CALIFORNIA
AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
CIRCULAR 5
NOVEMBER, 1926
SERIES ON CALIFORNIA CROPS AND PRICES
LETTUCE
H. R. WELLMAN
PUBLISHED BY
THE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
Cooperative Extension work in Agriculture and Home Economics, College of Agriculture,
University of California, and United States Department of Agriculture cooperating. Dis-
tributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 30, 1914. B. H. Crocheron,
Director, California Agricultural Extension Service.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRINTING OFFICE
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA
1926
CONTENTS
PAGE
Summary 3
Introduction 6
Acreage 6
Production 8
Trend of lettuce shipments, United States 8
Main lettuce-producing states 10
Main Iceberg lettuce-producing states 11
Trend of shipments in main Iceberg lettuce-producing states 11
Big Boston lettuce-producing states 12
Lettuce-producing areas in California 14
Seasonal movement 16
Seasonal movement of lettuce, United States 16
Competition between Iceberg and Big Boston shipments 16
Seasonal movement of California lettuce 18
Competition between Iceberg lettuce-producing sections 18
Distribution 25
Most of the lettuce is marketed in large cities 25
Iceberg lettuce more widely distributed than Big Boston lettuce 25
Distribution of Imperial Valley lettuce 26
Important markets for California lettuce 28
Consumption 30
Prices of Iceberg lettuce 33
Chicago jobbing prices representative of those prevailing in the Eastern
markets 33
Relation between Chicago jobbing prices and prices f.o.b. cash track
Imperial Valley 33
Price characteristics 35
Trend of prices 40
Tables 42
Sources of current information 50
LETTUCE
H. R. WELLMANi
SUMMARY
The two outstanding developments in the head lettuce industry
during recent years have been (1) a rapid increase in production,
particularly in the western states, and (2) an equally rapid increase
in demand which has prevented a fall in price.
In 1925 almost seven times as many cars of head lettuce were
shipped as in 1917, and almost twice as many as in 1921. This large
increase was caused mainly by the rapid expansion in the production
of Iceberg lettuce which is produced almost exclusively in the irri-
gated sections of the West. There has been practically no increase
in the carlot shipments of Big Boston lettuce during the past four
years, but the carlot shipments of Iceberg lettuce have more than
doubled. At the present time Iceberg lettuce constitutes approxi-
mately 80 per cent of the total United States commercial lettuce crop
as compared with 38 per cent in 1917.
The demand for lettuce has kept pace with the rapid increase in
production. Although the price is just as high, people are eating
almost twice as much lettuce as they did five years ago. Even now,
however, the per capita consumption for the United States as a whole
is not large, being only a little more than five heads per year in 1925.
The chief cause for this low consumption is to be found in the fact
that many people do not eat head lettuce at all, and many others eat
it only occasionally, mainly because they can not purchase it readily
throughout the year. In the large cities in which lettuce is available
most of the time, the per capita consumption is from two to three
times that for the United States as a whole. Just how much the total
consumption can be increased by the further development of the
smaller markets is uncertain. Lettuce shippers, particularly in the
western states, have already made considerable progress in develop-
ing the smaller cities into carlot markets. This is illustrated by the
fact that 50 per cent more markets received direct carlot shipments
from the Imperial Valley during the 1925-26 season than during the
1922-23 season. Further progress is hindered by the lack of agencies
in the undeveloped markets that are able to handle lettuce in carlots.
1 Extension Specialist in Agricultural Economics.
4 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE [CiRC. 5
California is the most important head lettuce-producing state in
the Union. In 1925 the shipments from this state amounted to over
one-half of the total shipments and almost three-fourths of the Iceberg
shipments. Arizona and Colorado, however, are rapidly becoming
important Iceberg lettuce-shipping states. During recent years, the
shipments from each of these states have increased even faster than
those from California.
Almost one-half of the California lettuce is produced in the
Imperial Valley, which is the largest single lettuce-producing section
in the United States. During the past few years, however, shipments
from the counties of Monterey, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz have
increased more rapidly than those from the Imperial Valley so that
the coast district, which includes these counties, is soon likely to equal
the Imperial Valley in lettuce production.
Lettuce is an all-year around product. Active shipments of both
Big Boston and Iceberg lettuce continue throughout the year. The
heaviest shipping seasons of these two types of lettuce, however, occur
at different periods. Thus they supplement one another and make it
possible to place a fairly uniform supply of lettuce on the consuming
markets every month of the year.
California is the only state that ships lettuce continuously through-
out the year. Fortunately the heaviest shipments occur at the
times when the shipments from other states are lightest, although
there is no period during the year when California lettuce does not
meet with considerable competition.
A study of lettuce prices indicates that certain practices are
desirable :
(1) It usually pays to grow lettuce in a given section only at those
times when good quality lettuce can be produced, because, with the
exception of times of abnormally high price, poor quality lettuce
seldom brings a sufficient price to net any profit to the grower. In
addition, price changes can not as yet be forecast sufficient far in
advance to enable growers to have their lettuce ready for market at
just the times prices are high. Prices over the past six years have
averaged as high at one season as at another. It is true, of course, that
during a given year prices fluctuate considerably, being high at some
periods and low at others, but these high and low prices have not been
repeated at the same periods year after year.
(2) Because of the inability to forecast price changes sufficiently
far in advance, lettuce should be planted so as to mature gradually
over as long a period as is consistent with the production of good
1926]
LETTUCE
quality. By so doing, growers may avoid having all of their lettuce
sell on a low market and instead obtain the average of the high and
low prices for the season, thus minimizing the risk caused by the wide
price fluctuations from day to day and from week to week.
(3) Lettuce growing is likely to prove more profitable to those
growers who undertake it as a long-time proposition than to those who
''jump into it one year and out the next."
Any forecast of the future of the lettuce industry is particularly
hazardous because it is a relativel}^ unstable crop. The future con-
sumption will probably increase provided small markets are reached
by the marketing agencies. There may also be an increase of per
capita consumption in the large cities. The people are being con-
stantly urged by dieticians to eat more leafy vegetables. This has
already had considerable effect in increasing consumption, but the
full effect has probably not yet been reached.
Whether this increasing consumption will keep pace with the
increasing production of the future is difficult to forecast. In many
sections lettuce has been grown for only a few years, and there are
undoubtedly new areas that may become important lettuce-producing,
districts but which have not yet been planted to this crop. Just
what will happen in each of the different sections during the next few
years is uncertain. Even in the older localities that are well estab-
lished, lettuce growing is less stable than fruit growing because the
growers can get into and out of the lettuce business rather quickly.
Usually between three and four months elapse from the time it is
planted until it is harvested. Furthermore, in most of the sections
in California, outside of the Imperial Valley, and to a considerable
extent in Arizona and Idaho, two and sometimes three crops of lettuce
are raised on the same land during the year.
The present situation is favorable for lettuce growing in California,
but this condition can not be expected to continue if a sudden increase
in production should, for any reason, take place, particularly if such
an increase should greatly accentuate the peaks of shipments.
The lettuce grower should not expect increased prices for his
product during the forthcoming years, because the present level of
prices will probably stimulate production sufficiently to supply any
reasonable increase in demand. A conservative expansion in the
lettuce industry in California appears to be justified, but it should
be made upon land primarily adapted to the production of this crop.
Lettuce growing is likely to be profitable only where a high yield of
good quality lettuce can be obtained at a relatively low cost.
CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE [CiRC. 5
INTRODUCTION2
This publication deals solely with head lettuce which is the pre-
dominant commercial lettuce crop. Leaf lettuce is grown mainly as
a greenhouse crop near the large cities and is relatively unimportant
from the standpoint of carlot distribution.
The two principal commercial types of head lettuce grown in the
United States are Big Boston and New York or Iceberg. In this pub-
lication, Iceberg is the name used to denote the latter type as it is the
one generally used by the trade and in the market news reports of the
Bureau of Agricultural Economics. There are a number of varieties
included in this type, but in commercial transactions practically no
distinction is made between them.
These two types of head lettuce are somewhat distinct from the
standpoint of market requirements since Big Boston lettuce forms a
loose head, and Iceberg lettuce, a firm head.
The producing areas of these two types of head lettuce are also
distinct. Iceberg lettuce is produced almost exclusively in the irri-
gated sections of the West, while Big Boston lettuce is grown mainly
in the Eastern and Southeastern states (fig. 1). Attempts to grow
Iceberg lettuce in these states have generally been unsuccessful as
climatic conditions during most of the growing season in these sections
are not favorable to the development of firm heads. ^
ACREAGE
In 1925, 86,400 acres in the United States were devoted to the com-
mercial production of head lettuce, 98 per cent of which were in the
six western states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, New
Mexico, Washington and in the five eastern states of Florida, New
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and South Carolina (fig. 1). The
combined acreage in the four states of Arizona, California, Colorado,
and New York amounted to 70,740 acres, or 82 per cent of the total ;
California alone had 49,320 acres, or 57 per cent of the total.
2 Acknowledgment. Tlie author of this circular wishes to express his thanks
and indebtedness to the following organizations which have generously con-
tributed from their data and their time : Bureau of Agricultural Economics
of the United States Department of Agriculture, California Cooperative Crop
Eeporting Service, American Fruit Growers, Inc., of California, Loma Fruit
Company, and the California Vegetable Union.
3Hauck, Charles W., Marketing lettuce, U. S. Dept. Agr. Bui. 1412:6, 1926.
1926]
LETTUCE
CD
arq
®
pi
02 CO
e» fD ^
"■ P d
• P
P
CQ
w
W
o
8 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE [ClRC. 5
Of the 86,400 acres, 69,600 (81 per cent) were devoted to the
production of Iceberg lettuce, and 16,800 (19 per cent), to the produc-
tion of Big Boston lettuce. Ninety-nine per cent of the Iceberg lettuce
acreage was in the six states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho,
New Mexico, and Washington, and 71 per cent was in California
alone ; while approximately 92 per cent of the Big Boston lettuce
acreage was in the five states of Florida, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, and South Carolina.
The total commercial acreage of head lettuce in the United States
increased from 16,870 acres in 1918 to 86,400 acres in 1925, an increase
of 412 per cent in seven years. The greatest expansion occurred in the
western states, where the acreage increased ■ from 7770 acres in 1918
to 69,600 acres in 1925, an increase of 796 per cent, as compared with
an increase of 85 per cent in Big Boston lettuce acreage during the
same period.
California's lettuce acreage increased from 7,140 acres in 1918 to
49,320 acres in 1925, an increase of 591 per cent. The acreage of
Iceberg lettuce in the other western states increased from 630 in 1918
to 20,280 in 1925, an increase of 2,219 per cent. The most rapid expan-
sion in the Iceberg lettuce-producing states, other than California,
occurred in 1922, when the acreage increased 272 per cent over the
preceding year.
