UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA SERIES ON CALIFORNIA CROPS AND PRICES ALMONDS H. R. WELLMAN and E. W. BRAUN BULLETIN 453 May, 1928 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRINTING OFFICE BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 1928 CONTENTS PAGE Summary 3 Almond Acreage in California 6 The place of California in the almond industry 6 Distribution of almond acreage in California, 1927 6 Upward trend in bearing acreage since 1914 8 Forecast of bearing acreage 10 Where the increase in bearing acreage since 1921 has occurred 10 Location of non-bearing acreage, 1927 11 Almond Production in California 11 Upward trend of production 11 Fluctuations in production 12 Yield per acre 13 Varieties of almonds 15 Principal varieties grown in California 15 Choice of varieties to plant 15 Average price differentials between varieties 16 Prices and purchasing power 17 Annual average prices 17 Trend of purchasing power 18 Fluctuations in purchasing power from year to year 20 United States consumption of almonds 20 United States imports of almonds 21 Changes in almond imports 21 Seasonal variation in imports 23 Origin of imports 24 Foreign almond production 25 Italy 25 Spain 27 France 27 Greece 28 Tunis 28 Palestine 28 Other countries 28 Appendix of tables 29 ALMONDS H. R. WELLMAN' and E. W. BRAUN2 SUMMARY The commercial production of almonds in the United States is practically confined to California. For many years before 1914 the bearing acreage of almonds in this state remained practically station- ary at about 15,000 acres. Since 1914 the bearing acreage has increased rapidly and continuously, until at the present time there are approxi- mately 87,000 acres in bearing. Furthermore, it is likely that the trend of bearing acreage will continue upward until 1929, at which time it is estimated that there will be an additional 8,000 acres in bearing. For the few years immediately after 1929, however, no further increase in bearing acreage is expected because the plantings during the past few years have been relatively small. The production of almonds has also increased substantially, rising from an average of 2,600 tons in 1914 to an average of 13,000 tons in 1927. California marketing organizations now have to find outlets for five times as many almonds as they did before the war. The develop- ment of these outlets has been made particularly difficult by the wide fluctuations in production from year to year. In years of large pro- duction it is necessary to find many new customers for California almonds, and, to a considerable extent, this means the displacement of foreign almonds by domestic almonds. In years of small pro- duction these new customers cannot be supplied with their full requirements. Consequently it is difficult to retain their trade. This problem is becoming increasingly difficult because of the tendency for fluctuations to become greater. The average yield of almonds for the state as a whole is unprofit- ably low. Even with the relatively high prices which have prevailed during the last three years, the average gross income has not generally been large enough to pay the costs of production. Under most con- ditions yields as low as the present average for the state effectively prevent profitable returns. 1 Extension Specialist in Agricultural Economics. 2 Extension Specialist in Agricultural Economics. 4 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Despite the greatly increased production of almonds in the United States, the nation now produces only one-fourth of the almonds con- sumed in this country. The remainder is imported, mainly from Italy, Spain, and France. Significant changes in the trend of imports have occurred during the past thirteen years. Until 1916 imports remained fairly stable. In 1916, however, imports began to rise rapidly and continued upward until 1919. A large part of this increase was probably due to the dislocation of the European market resulting from the war. Since 1921 imports have declined rapidly and continuously, until at the present time they are only slightly above the pre-war level. Three factors have contributed to this decline: (1) increase in the tariff, (2) recovery of European markets, and (3) increased use of California shelled almonds in the United States. It is not likely, however, that there will be a further substantial decrease in imports during the next few years. A considerable part of the effect of the increase in the tariff and the recovery of European markets on the decline in imports has already occurred. The United States supply of almonds is, therefore, derived from two sources: California and foreign countries. Changes in the per- capita supply available for consumption have been chiefly responsible for the changes in the trend of purchasing power of California almonds. During the five years previous to 1915 no definite upward or downward trend in purchasing power is apparent, and likewise the supply of almonds remained fairly stationary. Between 1915 and 1920, however, there Avas a definite downward trend in purchasing power. The most important cause for this downward trend was the rapid increase in the per-capita supply, which rose from an average of 0.48 pounds in 1914-1915 to an average of 0.88 pounds in 1918- 1919. Consumers would not buy this greatly increased quantity except at relatively lower prices. The increase in the supply of almonds during this period was a result of the two conditions already mentioned; namely, increased production in California and increased imports. After 1920 the trend of purchasing power turned upward, and has continued upward since then. However, it has not yet reached the level that it occupied prior to the war. This upward trend in purchasing power was largely a result of the decline in the supplies available for consumption. The substantial increase in California production during this period was not sufficient to offset the large decrease in imports. BUL. 453 | ALMONDS 5 Although there has been a decline in the per-capita consumption of almonds in the United Stales during the past few years, it is still substantially above the pre-war level. During the three-year period from 1913 to 1915 the average per-capita consumption amounted to 0.48 pounds, as compared with an average of 0.68 pounds for the three years from 1924 to 1926. This is an increase of 42 per cent. One reason for this increase in per-capita consumption is the lower level of purchasing power. Consumers can now buy almonds at relatively lower prices than they could before the war. Consequently they eat more of them. The average purchasing power during the past three years, how- ever, is only 17 per cent below the pre-war level, whereas the per- capita consumption is 42 per cent above. This indicates that there has been a real increase in the demand for almonds. This increased demand has been largely a result of the more extensive use of shelled almonds. The bakery and confectionery trades are now using more almonds in the preparation of their products than they did a few years ago. On the other hand, there seems to have been little, if any, increase in the per-capita consumption of unshelled almonds. The market for unshelled almonds is essentially a seasonal one and of short duration. The bulk of them are consumed during the holiday season. The California almond industry is gradually emerging from the depression which was most acute in 1920. The chief factors respon- sible for this recovery seem to be of a fairly permanent nature. They are decreased imports and increased demand. On the other hand, the peak in the long upward trend in California production has not yet been reached. In addition, a further decrease in imports or an increase in demand cannot safely be counted on. Furthermore, the wide fluctuations in production from year to year complicate the marketing problem. For these reasons any widespread planting of almonds does not appear to be justified. A conservative expansion may be desirable, but only on land particularly adapted to the pro- duction of this crop and in climatic zones favorable to it. The best outlook for California almond growing is through increasing the yield per acre. Yield is chiefly a matter of varieties, cultural methods, and favorable climatic location, including proper moisture conditions and freedom from frost. Many almond orchards are so located that they will continue to. be unprofitable for the remainder of their lives. