UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY EMIL RAUCHENSTEIN Results of investigations conducted under cooperative agreement between the California Agricultural Experiment Station and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, United States Department of Agriculture. BULLETIN 445 December, 1927 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRINTING OFFICE BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 1927 & TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Summary and conclusions 3 Object of this study 6 Part I — The situation in the United States 7 Importance of the apple industry in the United States 7 Apple-producing areas in the United States 9 Trends in apple production 11 Trend in the number of apple trees in the United States 16 Trend in the number of apple trees in important apple-producing counties 20 Shipments of fresh apples by years 23 Shipments of fresh apples during the summer months 24 Seasonal movement of fresh apples compared with other fresh fruits 27 Apple storage 30 The distribution and extent of the apple-drying industry in the United States.... 32 The distribution and extent of the apple-canning industry in the United States... 33 Important apple markets in the United States 34 Important foreign markets for fresh apples 36 Imports and exports of fresh, dried, and canned apples in the United States 38 Apple prices and their relation to production 39 Correlation of purchasing power and total United States production 42 Seasonal variations in the purchasing power of apples 43 Part II — The situation in California 45 Importance of the apple industry in California 45 Areas devoted to apple production in California 47 Trend in acreage by counties 48 Carlot shipments of apples in California by months 51 Trend in shipments by counties 53 Apple survey 54 Apple production in the Watsonville district by varieties and grades 55 Primary destination of apples from the Watsonville district 56 Shipments and prices of packed apples by months, Watsonville district 59 Trend in quantities and proportions of packed and loose Yellow Newtowns and Yellow Bellflowers 60 Prices of principal varieties of apples shipped from the Watsonville district... 61 Apple production in the Sebastopol district by varieties and grades 63 Distribution of Gravenstein apples from the Sebastopol district 63 Prices of Gravenstein apples by sizes and grades 66 Production and prices of Gravenstein apples in the Sebastopol district 66 Source of apples received in California cities 70 Bibliography 72 ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY* EMIL EAUCHENSTEIN2 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The apple is the most important fruit grown in the United States, both in acreage and in value. In total quantities of fruit produced it approximately equals the combined tonnage of all the rest of the fruits grown in the United States. In the list of all crops it ranked seventh in value for 1923 and 1924. The acreage in bearing apples in 1919, however, amounted to only 2.2 per cent of the corn acreage, or an area slightly larger than the total land area of Monterey county. In common with a number of our fruits it can be grown under a wide variety of conditions so far as soil and climate are concerned, hence it will be physically possible greatly to increase the production when- ever the outlook over a period of years seems to promise greater net profits to the producer from that enterprise than from other enterprises. The trend in total apple production in the United States from 1889 to 1904 was upward. Since 1909 there has been a slight down- ward trend, but judging from recent surveys in the East of trees by age groups the low point has probably been passed. Commercial production has been increasing, and our future production in the East will undoubtedly come more largely from farms that are specializing to a considerable extent in fruit production. The Far-western states as a whole are probably near the peak of their production for the next decade. California will probably increase its production for several years more, judging from the increase in the number of bearing trees from 1910 to 1925. i The author is particularly indebted to Dr. H. E. Erdman and Dr. S. W. Shear of the Division of Agricultural Ecoonmics for data and for help in locating other sources of data used in this bulletin. The United States Bureau of Agricultural Economics cooperated with the Division of Agricultural Economics in financing the apple survey, and M. E. Cooper, Agricultural Economist, of the former organ- ization helped in planning the survey. Mr. L. T. Kirby compiled most of the field data. Thanks are also due the various shipping organizations that gave us access to their records; to C. H. Beasley and Fred Tugel of the Bureau of Standard- ization, to N. I. Nielsen of the Califorina Cooperative Crop Eeporting Service for furnishing unpublished data ; and to H. F. Gould of the California Development Association for a series of production and price figures on Gravenstein apples. Assistance in statistical computation was rendered by Miss Gladys E. Platts, statistical clerk; Miss Euth McChesney, statistical assistant, and Miss Wynona Kirkpatrick, student assistant. 2 Associate in Agricultural Economics. 4 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Apple shipments during the summer months increased greatly from 1918 to 1926 both in California and in the rest of the United States. The increase in June shipments is largely due to the greater amounts held in cold storage. The increase in July shipments is due to a marked increase in the shipment of Gravenstein apples from California and to increases in other parts of the United States as well. August shipments from California have not increased so much, but from the rest of the box area and from the barrel area there have been decided increases. These increases in shipments during the summer months have undoubtedly been largely responsible for the unsatisfactory prices received for Gravenstein apples during recent years. The peak of apple shipments comes in October, which is also the peak month for grape shipments. The important perishable fruits such as watermelons, cantaloupes, peaches, and strawberries have their peaks of shipments three to five months earlier, and compete mainly with cold storage apples and early apples such as Gravensteins. Cold-storage space in the United States practically trebled from 1914 to 1925. The quantity of apples held in cold storage approxi- mately doubled from 1915 to 1925. The peak of cold-storage holdings consistently comes in December. California and New York produce more than one-half of the United States total of dried apples. Approximately 25 per cent of the Cali- fornia apples are dried. Statistics for five census years from 1899 to 1923 show that the lowest proportion of the total United States crop dried was 1.7 per cent, and the highest proportion 5.0 per cent. More than one-half of the dried apples produced in the United States are exported. From 1.0 to 2.6 per cent of the United States apple crop is canned. California supplies more than one-half of the apples that are shipped to its two main markets, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Most of the Gravenstein apples are shipped to markets outside of the state, but the later apples which constitute the bulk of the crop are largely marketed within the state. Exports of fresh apples from the United States during the years 1900 to 1925 have fluctuated widely from year to year partly because of the irregular production in England and other European countries, and partly because of the irregular production in the United States. From 1900 to 1910 the usual exports varied from two to four million bushels. Since 1910 our annual exports have been between four and ten millions ten years out of the sixteen. From 1923 to 1925 our Bul. 445] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY 5 exports have been above ten million bushels, amounting to from 11 to 12 per cent of our commercial crop. The United Kingdom received from 80 to 90 per cent of our apple exports before the World War and from 60 to 94 per cent since the war. Since the war Sweden, Denmark, Cuba, Brazil, and Argentine have been increasing their imports of fresh apples from the United States. The general trend of our total exports has been upward since 1900, but the fluctuations have been violent from year to year. Exports of canned apples are of only minor importance. Dried-apple exports appear to be declin- ing. From 1910 to 1914 they amounted to the equivalent of almost six million bushels of fresh apples each year. From 1921 to 1925 they amounted to the equivalent of approximately three million bushels of fresh apples each year. Our net export of apples in all forms amounted to nearly fifteen million bushels of fresh apples annually during the period 1923 to 1925. The purchasing power of apples based on New York prices from September to May of each year shows an upward trend from 1881 to 1901. Since 1901 the purchasing power has been practically on a level. Variations in purchasing power per barrel from year to year occur rather consistently in the opposite direction from the variations in production. The Xew York price in September averages 84 per cent and the May price averages 113 per cent, of the average Sep- tember-to-May price. The January and February prices are usually near the average price for the season. The outlook for apple production in the United States as a whole is not particularly discouraging compared with other farm products. The purchasing power of apples since the war has been about as high as during the pre-war period, while the average of all farm products is somewhat lower. On the other hand, this is, for several reasons, not an opportune time for great expansion. 1. Other fruits have been increasing and have displaced apples to a certain extent in the consumer's diet, so that we are on a new level of apple consumption per capita. Since the consumer has cultivated the habit of using a variety of fruits, it will probably be expensive, if at all possible, to get him to consume the same quantity of apples that he apparently consumed twenty-five years ago. 2. New apple orchards do not begin to give returns on the invest- ment for a number of years after the initial investment is made. Should there be a decrease in the general price level such as occurred for approximately thirty years after the Napoleonic Wars and after the Civil War, it would increase the difficulty of getting a fair return 6 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION on the original investment made during a period of higher prices. This point applies to California apple growers as well as to growers in other states. The outlook for Gravenstein apple growing in California is not as favorable as for the producers of later apples, judging from the price trend and from the very marked increase in shipments of apples and other fruits from other areas in June, July, and August. From 80 to 85 per cent of the Gravenstein apples sold fresh are usually shipped to distant markets. This means high marketing expense in markets where competition is increasing. Producers of late apples in Cali- fornia can market most of their fresh apples within the state, having the advantage of lower marketing costs in competition with apples from other western states. OBJECT OF THIS STUDY The main object of this bulletin is to present and to analyze the available data on the apple industry in order to give California apple growers and others a better understanding of the present situation and future outlook of their industry. Not only the apple industry of California, but the California fruit industry as a whole is vitally affected by the apple production of the United States. In Part I of this bulletin, therefore, the subject is mainly discussed from the stand- point of the industry as a whole. Part II deals more particularly with the apple industry in California and includes the results of a survey carried on in cooperation with the United States Bureau of Agricul- tural Economics regarding prices, marketing, and distribution of California apples by important apple districts. A considerable amount of information from many sources is avail- able on apples. In this bulletin the attempt has been made to present briefly and to analyze the material which is pertinent to the problem, and to add a list of the most important references on apples for the use of those wishing to explore certain phases of the subject further. Bul. 445] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY Part I THE SITUATION IN THE UNITED STATES IMPORTANCE OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES Compared with other crops in the United States the apple ranked seventh in value (average values of 1923 and 1924). As shown in table 1, corn ranked first in value for 1923 and 1924 with a value of $2,714,000,000. The apple ranked seventh with a value of $230,000,000. The peach crop was the next fruit crop in value and ranked tenth in the list of all crops with a value of $80,000,000. Grapes and oranges ranked next with values of $73,000,000 and $65,000,000 respectively. If we compare these crops on a percentage basis with corn — the crop ranking highest in value — equal to 100, apples were 8.5 per cent, peaches 2.9 per cent, grapes 2.7 per cent, and oranges 2.4 per cent. Most of the fruit crops have high values per acre compared with the field crops, hence if we make comparisons on the basis of acreage, the fruit crops generally rank lower than when the comparisons are made on the basis of total value. Thus apples, which were seventh in value, ranked tenth in acreage, and oranges, twelfth in value, ranked twenty-third in acreage. TABLE 1 Value of Important Crops in the United States, Average of 1923 and 1924 Rank Crop Value in millions of dollars Per cent of corn value 1 2,714 1,678 1,676 937 634 *f 370 230 119*t 112 80 73 65 61t 59 55 *t 42*t 30 100 2 3 Cotton (seed and lint) 61 8 61.8 4 Wheat 34 5 5 Oats 23.4 6 Potatoes 13.6 7 Apples 8.5 8 Barley 4.4 9 4.1 10 Peaches 2.9 11 2.7 12 Oranges 2.4 13 2.2 14 2 2 15 Rye 2 16 1.5 17 Nuts 1.1 * Based on December 1 value. f These figures taken from U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook 1925, under the separate statistics for each crop. Data from U.S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook 1925:107-109. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 2 Acreage of Important Crops in United States, 1919 Rank Crop Acreage* in thousands Per cent of corn acreage 1 Corn (grain, silage and 106,278 96,121 73,099 37,991 33,740 7,679 6,473 4,747 3,252 2,355 1,162 1,125 800 636 482 375 373 343 316 295 273 272 239 100.0 2 90.4 3 Wheat 68.8 4 Oats 35.7 5 Cotton 31.7 6 Rye 7.2 7 Barley 6.1 8 Sorghums and sugar beets 4.5 9 Potatoes 3.1 10 Apples 2.2 11 1.1 12 1.1 13 Peaches 0.8 14 Sugar beets 0.6 15 Sorghums for syrup 0.5 16 0.4 17 0.4 18 Nuts (pecans, almonds, and walnuts) 0.3 19 Tomatoes 0.3 20 0.3 21 0.3 22 0.3 23 0.2 * Bearing acreage for the fruit crops. Data from U.S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook 1921:434-469. The acreage of the important crops in the United States for 1919 are shown in table 2. The list of crops has been extended beyond those shown in table 1 in order to include oranges in their proper order when ranked according to acreage. Corn lead all other crops in 1919 in acreage with 106,278,000 acres. Apples lead the fruit crops with 2,355,000 acres. Peaches were next among the fruits and thirteenth of all of the crops with 800,000 acres. Grapes, pears, plums and prunes, and oranges ranked third, fourth, fifth, and sixth in area among the fruits and sixteenth, twentieth, twenty-first, and twenty- third, respectively, in the list of all crops. The relative area occupied by these crops in 1919 can be seen more clearly in the last column of table 2, which shows the relation of the area in each crop to that in corn. Thus the apple acreage was 2.2 per cent of the corn acreage. Peaches occupied 0.8 per cent as much area as was occupied by corn. Grapes, pears, plums and prunes, and BUL. 445] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY 9 oranges occupied 0.4, 0.3, and 0.2 per cent, respectively, of the acre- age devoted to corn. The significance of this comparison of acreages devoted to various crops is apparent when we remember that all of the fruits listed above except oranges can be grown under a fairly wide range of soil and climatic conditions. It is therefore physically possible to greatly increase the area devoted to many fruits, especially apples. Such increases will occur if prices rise or costs are lowered so that the net incomes to fruit growers will be greater than the net incomes which they can obtain from other enterprises. APPLE-PRODUCING AREAS IN THE UNITED STATES Maps have been drawn showing the acreage and production of apples in the United States for 1919 by counties, but they are some- what misleading, as far as showing a normal distribution of apple production is concerned. The acreage figures are not representative of production because of the wide differences in yields per acre in various sections. The West generally has considerably heavier yields per acre than the East. Production figures for 1919 are misleading because yields were above normal in the West in 1919 and much below normal in the East. The average yields for 1923 and 1924 are more nearly representative of normal conditions in all parts of the United States, hence table 3 and figure 1 have been prepared on this basis. Table 3 shows that the average production of apples in 1923 and 1924 was highest in Washington with 27,500,000 bushels, and second highest in New York with 23,500,000 bushels. In both states pro- duction is concentrated largely in two or three areas as is shown in figure 1. Washington production is concentrated in the Yakima Valley, the Wenatchee Valley, and Spokane County. New York pro- duction is concentrated southeast of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario and in the southeastern part of the state. Another important area extends through the Appalachian region from Pennsylvania, through Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and North Carolina. Virginia ranked third in production among all of the states with 12,250,000 bushels, Pennsylvania seventh with 9,328,000 bushels, West Virginia eighth with 7,660,000 bushels, and North Carolina twelfth with 4,525,000 bushels. Michigan, along the eastern shore of Lake Michigan, has an important apple-producing area, and the state as a whole ranked fifth in production with 9,580,000 bushels. 10 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION The New England states, with the exception of the extreme northern part, show a high concentration in apple production, but owing to the small area in each state the individual states do not rank high in production Through the north-central states and TABLE 3 United States Apple Production by States and Sections, Average 1923-1924 Thousands of bushels State and section Average 1923-1924 State and section Average 1923-1924 New England states: Maine 2,871 1,199 708 3,330 387 1,540 West north central states: 5,686 2,183 940 South Dakota 181 3,575 1,185 Connecticut Total South central states: Kentucky Total 10,035 23,500 2,502 9,328 13,750 Middle Atlantic states: 4,163 New Jersey Tennessee Arkansas 3,056 3,563 Alabama 961 35,330 1,225 2,075 437 1,182 12,250 7,660 4,525 Mississippi 195 31 South Atlantic states: Oklahoma 1,205 Delaware 300 Maryland Total Far western states: South Carolina 13,474 Georgia Virginia 3,017 3,889 27,500 West Virginia North Carolina 29,354 3,418 1,859 9,373 6,950 9,580 7,250 9,702 640 Total East north central states: Indiana 43 Wisconsin 1,120 Ohio 99 Illinois Utah . 860 Michigan 48 Total Total 31,180 54,168 187,291 Data for 1923 from U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook 1925:859; for 1924 from Crops and Markets Monthly Sup. 3(12) :401. the northern part of the south-central states there is generally a fair distribution, with some concentration in southern Illinois, north- western Missouri, and northwestern Arkansas. The state of Illinois as a whole ranked tenth in apple production with 6,950,000 bushels. Missouri ranked eleventh with 5,686,000 bushels. Farther west there is the Grand Junction-Delta-Montrose district of Colorado and the Boise district of Idaho. In Oregon the Hood Bul. 445] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY 11 River and Willamette valleys show high production. The state pro- duced 7,250,000 bushels and ranked ninth in the United States. California ranked fourth in apple production in 1923 and 1924, but it usually ranks fifth or sixth. Its production is concentrated mainly along the coast in two areas: the Sonoma Valley north of San Fran- cisco and the Pajaro Valley south of San Francisco. Apple Production in the United States, Average of 1923 and 1924 Eoch Dor Represents ZOO OOO Bushels Fig. 1. — The average yields for 1923 and 1924 are fairly representative of normal yields in all parts of the United States. Production is concentrated along the northern Atlantic coast, the Appalachian Mountains, the southern and eastern shores of Lakes Ontario, Erie, and Michigan, and in the state of Washington. TRENDS IN APPLE PRODUCTION Statistics on total apple production by states are available for each year since 1899. They show that production increased at a faster rate than population up to about 1906. For the period from 1909 to 1926 as a whole the production trend is downward, although the trend may be leveling out, judging by the production records since 1922. Statistics of the commercial crop, 3 which are available by states for each year since 1916, show a faster rate of increase than population. 3 By commercial production is meant that portion of the total crop which is sold for consumption as fresh fruit. Folger and Thompson (ls) state that more than 90 per cent of the orchards in some states have never been sprayed, and that the spraying operation gives rise to one of the first sharp distinctions between commercial and non-commercial orchards. Apples from unsprayed orchards may find their way into commercial channels to a considerable extent during years of short crops. During years of large crops a large proportion of the poor-grade apples are wasted. 12 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION * 1 H rr! H « DC pa o Q jd H EH ,_, 00 IC 00 oe cr o m ■<*< o o co o e c > t-. T- r^ ■O it O CO CO LO to tc o to DC e to OS cr_ c- a- oc o o es "* I «H OS irj or cr to IC es Oi ^h to cs c fS] c- O cc tc «o o cc o cc ■ o> © o t^ CN «* CC M cc CO cc cs ■*t •rt UJ Tf t(( t« CO N N CO CO <* r t-t iH TH f ! ^S s CN C iot-hlooo oooooooo cf 3 t» cMin t-hoooooo^ i -^ m o cc o o cc t- to cc uc c cocoooo ocooolooo« OS 1^ o tO CM i- m en coLOcooooooev ^ CO iH CO «N I- -«t rt CO i to c ! 0) s_^ o t> oc O o c «» c o o if O O LO c l pH OT o- c- .r o cm OS ** o o C6 CC o o CN a GC LfJ cr " en w ■* cn ^ TjHcoLrTccTtCo'es i ^ CC LO CN ^ lO c on h- r- ■ o »eH e\ e lr- — o- or tc 5 ev O O CO CO O T-t C .& oo LO o CO 10 «* kO OD cc cc tH ■* 00 CMLOOCOLOIOCS CO c cc Tf CN oo co ^ cj co to o) e? 1- CM in a 3 cr Ifl CN o o »- : fio o T- t> cs C Cv oo o c- cm o lo o to e- CC c CNJ OO It 00 tJ( io i- o oo tc OS 3 CC g CC OC CC CO CO cc tc CC CO Tf es Lf ■"^CCllA CMCC'— l^COOC y-l CO •*! «*■ en CC ~ C o CC CC <* oc « cr> •* o oo o Lo i— i o esi t« t3JJ lO C3 05 y- O O N O U> « oo n a cm w c o c- LC LT cr cr oe CT tc cc CM 1— •H Cs CNl i- tc *<* OS p» Tl ifi oc Ti- C5 c- Cs ">* if: to lO Ir-CNI COCOLOCOOOOCN ^ § oc er or a ~ c «H lO to cr> o O ^ t~~ o — OS f*i oo r^ or CV CC \r « cc « Cfi LO 02 C CO O CTs OO CO 0O «N e- CC c t e cc_ tc c l^ O CN t- O CM ^ 00 LO 00 tfi 1 ^ OS c- 5 CC 0) e LC c^- u- K cr t* -«t cr CN ■* r- c CM r- CD M CO N ff O Pi eo tc rH CS c- cr cr o oc C C0 c or cC § cr ■n CN o •* «H ^ t^ CC c c C CC y. CN co O" cc ►c t> IC <= oo 00 CO oo o> c- o CO T- C» r- <* l> w. -* LTJ oc oc »o ■* cq if IM CO Oi ■* CO « IS e< us T| Lf cr C-. rr r— «d c- tc CO Oi ^ CD C" o> c CC- <■/ w - Sg c CN CS 1" IT. oo cr e»" CM LO U" lO N tO CO » r «r C5 w \r oo to CC * Cr Ol CC »* ■«t ■* f es CM i- to ifl -t e CC cr eC CC c 00© CXICOCOC- N H N w ^ i- O OS , ~ 1-1 es es £"T «vj O c oe ec cr cr C o ec CC cc Cs L0 CO o t- Lf t^ CO CO O G CO o» cr c^ tc ir. c CT ev c^- 1^ 5 en 02 00 LO tC " co 2 ^ es es li- es P t-H C c o a- ■~ cr c o- CI cr en c o ct> oi So »- CO to 00 en" cr " C LO K oc OO oc " es l- " es CB 05 Oi t- 3 a cc O O O O! N in N 91 es es ."S °° lO -t c S LC C t^ t- c V 1- Ol o- i- c 00 LO t" t~ Tti lo rt " H 1— 1 r- es es es o» C cr OO cr — 1 c c C c a cr cr » C s o «H tH y— I cc c <=r> cr e> ir lo t^ oe c O to" cr C es t> l> ev- es oc cr c- s 00 CC cs CS " n^ m o 2 o © ev cr e fj 'T. c er C cr e c o- « cr o c e* ec t- 00 CO 1- l> Lf >f LO CN tc u: co" ■*" oc i- ■ 6$ 00 cr a OC CC LT «- cv c o- c< " rt" r)T xr, es co ?-> * iH be a "rt o H .. .. 0> 4) C3 "S « ■% a 9 J bl O CO a 'I 'E 3 9 .E c C t c en 0) 1 5 rCj a- o CO V ■1 S c c 0. H V rr ir c^ < c CO CI) co CI C S * C£ O [3h C e X P c "b C 1 1 B c b a c 1 1 c W Cv tx a Sod ft 1 rH OS rH Bul. 445] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY 13 Total production data from 1909 to 1926 for the more important states, the total for the far-western states, and for the United States are given in table 4. Data on commercial production by states from 1916 to 1926 are given in table 5. Figure 2 shows the total United States production and commercial production, far-western production, and Trends in Apple Production and Population in the United States, 1909-192G Millions /909 &/0 // IZ /3 /4 J9/5 t<5 /? /8 & /9ZO Zf ZZ £3 Z4 /9ZS Z6 Fig. 2. — Illustrating parts of tables 4 and 5. For the whole period 1909- 1926 the trend in total United States apple production has been downward, while the trends in commercial and far-western production have been upward. If we consider only the past five years, the trends of United States total pro- duction and of far-western production are practically level. United States population. The smooth lines drawn through the irregular production lines show the trend in production for each period as a whole. The average trend downward in total United States production since 1909 has been 316,000 bushels a year. On this basis the normal crop for 1926 would be 181,628,000 bushels. The average trend upward in commercial production since 1916 has been 3,650,000 bushels per year. On this basis the normal commercial crop for 1926 would be 106,250,000 bushels, or 58.5 per cent of the normal total crop. For the years 1916-1919 the commercial crop averaged 44 per cent of the total crop. 14 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA— EXPERIMENT STATION c CN ir c c g e p 00 o oc O fr- IC tj< cs r^ oo o oo CM CO 00 CO ic CC ec 3 « IC © c cc oo es »— I CO lO CO CD tO I s - o CM CO fr- -t t> C IA «i~ cc CO t> o oo r^ -o o — s •<*< O 00 io ic es iC c>- CC c en ic CN cr o CO <= * O N •^ CO OS U) * CM O r~ « a OB tH t- OC C to O !C CO H T( oo CSI OS 00 00 tO OC c^ oo CM CO »c 00 CS c cc a >C c- >o eo -* CO C § CM U- c: o ■* -* c ■* © CSt © y 1^ oc c- CT ic o — cc -t oo c^- O O OS ^H ir CO CO CO CS ~ oc t C oc ^< CM OC c<- 00 o ■* CO O CS i-l Tf< t- co © r- OS CN t© — cst IA CM* CO CO en ^ oo C o fr- c C s s> § c OC oo o> c o -*< oo »-t CO O O OS OS O «-l CO *i IC ee c t a> o OJ O O »o C to oo t^ IC © © es CS ■* -* o oc e> !C t— • CC ^ fr- oo O O cs co •"*< cr> 00 >o W CN H OS ■*! CM — t- CO Tj< CO ^i CS -H U» co fr- «*t v c ^< c CC 00 ■*« -0 05 O O 00 OO CO O CO ^< CN CO IC OS CO t> CS CO cc K cc c<- CS cz C£ CD 00 co fr- CO CO tf» OS 00 0C r- CO 00 ■>*l lO CS >-i to es <-H C 00 ffl t* C © c ec CO O O fr- — ^ CS •* cs »o o c t^ ift fr- « -**« <- CM i- en o o co ie» O0 CN C3) CN © rt OS N OS id 00 CS OS C" CO *c CS O CO i- CO — Ml ■<«l OS eo as o CO to O C o ic ic ic ia o -* in lO CO fr- ~* c<- CS -<*< e CM »C © oo en o OS I- fr- CS CSt "«t to © •<* 5i oo CO CM O O O0 lO eo co fr- i- iCi to 03 co it IC *- CM cc t- IC ic CO to CO CD i- »c ->* o *< to " •>* OS e CSI IA es CS ic — O) U5 i« N es us oc f^ o O i- » o »f rt CO CO o o © fr- es OS 00 -*< r- •H CO 00 ee o IO CO t- OS CM ^t 00 r- CM «N CM CO to CO ^h IA oo cc t? C O -* CO C o O OO H U) CN es c= cc id o- co os e>j 00 r .c O CD CS ^1 IC -*t O Oi — 00 -** O - eo o- CS es os oo es fr- " co es CS CM Tj< o CS 00* cs © c CC IC fr- OC ee •<* t e OS OC CS »o CS 8 c ut Tf CM oc © en IC cs fr- O CC O) N K) OO t» fr-- CS co to O cc CO T)l N OO CS 00 " t^ OS CM a- CO CO CS © <- »c eo »o c<- co us cc *". CC co CC OS O es* cc cm* o>" en* CO *-T •> 00 •<* -i | cr_ © CM eo «C oo -H •* e CM >C es CC c IC IC CC © es 00 i-l CO c cr a 00 CC 00 CC oc o» ^ O) CM ■* >- t> Tf CS r-l o CO ic -f © cc cc CD tO CM OO »- CM CC oo IC o -* CO 00 "*l CC CO »H CM CO •«*< o" es* i-i ^jT CS tH co eo ~ a> js a; g § > c c a c H a o h C a C 13 E n c C a b. "E c. c s £ a "c C a c c c ► c a cr o Q cc M s ££ Z "§ o£ p § £ co i c S (73 M ai a! fe ^ r w p% Bul. 445 J ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY 15 O o •* o ■H oo cm so t- — " ■<*<" in" 19 O) O N K5 en cm 00 IO OO SO CM «5 t* S! N «5 «« OS o SO ©» oo s w * io ■* o u) o oo i« -<* —> o «© «5 O CM O t- -* CO •<*< io o io cm e» cm cm co •* e» t- CO "5 «5 CO CO a> co **< so so IO O ■* CO OS o o io t- er> m oj o o oi (D •»* CM O CO ifl N ^ (O N N M 91 N 2S O) O N 2gS o i»< ■**< cm m co -h CM CM 00 OS CO O © SO ■^ O0 CO — < CO 1C l» M "C N CM CO "5 CO 00 CO 00 -H 00 O N N M H OS SO CM Oi CM SO SO CM <0 H CO u» CM CJ5 CO CM ^h O N ffl -H »o oo cm o © CM •"*< U5 SO CO - - »o w » h ia © M co cm © eo S5 N » U) H lO SO OO CO CM lf5 O CO N » M M 91 N NUJNN3N91* so -«*< »o e- ^« **< CM co eo to ss* Ms 3 £ o o I -a c > 4 ,a .3 ? m -g -g -a Q ci i? e O n » M O O W £ rfj » g * cj 3 "S ■g « H -< Eh O < o o > 5 5 o o re o I H CO CQ OS r-1 iH ^ 00 §§• ^2 Oh 0 h2& 88,0 h » n io w ^ W 115 M CO CO CO CO CO CM CO Tt* CO ^f CD CD CM CM CM CM b€ Dn^-. a o3 0) o ^h cm co to i-H as CO 00 OS 00 CM ■<* •<* CO t^. OS to O O CO CO CD ■"*! CD O J3 as o co as oo ro 115 N tO CO O ro CO U5 OS Ol to CO CD CO CO to IO 00 OS OJ O co as oo Tt< as i-H O if CO CO so Tf< Tt< »"* -^ O 115 ■* IO U5 as 10 to co "o X 115 (O ifl e N ifl N N » CO CO CO »-• cm" ■* rfl cm" os" 0" V TjJ" CN CO CN « o 3 co co to «o io as - CO to to CO CO CN ^ CN M CM OS to to CM CM CM i-l bfl v t- o to os co co to »i5 as i-i as -tt« CO 00 > co as co oo o as «5 Ol 115 CO Tt< CM CO CO io CO to CO CO CO CO IO i-H IO X! (1 CM 00 CO CO CO CO «H CM 00 00 IO 00 ~H 1* 00 ■^1 t^ l^ CM CM CO -<** CO 1-1 CM -H 00 as cm 00 CO IO a; «) N rt CM OS co r» 00 CO 00 10 y-i CO O *o s K5 N O) U5 if ih oo as i-i 00 ^H 00 CO 00 V 0" to" CO O CM CO CO i-H to co" 0" 10" cm" CO CO CO to ill O h U5 io n O CM CM CO CM CM i-l o CO CO >* 115 O to o o 3 OO "5 115 ■^ as 10 CM ■**! 10 cr CO T* OS 1— 1 CM CO Tt< to to OS to CM CM CM i-l N CO ^ CO CM CJ bfl 03 co io as as as if CO CO CO CO iH r^. CO CM CO n cn x « h CO CM CO 00 i— I 00 CM to o CO CO 00 IO CO O to O CM 115 00 CM CM -* CO as cc to CD tO to T*< lO 00 f ■* CN CD i* 00 00 cc co c; CO O co 00 i-H co a- to if 10 OS bO C CO ©" CO* to" CM 00 oo co o Tf< ^ O ■* O as if to as 10 as oo" Tf" 0" N Tf 0O (O IO ff if 115 O O CO O CO CO oc >d IO to CO CM 1-1 CM 00 O to 'Ej ^ CN H CO H N CM O O U5 t^ a 115 Tf CO oc co cm as as if CM O lO o3 A CT CN ■e <* CM CD rt N * to to a 2 2 c s 03 $ * to a i to Cv 0) 03 o to a s * A c s ! to J3 t- d 4 (0 *C II 1 1 I "co o '43 1 1 & a V •'! 1 1 13 a OJ s^ c3 C a x « c 03 C 1 'c 1 c D C 2 a "3 u 43 G •5 i c "co ?s 9 s 'I \ i ! c- X $ 1 % c Cv 1 c 1 C "03 M .J 1 Si '5 & 1 i to 3 w ES QQ BrL. 445] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY 19 c.S O 03 . tr. — K CO CM CN i^ »o ■* t^ «: CO jv i> eje c ■c » 11) IO C" 00 bO . 0> DC ■<*< a t ■^< »r 0O CO CN ■<*< »o CN — cc CO CM iH e>» 00 c3 fe-S tc d,<~ C o3 CD o "* M o oc ~ ^r ■<}< ■*« CM — ? ex s i s s 3 ja ~ re a c -H ■* m CO CO lO CN os os — co a C ec t CJ EC a o «« CM CO BC co a ■. t»T ■. r-4 l>T C •# «j i- a ' t^.* ec" eo ia CO £ 3 * K OS X 1"^ CN uO 00 CO co ": CO CM »- 00 oc «N C <5| »c oo t- e>» CO s ~o s CO * •H - s bfl X ec uo ~ ~ : -i O t^ ec ■C X N * * [• bfl ro OD 1 " CN 3C t^ OC — >o — OS CO 38 5 © CO X X CO © C* <* t^ -* t- M t- C 3 ■o oo a X OS CO OO S N lO 'd X CA 'fi X . w c* OO l> CO OS CN t^ t--. CO lO ■c t> N U5 N il © £ co X CM CM ec CM CO 00 *> co" 0) — oo © ffl o 8 si a X CO ■<* r__ X CM C X CM ■"* o — s o a © •* — o o io n 1a » ^f bfl • co ^ -*■ lO — CM OB CO >c CO h N ir CM -H CO »H CO CO oa S-Q u G co *«S X — < oc 9 X O CO cr CO k« CM lO 0O 0O N »o t-» t-. ir 00 CM t^ 00 t- kO Si X E CO I s * o os ^t X r^ i> O oo CM O0 O- -h OS t^ c ® C5 N ^ M * 5 eg "-- t~«. — ^r ■* CO ot CO — 1/5 -<* CO © y- co © a a CM 00 CO OS t- CO J3 H © — r^ CM CN =: t^. ^* 00 CO CS ■* t(< M N If ©~ os m o co e«» »h to S 3 a 5 o CN CO CM — CM CO CO Tt< CO 00 © CO ex »C © •* CM t- at © o 00 -!