University of California
College of Agriculture
Agricultural Experiment Station
Berkeley, California
THE PROSPECT FOR DEMAND FOR EARLY THOMPSON SEEDLESS GRAPES
by
Guy Black
July 1952
Contribution from the
Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics
Mimeographed Report No. 13U
LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
DAVIS
THE PROSPECT FOR DEMAND FOR EARLY THOMPSON SEEDLESS GRAPES
fly Guy fllacki/
SUMMARY
The desert of southern California is a difficult and unique agricultural
area note-worthy for the earliness of its season. Grape growing exists in the
area because of the high reward obtained by being among the first to ship fresh
grapes. There has been considerable expansion encouraged by high but erratic
net returns . Generally speaking, the earlier in the season grapes are mar-
keted, the higher the returns that are obtained.
Variations in early grape prices cannot be adequately explained by refer-
ence to a few simple factors. Volume marketed is important, and prices tend
more to reflect the average rate of shipment than erratic day-to-day fluctu-
ations in receipts. The length of time grapes have been on the market is im-
portant, but the volume of other fruit available is less so. Demand conditions
change from season to season as a result of changes in such factors as national
income . In recent years demand aad production have both increased, and how
prices will behave in future seasons depends on which increases the more rapidly .
Little can be done to predict expansion of grape production beyond the
period for which nonbearing acreage givers us good information. If a profitable
opportunity for expansion exists, someone sooner or later will take advantage
of it. Expansion will continue until declining prices or the costs of develop-
ing new acreage remove any incentives to further expansion.
Demand for the grapes in any one desert area is affected by their quality
as compared with other grapes available . Sometimes one area and sometimes an-
other will produce the best grapes and receive the best prices. Certain areas
may have a price advantage in a given season, but no desert area maintains a
year-after-year advantage. When they compete with desert grapes, grapes from
Kern County tend to bring acove-average prices .
The means by which California produce reaches eastern markets are well es-
tablished, involving coordination between carlot distributors, brokers, chain-
store systems, and other agencies. Channels of trade by which early grapes will
reach consumers are not likely to be overburdened by any likely volume of early
grapes .
Merchants' interest in grapes develops about the middle of July. Price
risks rather than merely high prices scare away many before that date. As late
as the first of July, very few retailers in a typical large urban area had
fresh grapes in their stores.
1/ Assistant Agricultural Economist in the Experiment Station and on the
Giannini Foundation, University of California.
id 323J
.iBtuiluol^ifi supiau brie di7;oxl'l±b & ax BiiTiolxIsD jnarWiroe lo
sd„ + ni adaxxa . 3n*yio~3 aqci3 .noe£-ae 'a-dx lo easnxlirvs sdd iol
sail qiria cd deix'i arid ^ncav- .gnxt>d V.d oanifiido biswai dgxri sdd
oxipn.a dud dgid uags-tooona noxanaqxe aldctsfciano-j naad ee
?d? .E-.
-cix ax jionam 900 no
iY.ncxdsn sk a-rcjDBl done «t
•.Tori bns , basscnonx^od
tffefcjta Qiora extt ajeBOTOfli d
3 SVGfl
p i i
X c'X 51
[xde lo 9tf&x
: Jxu'xl 1 3d * .
ay.
omoon ...
bno^ad noxdoufioiq sq^ig lo noianaqxa foxbi
t-aoc aft} io asoxiq 30
•noxansqxa led
Utnro I.
• J-l-lo
?J sit-up ilattS x&
5 anxriJ.iixnr asrefl ^191
.-noil BWgwa ,S9qeT3
'1^ i.J A ■ '
2 -J iisy :3TS
do t ai3>foid t aiodxfdxil3ib ioltso r
;;q£i3 -^IiS3 rioxriw \d abhti lo alar
lo eaurlov ^faajll ^d banalm/d-
t7*fflXi<5liOO HjoJ I
03-isl looiqYd s nl stoIxb.
>js *tx
arid-
rcrsdS infiwi'tacpea' ajJJ
'. s ' .exit
lo y$Jtt&siiB t nc rif,bnuo'i- Inirtor
2
Distribution to small towns and rural areas through service wholesalers is
most likely to be spotty. Other research has indicated that such areas get a
smaller proportionate share of grapes than do the large central market towns.
Service wholesalers are likely to be an especially poor market for off-grade
produce .
It would appear that the natural advantages of the early producers can mean
continuation of prices higher than are obtained for grapes grown in the Central
Valley. V.hile overexpanded production could ruin the early market, with a moder-
ate rate of expansion the warning signs should be sufficiently clear.
BACKGROUND
The Problem
Grape growers in the Coschella Valley have asked for an economic study of
the demand for their grapes. The request does not arise from an immediate prob-
lem; on the contrary, current prices are quite satisfactory, but it arises be-
cause the desert grape industry is undergoing a period of rapid expansion. The
situation is highly dynamic, and forward-looking growers wonder to what extent
production can De expanded without seriously affecting prices. Estimating his
future revenue is where the desert grower is at his greatest disadvantage.
While sometimes past experience is a satisfactory guide because grape production
will likely expand beyond what has been known in the past, present prices are not
a reliable guide to the future. The very expansion which is in large measure due
to the high present prices will tend to lower them.
Of course, investment decisions are not based on estimates of returns alone.
Profit depends on costs of operation also. In the grape industry, as in most
farming, operational cost conditions vary a good deal more from farm to farm than
do the prices which grapes are sold for.
The Early Grape Area
The advantages which arise from its unique climate are the foundation of
nearly all desert agriculture. Continuous pressure to benefit from the high
average returns of early shipments has pushed production into the desert re-
gions. In grapes the new development has been a success and there has been
considerable expansion, encouraged by high, if erratic, net returns. The borego,
Coachella, and Imperial valleys have all shared in the expansion, and there has
been some planting in Arizona. The Coachella Valley has by far the largest acre-
age of grapes as well as being the earliest to come into production.
Geographically speaking, desert grape production is confined mainly to the
structural depression north of the Gulf of California. The Coachella Valley, ly-
ing 120 miles southeast of Los Angeles, is the most important area so far as
grapes are concerned. This valley covers 1,200 square miles and is surrounded
by steep mountain ranges on all sides. Alluvial foothills fan out from the sur-
rounding mountains. The area is noted for high winds, sandstorms, cloudbursts,
floods, intense summer heat, and extremely light rainfall. Where the land has
not been cleared, desert shrubs and sand dunes cover the area, and they form a
startling contrast to the lush, irrigated date gardens, vineyards, and other
agricultural features. Lying on the main line of the Southern Pacific Railroad,
the area is well located for fast eastward shipment of fruits and vegetables.
mpicvj sit
TABLE 1
Comparative Climatic Data for Main Areas Growing Early Grapes
Coachella Valley
INDIO
Imperial Valley
BRAWLSY
Borego Valley
BQREGO
Palo Verde
Valley
BLITHE
Arizona
PHOENIX
Lower Central
Valley
BAKERSFIELD
Mean annual precipitation
3.34
2.73
3.99
4.22
7.81
6.52
Mean annual temperature
73.3°F
71.G°F
69.8°F
70.3°F
70.3°F
65.1°F
Mean daily maximum tempera-
ture (highest month)
107. 0°F (July)
107. 6°F (July)
107. 8°F
(July)
107. 8°F (July)
105. S°F
(July)
101. 9°F
(July)
Mean daily temperature
(highest month)
95.1°F (July)
S1.3°F (July)
89.1°F
(July)
91.0°F (July)
90.4°F
84.5°F
(July)
Mean daily temperature (low
month)
53.3°F (Jan.)
53.1°F (Jan.)
50.4°F
(Jan. )
51.1°F (Jan.)
51.9°F
(Jan.)
46.8°F
(Jan.)
Mean daily minimum tempera-
ture (lowest month)
38.5°F (Jan.)
37.7°F (Jan.)
34.0°F
(Jan.)
34.6°F (Jan.)
38.9°F
(Jan. )
36.5°F
(Jan. )
Earliest date of first kill-
ing frost after July 15
Nov. 11
Nov. 15
Nov. 4
Oct. 18
Nov. 5
Nov. 12
Mean date of first killing
frost after July 15
Dec. 4
Dec. 6
Nov. 14
Nov. 16
Dec. S
Dec. 14
Mean date of last killing
frost before July 15
Feb. 7
Feb. 5
Mar. 2
Feb. 23
Feb. 5
Feb. 20
Latest date of last killing
frost before July 15
Mar. IS
Mar. 5
Apr. 5
Apr. 8
Mar. 31
Mar. 15
Highest temperature
125°F (July)
121 °F 'July)
121°F (Sept.)
122°F (July)
118° (June
and July)
117°F (Aug.)
Lowest temperature
13°F (Jan.)
19°F (Jan.)
15°F (Jan.)
5°F (Jan.)
16°F Man.)
19°F (Jan.)
Source: Weather Bureau, United States Department of Commerce Federal Office Building, San Francisco, California.
Ik.
The extent of recent expansion of grapes in the Coachella Valley is sum-
marized in the following table:
TABLE II
Bearing, Nonbearing, ' and Season's Planting of Thompson Seedless Grapes
Coachella District, 191*6-1951
19U6
19U7
19hQ
19h9
1950
1951
Bearing
2,772
3,012
3,1*92
k,12Q
U,631
Nonbearing
596
l,3U8
1,715
1,263
1,366
Plantings
875
838
57U
526
317
893^/
a/ Preliminary.
Source of data: "Riverside County Acreage and Crop Report, District Coachella."
Annual (no publication date). N. G. Bloom, Inspector.
The high rate of expansion immediately following the close of World War II
seemed to have run its course by 1950; but even then annual expansion, in the
order of 10 per cent per year, implied a doubling of production in 7 or 8 years.