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION ALMOND ACREAGE IN CALIFORNIA The Place of California in the Almond Industry. — Practically all of the United States acreage of almonds is in California. According to the Fourteenth Census of the United States, the total almond acreage in this country in 1920 amounted to approximately 55,000 acres, of which 99 per cent were in California. Almond trees were reported in fourteen states other than California, but the acreage in these states was so small as to be negligible from a commercial stand- point. Although the almond trees themselves grow well in many places in the United States, they seldom produce a crop in sections outside of California. Their habit of early blooming renders the blossoms particularly liable to injury from spring frosts. Conse- quently there has been no tendency for the other states to increase their acreage of almonds. California has, therefore, a virtual monopoly in the production of almonds as far as the United States is concerned. Certain foreign countries, however, produce large quantities of almonds which compete directly with our almonds in the markets of the United States. Distribution of the Almond Acreage in California, 1927. — At the present time there are over a hundred thousand acres of almonds in California. The distribution of this acreage by counties is shown in figure 1. Although almonds are grown in forty-one of the fifty-eight counties in the state, the large producing areas are confined to com- paratively few counties. Three-fourths of the total almond acreage in 1927 was in the seven counties of San Luis Obispo, Yolo, Butte, San Joaquin, Colusa, Stanislaus, and Merced; San Luis Obispo County alone had one-third of the total. The combined acreage in the seven- teen counties listed in figure 1 amounted to 97,558 acres, or 96 per cent of the total. The acreage in each of the other twenty-four counties which produce almonds is relatively small. Of the 101,691 acres of almonds in California in 1927, exclusive of 1926 plantings, 87,074 were in bearing and 14,617 were not in bearing. The relative importance of the main almond-producing counties from the standpoint of bearing acreage is shown in figure 2. The three counties of San Luis Obispo, Yolo*, and Butte contain ;i j) proximately one-half of the total bearing acreage in the state, and San Luis Obispo County alone contains over one-fourth. Eul. 453] ALMONDS Almond Acreage, California, 1927 (Bearing and Non-Bearing) County Acreage Per cent San Luis Obispo Yolo 33,943 12,195 7,990 6,138 6,120 5,141 5,171 4,103 3,042 2,943 2,290 2,260 1,668 1,332 1,126 1,056 1,040 4,133 33.4 12.0 Butte 7.9 San Joaquin Colusa 6 6.0 5 1 5 1 4.0 3 Contra Costa Sacramento Sutter 2.9 2 3 2.2 16 1.3 Los Angeles 1.1 1.0 Tulare ... 1.0 Other counties 4 1 Total 101,691 100 •fcv.S Each dot represents 500 acres Fig. 1. — Although almonds are grown in forty-one of the fifty-eight counties in the state, the large producing areas are confined to comparatively few counties. Data compiled from table 7. Upward Trend in Bearing Acreage since 1914. — The present bear- ing acreage of 87,074 acres is largely a result of a relatively recent growth. For many years before 1914 the bearing acreage in the state remained practically stationary at about 15,000 acres. 3 Some plant- 3 Thirteenth Census of the United States 5:723. acres on the basis of seventy trees per acre. 1910. Trees converted to 8 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION ings were made, but they were only sufficient to replace the acreage taken out. Beginning in 1915, however, the bearing acreage has increased rapidly and continuously. Each year for the past thirteen 3 r ears the bearing acreage has been larger than it was in the preceding year. This is shown by the solid black bars in figure 3. Percentage of the California Bearing Almond Acreage in Main Almond Producing Counties, 1927 County San Lui6 Obispo Yolo Butte San Joaquin Colusa Merced Stanislaus Monterey Glenn Contra Costa Sutter Sacramento Solano Riverside Los Angeles Tulare Tehama Other counties Total 87,074 100.0 Fig. 2. — Approximately one-half of the bearing almond acreage in California is in the three counties of San Luis Obispo, Yolo, and Butte. Data from table 7. A large part of the enormous increase in acreage occurred during a period when almond prices were relatively low as compared with the prices of most farm products (see fig. 10, p. 19). It is evident, therefore, that factors other than high prices furnished the main stimulus for the large plantings. Probably the most important single factor was the subdivision activities of large companies. These com- panies planted almonds on their lands apparently in order to make them more salable. Bul. 453] ALMONDS Bearing Acreage of Almonds in California, 1914-1927, and Forecast of Bearing Acreage, 1928-1930 to CO CM Oi lO Fig. 3. — The bearing acreage of almonds in California has increased rapidly and continuously since 1914. Data from table 6. Acreage Planted to Almonds in California, 1921-1926 Acres 9,003 6,677 6,921 1,363 1,182 1,156 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 Fig. 4. — Only a small acreage of almonds has been planted in California during the three years from 1924 to 1926 Data from California Cooperative" Crop Reporting Service. 10 UNIVERSITY OP CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Forecast of Bearing Acreage. — The peak in this upward trend in bearing acreage will be reached in 1929, according to the forecasts made by the California Cooperative Crop Reporting Service (fig. 3). At that time it is estimated that there will be approximately 94,000 acres of almonds in bearing, or 7,000 acres more than at present. During the years immediately after 1929, it is expected that the acreage will remain stationary. The plantings during the three years 1924, 1925, Absolute Increase in Bearing Acreage of Almonds in Main Producing Counties in California from 1921 to 1927 1,000 Acres County Acres 2 4 6 8 1 12 San Luis Obispo Yolo 4,6do nnHI Colusa 4,326 JH9QBB Monterey 3,928 bHHEttBHSB Merced 2,405 ■■■■I Stanislaus 1,386 Eg Butte 1,337 IHB San Joaquin 822 IB Glenn 818 p| Tulare 486 ■ Sutter 451 ■ Contra Costa 300 ■ Los Angeles 291 E Riverside 270 E Tehama 264 I Sacramento 110 f Others 444 ■ Total 44,510 f Fig. 5. — One-half of the total increase in bearing- acreage since 1921 has occurred in San Luis Obispo County. Data compiled from table 7. and 1926 amounted to only 1,200 acres on the average as compared with 9,000 acres in 1921 (fig. 4). It is doubtful if the planting of only 1,200 acres a year will more than fully replace the acreage which will normally go out of bearing. It seems likely, therefore, that after 1929 there will be no further increase in bearing acreage for at least three years. What takes place after that will depend upon the extent of plantings during the coming years. Where the Increase in Bearing Acreage since 1921 Has Occurred. — Figure 5 shows where the increase from 42,564 acres in 1921 to 87,074 acres in 1927 has occurred. It is particularly striking that an increase BUL. 453] ALMONDS 11 of 22,242 acres, which is equal to one-half of the total increase in the state, has taken place in one county alone — San Luis Obispo — and that 90 per cent of the total increase occurred in the seven counties of San Luis Obispo, Yolo, Colusa, Monterey, Merced, Stanislaus, and Butte. Location of Non-Bearing Acreage, 1927. — Of the 14,617 acres of almonds not in bearing in California in 1927, exclusive of 1926 plant- ings, 9,701 acres, or two-thirds of the total, were in San Luis Obispo County. The non-bearing acreage in each of the other counties was relatively small. Only three of them — Yolo, Stanislaus, and Colusa — contained over 200 acres each. Yolo had 1,565 acres not in bearing, Stanislaus, 668 acres, and Colusa, 544 acres. These three counties together with San Luis Obispo County, contained 12,498 acres, or 85.5 per cent of the state total. The figures on non-bearing acreage given above, together with the figures on bearing acreage given on page 8, indicate the importance of the Paso Robles district, which includes San Luis Obispo and Monterey counties, from the standpoint of almond acreage. Taking into consideration the present acreage coming into bearing, it is estimated that by 1930 this one district will have at least 34,000 acres in bearing, or over one-third of the total forecasted bearing acreage in the state. In 1921 this district had less than 5 per cent of the bearing acreage. ALMOND PRODUCTION IN CALIFORNIA Upward Trend of Production. — The relative changes in the pro- duction of almonds in California between 1914 and 1927 are shown in figure 6. One type of change shown in this curve of production is a pronounced upward trend. The average production of almonds in 1914 amounted to 2,600 tons as compared with the present average production of 13,000 tons. This is an increase of 10,400 tons, or 400 per cent during a period of thirteen years. Since 1919 the upward trend has been characterized by a uniform amount of increase rather than by a uniform rate of increase. Each year for the past eight years the average production of almonds, as indicated by the line of. trend, has been about 900 tons larger than in the preceding year. Relative to the size of the crop, however, the average increase is less now than formerly. For example, the average increase of 900 tons between 1926 and 1927 was an increase of only 7.4 per cent; whereas the same increase in tons between 1919 and 1920 was an increase of 15.5 per cent. Thus the trend line in figure 6, which is plotted on a relative basis, shows a decided tendency to level off. 12 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Fluctuations in Production. — The second type of change shown in the curve of production in figure 6 is the short-time fluctuations. The production of almonds fluctuates widely from year to year, being sometimes much above and sometimes much below the average. These fluctuations cannot generally be controlled by the growers, since they are caused in the main by variations in climatic conditions. Almonds are particularly subject to damage by frost. In some sections the hazard from frost is being overcome by orchard heating, but as yet this practice is not extensive. Again, since a large proportion of the almond orchards are not irrigated, variations in the amount and distribution of the rainfall from year to year result in considerable fluctuations in production. According to Taylor and Philp, "Con- tinued rainy, damp and cold weather at blooming time is apt to destroy the pollen and thus prevent the fertilization, without which a crop is impossible." 