PRODUCTION
Trend of Lettuce Shipments, United States. — The production of
lettuce in the United States, as shown by the carlot shipments, has
been increasing very rapidly. In 1925 almost seven times as many
cars w«re shipped as in 1917 and almost twice as many as in 1921
(%. 2).
Of the 37,040 cars shipx)ed in 1925, 80 per cent were of the Iceberg
type and 20 per cent of the Big Boston type. This condition is almost
the reverse of that existing in 1917 when 62 per cent of the 5,428 cars
shipped in that year were of the Big Boston type, and only 38 per cent
of the Iceberg type. The rapid increase of Iceberg shipments in 1920
when the shipments almost tripled those of the preceding year placed
them above the Big Boston shipments, a position which they have
continued to maintain.
Figure 2 shows clearly that the production of Iceberg lettuce has
increased much more rapidly than that of Big Boston lettuce. From
1917 to 1922, the shipments of Big Boston lettuce experienced a fairly
uniform rate of growth, the normal rate during this period being
1926]
LETTUCE
20.4 per cent per year.* Since 1923, however the total amount of Big
Boston lettuce moving into consumption has probably not increased.
The carlot shipments decreased approximately 19 per cent between
1923 and 1925, but the volume shipped to market by truck has
undoubtedly increased, as the total acreage planted to Big Boston
lettuce was only 4.4 per cent smaller in 1925 than in 1923. The main
truck shipments of Big Boston lettuce come from New Jersey and
Carlot Shipments of Lettuce, United States, 1917-1925
Total
S
Big Boston £ S
o to
Iceberg
CO
a>
O
r-l
C\l
to
•*
u:
M
r-*
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
o>
o>
Oi
a>
Cf>
Oi
CD
o
r-i
cH
fH
iH
t-t
fH
r-4
iH
Fig. 2. — The remarkable increase in total lettuce shipments in the United
States was caused mainly by the rapid expansion of Iceberg lettuce production
in the western states.
Data compiled from table 7.
4 A straight line of trend was fitted to the logarithms of the Big Boston
lettuce shipment figures for the years 1917-1922 by the method of least squares.
The equation for the line of trend is log. y = 3.55033 + .08063 x.
10
CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
[CiRC. 5
southeastern New York and are unloaded in New York City. That
a much larger proportion of New Jersey lettuce is now being moved
by truck than formerly is indicated by the fact that carlot shipments
were only 3 per cent larger in 1925 than in 1923, while acreage was
77 per cent larger.
Iceberg lettuce shipments, on the other hand, have increased with
remarkable uniformity since 1920, the normal rate of increase being
29.7 per cent a year.^
In 1925 carlot shipments of Iceberg lettuce were 265 per cent
larger than in 1920, while the carlot shipments of Big Boston lettuce
were only 31 per cent larger.
Relative Importance of Main Lettuce-Shipping States, 1925
o o o o o
Calif.
N.Y,
Ariz.
Colo,
Fla,
Vfash,
S.C,
N.C,
K.J.
Idaho
Others
Total
Per
Cars cent ^
iil608 58.2
3819 10.3
3477 9.4
3061 8.3
1510 4.1
817 2,2
700 1.9
537 1.5
469 1.3
407 1.1
635 1.7
37040 100.0
Fig. 3.
-California produces more lettuce than all other states combined.
Data from table 7.
Main Lettuce-Producing States. — California produces more lettuce
than all other states combined. As shown in figure 3, the shipments
in 1925 were 58.2 per cent of the total carlot shipments in the United
States. New York is the next most important lettuce-producing state,
followed by Arizona, Colorado, and Florida. The ten states shown in
figure 3 produced approximately 98 per cent of the United States'
lettuce crop.
5 A straight line of trend was fitted to the logarithms of the Iceberg lettuce
shipment figures for the years 1920-1925 by the method of least squares. The
equation of the line of trend is log. y = 3.91995 + .11284 a;.
1926]
LETTUCE
11
Main Iceherg Lettuce-Producing States. — Iceberg lettuce is pro-
duced on a commercial basis in 10 of the 11 western states.^ Only the
five states of California, Arizona, Colorado, Washington, and Idaho,
however, are of any considerable importance in this regard. These
five states shipped 99.2 per cent of the Iceberg lettuce in 1925 (fig. 4).
Eelative Importance of Main Iceberg Lettuce-Shipping States, 1925
Per o
Cars cent
Calif. 21608 73.0
Ariz.
Colo.
Wash.
Idaho
Others 250
Total 29620
Fig. 4. — Approximately all of the Iceberg lettuce is produced in five western
states. California alone produces almost three-fourths of the total.
Data compiled from table 7.
The three states of California, Arizona, and Colorado shipped 95
per cent of this type of lettuce, and California alone shipped 73
per cent. California's shipments were more than six times as large
as those from Arizona and more than seven times as large as those
from Colorado, the two next most important Iceberg lettuce-producing
states.
Trend of Shipments in Main Iceherg Lettuce-Producing States. —
Prior to 1920 practically all of the Iceberg lettuce was produced in
California, less than 70 cars a year being shipped from other sections.
Since 1920 other western states, mainly Arizona, Colorado, Washing-
ton, and Idaho, have become important lettuce-producing sections.
The total shipments of Iceberg lettuce from the states other than Cali-
fornia have increased even more rapidly than those from California
during the past five years (fig. 5). From 1920 to 1925, California's
shipments increased 194 per cent, and the shipments from other states
increased 947 per cent. Arizona and Colorado have experienced the
most rapid continuous increase (fig. 6). Up to and including 1923,
6 Arizona, California, Colorado, IdaJio, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah,
Washington and Wyoming. In 1922 one car of lettuce was shipped from
Montana. New Mexico reported 1500' acres of lettuce in 1925, but shipped
only 158 cars.
12
CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
[CiRC. 5
the shipments from Washington and Idaho also increased rapidly
(fig. 7). Since 1923, however, the shipments from these two states
have declined, Idaho's shipments in 1925 being 67 per cent less than
in 1923, and Washington's shipments in 1925 being 24 per cent less
than in 1923.
Carlot Shipments of Iceberg Lettuce, California and other States,
1917-1925
Calif,
Others
to
r-t
•H
CO
o
^
CO
O
CO
r-i
Ui
to
lO
iri
^i'
r-i
CO
o
tt O
o
c-
to
CO
t-
iH
s
U CM
CVl
CM
c^
c;>
a>
in
iH
05
•H
r-i
CM
in
to
CO
ui
t-
c-
O
<o
CM
CO
<o
to
CO
•>*
^
in
to
rH
c^
CM
to
rH
in
O
iH
to
ID
Ti<
00
260
200
100
90
80
70
60
1 50
I
;4o
»
30
20
10
9
8
7
Cal
ifbrnia
/
^
A
y^
i
/^
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
^*
/
1
i
/
^
/
/
/
/
/
f
^hers
/
/
i
Fig. 5. — The production of Iceberg lettuce in sections outside of California
has increased even more rapidly than in California.
Data compiled from table 8.
Big Boston Lettuce-Producing States. — Approximately 95 per cent
of the United States ' shipments of Big Boston lettuce originate in the
five states shown in figure 8. New York was the most important ship-
ping state for this type of lettuce in 1925, followed by Florida, South
Carolina, North Carolina, and New Jersey.
1926J
LETTUCE
13
Lettuce shipments from the four states of Florida, South Carolina,
North Carolina, and New Jersey, were smaller in 1925 than in 1922/
In three of these states, Florida, South Carolina, and New Jersey,
the peak of shipments was reached in 1922, and in North Carolina it
Carlot Shipments of Iceberg Lettuce, Arizona and Colorado, 1917-1925
t-
CD
o>
O
rH
CM
to
^
lO
^
•H
iH
CM
CO
CM
CM
^
CM
a
o>
o>
o>
o>
Oi
o>
o>
o>
Fig. 6. — Arizona and Colorado are rapidly becoming important Iceberg
lettuce-shipping states.
Data from table 7.
was reached the following year. The shipments from New York have
remained at approximately the same level since 1923. Florida is the
only one of these five states that shows a decline in shipments every
year since 1922.
7 It must be remembered, however, that a greater proportion of New Jersey 's
lettuce, in particular, is being moved by truck.
14
CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
[CiRC. 5
Lettuce-Producing Areas in California. — In 1925 carlot shipments
of lettuce originated in 25 of the 58 counties in California. The
principal lettuce-producing districts in order of their importance are :
(1) the Imperial Valley, (2) the coast counties, extending from
Santa Barbara County on the south to Contra Costa County on the
north, (3) the southern California counties, j^rincipally Los Angeles,
Ventura, and San Diego, and (4) the Sacramento and San Joaquin
valley counties. Almost one-half of California's shipments in 1925
originated in the Imperial Valley, and approximately 86 per cent
originated in the territory included in the Imperial Valley and coast
counties (fig. 9). The interior valley counties are a relatively unim-
portant lettuce-producing district — only 3.2 per cent of California's
shipments originated in this district in 1925.
Carlot Shipments of Iceberg Lettuce, Idaho and Washington, 1917-1925
O O rS
Idaho
Wash.
u
o o
in
o
o>
iH
CVJ
t-
CVJ
CO
CO
xd*
CO
o
r-\
CO
CVJ
in
Tf
in
yi
^
^
Q
^y/^
X
Q
J
y^
X
7
ft
^
vv
p^^
A
'^i
o
Wa.shing^oi
n— i/
1
•
>
>
/
/
/
'■^-.
8
i
/
daho
2
f
/
/
t
/
i
o
iH
CM
to
-^
in
CVJ
CU
OJ
CM
CM
CM
(Si
cn
C3>
o>
<n
c»
Fig- 7. — Lettuce shipments from Idaho and Washington reached the highest
point in 1923 and have since declined.
Data from table 7.
The greatest increase in lettuce shipments during the past six
years has taken place in the coast counties (fig. 10) . Only 90 cars were
shipped from these counties in 1920 as compared v^ith 8,211 ears in
1925, an increase of 812 per cent. During this same period the
Imperial Valley shipments increased 251 per cent, the interior valley
counties' shipments increased 142 per cent, and the southern Call-
1926]
LETTUCE
15
fornia counties' shipments decreased 41 per cent. During the past
two years the shipments from the Imperial Valley and the coast
counties have increased less rapidly than formerly.
Carlot Shipments of Big Boston Lettuce, Main Shipping States, 1917-1925
«o
CM
^
O
t^
o
CO
t^
o
Fla.
•H
lO
to
>4^
co
r-i
•«i<
lO
rH
r-i
to
iH
o>
CM
to
fH
CM
lO
rH
CM
CM
CM
CM
to
to
CM
iH
to
rj«
rH
to
O
t>-
t-
CO
Oi
N.Y.
