.68 59,500 1.34 1.23 57,500 1.56 1.44 1926 31,065 1.48 1.45 88,360 1.37 1.39 81,760 1.28 1.25 1927 57,900 1.70 1.73 58,695 1.64 1.67 39,420 1.50 1.53 Tragedy Burbank Total or average Actual Adjusted* Actual Adjusted* Actual Adjusted* Crates price price Crates price price Crates price price 1917 144,484 $1.45 $1.14 28,497 $1.46 $1 15 330,572 $1.42 $1.11 1918 50,865 2.01 1.51 31,727 1.82 1.37 185,206 1.85 1 39 1919 86,705 1.90 1.32 37,055 1.73 1.20 251,622 1.86 1.29 1920 60,030 2.58 1.58 29,819 2.25 1.38 178,811 2 52 1.54 1921 56,665 1.92 2.01 35,795 1.46 1.53 231,680 1.74 1.81 1922 74,055 1.75 1.67 40,800 1.15 1.09 290,545 1.46 1 38 1923 140,763 1.32 1.29 67,024 1.08 1.06 443,337 1.32 1.29 1924 55,030 2.14 2.14 27,565 1.82 1.82 201,125 1 91 1.91 1925 96,000 1.69 1.56 37,500 1.52 1.40 287,000 1.59 1.47 1926 128,020 1.50 1.47 35,295 1.34 1.31 364,500 1.39 1.36 1927 105,131 1.79 1.82 43,568 1.76 1.79 304,714 1.70 1.74 * The adjusted price was obtained by dividing the actual price of each year by the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics all-commodity index number for July of the same year and multiplying the quotient by 1.5. This brings the adjusted price approximately in terms of the 1927 price level. The source of the index number used is U. S. Bur. Agr. Econ. Index numbers of farm prices (mimeo.) pp. 60-63. Jan., 1928. Data for 1917-1924 compiled from summaries of the Stewart Fruit Co. taken from the New York Daily Fruit Reporter, current issues; for 1925-1927 from Hansen, Carl J. Market News Service U. S. Dept. Agr. and California Dept. Agr. Mimeo. reports from San Francisco, current issues. The trend in quantities sold at New York is upward as one would expect from a study of the shipments from California shown in table 5. The trend of prices seems to be upward during this period, 1917 to 1927, but it must not be assumed that this is a part of a long upward trend which is likely to continue for some time in the future. Fragmentary data on plum prices back to 1913 indicate fairly high prices at that time followed by a slump which reached its low point BUL. 459] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE FRESH PLUM INDUSTRY 25 3> M < ? a a s Si K fit 2^ ss o 15 5. & 1° s * s IP o *» 8 I : ?2 - sr > ^ 1 > 1 5 O O ■ o 8 M kl O o *M. * O s l § * 8 ? $ » a " :?C >§■ * ■ f^K? OJi •""""\ 3" \^ •«» erf* ' H^^ „ --""«■** «-» ^* a -<_ Kl N i > !* .- r- Nl K> Nfe t 3 8 § * ! t | 1*5 "l 26 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION in 1917. The following two or three years were marked by a recovery. Since 1920 and 1921 the line of trend seems to be approximately on a level. Since plums make up but a small proportion of the fruit available during June, July, and August some may reason that even a large percentage increase in the supply of plums will have little effect on their price, since the total supply of fruit will be affected very little thereby. A preliminary study of past experience, however, indicates that plum prices are affected mainly by the supply of plums rather than by the supply of all other fruits available at that time. Although the demand for plums has increased to some extent, as is shown by the fact that the price trend since 1920 has not fallen appreciably with the increase in quantities sold, this increase in demand has developed gradually. How long it will continue to increase cannot be predicted now. It does not seem likely that the demand in the next three years will increase faster than the bearing acreage in California (see p. 10), hence the trend in prices is not likely to be upward. Net Prices to Growers. — Tables worked out by Hansen and Holmes 8 show approximately the cost to the grower of shipping his plums to New York and selling them. The charges to be deducted from the New York price per crate in order to obtain the net price are as follows : Crates, packing, and loading $0.38 Cartage: ranch to station 03 Freight and icing 55 Sales commission (7 per cent on $1.56) 11 Total $1.07 The average price per crate at New York from 1922 to 1927 for the five varieties shown in table 13 was $1.56. Subtracting $1.07 leaves a net price of $0.49 for the grower. s Hansen, C. J., and O. W. Holmes. Marketing California plums and prunes season 1926. U. S. Bur. Agr. Econ. and California Dept. Agr. Mimeo. Report. p. 34. STATION PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION No. 253. Irrigation and Soil Conditions in the Sierra Nevada Foothills, California. 