University of California College of Agriculture Agricultural Experiment Station Berkeley, California CALIFORNIA FOOD IMDUSTRIES— THEIR ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE by Sidney Hoos Prepared for Hearings Before the House Select Committee to Investigate the Use of Chemicals in Food Products (Pursuant to H. Res. 323> 8lst Cong., 1st sess, ) September 19^1 Contribution from the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics Mimeographed Report No. 122 UBRARY aXUSCX OF ACRICULIUm DAVM CALTFOHNU FOOD INTUSTRIES— THEIR ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE Sidney Hoos * I. Introduction The resolution initiating the current inquiry into the general subject referred to as "Chemicals in Food Products" (H. Res. 323, 8lst Cong., 1st sess.) reads in part as follows: "The committee is authorized and directed to conduct a full and complete investigation and study of — "(1) the nature, extent, and effect of the use of chemicals, compounds, and synthetics in the production, processing, prepara- tion, and packaging of food products to determine the effect of the use of such chemicals, compounds, and synthetics (A) upon the health and welfare of the Nation and (B) upon the stability and Fell-being of our agricultural economy; "(2) the nature, extent, and effect of the use of pesticides and insecticides with respect to food and food products, particu- larly the effect of such use of pesticides and insecticides upon the health and welfare of the consumer by reason of toxic residues remaining on such food and food products as a result of such usej and "(3) the nature, effect, and extent of the use of chemicals, compounds, and synthetics in the manufacture of fertilizer, particularly the effect of such use of cheinicals, compounds, and synthetics unon (A) the condition of the soil as a result of the use of such fertilizer, (B) the quantity and quality of the vegetation growing from such soil, (C) the health of animals consuming such vegetation, and (D) the quantity and quality of food produced from such soil, and (E) the public health and welfare generally." The committee, in accordance with the resolution, has heard very sub- stantial testimony relating to the technical aspects of "Chemicals in Food Products," such as phases of agronomy, toxicology, physiology, entomology and parisitolos?-, nutrition and biochemistry. Such matters are directly pertinent to the subject of the resolution and merit full consideration. Professor of Agricultural Economics, Economist in the Agricultural Experiment Station and on the Giannini Foundation, University of California. 1', .fO' • :>Looi>: .siOTOlxIsO lo "Viiie 2, Yet, the resolution also refers to "the effect . . . upon the stability and well-being of our agricultural economy," which also merits adequate con- sideration. This statement is directly concerned with certain economic aspects of the food industries. Our objective is to indicate the economic impor- tance of the various agricultural industries engaged in providing food products for our economy. In that manner, we shall lay the basis for integrating "the stability and well-being of our agricultural economy" with the general subject of "Chemicals in Food Products." Also, we shall indicate the economic nature of the agricultural industries affecting, as well as affected by, the use of chemicals in food products. At this point, two qualifying comments are in order. First, we may note that what is referred to as "the stability and well-being of the agricultural economy" is closely related to the stability and well-being of the general national economy, and for some industries the international economy is of high significance. In terms of "stability and well-being," the agricultiiral economy cannot logically or effectively be divorced from the economy at large. Developments in the agricultxiral sphere of our economy affect and are affected by developments in the non- agricultural sphere. Both the agricultural and nonagricultural areas are highly interdependent, and the "stability and ;vell-being" of one area is a function of "the stability and well-being" of the other area. This is particularly characteristic of the agricultural economy of California since it is highly integrated with the general economy of the rest of the state and that of the nation. Hov; this close interconnection comes about will be developed in more detail in some points we shall note subsequently. '\n-s J.-* I', tor - • 1, . ,.: r r ^'■;.-> » . -r-: ■ ■ ■ ' .;: 3. The second qualifying comment is that this statement is oriented to and — in ■nrimary emphasis — is limited to economic aspects of the agricultural food industries in California. This may be a limitation for some purpose but has advantages for the objective at hand. The agl'icultural food indus- tries in California may well be viewed as a case study for the general sub- ject being considered by the committee. The wide differences in natural conditions, including soils and climate, and the vdde diversity in food crops produced in the state, as well as the many different types of food- producing, packing, and processing industries, suggest that many of the questions associated with "Chem.icals in Food Products" are to be found at one place or another in the California food industries. Although the situation in this state may not serve fully as an adequate basis for gener- alization, California food production and processing industries well serve as a fruitful and infomative case study. In this statement on some of the relevant economic aspects of the California food industries, we shall first note in broad terras some general characteristics of California agriculture. Next, we shall consider the proriuction-marl'eting aspects of various food industries in the state. Thirdly, we shall sketch the status of some economic indicators which out- line the direct and indirect relation and importance of the California food industries to the general econom.y of the state and nation. Finally, we shall briefly review national food consumption trends, note their relation to food industry developments, and consider their relation to "the stability and well-being of our agricultural economy. " Such procedure will provide materials for integrating the economic and noneconomic phases of the inquiry so as to give a basis for evaluating the effects of "Chemicals in Food Products" upon the stability and well-being of not only our agricul- tural economy but also of our general economy. II, Characteristics of California Agriculture and Food Industries With only about 5 per cent of California's population living on farmSji/ the state, nevertheless, is a leader in cash receipts from farm • marketings, in recent years exceeding even such agricultural areas as Texas, lova, and Illinois. California's position as a leading agricul- tural nroducer has come about through the development of reclamation and irrigation projects, and the application of technological know-how to agricultural nrodiiction in a highly intensive manner. With the development of irrigation, large parts of California have been transformed from desert or sparsely grazed stock ranges to intensively cultivated areas. As early as I89O, some 1 million acres were under irriga- tion, but that was only the beginning. Recent estimates indicate that approximately 6 million acres are now irrigated. 3/ This amounts to about one-third of the irrigated acreage in the United States. The extensive irrigation developments in California are significant for our purpose not only because they permitted expanded agricultural pro- duction, they also represent the investment of many millions of dollars and provide the basis for a good deal of the wealth, employment, and income generated in the state. The intensive and advanced methods of farming practices have played a role in causing as much as 10 per cent of the nation's cash receipts from farm marketings of crops and 7.5 per cent from livestock and products to go to California farmers. Total cash receipts from farm marketings in the state rose sharply from $672,956,000 in lOiiO to $2,19Ui507,000 in 19U6.^/ Price declines in various fruits and vegetables kept the state's farm receipts belov: that level in subsequent years, although for the country as a v/hole farm income continued to rise through 19U8. In 1950 cash receipts 1/ References and data sources are noted on pages 21-2h, where each source is numbered to correspond with the reference number in the text. Selected statistical data are summarized in the tables beginning with page 25. .-..•.II 0^ 5. by California farmers was C2,l60,liU0 v/ith !5l,l;l5,8)iO from crops and $7Uitj600,000 from livestock and livestock products.^/ A point to note here is that the state's farm income position is sensitive to fluctuations in the returns from crops, fruits and vegetables. In terms of farm value, California produces more than a third of the commercial fruits (fresh and processed use), nearly a fourth of the commer- cial vegetables (fresh and processed use), and nearly two- thirds of the commercial tree nut output of the country as a whole. 