University of California College of Agriculture Agricultural Experiment Station Berkeley, California THE CALIFORNIA MS CAT GRAPE OUTLOOK by G. M. Peterson and S. ¥.• Shear Mav, 1933 ^ OF CAUi- Contribution from the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economi Mimeographed Report No, 23 A Table of Contents Page Reason and purDOse of study 1 Raisin grape acreage and production, 1909-1932 ... 1 Unimportance of Muscats outside of San Joaquin Valley ... 1 Pre-war situation .... 2 Post-war expansion - 2 Present acreage situation 2 Yield per acre and quality of Muscats o „ . 3 Trend of raisin production 5 Pre"war California production . 5 Post-war California production . ... 5 Foreign raisin production . 7 Spanish Muscat production ... „ 7 Australian and South African Muscat production . . 9 Farm prices of raisins 9 Factors determining normal Muscat-Thompson price differen-* tial 9 Favorable Thompson price differential, 1909"1922 9 Influence of fresh Muscat sales on differential, 1923-1928 . 9 Price situation since 1928 11 Position of Muscats in the raisin trade 11 Shipments of California raisins 11 Exports to foreign countries 12 Shipments for domestic consumption ..... o . 12 Sales of raisins by type of oack 14 Sales in cartons and bags 15 "Hhe.t housev\fives think about Muscat raisins „ . 15 Bulk sales of raisins ....... 17 Cluster and layer Muscats ..... 17 Spanish competition with clusters 18 Causes of dovmvjard trend in clusters . 18 Outlook for cluster Muscats ........... 18 Loose, stemTied, unseeded .Muscats 19 Fresh Muscat outlets 20 Pre-war utilization ... 20 Rise of eastern demand after prohibition .... 20 Trend of shipments since 1919 20 Relation to ivine-grape supplies, prices, and demand .... 22 The outlook for Muscat grapes 22 Future demand for fresh Muscats . 23 Future demand for Muscat raisins .... 23 Probable trend of future production 24 Possibilities of increasing the demand for Muscat raisins . 25 List of Figures Page Figure 1. Bearing acreage of California raisin and wine grapes ( 1919-1932) . . . . 4 Figure 2. Bearing acreage and harvested production of Cali- fornia Muscat grapes (1919-1932) ... . 4 Figure 3. Production of California raisins by chief varie- ties, Muscat, Thompson Seedless and total (1913-1932) 6 Figure 4. Bearing acreage and total production of all Cali- fornia raisin grapes (1919-1932) 8 Figure 5. Raisin production in foreign countries (1920-1932) 8 Figure 6. California Muscat and Thompson Seedless raisin prices to growers (1909-1932) 10 Figure 7. Monthly f.o.b. packer quotations on California bulk seeded Muscats and bulk Thompson Seedless raisins (September, 1925 to March, 1933) ..... 10 Figure 8. Total sales of California Muscat raisins, by kind of pack (1925-1931) 13 Figure 9. California shipments of seedless and Muscat raisins for domestic consumption and for export (1921-1931) 13 Figure 10. Sales of Muscat and seedless raisins for domestic consumption, in percentage of the 1928-1931 aver- age (1925-1931) , 16 Figure 11. Interstate shipments and estimated farm prices of California fresh Muscat and wine-grape varieties (1919-1932) 21 Digitized by tlie Internet Arcliive in 2014 littps://archive.org/details/californiamuscat23pete List of Tables in Appendix Table 1. California aGrea;'?;e and production of Muscat grapes in 1930 and fresh interstate rail shipments in 1930 and average 1928-1932. Table 2. x'Vcreage, production, and utilization of Muscat grapes in California, 1913-1932. Table 3. California bearing acreage of raisin and ^vine-grape varie- ties, 1919-1932. Table 4. California raisin production by varieties, 1913-1932. Table 5. Raisin and currant production of chief countries, average 1909-1913, annual 1920-1932. Table 6. Estimated harvested production and utilization of California raisin grapes, by varieties, 1919-1932. Table 7, California Muscat and Thompson Seedless raisin prices to growers, 1909-1932. Table 8. Monthly f.o.b. California quotations on choice bulk baker seeded Muscat and Thompson Seedless raisins. Table 9. Domestic and export shipments of California raisins. Table 10. United States raisin imports, average 1910-1914, 1921-1925, annual 1925-1932. Table 11. Sales of California Muscat raisins. Table 12. Sales of seedless raisins for domestic consumption. Table 13. Sales of California Muscat and of seedless raisins for domestic consumption, 1925-1951 (in percentages of the 1928-1931 average). Table 14. California Muscat grapes marketed fresh, 1925-1932. Table 15. Interstate shipments and eastern auction and estimated farm prices of California fresh Muscats and wine-grape varieties. r I I i THE CALIFORNIA MUSCAT GRAPE OUTLOOK G. M. Peterson/ and S. W. Shearv' Reason and Purpose of Study Decreased consumption of California Muscat raisins in recent years, the very low farm prices for the 1932 Muscat raisin crop, and the reluctance of packers to buy them in recent months have led many in the industry to question whether Muscat grape production in California should largely be abandoned. As a result the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics was asked by repre- sentatives of the industry to make a study of the economic situation of the Muscat raisin-grape industry in order to determine, in so far as possible, what the outlook for future sales might reasonably be expected to be. Such an analysis of the situation of, and '^utlock for the California Muscat has been made vvith the generous cooperation of Sun-Maid, the independent packers cf the state, the Dried Fruit Association of California, and other related factors in the industry. The results of this analysis, which are presented in this report, do not indicate that the future of the Muscat industry is hopeless, but offer consider- able evidence for the belief that the domestic market still offers a sufficient demand for a limited amount of Muscat raisins and fresh Muscat grapes to justify the maintenance of much of the Muscat acreage in the state of a productive quality and capacity equal to, or above the present average. Raisin Grape Acreage and Prrduction, 1909-1932 Unimportance of Muscats Outside of San Joaquin Valley.-- The production of Muscat grapes in California is concentrated largely in the San Joaquin Valley, in which about 92 per cent of the total Muscat acreage of the state is located. Nearly all of the Muscats produced in the San Joaquin Valley are either dried or utilized for wine making, most of the latter being shipped to eastern markets. A few of bhe mid-season and late shipments of fresh Muscats are also consumed as table grapes. Although no exact data on the total quanti- ty of Muscats used as table grapes are available, it is known that it consti- tutes only a small proportion of total shipments of fresh Mu^scats. Many of the early shipments of fresh Muscats from the southern part' rf the San Joaquin Valley, particularly from Kern County, and nearly all of those grown in southern California, i.e., in counties south of the Tehachapi Mountains are consumed as table grapes. Table 1 shows that an average of only 2,340 tons a year of fresh Muscats shipped from California originated in southern California in the years 1928-1932. This represents only 2.3 per cent of the total shipped fresh from the state. Only about 6 per cent of the total Muscat acreage of the state lies ^ Associate Professor '^f Agricultural Economics, Associate Agricultural Economist in the Experiment Station and Associate Agricultural Economist on the Giannini Foundation. 2^ Associate Agricultural Economist in the Experiment Station and Associ- ate Agricultural Economist on the Giannini Foundation. 2. south of the Tehachapi Mountains. Since shipments of fresh Muscats primarily for table purposes compete largely with other varieties of early table-grape shipments, their future production, consumption and price is tied up with the early table grape industry rather than with the future of the raisin and wine grape industries. For this reason, and also because they are such an unimportant part of the whole Muscat problem, further discussion of Muscats as fresh table grapes has been omitted from this report. Pre-War Situation. — The present difficulties of the Muscat grape indus- try of California had their origin before the War in the increasing popularity of the Thompson Seedless raisin, the acreage and production of which has ex- panded enormously during the last quarter of a century, particularly in Cali- fornia and Australia. During the years 1909-1913, raisin-grape production in California averaged about 330,000 fresh tons, of which 75 to 80 per cent were Muscats, about 15 per cent Thompson Seedless, and about 5 per cent Sultanas. The total raisin-grape acreage of the state in 1916, according to data com- piled by the Sun-Maid Raisin Growers Association, was about 148,000 acres, bear- ing and non-bearing, of which about 70 per cent, or 103,000 acres, were Muscats (see table 2), 25 per cent Thompson Seedless, and 5 per cent Sultanas. By 1919 and 1920 the normal raisin-grape production in the state was more than double the pre-war average, amounting to about 750,000 fresh tons of which about 50 per cent were Muscats and 40 per cent Thompsons. Post-War Expansion . — Under the stimulus of extraordinarily high prices for raisins in 1919^ 1920 and 1921 and the large premium for Thompson Seedless raisins over Muscats (see fig. 6 and table 7), a tremendous acreage of Thompson vines were planted in the state so that by 1922 Sun-Maid estimated the total raisin-grape acreage of the state had increased to about 322,000 acres. Of this total, Thompsons now constituted about 60 per cent and Muscats only about 35 per cent, or approximately 114,000 acres. Approximately 85 per cent of the Muscat acreage was in bearing but only about 50 per cent of the Thompson Seedless acreage J in other words, the Thompson acreage in the state was doubled in a period of about four years. The peak cf bearing raisin-grape acreage of the state was reached in 1926 with a total estimated at 347,000 acres by the Cali- fornia Crop Reporting Service (see fig. 4 and table 3). The percentage by varieties was approximately the same as given for the total bearing and non- bearing acreage in 1922. At the peak of production in 1927 a normal raisin- grape crop was about 1,300,000 fresh tons of which nearly 65 per cent or 850,000 tons were Thompsons, and about 30 per cent, or 400,000 tons. Muscats. Present Acreage Situation. — The California Crop Reporting Service estimated the total raisin-grape acreage in the state in 1930 at 248,000 acres, practically all of which was in bearing. The acreage data available by varie- ties for that year, secured from a census by the Grape Control Board, ^ show that about 64 per cent of the total was in Thompson Seedless vines and 32 per cent in Muscats. Applying these percentages to the estimated total of 248,000 acres indicates about 158,000 acres in Thompsons, 79,000 acres in Muscats, and 11,000 3/ See Shear, S. W. California Grape Acreage, Production, Yields, and Acreage Per Farm, 1930, By Varieties, Counties, and Districts. California Agricultural Experiment Station, mimeographed statistical summary, Aug. 1932. f f 3. in Sultanas. Thompson Seedless acreage has probably remained about constant since 1930 but the estimates shown in table 5 and figures 1 and 2 indicate that the Muscat acreage had decreased to about 70,000 acres by 1932 and the rough estimates of the acreage pulled late in 1932 and the early part of 1933 indi- cate it may not be over 65,000 acres at the present time. Yield Per A cre and Quality o f Muscats . — A factor that has probably had, and will continue to have, some influence in reducing the bearing acreage of Muscat grapes in California is the fact that there has been a tendency for the yield of many Muscat vineyards and the quality of the Muscat grape crop to de- cline. The production of large yields of high quality Muscat grapes, especially for cluster raisins, requires the best of natural soil and moisture conditions as well as special cultural care. In the past such yields came principally from young vineyards on rich virgin soil with an abundance of subsurface water. Many of what were at one time the best Muscat vineyards in California have deteri- orated and some have been removed. The fertility of the soil in many cases has been gradually depleted and the water table has fallen so low that surface irri- gation has become necessary. In general, it is not feasible to bring old Muscat vineyards back to their former yield and quality. Muscat vines do not respond readily to heavy applications of barnyard manure and commercial fertilizer and many of the older vineyards vrere planted without facilities for surface irri- gation. Bioreover the spread of diseases and nematodes in some areas has also tended to cause a decrease in the yield and quality of Muscats. ^.^ile there has probably been a progressive deterioration in the yield per acre in many Muscat vineyards, the removal of such vineyards has not been rapid enough to raise the average yield on the total bearing acreage remaining. Yields per acre vary greatly from year to year and farm to farm. In 1930, yields were exceptionally good averaging for the state about 4.8 fresh tons per acre as compared to an average of 3.6 during the four years 1929-1932. While some Muscat vineyards yield less than one ton of fresh grapes per acre, a few of the better vineyards exceed 10 tons to the acre. These good vineyards can- not be isolated as being only in a specific area or on a specific soil type. Average state yields of Muscat grapes are substantially less per acre than yields of Thompson Seedless grapes, the most serious competitor of Muscat grapes for raisin purposes. Muscat vineyards seem to require a better combin- ation of natural conditions and cultural care to produce good yields of high quality grapes than do Thompson Seedless vineyards. Yet Muscat vines have one advantage over most other grapes in that they tend to set a second crop after a late spring frost. This advantage, however, is partly offset by the possi- bility that early fall rains may spoil the crop because Muscats as a rule ripen later and on account of their larger size take longer to dry than do Thompsons. These cultural factors affecting the production . and drying of raisins give Thompson Seedless grapes an advantage over Muscats quite apart from any difference in consumer preference for the two varieties. 4/'Based on information supplied by John L. Quail, Assistant Farm Advisor, Fresno County. i r 1 i J FIGUEE 1 4. BEARING ACREAGE OF CALIFORNIA RAISIN AND VlflNE* GRAPES 250 200 150 50 RAISINS OTHER / THAN MUSCATS MUSCAT 0. _ _ 1919 1921 1923 1925 1927 * See footnote to fieure 11. 250 200 150 O ^. O d o M 100 I o 50 1929 1931 1933 FIGURE 2 BEARING ACREAGE AND HAR\^STED PRODUCTION OF CALIFORNIA MUSCAT GRAPES 5oor 400. 300 200 100^' Acreage ^^^^ 1 1 fiiii filS 120 ~ 100 80 Z o 60 40 20 1919 31 32 33 34 5. Trend of Raisin Production Pre-^.".'ar California Production. Before the War practically all Thompson Seedless and Suit ana™ i^aFeT'^.v'eFe made into raisins and betiveen 85 and 90 per cent of the Muscat f^rapes. It is roughly estimated that only about 40,000 fresh tons of Muscats were utilized for wine and brandy making or the equivalent of only about 10,000 tons of raisins, but most of these were not of a quality to make good raisins as they v^rere mostly culls or second-crop strippings. In 1913 the total raisin production of California was 56,000 tons, ap- proximately 50,000 tons, or 75 per cent, were Muscats and only about 10,000 tons, or 14- per cent, were Thompson Seedless (see fig. 3 and table 4). Muscat raisin Droduction increased up to 1917 when it reached a peak of 104,000 tons. After 1917, however, figure 3 shov/s the trend of Muscat raisin production to have been, definitely dovmward, both absolutely and relatively, until about 1928. Up to 1922 this decline in Muscat raisin output was due almost entirely to the increase in the production and popularity of Thompson Seedless raisins » Thompson Seedless raisins were bringing groy/ers considerably higher prices than Muscat raisins even in pre-war years (see fig. 6 und table 7) so a rspid growth in Thompson acreage and production had already started in the state. By 1919 and 1920 the total raisin production of the state had risen to 180,000 tons ana tlie output of Thompson Seedless raisins to about 70,000 tons or nearly 40 per cent of the total. The Muscat raisin output still amounted to about 90,000 tons, but its proportion of the total was reduced to about 50 per cent. Post-'''.'ar California Production.-- As previously mentioned, the Thompson acreage "ofM^ "state practically doubled from 1919 to 1923 under the stimulus of extraordinarily high prices. The full effect of this increased acreage upon production was not felt until the peak of normal raisin production in the state was reached in 1927 v/ith an output of 285,000 tons showing an increase of over 100,000 tons in the annual raisin output of the state within a period of only ten years and at a time when at least 20 per cent of the total raisin grape crop y/as being utilized fresh. The 290,000 ton raisin output of 1923 v>/as due to extraordinarily heavy yields per acre, as much of the increased post-war plant- ings had not yet had time to come into bearing. Of the 285,000 tons of raisins produced in 19 27, approximately 204,000 tons or 72 per cent were Thompsons and only about 63,000 tons or 22 per cent were Muscats. The big increase in the pro- portion of Thompson raisins was the result not only of the great increase in Thompson grape production, most of ydiich is dried, but also of the fact that a large tonnage of Muscat grapes was diverted from drying to eastern shipments as juice stock. Less than 10 per cent of the Thompson Seedless grape crop of 1927 «vas used fresh v/hereas slightly over 50 per cent of the Muscat grape crop was so utilized . Abnormally lov>/ yields per acre coupled with the reduction in acreage re- sulted in a production of only 215,000 tons of raisins in 1929 and 169,000 tons in 1931. The small tonnage dried in 1930, only 192,000 tons, was due primarily to the operations of the Grape Control Board and the Raisin Pool which y/ith- held nearly 25 per cent of the raisin-grape crop from all markets, or a tonnage equivalent to about 80,000 tons (dry v;eight) of raisins. The preliminary estim- ate of the 1932 California raisin output is 252,000 tons, the largest crop in the last four years. About 195,000 tons of these, or 77 per cent, are estimated FIGURE 3 6. 100 PRODUCTIOK OF CALIFORNIA R^ilSINS 3Y CHIEF MRI^^TIES, MUSCAT, THOMPSON SEEDLESS, AND TOTAL MUSCAT 100 50 200- 100- o a o 300 200- 100- 1913 t 7. by the trade as Thompson raisins and approximately 45,000, or 18 per cent, as Muscat raisins. Yields per acre, however, were little, if any, above normal in 1932, and hence it appears that the present California bearing acreage of raisin grapes, which is not over 10,000 acres less than the 1932 acreage, at normal yields per acre will still produce nearly 250,000 tons of raisins in addition to a tonnage for fresh shipments equal to the small quantities utilized in this way in 1931 and 1932. Normally such a raisin tonnage would consist of about 25 per cent Muscats, 65 per cent Thompson Seedless, and about 5 per cent Sultanas. Fo reign Raisin Production .--' Since so many California raisins compete directly with foreign raisins in export markets, it is desirable to supplement the picture of the trend of California raisin production with that in foreign countries (see fig. 5). Post-war world production of currants has been slightly less than the pre-war output (see table 5), but world raisin production increased from an average of about 225,000 tons in the years 1909-1913 to over 425,000 tons in the years 1926-1930. Expansion of California production from about 70,000 tons to about 245,000 tons accounts for most of this big increase in world pro- duction and the rapid growth of Australian production for the rest of it. From less than 7,000 tons, in pre-war years, the Australian raisin output has risen to an average of 45,000 tons in recent years. Nearly all of this increase has consisted of Thompson Seedless raisins which averaged 85 per cent of the total Australian raisin production during the last five years. Preliminary estimates indicate that the 1932 world raisin and currant output was about 600,000 tons, which appears to be only about 50,000 or 60,000 tons greater than the normal expectation from the present world acreage. These figures can only indicate that California must expect to meet continued severe competition in export markets from the large raisin and currant output of foreign countries. side Spanish Muscat Production . — Out/of California, Muscat raisins are pro- duced commercially in significant quantities in only three countries -- Spain, Australia, and the Union of South Africa. Average production of Muscat raisins in these three countries combined has been approximately 30,000 tons during the last five years. With the great shift in demand that has taken place the world over from seeded to seedless raisins, there appears to be little incentive for these countries to expand their production and exports of Muscat raisins. The most important Muscat-producing country, Soain, specializes almost exclusively in the