CALIFOjpiA AGRICULTURAL E^JtTENSION SERVICE CIRCULAR 1 April, 1926 '"^ SERIES ON CALIFORNIA CROPS AND PRICES PEACHES H. R. WELLMAN PUBLISHED BY THE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Cooperative Extension work in Agriculture and Home Economics, College of Agriculture, University of California, and United States Department of Agriculture cooperating. Dis- tributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 30, 1914. B. H. Crocheron, Director, California Agricultural Extension Service. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRINTING OFFICE BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 1926 This publication is the first of a series, each of which will dis- cuss the economics of a crop prominent in California agriculture. Heretofore, those who desired to consult the statistics for any particular crop were compelled to search through a long and varied list of references scattered in publications of many bureaus of the State and Federal governments and of various private agencies. This publication attempts to bring the material together in one publication and to present it in graphic form. This work was initiated as the result of a request from the California Farm Bureau Federation, the California State Grange and the California Farmers' Union. Its fulfillment has been made possible through the hearty cooperation of many agencies which have generously contributed from their data and their time. Among these are the Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the United States Department of Agriculture, the Cooperative Crop Reporting Service of the State Department of Agriculture, the United States Department of Commerce, the California Development Association, the Agricultural Legislative Commit- tee, the California Canning Peach Growers, the California Fruit Exchange, the California Peach and Fig Growers Association, and the California Cooperative Canneries. This publication tries to give such facts as are available. It is hoped that it may be of assistance to farmers interested in growing peaches, both to those who have already planted peach orchards and to those who may wish to determine whether they should plant this crop. No attempt has been made to decide the matter for the grower. Decision must be left to him, because much will depend on local conditions and on the personal equation. The peach industry is complicated because the fruit has three uses : as fresh, dried, or canned products. Even in the simplified form here presented, the material may appear complex and diffi- cult to grasp. Few persons will gain much from a casual glimpse or reading of the publication. Those who would gain knowledge and understanding of the industry will be repaid by a thorough study of the facts here given. B. H. Crocheron, Director of Agricultural Extension. PEACHES 11. E. WELLMAN* SUMMARY California produces all of the dried peaches and practically all of the canning peaches in the United States. With fresh peaches, how- ever, the situation is different : only a small portion of the fresh peaches are produced in California. A study of the industry must consider, therefore, three fairly distinct commodities ; viz., canning peaches, dried peaches, and fresh peaches. These three are closely related, owing primarily to the fact that certain varieties of Freestone peaches may be canned, dried, or shipped fresh. The relationship is most clearly shown in the tendency for the prices of each of the kinds of peaches to move in the same general direction. This tendency is especially noticeable with canning and dried peaches. A number of important changes in the peach industry have been taking place during the last twenty years. Since the changes have not all been in the same direction nor to the same extent, it seems advisable to summarize each commodity separately. Canning Peaches. — One of the important changes has been the steady decline in the purchasing power of canning peaches, which has declined eleven per cent during the past fifteen years. The dollar which the growers receive for their peaches will normally buy less of other commodities today than it did five, ten, or fifteen years ago. A second important change has been the rapidly increasing pro- duction of canning peaches in California, particularly of canning Clingstone peaches. This increased production has been the most important cause for the decline in purchasing power. However, a change in the consuming habits of the American people, that of eating more canned peaches and less fresh and dried peaches, has prevented the price of canning peaches from going as low as it otherwise would. A study of the data presented in this circular indicates that the trend of purchasing power of canning peaches is not likely to rise above the present level within the next few years, because : 1. Production is increasing. New plantings are more than sufficient to maintain the present bearing acreage. These are being made in localities in which the yield per acre is high. Extension Specialist in Agricultural Economics. 4 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE [CiRC. 1 2. The production of competing products such as pineapples, pears, apricots, and cherries is also increasing. 3. The buying power of consumers, as indicated by wages and employment, has been at a high level since 1922 ; and it can not be expected that this buying power wdll increase to any considerable extent in the near future. Furthermore, the trend of purchasing power may continue to decline unless the present rate of plantings is decreased or unless the demand for canning peaches should increase. Dried Peaches. — The purchasing power of dried peaches has declined more rapidty than that of canning Clingstone peaches, despite a considerable decrease in production during the last ten years. The tendency is for people to eat less dried peaches today than they formerly did, even though they can buy them at a relatively lower price. On the other hand, the present rate of planting of Freestone peaches is hardly sufficient to maintain the present bearing acreage. It does not seem likely that the volume of production will rise above its present level within the next few years, unless a portion of the Free- stone peaches which are normally canned and shipped fresh should be dried. This, however, is an ever-present possibility. Whenever the price offered for dried peaches is more attractive than that offered for canning or fresh peaches, some growers will dry certain varieties of their Freestone peaches instead of shipping them fresh or selling them to the canners. The alternative outlets for Freestone peaches have been largely responsible for the close relation between the prices of the three kinds of peaches during the past ; and there is reason to believe that these alternative outlets will prevent the future prices of dried peaches from rising much above that offered for canning and fresh peaches. Fresh Peaches.- — The purchasing power of fresh peaches has declined even more rapidly than that of canning Clingstone peaches or dried peaches. This decline seems to be largely a result of the increase in the production of competitive fruits and vegetables, and a decrease in the per capita consumption of fresh peaches. During the last twenty years there has been a definite tendency for the American people to eat less peaches in the fresh form. The price which California growers receive for fresh peaches is determined almost wholly by conditions outside of the state. Although the production of fresh peaches in the United States as a whole has not increased appreciably during the last twenty years, there has been a 1926] CROPS AND PRICES : PEACHES 5 definite shift in the peach producing sections from areas of high cost to areas of low cost. Consequently, California fresh peach growers will probably be subjected to more severe competition in the future. According to the Agricultural Outlook for 1926, published by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the United States Department of Agriculture, a rapidly increasing production of fresh peaches may be expected, due to the extensive plantings of young orchards in recent years in the South Atlantic and Middle Western states. Our principal markets are even more readily available to these sections than to Cali- fornia. It seems likely, therefore, that the decline in the trend of the purchasing power of fresh peaches will continue for some time unless there should be an unexpected increase in consumption. Foreign Demand. — Definite information on the demand for peaches in foreign countries is not available. In the Agricultural Outlook for 1926, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics makes the following fore- cast of the general foreign demand for farm products : ''The present prospects in foreign markets are that the demand for most of the products of our farms in 1926 will be no better than for the products of 1925, if as good, unless the competing products of foreign countries should be reduced by a less favorable season. Although the purchasing power of consumers in most countries for the products which they will have to import may be as good or better than in the past year, recovering domestic production and the imposition of protective tariffs is reducing the demand in some countries for foreign products and competition in all foreign markets probably will be at least as strong as last year. ' ' The present outlook of the peach grower does not justify an increase in his peach acreage unless he is able to produce peaches at the current values or lower. He should not expect greatly increased values for his product during the forthcoming years, but must depend in the main upon improved efficiency for an increase in his return. The expansion of the peach industry, if it is to continue, should be made upon lands that are primarily adapted to the production of this fruit, and only with an understanding of the possibility of continually lowering values. While this declining price level may not be realized and while cir- cumstances may arise which will improve the present condition of the peach grower, these are not yet evident from the facts we have been able to gather. Unless the grower can obtain a high tonnage per acre at a relatively low cost he should not expect to find peach grooving a profitable business. CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE [CiRC. 1 s o ^ u ft :^ s C3 ? -H 03 Oi P rt +^ o o +2 (tS w be Pi OS s o PI Pi > P! 