■ O "^ CM OO -»< CN t^ io — v4 © i-i CM e» Z: z — OO CO 00 s a m cc ec 90 OS 1-* CN O t- r^ 00 CO CN N»MHNNMOH« IO bfl CN « o co a BC ti o: O N « aNOMCSNN- © OS OC CO o © S3 X K •o c — CO CO 00 00 CO OS O ■""OMNNN^S- © CO «» to bfl — ■ r^ «5 — s S l> r^ TT 00 -^ co r^ •* -h co -T K •o — O CM O TJ< Tf © CO r- co t-- OS CO M - *\ S3 CO CO — CM t^ CO - - - »o 0) M CO pq ** ^ bC c.S r_- -,= 'if cn CO X ** c OS CM O- P 2 « » M N CS N C M N O N N [• oo o O c3 t^ •* U5 Ci t^ OS O0lC©-H©0OU5CN. ^i bO eg •I * H •-> ^h cc »i i- < 1-1 11 bfl 0> 1-1 o l> ij r- « oc t~ co a CO OS -^ ■* CO OCO^liJi^^OOOC © t~ 1-1 t- 9 _Q ec CO cn CO •"*! OC 00 -* 00 t>- ««5X»*0«OHM CO K C OS CN CM CO CO O u~. co «o 00003NOODXNS-UN oo "o .fl IC a CN? »c — " to o* co o t-~ OOOtcN*«5:®INO'**< o — CO uo oo cm © co cn t- OS fc £ CM CM CM — t cq - * ; © a t» OS 1* D IN CM CO CS co a O CN =2 °S r «5 oe t^ CS ^ N M N » W © bfl l> 5C O w. 00 CM CO ur. a ~ y-> IT "O * N CMCMCMCO'OCO'^COt-tO *•) c3 CM CC D OS ■*» CO -h CO OO OO N » N ■* 1(5 C O * M C6 N » H CO bC c 00 — oo X " O0 00 N O" C U0 00 ©»Ct^O0CMCMt--^ OS CM CO © CM C X t^ DC CO CO CM >0 O- lO CO OS © CM O0 rf CO © CM CN "E a P j — DCl ■ = o -= = > a ' I t i I c a. h s s X i < '5 C s ■ I a Jt < a I E c ■f a > a 1 S3 "S = -2 a> st u i a s 1 J bl E E c > — a h c c c e a 2 2 X < a T | z - 1 r 1 c i 9 '5 Box area (total fi Barrel-area (rest Total •i •i s c Ml C5 20 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION total number of trees included in the surveys. The trees in the group from 10 to 14 years of age comprise one-sixth to one-fifth of the total number of trees. Surveys in the other states mentioned above have slightly different age groupings, but they all indicate that there were marked increases in plantings of commercial orchards in the East beginning about 1910 and continuing to approximately 1925. This is in accord with general observations in the East that small home orchards are going out of production, and that in the future more and more of the eastern apples will come from farms that are specializing to a considerable extent in fruit production. The apple survey which is being made in a number of other apple-producing states will, of course, give more definite information as to the probable future trend. TREND IN THE NUMBER OF APPLE TREES IN IMPORTANT APPLE-PRODUCING COUNTIES Those counties (sixty-four in number) in the United States having more than 200,000 trees of bearing age in 1925 were selected as more nearly representing commercial producing areas than the totals by states. Table 7 gives the number of bearing and non-bearing trees in these sixty-four counties for 1910, 1920, and 1925. Practically all of these counties are in the extreme eastern and far-western states or near the Great Lakes. The number of bearing trees in the twenty important apple counties of the box area increased from 4,000,000 in 1910 to 11,000,000 in 1920 and then decreased to 10,000,000 in 1925. The total number of bearing trees in the box area increased from 12,000,000 in 1910 to 21,000,000 in 1920 and then decreased to 18,000,000 in 1925. In the barrel area the total number of bearing trees in the forty- four important counties increased from 16,600,000 in 1910 to 17,100,000 in 1920 and dropped to 17,000,000 in 1925. The total number of bearing trees in the barrel area decreased from 139,000,000 in 1910 to 94,000,000 in 1920, and then to 85,000,000 in 1925. This indicates that practically all of the decrease in bearing trees in the barrel area from 1910 to 1920, and again to 1925, occurred in counties other than the forty-four important producing counties. This gives further basis for the conclusions which logically follow a study of the surveys of trees in commercial orchards by age groups described in the previous section, that apple production in the barrel area is declining rapidly in the unimportant producing areas. Hence it must be increasing in the forty-four counties shown in table 7. Since the number of trees in these counties has increased but slightly, there must have been a substantial increase in the yield per tree. BuL. 445] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY 21 TABLE 7 Apple Trees of Bearing Age and Number and Proportion of Trees Not of Bearing Age by Counties of Commercial Importance (Thousands of trees) State and county 1910 1920 New England states Massachusetts : Middlesex Worcester Middle Atlantic: New York: Chautauqua Columbia Dutchess Erie Genesee Greene Monroe Niagara Ontario Orleans Ulster Wayne New Jersey: Burlington Monmouth Pennsylvania: Adams Bedford Franklin York East north central : Ohio: Lawrence Illinois: Calhoun Union Michigan: Allegan Berrien Oakland Oceana Van Buren South Atlantic: Delaware: Kent Sussex Maryland: Washington Bearing age Not of bearing age 294.0 331.5 299.0 297.5 303.0 473.0 301.0 274.0 703.0 804.0 369.0 550.0 241.0 812.5 104.0 181.0 166.0 273.0 179.0 239.0 229.0 349.0 203.5 288.0 273.5 286.0 187.0 234.0 183.0 193.0 141.0 Number 76.0 64.0 14.0 174.0 103.5 23.5 24.0 114.0 232.0 200.5 106.0 257.0 107.0 379.0 46.0 62.0 149.0 162.5 116.0 139.0 294.0 145.0 164.0 105.5 119.0 64.0 98.5 102.5 195.0 54.0 117.0 Per cent of bearing 25.8 19.4 4.7 60.1 34.0 4.8 8.0 41.6 33.0 24.9 28.8 46.8 44.5 46.7 44.5 34.2 89.7 59.5 65.0 58.2 128.5 41.6 81.0 36.6 43.6 22.3 52.7 43.6 106.5 28.0 Bearing age 278.0 267.5 279.0 343.0 285.0 337.5 241.0 263.0 681.5 816.5 349.0 657.0 272.0 907.0 199.0 192.0 254.0 279.0 239.0 234.5 378.0 295.0 192.0 224.0 288.0 257.0 189.0 208.5 954.0 465.0 Not of bearing age Number 302. 236.5 185.0 30.0 199.0 157.0 55.0 16.0 98.0 243.0 232.0 102.5 205.0 203.0 377.0 228.5 98.5 280.0 60.0 101.5 142.0 278.0 385.0 129.0 149.0 220.0 122.0 179.0 144.0 237.0 160.0 104.0 Per cent of bearing 85.1 69.2 10.9 58.1 55.1 16.4 6.6 37.2 35.6 28.5 29.3 31.2 74.7 41.6 114.9 51.3 110.2 21.4 42.2 60.5 73.7 130.6 67.2 66.4 76.6 47.6 41.7 68.9 24.8 34.4 34.3 1925 Bearing 366.0 322.0 216.0 406.0 281.0 266.5 209.0 308.0 737.0 937.0 331.5 730.5 302.0 ,046.5 337 256.0 443 5 263.0 266.0 297.5 415.0 404.0 204.0 262.0 340.5 226.0 236.0 235.5 472.0 293.0 368.5 Not of bearing age Number 247.0 174.0 29.0 193.0 145 40.0 14.0 64.0 142.5 222 65.0 144 207.0 244.0 226.0 72.5 154.0 36.0 120.0 105.0 154.0 374.0 239.0 130.0 350.0 102.0 75.5 192.5 136.0 88.0 155.0 Per cent of bear- 67.5 54.0 13.5 47.5 51.5 15.1 6.8 20.9 19.5 23.7 19.5 19.8 68.5 23.3 67.1 28.3 34.7 13.5 45.3 35.4 37.1 92.5 117.1 49.7 102.8 45.2 31.9 81.7 28.8 30.1 42.2 22 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 7— (Continued) State and county 1910 Bearing age Not of bearing age Number Per cent of bearing 1920 Bearing age Not of bearing age Number Per cent of bearing 1925 Bearing age Not of bearing age Number South Atlantic stat Virginia: Albemarle Augusta Carroll Frederick Nelson Patrick Rockingham. Shenandoah.. West Virginia: Berkeley Hampshire North Carolina Wilkes South central states : Arkansas: Benton Washington Far western states Montana: Ravalli Idaho: Canyon Payette — part Twin Falls Colorado: Washington: Benton Chelan Douglas Klickitat Okanogan Spokane Yakima Oregon : Hood River Jackson Wasco California: Monterey San Bernardino Santa Clara Santa Cruz Sonoma -Contin 366.0 354.0 191.0 273.0 199.0 243.5 241.0 181.0 166.0 138.0 275.0 2,466.0 1,794.0 356.0 154.0 of Canyo 7.0 347.0 19.0 422.0 32.0 50 5 33.0 418.5 386.5 195.5 126.0 46.0 290.0 55.0 103.0 647.0 387.0 ued Total — 64 counties- Counties in box area Barrel area 20,724 4,075 16,649 95. 202. 112. 285. 47. 219.0 125.0 151.0 197.0 210.0 67.0 797.0 778.0 841.0 483.0 n until 19 250.0 738.0 268.0 1,099.0 278.0 173.0 348.0 346.0 1,145.0 405.0 491.5 124.0 86.0 51.0 33.0 150.0 305.0 14,901 7,613 7,288 26.0 57.0 58.5 104.5 23.6 90.3 52.0 83.5 119.0 152.0 24.4 32.8 43.5 236.5 313.0 17 35.6 212.5 141.0 258.5 920.0 342.0 1054.0 83.0 296.0 208.0 391.0 270.0 29.6 93.0 32.1 23.2 79.0 71 9 186 7 43 8 377.0 554.0 239.0 567.0 204.0 300.0 247.0 254.5 483.0 401.0 187.0 1,250.0 925.0 726.0 185.0 314.0 218.0 478.0 395.0 1,502.0 387.0 237.0 563.0 1,119.0 1,908.0 676.0 230.0 278.0 208.0 264.0 92.0 666.0 617.0 28,203 5 11,088 271.0 195.0 60.0 190.0 178.0 120.0 48.0 91.5 146.5 87.0 93.5 124.0 98.0 33.5 11.0 4.0 20.0 40.0 26.0 170.0 31.5 28.0 45.0 89.0 145.0 86.0 14.0 92.0 16.0 89.0 26.0 98.0 401 8,426 1,424 72.0 35.2 25.1 33.5 87.0 40.1 19.4 36.0 30.3 21.8 50.1 10.0 10.6 6.1 1.1 9.1 14.4 6.5 11.3 8.1 11.7 8.1 8.0 7.6 12.8 10.6 33.2 7.5 33.7 27.8 14.7 65 17,115 7,001 29 9 12.9 499.5 542.0 210.0 646.0 283.0 400.0 286.0 284.0 568.0 377.5 242 876.0 620.0 510.0 223.0 261.0 202.0 243.0 366.0 1,277.0 360.0 241.0 432.0 753.5 1,893.0 624.0 248.0 225.0 200.0 351.0 202.0 824.0 839.0 27.275 5 10.276 40 9 16,999 176.0 88.5 53.5 210.0 146.0 77.0 45.0 44 213.0 42.0 78.0 438.0 343.0 11.0 26.0 17.0 10.0 5.0 28.5 183.5 55.5 17.0 .166.5 30.0 387.0 68.0 8.0 5.0 41.0 15.0 14.0 116.0 306.0 7,943 1,509 6 434 Data for 1910 from unpublished data of the Census Bureau; for 1920 from 14th Census of the United States 6 (parts 1 and 2); for 1925 from United States Census of Agriculture, 1925, by states. Bul. 445] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY 23 SHIPMENTS OF FRESH APPLES BY YEARS The carlot shipments of fresh apples in the United States vary considerably from year to year according to the size of the crop, and show a general trend upward from 1919 to 1926 (see table 8 and figure 4). A part of this trend upward may be due to incomplete reports during the first few years that statistics on fruit shipments were obtained. California shipments increased rather steadily up to TABLE 8 Crop year (beginning June) California Box area Barrel area Total (box and barrel) 1919 4,076 4,413 5,062 4,961 6,505 4,891 2,531 5,082 45,407 37,277 56,871 46,290 63,005 41,573 55,302 54,369 41,341 78,840 32,688 67,671 75,197 62,271 72,602 79,604 86,748 1920 116,117 1921 89,559 1922 113,961 1923 138,202 1924 103,844 1925 127,904 1926 133,973* * Subject to revision. Data from U. S. Bur. Agr. Econ. Fruits and Vegetables Division, revised data of October, 1927. Unpublished. 1923, declined during the next two years, and came up to the 1921 figure in 1926. The 1925 crop was very light. This was entirely due to unfavorable climatic conditions. It is probable that the break in shipments in California during 1924 and 1925 is only temporary, and that the long-time trend will be upward. This conclusion is further born out by the trend in apple trees of bearing age in California shown in figure 3, which show an upward trend from 1910 to 1925. The box area, which comprises the Far-western states, shows ship- ments of 45,407 carlots for the year beginning June, 1919, and 54,369 carlots for the year beginning June, 1926. The average of the first two years of shipments — 41,342 carlots — compared with that of the last two years — 54,836 carlots — gives a more accurate picture of the increase in reported shipments. The barrel area, which includes the rest of the United States, shows average shipments of 60,091 carlots for the first two years and 76,103 carlots for the last two years. This seems like a large increase for such a short period and leads one to question the completeness of the returns on carlot shipments during the first few years that they were reported. 24 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION Fresh Apple Shipments in the United States, 1919-1926 Thousands of Cars ZOO /oo eo 80 70 eo so 40 so 20 7oA 7/ x* &&/re/ drea^ »^* / i ^**^ U \ / *" -** / V ~A \ y c A V r \ 1 ^s / \ / Bo. xAn *a' /o /9/9 20 2/ 22 23 £4 2S /926 Fig. 4. — Illustrating table 8. The reported carlot shipments of apples increased rapidly during the first few years in which these data were obtained. During the last four or five years the shipments have reached a more nearly constant level. SHIPMENT OF FRESH APPLES DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS California is an important producer and shipper of early apples (Gravensteins), which are produced mainly in Sonoma County. The production of Gravenstein apples in Sonoma County has been increas- ing rapidly since 1912, while the price (deflated) has been tending downward. The shipments for June, July, and August from 1917 to 1926 for California, the whole box area, and the barrel area are shown in table 9 and figure 5. During June, apple shipments from Cali- fornia were comparatively unimportant, although there has been some increase during the last four years. Shipments from the box area in general and from the barrel area increased considerably from 1917 to Bul. 445 J ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY 25 1926, especially the shipments of the crop of the previous year, as shown in table 9. Thus in the barrel area 47 carlots of the 1917 crop were shipped in June, 1918, and in June, 1926, 380 carlots of the 1925 crop were shipped. TABLE 9 Carlot Shipments of Fkesh Apples by Areas for June, July, and August, 1917-1926 June shipments Year beginning 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 California: 6 2 5 5 6 5 13 9 2 1 66 30 18 30 53 9 92 28 Total 8 6 4 10 5 23 11 6 24 22 13 210 3 2* 120* 96 66* 58 48 33* 166* 62 89* 289* 120 Box area: New crop Old crop 18 106 572 Total 18 10 28 30 223 122 124 199 378 678 Barrel area: New crop 36 172 47 97 66 157 75 64 149 872* 123* 87* 298* 172* 541* 344* 220* 146 380 Total 36 219 163 232 213 995 385 713 564 526 July shipments California ... Box area Barrel area. 112 66 273 244 352 220 1,290 729 341 233 91 313 279 398 254 1,375 761 459 518 1,149 1,034 1,576 809 2,338 1,985 1,601 2,436 1,480 1,557 2,108 August shipments California... Box area Barrel area 173 468 441 723 690 998 984 645 155 552 657 808 846 1,006 1,114 1,383 961 768 756 1,702 1,904 3,015 2,378 3,809 2,739 2,165 3,562 591 1,324 1,807 * Box area calculated by adding California and Washington (only western states given) and hall of cars included in "others," in both "new crop" and "old crop." Barrel area calculated by subtracting the box area "new crop" and box area "old crop," respectively, from the grand totals of box and barrel areas as given in the source. Data for 1917 from U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook 1923:734; for 1918-1922 from U. S. Dept. Agr. Statis. Bul. 7:2-5; for 1923-1926 from Monthly Supplement of Crops and Markets 3(8, 9, 10). 1926. During the month of July, California shipped nearly all of the apples that are shipped from the box area. July shipments from California in 1917 and 1918 were 112 and 66 carlots, respectively, and during 1925 and 1926 they were 341 and 1,480 carlots, respectively. For the same years the July shipments from the barrel area were 518, 1,149, 2,436, and 2,108 carlots, respectively. 26 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Fresh Apple Shipments from Barrel and Box Areas and from California for June, July, and August, 1917-1926 1917 IS Pig. 5. — Illustrating table 9. Shipments of apples in June, July, and August from California and from other parts of the United States have increased con- sider;! hi y since 1917. This has meant increased competition for Gravenstein apple producers. BUL. 445] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY 27 Shipments from California during August made up from one-half to three-fourths of the total shipments from the box area. The increase in shipments for this month from 1917 to 1926 was less rapid than the increase which took place during July. The shipments from the barrel area during August were fairly heavy. In 1917, when they were first recorded, August shipments amounted to 756 carlots; in 1922 they reached a peak of 3,809 carlots, and dropped to 1,807 carlots in 1926. It is evident from table 9 and figure 5 that Gravenstein apples are meeting increasing competition from two sources : first, the late apples from the previous year, which show a considerable increase in ship- ments in June ; and second, the rapid increase in shipments of early apples from the rest of the box area and from the barrel area in July and August. SEASONAL MOVEMENTS OF FRESH APPLES COMPARED WITH OTHER FRESH FRUITS The apple shipments by months do not indicate the amounts going into consumption, for a large part of the crop is shipped from the point of production to storage places in the cities from which it is taken later to meet the demands of the consumers. Even the amounts available for consumption are only roughly proportional to the carlot shipments, since certain varieties need to be kept in storage for some time before they are fit to be consumed. The length of time required to mellow them for consumption depends to a considerable extent upon the storage temperature. The peak of apple shipments for 1923 and 1924, as shown in table 10 and figure 6, came in October with 44,871 carlots. The next highest peak of shipments came in November with 23,401 carlots. September was third with 15,665 carlots. Grape shipments were also high in October with 28,056 carlots. During September, grape shipments amounted to 24,854 carlots or more than 9,000 carlots higher than apple shipments for that month. The fact that high shipments of apples and grapes occurred during September and October, of course, does not indicate as serious competition as if either or both fruits had to be consumed as shipped. A large part of the grapes is juice stock, which is largely stored for future consumption, and most of the apples go into cold storage. However, an abundance of apples and grapes are available for consumption during September, October, and November. 