Division of Agricultural Sciences UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNI, TRENDS AND CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL Experiment Station Extension Service CIRCULAR 493 The California plum industry has undergone important changes during the past decades. Some of these changes are shown in the graph below. This circular examines the factors responsible for the changes and evaluates the situation. By considering past shifts and present trends 1 1 projects the outlook for questions important to growers and handlers of plums. Among those questions are the following: tj Will past shifts in geographical location, varietal composition, and age distribution of plum acreage continue? |f Will the present trend toward higher yields extend into the future? ]\ Will it pay to plant additional acreage to plums? If so, what varieties will be most profitable? fl Has the industry's marketing agreement program improved returns to growers or has it run its course? 1910-14 1915-19 1920-24 1925-29 1930-34 1935-39 1940-44 1945-49 1950-54 1955-59 Figure 1. California Plums: Production, Utilization and Farm Price. Five-year Averages, 1910-59. IN SHORT . . . Production of plums leveled off at an average of 81,000 tons since 1945. During the past fifteen years production reached 100,000 tons in three seasons and fell below 70,000 tons three times. The substantial increase during 1920 to 1945 was due primarily to an expansion in bearing acreage followed by an increase in yield. Acreage expanded rapidly until 1932, declined sharply during the next decade, and increased slightly since the early 1940's. The com- position of varieties, location, and age of acreage has changed con- siderably. Yield varied about a level of 2.2 tons per bearing acre until 1935, then increased to the present average of almost 4 tons. OUTLOOK: some production increase for the next several years. Bearing acre- age should rise above the present relatively low level. A further yield increase appears likely if present good cultural practices are not abandoned. Marketings of plums average 96 per cent in fresh form. One-fifth of the fresh plums are sold within California, four-fifths are shipped to out-of- state markets. The different varieties are marketed in a staggered fashion throughout the season (May to September) as they mature. During the past quarter century sales of the four major varieties have expanded from one-half to three-fourths of the total. Processing of plums is limited to small quantities canned and frozen. A marketing control program has been used extensively and successfully to raise minimum grade and size of plums shipped to fresh markets. OUTLOOK: continuation of the present utilization pattern. Processing is not likely to expand or decline significantly. Local and interstate fresh sales are expected to continue at present relative amounts. Farm Prices of plums increased gradually from a depression low of $25 per ton in 1931-33 to $50 by 1941, then rose rapidly to the average of $150 maintained since 1950. Until 1950 growers received considerably less from local fresh sales than from interstate shipment. Since then the two prices have been approximately equal. Farm prices for plums sold to processors are far below those realized from fresh sales. OUTLOOK: maintenance or gradual rise of the present level of farm prices if consumer purchasing power continues to climb near the recent rate. The prospective production increase should not depress farm prices unduly except in years of bumper crops. THE CALIFORNIA PLUM INDUSTRY CONTENTS Acreage Undergone Frequent Changes .... . . 6 Yield Fluctuation 12 Production and Utilization Picture 15 Bulk of Crop to Interstate Markets 17 Industry Controls 23 A action Marketing — Price Trends 26 Farm Prices, Past Movements . 32 WHAT IS A PLUM? Originally the terms "plum" and "prune" were used interchangeably for the fruit of many hundred varieties comprising some 15 different species. A distinction in meaning evolved gradually, is currently recog- nized by the industry, and will be used throughout this circular. Prune designates a variety which can be and normally is sun-dried without removal of the pit. The term refers to both the fruit in its fresh state and to the dried product. Plum specifies a variety grown primarily for uses other than drying — mainly for fresh consumption but also, to a limited extent, for canning, freezing, crushing, and jam- and jelly-making. Most, though not all, of the plum varieties will ferment when sun-dried with the pit. If they are dried after removal of the pit, the product is called "dried plums" and not "prunes." Fresh prunes, which are grown extensively in the Pacific Northwest, fit into neither of the above categories. They are varieties equally well- suited and widely utilized for fresh use, canning and drying. In recent years the Northwest industry has tried to gain widespread use of "purple plums" as a more appropriate name. THE AUTHOR: Jerry Foytik is Associate Professor of Agricultural Eco- nomics and Associate Agricultural Economist in the Agricultural Experi- ment Station and on the Giannini Foundation. JANUARY, 1961 CALIFORNIA PLUM INDUSTRY jerry foytik TRENDS AND OUTLOOK California is the leading plum producing state. Commercial production in the United States is confined principally to a few specialized growing areas in California. Some 15 to 20 varieties are of major importance. California plums are sold chiefly for fresh consumption, mainly in the heavily populated industrial region of the north central and northeastern states, and in local California markets. Plums account for 25 per cent of the fresh deciduous fruits shipped from the state — and 40 per cent of shipments during the early sum- mer period, May to July. They are mar- keted in a staggered fashion from May to September as the different varieties mature. Most varieties occupy the center of the marketing stage for only two or three weeks, sometimes even less. Growing Conditions Although plums are not particularly sensitive to soil and climatic conditions, they make their best growth and produce heavier yields when grown on rather deep, fertile, well-drained loam or clay- loam soils. The long, dry summers in the interior valleys are well suited to the proper development and early ripening of plums if enough irrigation water is available to supplement the rainfall. When late spring frosts occur blossoms of early varieties may be damaged seri- ously. Hence, plantings in the foothill re- gions are largely confined to the later- blooming varieties or to lower elevations. Selection of good pollinators, especi- ally varieties which are themselves profit- able, is important. Preventive control of diseases and insect pests attacking the tree, foliage, and fruit, is necessary al- though these remedies are expensive. Varietal Characteristics Plum varieties show differences, some- times quite marked, in appearance, pal- atability, marketability, tree growth, and productiveness. These differences have a direct and pronounced effect upon the economic, as well as the technological, aspects of producing and marketing plums. California plums grown for fresh ship- ment are primarily either of the Euro- pean group (Prunus domestica) or of the Japanese group (Prunus salicina) . In ad- dition, there are hybrids of the latter with other species. Japanese varieties (including hybrids) typically are medium to large; flat, round, or heart-shaped; red or crimson, never blue or purple; and very juicy. Many ripen early and can be marketed before the main avalanche of summer fruits arrives. They must be handled care- fully and promptly between harvest in the orchards and delivery at retail stores because they tend to bruise easily. European varieties generally are smaller; oval or roundish; and blue or purple. Compared to Japanese varieties, [5] most European plums are milder, espe- cially those shipped late in the season, and have a firmer texture. They may be allowed to nearly ripen on the tree and still arrive at distant markets in good condition. European varieties