Preliminary figures for 1951 show a sharp change in the trend of new plantings.
Grape production in other desert areas has been expanding also . In the Im-
perial Irrigation District, production has doubled since the end of the war, and
expansion is still continuing. Many of these grapes are not Thompson Seedless .
varieties, according to the data of the Crop Reporting Service.
TABLE III
Acreage of Grapes in Imperial Irrigation District — March
19U6
19U7
19U8
19U9
1950
1951
755
822
93U
973
1,109
1,193
Source of data: W. E. Hartzog, Superintendent of Water
Distribution and Drainage Construction, Imperial
Irrigation District, Annual Crop Surveys.
According to the Agricultural Comnissioner of San Diego County, there were
1,060 acres of Thompson grapes in the Borego Valley in 1951, and about 1j32 acres
of other varieties including 238 nonbearing acres. Nonbearing acreage was con-
fined -wholly to the Cardinal variety. Local experts do not expect further ex-
pansion of Thompsons in this area .
At the present time, there are about 1,^00 acres of grapes in Arizona of
which 1,100 acres are the Cardinal variety. Most of them are near Phoenix, and
no great expansion seems to be planned.
-jnjr* si all
X C K J-
r — .
i
: 'tm ■>
■
i •
. ' " • - ' '
5.
The Price Situation
For desert grapes, returns per lug have been consistently higher than for
those grown in other parts of the state. The highest returns of all have been
received for the very earliest grapes, -with peak prices being recorded in east-
ern auction markets on the first few days when grapes are offered for sale. Dur-
ing the first of the season, prices move downward, at first rather rapidly but
then more slowly, so that by the end of the desert grape season they have reached
a temporary stability. This coincides with a mounting volume of desert produc-
tion which reaches its peak in early July and then tapers off very quickly, over-
lapping the start of the marketing season for the lower part of the Central Valley.
Sometimes, toward the end of July, there is a brief letup of total shipments, and
prices rise slightly because one area has run out and the other has not commenced
shipment .
All Thompson Seedless grapes in the market at any one time, including those
produced in Arizona, Borego Valley, and the Central Valley, compete with each
other. Price variations due to quality and point of sale vary considerably from
an average or general market level. Prices of all Thompson Seedless grapes move
together; so, with differences depending on quality, growers can expect the
prices they receive to move as the average does.
It is interesting to compare early season prices with prices received later
on by growers in the Central Valley. This information can be obtained in Figure
I, showing the seasonal movement of Thompson Seedless grape prices averaged for
the period 19U7 to 1951. This exaggerates the advantage of the desert producer.
To know the whole story, it is necessary to know something about costs, yields,
and other factors.
FACTORS LIKELY TO AFFECT PRICES IN FUTURE SEASONS
Other things being equal, the prices growers receive for early grapes will
depend on the quantity available to the buying public at the time. Markets set
a general price level at which the volume offered can find buyers in a short
time, or can be moved into storage. Markets also establish a price pattern
which takes account of quality differences. The process of changing prices to
accommodate larger or smaller supplies goes on continuously and automatically
and is faster working and more sure in effect than anything else that has ever
been devised. It is, in fact, what we are usually talking about when we say
"supply and demand." Factors that affect the attitude of consumers toward buy-
ing grapes change during the season, and the price adjustments which are neces-
sary to accommodate a given change in volume must, therefore, vary.
The downward movement of price resulting from a given quantity increase is
very important information, and we can calculate what it has been on an average.
Because there are so many things vhich affect consumers' reactions to grape pur-
chases of which we can take no very precise account, the average may sometimes
be very badly off.
Statistical analysis of the prices received for Thompson Seedless grapes in
Toen a f tern auction ma5 *ets in June and July reveals that in the years 19l*7 through
1951 the price for which a given quantity of grapes would sell could not be ade-
quately explained by a few simple factors, but some factors are particularly im-
portant. A general interpretation of a number of different formulas could be
summarized as follows:
OH 3* 9V£jfOls let- 3*1 tfaplf&ixl 9fft
-nJ.ru ..SAGS lOl O
barfocsl sysft tad*
-ot/boio J"t93aJ>-
otfi la b«<
KL9V orict icl .b-ivi:
Ofli
SO* iXJV
i Lav.t903i aaorxq d.tiw aesj&q nose 93 tftC'
j. i rti b-nxs-tdf? ed nso noxossrcolnx airi.T »•
id asoxiq
nide-nMni 3x J I
no
tndr aj
won?! O'i
Jaa set:
od 390Xiq gBXI
xLfoaxiESO") x/r
-v**rd btfcwod e*xs
230BH TDT-Ha Ctf iiiftii-U ^CffCMW
[^ivoT'j a^ox*rq add »l;iup> jnind sjjftidd *£*3rii0
f ^fii^ijd rsrf* aldftXletg WHatiitp ad* to bnaqab
ttsl'io -aauiIcT art> rfoxri«r d& lavai soxlq &st&m$ s
jIb . atf-ieli . 9§s*x<j^3 Ojini ksvoitr sd rtso io ^affixd
iK? noiiT<rt95'i±fJ 'v tiiijwis lo Jiii/o3?3G e3&<d doidw
--•an
<t*d 3n
=^i^3in .90X1^
3 aslfe* 9 r» i I -Mftqifi Off
b^VvC-aaot a aa xtq
9tf61 btJ.B. 9ft
>a dt[d -fAgjB&B&'l -9:
rti •§«? -*Mi3o nr.it ovr £fi ?d2' a ix
i% s ftoidw lol 9»Jhtq 9rtt ic?x
ia »9l s ^dbefixfiqx.? XLo-3&>sp
FIGURE I
Prices in 11 Auction Markets and Interstate Passings of
California Thompson Seedless Grapes and Interstate
Passings of All Table Grapes, by Weeks,
1947-1951 Average
I Shipments, all table grapes
iL,200
1,100
1,000
y Prices, Thompson Seedless
"Shipments, Thompson Seedless -
June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. After
2 9 16 23 30 7 14 2128 4 11 18 25. 1 8 15 22 29 6 13 20 27 3 10 1724 1 8 15 22 29 Dec. 31
Ending date of week in 1951
Comparable with weeks, 1947-1951
7.
For every increase in shipments of early Thompson Seedless grapes
of 100 carloads per week, on the average a price decrease of somewhere
between h0 and 70 cents per lug would result from this cause alone.
Quite apart from price decreases associated with increased ship-
ments, the price received per lug had a tendency to decline as the
season progressed by an amount which averaged somewhere between hS
and 65 cents per week.
Since, as the season progressed, there were also increases in the rate of
shipments, these two factors combined to cause fairly sharp drops in price. Of-
ten these drops were sharper than average. Day-to-day fluctuations in prices
and shipments are considerably more erratic than weekly fluctuations . Traders
know this and adjust their prices more to the average rate of shipment for a
period of several days than to the volume of shipments on any one day.
In addition, increased supplies of other fruits compete with early Thompson
Seedless grapes. While under unusual circumstances certain other fruits could
have given severe competition, cherries were most important early season competi-
tors. Shipments of peaches, watermelons, plums, and fresh prunes also had some
effect. Apple and fresh apricot shipments had no particular effect.
Peaches have often been described as an important competitor of grapes, and
market experts have often stated that when they first appear in volume they "knock
the bottom out of the grape market." This factor does not seem to be important
so far as the early grapes are concerned because, although the peak shipping
period for peaches comes at about the same time as the peak Thompson Seedless
grape shipments from the Central Valley, during early grape season, peaches do
not reach the volume or sell for the low prices which make them the important
competitor that they are later in the season. Fruits do not seem to compete with
each other on a dollar-per- pound basis, and there is a distinct market for grapes
not satisfied by substituting some other fruit. For this reason, so far as
grape prices are concerned, the fact that $0 extra carloads is a big proportionate
increase in the quantity of grapes available is likely to be more important than
the fact that it is a small proportionate increase in the quantity of fruit avail-
able .
Grapes are, in June and July, only a small percentage of the total of fresh
fruits arriving in eastern markets. For example, out of 3,6u3 carloads of fruit,
including melons, arriving in Chicago in June 19U9, only 21 were grapes. Out of
a, 260 arriving in July, only 171 were grapes. Thus, an increase in grape ship-
ments would not have much effect on the total volume of fruit available .
Price Prospects for Future Years
The problem of price expectations can be broken down into three parts. One
part is, what increase in grape production is likely in the next few years. A
second part is, what effect that particular increase will have on prices. Still
another part is to evaluate possible factors which might change demand from cus-
tomary patterns .
1. Likely Expansion in Grape Production . The effect on prices of marketing
100 lugs more per week will only indicate what prices to expect if we know what
increase in volume is likely to come about. Beyond a 3-year period, it is hard
to say anything useful . The best guide to whether there will be any new plantings
lies in applying the idea that, where profit can be made from expanded production,
q-i aria
B «T fl SiiKl xn
e j n
8.
sooner or later someone is likely to do the necessary planting. Growers in
desert areas are not sluggish about taking advantage of new opportunities. The
area is one of diversification, and in 1950, harvested acreages of at least 200
acres were recorded for 19 distinct crops in the Coachella Valley with sweet
corn, dates, and grapes leading. While stability may come eventually, at pres-
ent the desert farmers are experimenters who cannot be sure that they have yet
found the most profitable crops for their regions. Increasing costs of develop-
ing new production will slow down and could stop expansion, Lower prices, also,
would slow down expansion of grapes .