'zi O o o Pi CO Pi 03 o 5 'b£) O «4-l 02 2 c3 Pi o > Pi pi s to O a -4^ o CO en •r-( . o O 0) ps fc o >^ Qj oS -*-|; ri-f? 1926] CROPS AND PRICES: PEACHES THE GENEEAL SITUATION Peach Acreage, United Staies. — Thirty-one of the 48 states had more than 4000 acres of peaches each in 1919, as indicated in figure 1. The total peach acreage in that year amounted to approximately 872,640 acres, 98 per cent of which were in the 31 states. The 14 states of Georgia, California, Texas, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, New York, Oklahoma, Ohio, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, New Jersey, Michigan, and West Virginia had more than 25,000 acres each ; a total of 663,000 acres, or 76 per cent of the total United States acreage. Of the 872,640 acres, 656,460 were in bearing and 216,180 were not in bearing. The ratio of non-bearing to bearing in 1919, therefore, was 33 per cent ; that is, there were 33 non-bearing trees for each 100 bearing trees. The total peach acreage in the United States decreased from 1,367,730 in 1909 to 872,640 in 1919, a decrease of 495,090 acres or 36.2 per cent. During this same period the bearing acreage decreased 30.5 per cent, and the non-bearing acreage decreased 48.9 per cent. In 1909 there were 945,067 bearing acres and 422,662 non-bearing acres, the ratio of non-bearing to bearing being 45 per cent. Since the bearing acreage decreased 30.5 per cent from 1909 to 1919 it is evident that 45 non-bearing trees for each 100 bearing trees were not sufficient to maintain the bearing acreage. The ratio of non-bearing to bearing in 1919 was 33 per cent. This indicates that a further decrease in bearing acreage is taking place at the present time. The rate of decline cannot be measured because the 1925 Farm Census does not list separately the bearing and non-bearing peach trees. On the whole it seems probable that the ratio necessary to maintain the bearing acreage will gradually become smaller, because the shift in peach production is away from those areas in which the ratio is high and toward those areas in which the ratio is smaller. Consequently, acreage figures must be supplemented by production figures in order to obtain a correct view of the situation. Peach Production, United States. — Although the bearing peach acreage has decreased, peach production has increased as indicated in figure 2. During the ten-year period from 1909 to 1919 there was an increase of 12 per cent in production, although the number of bearing trees decreased 30.5 per cent. Peach production in California has increased much faster than in the United States as a whole. From 1906 to 1925 California 's produc- tion increased 147.6 per cent as compared with an increase of 23.6 per cent for the United States. CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE [CiRC. 1 Peach Production, United States and California, 1906-192{ U.S. c in o o Calif, is 1500 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 rji lom lOtommcn tooc«-o» r- VO rHCO rHCDCVJOica U>0»f-lc>- C\J lO CM O (T> CO ^ o r~ CO (T> O Oi CD •-* O W r-t O O OOr- CT> CT» a» o rH CM to -* in rM CM CM CM CM CM CM cr> cr> Years Fig. 2.* — Data from tables 19 and 20. Equation for lines of trend are: United States, 2/ = 961.8 + 11.96rr; California, i/ = 157.46 + 12.23^. The slope of the trend lines indicates the rate of growth. Main Peach Producing States. — California is the foremost peach producing state in the Union as shown in figure 3, producing 32 per cent of the total. Georgia is next followed by New York, New Jersey, Texas, etc. Changes in Peach Producing Areas. — The net increase of peach production in the United States is the resultant of increases in some states and decreases in other states as shown in figure 4. From 1911 to 1925 total peach production increased 16.4 per cent. In New Jersey production increased 430 per cent, in Utah 117 per cent, and in Cali- fornia 105 per cent. The states of Illinois, Michigan, Arkansas, and Missouri show a decrease of over 50 per cent. The data presented in figure 4 indicate that the production areas are shifting toward the localities in which peaches can be produced at the lowest comparative * The short explanations underneath the illustrations in this circular are intended primarily for those who are interested in statistical methods. An understanding of the equations of the trend lines is not necessary in order to read the circular intelligently. Belative Imfortance of Main Peach Producing States (Average Production, 1920-1924) state 1000 bu. Per cent California 14,954 32.0 Georgia 5,768 12.3 New York 2,316 5.0 New Jersey 1,935 4.1 Texas 1,704 • 3.6 Penneylvania 1,506 3.2 Ohio 1,477 3.2 Tennessee 1,346 2.9 Arkansas 1,280 2.7 North Carolina 1,191 2.6 Missouri 1,125 2.4 Oklahoma 1,101 2.4 Alabama 1,005 2.1 Michigan 977 2.1 Colorado 810 1.7 Kentucky 787 1.7 Virginia 782 1.7 Utah 734 1.6 Washington 726 1.6 South Carolina 719 1.5 Illinois 704 1.5 West Virginia 644 1.4 Waryland 510 1.1 All others 2,614 5.6 Total 46,715 100.0 Fig. 3. — Data from table 16. All states that had an average production of more than 500,000 bushels during the five-year period, 1920-1924 are listed separately. The states that had an average production of less than 500,000 bushels are included in all others. Percentage Increase or Decrease in Trends of Peach Production in Main Peach Producing States, 1911-1925 Percent ♦120 ♦100 |_J |_ Fig. 4. — Data from table 16. A straight line of trend was fitted to the pro- duction figures of each of the states. The form of the equation used is y = a-{-'bx. 10 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE [CiRC. 1 cost. Three of the factors which are causing- this change are (1) the amount of new plantings necessary to maintain the bearing acreage, (2) the yearly fluctuations in production, and (3) the yield per acre. 1. Since the cost of planting is one of the important costs in the production of peaches, an area in which the ratio necessary to main- tain the bearing acreage is high, is at a disadvantage to other areas in which the ratio is Ioav, providing other things are equal. And other Peach Production, California and Michigan, 1911-1925 Calif o o "* 8 ^ 20,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 0> O <-H CJ to ^ W CM CM C\J CM CM CM Year: Fig, 5. — Data from table 16. Equations for lines of trend are: California, y — 8409.5 + 630.5a;; Michigan, y = 1659.9 — 76.7a;. 1^26] CROPS AND PRICES: PEACHES 11 things being equal, the acreage in those areas which have the least favorable ratios will gradually decline, and the acreage in those areas which have more favorable ratios will gradually increase. For example, in 1909 Michigan had 103 non-bearing trees for each 100 bearing trees, and yet her bearing acreage decreased 31 per cent during the following ten-year period. On the other hand, California had only 56 non- bearing trees for each 100 bearing trees in 1909, and her bearing acreage increased 16 per cent during the same period. 2. A second factor causing this shift is the relative variation in production from year to year. In some areas unfavorable weather conditions, such as freezing, is apt to reduce the crop materially. Where such conditions prevail the risk of producing peaches is great, and consequently the cost of bearing the risk is high. The tendency, therefore, is for production to be reduced in areas having a large varia- tion and to be increased in areas where the variation is small. This tendency is illustrated in figure 5. In Michigan the relative variation in production for the years 1911 to 1925 was 51.6 per cent, as compared with a relative variation of 14.7 per cent in California. During this period Michigan peach production decreased 58.5 per cent while California production increased 105 per cent. 3. The influence of the yield per acre upon the costs of production for a particular locality in California is discussed on page 48. It is apparent that there is a tendency for the cost per ton to decrease as the yield per acre is increased. This tendency is in part responsible for the shifting of the producing area toward those sections in which a high yield can be obtained, and helps to explain why peach production in the United States has increased despite a decrease in bearing acreage. The shift in the peach producing areas is significant. It makes possible a lower cost of production, and consequently enables peach growers to make a profit at lower prices. Since profits are the main incentive for increasing production, and since increased production normally means lower prices, California growers will probably be sub- jected to keener competition from other areas. As production shifts to more favorable areas, the fluctuations from year to year will probably decrease, resulting in a more stabilized con- dition. The chief cause of fluctuation in production is due to climatic conditions as shown in figure 6. Thus production fluctuates in the same direction and to nearly the same extent as does the condition of the crop. Because of this, farmers can do very little to stabilize pro- duction, except as they individually adjust their own production to more favorable areas. 12 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE [CiRC. 1 United States Peach Production as a Percentage of the Secular Trend AND Condition of the Crop as a Percentage of the Normal Crop, 1906-1925 Per- cent 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 / , / r -Pn \dcfi -Hot 1 i / \ i \ \ / \ \ I \ / / \ \ / \ 1 \ / \ \ / \ / / \ \ / \ \ / \ V \ / \ / \i \ 1 i \ / \ / A \ \ f \ \ / / V J V 1 \ J / \ / \ \ y \ \ / \ / \ / \ y ^^ / \ \ f \ 1 ^ y \ 1 \ Cor dif on of Cro J _J Years Fig, 6. — Data on production; line of trend fitted to production figures, see figure 2, and the yearly items figured as a percentage of the line of trend. Data on condition of crop: Years 1906-1923 from Yearbook U.S.D.A., 1923, p. 746. Years 1924-1925 from E. E. Kaufman. The percentage condition of the crop is based upon the influence of the climatic conditions upon yield. Utilization of the United States Peach Crop. — The five-year average production, 1920-1924, of all peaches in the United States was 1,121,160 tons, of which 72.4 per cent was marketed fresh, 15.2 per cent canned, and 12.4 per cent dried. The proportion of the crop used in the different ways varies from year to year as indicated in figure 7. From 1906 to 1925 the proportion of the total crop marketed fresh has declined ; the proportion canned has increased, particularly since 1915 ; and although the proportion dried increased from 1906 to 1913, it has declined during the latter years of this period. In actual tons, fresh peach production has increased slighly, about 3 per cent, during the 20-year period (see fig. 8). Since 1906, the 1926] CROPS AND PRICES : PEACHES Percentage of United States' Peaches Shipped Fresh, Dried, and Canned, 1906-1925 in t^ CO t^ c CC 81.3 81.9 80.5 81.8 70.4 72.8 82.9 71,7 70.1 71.2 70.6 71.0 67.8 72.3 70.5 78.0 69.7 Drled g '^ ". ff 0»0>^r- OOlOiHtOCO OiOr>- lOrieOO* i- i c C\JrHr-tCJ r-t -^r-ir-OOrt lOf}-* rltOOt- Canned '^ '^ °. COWrHlO O (0<0 IT i V a CC If > a 3 i£ i ' "- A If •<; h lO I^ O 'O ^ 1 1 i CM CM 90 ^. 80 \ ^' ^-i» _. ■" •• . jf y 70 \ y / \ -...-^s rrt 7Sh y 60 50 30 20 Dri 7d^ \ J" Conn^ — ___ ^ yjf ^^^ -— - .-. r '^^ *^^ ^^ '^ '•s^ :r:= 10 »— — «S '**'«^ #^ 1 ■ — ^ -^^ ^ *^ Years Fig. 7.