CM
to
CO
t-
'«:1<
CO
.H
CD
rH
^
to
l>
t-
CJ
rH
CO
CD
CO
iH
iH
rH
t-i
to
to
to
to
to
•H
«o
a
t^
in
CM
00
'^
t-
N.C.
a
CO
CM
«H
O
-^
CM
rH
rH
to
o
iH
CM
to
CM
'^J^
CO
J>
!>-
LO
fH
lO
U>
rH
to
C--
t-
to
o
s.c.
CD
c-
c;>
CM
rH
co
t-
CM
o
iH
to
to
iH
t>
a>
lO
^
t-
N.J.
lO
rH
lO
CO
o>
rH
CO
t-
o>
rH
O
^
o
CO
c-
ir>
rH
CO
CM
r-i
CM
CM
-^
lO
-^
<*
-^i^
Oi
O
r-*
C\J
to
'«*
lO
rH
cv:
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
Oi
Oi
CD
cr>
a>
o>
Oi
rH
t-i
rH
r-i
iH
rH
r-i
Fig. 8. — The shipments of Big Boston lettuce from the main producing states,
with the exception of New York, were smaller in 1925 than in 1922. The ship-
ments from Florida in particular show a pronounced decline.
Data from table 7.
16
CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
[CiRC. 5
Approximately 90 per cent of the California lettuce shipments in
1925 originated in the five counties shown in figure 11. Imperial
County shipped nearly three times as many cars of lettuce as Monterey
County, the next largest lettuce shipping county, and almost as much
lettuce as was shipped by all other counties combined.
The trends of shipments in these five important lettuce-producing
counties are shown in figure 12. The three counties of Monterey, Santa
Barbara, and Santa Cruz, located in the coast district, show a remark-
able increase in lettuce production. The shipments from Los Angeles
County, on the other hand, have declined almost continuously since
1921.
Eelative Importance of Main Lettuce-Shipping Districts in California, 1925
Imperial Valley
Coast Couotles
Cars
Per o
cent r
10302 47.7 I
Interior Valley
Counties
Total
8217 38.1
Southern California 2386 11.0
Counties
703 3.2
21608 100.0
R
Fig. 9. — The Imperial Valley is tlie largest lettuce-producing district in
California.
Data compiled from table 11.
SEASONAL MOVEMENT
Seasonal Movement of Lettuce^ United States. — Lettuce is an all-
year around product. Carlot shipments of lettuce in considerable
numbers reach the consuming markets every month of the year. The
heaviest shipments, how^ever, occur during the winter and early spring
months (fig. 13). On an average, more than one-half of the United
States' crop of lettuce is shipped during the five months of December
to April. March is generally the month of heaviest shipments and
June the month of lightest shipments.
Competition Between Iceberg and Big Boston Shipments. — Active
shipments of both Big Boston and Iceberg lettuce continue through-
out the year (fig. 14). With the exception of the two months of July
and August, however, the bulk of the lettuce shipments (from 80 to
95 per cent) are of the Iceberg type ; but during these two months the
shipments of Big Boston lettuce are as large as those of Iceberg
1926]
LETTUCE
17
lettuce. Since the heavy shipping seasons of these two types of
lettuce occur at different periods it is possible for a fairly uniform
supply of lettuce to be placed on the consuming markets every month
of the year with the exception of June.
Carlot Shipments of Lettuce, California by Districts, 1920-1925
Imperial Valley-
Southern California
Counties
Coast Counties
Interior Valley
Courities
Fig. 10. — The Coast district is rapidly approaching the Imperial Valley as
an important lettuce-producing section.
Data compiled from table 11.
18
CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
[CiRC. 5
Seasonal Movement of California Lettuce. — California is the only
state that ships lettuce every month of the year. The heavy ship-
ments, however, occur during the fall, winter and spring months
(fig. 15). During the past five years, an average of 90 per cent of
the lettuce has been shipped during the eight months from October
to May, and 66 per cent during the five months from January to
May. Only 10 per cent of the lettuce, on an average, has been shipped
during the four months from June to September. The tendency,
however, is to ship a relatively larger amount of lettuce during these
four months. In 1921, only 8.4 per cent was shipped during this
period, as compared with 12.8 per cent in 1925.
Relative Importance of Main Lettuce-Shipping Counties in California, 1925
>-l CM (O •<*' i5
Cars
Per
cent
Imperial
10302
47.7
Monterey
3581
16.6
Santa Barbara
2552
11.8
Loe Angeles
1709
7.3
Santa Crux
1247
5.8
Others
Total
2217
21608
10.8
100.0
Fig. 11. — Approximately 90 per cent of California's lettuce is produced in 5
counties. In 1925 Imperial County alone shipped almost as much lettuce as all
other counties combined. Data from table ii.
Competition Between Iceberg Lettuce-Producing Sections. — The
general extent and periods of competition between the different Ice-
berg lettuce-producing sections are shown in figures 16, 17, and 18.^
With the exception of the three months of August, September, and
December, the weekly carlot shipments of lettuce from California are
larger than the combined weekly shipments from the other Iceberg
lettuce-producing states (fig. 16). Although these other states ship
some lettuce every week in the year, the general tendency is for their
shipments to be heaviest at the times when the shipments from Cali-
fornia are lightest, and vice versa. This condition not only lessens
the severity of the competition to California growers but, in addition,
makes possible a more even distribution of Iceberg lettuce shipments
throughout the year.
8 The minor fluctuations in the curves shown in these figures change from
year to year because of changes in market conditions which influence shippers to
hold back or increase their loadings, and the major fluctuations may be shifted a
few weeks either way depending upon the climatic conditions in the producing
sections, but the general situation illustrated here is believed to be representative
of that prevailing at the present time.
1926]
LETTUCE
19
Carlot Shipments of Lettuce, Main Lettuce-Shipping Counties in California,
1920-1925
Imperial ^
CVl
Los Angeles o>
w
Monterey «
Santa Barbara *^
Santa Cruz S
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
S
^
10
9
.8
7
6
_^
__
^_ ~
y
y^
_^'
s.
v^^''^— Im p«rial
^^
^ \
/
*?^.
L.02
? Angelos"
/^' — ,
V^
flaivVac Ba
Z^y
/:
^^•^^^*
.^^ -^
j
^ /
1
/ y
If
v^^'^SaLD'tec Cruz |
Mont*
>rey — >^^
/
Jf
A
/
/
^
CM
to
•<)«
la
CM
N
CM
o>
Ol
o>
o>
Fig. 12. — Lettuce shipments from Monterey, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz
counties have increased even faster than from Imperial County, while the ship-
ments from Los Angeles County show a pronounced decline.
Data from table 11.
20
CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
[CiRC. 5
Percentage of Total Carlot Shipments of United States Lettuce Shipped
BY Months, 1924; 1925, and Average, 1921-1925
AT. 1921-25
1924
1925
16
14
12
10
« 8
/'
-1925
><
^
V
—
7\
N
V'
24.
y
y
-X?
1
<\
y
\
/
Fig. 13. — Lettuce is an all-year around product. Shipments, however, are
heaviest during the winter and early spring and lightest during June.
Data computed from table 8
Carlot Shipments of Iceberg and Big Boston Lettuce by Months, 1925
Big Boston
Iceberg
M SSI I II I INI
Per cent of TBig Boston 17.9
Monthly Total Vlcebor^ 82.1
Fig. 14. — Big Boston lettuce competes most severely with Iceberg lettuce during
the three months of July, August, and September.
Data from table 8.
Feb.
Uar.
Apr.
May
Juno
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Hot.
Deo.
13.3
14.6
18.7
11.3
, 7.9
56.4
47.2
28.6
7.5
11.3
6.6
86.7
85.4
81.3
88.7
92.1
43.6
52.8
71.4
92.5
88.7
95.4
1926]
LETTUCE
21
The weekly carlot shipments from the principal Iceberg lettuce-
producing states other than California are shown in figure 17. The
important fact illustrated here is that there is very little direct com-
petition between these four states ; all of them compete directly with
California but not with each other. Arizona's first crop usually begins
to move about the first of December, just when Idaho's second crop
Percentage of Total Carlot Shipments of California Lettuce Shipped by
Months, 1924, 1925, and Average, 1921-1925
O) t00>f-lt-00LOOOl0«-l«H
Av, 1921-25 ^ t<JtDiootcc\iojc>jin o> m
4, r-l r^ t^ r-l t-t
§CVJ csjtO-*U5lO<-^lHlOO<VlO
*y^* O _T ^* .« ^T >-^ _u rM I t en «^ CO
1925
/
i
/
'J
\
/
/
X
\
f^.
7 \
r
-^
e 1921
- 192S
/
-N^.
19
">■
\
/
\
f
-vy
X
^. \
\
19Zi
V
//
\
..
/a
f
^
^^^•«
_^^
»^^
Y
***
— •
s
W5 CU +J
;3 © O
•< W O
% s
Fig. 15. — California is the only state that ships lettuce every month of the
year. Most of the lettuce, however, is shipped during the 8 months from October
to May, inclusive.
Data computed from table 9.
is about finished. Arizona's second crop is shipped before Wash-
ington becomes an important factor in the market, and the bulk of
Washington's lettuce is shipped before Colorado's shipments become
heavy. Idaho's first crop, which is relatively unimportant, comes on
at the same time as the heavy shipments from Washington, but the
second crop does not begin to move in any considerable volume until
the end of Colorado's season and is finished before Arizona's ship-
ments become heavy.
22
CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
[CiRC. 5
CSLPS
to *i n>
O CD _ •
o Cars
261 285
223 461
199 410
164 473
120 481
110 575
72 683
47 795
39 610
64 685
37 663
30 968
23 1364
33 1020
68 499
246 357
288 558
114 685
14 736
701
555
102 204
118 170
i 96 141
117 244
dl21 287
101 179
64 166
62 124
98 141
225 no
251 136
238 97
242 88
305 110
460 120
360 110
227 83
253 212
293 160
197 397
82 350
125 440
157 415
1 99 445
54 406
48 479
q 44 360
- 175 441
- 393 276
- 420 314
^03 307
1926]
LETTUCE
23
cfq'
o "H
Pj t^'
o
2 o
3 S2 r
P
^ CD
Cars
2
8
91
9
106
9
87
13
102
4
110
3
95
3
51
13
34
28
21
77
58
165
32
218
11
225
4
235
9
292
6
444
349
217
3
240
4
1
277
12
6
127
19
3
35
64
3
28
120
2
14
88
2
7
49
2
43
4
20
23
21
154
6
383
417
202
261
223
199
164
120
110
72
47
39
^
64
37
w
r
30
Ki
23
O
33
6^
o
246
r/3
288
w
114
14
4
w
§
24
CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
[CiRC. 5
OTQ
00
I
CD
o 8
3
> M
8
1
Cars
» 8 %
p. Vly. :
900
800
700
60O
1 .? ?