1^ California alone accounts for most of the nation's production of lemons, almonds, avocados, walnuts, olives, dates, figs, apricots, grapes, plums, and prunes. ?;ith our large production of fruits and vegetables, there are processing indus- tries which provide about one-third of the nation's supply of canned fruits anr* vegetable si/ and more than 85 per cent of its irlne output.—'^ California is one of the leading producers of crops such as oranges, hops, barley, alfalfa, sugar beets, lettuce, asparagus, tomatoes, beans, carrots, spinach, melons, potatoes, cotton, and rice.ii^ In physical terms, our crop pattern is deficient only in the major staples such as corn, wheat, oats, grain sorgh\ims, and tobacco, With respect to livestock and livestock products, California is phj'-sically deficient in beef cattle, hogs, chickens, horses, and mules, and slightly so in milk and eggs. Only in wool, sheep and lambs, turkeys, and honey does California rank high in production of livestock and livestock products. This does not mean, however, that the state does not have consider- able livestock industries. Cattle and calves, during the past ten years, have increased from about 2.3 million to about 2.9 million, 12/ and quality has improved. Dairy cattle have increased from about 1.2 million to about 1.5 million, i^/ and the quantity of milk produced per cow has increased during the past decade. Even more sharp has been the expansion in poultry .5 ■•■-t'X <*'■'■. '■ rictrv. . , ■ ■ ■ ...... SiJi^oil h'innco 'lo ''v:' • o f:n.t-...no t ■■• . - ■ --.t 6. raising. Chickens on farms rose from about 1^,3 million in 19U0 to about 23.3 million at the beginning of 19^15^^'^ while the number of turkeys raised about doubled during the past decade. Egg production increased from almost lit? million dozen in 19U0 to a rate of about 270 million dozen in IQ^O.i^/ Uence, it is clear that if not a national leader in some of the livestock and livestock products, California does very substantial farm operations in those products. The relative importance of the crops anr' livestock industries in the state is indicated by the fact that in 19^0 some 65 per cent of the California cash receipts from farm marketings is accounted for by crops, and some 35 per cent is accounted for by live- ly/ stock and livestock products.—' The preceding brief sketch of some of the characteristics of California agriculture and its food-producing industries has dealt with broad, general aspects. It is pertinent here to re-emphasize certain features which have been implied earlier and some of which will be considered in more detail later, California agriculture and its food-producing industries cover a wide and diversified range of activities. They include the follovdng indus- try groupings: tree fruits and nutsj vine and bush fruits, truck crops; fielf' crops; animals, large and small; animal products, such as dairy and milk, meats, hides, honey. I'ention may also be made of the floriculture and nursery stock products, although they are not of direct concern here. Another feature to note is that many of the products are of multiple use; they are harvested and shipped fresh, canned, frozen, dried and preserved. This means that the state's agricultural economy encompasses highly developed food processing industries. The diversity of products and the interrelations of supply, demand and price among the alternative outlets, coupled with long distance from major consuming centers, makes for • ■ ■ ' ■ ' ■ ■'■ ; ■ ■ , ■ ' . ■ • r . ! '^w i,.:. , ■•-::ii^£/jti^o.£;fdi-i ■ •• , • ,.,6-:ri^o?,?.r'r'^:. ■ ' .: - I 7. a comT5licated economic structure. Marked changes or adjustments in cer- tain parts of the agricultural industry structure make for changes in other parts of the structure and also lead to repercussions on the econoray in general. III. Trends in Farm Production and Yields Recognizing the interdependent relations existing within the agricul- tural industries and between them and the rest of the economy, we may now consider in more detail the trends in farm production by some major commodity groupings. Such a vievr is in order here to indicate how produc- tion is influenced by yields, which in turn are affected by the use of chemicals as well as other influences. Field Crops .— In 1950, over 6.5 million acres of field crops were harvested to obtain in excess of 15 million tons of products which had a farm value of almost 675 million dollars. Compared with the prewar average (1936-19)40), harvested acreage of field crops had increased about 23 per cent, while production had increased over 50 per cent. The rela- tively greater increase of production reflects the improved yields experienced. During the past four decades, both the harvested acreage and production of California field crops have tended to increase, vrith a considerably greater advance occurring in the past decade and a half .12/ But produc- tion has tended to advance relatively more than acreage due to the upward trend in yields. This tendency for improved yields has resulted from many influences, including better farming practices and management, but recogni- tion must adequately be given to the use of fertilizers, insecticides, pesticides, and similar substances necessary in the obtaining and maintaining of satisfactory yields. Truck Crops . — The acreage and production of California truck crops in 1950 were at high levels, with acreage amounting to 728,100 acres and production being 5,U62,000 tons. The total farm value was 338,070,000 8. dollars.—/ In the state's truck crops, in the aggregate, there has been a rising trend over the years in both acreage and production. 21/ During the past decade, production has advanced considerably more than has harvested acreage, reflecting substantial gains in output per acre. Here, again, the improved yields are in part a resultant of intensive use of pest, insect, and disease controls. Fruits and Nuts . — The farm commodities of fruits and nuts are another group of agricultural products which are economically important to California and in which the state is the leader. In 1950 California farmers produced as much as 6-1/3 million tons of fruits and nuts from about l.U million acres. And this production represented a return to pro- ducers of almost ^00 million dollars. £i/ Although bearing acreage of fruits and nuts has increased only relatively slightly during the past several decades, production has tended to follov: a trend increasing more than that of acreage. 12/ Here, also, as in truck crops and field crops, the relatively greater increase in production has reflected a rising trend in yields. The above brief comments pertain to the several broad commodity groups. The data are available and vfe mi^*t look at the trends for many individual farm TJroducts, but such details are not necessary for our purposes. The evidence is strong and clear that California's complicated but expanding agricultural production industries have experienced increased production, and a relatively significant proportion of the expansion is due to an up- TOTd trend in yields per acre farmed and harvested. Those increased yields, in turn, have been influenced by the use of controls over insects, pests, diseases, and similar causes of destruction. Without such controls, there would exist greater barriers to the maintenance and expansion of farm pro- duction which could well lead to adverse effects on the agricultural economy and the general economj'- as well. 9. The tie-in between the food industries of California and the general economy is well indicated by reference to the situation in fruits, nuts, and vegetables, both fresh and processed. The state of California, in terms of farm value of production, accounts for about Ii5 per cent of the national total for all fruits and tree nuts, about 30 per cent of the national total of all truck crops. For the fresh market, the state produces near one- third of the national total of truck crops. Turning to canned fruits and vegetables, California in 19?0 packed over one-half (53 per cent) of the total canned fruits, 18 per cent of the canned vegetables, and about 10 per cent of the canned juices.^/ As an over-all average, the state in 1950 accounted for 25 per cent of the national pack of canned fruits, vegetables, and juices.^/ The large bulk of these canned products, amounting to over 71 million cascs^S/ (actual"), was shipped to other states and many of the products v/ere exported. It is clear that vdthout the national market the state could not have successfully marketed the pack; and it is equally clear that without the California pack the national market demand would not have been satisfied. The existence of the California fruit and vegetable industries at their current levels of ooeration, both fresh and processed, depends upon the production and sale to out-of-state markets of large q\iantities of their products. And those products must be produced, packed, and sold cheaply enough so as to be absorbed by the distant markets and, yet, yield sufficient returns to farmers, processors, and shippers so that they will continue their operations and expand their output to satisfy consumption demands . IV. Some More Economic Indicators ■Pfe have so far sketched some of the general features of the California food industries and indicated how their successful operations are dependendent upon efficient production and marketing and how they are clcseny tied in ■•■70 bfi. . . '■o cffioe ■• • I ■ V-. - . . ' ■ cc S'SjCrciils fvti; . . 