4 The growth of 'shothole' fungus in the blossoms and fruit is also encouraged by much damp weather in the spring, which often causes the loss of a considerable portion of the crop. The tendency has been for these fluctuations in production to become greater, both absolutely and relatively. The greater relative fluctuations during recent years as compared with earlier years is shown in figure 6. The average variation in production during the five-year period from 1914 to 1918, amounted to 17 per cent, as com- pared with the average variation of 44 per cent during the last five years. This indicates that the recent plantings were more generally made in localities in which the variations in climatic conditions are pronounced. These wide fluctuations in production from year to year complicate the marketing problem. In order to dispose of the large crop in 1926, for example, it was necessary for the marketing organizations in Cali- fornia to obtain many new customers. Many of the new customers had previously bought foreign almonds. If their trade is to be retained, it is necessary that the marketing organizations in this state be able to supply them regularly with their future requirements. If this cannot be clone, some of them may resume the purchase of foreign almonds. It may be more difficult to persuade them to buy California almonds again, after having once obtained and lost their business. 5 Yield per Acre. — The rapid increase in almond production has been accompanied by a decline in yield per acre. The 1914-1916 4 Taylor, R. H., and G. L. Philp. The almond in California. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. 284:11. 1923. s Tucker, T. C. Seventeenth annual report of the manager. The Minute Book 1(22) :8. 1927. Bul. 453] ALMONDS 13 average yield per acre amounted to 336 pounds, the 1925-1927 average yield to 306 pounds. This is a decrease of 30 pounds, or 9 per cent. Although a decrease of 30 pounds per acre does not appear to be great, it means, when applied to the present bearing acreage in the state, that the production is 1,300 tons smaller than it would have been had no decline in yield occurred. Production of Almonds, California, 1914-1927 o o o o 8 o m to a cm o to o <* 8 to CM O * E-" CM to to ■* 10 t» 15 -P 8 o 6 3 4 8 TREN D_ >> CM tO CM CM o> o> Fig. 6. — There has been a pronounced upward trend in almond production in California since 1914. Data from table 6. A portion of this decline in yield is probably only temporary, however. A relatively large proportion of the trees listed as bearing in the last five years were not yet in full bearing. 6 Consequently there may be some increase in yield during the next few years as a result of the increase in the average age of the trees. Again, some decline in yield may have occurred because of the neglect of the orchards during the period of relatively low almond prices. 7 With consider- ably higher prices now prevailing, it is likely that growers will find (i The age at which an almond tree is considered to be in bearing varies in different sections of the state. For the state as a whole the average is about five years. Taylor and Philp point out that almond trees should continue to increase in production from year to year, allowing for failures due to frost and unfavorable conditions, from the time they come into bearing up to twelve years of age. 7 See page 11. 14 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION it worth while to take better care of their orchards, which may result in increased yields. On the other hand, a part of the decline in yield is likely to be permanent. The available data indicates that the newer plantings were generally made in sections less adapted to high production. The most serious aspect of the average yield of almonds in this state is not that it has declined, since a part of the decline is only temporary, but that it is low. A yield of only 306 pounds per acre, which was the average for the state during the three years from 1925 to 1927, effectively prevents a satisfactory income. Even with the relatively high prices which prevailed during these three years, the average gross income amounted to less than $60 per acre. From a survey of 149 orchards in 1925, Adams found that it cost $46.60 per acre on the average to pay the actual operating expenses. 8 After deducting, in addition to the actual operating expenses, interest on investment, depreciation on trees, and a charge for the use of operat- ing capital, it is evident that there is very little, if any, left to pay the farmer for his work as manager. TABLE 1 Almonds, California — Eelation of Yield per Acre to Cost of Production, 1925 Average yield pounds Average cost per pound cents Number of orchards Acreage 35.3 14.6 10.7 9.8 6.8 44 43 29 19 14 1,755 250 to 500 1,279 500 to 750 804 750 to 1,000 525 1,000 and over 214 Source of data: Adams, R. L., Cost of producing almonds in California, a progress report. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 442:49. 1927. That larger returns may be obtained by increasing yields is shown in table 1. The average cost per pound in 1925 on forty-four orchards having a yield of less than 250 pounds per acre, was 35.3 cents; on the other hand, the average cost per pound on fourteen orchards having a yield of 1,000 pounds and over per acre, was only 6.8 cents. Growers having the high-yielding orchards made a profit ; those having the low-yielding orchards could scarcely have made a profit if the prices had been twice as high. s Adams, K. L. Cost of producing almonds in California, a progress report. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 422:46. 1927. Bul. 453 ALMONDS 15 VARIETIES OF ALMONDS Principal Varieties Grown in California. — There are many varie- ties of almonds grown in California, but only a few of them are of commercial importance. The principal commercial varieties are the Nonpareil, IXL, Ne Plus Ultra, Drake, Texas, and Peerless. These six varieties constitute approximately 93 per cent of the total crop. Their relative importance during the past four years is shown in figure 7. The Nonpareil occupies first place with 25.1 per cent of the Relative Importance of Principal Varieties of Almonds in California, Average, 1923-1926 Per cent 5 10 15 20 25 Variety ver cent Nonparei 1 25.1 Drake HO. 5 Texas 17.0 Ne Plus Ultra 12.3 IXL 11.8 Peerless 6.0 Others 7.3 Fig. 7. — The Nonpareil is the most important almond variety grown in California. Data compiled from California Almond Growers Exchange. The Minute Book 1(22) :10. 1927. total production. The Drake is next in importance with 20.5 per cent, followed by the Texas, Ne Plus Ultra, IXL, and Peerless in the order named. The three papershell varieties — Nonpareil, IXL, and Ne Plus Ultra — which are also the high-priced varieties, together constitute 49.1 per cent of the total crop. Choice of Varieties to Plant. — The growers' choice of varieties to plant is limited to some extent by the fact that practically all of the varieties are self-sterile and some of them are even inter-sterile. Taylor and Philp 9 point out that it is necessary to interplant varieties which are inter fertile and which blossom at about the same time in order to insure proper pollination. Consequently a number of different varieties are found in each orchard. 9 Taylor, E. H., and G. L. Philp. The almond in California. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Cir. 284:5. 1925. 