production of Muscat raisins, the average output of recent years being about 20,000 tons. Nearly 60 per cent of the Spanish exports are produced in the eastern provinces, largely in Valencia and Alicante, and are marketed mostly as loose, soda-dipped Muscats with the seeds in them. Somewhat over 40 per cent come from the Malaga District and are marketed largely as clusters and layers. There has been a marked downward trend in the production and exports of Spanish Muscat raisins during the last thirty years and figure 5 would seem to indicate that normal production may have been trending dowmvard even since 1925. Total raisin exports from Spain during the period 1926-1930 averaged only about 18,000 tons as compared with about 28,000 tons during the years 1909-1913, and 33,000 tons in the years 1899-1904. No doubt much of the decline in Spanish Muscat raisin production and exports has been due to the in- creased demand for, and supply of, seedless raisins throughout the world. FIGURE 4 8. BEi\RI^G ACREAGE AND TOTAL PRODUCTION OF ALL CALIFORNIA RAISIN GRAPES 9. Australian and South African Muscat Production. — Australian production of Muscat raisins has averaged about 6,800 short tons during the last five years. About 100 tons were clusters and layers and the balance lexias. The Australian lexia is the Valencia, Spain, type of Muscat raisin, soda or lye-dipped, sun dried, and generally sold unseeded. Approximately half of the lexias have been exported in recent years, betv/een 85 and 90 per cent going to the English market and the balance to Canada. South Africa produced an average of about 3,000 tons of Muscat raisins in the years 1928-1932 and approximately 40 per cent of these xvere exported. The trend of production has been slightly downward, the average of the last three years, 1931-1933, being only about 2,600 tons. South Africa's chief export market, like that of Australia, is the United Kingdom. Farm Prices of Raisins Factors Determini ng Nor mal Muscat-Thompson Price Differential. — Gener- ally, the prices received by growers for Muscat and Thompson raisins tend to reflect the prices at which packers are able to sell the two varieties and the extra cost of processing Muscats. These extra costs of handling Muscats may be roughly divided as 10 per cent more waste in processing and from about .JS to $10 greater expense in seeding and packing. The extra expense in processing will vary of course depending upon current costs of material, wage rates, the value placed on seeding equipment, and quality of product handled and packed. To illustrate, if the f.o.b. price of Muscat and Thompson raisins were equal, then at $50 per ton to growers for Thompsons, the price for Muscats would tend to be about $35 to $40, while at :|40 for Thompsons the equivalent price for Muscats would be about $26 to ^^31, and at $80 for Thompsons the Muscats would bring about $62 to $67. If the price to growers of Thompsons and Muscats were equal, say at $50 per ton, sweat-box basis, then the f.o.b. price of packed seeded Muscats would have to be from a half to a cent a pound higher than for Thompson Seedless . Favorable Thompson Price Differential, 1909-1922.-- The prices per ton to growers for Muscat and Thompson raisins from 1909 to 1932 are shown in figure 6. From 1909 to 1922 the price of Thompsons exceeded the price of Muscats by various amounts reaching a maximum difference of $73 per ton in 19 20 ¥;hen the price of all raisins reached extremely high figures. It v\fas these high prices that stimulated the increase of plantings, especially of Thompsons, and resulted in the rapid expansion of bearing acreage a few years later as shown in figure 1. The price of Thompsons was high relative to prices of Muscats between 1915 and 19 20. Part of the large premium undoubtedly was due to the fact that during these years the demand for Thompson raisins was increasing largely at the expense of Muscats which, moreover, were in plentiful supply. I nfluence of Fresh Muscat Sales on Differential, 1925-1928 .-° The situ- ation from 1923 to 1928 inclusive represented a very abnormal condition. Pro- duction of Thompson raisins was increasing rapidly which tended to reduce the difference between Thompson and Muscat prices, but the most important factor was the increased demand for fresh Muscats for juice purposes and the decrease in production of Muscat raisins. In 1925 the average price to groxvers for Muscat FIGURE 6 10. FIGURE 7 MONTflLY F*O.B. PACKER QUOTATIONS ON CALIFORNIA BULK SEEDED MUSCATS AND BULK THOMPSON SEEDLESS RAISINS 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 Crop years beginning September 11. raisins exceeded the average price of Thompsons while in 1923, 1924, 1926, and 1928, prices of the two v^ere practically equal. Figure 7 sho^vs that the f.o.b. quotation of Muscat raisins for the 1925 crop exceeded Thompsons by nearly 2 cents a pound while the farm price exceeded Thompsons by nearly $9 a ton. In 1928, when prices to growers for the tvi/o varieties v\rere equal, f.o.b. quotations for Muscats averaged 3/4 of a cent higher . Price Situation Since 1928. — Since 1928 two important factors have affected raisin pricesl first, general business conditions, and second, the raisin pool. The sharp drop in f.o.b. prices of Thompsons in August, 1932 co- incides with the collapse of the raisin pool. The earlier downward trend in f.o.b. prices of Muscats indicates that the pool had not been as effective in holding up Muscat prices even though all of the 1931 pooled Muscats were still on hand as a carryover to depress prices for the 1932 crop. The 1932 prices to groxvers shown in figure 6 represent average prices paidv f or raisins purchased to February 1, 1933. Prices for purchases made since that time have been still lower for Muscats. The very unfavorable prices for Muscats compared with Thompsons for the 1932 crop may be attributed to two main causes: the large carryover of Muscats from the 1931 crop, and the opinion of some growers and packers that Muscat raisins were being almost entirely replaced by Thompsons . At the beginning of the 1932 crop season the raisin pool held approxi- mately 17,000 tons of Muscat raisins and some Thompsons. The Thompsons were readily and quickly disposed of but the Muscats did not move even when they were offered at only $15 a ton, and continued as a potential source of supply to packers until the entire amount was turned over to Sun-Maid in the latter part of February, 1933. Packers would naturally prefer 1932 crop Muscats as long as they were available at approximately the sam.e price. With the sharp drnp in f.o.b. prices of Thompson raisins in August, 1932 the f.o.b. prices of Muscats and Thompsons were nearly equal. The gradual lowering of f.o.b. Muscat prices -within the past year has had very little effect on increasing the sales of Muscats, primarily because there is a considerable lag between f.o.b. prices 8,nd retail prices and most of the drop in f.o.b. prices of Muscats is only now being reflected in retail prices and hence came too late to greatly stimulate the holiday trade in November and December, 1932. The de- mand for Muscats is a little more seasonal than for Thompsons. Muscats for making fruit cakes, for example, are purchased mainly a month or two before Christmas. The effect of the low prices for Muscats on stimulating sales from nov\r until next fall remains to be seen. Position of Muscats in the Raisin Trade Ship ments of California Raisins . — All of the California raisins pro- duced in any one crop year have not been shipped in that year since 1920, hence changes in annual shipments are considerably different than the changes in raisin production shown in figure 3. In spite of drastic reductions in price after 1922, shipments of all California raisins failed to increase as rapidly as production and there has been a considerable carryover every year since. In 12. no year since 1922 has the carryover in California of sold and unsold stocks of raisins been less than 59,000 tons. As late as 1928 carryover amounted to 124,000 tons and in 1932 to about 60,000 tons. Comoleted sales of raisins are shown best by data on annual shipments, which rose from about 155,000 tons, sweat-box basis, in 1921 to a peak of 290,000 tons in 1928 (see table 9). In 1929 and 1930 shipments declined to 215,000 tons and in 1931, the last completed marketing season, to about 180,000 tons. Exports to Foreign Countries.-- Export sales to Canada and overseas markets, which are very largely seedless raisins, increased from about 30,000 tons, equivalent sv\feat-box weight, in the 1921 season to a peak of 119,000 tons in 1928. They fell to a little less than 67,000 tons in each of the years 1929 and 1930, and to about 61,000 tons in 1931. The export market has continuously taken fewer of both California seedless and Muscat raisins than the United States market. A much larger tonnage and percentage of seedless raisins are ex- ported than of Muscats. In the peak years of exports the percentage of seedless raisins exported amounted to 42 per cent in 1927 and nearly 46 per cent in 1928. Since then they have averaged about 35 per cent. Exports of Muscats have been small since the "^ar never accounting for over 20 per cent of total Muscat sales. Since 1928 they have averaged about 15 per cent. Exports of seedless raisins increased from about 20,000 tons, equivalent sweat-box weight, annually in 1921 to about 110,000 tons in 1928 but declined precipitately in 1929 to about 60,000 tons (see fig. 9 and table 9). Exports during the next two years were at about the same figure. Since 1921 exports of Muscat raisins to Canada and overseas markets have been small, averaging less than 10,000 tons annually to 1928 and only about 5,000 tons during the years 1929 to 1931. Since exports of Muscat raisins have been small, they have had only a little effect on domestic consumption of Muscat raisins. However, changes in the volume of seedless exports may have an important bearing on dom.estic con- sumption of Muscats since an increase in seedless exports tends to lessen compe- tition between seedless and Muscat raisins in the domestic market and vice versa. One reason why exports of seedless raisins from California increased so rapidly from 1924 to 192 8 and fell so abruptly in 1929 v\fas the price policy in Australia which held the price of its raisins in the United Kingdom from 3 to 4 cents above the price of California raisins. This policy increased the exports of California seedless raisins while it resulted in large carryovers of Australian raisins. Ydien this price policy was changed in the spring of 1929, exports of seedless raisins from California fell almost immediately to a lower level. Since exports have rem.ained close to this new level during the last three years of crippled world trade, further shrinkage seems unlikely. However, \vith continued heav^'' production in foreign countries, there seems to be little reason to believe that foreign markets will again take the very large tonnages of California seedless raisins that were exported in the three years just prior to 1929, Large quantities of seedless raisins will therefore continue to be available to compete with Muscat raisins in the domestic market. Shipments for Domestic Consumption .