UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA SERIES ON CALIFORNIA CROPS AND PRICES BEANS H. R. WELLMAN AND E. W. BRAUN BULLETIN 444 December, 1927 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRINTING OFFICE BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 1927 CONTENTS Page Summary 3 The general situation 7 Main bean-producing states 7 Changes in production 7 Varieties of beans 12 Importance of analysis by varieties 12 Main varieties produced in California 13 Changes in production of California varieties 14 Factors causing wide fluctuations in production from year to year 19 Markets and competition between varieties 22 Limas and Baby Limas 23 Pink 24 Blackeye 25 Small White and Large White 25 Cranberry 26 California Red 26 Red Kidney 27 Bayo 27 Prices and purchasing power 27 Factors affecting changes in purchasing power 31 Recent trends in purchasing power 34 Representative prices during recent years 35 Probable future price differentials .... 39 Seasonal variation in prices 39 Consumption 41 United States foreign trade in beans 42 Exports 42 Imports '. 46 Net exports and net imports 50 Cost of producing beans in Santa Barbara County, 1927 52 Acknowledgments 53 Appendix of tables 54 BEANS H. E. WELLMANi and E. W. BKATJN2 SUMMARY Production of dry edible beans in the United States has increased substantially during the past five years, until at the present time the nation is producing as many beans as it did during the peak years of the war. This recent expansion, however, has taken place under more favorable conditions than did the rapid increase in production during the war period. Occurring more gradually and under normal con- ditions, it has been made upon land which is in general well adapted to the production of beans. There has been, therefore, no general decline in yield. Furthermore, it has been accompanied by a corre- sponding increase in demand, which seems to be of a permanent character as contrasted with the temporary increase in demand during the war. Consequently there has been no pronounced downward trend in purchasing power during the recent period of expansion. It should not be assumed, however, that this situation justifies any further substantial increase in production. Our present normal pro- duction of approximately ten million bags is very close to our apparent need for domestic consumption. The acreage of beans in the United States is now so large that a very favorable growing and harvesting season would either force a relatively large quantity into export outlets, where they would have to compete with low-priced foreign beans, or cause a substantial domestic carryover. California has contributed a relatively small amount to the recent increase in the United States production of beans. The large increases in production have occurred in Michigan, Colorado, Idaho, and New Mexico. Michigan alone contributed almost one-half of the total increase in the United States production since 1921. At the present time approximately 40 per cent of the United States bean crop is produced in Michigan, as compared with 28 per cent in California. California, however, is the dominant factor in the production of seven of the ten important varieties grown in this state. These are the Lima, Baby Lima, Pink, Blackeye, California Red, Cranberry, i Extension Specialist in Agricultural Economics. 2 Extension Specialist in Agricultural Economics. 4 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION and Bayo. The only one of these seven varieties which meets with much competition in the consuming markets from varieties grown in other states is the Pink. It meets considerable competition from the Pinto, which is grown extensively in Colorado and New Mexico. The other three varieties grown in California are the Small White, Large White, and Red Kidney. Only a small proportion of the total United States production of these three varieties, however, is produced in this state. Consequently changes in California production have but little effect upon the prices of these three varieties. The prices of each variety of beans fluctuate widely from year to year. Furthermore, the fluctuations in the prices of a given variety are largely independent of the fluctuations in the prices of other varieties. Sometimes the prices of the several varieties move in the same direction; at other times they do not. The price for which a variety will sell during any given year is determined largely by the production of that particular variety, except in those few cases where varieties compete directly with each other in the consuming markets. Since growers have no means of knowing what the production of each variety will be during the planting season, they cannot at that time forecast accurately the prices which they will obtain for their beans. Consequently an effort to grow just that variety which will bring the highest price in any particular year is usually fruitless. Further- more, the price obtained for the past year's crop is not by itself a reliable indication of the price that will be obtained for the following year's crop. The prices which growers should consider when changing from one variety to another are the average prices which have pre- vailed over a period of years as modified by those changes in trends which can now be foreseen. With regard to the average prices which have prevailed during recent years, the California varieties fall into three well defined price groups: the high-priced varieties are Limas, Baby Limas, and Red Kidneys; the medium-priced varieties are Cranberries and Bayos; and the low-priced varieties are Large Whites, Pinks, California Reds, and Blackeyes. Small Whites fall between the medium-priced and the low-priced groups. The prices of the Limas and Baby Limas have averaged approxi- mately the same because they compete directly in the consuming markets. Although Limas are consumed mainly in the northern states and Baby Limas in the southern states, there is some overlapping of market areas where consumers constantly substitute the lower-priced variety for the higher. This substitution has generally been great enough to keep the prices of the two varieties in close adjustment. Bul. 444] BEANS 5 Small Whites and Large Whites also compete in the consuming markets, but not to the extent that they did a few years ago. The rapid increase in the utilization of Small Whites in canning during recent years has taken a large volume off the dry-bean market. Those remaining find markets that are willing to pay a premium for them over Large Whites. An additional factor contributing to the lower prices of Large Whites has been the relatively large imports of a similar variety from the Orient which have been sold at low prices. The other varieties of beans grown in California do not compete to any considerable extent in the consuming market with each other or with the Lima or White varieties. Consequently the prices of these varieties may be widely different during any given year. Over a period of years, however, a consistent relationship is maintained between the average prices of these varieties because of the competition between them for the use of land. Although each variety has its own particular section in which it can be produced better than the other varieties, a considerable pro- portion of the bean land in the state is adapted to the production of more than one variety. The variety which will be grown on such land is determined largely by the anticipated net return per acre; and equality in the net return per acre is maintained by the tendency of growers to shift from the varieties which have given low returns to those which have given high returns. Since prices per bag and yields per acre are the most important factors determining net returns, we find that the varieties which have averaged the same in prices have approximately the same yield per acre ; and the differences in average prices are caused largely by differences in yields per acre. Thus we find that the prices of Blaekeye, California Red, and Pinks have averaged approximately the same during the past six years. These three varieties can be grown almost equally well in many places. Pinks are grown in the same sections that produce Cranberries and Bayos. Even though the prices of Pinks have averaged lower, the higher yields of Pinks have offset the higher prices of Cranberries and Bayos, resulting in equality in the net return per acre. The prices of Red Kidneys have averaged even higher than those of Cranberries and Bayos, but Red Kidneys have not replaced the latter varieties, because outside of a very limited area along the Feather River, the yields are considerably lower. The relatively high average prices of Limas and Baby Limas during the past six years were due to the fact that the land adapted to their production was believed to be limited. In the case of Limas this is still true. But during the past two years the production of b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION Baby Limas has extended to many parts of the state, and now they are grown in competition with Small Whites, Pinks, California Eeds, and Blackeyes. The increased production of Baby Limas which resulted from this expansion has caused a substantial reduction in their prices. A portion of this price reduction is likely to be permanent. It may be expected that the average price of Baby Limas in the future will be maintained at the level which will no more than offset the difference in yield between them and the varieties with which they compete for the use of land. Because of the close competition between Limas and Baby Limas in the consuming markets, the future prices of Limas may also average considerably lower. There are no forces yet apparent which are likely to cause permanent changes in the average prices of the other varieties grown in this state. Growers who have the choice of planting any one of the several varieties can, therefore, arrive at a fairly accurate decision from a comparison of the gross returns per acre by multiplying the probable average prices by the yields obtained under their particular conditions. From the standpoint of California growers the most significant developments in the United States foreign trade in beans are (1) that we are gradually losing our foreign markets, and (2) that we now have a relatively large potential foreign competition which we did not have before the war. The Orient, which produces varieties of beans similar to those grown in California, has become an important exporter. This competition of the Oriental beans will tend to check any continued rise in the domestic prices of those varieties with which they compete, primarily Large Whites, Small Whites, and Pinks. Bean growing is a speculative business. Prices of each variety fluctuate widely from year to year. The direction and extent of these price fluctuations cannot be forecast accurately at the time of plant- ing. Over a period of years, however, a consistent relationship tends to be maintained between the average prices of the different varieties. These probable average prices coupled with the known yields that growers can obtain under their particular conditions will give them an indication of the variety that will be profitable on their lands. Such a forecast may not prove correct for any given year, but for a series of years the bean growers who are permanently in the business will find it profitable to make such calculations. Further developments may cause permanent changes in the trends of bean prices given in this bulletin, but these are not yet apparent from the facts we have been able to gather. Certainly, however, any radical increase in bean acreage here or elsewhere is likely to be felt by California bean growers. Bul. 444] BEANS 7 The present production of beans is adequate for national consumption at the present level of prices. There seems to be, therefore, no justification for an increase in bean acreage. THE GENERAL SITUATION Main Bean-Producing States. — At the present time the United States normally produces 10,200,000 bags of beans. 3 Approximately 98 per cent of this amount is produced in eight states (fig. 1). The normal production of California, 2,700,000 bags, is exceeded only by that of Michigan, with 4,000,000 bags. These two states normally produce two-thirds of the total United States bean crop. The other main bean-producing states in order of their importance are New York, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Montana, and Wyoming. Changes in Production, — The relative changes in the total bean production in the United States from 1914 to 1926 are shown by the upper curve in figure 2. The greatly increased production in 1917 and 1918 was a result of the high prices paid for beans during the World War. Large purchases of beans were made for the military and naval forces of the United States and the Allies. In addition, the Federal government urgently requested increased production. The United States acreage of beans was almost doubled between 1914- 1915 and 1917-1918. 4 The increased acreage, however, did not result in a corresponding increase in production ; the increase in production amounted to only 32 per cent. The feverish rush to increase produc- tion resulted in planting beans on land upon which the yield was so low as compared with the costs of production that it could not produce beans profitably except at very high prices. This is clearly shown by the great reduction in acreage resulting from the low prices of beans immediately after the war. From 1917 and 1918 to 1920 and 1921 the total bean acreage in the United States was reduced 64 per cent. This caused a decrease in production of only 45 per cent, indicating that a large part of the low yielding land went out of production. Two states, California and Colorado, were principally responsible for the large increase in United States production from 1914 and 1915 to 1917 and 1918. The rapid expansion of bean production was par- ticularly striking in California, which contributed 68 per cent of the total increase. The average bean acreage in these states during the 3 This publication deals solely with dry edible beans. * See table 8, page 55, which gives United States bean acreage by states, 1914-1926. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION Bul. 444] BEANS two years of 1914 and 1915 amounted to 220,000 acres as compared with an average acreage of 575,000 acres in 1917 and 1918, an increase of 160 per cent. Beans were planted upon land that had never grown beans before, and which will probably never grow them again. Since 1921 bean production in the United States has increased steadily, until at the present time the nation is producing as many Bean Production, United States and California, 1914-1926 U. S. Calif, © (0 iH W>eO O O lO © o § to CM co t- e- «# 10 to O CM fc s CM to CO O o o to C£> <0 to 00 to to t-i CO co o iH r-« GO to to •* to to »H O CO <* 8 o» co to CM 3 to CO 1 to co •H «H 8 O tO tO *♦ to e- «o CO •H 9 »0 o> to ** to CM CM CM »-t CM to 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 « 5000 Jf 4000 g 3000 2000 1000 UN 1 ■ IITED STA TES / \ 1 / / •^•- / \ \ > / / / / CALI FORNI A V \ \ 4 / **». s / / / / < * \ \ t to O o> o fH CM to ^ to to l-t CM CM CM CM CM CM CM o> o> o> o> O o> o> o> Fig. 2. — Bean production in the United States has increased substantially during the past five years. California, however, has contributed a relatively small amount of this increase. Data from table 10. beans as it did during the peak years of the war. This recent expan- sion, however, has taken place under more favorable conditions than did the rapid increase in production during the war period. Occur- ring more gradually and under normal conditions, it has been made upon land which is in general well adapted to the production of beans. Consequently there has been no general decline in yield. This is shown by the fact that production has experienced the same percent- age increase as acreage has. Furthermore, it has been accompanied by a corresponding increase in demand, which seems to be of a per- 10 UNIVEKSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION manent character as contrasted with the temporary increase in demand during the war. 5 These two conditions indicate that on the whole this recent expansion has been a healthy one. During this period farmers have found the growing of beans to be profitable — not as profitable perhaps as they would like, but at least more profitable than the growing of alternative crops. Farmers would not have planted more beans each year for five consecutive years unless it had paid them to do so. 6 It should not be assumed, however, that this expansion can con- tinue indefinitely without a demoralizing effect upon the industry. The United States acreage of beans is even now so large that a very favorable season would undoubtedly result in a supply far in excess of our usual requirements at the present level of prices. California farmers, evidently, have not found beans to be as profit- able compared with other crops as have bean growers in other states. Figure 2 shows that California has contributed a relatively small amount of the total increase in United States production. The large increases in bean production since 1921 have occurred in Michigan, Colorado, and Idaho (fig. 3). Idaho and Colorado have experienced the largest percentage increases in production, but because of their much smaller total production the absolute increases in these two states have been less than that in Michigan. Michigan has contributed almost one-half of the total United States increase since 1921. The production of beans in New Mexico has also increased substantially during this period, but the amount of this increase cannot be measured because production data are available only since 1924. At the present time the normal bean production in Colorado nearly equals the peak production during the war, while the normal production in Michigan s See page 43. 6 The preliminary figures given below indicate that the total bean acreage in the United States was again increased in 1927. Preliminary Estimates of Bean" Acreage by States, 1927 State Acres California 274,000 Michigan 662,000 New York 97,000 Colorado 326,000 New Mexico 214,000 Idaho 75,000 Montana 48,000 Others 53,000 Total United States 1,749,000 Data from California Cooperative Crop Reporting Service, mimeographed release October 11, 1927, except for total United States acreage, which is from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Crop Report of September 1, 1927. Bul. 444] BEANS 11 and Idaho greatly exceeds it. New York is the only one of the important bean-producing states that has experienced a continuous decline in both acreage and production since 1924. Bean Production, Michigan, New York, and Colorado, 1914-1926, and Idaho, 1919-1926 Mich. § to to o> m o iH CM »H fH 3 IO cm 00 tO to o> (O 49 to o> to -<* H © •H CM to CM to 00 8 to 00 r-l to 3 to CM to ' 1 \\ J ' A *1 \\ * • // 1 ! .-' // / COLORADO n\ i li U/- IDAHO st 1 V 1 \ / # «o t- a> O r-t CM CM O O 5* to <0 CM Cvi CM o o» o Fig. 3. — Large increases in bean production since 1921 have occurred in Michigan, Colorado, and Idaho. Michigan alone contributed almost one-half of the total increase in United States production during this period. Data from table 10. 12 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION VARIETIES OF BEANS Importance of Analysis by Varieties. — One cannot proceed very far in an economic analysis of the bean situation before being con- fronted with the problem of varieties. Strictly speaking, there is no one bean situation; instead there are almost as many bean situations as there are bean varieties. Most varieties of beans differ in market Present Relative Importance of the Principal Varieties of California Beans Per cent 5 10 15 20 25 30 Variety Lima 1000 Bags 850 Per cent 31.5 Pink 600 22.2 Baby Lima 400 14.8 Blackeye 360 13.4 Small White 200 7.4 Cranberry 95 3.5 California Red 86 3.2 Red Kidney 35 1.3 Large White 25 .9 Bayo 20 .7 Miscellaneous 30 1.1 Total 2700 100.0 Fig. 4. — Over 80 per cent of California's total bean production is composed of four varieties — Lima, Pink, Baby Lima, and Blackeye — and the Lima alone makes up nearly one-third of the total. Data from table 1. preferences and in climatic requirements and are, therefore, to a considerable extent, distinct commodities. Thus we have a Lima situation, a Pink situation, and a Blackeye situation. An analysis of only the Pink situation would mean very little to Lima Growers, yet Lima growers cannot fully understand their own situation if they leave Pinks entirely out of consideration. The interrelations between most of the varieties, though often not readily apparent, are generally •sufficiently close to affect them materially. This means that an Bul. 444] BEANS 13 adequate study of the California bean industry must consider the important varieties grown in this state together with the competing varieties grown in other states and in foreign countries. Main Varieties Produced in California. — The ten main varieties of beans grown in California are the Lima, Pink, Baby Lima, 7 Blackeye, Small White, Cranberry, California Red, Red Kidney, Large White, 8 and Bayo. The relative importance of these varieties at the present time is shown in figure 4. Over 80 per cent of our present normal Present Normal Production of Beans, United States and California, by Varieties •ariety o.s. Calii 1000 Bags Small White 4100 200 Pinto 1200 Lima 850 850 Great Northern 800 Red Kidney 750 35 Pink 630 600 Baby Lima 400 400 Blackeye 360 360 Large White 360 25 California Red 100 85 Cranberry 95 95 Bayo 25 20 Others 530 30 Total 10200 2700 500 1000 Bags 1000 United State6 California Fig. 5. — California is the dominant factor in the production of seven of the ten important varieties grown in this state. Data from tables 1 and 11. production of 2,700,000 bags is composed of four varieties — Lima, Pink, Baby Lima, and Blackeye — and the Lima alone makes up nearly one-third of the total. California is the dominant factor in the production of seven of these ten varieties — Lima, Pink, Baby Lima, Blackeye, California Red, Cranberry, and Bayo (fig. 5). These seven varieties make up approxi- mately 90 per cent of our total production. Four of the seven varieties in which we predominate — Lima, Baby Lima, Backeye, and Cranberry — are grown on a commercial basis in California only. The other three varieties — Pink, California Red, and Bayo — are grown to 7 Henderson Bush. s Lady Washington. 14 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION a limited extent in some of the other western states ; Pinks and Bayos are grown in Arizona and New Mexico, and Idaho produced California Reds for the first time in 1926. Pinks grown in California, however, meet with more competition than is indicated by the limited production of this variety in Arizona and New Mexico. Pintos, which are grown extensively in Colorado and New Mexico, compete directly with Pinks in the consuming markets. The normal Pinto production at the present time amounts to 1,200,000 bags, which is almost twice the normal production of Pinks. California is a relatively unimportant factor in the production of Small Whites, Red Kidneys, and Large Whites (fig. 5). Although Small White is our fifth most important variety, we produce only 5 per cent of the total United States crop. Michigan dominates the market in the production of this variety, producing over 85 per cent of the entire crop. New York, while not nearly so important as Michigan, produces more Small Whites than California. California likewise produces only 5 per cent of the United States crop of Red Kidneys. In this variety, as in Small Whites, Michigan is the most important state, producing nearly 60 per cent of the total crop of Red Kidneys grown in this country, while New York produces over 33 per cent. In the production of Large Whites, Michigan, New York, and Idaho, in the order named, are the most important states. California produces only 7 per cent of the United States crop of this variety. The Great Northern, which is grown almost entirely in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, competes most directly with the Small and Large Whites. Great Northerns are the fourth most important variety of beans grown in the United States, with a normal production at the present time of 800,000 bags, over twice the normal production of Large Whites. Changes in Production of California Varieties. — The relative changes in the production of the ten important varieties of California beans from 1909 to 1926 are shown in figures 6 and 7. During and immediately following the war, the changes in the production of the varieties for which information is available are somewhat similar. Beginning in 1914 and continuing to 1917 or 1918, the trend of pro- duction was upward. This upward trend is particularly pronounced in those varieties in demand by the army and navy, namely Small and Large Whites, and to some extent Pinks. The downward adjustment after the war reached the low point for most varieties in 1920. A comparison of the present normal production of the several varieties with the pre-war production shows material differences. BuL - 444 1 BEANS 15 The present production of Limas, Large Whites, Small Whites, and Bayos is smaller than during the period from 1909-1914. We are producing only one-fifth as many Large Whites and Bayos, three- fourths as many Limas and four-fifths as many Small Whites as we did before the war. On the other hand, we are producing two and one-half times as many Blackeyes and one and one-half times as many Pinks. We are also producing substantially more Baby Limas, Red Kidneys, California Reds, and Cranberries. 9 Significant changes in the production of Baby Limas, Large Whites, and Bayos have taken place during recent years: the pro- duction of Baby Limas has increased rapidly; the production of Large Whites and Bayos has been greatly reduced. Prior to 1924 Baby Limas were produced almost exclusively in the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County. The high prices of Baby Limas between 1922 and 1925 compared with the prices of most other varieties were largely responsible for its spread into the Lompoc, Santa Maria, Upper San Joaquin, and Sacramento valleys. As a result of this expansion the production of Baby Limas increased from 225,000 bags in 1924 to 575,000 bags in 1926. It is not likely, however, that a similar increase will occur during the next few years. The production in 1926 was sufficiently large to cause a sharp decline in prices. These low prices are not conducive to a further expansion in acreage. This is shown by the fact that the acreage planted in 1927 was one-fourth smaller than in 1926. Not all of this reduction in acreage, however, was a result of the low prices. Many growers who experimented with Baby Limas in 1926 found that they were not adapted to their conditions. The resulting low yield would have prevented satisfactory profits even if prices had been high. Another factor which may tend to check further increases in Baby Lima pro- duction is that Baby Limas are more susceptible to attacks of the pod borer than are other varieties. California farmers have almost discontinued growing Large Whites. Production has declined each year for the past four years; and the decline during the past three years has been very great. This recent decline in production has been due to relatively low prices caused largely by greatly increased competition of Oriental beans and Great Northerns. The trend of Bayo production during recent years has also been downward. In the Delta district in which Bayos are largely grown, 9 Before the war these varieties were included in miscellaneous, as they were not of sufficient importance to justify listing them separately. 16 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Production of Limas, Baby Limas, Small Whites, Large Whites, and Red Kidneys, California, 1909-1926 euuu LI MA - 1000 600 / 400 300 / BABY I .IMA "O 4 ^ mrm y 200 100 *" / 1 s 1000 800 (0 2 600 400 £300 200 O 100 h 80 60 40 30 20 i 10 60 40 30 20 SM> W.L V VHITE-/ // \ i \ / t i\ v ^ / I \ 1 \ A \ \ / *J j \RGE wi- IITE J I V i t / *•»» \ \ i \ w J k \ V \ ^ t \ \ / W i \ / f \ \ \ \ / \ \ 1 i \ V / \ J RED KID NEY ^y ^v / 1 \ / / r \ / g < 5 - • 5 < > 2 > < Y u i! < > c 3 t 5 I c \ I 5 J i i 1 1 5 ; < 3 3 D 2 t * 1 V / \ / ^ r 500 400 300 200 O "oo I 80 60 fe 40 30 / < ^ / \ / s / * E SLAC * \ 1 1 I \ __. f \ 1 f THOUSANDS *» & CD o ^J DO O O O O / \ "^ I / \ y V / \ *r- / CI IANB ERR1 \ / \ / 150 100 60 60 40 30 E JAYO 20 I > c I 2 > i 2 c » < j < 2 - t - 5 < > 5 3 J; > < > < 9 i 5 > c 3 j 5 f ft c S { a C ! ! i ! J 8 Fig. 7. — The production of each of the ten varieties shown in this and figure 6 is characterized by wide fluctuations from year to year. Data from table 1. 18 UNIVEKSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION asparagus has replaced a considerable acreage of beans. This replace- ment is a fairly permanent one, since asparagus fields are not usually planted to other crops for ten years. For the first two years beans are generally grown between the rows of asparagus, but after the crop begins to produce, intercrops are not practicable. TABLE 1 Bean Production in California by Varieties, 1909-1926 (Thousands of 100-pound bags, i.e., 000 omitted) Year Lima Baby Lima Pink Small White Large White Black- eye Bayo Cran- berry Cali- fornia Red Red Kid- ney Miscel- laneous Total 1909 1,150 325 225 300 80 100 100 2,280 1910 1,100 1,200 1,050 250 710 298 250 215 215 150 75 63 100 225 204 75 150 65 100 150 118 2,025 1911 2,725 1912 2,013 1913 925 250 40 115 80 60 75 120 1,665 1914 1,500 500 325 100 150 75 130 125 2,905 1915 1,750 1,600 1,224 650 725 1,200 600 410 900 155 300 610 405 275 300 85 125 125 125 100 150 98 125 200 3,868 1916 3,660 1917 116 135 20 4,980 1918 1,545 134 721 978 618 463 118 103 154 26 290 5,150 1919 725 275 600 675 425 200* 30* 95 50 35 25 3,135 1920 820 255 255 150 30 180 21 30 30 30 15* 1,816 1921 700 120 600 120* 55* 400 50* 60 125 50* 20 2,300 1922 1,200 150 600 325 110 300 25 100 75 60 25 2,970 1923 800 220 625 350 100 275 25 150 50 40 30* 2,665 1924 467 225 250 65 40 250 17* 60 50 20 42* 1,486 1925 790 290 650 200 25 400 13* 65 125 30 26* 2,614 1926 1,250 575 600 200 15 460 25 100 90* 45 45* 3,405 Normal! 