— Data from table 19. production of canned peaches has increased 331 per cent, or at a uni- form rate of 7.9 per cent a year. Dried peach production shows two distinct movements; a rapidly increasing production during the first half of the period and a decreasing production during the latter half of the period. California's Place in the Peach Industry. — At the present time California produces practically all of the United States tonnage of dried and canned peaches (see fig. 9). Dried peach production has, for many years at least, been confined entirely to California. In 1906 approximately 72 per cent of the canned peaches were produced in this state. This percentage increased steadily up to 1921, reaching a high point of 98 per cent in that year; and since then has remained at about the same point. Our interstate shipments of fresh peaches, how- ever, are a very small percentage of the total United States fresh peach production, although they are becoming increasingly important. 14 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE [CiRC. 1 Production of Fresh, Dried, and Canned Peaches, United States, 1906-1925 Fresh Dried Canned ^^ -* r-. CM ■^ t>- o t>- ^ VO o» lO o» 00 -^l* w t^ a> t^ -^J" r-t o cr» p- CM O m «o CT> 'O o «o en CM »o CO la 00 l>- lO o> t< •H »H o ^ to t- O CO lO o to to t>- ^ UJ o to a» «o rH O U5 o 00 r-t i-t o^ o I-t o cvj t^ r-l CM r-« CT> rH rH r-i 1500 1000 ^ O OOOrHrirHiHrHrHrHrH CT> O rH CM to •^ lO rH CM CM CM CM CM CM Years Fig. 8. — Data from table 19. Dried and canned figures converted to a fresh ton basis. Equations for lines of trend are: Fresh, 1/ = 804.37 + 1.34a;; Canned, log 2/=l-7078o + .03339a;; Dried, for years 1906-1915, y — 77 AQ + 11.72a;; for years 1916-1925, y = 176.44 — 6.88a;. Utilization of the California Peach Crop. — That California is primarily a drying and canning peach producing state may be seen from figure 10. The five-year average commercial production, 1920- 1924, was 338,638 tons, of which 48.7 per cent was canned, 41.2 per cent dried, and 10.1 per cent shipped fresh. During the 20-year period, 1906-1925, approximately the same proportion of the crop has been shipped fresh, but the position of dried and canned peaches has been reversed. Prior to 1920, dried peaches were the most important, but 1926] CROPS AND PRICES: PEACHES 15 Percentage of United States^ Dried, Canned, and Fresh Peaches Produced IN California, 1906-1925 Dried ^ o c "■ o Canned " (T> 3 S O CT» O^ Ov a. a> 0^ &; o» (7> o» CT. O o 6 6 6 -• ? § s 00 2 i CO 00 CO s s to CTV s CO s: S; §; CO to ^ Ch to o r^ w ■;)• w to r^ ^ C\J r^ to lO •-0 to 'I' t- w in CM •* ^< -On ed ^ .^ "-- __ ^ . ^ / ^"~ Cot met iJ Frt ^sh- \ «.. . — , "^ .^ "■^ I .-^ '•^^ ,.— *^ .--' •-^ -^•' cj to «* to CO 00 s> to t O CT> O o 3 n ^ CVJ c D O a O r-l in OCT.«OOCOO .«M^ «o in o «o cvi to [no CD CT^ CO t- OJ CO •* CO rH to r- H r- o 90 70 / '"«*_^ / / \ ^-^ N, Dri e^ y 50 / N / N " V y V N ^ / CoA nee ''>) \ Xj > *^.^ / i 30 20 \ I / \ \ ^ x" N ^ / ^ ^'^ rr6 sh^ > ^.y •^, lJ ^•' N, \ _^ — •- ^' ..-— •— — "• ~. ' r ■ N y --^" ^_ o o o o Fig. 10.— Data from table 20. 16 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE [CiRC. 1 in 1920 canned peaches became the most important, and have con- tinued to be so since that year. The turning point in the relative posi- tion of dried and canned peaches appears to have taken place in 1913, Since then, the proportion of the total crop dried has steadily decreased, and the proportion canned has steadily increased. Figure 11 shows the trends cf the production of fresh, dried and canned peaches in California. Commercial Production of Fresh, Dried and Canned Peaches, California, 1906-1925 Dried Canned 8 >« § S o ^ 00 ■* to to lO kO VO CT> t^ t t>- u> lO lO to iH rH rH C\J 5: 5 r-i CM Fresh -cotooiocarHa>too'<^too»r-tt>-cMtovoin "^ rH rH r-l rH rH C\J Freestone Sw Tfooevji- Hj /| 1 1 ^v i 1 ^i ^^^ =iz-i-' .1 r -;;-- =ji4s -Ii^-l! --|-j=; =^^- _|ii'- ---i--;- =*i-i : . : I ^^-4-^&^f^- I^F =*' ^"" :^^ :-;-i-T--- 90 EE4=^ ;i-k =P L 1^4:^ = Fp i|i= :£|3^ =gi; [^r^ -i^ 4-i^ L^'-jfeFr ^-f -i- ^^1^; '1^ =i^-' '"i-;- ^H 60 -f-j-- ^E|i|: -^l-i "- -t -^ 2p^ ::il t-; 3=£ =t£ ^|=j- 3^ ^C B=^ i^-" '-: r-t ^ e3|,^ -^ i-M -^e '^^ ^- J=^ eJEIe :z--^ eJ^ ^--jzp E^i; £^ ^■- ^^^ 4^_1^ irT -^ i= ^ 4i- i^: -4itE -eh: ^" =-E--EF3^3--S^--#S^^^ = 3EE£^|EE^-:^^-^^:i|^^ ;; l|lil|il|II*|K|^tti:( -n ^illBp^^fflt nffii W^P^tt^^^^ 30 — -^x^k: p,^-,'- M-=-= ~~- — ^-^-^ H-=^-M- -- - +4- ^H^"-"^"^ Hd#PMMiTOPTffpjffirHli^ffM i-:EEE|2iEEEEE^«E;EEEEEEEE:E|4||:EEE:EEEEEEEE+EE:^ ■ 1 " " " " " 1 1 - . . . - _| L i_ 1 1 ^ 10 ::::::::::::: x 'x x:.::.::.::^:.: OC-a>0>OrHCMt0'!j"»0«i)t^00OrHc\J(0^iO O OOOrHrHrHrHr-trHrHrHrHrHCNJCMCMCJ MCM 0» CT> 0» CT» 0> Years Fig. 15. — Data from table 17. Freestone production shows no pronounced secular trend. The equation of the trend of Clingstone production is log 2/ = 1.29031 + .05324a;. Per Capita Production of Canned Peaches, United States, 1906-1925 OtO C\JCOr-l^-Or-tO iTJCM iDO CMJN'^J* o c- 00 a> o O O O O rH •H CV2 to in vo c^ < \ ^T" ____„„ f ""i ^^ \ A ^ ■f ■^. f ^ f' ' s ■^ "^ 1 r Fig. 19. — Data corrected for secular trend. as compared to the price asked for Freestone peaches, consumers will buy less Clingstones and more Freestones. The willingness of the con- sumers to substitute one kind of canned peaches for the other brings about an early and exact adjustment between the prices of them. Belation Between C miners' Opening Prices and Growers' Prices. — The opening price which canners quote to the jobbers is generally, although not always, the best index of what they believe the consumers will pay for peaches. Does this price at which the canners expect to sell the finished product bear any significant relationship to the price they pay the growers for canning peaches ? This relationship is illus- trated in figure 20. Two tendencies are apparent : first, that the move- ments of the price series are in the same general direction ; and second, that the canners ' opening prices fluctuate less than the prices received by the growers. 1. The secular trends in both cases have been downward. From 1911 to 1925 canners' opening prices, converted to a purchasing power basis, declined 14.7 per cent, and growers' purchasing power declined 11 per cent. The cyclical fluctuation in the purchasing power of the two commodities also bear a close relationship ; that is, each change in 1926] CROPS AND PRICES: PEACHES 25 Eelative Purchasing Power of California Clingstone Peaches, 1911-1925 Years Fig. 20. — Eelative value f.o.b. growers' shipping points: decline in secular trend ^11 per cent; relative variation = 35.1 per cent. Data from table 26. Eelative value canners' opening quotations on No. 2% Choice: decline in secular trend =14.7 per cent; relative variation = 12.4 per cent. Data from the California Packing Corporation's Annual, July, 1925, p. 6. the values of No. 2% Choice is accompanied by a similar change in values received by the growers. This indicates that the price which the grower receives is largely determined by the price which the canners believe the consumers will pay. 2. From 1911 to 1925 the relative variation in the purchasing power of growers' peaches was 35.1 per cent, while that of No. 2% Choice was only 12.4 per cent. The reason why the canners' prices are more stable than growers' prices is that the price of peaches is only one of the costs that enter into the finished product. Other costs such as labor, sugar, and cans do not necessarily fluctuate in the same direction nor to the same amount as the prices canners receive for the manufactured product. Relation Between Production and Purchasing Power of Canning Peaches. — The amount of Freestone peaches that will be canned during a given year will depend in part upon the price offered for canning peaches as compared to the price offered for dried and fresh peaches. When the price offered for canning peaches is relatively higher than that offered for dried and fresh peaches, a portion of certain varieties of Freestone peaches which are normally dried and shipped fresh will be sold to the canners. This tendency is illustrated in figure 21, which shows that a high price for canning Freestone peaches tends to be accompanied by a large pack and vice versa. 26 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE [CiRC. 1 Cyclical Fluctuations in the Production and Relative Purchasing Power OF California Canning Peaches, 1906-1925 f2 ♦1 , rt ee^onips 1 / \ / _x ,t>n>duii-io\ / \.. / / f ^ \ \ i / / \ > ^ \ / \ // ^ ^)( \ ^ \ \ \ / /^ 1 \' / -,\ > — N... y -2 > / \ f \ LA- 'Revive Pc rch^sinc^ Po^>\ -^ /^ / j L C// igs to/7« •s ♦<- \/ \ / S^A roi/c fc-f-U >/7 /j r'\ i ♦1 -1 -?. i \ / y / \ / \ / \ \\'^ \ ^^^ s,^ \ .\ / /' f > f-^. V > f \ / > \ / >> •*> > /^ ^Rehrf-i\)ie Pcrchosin^ P<->we)r / 8 S § >Hr-4t-lr-(<-i r^»-«r^N CJCVl CMCMCM O) o> o> Years Fig. 21. — Data corrected for secular trend. The only outlet for the bulk of the Clingstone peaches is canning, and, therefore, it might be expected that the growers would receive a high price for a small crop and a low price for a large crop. But such is not the case as shown in figure 21. Because of other complicating factors there seems to be no definite prevailing relationship between production and price. The possibility of varying the pack of Freestone peaches according to the price offered is one of the important compli- cating factors. If the Clingstone peach crop is small, making for a high price, the possibility of obtaining a large quantity of Freestone peaches will prevent the price from going as high as it otherwise would ; and conversely, the withdrawing of a portion of peaches which are normally canned when the Clingstone crop is large prevents the price from going as low as it otherwise would. A second complicating factor is the influence of a carryover on the following year's price. In 1922 the production of Clingstone peaches was large, and the growers obtained a high price, mainly because the canners were able to dispose of the small crop of 1921 on an advancing price level. The price which the canners paid the growers, however, was too high to enable them to dispose of the crop profitably. A declining price trend developed, resulting in a carry- over of approximately 2,000,000 cases. Although the 1923 Clingstone 1926] CROPS AND PRICES: PEACHES 27 crop was much smaller than that of 1922, canners were not willing to buy after their unfortunate experience with the previous crop, and it was with considerable difficulty that peach growers were able to obtain $30 per ton as compared to $60 per ton in 1922. A similar situation prevailed with most of the canning fruits in California.