16 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION After providing for adequate pollination, however, many growers have the choice of planting any one of the several varieties, since there is no great difference in the behavior of them under favorable conditions. The varieties that it will be most profitable to plant can be determined, at least partially, by a comparison of the gross returns per acre, obtained by multiplying the average yields per acre by the average prices per pound. The yields which growers should consider are the average yields for a period of years, which have been obtained under their particular conditions. The relative yields of the different varieties will, of course, vary from district to district, but for the state as a whole Taylor and Philp (p. 51) believe that the Nonpareil and the Drake will produce larger yields on the average than the IXL or Ne Plus Ultra, Prices Paid to Growers for Nonpareil, IXL, Ne Plus Ultra, and Drake, Average, 1922-1926 Cents per pound 5 10 15 20 Variety Nonparei 1 IXL Ne Plus Ultra 16.8 Drake Fig. 8. — The differences in the lengths of the bars show the normal price differentials between these four varieties of almonds since 1921. Data compiled from table 8. Average Price Differentials between Varieties. — Growers should give consideration not only to the average yields, but also to the average prices which have prevailed over a period of years. The average prices of the four varieties Nonpareil, IXL, Ne Plus Ultra, and Drake for the five-year period from 1922 to 1926 are given in figure 8. The Nonpareil has averaged the highest in price with a differential in its favor of 2.41 cents above the IXL, 3.19 cents above the Ne Plus Ultra, and 8.41 cents above the Drake. The Nonpareil and IXL are equally attractive for table use. The higher price of Nonpareil is largely due to the fact that it lias an additional outlet, the shelled market. The IXL cannot profitably be shelled because of the low percentage of meats. This is also true of the Ne Plus Ultra. From the standpoint of table use, the Ne Plus Bul. 453 ALMONDS 17 Ultra is less attractive than the Nonpareil and IXL because of its tendency to have gummy kernels, The relatively low price of Drakes is largely due to the fact that it has a medium-thick hard shell which is not easily broken with the fingers, and a low percentage of meats. Because of the low percentage of meats, it has not been profitable to shell the Drake. Consequently it has been marketed entirely in the shell, and as a table nut it cannot compete with the papershell varieties. Relative Prices of Almonds and All Commodities, 1910-1927 (Average 1910-1914 = 100) All c onmoa i t i 9 3 Almonds •o JO to 226 200 175 150 125 100 75 + \ s' / \ \ c< AL L DDIT ES i • • 1 * \ \ \ / / \ \ . """<«. ^ S) ^ / / \ / / y \ / A LMC NDS / ! r ■ ~rT~T~ ~ O fH CJ tO m«ot>-eoo>Or-)«vjto^< io0>0>0>0>0)0)0>0>0>0>0>0>0> Fig. 9.— During tlie war, prices of all commodities advanced much higher than the prices of almonds and have stayed at a higher level since the war. Data from table 8. The price differential between Drakes and the papershell varieties is much greater now than before the war. Between 1910 and 1914 Drakes brought, on the average, 72.5 per cent of the price of Non- pareils, as compared with 57.8 per cent during the last five years. PRICES AND PURCHASING POWER Annual Average Prices. — The annual average prices which growers have received for their almonds since 1910 are shown by the solid line in figure 9. Between 1915 and 1919 the prices of almonds increased substantially. It is misleading, however, to assume that almond growers were as much more prosperous in 1919 than in 1915 as is 18 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION shown by the rise in prices. Their expenses also increased during this period, as is shown by the broken line which represents the prices of all commodities. In fact, the prices of all commodities increased even more than the price of almonds, so that almond growers were really not as well off in 1919 as in 1915 ; that is, almond growers could not buy as much of other commodities with the money they received for a pound of almonds in 1919 as they could in 1915. In order to obtain a correct picture of the influence of changing prices upon the pros- perity of the growers, it is necessary to correct the prices of the particular product which the grower sells by the prices of the things he buys, We then obtain a figure commonly known as purchasing power. Trend of Purchasing Power. — The annual average purchasing power of almonds from 1910 to 1927 is shown by the solid black line in figure 10. Significant changes in the trend of purchasing power have occurred during this period. These changes have been largely a result of changes in the per-capita supply of almonds available for consumption in the United States. The per-capita supply is shown by the broken line in figure 10. During the first five years of this period no definite upward or downward trend in purchasing power is apparent, and likewise the supply of almonds remained practically stationary, at least for the tw r o years for which data are available. Between 1915 and 1920, however, there was a definite downward trend in purchasing power. The most important cause of this downward trend was the rapid increase in the per-capita supply, which rose from an average of 0.48 pounds in 1914-1915 to an average of 0.88 pounds in 1918-1919. Consumers would not buy this greatly increased quantity except at relatively lower prices. The increase in the supply of almonds during this period was a result of two conditions: (1) the increased production in California (see p. 11), and (2) the increased imports from Europe (see p. 21). After 1920 the trend of purchasing power turned upward, and has continued upward since then. However, it has not yet reached the level that it occupied before the war. This upward trend in purchas- ing power was largely a result of the decline in the supplies available for consumption. The substantial increase in California production was not sufficient to offset the large decrease in imports. A further substantial increase in purchasing power during the next few years should not be expected. The supplies of almonds in this country are not likely to fall much below the present level. California production has not yet reached the peak, and a further decrease in imports is not likely. Bul. 453 ALMONDS 19 United States Per-Capita Supply of Almonds (Average 1913-1915 = 100) and Purchasing Power of California Almonds (Average 1910-1914 = 100) Por-capita Supply Purchasing Power si <0 .H W O O 180 140 100 80 60 40 1 1 1 PER-CAPITA Jt v SUPPLY L\ .' t* \ 1 1 ""* —* N - V / «-- V ^v.^ PURCHASING HO WLH O r-l «VJ tO ■«* iH iH iH rH r-l Ci C> O) CI G) tO fc» CO C> O iH CM (Q «* IO <0 C- H H H H N N CM CM CM CM CM CM O>0>00>0>0> 0>0>0>0>0>0> Fig. 10. — Changes in the trend of purchasing power of California almonds were caused mainly by changes in the United States per-capita supply of almonds. Data from tables 8 and 9. Production and Purchasing Power of California Almonds, 1922-1926 Production 100 tons 85 Purchasing ^ Power 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 110 57 80 73 75 97 160 77 120 85 ^ / / \ -** >N ^ / / .." \. *>«^/ /^^**«*»^ ^^ ••»», t ^X^PURCHASIN POWER G 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 Fig. 11. — An important cause for the fluctuations in the purchasing power of almonds from year to year is variations in domestic production. Data from tables 6 and 8. 20 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Fluctuations in Purchasing Power* from Year to Year. — The pur- chasing power of almonds fluctuates widely from year to year. These fluctuations are caused by many factors. One of the most important is changes in the domestic production. The close relationship between changes in production and changes in purchasing power for the past six years is shown in figure 11. Throughout this period purchasing power varied inversely with production. High production was accom- panied by low purchasing power ; low production by high purchasing power. This relationship is not perfect, however, showing that other factors besides domestic production affect prices. One of these factors is imports. In turn, imports are affected by the prices in this country. Without a very detailed analysis, which is beyond the scope of this bulletin, it is not possible to measure the relationship between imports and domestic prices. In general, however, high domestic prices tend to stimulate imports, and increased imports tend to check any further rise in domestic prices. UNITED STATES CONSUMPTION OF ALMONDS During the past three years, the United States has consumed an average of 39,486 tons in equivalent of unshelled almonds annually. This amounts to 0.68 pounds for each person. The relative changes in the estimated per-capita consumption of almonds in the United States between 1913 and 1926 are represented by the broken line in figure 10. 