10. with the rest of the economy. But another aspect of the California food industries is also important, and, that is, how they participate in the creation and generation of v;ealth and income not only for themselves but also for other groups in the state and nation. Although the economic importance of the California food industries is widely recognized in some circles in the state itself, and also at the national level in various activities such as fruits, nuts, and truck crops, it is pertinent that we here outline some significant features for those who have other major interests. Such an objective, to be attained in adequately brief and clear terms, must drav^ upon various economic indicators of importance. There are a substantial number of such measures available. We have already mentioned acreage, volume of production, and value of farm production. But other indicators are also significant such as business establishments, employment, creation of labor payrolls, transportation, and other services. Let us now briefly look at several such economic indicators. Business Establishments . — The number of business establishments associated with the production and merchandising of food products involves firms at the farm level on through the distribution pipe line to the retailer v^ho sells directly to consumers. Although a complete accounting of the number of such firms at the various levels of distribution has not been attempted, data have been developed for particular segments of the production-distribution pipe line. According to the 1900 Census of Agriculttire, in 1950 there were in California 137,137 farms. 12/ In passing, it may be noted that California is one of the only three states which had more farms than a decade earlier. Since the complete data for the 19^0 Census of Agriculture have not yet been published, we must draw upon the 19U5 Census of Agriculture for 11. additional data. In that year, some Ii9,l60 farms were classified to be producing and selling fruits and nuts, and some 6,337 vera classified as vegetable farms; hence, about UO per cent of the state's total number of farms ware engaged in the production and sale of fruits, nuts, or vege- : tables. Available evidence suggests that the current number of California farms now producing fruits, nuts, or vegetables is not much different from the most recent data available. Once the farm products are produced they must be prepared for market. They may be shipped fresh or processed. Both the fresh shipping and process ing industries loom large in the economy of the state. Let us first look at the former. The packing and shj.pping of fresh fruits and vegetables is a large- scale operation. Approximately, 2,000 fresh fruit and vegetable packers and shippers operate in the state. li/ Some are interested in packing as well as shipping, v/hile others are primarily shippers, brokers, or agents. Close to 170 packing houses in the state pack and ship fresh peaches, Bartlett pears, or plums, ii/ In the important apple-producing area of Sebastopol, there are 11 major apple packers;33/ in the Watsonville area, another important apple territory, there are about 20 apple packers. Approximately, 17 houses in the state pack fresh apricots.^' For citrus, there are about 270 packing houses. ^5/ There are about 65 vegetable packing sheds in the Salinas-'Tatsonville-Hollister area^^/ and in excess of 200 vegetable packing sheds in the state. 37/ Complete data on the number of packing houses of other products are not available, although it is l-cnovm that some large growers pack and ship on their ovm account. The intermixture of production and marketing, or growing, packing and shipping, results in a complicated network of economic operations. - +fr?,.i' -if- . : ^ ■ ■ " .'■ , . ■ - 12. Looking at the food processing industries involved in the canning or freezing of California vegetables and deciduoiis fruits, we find about 200 separate plants. They are located in or near the centers of agricul- tural production. These plants represent a current value of about 6hS million dollars for land, buildings and machinery.^/ In addition, there are about 20 citrus processing plantsiiS/ which represent substantial investment. Brief mention may also be made of the many winerieslil/ and the various dried fruit plants. All of these packing and processing plants not only purchase their products from farms but also provide employment for thousands of workers. Employment and Payrolls . — In recent years, total man-hour employment in producing and preparing for market of California fresh fruits and vege- tables totaled about 190 million man-hours, with fresh fruits accounting for nearly 115 million man-hours and fresh vegetables accounting for about 75 million man-hours. Seasonal activities are characteristic of employment in the processed as well as the fresh-shipping industries. In the canning and freezing operations, employment in 1950 rose from a seasonal low of somewhat over 20,000 in January to a seasonal peak of about 88,000 in September. There were involved many types of skills, including administrative, clerical, production, and maintenance workers in the canning and freezing plants. The above figures pertain to particular segments of the food industries in the state, namely, fruits and vegetables. But when we look at the over- all employment in agriculture, forestry, and fishing, the number of people involved becomes even more impressive. The reported estimated 1950 civilian employment (including wage and salary workers, employers, own -account workers, and unpaid family workers) for the agriculture, forestry, and fishing indus- tries in California rose from a seasonal low of 3Uii,000 in March to a seasonal peal: of 516,000 in October. liii/ tsCi: •■.•tR.:'^r!:-«;'rfim?' ??'';;IL's;=''rr-.'.? ".^'C-ir ^-ijii ^s^fj-aJ imsi-C ~,.ihs;;' ?■■'*•■■ ^.e-r-rtr^r^rj tr:T.'5-o :r ^r^sfitnsiiiianits •ti.;'--.s"':>";K2r: l«*-.tr ^EtEsrS^ i^itrsSOT ;;j — v;'T--~5;'i "^fis t'-f^;"^-:! :rn-" 1 - . ■ . - . ■ . ■ ■ ■ ' .■ I 13. The employment in the food industries reflects the creation of labor Tjayrolls. Although complete data are not readily available, there is considerable evidence on the payroll-creating activities of the food indus- tries in the state. For fresh fruits and vegetables alone, the payroll for T5roducing, harvesting, hauling to sheds, and in the case of fresh vegetables also field packing, in recent years has been in the neighborhood of 160-165 million dollars annually. ii^^ In addition, there are the payrolls for employment in the fruit and vegetable canning and freezing operations, and they have been estimated to total about 122 million dollars annually for the past year or two.M/ Substantial but unknown payrolls also come from citrus processing, dried fruits and nuts. Hence, for fruits, vegetables, and nuts, total of fresh shipping and processed, the annual employment payroll may conservatively be estimated to be near 200 million dollars. In some areas, these industries are the primary economic activities which suT5port the communities; and in other areas these industries are essential if not the only ones. Transportation . —The California food industries in general rely heavily on out-of-state markets which are spread over the nation. Transportation, therefore, is a significant feature of our marketing. Transportation also serves as a meaningful example of how employment, income and service trades are built around and based on our agricultural industries. Railroads, trucking companies, and water transport are involved. In the past several years, California fresh deciduous fruit and grape shippers paid about 3^ million dollars annually to the railroads,itl/ and, in addition, other substantial amounts were paid to trackers. California fresh vegetable and melon shippers have been paying about 65 million dollars annually to railroads. M./ The transportation costs on fresh citrus from the California-Arizona area amounted to 51.2 million dollars for the > • u. I9U9-I950 season. Ii2/ The combined total of these figures, which apply only to fresh fruits and vegetables, aggregate to over l5l million dollars each year. And it must be noted that not included in that total are payments to trucking companies (excepting the fresh citrus figures which include trucking), vMch transport annually as much as the equivalent of 20,000 carloads of fresh vegetables and melons from California. 5o/ As we have noted, the transportation payments just mentioned pertain only to fresh fruits and vegetables. But transportation payments are also made by other food industries in the state. The California canning and freezing industries, in 1950, are estimated to have paid out some li8 million dollars for transportation of raw and finished products, with about 6 million dollars for the transportation costs of processed citrus prod- ucts. Data available indicate that the California fruit and vegetable canners and freezers, in 19U9, shipped about l.U billion pounds by rail for which the railroads received almost 22 million dollars and about 717 million pounds by water for which the intercoastal shipping lines received almost 8.25 million dollars. 