* A third complicating factor is the competition of other canned fruits, particularly pineapples, pears, apricots, and cherries. The size of the packs of these fruits and the prices at which they are offered to consumers exert an important influence on the price at which a given sized pack of canned peaches can be sold. These three illustrations indicate that the factors determining the price of peaches are extremely complex. A detailed study of them, however, is beyond the scope of this circular. DRIED PEACHES Muirs and Lovells are the main varieties of peaches utilized for drying. Muirs are primarily used only for drying, but Lovells are also used for canning and fresh shipments. The bulk of dried peaches are produced in the San Joaquin Valley, mainly in the counties of Fresno, Tulare, Merced, Stanislaus and Kings. Production of Dried Peaches. — The production of dried peaches from 1906 to 1925 is shown by the upper curve in figure 22. There are two distinct trends apparent in this curve, (1) an upward trend during the first half of the period, and (2) a downward trend during the latter half of the period. In 1915 the trend of production was approximately 136 per cent higher than in 1906, and in 1925 it was 35 per cent lower than in 1916. Exports of Dried Peaches. — In figure 22 it will be noted that exports of dried peaches increased more rapidly than production dur- ing the period from 1906 to 1915. Since 1915 the trend of exports has declined, this decline being at approximately the same rate as the decline in production. The exports of dried peaches as a percentage of the total production are shown in figure 23. The secular trend of per cent exported was upward during the first half of the period, and during the latter half of the period it remained at approximately the same level. * Interview F. B. Scliinitt, California Canning Peach Growers, Feb. 15, 1926. 28 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE [CiRC. 1 United States' Dried Peach Production and Exports, 1906-1924 Prod. 1 i § § 8 § CM § o s 1 g ca § § i. 8 o § i 1 i i i o in i-i to O CM in CM CM ?5 in to s CO CVj CJ> to o CM in to CM i-t CM CO CM ^ CM JS Q Exports o S5 in o to to r-i CM in CM to to CM i 1 r-4 CO Oi it •> CO O to -. 1 I-* r-i :0 CM tOlOC*tO'^CvJCM«0»-Or-«CM lO'^lO i-irHCMCMCM CMCMCM Years Fig. 22. — Data from table 9 and 18. Equations for lines of trend of dried peaches are: 1906-1915, 2/ = 14.12 + 2.13a;; 1916-1925, 2/ = 32.08 — 1.25rr. The five-year average, 1920-1924, exports of dried peaclies was 3306 tons or 13.1 per cent of tlie total production. Tlie percentage exported varied from year to year, which indicates that the amount of peaches exported depends largely upon the conditions in the foreign markets rather than upon the size of our production. 1926] CROPS AND PRICES: PEACHES 29 Percentage of United States' Dried Peaches Exported, 1906-1924 Years Fig. 23. — Data from tables 9 and 18. Equation for line of trend is y ■= 13.944 + A15x —■ .058x', origin 1915. Main Foreign Markets for Dried Peaches. — As shown in figure 24, Germany was the most important market for our dried peaches in 1924, taking 43.2 per cent of our total exports. The United Kingdom Eelative Importance of our Foreign Dried Peach Markets, 1924 Tons Germany 2,712 United Kingdom 1,079 Canada Netherlands Sweden France Other countries Total 513 8.2 6,276 100.0 Fig. 24.— Data from table 4. was next in importance, followed by Canada, Netherlands, Sweden, and France. These six countries purchased 91.8 per cent of our total exports in that year. The amount of dried peaches that each country imports from the United States varies from year to year as indicated in table 4. Our exports to Germany and the United Kingdom have increased steadily during these three years. Germany and Netherlands show an espe- cially large increase in 1924 over the two preceding years. Canada, Sweden, and other countries have imported approximately the same 30 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE [CiRC. 1 amount during the three years. Our exports to France in 1923 and 1924 were decidedly less than in 1922. Table 4. — Exports of Dried Peaches from the United States by Importing Countries, 1922-1924 (Number of Tons) Country Germany United Kingdom. Canada Netherlands Sweden France Other countries... 1922 1923 1924 183 305 2,712 222 574 1,079 1,062 803 922 105 45 723 301 247 275 541 40 52 468 314 513 Total Data from Table 10. 2,328 ,276 Per Capita Consumption of Dried Peaches. — In equivalent of the fresh product, the trend of per capita consumption of dried peaches in the United States increased from 1.6 pounds in 1906 to 3 pounds in 1915, and then declined to 1.8 pounds in 1924 (see fig. 25). Per Capita Consumption of Dried Peaches, United States, 1906-1924 (Equivalent Fresh Pounds) WCV|«0 t-(0<0<0 OOir^OO ^ 7 y" z > ^ / / ^ ^ ^ ^ K^ Pe r o 7ph 'a c 'orn. um^ yfio n^ \ f ^ / % 5 a ■> C I I > I \ 7 \ % ^ ^ ■* r 1* If ■\ r- a 3 t -t r c -1 r % % c > 4 O I Cv i « Fig. 25. — Exports subtracted from production, and the result divided by the United States' population. Equation for line of trend is 2/ = 3.0033 + .0112ic — .0166a;-, origin 1915. Purchasing Power of Dried Peaches. — The trend of purchasing power of dried peaches, f.o.b. growers' shipping points, shows a steady decline during the 20-year period (see fig. 26). In 1925 the line of trend was 14 per cent lower than in 1911. 1926] CROPS AND PRICES: PEACHES 31 Eelative Purchasing Power of California Dried Peaches, F.O.B. Growers' Shipping Points, 1906-1925 •,is< rW-iQO O to ir> c- 1i« ^rt o> o CO to iJ^"-* CM f-H ^ 240 200 160 120 60 40 ^ \ A J \ 4 ^s ?cuK ir " / \ > =^ I— N ■ ^A ^ -- ^ CM CO «il< in O r^ W CM M M «M gJ Years Fig. 26. — Data from table 26. Equation for line of trend is 2/ ^ 108.1 — 1.09a:. The relation between production and purchasing power of dried peaches is shown in figure 27. A high production is generally, though not always, accompanied by a low price and vice versa. Cyclical Fluctuations in the Production and Eelative Purchasing Power OF California Dried Peaches, 1906-1925 + 3 + 2 . ^ ^Pu -Chi 7Sfn 7 P ywe r- \ \ / \. / / \ + 1 V \ y / s \ / V / \; s V - 1 - 2 - 3 / > \ A ^-^ V > \ / / \ / \ ^ A t > s / \ \ A^^ Pro due Hof r 5 c I \ ^ \ -1 r :J I % \ 3 ;s 1- > t H r -1 r i> c 5 •- ■1 1 cv 1 c\ 1" in ' 3 Years Fig. 27. — Data corrected for secular trend. Figure 28 shows the close relationship between the prices of can- ning Freestone and dried peaches. The general tendency is for a change in the price of one to be accompanied by a similar change in the price of the other. This is because some varieties of Freestone peaches, particularly the Lovell, may be either canned or dried. 32 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE [CiRC. 1 Cyclical Fluctuations in the Eelative Purchasing Power of California Dried and Canning Freestone Peaches, 1906-1925 ♦3 +1 ^ \ / / \ V k Orn-d- T \- ^ /\ f \ y \ ^ / \ \ / / \ y \ ^ ^_ f \ ^ ^ / f M::r -1 -2 -3 -^. 1 -^/r-fi'€'i/-0^e g I > c D a 3 C -> H ; H r j; 1 I 1 u ■o>o~Jwo -J Sept. N> 03 »-• to to »«>• •-• -5 t^- l-> « in o ■# N (O o in ot ) o r- • r- to ca to , V / V p • Ca o/i-c HSHC »/7 r / \ ^ / \ J J: \ fi ir i -4 -enc J \ / \ T 7 ^ 1 j f— r \ 1 \ / ^ r^ -N o •-• <^ O r-* est c\J W C\J rig. 31. — Data from table 19. Production figures divided by population for corresponding years. Equation for line of trend is 2/^=18.44 — .21a;. 1926] CROPS AND PRICES : PEACHES 35 California's Interstate Fresh Peach Shipments. — As shown in figure 30 the interstate shipments of fresh peaches from California have increased 118 per cent since 1906. The trend of interstate ship- ments is characterized by a uniform amount of increase, rather than by a uniform rate of increase. During this 20-year period, there has been a normal increase of 1067 tons per year. The yearly shipments are sometimes above and sometimes below the secular trend. Although these fluctuations are caused in part by the fluctuations in the total peach production in California, a more important cause is the fluctuations in peach production in all states other than California. Whenever the peach production in other states is above normal, there is a tendency for California's interstate ship- ments to fall below normal ; and conversely, whenever the production is below normal in the other states, California's shipments are above normal. Tliis condition is illustrated in figure 32. Cyclical Fluctuations, Fresh Peach Production, 1906-1924 +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 'Frt 'sh oea 7h / ^rac 'uc-t \ \ f ""^ Years Fig. 32. — Data corrected for secular trend. Seasonal Variation in California's Interstate Shipments. — As indi- cated in figure 33, the fresh peach shipments from California normally begin the first week in June and continue for approximately 20 weeks, until the third week in October. The bulk of the peaches, however, are shipped during the ninth, tenth, and eleventh weeks, which are usually the last week in July and the first two weeks in August. The ship- ments during this period are confined almost entirely to the Elberta variety. Consequently it is with the Elberta that the growers of peaches for fresh shipments are most interested. 36 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE [Cmc. 1 Seasonal Variation in California Interstate Fresh Peach Shipments o 700 Or-IOiCMinrH r-ICOlO COr-llAlOr^ O>t-(MO r-*t~ lO^in to \Si r-t ■^ KO \0 (M r^ (O 600 500 400 300 200 100 i-«oj tO'^m top-oooo i-i«Mto\i< loujt- coa>o Weeks in Shipping Season Jvine July August Sept. October Fig. 33. — Data from California Fruit News. Seasonal variation computed for years 1917-1925. Data for years 1921-1925 given in table 22. Relative Importance of the Principal Fresh Peach Producing States. — Fourteen states ship approximately 92 per cent of the total United States fresh peaches, as shown in figure 34. Georgia, alone, Carlot Shipments of Fresh Peaches by States (Average 1920-1924) Cars Itlt Georgia 9,178 33,0 New York 4,135 14.9 California 2,862 10.3 Colorado 1,354 4.9 New Jersey 1,175 4.2 Arkansas 1,147 4.1 Michigan 1,075 3.9 Ubah 949 3.4 Washington 877 3.2 North Csirolina 859 3.1 Illinois 705 2.5 Ohio 474 1.7 Texas 399 1.4 Tennessee 285 1.0 All others 2,319 8.4 Fig. 34.— Data from table 23. shipped 33 per cent of the total, and New York shipped 14.9 per cent. California is third in imi)ortance as a fresh peach shipping state, although its shipments were only 10.3 per cent of the total. 1926] CROPS AND PRICES: PEACHES 37 During the particular period in which the bulk of her crop is marketed, however, California is a more important factor in the fresh peach market, as shown in figure 35. California's interstate shipments averaged approximately 19 per cent of all fresh peaches shipped during August for the five-year period, 1921-1925. Percentage of Monthly Shipments op United States' Fkesh Peaches Shipped by California During California's Shipping Season, 1921-1925 —^ O <0 00 00 lO Fer. • • • cent <^ ;:^ o C r-4 bP cues ^ -i < co>* Fig. 35. — Data from table 24. The solid black bars represent the percentages of the total yearly carlot shipments shipped by California. Figure 36 shows the main fresh peach producing states arranged according to the time of shipment. The vertical scale shows the num- ber of cars shipped by each state, and the horizontal scale shows the length of the shipping period. Although the time at which each state ships will vary to some extent from year to year, there is a strong tendency for the states to maintain their relative positions. The data presented in this chart show clearly that California's fresh peaches are subjected to considerable competition from other areas. During the first week in August, 1925, the three states, Georgia, Arkansas, and North Carolina each shipped approximately the same number of cars as California. The individual shipments from other states were not heavy during this period, but the aggregate amounted to a considerable volume. 