bloom later in the season when danger from frost damage is less but they ripen when competition from other deciduous fruits is greater. Many Japanese varieties are self-un- fruitful. Sometimes self-fruitful varieties are cross-pollinated to increase yields. Usually European varieties are self- fertile and do not require cross-pollination for securing good crops. However, they are less productive than Japanese varieties. They start bearing and reach full ma- turity at a later age. Some 2,000 varieties have been grown successfully in the United States. Only a relatively few, however, are of commer- cial importance in California and other states. Most varieties are no longer grown or are planted on a limited scale in home gardens and for supplying local markets. Canning is limited largely to certain European varieties (especially Jefferson, Washington, and Yellow Egg) , which are not produced for fresh shipment to east- ern markets. These varieties are usually large, green or yellow. ACREAGE HAS UNDERGONE FREQUENT CHANGES As a result of changes in geographic location, varietal composition and age distribution in acreage, California's plum industry has changed considerably in the past, is changing at present, and can be expected to change further in the future. Numerous varieties have been grown suc- cessfully in most fruit-producing areas of the state. However, because of climate and other factors, commercial production is restricted to some 15 or 20 varieties grown in the interior valleys and foot- hills of central California. VARIETAL GROUPS BY SEASON Plum varieties are classified into three major groups, according to their marketing periods. The fol- lowing classification lists varieties in approximate order of peak sales : Early Plums (sold on eastern mar- kets up to about July 15) include six varieties: Star Rosa, Beauty, Burmosa, Formosa, Santa Rosa, and Climax. Midseason Plums (sold chiefly between July 15 and August 10) include nine varieties: Tragedy, Burbank, Wickson, Eldorado, Becky Smith, Gaviota, Sugar, Duarte, and Diamond. Late Plums (sold primarily after August 10) include 13 varieties: Late Tragedy, Laroda, Ace, Shar- key, Emily, Late Santa Rosa. Giant, Standard, Grand Duke, Kelsey, Gros Hungarian, President, and Late Duarte. Minor Varieties are all others, in- cluding canning plums so T d fresh. Their combined sales are less than 1 per cent of the total. They are sold throughout the plum season. NOTE: Some varieties of little present importance are included in the main groups because of their former significance in fresh ship- ment. The industry considers the Sugar variety as a plum or a prune according to whether the fruit is shipped fresh or dried. This mean- ing is followed here although it somewhat contradicts the defini- tions given on page 4. 6] Acreage Trends During the past 40 years bearing acre- age increased one-third — from 17,000 in 1919 to 21,800 in 1959— and total acre- age one-fourth. This expansion, however, was not uniform throughout the period, nor among districts and varieties. For example, bearing acreage almost doubled during 1919-29 (to a peak of 31,500), and then declined to 23,400 in 1941. Changes since have been minor. In 1940-59 bearing acreage varied between 21,100 and 24,300. This level is about 25 per cent below the 1929 peak. During the large reduction, mainly be- tween 1929 and 1941, usually trees of less productive varieties were removed, par- ticularly in the older plum-growing dis- tricts. New plantings were made of profit- able varieties, especially in areas of higher yields. Shifts in location, varieties, and age composition of California's plum acreage are discussed here in some detail, with emphasis on the twenty-year period 1936-56. Shifts in Location Commercial acreage of California plums is concentrated in a few counties, forming three major producing areas (see box below). These three areas represent 92 per cent of the total plum acreage: 55 per cent in South San Joa- quin District, 25 per cent in Placer Dis- trict, and 12 per cent in Sacramento District. Tulare, Fresno, and Kern counties rep- resent 97 per cent of the South San Joa- quin acreage. The other three counties declined from 10 to 3 per cent of the six- county total since the mid-1920's. Almost 99 per cent of Placer District's acreage is in Placer County, the rest in El Dorado and Nevada counties. Only two other counties (Amador and Calaveras) ever had any appreciable acreage. Their com- bined acreage reached a peak of 325 (3.7 per cent of the district total) in 1921, de- clined sharply during the 1930's and dis- appeared completely a few years ago. Sacramento District includes several separate sub-areas. Sacramento, Solano, PLUM PRODUCTION DISTRICTS Counties for each district are listed in decreasing order of present acreage South San Joaquin District includes six counties of the southern portion of the interior valleys: Tulare, Fresno, Kern, Madera, Kings, and Merced. This district corresponds approximately to the fruit-growing areas of four districts (Kern, Tulare, Fresno, and Stanislaus) established by the California Tree Fruit Agreement. Sacramento District contains the seven valley counties immediately to the north of those listed above: Sutter, San Joaquin, Yuba, Solano, Sacra- mento, Stanislaus, and Yolo. These counties approximate CTFA districts of Sutter, Sacramento River, Vacaville, and Lodi. Placer District is composed of the 11 foothill counties included in Crop Reporting District No. 6: Placer, El Dorado, and Nevada, plus eight coun- ties currently without any commercial acreage (Alpine, Amador, Cala- veras, Inyo, Mariposa, Mono, Sierra, and Tuolumne). This district cor- responds to El Dorado, Colfax and Placer districts of CTFA. Other Areas include eight counties in southern California, 12 along the central coast, and 13 in the northern portion of the state. [7 and Yolo counties reached a peak acre- age of 9,300 in 1925 (76 per cent of the district total) and then declined rapidly to less than 500 acres at present. Acreage also decreased in San Joaquin and Stan- islaus counties, but at a later date and slower rate. In Sutter and Yuba counties acreage expanded three-fold during the past twenty years. At present 86 per cent of the district's acreage is in four coun- ties: San Joaquin, Solano, Sutter, and Yuba — compared to 24 per cent in 1925. There have been important shifts among districts. Major acreage changes since 1921 are shown in figure 2. Bearing acreage increased in each district until about 1931. In South San Joaquin, fol- lowing a temporary reduction during the early 1930's, a further expansion oc- curred. Acreage declined elsewhere in the state during the past 25 to 30 years : from 10,000 to 7,500 acres in Placer District, 10,000 to 2,200 in Sacramento District, and 3,200 to 1,700 in other counties. Ex- pressed in percentages of the total bear- ing acreage, South San Joaquin increased from 12 to 53 per cent between 1921 and 1959. Bearing acreage decreased else- where in the state during this period: from 38 to 29 per cent in Placer District, 39 to 10 per cent in Sacramento District, and from 11 to 8 per cent in other counties. Shifts in Plum Varieties In their attempt to find better adapted varieties, to increase yield, and to recog- nize buyer preferences, producers con- 30 20 10 Placer Dist. Other Counties 40 - CD 20 LL O I- Z LU u ly LU CL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Placer Dist. ,^-w O^. ^S^*** 00 "*^ "^ J^^o^^, ^N>_o-o-<^.^^^^^ /So. San Joaq. Dist.""