28 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 3 o H 125,241 67,595 39,363 37,527 26,842 18,365 76,720 11,399 19,607 5,390 1,860 17,297 2 273 Q o OS CO IN IN ■«*< CO -H 00 t-~ © i-H i-< CO t- OS 1-T o as Is ~H 00 O OS Tf CO CO CO IN 115 i« Ol OS r-H U0 O O co OS CM •* CO cm as s- o o o i-i co © >* in (^ ifll OS •«*< *■<** CO N IO N Ol O 0O CN «-i -"f 05 *<5 ^1 (D N » N fN i-H IN CO OS » tONOOOONH^NONOlWlfl ^ OOOSCOt^»-llOlOO'^-'J- h-j IN 0*(Mt>T CO i— 1 CO CN i— 1 3 HOfflO>»MfflHTllNN*M HNOONNTjlWiOfflN rt cq I- CO i— 1 © IN 1*3 «>• "3 OS i-HOO CO IN i-H iO «3 i-H CO 1T3 OS i— 1 CO OS CO OS © lO "3 ■^ O CO CM !>. y-l »-H O t- i-H IN CO 00 CO CO* CO "1 "* CO CO O (*- IN IC K) l<3 IN h H » rt N lO .4 u CO CO OS "5 co as r- in 00 CO CO lO IN 00 00 00 00 IN CO •^ ss *2 IN a CO N 115 > s- 03 3 93 CO CO oo » N M N ■O O -H ■* rt (O N 115 r^ in "3 IN '3 I I c < C a C a E 1 0. K ,£ e a Jb Pi P 3 c S u a '£ t a X F. X or a b E a E c £ a 8 c or a c 3 C na B «" 2 J a C 1 T S § 1 o- a I a S3 0Q 2 S Bul. 445] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY 29 Ap> z>/es Monthly Shipments of Certain Fresh Fruits in the United States, Thousands AVERAGE OF 1923-1924 40 JO zo 10 O 30 ZO 10 O 20 10 o to o 10 10 \ Grc ipes / ^ \ / \ / f \ Wa+ermelons A k / \ k f s -^. Peach&s Carrha/oup&s Sf'no wherries IO n 1 s Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun& July Aug. Sep-h Oct. Nov. Dec. Fig. 6. — Illustrating table 10. Annual shipment data show that apples lead all fruits by a considerable margin. Oranges are second in numbers of cars shipped and grapes are a close third. Apples and grapes have their peaks of shipments in October, but both can be stored. The perishable fruits like water- melons, peaches, cantaloupes, and strawberries have their peaks of shipments three to five months earlier than the peak of apple shipments. 30 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION Watermelons, most of the peaches, cantaloupes, and strawberries are shipped when apple shipments are relatively low, and hence seri- ously compete with the latter only during the last month or two of the apple-storage season, and with the early apples like Gravensteins. Orange shipments run fairly uniformly from November to May. The peak of shipments (9,173 carlots) comes in December. The other fruits such as lemons, grapefruit, plums and prunes, mixed melons, pears, and cherries shown in table 10 have comparatively light shipments even during the peak months. APPLE STORAGE Considerable quantities of apples have always been stored in farm cellars and in other air-cooled storage places. During recent years cold-storage space has increased rapidly, which has made it possible TABLE 11 Apple Cold-Storage Holdings in the United States, 1915-1926 (Thousands of bushels) Crop year Oct. 1 Nov. 1 Dec. 1 Jan. 1 Feb. 1 March 1 Apr. 1 May 1 June 1 1915-16 11,067 16,323 14,439 12,708 9,726 5,952 3,105 912 1916-17 9,780 13,476 14,067 12,396 10,155 7,326 4,635 2,424 795 1917-18 9,888 13,797 11,871 8,490 5,349 2,034 477 1918-19 11,256 14,784 12,882 | 9,315 13,572 5,316 2,868 1,140 375 1919-20 2,913 13,569 17,769 16,587 9,486 5,097 2,418 639 1920-21 1,632 13,425 20,361 19,158 15,315 10,950 6,630 3,357 1,335 1921-22 2,376 10,929 17,217 16,287 12,939 9,270 5,790 2,832 942 1922-23 4,356 16,563 20,229 19,443 16,128 11,631 6,942 3,210 831 1923-24 2,781 20,742 30,297 29,088 23,529 17,895 11,613 6,240 2,304 1924-25 2,460 17,274 22,419 20,019 15,699 11,283 6,864 3,429 1,197 1925-26 4,266 22,467 28,194 25,536 21,153 15,900 9,942 4,954 1,875 1926-27 3,612 21,321 31,458 28,068 21,905 15,342 9,423 4,794 1,605 Data for Nov. 1915-Dec. 1925 from U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook 1925:865; for Jan. 1926-April 1927 from monthly issues of Crops and Markets. The sources give holdings in barrels. These figures were converted to bushels by multiplying by three. to keep apples as well as other fruits and vegetables in good condition for a much longer period than was possible with the earlier storage facilities. The cold-storage space in the United States increased from 200,000,000 cubic feet in 1914 to more than 600,000,000 cubic feet in 1925. (32) The quantities of apples held in cold storage on the first of each month from October to June in the years 1915 to 1926 are shown in table 11 and for the first of December, February, and April of these years in figure 7. The peak of cold-storage holdings of apples came Bul. 445] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY 31 Cold-Storage Holding of Apples in the United States on December 1, February 1, and April 1, 1915-16 to 1926-27 Fig. 7. — Illustrating part of table 11. Cold-storage holdings of apples are at their peak in December of each year. The quantities in cold storage during the different months practically doubled from 1915 to 1925, and seem to be still trending upward. 32 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION consistently on the first of December of each year, after which there was a more or less regular decline until June 1. The quantity held in storage on December 1, 1925, was practically double the quantity stored at the same date in 1915 and 1916. The quantities in cold storage of December 1 of 1925 and 1926 were 28,194,000 and 31,458,000 bushels respectively, or almost 30 per cent of the United States commercial crop for the same years. THE DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT OF THE APPLE-DRYING INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES In most parts of the United States, apple drying is a means of making use of some of the inferior grades of apples, and is on a strictly by-product basis. The proportion of the total crop that was dried during the five census years shown in table 12 varies from TABLE 12 Production of Dried Apples in the United States by Areas for Various Years In thousands of pounds In thousands of bushels Year California New York All other states Total United States Equiva- lent in fresh apples Total fresh produced in United States Per cent dried of total crop 1899 5,900 6,000 25,000 14,000 19,000 21,543 33,652 13,524 3,070 2,506 8,583 4,056 17,623 3,303 3,800 36,026 43,708 56,147 20,373 25,306 5,476 6,644 8,534 3,907 3,847 175,397 146,122 142,086 99,002 202,842 3.12 1909 4.55 1919 6 01 1921 3.95 1923 1.90 Data for years 1899, 1909, 1919, and 1921 from U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook 1925:604; for 1923 from Biennial Census of Manufactures 1923:73. Data for California are from Kaufman, E. E. California crop report for 1926. California Dept. Agr. Spec. Pub. 74:22. Pounds dried converted to bushels of fresh by multiplying by 0.152 (7.3 -r- 48). 1.90 per cent to 6.01 per cent. The tendency for the country as a whole seems to be towards decreasing the total amount as well as the proportion of the crop that is dried. In California the drying of apples increased greatly from 1899 to 1919. Later records of the State Department of Agriculture indicate that in 1922, 1924, and 1926 the production of dried apples in this state almost equaled the high record of 1919. Tn Sonoma County sometimes 50 per cent of the crop is dried, but in the state as a whole approximately 25 per cent of the crop is usually dried. Bul. 445] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY 33 New York and California together produce more than one-half of the United States total of dried apples. Since 1909 the quantity dried in New York has decreased, but the trend of California production of dried apples has been upward. Less than one-half of the dried apples produced in the United States are consumed here. Most of them are exported to Europe. The United Kingdom, Germany, Netherlands, and Sweden import the bulk of our dried-apple exports. THE DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT OF THE APPLE-CANNING INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES The commercial canning of many fruits and vegetables which cannot long be stored as fresh fruit has increased very rapidly since 1900. Apples, which can be stored successfully, show some increase TABLE 13 Production of Canned Apples in the United States by States for Various Years. (In cases) 1909 1919 1921 1923 1925 48,062 132,575 75,540 429,180 8,557 149,398 213,230 134,245 253,993 482,140 230,555 183,827 43,252 94,075 313,034 487,363 15,699 California* 98,500 301,855 601,237 279,751 100,426 27,383 18,600 430,969 380,707 22,697 155,708 593,724 365,308 248,474 Maine 141,208 769,379 Oregon Pennsylvania Utah 378,616 364,294 23,345 Virginia Washington Other states 11,870 22,533 392,892 50,311 836,195 442,136 937,838 836,797 Total U. S 1,270,607 2,435,714 2,239,428 2,714,553 3,467,176 Total U. S. reduced to fresh bushels ! Per cent of total crop 1,470,610 1.0 2,819,113 2.0 2,591,931 2.6 3,141,843 1.6 4,012,935 2.3 * Data for California from California crop reports 1926, Spec. Pub. 74:23. Data for other states for 1909, 1919; and 1921 from U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook 1925:609; for 1923 from Biennial Census of Manufacturers 1923:72; for 1925 from Census report for 1925 on canned foods. National Canners Association Bul. 102A:5. April, 1927. Cases converted to bushels by dividing by 0.864. in amounts canned, but not nearly as great proportional increases as have occured with the more perishable fruits. Table 13 shows the distribution and extent of apple canning for the five years 1909, 1919, 1921, 1923, and 1925. It is worthy of notice that a comparatively small proportion of the total apple crop is usually canned, the pro- portion varying from 1.0 per cent in 1909 to 2.6 per cent in 1921. 34 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION The quantity canned in 1921, however, was only 2,239,428 cases compared with 2,714,553 cases in 1923 and 3,467,176 cases in 1925. In California the number of cases of apples that have been canned has declined since the war. During 1919 the number of cases packed in California amounted to 134,245, which is approximately 5.5 per cent of the total pack for the United States. In 1923, California canned only 0.8 per cent of the total United States pack. New York and Washington are the most important states in apple canning, New York being in the lead through 1921 with Washington taking the lead since that time. These two states together can approxi- mately one-half of the total United States pack. Oregon and Pennsylvania are also relatively important in apple canning. IMPORTANT APPLE MARKETS IN THE UNITED STATES The distribution of apples from the important producing states and the barrel and box areas is shown fairly well by the data on carlot unloads in thirty-six important cities by states of origin. These data are given in table 14 for the calendar year 1926 and hence are made up of approximately one-fifth from the 1925 crop and four-fifths from the 1926 crop. Figure 8 shows graphically the carlot unloads Carlot Unloads of Apples in the Principal Cities, 1926 L^k Unloads Originating from Box Area outside California fc^. Unloads Originating from Barrel Area Unloads Originating from California Fig. 8. — California supplies a relatively small proportion of the apples at markets outside of the state, but it supplies more than one-half of the unloads in San Francisco and I.— 073tO 3^ aq p 00 ■ — ' ►*»- CO ^1 1— ' m vj M tOCO M » m M ^ M CnWMMvJWMCOOOMM 075001—1 Ol M CO M §7 073 0ncO4^>^C0l— ^0073 — tf3»tOCDtOl^l— C»OOh-C73C>OCOCOOCOl— ^J00>— CO>— OO^Jrfkl— 00 Ok->^©co>— ^OC7SCn^cn00t0C0C00000C0Cn~qt*».t0Oi— 00©tO0nCnc73i— > i— to OO © co o to CD tO I— hf^. -^J to 1— o ^1 >— OS i— to h- On >**. ►— 1— 1— tO OCO tO ^1 tO 073 l— to CO l— to ►— CO 00 Oi— i— CO>*».COCOOi— tOOOCnOOni** OOOCOSNOOMOlOlCOHOMOOSCOOll-e^ 3 CO • !_, 3E- On ^J CO CO 00 to --J tO h— 1— to i— i— to On ►— t— CO rf- to M p- 1 o On i— > O 073 k-to^^i^ico^acni-' OlfflOMOOlOONltkM to>— on co co o >** co oo 073 s 1 ^ O (p to 4- 4- oo on >— *- 1— -o *». to co to 5r^ a> OO -J i— ^>. *k O -vl CO 4>- 073 CO 00 On o tOtOCOOtOC73 COtO MWOIOHCOCOMCO to On -q OO tO 073 OO CO 073 to CO 073 ►— to 1— CO © >-d < 2 p 3 © ►— CO oo 3 3 3. w 073 OS o o to to i— co On » << ^j to 073 ~J >*».>— On CO CO 071 t— 00 00 OCOOlMNSOlS CO oo *. l— i h— © 3 On oo »**. tO hP*. O 00 073 CO ^J CO 00 4^ hi- - I tO CO oo 03 O CO OO >*»■>— tO(OCDtOC73CO co co i— On 1— t*».l— tOCOl— M H 55* — CO CO ►— rf*. ►— f— rf». to co to co to i^ to H U M M OO >*»• h- to On O! Ol Cfl (O v) l^Ol(OOl03v|OMOOHOOO:OiMlOtll«0101^1MH0001 on 01MOOMOl*k«)C>)00)(OOHMOO)tlll-i|iO)MtO*vlOHi|kO)M!0000 to J— 1— OS OO >— OO p ^ o> *^ H-^Jh-' S£tn tn O) M ^ m M OOlMtO^OlM^MOli^ O) CO oo -g M W M o ° 5 ?* ffi 2S MOMsll,lc,ONMW ®MMMCiiOOUOlOMMO)!OtoO)OOfflMOO^M 01*^WOO^HikOMW00*MOOl(i00l(».OC»H0Jl(i|^Cv|MMC00lN*>SM oo to q p ^1 l-i ►— 1— 00 k- CO ^J ►*»■ tO l— On to CO rf>. *k M v) M vj CO Ol tO »*»• CO rf^OOOCOl— COCO***. On ►**■ O ^1 tO »^l^00^J©aiO5MO5C OO On I— '073 tOOOOl— On©©— »COi«i. »*»■ ©^©©1— ©00073^0C73COCOtOOO^CDl^>— tOOOOk-073tO>^>*".COtOOOk-On>*>.k-000 On On I— 1 tO tOtOlJi. I— i OO to >— i— ~J t— OO 0> ^^^!C;^* SJ? 10>030 ' ffi *^ : OMO)v|*.CDO)*OOlltiOlNMOOMOJCnNlO) 50 3 --*i-'t-i>-~oooooooooo 0)0l^WMHOOC0S0)tlIl|kWMHO!00CISfflCnifkW(0HO Year begin- ning July 1 MMMQOCOMfflHCO UtOblbOCOMUMMbOCCtOUi^i^MtO ■tnrf».oiiN3i-'Oico>*>.toi-'Oii*>.>fkOt05005aioocn^-ifk OS ft OJ ft CnOOCOOOCOI-iCOO>OTt*kOt*k P— > o CD i OlMHMHH.MMO)-|.a!(nHOMlt>OJMWM*HHMHH-t B o ffl 1^ u u #> h-ooh-H-t**rf».cotf». .— to i— i— i— 02 p- CD 3 QOOlOil^Ol^MMCn Ol S ft » *k M f i H-C»ft^^H-^O0««>— ftOOrf*»— Ol--» t— > 1— t OviftW^tnft^O Us^MCnWWi-'UMbO to »»JS00MMCji0ii|k-|.»OMeMH0l*Mi(k**0)O08-H. d CD 3 p •-J * M M M M 00 M CO I— CIWi-in-i-1 M IM- 'ft 8 H 3.» 