Cars
31 8
33 20
19 5
1 10 15
13 11
11 12
7 16
17 8
4 6
17 4
9 4
2 3 1
4 7
5
27 42
4 138 162
16 292 251
22 290 373
20 306 410
20 212 469
1 71 483
16 189
8 162
3 138
244
5 282
179
166
124
141
110
136
97
88
110
120
110
83
212
160
2 3 392
1 349
4 3 433
1 1 413
11 34 400
38 92 276
98 150 231
81 149 130
55 231 135
21 142 81
9 96 51
33 9
^10
ni
31
•21
28
7
1=14
r2i
28
4
^11
.^18
25
2
1^16
23
30
©20
27
h^
•<!18
25
1
8
^5
?22
29
5
^2
'^19
•26
3
31
7
<21
28
5
ri9
26
1
i
-
408
386
447
457
552
660
770
601
673
650
962
1353
1015
430
53
20
31
158
o
n
B'
QTQ
'
'^.
^*^»*
.^■.■w
•^
>
^.
^*^»» a
■■*■••
1
"^•si
■^MB»a
T
^^*
ilifornia
: lettuce
Data i
h
.---•
5
^^*
•^^
1 ^
::?
1
'A
o
su pple
through
rom table
^
^
T
1
1
ci
o
ment eac
Dut the }
10.
/
d
<*
9
i
^ O
• Si
>
>
w
3
P
I -^
)
<
o
5!
P
'-^
P
-
r
cn
>
-
CO
to
o
3
-^
r
-
p
O
k:
>
-
S*
(2
o
1926] LETTUCE 25
The competition between the different lettuce-producing sections
in California is shown in figure 18. During the first three months of
the year practically all of California's lettuce is produced in the
Imperial Valley. The first crop of lettuce from the Northern, Central,
and Southern Divisions comes on just at the end of the Imperial
Valley season, and the second crop from each of these three divisions
is nearly finished before the Imperial Valley season begins. The first
crop in the Southern Division is generally a little earlier, and the
second crop a little later than the first and second crops, respectively,
in the Central Division. Summer lettuce in California is produced
commercially only in the Central Division.
DISTRIBUTION
Most of the Lettuce is Marketed in Large Cities. — Sufficient data
are not available to make a thorough analysis of the distribution of
the United States lettuce shipments, but the data we have give a
fairly comprehensive idea of the general situation. Most of the carlot
shipments go to cities having a population of 100,000 or more. In
1925, 67.5 per cent of the lettuce shipments were unloaded in 21 cities
having a combined population of 20,751,000, which is 66 per cent of
the United States population in cities of 100,000 or more (table 1).
During recent years considerable progress has been made by the
marketing agencies in reaching the smaller markets throughout the
United States. The tendency is for a smaller proportion of the lettuce
to be sent to the large cities. The percentage of the total carlot ship-
ments unloaded in the 21 cities listed in table 1 in 1925 was 67.5 as
compared to 71.3 in 1924. Just how much additional progress can be
made in developing the smaller markets not already reached is
uncertain. An important limiting factor is the lack of agencies in
these undeveloi)ed markets that are able to handle lettuce in carlots.
Iceberg Lettuce More Widely Distributed than Big Boston Lettuce.
Iceberg lettuce is more wddely distributed than Big Boston lettuce.
Approximately 92 per cent of the 1925 carlot shipments of lettuce
from New York, the main Big Boston lettuce-producing state, were
unloaded in 11 cities, and 59 per cent were unloaded in New York
City alone. The shipments from Florida, the second most important
Big Boston lettuce-producing states, likewise show a limited distribu-
tion. Twelve cities received 78.5 per cent of Florida's carlot ship-
ments in 1925, and New York City alone received one-half of the
shipments.
26
CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
[CiRC. 5
The situation just described is a decided contrast to that existing
in the distribution of lettuce from most of the western states. Only
62.4 per cent of California's carlot shipments were unloaded in 21
cities, and the two largest markets, New York and Chicago, received
only 12 per cent and 11 per cent of the shipments, respectively.
TABLE 1
Carlot Unloads of Lettuce in 21 Cities, by States of Origin, 1925
City
.a
<
6
'o
O
•73
d
j3
CO
6
Total
Atlanta
25
60
102
403
122
69
69
44
103
5
35
400
44
158
119
6
88
13
2
2
25
169
206
624
2,341
245
625
226
725
252
1,471
277
2,G15
124
1,155
612
352
566
162
147
411
187
49
40
42
535
102
97
220
172
115
7
21
19
5
2
5
361
5
43
1
99
24
1
63
14
73
17
10
7
32
13
256
65
44
6
2
2
1
8
68
11
6
18
5
16
191
155
113
43
12
18
7
667
Boston
1
1 021
3,900
547
Cincinnati
Cleveland
1
865
Denver
541
Detroit
1
7
1,085
523
Kansas City
Los Angeles
1,476
466
Minneapolis
63
262
44
127
98
41
35
7
13
14
1
9
11
1
42
16
2
27
22
7
5
16
8
168
7
53
39
1
37
1
3
757
2,248
439
544
7,484
228
Philadelphia
253
7
8
468
62
79
109
2,450
974
Pittsburgh
Portland, Ore
367
St. Louis
139
9
1
21
1
89
954
St. Paul
213
Salt Lake City
154
San Francisco
413
Washington
21
26
1
119
4
10
2
29
424
Total
1,894
13,492
2,136
1,185
266
9
3,507
549
710
684
576
25,008
Unloads as a percent-
age of total carlot
shipments
54.5
62.4
69.8
78.5
65.4
91.8
83.7
67 5
Data compiled from Unloads of Lettuce in Various Markets during 1925 by States of Origin and
Months, Bureau of Agricultural Economics unpublished report, April 22, 1926.
Distribution of Imperial Valley Lettuce. — A more detailed analysis
of the distribution of Imperial Valley lettuce is possible, as the
primary destinations of the carlot shipments from this section have
been compiled since the 1922-23 season by Mr. C. E. Schultz, local
representative of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics at El Centre.
The outstanding development has been the continual widening of the
markets. Imperial Valley lettuce was sent to 233 markets during the
1925-26 season, as compared to 216 markets in 1924-25, 205 markets
in 1923-24, and 155 markets in 1922-23. Many of the smaller markets
which formerly received their supplies in less than carlots are now
receiving carlots direct.
1926]
LETTUCE
27
i-i CD
§^
pi
">&
P £^ q;
3P^
So <^
to B ?a
• ^ 2
as.
^ tr
o fc
o o
5 «
GO d
a
CO
28
CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
[CiRC. 5
Figure 19 shows that the geographic distribution of Imperial
Valley lettuce shipments coincides remarkably well with that of the
population in cities of 100,000 or more, when allowances are made for
the distance to the markets and the competition of other sections.
The divisions along the eastern coast quite naturally receive a smaller
percentage of the Imperial Valley shipments as compared with the
population than the divisions farther west, because (1) the distance to
the markets in the former divisions is greater, and (2) the competition
of Big Boston lettuce supplies is more severe.
TABLE 2
Destinations of Imperial Valley Lettuce Shipments Compared with
Population IN Cities of 100,000 or More, 1925
Destin
ations
Estimated population
Geographic division
Cars*
Per cent
1,000 personst
Per cent
New England
273
2,040
2,921
1,017
311
204
533
234
1,498
3
22 6
32 4
11 3
3 4
2 2
5.9
2.6
16 6
2.541
11,654
7,917
2.447
2,108
749
1,300
466
2,285
8.1
Middle Atlantic .. .
37.0
East North Central
25.1
West North Central
7 8
South Atlantic
6.7
East South Central
2 4
West South Central
4 1
Mountain
1 5
7.3
Total
9,031
100
31,467
100.0
* Data compiled from Summary of Imperial Valley Lettuce Deal, 1924-25, by C. E. Schultz, Bureau
of Agricultural Economics.
t Population estimates based on Census of 1910 and 1920. 14th Census of U. S. 1, 1920.
Important Markets for California Lettuce. — The location and rela-
tive importance of 21 important markets for California lettuce are
shown in figure 20.^ The majority of these markets are located in
the midwestern and eastern states. New York and Chicago are our
most important markets, followed by Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and
Detroit.
Each of these markets received more lettuce from California dur-
ing the year than from any other state, and over one-half (54 per cent)
of the total carlot unloads in the 21 markets were from California.
During certain months of the year, however, other states are a more
important factor in some of the markets than California. For
example, 90 per cent of the unloads in New York City in August were
from New York, as compared with 3 per cent from California.
9 The amount of California lettuce marketed in Los Angeles and San Francisco
is larger than that indicated by the carlot unloads, as a considerable volume
is shipped to these markets by truck.
1926'
LETTUCE
29
30
CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
[CiRC. 5
Because of the location of the producing sections, Big Boston
lettuce forms a much more important part of the lettuce supply in
the eastern cities than in the midwestern cities. Iceberg lettuce, how-
ever, is becoming increasingly important in the eastern cities. For
example, 40 per cent of the lettuce receipts in New York City in 1925
were of the Iceberg type as compared with 18 per cent in 1922
(table 3).
TABLE 3
Eeceipts of Lettuce in New York City, 1922-1925
Total cars
Iceberg
Big Boston
Year
Cars
Per cent
Cars
Per cent
1922
5,569
7,008
8,055
8,525
1,004
1,942
2,736
3,372
18
27.7
34
39.6
4,565
5,066
5,319
5,153
82
1923 . .
72 3
1924
66
1925
60 4
Data compiled from yearly summaries of receipts of fruits and vegetables in New York City (mimeo-
graphed), issued by the New York ofhce of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics.
CONSUMPTION
There are no accurate figures available on the total consumption of
head lettuce in the United States. Carlot shipments, as reported by
the railroads to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, are less than
the total amount of head lettuce consumed as considerable quantities
are shipped by truck. Production estimates, on the other hand, are
larger than the actual consumption as much lettuce is frequently left
in the field. On the whole, it is believed that a more accurate com-
parison of the consumption of lettuce between different years is
obtained by using carlot shipment figures rather than production
estimates.
Figure 21 shows the yearly per capita consumption of head lettuce
in the United States from 1917 to 1925. During this period con-
sumption increased from less than one head per person to five heads
per person, an increase of 525 per cent.
A fact of great importance to the lettuce industry is that this large
increase in consumption has taken place without a corresponding
decline in the price. The average prices which consumers have paid
for Iceberg lettuce, as indicated by the Chicago jobbing prices^^ have
10 Consumers of course pay much more than the jobbing price, as the retail
margin is approximately 40 per cent, but the jobbing price furnishes a fair com-
parison one year with another.