^ ^n^ Sacto. Dist. - ,/_______ ^~^^_ - Other Counties 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1921 1926 1931 1936 1941 1946 1951 1956 Figure 2. Distribution of Bearing Acreage, by Major Plum Districts, 1921-56. [3] Table 1 . Acreage of Californic Plums,* 1936, 1956, and 1959 Variety State total So. San Joaquin Other districts 1936 1956 1959 1936 1956 1936 1956 Santa Rosa Acres (total bearing and nonbearing) 5,080 1,900 6,980 3,390 2,830 10,130 3,810 13,940 2,600 1,880 11,750 3,260 15,010 2,320 1,640 3,960 3,140 2,420 4,800 10,360 29,330 2,590 90 2,680 1,070 200 1,270 1,890 680 2,570 6,520 7,130 620 7,750 1,970 550 2,520 t 670 3,100 3,770 14,040 2,490 1,810 3,000 3,190 Duarte Subtotal Beauty President Subtotal Burmosa, Laroda, Nubi- ana, and Queen Ann . . . Burbank, Climax, Grand Duke, Kelsey, Tragedy and Wickson 4,300 2,320 2,630 6,190 630 1,330 6,220 9,120 5,640 14,760 27,960 4,480 1,600 2,690 4,860 9,150 27,570 4,950 7,230 4,960 12,190 21,440 1,960 t 2,020 3,360 5,380 13,530 Other varieties Subtotal All varieties * Does not incorporate rec Reporting Service since only stat for some varieties. f Included with other varie ent revisio e totals we ties. ns in acre re changed- ige data n —and not s tade by th ubstantially 3 Calif orni . Estimates i Crop and Livestock of 1956 acreage made stantly alter the varietal composition of their acreage. Between 1936 and 1959 total acreage (bearing and nonbearing) increased sharply for the two leading varieties — 130 per cent for Santa Rosa and 70 per cent for Duarte — and de- creased for the next two varieties — 30 per cent for Beauty and 40 per cent for President. Several new varieties were in- troduced. The four most popular ones (Burmosa, Laroda, Nubiana and Queen Ann) now account for 3,140 acres. Acre- age declined 75 per cent for six varieties going out of production (see list in table 1) and 15 per cent for minor varieties. As a result, the relative importance of varieties shifted since 1936. Santa Rosa and Duarte increased from 25 to 51 per cent of the total, and the four recent in- troductions from to 11 per cent. On the other hand, President and Duarte de- creased from 22 to 14 per cent, and other varieties from 53 to 24 per cent. These changes occurred at different rates among districts. For example, acre- age about tripled for Santa Rosa and doubled for Beauty in South San Joa- quin, compared to an increase of 20 per cent for Santa Rosa and a decrease of 75 per cent for Beauty in the remainder of the state. A more detailed comparison, for the period 1936-56, is given in table 1. If acreage changes for varietal groups are considered, a somewhat different comparison emerges. Figure 3 reveals [9] 12 10 - Late Season Varieties I Mid season Varieties I Early Season Varieties 1936 1956 1936 1956 1936 1956 1936 1956 Figure 3. Plum Variety Groups, Acreage, by Major Districts, 1936 and 1956. that within each major district similar changes occurred during 1936-56 for each group. The proportions of the total acreage consisting of early varieties con- tinued at about 64, 20 and 37 per cent in South San Joaquin, Placer and Sacra- mento districts. The distribution of acre- age was about 20, 38 and 30 per cent, respectively, in the three districts for midseason plums and 16, 42 and 33 per cent for late varieties in 1956 as well as twenty years earlier. Shifts in Age Distribution Although the total acreage in 1956 was equal to that of 1936, its age com- position was changed. Nonbearing acre- age doubled from 3,000 to 6,000 acres. Young bearing trees (sixteen years or less since planting) declined 25 per cent from 16,000 to 12,000 acres. Old acreage increased slightly. The geographic loca- tion must also be considered (see figure 4, next page) . Several important changes occurred : Tf Nonbearing acreage increased four- fold in South San Joaquin and con- tinued at 2,100 acres for the re- mainder of the state. As a result, this district now has 65 per cent of the state's nonbearing acreage compared to 30 per cent in 1936. ff A similar shift occurred in young bearing trees. South San Joaquin's share rose from 29 to 60 per cent of the state total, while Placer and Sac- [10 14- 12- South San Joaquin District J Nonbearing trees [XfofoJ Young bearing trees f" | Old bearing trees Placer District Sacramento District Oth. Count i 1936 1956 1936 1956 1936 1956 1936 1956 Figure 4. Age Classification, Acreage, by Major Districts, 1936 and 1956. ramento districts declined from 38 to 20 per cent and 24 to 10 per cent. Tf Trees have become relatively old in Placer District. The proportion of the district's acreage consisting of old trees increased from 35 to 60 per cent compared to a decline from 30 to 23 per cent for the balance of the state. The proportion of nonbearing trees de- clined during the late 1920's to an aver- age of 13 per cent for 1930-39. Non- bearing acreage reached a postdepression peak of 6,300 (21 per cent of total acre- age) in 1947 and then declined sharply to 3,200 (13 per cent) in 1953. The re- cent increase raised the level to a new peak of 6,900 (25 per cent) in 1958. Future Shifts Estimates of future changes in bearing acreage are guided by recent plantings and by probable removals of older or diseased and weakened trees. Such fore- casts can be reasonably accurate for the period immediately ahead. In 1959 there were 7,580 acres of non- bearing trees. These will come into bear- ing by 1963. Removals from production over the next four years, of course, are not known. Estimates are difficult to make. The extent of removals depends primarily upon the age composition of present acreage. However, other influ- ences are also relevant and their impact cannot be measured accurately. Changes in bearing acreage since 1923 [ii] Table 2. Changes in Bearing Acreage of California Plums Period Beginning of period Addi- tion* Apparent removal End of period Acres! Per cent} 1923-27 22,980 29,920 29,960 26,430 24,690 23,750 24,100 23,460 21,090 21,760 9,610 4,800 3,870 4,170 3,340 4,170 6,300 3,620 4,980 7,580 5,244 2,670 4,760 7,400 5,910 4,280 3,820 6,940 5,990 4,310 5,120 11.6 15.9 24.7 22.4 17.3 16.1 28.8 25.5 20.4 20.3 29,920 29,960 26,430 24,690 23,750 24,100 23,460 21,090 21,760 1927-31 1931-35 1935-39 1939-43 1943-47 1947-51 1951-55 1955-59 1959-63 4-year average * Trees of nonbearing age at beginning of four-year period. period (col. 5). t Per cent of bearing acreage at beginning of period. Table 3. Age Distribution of California Plum Bearing Acreage Tree age 1943 1948 1953 1958 Per cent of bearing acreage 4-8 15.1 21.7 26.7 23.1 9-13 16.0 12.7 22.0 22.9 14-18 18.1 11.6 12.0 18.1 19-23 24 and over | 50.8 | 15.4 38.6 9.8 29.5 35.9 are shown in table 2. During this period, about 5,120 aeres were removed from production each four years. If this rate is continued, there will be a net gain of almost 2,500 bearing acres by 1963 since 7,580 acres of new trees will some into bearing. Table 3 gives the age distribution of bearing acreage for recent years. Com- pared to the 1940's there are relatively more young trees, four to thirteen years of age, and substantially fewer old trees, nineteen years and older. This suggests that removals may be lighter than usual during the next few years. In this event, bearing acreage would continue its pres- ent upward trend for the immediate fu- ture and reach a level of almost 25.000 bearing acres by 1963 compared to an average of 21,600 for 1955-59. YIELD FLUCTUATES BUT TREND IS UPWARD For a particular year the yield depends primarily on the weather conditions dur- ing the blooming, growing, and harvest- ing season. Long-range yield trends, how- [12] ever, are guided by other forces. Cul- tural practices alter yield over the life of the tree as well as for the current season. Changes in the varietal composition and geographic location of the bearing acre- age and in the proportion of trees at or near full maturity also are important. Comparative Yields Over the years yield in California has been about 40 per cent lower for plums than for other deciduous tree fruits and for grapes. A substantial increase oc- curred during the past quarter century. At present, yields are 75 per cent above the 1920-34 average for plums and grapes and 115 per cent higher for other deciduous tree fruits. A brief comparison of relative yields in California since 1920 is summarized on page 14. A comparison of yields for different plum varieties and producing areas is not available because yield data are not pub- lished on this basis. These relative yields are indicated, however, by a comparison of bearing acreage figures for specific varieties and districts and corresponding out-of-state shipments. Such