2 CT> P ^ OW>*^(»«OOQOfteo^(*».OCNCOOOtOftOcOOJOtftft>**Cr»Crc^- MM»M(DOW0)^l|kUi01M00HO0iMI»M*M»*i.oo*«.i-iftc»3i-'tocorf^^4^aoftc« CD o' O l— tO M O » O ^ M M ftWWrf»tOCOI-i-»*OiOi*»-ftCn O c c p O^-00^M^SWfr^C0«JNfrftlt>b0MMMMMMM *a^tiifctDOMOiftftln©cSMWO(»M»MWSNO-f01 w p 2. tn *. bi M M H- |_l (_» |_» MCOOlftOM^OOMOOMMifeOIOM p§ Ol*WW(OMMM )_il_ll_l|_lt-»l-»l-'l-i(-ll-» to tOrf»-tOtOOOOtOrf^cDO~JCn-J^JCni-iOOOH-ft4».COCnOiftCOMi. ^M^MHOMOMMOiMCnft^OlHOHOltOaifr^^OllC go a? 2 CD cd' 1 "* CO tO h- (-> MHeMOlWMW*MOl^^*O^OlMlOMi|kW^ftitkHM H o 1 tOOfttOWtOCOl->^ICOtOCOOCHi*».CiGh— MOlHOlftOlOOWOl coH-oco--aoocooitootocotntooicna>oic»t*>.H-tooa>c5-^icn tOC(0»fi.CyiOtOCntO«OCT>OCOCnOO«OOOftCOCOOO-v|0«lC»COH- 38 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION The United Kingdom has received by far the largest portion of our exports, usually from two to four million bushels before the war, and from two to eight million bushels since the war. Stated in approximate percentages of our total exports, the United Kingdom received 80 to 90 per cent of exports before the war, and 60 to 94 per cent since the war. Germany received approximately one-tenth as many bushels of our exported apples as the United Kingdom until the war. For the war period no statistics are available. Since 1923 apple exports to Germany have been heavier than during most of the pre-war years. Sweden, Denmark, Cuba, Brazil, and Argentina have been increas- ing their imports of fresh apples from the United States rather con- sistently since the war, each importing between 100,000 and 500,000 bushels annually. Exports to Canada since 1920 have been slightly less than they were from 1910 to 1914. The general trend of our total fresh-apple exports since 1900 has been upward but very irregular from year to year. IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF FRESH, DRIED, AND CANNED APPLES IN THE UNITED STATES The data on import and exports of apples in the United States are shown for 1899 and each year from 1909 to 1925 in table 16. Since 1923 our exports of fresh apples have amounted to from nine to twelve million bushels, or approximately 6 per cent of our total crop. Before the war our exports seemed to be increasing, reaching more than seven million bushels in 1914. During the war our exports declined and did not recover until 1920, when almost eight million bushels were exported. Our exports of dried apples have declined slightly since the 1910-1914 period. During that period our average annual exports of dried apples amounted to an equivalent of almost six million bushels of fresh apples. During the five-year period, 1921 to 1925, they amounted to approximately the equivalent of three million bushels of fresh apples. Exports of canned apples are of only minor importance at present and have been reported separately only since 1923. Our net exports of apples in all forms, i.e., exports minus imports, are approximately eleven million bushels, the same for the last five years, 1921 to 1925, as for the years 1910 to 1914. During the last three years, however, our average annual net exports have been nearly fifteen millions, approximately 8 per cent of our total crop. Bul. 445] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY 39 TABLE 16 United States Imports and Exports of Fresh, Dried, and Canned Apples, 1899 and 1909-1925 Imports Exports Total exports : fresh equivalent in thou- sands of bushels Year Fresh thou- sands of bushels Fresh thou- sands of bushels Dried Canned Net exports, i. e. exports beginning July 1 Thou- sands of pounds Fresh equivalent in thousands of bushels* Thou- sands of pounds Fresh equivalent in thousands of bushelst minus imports in thousands of bushels 1899 .... 1,581 2,766 5,163 4,368 6,450 4,521 7,056 4,398 5,220 1,905 4,728 3,153 7,995 3,282 5,370 12,294 9,603 11,013 35,000 25,000 22,000 54,000 42,000 34,000 43,000 16,000 10,000 3,000 19,000 12,000 18,000 12,000 13,000 30,000 19,000 25,000 5,320 3,800 3,344 8,208 6,384 5,168 6,536 2,432 1,520 456 2,888 1,824 2,736 1,824 1,976 4,560 2,888 3,800 6,901 6,566 8,507 12,576 12,834 9,689 13,592 6,830 6,740 2,361 7,616 4,977 10,731 5,106 7,346 16,983 12,817 15,147 6,901 1909 .. 6,566 8,507 1910 1911 12,576 1912 12,834 1913. ... 9,689 1914 13,592 1915 6,830 1916 6,740 1917 2,361 1918 7,608 1919. ... 4,977 10,731 1920 1921 5,106 1922... 153 131 106 74 7,193 1923 5,000 13,000 13,000 129 334 334 16,852 1924 12,711 1925 15,073 * Thousands of pounds dried converted to thousands of bushels fresh by multiplying by 0.152. t Thousands of pounds canned converted to thousands of bushels fresh by multiplying by 0.0257. Data for imports and exports from June numbers of U. S. Monthly Summary of Foreign and Domestic Commerce 1916-1926. (From 1905-1915 this was named U. S. Monthly Summary of Commerce and Finance, Department of Com- merce.) Year 1899 from Commerce and Navigation. APPLE PRICES AND THEIR RELATION TO PRODUCTION The longest price series available is that of New York wholesale prices, and the longest series of production figures available is that of total production in the United States. These are given in table 17. Prices have been greatly affected by the changing value of the dollar, especially during the war. In order to make at least approxi- mate corrections for the changing value of the dollar the prices have been divided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics all commodity index number of wholesale prices in the United States. This index number is made up of prices of more than four hundred commodities and hence gives a good measure of the general price level. Dividing the price of apples by this index number gives the purchasing power of apples in terms of those commodities included in the index number. 40 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 17 Total Apple Production in the United States, New York Prices, and Purchasing Power Crop year Total production in thousands of bushels Price per barrel Purchasing power per barrel 1881 $2.92 2.84 2.99 2.04 1.67 3.00 2.35 1.84 3.00 3.75 1.57 2.50 3.55 2.83 2.38 1.69 3.29 3.67 2.71 2.95 4.49 2.19 2.85 2.36 4.26 3.30 3.32 3.97 3.64 4 34 3.20 2.93 4.28 2.92 3.02 4.73 5.10 7.60 7.54 5.68 7.84* 5.12 4.66 6.71* 5.57t $3.04 1882 2.96 1883 3.25 1884 2.37 1885 2.02 1886 3.62 1887 2.80 1888 2.19 1889 143,105 80,142 198,907 120,536 114,773 134,648 219,600 232,600 163,728 118,061 175,397 205,930 135,500 212,330 195,680 233,630 136,220 216,720 119,560 148,940 146,122 141,640 214,020 235,220 145,410 253,200 230,011 193,905 166,749 169,625 142.086 223,677 99,002 202,702 202,842 171,725 172,389 246,460 3.57 1890 4 51 1891 1.96 1892 3.20 1893 4.74 1894 3.99 1895 3.40 1896 2.49 1897 4.70 1898 4.96 1899 3.39 1900 3.69 1901 5.41 1902 2 46 1903 3 28 1904 2 65 1905 4 79 1906 3 51 1907 3 57 1908 4 18 1909 3 50 1910 4.52 1911 3 27 1912 2.87 1913 4 24 1914 2.92 1915 2.65 1916 3.01 1917 2 68 1918 3 73 1919 3 25 1920 3 16 1921 5 44* 1922 3 22 1923 3 03 1924 4 22* 1925 3.46f 1926 * September to April average. f September to December average (1925). Sources: Total production— 1899-1923, U.S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook 1924:664; 1924-1926— Crops and Markets Monthly Supplement 1926(12) :401. New York prices are averages of figures in U.S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook 1923:739, and U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook 1925:869. Purchasing power was calculated by dividing the prices by the Bureau of Labor Statistics index numbers of wholesale prices of all commodities as given in the Supplement to the Agricultural Situation, U. S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, 1925, and later monthly issues of the Agricultural Situation. Bul. 445] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY 41 A price adjusted in this way is often designated as purchasing power, deflated price, or simply adjusted price. In table 17 it is designated as purchasing power and is shown in the last column. Figure 9 shows the New York price of apples per barrel from 1881 to 1925 converted to a purchasing-power basis and compared with the total United States production, in bushels, from 1889 to 1925. Total United States Apple Production and Purchasing Power Based on Average New York Wholesale Prices, September to May Dollars Bvsliais Pur- Or>nh 3b/. lioni) 3.00 300 Z.OO ZOO I.OO IOO Fig. 9. — Illustrating part of table 17. During years of short apple crops the purchasing power per barrel is usually high, and during years of large crops the purchasing power per barrel is usually low. The trend in purchasing power is upward from 1881 to 1901. Since 1901 there is no evidence of any long-time trend up or down. The purchasing power of apples based on New York prices shows a general upward trend from 1881 to 1901 (see fig. 9). Beginning with 1902 it is difficult to determine the trend. Lines of trend can be determined mathematically, but their slope would be affected greatly by the particular period included. Thus from 1901 to 1915 or 1917 the trend would be downward. From 1902 to 1917 the trend would be practically level. The period from 1902 to 1925 would show a slight upward trend. The trend since 1900, based on New York prices, has been approximately level. Variations in purchasing power from year to year have generally been in the opposite direction from the variations in production. This is particularly noticeable during the short-crop years of 1910, 1913, and 1921, when prices were high, and during the large-crop years of 1912, 1914, 1920, 1922, and 1923, when prices were low. 42 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION CORRELATION OF PURCHASING POWER AND TOTAL UNITED STATES PRODUCTION The closeness of the association between purchasing power and production as shown in figure 9 is shown in another way, for the years 1910 to 1925, in figure 10. The purchasing power per barrel is measured by the vertical scale and the production by the horizontal Based on Average New York Wholesale Prices, September to May 5.40 5.ZO Zi* *.eo S? Qq 440 ^4ZO \ 400 * 3.60 to • 10 • '3 ,Z4 t m g 340 ^S m /9 m zz • U 300 %' e mZ3 •zo s^a? •'*- Z.60 /7m * ts d' 90 100 110 /ZO J30 /40 150 l&O 170 I60 /90 ZOO Z/O ZZO Z30 Z40 Z50 Z€0 Txs \ \ \ \ • • ANTA BARBARA! v /j, v A^Jf*- < SAN BE RN ARD I N I IMPERIAL Fig. 12. — The most important apple district in California is the Watsonville district in Santa Cruz and northern Monterey counties. Second in importance is the Sebastopol district in Sonoma County, and third the Yucaipa district in San Bernardino County. 48 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION The second important district is the Sebastopol district in Sonoma County. Here approximately 75 per cent of the total acreage is in Gravensteins. In recent years nearly all of the July shipments of fresh apples from the far-western states and from 30 to 40 per cent of the total United States fresh apple shipments in July were Graven- steins from the Sebastopol district. Next in importance from the standpoint of acreage is the Yucaipa district near Redlands in San Bernardino County. This is at an elevation of 2,500 to 3,000 feet. A similar area, but only about one- third as large is located in Riverside County near Beaumont. The other apple plantings are mainly scattered through various foothill and mountain valleys of Kern, Tulare, Fresno, Inyo, Tuolumne, and Mendocino counties. Relatively few apples are shipped by rail from any of these districts. TREND IN ACREAGE BY COUNTIES The statistics on bearing acres of apples from 1921 to 1927 (table 21 and fig. 13), compiled by the California Cooperative Crop Report- ing Service, and statistics on numbers of bearing and non-bearing trees for 1910, 1920, and 1925 (table 7), compiled by the United States Census Bureau, affords a basis for judging the course of production in the various districts for several years to come. According to table 21, the apple acreage in Santa Cruz County remained constant at 15,500 from 1921 to 1924 and then began a slow decline to 15,100 in 1927. The census shows a smaller number of non-bearing trees (trees not of bearing age) in 1925 than in 1910. Monterey County shows an increase of approximately 200 acres in bearing trees from 1921 to 1927. The number of non-bearing trees decreased from 1910 to 1925. For the Watsonville district as a whole the outlook from present plantings is a decline in bearing acreage. Sonoma County shows an increase from 7,713 acres in 1921 to 9,750 acres in 1927. Estimates of non-bearing acreages for 1927 indicate that there are more than 50 per cent as many acres of non- bearing trees as bearing trees, although there have been practically no new plantings since 1922. On this basis an increase in bearing acreage is to be expected for several years more. San Bernardino County shows a moderate increase in bearing acreage from 1921 to 1925, followed by a slight decline up to 1927. The census reports show a marked decline in the number of non-bear- ing trees from 1920 to 1925, which indicates a comparatively long Bul. 445] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY 49 period of decreasing acreages of bearing trees ahead. Riverside County shows a moderate increase in bearing acreage from 1921 to 1926, but practically no increase from 1926 to 1927. The number of non-bearing trees, according to the census, decreased nearly 80 per cent from 1920 to 1925, which must result in some decrease in bearing acreage in the near future. Bearing Acreage in Apples in Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties, in Sonoma County, in San Bernardino County, and Total in State, 1921-1927 Arrest— eoooo soooo 40000 30000 zoooo /oooo y Other Counties San Bernard/no Sonoma Santa Cruz *" rlonf-er&c/ /9Z/ /9£Z /9Z3 /9Z4 /9Z5 /9Z6 /9Z7 Fig. 13. — Illustrating part of table 21. — The bearing apple acreage in Santa Cruz and Monterey counties and in San Bernardino County declined slightly since 1925. In Sonoma County and for the state as a whole the bearing acreage is still increasing. 50 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 21 Bearing Acres of Apples in California by Counties, 1921-1927 District No. 1: Del Norte Humboldt Mendocino District No. 2: Shasta Siskiyou Trinity District No. 3: Lassen Modoc Plumas District No. 4: Alameda Contra Costa Lake Marin Monterey Napa San Benito San Luis Obispo San Mateo Santa Clara Santa Cruz Sonoma District No. S.- Butte Colusa Glenn Sacramento Solano Sutter Tehama Yolo Yuba District No. 5a: Fresno Kern Kings Madera Merced San Joaquin Stanislaus Tulare District No. 6: Alpine Amador Calaveras Eldorado Inyo Mariposa Mono Nevada 1921 515 964 318 294 53 251 385 300 265 85 3,400 300 175 500 270 400 15,500 7,713 250 25 70 237 50 134 138 60 30 1,105 458 38 120 67 60 61 623 110 400 600 51 249 1922 544 1,021 318 800 53 96 276 350 300 265 80 3,405 325 179 550 278 400 15,500 7,950 250 25 69 237 55 155 138 60 30 1,105 458 38 120 75 60 76 645 110 180 400 600 180 51 300 1923 569 1,096 294 800 53 301 300 300 255 80 3,455 350 183 600 283 800 15,500 8,460 250 25 68 241 55 124 138 62 30 1,105 629 38 120 80 60 80 667 110 400 650 51 300 1924 598 ,171 270 800 53 96 326 250 300 245 80 3,500 375 187 650 288 900 15,500 8,950 250 25 67 245 55 92 138 64 30 1,105 800 38 120 85 60 84 689 110 158 400 700 180 51 300 1925 630 1,245 270 850 53 96 350 200 315 250 80 3,550 400 187 700 297 l v 000 15,400 9,200 312 25 67 250 55 97 138 60 30 200 280 38 120 85 60 82 701 115 171 425 700 190 51 304 1926 833 1,212 270 950 53 96 350 32 143 330 256 70 3,601 400 190 700 310 1,096 15,300 9,450 528 25 68 250 70 97 138 63 30 1,225 1,344 38 142 91 60 93 732 120 174 450 ,052 170 51 300 1927 848 1,275 270 1,000 60 351 32 145 400 260 70 3,591 400 191 725 350 1,099 15,100 9,750 548 25 67 260 128 98 140 64 30 1,200 1,344 38 142 103 65 88 732 120 174 450 ,052 170 51 300 Data from California Crop Reporting Service. Estimated bearing acres of apples in California. 1 p. (mimeo.). 1927. Bul. 445] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY 51 TABLE 21- — (Continued) 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 District No. 6: Placer 472 18 600 478 18 800 481 18 850 484 18 900 490 18 920 486 18 1,200 484 Sierra 18 1,500 District No. 8: Los Angeles 917 280 1,585 5,083 700 140 255 1,031 280 1,625 5,385 675 150 256 1,031 280 1,700 5,425 650 160 260 1,031 280 1,800 5,465 625 170 256 1,150 280 1,900 5,868 575 180 263 1,054 280 1,940 5,840 537 180 269 1,016 251 Riverside 1,942 5,743 612 180 Ventura 273 State ... . 47,130 48,805 50,262 51,414 53,273 54,757 55,325 Several counties with acreages of from 500 to 1,000 in 1921 have shown rather important percentage increases from 1921 to 1927 ; they are Humboldt, Mendocino, San Luis Obispo, Kern, and Tuolumne. For the state as a whole, according to table 21, the acreage of bearing trees increased from 47,130 in 1921 to 55,325 in 1927 — an increase of 17 per cent. According to the United States Census the increase in bearing trees from 1920 to 1925 was 13 per cent, and the increase from 1910 to 1920 was 26 per cent. The relative number of non-bearing trees for the state, taking 1910 as 100, was 126 in 1920, and 84 in 1925. This points towards an increase in bearing acreage for several more years, after which a decrase may be expected. CARLOT SHIPMENTS OF APPLES IN CALIFORNIA BY MONTHS Records of carlot shipments of apples are available by months since 1918. These are summarized by months in table 22 and by years in figure 14. While the total shipments by years do not show any trend up or down, the July shipments, though irregular, show a decided upward trend, due to the increase in Gravenstein apples from the Sebastopol district. In 1918 and 1919 the July shipments amounted to 66 and 273 carlots respectively. In 1925 and 1926 they amounted to 341 and 1,491 carlots, respectively. The peak load of shipments comes in October in seven years out of nine. In 1922 the peak came in August and in 1926 it came in July. The shipments in the peak month usually range from 1,000 to 1,500 carlots. 