1926]
LETTUCE
31
remained at approximately the same level for the past five years (see
fig. 26). In short, people are not only eating almost twice as much
lettuce as they did five years ago, but they are paying as much per
head for it now as they did then.
Per Capita Consumption of Head Lettuce, United States, 1917-1925
05
•P
•H
Oh
GE»
O
u
0)
%a
©
c^
CO
en
o
t~\
CJ
CO
>«^
LO
•H
rH
•H
CM
<M
CM
CM
CM
CM
Oi
a>
o>
o>
OS
Ol
€T>
CJ^
CJi
Fig. 21. — People are eating 6 times as much head lettuce today as they did
9 years ago and almost twice as much as they did 5 years ago.
Data obtained by converting carlot shipments to number of heads and dividing the result
by the estimated population in the United States.
Although the per capita consumption of head lettuce has been
increasing rapidly, the present consumption of five heads per person
for the United States as a whole can not be considered as high. The
chief cause for this low consumption is to be found in the fact that
man}^ people do not eat head lettuce at all, and many others eat it only
occasionally, mainly because they can not purchase it readily through-
out the year. In those markets in which lettuce is available most
of the time, the per capita consumption is from two to three times that
for the United States as a whole. The average per capita consumption
in the 10 markets given in table 4 was 13.2 heads in 1925, over 2%
times that for the United States. Of these 10 markets, Boston had
the lowest per capita consumption and Chicago the highest.
32
CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
[CiRC. 5
TABLE 4
Estimated Per Capita Consumption of Head Lettuce in 10 Cities, 1925
Estimated population
metropolitan area,
July 1, 1925*
Lettuce unloadsf
Per capita
consumption,
City
Cars
1,000 heads
number of
heads
Baltimore
858,000
1,909,000
3,589,000
629,000
1,097,000
1,534,000
8,672,000
2,647,000
1,306,000
1,022,000
667
1,021
3,900
547
865
1,085
7,484
2,450
974
954
10,245
15,683
59,904
8,402
13,286
16,666
114,954
37,632
14,961
14,653
11.9
8.2
Chicago . . ...
16.7
13.4
Cleveland
12.1
Detroit
10.9
New York
13.3
14 2
Pittsburgh
11 5
St. Louis
14.3
Total
23,263,000
19,947
306,386
13 2
* Population estimates based on Census of 1910 and 1920, 14th Census of U. S., Vol. 1, 1920. Metro-
politan area includes city and civil division within 10 miles of city boundary.
t Data on carlot unloads from table 1. Number of heads computed upon the basis of 320 crates of
4 dozen heads each to a car.
Unloads of Lettuce in Three Cities by Months, 1925
Nev/ York
Chicago
ID
§
to
CO
to
CO
PhilEJiolphia rn
100
S
.h' to
Fig. 22. — Chicago receives a more uniform supply of lettuce throughout the
year than New York or Philadelphia, which accounts in part for its higher per
capita consumption.
Data from table 13.
1926] LETTUCE 33
One of the reasons for the relatively high consumption in Chicago
is the uniformity of the lettuce supplies throughout the year (fig. 22).
In New York and Philadelphia where the monthly unloads show a
wide variation, the consumption is. smaller.
PRICES OF ICEBERG LETTUCE
The most valuable source of price information on Iceberg lettuce
is the daily market report of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics,
which gives jobbing prices in the important markets. In compiling
weekly, monthly, and yearly average prices from these reports, an
attempt was made to obtain prices on the same quality and sizes of
lettuce throughout. This, however, was not entirely possible because
(1) the descriptions of the various qualities vary from time to time,
and (2) even where the descriptions remain the same for different
periods, lettuce described as ''best," for example, may be poorer at
one time than at another. In interpreting the price series presented
in this circular, therefore, it should be remembered that although the
prices are for good quality lettuce, considering the average quality
that is being received at the time, the actual quality upon which the
prices are given varies from time to time.
Chicago Johhing Prices Representative of Those Prevailing in the
Eastern Markets. — Jobbing prices at Chicago were selected in making
up the main price series on Iceberg lettuce. Daily prices in this
market are available over a longer period of years than in the other
large markets. In addition, the average prices paid for Iceberg lettuce
in Chicago are believed to be generally representative of those pre-
vailing in the eastern and midwestern markets. It was found that
the weekly average prices in the large markets fluctuate with con-
siderable uniformity. Of course, minor fluctuations occur independ-
ently in each of the markets because of purely local demand and
supply conditions. It is probable, however, that the prices in Chicago
are influenced more by the general conditions of demand and supply
and less by the local conditions than are the prices in many of the
other markets. Chicago is not only the largest market for Iceberg
lettuce, but its geographic location makes it particularly easy to move
lettuce from the western states into or out of this market, thus bring-
ing about a rapid adjustment of price to the general demand and
supply conditions.
Relation Between Chicago Johhing Prices and Prices F.O.B. Cash
Track, Imperial Valley. — California lettuce growers are intensely
interested in the price of lettuce on the Eastern markets because the
34
CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
[CiRC. 5
Eastern price is the main factor in determining what they will receive
for lettuce at their shipping points/^ The relationship which existed
between the jobbing prices of California lettuce at Chicago and prices
''f.o.b. cash track" Imperial Valley in 1925 is shown in figure 23.
Chicago Jobbing Prices on Good Quality California Lettuce Compared with
Prices F.O.B. Cash Track Imperial Valley, 1925
Chicago £ 1
O
•
o
ir>
•
-4<
o
CO
•
«4<
•
S o
Imperial Valley ^ ^.
in
•
lO
o
•
to
10
to
o
o
to
Ifi
o
o
o
8
o
o
C\i
CO
U5
CO
to
CO
•
•
rji
-*
•^
to
CO
CM
CNJ
o
ir>
lO
lO
o
IT)
O
<M
Oi
CO
to
"^f
CV2
to
5,00
4.50
4.00
3.50
® 3.00
u
o
2.50
u
o
g 2.00
3
r-l
o 1,50
.1.00
.50
/
^v
^^
>
.^'
—
,«^"
\
/
(lag
Chi<
TS
eck)
\
v
.-—
\
/
\
/
\
\
^^^
/
>
N
^
/
\
\
.
?.O.B
. Im
actHi
x1 Vi
atUej
■ — -^
A
^
' —
—
Jan,
Feb,
Mar,
Apr,
Fig. 23. — The price that country buyers expect to receive for lettuce on the
Eastern markets is the main factor in determining the cash price at the growers'
shipping points.
Data compiled from the daily market reports of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics
issued from the El Centro office. Weekly prices are simple average of daily prices.
The Chicago prices are lagged one week, as it takes approximately
that length of time for lettuce to be shipped from the Imperial Valley
to Chicago. It is apparent that there is a close relationship between
11 It has been estimated that at the present time fully three-fourths of the
lettuce in California is sold f.o.b. growers' shipping points, either for ''cash
on track," or "usual terms." The balance is sold in a number of different
ways: sometimes the field is sold for a designated sum before harvesting, or
on the basis of packed-out crates. Some lettuce is consigned direct to com-
mission merchants, and some is sold on the delivered basis.
1926] LETTUCE 35
the cash prices that growers received for lettuce and the prices for
which the lettuce sold in Chicago. The price which country buyers
are willing to pay for lettuce is determined by what they believe the
lettuce will bring in the consuming markets. In other words, buyers
of lettuce at the shipping points, if they are successful, must be able
to forecast with a considerable degree of accuracy the prices which
will prevail in the consuming markets at the time the lettuce reaches
those markets. The absence of a more perfect relationship between
these two price series is caused by several factors. Unexpected
changes in the demand or supply situation may cause prices in the
consuming markets to change more than the buyers anticipated. The
Chicago market, while probably more representative than any other
single eastern or midwestern market, may not be at all times repre-
sentative of all the large consuming markets.
The average differential between the Chicago jobbing prices and
prices f.o.b. cash track Imperial Valley during 1925 was $1.65 per
crate. The cost of transportation, which amounted to $1.27 per crate,
was responsible for the greater part of this differential. The remain-
ing 38 cents, which is approximately 10 per cent of the jobbing price,
was received by buyers for their services in selling a crate of lettuce
to jobbers. To obtain the net price to growers a further deduction
must be made, viz., the cost of packing which in 1925 averaged about
75 cents per crate. Thus we find that after deducting the necessary
charges growers in the Imperial Valley received an average of $1.55
per packed crate for good quality lettuce in 1925, while the Chicago
jobbing prices averaged $3.95 per crate. ^^
Price Characteristics. — A number of the more important character-
istics of lettuce prices require a somewhat detailed explanation because
of their influence upon the profitableness of growing lettuce.
1. Jobbing prices of lettuce fluctuate widely from day to day and
from week to week. In figure 24 it will be noted that the weekly
average jobbing prices of California lettuce at Chicago fall rapidly
and recover rapidly, and that the high prices are frequently twice as
much as the low prices. Because of these wide price fluctuations the
risk of growing lettuce is great. The growers who are fortunate
12 Eeaders should bear in mind that the prices which are given in the following
pages are jobbing prices at Chicago and that substantial deduction must be made
from these prices in order to obtain net prices to growers. Considerable effort was
made to obtain prices of California lettuce f.o.b. cash track or f.o.b. usual terms.
It was impossible, however, to obtain a complete series that was comparable one
period with another and representative for the state over a sufficiently long period.
36 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE [CiRC. 5
enough to have the bulk of their lettuce reach the market when the
prices are high make large profits, but on the other hand, if prices
are low when their lettuce reaches the market, heavy losses are
suffered. Very few small growers are financially able to take the risk
of having the bulk of their lettuce fall on a low market. Consequently,
they should spread the planting of it over a sufficiently long period so
that it will mature at different times, and thus enable them to obtain
the average of the high and low prices for the season. By having
some lettuce mature each day or week throughout the season, growers
can insure themselves against the risk of having the bulk of their
lettuce sell at the lowest price. Even the large growers who are
financially strong find it advisable to extend their marketing period
over as long a time as possible in order to obtain the average price
for the year, rather than take the chance of suffering large losses.
In addition to having their lettuce in a particular section come on
gradually, many of the large growers, by operating in all of the
main lettuce-producing sections in California, are able to market
lettuce throughout the year. In this way, losses suffered during some
periods are offset by high profits obtained during other periods. The
chief reason for the increasing importance of the large growers in the
lettuce industry in California is their abilit}^ to take the risk involved,
due to their financial strength and their practice of operating in such
a way as to be able to market lettuce throughout the year.^^
2. There is no simple definite prevailing relationship between the
supply of lettuce and the price at which it will sell. In the absence
of a careful analysis, one might assume that the jobbing prices of
lettuce in each market would fall as supplies increase and recover as
supplies diminish, "but a study of the weekly average prices to
jobbers and total carlot unloads of lettuce by weeks in several of the
important markets reveals the fact that the correlation between the
two over a period of one year is so small as to be almost wholly
insignificant."^^ Previous to receiving the bulletin just quoted, the
author made a study to determine what relationship existed between
(1) the weekly average jobbing price and total cars on track by
weeks in Chicago, (2) the weekly average jobbing i3rice and total
carlot arrivals by weeks in New York, (3) the weekly average price
f .o.b. cash track and total weekly shipments from the Imperial Valley.