comparisons are not entirely satisfactory, of course, since interstate shipments do not repre- sent the same proportion of each segment of the plum crop. Yet some valid general- izations can be made on the basis of the information summarized in table 5. Apparently yield is considerably higher in the South San Joaquin area than in the Placer and Sacramento districts. This conclusion agrees with the general ob- servation that the flat, fertile lands of the San Joaquin Valley, in addition to pro- ducing larger size of individual fruit, give a higher yield than the hilly areas of Placer District. It has been estimated that the usual commercial yield for good mature orchards averages some 8 tons in South San Joaquin District, 5 tons in the Placer District and in San Joaquin County, and 2 to 3 tons in Solano County. Differences of about the same magni- tude seem to exist among yields of impor- tant varieties. Some varieties are more productive and more regular bearers than others. Apparently yield is higher for Beauty, Santa Rosa, Duarte, and Trag- edy, and lower for Climax, Burbank and some of the minor varieties. These com- parisons are based on volumes shipped east per bearing acre rather than on yields produced, and make no allowances for varietal differences in local fresh sales, quantities processed, and amounts remaining unsold. i 1 1 i 1 1 r Averages, 1920-59 J I I I I L 1920-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 Figure 5. Plum Production, Bearing Acreage, and Yield. [13] The figures for "other districts" and "other varieties" must be interpreted with caution. Presumably local sales are more important, relatively, for plums grown in the scattered "other districts." The "other varieties" includes proportionally fewer trees at or near full maturity since much of this acreage consists of discontinued varieties with few plantings during the past twenty-five to thirty years and of new introductions set out mainly during the past decade. Yield Trend The general level of yield remained at about 2.2 tons per bearing acre until Table 4. California Yields for Plums and Other Fruits Years Plums Other deciduous tree fruits Grapes 1920-34 1935-39 Tons per bearing acre 2.2 2.4 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.9 3.3 4.2 4.5 5.9 6.3 7.2 3.8 4.5 4.8 5.6 5.7 6.7 1940-44 1945-49 1950-54 1955-59 Table 5. Interstate Shipments of California Plums In Relatic >n to Bearing Acreage District and variety Three-year averages 1939-41 1949-51 1954-56 Crates per bearing acre State total 165 227 178 126 43 169 199 301 143 98 146 147 165 139 122 193 231 194 153 55 204 233 289 195 108 149 275 180 148 94 215 South San Joaquin 275 Placer Sacramento Other districts 183 175 53 Beauty 288 Santa Rosa 235 Duarte 195 President 206 Climax 94 Burbank 160 Tragedy 271 Wickson 205 Kelsey 195 Other varieties 60 [14] 1935. It increased steadily thereafter to an average of almost 4 tons maintained during recent years. According to figure 5 annual fluctua- tions are substantial, averaging 0.77 tons (or 22 per cent of the average yield) dur- ing the past two decades. The change in yield from one season to the next was over 1.0 ton in six of the past twenty years, 0.5 to 0.9 tons in nine years, and below 0.5 tons in five. Fluctuations of such magnitude result in corresponding variations in production and hence in quantities available for fresh sales. They have a direct and important effect upon farm prices. Future Yields The upward trend in average yield dur- ing the past quarter century is due to several factors. The shift in location and varietal composition of California's plum acreage since 1935 has generally been to more productive areas such as the South San Joaquin District, and to more pro- ductive varieties, such as Santa Rosa and Duarte. This shift will probably continue. Better cultural practices introduced over the years also served to raise yields. They will continue to be used, and even improved further, unless prices drop so low that such expenditures become pro- hibitive. But even if this happens, the better care trees have already received will have a beneficial effect, though de- creasingly so, on yields for the immedi- ate future. In view of these considerations an av- erage yield of 4.0 tons per bearing acre appears likely for the early 1960's. It could go higher but a sharp increase above the present level is not expected. HERE IS THE PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION PICTURE Production is determined by acreage and yield. Major factors influencing these two determinants have been discussed. Table 6 indicates the production of the plum crop and its utilization since 1910. Until 1930 only negligible quantities of plums were not utilized. Since 1931 quan- tities not harvested and used (because of excessive production or depressed eco- nomic conditions) exceeded 7 per cent of the crop during nine seasons : 1931-33, 1939-42, 1949 and 1953. Smaller quan- tities were left unharvested in nine other years. Utilization was complete during only 11 of the past 29 seasons. Competition from Other States California's position is somewhat in- fluenced by the real and potential com- petition from plums grown in other states and from prunes. Plums grown commercially in Michi- gan (some 6,000 tons) are utilized chiefly for jam and jelly-making. Most of the small production from Texas, Utah and other areas is sold at local markets. Texas, however, does make car- lot shipments during May and early June when early plums start moving from the South San Joaquin District. Fresh prunes from the Pacific North- west are sold in large volume — 40,000 tons compared to 75,000 tons of Califor- nia plums. These marketings become sub- stantial only after most California plums are shipped. The last 20 to 25 per cent of California's plum shipments, however, are made after July when the supply of Northwest fresh prunes is large. This par- ticularly affects the producers in the Placer District because almost half of their plums move to market at this time. California prunes offer no competition since this crop is almost entirely dried. They are used fresh only occasionally and in small quantities. [15] Table 6. Production and Utilization of California Plums, 1910-59 Produc- tion total* Quantities utilized for: Five-year average All sales Fresh marketings Canning Freezing Total Out-of- state Intra- state Crushing Tons, fresh weight 1910-14 1915-19 1920-24 1925-29 1930-34 1935-39 1940-44 1945-49 1950-54 1955-59 24,400 36,600 48,800 58,600 66,800 62,400 76,000 80,400 76,400 84,200 24,200 36,400 48,600 58,400 61,720 60,700 72,100 77,900 72,900 81,500 21,880 33,460 46,120 55,600 59,840 58,940 68,380 73,800 70,780 77,880 19,800 29,840 41,760 48,960 51,340 47,660 54,260 58,860 56,420 64,100 2,080 3,620 4,360 6,640 8,500 11,280 14,120 14,940 14,360 13,780 2,320 2,940 2,480 2,800 1,880 1,760 1,500 1,960 1,660 1,520 380 580 460 2,100 1,840 1,560 * Difference between total production and all sales consists of small amounts used directly by the farm household (200 tons per year until 1930 and 300 tons thereafter) and quantities not utilized for the period since 1931. Production Trend Since 1910-14 the average annual crop increased almost fourfold from 24,000 to 85,000 tons. This expansion was consid- erably more rapid during the earlier years. Production increased at an annual rate of 3,000 tons until the early 1930's and 750 tons thereafter. This upward trend in production pri- marily resulted from an increase in bear- ing acreage until about 1930 and from a sharp rise in yield since 1935. Annual fluctuations in yield, chiefly caused by varying weather conditions, brought about large short-run changes in produc- tion. During the past twenty years such annual changes amounted to 18,000 tons, or 23 per cent of the average crop. Future Production Production trends for the years ahead must be estimated on the basis of future bearing acreage and yield, both expected to increase during the next few years. An average crop of some 90,000 to 100,000 tons seems probable under normal weather and growing conditions. This