52 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION On an average 88.5 per cent of the season's apple crop is shipped by the last of December. During 1925, when the yield of apples was unusually low, only 81.3 per cent of the total shipments of the season moved by December 31. In 1923, a year of high shipments, the per- Carlot Shipments of Apples from Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties, and from Sonoma County, and Total from State, 1920-1926 Carfo-hs 7O0O Sonoma :\ San-fa Cruz + Mon-far&y i9zo /9Z/ /9zz /9Z3 /9Z4- /9Z5 /9Z<3 Fig. 14. — Illustrating part of table 23. From 90 to 95 per cent of the apple shipments in carlots came from the Watsonville district of Santa Cruz and Monterey counties, and from Sonoma County. Bul. 445] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY 53 centage of the total shipments moved by December 31 was 92.7. As a rule, between 86 and 92 per cent of the total shipments for the crop year occur by December 31. TABLE 22 Carlot Shipments of Apples in California by Months, 1918-1927 June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June* Total 1918-19 6 66 468 486 797 585 501 198 226 81 42 12 5 3,473 1919-20 5 273 441 877 908 709 370 155 148 173 48 41 5 4,153 1920-21 5 219 584 998 1,002 787 389 116 86 70 78 67 12 4,413 1921-22 10 301 677 1,250 1,534 714 174 120 117 101 42 21 1 5,062 1922-23 2 212 998 782 920 887 495 179 103 168 107 78 30 4,961 1923-24 61 1,290 984 1,277 1,431 771 219 122 77 123 55 65 30 6,505 1924-25 22 734 645 943 1,185 695 186 120 111 97 85 59 9 4,891 1925-26 53 341 155 498 691 227 90 99 100 109 74 63 31 2,531 1926-27 90 1,494 591 959 990 352 149 79 72 137 102 58 5,073 * This column gives the shipments of the old crop. Data from June, 1918, to June, 1920, from U. S. Dept. Agr. Statis. Bul. 7:2; for June, 1920, to Dec, 1926, from U.S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook 1926:899; for Jan. to June, 1927, from Crops and Markets 4: (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). TREND IN SHIPMENTS BY COUNTIES The total number of carlots of California apples shipped was 4,477 in 1920 and 5,100 in 1926 (table 23 and fig. 14). The highest ship- ments came in 1923 with 6,698 carlots, and the lowest in 1925 with 2,536 carlots. By far the most important districts from the standpoint of rail shipments are in Santa Cruz and Sonoma counties. In 1920, carlot shipments from Santa Cruz County amounted to 71 per cent of the state total. Sonoma County was second, supplying 21 per cent of the shipments of the state. Hence the two leading counties fur- nished 92 per cent of the total California shipments. During the following years the proportion of the shipments coming from these two counties never fell below 86 per cent and amounted to 92 per cent in 1926. The proportion coming from Santa Cruz County shows a slight tendency to decrease from 1920 to 1926, while Sonoma County shows an increase during the same period. Carlot shipments from the other counties are relatively unim- portant. Monterey County, a part of the Watsonville district, shipped 60 carlots in 1920 and 208 in 1923. Napa County, a part of the Sebastopol district, shipped as high as 90 carlots one year. In general, yields are rather light in the other counties and the apples are mostly hauled by truck, consumed locally, or made into by-products. Truck hauling and local consumption are especially important in the dis- position of the apples in those counties having orchards near the large cities. 54 UNIVERSITY OP CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Truck shipments have increased rapidly the past few years. For 1926 these data are fairly complete, and show the equivalent of 410 carlots hauled by truck from the Watsonville district and 95 carlots from the Sebastopol district. A carlot was considered equivalent to 756 boxes. TABLE 23 Carlot Shipments of Apples by Counties, 1920-1926* Counties 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 District No. 4: Monterey Napa 60 148 29 72 1 122 3,296 1,060 2 130 55 130 12 50 2,917 1,152 208 90 133 17 49 3,736 2,124 28 4 31 132 35 60 12 61 3,127 1,321 103 27 8 87 68 San Benito 104 5 56 3,175 945 33 2 Santa Clara 29 1,775 437 73 Santa Cruz.... 3,072 Sonoma 1,603 District No. 5: Butte 1 15 10 4 2 1 13 34 6 Sutter 11 15 District No. 5a: Fresno 1 Kern 3 23 7 5 108 38 12 21 44 10 11 103 30 36 43 35 20 14 32 28 23 1 60 35 1 District No. 6: Inyo 15 4 16 44 22 16 78 Tuolumne District No. 8: 49 11 79 217 19 20 14 2 11 **************** Others 10 4,477 5,089 4,698 6,698 4,882 2,536 5,109 * Calendar years. Data for 1920-1922 from U.S. Dept. Agr. Statis. Bui. 8:2, 3; for 1924 and 1925 from U. S. Dept. Agr. Statis. Bui. 19:2, 3; for 1926 from Harris, Homer A. Summary of carlot shipments of important fruits and vegetables in California, Arizona, and Nevada. (Mimeo.) U. S. Dept. Agr. Fruits and Vegetable Division. APPLE SURVEY During May and June, 1927, a survey was made of the Watsonville and Sebastopol districts. This was planned and financed by the United States Bureau of Agricultural Economics and the University of California, Division of Agricultural Economics. Data were secured from public agencies and from marketing organizations regarding the production by varieties and grades, shipments, destinations, and prices by varieties, grades, and sizes, of a fair proportion of the total ship- ments in each area. Records were obtained for the years 1924, 1925, Bul. 445] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY 55 and 1926 in all cases, and for 1922 and 1923 in one case. Some shippers had compiled certain statistical data regarding shipments and prices over a longer period. Permission to use some of these compilations was secured in some instances. Since this material was confidential, the specific source is not given below each table as is done where material was obtained from public sources. The results of this survey are summarized in the following pages. APPLE PRODUCTION IN THE WATSONVILLE DISTRICT BY VARIETIES AND GRADES The production of apples in the Watsonville district in 1926 is typical of other years so far as the relative quantities of the different varieties is concerned, although the total production and the propor- tion shipped loose were above the average. The relative amounts of TABLE 24 Apple Production in Watsonville District by Varieties and Grades, 1926 Grades Variety Fancy boxes "C" grade boxes Packed unclassified boxes Loose unclassified boxes Total boxes 658,928 66,412 35,528 7,741 4,470 98,297 6,786 2,505 576,274 716,817 44,879 16,900 101,699 1,341,240 794,485 82,912 Red Pearmains 16,900 14,304 21 2,144 118,168 Total 775,172 12,232 109,732 1,456,569 2,353,705* * In addition 517,000 boxes were in local storage, not yet inspected. Data compiled from records of C. H. Beasley, Bureau of Standardization, State Dept. of Agriculture, Watsonville. the different grades varies somewhat from year to year. During recent years there has been an upward trend in the proportion of apples sold in loose boxes and a downward trend in the proportion packed. Table 24 shows that of the 2,353,705 boxes 5 of apples produced in 1926 1,341,240, or 57 per cent, were Yellow Newtowns, and 794,485, or 33.8 per cent, were Yellow Bellflowers. The remaining 9.2 per cent were made up of White and Red Pearmains and miscellaneous 5 Packed boxes contain approximately 42 pounds net and loose boxes 35 pounds net. 56 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION varieties. The Newtowns had the largest quantity and the highest proportion of apples packed. Nearly one-half were graded 'fancy,' less than 1 per cent 'C,' 7.3 per cent were 'packed unclassified,' and the remaining 43 per cent of the boxes were ' loose unclassified. ' Only 8.4 per cent of the Bellflowers were packed as 'fancy,' and 90 per cent were 'loose unclassified.' Of the White Pearmains, 43 per cent were packed 'fancy' and 54 per cent 'loose unclassified.' Of the miscellaneous 12 per cent were packed 'fancy' and 86 per cent 'loose unclassified.' Taking all of the varieties together, 775,172 boxes were packed and graded 'fancy,' 12,232 boxes were 'C,' 109,732 boxes were 'packed unclassified,' and 1,456,569 were 'loose unclassified.' In terms of percentages, 33.0 per cent were packed 'fancy,' 0.5 per cent packed 'C,' 4.7 per cent 'packed unclassified,' and 61.8 per cent were 'loose unclassified. ' The total production of 2,353,705 boxes would make up approxi- mately 3,100 carlots at 756 boxes to the car. PRIMARY DESTINATION OF APPLES FROM THE WATSONVILLE DISTRICT A fairly typical distribution of the fresh apples shipped from the Watsonville district is shown by the records of all shipments from August to December, 1926 (table 25 and fig. 15). During this period 2,744 carlots were shipped, of which 2,426 (88.4 per cent) went to cities in California, and 316 (11.6 per cent) went to cities outside of California. More than one-half (1,441 carlots) of the total number of carlots were shipped to Los Angeles, and 579 (21.1 per cent) of the total went to San Francisco. An unusually large proportion of the August shipments (72.5 per cent) went to Los Angeles. None of the other California cities received more than 3 per cent of the total shipments. Nine cities besides Los Angeles and San Francisco received more than ten carlots each. Fourteen cities outside of California received carlot shipments of apples from the Watsonville district. Of these New York received 269, or approximately 10 per cent of the total shipments from the district. Phoenix, Arizona, and Reno, Nevada, received 14 and 11 carlots, respectively. The remaining cities each received five carlots or less. Bul. 445] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY 57 TABLE 25 Number of Carlots Shipped from Watsonville District and Primary Destinations, August to December, 1926 Destinations within California August September October November December Total 341 25 358 219 12 16 21 17 8 5 5 2 6 2 2 1 460 252 51 33 14 19 17 13 7 4 2 2 1 174 72 14 22 13 3 13 3 1 4 3 1 108 11 1,441 579* 77 2 5 11 2 2 2 1 3 6 3 5 76 Fresno 59 San Diego 53 Stockton 45 Sacramento 23 2 3 17 14 11 Taft 5 3 Tulare 1 2 Tracy I 1 1 1 1 3 12 2 17 393 677 877 336 143 2.426 Destinations outside of California August September October November December Total New York 64 5 166 6 9 2 2 2 1 34 3 2 2 3 2 269* 14 11 1 2 1 5 Tampa, Fla 4 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 Rock Springs, Wyo 1 Globe, Ariz 1 1 1 1 Elko, Nev 1 j 1 1 Total shipped outside of state of California 75 191 42 4 4 316 * Some of these were exported. Data compiled from records of C. H. Beasley, Bureau of Standardization, State Dept. of Agriculture, Watsonville. 58 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION •V o BUL. 445] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY 59 SHIPMENTS AND PRICES OF PACKED APPLES BY MONTHS, WATSONVILLE DISTRICT Data obtained from representative shippers in the Watsonville district on shipments and prices of packed apples by months for the years 1922 to 1926 are presented in table 26. The shipments comprise between 5 and 10 per cent of the total packed apples shipped from the district each year. The prices represent the weighted average net prices received by the shippers at their shipping points. Shipments reached their peak in October in three years out of the five. The other two years the peaks of shipments were reached in September and November, respectively. During 1922 and 1923 prices increased fairly consistently from September to March. In 1924, how- ever, prices declined after November, and in 1926 there was a steady decline from August to January. It is probable that the trouble with internal browning of the stored Yellow Newtowns may have caused the decline in prices of the 1926 crop. Some variations may, of course, be expected in these prices owing to the size of the sample, although in a general way it undoubtedly reflects what the bulk of the packed apples sold for. The total number of boxes, however, does not necessarily reflect the size of the crop. This can be judged better by the shipments from Santa Cruz and Monterey counties shown in table 23. Comparing these with the weighted average prices for each year given in table 26, we note a fairly close inverse correlation between price and shipments. Thus in 1923 the shipments in Santa Cruz County amounted to 3,736 carlots — the highest during the last seven years, and the price was $0.84 per box — the lowest of all years shown in table 26. In 1925 only 1,775 cars were shipped from Santa Cruz County and the price was $1.41. The years 1922 and 1926 had approximately average ship- ments and average prices. TREND IN QUANTITIES AND PROPORTIONS OF PACKED YELLOW NEWTOWNS AND YELLOW BELLFLOWERS During the last few years there has been a marked decrease in the proportion of apples in the Watsonville district that have been put up in packed boxes. Only in 1926, however, has this been so marked in the case of Yellow Newtowns. This is shown in table 27. Thus from 1921 to 1924 the quantities of Newtowns packed were well over one million boxes each year and the proportion of the crop that was packed never fell below 84 per cent of the commercial crop, or that 60 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 26 Monthly Apple Shipments, in Packed Boxes, by Eepresentative Shippers in Watsonville District, and Prices Eeceived Year Month Number of boxes Price per box* 3,064 3,554 19,108 25,934 10,726 694 2,293 $0.94 0.97 1.02 0.99 0.96 1.05 1.08 1922 February Total 65,373 $0.99 August 9,858 16,814 945 2,494 5,245 4,138 383 $0.82 0.69 0.87 1.09 1.05 1.08 1.15 September October November 1923 December January March Total 39,877 $0.84 August 5,424 8,190 25,133 21,468 9,633 1,952 $1.15 1.13 1.16 1.35 1.20 1.12 September October 1924 November December January Total 71,800 $1.22 August 212 3,488 7,316 2,367 $1.62 1.51 1.34 1.44 1925 October November Total 13,383 $1.41 August 1,837 6,817 11,627 2,408 4,938 3,334 435 $1.11 1.06 1.03 0.97 0.92 0.77 0.81 September October* November 1926 December January February Total 31,396 $0.99 * Price to shippers — not net to growers. Data compiled from records of representative shippers. Bul. 445] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY 61 intended for consumption as fresh apples. In 1925 the total apple crop in California was short and practically all (98.5 per cent) of the commercial crop of Newtowns were packed. The next year (1926) only 57 per cent of the Newtowns were packed and 43 per cent were put up in loose boxes. TABLE 27 Packed and Loose Boxes of Yellow Newtowns and Yellow Bellflowers in the Watsonville District, 1921-1926 Boxes, packed and loose Percentages, packed and loose Newtons Bellflowers Newtowns Bellflowers Year Packed Loose Packed Loose Packed Loose Packed Loose 1921 1,154,619 54,494 1,035,083 80,126 95.5 4.5 92.8 7.2 1922 1,608,132 634,846 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 1923 1,450,664 151,270 557,705 558,108 90.5 9.5 50.0 50.0 1924 1,200,950 223,992 250,487 505,752 84.3 15.7 33.1 66.9 1925 714,593 10,821 51,482 355,509 98.5 1.5 12.7 87.3 1926 764,966 576,274 77,668 716,817 57.0 43.0 9.7 90.3 Data compiled from records of C. H. Beasley, Bureau of Standardization, State Dept. of Agriculture, Watsonville. The Yellow Bellflowers in 1921 comprised slightly over one million packed boxes and 80,126 loose boxes. In other words nearly 93 per cent of the commercial crop was packed. In 1923 the number of packed and loose boxes of Bellflowers were practically equal. In 1924 one-third of the Bellflowers were packed. The proportion packed dropped to 12.7 per cent in 1925 and 9.7 per cent in 1926. PRICES OF PRINCIPAL VARIETIES OF APPLES SHIPPED FROM THE WATSONVILLE DISTRICT The Newtowns and Bellflowers make up approximately 90 per cent of the apples grown in the Watsonville district. Table 28 shows the prices of these two varieties to shippers f.o.b. Watsonville, and the amounts included in the survey that were shipped in packed boxes and in loose boxes, from 1922 to 1926. It does not include those placed in cold storage, which comprised both packed and loose apples, and amounted to approximately as much as the quantities of packed apples. The quantities of apples shown in table 28 on which prices were obtained in the survey do not in all cases represent the proportions in which these varieties and grades are produced. Table 27 gives the 62 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION latter information accurately. The quantities included in the survey in table 28 are given to show the size of the sample on which prices were obtained. The highest average price received for apples from 1922 to 1926 was in 