38 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE [CiRC. 1 H ^= b£ 1926] CROPS AND PRICES: PEACHES 39 California's Fresh Peaches are Widely Distributed. — California's fresh peaches are distributed among a larger number of markets than are other deciduous tree fruits.* Many markets having a population of only 5000 take one or more full carloads of peaches, although it is impossible to sell a carload of cherries, plums, or pears in them. The wide distribution of California's fresh peaches is also illustrated by the fact that only 1189 cars or 40.5 per cent of the 2934 cars of peaches shipped from California during the four months of June, July, August, and September, 1925, were unloaded in the 31 cities outside of California, in which unloads were reported to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Principal Markets for California Fresh Peaches. — The larger pro- portion of California fresh peaches are marketed in the area west of Chicago and north of Omaha. In this area the Bureau of Agricultural Economics reports unloads in only the nine markets given in figure 37. Nine Important Markets for California Fresh Peaches, 1925 Fig. 37.— Data from table 6. Of the 1189 cars that California unloaded in the 31 markets in 1925, 909 or 76.5 per cent were unloaded in these nine markets. These figures corroborate the experience of the California Fruit Exchange, which states that the bulk of its Freestone peaches are marketed in this area.* * Interview, F. A. Harlow, Jr., California Fruit Exchange, Sacramento, Feb. 15, 1926. 40 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE [CiRC. 1 States Which Compete Directly With California. — What states ship peaches to the same market at the same time as California? Table 6 gives the answer to this question in detail for 1925. Since California markets the major portion of her crop in August — in 1925, 71.2 per cent of the California peaches unloaded in the nine markets were unloaded in August — table 6 is confined to that month. Table 6. — Fresh Peaches; Carlot Unloads in Nine Cities by States of Origin During August, 1925 Ark. Calif. Colo. Ga. 111. N.J. City Cars Per cent Cars Per cent Cars Per cent Cars Per cent Cars Per cent Cars Per cent Chicago 113 4 24 14 29 16.9 6.3 16.9 13.2 32.6 148 19 49 83 56 164 71 37 22 22.1 30.2 34.5 78.3 62.9 87.7 79.8 20.1 21.0 39 34 11 4 3 5.8 54.0 7.8 3.8 3.4 81 12.1 223 33.4 12 1.8 5 3.5 24 2 16.9 1.9 Portland St. Paul 8 9.1 6 6.7 2 2.2 Seattle Total 192 11.7 649 39.8 97 5.9 86 5.3 251 15.4 12 .7 Tenn. Mich. Ind. Utah Wash. All other City Cars Per cent Cars Per cent Cars Per cent Cars Per cent Cars Per cent Cars Per cent Total Chicago 21 3.1 11 1.6 9 1.3 6 1 11 3 1 19 1 147 83 .9 1.6 7.7 2.8 1.1 10.2 1.1 79.9 79.0 7 1.0 670 5 7.9 63 2 1.4 2 1.4 9 6.4 5 3.5 142 106 89 Portland 4 1 2.1 1.1 187 St. Paul 89 Seattle 184 Spokane 105 Total 23 1.4 13 .8 18 1.1 5 .3 272 16.6 17 1.0 1635 Data from Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. D. A. In August, 1925, 1635 carloads of peaches were unloaded in the nine markets, of which 649 or 39.8 per cent were from California. More than 10 other states unloaded some peaches in one or more of these nine markets during that month. Washington is the largest single competitor of California in this area, followed closely by Illinois and Arkansas. Washington's competition, however, is confined chiefly to the cities of Portland, Seattle, and Spokane, while Illinois is an important competitor in Chicago and Milwaukee, and Arkansas' com- petition is most keenly felt in Chicago, Omaha, Milwaukee, and Minneapolis. 1926] CROPS AND PRICES: PEACHES 41 In this area, Portland was the most important market for Cali- fornia peaches, followed by Chicago, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Omaha, Milwaukee, Seattle, Spokane, and Denver. California was the most important factor in the cities of Portland, St. Paul, Minneapolis, Omaha, and Milwaukee. In Seattle and Spokane, Washington was a more important factor than California. Illinois unloaded more car- loads of peaches in Chicago, and Colorado unloaded more carloads in Denver than did California. The Market for Fresh Peaches is Nation-wide. — Although Cali- fornia has her own particular market, to which she is more accessible than many of her competitors, and in which she sells the bulk of her crop, these markets are by no means secure. Other sections can and do send peaches to these markets whenever the price is sufficiently higher than in their own particular markets to justify the additional expense. The development of railway facilities, such as refrigeration and fast freight, has made it possible for each of the main producing areas to reach the principal markets in the United States. Whenever, there- fore, a section has a larger crop than can be sold in its own particular markets, it sends the surplus to markets which another section normally considers peculiarly its own. Likewise, when a section has a short crop its marketing area is narrowed, and the more distant markets which it normally supplies are then supplied from other sections. Those states which market their peaches during the same period are, therefore, potential competitors, even though they are separated by the width of the United States. Thus in 1924, when Georgia had a relatively large crop and California had a relatively small crop, Georgia unloaded over three times as many carloads of peaches in Chicago during August as did California. On the other hand in 1925, when California's crop was larger and Georgia's crop smaller than in 1924, California unloaded almost twice as many peaches in Chicago during August as did Georgia. Purchasing Power of Elherta Peaches. — The secular trend of the purchasing power of Elberta peaches f.o.b. growers' shipping points declined 26 per cent from 1911 to 1925 (see fig. 38). Growers received less for their peaches in 1922 than in any other year during the 20-year period, with the exception of 1915. Since 1922 the purchasing power has increased steadily approaching in 1925 the relatively high points of 1916 and 1921. 42 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE [CiRC. 1 Relative Purchasing Power of Elberta Peaches, F.O.B. Growers' Shipping Points, 1906-1925 JSm r^ N iH r-» i-I i-« CM a» M N 240 9 Art y \ 160 / \ 120 80 \ V _> Seau/of Tnrnd^ \ / \ = - ^ / S y V / -7* ^ ^ ^^^ ^ A. -i-. ^*"^ 40 / N ^^ ^ ^ ■^ Fig. 38. — Data from table 27. Equation for line of trend is 2/ = 82.75 — 1.55ic, origin 1911. Close Relation Between Peach Prices in the Various Markets. — The fact that the main markets for peaches in the United States are reasonably accessible to every producing area is responsible for the close interrelation of prices paid for peaches in each of the markets. Marketing organizations watch all of the markets carefully, and if, for any reason, they believe that a higher net price will be obtained in one market than in another, they act accordingly. It is true, of course, that prices in two or more markets do not always move in the same direction or to the same extent, but there is a strong tendency toward the same general movement as is seen in figure 39. Purchasing Power of California Elberta Peaches, New York and Chicago Auction Markets, 1919-1925 New York wSgcDwjjjjjjg Chicago So- s 35 5 S S3 120 Oe-^tO 0<0104 C\J<010 OtOrtCgtO'* in /C Tg O Ai?u V3/-/(-^ *Sk:- ^-?^ ^s :5; ''^\ ■4^ ^ ::; ^ entlog -1 a> S S{R5 >0 CM g'-ssss" gj-" J4 sjs CM -H 00 lO rH (O S li'^ ^^^ Month 1 1 ft ill II i u Year 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 CO m CM £> ChlCd^O WOtOOCDCOOOOlOtOOO^OcOlOtOCOm toOinaDQDlOa)in>noc\Jcor-iHcoto ,-t»AewGOcocMrHc*-io<-i<-i(Z)'^*^rHcoto t^rHC\j^c>jNtninr-'i5r-(Cvjoj^co e^ ^o^^ I I M I I I Week r-iooiocaCT. 1-4 Fig. 42. — Average selling price per ton, $33.20. Average total cost per ton, $27.25. Average labor and cash expense per ton, $18.74. 48 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE [CiRC. 1 If canning peaches were sold at $33.20 per ton, it would require a yield of 10.3 tons per acre to pay the average total cost of production. To pay the average cash expenses alone, a yield of 6.6 tons per acre would be required. Cost Per Ton. — The cost of producing a ton of canning peaches on the 16 orchards in Stanislaus County in 1925 ranged from $15 to $41 (see fig. 42). The average cost was $27.25 per ton. The average price received for canning peaches in 1925 by the 16 growers was $33.20 per ton. At this price nine of these growers made a profit, while seven of them operated at a loss. Only two of the sixteen growers produced peaches for less than the average labor and cash expenses, which amounted to $18.74 per ton. Influence of Yield on Cost of Production. — The general tendency apparent in figure 43 is for a high yield to be accompanied by a low cost and for a low yield to be accompanied by a high cost. Although there are exceptions to this tendency, it is quite evident that the possibilities of raising peaches at a low cost are greater when the yield is high than when it is low. Relation of Yield per Acre to Cost of Production, 16 Full Bearing Orchards, Stanislaus County, California, 1925 40 30 20 10 _ _ _LLLlL Mil Orchard No, 16 12 15 o o Cost per ton Yield „ per Acre § 14 13 o o CO 10 5 Q Q o o Fig. 43. — The solid black bars represent yield per acre, and the outline bars represent the cost per ton. 1926] CROPS AND PRICES: PEACHES 49 APPENDIX FOREIGN PEACH STATISTICS At the present time it is impossible to present detailed information on the foreign peach situation, because the available data are so fragmentary. Peaches are a relatively unimportant crop in many countries, and consequently peach statistics are not separately reported. The information which is presented here was obtained from the Department of Commerce by Mr. Leonard B. Gary, District Manager of the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce of the United States Department of Commerce at San Francisco. Table 9. — Exports of Peaches from the United States, 1907 to 1925 (Year Ending June 30) Year Dried (pounds) Canned (pounds) Fresh (pounds) 1907 1,757,650 1908 1,148,598 1909 ' ^ 2,403,430 1910 ' 2,617,069 1911 y 1 1 7,125,014 1912 4,425,803 1913 ; ' 6,529,633 1914 6,712,296 1915 14,464,655 1916 13,739,342 1917 8,187,588 1918 5,862,605 1919 4,834,738 1920 12,755,907 1921 3,573,175 1922 6,259,781 1923 5,585,621 54,623,983 13,170,000 