13/ The transportation figures for only fresh frtiits and vegetables and the canning and freezing industries of the state are clearly indicative of the significance of those industries in supporting the transportation services. Yet, those industries are only part of the picture. The other food industries in the state also use and pay for transportation. It thus becomes even more clear hovr the food industries in California are economically interrelated with other industries. Other Services .— The California food industries are economically related, in a close manner, with v:hat may be termed two groups or types of other industries. One group comprises those industries whose activity depends, in whole or in part, upon the business they receive from the isovi IK: 15. distribution of the products of the California food industries. Examples include, in addition to the railroad and shipping lines noted earlier, icing companies, terminal market facilities, auction and private sale, local truckers, advertising agencies, distributors, wholsesalers, jobbers, re- tailers, to mention only a few. Another group of related industries is made up of those firms v;hose business activity depends, in vrhole or in part, upon purchases of production equipment and services by the California food industries. A fevr examples include lumber mills, tin can manufacturers, wood and paper box factories, farm equipment firms, food processing and machinery companies, glassraaJcers, printers of labels as v/ell as seed and nursery-stock si^ppliers, among others. Although no monetary estimates are available for the economic indica- tors of these many types of operations, it is pertinent that they be noted and their relation to the food industries recognized. Their significance may easily be slighted. The vegetable seed industry is an example. Vege- table seeds are relatively expensive, and seed companies in the state derive a significant portion of their income from sales to California farmers. Another example is that of nurseries whdch furnish young trees, citrus, deciduous and nut, to California farmers. Such derivative industries aggre- gate into a significant part of the state's agricultural and general economy. Farm equipment com.panies servicing the state's growers have been noted above, but mention must also be made of the industrial equipment concerns which sell or rent their macliinery to packing houses, canneries, and freezing plants. The various derivative industries, which service the California food industries, are important contributors to the economic functioning and well-being of many cities and towns in the state; for example, Santa Ana and Covina, among others, are dependent on the citrus industry. In addition, towns such as Hilts, "festwood, Susanville, and others are ^"n.-,'-;.r.'!:rvv-';.4;r.r;'..^ a^i.j^ j+ -. ~ r.'; V 5.,.. : i , , ' ■■■■ : ■ V; f-^a^y-tr - ■.; ■^.O^:--::^;: :lK:}a^y: , ■■ -:; . ...... t^^ijif:;,/ ~ ■. • 16. dependent on their lumber mills vdiich make box shook and boxes used in the shioment of fresh fruit. These are significant examples of hov; a host of other industries have been developed and built around the food indus- tries in California. Ice companies, as well as mechanical refrigeration concerns, find a lucrative source of revenue stemming from the California fruit and vegetable industries. Ice companies in the fresh shipping areas of the state are heavily deoendent on those industries for their operations. Large quan- tities of ice are used in the transportation of fresh fruits and vegetables shipped from the state. In pretransport packing alone, from 7,^00 to 10,000 pounds of ice are used per car. And, in addition, ice is packed into the crates in packing commodities such as lettuce, carrots, and spinach. Out-of-state icing services are also drawn UDon vhile railroad cars are in transit to the eastern markets. In producing areas, petroleum companies derive a large portion of their s?les receipts from the sale of gasoline, oil and lubricants to food nroducers and processors. Here, also, should be noted the oil and other EupTDlies used by the citrus and other semitropical fruit industries in their frost protection operations. Spread over the agricultural areas of the state, among the thousands of acres of fertile land in the delta region, the central valleys, and the coastal areas are found operations of the food industries. Many communities and their surrounding areas depend in large part upon the operations of the various food industries. Examples include the South Coast and parts of the Los Angeles area, Bakersfield, Fresno, Salinas-Watsonville-Ho Ulster area, San Jose and the ^.ast Bay, Modesto, Sacramento and Marysville, among the more orominent. Farmers, v:orkers in the fields, packing sheds, canneries, freezing plants, dairies, and creameries, and tradesmen all participate in a gigantic economic network that comprises the food industries of the state. 17. And that economic network has among its objectives not only the improve- ment of the economic status or well-being of the agricultural industries but also the economic well-being of other industries, for the status of the production-distribution industries is closely related to the economic status of other industries and consumers. Reference has been made, in an earlier part of this statement, to California's high economic position with respect to the food industries. Various economic indicators have been cited concerning the economic impor- tance of the California food industries to the state's economy and to the nation. In an over-all and balanced viexir, moreover, it must be noted that for many crops California is the dominant producing state in the country, and in some cases, the only significant producing state. Data from various sources attest to California's outstanding role in the production, processing, and marketing of various food products. Such factual data and information clearly signify that economic factors and developments affecting, or affected bj--, the California food industries have repercussions and chain reactions on similar and related industries in the country at large. Such economic interactions, it is evident, affect the interests not only of the country's farmers and marketers, but also the interests of the country's consumers. V. Production to Meet Consumer Needs ""Fe have indicated some of the major characteristics of California agriculture and have also commented upon the position of the food indus- tries in the state. Their economic importance is clear, and their rela- tions to other industries are now evident. But it is pertinent to note here that there is a rfiroct tie-in between the California food industries and recent trends in food consumption. This is especially relevant for the industries in fruits and vegetables and dairy products. H ^ V t ! : . ■ ; , • ' ■■ ■••^uiuonc:- 18. During the r)ast four or five decades, marked changes have developed in the structure of the diet purchased and consumed by individuals in this country.^/ There has occurred a marked upward trend in the per-capita consumption of fruits and vegetables and, also, a rising trend in daily products. The per-capita consumption of fats and oils and eggs has also followed an upward trend, but less marked than that of fruits and vegetables or dairj' products. Meats, poultry and fish have exhibited no apparent long- time trend. But grain products, white potatoes, and sweet products have tended to follow a somewhat sharp declining trend. In each of the food groups, there have occurred year-to-year fluctuations and cyclical variations, but the general trends have followed the course we have just sketched. Increased knowledge has been accumulated vath reference to nutritionally desirable and actual diets. Advances in the science of human nutrition have occurred along Tlth advances in cultural and production practices, food technology, marketing and merchandising. Recent studies of consumption practices have enabled students of human nutrition to make comparisons betxTeen actual diets and nutritionally desirable diets for various combina- tions of price and income levels. The results of such studies have pointed to the importance of having adequate proportions of dairy products, citrus fruits and tomatoes, ^nd leafy, green and yellovf vegetables in the diets of our consumers. As noted above, American consumers in general have increased their intake of fruits and vegetables. For example, most consumers now use more vegetables and citrus finiits than they used to, but the result is still less than the requirements for a nutritionally adequate diet for most people. It has been estimated that large groups of our consumers should substantially increase their consumption of leafy, green and yellow vegetables and their consumption of citrus fniits and tomatoes.5£/ Such requirements, of course. '4.t> =j1oa<3 .nl.! 19. vary among income, regional, age, occupational, and other groupings of consumers; the needs cited refer to a large bulk of the population. A point