13 At the present time close to 80 per cent of the lettuce in California is
grown by the large operators.
i4Hauck, Charles W., Marketing lettuce. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bui. 1412:31,
1926.
1926]
LETTUCE
37
Dollars Per Crate
ro oj rf* en
^PL ^'
a ^ to
13 I
_ ►i Co
S.^ CD
2 ^
« rD
^'^ o
S9 F^
CB
O
3^
gs •-<
o H
o
O 03*
(C CO
CO p3
TO t?
as
2 S" o
M
g-g 2. ^~
o
1
o S
I i
> c
I I
I i
) c
) c
I 8
•
)5
f
-
o
• -
J
X
-
I-
• ■
<
1
-•4
i
-
• _
<{
<.
}
.J
-
C -
5 _
^z
^
f
^
-
c
•
r
to
w
^5)
--J.
•?!
^
'^7
-
c
^
>*'>
^^^*
•s -
J -
C/ —
o
• —
I
^
>
1
':
* _
^
^
~
1
.i
4
/
-
0)
o —
•
i
<
1
>
\
CO <o
to
^5
o> en
It*.
> Dollars
4.25 3.50
2.30
4.00 3.46
2.45
3.40 3.60
2.40
2.75 4.10
2.60
3.00 4.40
2.50
2.80 4.50
2.69
w
W
2.80 4.80
2.85
3.25 4.45
2,85
«H
3.75 4.00
2.80
O
3.75 4.25
2.50
w
3.60 4.30
2.95
4,00 4. 50
4.15
^
4.75 3.80
4.95
w
6.00 3.00
5.15
H
4.25 2.60
5.65
o
4.60 2.80
5,55
^
4.90 2.90
5.20
O
o
4.75 3,30
5.65
o
4.50 3,30
4.00
,o
4.60 3,55
3.40
4.50 3,65
3.00
e:
4,00 3,35
3.50
1^
4,00 3,45
4.16
n
3.60 3,35
3.95
>
1,75 3,50
3.36
•^
1,25 5,70
2.70
w
2,50 4,00
2.60
^
3.80 3.70
4.60
4.40 3.50
5.80
4.40 4.65
5.60
c
o
4.00 5.40
5.50
4.50
6.35
3.00
6.25
2.50
5.00
o
2,60
4.70
>
2,90
5.46
2.40
6.00
1— '
CO
2.20
5.25
to
2.25
6.15
1
3.05
5.55
3.90
5.66
Kj
3.35
6.40
^
3.80
6.40
CO
to
3.70
5.00
Oi
3.76
4.60
3.80
3.66
4.45
2.96
4.75
3.00
5.25
2.86
4.85
3.06
4.65
3.06
4.60
3.20
38 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE [CiRC. 5
The results in each case were the same, viz., almost no significant
relationship existed between the two series. In the Chicago market,
for example, jobbing prices would sometimes fall as supplies increased,
and conversely, prices would sometimes rise as supplies decreased,
but at other times prices and supplies would move in the same direc-
tion, and at still other times either prices or supplies would change
while the other remained stationary. Quoting again from U. S. Dept.
Agr. Bui. 1412, "Manifestly prices are determined by other influences
as well as current carlot receipts. Doubtless general business condi-
tions, weather, production, current loadings, shipments en route, busi-
ness interruptions, and deviations from the normal demand caused
by holidays, marked differences in the quality and condition of offer-
ings, receipts of locally grown lettuce, etc., all exert some influence on
jobbing prices." The influence of quality upon price deserves par-
ticular emphasis. Sales managers of large lettuce producing and
shipping organizations point out that uniformly poor quality lettuce
will ruin a market faster than anything else, even though supplies are
very light and all other conditions favorable to heavy consumption.
Although it takes a little while for this factor to be felt, it is very
consistent and exerts a strong influence. On the other hand, when
quality is uniformly good, prices usually hold up well despite heavy
receipts and other unfavorable conditions.
There is as yet no method available by which California lettuce
growers can forecast the prices that will prevail in the Eastern
markets sufficiently far in advance to enable them to have their lettuce
ready for market at just the time that prices are high.
3. Buyers pay a substantial premium for good quality lettuce. In
1925 the average differential between the jobbing prices of good and
poor quality lettuce at Chicago was $2.00 per crate. It is true, of
course, that poor quality lettuce frequently brings more when prices
are very high than good quality lettuce does when prices are very low,
but as yet growers can not forecast three or four months in advance
the times during the year when the prices will be high. Consequently
it will generally pay them to grow lettuce at only those times when
good quality lettuce can be produced.
4. There is no definite seasonal variation in the prices of Iceberg
lettuce that tends to be repeated year after year (fig. 25). It is true,
of course, that during a given year prices fluctuate considerably, being
high at some periods and low at others, but these high and low prices
have not been repeated at the same periods year after year. The
available data do not indicate that there is any one period during
1926]
LETTUCE
39
the year when prices are normally higher than at any other period.
The average prices for the different months show only a small varia-
tion from each other, and the cluster of the individual monthly prices
about the average is not close. Growers who have consistently
marketed their lettuce during the same period each year for the past
six years have received approximately the same amount of money as
they would have received if they had marketed an equal amount of
lettuce of similar quality during any other period.
Monthly Jobbing Prices of Good Quality Iceberg Lettuce, Chicago,
1923-1925, AND Average 1920-1925
Av. 1920-1925. "^ ^. "^ '^.
w to to ■>*<
m o o lo
1923 _ o> o> CO CO
1924
1925
O .
6.00
5.00
4,00 -^
S 3.00
1,00
•»!
h -"i
cv
' f
5 T}
•^
* X
*
J f
3 T
f ■«i'
1924. ^
\
/
^
.,/
./
^
—
/
>
^
/••'
^
'J
\
^
//
^
fe
^
.-^
1923
\-T^
" A,
19
BO -lO
es^
\
A.
>2S
Fig. 25. — There is no period during the year when lettuce prices are normally
higher than at any other period.
Data from table 14.
The foregoing analysis of the more important characteristics of
lettuce prices indicates that it generally pays to grow lettuce in a
given section only at those times when good quality lettuce can be
produced, and to grow it over as long a period as possible consistent
with the production of good quality. An effort to have lettuce mature
at just the time when prices are high is usually fruitless because (1)
the prices of lettuce can not be forecast with any reasonable degree
40
CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
[CiRC. 5
of accuracy sufficiently far in advance, and (2) prices over a period
of years have been equally as good at one time of the year as at any
other time.
Trend of Prices. — Figure 26 shows the yearly average jobbing
prices obtained for good quality California lettuce at Chicago during
the past six years/^ There has been no apparent upward or downward
trend in prices during this period; instead they have remained at
approximately the same level, fluctuating but slightly from year to
year. The highest average price occurred in 1922, but this price of
$4.06 per crate is only 70 cents more than the low price of $3.36 in
1920, and only 34 cents more than the six years average price of $3.72.
The 1925 price was $3.88, 16 cents more than the six-year average
price.
Average Jobbing Price and Purchasing Power of Good Quality California
Lettuce at Chicago, 1920-1925
Price
to
a •
u «
Purchasing o >«jj
Power M
4.60
§
■*
CO
n
to
•
lO
8.
s
(0
•-•
5
§
Fig. 26. — There appears to have been no tendency for prices to decline during
this period despite the rapid increase in production.
Yearly average price computed by weighing the monthly jobbing prices at Chicago
(table 14) Vjy the monthly carlot shipments from California (table 9). Purchasing power
obtained by deflating the yearly average price by the "all commodity index." This index
is published in The Agricultural Situation which is issued monthly by the Bureau of
Agricultural Economics.
15 The general trend shown in figure 26 is representative of the trend of
average net prices to growers. The actual prices received by growers, however,
are substantially less than the Chicago jobbing prices because of the costs of
selling, transporting and packing. See footnote at bottom of p. 35.
1926] LETTUCE 41
The continuation of these relatively high prices of Iceberg lettuce
during this period, when the prices of many agricultural products
have been low, has been, in the main, responsible for the rapid increase
in production.
The purchasing power of Iceberg lettuce has also continued high.
The lettuce grower is able to buy as much of other commodities with
the money he receives for a crate of lettuce today as he was 5 years
ago (fig. 26).
The experience of individual growers has undoubtedly been some-
what different from that illustrated in figure 26. Their average prices
would coincide with those given here only if their shipments con-
tinued throughout the year and in the same proportion each month
as was shipped from the state as a whole. Many growers, however,
ship lettuce only during a short period each season. If, for example,
a grower had marketed his lettuce during March each year for the
past six years, he would have received a higher price than the average
for the state in 1921, 1922, and 1925, but a lower price in 1920, 1923,
and 1924. His average price for the six years, however, would have
been approximately the same as that for the state.
On the whole, growers who have produced good quality lettuce
during any given period each year for the past six years have averaged
satisfactory prices. This would indicate that lettuce growing is likely
to prove more profitable to those growers who undertake it as a long
time proposition than to those who '^jump into it one year and out
the next."
42
CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
[CiRC. 5
TABLES17
TABLE 5
Commercial Acreage of Head Lettuce, United States, 1918-1925
State
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925*
Arizona
300
7,140
270
7,670
520
17,880
630
15,340
1,480
18,140
2,900
24,700
4,800
33,020
4,400
California
49,320
Imperial Valley
7,000
8,340
11,000
7,140
14,130
10,570
18,000
15,020
25,000
Other sections
24,320
Colorado :
140
2,640
190
2,680
730
3,500
80
260
100
980
900
3,060
400
360
100
1,070
6,000
3,140
1.800
370
170
1,380
6,710
3,780
3,150
380
240
1,310
5,600
3,490
1,420
210
180
2,300
250
6,290
1,540
300
70
1,120
760
300
1,400
200
300
10,500
3,400
1,500
80
Florida
Idaho
Michigan
260
280
60
840
Minnesota
220
New Jersey
760
2,320
1,500
6,520
1,730
300
New Mexico
New York
3,480
490
4,220
540
4,690
500
5,120
760
6,000
1,180
500
60
1,750
1,390
120
1,080
210
130
7,150
1,230
500
60
1,980
1,140
200
2,000
250
310
North Carolina
Oregon
Pennsylvania
.50
660
590
50
780
560
60
740
1,160
60
1,340
1,020
70
South Carolina
1,480
680
Texas
Utah
250
Washington ...