increase, although equal to or greater than that existing since the 1940's, will not be as rapid as it was during earlier decades. This projection of future production assumes that If good cultural practices will be con- tinued in the principal producing areas, even if prices decline; If tree removal will be at a rate below the high level of the 1930's and will be confined chiefly to varieties with low net return per acre; If more of the bearing acreage will be located in South San Joaquin (where yields are higher), will be of the more productive varieties, and will be at or near full production. Processing Normally processing is limited largely to certain green and yellow varieties (es- pecially Jefferson, Yellow Egg, and Washington) which are not produced for fresh shipment to eastern markets. This 16] outlet is a minor one for plums. Gen- erally 2,500 to 3,000 tons have been proc- essed each year, with a low of 1,500 tons during 1931-42 and a peak of 7,200 tons in 1943-46. As production quadrupled since 1910-14 the proportion processed declined from 10 to 3 per cent. Canning was the only processing out- let until World War II. An average of some 2,600 tons was canned annually in 1910-29, and 1,700 tons during the past quarter century. Expressed in per- centage of the total crop, canning dropped from 9 to 2 per cent. An additional 5,200 tons were crushed and frozen annually for remanufacture into jams and pellies during the war pe- riod (1943-46), when government re- quirements for bread-spreads were large and berry production was small. Crush- ing was discontinued after 1946, but freezing continued. Since 1954 the quan- tity frozen increased substantially, pri- marily for packing into large containers used by the institutional trade. An aver- age of 1,700 tons was frozen (compared to 1,600 tons canned) during 1954-53. Processing may expand further. But even if it doubled, this outlet would be only a small portion of the plum crop. Fresh Sales Plums are used chiefly for fresh con- sumption. This outlet represented 91 per cent of the harvested crop during 1910- 19, increased to 96 per cent, and has re- mained at that level since 1930. Thus fluctuations in fresh marketings parallel closely variations in harvested produc- tion. If production increases as indicated above, fresh consumption must expand materially since processing is not likely to absorb many of the additional plums. The only alternative is for large quanti- ties to be left unharvested in most years. This situation has already developed. During the past two decades, the entire crop was fully utilized in only one-third of the years. The surplus problem will become par- ticularly serious in years when favorable weather conditions produce bumper crops — say, of 110,000 tons or more. However, if consumer purchasing power continues to increase at or above the present rate, the price-depressing effect of excessive production in years of heavy yield will be offset, at least in part. BULK OF THE CROP IS SHIPPED TO INTERSTATE MARKETS In the past out-of-state markets have been the major outlet for the California plum crop. This situation is likely to con- tinue. This section describes certain as- pects of preparing plums for their long journey to markets, the source and des- tination of these shipments, and their varietal and size composition. Preparation and Handling Plums, being perishable, undergo changes after harvest: as the fruit ripens its flesh softens and ultimately becomes overripe. Mature plums have a better flavor but require more careful handling to avoid bruising and are not profitable. Hence, wholesalers and retailers prefer firmer, "greener" plums which hold up better during numerous rehandlings. It is necessary to determine when the fruit should be picked to combine suit- able carrying and handling character with good dessert quality. Then plums must be packed properly, handled care- fully, and precooled promptly. Ranch packing has been largely replaced by central packing houses, which are equipped to handle and cool the fruit [17] rapidly. These shipping agencies collect the plums from various producers, pack them, assemble the cars, and make ship- ments and sales. The use of trucks for shipping plums to out-of-state markets has increased con- siderably during recent years. The pro- portion moved by trucks increased from 8 to 18 per cent between 1950-54 and 1955-58. Most of the truck shipments are destined for markets located in west- ern states. Shipments to the more distant markets are still made almost entirely by railroad. Although some straight cars (containing a single variety) are loaded, the bulk of these shipments consists of several varieties. Often, plums are shipped in mixed cars with other fruits. The wholesale trade, however, prefers not to receive many small lots of 10 to 20 crales each. As a consequence, there has been a tendency to ship only a few va- rieties in each car. This is an additional reason why the number of varieties pro- duced for shipment to out-of-state mar- kets has been reduced. During recent years much criticism has been directed toward the large dis- tributive margins and possible inefficien- cies in the marketing process. Actually, however, very little information is avail- able to show just what this margin is, what the costs of distribution are, how thoroughly consumers are supplied, and what economies might be effected. Al- though many improvements have been introduced, there undoubtedly is a fur- ther need for securing faster movement, better equipment, and lower costs. The Plum Crate The standard four-basket crate has proved to be the most satisfactory con- tainer for shipping plums to distant mar- kets. About 95 per cent of the plums 1910-14 1915-19 1920-24 1925-29 1930-34 1935-39 1940-44 1945-49 1950-54 1955-58 Figure 6. Out-of-state and Intrastate Fresh Shipments, 1910-58. [18 shipped from California are packed in this container. The crate has four baskets, each con- taining three layers of plums of approxi- mately uniform size separated by paper skims. The number of plums packed in a basket depends upon their size. Because the baskets taper toward the bottom, the lower layer usually is packed with one row fewer than the middle and top layers. Pack size is designated by the number of plums contained in the upper layer of each basket. Thus a 4 x 5 size marking means that the top and middle layers each contain 20 plums (five rows of four plums each) while the bottom layer con- tains 16 plums. This gives a count of 56 plums per basket or 224 per crate. Simi- larly, 5x5 means 70 plums in each basket (25, 25, and 20 in the three lay- ers), or 280 per crate. Some plums are packed in crates designated 3x4x5 and 4x5x5. In other words, the larger size desig- nations indicate smaller individual fruits. For example, 5x5 plums are smaller than those marked 4x5. The plum count for six packs in general use is as follows : Marking A ssignment in layers Count per Top Middle Bottom Basket Crate 4x4 4x4 4x4 3x4 44 176 3x4x5 4x5 3x5 4x4 51 204 4x5 4x5 4x5 4x4 56 224 4x5x5 5x5 4x5 4x5 65 260 5x5 5x5 5x5 4x5 70 280 5x6 5x6 5x6 5x5 35 340 Total Shipments Fresh sales increased substantially until the early 1930's and more slowly thereafter. Figure 6 shows that local sales increased much more rapidly than out- of-state sales between about 1920 and 1940. As a result, the relative importance of in-state sales rose from 10 per cent of the total in 1910-24 to about 20 per cent for the period since 1935. Interstate shipments increased from 20,000 tons per year in 1910-14 to 50,000 tons in 1930-39 and 65,000 tons for 1955-59. This expansion averaged 1,600 tons per year until the early 1930's and 500 tons per year thereafter. On the average, Californians eat three Table 7. Initial Destination of Interstate Carlot Shipments of California Plums Region 1930-34 1935-39 1940-44 1945-49 1950-54 1955-57 North East 1,806 1,817 163 145 1,543 1,298 135 94 1,730 1,685 261 109 1,370 2,218 259 112 1,062 2,179 165 38 1,218 2,003 165 17 North Central South West (except California) . . . Total domestic Exports 3,931 280 3,070 451 3,785 195 3,959 256 3,444 191 3,403 205 Total 4,211 3,521 3,980 4,215 3,635 3,608 [19 South Son Joaquin District May June June June July Julv 11-20 July 21-31 MO 11-20 21-30 1-10 21-31 Aug Aug Sept 1-20 21-31 1-fo Sept 11-21 Figure 7. Interstate Rail Passings, by District, by Ten-day Periods 1953-57 Average. 