of significance here is that some of the food groups for which increased consumer intake is nutritionally desirable are the very food groups in v/hich California food industries are leading producers and distributors. As noted earlier, the state ranks high in the production and shipment of fresh and processed vegetables, including tomatoes, and fruits, including citrus. Thus, the structure of the food industries in California is such that it fits in well vdth prevalent trends in consumption and the nutri- tionally desirable goals envisaged by human nutrition experts. But in order to produce those food products with increasing efficiency so that they can come within reach of more people and their consumption can be increased by cvirrent users, it is necessary to draw upon production and processing techniques which help to maintain and increase yields. It is here that the use of chemicals in food products is pertinent not only to farmers and processors but also to consumers. TJithout necessary weapons to contain the destruction caused by insects, plant disease, and similar barriers to the maintenance of production yields or their increase, and without processing techniques which aid in maintaining quality, the interests of both producers and consumers are affected. As summary and concluding comments, it may be worth while to reiterate the following major points which have been sketched in this statement: The California agricultural economy and its food industries are a significant part of the general econoiiQr of the state. The California food industries comprise a complicated and widespread network of economic operations. Their economic status affects and is affected by operations in other industries. The California food industries participate directly and indirectly in the creation and generation of significant amounts of employment and income. .iffy? •fJ?f"T'(»y.- The California food industries have over the years expanded their output and operations. Increased production yields have aided essentially in attaining this expanded production. And the increased yields have in considerable part been associated with more efficient production-processing techniques, including the use of materials to restrain destruction from insects, disease and similar food destroying agents. The California food industries include, as a significant segment, the production and marketing of fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, increased consumption of which is con- sidered to be an important part of nutritionally desirable diet for most American consumers. These economic aspects of the California food industries are also in substantial part characteristic of the nation's food industries.. And in food production and processing, the use of materials which help to increase production efficiency without adversely affecting the health of the nation contribute to the stability and well-being of not only the agriciiLtural economy but also of the national economy. NOTE: The data referred to and drawn upon in the preceding state- ment are from the sources noted in the following list of references each one is numbered so as to correspond with the reference number indicated in the text. In addition, selected statistical data are summarized in the following tables. 9rW ■ in'. red}, i^lt- A L 21. REFERENCES 1/ "Characteristics of the Population of California," 1950 Census of Population, Preliminary Reports, U.S., Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, (Series PC-6, No. 1), March 26, 19?1. 2/ The Farm Income Situation, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, (FlS-126) January-February 1951. 3/ Harding, S.T. "Background of California V/ater and Pov/er Problems," California Law Revier, Vol. 38y No, h (October 1950), p. 551. k/ Same as reference 2/ . 5/ The Farm Income Situation, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, (FlS-126), January-February 19li7. 6/ Same as reference 2/. 7/ U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (Bureau of Agricultural Economics). Fruits twoncitrus); Citrus Fruits; Commercial Truck Crops, Truck Crops for Fresh Market, and Truck Crops for Commercial Processing; Tree Nuts; annual issues of Acreage, Production,- Farm Disposition, Value, and Utilization of Sales. 8/ U.S, DcDt. of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics 1950. 9/ Based on data from Canners League of California and National Canners Associati on. 10/ The 'Tine Advisory Board, "'ine Institute Bulletin, Fifteenth Annual Wine Industry Statistical Survey, Part I, Preliminary Totals, March 9, 1951. 11/ U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, 1950. 12/ California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, California Annual Livestock Report, Summary for 1950, Inventory —January 1, 1951- 13/ Same as reference 12/. Ih/ California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, California Annual Poultry— Hatchery Report, Summary for 1950, Inventory— January 1, 1951. 15/ Same as reference Ik/ « 16/ Same as reference lU/» 17/ Same as reference 2/. 18/ California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, California Field Crops, Annual Summary for 1950. January 16, 1951. \ 22. 19/ Kuznets, G.M., I.M. Lee, and W.G. O'Regan, Index Numbers of Prices Received, Production, and Marketings of Crops, Livestock and Livestock Products and Index Numbers of Acreage of Crops, California I9IO-I9U8: I, Field Crops; II, Truck Crops; III, Fruits and Nuts; IV, Livestock and Livestock Products. University of California, College of Agriculture Experiment Station, (Giannini Foundation Mimeographed report No. 102), February 19^0. 20/ California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Vegetable Crops in California, May 1951. 21/ Same as reference 19/, 22/ California Crop and Livestock Service, California Fruit and Nut Crop Annual Sunimary as of Hecember 1950, January 11, 1951. 23/ Shear, S.'W. neciduous Fruit Statistics, University of California, College of Agriculture Experiment Station, Giannini Foundation Mimeographed Report No. 83 (June 19h3), with data (unpublished) for subsequent years from Dr. Shear; also, reference 19/. 2l\/ Same as reference ?/. 25/ Same as reference ]^/, 26/ Based on data from Canners League of California and National Canners Association, 27/ Same as reference 26/. 28/ Canners League of California 29/ U.S. Deot, of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Agriculture California," Preliminary (AC50-2 No. 93) January 23, 1951. 30/ U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Agricul- ture; 19U5, Vol. 1, Part 33* California. 31/ Produce Reporter Company. The 1950 Fruit and Produce Credit Book, with classified list of shippers, 32/ Estimated from records of California Tree Fruit Agreement. 33/ Estimated from records of Early Apple Advisory Board, Sebastopol, California. 3k/ Estimated from records of California Grape and Tree Fruit League. 35/ Data from California Fruit Growers Exchange, Los Angeles, California. 36/ Data from Grower-Shipper Vegetable Association of Central California, Salinas, California, qci'! 23. 37/ Same as reference 36/. 38/ California Processors and GroT/ers, Inc. and California State Council of Cannery Unions. California's Canning and Freezing Industry — A joint Presentation by Labor and Management. Issued in 195l» 39/ Same as reference 38/' ho/ From data furnished by California Fruit Growers Exchange, Los Angeles, California. hi/ The Wine Advisory Board, TTine Institute Bulletin, Fifteenth Annual Wine Industry Statistical Sxirvey, Part I, Preliminary Totals (March 9, 1951), p. 22, gives the follov/ing data on the number of California Bonded Wine and Brandy Production and Storage Premises (figures are for total number operated any part of the fiscal year ended June 30, 19^0) » Bonded wineries, 37lij Bonded storerooms and bonded field warehouses, Bh', Fruit distilleries, 89; Internal revenue bonded warehouses, $9; or a total number of 576, U2 / Hop 6, Sidney, The Economic Importance of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Industries in California. University of California, College of Agriculture Experiment Station (April 19^0) Giannini Foundation Mimeographed Report No, 10^. h3/ Same as reference 38/, hh/ California State Department of Industrial Relations and State Depart- ment of Bnployment. Employment and Unemployment in California, No. Ih, February 1951. h$/ Same as reference h2/. h6/ Same as reference 38/. U7/ From data furnished by California Grape and Tree Fruit League, San Francisco, California, and California Fruit Exchange, Sacramento, California. U8/ From data furnished by Western Grovrers Association, Los Angeles, California, h9/ From data furnished by California Fruit Growers Exchange, Los Angeles, California. 50/ From information furnished by Western Growers Association, Los Angeles, California. 51/ Same as reference 38/. 52/ Same as reference h9/> A' 2h. 53/ Based on data from following sources: Exhibit of Canners League of California, Before the Interstate Commerce Commission, Ex Parte No. 175, Increased Ti'reight Rates 1951, Salt Lake City, Utah, June 11, 1951; Estimated All Rail Shipments of Canned Fruits and Vegetables from California to Transcontinental Points by Approximate Rate Territories for Years 1939, 19hO, I9U6, 19ii7, 19li8, 19U9j and Estimated ^Vater Shipments of C?nned Fruits and Vegetables from California via Intercoastal Routes to Port Groups Indicated (North Atlantic Ports, South Atlantic Ports, Gulf Ports), from Canners League of California. 