1924 12,974,647 50,374,387 15,065,000 1925 4,668,434 57,390,043 16,172,000 Data from Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, United States Department of Commerce. Data on the amount of canned and fresh peach exports are not available for the earlier years. Table 10. — Exports of Peaches from the United States by Importing Countries, 1922-1924 (Calendar Years) FRESH PEACHES Exported to: 1922 (pounds) 1923 (pounds) 1924 (pounds) United Kingdom* 28,835 140,470 295,325 Canada 12,237,728 13,999,008 14,945,709 Mexico 389,560 576,185 268,035 Cuba 266,046 271,482 432,508 Other countries 55,572 61,953 132,770 Total 12,977,741 15,049,098 16,074.347 DRIED PEACHES United Kingdom* 443,668 1,147,868 2,157,079 Germany 366,288 609,347 5,424,024 France 1,081,575 79,061 103,723 Netherlands 209,034 89,337 1,446,970 Sweden 603,972 494,356 549,002 Canada 2,123,426 1,606,149 1,843,428 Other countries 935,960 629,734 1,027,641 Total 5,763,923 4,655,852 12,551,867 50 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE [CiRC. 1 Table 10. — (Continued) CANNED PEACHES Exported to: 1922 (pounds) 1923 (pounds) 1924 (pounds) United Kingdom* 49,759,201 29,462,281 52,622,141 Germany 105,803 139,102 1,011,818 France 1,523,831 600,190 854,308 Netherlands 336,768 286,539 828,674 Belgium 183,057 155,549 848,236 Sweden 216,010 249,779 440,829 Norway 302,284 181,405 62,8^2 Denmark 271,806 356,976 298,371 Canada 1,947,912 2,354,245 2,770,080 Cuba 792,072 3,187,924 3,328,302 British India 262,909 361,142 233,955 .Japan 214,820 282,722 235,706 New Zealand 702,956 508,422 412,490 Other countries 1,328,322 2,118,315 2,903,564 Total 57,947,751 40,244,591 66,851,366 * Includes Ireland. Data from Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, United States Department of Commerce. A letter from Mr. L. A. Wheeler, Foodstuffs Division, Department of Commerce, under date of November 24, 1925, gives the following information: '^The countries of Australia and the Union of South Africa, so far as I have been able to ascertain, are the only ones besides the United States to produce peaches on any considerable scale." The available acreage and production data in Australia are shown in table 11. Table 11. — AustraUa — Production and Acreage of Peaches Bearing trees Non-bearing trees Production Year (acres) (acres) (bushels) 1919-20 28,895 8,599 2,695,912 1920-21 24,100 5,994 1,848,323 1921-22 24,089 5,693 1,951,450 Data from Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, United States Department of Commerce. The number of peach trees in the Union of South Africa in 1921 was 5,446,440, of which 4,406,780 were bearing and 1,059,660 were non-bearing. The production of dried peaches in 1923 was 2,394,336 pounds. There are no fignres on the production of fresh peaches. With regard to export competition from these two countries, Mr. R. S. Hollingshead, Assistant Chief, Foodstuffs Division, Department of Commerce, in a letter, under date of December 1, 1925, says: "1 do not believe there is much argument to the fact that competi- tion for California peaches is increasing and will continue to do so. This is due to the growing production in Australia and British South Africa. As far as I know these are the most important potential sources of large supplies of peaches which may go into world trade. So far, the Australian industry has been rather unsuccessful, but there is a possibility of improvement in the situation as more business-like methods of operating are applied. The South African situation is in 1926] CROPS AND PRICES : PEACHES 51 process of development through the activities of the local agricultural authorities. I believe that conditions are such that a considerable production in that territory can be expected as time goes on. ' ' The available export figures from the Union of South Africa and Australia by importing countries are given in tables 12 and 13. Table 12. — Exports of Fresh Peaches from the Union of South Africa (Figures in Boxes) 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 United Kingdom 46,749 88,283 108,449 125,048 92,399 Belgian Congo 7 27 584 341 340 Portuguese East Africa 1,012 1,428 2,461 4,206 3,074 Southwest Africa* 1,073 610 915 1,076 2,180 United States 492 Other countries 8 6 1,694 116 768 Total 48,849 90,846 114,103 130,787 98,761 * Shipments to Southwest Africa not considered exports after 1921. Dried and Canned Peaches not listed separately. Data from Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, United States Department of Commerce. Table 13, — Exports of Dried Peaches from Australia (Pounds) 1922-23 1923-24 United Kingdom 707,680 160,077 New Zealand 35,832 10,901 Dutch East Indies 3,188 460 Other countries 7,699 3,859 Total 754,399 175,297 Fresh and canned peaches not listed separately. Data from Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, United States Department of Commerce. The trade statistics of those countries in which we market the bulk of our peaches do not list the import of peaches separately, with the exception of Germany. For this reason it is impossible to obtain data on the competition of foreign countries in our main foreign markets. Germany's total imports of fresh peaches are shown in table 14. Table 14. — Germany 's Imports of Fresh Peaches Year Pounds 1920 29,321 1921 30,864 1922 162,259 1923 24,471 1924 8,392,912 Data from Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, United States Department of Commerce. 52 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE [CiRC. 1 Table 15.— Peaches— Number of Trees, United States, by States, 1909, 1919, and 1924 New Hampshire Massachusetts Rhode Island Connecticut New York New Jersey Pennsylvania Delaware Maryland Virginia West Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Georgia Florida Ohio Indiana Illinois Michigan Iowa Missouri Nebraska Kansas Kentucky Tennessee Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas Oklahoma Arkansas Colorado New Mexico Arizona Utah Nevada Idaho Washington Oregon California United States. 1S09 Bearing and non- bearing 100 trees 928 3,167 701 8,003 46,741 25,801 45,624 13,895 23,028 23,661 28,658 35,228 16,859 121,405 4,477 52,257 32,758 35,995 58,983 13,740 79,924 14,523 50,156 33,561 43,544 40,162 24,512 12,195 126,966 73,585 97,449 13,994 3,207 840 11,955 113 2,860 15,650 7,814 122,386 1,367,729 Bearing trees 57,571 154,592 39,342 461,711 2,457,187 1,216,476 2,383,027 1,177,402 1,497,724 1,585,505 1,424,582 2,661,791 1,336,142 10,609,119 290,850 3,133,368 2,130,298 2,860,120 2,907,170 1,010,749 6,588,034 1,188,373 4,394,894 2,245,402 3,163,737 3,177,331 1,726,298 903,352 9,737,827 4,783,825 6,859,962 793,372 136,191 51,415 544,314 6,329 73,080 536,875 273,162 7,829,011 ,506,657 Non- bearing trees 35,213 162,114 30,795 338,608 2,216,907 1,363,632 2,179,386 212,117 805,063 780,551 1,441,188 861,042 349,790 1,531,367 156,782 2,092,300 1,145,479 739,358 2,991,010 283,308 1,404,429 263,882 620,709 1,110,744 1,190,727 838,866 724,895 316,132 2,958,813 2,574,680 2,884,927 606,001 184,466 32,562 651,233 5,049 212,995 1,028,141 508,179 4,409,562 42,266,243 1919 Bearing and non- bearing 100 trees 1,045 4,817 865 6,294 36,969 28,207 47,984 5,578 12,826 23,620 27,016 30,708 12,076 120,470 3,231 38,944 14,280 18,510 27,748 1,909 30,752 1,357 11,234 23,615 30,401 20,907 13,489 6,401 61,025 35,177 43,314 4,791 1,919 1,286 5,828 96 2,050 6,994 4,428 104,247 872,640 Bearing trees 81,287 346,260 61,125 495,750 3,038,023 1,936,632 3,563,726 464,514 997,086 1,578,253 2,049,862 1,976,756 871,976 8,655,051 206,155 2,924,177 860,024 1,011,325 2,010,022 129,939 2,358,925 95,629 844,498 1,671,044 2,349,656 1,544,700 855,158 408,178 4,461,717 2,879,945 3,342,387 446,943 154,968 101,855 554,202 5,940 178,434 649,085 412,936 9,057,760 65,646,101 Non- bearing trees 23,200 135,426 25,366 133,577 658,868 884,067 1,234,708 93,336 285,486 783,733 651,742 1,093,993 335,599 3,391,851 116,913 970,183 568,046 839,712 764,838 61,043 716,325 40,118 278,914 690,483 690,359 546,024 493,651 231,909 1,640,848 637,762 988,966 32,158 36,923 26,681 28,551 3,721 26,648 50,254 29,911 1,366,941 21,617,862 1924 Bearing and non- bearing trees 312,978 438,493 3,419,685 2,385,318 3,820.839 501,111 1,152,843 2,225,742 1,817,729 3,615,127 1,432,144 14,639,437 290,590 3,841,973 2,129,168 4,365,302 2,806,821 2,071,372 4,177,036 1,964,956 1,110,159 414,380 3,817,492 2,351,767 4,427,156 395,389 133,953 92,515 634,403 678,910 14,461, 206 Sources of data: Years 1909 and 1919— 14th Census of the United States, 1920, Vol. V, p. 864. Year 1924. 1925 Farm Census. Preliminary state summaries. 1926] CROPS AND PRICES: PEACHES ■^ oi CO t-^ cc o ►^ >^ h^ o* fr^ hP^ "^ h^ >— * »^ Cn^OOOtOCnlOOOsOOO _ _ _ _ Ol 00 -) to >t^OC0-J«;Otnc0^l00K-C0H-O5C0> OOOOtOOOO>OiOOJcOOOCntfi.OiOOCnOOOiOls3i-'( k-OJ to COCOO5tO>-'i*».00CO^J00 ^ltOlOCOK-^lH-K-^03h(^tOtO>^tOO»*i-OitO otsoooi— 'oe;iooc3*.tno^oa5i*>.02^ioic>JOHP>-ioi— '>f^Oito4i->f»-c»iooH-;r " ~~ _--- - - _____ ,(35OO00O^J0i02Cn' ooo^o>wci03*>.oooooi lOOOt0^02003;OtO^J ts2 to ^ to oo to Ol to o CO OOiH-1— '0503-— 'I— '00^10050iOiO:*>-> t0tnCXlC0ts5t0i*».COO05t0^>— 4^Ot0OC»00Cncr^JlOc^Q0Cn^tl0050COI CO>*».*^Cn>fi.^OCOOOOOa500»t^OtOCnCnOCnOOOOOOOtOi-'0000( 14^ ts3 CO i-i 00 k- t*^ O I-' ^ »*^ 00 to CO OS tfl CD to cc >*>.co ooc;iCno>tooiOa3to>f^>fi-co^i^tocococo^jco C:5t0004».-JtOOOO^OOOOOCnOOtOC00002^ toooiootoioototocotococcai)*^. a>k-^]K-ooooccoc2c;tH-cni C0CO4^)-i CO l-'0^lOH-COkfi.C002CO^I>-'-^>*>- OOOOOOtO 00050tOOOlOCOCnh4i.H->(:^0005CDOO-l*>.CntOCnOOOOC5a300H-COO>*».4^CO*'> ^J^J05OC0OO05tnOO02C5OOOOOt0Ot0-jCji00C000CnC5C002>— tOOO^OOtOl ■ to to ^ to ' 02 '-C 4^ O >*»• en 02 > .C04^h— CO^COOOO^^.i-'COOOcrk-^COtoOOOtOK'CO I— 05000502 I— i05Cnciit*».ooooirf^h;*a5toji-tooi— 'a2^i*'4i.^jcoc5cnaiOirf>.4»-4^^jCDCotocncn OOt005t0^at004^0000H-CROOOOlOOOtOO>f»-0000^40*>.Cn>*^OOOOt0 4^0lOitnCDtOOO *>. ^J to 00 01 *>■ 1— ' ( ^ito ^j to tO-J4^ ^ >*>■ CO ^4 h- o 00 ^a ^j cc- to CD to . OS !*>. 00 00 rf^ 00 ^ »*>■ CO h- ocoo ^J *. cn to OOOOOOOOOOrfi-OOOCOO tOOOOOCDCjiOiOtOO tOCnCntO 001— 'tO^JCOcDOlCO^J OOrf^cO 004».OtOht^tOtOOO-^I 0>*^OiC005>t'0"" — " — ■ to O 4i. K- to < *>•>*>. 05>-'OOCOCJi^l02CntOl— 'Oil ►*>-Cn00^4^CCCD^a5000tOOCnt . _._ -.^oooi COOlO^-OCOtOOOOtOOOOOtnOCllOl tn CD CO CD l-i CO CO » k- ^ 00 Ol CD O Oi I '00020^00cDtO>*^000^10i CD I— ' ^J >— ' -^J 00 *- CO to to CO 'to CO CO COl— >Cntn05 COCO^JtsS I-* ►—o^acn 0501 i-'oooioas toco, toooto cocn^itocococn02kf^*»cncn oi4!>.ocd ooto Otnt0Orf».C04>.00OtnOO*'t0 O-fc Orf^OOOOOOSCSCnOOOirf^OOtOCO-^IO-^IOOcDCncD tOtOI— l^.*"" tOH-l-»)-i4i.,_. I—toco _ CD O O >— ' CO 00 O to 05 CO\tO l*>.