850 400 600 200 25 360 20 95 85 35 30 2,700 * Writers' estimate. t Present normal production estimated by inspection of graphs drawn from data. A simple arith- metic average of two or more years could not be used in obtaining a figure representative of the normal production because of wide variations in the data. Sources of data: Years 1909-1919, California Packing Corporation Annuals, 1916 and 1922. Years 1920-1926 compiled by the Standardization Committee of the California Bean Dealers Association, except Lima 1919-1926 and Baby Lima 1924-1926, compiled by the Lima Bean Growers Association. Although Lima production has shown no upward or downward trend during the past few years, it is likely that the future trend will be downward. The heavy plantings of walnut and citrus trees in Ventura and Orange counties in recent years will gradually replace a considerable acreage of Lima beans. 10 In these two counties, and to a more limited extent in Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, and San Diego counties, young walnut orchards are usually intercropped with Limas up to 8 or 10 years of age, and citrus orchards up to 4 or 6 years of 10 In 1927 over 80 per cent of the total Lima acreage in the state was in these two counties. Bul. 444] BEANS 19 age. 11 The combined non-bearing acreage of walnut and citrus trees in Ventura and Orange counties in 1927 amounted to approximately 20,000 acres. 12 That portion of the 20,000 acres which is now inter- cropped with Limas will be permanently out of Lima production within the next ten years. Furthermore, trees have been planted upon the best bean land, so that the effect of this displacement will be even more pronounced upon production than upon acreage. The other varieties — Pinks, Blackeyes, Small Whites, California Reds, and Cranberries — have exhibited no pronounced upward or downward trend in production during the past few years, and prob- ably the future production of these varieties will continue to fluctuate around the present normal production. Factors Causing Wide Fluctuation in Production from Year to Year. — The production of each of these varieties is characterized by wide fluctuations from year to year. These fluctuations in production depend upon the acreage planted and upon the climatic conditions during the growing season. Changes in the acreage of each variety planted are determined by many factors, which vary from section to section and from year to year. Sometimes the majority of them act in the same direciton, resulting in radical increases or decreases in acreage; at other times some act in one direction and some in the opposite direction, thus offsetting the influence of each other, and as a result but little change in the total acreage of the state occurs. The interactions of these factors are so complex that an attempt to measure the influence of each is beyond the scope of this study. It is desirable, however, to discuss briefly the more important factors which influence changes in acreage from year to year. 1. The prices received for each variety of beans during the previous year or two as compared with those of competing crops have an important influence upon the acreage of the different varieties of beans that growers decide to plant. In many of the bean districts much of the land is adapted to the production of other crops. If the prices of these competing crops are high as compared with those of beans some of the land which is normally planted to beans will be planted to these other crops; and conversely, if the prices of the competing crops are low as compared with those of beans, the bean 11 Beans have proved to be a very good intercrop in young orchards. They do not seem to injure the trees, and approximately a full crop can be raised among young trees. Furthermore, the presence of trees is not a great hindrance in handling beans. During the past five years the returns from Limas planted between young trees have paid the full cost of developing many orchards. 12 Kaufman, E. E. California Crop Report for 1926. California Dept. Agr. Spec. Pub. 74:30-31. 1927. 20 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION acreage will be increased. In general it is the prices obtained during the preceding year which have had the most influence upon growers' actions in increasing or decreasing their bean acreage. For example, in 1926 relatively high prices were obtained for Small Whites; consequently many growers increased their acreage of this variety in 1927. On the other hand, the estimated acreage of Baby Limas in 1927 was one-fourth smaller than in 1926. 13 This reduction in Baby Lima acreage was caused largely by the unsatisfactory price obtained for the 1926 crop. Likewise, the decrease of 20 per cent in the bean acreage in the Modesto and Turlock irrigation districts in 1927 was largely due to the relatively low price of Blackeyes in 1926. Sweet potatoes, tomatoes, and grain sorghums replaced a considerable acreage of Blackeyes in these districts. In the Oxnard district of Ventura County, sugar beets replaced several thousand acres of Limas in 1927, because of the low prices of Limas in 1926 and the favorable price outlook for sugar beets. On the other hand, many farmers in the Salinas Valley increased their acreage of beans and reduced their acreage of barley in 1927 because of the low prices of barley the previous year. Eelative price changes do not, of course, cause all farmers to increase or decrease their bean acreage. In the dry-farming districts in the central coast section beans are grown regularly in rotation with grain. Here it is a question of either growing beans or summer- fallowing. As long as the price of beans is sufficient to pay the additional expenses of growing them as compared with summer- fallowing they will continue to be planted. Again, in practically every bean-growing section there is land that is particularly adapted to growing beans. Even at very low prices farmers on this land can grow beans more profitably than other crops. 2. The amount and distribution of the rainfall prior to planting has an important effect upon the acreage that will be planted to beans in the dry-farming sections. In these sections favorable moisture conditions prior to planting tend to increase the acreage ; unfavorable moisture conditions tend to reduce it. The dry year of 1924 is an excellent example of how drastically acreage is reduced when moisture conditions are unfavorable for planting beans. In that year the total bean acreage in California was nearly one-third less than in 1923. Practically every variety was affected, although not in the same degree, as is shown by the drop in production (figs. 6 and 7). The effect upon acreage of moisture conditions prior to planting is well shown in the case of Limas. The acreage of Limas planted in the !3 See table 9, page 56. Bul. 444] BEANS 21 dry-farming sections is almost wholly dependent upon moisture con- ditions and very little affected by price. On much of the dry land in the Lima district it is either a question of planting Limas or leaving the land idle. If moisture conditions are favorable to a relatively high production, a large acreage will be planted even though prices are low. But if the amount and distribution of the rainfall has not been sufficient to produce a crop, the acreage will be greatly reduced even though prices are high. For example, the high prices of Limas in 1924 resulted in only a small increase in Lima acreage in 1925, and this mostly on irrigated land, because the moisture conditions prior to planting in 1925 were almost as unfavorable as in 1924. On the other hand, the low prices of Limas in 1926 did not reduce the acreage planted in 1927 except on irrigated land, because of the favorable moisture conditions at the time of planting. These two factors, relative prices and moisture conditions, are generally the more important ones affecting changes in the bean acreage in California. Other factors are usually present, and in some instances they exert considerable influence, but they are not generally as widespread as the two factors just discussed. In the rich bottom land of the Salinas Valley, for example, the fact that beans can be planted later than most crops is responsible for wide variations in the acreage. In 1927 two large companies were unable to get their land ready in time for lettuce, so they planted beans. The presence of insect pests or disease affecting either beans or the competing crops also causes the acreage of beans to vary. A large company which has been growing sugar beets in the Salinas Valley for years, recently planted all of their land to beans because their sugar beets have been materially injured by insects for the past few years. Again, in certain sections of Stanislaus County, nematode, weavil, and root rot, which affect beans, cause some change in the bean acreage from year to year. Even with the same acreage planted, considerable fluctuations in production occur because of differences in yield due to climatic con- ditions during the growing season. For example, the production of Limas was greatly reduced in 1920 because of the heat wave that prevailed in southern California during the last two weeks of July and the first two or three days of August. 14 On the other hand, the average yield per acre of Limas in 1922 with a very favorable growing season was nearly double that of 1920. The practical significance of the preceding discussion is that growers cannot, at least for the present, forecast accurately at the i* Anonymous. Lima harvesting begun. California Bean Growers Journal 1920. 22 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION time of planting the prices which will prevail for the various varieties of beans after they are harvested. The price for which a given variety will sell is determined largely by the production of that variety and of competing varieties. But the production of each variety during the coming year is an indeterminate factor at planting time. The prices that . growers should consider when increasing or decreasing their acreage of a particular variety or when changing from one variety to another are the normal prices which have pre- vailed over a period of years as modified by any underlying trends which are likely to cause them to change in the future. The price obtained for only the last year 's crop is not a reliable indication of the price which will be obtained for the following year's crop. The most reliable bases for determining what varieties of beans to grow are the normal prices of the different varieties, together with the cost of producing them. Yield per acre is the most important cause for variations in costs. A rough method, therefore, of determining what varieties of beans to grow is to compare the gross returns per acre, by multiplying the normal prices by the average yields. The result can then be modified by additions of any special costs involved in the production of a particular variety. In this connection it should be emphasized that changes from one variety of beans to another should be made slowly and only after tests have demonstrated that the variety in question is well adapted to the locality. MARKETSis AND COMPETITION BETWEEN VARIETIES Beans have the essential characteristics necessary to wide distri- bution. They are non-perishable, easily transported, and in general demand. Consequently beans are a staple commodity in all markets. They can be purchased in practically every grocery store in the country. This wide distribution means that California beans compete directly with similar varieties grown in other states and to a consider- able extent with similar varieties grown in foreign countries. All varieties of beans, however, do not compete directly with every other variety in the consuming market. Most varieties differ in appearance and flavor and have, therefore, their own particular markets. Some varieties are not widely distributed because the demand for them is limited to certain classes of people. is Information on the markets of the various varieties of beans was obtained from: Hendry, G. W., Bean culture in California. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 294:11-35. rev. ed. 1921 (out of print); United States Tariff Commission. Sur- vey of the American bean industry, pp. 15-19. 1920 ; and interviews with various bean dealers throughout the state. B ^L. 444] BEANS 23 The extent of the competition between the different varieties of beans in the consuming markets can be determined by a comparison of their relative price changes. When the prices of two varieties of beans move closely together it is good evidence that consumers substitute one variety for the other ; they constantly tend to buy the lower-priced variety. But if the prices of two varieties stay far apart for any length of time we have reason to believe that the competition between them is not very close. In such cases, while some consumers may buy the lower-priced variety instead of the higher-priced, the substitution is not sufficiently general to bring the prices of the two varieties together. Limas and Baby Limas. — The main market areas for Limas and Baby Limas are still fairly distinct. Limas are consumed mainly in the northern states and Baby Limas in the southern states. Some overlapping of market areas, however, occurs. And in these overlap- ping market areas the two varieties compete directly with each other. Consumers constantly substitute the lower-priced variety for the higher. The substitution in the overlapping areas has been great enough to keep the prices of the two varieties in close adjustment. The close relationship between the monthly prices of Limas and Baby Limas is shown in figure 8. The general movements of the prices of these two varieties are almost identical. On only a few occasions have they been far out of line. The widest differences between the prices of Limas and Baby Limas occurred in 1922-23 and 1926-27. In 1922-23 the price of Baby Limas was 26 per cent above the price of Limas. As compared with the 1921 crop, the 1922 crop of Limas was 72 per cent larger, while the 1922 crop of Baby Limas was only 25 per cent larger. The greatly increased crop of Limas could not all be sold in the usual markets at a price comparable to that obtained for the relatively smaller crop of Baby Limas. Limas were sent to markets that usually took only Baby Limas, but these markets would take them only at a price lower than that paid for Baby Limas. In 1926-27 the opposite situation occurred. In that year the price of Limas was 20 per cent above the price of Baby Limas. As compared with the 1925 crop, the 1926 crop of Limas was 58 per cent larger, but the 1926 crop of Baby Limas was 98 per cent larger. The relatively larger crop of Baby Limas had to seek an outlet in markets unfamiliar with them, and these markets would not buy them except at a discount under Limas. California has a virtual monopoly in the production of Limas and Baby Limas. No other state in the Union produces them on a com- mercial scale. They do not compete to any considerable extent with 24 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION Monthly Prices of Limas and Baby Limas, F.O.B. California, September, 1919-August, 1927 16.00 15.00 14.00 13.00 12.00 11.00 10.00 9.00 4.00 + — V-yLIMA a/--''' / * 1 \ 1 \ A. RARV UMAi t\ 1 1 rv \ ip^. \ n Vs \u V \ \A » r h 1 / L \% V, ji i 1 X \ X \ t \ i i 1 V 1920 1922 ,rop year 1923 1924 Fig. 8. — The close relation between the monthly prices of Limas and Baby Limas indicates that they compete directly in the consuming markets. Data from table 2. the other varieties of beans in the consuming markets. The only- competition that our lima varieties have is from limited imports of Limas from Madagascar. Pinks. — The Pink bean is widely distributed. The principal markets, however, are in the southwestern states and Cuba. The Mexican population, which is relatively large in these areas, demands a low-priced colored bean. The competition from Pinks grown in other states is small. Approximately 95 per cent of the United States normal production of 630,000 bags is produced in California. The remainder is produced in Arizona and New Mexico. Pintos, which are grown in Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming, are the chief competitors of California Pinks. The prices of these two varieties generally move together. If there is an unusually small or large crop of either one, however, prices get out of line. In 1924, for example, Pinks sold for considerably more than Pintos. In that year the pro- duction of Pinks was small, while the production of Pintos was approximately normal. There were evidently enough markets that preferred Pinks to absorb a small crop even though they had to pay more for them. Bul. 444] BEANS 25 TABLE 2 Monthly Prices of Limas and Baby Limas, F.O.B. California, September, 1919-August, 1927 (Dollars per bag) Limas Crop year Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. 