1925, the year of the smallest crop. In that year the price per box for Newtowns was $1.38 and for Bellflowers $1.59. The price per ton in loose boxes for Newtowns was $53.50 and for Bellflowers $59.50. This was the only year in which a higher price was received for Bell- flowers than for Newtowns. The average prices for the five-year TABLE 28 Comparison of Quantities and Prices of Yellow Newtowns and Yellow Bellflowers Packed Loose Year Yellow Newtowns Yellow Bellflowers Yellow Newtowns Yellow Bellflowers Boxes Price per box Boxes Price per box Tons Price per ton Tons Price per ton 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 57,425 13,805 50,373 11,447 25,778 $0.99 1.07 1.24 1.38 1.07 8,530 20,764 11,604 1,247 2,114 $0.95 0.78 1.13 1.59 0.99 92.11 501.79 734.86 312.77 1,268.23 $33.30 34.40 51.10 53.50 30.20 234.08 685.31 633.11 234.70 535 12 $30 60 25.80 41.70 59.50 26.80 Average SI. 15 $1.09 $40 50 $36.88 Data compiled from records of representative shippers. Prices are net to shippers f.o.b. Watsonville. period were $1.15 a box for Newtowns and $1.09 for Bellflowers. The average prices for loose apples were $40.50 a ton for Newtowns and $36.88 for Bellflowers. Price to Growers. — Commission and packing charges of shippers in the Watsonville district amount to from $0.40 to $0.50 per packed box, which amount must be deducted from the net price to shipper in order to get the price to the grower for his apples delivered at the local packing house. This means that the average price to the grower for the last five years was not over $0.75 per packed box of Newtowns and not more than $0.69 per packed box of Bellflowers. The shipper's charges for handling loose apples has been from $0.20 to $0.25 per loose box or from $11.00 to $14.00 a ton. This means that the grower received, on an average for the past five years, not more than $29.50 a ton of Newtowns, and not more than $25.88 a ton for Bellflowers. Bul. 445] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY 63 APPLE PRODUCTION IN THE SEBASTOPOL DISTRICT BY VARIETIES AND GRADES The total production of apples in the Sebastopol district in 1926 as shown in table 29 is 1,232,708 boxes, or, at 756 boxes to a carlot, the production would be equivalent to 1,630 carlots. According to table 23, 1,601 carlots of fresh apples were shipped by rail from Sonoma County in 1926. In addition 207 carlots of dried apples were shipped from northern California that year, most of which came from the Sebastopol district. TABLE 29 Apple Production in Sebastopol District by Varieties and Grades, 1926 Variety Fancy Choice Packed unclassified Loose unclassified Total Gravensteins Others boxes 915,983 48,308 boxes 53,418 323 boxes 25,943 15,769 boxes 94,939 78,025 boxes 1,090,283 142,425 Total 964,291 53,741 41,712 172,964 1,232,708 Data compiled from records of C. H. Beasley, Bureau of Standardization, State Dept. of Agriculture, Watsonville. Of the total 1,630 carlots of fresh apples in the Sebastopol district nearly 90 per cent were Gravensteins, and practically 75 per cent were packed and graded ' fancy. ' Of the total Gravensteins, as shown in table 29, 84 per cent were packed and graded 'fancy,' 4.9 per cent were packed and graded 'C,' 2.4 per cent were packed and graded 'unclassified,' and 8.7 per cent were not packed. The other varieties of apples have been grouped under 'others' in table 29. Only 34 per cent of these were packed and graded 'fancy,' less than 1 per cent graded 'C,' 11 per cent 'unclassified,' and nearly 55 per cent were not packed. DISTRIBUTION OF GRAVENSTEIN APPLES FROM THE SEBASTOPOL DISTRICT Records of carlot shipments of fresh Gravenstein apples by final destinations were made available by shippers in the Sebastopol dis- trict. The twenty-four cities receiving the largest number of carlots from 1923 to 1926 are shown in table 30. For 1926 the distribution is also shown in figure 15. In addition to the rail shipments a con- siderable amount of shipping to nearby points such as San Francisco and Oakland is done by trucks. These truck shipments in 1926 were equivalent to approximately 95 carlots. 64 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION It will be noted in studying table 30 that the number of carlots of Gravenstein apples going to the same city varies considerably from year to year. The variations are caused partly by the size of the Gravenstein apple crop and partly by the quantity of other fruits TABLE 30 Distribution of Gravenstein" Apples from Sebastopol District by Important Cities (Carlots) City 1923 1924 1925 1926 25 101 94 42 14 13 45 10 23 12 170 34 4 6 373* 12 34 18 4 12 22 31 5 16 9 17 117 6 14 4 26 15 12 4 98 9 6 32 358* 4 3 5 4 20 22 9 2 7 21 1 1 3 5 1 3 42 4 80 1 1 1 4 13 3 4 8 85 Chicago 135 Cleveland 20 Dallas 7 Denver 8 Detroit 47 Ft. Worth 9 Houston 12 Little Rock 7 133 Memphis 15 Milwaukee 13 Montreal 12 New York 251 Oklahoma City 6 Philadelphia 20 Pittsburg 18 Phoenix 7 Portland 6 San Antonio 23 San Francisco 13 Tampa 14 Waco 5 Total 1,120 795 197 874 Total carlots shipped from Sebastopol dis- trict 1,551 72.3 1,050 75.7 247 79.8 1,211 Per cent of total ship- ped to the above 24 cities 72.2 * Some of these were exported. Data compiled from records of shippers from the Sebastopol district. available from other areas. Chicago, for example, received 94 carlots of Gravensteins from the Sebastopol district in 1923, 117 in 1924, 21 in 1925, and 135 in 1926. The low receipts in 1925 were typical of all of the cities, especially those farthest from the point of production, because of the small crop. The variations in receipts in other years, however, must have been due to other causes. The twenty-four cities Bul. 445] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY 65 shown in table 30 received approximately three-fourths of the total carlot shipments from the Sebastopol district, varying from 79.8 per cent in 1925 to 72.2 per cent in 1926. The number of cities in the United States and Canada to which one or more carlots of Gravenstein apples were shipped from the TABLE 31 Number of Cities Beceiving Gravenstein" Apples from the Sebastopol District 1923 1924 1925 1926 Cities in United States outside of California ... Cities in California Cities in Canada 102 16 11 112 15 11 40 10 3 124 11 9 Total cities in United States and Canada 129 138 53 144 Data compiled from records of shippers from the Sebastopol district. Sebastopol district is shown in table 31. This indicates that the number of cities in the United States outside of California receiving Gravenstein apples was 124 in 1926, compared with 102 in 1923, when the total shipments were 28 per cent higher. The number of cities reached in 1926 was higher than in any of the previous three years, TABLE 32 Total Carlots of Gravensteins and Proportion that Are Shipped to Points in California 1923 1924 1925 1926 Total carlots shipped Carlots shipped to points 1,551 1 272 17.5 1,050 141 13.5 247 85 34.4 1,211 174 Percentage of total ship- ped to points in Cali- fornia 14.4 Data compiled from records of shippers from the Sebastopol district. the second highest being in 1924 when 112 cities were reached. In spite of the apparent wide distribution in 1926 the prices were lower than in the previous three years. The number of cities receiving carlots in California and in Canada declined slightly from 1923 to 1926. The total number of carlots shipped from 1923 to 1926, and the number and proportion shipped to points in California are shown in 66 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION table 32. The heaviest shipment occurred in 1923 when 1,551 carlots were shipped ; 272 carlots, or 17.5 per cent of the total, went to points in California. In 1925, only 247 carlots were shipped. Of these, 85 carlots or 34.4 per cent of the total, went to points within the state. During years of normal crops from one-seventh to one-sixth of the Gravensteins shipped remained in the state. During the short year (1925) approximately one-third of those shipped remained in the state. PRICE OF GRAVENSTEIN APPLES BY SIZES AND GRADES Prices were obtained from shippers on two sizes of both ' fancy ' and ' C ' grades. These are summarized from 1920 to 1926 in table 33 and figure 16. The 'fancy' 150 and larger consistently brought the TABLE 33 Net Price to Shippers per Packed Box of Gravenstein Apples F.O.B. Sebastopol Fancy "C" ?rade Year 150 and larger 163 and smaller 150 and larger 163 and smaller 1920 $2.28 $2.20 $1.71 $1.35 1921 2.27 2.15 1.72 1.50 1922 1.02 0.70 0.81 0.73 1923 1.28 1.23 0.94 0.94 1924 1.70 1.23 1 54 1.11 1925 2.51 2.32 1.99 1.99 1926 0.94 0.94 0.89 0.89 Data compiled from records of representative shippers. highest price. The 'fancy' 163 and smaller brought the next highest price each year except in 1922 and 1924, when the 'C grade, 150 and larger, brought next to the highest price. During four years out of the seven the 'C grade, 163 and smaller, brought the lowest price. During the other three years this size brought the same price as the 150 and larger 'C '-grade apple. PRODUCTION AND PRICES OF GRAVENSTEIN APPLES SEBASTOPOL DISTRICT N THE The production of Gravenstein apples in the Sebastopol district, not including the small production around Sonoma, Napa, and Healds- burg, is shown from 1912 to 1926 in table 34 and figure 17. The pro- duction increased rapidly from 1912 to 1923, almost doubling every two years in some cases. Thus in 1913 the production was 42,000 Bul. 445] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY 67 Net Price per Packed Box to Shippers of Gravenstein Apples for Sebastopol, 1920-1926 Price j&SO /9Zt J9Z2 &Z3 /924 /92S /9Z(S Fig. 16. — Illustrating table 33. 'Fancy' packed apples, 150 and larger, con- sistently brought the highest price. The 'fancy,' 163 and smaller, usually brought the next highest price except in 1922 and 1924, when the large size of 'C '-grade apples brought next to the highest price. boxes, in 1915 it was 79,800 boxes, in 1917 it was 152,400 boxes, and in 1919 it was 322,400 boxes. Four years later, in 1923, a total of 1,172,500 boxes were produced. Since 1923 several years of low yields have occurred. Thus in 1924 production fell to 563,000 boxes, and in 1925 to 126,000 boxes — almost a crop failure. Jn 1926 the produc- tion again went up to 1,134,000 boxes, fairly near the 1923 record. Prices during the pre-war period varied from $1.00 to $1.50, then rose rapidly to $2.00 a box and above, and remained high until 1922, when the price dropped to $1.02. It has been pointed out that the 68 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION railroad strike in 1922 brought the price down to a lower point than was justified by the supply. 6 The supply of 1,172,500 boxes in 1923, which was 64 per cent greater than the 1922 crop, brought a price of $1.28, or $0.26 above the price of the 1922 crop. In 1924 the crop was short, amounting to only 563,000 boxes. The price rose that year to $1.70. The next year the crop was only 126,000 boxes and the price reached the highest point of the whole period, $2.51 per box. The TABLE 34 GltAVENSTEIN APPLE PRODUCTION AND PRICE PER BOX IN SEBASTOPOL DISTRICT,* 1912-1925 Year Production in boxes Price t per box JulyJ index number (all commodity) Purchasing power per box 1912 53,100 $1.09 101 $1.08 1913 42,000 1.53 102 1.50 1914 77,400 1.01 99 1.02 1915 79,800 1.07 102 1.05 1916 96,200 1.16 125 0.93 1917 152,400 1.48 191 0.78 1918 194,400 1.98 200 0.99 1919 322,400 2.33 216 1.08 1920 400,200 2.28 245 0.93 1921 366,500 2.27 144 1.58 1922 713,600 1.02 158 0.65 1923 1,172,500 1.28 153 0.84 1924 563,000 1.70 150 1.13 1925 126,000 2.51 163 1.54 1926 1,134,000 0.94 153 0.61 1927§ 680,400 2.25 147 1.43 * Sonoma, Napa, and Healdsburg not included. 1 Net price received by shippers per packed box of Gravensteins, fancy 4-tier. t Bureau of Labor Statistics index number converted to 1910-1914 base. U. S. Dept. Agr. Supplement to Agriculture Situation June, 1925, and current issues. § Preliminary figures for 1927. Data compiled from records of representative shippers by H. F. Gould of the California Development Association. large production of 1926 was again accompanied by a drop in price. Preliminary figures for 1927 indicate a reversal of 1926, that is, a low crop with higher prices. Because of the change in the value of the dollar during the war period it is impossible to study the correlation of production and price without first correcting for this change in the value of our currency. This is done by dividing the price by the July index number (fourth column, table 31). The quotients are shown in the fifth column headed purchasing power, and represent the buying power of Gravenstein o From a personal interview with Mr. G. E. Burlingame, secretary of the Sebastopol Chamber of Commerce. Bul. 445] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY 69 Gravenstein Apple Production and Purchasing Power in Sebastopol Districts, 1912-1926 TfaotAsends Boxes JOOO &oo goo 700 600 50O 400 300 eoo IOO 90 80 70 60 30 40 SO 20 IO J Pr oc/cscrf-t'on / / \ / \ f \ f \ «^^ / / \ / * > \ y *K f \ / \ *v, y \ > \r V / \ y \ / &<. jrchi os/nc f Po «,&$ f \ < / \ / Cen+s Go* too QO 80 70 60 SO 4C SO zo to /9/S /3 /4 /5 10 17 18 /9 ZO Zl ZZ 23 Z4 Z5 26 Fig. 17. — Illustrating table 34. Production of Gravenstein apples in the Sebastopol district increased rapidly from 1912 to 1923. Purchasing power has generally moved in the opposite direction from the changes in production. apples in terms of the four hundred or more commodities used in making up the index number. The purchasing power per box is shown with production in figure 17. It will be noted that while the prices during the war seemed high, as a matter of fact, relative to the average of the most important commodities they remained nearly on a level. For the whole period from 1912 to 1926 there is a slight downward trend in the purchasing power. There is a fairly close inverse correlation between production and purchasing power as shown in figure 17. That is, years when pro- duction increased are usually accompanied by decreased purchasing 70 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION power. The years 1918, 1910, and 1923 are exceptions to this general tendency. In the case of 1918 and 1919 there were light shipments of early apples from eastern states which undoubtedly helped to raise the price of California Gravensteins. In 1923 shipments in July and August from eastern states were slightly below the shipments of the previous year, and in addition the 1922 price was probably unusually low because of the railroad strike. Under normal conditions of transportation the 1922 price would probably have been above that of 1923. In that case there would have been a decline in purchasing power accompanying the increased production. Net Price to Grower. — The cost of packing apples by private shippers or cooperative organizations in the Sebastopol district during the past few years has usually varied from $0.50 to $0.60 per packed box. This amount must be deducted from the price per box given in table 34 in order to get the price per box to the grower at his local shipping point. Thus in 1926 the net price to the shipper was $0.94, hence the price to the grower was not more than $0.44 per packed box — a price so low as to discourage future production. The previous year (1925) the growers received approximately $2.00 per packed box, but the crop yield was less than one-fourth of normal, so that the returns per acre were exceedingly low. SOURCE OF APPLES RECEIVED IN CALIFORNIA CITIES Unload figures by states of origin are available for Los Angeles and San Francisco for 1926, and are shown in table 35. These include only rail shipments and boat shipments converted to carlot equiva- lents. They do not include receipts from truck hauling. TABLE 35 Sources of Los Angeles and San Francisco Shipped Apples in 1926 State from which shipped Los Angeles San Francisco California carlots 1,921 787 278 215 207 1 carlots 776 Washington Idaho 239 1 :' C 1 164 Total 3,409 1,180 Data from U. S. Dept. Agr., Bureau of Agr. Econ. Unloads of apples in thirty- six cities by states of origin during 1926. Mimeo. report released Feb. 1, 1927. BUL. 445] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY 71 Ony 1,921 (56.3 per cent) out of a total of 3,409 carlots unloaded at Los Angeles in 1926 originated within California. The remaining 43.7 per cent came from other states. Washington supplied 787 carlots, or 23 per cent of the total unloads ; Idaho supplied 278 carlots, Utah 215, and Oregon 207. San Francisco had 1,180 carlot unloads of apples of which Cali- fornia supplied 776, or practically two-thirds of the total. Washing- ton supplied 239 carlots of apples to San Francisco, and Oregon supplied 164 carlots. 