^ 05 0» I— '"^ 00 O ^J ^1 (*>. Co"oi o"h*>- l_ opooiif>- _ ootooo»^^itooo7ji^p>:^woooo4^oci»qocooi+>-i^i:-q>cptocnooc2too O CO CD to 000>*>" iCnOOOOOOOOOCnOtO( )Oi— 'OOOOOrf^OOtnOOitf^CnOOOOtoOOOtO OOCTlCOtO 00 l-i •^i'h- oVi H- to ^J >*>■ >*>. O ">-' 05 (*>■ CO K-To Cn to tn Cn Oi to'cD osVi to to COOCOOO O^JOOCni— »COO^IO>^a02C/<^a>»^>*^*^tO^J4i-ODt04^tnCT:tOOCOt004^0COCOO*>. OOCOtOCntoOCDOOtOOtnOcDOOOOCnOOtntntna>0000003rf».i-iCn^JtOOb0^tnO ' OOOtOO* -_ 3 00 ►*>. CD CO 00 I— ' CO 00 tn CD Cn 05 CO ^J Cn I— ' to jococnoco 03 o>Op— '>*»-torf».oocoo^a^)>-'tn-^tototn 'OOOOOOH-OOtOif^OOO^-ltOOO^JOCnOCnOOOOcoOO k- 4^ to CD -J to ^a to t*». tn to 00 tn 02 to H- h- to ^j tn K- CO to I-' O ^J CD to to ■03tntn00itn-~ji— '1— 1— '^J^JCO^ji— >cDO00OH-Oi*»-OO05rf»-tnOi*^t0i-'C0i— 'to "" ■ ■toototoooocn(*»-oootootnoooooooi*^ iotnosoooocntotoe;»o> 53 H > w M W ^ l-J H Cl ts- 1 1 ^ hr) (/J T) P 02 B i:i tJ' U> Q c M- 3 - rr V! rn ri- P §. cr»- 54 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE [ClRC. 1 Table 17. — Canned Peach Production, United States and California, 1906-1925 California United Year Clingstones Freestones Total equivalent fresh tons Per cent of United States canned pack States. Total equivalent Cases Equivalent fresh tons Cases Equivalent fresh tons fresh tons I II III IV V VI VII 1906 740,000 715,025 1,614,870 998,245 1,560,050 1,494,925 1,791,235 1,751,100 3,918,035 2,407,650 2,597,390 3,607,568 3,122,458 5,096,249 5,205,511 4,162,849 7,844,912 6,591,335 5,366,598 9,258,587 17,209 16,629 37,555 23,215 36,280 34,766 41,657 40,723 67,861 55,992 60,404 83,897 72,615 118,517 121,058 96,810 182,440 153,287 124,805 215,316 990,250 1,039,585 1,112,300 692,500 944,650 894,600 686,940 1,014,025 1,092,200 831,875 1,202,940 1,554,393 1,393,595 1,962,700 1,547,687 1,633,418 1,314,597 872,676 963,621 1,198,314 23,029 24,176 25,868 16,105 21,969 20,805 15,975 23,582 25,400 19,346 27,975 36,149 32,409 45,644 35,993 37,987 30,572 20,295 22,410 27,868 40,238 40,805 63,423 39.320 58,249 55,571 57,632 64,305 93,261 75,338 88,379 120,046 105,024 164,161 157,051 134,797 213,012 173,582 147,215 243,184 72 75 77 80 81 82 83 84 86 87 87 88 88 89 93 98 98 97 97 97 55,886 1907 54,407 1908 82,368 1909 49,150 1910 71,912 1911 67,770 1912 69,436 1913 76,554 1914 108,443 1915 86,595 1916 101,585 1917 136,416 1918 119,346 1919 184,451 1920 168,872 1921 137,548 1922 217,359 1923 178,951 1924 151,768 1925 250,705 Sources of data: Columns I and III. Years 1906-1909, California Fruit Grower, Annual Statistical Numbers, 1907-1910. Figures corrected by figuring all cases of No. 10 tins on basis of 6 cans per case. Years 1910- 1924, California Annual, July, 1925, p. 10, of the California Packing Corporation. Data for years 1910- 1917 compiled from records furnished by H. C. Rowley, and data for years 1918-1924 compiled from records furnished by the Canners' League of Cahfornia. Year 1925, Canners' League of California Bui. No. 674-A, Jan. 12, 1926. Columns II and IV. Conversion factor, 43 cases canned peaches = 1 ton fresh peaches. Column VI. Years 1909, 1914 and 1919, 14th Census of United States, Vol. X, p. 76. Years 1921 and 1923, Biennial Census of Manufactures, 1921 and 1923. Other figures interpolated. Column VII. Calculated by letting figures in Column V equal corresponding percentages in Column VI. 1926J CROPS AND PRICES: PEACHES 55 Table 18. — Dried Peach Production, United States and California, 1906-1924 Value California production Year United States California Per cent of United States produced outside of California Dried tons Equivalent fresh tons I II III IV V 1906 $2,423,080 $2,915,595 $12,109,624 $4,165,932 $6,468,975 $2,422,043 $2,888,962 $12,074,246 $4,165,932 $6,468,975 .04 .9 .3 10,000 15,000 23,000 20,000 25,000 17,250 29,000 37,500 35,100 32,250 28,000 39,000 20,000 35,000 27,000 21,000 28,000 26,000 24,500 16,000 55,000 1907 . ... 82,500 1908 126,500 1909 110,000 1910 137,500 1911 94,875 1912 159,500 1913 206,250 1914 193,050 1915 177,375 1916 154,000 1917 214,500 1918 110,000 1919 192,500 1920 148,500 1921 115,500 1922 154,000 1923 143,000 1924 134,750 1925* 88,000 * Preliminary estimate. Sources of data: Columns I and II. 14th Census of U. S., Vol. X, p. 79, and Biennial Census of Manufactures, 1921 and 1923. Column IV. Years 1906-1923. Armsby's Weekly Letter, Jan. 1916, and CaHfornia Annual, July, 1925, p. 14. Year 1924. CaHfornia Fruit News, Annual Statistical Number for 1925. Column V. Conversion factor: 1 ton dried peaches = 5.5 tons fresh peaches. Note: Practically all of the dried peaches are produced in CaHfornia as shown in Column III. Although the census figures on tonnage do not agree exactly with the figures given in Column IV for the years 1919, 1921 and 1923, they also indicate that practically all of the dried peaches are produced in California. 56 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE [CiRC. 1 Table 19. — Production of Fresh, Dried, and Canned Peaches, United States, 1906-1925 Canned Dried Fresh Per cent of United States Total production peaches peaches peaches total production Year 1000 Equivalent Equivalent bushels Tons fresh tons fresh tons Tons Canned Dried Fresh I II III IV V VI VII VIII 1906 44,104 1.058.496 55.886 55.000 947,610 5 3 5 2 89.5 1907 22,527 540,648 54,407 82.500 403.741 10 15.3 74.7 1908 48,146 1,155,504 82,368 126,500 946,636 7 1 10.9 82.0 1909 35,470 851,280 49,150 110,000 692,130 5.8 12.9 81 3 1910 48.171 1,156,104 71,912 137,500 946.692 6 2 11.9 81.9 1911 34,880 837,120 67,770 94.875 674,475 8 1 11.4 80.5 1912 52,343 1.256,332 69,436 159.500 1,027.296 5.5 12 7 81.8 1913 39,707 952,968 76,554 206.250 670.164 8 21.6 70.4 1914 54,109 1,298,616 108,443 193,050 997,123 8.3 14.9 76.8 1915 64,097 1.538,32« 86,595 177.375 1.274.358 5.6 11.5 82.9 1916 37,505 900.120 101,585 154,000 644,535 11 2 17.1 71.7 1917 48,765 1,170,360 136,416 214,500 819,444 11 6 18.3 70.1 1918 33,094 794,256 119,346 110.000 564,910 15 13.8 71.2 1919 53,178 1,276,272 184,451 192,500 899,321 14.4 15.0 70.6 1920 45.620 1.094.880 168,872 148,500 777,508 15.5 13 5 71.0 1921 32,602 782.448 137,548 115,500 529,400 17.5 14.7 67.8 1922 55,852 1,340,448 217,359 154,000 969,089 16 2 11.5 72 3 1923 45,382 1,089,168 178,951 143,000 767,217 16.4 13.1 70.5 1924 54,119 1,298,856 151,768 134,750 1,012,338 11.7 10.3 78.0 1925 46.565 1.117,560 250,705 88,000 778,855 22.4 7.9 69.7 Sources of data: Column I. U. S. D. A. Yearbook, 1924, p. 679. Year 1925, preliminary estimate. Column II. Conversion factor: 1 bushel = 48 pounds. Column III. See Table 17. Column IV. See Table 18. Column V. Columns III + IV subtracted from Column II, 1926] CROPS AND PRICES : PEACHES 57 Table 20. — Commercial Peach Production, California, 1906-1925 (Equivalent Fresh Tons) Per cent of California Total Canned Dried Interstate shipments commercial production Shipped fresh Year - Cars Tons Canned Dried I II Ill IV V VI VII VIII 1906 101,662 40,238 55,000 584 6,424 39.6 54 6.4 1907 130,994 40,805 82,500 699 7,689 31.1 63.0 5.9 1908 211,703 63,423 126,500 1,980 21,780 30 59.8 10 2 1909 177,909 39,320 110,000 2,599 28,589 22 2 61.8 16 1910 223,447 58,249 137,500 2,518 27,698 26 61.6 12.4 1911 174,770 55,571 94,875 2,027 24,324 31.8 54.3 13.9 1912 236,584 57,632 159,500 1,621 19,452 24.5 67.3 8.2 1913 299,307 64,305 206,250 2,396 28,752 21.4 69.0 9.6 1914 312,039 93,261 193,050 2,144 25.728 29.9 61.9 8.2 1915 272,981 75,338 177,375 1,689 20,268 27.5 65 7.5 1916 265,299 88,379 154,000 1,910 22,920 33.4 58 8.6 1917 363,730 120,046 214,500 2,432 29,184 33 59.0 8 1918 252,668 105,024 110,000 3,137 37,644 41.6 43.5 14.9 1919 389,949 164,161 192,500 2,774 33,288 42.0 49.4 8.6 1920 343,327 157,051 148,500 3,148 37,776 45.8 43.2 11.0 1921 290,305 134,797 115,500 3.334 40,008 46.4 39.8 13.8 1922 394,792 213,012 154.000 2,315 27,780 54 39.0 7.0 1923 360,694 173,582 143,000 3,676 44,112 48.2 39.6 12 2 1924 304,021 147,215 134,750 1,838 22,056 48.5 44.3 7.2 1925 366,596 243,184 88,000 2,951 35,412 66.2 24.1 9.7 Sources of data: Column II. Column III. Column IV. Column V. carload. See Table 17. See Table 18. California Fruit News, Annual Statistical Numbers. Conversion factor. Years 1906-1910, 11 tons = l carload; years 1911-1925, 12 tons = l 58 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE [CiRC. 1 Table 21. — Peaches, California Estimated Acreage by Counties, Bearing and Non-bearing, 1922-1925 1922 1923 1924 1925 Non- Non-' Non- Non- Bearing bearing Bearing bearing Bearing bearing Bearing bearing The State 107,786 22,518 115,618 24,597 120,947 28,455 131,508 42,914 District No. 1: Humboldt 60 20 100 10 110 5 115 5 Mendocino 100 100 100 100 125 80 131 82 District No. 2: Shasta 800 400 800 400 800 400 500 300 Siskiyou 43 10 90 15 90 15 100 9 District No. 3: Lassen 40 5 40 5 40 5 40 5 Modoc 21 2 30 7 30 7 30 7 District No. 4: Alameda 100 30 105 30 65 30 155 350 Contra Costa 650 30 200 2 464 32 275 6 739 38 137 24 751 43 543 Lake 41 Marin 23 20 25 15 35 6 38 5 Monterey 50 85 86 46 100 32 307 Napa 100 285 975 25 394 55 100 506 975 25 501 382 100 549 1,051 50 379 520 100 651 1,155 San Benito 179 San Luis Obispo 483 San Mateo 7 3,000 38 700 27 3,000 44 700 71 3,100 16 536 80 4,980 32 Santa Clara 536 Santa Cruz 150 50 175 25 175 25 200 100 Sonoma 612 179 650 25 650 125 400 225 District No. 5: Butte 2,281 123 2,281 123 2,650 240 2,710 460 Colusa 74 27 74 27 74 27 81 20 Glenn 317 112 312 111 368 107 403 325 Sacramento 1,840 490 2,086 1,074 2,341 1,335 2,541 2,000 Solano 7,000 780 7,176 706 3,000 700 3,602 506 Sutter 5,220 3,719 6,150 4,394 7,579 2,502 8,981 5,870 Tehama 1,552 64 1,552 64 1,472 493 1,699 266 Yolo 747 85 1,414 860 1,420 600 1,714 755 Yuba 660 395 810 245 1,055 575 1,435 1,955 District No. 5a: Fresno 25,150 1,010 25,150 250 24,000 125 23,000 450 Kern 554 92 554 92 600 250 800 430 Kings 4,631 382 4,700 800 5,200 800 5,131 1,047 Madera 1,414 709 1,848 202 1,641 1,251 2,792 629 Merced 5,900 2,578 5,900 4,233 8,409 3,365 8,409 7.838 San Joaquin 4,130 922 4,684 1,238 5,000 1,157 5,685 463 Stanislaus 4,150 553 6,463 1,543 7,915 3,579 8,708 3,910 Tulare 8,120 1,222 9,342 117 9,449 3,110 12,559 6,497 District No. 6: Amador 174 14 178 10 178 10 183 5 Calaveras 83 13 85 11 30 10 85 10 El Dorado 500 120 287 10 500 120 307 10 600 120 207 10 600 100 150 Inyo 10 Mariposa 24 6 24 6 24 6 24 6 Nevada 140 35 145 30 150 25 140 25 Placer 7,963 364 S,203 299 8,215 976 8,345 1.113 Tuolumne 150 120 124 10 124 10 130 10 District No. 8: 5,986 1,137 6,198 1,122 6,198 1,122 5,309 1.459 Orange Riverside 200 53 10 3,070 2,661 2,990 2,219 5,142 1,243 5,385 1,384 San Bernardino 6,880 1,556 7,380 1,350 7,690 1,601 8,630 1,869 1,500 626 1,625 587 2,155 530 2,257 420 Santa Barbara 165 20 175 22 197 65 200 75 Ventura 45 38 70 14 83 32 84 55 Estimated acreage planted in state: 1921, 6,057; 1922, 18,788; 1923, 28,885; 1924, 70,484. Sources of data: E. E. Kaufman — Mimeographed reports, June 20, 1922, and April 12, 1923; California Crop Reports 1923 and 1924. 