-- Sales of California raisins for consumption in the United States rose from about 125,000 tons in 1921 to a peak of 178,000 tons in 1927, falling to 171,000 tons in 1928 and then to only about .50 "lOO o -p o CO w o 40 FIGURE 8 TOTAL SALES OF CALIFORNIA MUSCAT RAISINS, BY KIND OF PACK Thousands of tons, sweat-box basis Carton seeded "^Cluster and layer 40 30 w o 43 ^ ^^"^ 140 120, 100 80 60 Carton Thompsons and 4 pound bag Thompsons Bulk c^eeded Muscat Bulk seedless - 140 19 25 19 26 19 27 19 28 1929 ' 1930 Crop years beginning September 1 1931 1932 17. seedless varieties. All of the housewives were asked if they had any difficulty with raisins spoiling, r.iost of them replied that they never kept raisins long enough and the few who said they had had some trouble also stated that it was their oi/m fault by keeping them in improper places. None of the housey;ives said anything about raisins becoming rancid. Bulk Sales of Raisins. ~- During recent years sales of seeded Muscats in bulk have""accounted Tor about one-fourth of the total annual sale of Muscats while about half of the seedless raisins have been sold in bulk. Seeded raisins are sold in bulk to the bakery and manufacturing trade chiefly for use in fruit cakes and mince meat for which they are, to some extent, better than Thompsons, although a mixture of both is often used. Years ago large quantities of Muscats were used in bread but most of the large bakeries now use Thompsons almost en- tirely because Thompsons are smaller, easier to handle, do not discolor the dough, and involve less mechanical difficulty in mixing the dough. It is more difficult to obtain a well-rounded loaf containing Muscats. A fe\v small bakeries and restaurants still use Muscats in baking a special kind of raisin bread. Even for making pies Thompsons often take the place of Muscats and all raisin pies have to compete with numerous other kinds of pies, many of which are preferred because raisin pie is so sweet. In bakery products such as buns, rolls, and cookies the Muscat is not used because it is too large. The small seedless raisins or currants are better suited for such products. The sales of bulk seeded Muscats and bulk seedless (lower part of fig. 10) show scarcely any evidence of replacement of Muscats by seedless after 1925. Sales of bulk seedless raisins just about tended to hold their own, while all of the decrease in total sales of bulk raisins came out of the sales of bulk Muscats up to 1929 but during the last two crop years the trend in sales of both has been downward at practically the same rate. The decrease in sales of all raisins during this period is primarily due to falling off in demand. The data available on sales from September, 1932 to January 31, 1933 for the present marketing season as compared with the corresponding period of the 1931 season indicate an increase at about an equal rate in sales of both Thompson and Muscat raisins into retail channels. Undoubtedly these sales for the com- plete 1932 marketing season will exceed those in 1931 and they may regain the level of 1930 sales. Sales of bulk seeded Muscats, however, do not sho\v a simi- lar increase but apparently tend to equal the 1931 level. Data are not available to indicate sales of bulk seedless raisins from the 1932 crop. C luster and Layer Muscats . — Although the total sales of unseeded Muscats are small and clusters and layers constitute the least important outlet for Muscat raisins a detailed analysis of the cluster and layer situation has been made because a number of growers were particularly interested in the possibilities of expanding this market outlet. Forty years ago before seeding equipment became extensively used, most Galiforuia Muscat raisins were sold on the stems as clusters or layers. Older packers estimate that twenty or thirty years ago as much as 15,000 tons of Cali- fainiia raisins were sold in this form, nearly all in the domestic market, pre- sumably. It is believed that a considerable volume continued to sell until about the time of the War or shortly thereafter. Since 1925, however, this outlet has 18. been relatively unimportant as figure 3 clearly indicates. Sales of clusters and layers are estimated at about 3,300 tons in 1925. They increased a little to approximately 4,600 tons in 1928, but declined to less than 2,000 tons in 1931." Spanish Competition Vvith Clust ers. — There appears to be no direct competition with California layers and cluster Muscats in the domestic market except with imports from Spain. A majority of the raisins imported from Spain comes from the Malaga District and are clusters packed in fancy boxes for the retail trade. Table 10 shov^rs that United States imports from Spain have been very small in recent years, averaging only 473 tons during the last five years. Since 1909 total raisin imports from Spain have seldom amounted to more than 1,000 tons in any year except during the period 1920-22 when they were attracted to our markets by the inordinately high prices asked for California raisins. Imports from Spain in the calendar year 1920 were 12,937 tons and for the three years 1920-1922 averaged about 6,200 tons. All of these, however, were pre- sumably not clusters as it is known that at least a few hundred tons were ex- ported to the United States from the Valencia-Alicante District which is said to export mostly loose Muscats. Causes of Downward Trend in Clusters.-- The dovraward trend in domestic consumption of clusters and layers during the last 25 or 30 years appears to have been due to two main causes: (l) deterioration in the quality produced in the state, and (2) the decline in the domestic demand for them. The production of cluster Muscat raisins of a high quality requires vigorous vines that have been well cared for. Special pruning is necessary with removal of suckers and proper thinning of bunches during the growing season and careful picking of selected bunches at harvest time. With high wages of labor during the War most raisin growers failed to take the care of vines necessary to produce quality clusters. Partly for this reason "tray slips" were introduced. After the grapes are picked and dried on trays in the usual manner, the trays with the best looking bunches are selected and the raisins are slid off into sweat boxes instead of being dumped into them. After every fev\r trays of raisins a layer of paper is put in the sweat box. In recent years tray slips have brought a premium of about $10 per ton while hand sorted clusters have brought about ^20 per ton more than ordinary Muscat raisins . However, differentials as large as these may not prevail in the future. The proper processing and packing of clusters and layers to avoid insect infestation require special care in cleaning and fumigating. Some packers say that they cannot go to the expense of proper packing and successfully compete with the inferior packs put on the market. They also contend that the sale of infested raisins has hurt the demand greatly. There have also been difficulties from v/ebs inside the bunches before packing, which cannot be removed without spoiling the cluster but which give the raisins the appearance of being infested and prevent them from passing Pure-Food inspection even though no insects are present in the packed product. Outlo o k for Cluster Muscats . — Some packers believe that a good quality cluster pack could be put on the market if there were sufficient demand for it but a few believe that most California vineyards cannot again be made to produce good quality clusters and that the demand is entirely lacking. The only way to 19 . find out is to try. A few packers of fancy fruit apparently are having fair success with their cluster business. Although many California vineyards can no longer produce full clusters of large raisins due to the age of the vines, depletion of the soil, dropping of the water table, and diseases, it appears probable that there are enough vineyards v/hich, with proper care, could be brought to the point of producing all the good clusters that could be marketed in the domestic market. The relatively small imports of Spanish raisins help to substantiate the belief that the domestic demand for clusters is not large and indicate that the decreasing sales of clusters and layers in the United States in recent years may be due more to a decrease in demand than to a continued decline in the quality of the pack. Moreover, the small tonnage imported from Spain shows that domestic consumption of California clusters could be increased but little even if v^e were successful in replacing total imports from Spain with the California product in the United States market. Probably quality is an important factor in explaining why Spanish clusters continue to be imported into the United States in spite of an import duty of 2 cents a pound. The importance of quality is emphasized by the fact that exporters of Muscat clusters from Malaga, Spain, are said to have little difficulty in disposing of their high grade clusters, but that the compe- tition of California and Australian raisins affects the sale of their second grades The main outlet for clusters and layers, according to statements by the packers, was in the old South. The low incomes in that area, due partly to the low price of cotton, have undoubtedly decreased the demand in that area. If incomes in that area increase, presumably there will be some increase in demand for clusters and layers unless habits of consumption are changed by that time. Not all of the clusters and layers are sold in the South and there may be a potential market for cluster raisins in homes in other sections of the United States. However, at its best, the potential market is a very limited one, restricted almost entirely to the Christmas holiday season, hence any carryover not consumed during the holiday season is likely to be un-orof itable . Perhaps fear of carryover losses upon the part of the trade and the deteriorated eating quality of carryover stock may partially account for the small sales in recent years. The very limited total demand for cluster and layer Muscats may perhaps be better appreciated if one considers the fact that if half the families in this country bought one pound each, cluster consumption in the United States would amount to only about 6,000 tons. Loose, Stemmed, Unseeded Muscats.