190
220
730
1,080
1,720
110
Virginia
170
220
80
220
300
Total
16,870
18,580
32,010
31,460
44,900
57,990
63,550
86,400
* 1925 data are preliminary.
Sources of data: Mimeographed reports of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics (revised esti-
mates). Years 1923-1925 published in U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook 1925, 906.
17 Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 are on pages 26, 28, 30, and 32, respectively.
1926]
LETTUCE
43
TABLE 6
Commercial Production of Head Lettuce, United States, 1918-1925
(Thousands of crates;* i.e., 000 omitted)
State
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925t
Arizona
70
1,864
63
1,910
133
4,613
155
3,649
422
3,178
754
5,584
1,080
6,589
990
9,305
Imperial Valley
1,330
2,319
1,650
1,528
2,614
2,970
3,330
3,259
5,000
Other sections .
4,305
Colorado
36
1,093
45
938
182
1,232
18
28
13
153
243
1,255
100
54
13
174
1,080
1,294
306
46
23
230
973
1,021
435
46
24
210
476
914
192
26
25
610
56
1,113
260
48
5
151
133
80
36
315
52
1,396
Florida
765
Idaho
180
33
50
11
133
10
Minnesota . .
33
129
596
New Mexico . ..
300
New York
588
108
633
125
807
116
983
175
900
266
75
10
296
257
31
24
351
48
1,158
240
69
9
216
226
50
41
560
56
1,265
North Carolina
467
45
7
146
90
7
172
136
8
148
282
12
302
228
11
South Carolina
247
Texas
68
Utah
94
32
48
41
52
16
179
51
405
39
Washington
344
Wyoming
16
Total
4,244
4,316
7,928
7,799
8,837
11,672
12,161
16,171
* Western crates of 4 dozen heads each.
t 1925 data are preliminary.
Sources of data: Mimeographed reports of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics (revised esti-
mates). Years 1923-1925 published in U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook 1925, 906.
44
CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
[CiRC. 5
TABLE 7
Carlot Shipments* of Head Lettuce by State of Origin, 1917-1925
State
1917t
1918t
1919t
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925t
64
2,013
1,116
64
2,051
1
2,352
41
2,731
7
2,134
254
7,358
129
2,940
168
9,850
234
2,267
678
9,744
812
3,310
5
889
14
81
85
1,108
15,113
1,436
3,146
5
1,241
3
208
53
2,049
18,480
1,036
2,257
3
532
8
55
36
3,477
California
21,608
3,061
Florida .
1,510
26
Georgia
Idaho
1
36
63
45
18
25
7
110
56
180
1
100
44
407
Louisiana
98
152
24
6
7
Minnesota .. ..
12
Missouri
23
38
14
Montana
1
Nevada
13
New Jersey
215
171
245
208
469
571
456
11
3,817
718
44
168
22
577
417
95
3,698
714
94
127
17
423
469
New Mexico .. .
158
New York
1,423
181
1,334
226
4
1,761
319
52
1,775
207
16
3
23
121
3,240
445
27
25
36
716
3
132
5
154
635
3,167
622
33
129
34
987
3
113
15
119
812
3,819
North Carolina
537
Ohio
70
Oregon
45
Pennsylvania
27
161
3
53
26
375
5
17
8
395
18
South Carohna
700
Tennessee
5
Texas
90
139
102
31
70
1,081
85
7
110
674
121
Utah
8
Virginia
45
103
31
19
55
354
102
Washington
817
Wisconsin
4
Wyoming
11
5
74
1
16
2
26
Others
5
16
22
8
7
Total
5,428
6,959
8.018
13,788
18,738
22,240
29,485
30,935
37,040
* Local truck deliveries and less-than-carlot shipments by freight or express are not included, because
these records are not available. It should be borne in mind, however, that in some sections such ship-
ments amount to a considerable volume.
t Records prior to 1920 are only approximately accurate.
1 1925 data are preliminary.
Sources of data: Mimeographed reports of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics (revised figures).
Data for the 10 most important lettuce-producing states for the years 1920-1925 published in U. S. Dept.
Agr. Yearbook 1925, 907.
1926]
LETTUCE
45
TABLE 8
Monthly Carlot Shipments of Head Lettuce, United States, 1917-1925
Jan.
Iceberg:
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925*
Big Boston:
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925*
Total :t
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925*
165
271
134
793
1,445
1,342
2,193
2,997
2,716
199
686
633
1,161
875
903
926
810
593
364
957
767
1,954
2,320
2,245
3,119
3,807
3,309
Feb.
159
497
311
1,264
1,404
914
2,111
3,328
2,931
53
627
406
427
556
1,005
625
297
448
212
1,124
717
1,691
1,960
1,919
2,736
3,625
3,379
Mar.
290
715
571
1,586
1,409
1,506
3,340
2,505
4,255
54
452
258
292
868
1,078
759
284
730
344
1,167
829
1,878
2,277
2,584
4,099
2,789
4,985
Apr.
472
162
557
793
1,429
2,303
1,905
2,665
3,228
233
563
533
168
752
864
615
222
743
705
725
1,090
961
2,181
3,167
2,520
2,887
3,971
May
439
194
491
911
906
1,429
1,452
2,027
2,578
235
305
340
239
158
430
563
1,063
329
674
499
831
1,150
1,064
1,859
2,015
3,090
2,907
June
40
43
82
203
384
571
1,240
1,180
1,405
105
49
99
52
285
230
70
80
121
145
92
181
255
669
801
1,310
1,260
1,526
July
2
2
37
179
377
459
748
630
1,090
520
380
358
717
958
1,077
1,484
1,080
1,408
522
382
395
896
1,335
1,536
2,232
1,710
2,498
Aug.
1
9
11
161
382
727
1,087
609
1,712
435
551
684
593
699
1,060
1,406
1,424
1,528
436
560
695
754
1,081
1,787
2,493
2,033
3,240
Sept.
14
14
18
213
422
608
1,105
889
2,087
308
369
635
507
861
695
734
937
322
383
653
720
1,283
1,303
1,839
1,826
2,925
Oct.
75
12
97
247
600
1,003
1,530
1,622
2,526
198
111
261
221
669
500
518
546
206
273
123
358
468
1,269
1,503
2,048
2,168
2,732
Nov.
185
50
249
1,042
1,104
966
1,632
2,397
2,009
281
269
316
389
411
487
653
423
257
319
565
1,431
1,515
1,453
2,285
2,820
2,266
Dec.
236
147
241
731
1,235
1,263
1,920
2,167
3,083
729
481
549
820
869
753
219
965
628
937
1,630
1,784
2,083
2,789
2,920
3,302
Total
2,078
2,116
2,799
8,123
11,097
13,091
20,263
23,016
29,620
3,350
4,843
5,219
5,665
7,641
9,149
9,222
7,919
7,420
5,428
6,959
8,018
13,788
18,738
22,240
29,485
30,935
37,040
* 1925 data are preliminary.
t Total of Iceberg and Big Boston. These two types constitute practically all of the head lettuce.
Sources of data: Compiled from mimeographed reports of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics
(revised figures).
TABLE 9
Monthly Carlot Shipments of Lettuce, California, 1917-1925
Year
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
1917
165
263
132
767
1,436
1,312
1,953
2,256
1,924
159
471
295
1,175
1,386
902
2,043
3,185
2,663
289
685
551
1,473
1,397
1,456
3,227
2,461
4,093
411
162
555
774
1,367
2,014
1,659
2,291
2,502
437
194
491
911
899
1,294
1,410
1,952
2,417
40
43
69
146
281
391
430
839
934
2
2
25
68
233
184
395
380
640
14
14
17
44
131
91
296
280
684
75
12
96
192
393
220
450
1,094
1,831
185
50
249
1,031
1,007
676
1,241
2,065
1,826
236
147
240
723
1,173
1,100
1,502
1,474
1,589
2,013
1918
8
11
54
147
104
507
203
505
2,051
1919
2,731
1920
7,358
1921
9,850
1922
9,744
1923
15,113
1924
18,480
1925*
21,608
* 1925 data are preliminary.
Sources of data: Mimeographed reports of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics (revised figures).
TABLE 10
Weekly Carlot Shipments of Iceberg Lettuce by State of Origin, 1925*
California
t
Ariz.
Colo.
Idaho
Wash.
Others
Week
ending
North-
ern
District
Central
District
South-
ern
District
Im-
perial
Valley
Total
Total
Jan. 3
8
20
5
15
11
12
16
8
5
4
4
1
7
5
42
162
251
373
410
469
483
189
162
138
244
282
179
166
124
141
110
136
97
88
110
120
110
83
212
160
392
349
433
413
400
276
231
130
135
81
51
9
31
33
19
10
13
11
7
17
4
7
9
3
4
246
408
386
447
457
552
660
770
601
673
650
962
1,353
1,015
430
53
285
461
410
473
481
575
683
795
610
685
663
968
1,364
1,020
499
357
558
685
736
701
555
204
170
141
244
287
179
166
124
141
110
136
97
88
110
120
110
83
212
160
397
350
440
415
445
406
479
360
441
275
314
307
261
223
199
164
120
110
72
47
39
64
37
30
23
33
68
246
288
114
1
546
10
684
17
609
24
1
637
31
601
Feb. 7
685
14
755
21
842
28
649
Mar. 7
1
749
14
700
21
2
998
28
1,387
Apr. 4
1,053
11
27
138
292
290
306
212
71
16
8
3
567
18
4
15
22
20
20
1
603
25
846
May 2
799
9
750
16
705
23
2
91
106
87
102
110
95
51
34
21
58
32
11
4
9
6
557
30
8
9
9
13
4
3
3
307
June 6
288
13
237
20
2
4
3
361
27
5
3
3
13
28
77
165
218
225
235
292
444
349
217
240
277
127
35
28
14
7
408
July 4
280
11
230
18
186
25
239
Aug. 1
2
1
2
3
4
10
11
10
10
11
52
25
30
21
2
3
335
8
387
15
335
22
330
29
415
Sept. 5
580
12
470
19
310
26
3
4
12
19
64
120
88
49
43
20
21
6
465
Oct. 3
1
6
3
3
2
2
2
4
453
10
2
1
4
1
11
38
98
81
55
21
9
3
594
17
432
24
3
1
34
92
150
149
231
142
96
33
565
31
572
Nov. 7
544
14
460
21
527
28
23
154
383
417
202
404
Dec. 5
20
31
158
265
616
12
4
3
1
668
19
734
26
510
* 1925 data are pr.eliminary.
t The Northern District of California includes the territory north of a Hne extending in a general
easterly direction from San Francisco Bay; the Central District includes the territory between this line
and the Tehachapi Pass; and the Southern District includes the remainder of the state with the excep-
tion of the Imperial Valley. The exact boundaries of these four districts may be obtained from the
Bureau of Agricultural Economics, San Francisco.