262. Citrus Diseases of Florida and Cuba Compared Avith those of California. 263. Size Grades for Ripe Olives. 268. Growing and Grafting Olive Seedlings. 277. Sudan Grass. 278. Grain Sorghums. 279. Irrigation of Rice in California. 283. The Olive Insects of California. 304. A Study of the Effects of Freezes on Citrus in California. 310. Plum Pollination. 313. Pruning Young Deciduous Fruit Trees. 324. Storage of Perishable Fruits at Freez- ing Temperatures. .'528. Prune Growing in California. 331. Phylloxera-resistant Stocks. 335. Cocoanut Meal as a Feed for Dairy Cows and Other Livestock. 340. Control of the Pocket Gopher in California. 343. Cheese Pests and Their Control. 344. Cold Storage as an Aid to the Mar- keting of Plums, a Progress Report. 347. The Control of Red Spiders in Decid- uous Orchards. 348. Pruning Young Olive Trees. 349. A Study of Sidedraft and Tractor Hitches. 350. Agriculture in Cut-Over Redwood Lands. 353. Bovine Infectious Abortion, and As- sociated Diseases of Cattle and New- born Calves. 354. Results of Rice Experiments in 1922. 357. A Self-Mixing Dusting Machine for Applying Dry Insecticides and Fun- gicides. 358. Black Measles, Water Berries, and Related Vine Troubles. 361. Preliminary Yield Tables for Second- Growth Redwood. 362. Dust and the Tractor Engine. 363. The Pruning of Citrus Trees in Cali- fornia. 364. Fungicidal Dusts for the Control of Bunt. 366. Turkish Tobacco Culture, Curing, and Marketing. 3 67. Methods of Harvesting and Irrigation in Relation to Moldy Walnuts. 368. Bacterial Decomposition of Olives During Pickling. 369. Comparison of Woods for Butter Boxes. 370. Factors Influencing the Development of Internal Browning of the Yellow Newton Apple. 371. The Relative Cost of Yarding Small and Large Timber. 373. Pear Pollination. 374. A Survey of Orchard Practices in the Citrus Industry of Southern California. 375. Results of Rice Experiments at Cor- tena, 1923, and Progress in Experi- ments in Water Grass Control at the Biggs Rice Field Station, 1922-23. 377. The Cold Storage of Pears. 380. Growth of Eucalyptus in California Plantations. 382. Pumping for Draininge in the San Joaquin Valley, California. 385. Pollination of the Sweet Cherry. 386. Pruning Bearing Deciduous Fruit Trees. 387. Fig Smut. 388. The Principles and Practice of Sun- Drying Fruit. BULLETINS No. 389. 390. 391. 392. 393. 394. 395. 396. 397. 398. 400. 402. 404. 405. 406. 407. 408. 409. 410. 412. 415. 416. 417. 418. 420. 421. 422. 423. 424. 425. 426. 428. 429. 430. 431. 432. 433. Cali- with Berseem or Egyptian Clover. Harvesting and Packing Grapes in California. Machines for Coating Seed Wheat with Copper Carbonate Dust. Fruit Juice Concentrates. Crop Sequences at Davis. I. Cereal Hay Production in fornia. II. Feeding Trials Cereal Hays. Bark Diseases of Citrus Trees in Cali- fornia. The Mat Bean, Phaseolus Aconitifo- lius. Manufacture of Roquefort Type Cheese from Goat's Milk. Orchard Heating in California. The Utilization of Surplus Plums. The Codling Moth in Walnuts. The Dehydration of Prunes. Citrus Culture in Central California. Stationary Spray Plants in California. Yield, Stand, and Volume Tables for White Fir in the California Pine Region. Alternaria Rot of Lemons. The Digestibility of Certain Fruit By- products as Determined for Rumi- nants. Part I. Dried Orange Pulp and Raisin Pulp. Factoi-s Influencing the Quality of Fresh Asparagus after it is Har- vested. Paradichlorobenzene as a Soil Fumi- gant. A Study of the Relative Value of Cer- tain Root Crops and Salmon Oil as Sources of Vitamin A for Poultry. Planting and Thinning Distances for Deciduous Fruit Trees. The Tractor on California Farms. Culture of the Oriental Persimmon in California. Poultry Feeding: Principles and Prac- tice. A Study of Various Rations for Fin- ishing Range Calves as Baby Beeves. Economic Aspects of the Cantaloupe Industry. Rice and Rice By-Produ*cts as Feeds for Fattening Swine. Beef Cattle Feeding Trials, 1921-24. Cost of Producing Almonds in Cali- fornia : a Progress Report. Apricots (Series on California Crops and Prices). The Relation of Rate of Maturity to Egg Production. Apple Growing in California. Apple Pollination Studies in Cali- fornia. The Value of Orange Pulp for Milk Production. The Relation of Maturity of fornia Plums to Shipping Dessert Quality. Economic Status of the Grape Industry. Range Grasses of California. Raisin By-Products and Bean Screen- ings as Feeds for Fattening Lambs. Some Economic Problems Involved in the Pooling of Fruit. Power Requirements of Electrically Driven Manufacturing Equipment. Investigations on the Use of Fruits in Ice Cream and Ices. The Problem of Securing Closer Relationship Between Agricultural Development and Irrigation Con- struction. Cali- and bulletins- no. 436 I. The Kadota Fig. II. Kadota Fig Products. 