-- Loose, stemmed, unseeded j)'Iuscats do not appear to compete y^iih seedless raTsins. About 15 per cent of all Muscat raisins sold are loose. Little information was obtained in this survey on the uses of loose Muscats, although a few dealers were confident that since prohi- bition considerable quantities have been used for making alcoholic beverages. Some are exported and some are sold by retail stores, especially in foreign sec- b/ V L. A. Yifheeler, International Trade in Dried Fruit, U. S. Dept. Com. Trade Promotion Series Bui. 23. 1927. 20. tions of large cities to people who like the Muscat flavor and do not object to the seeds or are attracted by the low price. To a limited extent they compete with clusters and layers. A few loose Muscats may be purchased by food manu- facturers v^rho perhaps have their own seeding equipment, Y/hile some of the poor- est go for animal feed- Fresh Muscat Outlets Pre-War Utilization. — It is estimated that before the ¥[ar an average of about 40,000 tons of fresh Muscat grapes were utilized annually in California for the manufacture of wine and brandy which represented only 10 to 15 per cent of the total Muscat crop. Moreover, wineries used mostly Muscat culls or stripping of a quality too poor for raisins and largely harvested from the second setting (or crop), although the field run after the best bunches had been picked for cluster and layer raisins was sometimes purchased. The returns to growers for fresh Muscats for wine and brandy manufacture were very small, probably aver- aging between $5 and $7 a ton annually during the period 1909-1913. Ris e of Eastern Demand After Prohibition .-- The immediate result of pro- hibit ion~TirT9T8~w^^ the demands of coinmercial wineries for Muscats. However, within a few years after prohibition many people began making their own wine at home, which resulted in a rapid increase in demand for juice grapes, especially in the East. The California production of true wine- grape varieties was insufficient to supply the eastern demand for wine-making and prices of these varieties were, therefore, very high (fig. H). The scarcity of the true wine-grape varieties resulted in an increased demand for fresh Muscats which were used largely for blending with black wine-grape varieties, partly because Muscats were lower in price, partly because their high sugar con- tent increased the alcoholic content of wine, and partly because some persons considered that Muscats improved the flavor of wine. Trend of Shipments Since 1919. — The volume of California Muscats marketed fresh increased from less than 20,000 tons in 1919 to a peak of about 272,000 tons in 1925, a year of exceptionally good demand for juice grapes, and the proportion of the harvested tonnage of Muscats shipped fresh increased from about 3 per cent to 70 per cent (see table 2). The resulting decrease in the tonnage of Muscats dried improved Muscat raisij^ prices enough so that growers received about as much per ton for them in 19 23 and 1924, and again in 1928 as they did for Thompson raisins, and in 1925 anc^ 1926 they actually got more for Muscats than for Thompsons (see fig. 6 and table 7). Fresh Muscat sales de- clined to 161,000 tons in 1926, partly on account of decreased demand and lower prices for juice grapes, and partly because more grapes were dried in the hope (unfulfilled) that Muscat raisin prices would be as good as in 1925. During the next tv;o years, however, in spite of increased shipments and lower prices of black-wine grapes, the quantity of Muscats marketed fresh rose to 226,000 tons in 1927 and 220,000 tons in 1928, utilizing 47 per cent of the harvested Muscat grape crop in 1927 and 62 per cent in 1928. With the extraordinarily good demand for juice grapes in 1927, the large shipments of Muscat grapes brought as good prices as the smaller shipments in 1926 (see fig. 11 and table 15). In 1928, hov/ever, the demand was so poor that, on the average, growers received practically nothing for fresh Muscats even though total shipments of juice grapes INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS AND ESTIMATED FARM PRICES OF CALIFORNIA FRESH MUSCAT AND WINE -GRAPE VARIETIES* 21 - 100 MUSCATS o -p 0 p- ra 50 ^ o n 191 . * Sliipments of wine-grape varieties as given exclude juice stock of table varieties and include only varieties utilized primarily for wine-making, thf^ most important of which are Alicante Douschet, Zinfandel, Carij-,nane, Mataro, Mission, Petite Sirah, Malvoise, Gr ena c he , a nd I 'ur g e r . I 4 22 were no larger than in 1927. Since 1927 there has been a decided decline in eastern demand for and California shipments of Muscats for juice purposes as supplies of desirable black-wine grapes have been both plentiful and cheap, and eastern demand for all juice grapes has fallen off. The tonnage of the Muscat grape crop marketed fresh has decreased markedly since 1928 (see fig. 11 and table 14). The quanti- ty marketed fresh in both 1929 and 1930 was about 140,000 tons .constituting somewhat less than half of the harvested tonnage of Muscat grapes. In 1931 and 1932, however, the proportion of the harvested tonnage marketed fresh fell to about 30 per cent, amounting to 47,000 tons in 1931 and 89,000 tons in 1932. Re lation to Wine-Grape Supplies, Prices, and Deman d.-- A study of what has happened to the wine-grape industry of California since the War helps one to understand why the demand for fresh Muscat grapes for juice purposes is ex- pected to be poor in the next few years. As figure 11 shows, shipments of Cali- fornia wine grapes more than trebled from 1919 to 1927 while prices fell pre- cipitously, the price decline continuing until 1932 in spite of the fact that shipments have not increased since 1927. Wine-grape prices since 1927 have suffered primarily from a downward trend in demand which first became distinctly noticeable in 1928. Since 1929, of course, the decline in demand has been greatly accentuated by the serious reduction in consumer purchasing power atten- dant upon the depression. Interstate shipments of California v/ine grapes remained at a high level in the five years 1926-1930 averaging 355,000 tons but dropped to an average of only 216,000 tons for the years 1931 and 1932. However, the reduced tonnage of v/ine grapes shipped during the last two years should not be looked upon as representative of normal production from the present acreage of wine grapes in the state. Shipments in both of these years were restricted by the extremely poor demand and accompanying low prices which resulted in 10,000 tons of un- harvested wine grapes in 1931 and 42,000 in 1932. Moreover, yields per acre were only 2.1 tons in 1932. Figure 1 shows that the bearing acreage of wine grapes in 1932 was still nearly as large as in 1929. At normal yields of about 2.5 tons per acre, the 185,000 bearing acres of wine graoes in California in 1932 would produce about 460,000 tons of grapes, or crops as large as the aver- age of the years 1927-1930 when wine-grape shipments were at the peak. Such large tonnages are in excess of the amount growers can reasonably expect to sell during the next few years at prices that will return them living vmges, unless commodity prices in general are greatly inflated. In the face of competition of this kind from wine grapes, prospects for selling any considerable tonnage of Muscat grapes for juice purposes, even at very low prices, appear unfavorable. The Outlook for Muscat Grapes Muscat prices during the next few years are dependent upon a number of factors which are difficult to predict with certainty, namely: the probable future demand for fresh Muscats for juice purposes; the probable future demand for Muscat raisins and for all raisins; the future trend in acreage and pro- duction; and the future trend of monetary and other business conditions. 23. F uture Demand for Fresh Muscats . — Regardless of whether or not the 18th Amendment is repealed or prohibition modified to permit sale of vfines contain- ing more than 3.2 per cent alcohol, fresh Muscats will continue to compete v;ith wine-grape varieties, the supply of which is very large and the price of which is likely to be low. The immediate effect of repeal or modification to permit com- mercial manufacture and sales of wine would probably be to increase the demand for fresh Muscats for commercial wine making in the state. Moreover, it would probably not immediately reduce eastern demand for fresh shipments for household wine making as much as the demand of commercial wineries would be increased. However, as soon as wineries built up stocks of wine for aging and these stocks began to move into commercial channels, it is probable that eastern demand for juice grapes would decline about as much as commercial wines were substituted for home-made wines. Legalizing the commercial manufacture of light wines and not of sweet -.vines would restrict the quantity of fresh Muscats that might other- wise be used by wineries for manufacturing and for fortifying sweet wines. The relative extent to which other beverages, especially beer, may be sub- stituted for home-made wines is unknown. The relative costs and preference for home-made wines and the amount of internal revenue taxes levied may also have some effect on the eastern demand for Muscats and other juice grapes. Although all these uncertainties make it difficult to forecast the quantity of Muscat grapes that may be marketed fresh, it appears that there will continue to be a very limited demand for these grapes for v/ine making and hence the major portion of the crop will have to be marketed as raisins, unless other substantial and unexpected uses are developed or a large part of the crop is wasted. Unless demand and the general level of all prices pick up greatly as the result of the present movement toward monetary inflation, probably only 70,000 or 80,000 tons of fresh Muscats may be sold at prices that will return growers a living wage. As in the past, the quantity and the proportion qif the Muscat grape crop actually marketed fresh will largely depend upon the price of fresh grapes as compared with the raisin prices being offered or anticipated at harvest time. Experience has shown that, if the price of fresh Muscats appears favorable relative to that of raisins, a larger proportion is marketed fresh. "liThen the price of raisins is believed to be more favorable, more grapes are dried. Future Demand for Muscat Raisins . — In attempting to forecast future sales of seeded Muscat raisins it may be safer to be conservative than over- optimistic. However, the experience of recent years justifies the belief that a domestic market for a considerable tonnage of Muscat raisins still exists. Just how many can be sold and at what price is a difficult question to answer. All things considered, however, it seems probable that sales of seeded Muscats in cartons for the retail trade, at prices about the same as for Thompson Seed- less raisins, during the next few years may again be about the same as the tonnage sold in the 1930 marketing year xvhich was roughly 20,000 tons, equiva- lent sweat-box weight.