1919-1920 12.22 13.90 13.97 13.50 12.75 11.50 10.38 10.30 10.46 11.00 11.43 10.96 1920-1921 9.11 6.78 6.75 5.88 5.85 5.92 5.81 5.53 5.52 5.49 5.28 5.41 1921-1922 5.84 5.72 6.00 6.42 6.53 7.90 8.92 9.06 9.05 9.20 9.00 7.88 1922-1923 5.58 7.03 7.73 8.43 8.72 8.83 8.81 8.79 7.54 7.43 7.33 7.51 1923-1924 8.34 8.33 9.36 9.33 9.89 10.66 11.46 11.81 11.54 11.59 11.72 11.97 1924-1925 12.45 13.54 12.98 12.90 13.35 13.96 14.23 14.37 14.42 14.70 14.92 14.81 1925-1926 14.63 12.39 10.82 10.18 10.62 10.41 10.06 8.98 7.56 7.79 7.80 7.44 1926-1927 7.00 6.87 6.42 5.93 6.06 5.99 5.95 5.95 5.86 5.70 5.70 5.75 Baby Limas Crop year Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. 1919-1920 10.81 12.40 12.40 12.30 12.82 12.86 10.00 10.00 10.40 10.90 11.42 10.96 1920-1921 8.87 6.52 6.36 5.45 5.50 5.56 5.39 5.05 4.80 4.61 4.27 4.37 1921-1922 4.99 5.14 5.68 6.45 6.50 7.57 8.92 9.06 9.11 9.23 9.11 8.08 1922-1923 6.03 7.84 9.15 10.73 10.88 10.96 10.82 10.83 10.45 10.50 10.50 10.22 1923-1924 9.37 8.73 10.53 10.07 10.29 10.82 11.50 11.62 11.17 10.68 10.65 10.79 1924-1925 11.22 12.54 12.25 12.04 12.47 13.07 13.05 13.07 13.17 13.28 13.38 13.38 1925-1926 13.38 10.95 10.41 10.07 10.54 10.32 9.66 8.78 7.56 7.86 7.70 7.28 1926-1927 6.72 6.24 5.33 4.94 4.92 4.37 4.31 4.38 4.87 5.08 5.35 5.35 Sources of data: Compiled from the weekly quotations for rail shipments, f.o.b. California, published in the weekly issues of the California Fruit News. The rapid increase in Pinto production during recent years has meant that Pinks have been subjected to more and more competition in the consuming markets. At the present time the normal production of Pintos amounts to 1,200,000 bags. This is almost twice the normal production of Pinks. Blackeyes. — The principal markets for Blackeyes are in the southern states. The negro population prefers Blackeyes to all other varieties. Limited quantities of Blackeyes are also exported to Cuba and Porto Rico. The only competitors of Blackeyes from California are the small quantity of Blackeyes grown in the southern states for local consumption 16 and a limited quantity imported from Mexico. Small Whites and Large Whites. — Small and Large Whites are widely distributed throughout the United States. The American housewife generally prefers the white to the colored varieties. There is an important difference, however, between the utilization of Small i6 United States Tariff Commission. 18. 1920. Survey of the American bean industry. 26 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION and Large Whites which has had a considerable effect upon the prices paid for them during recent years. Canning furnishes an outlet for a large volume of Small Whites. This variety is the principal bean canned. Large Whites cannot be canned because they disintegrate rapidly in cooking. In 1925 the total United States pack of canned beans amounted to nearly sixteen and a half million cases as compared with eleven million cases in 1919, an increase of approximately 50 per cent. This rapid increase in the demand for canned beans has been an important cause of the higher prices obtained for Small Whites as compared with Large Whites since 1922. Between 1909 and 1922 the prices of Small and Large Whites moved very closely together (fig. 10, p. 29). But beginning in 1923 and continuing to the present time the prices of Small Whites have been from seventy-five cents to a dollar per bag higher than those of Large Whites. Small Whites compete with Large Whites only in the dry-bean markets. The rapid increase in the utilization of Small Whites in canning has taken a relatively large volume of Small Whites off the dry -bean market. Those remaining find a market that is willing to pay a premium for them over Large Whites. In addition to the increased use of Small Whites in canning, two other factors have contributed to the lower prices received for Large Whites. (1) a considerable quantity of Large White beans have been imported from the Orient during recent years. 17 These beans are hand picked and of excellent quality. This Oriental Large White bean has been sold at prices considerably lower than those obtained for Small Whites. (2) The Great Northern, which is grown in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado, competes closely with the Large and Small Whites. The production of this variety has been increasing rapidly, and for the past two years it has been selling at approximately the same price as Large Whites. Cranberries. — The market for Cranberries is practically confined to the mining districts of the eastern states. Since the beginning of the war it has replaced a similar variety imported from Austria. Cranberries grown in California meet with practically no competition in this market. Only a very small amount of Cranberries are pro- duced in other states, and other varieties of beans are not substituted for Cranberries to any considerable extent. California Reds. — The principal domestic markets for California Reds are in the southwestern states. A considerable proportion of the California Reds are exported to the West Indies, mainly to Cuba. Up 7 See page 49. Bul. 444] BEANS 27 to 1926 California had practically no competition in the production of this variety, but in that year Idaho produced a considerable volume of California Reds. Red Kidneys. — As with Small Whites, canning provides an outlet for a considerable proportion of the Red Kidney production. Red Kidneys are used extensively in the manufacture of chile con carne. The bulk of the Red Kidneys produced in this state are exported to Cuba and Porto Rico, where they are considered somewhat of a delicacy. When the Michigan and New York crops are short, however, they are sent to the eastern markets. Bayos. — The Bayo market is practically limited to the lumber and mining camps on the Pacific Coast. The market for Bayos is, there- fore, relatively small. The production of a few thousand bags above normal results in a material decline in prices. But, on the other hand, if the production is below normal, prices rise rapidly because this market prefers Bayos to all other varieties. California Bayos meet with but little competition either from Bayos produced in other states or in foreign countries or from other varieties of beans. PRICES AND PURCHASING POWER In order to determine whether the returns from the sale of beans are high or low as compared with the things the bean grower must buy, it is necessary to convert money prices to purchasing power. The best index available at present for doing this is the Bureau of Labor Statistics index of wholesale prices given in the last column of table 3. The figure obtained by deflating the price of beans by the correspond- ing index number indicates the value of beans in exchange for all commodities at wholesale prices compared with the pre-war exchange values. The annual average purchasing power of the ten varieties of beans grown in California from 1909 to 1926 is shown in figures 9 and 10. Although these curves exhibit some similarities, the differences are even more striking. The most noticeable similarities are between Limas and Baby Limas which are directly competitive in the consuming markets, as are also Small Whites and Large Whites. The purchasing power of Small Whites and Large Whites experi- enced the largest increase as a result of the war. These two varieties were in great demand by the army and navy. The demand for the other California varieties was much less affected by the war. The fairly high purchasing power of Limas and Pinks, together with the fact that the production of them was large, Annual Average Purchasing Power of Limas, Baby Limas, Red Kidneys, Cranberries, and Bayos, F.O.B. California, 1909-1926 The purchasing power is measured in terms of the average purchasing power of the dollar in 1910-1914. DOLLARS CROP YEAR Fig. 9. — The purchasing power of each variety fluctuated widely from year to year and to a considerable extent independently of the fluctuations in the purchasing power of other varieties. Data from table 8. Annual Average Purchasing Power of Small Whites, Large Whites, Blackeyes, Pinks, and California Eeds, F.O.B. California, 1909-1926 The purchasing power is measured in terms of the average purchasing power of the dollar in 1910-1914. DOLLARS. PER BAG 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 1 [ I 1 SMALL WHITE 7.00 6.00 5.00 LARGE WH TE y k. 4.00 3.00 \ / \ \ ( 7.00 600 I \ I \ 5.00 B LACK EYE A \ 4.00 3-00 ■ . / -\ \ z. N 6.00 5.00 P NK 7 V 400 ^S f A ^ 3.00 —V ->-*.■*» ^ 1 1 1 1 CALIFORNIA RED 5.00 4.00 / V / \ / f \ ■ 3.00 n , - r . i — r=H — : — , — 7 — r^^, — , | T - j - Y — d r ^ =) o> o § 55 8 a Rj 8 a a 8 0> o> CROP YEAR Fig. 10. — An important cause of the wide fluctuations in purchasing power from year to year is changes in production. Data from table 3. 30 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 3 Average Purchasing Power of California Beans by Varieties, F.O.B. California, 1909-1926 (Dollars per 100-pound bags; 1910-1914 base) Crop year Sept. to Aug. Lima Baby Lima Pink Small White Large White Black- eye Bayo Cran- berry Cali- fornia Red Red Kidney • All- com- modity index 1909 3.85 4.50 4.30 3.45 4.45 5.20 4.30 6.05 4.85 104 1910 5.75 5.50 5.20 5.75 5.10 4.20 6.35 6.58 4.65 5.35 3.30 3.60 3.80 3.95 4.30 5.20 4.20 3.05 3.75 4.25 4.85 5.30 4.85 5.80 7.25 6.35 3.90 3.70 4.15 4.35 3.95 4.70 5.60 7.05 6.25 3.65 6.15 3.90 3.25 5.45 5.20 3.20 4.10 4.25 2.35 4.95 3.60 3.40 5.50 4.90 4.70 4.95 4.55 3.30 4.15 4.25 4.65 4.95 4.65 4.55 5.40 6.10 3.50 5.40 4.35 4.00 5.15 5.35 4.70 5.15 4.55 2.85 5.85 4.90 3.95 4.70 5.20 5.65 6.60 6.45 5.70 95 1911 98 1912 102 1913 101 1914 101 1915 117 1916 165 1917 192 1918 4.00 206 1919 5.00 4.85 2.75 2.65 2.70 3.05 4.15 2.95 3.35 5.40 235 1920 3.55 3.25 3.50 2.35 2.45 3.75 5.50 3.75 4.20 5.60 171 1921 5.15 5.10 3.60 3.90 4.05 3.10 3.70 4.85 3.15 5.00 147 1922 5.00 6.30 3.20 4.05 4.10 3.05 4.25 4.50 3.20 4.60 157 1923 6.90 6.90 3.20 4.10 3.50 4.45 4.10 3.70 3.75 4.90 152 1924 9.50 8.75 5.15 5.05 4.15 6.60 5.15 5.05 5.30 6.95 146 1925 6.30 6.10 3.55 3.85 3.35 3.65 7.05 4.80 3.30 6.35 157 1926 4.10 3.40 3.30 4.20 2.90 2.65 4.60 4.35 3.35 5.85 150 Sources of data: Prices given in table 13 deflated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics all-commodity index converted to 1910-1914 base. This index, which is given in the last column in table 3, is compiled from the monthly index numbers of all commodities published in U. S. Bur. of Agr. Econ. Index Numbers of Farm Prices (mimeo.), pp. 57-63; June, 1927; and in The Agricultural Situation 11(9) :8. 1927. indicates that they were substituted for whites to some extent. The purchasing power of Cranberries was high, primarily because the imports of a similar variety of beans from Austria, which competed directly with the Cranberry in the eastern mining districts, was cut off. 18 The relatively high purchasing power of Red Kidneys was largely due to the crop shortage in Michigan, the principal state in the production of Red Kidneys (see fig. 3). The purchasing power of the other three varieties — Bayos, California Reds, and Blackeyes — was not higher during the war, and in the case of Blackeyes the purchas- ing power was even lower. Every variety experienced a decline in purchasing power after the war, although not to the same degree. In general the varieties that experienced the greatest rise in purchasing power during the war also experienced the greatest decline after the war. Red Kidneys, the production of which had not been expanded is United States Tariff Commission. Survey of the American bean industry. p. 18. 1920. B ^L. 444] BEANS 31 during the war and which enter into a special class of trade, were only slightly affected by the general decline in the purchasing power of the other varieties. On the other hand, Small Whites and Large Whites experienced a continuous and drastic drop in purchasing power which did not stop until 1922. Three factors contributed to this great decline: (1) overexpansion during the war, (2) greatly increased imports, principally from the Orient, and (3) decline in domestic demand. Factors Affecting Changes in Purchasing Power. — One of the most significant points illustrated in figures 9 and 10 is the wide differences in the movements of the purchasing power of most of the varieties. There is very little similarity between the changes from year to year in the purchasing power of Limas, Whites, Pinks, Blackeyes, Cran- berries, California Reds, and Bayos. These varieties are distinct in appearance and flavor and are, therefore, practically non-competitive in the consuming markets. The changes in the purchasing power of each variety are determined by the changes in the demand and supply of that variety, largely irrespective of the changes in the demand and supply of the other varieties. The close relationship between the purchasing power and pro- duction of Blackeyes is shown in figure 11. Throughout the entire 18-year period from 1909 to 1926, with the exception of two years, the purchasing power varied inversely with the production. High production was accompanied by low purchasing power; low pro- duction, by high purchasing power. This relationship is not perfect, however, showing that other factors besides production affect prices. One of these factors is carryover. 19 In 1922 the production of Blackeyes was one-fourth smaller than in 1921, but despite this fact the purchasing power of Blackeyes stayed at approximately the same level. The chief reason why purchasing power did not increase in 1922 was that there was a very large carry- over from the previous year. On the other hand, in 1923 and 1924 the increase in purchasing power was considerably greater than the decrease in production. The carryover into 1923 and 1924, however, amounted to only 14,000 bags and 4,400 bags respectively, as com- pared with 37,000 bags into 1922. The large carryover of the 1925 crop, which amounted to 44,000 bags, also affected materially the prices obtained in 1926. The purchasing power in 1926 was 27 per cent lower than in 1925, although production increased only 15 per cent. 19 The amount of each variety carried over in California for the years 1921- 1926 is given in table 13, page 60. 