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*xa 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 .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 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' sler^iA-IifeS. tots stain? — >i— ; — as. _. .....iu.,. £ hfu 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 *..-.- . 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 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 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 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 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.