43 7. Economic Aspects of the Dairy In- dustry. 438 Grafting Affinities with Special Refer- ence to Plums. 439. The Digestibility of Certain Fruit By- products as Determined for Rumi- nants. Part II. Dried Pineapple Pulp, Dried Lemon Pulp, and Dried Olive Pulp. 440. The Feeding Value of Raisins and Dairy By-Products for Growing and Fattening Swine. 441. The Electric Brooder. 442. Laboratory Tests of Orchard Heaters. 443. Standardization and Improvement of California Butter. 444. Series on California Crops and Prices: Beans. (Continued) No. 445. Economic Aspects of the Apple In- dustry. 446. The Asparagus Industry in California. 447. The Method of Determining the Clean Weights of Individual Fleeces of Wool. 448. Farmers' Purchase Agreement for Deep Well Pumps. 449. Economic Aspects of the Watermelon Industry. 450. Irrigation Investigations with Field Crops at Davis, and at Delhi, Cali- fornia. 451. Studies Preliminary to the Establish- ment of a Series of Fertilizer Trials in a Bearing Citrus Grove. 452. Economic Aspects of the Pear In- dustry. No. 87. 117. 127. 129. 136. 144. 157. 164. 166. 178. 202. 203. 209. 212. 215. 230. 231. 232. 234. 238. 239. 240. 241. 243. 244. 245. 248. 249. 250. 252, 253. 255. 257. 258 259 261 CIRCULARS No. 265. 266. Alfalfa. The selection and Cost of a Small Pumping Plant. House Fumigation. 267. The control of Citrus Insects. Melilotus Indica as a Green-Manure 269. Crop for California. 270. Oidium or Powdery Mildew of the 273. Vine. 276. Control of Pear Scab. 277. Small Fruit Culture in California. The County Farm Bureau. 278. The Packing of Apples in California. County Organization for Rural Fire 279. Control. Peat as a Manure Substitute. 281. The Function of the Farm Bureau. Salvaging Rain-Damaged Prunes. Feeding Dairy Cows in California. 282. Testing Milk, Cream, and Skim Milk for Butterfat. 284. The Home Vineyard. 286. Harvesting and Handling California 287. Cherries for Eastern Shipment. 288. Winter Injury to Young Walnut 289. Trees During 1921-1922. 290. The Apricot in California. 292. Harvesting and Handling Apricots 293. and Plums for Eastern Shipment. 294, Harvesting and Handling California 296. Pears for Eastern Shipment. Harvesting and Handling California 298. Peaches for Eastern Shipment. Marmalade Juice and Jelly Juice 300. from Citrus Fruits. 301. Central Wire Bracing for Fruit Trees. 302. Vine Pruning Systems. 304. Some Common Errors in Vine Prun- 305. ing and Their Remedies. 307. Replacing Missing Vines. 308. Measurement of Irrigation Water on 309. the Farm. 310. Support for Vines. Vineyard Plans. 311, Leguminous Plants as Organic Fer- 312. tilizers in California Agriculture. The Small-Seeded Horse Bean (Vicia faba var. minor). Thinning Deciduous Fruits. Pear By-Products. Sewing Grain Sacks. The publications listed above may be had by addressing College of Agriculture, University of California, Berkeley, California. 12m-10,'28 Plant Disease and Pest Control. Analyzing the Citrus Orchard by Means of Simple Tree Records. The Tendency of Tractors to Rise in Front; Causes and Remedies. An Orchard Brush Burner. A Farm Septic Tank. Saving the Gophered Citrus Tree. Home Canning. Head, Cane and Cordon Pruning of Vines. Olive Pickling in Mediterranean Countries. The Preparation and Refining of Olive Oil in Southern Europe. The Results of a Survey to Deter- mine the Cost of Producing Beef in California. Prevention of Insect Attack on Stored Grain. The Almond in California. Milk Houses for California Dairies. Potato Production in California. Phylloxera Resistant Vineyards. Oak Fungus in Orchard Trees. The Tangier Pea. Alkali Soils. The Basis of Grape Standardization. Propagation of Deciduous Fruits. Control of the California Ground Squirrel. Possibilities and Limitations of Coop- erative Marketing. Coccidiosis of Chickens. Buckeye Poisoning of the Honey Bee. The Sugar Beet in California. Drainage on the Farm. Liming the Soil. American Foulbrood and Its Control. Cantaloupe Production in California. Fruit Tree and Orchard Judging. The Operation of the Bacteriological Laboratory for Dairy Plants. The Improvement of Quality in Figs. Principles Governing the Choice, Op- eration and Care of Small Irrigation Pumping Plants.