32 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION The relationship between purchasing power and production and carryover, which has just been discussed in the case of Blackeyes, holds generally true for each of the other varieties. For those varieties which are produced mainly in California and for which fairly good data on production and carryover are available, it was found that on the average 85 per cent of the variations in purchasing power between Production and Purchasing Power of Blackeye Beans, California, 1910-1926 8 | S § S § ? 8 S § g 8 § ? g 8 8 f< CM CM '"♦'tfCMtO^CMrH-tfCOCMCM^I,* Production CM o 1000 bags Purchasing Power J5 per bag «o O O O lO tO to 100(010 CM CM r-i CM tO O C*- r-l O L 03 K CiTi \ i -»■ i RCH/ I SIN / \ u 6#0 ° e °* 4 00 \ / \ pm ■ "V r \ ^ % no ^ s / \ / \ / \ ">M / \ \ 2. no \ / r-* e-l o> o> O r-t CM CM tO T* CM CM 0> to <£ CM CM O O) Fig. 11. — There is a very close inverse relation between the purchasing power and production of Blackeye beans. High production is accompanied by low purchasing power; low production by high purchasing power. Data from tables 1 and 3. 1921 and 1926 were explained by these two factors; that production alone explained 72 per cent and carryover alone, 13 per cent. It was also found that a large carryover depressed purchasing power more than an equivalent amount of new production. In the case of Black- eyes, for example, a 40,000 bag carryover had as much influence in depressing purchasing power as an 80,000 bag increase in production. The reason for the greater influence of carryover seems to be a result BUL. 444] BEANS 33 of the psychological attitude of the trade. When the previous year's crop has been sold factors in the trade are generally optimistic as to the future. Buying and selling usually proceed briskly, and conse- quently the beans move into consumption fairly rapidly. But if a relatively large part of the previous year's crop is yet unsold when the new crop begins to come in, the trade buys more slowly, and the consequent slackening of demand tends to reduce prices. A comparison of the curves on production in figures 6 and 7 with the corresponding curves on purchasing power in figures 9 and 10 shows a much closer relationship for some varieties than for others. Changes in the California production of those varieties that are pro- duced largely in other states have but little effect upon the changes in purchasing power. In the case of Small Whites, for example, there is no consistent relationship between California production and pur- chasing power, because we produce only 5 per cent of the total United States production of Small Whites and are, therefore, a relatively unimportant factor. On the other hand, there is a very close inverse relationship between the total United States production and the purchasing power of our Small Whites. This illustration serves to emphasize the fact that in the case of a commodity which is widely distributed, as beans are, it is the total United States production and to some extent the total world production of the variety in question and not the production in a particular state that exerts the pre- dominate influence upon prices. The effect of increased production, resulting from the extension of bean production to other states, upon purchasing power is well shown in the case of California Reds in 1926. Prior to 1926 the pro- duction of California Reds was confined to California. Consequently the purchasing power of California Reds varied inversely with the production in this state. With Idaho producing California Reds in 1926, the situation was changed. California production that year was 28 per cent smaller than in 1925 but the purchasing power increased only slightly, because Idaho produced nearly enough to offset the decline in California production. From now on it is evident that the producers of California Reds in this state must give attention to the production of this variety in Idaho. Another important factor which prevents purchasing power from varying inversely with production is changes in demand, the effect of which is particularly well shown in the case of Small and Large Whites and Pinks during and immediately after the war. During the war the demand for these varieties increased so rapidly that the very large crops in 1916 and 1917 sold for a great deal more per bag than 34 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION the much smaller crops in 1913 and 1914. On the other hand, the very great decrease in the demand for these varieties after the war resulted in a very material decline in purchasing power per bag, despite the fact that the production of these varieties was much smaller. Representative Prices of Important Varieties of California Beans During the Period 1921-1926 Variety Lima Baby Lima Red Kidney Cranberry Bayo Small TOiite Large White Pink California Red 5.15 Blackeye 5,15 Price $8.40 8.15 8.15 6.85 6.85 6.10 5.25 5.15 Dollars per bag 2 3 4 5 Fig. 12. — The differences in the lengths of the bars show the normal price differentials between the various varieties of beans since 1920. Data compiled from table 14. 20 Recent Trends in Purchasing Power. — An examination of figures 9 and 10 shows that there has been no general upward or downward trend in the purchasing power of any of the varieties throughout the ffl Kepresentative prices were obtained as follows : Average prices for Limas, Ked Kidneys, Small Whites, Blackeyes, Pinks, and California Eeds are for the five years of 1921, 1922, 1923, 1925, and 1926. Prices for the 1924 crop were omitted from the averages of these varieties because they were abnormally high on account of the short crop which was caused by the exceptionally dry year. The 1924 prices of Bayos and Cranberries, however, were nearly normal as they are practically all produced on irrigated land. Consequently the 1924 price was included in the average of these two varieties. The 1925 price on Bayos was omitted from the average because it was decidedly out of line. The prices of all varieties except Bayos were substantially lower in 1925 than in 1924, but the price of Bayos was $3.45 higher in 1925 than in 1924. Baby Lima prices have averaged 25 cents under the price of Limas. Large White prices have averaged 85 cents under Small White prices during the three years of 1923, 1925, and 1926. Prior to 1922 the prices of Large Whites and Small Whites averaged the same, but since 1922 a permanent differential has existed between these two varieties. ... Bul. 444] BEANS 35 period since the recovery following the war. Instead, the purchasing power of the different varieties has tended to fluctuate about a given level. The fluctuations were due to the factors discussed on pages 31-34. Growers have been concerned about the rapid and continuous fall in the prices of nearly every variety during the past two years. In some cases this has lead to undue pessimism as to the future, just as the high prices in 1924 lead to undue optimism. Instead of judging the future on the basis of the prices which prevailed during the previous year, growers should consider the representative prices which have prevailed over a period of years, together with any underlying factors which may cause them to change. Representative Prices During Recent Years. — Figure 12 shows these representative prices for various varieties of California beans. These varieties fall into three well defined price groups: the high- priced varieties are Limas, Baby Limas, and Red Kidneys; the medium-priced varieties are Cranberries and Bayos; and the low- priced varieties are Large Whites, Pinks, California Reds, and Black- eyes. Small Whites fall between the medium-priced and the low- priced groups. What are the causes of the price differentials between these groups ? Why have the representative prices of certain varieties tended to to remain the same ? What are the probabilities that the varieties will continue to remain in the same relative position which they now occupy ? In general the relationship between the representative prices of these varieties has been due to two factors: competition in the con- suming markets and competition for the use of land. A rough idea of the extent of the competition between the several varieties for the use of land can be obtained from figure 13, which shows the main producing districts of the varieties grown in Cali- fornia. Each variety has its own particular producing section in which it can be produced better than the other variety. But each variety also competes to some extent for the use of land with one or more of the other varieties. A considerable proportion of the bean land in the state is adapted to the production of more than one variety. 21 The variety which will be grown is largely determined by the anticipated net returns per acre. On this land, equality in the net return per acre is maintained between the different varieties that can be grown on it, by the constant tendency of growers to shift from 21 Por a detailed discussion of the climatic and soil requirements of the varieties of beans grown in California see Hendry, G. W. Bean culture in California. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 294:9-39; rev. ed. 1921 (out of print). Main Bean-producing Sections in California LIMA Fig. 13. — Although each variety has its own particular producing section in which it can be produced better than the other varieties, a considerable proportion of the bean land in the state is adapted to the production of more than one variety. Bul. 444] BEANS 37 the varieties which have given low returns to the varieties which have given high returns. Since prices and yields per acre are the most important factors determining net returns, we find that in general the varieties which have averaged the same in prices have approxi- mately the same yields per acre ; and the differences in average prices are caused largely by differences in yields per acre. In the low-priced group the prices of Blackeyes, California Reds, Pinks, and Large Whites have averaged approximately the same during recent years (fig. 12). During any given year the prices of the varieties may be widely different because there is but little com- petition between them in the consuming markets. However, they do compete more or less for the use of land, and it is this force which causes the prices of them to constantly approach the same level. With some varieties the competition for the use of land is much closer than with others. In certain sections of the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys, Blackeyes and California Reds can be grown almost equally well ; in other sections California Reds and Pinks yield approximately the same. There is very little direct competition between Blackeyes and Pinks for the use of land, but the indirect competition is consider- able because each competes directly with California Reds. Large Whites are grown in the same localities that produce Pinks and California Reds. On most of this land, however, the Large White is less productive than the Pink or California Red. With the Large White bringing no higher prices during the past few years than the Pink or California Red, it has not been able to compete with these varieties. Consequently it has been going out of production very rapidly. The prices of Small Whites have averaged approximately $1.00 a bag more than the prices of Large Whites, Pinks, California Reds, and Blackeyes. Small Whites still compete to some extent with Large Whites in the consuming market, but this competition is not nearly so close as it was before 1922. During the past four years a differential in favor of Small Whites has been established in the consuming markets. In certain sections of the central coast district, Small Whites and Pinks compete for the use of land. With the price differential of approximately $1.00 a bag in favor of Small Whites, why is it that Small Whites have not entirely replaced Pinks in this area? The reason they have not is that on much of the land where these two varieties can be grown, Pinks produce a larger yield; and this increased yield of Pinks just about offsets the higher price of Small Whites, so that the net return per acre tends to be the same. 38 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION Bayos and Cranberries occupy the medium-priced group, which has a differential in its favor of $1.70 a bag over the low-priced group. The area along the Sacramento River from Antioch to Sacramento is common to the production of both varieties. In this district these two varieties produce approximately the same yield, and consequently their prices tend to approach the same level. Pinks are also widely grown in this area, even though their price has averaged considerably lower. Bayos and Cranberries, however, have not replaced Pinks, because the higher yields on Pinks have offset the higher prices of Bayos and Cranberries, resulting in equality in the net return per acre. The center of Red Kidney production in California is along the Feather River north of Marysville. This variety has a relatively short growing period and is, therefore, adapted to the overflow lands which must be planted later in the summer. Red Kidneys, however, are sometimes grown on land which is also adapted to the production of Cranberries, Bayos, and Pinks. Although the price of Red Kidneys has averaged $3.00 a bag more than Pinks and $1.30 a bag more than Cranberries and Bayos, it has not replaced these varieties, because the average yield of Red Kidneys on this land is very much lower than the average yield of Pinks and considerably lower than the average yield of Cranberries and Bayos. Limas and Baby Limas have also occupied the high-priced group with Red Kidneys. There has been little relation between Red Kidneys and the lima varieties, however, either in the consuming markets or in the producing section. The price of Red Kidneys is largely determined by the production in Michigan and New York. California production of Red Kidneys, being but a small percentage of the total United States production, has little effect upon the price. The position which Limas and Baby Limas have occupied in the high-priced group has been largely due to the fact that the land adapted to their production was believed to be limited. In the case of Limas this is still true. Lima production is restricted to a narrow area along the coast of southern California. The area adapted to the production of Baby Limas, however, is not as limited as it was formerly believed. Until three years ago the main .center of Baby Lima production was in the San Fernando Valley. Since then pro- duction has been extended to many of the important bean-producing districts in the state. On a considerable proportion of the land in these districts it was found that the yields of Baby Limas were sufficiently large so that with the relatively high prices which had prevailed it was more profitable to grow them than the varieties which Bul. 444] BEANS 39 they had been growing. Consequently the