It takes several years to discover a general overexpansion. One difficulty
is that there is a time lag between when new vineyards are planted and when this
new production first starts to have an effect on prices. The mistake can be
avoided only if prospective growers take into account the effect on prices of
new plantings and nonbearing acreage regardless of which desert region it is
grown in. Because overexpansion will have a depressing effect on prices re-
ceived, all are concerned to see that new plantings are made with reasonable
understanding of the prices likely to be received.
2. Implications of Increased Production . Other factors being equal, the
effect of volume on prices could be described by a demand curve such as Figure
II-B illustrates. The line labelled (1) is an example of the kind of demand
curve which could apply to the first week of the season. Vdth any given volume
of grapes shipped, the expected price can be determined from this line which in
our example shows that for every 100 carloads extra shipped there would be a de-
crease of 50 cents per lug. Because of the downward seasonal drift in demand,
the price which a given quantity will receive will be less in succeeding weeks
so that other lower lines must be used to describe price expectations later in
the season. A few are shown in B.
By combining the various demand curves from B with the quantities shipped
in various weeks, as shown in A, we can estimate, as has been done in C, how
prices would behave as the season progresses and, also, how prices would behave
if there is an increase in marketings from the Coachella Valley, assuming that
the new plantings would come onto the market in about the same pattern as the
present ones. Probably, the very first shipments of grapes would obtain as high
a price as ever, but the peak volume of desert grapes would build up to a higher
total, bringing a low average return for the season.
It must be understood that this is merely a hypothetical illustration of a
general idea and not a precise estimate of what actually will happen.
3- Changes in Ability of Markets to Absorb Grapes , ivhile, on the average,
demand shifts downward as each early grape season progresses, there can be other
year-to-year shifts in demand quite independent of the seasonal shifts. Such
shifts can be expected to arise from several causes. First, changes in national
income shift the demand for almost all products. It is unlikely that national
income would change sharply in any 6-week season but there are significant changes
from year to year. He can be reasonably sure that such changes will have an ef-
fect on demand for grapes. It is generally believed that both total and per-
capita national income will continue to increase. If so, we can look forward
with reasonable assurance to a growing market for fresh fruits including grapes.
Apart from national income, gradual changes have been taking place in con-
sumers' tastes and preferences. Consumption figures show that for many years
si 33:
'£- c -ra xtiSidzjs slim- .gnibiijJ
sqxa qoi& bluoo bns cwo.b wolf
►3 £ IjVOO
ran *aitm n
10 £
.1 Llh
bll'03
9.
there has been a tendency to consume more fresh fruits and vegetables. We know
at least that increased early grape production in recent years has been absorbed.
It is useful to think of the changing early grape situation as a race be-
tween increasing production on the one hand and increasing demand on the other.
If demand increases more slowly than production, prices are likely to be de-
pressed and further expansion will be unprofitable until demand has had a chance
to catch up. On the other hand, if demand increases faster than production, the
grape grower will be well off. The factors which determine the speed of growth
of demand and the speed of growth of production are but partly known, and the
precise effect of even the best known is not easily calculated.
COMPETITION BETWEEN DIFFERENT AREAS
A comparison was made of prices received for grapes from various desert
producing areas. Tables in the Appendix summarize the weekly average prices
for grapes received in three eastern markets with freight shipments and clus-
ters excluded. Comparisons have been made in Figure III, which expresses the
weekly average price received by a given producing district as a percentage
of the market average price. One hundred per cent is the average.
There was a tendency for the price of produce of a given area to maintain
the same position relative to the market average price during an entire season
and, also, its relative position tended to be the same in each city. No region
has an advantage which it keeps year after year. One year some areas will ob-
tain prices above the average and some years others. This would imply that
which area raised the best grapes would differ from season to season.
Because Coachella grapes appear on the market earlier than any others,
growers in this area can expect to receive higher average prices. There is no
evidence that any one of the desert areas will year in, year out receive higher
prices than any other at a time when several are marketing grapes.
It appears that often when grapes from Kern County first appear they tend
to receive higher-than-average prices, and that their appearance on the market
tends to depress the prices received for desert grapes to a greater extent than
can be accounted for by the increased volume alone.
Conflicting reports have been received on the question of whether there are
quality differences between desert and Kern County grapes. Some maintain that
the desert grape does not keep so well in storage while others deny this or
state that precooling is often done improperly in the desert regions. It is,
of course, quite likely that end-of-the-season grapes from one area are of lower
quality than peak-of-the-season grapes in another. When seasons do overlap, the
tail end of the desert grape crop is what competes with Kern County grapes .
IMPACT OF THE MARKETING SYSTEM OF DEMAND FOR EARLY GRAPES
Since the major population centers are in the East, most grapes must reach
consumers through a rather elaborate network. Because many other fruits and
vegetables use them, these channels are well established and reasonably effi-
cient means for the movement of almost anything which might be produced. The
same markets and dealers handle many kinds of produce. It is well known that
often the facilities of these markets are antiquated, and costs of operation
to
10
FIGURE II
Illustration of How Increased Coachella Valley Shipments Might Affect Prices
-A-
Carload Shipments of Thompson Seedless Grapes
CO
nJ
CD
U
I
k
CD
CD
u
CD
a,
CO
■X3
o
H
O
3
CD
a
CO
a)
o
I
I
CD
O
•H
Oh
Uoo
300
200
100
0
$10
I 8
$ 6
i u
I 2
| 0
Supposed shipments with
Coachella acreage doubled
<t
i . r
2 3 U 5 6 7
Week of Coachella season
-B-
Hypothetical Average
Price Quantity Relations
All shipments
19U7-1951 average
Coachella shipments
"19h7-19Sl average
(1)
1st week
3rd week
week
7th week
100 200 300 Uoo
Carloads per week
-C-
0
H
h
CD
a
CO
u
a)
o
I
I
CD
O
-H
8
6
h
2
0
Hypothetical Seasonal
Price Patterns
vs.
With average conditions
V
'With Coachella acreage doubled
2 3 h 5 6 7
Week of Coachella Season
11
FIGURE III
Prices Received for Thompson Seedless Grapes in Chicago, New York City, and
Philadelphia Auction Markets, by Area of Origin, Weekly Averages as a
Per Cent of Market Average Price, June-July, 19itf-19£l£/
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
130
120
110
19U7
Chicago
130 f
120
19W x
1 2
110
100
6 7\ 8 9
Kern
Imperial 90
"Arizona
Coachella
Coachella
19U7
100
90
80 h
70
130
120
no h
100
90
80
70
1 $ — ir L SV^fc
r>.8 9
. Imperial^
\
\
80
70
New York
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
rizona
Imperial
A.
Kern
\
Arizona
Coachella
19^7
3" TTT£ &~
7 -a 8 *
VKern
Philadelphia
120
110
100
t £ 6 \7 8 9
v ^ Coachella
~" 'Imperial
Borego
' "'"""Arizona
19U8
\ \ s Imperial
\ \ Coachella
Arizona
90
80 \
70
.Coachella
Gi Kern
' Borego ^rial
Arizona
8 9
a/ Vertical scale, price, per cent of market average price; horizontal scale, week
of Coachella season.
12
Figure III continued.
19h9
Chicago
1950
130 r
120
110
100
90
80
70
130
120
110
100
70
-V Coachella
/ Arizona
■^/Borego \Kern
h 5 6 f
- -Imperial
19U9
.Borego
'.'"'5
. Arizona
Imperials
130
120
110
Borego
xy.
6* 7 8
Kern
£ 100
90
80
70
New York
130 r
120
110
i ioo
Coachella
^ Imperial
0 v 1
Arizona
1950
\
Coachella
6
\ \
/ *r""^Borego
-ju^ 1 — _< — | 1 j_v — 1_
r^y k 5 __6\\
19U9
poachella
5 & 7 8
V".'- V 'Kern
Arizona
"imperial
90
80
70'-
Philadelphia
120
110
-$ 100
90
8o r
70
' Imperial
7 8 7T9
'. . Kern
Arizona
Coachella
1950
t ^.Coachella
, Borego
2 3~:-4t; 5
7 8* 9
Kern
Imperial
\
Arizona
Figure III continued.
13
130
120
110
100
90
80 \
70
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
1 2
Chicago
1951
\ Kern
Bore go
/ ^-^^oachella
• j\ I _ __ * - ■ 1 • . i .
~\ \ 5 6 7 . 8
» ~ v Arizona
Imperial
New York
Kern
✓
J u_
3^-i^SV'^ 7 8 9
V^Coachella
orego
v ^ Arizona
Philadelphia \
p x Imperial
Kern
/Imperial
1 2
-3-V\ ' 5 6 7 8 9
V
A
\ Coachella
\
\
Arizona
111.
high, but the markets do the job. Relatively little produce ever gets to con-
sumers without moving through them, and it is not often that the markets and
associated facilities lack the ability to handle what is produced.
The routes by -which produce travels to the consumer are many. Producers
sometimes sell direct to consumers; there are cases with a single intermediary.
For the most important markets, the large eastern cities, the channels are more
complex and they are probably most complex for outlying areas subsidiary to
eastern terminal markets.
The California grape marketing situation illustrates in miniature the na-
tional marketing picture. A study of grape marketing during the period — August
to October 19k$ — showed that in the northern half of California there was an ap-
preciable amount of direct selling by growers to retailers. Truck jobbers
played an important role but wholesalers and packing plants also were important.
In the small towns in the northern part of the state, retailers were especially
likely to buy direct but in the southern part of the state and in the coastal
area — out of the main producing centers during that season — wholesalers in ma-
jor cities were the main source of supply.
Many retailers do not visit central markets, but obtain their produce from
service wholesalers. The service wholesaler solicits business through salesmen
or by telephone, and he delivers the ordered produce early the next day by means
of his own trucks.
The main California centers out of which service wholesalers and truck
jobbers operate are San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno, and Los Angeles. These
cities and some others also act as assembly points for long-distance trucking.