3,000 Averages, 1934-58 2,000 South San Joaquin _f y^ yS \ ^^ Other 1 1 1 1 1 Annuol, 1950-58 ^f\ - / \ 1 \/ S. San Joaquin N - \ / «- '\ \ \ V \ ^^ Other 1 1 1 1 1 1945-49 1950-54 19 55-58 Figure 8. Out-of-state Shipments, by Districts. to four plums for every one eaten by per- sons residing elsewhere in the nation. The geographical pattern of plum con- sumption in the other states can be ap- proximated by the data summarized in table 7 which shows the destination of interstate shipments as compiled from shipper's manifests. These data exclude less-than carload lots and truck shipments and are not corrected for diversions be- yond the initial destinations. Hence, the information somewhat overstates ship- ments to the North Central Region and understates movement to other areas. These statistics, however, do indicate the general movement. Apparently the bulk — some 85 per cent — of the inter- state shipments moves to markets in the northern states, primarily the industrial belt extending from Chicago to New York City. The balance is split almost equally between shipments to southern and western states (exclusive of Califor- nia) and exports, principally to Can- adian markets. The decline in carlot ship- ments to western markets since 1950 is explained by the increase in truck move- ment to this area during the past decade. 20 Shipments by Districts Plums grown in the principal areas of the state mature at different dates. Trends in acreage and production vary consider- ably among the areas. For these reasons sh : pments from the various districts differ substantially with respect to both seasonal movement and trend in the vol- ume shipped. The earlier shipping dates for South San Joaquin are revealed by figure 7. About one quarter of the plums from this district are shipped before mid-June, another half during the next four weeks, and the remainder after July 10. In other words, shipments begin in late May, in- crease rapidly to a peak movement dur- ing late June, and decline substantially during each subsequent week. Shipments from Placer District follow a similar pattern but are made later. This apparent delay in movement is due mainly to the fact that a much greater proportion of the plums from Placer Dis- trict are later-maturing varieties. Actu- ally, initial shipping dates for specific varieties follow those for South San Joaquin by only a few days. But even this difference is important because the price has already dropped by the time Placer plums of a given variety reach the mar- ket. Figure 8 shows considerable differ- ences in the trend in interstate shipments for the major districts. During the past twenty years shipments originating in South San Joaquin increased three-fold from 960 to 2,750 cars. They declined " ■" Table 8. Interstate Carlot Shipments of California Plums, by Variety , 1 935-59 Variety 1935-39 1940-44 1945-49 1950-54 1955-59 South San Joaquin 1939-41 1954-56 Beauty Car o E 1,000 pa ckages Per cent of state 434 646 263 232 513 1,104 502 364 575 1,467 633 337 471 1,596 644 324 3,035 82 168 126 113 630 1,851 660 330 3,471 63 159 104 116 58 73 3 8 44 1 22 45 26 27 15 25 35 82 83 26 36 69 32 57 45 38 14 50 61 Santa Rosa Duarte President Four varieties 1,575 169 188 271 162 2,483 154 182 238 190 3,012 124 159 194 169 Burbank Tragedy Wickson Kelsey Four varieties 790 686 158 764 506 212 646 377 235 489 1S7 293 442 116 528 Eight varieties (Climax, Diamond, Formosa, Gaviota, Giant, Grand Duke, Gros Hungarian, Sugar) Other varieties All varieties 3,209 3,965 4,270 4,014 4,557 [21] from a level of 1,600 cars during 1934- 49 to 1,300 cars since 1950 for Placer District. Shipments from "other areas" decreased steadily from 940 cars in 1934- 37 to 400 cars in 1955-58. The Vacaville and Sacramento River areas shipped 550 cars twenty years ago and now account for less than 10 cars annually. Shipments from South San Joaquin rose from 28 to 62 per cent of the total while those from Placer District and "other areas" de- clined from 45 to 29 and from 27 to 9 per cent, respectively. Varietal Composition Quantities of different varieties of plums shipped from the state follow closel) their production. Onl) a few <>t the less important varieties are used prin- cipally for processing or for intrastate fresh sales. Information on shipments by varieties is compiled by the California Tree Fruit Agreement from shipper's manifests furnished in compliance with requirements of the industry's marketing control program. These data are summar- ized in table 8 for the period since 1935, except for 1938 when information was not collected. During the past twenty years the ship- ment of the four major varieties ( Beauty. Santa Rosa, Duarte, and President) in- creased sharply from 1,575 to 3,430 cars per year. Twelve varieties which were important two decades ago declined from 1,480 to 570 cars. Shipments of "other varieties" increased considerably, espe- cially during recent years. This category includes several new promising intro- ductions. Because of these differing trends, the four major varieties increased from 49 to 77 per cent of total shipments. The twelve other varieties listed by name in table 8 decreased from 46 to 13 per cent and "other varieties" expanded from 5 to 10 per cent since 1935-39. ' Minimum Grade ^^^^ \ / ^ / // — ^ Z 1/ 8 2 ^ / / V Figure 9. Minimum Grade and Size Permitted Under Federal Marketing Agreement 1946-59. NOTE: Annual levels in figure 9 are simple averages of minima specified for different varieties. Since changes in regulations during this period were similar for the individual varieties, this procedure is not misleading. Computing annual size minima presents a problem since different pack sizes are used for specifying varietal minima depending on fruit size. This difficulty is resolving by expressing varietal minima relative to 6x6 pack for Tragedy and Late Tragedy; 5x6 for Sugar; 5x5 for 10 varieties; and 4x5 for 10 varieties. The composite pack is termed the "reference size" for the annual size minima. This reference size, used here for convenience, does not correspond to any size actually packed but remains constant over the period under study. Regulations issued since 1936 for individual varieties, under the federal and state programs, are too numerous to permit separate discussion here. These details are given in the report mentioned on page 34. [22] Size Distribution Plums fluctuate in size from variety to variety and from year to year. The size distribution of shipments is modified fur- ther by grade and size regulations issued under the industry's marketing control program. These regulations reduced the volume of smaller sizes permitted to be shipped. Figure 9, page 22, shows the trend. The extent to which the size composi- tion of shipments was modified is indi- cated by comparing 1945-49 with 1955- 58. Shipments of 4 x 4 and larger packs doubled. This increase was from 15 to 32 per cent for early plums, 28 to 50 per cent for midseason varieties, and 33 to 63 per cent for late plums. Packs smaller than 4x5 declined from 29 to 10 per cent of total shipments. This indicated shift is due to shipping relatively more of the larger-fruit varie- ties. It is inherent in the marketing con- trols employed and occurred for each variety. A detailed comparison is shown in table 9 for the eight major varieties, representing 83 per cent of total ship- ments. For each, there is a considerable increase in relative shipments of large sizes and a substantial decrease for small sizes. Since these varieties differ in fruit size, their shipments may be divided into two segments of about equal volume rep- resenting packs of larger and smaller sizes. If this is done, each pack in the former group increased in relative ship- ments while each of the smaller