acreage of Baby Limas, which had remained relatively stable at about 20,000 acres prior to 1925, was increased to 25,000 in 1925 and to 45,000 acres in 1926. The large increase in production which resulted from this rapid expansion caused a substantial reduction in prices. In 1926 the price of Baby Limas was only slightly higher than the prices obtained for the varieties with which they compete for the use of land. With the relatively low prices of Baby Limas it was evidently not profitable to produce them on a considerable proportion of the land upon which they had been grown in 1926. Consequently the acreage planted to Baby Limas in 1927 was 25 per cent smaller. Probable Future Price Differentials. — The available evidence indi- cates that on the average the future price differentials between Pinks, California Reds, Blackeyes, Large Whites, Small Whites, Cranberries, Bayos, and Red Kidneys will not depart very materially from those given in figure 12. On the other hand it is likely that the average prices of Baby Limas and Limas in the future will be relatively lower than they have during the past six years. The competition for the use of land which has been manifested, particularly since 1924, between Baby Limas and Small Whites, Pinks, California Reds, and Blackeyes will tend to keep the future average price of Baby Limas closer to that of these other varieties than it has been during the past six years. On the other hand it is not likely that the future price of Baby Limas will average as low as that of the low- priced varieties. In general it may be expected that the average price of Baby Limas will be maintained at a level which will offset the differences in yield between them and the varieties with which they compete for the use of land. It is not likely that the prices of Limas will vary more from the prices of Baby Limas in the future than they have in the past. Unless a permanent differential between Limas and Baby Limas is estab- lished in the consuming markets, therefore the future prices of these varieties will fluctuate close together. Briefly the situation is this: Baby Limas compete with the low- priced varieties for the use of land; and Baby Limas compete with Limas in the consuming markets. The competition for the use of land will tend to keep the future prices of Baby Limas close to the prices of the low-priced varieties, and the competition in the con- suming markets will tend to keep the future prices of Limas close to the prices of Baby Limas. Seasonal Variation in Prices. — It is a familiar fact that the prices of beans fluctuate widely during the year and that the high prices 40 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION are frequently twice as much as the low prices. Growers are con- stantly confronted with the question, "When is the best time of the year to sell beans ? ' ' Are the prices of Pinks, for example, normally higher or lower in October or March than in the other months of the year ? In general, taking one year with another they are not. There is no definite seasonal variation in the prices of any of the varieties of beans that tend to be repeated year after year. There seems to be no inherent forces in the seasons of the year that tend to produce periodic changes of the seasonal type in the prices of beans. There is, however, a small gradual advance in the price of each variety during the season. But on the average this advance is not more than sufficient to pay the costs connected with holding the product. In addition to the costs of storage, insurance, and interest, the advance in price must generally be sufficient to cover the costs of bearing the risks incident to unforeseen changes in price such as might arise from unexpected imports of competing varieties or sudden changes in demand. Although in the past the price of each variety of beans have averaged nearly as high the first of the season as later, it should not be assumed that this condition would continue if all of the growers sold their crop immediately after harvesting. Under the present system of distribution, in which both the wholesale and retail trade buy in small lots, it is necessary that an orderly marketing policy be followed by the growers. If supplies are forced on the market faster than they are wanted by the distributing trade, unduly low prices are likely to result. With certain varieties there has been a fairly close relation between the size of the crop and the price movement during the season. 22 Backeyes and California Reds have exhibited this relation most strikingly. On the average, when the production of these varieties has been small, prices have advanced during the season, and conversely, when the production has been large, prices have declined during the season. This is largely because the trade generally over- estimates a small crop and under-estimates a large crop. It should be emphasized that the force causing prices to behave in this way is not necessarily a permanent one. As the methods of estimating the production of the different varieties are improved the relationship between the size of the crop and the price movement during the 22 An analysis of this relation was made for each of the following varieties: Limas, Blackeyes, California Reds, Bayos, and Cranberries. Small Whites, Large Whites, and Red Kidneys were not included because of the relatively small amount produced in California and because data on the United States production were available only since 1921, a period too short for analysis. Pinks were also excluded because of the close competition between them and Pintos. Bul. 444] BEANS 41 season will become less pronounced. The price movements of Limas and Cranberries, for example, are but slightly affected by the size of the crop. The chief reason seems to be that the area producing these varieties is relatively compact, thus making it easier to ascertain the actual production. This is particularly true of Cranberries, the pro- duction of which is practically confined to a small area in the Delta district. The greater difficulty in the estimation of Lima production, which is caused by the larger area and more scattered acreage, is largely offset by the fact that one organization, the California Lima Bean Growers Association, is the dominant factor in the Lima deal, and this organization pays particular attention to the collection of reliable information on production. The foregoing discussion helps to bring out the fact that more careful estimates of production are needed, and that they are needed immediately after the crop is harvested. The need for early and exact information on the size of the crop is also shown by the fact that the most violent fluctuations in prices generally occur during the first quarter of the crop year. Uncertainty regarding the volume of each variety produced is the main cause for the wider fluctuations. As the season advances all of the factors in the trade obtain a more accurate knowledge of the actual production. CONSUMPTION The average consumption of beans in the United States during the past three years amounted to approximately ten million bags annually, which is equivalent to 8.7 pounds for every person in the country. Since 1921 the per-capita consumption of beans has been increasing rapidly (fig. 14). It does not seem likely, however, that this upward trend will continue to rise as rapidly during the next few years as it has in the past four years because the point from which it started was abnormally low. The low per-capita consumption in 1920 and 1921 was largely a result of the temporary refusal of many people, par- ticularly ex-service men, to eat beans. Beans had formed so large a part of their diet during the war that they had tired of them, and it was several years before they again ate as many beans as they had eaten before the war. In addition to the return to normal consumption, a part of the recent increase was a result of the increased use of canned beans. To a considerable extent, of course, this meant merely the replacement of dry beans by canned beans ; but it also seems to have resulted in the purchase of more beans, since the present per-capita consumption is approximately one pound greater per year than before the war. 42 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION The increasing consumption of canned beans may be expected to continue, because the trend in the buying habits of the American housewife is toward the purchase of quickly prepared foods. To what extent this will mean an increase in the total consumption of beans is not certain. On the whole it does not seem likely that the total consumption during the next few years will rise much above the present level unless prices are reduced. Estimated Per-Capita Consumption of Beans, United States, 1914-1925 10 $ •A I ° 6 & Pi w r Year Beginning July Fig. 14. — The per-capita consumption of beans in the United States has increased rapidly since 1921, and is now larger than before the war. Data obtained by adding general imports and subtracting domestic and foreign exports and shipments to Porto Rico from the United States production. The result- ing figure for each year was then divided by the population of the United States for the coresponding year. UNITED STATES FOREIGN TRADE IN BEANS The United States has maintained a considerable export and import trade in beans. The direction and volume of this trade has varied widely during the past two decades. Exports. — The relative changes in our domestic exports of beans during the past seventeen years are shown in figure 15. Prior to the war our exports were fairly stable, averaging around 205,000 bags annually. Approximately 85 per cent of our exports were shipped to North American markets, mainly to Cuba, Central America, and Canada. Nearly one-half of the remainder was shipped to South Bul. 444] BEANS 43 America. The very rapid increase in our exports between 1914 and 1916 was chiefly a result of the increased European demand caused by the World War. During the fiscal year of 1916-17 almost 50 per cent of our total exports were sent to Europe as compared with 4 per cent before the war. In addition our exports to Cuba and Canada increased Domestic Exports of Beans, United States, 1909-1926 O o CO t- o> <0 CM r-l to t- U> <* CO to <0 CD in CM CM 1-i t» o CM o> <* CM CM O CO <* ^ to CM to 2000 1000 900 DC >ME« iTIC e; cpof tTS 800 700 S 60 ° ^ 500 S 300 1 200 100 j / / / S. A •" \ \ / > } o o ri CM o r\ rH •H o> Oi Oi 0> lO Oi tO «# CM CM O Oi Year Beginning July Calendar Year Fig. 15. — The United States is rapidly losing the foreign market which had been acquired as a result of the war. Data from table 4. substantially. Cuban imports from Europe, which had been cut off by the war, were largely replaced by increased shipments from the United States. Increased Canadian demand for beans was a direct result of the war. The decline in our exports during the fiscal year 1917-18 was caused by the increased demand for beans in this country to feed our own military forces. 44 UNIVEESITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION ffl bJO o & H «H r/j O 3 03 O d Q 02 02 E-i o ,d 3 H H •^s W CO 1 oo CM m © CO '""' "5 _ » (O N * OO N N H T» H OS CM ce O CO CM a> © CI cm CM *" ' -<* CO O N O M MO CM OJ * CM CO 52 ~r 00 H (N © OS CO CO CO "■"' CO o H (S 91 (O M (N CM t"- CO rH © CM C] CO CM i-H CM m o> TH CO -^ M s CO >> CM CI OO N O W O) 115 N N OS N CM o3 cm OS CO h IM t-~ 00 o> CO CO Tj< ^2 "* ION* OO N h H Ol Ol M © e3 O cm CI -HH CM 1-H CM <=> -C* OS CO m CM 00 o CM © «* Ml* ©NO OO ■* CM N CM © o CM 1-H 1-H CM CM -# m CO »n ■<*< CO r* © t^ n o e h » io *0 © "># 1H n o O H to N (N CO n © T* 00 CM rH '" H CM oo © ■* H w OO 19 * M NOOMrt 00 02 »-H T* CM CO CO CO CO © ** 1-1 1-1 t^. oo ■* Tt< -l CO OO Oi « -* CO © 1—1 CO 02 ca o in w w a n O O) N H © t~- — 1 CM CO t-I r-H HO © CC CM CO CO CM •"• m oc in oo oo * co n oo m (o a © t~- J-i •& TT t>~ W* "* "- 1 in 03 CC CO 1-H CO © •^ <# a m * oo o co o t^ 0O 00 CO © O H H * (N r- CM rH CM ^ © O I-H -* t>- 3 G go~ 2 ' CO N T* O CM CO t> CO CT> 00 CN m t- 1-H >-H ■* CM o 'S a 'So CD >02 CM «<~ CO c CM »-H CM »-H O0 0C to in n o Oi CC CO 1-H 1-H * CM OO (-c © c3 CD CM r^ iO CO 00 OJ o o- n o) oi k C Oi rH T*l CO CO c CM *"* ,_, e'- © lO !>• 00 © l> o s cq c m er: l>- 1-H CO CM © © CM T_l o C t>- CM -* oo ■* w © -TJH I>- CN CO K CO »-H CO CM N © r ~ t OS "" 00 N N H « « t-- as t~- cv © o a O0 H H * H CM © CM 1-1 : a 1 : CD 1 3 : 03 c : c ; « J : ! S cj • -2 -i j ! < '£ X ) » a < o 1 E 13 s . +j c3 n ; fl 2 ^ OJ oi + 5 3 « ; e s 1 : oo^uoc O 3 to c i 1 > !z II a {= < c ) s o ►» X2 =4-1 73 +3 M O s pd p: CD +s o Ol O) 03 !> H bJO ^ O «H o p) -*J Cm 03 a» CD y O M ^ O) rt oa CD o > ■M •4-3 CD r/; O rd ^H 03 -4-> 3 '2 o ^•2 c^ S3 ^ » H CD O +3 15,5 .SP» ^CO 5 CM ca ci i—i © o - fH fH > o O -— I ^3 =4H O cp a 2 ° CD fH o -4J c«oq d fl P o CD BUL. 444] BEANS 45 A number of factors contributed to our very large domestic exports in 1919. After the war the United States demand for beans dropped very materially, with a resulting decline in prices. These low prices were attractive to European countries, which had not yet returned to their normal bean production. Consequently they purchased large supplies of beans from this country. In addition the very large imports of beans into the United States, which were an important factor in causing our prices to decline, tended to force our domestic beans into foreign markets. Since 1919 our domestic exports have declined rapidly. Our European markets have been practically eliminated, and our North American markets are declining. In 1919, European countries bought 2,277,000 bags of our beans; the following year, only 442,000 bags, and since then our exports to Europe have steadily declined until at the present time they are almost negligible. It has again resumed the place it occupied prior to the war as an exporter of beans to the United States rather than as an importer of beans from this country. A comparison of our average pre-war exports with our exports at the present time shows several significant changes. Our total exports are still above the pre-war average, both in absolute amount and relative to our total production. This condition is accounted for by the fact that our exports to Cuba are very much heavier than before the war. Before the war our exports to Cuba averaged 77,000 bags annually, which was 38 per cent of our total exports. In 1925 we shipped 208,000 bags to Cuba, or 70 per cent of our total exports. Our exports to the other countries, however, are very much lower now than they were before the war. Canada and Central America, which together bought 55,000 bags annually, or nearly 33 per cent of our total exports, before the war, purchased on the average during the past three years only 32,000 bags annually, or less than 9 per cent of our total exports. Likewise, our exports to South America have declined. They were relatively small before the war, amounting to only 13,000 bags a year, and are almost negligible now, amounting to only 2,000 bags a year. During the past few years we have imported considerably larger quantities of beans from South American countries than we have exported to them. Since Cuba is our only remaining foreign market of any conse- quence at the present time it is desirable to inquire further into what has been