If grapes are sold on these markets in quantity, they will flow into all Cali-
fornia markets and adjacent states without particular difficulty provided ser-
vice wholesalers handle them or find them demanded b/ their customers. Very
much the same is true of other parts of the country.
In a study of the area surrounding Chicago, it was found that cities other
than the very largest did not form a very receptive market for grapes .V The
relative failure of the smaller city to create an effective demand can be ex-
plained in part by considering the structure of the market as it pertains to
these areas. For the most part, they are subsidiary to metropolitan markets,
often being supplied by service wholesalers. In those areas where retailers
depend on service wholesalers for supply, the attitude of this type of dealer
may affect the volume of grapes which can be sold or the prices received. Prob-
ably the service wholesaler exercises more control over what produce retailers
obtain than any other middleman. He caters to a type of retailer who does not
often go to the produce market and is dependent upon the service wholesaler for
suggestions and information about availability.
Vulnerability of service wholesalers to downward price changes exceeds that
of many other wholesalers because this type of dealer retains title to produce
1/ Duddy, E. A. and D. A. Rev z an. The Physical Distribution of Fresh Fruits
and Vegetables. University of Chicago S + udies in Business Administration.
Chicago, 1937. Vol. VII, ho. 2, pp. 66-67.
4i
do id*
1*.
for a full day. Many service wholesalers stated it to be their policy to await
relative price stability before entering the market, flhere it happens that
quality is not good for some reason or another, the service wholesaler demand
is likely to be poor. These dealers are very reluctant to handle anything of
poor quality since to a large degree their business success depends on building
up confidence of retailers who must order sight unseen, and who usually do not
haggle about prices on a day-to-day basis, trusting that prices they are charged
will enable them to sell competitively with their normal markup. Some such
wholesalers stated that, when they had off-grade produce, they would not send it
out but kept it in the store to sell to those who would inspect it prior to pur-
chase .
Truck jobbers, an important trade channel by which produce can move from
city produce markets into the smaller towns, are not likely to be a useful
trade channel for early grapes . Truck jobber operation tends to be restricted
to large volume bargains obtained near the peak of the shipping season.
Dealers' Reaction to Early Grapes
The distribution of early grapes ap-oears to be greatly limited. Some time
was spent interviewing produce dealers in California produce markets, service
wholesalers in large and small cities, retailers, brokers, and truckers. Most
retailers, service jobbers, and commission merchants did not think of the grape
season as having begun until about the middle of July. While they were aware
of earlier grapes, they seemed not to consider dealing in them. The reaction
of many seemed to be that June and early July grapes were a kind of "freak"
more suitable for the specialty trade.
Of other reasons for not handling very early grapes, the risk that the price
would fall precipitously was that most comrronly mentioned by retailers, service
jobbers, and chain-store buyers. The latter, especially, were impressed with
the loss which might be taken on a carload of grapes if the price dropped by a
dollar a lug overnight. It seemed that this reason operated most strongly with
the type of dealer who is required, by the nature of his business, to retain
title to the grapes for a period of time. An examination of daily market re-
ports shows that violent overnight drops are cemmon and such fears are founded
on fact. It was agreed that the high prices were a deterrent to demand, but
few dealers stated it to be their policy not to handle produce merely because
it was expensive.
A telephone survey on July 2, 195>1 showed that only two retail stores out
of fifty selected at random from a San Francisco area telephone directory had
any fresh grapes in their store, yet all of these retailers were in a good po-
sition to patronize the Oakland and San Francisco city oroduce markets where
early grapes were then available.
CONCLUSIONS
A careful study of the demand situation for early Thompson Seedless grapes,
including interviews with those in produce markets, does not indicate that supply
is outstripping demand. Early grapes will continue to be salable and will be in
an advantageous position so far as other grapes are concerned. It is entirely
likely that increased production will mean lower future prices, but probably
prices will not fall so low as those received by Central Valley growers. As com-
petition increases, probably more attention will have to be paid to quality.
if bote rioixl?<
3rtiid
5>B
bluom
banned arte eTBol doi/a in;; nc^a» ji£ squirt Jrigixii svo
16.
The present rate of expansion, somewhat slower than immediately after the
war, does not seem too fast to make possible fairly reasonable estimates of
the effect nonbearing acreage will have on production. On the other hand, if
the pace of expansion were to accelerate, it would be difficult to estimate
whether the acreage already planted, but not bearing, would saturate the mar-
ket when it came into production.
How far prices could fall before growers would be in financial diffi-
culties is unknown, but if the land and facilities were available, low re-
turns would be the only limit to long-run expansion that could logically be
expected.
/Xcotfooicr <ronr oir
APPENDIX TABLES
Table Number Pages
I to V Early Season Shipments of Grapes in 17-26
the United States, by Area and Date
of Shipment. Yearly 191*7 -1951.
VI to VIII Truck and Rail arrivals of Certain 27-29
Fruits in Chicago, Early Season
(Exclusive of Farmer's Market).
Yearly 19U9-1951.
IX to XI Truck and Rail Arrivals of Certain 30-32
Fruits in New York, Early Season,
Yearly 19U9-1951.
XII Unloads of Major Fresh Fruits, Rail 33
and Truck, New York City and Chicago
in June and July, 19U9-193>1 Averages
( Trucks and LCL in Carload Equiva-
lent)
XIII to XVII Average Prices Received and Number 3li-38
of Lugs Sold, Chicago, New York City,
and Philadelphia Auctions, of Cali-
fornia Thompson Seedless Grapes, by
Area of Origin, Weekly, Early Season.
Yearly 19U7-1951.
'1U
17.
TABLE I
Early Season Shipments of Grapes in the United States, by-
Area and Date of Shipment, \9hl
Southern
California
Date
June
July
Freight! Express
h
5
6
71
i
8
9
10
11
12
13
lh
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 j
2h
25
26
27;
28
29
30
1
2
3
h
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2
h
3
3
10
10
8
7
9
9
13
9
11
11
7
10
13
10
9
6
3
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2 a/
3
it
It
6
5
10
15
19
20
2k
27
20
17
17
22
21
19
23
9
7
8
9
13
9
9
8
8
8
10
8
7
6
5
Imperial
Valley
Freight Express
Arizona
Freight, Express
1
1
1
1
1
2
h
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
I*
6
5
l
6
10
10
8
9
11
5
3
h
h
l
2
2
3
3
3
3
It
h
Central
California
Freight
Express
1
2
6
a
5
5
2
5
2
7
13
7
26
U3
82
1
1
19
30
hi
73
58
36
1*7
Total
1
1
1
2
2
5
8
5
h
6
5
10
16
23
2U
35
39
30
26
29
32
39
33
ho
26
21
23
32
38
36
27
30
U8
61
lh
100
98
97
1U3
(Continued on next page.)
15.
Table I continued.
Southern
Imperial
Central
Date
California
Valley
Arizona
California
Freight
i Express
Freight
Express
Freight
Express
Freight
Express
Total
July 13
2
1
o
c
A?
41
9o
u»
1
1
o
c
98
15
h
"37
tic;
156
16
1
y?
137
17
ay
^7
it
126
18
101
29
130
19
—
75
26
101
20
1 1 n
cx
131
21
97
£ J
57
22
0±
122
23
—
81
65
Ht6
2U
—
139
37
176
25
13o
30
166
26
—
nU
25
139
2?
28
2
30
28
1
71
7
79
1
117
11
129
30
1
121
16
138
31
111
11*
125
Through
July 31
175
i
1*23
19
105
2u
!
5i
L,837
i
920
3,551*
a/ 30 Argentina.
Source of data: U.S. Production and Marketing Administration, California Federal-
State Market News Service, "Deciduous Fruit Report."
19.
TABLE II
Early Season Shipments of Grapes in the United State-, by-
Area and Date of Shipment, 19U8
Southern
Imperial
California
Valley
Date
r i eigne
Express
rreignt
Expr
June h
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Hi
i
15
i
16
i
-3
17
1
X
18
19
20
7
I
21
8
22
!
12
23
j
■Lj
2h
T 7
if
25
1
26
0
C.
-1-7
27
21
1
28
9
15
i
2
29
a
o
1
1
30
11
18
2
2
July 1
9
25
3
2
11
27
2
2
3
16
2h
1
3
k
8
26
1
3
5
9
11
1
3
6
20
12
h
7 !
7
21
3
it
12
22
U
3
| i
9
22
2
6
10 i
1
j
22*
Ik
i
3
3
Arizona
Freight! Express
Central
California
Freight! Express
1
1
1
1
1
2
Total
1
3
1
h
5
7
8
Hi
16
17
20
21
22
27
33
3ii
38
U2
U5
38
25
37
36
h3
39
(Continued on next page.)
■1(3 .eJsK
■
• •
.
* •• i i 1- f- J
U i i j
1
u - 1 3.
is • |
■
c r
51
20.
Table II continued.
Date
Southern
California
Imperial
Valley
Arizona
Central
California
Freight | Express
Freight Express
Freight I Express
Freight
Express
Total
July 11
12
13
lit
15
16
17
7
8
8
10
3
3
6
|
10
13
17
13
16
12
6
2
2
2
1
! I
h
1
if
2
i.
1
_ 5
2
1
2
It
2
2
6
3
5
25
28
38
30
27
21
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2k
1
6
2
1
it
3
3
2
1
1
2
16
12
11
3
5
it
3
16
12
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
1
0
c
8
17
23
29
23
6
U7
62
60
67
UO
6
U3
55
79
83
96
63
Through
July 31
i
221
i
ti72
3U
50
8
i
U5
102
1
I
— L
35k
1,286
Source of data: U.S. Production and Marketing Administration, California Federal-
State Market News Service, "Diciduous Fruit Report."