72 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION BIBLIOGRAPHY 7 i Allen, F. W. 1927. Apple growing in California. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 425: 1-55. 2 Anthony, R. D., and J. H. Waring. 1922. The apple industry of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Dept. of Agr. Gen. Bui. 369:1-206. 3 Beach, S. A., and V. A. Clark. 1904. New York apples in storage. New York Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 248: 92-110. * Beach, S. A. 1909. Cold storage for Iowa apples. Iowa Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 108:401- 414. 5 Brown, G. G. 1921. Hood River apple orchard management with special reference to yields, grades, and value of fruits. Oregon Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 181:1-36. 1926. Apple thinning in Hood River Valley. Oregon Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. 76:1-10. 7 Brown, W. S. 1924. Is the Pacific Northwest to be forced out of apple growing? Annual Report of Oregon Horticultural Society 16:76-89. s Card, F. W. 1913. ' Business adjustments which the Pennsylvania fruit grower needs to consider. Amer. Porno. Soc. Proc. 33:147-153. ? Chandler, W. H. 1925. Fruit growing, xv + 777 p. Houghton Mifflin Co., New York. io Clark, A. L. 1920. A survey of the important commercial peach and apple sections of New Jersey. New Jersey Dept. Agr. Circ. 34:1-31. ii Corbett, Roger B. 1927. Some economic phases of the fruit industry in Rhode Island. Rhode Island Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 207:1-72. 12 Craig, John. 1909. Apple orchard survey of Niagara County. Cornell Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 262:279-320. 7 The more important references consulted in the preparation of this bulletin, in addition to those cited in connection with the tables, are included here. Reference to a more complete bibliography is given at the end of this list. BUL. 445] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY 73 13 Cummings, M.B., and P. M. Lombard. 1915. Farm apple storage. Vermont Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 186:99-136. 14 U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Bur. of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. 1913. Markets for American fruit. Special Consular Report 62:1-54. is Fischer, Walter. 1917. South American markets for fresh fruits. U. S. Dept. Com., Bur. of Foreign and Domestic Commerce Special Agents Series 131: 1-163. i6 Fiske, Geo. B., and R. E. Pailthorp. 1926. Marketing western boxed apples. U. S. Dept. Agr. Dept. Bui. 1415 : 1-96. 17 Fiske, G. B. 1926. Marketing barreled apples. U.S. Dept. Agr. Dept. Bui. 1416:1-99. is Folger, J. C, and S. M. Thompson. 1921. The commercial apple industry of North America. 466 p. The Macmillan Co., New York. is Fraser, Samuel. 1924. American fruits. 888 p. Orange Judd Pub. Co., New York. 20 Fredell, G. Herbert. 1927. Carlot distribution of Washington apples. Washington Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 218:1-31. 2i Gardner, V. R. 1927. Varieties and locations as factors in apple production. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Special Bui. 161:1-45. 22 Gould, H. P. 1922. Geography of apple growing. Amer. Porno. Soc. Proc. 39:11-28. 23 Green, Laurenz. 1913. Cold storage for Iowa grown apples. Iowa Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 144:364-378. 24 Hartman, Henry. 1924. Studies relating to the harvesting and storage of apples and pears. Oregon Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 206:13-14. 25 Jefferson, Lorian P. 1925. The costs of marketing the apple crop of 1923. Massachusetts Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 224:1-9. 1927. The market outlet for Massachusetts apples. Massachusetts Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 231:1-40. 2T Kitchen, C. W., et al. 1921. The distribution of north-western boxed apples. U. S. Dept. Agr. Dept. Bui. 935:1-27. 28 Lewis, C. I., and H. A. Vickers. 1915. Economics of apple orcharding. Oregon Agr. Exp. Sta, Bui. 132: 1-104. 74 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 29 Macpherson, Hector. 1924. Some problems in marketing northwest apples. Oregon Horticul- tural Society Ann. Kept. 16:87-177. so Magness, J. R., et al. 1926. The ripening, storage, and handling of apples. U. S. Dept. Agr. Dept. Bui. 1406:1-64. si Merchant, Charles H. 1927. An economic survey of the apple industry in Maine. Maine Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 339:149-199. 32 McKay, A. W., et al. 1925. Marketing fruits and vegetables. U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook 1925: 680. 1926. 33 Miller, G. H. 1914. Operating costs of a well-established New York apple orchard. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bui. 130:1-16. 34 Moomaw, Clarence, and Marjorie L. Franklin. 1920. Markets for American fruits in China. U. S. Dept. Agr. Dept. Circ. 146:1-27. 35 Morris, O. M. 1925. Studies in apple storage. Washington Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 193: 1-44. se Morris, O. M., and M. D. Armstrong. 1926. Washington agriculture. Washington State Col. Ext. Bui. 134 (part 8): 1-94. 37 Dept. of Farms and Markets of New York, Albany, N. Y. 1922. The fruit industry in New York State. New York Dept. Agr. Bui. 147:1-344. ss Pailthorp, R. R., and F. S. Kinsey. 1925. Packing apples in boxes. U. S. Dept. Agr. Farmers' Bui. 1457:1-22. 39 Potter, G. F., and H. A. Rollins, 1926. Commercial apple industry of New Hampshire. New Hampshire Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 223:1-38. 40 Powell, G. H. 1903. The apple in cold storage. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. of Plant Industry Bui. 48:16-62. 4i Price, H. C. 1903. Cold storage of apples. Iowa Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 72:39-43. 42 Ramsey, H. J., et al. 1917. The handling and storage of apples in the Pacific Northwest. U. S. Dept. Agr. Dept. Bui. 587:1-32. 43 Ramsey, H. J. 1918. Heavy loading of freight cars in the transportation of northwestern apples. U.S. Dept. Agr. Bur. of Markets Doc. 13:1-23. 44 Rees, R. W. 1926. Apple survey of the United States and Canada. 64 p. Dept. of Agr. Relations of New York Central Lines. Rochester Herald Press, Rochester, N. Y. BUL. 445] ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLE INDUSTRY 75 45 Eichards, H. I., and Jesse W. Tapp. 1927. The apple situation in New England. Published by the Connecticut and Maine Agr. Exp. Sta. and Ext. Service of New Hampshire, Ehode Island, and Massachusetts. 46 Einn, A. G. 1927. Cold storage of apples. Calif. Cultivator 6(12) :350-351. March 19. 47 Eose, D. H. 1924. Diseases of apples on the markets. U. S. Dept. Agr. Dept. Bui. 1253:1-24. 48 Sandsten, E. P., and C. M. Tompkins. 1922. Orchard survey of the southwestern district of Colorado. Colorado Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 274:1-21. 1922. Orchard survey of the western district of Colorado. Colorado Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 275:1-45. so Scott, W. M. 1919. Preparation of barreled apples for market. U. S. Dept. Agr. Farmers' Bui. 1080:1-40. si Smith, Edwin. 1926. Foreign news on apples. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bureau of Agr. Econ. Mimeo. Eept., May 24. 6 p. 52 1926. Foreign news on apples. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bureau of Agr. Econ. Mimeo. Eept., June 24. 6 p. 53 Talbert, T. J., and F. S. Merrill. 1926. Picking, packing, and shipping apples. Missouri Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. 147:1-44. 54 Tate, A. W. Jr. 1918. History of apple drying in Pajaro Valley. California Fruit News, Dec. 28, 1918. p. 17. 55 Taylor, Henry M., and F. Earl Parsons. 1926. The apple and peach industries of Virginia. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. and Virginia Dept. Agr. Survey Bui. 1:1-85. se Tufts, W. P. 1917. The packing of apples in California. Calif. Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. 178:1-31. 5 " U. S. Bureau of Crop Estimates. 1920. Export values of apples, 1851-1920. Amer. PomO. Soc. Proc. 36 and 37:194-195. ss Warren, G. F., et al. 1927. The apple situation in New York State. A preliminary report. 44 p. New York State College of Agriculture, Ithaca, N. Y. 59 West, C. J. 1926. Ohio commercial orchards and vineyards. State of Ohio Dept. Agr. Special Bui. April 1. 76 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION soWlCKSON, E. J. 1926. California fruits. 502 p. The Pacific Rural Press, San Francisco. 6i Yount, Hubert W., and Lorian P. Jefferson. 1926. An economic study of the Massachusetts apple industry. Massachu- setts Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 228:1-116. For a more complete list of references on apples, see the following : Bercaw, Louise O. 1927. The apple industry in the United States. U. S. Bur Agr. Econ. Agricultural Economics Bibliography 19:1-170 (mimeo.). STATION PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE FOE FKEE DISTRIBUTION No. 253. 262. 263. 268. 273. 276. 277. 278. 279. 283. 294. 304. 310. 312. 813. 319. 324. 325. 328. 331. 335. 339. 340. 343. 344. 346. 347. 348. 349. 350. 353. 354. 357. 358. 361. 362. 363. 364. 365. 366. 367. 368. 369. 370. 371. 373. 374. 375. 376. 377. 379. BULLETINS No. Irrigation and Soil Conditions in the Sierra Nevada Foothills, California. Citrus Diseases of Florida and Cuba Compared with those of California. Size Grades for Ripe Olives. Growing and Grafting Olive Seedlings. Preliminary Report on Kearney Vine- yard Experimental Drain, Fresno County, California. The Pomegranate. Sudan Grass. Grain Sorghums. Irrigation of Rice in California. The Olive Insects of California. Bean Culture in California. A Study of the Effects of Freezes on Citrus in California. Plum Pollination. Mariout Barley. Pruning Young Deciduous Fruit Caprifigs and Caprification. Storage of Perishable Fruit at Freez- ing Temperatures. Rice Irrigation Measurements and Experiments in Sacramento Valley, 1914-1919. Prune Growing in California. Phylloxera-Resistant Stocks. Cocoanut Meal as a Feed for Dairy Cows and Other Livestock. The Relative Cost of Making Logs from Small and Large Timber. Control of the Pocket Gopher in California. Cheese Pests and Their Control. Cold Storage as an Aid to the Mar- keting of Plums. Almond Pollination. The Control of Red Spiders in Decid- uous Orchards. Pruning Young Olive Trees. A Study of Sidedraft and Tractor Hitches. Agriculture in Cut-over Redwood Lands. Bovine Infectious Abortion. Results of Rice Experiments in 1922. A Self-mixing Dusting Machine for Applying Dry Insecticides and Fungicides. Black Measles, Water Berries, and Related Vine Troubles. Preliminary Yield Tables for Second Growth Redwood. Dust and the Tractor Engine. The Pruning of Citrus Trees in Cali- fornia. Fungicidal Dusts for the Control of Bunt. Avocado Culture in California. Turkish Tobacco Culture, Curing and Marketing. Methods of Harvesting and Irrigation in Relation of Mouldy Walnuts. Bacterial Decomposition of Olives dur- ing Pickling. Comparison of Woods for Butter Boxes. Browning of Yellow Newtown Apples. The Relative Cost of Yarding Small and Large Timber. Pear Pollination. A Survey of Orchard Practices in the Citrus Industry of Southern Cali- fornia. Results of Rice Experiments at Cor- tena, 1923. Sun-Drying and Dehydration of Wal- nuts. The Cold Storage of Pears. Walnut Culture in California. 380. 382. 385. 386. 387. 388. 389. 390. 391. 392. 393. 394. 395. 397. 398. 399. 400. 401. 402. 404. 405. 406. 407. 408. 409. 410. 411. 412. 414. 415. 416. 417. 418. 419. 420. 421. 422. 423. 424. 425. 426. 427. 428. 429. Growth of Eucalyptus in California Plantations. Pumping for Drainage in the San Joaquin Valley, California. Pollination of the Sweet Cherry. 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. Cereal Hay Production in California. Feeding Trials with Cereal Hay. Bark Diseases of Citrus Trees. The Mat Bean (Phaseolus aconitifo- lius). Manufacture of Roquefort Type Cheese from Goat's Milk. Orchard Heating in California. The Blackberry Mite, the Cause of Redberry Disease of the Himalaya Blackberry, and its Control. The Utilization of Surplus Plums. Cost of Work Horses on California Farms. 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. Factors Affecting the Quality of Fresh Asparagus after it is Harvested. Paradichlorobenzene as a Soil Fumi- gant. A Study of the Relative Values 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 Practice. A Study of Various Rations for Finishing 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. CIRCULARS No. No. 87. Alfalfa. 259. 117. The Selection and Cost of a Small 261. Pumping Plant. 262. 127. House Fumigation. 263. 129. The Control of Citrus Insects. 264. 136. Helilotus indica as a Green-Manure Crop for California. 265. 144. Oidiura or Powdery Mildew of the 266. Vine. 157. Control of the Pear Scab. 267. 164. Small Fruit Culture in California. 166. The County Farm Bureau. 269. 170. Fertilizing California Soils for the 270. 1918 Crop. 272. 173. The Construction of the Wood-Hoop Silo. 273. 178. The Packing of Apples in California. 276. 179. Factors of Importance in Producing 277. Milk of Low Bacterial Count. 202. County Organizations for Rural Fire 278. Control. 203. Peat as a Manure Substitute. 279. 209. The Function of the Farm Bureau.. 212. Salvaging Rain-Damaged Prunes. 281. 215. Feeding Dairy Cows in California. 217. Methods for Marketing Vegetables in California. 282. 230. Testing Milk, Cream, and Skim Milk for Butterfat. 283. 231. The Home Vineyard. 284. 232. Harvesting and Handling California 285. Cherries for Eastern Shipment. 286. 234. Winter Injury to Young Walnut Trees 287. during 1921-22. 288. 238. The Apricot in California. 289. 239. Harvesting and Handling Apricots 290. and Plums for Eastern Shipment. 291. 240. Harvesting and Handling Pears for Eastern Shipment. 292. 241. Harvesting and Handling Peaches for 293. Eastern Shipment. 294. 243. Marmalade Juice and Jelly Juice from 295. Citrus Fruits. 244. Central Wire Bracing for Fruit Trees. 296. 245. Vine Pruning Systems. 248. Some Common Errors in Vine Prun- 298. mg and Their Remedies. 249. Replacing Missing Vines. 300. 250. Measurement of Irrigation Water on 301. the Farm. 302. 252. Supports for Vines. 303. 253. Vineyard Plans. 254. The Use of Artificial Light to Increase 304. Winter Egg Production. 305. 255. Leguminous Plants as Organic Fertil- 308. izer in California Agriculture. 256. The Control of Wild Morning Glory. 307. 257. The Small-Seeded Horse Bean. 308. 258. Thinning Deciduous Fruits. 309. Pear By-products. Sewing Grain Sacks. Cabbage Growing in California. Tomato Production in California. Preliminary Essentials to Bovine Tuberculosis Control. Plant Disease and Pest Control. Analyzing the Citrus Orchard by Means of Simple Tree Records. The Tendency of Tractors to Rise in Front; Causes and Remedies. An Orchard Brush Burner. A Farm Septic Tank. California Farm Tenancy and Methods of Leasing. Saving the Gophered Citrus Tree. Home Canning. Head, Cane, and Cordon Pruning of Vines. Olive Pickling in Mediterranean Coun- tries. The Preparation and Refining of Olive Oil in Southern Europe. The Results of a Survey to Determine the Cost of Producing Beef in Cali- fornia. Prevention of Insect Attack on Stored Grain. Fertilizing Citrus Trees in California. The Almond in California. Sweet Potato Production in California. Milk Houses for California Dairies. Potato Production in California. Phylloxera Resistant Vineyards. Oak Fungus in Orchard Trees. The Tangier Pea. Blackhead and Other Causes of Loss of Turkeys in California. Alkali Soils. The Basis of Grape Standardization. Propagation of Deciduous Fruits. The Growing and Handling of Head Lettuce in California. Control of the California Ground Squirrel. The Possibilities and Limitations of Cooperative Marketing. Coccidiosis of Chickens. Buckeye Poisoning of the Honey Bee. The Sugar Beet in California. A Promising Remedy for Black Measles of the Vine. 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 publications listed above may be had by addressing College of Agriculture, University of California, Berkeley, California. 12m-l,'28