^ The sales of bulk- seeded Muscats may not increase materially, but if they continue to average as much as during the depression they would provide an outlet for about 7,000 sweat-box tons. Combined, these figures indicate future annual sales of about 27,000 tons of seeded Muscats during the next few years to which can conservatively be added 6/ The data on sales from September 1, 1932 to March 1, 1933 indicate that they may regain that level in 1933. 24. about 3,000 tons of loose Muscats and 3,000 tons of clusters and layers, making a total of 33,000 tons. Vifith considerable improvement in business conditions or some special advertising stimulus to sales of Muscats, this total might be raised to about 40,000 tons which might be expected to sell at approximately the same f.o.b. prices as other raisins. Sales of 40,000 tons would still be 10,000 tons less than the amount sold in 1928, the last season before the depression started to restrict raisin sales. Rapid improvement of general economic condi- tions cannot be expected, although gradual improvement in business conditions during the next few years seems certain. If sales of Thompson raisins should increase above the level of the last few years, it appears just as reasonable to expect about the same rise in the sale of Muscats. Any improvement in business conditions which increases the consumption of raisins v^rill probably have as favorable an effect on Muscats as on other raisins and perhaps more, since the acreage of Muscats has been decreasing rapidly since 1929, v^rhereas the Thompson Seedless acreage appears to have declined little, if any, since 1930. If the future demand for fresh juice Muscats is no greater than the average for the last three years, normal yields per acre from the present bear- ing acreage will produce so many Muscat raisins that they will have to sell at f.o.b. prices as low as those for Thompson raisins in order to move freely into consumption in competition v;ith Thompsons. Higher prices will retard Muscat sales. Equal f.o.b. prices would mean growers' returns of ^5 to $10 a ton less for Muscat than for Thompson raisins because of the greater loss and cost in processing and packing. Although the 1925, 1928, and 1929 marketing seasons demonstrated that seme seeded Muscats could be sold at f.o.b. prices higher than for Thompson raisins (see fig. 7), it would appear that a greater reduction in Muscat acreage and production than can reasonably be expected would have to take place in California to lov/er the raisin output to a point at which all could be sold at a higher f.o.b. price than for Thompsons. On the other hand, experience indicates that Muscat raisin sales probably cannot be increased much relative to sales of Thompson raisins even if f.o.b. prices for Muscats are lov>fer than for Thompson raisins, as has been the case during the last three marketing seasons. Probable Trend of Future Production. — Based upon the estimates already given of probable sales of Mu-scats as fresh grapes and as raisins, it would appear that from 200,000 to 230,000 tons of California Muscat grapes might be disposed of during the next few years at prices comparable to those for other juice and raisin grapes, which means farm prices for Muscat raisins -^5 to |10 a ton less than for Thompson raisins. This estimate assumes that 70,000 to 80,000 tons may be marketed fresh, mainly for juice purposes, and 130,000 to 160,000 tons made into 33,000 to 40,000 tons of Muscat raisins. However, to attain the higher sales figure v^rould probably require considerable improvement in business conditions and demand. Moreover, until Muscat raisin stocks are re- duced sufficiently to prevent large carryovers from one crop year into the next, Muscat graoe crops of even 200,000 tons will apparently be too large to dispose of at prices remunerative to growers, 'with prospects for a considerable carry- over of 1932 Muscat raisins there appears to be little chance of growers secur- ing better prices for the 1933 Muscat raisin crop than were received for the 1932 crop, unless the 1933 crop happens to be unusually small. ¥fith yields of about 3.8 tons per acre, the approximate average in recent years, the estimated 65,000 bearing acres of Muscats nov/ in the state would pro- 25. duce about 250,000 tons of grapes or about 50,000 tons more than the estimated quantity that might be marketed fresh and as raisins in the absence of any marked improvement in business conditions, or 20,000 tons more than probably could be marketed if business conditions improved considerably. It appears necessary, therefore, to reduce the? present acreage and normal production of Muscat grapes somewhat further if groovers are to have a reasonable chance of securing Muscat prices comparable to those for other juice and raisin grapes dur- ing the next few years. Since there have been practically no recent plantings of Muscats, further reduction in bearing acreage will largely come about by the removal of old and diseased vines. In view of this fact and the probability that once carryover is eliminated there will be a market for nearly the entire normal production of Muscats in the future, no large-scale reduction in acreage is recommended. How- ever, the normal tendency will be for Muscat raisins to bring lower farm prices than Thompsons because of the added waste and extra cost in processing Muscats. In determining whether or not to pull his Muscat vines the individual farmer must consider this price factor as well as the probable returns from all other crops that he can produce on his soil. He must also consider the capital available and the time required to make the change. Most vine crops require at least three years before they bring any returns and tree crops at least five years. Annual crops in some cases may pay better than Muscats. Each farm repre- sents a specific problem that cannot be solved by general recommendations. Per- haps it would be better for individual growers to abandon vineyards the yield per acre of which is v\^ell below the average yield per acre for the state as a whole. On the other hand, it is questionable whether Muscat vineyards with aver- age yields per acre or better should be pulled. Possibilit ies of Increasing the Demand for Muscat Raisins.-- Since the relative trend in the sales of Muscat raisins in recent years has been almost the same as the trend in the sales of Thompson Seedless, and both have been down- v;ard since 1927, it is evident that one might reasonably expect an increase in the demand for all raisins to help Muscats about as much as Thompsons. If domestic consumption could be restored to the 192 8 level and exports kept at their present levels there would be practically no surplus raisin production from the present bearing acreage, but such a great improvement in domestic de- mand is hardly to be expe^cted in the next few years. Possible ways of extending the markets for raisinSj-J^ in addition to the common uses for bread and pie, include such uses as table syrup, candy, bever- ages, ice cream and canned raisins. These minor uses may offer some possibili- ties for expansion of sales by a fev\f individual manufacturers but offer no possi- bility of utilizing any large tonnage of raisins. Moreover, seedless raisins can be used for m.ost of these products about as satisfactorily as Muscats. A little over half of both Muscat and Thompson Seedless raisins are packed for the retail trade and since it is the retail sales of carton and package goods yCruess, V., and P. F. Nichols. California Fruit News, March 25, 1933. 26. that have suffered the f?;reatest decline since 1928, it would seem as though the most effective way to increase total consumption v\fOuld be by stimulating retail sales . According to the answers received from housev^ives interviewed, approx- imately 90 per cent bought raisins at retail stores. If this is generally true then no great increase in sales can result from, increasing the number of people eating raisins. An increase in sales must come primarily from larger purchases by the same consumers. However, this is not as true for Muscats as for all raisins, and since the interviews indicated that less than half of the house- wives bought Muscats and that some had never heard of seeded Muscat raisins, there are possibilities of increasing the consumption of Muscats partly by in- creasing the total consumption of all raisins and partly by having Muscats dis- place Thompsons. The possibilities of increasing the sales of bulk seeded Muscats to the bakery trade by recapturing some of the uses from seedless raisins do not seem very great. On the other hand, it appears as though seedless raisins have al- ready replaced the Muscat to such an extent for uses in bakery Products that future sales of Muscats for such purposes will suffer very little, if any, from increased competition with seedless raisins as long as prices to the trade are nearly equal. Indirectly, Muscat sales might be helped somewhat by diverting more Thompson Seedless raisins into bakery channels by increasing the percentage of raisins used in raisin bread. Many bakeries now use less than 12 per cent of raisins in their bread, whereas as much as 40 per cent is used to make the best raisin bread. Research at the University has shown that moderate amounts of raisins in the diet fully counteract the dietary "acidosis" condition of persons on a strong acid diet, and that the raisins secured in several slices of good raisin bread counteracted milk acidosis and maintained normal body reactions This healthful property of raisins might be given -wider publicity, and, if combined with a campaign to get housewives to keep a bowl of raisins on the table where the family, especially the children, could have free access to them at all times, would tend to increase the total consumption of raisins. Many persons would eat raisins at any time of the day if they were set before them. For con- sumption in this manner the Muscat may be preferred by many over Thompson raisins because of its size and flavor. ■^/'Saywell, L. G. The effect of grapes and grape products on urinary acidity. Journal of Nutrition, Vol. 5 (2): 103-120. 