101
id
21.
TABLE III
Early Season Shipments of Grapes in the United States, by-
Area and Date of Shipment, 19I49
Date
Southern
California
Imperial
Valley
Arizona
Central
California
Total
June
xu
XX
JLC,
J- J
Ik
2
15
2
10
1 7
1 ft
XO
9
OA
11
13
22
20
23
30
2U
25
25
23
26
18
27
20
28
20
29
2$
30
21*
July 1
37
2
29
3
11
it
U
5
26
6
3U
7
ia
8
38
9
35
1
2
2
2
2
2
!*
5
3
5
i»
6
5
3
5
6
5
7
9
2
2
3
5
5
7
2-
2
2
5
10
6
11
15
21*
32
29
27
23
23
25
29
31
1*2
32
16
8
30
1*3
51
50
52
(Continued on next page.)
bmiisaJ «w
.........
••• ..
■
•
J 01
I 4
•
.OS
•
IS
•
-
! *
•
oe
u
22.
Table III continued.
Southern
California
Imperial
Valley
July 10
22
9
11
28
9
1*2
29
10
13
32
7
la
29
9
15
19
8
lo
la
7
17
6
6
lo
10
k
19
1
a
2
20
3
—
21
3
—
22
3
23
2
2a
—
25
26
07
£|
28
29
30
31
Through
July 31
712
157
Arizona
California
Total
i
k
35
5
1
k3
10
IaQ
uy
5
2
L6
5
Li
6
1
3li
3
97
2
3
17
1
17
52
>o
86
89
110
113
109
112
5a
56
la
la
106
106
i-U J
137
137
133
133
129
129
77
77
16
16
66
1,191
2,126
Source of data: U.S. Production and Marketing Administration, California Federal-
State Market News Service, "Deciduous Fruit Report."
SI
41
m
23.
TABLE IV
Early Season Shipments of Graces in the United States, by-
Area and Date of Shipment, 1950
;' Southern
1
Imperial
1
Date
California
Val
ley
Arizona
Freight | Express
j Freight
Express
Freight Express
June I4.
_
!
—
—
5
1 —
1 3
—
6
i — ~~
2
i — _
2
—
7
7
2
—
8
! 9
—
1
9
*
1 lU
—
1
1 i
10
—
1 13
—
2
1
11
i 13
—
2
1
X
12
—
1 15
—
2
13
—
1 18
J
—
Ik
— —
i 17
—
a
k
15
—
2h
3
3
16
— ■
32
It
2
17
—
28
—
6
3
18
28
—
7
"1
-L
19
2
17
5
2
1
20
9
6
1
21
22
23
—
7
22
k
27
—
8
.1
23
1
25
2
5
2
2k
c.14
7
20
3
6
3
25
5
12
—
9
1
26
9
5
10
27
11
3
6
28
Ik
16
k
3
29
12
23
1
7
2
30
7
&
5
it
1
3
July 1
9
15
8
1*
2
1U
lU
3
9
1
1
3
ih
3
6
3
tt
16
k
5
8
5
1
Hi
1
6
1
6
6
2
9
1
6
it
7
6
11
2
5
1
5
8
1
8
j
1
6
1
L
5
Central
California
Freight (Express
1
2
2
1
Total
( Continued on next page . )
■
OS
■
■
oS i
1 Ox
2h.
Table IV continued.
Southern
Imperial
Central
Date
California
Valley
Arizona
California
Freight
Express
Freight
Express
Freight
Express
Freight 1 Express
Total
July 9
d.
7
7
3
2
21
10
5 !
2
■ma*
2
i
4
13
11
I \ ::
2
—
2
3
•*
8
12
1
2
3
7
13
13
i
1
U
2
6
12
Hi
1
1
11
13
15
1
2
10
13
16
1
3
13
17
17
— —
■MM
3
13
16
18
1
6
23
30
19
— — •
1
7
38
20
1
6
39
21
10
52
62
22
1
o
0
51
60
23
6
30
36
2h
2U
ho
6u
25
50
u7
97
26
n6
55
101
27
51
65
116
28
1*6
62
108
29
55
59
llii
30
16
21
37
31
60
16
76
Through
July 31
158
556
38
175
5
8U
U09
672
2,097
Source of data: U.S. Production and Marketing Administration, California Federal-
State Market News Service, "Deciduous Fruit Report."
25.
TABLE V
Early Season Shipments of Grapes in the United States, by-
Area and Date of Shipment, 1951
So 1 1 f.Yi p rn
xjiiuci lax
ucil L/X ax
Date
Qali f*nTni a
Vallev
XIX JLuvtlQ
CflT i f* mrn
O. X..X. Jl / X i IX Q
Total
Junp 10
1
1
11
1
1
12
13
—
—
II*
1
1
J
j
16
u
u
u
17
1
2
1
18
1
6
19
-1-7
O
1
J-
10
20
1U
1
15
21
lit
2
16
22
17
1
23
21
^•j
1L
2
■\
J
19
11
1
j
15
25
18
21
26
2?
"J
2
27
27
27
2
3
32
28
21
i*
It
29
?9
^7
20
0
c
■4
1
27
j.
15
ouxy x
7
f
J.
1
X
1^
o
C\j
I,
U
2
J
J.
Q
7
2
iii
it
Uo
It
8
52
5
38
9
6
2
55
6
29
6
9
5
1*9
7
2l*
9
6
8
It?
8
18
7
6
31
9
20
6
7
12
1*5
10
25
10
7
lit
56
11
26
10
16
20
72
12
27
11
6
32
76
13
16
10
8
52
86
lit
18
6
7
68
99
(Continued on next page.)
26.
Table V continued.
Date
Southern
California
Imperial i
Valley
Arizona
Central
California
Total
July 15
6
5
3
37
51
16
5
5
6
78
9U
17
I
u
2
2
81
89
18
3
2
1
Or'
85
91
19
3
2
™
91
96
20
2
—
2
109
113
21
***
1
*~"™~
86
On
87
22
— -
3
17
20
23
—
*•
65
65
21*
2
99
101
25
1
101
102
26
—
97
97
27
99
99
28
86
86
29
32
32
30
50
50
31
87
87
Through
1,519
2,U03
July 31
588
138
158
Source of data: U.S. Production and Marketing Administration, California Federal-
State Market News Service, "Deciduous Fruit Report."
.62
i T6
90J
! XUJ
I cm
T6
or-'
if r
27.
TABLE VI
Truck and Rail Arrival si*/of Certain Fruits in Chicago, 19h9,
Early Season (Exclusive of Farmers Market)
Date
S 1 1*877—
Apples
Apricots
Berries]?/
Cherries
! Grapes
Peaches
Plums
W C X J. X o
ill" J_*J I j.O
par 1 rvari
equivalents
June 20
2h
7
—
11
2
8
8
lh
136
21
15
2
7
1
A
O
a
0
ou
22
19
2
1
16
1
5
fl
u
<
P
P-L
23
lii
K
0
7
3
6
o
7
I.
4
4f
2h
10
3
8
2
7
7
5
57
27
15
5
2
25
6
111
Q
7
j,
<4
28
It
it
1
8
3
5
0
7
0
c
29
10
7
2
9
ll
12
17
— I
■3
30
11
u
1
10
3
8
26
PP
July 1
7
0
3
7
5
12
18
1
55
5
15
8
5
19
12
16
67
6
6
10
3
16
9
5
ill
0
uu
7
2
3
2
o
6
8
11
pu
8
5
3
2
9
9
n
op
11
12
13
2
22
15
22
65
1
U6U
12
3
it
2
9
8
10
it;
n
13
5
6
3
8
8
7
13
P P
lit
12
8
2
5
<-P
n
(i\
15
7
3
ll
■it
10
21
7 T
1 P
18
13
8
3
16
23
Il3
U5
1
125
19
8
t)
0
2
h
38
17
0
25
20
8
5
2
3
5
29
2li
0
65
21
10
l
3
2
6
31
16
0
50
22
8
0
2
6
9
52
20
1
till
25
6
12
2
3
13
73
28
1
173
26
8
2
2
1
8
56
13
0
37
27
6
1
1
2
9
31
22
1
50
28
9
1
0
2
5
39
10
0
ho
29
10
1
1
1
13
70
9
2
21
a/ Day refers to 2U-hour period ending day mentioned, Tuesday-Friday; 72-hour pe-
riod on Monday, with exception of holidays.
b/ Including blackberries and raspberries.
Source: U.S. Production and Marketing Administration. Chicago "Daily Fruit and
Vegetable Report" and "Chicago Fruit and Vegetable Reporter."
72
ti. ..,«, ., — — •
t -w" — — - -f — «— :.
■
28.
TABLE VII
Truck and Rail Arrivals£/of Certain Fruits in Chicago, 1950
Early Season (Exclusive of Farmers Market)
J
l-berries^/
Cherries
i
Straw-
jffater-
Date
Apples
Apricots
! Grapes
! Peaches
Plums
berries
1 melons
!
carload equivalents
June 8
o),
c-lX
o
C
X
A
O
d
xf
9
a
o
X
C
P
o
c.
0
0
a
0
•3ft
po
12
21
3
6
•3
9
13
38
13
XU
X
£
o
T
X
■3
p
XX
91
Ik
u
O
c
0
X
t
P
it
If),
PU
15
11
2
ll
7
1 9
"^7
ji
16
10
0
C
P
7
7
1
Hi
19
19
k
5
9
2
6
12
173
20
O
c
7
P
x
7
1
7)i
21
7
f
P
Q
7
1,
U
0
c
"16
ft
0
hi
ux
22
Q
7
1.