sizes de- creased. Similar changes occurred for varieties not listed in table 9. Obviously, larger plums are shipped now than even 10 or 15 years ago. Mar- keting restrictions have eliminated ship- ments of small sizes and also have an in- direct effect on size: as smaller sizes are restricted from interstate shipment, growers tend to alter their cultural prac- tices so they will get a larger proportion of their crop over the minimum size. For several varieties, there was a decrease in shipments of the smallest permitted size and a correspondingly very large in- crease for the largest sizes. For example, 4x5 packs are the minimum sizes set for Santa Rosa, Duarte, and President dur- ing 1955-58. But relative shipments of this pack declined while shipments of larger sizes doubled. HAVE INDUSTRY CONTROLS IMPROVED MARKETING? The development of the plum industry, its economic problems, and attempts at their solution — first voluntary marketing plans, then compulsory programs — are similar to those of other California de- ciduous fruit industries. Compulsory con- trols were initiated in 1933 for interstate plum shipments and in 1950 for intra- state fresh sales. Continued support of these marketing controls presumably signifies the industry's confidence that grower and handler returns are increased without prejudicing long-run interests. Early Programs One of the earliest federal marketing agreement programs, No. 6 issued under the marketing adjustment provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, covered the interstate and foreign ship- ments of fresh California deciduous tree fruits other than apples. The first phase of this program was one of experimenta- tion in which the control mechanism and the administrative set-up were consider- ably modified. It encompassed three separate agreements extending from Oc- tober 1933 to March 1938. The first agreement, authorizing period prorations, was developed too late to permit its use in 1933. This plan proved grossly unsatisfactory the follow- ing year and operations were discon- tinued after only a few days. The second agreement changed the administrative provisions and permitted grade and size restrictions. Since it became effective late [23 as 03 q q co ■ q CO t> q q CN c- o H 1 oS d w d co T- o ^ CN t> d co 6 t-5 id ^ d d o3 J3 CN tH 1 1 tH | | | 1 CO | 1 1 1 1 CN ^H 1 1 1 I p O as .2 >> ^5 00 fl >> as £ >■ m J> in 05 c3 (D N 05 CO CM l> 1- 03 2 CD CD H O ^J o w q i-j t-j o o o i 1 > (N (N O d co c o 'e/i t-J co ■^ d "3 d d d _bp £ as tf! rl (N (-1 CO H CN CTS w o3 as o. H I Ph ■° s £ a * oo 1 OS T in 00 iH CN (N CO t d cc CN CN CO o tH O CD q t> q ri O ^ CO o rjOON oo d id d t- # o d 03 ^ as «5 OS CO H M tH CN tH ■^ r4 i> «-\ o ™ "■O tH In a) as .;= LO °* "S o 2 "C •— V in o -^ ^ CN t> 00 CN CD rj W N o q CN 1 H t- CO o 9 ol "O bo d co oo O CN co o "^ CD odd d co id d -ci* o ^ c o3 a o 0] lO t> 05 CO 00 CD CN 09 ol IC CN q CN CN o 03 P H |> rj rl O O U_| ►* o d co ^ d co CO d 3 d O id d ^ V oo" co co* d CN M CO ^ o3 V W W H (N CO CN CO "o3 "^ CN CN a v E 73 e m o> O l> CO t> q CO q CO CD q i> ^ o N IO (N CO q o 5 o3 G 3 5 in os oo d co" d d t- rH id CO co d ^ rA d t-J d d < *■ D N H CO tH iH tH "CH CN CN CN -^ tH w as — J W N H o ^ q ^ q t- o S a O t> "tf tH d d d « ^ oo d d t-i id id d d M s u 03 ,4 tH i i i i >> m o3 CN 00* t-* CO m d i-i o o O c o3 CO OS CD CO b- o IC d CN o 03 03 as O H IO H d t>* co* d CO o d T3 5 "- 1 OS .5 I 3 Q. CO -* iH "^ "^ CO CN S^OS H "ol w o3 iS OS m OS i-J q t> id CO* d d d tH d o 00 00 CN CN CN CO W O ri o J CO H © Tjf I> CN 00* d q o T-J o3 us Sct8 to T-H Ttf CO tH IO CN CO H CO tH H c 2 5 c o o a "o a> bo 00 oo -* CO C75 c- CO o CN q cn | in CO N q CO H t~ tH ftC*3 O CN* ^ O CD i- d id <* w d ^ o t> co t^* d d o ©^ 6 c o3 CN tH i-\ CN CN tH ^CO to o ,0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 S^ as OO 03 M ^ 3 O a * i2 3 — ■ 00 >» o T3 o3 03 H E o 4 in 03 o3 ► CN lO Tf CO O CD co w d oo c tH o 1 03 CN CO CD q q o tA d t* c (4 O 2 <* i> q O w cc i>* o o S^co U ^ H CO n m co w t- tH H < OT os"co N OS 03 rj co OS 1 "tf t- 00 CO -cf t> Ttf CN T- CO H Ifi CO CN t> CN tH t> tH ■C5§ ► Q i2 O.S o3 CN in CN l> O d >n CN o CM CN id th oo c oo d id o d c OS CN "<* CN co m •^ co wos ft _Q a 0Sr}< b bo 1 as 03 CO bo i— C o 03 a bp 'w a> •tH"^ S -» w !S ° 43 £ 03 O 3*01.3 S ©"^ X) m lO ir. in m LC Cd 03^ M X X X X X X 4) > 03 ^ 03 N CO : x : x X X : x x x X X X X X X X * io"*"" ^ CO ^ tjh in in CD -<* CO ^ tjh m in ^ CO ^ ^J 1 m in OS in the season and the crop was small, plum regulations were not attempted in 1935. The third agreement, extending the economic provisions of the superseded agreement, was adopted in May 1936. It was used to restrict plum shipments dur- ing two seasons. Size regulations were used in 1936. The following year grade and maturity as well as size restrictions were imposed. Because of real and fancied annoyances and difficulties grow- ers became hostile to the program and voted overwhelmingly against its exten- sion beyond 1937. Present Program After a season of disastrously low prices in 1938 ($25.50 per ton compared to $37.75 for 1934-37 in the case of plums), growers eagerly adopted a fourth agreement. It was limited to fresh interstate shipments of California plums, Bartlett pears and Elberta peaches. The administrative organization and control mechanism, evolved under previous agreements, were incorporated into the new agreement. Although several minor revisions were made, the basic frame- work has continued in force since May 29, 1939. A control committee of 12 shipper and 13 grower members supervises the pro- gram and handles disputes. Actual oper- ations of the regulatory provisions are supervised by three separate commodity committees composed of grower mem- bers — seven in the case of plums. A sales managers' committee of seven members acts in an advisory capacity to these com- modity committees. Of the three regulatory devices in the agreement only one is used for plums: grade and size restrictions on fresh inter- state shipments. Such regulations may be applied on both a varietal and a district basis, but in practice have been imposed only on a varietal basis. Apparently, the economic benefits, if any, to be gained from specifying different limitations for the several districts are deemed insuffi- cient to overcome the difficulties involved in assuring various segments of the in- dustry that equitable treatment is re- ceived. The grade and size control technique includes certain minor provisions. Fed- eral-state inspection may be required as proof of compliance. Maturity require- ments are issued in conjunction with grade regulations. These state the color which each variety shall attain "at time of picking" so as to insure a proper com- pletion of the ripening process. Exemp- tion certificates are issued to allow each grower to ship prohibited grades and sizes in such volume as necessary "to permit him to ship as large a proportion of his crop of such variety as the average for all growers in his district." No concerted action at expanding — not just modifying — the program was undertaken until the late 1940's. In 1949 "plums" were separated into "early plums" and "other plums" on the basis of season of marketing. This change was made primarily so the parity price curb would not be used to deny the benefits of marketing control to producers of late plums because of high prices received for early varieties. At about this same time plum growers and dealers met with representatives of the California Bureau of Markets to de- velop a state marketing agreement. Their objective was to secure a program for regulating intrastate shipments of plums for fresh consumption which would com- plement the control established under the federal marketing agreement. The state agreement, issued under provisions of the California Marketing Act of 1937, became effective on April 25, 1950. It has been operated each season since then. Program Operation Restrictions upon the shipment of small sizes and inferior grades were im- [25] posed under the present agreement each season since 