taking place there during recent years. Table 5 shows the situation in detail. The significant fact brought out in table 5 is that our exports to Cuba have been declining rapidly and continuously during the past few years. The Cubans are not eating fewer beans — 46 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION in fact they are eating more — but they are not eating as many of ours because they cannot buy them as cheaply as those from other countries. In 1921 Cuba imported 546,000 bags from the United States as com- pared with 208,000 bags in 1925, a decrease of 62 per cent. On the other hand, Cuba's total imports of beans increased from 636,000 bags in 1921 to 798,000 bags in 1925. In the Cuban market, European countries and Mexico are gradually retaking the place they occupied prior to the war, and in addition, Japan has become an important factor. TABLE 5 Cuban Bean Imports by Countries op Origin; Average 1911-1912 and Annual 1921-1925 (Thousands of bags, i.e., 000 omitted) Imported from Average 1911-1912 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 United States 71 121 546 11 5 19 55 338 41 19 30 107 361 113 30 60 85 289 74 75 104 165 208 Mexico 62 Japan 92 European countries 138 7 298 Other countries 138 337 636 535 649 707 798 Sources of data: Secretaria de Hacienda, Commercio Exterior Republico de Cuba, 1911-12 and 1921-25, except for imports from the United States, which are from table 4. Imports. — Between 1910 and 1914 imports of beans into the United States averaged 688,000 bags a year (fig. 16). A large proportion of this amount was imported to meet the requirements of the foreign population who preferred different kinds of beans from those raised in this country. During this period 67 per cent of the imports came from Europe, mainly Austria-Hungary, France, Italy, and Germany ; 17 per cent from Asia, mainly Japan; and 15 per cent from North America, mainly Mexico. In 1915 and 1916 our imports were materi- ally reduced because the European sources of supply were largely discontinued on account of the war. In the following four years our imports increased enormously, reaching a high point of 3,069,000 bags in 1919. The high prices of beans resulted in a world-wide stimu- lation of production. Our imports from Asia alone increased from 288,000 bags in 1915 to 2,208,000 bags in 1919. A second contribut- ing factor was that a large part of the shipments of the exporting countries were cleared through American ports because of the dis- location of the usual routes of trade. In 1919, for example, almost one-half of our total imports were re-exported. Bul. 444] BEANS 47 The abnormal demand during the war absorbed the heavy imports as well as the greatly increased crop in this country. But with the cessation of hostilities and the consequent decrease in demand, the heavy supplies forced prices rapidly downward. In 1920 and 1921 prices were so low that this country was not a desirable market. Our General Imports of Beans, United States, 1909-1926 Q 09 O O O a* 600 » 500 « 400 1 S 300 200 100 ^-^\ GENERAL IMPORTS / \ -Mm— V=a- -==^5-| Eq- 3 ^ \F H ir S O rH O tH iH ©» c» o> O) o> o> o> o CD O to *# in to CM CM CM CM O 0» 0> 0> Year Beginning July Calendar Tear Fig. 16. — General imports are approaching the pre-war level, but with this significant difference, viz., that the Orient, which produces varieties of beans similar to those grown in California, has now become an important exporter of beans to the United States. Data from table 6. imports in 1921 were the lowest in the entire period from 1910 to 1926, amounting to only 164,000 bags. After the general recovery of prices in 1922 imports again increased but not nearly to the point they had reached in 1919. In 1926 imports amounted to 654,000 bags, approximately the pre-war level. 48 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION OS T OS o _ S | 2 § ° a o H O pq m sr 43 w » s a O co cm OS co CO cc K CN CM •* CM O CM CM CC CM CM CM 00 CO CO CO CO CM b- CO -* CN CM CM CM 3 to eM OS O 5! OS CM CO no CO iO "3 O t* CO CO CO OO eM OS OO "3 CM CM CO co CO CM i-l CO 00 OS CM i-l s s w oo CM OS s CO O "3 CO CO «o i-t CO T* CD CO OS iO CO CM CO CM b- co,* t^ ^ o t^ CO CO CO OS CO 3 CO CO CM -^ -H CO CO OS (M -tJ< iO cm i-i CO s O CD •«* CM »o CM OS CO O CO CM CM CM o eM eM oo CO CM CM OS CO CO U3 i-l i-H CM CM CO t* CO t* CM CO "3 CM CO CO CO <-i CM CO 00 O OS •* ■* CO i-t CM CM CM g2 OS oo CO 00 O OS 1 CO i-t oo MH^I CM CM "3 CM 3- 3 o cm OS CO eo - CO OS ^ ■* w CO T* o © CO 00 l>. t^ r(< CM i-l OS CM CM •<* «3 OS CO OS CM O OS o t-~ CM CO U3 CM OS OS 1—1 r-t CO CO tK as no H « CM «o CO t- co CM CM O N « CM 3 00 CO CO ** CO OS 1-1 CO CO o, CO o_ co" 00 os CO co CM co »o OS 1-1 o CM 8 n< oo h »o CO oo CO OS OS CO T* CM lO CM «o CM* ►•3 M *S a '5b V 43 u cj os CM CM CO 00 OS t^ CO i* OS s CO CM i-H * h eo 5 CO ^H O •-• eM CM §8 CM co OS o CM ** OS "0 H 00 o OS OS OS OS OS t^ i-H O CM 00 OO OS CO "3 -* -^ 00 tN cm" 1— I OS i-H CO U0 "1 oo 00 CM CO »J0 00 © o 0O1O N CO CO co o CO CM ^ *■* 00 OS CO as cm O CO CO CM rH CO CM CM CM CO CM «o >o lO CO CM eo CO >os CM CD i-H O OS 00 Tj< tf3 »/3 t^ CO O •* 1-H U3 CO CO o OS CM CO o CO CM »0 OS t~ CM 00 00 CO CO os 00 "3 M N N N N 00 O N N f M i-l OS CM 1-- \ti CM i-H •** CM CO t-- i-i CM i-l CM m »o 8 OS CM os CO CO 00 -H O CO (M CO 00 lO ■«* CO CM 1^ CO oo OS iH CO i-l CO CO CM£*. OS CM CO OS CO CM CO CO O ■* i-H ■«* i-l CO O U OM i-H •** o CM 00 CM •* o cm b- co OS CM CM 1 o OS eo M CN IN ■* lO •* >fl O ">* CO CO i-H ■* CM CO CO oo m 00 m os i-l CO CM <■* CO CM OS CO OS o os o H CO » M M H 00 i*< 00 CO i-( i-H i-l o OS CO CO ^ ^ OS g c 1 . b t- c b c i c 'C E < ■> ) i I c b j 1 G i a t V I a "f c 'a < t s C OS >- J c e s 'C a £ < c a t c- p e C 1 I a *- C •X C X a £ < c (A a I c •2 « c c X c K K ( < i b El el a 4; c ! a .1 o . ■J3 CO « s "> 6 II CP g So?. S| S s CD c3 42 m Not Imports g 900 600 1 300 ! • ! 2 300 3 ^ 600 900 1200 NE T E) CPOR" S NET IM »ORT > Year Beginning July Calendar Year Fig. 17. — The United States is now on a net import basis but to a lesser degree than before the war. Data obtained by calculating the difference between the general imports and the domestic and foreign exports which are given in Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States. The fact that we are on a net import basis regarding the total foreign trade in beans does not, of course, mean that the tariff is equally effective in maintaining the domestic prices of each variety above the foreign prices. The effectiveness of the tariff regarding a specific variety depends upon whether we are exporting or importing that particular variety. The present import duty of $1.75 a bag is of little benefit to the domestic producers of a variety that must seek export outlets because then the prices in the domestic market are largely determined by the prices received in the foreign markets. 52 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION COST OF PRODUCING BEANS IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, 1927 In addition to the economic information presented in the foregoing pages growers are vitally interested in how much it costs them to perform the operations necessary to produce beans. This knowledge gives them a fairly accurate idea of whether they can continue to produce the crop at the probable level of future values. In addition it gives them a basis for comparing their costs with those of their neighbors and with growers in other sections; this information may enable them to reduce their own costs. The summary table of labor and material costs and accompanying yields, which is presented below, is taken from an enterprise efficiency study made in Santa Barbara County in 1927 by E. Smythe, Assistant Farm Advisor, and Messrs. L. W. Fluharty and F. R. Wilcox, Exten- sion Specialists in Farm Management. This study covers a period of one year only and is based upon records from relatively few farms; its results should, therefore, not be taken as conclusive. When records for several years covering a relatively large number of farms have been obtained, it will be possible to measure the important factors which influence the variations in cost. Such information should enable growers to operate more efficiently. There is a wide variation in the cost of producing beans, as is shown in table 7, column 2. On the eighteen farms from which records were obtained the cost of labor and material 24 per 100 pounds varied from $1.56 to $5.58. The average cost per 100 pounds for the nine farmers having the lowest cost amounted to $1.93 as compared with an average of $4.10 for the nine farmers having the highest cost. Variations in yield per acre appear to be one reason for the differ- ences in cost per 100 pounds. The average yield for the low-cost group was 1,185 pounds per acre, whereas the average yield for the high-cost group was only 800 pounds per acre. The figures also indicate that one reason for the low yields was that growers did not give their crop sufficient care. The nine growers with the largest yields spent an average of $29.96 per acre for labor and materials as compared with $21.46 spent by the nine growers having the smallest yields. 24 Only labor and material costs are presented. Other costs such as interest on land and taxes were omitted from this table because they do not enter directly into the cost of producing beans. For instance, some growers' lands are valued at relatively high figures because of their location with respect to oil and sub- division tracts. Bul. 444] BEANS 53 TABLE 7 Labor and Material Costs of Producing Beans on Eighteen Farms in Santa Barbara County, 1927 (Costs per hundredweight (cwt.), cost per acre, and average yield per acre) Farm number Labor and material costs Average Yield per acre Cost per cwt. Cost per acre 21 $1.56 $20.21 pounds 1,297 27 1.73 32.25 1,878 17 1.81 23.14 1,292 3 1.84 17.00 924 12 1.90 18.98 1,000 22 2.08 28.76 1,382 9 2.10 16.27 777 11 2.13 30.51 1,431 10 2.18 14.95 684 7 2.61 26.66 1,023 18 2.98 38.41 1,288 23 3.05 18.99 623 5 3.17 25.23 1,158 4 4.08 44.52 1,090 19 4.88 19.24 394 20 5.06 19.83 392 25 5.48 43.89 801 16 5.58 23.99 429 ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors of this bulletin wish to express their thanks and indebtedness to the following organizations which have generously contributed from their data and their time: the California Coopera- tive Crop Reporting Service; the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, United States Department of Agriculture ; the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, United States Department of Commerce; the Agricultural Legislative Committee; the Division of Agricultural Economics, University of California; the Division of Agronomy, University of California; the California Lima Bean Growers Associa- tion; the California Bean Growers Association; the California Bean Dealers Association; H. C. Rowley, California Fruit News; and many bean growers and bean dealers throughout the state. Farm advisors in the important bean-growing counties have also furnished much valuable information. APPENDIX TO TABLES Bul. 444] BEANS 55 £*§ CD^ ■ S ® o a" P-> P m «*■ CD P -<°H jo rf^ <1 I n m CD td CD ►> O CO GO * P ► 8f arcs w C* ,~N o w 00 .. M U o "•• e-t- 00 CD CO o ►rt Ha 9 2 -t- o f (0 3 •: : -• 1 f 1 5 ' • 1. e ll 1 1 z{ O : E> O v 3 o c s : : > : : I s 2? ■r I 2 1 j n ?! r : i r 1 i s - n ! o P O C i" P P ] !i 1 \ I i" » co oo S3 to CO h- tO Cn to o CO H- • O 00 CO to 00 to >»- to cn cn to Cn >— O CO OS o CO Cn o co OS »* co o CO 00 o§ eo OS 00 to to Cn to Cn OS 00 to cn o as ^1 o CO ^1 I— Cn Cn co -i to to Cn to 2§ CO o CO 00 o OS Cn CO -<| o to OS OS CO OS Cn os CO CO 00 i— > CO co o o o Cn to to : cn : to : 00 Cn OS rfk. CO ^1 oo to •— to to ~J co to co : ° 00 to OS OS : CO ~j CO to "o oo OS CO oo to co !*• oo to OS cn O oo oo CO to to CO k- to CO co to CO © 1 & Cn ►— : os co oo o CO to co en •J os to to 1— to ffi M »**© M OO OS tO M 1- to Oi tOOSCn>*«-©C©CnCntO©©CnOOi»».rf». CO to to to t— co os »-» © »*. M (O H ^1 U 1— coco ©©Cntf».©tOtO^ItOOOtOcocnCnCn CO to cn OS to to oo CO CO o in -J CO Cn CO to Oi s ** *> ~J CO Cn to CO Cn Cn CO to OS a no H o DO > - p n td CO o K> t> H p o ► > 00 tel ^" DO Q o o CO o o H 3 r+ a CD M 1 h-» CD to <3i 56 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 9 Acreage of Limas and Baby Limas, California, 1919-1927 Year 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 Lima Baby Limas 124,000 20,750 130,000 20,000 90,000 13,500 100,000 19,000 75,000 20,000 54,000 20,000 58,000 25,000 100,000 45,000 100,000 33,500 Sources of data: Compilations made by the California Lima Bean Growers Association. Bul. 444] BEANS 57 p a> o, <"i ^ CD © *■ a e-t- GO " § O P «rl- mBH to CD CD C 3 P rt> F S g • £ 3 cr p '• ._! ^ ^ M CO I D CO" bo OS 53 <° 3 to § cr P^ CO 5 6" P - CO en O P-g P P^ •4 £2 > 0) CD O 2, CR CD H» P CD H •d P O 13 P- r 3 p- < t_j CD cr p si CD 3D g a Pj ?r * w p r 3 H>^ a- CO0TC5 to i-i co • CO cs bO o Oi p I? ►d o CD » Pj P t-feP 3 * as ' et- QD u p co o co H» P . s r* co H St; O tO H3 O -3 1 2 -■ 1 5' : !. c 1 2i D I 3 3 3 5 ( q 1 2 3i 6 § ! n ii 2 - S2 l s: P 2; - * i h i 1 3 1 Cn CO to • h- "co : os O : CO Cn 1 00 O CO to co : co co : CO : CO tO co ; to 00 : so os : h- 00 : to 2 to • Cn OO : Cn co : O -4 I co Cn os 00 to OS : 00 OS *. O : to en OO OS OS 00 1— ' tO CO OS Cn to en : O 00 1— » O la ~t-* -• CO 00 5" ' CO "►— ^1 Cn -J s 00 CO to O CO CO CO to OS CO 00 to ^1 CO Cn "►— OS CO CO Cn to Cn to CO 00 to OS tO CO CO Cn to OS 00 •-» CO OS to en 3 JO lo to £2 CD Cn 1 to en co 5 s 00 CO V| OS 00 tO CO CO CO to To 00 00 to to 'to OS -J en to CO to 00 to 00 CO 00 en ^ CO to to CO os CO Ilk. to OS OS to OS OS en 00 OS Cn : co to- 00 j— "co O co tO CO to CO 00 ss 01 Tt>» en en -4 1^ to Is t—ooi-'to^ienosoooseneococoijk. tOOSOOtOI-'OOI-'OOH-^tOOSH- CO to tfk. 00 CO to k* en "os to "cc M CO to "I—oo MMtOUitkOOiMOl^SMMltk to^^oi^oooMtooaxnuio CO to cn to 6° ** rf* enosi-«ento oos toocooentocoi»^en>i>^joocoen oen»*>.cotoo«oosoH-»j>.^joH- CO to OS a to § to CO to I 00 CO »o "0 s ! 2 ►1 3 p • cr P crq 58 UNIVEESITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 11 Production of Beans in the United States, by Varieties, *1921-1926 (Thousands of 100-pound bags, i.e., 000 omitted) Variety 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 Normal^ Lima 700 120 643 633 2,080 121 1,200 150 690 313 3,345 191 150 300 31 100 75 525 418 800 220 669 935 4,470 215 480 275 29 150 50 640 701 467 225 275 1,052 3,857 485 684 250 20 60 50 865 675 790 290 675 1,511 4,879 670 918 400 22 65 125 877 611 1,250 575 634 1,116 3,919 246 801 460 34 100 116 695 466 850 Baby Lima 400 Pink 630 Pinto 1,200 Small White 4,100 Large White 360 Great Northern 800 Blackeye 400 60 60 125 377 321 360 Bayo 25 Cranberry 95 California Red 100 Red Kidney 750 OthersJ 530 Total 5,640 7,488 9,634 8,965 11,835 10,412 10,200 * The varieties listed separately are only those which are grown in California or which compete with those varieties grown in this state. Yellow Eye and White Kidney grown in New York, Vermont, and Maine are included in "others." t Present normal production estimated by inspection of graphs drawn from data. A simple arith- metical average of two or more years could not be used in obtaining a figure representative of the normal production because of wide variations in the data. t "Others" include a small amount of some of the varieties which are listed separately. For instance, the entire production of 12,000 bags in 1924, 12,000 bags in 1925, and 20,000 bags in 1926 produced in Nebraska are included in others because a classification by varieties was not available. Sources of data : Mimeographed release U. S. Bur. of Agr. Econ., except for California production, which is from table 1. Bul. 444] BEANS 59 TABLE 12 United States Bean Production, by Selected Varieties,* in Main Bean-producing States, 1924-1926 (Thousands of 100-pound bags, i.e., 000 omitted) State and year Small White Large White Great Northern Red Kidney Pinto Pinks California Red Bayo New York : 1924 345 262 213 3,307 4,244 3,378 173 219 82 158 207 119 444 219 206 394 621 437 1925... 