M.
u
Q
99
c c
1 9
4f
9ft
23
9
0
2
18
\ h
la
Hi
39
26
1 7
X(
I,
D
m
xu
pp
1 ft
xo
CCc.
27
o
J
T
X
T
X
<
P
•1
I
xU
1 9
J-C
Aq
oy
28
1 "3
1
X
-1-4
U
J-P
Q
0
1 "3ft
xjo
29
fl
O
n
u
P
in
XU
o
J
o "i
<-j
A
O
77
30
11
2
6
6
2
19
9
108
July 3
-J
Q
O
xu
A
o
07
1 0
ic
i on
xyx
5
i "3
xp
"3
7
J
oft
to
on
CXI
7
1
•3ft
po
6
■3
X
7
A
u
on
cX)
-LP
P
XX
7
A
Q
0
X
7
f
1 "3
ip
If
xo
A
0
AA
DO
10
13
2k
u
7
20
62
35
6
152
11
3
£
p
0
i.
k
11
11
1.
Do
89
12
1
3
3
z
O
3
i.i.
m
C
o
d
20
13
f
3
I,
7
31
xo
d
0).
2U
P
P
7
5
39
-I o
1c
1
u
3U
17
7
11
9
9
5
51
13
3
137
18
2
0
It
4
2
11
7
0
u8
19
2
3
6
10
3
13
9
1
117
20
6
0
%
2
10
10
0
3u
21
3
0
6
5
13
5
2
52
2u
9
0
5
y
13
26
6
1
100
25
b
0
3
3
h
9
6
0
27
26
0
It
3
9
12
5
1
56
27
3
0
b
ll
10
21
7
0
12
28
h
o
3
2
13
13
16
2
32
31
7
o ;
u
3
21
i
5u
18
2
113
a/ Arrivals since time market last in operation.
b/ Including raspberries and blackberries.
Source: U.S. Production and Marketing i.dministration, Fruit and Vegetable Branch.
Daily Chicago Market Report.
hf.
0?
us
TCI I
34 |
Til j
& !
.noiJjiieqo nx deel ^ejfTfiffl ami.} ^rwiia -sJLs-vjlT"xA \£
29.
TABLE VIII
Truck and Rail Arrivals^/ of Certain Fruits in Chicago, 1951,
Early Season (Exclusive of Farmers Market)
otraw-
Water-
Date
Apples
Apricots
Berries^/
Cherries
Grapes
Peaches
Plums
berries
melons
carload e
equivalents
1
June 15
10
—
—
—
1
1
10
1U
U5
xo
7
f
1,
21
l(
ex.
1 ft 0
103
19
12
5
1
9
10
15
53
20
11
2
—
6
1
1
8
12
60
CX
i ft
10
1
1,
U
1
15
11
11
ol.
3a
22
21
1
5
6
15
13
38
CO
O
£
k
25
17
li4
l££
26
7
1
1
h
ill
12
10
1*7
27
12
U
5
3
10
10
7
52
28
16
3
5
5
15
17
3
37
29
8
— _
5
10
21
17
8
23
July c
li
L
O
1
11
8
59
U5
7
lol
3
u
7
2
It
11
Hi
20
—
—
68
—
5
—
8
10
—
3
—
11
6
37
5u
U
53
6
8
wn
1
5
8
13
16
3
21
9
l<f
9
1
15
19
69
I.A
uo
a
157
10
6
2
3
7
9
20
11
3
75
11
h
2
2
6
5
10
it
1*7
12
7
2
2
8
8
20
17
2
55
13
8
5
3
h
26
il»
2
37
10
0
0
1
U
5
30
67
29
5
126
17
2
It
3
12
12
10
2
3h
18
5
2
3
h
10
18
18
2
h3
19
3
1
3
3
111
23
22
1
51
20
7
3
3
6
18
12
2
bl
23
5
3
2
5
33
ho
5
3
225
2k
2
3
2
11*
16
11
0
109
25
5
2
3
12
8
20
2
79
26
3
1
1
21*
27
7
81
27
5
1
2
20
16
lli
2
U6
31
5
2
2
27
75
1
25
3
11*6
a/ Arrivals since time market last in operation,
b/ Including blackberries and raspberries .
Source: U.S. Production and Marketing Administration, Fruit and Vegetable Branch.
Daily Chicago Market Report.
.$2
I iv riJ^iiT
:
OS
30.
TABLE IX
Truck and Rail Arrivals of Certain Fruits in New York, 19u9,
Early Season
Straw-
Water-
Date
Apples
Apricots
Berries^/
Cherries
Grapes
Peaches
Plums
berries
melons
carload equivalents
Jimp 17
13
5
2
17
0
33
10
11
89
20
19
a
0
5
33
2
00
2o
5
2lt3
21
Q
0
5
1
15
0 Q
2o
1U
3
75
22
6
6
2
15
3
23
3
1
92
2"}
6
3
3
22
3
3u
13
82
10
2
17
2
uo
10
1
tn
50
27
13
1 A
10
i,
a
Ul
7
Al.
04
OA
*:0
lOO
28
b
o
O
1
21
5
17
12
04
29
11
8
3
30
5
a2
19
mmtm
125
7
5
3
30
It
3h
10
—
111
Julv ]
o
y
f
i
iy
£
tin
lp
1U1
a
Ac
17
d
lO
13
00
Up
13(
6
9
17
19
7
37
8
37
7
7
10
2
18
9
3u
12
—
37
8
1^
7
13
50
1U
p0
ll£/
6
27
MMM
37
11
1 n
uo
7U
1
23u
12
5
8
21
O
0
32
27
1
58
7
2
23
9
31
15
73
111
5
9
20
8
ItO
18
1
80
■LP
1U
2
2
5
11
h$
9
1
5u
18
28
3
29
22
93
50
1
103
19
1U
1
1
7
9
55
20
37
20
13
1
1
12
7
76
31
u3
21
13
1
1
15
6
106
19
1
J48
22
19
3
7
9
99
32
ho
25
25
1
It
1U
32
115
65
3
115
26
10
1
2
3
19
82
2
1
57
27
12
2
3
3
22
76
27
1
20
28
11
1
5
it
20
2h
1
35
29
19
it
2
5
—
87
15
5a
a/ Blackberries and raspberries.
b/ Air freight •
c/ No truck receipts.
Source: U.S. Production and Marketing Administration, Fruit and Vegetable Branch.
Daily New York Market Report .
'* t V&l*<tebT'-& l fr } j\i^i;r&%'i' ttt£tn$$.:1t>' sler^iA-IifeS. tots stain?
— >i— ; — as.
_. .....iu.,.
£ hfu <vf fi **>
1
sx
YX
-
•5X
ss
.. 3
1 w
I | ..YX anuC»
£ { OS
1
1 £S
X j TS
OC
nc
tlx
i
•
i
■
St
rc*
■-
YS | ij
...
mrr
sx
j cf
•
OS
:-
.
SI
2x.
O i ft' **
X QX
x
.
■■ i-*X
x . ds
i vs
X j 83
Uu~a - i- 1
<-r,..
— 4i lull 1,1 -I r • .•
^- 1
6ft3- 4 iirt'H. $tio : t#&t$&tti *.<flk\ ■ ^ciiiQ'Aieii farts ..aciioubvtl . 2. U i soiiroc
TABLE X
31.
Truck and Rail Arrivals of Certain Fruits in New York, 1950,
Early Season
Berries-'
!
Straw-
Water-
Date
Apples
Apricots
Cherries
! Grapes j Peaches
Plums
berries imelons
carload equivalents
June 9
!
11
1
—
Hi
2
2
11
13
61
Lc
m
—
1
21
1
10
lit
20
119
13
5
6
—
11
5
2
8
17
68
lit
8
h
1
111
3
it
12
Hi
91
15
9 i
5
1
13
3
10
9
10
51
lo
15 I
3
7
1
3
12
9
21
?it
19
15
u
18
10
23
16
20
189
20
8 1
it
—
12
8
11
12
12
78
21
3 ;
5
— —
12
7
10
12
13
62
22
6
3
12
1
19
— i
lh
10
5o
23
10
5
12
9
21
10
111
61
19
10
16
2u
lilt
37
18
203
27
2
5
—
5
2
13
15
-i |
lit
67
28
18
it
—
3
12
Hi
12
10
107
29
6
3
5
11
m
1U
8
62
30
10
2
17
28
23
8
80
July 3
it
10
1
it
3
12
12
35
h2
9
211
5
—
—
11
—
3
— —
19
17
3U
7
2
119
0
1
5
2
13
lit
23
Q
0
2
39
7
6
7
3
11
13
22
12
3
77
1U
11
5
U
19
22
7A
70
U3
1
h
211
11
3
7
2
lii
5
29
21
2
101
12
7
10
2
10
7
30
11
3
98
13
2
2
13
8
29
9
1
lil
LU
6
3
2
7
5
9
2
58
17
6
20
9
68
hi
3
13U
18
ii
2
1
13
5
23
8
2
28
19
3
2
18
it
Uo
11
1
19
20
! 1
3
13
a
hB
9
1
20
3
6
7
53
12
1
32
2h
7
1
1 J
15
13
86
5U
2
lOit
25
6
11
12
1*7
22
h9
26
9
1
10
lit
38
11
2
U5
27
6
1
12
lit
33
17
2
3h
28
6
1
6
5
5U
11
2
36
31
i 12
1- >.-.- .
1
11
i
30
97
2
81
a/ Including blackberries and raspberries.
Source: U.S. Production and Marketing Administration, Fruit and Vegetable Branch.
Daily New York Market Report.
., jfecfy fi t io-iY nisiigy SI6 '$£ar&ttA -iisfl 'fens ->teinT
jA i S^SU
3 Sntrb
^ r
32.