1932. The effect of figs and small amount of raisins on urinary acidity. Journal of Nutrition, Vol. 5 (5): 519-529. 1932. APPENDIX Table 1 Califorrxia Acreage and Production of Muscat Grapes in 1930 and Fresh Interstate Rail Shipments in 1930 and Average 1928-1932 Yield Produc - tion Interstate rail fresh shipments Lyxovl — L/w CViiU. till y Acreage per acre 1930 Average 1928-1932 1 2 3 4 5 6 per fresh fresh I r e s h 1 r e s n acre s cent bons tons tons L/U XJ.O state total 78,191 100.0 4.8 376,931 106,899 102,063 San Joaquin Valley 72,068 92.2 5.0 362,037 103,454 99,437 Southern California 4, 841 6.2 2.4 11,751 2,873 2,340 755 0.9 9 9 1 , boo 455 169 North Coast 196 0.3 1.7 330 117 117 San Joaquin Valley- 72,068 92.2 5.0 362,037 103,454 99,437 Fresno 50,392 64.5 5.2 260,906 68, 562 66,859 Kings 10,219 13.1 4.3 43,677 21,710 22,217 Tulare 7,239 9.3 5.5 40,048 8,749 7,371 Madera 1,770 2.2 3.7 6,635 1,924 1,339 Merced 159 0.2 4.3 683 130 130 Stanislaus 254 0.3 5 . 5 1,403 1,274 663 San Joaquin* 75 0.1 3.0 225 221 247 Kern 1,026 1.3 3.8 3,948 884 611 Southern California 4,841 6.2 2.4 11,751 2,873 2 , 340 San Bernardino 2,943 3.8 1.6 4,613 1 , 534 1,560 San Diego* 1,400 1.8 4.0 5,600 1,300 741 Other Southern 498 0.6 3.1 1,538 39 39 California * Asterisk indicates counties for which best estimates available were used for acreage, yield, and production because no data were secured in the Grape Control Board's Census. Sources of data; Cols. 1, 2, 3, and 4: From S. W. Shear. California Grape Acreage, Pro- duction, Yields, and Acreage per Farm, 1930, by Varieties, Counties, and Districts, a statistical summary, based upon data from a survey by the Cali- fornia Grape Control Board, California Agr. Exp. Sta . mimeographed Aug. 1932, p. 4. Cols. 5 and 6: U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ., Calif. State Dept. Agr., Calif. Grape Control Board Ltd., Cooperating, annual mimeographed summaries on the Interstate Movement of California Grapes, prepared by F. Cox. Cars con- verted to t^yns at 13 tons per oar. Table 2 Acreage, Production, and Utilization of Muscat Grapes in California, 1913-1932 Utilization Acreage Yield Harve sted (fresh weight) per produc- bear- tion Percentage of Crop ing (fresh Tonnage harvested pro- Total Bearing acre V\re i ght ) dUG tion Driedy Marketed Dried Marketed fresh fresh 1 2 3 .4 o u 7 8 thou sands fresh housand^ 3 pe r of acres tons of tons cent 1913 197 1914 240 - - 1915 II MO — 409 tm ma 1916 103 356 1917 103 — 416 1918 105 — 410 -- 1919 103 -- 380 367 13 97 3 j'' 1920 106 365 346 19 95 5 i/ 1921 110 93 2.8 260 227 33 87 13 ^ 1922 114 95 4.3 408 328 80 80 20 ^ 1923 97 4.7 460 357 103 78 22 1924 99 3.2 320 185 135 58 42 ^ 1925 107 391 p 119 272 30 70 1926 106 4.2 446 285 161 64 36 1927 99 4.8 477 251 226 53 47 1 Q 9 R 98 136 220 38 62 1929 96 3.2 306 170 136 56 44 1930 79 4.8 287 4/ 145 142 5C 50 1931 74 2.2 166 119 47 72 28 1932* 70* 4.1* 269 p 180* 89* 67* 33* 1933 Dashes indicate items for which no data are available. * Data for 1932 are preliminary and subject to revision. Estimates of t-^tal production of Muscats in 1925, 1928, 1930, and 1932 are difficult to make because an unknr^vm tonnage was unharvested in these years. The annual reports of the California Crop Reporting Service estimate unharvested oroduction of all raisin grapes combined as 38,000 tons in 1925, 60,000 tons in 1928, 319,000 in 1930, and 21,000 in 1932. No estimates of the proportion of these that were Muscats are available for 1925 and 1928, but data of the Grape Control Board show that of the 316,200 tons of the 1930 unharvested raisin-grape tonnage purchased by it, 108,000 tons w^re Muscat grapes. Probably 90 per cent or more of the 21,000 tons unharvested in 1932 were Muscats. ^ Fresh weight converted from dry weight at a ratio of 4 to 1. Tonnages marketed fresh 1919-1924 may be slightly incomplete. Estimates of fresh shipments for these years are not as accurate as in more recent years. (Table 2 continued) iii . Sources of data: Col. 1: From surveys and estimates by the Sun-Maid Raisin Growers Association and its predecessor, the Associated Raisin Growers. Col. 2: Data from C. E. 3yde , The Muscat as a Raisin Grape, Cali- fornia Grower 4^(8): 20. Aug. 1932. Presumably the data are based upon data compiled by Sun-Maid and for 1930 upon the census made by the California Grape Control Board. The 1932 figure is a very rough estim- ate . Col. 3: Items in col. 4 divided by items for corresponding years in col. 2 except for 1930 which is from table 1, and 1932, for which see footnote t. Col. 4: Sum of items for corresponding years in cols. 5 and 6. Col. 5: Calculated by applying the percentage of known Muscat raisin receipts of total known raisin receipts to estimates of the state total raisin crop. Years 1913-1918 from Associated Grower ^(l): 16. Jan, 1923; 1919 and 1920 computed from data from same source. Presumably data for 1913-1920 estimated largely on basis of Associated Raisin Growers' receipts by varieties. Years 1921-1929 estimated by S. . Shear on basis of receipts by variety as reported by Sun-Maid and most of the important independent packers. (See S. W. Shear and R. M. Howe. Factors Affecting California Raisin Sales and Prices, 1922-1929. Hilgardia 6: table 2, p. 75. Sept. 1931.) Years 1930 and 1931 based largely upon data com- piled by the California Grape Control Board and the Raisin Pool. Data for 1932 are based upon current trade estimates and subject to revision. Col. 6: Estimated from the total tonnage of raisin grapes reported as marketed fresh by applying the percentage that interstate shipments of fresh Muscats was of the total shipments of fresh Muscats and fresh Thompson Seedless grapes, except that data for 1930 and 1931 were estim- ated by E. W. Stillwell, formerly with the Grape Control Board. Cols. 7 and 8: Percentage of harvested production shown in col. 4. ir. Table 3 California Bearing Acreage of Raisin and V','ine-Grape Varieties 1919-1932 Raisin varieties Wine varieties Year Total Muscat Other 1 2 3 4 thousands thousands thousands GTiOU sanQS of acres of acres of acres of acre s 1919 170 90 Q r\ oO y f 1920 189 91 98 100 1921 197 93 104 105 1922 232 95 137 110 1923 242 97 145 115 1924 297 99 19 8 124 1925 335 107 228 140 1926 347 . 106 241 159 1927 334 99 235 169 19 2 8 320 98 222 183 1929 297 96 201 194 1930 248 79 169 191 1931 243 74 169 187 1932 . 239 70* 169 185 * Rough preliminary estimate. Sources of data: Cols. 1 and 4: Compiled from reports of the California Cooperative Crop Reporting Service. Col. 2: From table 2. Col. 3; Total acreage in col. 1 minus Muscat acreage for corres- ponding year in col. 2. The acreage of raisin grapes other th"-n Muscats calculated by this method is only approximate since the data in cols. 1 and 2 are from different sources which may not be strictly comparable. However, this is the only series of estimates of the acreage of raisin grapes other than Muscats available for this period of years and it is believed that they show reasonably well the approx- imate trend of the bearing acreage of seedless raisin grapes in Cali- fornia . Table 4 California Raisin Production by Varieties, 1913-1932 Year -Lii U,X XC-VJ. r ^ i. p 4- n f* total output har- Oj~ p -p e V/ i J. O V e s ce Q Total Thompson Muscat Sultana Others Thompson Muscat ."^i ] 1 "hfi na 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 per per po X pe r tons tons tons tons tons cent cent cent cent 1913 66,000 9,200 49,300 6,100 1,400 13.9 74.8 9 ? 9 1 1914 91,000 18,000 60,000 9,000 4,000 19.8 65.9 Q Q A A 1915 128,000 16,300 102,300 7,300 2,100 12.7 80.0 0 . / 1 . O 1916 132,000 30,500 89 , 000 7,000 5,500 23.1 67.4 o . o A 9 1917 163,000 40,500 104 , 000 10,500 8,000 24.8 63.9 A Q 1918 167,000 48,800 102,500 11,700 4,000 29 .2 61.4 7 0 7 A 1919 182,500 72,000 91,750 11,750 7,000 39.4 50,3 P. A Q O * V 1920 177,000 69,500 86,500 12,750 8,250 39.2 48.9 7 9 4 7 1921 145,000 71,250 56,750 12,750 4,250 49 .2 39.1 o . o 1922 237,000 131,500 82,000 17,250 6,250 55.5 34.6 7 9 f\ 1923 290,000 174,500 89,250 21, 750 4,500 60.2 30.8 7.5 1.5 1924 170,000 108,750 46,250 11,500 3,500 63.9 27.2 6.8 2.1 1925 200,000 153, 750 29,750 13,000 3,500 76.9 14.9 6.5 1.7 1926 272,000 180,250 71,250 15,250 5,2 50 66.3 26.2 5.6 1.9 1927 285,000 203, 500 62, 750 14, 750 4, 000 71 .4 22 .0 5.2 1.4 1928 261,000 207,250 34,000 14,000 5,750 79.4 13.0 5.4 2.2 1929 215,000 159,250 42,500 9,500 3,750 74.1 19.8 4.4 1.7 1930 191, 700 146,500 36,250 8,000 1,000 76.4 18.9 4.2 0.5 1931 169,000 129,500 29,750 9,750* * 76.6 17.6 5.8* 1932t, 252,000 195,000 45,000 12,000* * 77.4 17.8 4.8* * * For the years 1931 and 1932, data on Sultanas include small but unknown quantities of raisins other than the Thompson Seedless, Muscat, or Sultana varieties . t Data for 1932 are preliminary and subject to revision. Sources of data: Col. 1: Years 1913-1918 from Associated Groiver 5 (l): 16, Jan. 1923 . Years 1919-1932 from annual Reports of the California Crop Reporting Service. Cols. 2 to 5 : Calculated by applying the percentage of known raisin receipts by va.rieties to estimates of the state total raisin crop. Years 1913-1918 fromi. Associated Grov\/er Vol. 5 (l): 16, Jan. 1923. 1919 and 1920 computed from data from same source. Data for 1913- 1920 presumably originally estimated largely on basis of Associated Raisin Growers receipts by varieties. Years 1921-1929 estimated by S. W. Shear on basis of receipts by variety as reported by Sun-Maid and most of the inde- pendent packers. (See Shear, S. W., and R. M. Howe, Factors Affecting Cali- fornia Raisin Sales and Prices, 1922-1929. Hilgardia Vol. 6: table 2, p. 75, Sept. 1931). Years 1930 and 1931 based largely upon data compiled by the Cali- fornia Grape Control Board and the Raisin Pool. Data for 1932 based upon current trade estimates. Cols. 6, 7, 8, and 9: Percentage that items in cols. 2, 3, 4, and 5 are respectively of data for corresponding years in- col. 1 as 100. vi . CO o o o 3 • p p- p ■■t3 era ■-I p 3 o 1— 1 H' O o • O p H- o • d- o "-I o M p M h- J P (—J d- d- M CO CO • o P H» • H- •-s ■d O CD p era • cn M) h- ' !=! P- P CD CO P CO CO p 'S >~i P CD P p d- d- s« 'S P Ms P H-" H- ro 1— ' m P CD 1— ' 1— ' d- P Ui P y O P • P d- cn d- ry" P o CD o P h-' o 0^ o CO ro P 3 P cc H- O o kF^ P S» d- t— ' "P h-' 1— J 1—' p • P H- JO CD ■-s H» 3 3 p.. P P p I—' 0- t5 ro y d- h- ' d- CO p ■-I 1— ' m p O » el mo ^ era • CD o p (-■ • p P o ti p 1— ' CD D3 ro CO CD 3 t— ' I-" CD Ms • p CO O 3 t\5 p o H' CD 00 o •-s CT' P O 3 o Cj. 1— ' m p p P •-J cf P CD P- p p p d- P CO p d- d- d- d- P p d- o o ^ 3 P. •-s Ms o P • c» O '-i d- CD P a" H» p 1— ' P d- P p^ CD 03 (-' CD d- O CO P P CD O p o P ^ d o P- ^ d- o 1^ b-' p o o p 1 CD p- P p ;=! 