10 Although the present per-capita consumption is relatively small, it is substantially larger than before the war, when it amounted to only 0.48 pounds annually. The increase between 1913-1915 and 1924-1926 has amounted, therefore, to 0.20 pounds, or 42 per cent. One reason for this increase has been the decline of 17 per cent in the purchasing power of almonds between 1913-1915 and 1924-1926. Consumers can now buy almonds relatively cheaper than they could before the war. Consequently they eat more of them. The lower purchasing power of almonds, however, does not account for all of the increase in per-capita consumption, since per-capita consumption has increased much more than purchasing power has declined. There has been a real increase in the demand for almonds. A real increase in the demand for a commodity has occurred when consumers buy more of that commodity at the same price or buy the same amount of that commodity at a higher price, assuming, of course, that there has been no change in the value of the dollar. io Carryover data on almonds are not available. Consequently the best estimates of per-capita consumption of almonds are the per-capita supplies of almonds available for consumption. BUL. 453] ALMONDS 21 The increased demand for almonds has been largely a result of the more extensive use of shelled almcnds. The bakery and confectionery trades are now using a larger volume of almonds in the preparation of their products than they did a few years ago. The amount of this increase cannot be measured accurately, because data on the amount of almonds shelled in California are not available. A fairly definite idea, however, can be obtained from the proportion that is imported in the shelled and unshelled forms. During the past three years, 95.3 per cent of the total imports were shelled as compared with 89.7 per cent during the three years from 1913 to 1915. Imports of unshelled almonds were 40 per cent smaller in 1924—1926 than in 1913-1915, while imports of shelled almonds were 42 per cent larger. This information indicates that there has been little if any increase in the per-capita consumption of unshelled almonds. The market for unshelled almonds is essentially a seasonal one and of short duration. The bulk of them are consumed during the holidays. Just how much effect the prospective increase in production of walnuts and pecans will have upon the demand for almonds is not certain. It seems probable, however, that almonds will be subjected to keener competition in the consuming markets during the next few years than they have been in the past. Large plantings of walnuts have been made in California during recent years, a substantial part of which have not yet reached the full bearing age. Pecan acreage in the southern states, particularly in Georgia and Texas, has also been increasing very fast. In 1924 over one-half of the total pecan acreage in the United States was not yet in bearing. UNITED STATES IMPORTS OF ALMONDS Although the production of almonds in the United States has increased substantially (fig. 6), the nation now produces only 26.5 per cent of the almonds consumed in this country (fig. 12). Before the war the proportion was still smaller, amounting to only 11.3 per cent. Changes in Almond Imports. — The changes in almond imports, in equivalent of unshelled almonds, between 1913 and 1926 are shown in figure 13. Before 1916, imports remained fairly stable at about 22,000 tons a year. Beginning in 1916, however, imports began4o rise rapidly. They continued upward until 1919, reaching a high point of 43,167 tons in that year. A large part of this increase was probably due to the dislocation of the European markets during the war. In 1920, imports were reduced by aln ost one-half. This great decline 22 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION was only temporary, however. The following year they were almost as large as in 1919. Since 1921 imports have declined rapidly and continuously. Each year for the past five years imports have been smaller than in the preceding year. Three factors have contributed to this decline : (1) In 1922 the tariff on shelled almonds was increased from 4 cents a pound to 14 cents a pound, and on unshelled almonds from 3 cents a pound to 4.75 cents a pound. Since approximately 95 per cent of the total imports are shelled, the increase of 10 cents a pound in the tariff has probably had a favorable effect upon the almond situation in the United States. Percentage of the United States Supply of Almonds Produced in California and Imported from Foreign Countries, Avekage 1914-1916 and 1924-1926 Calif, Imported Average 1914-16 11.3 88.7 Average 1924-26 26.5 73.5 California Imported Fig. 12. — Although the proportion of the United States supply of almonds produced in this country has increased substantially, it is still relatively small. Data compiled from table 9. (2) Some of the European countries which had greatly reduced their purchases of almonds during and immediately after the war have come back into the market. In 1925 Germany purchased 35 per cent of the total exports from Italy, as compared with 10 per cent in 1923. On the other hand, only 14 per cent of the Italian exports were sent to the United States in 1925, as compared with 26 per cent in 1923. (3) During recent years considerable effort has been made by the marketing organization in California to increase the sale of shelled almonds. For example, the California Almond Growers Exchange has increased its sale of shelled almonds from 133,000 pounds in 1922 to 3,852,000 pounds in 1926. Until recent years it was the general opinion of the trade that the quality of California shelled almonds was inferior to those imported from Europe. This opinion has been largely changed. According to the reports of the California Almond Growers Exchange, many buyers who had previously used only imported almonds are now using large quantities of domestic almonds. Bul. 453] ALMONDS 23 It should not be assumed, however, that there will be a further substantial decrease in imports during the next few years. It is prob- able that the most pronounced effect of the first two of the factors mentioned above has already occurred. The rise in almond prices in this country has made it easier for importers to pay the additional tariff duty. European markets have made a considerable recovery, and it is not likely that they will increase their purchases of almonds as much during the next few years as they have during the past few years. The present normal production in the main foreign almond- Tons United States Imports of Almonds, 1913-1926 (In equivalent of unshelled) t- t- to H t- «o CM oo to C > t i r ■> c -1 r n c •i r r> o > < * c > c T> * C i c -> c J p J c 1 c l> J c t c 5 CM Shelled* to 10 to o CO o CM to CO o> CM to CM •H 8 A A •> to IO "<*• <«• to CM CM rH Dnshelled Eh to in to o> r-4 CM "* O CM iH a o -p «H 3 Fig. 14. — Over one-half of the United States imports of almonds come in during the four months from October to January. Data from table 11. * Shelled converted to unshelled equivalents. The importing season on unshelled almonds is relatively short. The bulk of them come in during the two months of October and November. The chief reason for this is that the principal demand for unshelled almonds is during the holiday season. As compared with total imports, however, the imports of unshelled almonds are never very large. Even during October, when they are heaviest, they amount to only 19.4 per cent of the total imports. Origin of Imports. — The bulk of the United States imports of almonds comes from two European countries, Spain and Italy (table 2). During the past three years these two countries have contributed, Bul. 453 ] ALMONDS 25 on the average, 91.2 per cent of our total imports, and Spain alone contributed 57.1 per cent of the total. France was the third most important source of our foreign supplies. Our imports from France, however, were relatively small, amounting to only 6.2 per cent of the total. TABLE 2 United States Imports of Almonds by Countries of Origin, Average 1913-1915 and 1924-1926 Country Average 1913 -15 Average 1924-26 tons 12,775 6,712 1,472 894 per cent 58.5 30 7 6.7 4.1 tons 17,473 10,429 1,893 790 per cent 57 1 Italy 34 1 6 2 2 6 Total . .. 21,853 100 30,585 100 Data compiled from table 10. For many years, Spain, Italy, and France have furnished us with practically all of our imported almonds. Between 1913 and 1915 the combined imports from these three countries amounted to 95.9 per cent of the total as compared with 97.4 per cent during the past three years. The proportion supplied by each country varies from year to year, of course, because of changes in their production. But over a series of years, except for the period during and immediately after the war when imports from France were very small, the average proportion supplied by each of the countries has not changed greatly. FOREIGN ALMOND PRODUCTION The total production of almonds, outside of the United States, is largely confined to the countries bordering on the Mediterranean Sea. Detailed information on the almond situation in these countries is not available at the present time. The information presented here, although it is fragmentary, gives some indication of the situation. Italy. — Italy is the largest almond-producing country in the world. The bulk of the Italian crop is produced in the Bari district and on the Island of Sicily. The annual production of almonds in Italy from 1916 to 1926 is given in table 3, column 1. These figures indicate that there has been a substantial increase in production during the past eleven years. The 1916-1918 average production amounted to 100,100 tons as compared with an average production of 125,800 tons during the three-3 r ear period from 192-1 to 1926. 