5li/ U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Consumption of Food in the United States, 1909~19U8, Misc. Pub, No. 69I, August 19^9; and Supplement for 19^9, September 1950. 55/ Among thr various publications on consumption and nutrition, the following are cited: Stiebeling, Hazel K., Better Nutrition as a Nati o nal Goal , and Stiebeling Hazel K, and Faith Clark, Planning for Good Nutrition in Food and Life, Yearbook of Agriculture, 1939. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (76th Congress, 1st Session, House Document No. 28). Wells, O.V., Testimony before the Select Committee of the House of Representatives Investigating National Defense Migration, 19U2. Christensen, R.P., Efficient Uses of Food Resources in the United States, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Tech. Bui. 963, 19U8. \ jnoT.,. . ... r. f. ..... ■ / ■ : ' - . • ■ ' - ■ ■ ■ ■ '■■ • cnr . TABLE 1 California: Farras and Farm Characteristics, Census of 19h^ Item Census of 19h5 FARMS, ACREAGE AND LAUD AREA Farms, number 138,911^ Approximate land area, acres 100,353,920 Proportion in farms, per cent 3k,9 Land in farms, acres 35,05Ii,379 Land in farms according to use Cropland harvested Farms reporting Acres i 112,399 7,535,523 Cropland total Farms reporting Acres 122,071 11,362,817 Land pastured total Farms reporting Acres S^,979 23,7U8,U75 Woodland total Farms reporting Acres 12,208 li,032,36U VALUE OF FARM PROPERTY Value of land and buildings, dollars 3,U8U,51i8,8l2 Average per farm All farms, dollars Farms 30 acres or more, dollars 25,08U ill, 789 Average per acre, dollars 99. kO Value of iitplements and machinery Farms reporting Dollars 92,636 207,080,U80 Value of livestock on farms, dollars 1 301,826,320 i 1 3/ The 1950 Census reports 137,137 farms in California. Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture 19ii5* vol. I, part 33. ; ■ » J. ....... .■ 100 TABLE 2 California: General Statistics for Standard Metropolitan Areas, Food and Kindred Products Industry, 1947 1 Number of establish- ments with: Expendi- 100 All employees Production workers i otal number of estab- lishments 1-19 employ- ees 20-99 employ- ees employ- ees and Number (average for the Salaries and wages. Number (average for the year) Wages , total Value added by manufac- tures for new plant and equip- Title over year) total 1939 1947 1947 1 ture ; ment dollars 1 .000 dollars FOOD AND KINDRED PrtOLUCTS d , oUo 1,785 735 283 120,510 355, s86 70,466 94,942 252^02 851,836 95,991 Meat product;; 275 154 101 20 13,617 43,976 6,183 10,680 32,099 D J , O Meat packing, wholesale 133 103 60 67 57 33 16 3 10,353 2,337 34,871 7,132 4,656 777 7 ,969 1 , 833 25,301 5,299 51 , <;4U 15,076 1,311 Poultry dress- ing, wholesale 39 27 11 1 927 1,973 750 828 1 , 569 3,374 380 Dairy products Oreamery butter Concentrated milk Ice cream and ices 176 20 29 94 119 12 10 73 47 7 13 19 10 1 6 2 4,554 545 1,514 1,954 12,769 1,342 4,158 5,736 2,803 731 709 1,043 3,431 463 1,253 1,304 8,950 1,119 3,352 3,393 32 , 149 4,421 11,845 13,003 4 , DOO 2S1 1,477 2,322 Canning, preserving, and freezing Canned sea food Cured fish 492 54 6 225 11 4 149 20 2 117 23 41 , 320 8,136 150 109,688 18,510 433 32,255 5,558 41 37,416 7,695 128 91,643 15,816 ! 344 254,695 52,724 743 34,169 2,816 27 Canning and pre- serving, except fish 218 72 66 80 26,379 74,676 19,001 23,659 62,101 161,191 27,004 Dehydrated fruits and vegetables 87 59 26 2 1,701 3,541 6,494 1,586 3,078 9,916 351 Pickles and sauces Frozen foods 90 37 67 13 17 18 6 6 2,950 2,004 8,287 4,241 967 164 2,539 1,799 6,908 3,396 22,969 7,153 2,359 j 1,612 1 {Continued on next page.; Table 2 continued. Number of establish- Expendi- 100 All emDloyees Production workers Title Total number of estab- lishments 1-19 employ- ees 20-93 employ- ess ees and over Number (average for the year ) Salaries and wages , total Num (avera the 1959 " ber i zB for year) 19'47"" wage s , total 1947 Value i added by i manuf ac- i ture 1 tures for new plant and equip- me nt 1,000 dollars 000 dollars Grain-mill products Flour and meal 252 13 173 7 65 2 14 4 6 , 536 887 19,8o4 2,914 504 4,831 671 13,69t 2,172 58 , 132 7,948 0 , o4c 757 Prepared animl feeds 143 53 A ftps 1 547 3,512 9.719 37,711 3,767 Rice cleaning and polishing 10 4 5 1 444 1 , 556 179 361 1,127 8,971 605 Bakery products 403 259 108 36 16,547 55,957 11,455 11,295 131,648 104,136 9,314 Bread and other bakery products 384 ?'53 101 30 13 668 48,723 10,054 8,813 27,299 85,630 7,127 Biscuit, crackers, and pretzels 19 3 7 6 2,879 7,234 1,401 2,482 5,349 18,506 2,187 Sugar Beet sugar 12 10 1 1 11 9 5,633 2,788 16,392 7,703 3,916 a/ 5,051 2,506 14,003 6,648 33,018 21,410 2,180 1,346 Confectionery and related products 173 113 43 17 5,260 13,204 2,900 4,283 9,308 28,687 2,048 Confectionery prod- ucts 166 109 41 15 5,010 12,415 2,751 4,084 8,779 25,616 1,917 Chocolate and cocoa products 3 1 1 1 183 650 a/ 138 410 2,602 95 ! (Continued on next page.) !^ Table 2 continued. — Number of establish- ments with: 100 All employees Production workers Expendi- Total employ- Number Salarie s Numbe r Value tures for numbe r 1-19 20-99 ees (average and (average for Wages , added by new plant of estab- employ- emp j.oy- and for the wages , tne , '83.r ) total manufac- and equip- Title lishments ees ees over vear ) total 1 QA7 1947 ture ment 1 ,000 dollars 1.000 dollars 486 "ICQ J.UO 24 13,640 44,286 4,230 9 ,311 28,138 157,469 22,645 1 Bottled ^oft. drinks 231 1 R7 37 7 4,025 12,656 4,862 26,280 4,854 Malt liouo'"s 16 c 3 XI. 4,144 16.691 1,916 3,305 13,213 48,401 7,215 Wines and brandy 218 4 4,650 12,828 1 ,248 3,661 8,833 68,926 9,566 Miscellaneous food 113,859 8,559 preparations 534 X J. u 34 13,403 39,430 4,392 8,644 22,717 Shortening and 1,006 cooking oils 40 35 3 2 507 1,814 558 391 1,255 10,860 Flavorings 57 42 12 ■z. 1,870 5,512 527 1,101 3,174 14,776 1,199 Vinegar and cider 9 8 1 101 232 67 86 202 531 31 Manufactured ice 189 121 58 10 4,702 13,527 1,309 2,863 7,676 25,115 2,919 Macaroni and 343 spaghetti 38 26 11 1 689 1,728 418 566 1,228 3,597 Food preparations, 2,726 N.E.C. 188 141 31 16 4,979 14,721 1,191 3,194 7,737 45,714 a/ Withheld to avoid disclosing figures for individual companies. Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Manufactures: 1947, vol. Ill, Statistics by States, Washington, D. C, 1950. CD I i 5 :■ - 1 i ^ 1 J " _■ ■ - * 1,. ■ * 1 i h , s i 1 • i ) ' ; t T i . 1 • ■/ -i 1 i ) 1 '. 1 TABLE 3 Cash Receipts from Farm Marketings, California and United States, I9U0 to 19^0 California United States Year Crops Livestock and products Total Total 1,000 dol lars UJ.0 , ycO o'M> ^RR ! 6 "11.116 8,3li3,UU3 CAo 70Q 860.1i37 11,156,656 1 Q)i2 767,839 380,512 l,lU8,35i 15,316,U18 l,lli4,5U3 U6o,622 1,575,165 19,3)41,752 1,237,672 U88,675 1,726, 3U7 20,237,831 19)45 1,252,688 533,809 l,786,li97 20,780,883 19U6 1,U66,312 609,2li5 2,075,557 2U,518,527 19U7 1,U12,751 751,951; 2,i6U,705 30,186,299 19U8 1,333, U52 830,636 2,l6U,088 30,5U5,)i9U 19U9 1,286,022 771,189 2,057,211 28,126,966 1950 1,U15,8U0 7iiU,600 2,l6o,UUO 27,920,7U6 Source: U. S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics. The Farm Income Situation. Also, Cash Receipts from Farming by States and Commodities, 192li-19Ul4. 30. TABLE 4 California: Fruit and Nut Crops, Bearing Acreage, Production and Value, 1940-19 EO Year Total bearing acreaee Production of value 1.000 acres tons ,1 ,000 dollars 1940 1,460.2 5,914,800 164 , 579 1941 1,459.2 6,791,800 245,471 1942 1,459.0 6,419,800 331,528 1943 1,467.9 6,833,800 554,000 1944 1,476.3 6,996,300 641,004 1945 1,491.7 7,512,300 615,891 1946 1,501.4 7,560,200 742,088 1S47 1,510.7 7,545,300 423,590 1948 1,493.0 6,998,900 417,054 1949 1,385.2 6,327,000 356,885 1950 1,363.8 6,340,800 498,784 Sources; U. S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Fruits and Nuts, Bearing Acreage 1919-1946. Washington, D. C, 1949. California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. Acreage Estimates, Cali- fornia Fruit and Nut Crops, Annual Issues, 1947-1950; and California Fruit and Nut Crop Annual Summary as of December 1950. Sacramento, California, January 11, 1951. 