TABLE XI
Truck and Rail Arrivals of Certain Fruits in New York, 1951
Early Season
1
1 ■ "
Berries.!!/
1
Straw-
Water-
Date
Apples
Apricots
Cherries
Grapes
Peaches
Plums
berries
melons
carxcdu t
equivalents
•Juno "1 ^
p
X
7
I
1
37
14
XO
1
AA
00
18
16
8
1
12
85
2h
18
76
19
12
6
9
1
31;
lh
18
1
20
(.U
£
P
a
o
1
31
10
xp
uo
21
11
7
8
1
u7
12
2
25
22
10
2
9
1
Sh
11
11
20
25
20
6
5
13
137
39
9
155
26
12
5
5
6
6
63
17
h
62
T 1
XX
j.
u
"I
X
XX
7
5u
Xc
c
p
P 1
2fi
tr
P
1.
o
m
Xc
h
SI*
xu
p
PP
<-7
July 2
19
9
l
25
5
131
2
361
3
j.
6
5
2
n
9
1 1
uu
2U
2
93
u
p
A
(J
o
7
£X
9
91
16
0
96
A
U
A
o
7
O
c
7
I
8
85
X
"5.1
px
9
15
9
1
26
20
195
h2
16U
10
6
6
1
15
7
70
27
1
75
XX
o
7
o
p
T
X
xc
9
35
X7
0
76
Xc
0
O
X
xp
15
63
xu
0
c
po
XP
XO
3
X
A
o
2
87
~\ O
xy
Ac;
op
16
13
5
1
18
21
lu9
ho
158
17
7
2
—
8
10
59
12
1
36
xo
Q
0
3
7
12
U9
xU
n
X
pp
19
2
3
8
23
h9
lh
1
15
xu
1
X
X
P
12
73
XvJ
UP
23
lu
1
1
6
20
132
5u
2
8u
2u
7
2
2
5
8
U8
33
2
18
25
6
1
5
10
62
16
3
17
26
11
1
1
6
10
55
19
1
22
27
17
2
1
16
82
20
36
30
7
1
6
39
95
66
u
75
31
8
2
It
21
hh
26
2
31
a/ Including blackberries and raspberries.
Source: U.S. Production and Marketing Administration, Fruit and Vegetable Branch.
Daily New York Market Report.
IX 33HAT I
"" 'a. li::' 1
:
1
■
IS
p r
33.
TABLE XII
Unloads of Major Fresh Fruits, Rail and Truck, New York City and Chicago
in June and July, I9k9-I9$l Averages (Trucks and LCL in Carload Equivalent)
June
July
Now York
New York
Kind of fruit
City
Chicago
City
Chicago
ADDles
.151
lOo
hi
.; lOo
n M-^ u o
Qa
oO
Ul
Uo
3,165
3u7
3,079
U78
■LJJLclOJvUfcrl i itio
"~ —
' ■
5
RT lid VlC T , Y , "l d <s
DJL U.C Utj 1 XlCO
—
20
V>d.IZ bcixOUpC S
956
507
1,22/4
66U
Vjiit; rrics
308
llll
213
110
rigs
2
3
ItT* 37icf >*1 IT +■
*J1 d^JCX X UJ. 0
2u6
65
111
hi
65
237
183
71
i.
a
Honpvdpvi ttipI nn^
A 1 V— ' lit*Jf Vi CIV 1 1 i \_- -i_ WHO
3<£0
CI,
bh
Lemo ns
37 6
12o
Til
331
t ol
13a
1
1
1
Mixpci oi tvni s
95
2u
35
21
Mixed deciduous
28
26
87
53
Mixed melons
22
h
18
5
Nectarines
16
15
?i*
30
Oranges
1,167
U60
868
275
Peaches
223
90
525
337
Pears
1*6
8
lilO
72
Persian melons
21
b
Pineapples
31U
he
80
7
Plums and prunes
257
126
U78
179
Raspberries
6
52
Rhubarb
U»
2
Strawberries
26
213
23
U2
Watermelons
1,320
730
1,335
888
Total all fruits and vegetables
1
13,331
8,327
1
ll,Uo6
8,382
Source: U.S. Production and Marketing Administration, "Unloads of Fresh Fruits
and Vegetables," Chicago and New York City Monthly Summary Reports. Processed.
•H-rol vim I
oxriO
■
■
■
0$:. . .
IT '
6sr : .- ; os .
fc>t>
-
■
■
asrano faflf
TABLE XIII
Average Prices Received and Number of Lugs Sold, Chicago, New York City, and Philadelphia Auctions,
of California Thompson Seedless Grapes, by Area of Origin,
Weekly, Early Season, 1947
1 Id J. AO 1/ WwCa
Tnt.fl "
i yj uo_
a/
Coachellaj
Imperial
Kern
Tulare
Sacramento
Fresno
Arizona
lugs
price
lugs
price;
lugs
price
lugs
price
lugs
price
lugs
price
lugs
price
lugs
price
Chicago
i
June 9-June 13
1,614
9.04
1,614! 9:04
June io- June <cu
4,044
8.44
3,321
8.48 !
ICO
n on
j une <io— j une *c i
7,928
6.32
6,140 > 6.34
1 I7QC
1, (OO
c on
o.ci
u une ou— j uxy o
11,563
5.15
6,643)4,79 !
Of OOO
O . DO
x , lot
oyiJ
a oe.
4»fcO
July 7-July 11
21,407
4.23
2,910
2.93 j
1 O 7/1/1
12, 366
4.13
6,131
5.05
4,994
3.44
July 14-July 18
18,240
3.52
2,439
2.51 j
1,842
3.14
13,159
3.7e
800
3.52
1,386
2.90
July £±-ouj_y <o
10,229i3.07
|
!
9,615
3.06
614
5.22
July ido-July 31
11,618
2.94
I
7 1 94-
C • <-> 17
A ^1 9
■x . ox w
7
O . Uu
New York
[ ;
June 9^-June 13
1,542
9.72
1,542
9.72
June lb- j une <x)
5,033 |9.47
! 5,033
9.47
1 June <co— June c /
19,51216.70
1 15,457 ! 6.59
3 j oo5
rj to
7.12
June ou- July o
21,131! £.31
j 12,421
•6.23
O r7~l r\
o,710
r* AT
6.43
.
1,652
7.34
. July /—July lx
41,-956 j 4. 79
1 7,475
4.38
32,04 I
a On
4.80
O A *Z/\
0. 91
3,682
5.08
t juiy 14— July io
57,C35
3.85
j 7,360
2.77
8,896
3.67
39,770
4.08
1,609
3.95
3,7411 3.11
Jul3' 21-«ju±y 25
66,151
[3.30
165
J1.72
43,953
OO
3. 28
19,953
*? '7 l"7
3.37
(£,0o0
3.18
2,171
2.16
July <do— July 61
66,795)2.67
I
•ZA OCiK
Or±, CUD
C . OO
con
(C.OJ.
Philadelphia
j
1
June 9-June 13
708
j8.15
708 ! 8 .15
June 16- June 20
805
i 8^19
80518.19
■
June 23-June 27
4,429
7.01
! 5, 490 | 7.03
939
6.95
June 30-July 3
7,159
> 5.87
• 6,210! 5.86
949
5.91
1,053
a 52
July 7 -J \ily 11
'10,673
j 4.53
1 5,767
,4,52
4,507
4.52
399
4.85
5,053
3*52
July 14-July 18
16,229! 4.00
| 1,850
: 3.17
3,059
3.43
11,320
4.29
2,454
2.85
July 21-July 25
19,455
! 3.00
i
1
16,206
2.98
2,670
3.10
579
5.15
July 28-July 31
1 12,063 12.44
i
!
' 6,143
2.32
5,920
! 2.57
a/ Not including Arizona.
Source: "Detailed Deciduous Auction Report" of New York Daily Fruit Reporter, Chicago, Fruit and Vegetable Reporter,
and Philadelphia Produce Iiarket Report.
TABLE XIV
Average Prices Received and Number of Lugs Sold, Chicago, New York City, and Philadelphia Auctions,
of California Thompson Seedless Grapes, by Area of Origin,
Weekly, Early Season, 1948
Market week
Totals/
Coachella
Imperial
Borego
Kern
Arizona
lugs
£2
price
, E ,
lugs I
st U
price
lugs
price
lugs
price
lugs
price
lugs
price
onicago
|
1
June lo
726
10.32
726 I
10.32
i June 21- June 25
4,232
8.46
4,232 '
8.46
June 2o-July 2
12,733
6.48
10,374 !
6.72
2,359
5-41
1 July o-July 9
9,189
5-55
6,621 1
5-59
2,568
5.42
261
6.38
I July 12 -July lo
8,988
4.49
5,061
5.64
3,927
3.01
July 19- July 23
ft 03
KJ . U J
1 88s
4 18
3,185
1.344
6.05
July 26-July 30
3,185
7.27
1
1
7.27
84o
6.51
' Kpw YnrV
1
1 June 18
738
-
11.22
1
738
11.22
j June 21-June 25
2,970
10.13
2,970 1
10.13
! June 2o-July 2
10,202
7-91
9,342 |
8.05
860
6.44
July o-July y
26,397
5.50
19,997
5.70
3,734
5.31
2,580
4.25
July 12-July lb
22, 582
5.28
12,189 !
5.82
10,393
4.64
59
3-75
July 19-July 23
17, 585
5.97
12,654 |
0.31
4,931
? .10
3,833
8.83
«f.X(
.Tn"l v Till -\t "if)
4,99 k
8.60
1,161 ;
7.82
815
4-75
! Philadelphia
| June 25
1,500
7.45
1,500
7.45
June 28 -July 2
1,511
7.59
i,5H i
7.59
798
1
July 6-July 9
10,408
5.02
7,709 !