26 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 3 Production of Almonds in Certain Foreign Countries, 1916-1926 Italy Spain France Greece Tunis Palestine 1916 . tons 121,100 74,600 104,600 60,900 151,400 103,200 206,600 119,000 146,100 68,500 162,700 tons tons tons tons 2,000 2,900 2,400 3,000 2,600 3,900 1,800 2,100 1,400 2,000 tons 1917... 1918.. .. 4,900 1,500 7,200 2,400 2,700 3,400 2,600 2,800 1919 1920 1921 7,800 4,500 9,200 8,200 5,000 480 1922 81,400 510 1923 520 1924 . 570 1925 . 99,000 107,000 680 1926 . Sources of data: Column 1. Years 1916-1922: U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Italian almond industry. Foreign Crops and Markets 8: 19; 392. 1924. Years 1923-1925: U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Italian almond industry. F. S. Al-17. 1926. Year 1926: Livengood, Charles A. Italian almond production. The Minute Book, 1: (22): 31. 1927. Columns 2 and 3. U. S. Bur. Agr. Econ. Division of Statistical and Historical Research, letter to B. H. Critchfield. Column 4. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. The nut industry in Greece, F. S.N-10. 1926. Column 5. Years 1916-1920, U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Almond production in Tunisia. Al-10. 1925. Years 1921-1925, U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. The Tunisian 1927 almond crop. Al-28. 1927. Column 6. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Production and marketing of Palestine almonds. Al-15. 1926. F. S. F. S. F.S. TABLE 4 Export of Almonds* from Italy by Countries of Destination, Average 1913-1914 and Annual 1923-1925 Tons exported Percentage of total exports Country Average 1913-1914 1923 1924 1925 Average 1913-1914 1923 1924 1925 1,601 4,906 3,588 883 493 582 974 1,460 6,733 2,539 4,368 10,339 2,677 6,654 111 33.9 24.8 6.1 3.4 4 6.7 10.0 25.8 9.7 15.4 36.4 14 1 35.2 Austria-Hungary 2,823 2,703 1,882 2,616 6,768 1,741 1,119 2,054 1,933 6,822 964 834 1,200 753 5,849 10.8 10 4 7.2 10.0 26.1 6.2 3.9 7.2 6.8 24.1 5 1 4 4 6.3 India and Ceylon 4 30.9 Total . . 14,487 26,064 28,376 18,931 100 100.0 100.0 100 * Includes both shelled and unshelled. Sources of data: Average 1913-14: Ministero delle finanze. Movimento commerciale del regno dTtalia, 1913,1914. 1923-1925: U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Italian almond industry, F. S. Al-17. 1926. Bul. 453 ALMONDS 27 Exports of almonds from Italy have also increased substantially, rising from 14,487 tons on the average in 1913 and 1914 to an average of 24,500 tons in 1926. The main markets of Italian almonds are given in table 4. Before the war Germany was the largest market, followed by Austria- Hungary. In 1913 and 1914 these two countries took 58.7 per cent of the total Italian almond exports. On the other hand, only 11 per cent of the Italian almond exports were sent to the United States. During the war the markets in Germany and Austria-Hungary were largely closed to Italian exporters. As a result greatly increased quantities were shipped to the United States. During the past few years conditions have tended to approach the pre-war basis. TABLE 5 Exports of Shelled Almonds from Malaga (Spain) by Countries of Destination, 1921-1924 Tons exported Percentage of total exports Country 1921 1922 1923 1924 1921 1922 1923 1924 2,147 1,118 231 1,616 876 272 2,050 1,035 167 1,659 1,372 529 61 4 32 6.6 58.5 31.7 9.8 63 1 31.8 5.1 46.6 38.5 Other countries 14.9 Total 3,496 2,764 3,252 3,560 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 Data from U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. Large Spanish almond crop confirmed. F. S. Al-7. 1925. Spain. — Spain ranks next to Italy in the world production of almonds. In 1925 and 1926, the production of almonds in Spain was substantially larger than in 1922 (table 3, column 2). It is probable, however, that a considerable part of the increase was due to favorable climatic conditions. According to trade estimates, the production in 1925 was above normal. During the past two years there has been some increase in the almond acreage in Spain. In 1925, it was officially placed at 370,833 acres, and in 1927 at 377,601 acres. Exports of shelled almonds from Malaga, the main exporting market of Spain, for the years from 1921 to 1924 are given in table 5. During this period the proportion of the total exports shipped to the United States has declined, while the proportion shipped to Great Britain and other countries has increased. France. — The production of almonds in France is small as com- pared with that in Italy or Spain. During the five years from 1921 to 1925 no definite upward or downward trend in almond production in France is apparent (table 3, column 3). 28 UNIVERSITY OP CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Greece. — The production of almonds in Greece from 1918 to 1925 is given in table 3, column 4. During the past five years the pro- duction has been considerably lower than the 1918-1920 average pro- duction of 4,500 tons, The recent figures do not indicate any tendency toward increased production. Approximately 20 per cent of the crop, on the average, is exported. The bulk of the exports are sold in Egypt. Tunis. — The available data on almond production in Tunis since 1916 are given in table 3, column 5. There has been no tendency for production to increase during this period. Almond production is largely in the hands of the natives, who consume most of the crop themselves. Only one-fourth of the crop, on the average, is exported. From 85 to 90 per cent of the exports go to France, where they are re-graded. Palestine. — The production of almonds in Palestine has increased steadily since the war (table 3, column 6). It is probable that these estimates of production are considerably under the actual figures, since they were obtained from the tithe assessments only, and these assess- ments do not cover untaxed private holdings, considerable areas of which are planted to almonds. It is chiefly for this reason that the production estimate in 1924 was much lower than the quantity exported, which amounted to 862 tons. Egypt and Syria are the main markets for Palestine almonds. Other countries. — Almonds are also produced in Persia, French Morocco, Algeria, and Portugal. Data for a series of years on the production of almonds in these four countries, however, are not available. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors of this bulletin wish to express their thanks and indebtedness to the following organizations which have generously contributed from their data and their time: the California Coopera- tive Crop Reporting Service ; the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. United States Department of Agriculture; the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, United States Department of Commerce; the Agricultural Legislative Committee; the Division of Agricultural Economics, University of California; and the California Almond Growers Exchange. Farm advisors in the important almond-growing counties have also furnished much valuable information. Bul. 453 ALMONDS 29 APPENDIX OF TABLES TABLE 6 Bearing Acreage, Production, and Average Yield of Almonds per Acre in California, 1914-1927 Year Bearing acreage Production Average yield per acre 1 2 3 1914 1915 acres 14,947 18,602 20,470 28,383 29,242 30,100 35,044 42,564 52,876 58,472 62,313 69,371 75,311 87,074 tons 2,250 3,500 3,400 4,000 5,100 7,250 5,500 6,000 8,500 11,000 8,000 7,500 16,000 12,000 pounds 301 376 1916 332 1917 282 1918 349 1919 482 1920 ' 314 1921. 282 1922 322 1923 376 1924... 257 1925 216 1926 425 1927 276 Sources of data: Columns 1 and 2. Kaufman, E. E., California crop report for 1926. California Dept. Agr. Spec. Pub. 74: 25-26, 22. 1927; except for production figures for 1926 and 1927 which are from Kaufman, E. E., Sum- mary of California annual crop report — 1927 (mimeo.) p. 3. Jan. 4, 1928. Column 3. Figures in column 2 converted to pounds and divided by corresponding figures in col- umn 1. 