31. TABLE 5 California: Total Acreage, Production and Value of Truck Crops, Selected Years, 1930-1950 Year Total acreage Total production Total value acres tons dollars 1930 530,610 2,329,000 103,72U,000 1935 578,510 2,362,000 85,ii33,000 19liO 585,770 3,093,000 111,706,000 19U5 19li6 19U7 19li8 19U9 1950 732,080 796,080 735,030 718,500 689,690 728,100 li,632,000 5,U76,000 5,169,000 5,089,000 5,153,000 5,ii62,000 317,025,000 3UO,562,000 369,286,000 358,098,000 3U8, 802,000 338,070,000 Source: California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. Vegetable Crops in California, Total Acreage, Production and Value of Commercial Crops, 19}jl-l950. Sacramento, May 1951. I 32. TABLS 6 California: Acreage Harvested, Production, and Value of Field Crops, Selected Years, 1936 to 1950 Acreage Production Average value Value of Year harvested tons per ton production dollars 5-year averages: 1936-1940 5,333,840 9,920,469 17.68 175,412,000 1941-1945 5,611,540 10,508,122 32.56 342,162,000 1941 5,381,600 9,903,096 23.37 231,460,000 1942 5,731,700 10,844,556 28.60 310,129,000 1943 5,585,900 10,168,562 37.20 378,278,000 1944 5,627,400 10,550,182 37.89 389,160,000 1945 5,731,100 11,073,412 36.28 401,783,000 1945 5,909,100 12,359,714 44.79 553,601,000 1947 6,187,000 13,078,911 50.77 663,972,000 1948 6,496,200 13,144,850 50.74 666,934,000 1949 6,719,200 13,091,956 47.23 618,342,000 1950 6,553,400 15,111,244 44.55 673,253,000 Source: California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, California Field Crops, Annual Summary for 1950, Sacramento, California, January 16, 1951. TABLE 7 California; Livestock on Farms, January 1; Niimber, Value Per Head, and Total Value; Average 1940-1949, Arjiual 1949, 1950, 1951 1940-1949 1949 1950 lysia/ ! Number Value per head Total value Number Value per head Total value Number Value per head Total value Number Value per head Total value 1,000 dollars 1,000 dollars 1,000 dollars 1,000 dollars 1,000 dollars 1,000 dollars 1,000 dollars 1,600 dollars All cattle and calves 2,748 89.10 247.975 2,736 158.00 432,288 2,709 139.00 376,551 2,872 191.00 548,552 Hogs, Including pigs 857 ^4.40 20,io4 837 41.50 Ou, 1 Co o / y co • ou CO , xxo 30 . 144 All sheep and lambs 2,571 11.02 28,326 l,850i 20.25 ! 37,463 1,819 20.09 36,542 1,867 30.10 56,196 Horses and colts 152 90,60 13,654 1181 74.00 8,732 106 74.00 7,844 105 75.00 7,875 Mules and mule colts 18 97.40 1,822 11 68.00 748 10 75.00 750 9 75.00 675 Chickens 18,515 1.29 24,338 20,552 1 1.20 i 35,760 23,416 1.50 35,124 23,336 1.65 38,504 Turkeys 1,092 5.90 6,079 883! 10.00 i ; 8,830 927 6.80 6,304 816 6.90 5,630 a/ 1951 preliminary. Source; U.S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Livestock and Poultry on Farms, January 1, revised estimates 1940-1945, by states. Washington, D.C., 1947, Also, Livestock on Farms, January 1, annual issues. ■■ox.' • 1 ! • . ■ . : TA.BLE 8 United States: Pack of Principal Varieties of Canned Fruits, Vegetables, and Juices and the Percentage of Each for Year, 1950 Per cent of total United States Area of United States Fruits Vegetables^ Fruit juices Total Fruxts Vegetables Fruit juices (excluding nectars) Total actual cases. thousands California 36,215 30,541 4,378 71,134 52.6 17.6 10,7 25.1 Washington and Oregon 6,914 15,226 22,140 10.1 8.8 7.8 Total Pacific Coast 43,129 45,767 4,378 93,274 62.7 26.4 10.7 32.9 Other than Pacific Coast 25,695 127,908 36,444 190,047 37.3 73.6 89.3 67.1 Total United States 68,824 173,675 40,822 283,321 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 a/ Includes tomato juice. Source: Caimers League of America, Exhibit before the Interstate Commerce Commission, June 11, 1951, P»j 'iW.; ... . i JO .ojWj TABLE 9 California Pack Statistics, Fruits and Vegetables, 35 19U6 19hl 19U8 19li9 1 1950 Fruits 2k/2^ case basis i^ricots Cherries, sweet Pears Free peaches Cling peaches Spiced cling peaches -Fruit cocktaxl§/ . Fruits for saladS/ Mixed fruits Apple sauce Figs Plums Other fruits 10,223,8h9 572,670 1,326,135 1,023, 93U 17,28ii,938 160,389 7,751,629 5h6,8U3 b/ 657,829 97,81i9 59U,573 3,062,5ii5 288,696 1,U58,663 1,1497,286 15,308,838 265,105 9,386,078 558,021 2/411,726 b/ 81Il,U56 102,6l4l U09,936 1;,650,777 236,259 1,1814,170 1,707,906 Il4,6l49,56l 151,921 9,902,291 1,011,375 814,895 b/ 5H0,869 38,300 279,956 2,307,i40l4 688,081 2,069,6114 1,1499,127 16,5214,717 1477,762 6,268,695 931,li81 1436,296 U92,502 279,286 c/ 605,035 3,660,606 372,889 2,509,l49U ! 1,676,930 lU,i4l7,2i49 236,191 7,1475,367 608,686 69,155 582, 8U7 U9U,11U c/ 1437,0146 Totals U0,975,lii2 33,1*23,991 3i4,l478 , 2 80 32,580,000 32, 5l40,57U Vegetables actual cases Asparagus Beans, string Carrots Peas Spinach Tomatoes Tomato juice Tomato pxiree Tomato paste Tomato catsup Tomato chili sauce Tomato sauce and/ or hot sauce Tomato products (not elsewhere specified) Other vegetables 2,783,U60 359,693 816,595 156,807 3,03U,718 i;,038,U36 9,267,62U 5,296,373 3,629,062 l4,23U,287 5,285,600 625,52U l,9lt5,609 2,258,650 297,060 58,062 182,670 1,380,235 5,895,500 5,753,035 2,268,1463 5,558,922 7,191,561 783^077 3 , 702,1472 llt3,589 75ii,76l4 1,983,201 357,1470 665,570 120,l4l4l l,U53,575 U, 712, 962 5,866,512 969,0614 3,072,212 14,626,050 322,655 3,983,197 118,661 776,081 2,625,13U 7l5,lil;8 97,781 d/ 1,960,1412 3,978,132 6,3l4l,li5U 1,551,9146 3,585,9li3 3,1401,189 ii77,879 3,9lU,17l4 170,587 1,708,996 2,566,279 736,792 171,35U d/ 2,1499,960 3,569,916 6,137,050 1,389,693 2,832,822 5,U03,837 622,81i6 14,786,098 2614,516 2,Oi40,6ll Totals la,U73,788 36,228,060 29,027,651 30,529,075 33, 021, 77U Grand totals 82,UU8,930 69,652,051 63,505,931 63,109,075 65, 562,3U8 a/ Fruit cocktail and fruits for salad include reraanuf actured packs, "b/ Included in "other fruits." c/ Other fruits, d/ Other vegetables, e/ Included in tomato products (not elsewhere specified). Source: Canners League of California, San Francisco, January 17, 195l. Processed, 1 ToSiT^j Jk^ ■ : t ..... ■ — ... , .. . , ' ■ . ■ /■■ i 1^ ! r . .. e ■ - ■ • t 1 i ::, '.■<'.! *■ i 2.! ' "^ ' 1 7S--r- • «, '-JCtiiOO TABLE 10 Acreage, Production, Value, and Related Data for Major California Fresh Fruits and Truck Crops Average 1937-1941 Groups and items Bearing acreage for fresh use Production for fresh use Farm value of fresh production Fresh shipments In fresh production In- state Out-of-state Man-hour employment Payrolls ( labor) Fresh fruits: Apples Apricots Grapes Pears Plums Peaches Cherries , , , Orangesye/g/ Lemons^/ Grapefruit^/ Summer Desert^/ Avocados Dates Persimmons Pomegranates Figs (all) Olives (all) Walnuts Almonds Total fruits and nuts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 acres tons 1,000 dollars tons tons 1,000 man-hours 1,000 dollars 16,276 5,850 100,946 22,799 21,621 12,411 7,232 , 232,70C&/ 52,700 8,200 21,000 12,803 2,726 1,402 615 17,058 24,043 119,703 73,841 753,926 93,096 17,500 531,840 114, 520 62,700 90,480 12,150 47, 500 12,300 1,200 3,900 11,992 4,330 3,855 2,170 6,170 43, 500 54,720 14,720 1,128,643 2,079 800 12,232 3,294 2,510 2,232 . 1,6285/ 47,800£/ 13,800£/ l,063£/ 1,212£/ 1,330 557 116 41 342 3,835 11,523 4,328 110,724 75,120 11,300 59,480 25,660 12,300 67,020 6,120 40,5 8,1 1,1 3,1 N N K N 5,310 42,580 NA NA 17,976 6,200 472,360 88,860 50,400 23,460 5,760 00^/ 00^/ 00^/1/ ^r^r^ /f/ A A A A 860 920 NA NA 2,702 883 16,253 3,990 4,476 2,433 1,642 35,370 13,966 599 1,722 615 602 m NA 733 3,005 9,217 3,914 102,122 960 293 5,754 1,414 1,578 856 579 12, 566 4,901 131 OVy 218 213 NA NA 253 1,058 3,232 1,403 36,018 (Continued on next page.) * . > ■ ■ t-' -,.1 no / .; . n^.i:-!.ir...-; u.t'i.tsiiij J Table 10 continued. Groups and items Fresh vegetables: Asparagus Melons Tomatoes Peas Spinach Strawberries Artichokes Lettuce Cauliflower Cabbage Carrots Celery Beans ( snap) Onions Total vegetables Grand total Bearing acreage j Production for for fresh use i fresh use acres tons Farm value of fresh production Fresh shipments In fresh production In-state I Out-of-state man-hour employment 1,000 dollars 28,176 39, 5i^0 27,370 46,210 5,506 10,120 99, 500 15,1+82 7,560 21,9^0 13,630 10,900 335,208 1,089,13*+ 25,728 172,568 117,448 61,710 15,129 15,300 17,400 494,060 86,062 64,660 195,270 192,790 25,095 64,250 1,5^7,^70 2,676,113 3,821 7,958 7,690 5,812 744 2,608 1,620 22,108 2,734 970 6,857 7,462 3,871 1,585 75,840 186, 564 Payrolls ( labor) tons tons 1,000 man-hours 1,1^5 73,360 72,191 28,149 15,123 12,979 NA 102,535 48, 598 52,116 68,120 90,224 NA 44,812 24,583 99,208 45,257 33,561 /' O 2,321 NA 391,^75 37,^^ 12,544 127,150 102,566 NA 19,i+38 3,184 4,429 6,158 7,995 531 5,908 1,022 14,626 2,029 908 6,538 5,642 3,619 1,216 63,805 165,927 7 1,000 dollars 1,137 1,569 2,188 2,844 187 1,800 365 5,169 718 322 2,304 1,879 1,281 475 22,238 58,256 a/ 1938-1941 average. b/ Citrus crop years are 1937-38 to 1941-42 average. Includes Valencias, navels and miscellaneous varieties; also, acreage and production for processing. Production and shipment figures are in units of 1,000 boxes. c/ On- tree farm value. d/ Fresh shipments not broken down as inter- or intrastate. (Continued on next page.) Table 10 continued. e/ Includes Arizona. f/ Includes small quantities for local consumption or elimination. g/ Includes small quantities of Arizona oranges (less than 2 per cent of the total). Data are not reported separately for California in recent years. h/ Arizona acreage omitted in calculating average since data are lacking for certain years in the average period. Sources: Col. 1: California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Acreage Estimates, California Fruit and Nut Crops, annual issues, Sacramento, California; and U.S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Commercial Truck Crops for Fresh Markets. Col. 2: U.S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Fruits (Noncitrus) Production, Farm Disposition, and Utilization of Sales, 1899-1944, Washington, D.C., 19^8; and California Fruit Growers Exchange, Statistical Informa- tion on the Citrus