1926... Michigan: 1924... 1925 1926... Montana: 1924. .. 171 244 241 464 594 456 49 80 97 1925.. 1926.. . . Idaho: 1924 19 30 21 107 205 21 1925 1926 26 Wyoming: 1924. 1925 . 8 13 560 1,277 619 491 225 483 1926 Colorado: 1924 1925 1926 7 7 New Mexico: 1924 10 5 5 250 650 600 15 20 29 275 675 634 1925 1926 California: 1924 65 200 200 121 143 100 3,857 4,879 3,919 40 25 15 7 14 9 485 670 246 20 30 45 7 7 7 865 877 695 50 125 90 17 1925 13 1926 25 Othersf: 1924 1 1 1 1,052 1,511 1,116 31 1925 9t 1926 9* Total: 1924 684 918 801 50 125 116 20 1925 22 1926 34 •Varieties produced only in California are not included; production of these varieties is given in table 1. t Other states include Maine, Vermont, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Arizona. % Produced mainly in New Mexico and Arizona; the amounts produced in each state, however, are not available. Sources of data: U. S. Bur. of Agr. Econ., Crops and Markets, 3 (Supp. 12) : 423. 1926; except for California, which is from table 1. 60 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION O co *oo rt .-1 rH CO CM CM .-H CM OS r^^-^©0©CM»-i©CO . iOMrtH*HNcobM o , ~ 1 i-H CM CO i-l CM .2 u CM 0*00(OONWW © © eJ Oi 66fflT|idHHo6ai6 (M •>*< >h eq a 1 «*- O eo oot^co-^o»cocooo 0) cm bO OS NNtOoiNrHtOiO^iiO C ""* M M iO »■* *-« 0) PL, CN» CN OS eot^>ot^ooo© MOTtiidoTjicbcotbio cm ,-c ,-< co 1-h OS t^cooooo»ocoot-»©© OOCOOt}<05(Mi-io6cX5 CM r-H rt CM 03 * HNlOtC»i«IN«NO >> CO OOWXXMrHNOSW* (M °°. M . °. "*. °. °°. N . rt . °l N . o N CO* CO CO CO i—l r- 1 y-t " »MtBfflOO^iON>«iO U3 ©•*fCOCOl^~HOO»0000 (M COCOOCOTjtrtCMOOCMOO *"* ID O) t iH (O ^ i-l»0 ., (V > o T3 HNU5M*NO»M01 .2 Tf< ONNINNOllNaiOO'* CO iflONNM'^N'JINID ** CO H !D lO tO M lO 00 CO Cj o to bi) cS 43 •M NNtOl| rttDNnCl^^OONN X! CM CM O »0 §• CM »-i 3 £ t-»t^cO©»OCM'»*- CN HOONlOOOOOT(lOOO (M t^CMCMfN-»N.^H»OOOCMO ®HNtOH^«lON» CN, ^ rt _ _ cs, aNte^a^iHoooow lO!OW!O!O00H!OtDN CM »OCOCOCNOOt>''-'CO»C5 Tti r-ii«oot^"5»-iioeo Tt< CM CO CO >> .2 > c q £ > s 3 -a > 0) C :« > s 00 a. b c. 5 cj s c > pq c a H -a a ts*T -s 5 .8.S c3 S ,=3 §* £<» a> ~ -m M «2 O 3 *h be ■5 3 a bD-rH « >> *H **-1 s? * > PS O m b* fH CO a3 a © £ ,d rf.2 2-s i?^ s -e w £ ^o 00 en qj 13 rs ^ « ^ rt"*3 ^ _ h "5 « 01 s P. S^ fe bo CO T3 rt* 3 ■d ^ -fi CM* C Or^ O a> DO o rces tain ber. ra O O -M W e> go ^ Bul. 444] BEANS 61 TABLE 14 Average Prices of California Beans by Varieties, F.O.B. California, 1909-1926 (Dollars per 100-pound bags) Crop year* Lima Baby Lima Pink Small White Large White Black- eye Bayo Cran- berry Cali- fornia Red Red Kidney 1909 4 00 5.45 5.40 5.30 4.70 5.10 3.25 3.65 4.50 3.55 4.15 4.95 3.60 3.50 4.05 4.45 4 65 5.85 3.80 3.30 5.40 4.70 3.55 3.45 4 45 3.95 4.15 4.75 6.30 5.20 4.25 4.05 5.05 1910 5.55 1911 4.80 1912 4 05 1913 5.80 5.15 3.85 4.00 5.35 4.90 4.00 4.75 5.50 5.25 5 60 4.95 5.00 4.70 5.20 5.40 4.75 1914 5.25 1915 4.90 5.05 6.80 6.55 3.75 5 50 5 35 5 50 6.60 1916 10.45 12.75 9.55 8.60 8.10 6.30 11.95 12.15 8.00 11.60 12.00 7.55 6.80 8.20 4.80 8.15 8.75 6.85 8.90 11.70 7.25 8.50 8.70 5.90 10.90 1917 12.40 1918 8.20f 11.75 1919 11.80 11.45 6.50 6.25 6 40 7.20 9.70 6.95 7.90 12 75 1920 6.10 5.55 5.95 4.00 4.20 6.45 9.40 6.45 7.15 9 50 1921 7.60 7.50 5.30 5.70 5.95 4 55 5.45 7.15 4.65 7 35 1922 7.85 9.90 5.05 6.35 6.45 4.75 6.65 7.05 5.00 7.25 1923 10.50 10.50 4.85 6.20 5.30 6.75 6.25 5.65 5.70 7.45 1924 13.90 12.75 7.50 7.40 6.05 9.65 7.50 7.40 7.75 10.15 1925 9.90 9.55 5 60 6.05 5.25 5.70 11.05 7.55 5.20 9.95 1926J 6.15 5.10 4.95 6.30 4.35 3.95 6.90 6.55 5.05 8.75 * Crop year includes from September of the year given through August of the following year. t Five months only. % September through July. Sources of data: Compiled from the weekly issues of the California Fruit News except as follows: Red Kidney; August, 1913, to July, 1918, weekly issues of the Pacific Rural Press, June to August, 1920, Thursday issues of the Com- mercial Daily News. 62 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 15 Stocks of Beans in California Warehouses by Varieties and by Months, 1926, 1927, and Five- Year Average, 1922-1926 (On the first of the month; in thousands of bags, i.e., 000 omitted) Cali- Date Large Small Pink Black- Lima Cran- fornia Red Bayo Baby White White eye berry Red Kidney Lima January Av. 1922-26... 74 200 388 115 330 31 78 21 16 77 1926.... 26 131 323 179 405 26 109 13 3 128 1927.... 16 134 417 353 687 32 97 19 16 322 February Av. 1922-26... 66 168 317 95 259 25 73 20 12 51 1926... 25 120 275 132 331 20 103 12 3 88 1927.... 17 110 369 300 579 30 82 21 13 287 March Av. 1922-26 ... 57 136 270 72 196 206 65 15 10 36 1926 20 91 219 107 261 14 88 8 2 63 1927.... 14 91 306 237 499 26 72 19 13 227 April Av. 1922-26 ... 46 120 237 62 173 18 61 15 10 32 1926... 21 92 201 95 247 14 77 7 2 60 1927.... 11 67 250 201 466 23 64 17 11 179 May Av. 1922-26... 43 107 216 53 141 17 58 13 9 26 1926... 21 83 177 70 215 11 71 6 1 45 1927.... 9 38 205 190 416 21 60 15 10 159 June Av. 1922-26 .... 32 87 194 38 78 14 52 10 7 15 1926.... 20 73 143 60 106 6 65 3 1 24 1927.... 8 18 158 161 347 17 50 13 9 125 July A v. 1922-26 ... 27 65 160 31 53 10 44 6 5 11 1926.... 18 60 117 50 73 4 61 2 1 18 1927.... 4 9 109 144 276 11 32 12 8 109 August Av. 1922-26 ... 24 50 127 27 37 8 33 5 4 1 1926.... 18 44 92 44 62 3 55 1 * 14 1927.... 4 4 85 132 223 6 21 8 7 94 September Av. 1922-26... 22 41 101 21 20 7 26 5 3 4 1926.... 16 42 74 45 45 2 45 5 * 9 1927.... 5 2 63 118 167 5 13 13 6 67 October Av. 1922-26... 39 109 125 95 344 5 24 11 7 111 1926... 17 131 113 191 480 2 25 8 6 250 1927.... 7 144 81 208 559 5 11 12 9 166 November Av. 1922-26 ... 57 220 377 189 512 30 66 18 15 162 1926.... 19 180 381 403 925 31 84 22 11 374 1927.... 13 249 375 277 822 37 75 38 26 225 December Av. 1922-26 ... 59 202 449 178 468 40 88 23 15 156 1926... 20 156 434 359 810 44 109 27 16 381 1927.... * Less than 500 bags. Source of data: Compiled from monthly warehouse reports issued by California Bean Dealers Association. STATION PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION No. 253. Irrigation and Soil Conditions in the Sierra Nevada Foothills, California. 262. Citrus Diseases of Florida and Cuba Compared with those of California. 263. Size Grades for Ripe Olives. 268. Growing and Grafting Olive Seedlings. 273. Preliminary Report on Kearney Vine- yard Experimental Drain, Fresno County, California. 276. The Pomegranate. 277. Sudan Grass. 278. Grain Sorghums. 279. Irrigation of Rice in California. 283. The Olive Insects of California. 294. Bean Culture in California. 304. A Study of the Effects of Freezes on Citrus in California. 310. Plum Pollination. 312. Mariout Barley. 313. Pruning Young Deciduous Fruit Trees. 319. Caprifigs and Caprification. 324. Storage of Perishable Fruit at Freez- ing Temperatures. 325. Rice Irrigation Measurements and Experiments in Sacramento Valley, 1914-1919. 328. Prune Growing in California. 331. Phylloxera-Resistant Stocks. 335. Cocoanut Meal as a Feed for Dairy Cows and Other Livestock. 339. The Relative Cost of Making Logs from Small and Large Timber. 340. Control of the Pocket Gopher in California. 343. Cheese Pests and Their Control. 344. Cold Storage as an Aid to the Mar- keting of Plums. 346. Almond Pollination. 347. The Control of Red Spiders in Decid- uous Orchards. 348. Pruning Young Olive Trees. 349. A Study of Sidedraft and Tractor Hitches. 350. Agriculture in Cut-over Redwood Lands. 353. Bovine Infectious Abortion. 354. Results of Rice Experiments in 1922. 357. A Self-mixing Dusting Machine for Applying Dry Insecticides and Fungicides. 358. Black Measles, Water Berries, and Related Vine Troubles. 361. Preliminary Yield Tables for Second Growth Redwood. 362. Dust and the Tractor Engine. 363. The Pruning of Citrus Trees in Cali- fornia. 364. Fungicidal Dusts for the Control of Bunt. 365. Avocado Culture in California. 366. Turkish Tobacco Culture, Curing and Marketing. 367. Methods of Harvesting and Irrigation in Relation of Mouldy "Walnuts. 368. Bacterial Decomposition of Olives dur- ing Pickling. 369. Comparison of Woods for Butter Boxes. 370. Browning of Yellow Newtown Apples. 371. The Relative Cost of Yarding Small and Large Timber. 373. Pear Pollination. 374. A Survey of Orchard Practices in the Citrus Industry of Southern Cali- fornia. 375. Results of Rice Experiments at Cor- tena, 1923. 376. Sun-Drying and Dehydration of Wal- nuts. 377. The Cold Storage of Pears. 379. Walnut Culture in California. BULLETINS No. 380. 382. 385. 386. 387. 388. 389. 390. 391. 392. 393. 394. S95. 396. 397. 398. 399. 400. 401. 402. 404. 405. 406. 407. 408. 409. 410. 411. 412. 414. 415. 416. 417. 418. 419. 420. 421. 422. 423. 424. 425. 426. 427. 428. 429. Growth of Eucalyptus in California Plantations. Pumping for Drainage in the San Joaquin Valley, California. Pollination of the Sweet Cherry. Pruning Bearing Deciduous Fruit Trees. Fig Smut. The Principles and Practice of Sun- drying Fruit. Berseem or Egyptian Clover. Harvesting and Packing Grapes in California. Machines for Coating Seed Wheat with Copper Carbonate Dust. Fruit Juice Concentrates. Crop Sequences at Davis. Cereal Hay Production in California. Feeding Trials with Cereal Hay. Bark Diseases of Citrus Trees. The Mat Bean (Phaseolus aconitifo lius). Manufacture of Roquefort Type Cheese from Goat's Milk. Orchard Heating in California. The Blackberry Mite, the Cause of Redberry Disease of the Himalaya Blackberry, and its Control. The Utilization of Surplus Plums. Cost of Work Horses on California Farms. The Codling Moth in Walnuts. The Dehydration of Prunes. Citrus Culture in Central California. Stationary Spray Plants in California. Yield, Stand and Volume Tables for White Fir in the California Pine Region. Alternaria Rot of Lemons. The Digestibility of Certain Fruit By- products as Determined for Rumi- nants. Factors Affecting the Quality of Fresh Asparagus after it is Harvested. Paradichlorobenzene as a Soil Fumi- gant. A Study of the Relative Values of Cer- tain Root Crops and Salmon Oil as Sources of Vitamin A for Poultry. Planting and Thinning Distances for Deciduous Fruit Trees. The Tractor on California Farms. Culture of the Oriental Persimmon in California. Poultry Feeding: Principles and Practice. A Study of Various Rations for Finishing Range Calves as Baby Beeves. Economic Aspects of the Cantaloupe Industry. Rice and Rice By-products as Feeds for Fattening Swine. Beef Cattle Feeding Trials, 1921-24. Cost of Producing Almonds in Cali- fornia ; a Progress Report. Apricots (Series on California Crops and Prices) . The Relation of Rate of Maturity to Egg Production. Apple Growing in California. Apple Pollination Studies in Cali- fornia. The Value of Orange Pulp for Milk Production. The Relation of Maturity of Cali- fornia Plums to Shipping and Dessert Quality. Economic Status of the Grape Industry. No. 87. Alfalfa. 117. The Selection and Cost of a Small Pumping Plant. 127. House Fumigation. 129. The Control of Citrus Insects. 136. Melilotus indica as a Green-Manure Crop for California. 144. Oidium or Powdery Mildew of the Vine. 157. Control of the Pear Scab. 164. Small Fruit Culture in California. 166. The County Farm Bureau. 170. Fertilizing California Soils for the 1918 Crop. 173. The Construction of the Wood-Hoop Silo. 178. The Packing of Apples in California. 179. Factors of Importance in Producing Milk of Low Bacterial Count. 202. County Organizations for Rural Fire Control. 203. Peat as a Manure Substitute. 209. The Function of the Farm Bureau. 212. Salvaging Rain-Damaged Prunes. 215. Feeding Dairy Cows in California. 217. Methods for Marketing Vegetables in California. 230. Testing Milk, Cream, and Skim Milk for Butterfat. 231. The Home Vineyard. 232. Harvesting and Handling California Cherries for Eastern Shipment. 234. Winter Injury to Young Walnut Trees during 1921-22. 238. The Apricot in California. 239. Harvesting and Handling Apricots and Plums for Eastern Shipment. 240. Harvesting and Handling Pears for Eastern Shipment. 241. Harvesting and Handling Peaches for Eastern Shipment. 243. Marmalade Juice and Jelly Juice from Citrus Fruits. 244 Central Wire Bracing for Fruit Trees. 245. Vine Pruning Systems. 248. Some Common Errors in Vine Prun- ing and Their Remedies. 249. Replacing Missing Vines. 250. Measurement of Irrigation Water on the Farm. 252. Supports for Vines. 253. Vineyard Plans. 254. The Use of Artificial Light to Increase Winter Egg Production. 255. Leguminous Plants as Organic Fertil- izer in California Agriculture. 256. The Control of Wild Morning Glory. 257. The Small-Seeded Horse Bean. 258. Thinning Deciduous Fruits. CIRCULARS No. 259. 261. 262. 263. 264. 265. 266. 267. 269. 270. 272. 273. 276. 277. 278. 279. 281. 282. 283. 284. 285. 286. 287. 288. 289. 290. 291. 292. 293. 294. 295. 296. 298. 300. 301. 302. 303. 304. 305. 306. 307. 308. 309. Pear By-products. Sewing Grain Sacks. Cabbage Growing in California. Tomato Production in California. Preliminary Essentials to Bovine Tuberculosis Control. Plant Disease and Pest Control. Analyzing the Citrus Orchard by Means of Simple Tree Records. The Tendency of Tractors to Rise in Front: Causes and Remedies. An Orchard Brush Burner. A Farm Septic Tank. California Farm Tenancy and Methods of Leasing. Saving the Gophered Citrus Tree. Home Canning. Head, Cane, and Cordon Pruning of Vines. Olive Pickling in Mediterranean Coun- tries. The Preparation and Refining of Olive Oil in Southern Europe. The Results of a Survey to Determine the Cost of Producing Beef in Cali- fornia. Prevention of Insect Attack on Stored Grain. Fertilizing Citrus Trees in California. The Almond in California. Sweet Potato Production in California. Milk Houses for California Dairies. Potato Production in California. Phylloxera Resistant Vineyards. Oak Fungus in Orchard Trees. The Tangier Pea. Blackhead and Other Causes of Loss of Turkeys in California. Alkali Soils. The Basis of Grape Standardization. Propagation of Deciduous Fruits. The Growing and Handling of Head Lettuce in California. Control of the California Ground Squirrel. The Possibilities and Limitations of Cooperative Marketing. Coccidiosis of Chickens. Buckeye Poisoning of the Honey Bee. The Sugar Beet in California. A Promising Remedy for Black Measles of the Vine. Drainage on the Farm. Liming the Soil. A General Purpose Soil Auger and its Use on the Farm. American Foulbrood and its Control. Cantaloupe Production in California. Fruit Tree and Orchard Judging. The publications listed above may be had by addressing College of Agriculture, University of California, Berkeley, California. 14m-12,'27