Sources of data: Compiled from Weekly Summary of Carlot Shipments (mimeographed), issued
weekly by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics.
1926]
LETTUCE
47
TABLE 11
Carlot Shipments of Lettuce, California by Counties, 1920-1925
County
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924*
1925*
2,940
3,991
37
8
278
33
1
1
13
11
45
3,669
5,554
73
18
219
65
2
25
14
153
3
37
18
4,806
168
3,369
154
61
11
185
106
37
38
58
35
133
163
13
304
10
70
23
3
7,994
94
3,454
877
68
56
275
163
59
66
41
37
275
704
105
542
21
57
208
14
76
9,297
84
2,687
1,265
142
15
313
171
214
8
70
280
1,547
385
1,118
13
39
710
46
55
Imperial . ...
10,302
122
Kern
Los Angeles
1 709
Monterey
3,581
Orange
80
Riverside
50
Sacramento
381
San Benito
159
San Diego
149
San Francisco . ..
9
33
San Luis Obispo
222
San Mateo
248
Santa Barbara
2,552
Santa Clara
138
Santa Cruz
1,247
Stanislaus
30
Tulare
35
Ventura
388
Others.. .
118
Total .
7,358
9,850
9,744
15,113
18,480
21,608
* 1924 and 1925 data are preliminary.
Sources of data: Years 1920-1923, U. S. Dept. Agr. Statistical Bui. 9: 29-33. 1925. Years 1924-
1925. Compiled from the Summary of Carlot Shipments of Important Fruits and Vegetables in Cali-
fornia by Homer A. Harris (mimeographed), issued annually from the Los Angeles office of the Bureau
of Agricultural Economics.
48
CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
[CiRC. 5
TABLE 12
Monthly Carlot Shipments of Lettuce, California by Counties, 1923-1925
County
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
1923
1,798
7
123
1
1,988
3
48
3,015
8
176
576
45
845
19
24
4
9
1
3
622
142
111
26
12
8
616
16
631
37
72
4
7,994
Kern
12
892
42
65
53
28
20
7
34
20
45
96
96
94
Los Angeles
62
77
6
45
7
187
42
153
3
39
3,454
174
877
Sacramento
275
35
2
47
120
3
70
1
1
163
San Diego
9
1
3
107
102
10
57
59
4
37
San Mateo
100
156
4
63
5
15
13
56
16
34
1
58
23
117
7
7
275
Santa Barbara..
5
3
1
5
1
4
3
17
41
72
117
23
107
41
28
52
704
Santa Clara
105
Santa Cruz
1
30
13
27
542
Ventura
208
Others .
4
26
14
34
2
326
Total
1,953
2,043
3,227
1,659
1,410
430
395
507
296
450
1,241
1,502
15,113
1924*
2,189
4
47
7
3,183
2,433
3
14
1,127
19
680
3
45
17
763
235
136
51
49
3
280
105
137
198
91
365
22
580
39
95
3
48
9,297
Kern
19
561
218
36
50
37
10
346
85
320
178
92
84
16
211
34
1
78
25
332
1
38
2
20
244
85
303
39
5
2,687
Montrey
108
4
1,265
313
San Benito
1
24
171
7
71
214
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo
....
54
256
71
173
24
10
93
135
11
29
51
89
10
17
2
49
46
9
94
2
1
280
Santa Barbara..
40
111
9
11
89
102
1,547
Santa Clara
385
1
33
180
93
1,118
Ventura
710
Others
1
1
11
409
Total
2,256
3,185
2,461
2,291
1,952
839
380
203
280
1,094
2,065
1,474
18,480
1925*
1,782
29
59
2,583
12
15
4,050
8
8
1,086
19
358
306
36
44
21
8
16
441
722
46
44
76
38
16
360
29
55
350
6
116
2
4
138
32
87
350
136
24
78
246
365
16
22
145
7
129
928
4
55
45
6
426
64
298
5
1
8
445
495
225
16
8
21
800
30
363
131
70
10,302
122
Kern
Los Angeles
1,709
3,581
381
Sacramento
159
San Diego
16
11
1
16
9
149
222
San Mateo
248
2
8
144
9
132
186
153
464
31
327
132
80
362
20
156
41
28
55
1
25
4
85
2,552
Santa Clara .
138
Santa Cruz
Ventura
8
5
23
3
5
26
6
8
12
26
3
21
1,247
388
Others
410
Total
1,924
2,663
4,093
2,502
2,417
934
640
505
684
1,831
1,826
1,589
21,608
* 1924 and 1925 data are preliminary.
Sources of data: Compiled from the Summary of Carlot Shipments of Important Fruits and Vege-
tables in CaUfornia by Homer A. Harris (mimeographed), issued annually from the Los Angeles oflBce
of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics.
1926]
LETTUCE
49
TABLE 13
Carlot Unloads of Lettuce in 21 Cities, by Months, 1925
City
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May-
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Total
Atlanta
Baltimore
Boston
Chicago
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Denver
Detroit
Kansas City
Los Angeles
Minneapolis
New York
Omaha
Philadelphia...
Pittsburgh
Portland, Ore..
St. Louis
St. Paul
Salt Lake City
San Francisco..
Washington
15
52
105
304
66
78
39
79
46
106
45
446
18
212
86
60
87
19
17
83
29
19
55
77
283
68
70
36
69
50
95
30
605
18
234
88
48
100
22
12
84
36
25
50
126
290
51
85
45
104
58
181
49
836
13
178
108
60
98
26
24
94
42
24
77
157
383
45
101
60
122
52
92
75
939
36
318
168
80
121
34
26
40
47
26
63
105
424
36
90
60
144
31
42
57
754
18
266
118
46
41
34
24
27
36
21
13
37
315
13
71
22
123
23
125
34
130
13
116
55
3
29
11
1
23
15
82
57
350
42
62
37
74
41
191
22
723
12
213
38
1
68
7
46
17
48
91
295
43
54
78
61
37
227
21
1,034
19
222
50
29
78
59
325
46
59
81
67
46
163
37
803
16
223
64
10
96
6
10
1
42
23
46
63
296
40
66
27
69
48
175
32
311
19
144
56
2
62
12
4
4
29
19
48
69
311
48
56
26
35
38
47
31
363
22
138
51
13
79
18
6
21
23
55
75
324
49
73
30
88
53
32
33
540
24
186
93
44
102
18
11
36
33
256
667
1,021
3,900
547
865
541
1,085
523
1,476
466
7,484
228
2,450
974
367
954
213
154
413
424
Sources of data: Compiled from Unloads of Lettuce in Various Markets during 1925, by States of
Origin and Months, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, unpublished report, April 22, 1926.
TABLE 14
Jobbing Prices of Good Quality Iceberg Lettuce, Chicago, by Months,
1920-JuLY, 1926
(Dollars per crate)
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Average, 1920-1925
3.70
3.45
3.75
4.05
3.70
3.95
3.95
4.10
3.70
4.40
4.00
3.60
1920
3.90
4.20
3.70
3.95
2.45
3.85
3.50
2.20
3.20
5.25
2.90
2.75
4.45
3.15
2.35
3.90
5.70
2.80
3.65
4.15
4.00
5.00
4.80
3.30
2.85
5.45
2.85
4.70
4.00
3.90
2.60
4.55
3.65
3.45
4.45
3.75
4.30
3.45
4,45
3.60
4.00
2.65
3.25
5.20
3.15
3.05
4.65
4.30
3.80
2.80
5.20
3.60
3.80
5.50
3.70
4.20
3.15
3.60
3.25
5.45
2.45
4.80
3.65
4.35
4.50
5.45
3.70
4.20
3.75
4.60
3.65
3.60
4.25
2.70
1921
3.35
1922
4.50
1923
3.15
1924
3 05
1925
4.75
1926
Sources of data: Months, January through May and November through December, 1920-1923; and
January, 1924, through July, 1926, compiled from daily market reports of the Bureau of Agricultural
Economics and its predecessors, issued from the Los Angeles, El Centro and San Francisco offices.
Months, June through October, 1920-1923, compiled from Chicago Daily Fruit and Vegetable Reporter
(files obtained from the Stewart Fruit Company, San Francisco). Monthly prices are simple average
of daily prices of good quality lettuce. Prices are for Cahfornia lettuce, with the following exceptions:
Washington lettuce, June through October, 1920-1922; and July and August, 1923; Colorado lettuce,
September and October, 1923.
50 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE [CiRC. 5
SOURCES OF CURRENT INFORMATION ON LETTUCE
Growers interested in following the current developments in the
lettuce industry will find the following government publications of
value :
1. Daily market reports of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics
issued from the local offices at El Centro, Los Angeles and San Fran-
cisco give carlot shipments made each day from the producing sec-
tions; the destinations, diversions, arrivals and supplies on the main
markets ; the quality and condition of receipts ; and prices paid at
terminal markets and at points of origin. These reports are distri-
buted free by mail upon request.
2. Crops and Markets, published weekly by the United States
Department of Agriculture, contains from time to time important
information concerning the lettuce crop and markets. In addition to
news articles, the United States lettuce shipments for the current
week, for the previous week, and for the corresponding week last
year, together with the total shipments for the current season to date
and the total shipments for last season are published regularly. The
monthly carlot shipments by states of origin for the current month
and the corresponding month in previous years are published regularly
in the Monthly Supplement to Crops and Markets. Crops and
Markets may be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents,
Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C, at a cost of $1 per
year.
3. Estimates of acreage, production, yield per acre, average price
paid to growers, and farm value, by states, for a number of years, are
published in the U. S. Department of Agriculture Yearbook which
is issued annually. The latest year's figures appearing in the Year-
book are preliminary and may be revised in the following Yearbook.
The revised figures together with the next year's shipments are gen-
erally published in the Monthly Supplement to Crops and Markets
some time before the new Yearbook is out. For example, the revised
estimates for 1924 and the preliminary estimates for 1925 were pub-
lished in the Monthly Supplement to Crops and Markets, December,
1925, p. 397.
4. A summary of the Imperial Valley Deal is prepared annually
by the local representative of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics,
El Centro, California. Summaries of the deals in other states are
1926] LETTUCE 51
also issued by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. These sum-
maries may be obtained from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics,
Washington, D. C.
5. Carlot shipments of lettuce from California by shipping points
and by months are compiled annually by the local representative of
the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Los Angeles. These reports
may be obtained from the Los Angeles Office of the Bureau of
Agricultural Economics.
6. Truck Crop Notes issued from time to time by the California
Cooperative Crop Reporting Service gives information regarding
acreage, production, etc., in the main lettuce-producing sections in
California.
15j71-12,'26