30 UNIVERSITY OP CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 7 California Almond Acreage by Main Counties; Bearing Acreage, 1921-1927, and Non-Bearing Acreage, 1927 District and county Bearing acreage 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 5,487 9,127 12,358 14,318 19,768 23,516 32,316 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,535 2,700 2,800 75 2,508 2,458 2,400 4,003 4,003 4,003 2,000 2,987 6,320 8,489 12,150 15,668 24,242 912 1,132 1,080 929 1,080 1,145 1,271 22,545 27,276 29,031 30,107 31,632 32,979 34,356 6,600 7,000 7,400 7,526 7,676 7,837 7,937 1,250 3,200 3,600 4,000 4,500 5,326 5,576 2,042 2,508 2,606 2,703 2,797 2,904 2,860 2,030 2,326 2,351 2,376 2,400 2,100 2,140 1,736 1,776 1,776 1,776 1,794 1,500 1,526 1,776 1,850 1,970 2,090 2,105 2,147 2,227 676 666 662 662 666 915 940 6,000 7,500 8,207 8,501 9,200 9,730 10,630 435 450 459 473 494 520 520 11,733 13,011 13,680 14,348 14,258 15,167 16,892 2,580 2,580 2,950 3,321 3,321 3,920 4,985 5,123 5,446 5,519 5,592 5,676 5,875 5,945 3,117 3,820 3,995 4,170 3,970 4,067 4,503 468 718 775 832 878 878 954 445 447 441 433 413 427 506 2,739 3,202 3,340 3,477 3,650 3,603 3,479 762 1,062 1,062 1,062 1,129 1,069 1,053 1,060 1,155 1,250 1,345 1,400 1,362 1,330 694 707 719 731 746 767 767 223 278 309 339 395 405 329 120 320 126 126 126 92 62 42,564 52,876 58,472 62,313 69,371 75,311 87,074 Non- bearing acreage, 1927* Coast district Contra Costa Monterey San Luis Obispo Others Sacramento Valley ... Butte Colusa Glenn Sacramento Solano Sutter Tehama Yolo Others San Joaquin Valley. Merced San Joaquin Stanislaus Tulare Others Southern California Los Angeles Riverside Ventura Others Other districts State 10,096 143 100 9,701 152 3,062 53 544 182 150 142 33 116 1,565 277 1,235 156 193 668 224 73 2 63 86 14,617 * 1926 plantings of 1,155 acres not included. Source of data: Revised figures compiled by N. Service. Nielsen, California Cooperative Crop Reporting Bul. 453 ALMONDS 31 TABLE 8 Prices Paid to Growers for Almonds, California, 1910- (Cents per pound — unshelled) 1927 IXL Ne Plus Ultra Drake Average Year Nonpareil Price Relative price Relative purchasing power All- commodity index 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1910 14.00 13 00 12 00 10 00 12.29 88.6 86.0 103 1911 16.50 15.50 14.50 12.00 14.64 105.6 111 2 95 1912 13 25 12 25 11 25 9.50 11 61 83.7 83 101 1913 17 25 16.25 15.25 13 25 15.54 112 1 109 9 102 1914 18 00 15 00 14.50 12.50 15.24 109.9 109.9 100 1915 13 00 12.00 11.00 9.25 11.36 81.9 79.5 103 1916 17 25 14 75 13 75 13.00 14.95 107.8 83.6 129 1917 17 50 16.00 15.00 12.50 15 31 110 4 61.3 180 1918 24 00 22 00 21.00 17 00 21.04 151.8 76.7 198 1919 26 00 24 00 21.00 14 00 21.20 152 9 72.8 210 1920 18 50 18.50 16.50 9.00 15 31 110 4 48 230 1921 18 00 17 00 16 00 9 00 14 79 106.7 71 1 150 1922 20 00 18.00 16.00 11 00 16 27 117 4 77.2 152 1923 15 00 13.00 13.00 8 00 12 21 88.1 56 5 156 1924 18.25 16.75 16 50 10 75 15 44 111 4 73 3 152 1925 26 25 23.50 21 63 15.88 21.88 157 8 97.4 162 1926* 20 20 16 40 16 60 12.00 16.47 118.8 77.1 154 1927f 21.00 18 00 17 50 13.00 17.49 126.2 85 3 149 *An additional 5 per cent will in time be paid on the 1926 crop. t Estimates by the writers, based upon prices received by numerous growers. Source of data: Columns 1-4. Anonymous. Prices growers received from the ^California Almond Growers) Exchange since 1910. The Minute Book 1: (23) : 10. 1928. Column 5. Average price weighted by the relative importance of the four varieties from 1923 to 1926 inclusive (for weights see fig. 7, p. 00). Column 6. Average price 1910-14 equals 100. Column 7. Figures in column 6 deflated by the corresponding index number in column 8. Column 8. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. The Agricultural Situation, 12: 2; 7. 1928. 32 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 9 Imports, Production, and Consumption of Almonds, United States, 1913-1926 (Equivalent of unshelled) Year beginning July 1 Total imports Foreign exports Net imports California production Total supply available for consumption Per-capita consump- tion 1 2 3 4 5 6 tons tons tons tons tons pounds 1913 22,828 172 22,656 1,100 23,756 0.48 1914 20,764 273 20,491 2,250 22,741 0.46 1915 21,967 530 21,437 3,500 24,937 0.49 1916 30,127 351 29,776 3,400 33,176 0.65 1917 31,483 632 30,851 4,000 34,851 0.67 1918 38,761 309 38,452 5,100 43,552 83 1919 43,167 602 42,565 7,250 49,815 0.94 1920 24,122 169 23,953 5,500 29,453 0.55 1921 42,292 58 42,234 6,000 48,234 88 1922 36,746 76 36,670 8,500 45,170 0.82 1923 36,445 150 36,295 11,000 47,295 0.84 1924 33,944 190 33,754 8,000 41,754 73 1925 29,716 61 29,655 7,500 37,155 0.64 1926 23,869 61 23,808 16,000 39,808 68 Sources of data: Columns 1 and 2. U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Bur. Foreign and Domestic Commerce. U. S. monthly summary of foreign and domestic commerce. June issues. Column 3. Figures in column 2 subtracted from corresponding figures in column 1. Column 4. From table 6, column 2. Column 5. Figures in column 3 added to corresponding figures in column 4. Column 6. Figures in column 5 converted to pounds and divided by the United States population or the corresponding years. Bul. 453 ALMONDS 33 co ~ d go r 3 g re sr 3 1- re 2 3 3 3 £ re rt- " s w 5' c 1 w ?8 3 C a? t3 P O 'J H > *l H Cfi ag £ tal im Shelle Unshe Total h d 1. H d 'A Uns Tot her S g re^" iin: She (lis Tn1 2. n re 3* 2_ J3" s g 2. 5^ » L re 5* re 1 EL 3- re r helle al in Euro ~ E.1T3 re re SL 3- = re re 3 3 »' §r *s 5' if - re c B=-f L X »' 5 s X 5' If CL 3 0- 3. 3 0- n 3 O- S c 0- 3 a. 3 p- 3 co 3 p 3 re i-t 3 g CO CO B » < p* r 3. =- 3 cr r =r £L p__ s L " 2- 2. re ~ re p* B re re CL ~ a 0- z- D- 2_ * 3^ 3' to JS3 tO 05 h- ts3 05 tO 4k. CO 00 X O) 00 ts3 35 S3 CO to Oi 30 CO 4k. 4k. 05 CO M O til .0 JZ O 4- Is3 *- § CO CO *- C5 vl O) £1 to CO 30 k- e 00 00 30 CO CO Ol 05 CO to O tO OS to .O ►— tO y+ k> S * M H- CO to O CO 00 4k. CO 00 45 05 Vl ^ re 63 CO 4k. CJ1 - 4k. - 4- Ol 35 Ol 00 i- 1- i ~j 45 -4 C35 -vj » — to CO 00 CO CO cr re to ■s. H- H* Ol i - » to — k- CO CO 5' «3 4k. 00 .O CO CO ^3 S3 -^J -O O 05 Ol 3 Ol O) w -0 tk. 4- 4- ^3 ji 4k. CO O M O ~j Oi 4k. ~J CO 30 k-» a tO (35 to 30 >— CO — 4k. CO 3 era CO to J* 4k. - r « CO 3 1— Oi to M Jl ^J to *k. 4k. "co O ^1 4k. 05 to 30 4k. 05 s 00 ^1 ^J *k. Ol CO 35 k- k- S O! N CO O0 31 *a to J' CO O JO ■q » M — O ^1 CO k- to c© *k. 4k. 4k. k-> 4k. CO *. H- ^) 4k. Jl ^J S3 Vj m 00 00 CO -vl 00 4k. 00 tO (-> M .0 -1 ^4 h?>. *k. CO 00 -^1 Ol CO Ol OS O k— .O tO 4> 05 35 CO 45. J3 Jl MM 30 OS 4k. CO k- Oi Co ^1 Ol 35 tO 4k. CO co ~J ^3 n Ol JO ^J CO CO 4k. 00 CO -»1 ~J 5 ss to 35 C35 CO ^1 O "*JJ (*k- 30 CO O0 k- 01 to CO 00 CO CO O -~J 30 CO CO 4- tO -U J0 to *•• 35 j0 CO 3 05 tO O0 O 05 00 3> M CO CO — to CO to O co -. l-» OS CO to Ol to 4>- 30 S3 n to m — k— CO ^3 ^J Ol O CO -0 -O to -1 CO N 00 -k 4k. to O 4k. k- ffl m Ui ^1 to -.'. Ji Ol s 4k. CO ^1 M M Ol ^3 CO O0 O V re co >■* p 00 to — ~ OO OS -4 tO Ol CO 4»- 00 00 Ol Jl to to OS to ►— Ol to O to to Cn (n O) ■-1 00 -■ e 4»- --J Oi CO CO Ol 4>. Ol CO ffl Ol ^J CO *» M -J CO X Ol ^1 35 OO CO Ol J3 O0 Ol << re P 4k. k- © k- to CO 05 30 m- Oi CO k— CO «o 4k. JO co 1— to ^1 01 35 k-k OO CO Ol m * 30 k- J' w tO CO CT5 —J Oi -^1 f. M ||k e 00 «j — CO 99 => -*1 ~ to CO -J to Oi O 4k. to CO i~> — S3 = i - i 35 CO tO Ol H 05 k- 4k. Ol k— «k. CO CO 4k. co to in to 4- 35 -1 tO Ol CO -J k— OO — Oi Oi -j oi 4* to 35 CO ■^ m M CO OO Oi CD -4 *. to OS- to 00 to 00 CO to Oi 35 tO M Oi 4»- 00 4k.C5tO to Oi CO -^1 — 1 Ol k— -1 O Ol e OOiOl CO00O CO Ol Ot to 05 to Ol 00 «-l Ik 05 O — to co — CO 4k. co >— O CO ^i Ol Ol 4k. 35 S3 S3 OO Oi to CO Oi >— 00 OS to 4- M "*1 = — to < 35 4k.O0O0 M tC H 05tOn- ■*) M => 35 *3 050005 4».O00 00054k. 34 UNIVERSITY OP CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 00 CD O r- CD CO CD CO i- CN in co •- o CM if> rt CM CO CO I~- OO i- Tfl Cs kf) CD CM 1 co co t- O if if 0O 00 lO CO 00 i- O CM U< co" »-<" — oo" -*" h « CO CO OO CO CM « CO CN OO CM CC IS tO r > -tf co ir. CS CM OC O O if •o oc ^H If) i-l CO « -tl C" 00 it c t^ 1-H •* "3 « r~ cs CM C- co •-S CN -< 03 CC O oc § CM CN ■«*! CO 1- c o oo « CO CC i-l OC CO CM CO •f! CO CN t^ o oc CNI CO CS OO CN r^ 1-5 >> it i* CC CC Tf CN O CO CC « OO N 00 OO CM rt co if — i rt c<" c- co 5 If CM CO S _ co i-H CJ ^H it CO CM O -*t CM — ^ 'E ■** eo r^ co i- c<- O o- CO a oc if t^ « oo if co oo < CM cm" ■*J © CN Cs 1—1 l> CO t-i OO if b- CM i- ^H Tt< 03 a- CM c I-i O CO OO CC OS a c t~ o c- oo s co CN 1- cv CM CC i*< CN r^ io CC O ■**! ^t oc rH «o a CD CO X! •^ t^ « iO ir a co »r OO 03 C CS oc CM I> oc CD t^ CM fe CO er CSI CSI CN i-l t> i> t- OO CO ^ CO oc CO o — CD CO fl G CM Cs CN ^h o- « UO t^ If »f> c« -* If if OO t^ CM *"S it cs CD CM CC CO it CN CNI OC cv CD »f i* O N CC *$< CM o a co oc CN rt t-. lf i-l t~i if) if I> co 0) co CN t> Cs t^ d CO i- CC o Q t if CC CM CO CC OC if) o- t^ i*l IT c CM CS l> CM CO > O if) CN a- t~ CC CO •- CC ~H 03 OC CD CM o cc i-l O ir- CN! C -it C^ CM CD if 00 £ if es oc ci- "*<" CN if) i- CC co it CS t~- c<- 1^ co r~ i- CM »f> CO It o -^ ri 1-- CO 1- CO i- CT i-H OO o 00 ? It OS CN c; i-H C<" c O i- a ^H O O If -H it rt Tt co ^ I> CO l~i CS OS in t^ ^*< >r it CO OO CC ■<*< CM D. l>- t- G w CD CN tr CO CC oc i-l CO 1- cm r~ 03 CC if cs r+ co CM CN CD CO l^ g CM CO * # [* ■e — ~ ~ "S a g g J V o "3 "a 1 1 cu -= pC * * h=1 CM •/ or ■/ a O! E E R C 3 CO 13 S TS S T3 = TS 5 T3 3 CM 2 -c ~ c t s c t = C T3 S E T3 S .9 "35 !2 a co CC "35 "*" 9 si ^ 'X. "35 lH CD ^ CJ '"" ■S3 -S 5 a o c c fl c 7 -e io CO fi c ^ -£ 3 O & H P H & h S=> h co CO & H . - o P 1 — 3 a 3 ■J QD a >> 03 ^5 fl D CO S a 3 a s a £ -J 5 s « a 5 Q > ti o o B o O 09 o 03 ft 03 (0 3 Q Q. CO -3 03 t> A fl r C3 a -a 5 H STATION PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION BULLETINS No. 253. Irrigation and Soil Conditions in the Sierra Nevada Foothills, California. 