5.36
1,901
3-95
4.29
July 12-July 16
j 5,124
5.51
4,263 j
5.42
861
5.97
1,306
4.77
July 19-July 23
1 4,172
6.85
3,125 !
7.24
1,047
5.71
|
286
8.54
July 26-July 28
1 286
i
8.54
i
|
i
270
5.94
a/ Not including Arizona.
Source: "Detailed Deciduous Auction Report" of New York Daily Fruit Reporter, Chicago, Fruit and Vegetable Reporter,
and Philadelphia Produce Market Report .
8^0 e'in
ri TT'A .14*.'
J x a O
'68-5
q crng
ivbitb y.ih
sue £>I
TABLE XV
Average Prices Received and Number of Lugs Sold, Chicago, New York City, and Philadelphia Auctions,
of California Thompson Seedless Grapes, by Area of Origin,
Weekly, Early Season, 1949
Market week
Chicago
June 20
June 27
July 5-
July 11-
July 18-
July 25
•June 24
•July 1
■July 8
■July 15
■July 22
■July 29
Total^/
Coachella
lugs
New York
June 20 -June 24
June 27- July 1
July 5-July 8
July 11-July 15
July 18- July 22
July 25-July 29
Philadelphia
June 20- June 2k
June 27- July 1
July 5-July 8
July 11-July 15
July 18-July 22
July 25-July 29
6,807
10,827
13,022
15,933
16,620
16,171
6,210
20,388
23,424
29,218
31 All
72,082
2,018
4,226
8,769
price ) lugs I price
8.18
6.50!
5-74
U.65
3-74
3-73
8.99
6. ia
5.5i
5.65
4.52
3.6k
8.k9
7.25
5.58
6,1+68 5.62
12,233! 4.12
29,001 3.13
5,408.
8,199i
6,572'
5,61+5
3,015
5,508
14,620
13,613
11,811
13,137
4,016
1,317
1,635
6,205
8.08
6.35
5.68
5-41
4.49
9.13
6.36
5-59
5.90
4.76
3.25
8.30
6.27
5.72
4,697 5.86
8,907
3,120
4.37
3.15
Imperial
Borego
Kern
Fresno
Tulare
lugs, jprice , lugs ipricei lugs
4,750
9,248
12,973
1,447
4,675
14,991
17,914
701
2,591
2,564
1,771
3,326
690
5.73
4.21
3.50
6.23
5.03
5.35
4.34
8.85
7.88
5-25
4.99
3-^5
1,700
702
4,321!
5,1361
2,4l6i
360
8.02
900 6.98 1,7281 6.951
5-95
7-92
6.66
5.72
6.27
4.66
709
632
12,546
price
61,794
25,207
lugs -jprice
9.18
5.15
3.71
l,04o
910
lugs jprice
4.41
3.55
3.66
3.12
2,715
Arizona
lugs price
3.90
3,845
2,357
674
3.73
6,272
3.66
2,995
6,072
166
2,582
a/ Not including Arizona.
Source: "Detailed Deciduous Auction Report" of New York Daily Fruit Reporter, Chicago, Fruit and Vegetable Reporter,
and Philadelphia Produce Market Report.
■zma kyTTsrapJoprsj &£0$ace ws%Kej: l^JSONP"
3*s£
"k ' ft ^
^I'A^j 3^- j
3'^ !
■
■
• ■
,- s
ot CPTftoi.nrsr jpoajfcsou gesqicea Qt&Iyss* p% oi, c^tStp 1
TABLE XVI
Average Prices Received and Number of Lugs Sold, Chicago, New York City, and Philadelphia Auctions,
of California Thompson Seedless Grapes, by Area of Origin,
Weekly, Early Season, 1950
I Market week
Totals/
Coachella Imperial
Borego
Kern
Fresno
Tulare
Arizona
lugs jprice
lugs
price | lugs jprice j lugs 1 price ; lugs 'price
lugs jprice
lugs jprice
9.26
8.32
6.22
5.46
1 Chicago I
I June 8-June 9 2,28l| 8.89 2,28l
ijune 12- June 16 9,120 7-62 7,392
iJune 19- June 23 18,876 5-^5 13,567
lJune 26-June 30 16,577 5-04 9,268;
iJuly 3-July 7 112,342 i 5-35 7,707
jJuly 10-July l4|l4,986 5-07 5,713
July 17- July 21 j 6,880 j 6. )+3 423
IJuly 24-July 28|19,595 i 5-73!
j July 31 5,569 3-79!
New York
June 9 990
June 12- June l6|10,826
June 19- June 23 |21,93o
June 26-June 30|45,901
July 3- July 7!38,438
July 10-July 14 |23,064
July 17- July 21 a3,465
July 24- July 28 \39, 589
July 31 |13,806
Philadelphia j
June 12- June 15 2,475
June 19- June 23 10,836
June 26-June 30 12,185
July 3- July 7 9,662
July 10-July 14 3,487
July 17- July 21 j 3,287!
July 24- July 28jl2,757i
July 31 ! 6,170'
990
7,375
15,315
26,578
5.64*23,220
5.60
7.54
6.14!
5.28
5,910
2,508
8.89!
7.60 j
5-59 1
4.93 j
5.52 1
5-75
6.16
9.26
8.31
6.41
5-71
8.16|
5.76
5.75
5.61
5.74
8.02J
6. 09!
4. 30j
1,728!
5,309!
7,309;
4,6351
8,355i
1,758 |
.82
.82
.64
l,6ll
13,689
12,000
11,321
1,6131
5, 89lj
7,450
4,565!
l,530i
8.47
5.69
5.67
5.42
6.12
936|
l,960|
1,029
7.69
5.12
5.19
5-07
4.45
3.30
5.54
4.87
5.22
5.30
5-39
5.45
5.12
188
3,451
5,010
5,634
3,218
1,728
6.35
8.34
5.87
.68
.87
.83
730
4,699
19,595
4,677
52
63
73
68
862|
4,945!
3,799
3,1371
928
505
10,957
33,199
10,859
.60
85
98
■ 99
79
3,287
11,990
4,533
7-55
7-75
6.13
5.18
8.02
6.07
4.23
lugs jprice
846
5-77
892
726
4.35
4.45
5,544
6.24
2,947 5-66
1,177
3,310
1,861
5.93
6.47
6.89
767
6.4o
191
892
875
1,637! 4.48 j
6.15
5.61
5.70
a/ Not including Arizona.
Source: "Detailed Deciduous Auction Report"
and Philadelphia Produce Market Report.
of New York Daily Fruit Reporter, Chicago, Fruit and Vegetable Reporter,
! ' ' !-:
& HtiA Xoxjf D^TJ^ fcini-f Be-
'*'.■:
' j j '
— _ ..•>"_.- c , t[i-']o y I.X SO
TABLE XVII
Average Prices Received and Number of Lugs Sold, Chicago, New York City, and Philadelphia Auctions,
of California Thompson Seedless Grapes, by Area of Origin,
Weekly, Early Season, 1951
Market week j
Total*/ ,
Coachella i
Imperial
Borego
Kern
Tulare
1
Arizona
lugs
price {
lugs
price
lugs j'
price j
lugs !
price '
lugs
price
lugs
price
lugs
price
Chicago
|
1
j
j
1
|
June 15
June 20-June 22 |
June 25-June 29
July 2 -July 6
July 9-July 13 1
July 16- July 20 !
July 23-July 27 '
July 30-July 31
199
2,776
12,644
9,631
17,258
17,431
4,807
1,829
12.10
9.61 1
7-37 i
6.51 !
5.06 '
3.70
2.86
4.00
199
2,776
11,639
6,181
10,265
2,876
12.10 i
9.61 !
7.37
6.37
5.43
3.77
I
j
1,005 1
2,445 !
6,993 i
10,660
1,674;
i
7.46 !
6.83
4.53
3.01
1.48
;
1
1,005
1
6.60
3,895
3,133
990
5.55
3-59
3.26
839
4.88
726
2,454
490
4.20 !
3.00
2.15
New York
j
1 June 15
] June 19-June 21
j June 25-June 29
i July 2- July 6
' July 9-July 13
| July 16- July 20
! July 23-July 27
' July 30-July 31
488
2,160
11, 528
17,405
25,623
40,074
20,348
14,582
10.69
IO.85
8.13
6.70
5.84
4.53
4.71
4.05
488
2,160
10,624
8,494
14,423
12,652
5,470
10.69
10.85
8.14
6.47
5.86
3.96
4.45
j
1
4,891 '
7,300'
11,074 j
3,34l|
1
6.67
5.72
3-75
2.86
904
4,020
3,900
3,847
2,918
i
1
i
8.03:
7-21,
5-99^
4.42 112,433
4.13 j 5,205
5,689
5.82
5.79
4.04
68
3,414
8,093
6.36
5.76
4.05
5,399
760
4.01
3-71
j Philadelphia
i
jJune 25-June 28
! July 2- July 6
j July 9-July 12
j July 16- July 20
| July 23-July 27
1 July 30-July 31
2,181
3,882
4,306
9,165
3,197
4,033
8.38
6.82
6.37
4.87
3.90
4.10
2,181
1,610
2,303
5,146
1,649
8.38
6.78
6.08
4.72
3.28
1
2,272 j
2,003
8861
712;
6.86
6.70
4.20
4.03
j
|
1
1
1
i
3,133
836
1,909
5.31
5.00
3-77
2,124
4.39
1,779
516
4.76
2.54
I
a/ Not including Arizona.
Source: "Detailed Deciduous Auction Report" of New York Daily Fruit Reporter, Chicago, Fruit and Vegetable Reporter,
and Philadelphia Produce Market Report.