Fruit Industry, May 1951 . Col. 3: For fresh fruits, see sources cited for columns 1 and 2. In cases vhere a significant portion of total production was for other than fresh use, the value figure presented was calculated by multiplying produc- tion for fresh use by the appropriate first delivery price. The sources of these prices are: U.S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Fruit and Nut Prices, Prices Received by Growers for Fruit and Nut Crops by Type of Sale and Utilization Groups, 1909-U6, Washington, D.C., October 19^7. For fresh vegetables, see source cited for column 1. Col. k: Column 2 minus column 5- Col. 5: U.S. Production and Marketing Administration, Carlot Shipments of Fruits and Vegetables, 1925-1914-2, annual issues, Washington, D.C.; and U.S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Fruits (Noncitrus) Production, Farm Disposition, and Utilization of Sales, I899-1944, Washington, D.C., 19^8. Cols. 6 and 7: See following note. (Continued on next page.) GO Table 10 continued. Note . Estimates of man-hour employment and total payrolls were constructed for all commodities, using approximately the same method in all cases. This method, together with the sources employed, is described in detail in this note. Estimates were first made on man-hour employment. Basic data concerning the necessary man-hours per acre required to produce the state average yield of each commodity were obtained from three sources: (l) MacGillivray, John H., Arthur Shultis, A, E. Michelbacher, P. A. Minges, and L. D. Doneen. Labor and Material Requirements of California Vegetables. California Agricultural Experiment Station, Berkeley; (2) Burlingame, B. B. Hours of Man Labor Required for the Production of California Crops. (Unpublished data from his files); and (3) Sullivan, Wallace, J. C. Johnston, and I. J. Condit. Labor Requirements for Producing Certain California Subtropical Fruits. California Agricultural Experiment Station, Berkeley. Using this as a basis and adjusting the variable labor inputs according to physical outputs per acre from year to year, estimates of man-hour labor requirements per acre were obtained. The aggregate requirements were obtained by a multiplication of requirements per acre by the number of acres produced for fresh consumption. After man-hour requirements were established, the payrolls were obtained through application of going average wage rates to the particular hours of various types of labor required. Wage rates were obtained from two sources: (1) Adams, R, L. Crop Manual. (Early edition and unpublished data from latest revision); and (2) State of California, Department of Employment. California Weekly Farm Labor Report (various issues). The total number of man-hours required were segregated into various categories, each viewing a particular rate of pay. The number of hours in each category was then multiplied by the respective average wage rate to obtain the total payroll per acre for each year. Again, the aggregate is the product of per- acre payroll and number of acres devoted to production for fresh use. TABLE 11 Acreage, Production, Value and Related Data for Major California Fresh Fruits and Truck Crops Suirjmary: 194? 1 Groups and I Bearing acreage items 1 for fresh use Production for fresh use Farm value of fresh production Fresh shipments In fresh production X 1 In- state j Out-of-state Man-hoiir employment Payrolls ( labor) ! 1 1 2 3 ^ 1 5 6 7 acres tons 1,000 dollars tons tons 1,000 man-hours 1,000 dollars Fresh fruits: Apples Apricots Grapes Pears Plums Peaches Cherries , , , Oranges^/e/g/ Lemons^/ Grapefruit^/ Slimmer Desert£/ Avocados Dates Persimmons Pomegranates Figs Olives Walnuts Almonds Total fruits 14,730 7,960 109,168 16,278 22,871 14,497 ?,yoo 247,300 00,600 9,500 18,000 14,442 3,594 1,202 628 5,788 25,210 113, 520 95,276 124,176 20,700 619,200 128,600 70,900 129,600 13,800 54,800 13,800 1,900 •5 "^00 18,340 10,160 3,575 2,890 2,700 39,800 58,600 29,000 5,330 1,938 31,517 9,486 9,004 9,180 3,464 78,4oq£/, 27,6oo£/ 2,356£/ 1. 537c/ 7,336 823 297 2,790 454 5,970 22,737 16,182 86,544 10,800 67,800 29,100 13,400 86, 544 5,100 43,0 9,4 1 4 2,6 NA NA NA NA 2,400 39,200 NA NA 37,632 9,900 551,400 99, 500 57,500 37,632 8,700 00^/ oq3/ 00^/^"/ ooi/!/ NA NA NA NA 300 600 NA NA 2,946 1,138 18,886 3,500 4,872 3,146 1,575 39,815 16,317 836 2,034 809 1,060 NA NA 284 2,899 8,741 6,288 115,146 2,542 979 16,157 3,011 4,163 2,696 1,348 34,127 13,986 722 1 — 1,746 693 909 NA NA 243 2,496 7,606 5,431 98,855 — and nuts 792,530 1,347,841 236,401 i (Continued on next page.) c I" .3. 3 • * ■ v. . v) ... , -i-t --xj •— Vnf" '-^ — — t- ■■■;-:::^"^.;'£^-B-,-- • .'. "It . . - — :: .-'s'e-"'- -,;,„^f.:- . ■ J. • . ■ -:.-ir.; .,>T-~f ... Table 11 continued. farm value , Fresh shipments In fresh production r Groups and Bearing acreage • Production for of fresh Man-hour Payrolls items for fresh use fresh use production '. In- state Out-of— state — 1 _ employment (labor) 1 2 3 1 5 6 7 1,000 j 1,000 1,000 ■ acres tons ' dollars "tons ! tons i ' ' '. . 1 . . man-hours dollars Fresh vegetables: Asparagus 22,870 30,870 1 8, 232 6,924 1 23,946 3,362 2,890 Melons 66,110 258,9"' ■■■ i" , • . ,0 r '41 ^w:: '. f-^ -i-l^- -r -r r ; * 1 as'aea ■ <■ i ■ * . iSS r > V . Table 12 continued. Groups and items Bearing acreage for fresh use Production for I Fresh shipments fresh use acres Fresh vegetables: Asparagus Melons Tomatoes Peas Spinach Strawberries Artichokes Lettuce Cauliflower Cabbage Carrots Celery- Beans (snap) Onions Total vegetables 22,750 56,740 38,100 19,500 4,600 4,150 7,300 127,900 20,200 9,400 26,900 15,070 6,400 8,700 367,710 Grand total j 1,137,762 Farm value j of fresh j" production j In-state j Out-of-state In fresh production Man-houi* I Payrolls employment tons 24,570 234,658 178,610 27,645 14,904 19,710 16,060 769,020 127,336 95,500 304,880 345,768 19,470 113,850 2,291,981 3,428,735 1,000 dollars 5,324 23,088 24,742 4,750 1,076 9,667 2,810 69,707 8,122 3,548 29,601 19,785 3,288 7,573 213,081 417,883 tons tons 10,179 70,077 90,207 10,369 14,306 17,967 Kil 172,900 23,849 83,113 129,250 161,915 NA 53,970 14,391 164,581 88,404 17,276 598 1,743 596,120 103,487 12,787 175,620 183,853 Nil 59,880 1,000 man-hours (labor) 1,000 dollars 2,958 6,185 9,068 3,588 603 6,192 862 21,103 2,807 1,222 9,550 8,138 2,522 1,880 76,678 184,305 2,551 5,382 7,831 3,079 520 4,698 745 17,829 2,443 1,069 8,186 6,299 2,162 1,603 64,397 157,385 a/ 1938-1941 average, ' ■ b/ Citrus crop years are 1937-38 to 1941-42 average, 1946-47, and 1947-48, Includes Valencias, Navels and miscellaneous. Includes acreage and production for processing. Production and shipment figures are in units of 1,000 boxes, c/ On-trec farm value, d/ Fresh shipments not broken dovm as inter- or intrastate. ■tr- (Continued on next page,) 2^.3,9* i2D :'it't'ot r> .^^oJ■Jt•L■s■ ;... .T^OOO Tablo 12 continued, qJ Includes Arizona, tj Includes small quantities for local consumption or elimination, £/ Includes small quantities of Arizona oranges (loss than 2 per cent of the total). Data arc not reported separately for California in recent years, h/ Arizona acreage omitted in calculating average since data are lacking for certain years in the average period. Sources: Col, 1: Col, 2j Apples, apricots, grapes, pears, plums, peaches and cherries have estimated acreages, Citinis: California Fruit Grov/ers Exchange, 1947 Statistical Information on the Citrus Fruit Industry and 1949 Supplement, Other fruits and nuts: California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Acreage Estimates, California Fruit and Nut Crops. Fresh vegetables: U.S. Bureau of Agricul- tural Economics, Commercial Truck Crops for Fresh Market, All fruits and nuts except citrus: U.S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Fruits (Noncitrus) Production, Farm Disposition, and Utilization of Sales, 1899-1944, Also U,S, Bureau of Agri- cultural Economics, Fruits (Noncitrus) Production, Farm Disposition, and Utilization of Sales, 1947, 1948, Citrus fruits: sec sources cited for column 1, t'resh vegetables: see sources cited for column 1, Col, 3: For fresh fruits: sec sources cited for columns 1 and 2, In oases where significant portion of total production was for other than fresh use, the value figure presented was calculated by multi plying production for fresh use by the appropriate first delivery point price. The sources of those prices are U,S, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Fruit and Nut Prices, Prices Received by Growers for Fruit cmd Nut Crops by T^rpo of Sale and Utilization Groups, 1909-46. October 1947 and U.S. Bureau of Agricultura Economics, Agricultural Prices, Supplement to Fruit and Nut Prices, October 28, 1949. For fresh vegetables sec source cited in column 1, Col, 4: Column 2 minus column 5, Col, 5: U.S. Food Distribution Administration. Carlot Shipments of Fruits and Vegetables, 1925-1942; U.S. Production and Marketing Administration, Carlot Shipments of Fruits and Vegetables by Commodities, States and Months; and U.S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Fruits (Noncitrus) Production, Farm Disposition, and Utilization of Sales, 1899-1944, and same publication for the years 1947, 19