262. Citrus Diseases of Florida and Cuba Compared with those of California. 263. Size Grades for Ripe Olives. 268. Growing and Grafting Olive Seedlings. 273. Preliminary Report on Kearney Vine- yard Experimental Drain, Fresno County, Calif. 277. Sudan Grass. 278. Grain Sorghums. 279. Irrigation of Rice in California. 283. The Olive Insects of California. 304. A Study of the Effects of Freezes on Citrus in California. 310. Plum Pollination. 313. Pruning Young Deciduous Fruit Trees. 324. Storage of Perishable Fruits at Freez- ing Temperatures. 328. Prune Growing in California. 331. Phylloxera-resistant Stocks. 335. Cocoanut Meal as a Feed for Dairy Cows and Other Livestock. 340. Control of the Pocket Gopher in California. 343. Cheese Pests and Their Control. 344. Cold Storage as an Aid to the Mar- keting of Plums, a Progress Report. 347. The Control of Red Spiders in Decid- uous Orchards. 348. Pruning Young Olive Trees. 349. A Study of Sidedraft and Tractor Hitches. 350. Agriculture in Cut-Over Redwood Lands. 353. Bovine Infectious Abortion, and As- sociated Diseases of Cattle and New- born Calves. 354. Results of Rice Experiments in 1922. 357. A Self-Mixing Dusting Machine for Applying Dry Insecticides and Fun- gicides. 358. Black Measles, Water Berries, and Related Vine Troubles. 361. Preliminary Yield Tables for Second- Growth Redwood. 362. Dust and the Tractor Engine. 363. The Pruning of Citrus Trees in Cali- fornia. 364. Fungicidal Dusts for the Control of Bunt. 366. Turkish Tobacco Culture, Curing, and Marketing. 367. Methods of Harvesting and Irrigation in Relation to Moldy Walnuts. 368. Bacterial Decomposition of Olives During Pickling. 369. Comparison of Woods for Butter Boxes. 370. Factors Influencing the Development of Internal Browning of the Yellow Newton Apple. 371. The Relative Cost of Yarding Small and Large Timber. 373. Pear Pollination. 374. A Survey of Orchard Practices in the Citrus Industry of Southern California. 375. Results of Rice Experiments at Cor- tena, 1923, and Progress in Experi- ments in Water Grass Control at the Biggs Rice Field Station, 1922-23. 377. The Cold Storage of Pears. 379. Walnut Culture in California. 380. Growth of Eucalyptus in California Plantations. 382. Pumping for Draininge in the San Joaquin Valley, California. 385. Pollination of the Sweet Cherry. No. 386. 387. 388. 389. 390. 391. 392. 393. 394. 395. 396. 397. 398. 400. 402. 404. 405. 406. 407. 408. 409. 410. 411. 412. 415. 416. 417. 418. 419. 420. 421. 422. 423. 424. 425. 426. 427. 428. 429. 430. 431. 432. 433. Pruning Bearing Deciduous Fruit Trees. Fig Smut. The Principles and Practice of Sun- Drying Fruit. Berseem or Egyptian Clover. Harvesting and Packing Grapes in California. Machines for Coating Seed Wheat with Copper Carbonate Dust. Fruit Juice Concentrates. Crop Sequences at Davis. I. Cereal Hay Production in Cali- fornia. II. Feeding Trials with Cereal Hays. Bark Diseases of Citrus Trees in Cali- fornia. The Mat Bean, Phaseolus Aconitifo- lius. Manufacture of Roquefort Type Cheese from Goat's Milk. Orchard Heating in California. The Utilization of Surplus Plums. The Codling Moth in Walnuts. The Dehydration of Prunes. Citrus Culture in Central California. Stationary Spray Plants in California. Yield, Stand, and Volume Tables for White Fir in the California Pine Region. Alternaria Rot of Lemons. The Digestibility of Certain Fruit By- products as Determined for Rumi- nants. Part I. Dried Orange Pulp and Raisin Pulp. Factors Influencing the Quality of Fresh Asparagus after It is Har- vested. Paradichlorobenzene as a Soil Fumi- gant. A Study of the Relative Value of Cer- tain Root Crops and Salmon Oil as Sources of Vitamin A for Poultry. Planting and Thinning Distances for Deciduous Fruit Trees. The Tractor on California Farms. Culture of the Oriental Persimmon in California. Poultry Feeding: Principles and Prac- tice. A Study of Various Rations for Fin- ishing Range Calves as Baby Beeves. Economic Aspects of the Cantaloupe Industry. Rice and Rice By-Products as Feeds for Fattening Swine. Beef Cattle Feeding Trials, 1921-24. Cost of Producing Almonds in Cali- fornia : a Progress Report. Apricots (Series on California Crops and Prices). The Relation of Rate of Maturity to Egg Production. Apple Growing in California. Apple Pollination Studies in Cali- fornia. The Value of Orange Pulp for Milk Production. The Relation of Maturity of Cali- fornia Plums to Shipping and Dessert Quality. Economic Status of the Grape Industry. Range Grasses of California. Raisin By-Products and Bean Screen- ings as Feeds for Fattening Lambs. Some Economic Problems Involved in the Pooling of Fruit. Power Requirements of Electrically Driven Manufacturing Equipment. No. 434. BULLETINS— (Continued) No. Investigations on the Use of Fruits in Ice Cream and Ices. 435. The Problem of Securing Closer Relationship Between Agricultural Development and Irrigation Con- struction. 436. I. The Kadota Fig. II. Kadota Fig Products. 437. Economic Aspects of the Dairy In- dustry. 438. Grafting Affinities with Special Refer- ence to Plums. 439. The Digestibility of Certain Fruit By- products as Determined for Rumi- nants. Part II. Dried Pineapple Pulp, Dried Lemon Pulp, and Dried Olive Pulp. 441. 442. 443. 444. The Feeding Value of Raisins and Dairy By-Products for Growing and Fattening Swine. The Electric Brooder. Laboratory Tests of Orchard Heaters. Standardization and Improvement of California Butter. Series on California Crops and Prices: Beans. Economic Aspects of the Apple In- dustry. No. 87. Alfalfa. 115. Grafting Vinifera Vineyards. 117. The selection and Cost of a Small Pumping Plant. 127. House -Fumigation. 129. The control of Citrus Insects. 136. Melilotus Indica as a Green-Manure Crop for California. 144. Oidium or Powdery Mildew of the Vine. 157. Control of Pear Scab. 164. Small Fruit Culture in California. 166. The County Farm Bureau. 173. The Construction of the Wood-Hoop Silo. 178. The Packing of. Apples in California. 179. Factors of Importance in Producing Milk of Low Bacterial Count. 202. County Organization for Rural Fire Control. 203. Peat as a Manure Substitute. 209. The Function of the Farm Bureau. 212. Salvaging Rain-Damaged Prunes. 215. Feeding Dairy Cows in California. 217. Methods for Marketing Vegetables in California. 230. Testing Milk, Cream, and Skim Milk for Butterfat. 231. The Home Vineyard. 232. Harvesting and Handling California Cherries for East.ern Shipment. 234. Winter Injury ' to Young Walnut Trees During 1921-1922. 238. The Apricot in California. , 239. Harvesting and Handling Apricots and Plums for Eastern Shipment. 240. Harvesting and 'Handling California Pears for Eastern Shipment. 241. Harvesting and Handling California Peaches for Eastern Shipment. 243. Marmalade Juice and Jelly Juice from Citrus Fruits. 244. Central Wire Bracing for Fruit Trees. 245. Vine ^Pruning Systems. 248. Some Common Errors in Vine Prun- ing and Their Remedies. 249. Replacing Missing Vines. 250. Measurement of Irrigation W at er on .the .Farm. 252. Support for Vines. . 253. Vineyard Plans. 254. The Use of Artificial Light to In- crease Winter. Egg Production. 255. LeguminoQs Plants as Organic Fer- tilizers in California Agriculture. CIRCULARS No. 257. 258. 259. 261. 264. 265. 266. 267. 269. 270. 273. 276. 277. 278. 279. 281. 282. 283. 284. 286. 287. 283. 289. 290. 292. 293. 294.- 296. 298. 300. 301. 302. 304. 305. 306. 307. 308. 309. 310. 311. The Small-Seeded Horse Bean (Vicia faba var. minor). Thinning Deciduous Fruits. Pear By-Products. Sewing Grain Sacks. Preliminary Essentials to Bovine Tu berculosis Control in California. Plant Disease and Pest Control. Analyzing the Citrus Orchard b> Means of Simple Tree Records. The Tendency of Tractors to Rise in Front; Causes and Remedies. An Orchard Brush Burner. A Farm Septic Tank. Saving the Gophered Citrus Tree. Home Canning. Head, Cane and Cordon Pruning of Vines. Olive Pickling in Mediterranean Countries. The Preparation and Refining of Olive Oil in Southern Europe. The Results of a Survey to Deter- mine the Cost of Producing Beef in California. Prevention of Insect Attack on Stored Grain. Fertilizing Citrus Trees in California. The Almond in California. . Milk Houses for California Dairies.; Potato Production in California. Phylloxera Resistant Vineyaanis. Oak Fungus in Orchard' Trees. The Tangier Pea. Alkali Soils. ~. •• - ■ ' The Basis of Grape Standardization. •Propagation Of Deciduous Fruits. Control of the California Ground Squirrel. Possibilities and Limitations of Coop- erative Marketing. Coccidiosis of Chickens. Buckeye Poison jng of the Honey Bee. The Sugar Beet in California.. Drainage on the Farm./ Liming the Soil. A General Purpose Soil Auger and Its Use on the Farm. , American Foulbrood and Its Control. Cantaloupe Production in California. Fruit Tree and Orchard Judging. The Operation of the Bacteriological Laboratory for Dairy Plants. The Improvement of Quality, in Figs. The publications listed above may be had by addressing College of Agriculture, University of California, Berkeley, California. 14m-5,'28