1926] CROPS AND PRICES : PEACHES 59 Table 22. — Weekly Carlot Shipments of Fresh Peaches from California, 1921-1925 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 Month Week ending Cars Week ending Cars Week ending Cars Week ending Cars Week ending Cars 5 12 19 26 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 2 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1 3 10 17 24 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 6 47 75 30 24 71 123 561 1259 724 252 116 91 129 105 43 14 3 1 8 15 22 29 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 1 3 27 60 51 12 19 69 301 966 517 166 43 15 15 10 15 1 44 60 13 34 46 199 632 370 151 74 64 68 37 16 20 3 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 3 July 55 22 4 15 30 152 809 1232 535 277 70 43 42 25 7 45 41 14 August September 15 40 169 448 816 615 352 137 44 65 87 32 11 Total* 3,318 2,290 3,670 1,832 2,934 * The totals given here are less than the total shipments for the year, as are shipped in October. Sources of data: California Fruit News. few carloads of peaches Table 23.— Fresh Peaches Carlot Shipments by States of Origin, 1920-1925 State 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 Average 1920-24 1925^ Georgia New York Cahforniaf Colorado New Jersey Arkansas Michigan Utah Washington North Carolina. Illinois Ohio Texas Tennessee All others Total 5,987 4,635 3,148 1,091 1,022 56 2,358 366 221 379 557 1,025 76 154 2,363 10,330 2,967 3,334 1,223 5 607 176 805 1,117 594 35 88 1,024 217 470 7,370 6,862 2,315 1,428 1,595 1,563 1,650 1,261 990 1,452 1,683 620 32 248 2,512 8,701 2,777 3,676 1,254 1,790 724 1,087 1,203 1,645 215 390 625 102 53 2,747 13,504 3,436 1,838 1,772 1,461 2,785 105 1,109 412 1,657 860 14 763 752 3,501 9,178 4,135 2,862 1,354 1,175 1,147 1,075 949 877 859 705 474 399 285 2,319 23,438 22,992 31,581 26,989 33,969 27,793 13,543 3,009 2,951 747 1,044 2,293 254 88 992 1,968 579 469 1,082 605 1,004 30,628 * Year 1925 subject to revision, t California interstate shipments. See Table 20. Sources of data: Years 1920-1923. Years 1924-1925. U. S. D. A. Statistical Bulletin, No. 8, pp. 41-50, 1925. Copies from Bureau of Agricultural Economics. 60 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE [CiRC. 1 Table 24. — Carlot Shipments of Fresh Peaches by Months, United States and California, 1921-1925 Year Month United States Cars California interstate shipments Cars II Per cent of United States III 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 Total June July August September Total June July August September Total June July August September Total June July August September Total June July August September 23,028 4,012 8,725 5,225 3,562 31,521 3,184 7,540 8,613 10,489 26,989 2,384 8,867 6,804 8,147 33,969 1.873 12,722 11,223 6,802 30,628 4,953 14,788 6,095 4,169 3,334 78 1,010 2,132 2,315 64 178 1,985 63 3,676 173 2,377 922 198 1,838 103 843 816 70 2,951 103 1,255 1,381 195 14 5 2.0 11 6 40 8 2 8 7 3 2 2 4 23 .6 13 6 7.2 26.8 13 5 2.4 Sources of data: Column I. Years 1921-1923, U. S. D. A. Yearbook, 1924, p. 681. Years 1924-1925, Bureau of Agri- cultural Economics. Figures for 1925 subject to revision. Original figures revised by subtracting California total carlot shipment from total United States shipments and adding California interstate shipments to the result. The number of cars shipped during the four months do not equal the total shipment, as some peaches are shipped during May and October. Column II. California Fruit News. ]926 CROPS AND PRICES : PEACHES 61 O a, r ^ i" 1 cr o o 0^ 5' D 3 -D o a i 1 73 J -! .J 3 p Q .»*^ : p ■-J 05 C-l (3 s ^ -J en CJi OO cm ^co to to i^ tOOOK- rf^ ►— CO oo^i tog; 05 ^^00.^ P en en . g p g[3 CO CO -■> ^ H^ OCn H- O2 00 l—Oi CO tOH-"' 0^ t005l— 'TtO^I CO to 1— -^-1 : CO h*^ to to en ^ cc to H- P > c GO 2 CO Oi. 1— to Cn I-' to : h^^ to OO ft^ tf^ en rf^ CO to ; to ^co oto i— to ^ i ^ ^ 8 en H- S >«^ o^ to 02 -^J g^SicoSlES !*». 1— ' 01 to to : ^J CO to ^I to rfi' >4^ to OiCOh^^OCn-jO; i-'(X>rf^OH->*^oioa. rf^ »^ 9 3 H 05 § to CO to ; : to ff^bo CO CO ^ ^; to oto 9 3 C 3 to o CO COCO to ■ to to H- oo en o to -1 , H- Ol H^ 1— en F-as to to H- J g; CO ^01^ C_| Ol CO to 1 ^ g s^gg^^^^al ^§ 2K en 05 (-"j : eo: eotoH-2^en p > c in to ^ H- *- eof4i. oo; 03 to CO ►-' CO Ol : 03 en to: p 3 § -<1 o ^ ^ ^^I^g^oofecntoi; cofeSo-g^ eni-'>t>.02i-': tf>.: CoeoH-^oot^^ to: p E CO ►t^ oo H-en to en: ^ CO o ^ -^ tooo CO to i ^c ifs^toCoSn-'en^^en ^ CO eo CD to to H- 9 3 1 i i o to to S? -J i 00 00 to Ol to to ►— o> to to O) a ~j oo 35 OS g - oo JO CO OS 0^ ^ - to en ^ to to ^ 3 E 62 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE [CiRC. 1 Table 26. — Prices and Purchasing Power of California Canning and Dried Peaches, F.O.B. Growers' Shipping Points, 1901-1925 All Canning peaches Dried peaches com- Clingstone Freestone Price, Year modity index cents per Relative price Relative value Price Relative Relative Price Relative Relative pound per ton price value per ton price value I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X 1901 81 $33 114 141 $31 126 156 4 75 100 123 1902 86 23 79 92 19 77 90 4 25 90 105 1903 87 25 86 99 21 85 98 4.75 100 115 1904 87 45 155 178 37 150 172 6.25 132 152 1905 88 41 141 160 29 118 134 4.75 100 114 1906 90 49 169 188 33 134 149 8.50 179 198 1907 95 66 228 240 46 187 197 9.50 200 210 1908 92 22 76 83 20 81 88 4.50 95 103 1909 99 18 62 63 20 81 82 4.00 84 85 1910 103 22 76 74 22 89 86 3 75 79 77 1911 95 44 152 160 36 146 154 7.50 158 161 1912 101 24 83 82 22 89 88 4.50 95 94 1913 102 30 103 101 22 89 87 4.00 84 82 1914 100 25 86 86 21 86 86 4.00 84 84 1915 103 12 41 40 10 41 40 3.00 63 61 1916 129 29 100 78 23 93 72 6.00 126 98 1917 180 35 121 67 29 118 66 8.25 174 97 1918 198 50 172 87 34 138 70 11 00 232 117 1919 210 88 303 149 58 236 112 14.88 314 149 1920 230 100 344 148 64 260 113 12.25 258 112 1921 150 35 121 81 27 110 73 7.50 158 105 1922 152 57 196 129 45 183 120 7.35 155 102 1923 156 29 100 64 25 102 65 4 75 100 64 1924 152 43 148 97 25 102 67 5 35 112 74 1925 162 33 114 71 30 122 76 8.25* 174 107 Sources of data: Column I. Bureau of Labor Index converted to a 5-year base (1910-1914). Published in the Supple- ment to the Agricultural Situation, June, 1925, pp. 54-62. Column II and V. Data compiled by the California Canning Peach Growers' Association from prices paid by canners north of the Tehachapi Pass prior to 1922, and from prices paid by the association subsequent to 1922. The prices are the weighted average prices for all grades. Column VIII. Data compiled by the California Peach and Fig Growers from prices paid by packers prior to 1916, and from prices paid by the association subsequent to 1916. The prices are the weighted average prices for all grades. * 1925 price estimated. Columns III, VI and IX. Average 1910-1914 = 100. Columns IV, VII and X. Relative prices deflated by the All Commodity Index. The term value is used to denote purchasing power. 1926] CROPS AND PRICES : PEACHES 63 Table 27. — Elberta Peaches, Relative Purchasing Power, F.O.B. Growers' Shipping Points, 1906-1925. (Per standard box) Chicago New York Aver- age Rela- tive Rela- tive Freight Freight f.o.b. price value Year Auction Com- and F.o.b. Auction Com- and F.o.b. price mission refriger- ation price price mission refriger- ation price I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI 1906 1.16 .081 .349 .73 1.21 .085 .407 .718 .724 160 178 1907 1.20 .084 .326 .79 1.61 .113 .407 1.090 .940 208 219 1908 .326 .326 1.03 .85 .072 .060 .407 .395 .551 .395 .551 .448 122 99 133 1909 .89 .062 .502 100 1910 .89 .062 .326 .502 1.12 .078 .336 .706 .604 133 129 1911 .97 .068 .305 .597 .85 .060 .315 .475 .536 118 124 1912 .72 .050 .309 .361 .66 .046 .319 .295 .328 72 71 1913 .309 .309 .319 .319 1914 .69 .048 .333 .72 .050 .351 .342 76 76 1915 .56 .039 .309 .212 .53 .037 .319 .174 .193 43 42 1916 .91 .064 .309 .537 .92 .064 .319 .537 .537 118 91 1917 .88 .062 .309 .509 .82 .057 .321 .442 .476 105 58 1918 1.27 .089 .371 .810 1.05 .074 .384 .592 .701 155 78 1919 1.11 .078 .371 .661 .85 .060 .384 .406 .534 118 56 1920 1.27 .089 .384 .797 1.09 .076 .396 .618 .708 156 68 1921 1.30 .091 .487 .722 1.18 .083 .499 .598 .660 146 97 1922 .80 .056 .446 .298 .79 .055 .458 .277 .288 64 42 1923 .90 .063 .446 .391 .82 .057 .458 .305 .348 77 49 1924 .97 .068 .446 .456 1.05 .074 .458 .518 .487 108 71 1925 1.14 .080 .446 .614 1.12 .078 .458 .584 .599 132 82 Sources of data: Column I. Years 1906-1916. California Fruit News. Average of daily prices during August. Year 1913 missing. Years 1917-1925. Compiled from Chicago Fruit and Vegetable Reporter by the Stewart Fruit Company. Weighted average of daily prices. Columns II and VI. Commission 7 per cent of gross sales price. Columns III and VII. Compiled by the Pacific Fruit Express from Freight and Refrigeration Tariffs. Column V. Years 1906-1916. California Fruit News. Average of daily prices during August. Year 1913 missing. Years 1917-1925. Compiled from New York Daily Fruit Reporter by the Stewart Fruit Company. Weighted average of daily prices. Column IX. Average of Columns IV and VIII. Column X. Average 1910-1914 = 100. Column XI. Relative prices deflated by the All Commodity Index. 64 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE [CiRC. 1 CONTENTS Summary, 3. The general situation, 7. Peach acreage, United States, 7. Peach production. United States, 7. Main peach producing states, 8. Changes in peach producing areas, 8. Utilization of the United States peach crop, 12. California's place in the peach industry, 13. Utilization of the California peach crop, 14. Peach acreage, California, 17. Canning peaches, 19. Varieties of canning peaches, 19. Canned peach production, California, 21. Per capita production of canned peaches, United States, 21. Canned peach exports, 21. Main foreign markets for canned peaches, 21. Prices and purchasing power of canning peaches, 22. Relation between canners' opening prices and growers' prices, 24. Relation between production and pur- chasing power of canning peaches, 25. Dried peaches, 27. Production of dried peaches, 27. Exports of dried peaches, 27. Main foreign markets for dried peaches, 29. Per capita consumption of dried peaches, 30. Purchasing power of dried peaches, 30. Fresh peaches, 32. Varieties of shipping peaches in Cali- fornia, 32. Shipping districts for fresh peaches in California, 33. Production of fresh peaches, United States and California, 33. Fresh peach exports, 34. Per capita production of fresh peaches, 34. California's interstate fresh peach ship- ments, 35. Seasonal variation in California's inter- state shipments, 35. Relative importance of the principal fresh peach producing states, 36. California's fresh peaches are widely distributed, 39. Principal markets for California fresh peaches, 39. States which compete directly with Cali- fornia, 40. The market for fresh peaches is nation- wide, 41. Purchasing power of Elberta peaches, 41. Close relation between peach prices in the various markets, 42. Seasonal variation in prices of California Elberta peaches, 43. California fresh peaches on an eastern shipment basis, 44. Cost of producing canning peaches, Stani- slaus County, California, 1925, 45. Total cost of producing canning peaches, 45. Labor costs of cultural operations, 46. Yields, 47. Cost per ton, 48. Influence of yield on cost of production, 48. Appendix — Foreign peach statistics, 49. Tables, 52. 20m-4,'26