3 h- ■ CO H« p m p- H- 1—' d- t3 •-J O P P cn p P H' p c'r 1— ' i-b <1 CO CD d- 1 H- P c-h •-1 CO O H' d- P d- p d- P 1— ' d- 05 P P p P •-s M d- O V^. CO 3 P h-" '-J P CD H- P p o CO d- d- a • ►p c+ H' d- P • o Ml CD d- 3 era ^ P CO « P c+ M he p -d- rr' ^+ d- P CD '-^ > P o Q CO era — J CO P P H- CO H- P h-> l-ti d- P P P • CR d- O o P 3 00 o CD O P 1 P P o rrs c: o H- p d- 1— ' M c:! 1— ' O p CO c-h 3 H* p Ha -1 p P p • p CO to P p CDCDCDCDCOCDCDCDCOCDCDCDCOCD w 03 ro ro ro ro ro ro ro M ro ^J ocji>f^cxiroi— 'O t— > ;> CO ^^(-'c/)CncnOcoi^^O rocT5-CXil— '0^CAlCn-<3 Hf=^ooc»f^cx>h^-<:ocD-<]-3~ooqcx) Mt— 'CTiCTjOCnOh-'H-'C»CT)rocn-<: d- p CO ff^CAJWff^i^^f|Nrf^c/iC/3rf=*wrororo c>5i— 'CDt-JwoorocjiCTiOJCXiCncQro cXjWCDOCDCorotKii-JrocDrf^ajrf^ CNiOCDh-'CDCD->■ . ~-~<]OOncntno^oo-i— I tnroai--arooocDfT3roc/o03i— 'cTiO^ hf^oacncnrotf^roroooroi— I i— < cncncDCDCXicotnCDCKiOaicDCTi-o ooooci>ht>CDOi-'fj)Mcrii— 'Hr>-::t— I CTi Hf^ cn 1^ cn C>! 03 Ul hi"- rv) c^i cn 1— ' I— ' ovi CD pj CD ro -ir>O500 rorororororoh- 'Mh- ^h- 'Ml— ' -OMi— 'rocnfi^cTiODOoi— 'pjcTihf'^cn OcncnOCTio^CJicnOOOOOO roc^I0qO3^f^^^^rf^^^■C^^^■^^^C^30CCn cDOOCTj-^cDCOiftOCxicDCTicncncn OcnCNiOOcnOOOOOOOO M h- 'I— 'Ml— 'Ml— 'h- 'I— 'MMI— 'h- ' tf^--cn~oOrororfi»-lCXl-<]MC!:i-<]CXihh Mh^^ror^oocnMMCDM O cn pj -0 00 P P- d- cn P CO M O P !^ d- co M O P M CO o M O -J P p CO CO O P ^ M IT! H- H- I P CO P p. d- > P W M I h" P M CO d 3 !V P P ^ P W P H' CO p CO o o P p p d- P C5 P •P p CO H- P a •-s p p p p o P P CO M I P H- m H- P p- o P d- o p^ p d- H- P M t:? P Mj d- CP O C H- M P P M, iOb o CO P P Iri ^5 d- CO H- p O M d- d- <^ P P l:^ ^ CO P ^cra p CD O CC I M CO M > P CO ro O I M CD O 0) d d- o Ms SB cr' o C+- CD CO H- 0 CD (— ' CO CO fV) o d- o O o it) .72 00 cn &5 CO Oi ■-I rH CD ci- CD CD X p. O CD i-ti --d <+ CD 3 CO i-t) o o 3 CO • CO • o o CD ct- Id o I—' CD ro o o o o c Id CD m o Ms w H- M o d- CD ■d d- r:! o Id w o CO CD CD CD M CD cn o CI O o O •J o H] o o o o O ps O O d' (— ' 1—' 1 — ' P^ d- d d o P H- cn o » d- pj op ■d- CD o -J H- d^ p O t— ' d" O 1 — ' p d" 1 — ' d d- o H- P * * s d CO CO 1 — ' i ' d p cn P urn c: CO 03 33 d rn 1— 1 cn P rv") =^ cn d O o o d 33 p cn P- d \—' (...J d" d H* CO CO H- g >^ d P P 03 !\3 d P d- d- •* :+ o CO p CD r3 CD 'P d H- P 1 1 — ' d d o o P 1—' cn CD h- ' rd P • • ►-b ;:3 CO d O o O xJ 3 O •■1 d o d ■ — ' i — ' d P' o 'd- >S o • P P5 o m o o P- d c+ d CD d 33 c'r cm d d • ■ -b O 0 CD '■J O d CO r/1 K) o d d cn p d t3 3 P- d O o o cn CO '■ ' p "d 3 I—' d- I—' p CD d d H- 33 CD d d- Id) P d C'O p o P o o p O cn CD -< cn d cn :i- d CD d H- d- O ,d- P 3 fo d d ►-^ O d d P 03 cn P P^ d- .T) d- o d 1— ' P O d P d fx: P- d d d d o P^ I—' d H- P rt- H- O o cn CO o o yj. on o H- 1— ' 1—' p p o 3 o d cn cn -d d P 3 o 1—' d- P O rf d O d GO I—' V. CO o o d cn O fd> d 03 H- cn H- d an d p 'd P cn d d P d d- p d 3 rv> h- ' O CO (X) -a Oj cn i\0 1—' O CD d -d 1— ' t— ' 1— J r-' 1-3 P -0 CO CD C<1 f— ' 00 rN.3 o CT5 - -<) CD 00 -<3 ■<] •<] cn ro ro ro p d CA o h— ' CD CD ro CX> ro CO CO CD d- cn CD o cn CO (— ' I—- ^JD !—-■ o cn {. — 1 CO 03 cn P d- I — 1 Izii fD d^ P- p d — , ^ p d d3 cn P d -O cn 00 CO Pj C75 ■'jn ro ro ro d' d P O CXf 1 — ' CO 1 1 ro ro CXI Owl Q cn pj CD CTJ -<] CD CJl cn CD cn OO 00 P d cn pJ CD cd o P p d* d p Pj O cn 1 — ' d >-3 p d P H2 P cn p 'cd 1—' 1 — ' d d cn P d '~' CT "n -<] Q CD CTj O ro 1 — 1 h-' cn P d- CX CO r-o CO r\3 [\0 -O 00 O) cr, -a cn cn d3 cn CD H- d d' c-t- CD cn P cn d" cn p- H' I'y 1 — ' 1— ' H* d- CD N O I—" P d CO d" cn ^-3 1 ro 1 — ' ■^0 c^ , fx O^ C>J 0 [_-J CJ5 CO CD cn 00 d- CO d CD CJd -<1 CT5 cn 1— ' O o GO o cn o P 1 ( ro O ^d) O ■■0 td M r— ' h-' I—" 1— J ! — ' ro ro 1— ' h-' CXI 'Ol ro 03 Cn! d H- CO : — 1 OO i— ' CO cn ro ro m 00 H* d CO 1 — 1 Cti CD Cn --^ CO cn P cn P- P d P d c+ P w Hj ,71 p 1 — ' I—" ro ro 1—" ro h-" d d ^^ CKl ro ■\3 cn -o '3 00 05 1— J CD p 'd cn CO -<1 r\3 Cni O Pj ro cn O CnI fp CSl cn CD d^ d- d P Pj CD o d hl^ CfC cn cn CD Ol ^^ CO CJi Ol cn 1—' d Oj CD OD ro CD h — ' O H- P P, d P td o d d- •i- 1 i ro I — ( 1 — 1 1 — 1 ro 1 1 ro 1— ' H- cn o:> 1— • CO CT: OQ 00 P P p. d cn viii o o CD P CD CD O ■-d CD O CD CD C5 0) H- O M (D ■•t! m o o o' ill- t3 I—' CD P3 CD 5» O CD m 00 o o CD 05 O CI. P rf I— ' CD o o d- C CD c+ fD *-S ro o p- 1 p 'D) H' CD ro cn CD d- d- CD H- 3 P d- d- P CD d- d- cn P CD ■-s O P I-" 01 ^ J. CD 1 O crq P p ■d P- p CD t3' -d 3 p d- M CT^ •-s P d- H- P P 03 P P' -d p p^ P d- P P d- p Table 7 ix. California Muscat and Thompson Seedless Raisin Prioes to Growers, 1909-1932 Crop Muscats Thompsons Thompson above Muscat Crop year Muscats Thompsons Thompson above Muscat year 1 2 3 _ 1 2 3 do 1 lar s per ton do 1 lar s per ton do liars per ton 0.0 i lar s per ton dollars per ton do 1 lar s per ton 1909 33 43 10 1922 54 73 19 1910 55 60 5 1923 51 49 -2 1911 75 108 33 1924 61 62 1 1912 62 68 6 1925 84 75 -9 1913 70 79 9 1926 67 63 -4 1914 67 ■ 93 26 19 27 51 57 6 1915 73 100 27 192 8 43 43 0 1916 85 132 47 1929 62 68 6 1917 97 138 41 1930 49 60 11 1918 106 138 32 ' 1931 57 69 12 1919 208 240 32 1932 18 40 20 1920 223 296 73 1921 146 168 22 Sources of data: Cols. 1 and 2: True or weighted average prices paid to growers for raisins in the sweat box. They do net include returns on bleached and dis- tillery or other converted stock, years 1909-1924. Years 1909-1912 repre- sent price paid to grov;ers by leading packers, except the 1912 price which also includes returns on approximately one-fourth of the 1912 crop sold by Sun-Maid in 1913 (see Sun-Maid Herald, Sept. 1916, p. 2, and Nov. 1915, p. 5, and Calif. Fruit News July 29, 1916, p. l) , Years 1913-1924 are Sun-' Maid's returns to its members, years 1913-1921 from Associated Grovrer, Jan. 1923 p. 16, and 1922-1924 compiled from Sun-Maid business. Years 1925-1931 average returns of Sun-Maid and the chief independent packers compiled from data furnished by the Dried Fruit Association in Feb. 1933 through the co- operation of its members, except 1931 prices as given which are partially based on the Raisin Pool's first advance to growers. Data for 1932 are estimates subject to revision. Col. 3: The amount by which the Thompson Seedless price in col. 2 exceeds tlie corresponding Muscat price in col. 1. X . CD o t— ' 3 O H' 03 03 c o CD 03 H- CD O p3 CD ty 03 cf- cn d- a" CD CD CD 1—1 p 03 03 CD « P o CD ct- < CD CD 3 o CD C+- CO fo H' CD A. H- 03 O P 3 c-t- CD 1— ' r- CD o o CD p d- h- 'Mh- Jl— 'H-'h-'l— 'h-J 'X3 CO CD CD CO CD CKi ro ro ro ro ro ro I— ' O CD -o cTj <"n I I I I I I I I W C>1 M W ro M M M C/i M o CO 00 Oi I— 'I— 'Mt— 't— 'Mt— 'h- ' 'O fO CD CO CO CD CD 'O w cai oa M ro ro ro ^:) r'-"" M O CO oo -a rrj cn I I I I I I I I M c/1 Ciq ro ro r>!i ro c>i r\5 h-" O 'O cx> -ci Cn tfs ^|N fTj CO cn CD CO I— ' CO 03 O- CXI rf^ CP, OQ cr M cn cn en ro cn ^5 cji cn oq oo cTj cnOcnocDoooow Cni CXI w cn CTj -Ti • ••••••• ro M tn f\j CTi O ro CJiC»ocnOOtr, en M c_n c;t w Cj-i CTj ctj ro rn O cn ro o tr, Oi O r -) O O en o O w cn I— I cTj O O cr. rv) o tn r5 o O O CJ! O O W Cj C"; 1^^ C>J cr, Cj Oi ro o K- ' cji ro o ai cn o ro en O en O O W <"-n cn 1^ 03 c_n m ctj ro cx) h- ' cji oi to ro en 00 ro O O cn en CTi cn cn hf^ w cji rr-j M CD H-' ro (Ti rv> ^o -o cn CXI ro cn O en. Ci cji M c.r, Cn C>T hl^ Cn CTj CT) ro CO h-- o ro cn cn cn CO ^^ cn O cn O O cn. cn it^ rf^ C_ri C^j 00 !vi ro cn ro - il^ Cn cn Oj • •••••« -o - ■-1 CD d- ■-=1 o tn b 3 03 o 1^ o 1^ CD ai (X) CD O 03 d- 03 P ct- 1-3 H- P P O 03 03 c:3 O H' O O CD CD d- td 03 p; n:3 CD P O CD pi ^ r-^ GO — ' CD CD A. CD a- rj 03 O cn r+ P SB 90 c+ 0^ P5 O H- o o m g p:3 CD O l-t) P O -ci n H' CD P (W O o cn I H- pi N P O O <± '-i H' CD O M m CD P CO M CD O M O o -d I—- O CD CD CD p o 3 P H- M nd p o d- CD Q P H-' 00 P o d-:? p p y d- o O O d- txi p CO CD O CO -d 3 CD d- cn cy p CD CD O CD r' 05 O d- 03 o > d- CD t:^ P H- d- 13^ O CD ti CD o d- CO CD d- p. O 3 P >-3 O O P M d- P P d- p- cn CO P d- '-j ■-s P p- o d- P 3 CD 03 03 d- 05 d- ^ CD CD O O O CO d- P -s rr CO ^ H' P^ d- CD CO P P- 3 Pj o CD 1— ' Mj 13 d- 03 d- 03 P o d- CD o ar > c/a P 05 03 H- 05 1^ •d- P O 1 CD o ro 1 03 H- P h-" P H- 1 d- d- P- H-J P P H- CX) O w ro O p^ B p H- CXi p O CO :y H' p p y ■< 1 — ' o CD H- p >-i M CT* O P H" o 0 o P ti d- O CD •-s '-j P P CO O X H- nr '-d ^ P l> p CD P 05 o '-J -J 05 d- O CD O P- d- H- O CO p o p 03 P ^•tl p. P d- P —L T h-' CO CD p p 1— ' p^ 1— ' p , p P 03 d- 03 P P P P p 3 d p p 1— ' t— ' 3 ^ P^ p P a • 03 O w 1-) 03 d- M. o p- CD al] 1 P H- 05 H' r:5 03 p d- p d- P 03 O P d- 03 • CD 'D CD fD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD w C/! ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ^—'OtDCD-<]CJ>a^^f^>c^lro^-J --t I— 'rororvDrorororoh- 'I— 'H-" 03 l-J M CO 00 hf^ rfi. ro CD CD (Ti OcncjiOCncjiOOcnOcn O O b O O O O O O O O I— 't— 'H-'roroh-'i— 'I— 'I— 'I— ' cn -o 00 (» ctj C/3 ro CD rocDcoOcn-^JcxiOOcDCn OOCJiOCP. OOOOOO ro Cni M CP, ui cn CT} cjj cni ov oocDCnOcDcnroOcni— 'O O O cn O cn O O O O O O O O O d- P 03 I— 'h- 'h—'H-'l— 'I— 'J— 'h- 'MI—'H-J !~'ff^i4^--3-^CTjCJicriil^ociro cDOooot— 'oorooo-^cDoicn I-' ro cn O O w O Oi O ro CD I— ' I— ' W 'OJ l—' ro I— ' CD OD -J cn CX) c» o CT^ t^^ w -<] CXI cji cn h-' ro h- ' O fxi CXI O CT3 O ro ro CXI CKi h"^ hf^ vf^" tr, CJi cn cn rf^ O O h-" 'r-" CO en O O O OOcnOtnoboobo o o o d- P 03 -ai COCDCDCTiCTiOCAlOrOCXlO 00 CO en O t-li' ro ro tn O I— ' ro ro rv5 ro ro ro ro cx) CXI CXI O O O hfS' CX) CO CTJ CD -O -<] CD ro r^-i cn O c>i oj oo oo tn O co p p p d- CT) OS CJi o 03 - O O -O O h^- CT5 O 00 o o d- P Id 03 iF=»CT:iCncDC0O--i o p i4i>- CTj 03 CTJ -O C^3 CJi CXI OO Oi cxi- H- •-5 h- ' P H- t— ' 03 P 1 (— ' CO P p 03 p 05 p. H-' CO P P 03 P 03 Pj * I CO o 03 P P CD d- P P < d- P > H- ^ I-' P H- 1— ' CO P I I—' CO CD P 03 P 03 P^ 03 P P d- 05 H- 'd h- ' P H- I— ' 03 P I I—" CO p p 03 P 05 pi 05 P 05 03 P- P 3 ^ CD O 05 d- d- P O 05 TJ (_. H. C "d 03 3 CD d- 03 P ^ d- o p- a p p 03 3 p 03 03 'P^ d- j-j. H- -d o 3 P 05 d y d- H- 05 -d 3 d- P p Id d- C:3 03 p d p Pi P 03 d P d X ' 1- pb 'd GPP 05 o P 03 05 d ^ P H' P- T3 P I d d- 03 TJ d^ CD H- d TJ 3 o p p d d d- d- 03 P P X TJ d- CD Pi P d- P td G 3 CD 03 d- . — ^ H« o 03 d- p H- d 3 p d- P X 'Id p p d d- d H- 00 o 1 1 [ f !>^ 1 — t t— ' CD CD cf- P PL, 05 3 3 ci. c:i 3 3 3 .-D 3 d- d- d o H- H- ,_j H' t! 0 ^^ CO C c pi !3 M H' O • cn cn cn cn d- T3 3 0 0 CD O I—' cn o o O 3 0 o O ^ a O O O 0 o ! — 1 cn h- ' H' I — I • 3 • d- I— ' SB ca CD O CD !3 d- SO cm CD cn O hi o o h- ' CO ro CD d- O cn m CO o M 1=5 • d- o CX) I—' • '< CO Ci i o o CD era o o CD d- ^ CD d- o B