1939, with two exceptions. Regulations could not be issued in 1943 and in 1944 because grower prices were expected to exceed parity levels. Mini- mum grade requirements were continued, however, under War Food Order No. 55 issued by the United States Department of Agriculture. In 1945, 1946, and 1948, regulations were terminated after ap- proximately two-thirds of each crop was shipped because farm prices rose above parity. Since its adoption in 1950, the state program has been used primarily to ex- tend controls to plums shipped for fresh consumption within the state. Its regu- lations, though couched in different terms, are parallel to those issued under the federal agreement. Accomplishments Grade and size restrictions applicable to interstate shipments since 1946 are shown in figure 9. As can be seen, in- creasingly lesser proportions of lower grades and smaller sizes were permitted to be shipped under federal marketing controls. Since 1946-48, grade tolerance has been reduced from 12 per cent to 3 per cent below U. S. No. 1 grade. Mini- mum size has been raised by about half a size. For example, the minimum was raised for Beauty from 100 to 50 per cent 5x5 pack, for Santa Rosa from 50 to per cent 5x5, and for Tragedy from 50 to per cent 6x6. Because physical characteristics differ among varieties, restrictions also differ. Minima are set at different levels and show sharper increases for some varieties than for others. The changes, however, are approximately comparable. One result of the program already has been mentioned: the pronounced shift, since 1945, toward shipping larger sizes in interstate shipments. Similar informa- tion cannot be presented on grade be- cause such data are not collected. Well- informed observers conclude that the average quality of shipments has im- proved over the years and that this re- sult is due, at least partly, to operations of the marketing control program. This evidence, of course, does not indi- cate an increase in grower prices. Gen- erally, larger sizes and better quality do raise returns to producers. The over-all impact of these controls, therefore, would appear to be beneficial to the industry. Admittedly, there is much that is not known about the economic implications of marketing controls. There is relatively little in the way of quantitative studies to show their effect on price and other factors. Operation of the program, how- ever, is not expensive. Even meager bene- fits might justify its continuance. Among the additional accomplishments of the program are the following: administra- tive procedures have been shaken down into stable patterns; problems encoun- tered in earlier years were resolved to the mutual satisfaction of different in- dustry groups; the program served as a vehicle for getting growers and handlers together for a better understanding of industry problems, the alleviations of mutual suspicions, and the dissemination of information; it served as the focal point for many endeavors relating to pro- duction and marketing. AUCTION MARKETINGS GIVE CLUES TO PRICE TRENDS Since most plums are consumed fresh, especially at out-of-state markets, termi- nal market prices will be discussed in detail. Attention is focused upon sales of plums packed in the standard four- basket crate because a large proportion of plums are shipped in this container. Differences by Markets The distribution of sales among indi- vidual auction markets has not changed greatly. For the period since 1935 about 47 per cent of auction sales were made [26 at New York, 15 at Chicago, 12 at Phila- delphia, and 26 at the nine other auc- tions. This distribution pattern prevailed throughout the 25 years with one impor- tant exception: Sales at the minor mar- kets declined from 29 to 22 per cent of the total while relative sales increased at each of the three major auction markets. Generally the New York auction price is slightly above the average received at other auctions. This differential amounts to about 7 cents per crate. When prices at the various auction markets are com- pared meticulously by varieties and weeks the differential is still less and can be explained by differences in transpor- tation costs. Table 10 shows a definite trend toward greater private transactions in selling plums. Since 1935-39 such sales rose from 1.0 to 2.5 million packages, repre- senting an increase from 32 to 54 per cent of total interstate shipments. Auc- tion sales increased until 1946-49 and then declined from 2.6 to 2.1 million packages. This trend is not likely to be reversed soon. In fact, a further shift, though pos- sibly smaller, appears indicated for the next few years. A direct comparison between auction prices and private market prices is not possible since data on the latter are not published. Information secured from records of several large shippers of Cali- fornia plums indicates, as would be ex- Table 10. Auction Prices and Sales Distribution of California Plums, 1935-59 Market 1935-39 1940-44 1946-49* 1950-54 1955-59 New York auction Auction price — dollars per crate 1.49 1.46 2.56 2.51 3.27 3.23 4.31 4.29 4.22 4.17 Twelve auctions Auction markets New York Sales — 1,000 packages! 1,020 310 242 1,572 652 2,224 1,038 3,262 1,128 345 293 1,766 660 2,426 1,539 3,965 1,205 381 320 1,906 670 2,576 1,867 4,443 1,026 362 272 1,660 578 2,238 1,776 4,014 1,050 307 277 1,634 444 2,078 2,479 4,557 Chicago Philadelphia Three major markets Nine minor markets All markets Private sales | Interstate shipments§ New York auction Per cent of interstate shipments 31.2 36.9 31.9 28.4 32.8 38.3 27.1 30.9 42.0 25.6 30.2 44.2 23.0 22.6 54.4 Other auctions Private sales * Average excludes 1945 season because of abnormally light sales at auction markets during price control. t Total of sales in all containers. Boxes and lugs are not converted to equivalent crates. t Difference between auction sales and out-of-state shipments. § Data not reported for 1938. The average includes a figure of 3.475 cars (of 1,000 packages) for 1938 estimated on the basis of utilization data. [27] pected, that New York auction prices are a good indication of the general level of wholesale prices on all sales. Varietal, size, and seasonal differentials in prices for private market sales are similar to those prevailing for auction sales. In the following discussion we con- sider New York auction prices and sales, representing almost one-half of auction marketings and one-third of all out-of- state sales. These data are sufficiently rep- resentative to indicate changes in the varietal and size composition of sales, in their seasonal distribution, and in rela- tive prices for the various components of total shipments. Differences by Seasonal Groups The course of New York auction sales and prices for early, midseason, and late varieties since 1920 are shown in figure 10. Sales and prices, expressed in per- centage terms, are shown by five-year averages to eliminate annual fluctuations. Present relative prices and sales are sig- nificantly different from those prevailing twenty to forty years ago. During 1920-44, prices were slightl) lower (3 per cent) for midseason varie- ties than for other plums. The differential remained constant for late plums but not for early varieties. After World War II the price spread was widened consider- ui o < £w 120 U-l 100 « 80 Eorly Varieties Midseason. y^ Varieties^ ^ —7 1920-24 1925-29 19 30-34 1935-39 1940-44 945-49 1950-54 1955-58 < r- o r-oo Of- UJ< u> LU_J Q-< 40 30 20 Early Varieties Midseason Varieties 1920-24 1925-29 1930-34 1935 39 1940-44 1946-49 1950-54 1955-58 Figure 10. New York Auction Sales and Prices, by Seasonal Groups. 1920-58. [28] 20 10 ■.A ^m ^*wPrice X llfi § Sales Beauty Burbank 20 10 - Q Santa Rosa Climax & Formosa Diamond & Sugar Sharkey K e I s ey President Giant, Grand Duke & Gros Hungarian 125 100 75 Late Duarte a 125 100 - 75 50 All Others 1925-29 □ 1935-39 1946-48 1955-58 * Very Small Sales Volume Figure 11. New York Auction Sales and Prices, by Varieties, Averages 1925-29 to 1955-58. [29] ably. For the past decade prices were highest for early plums. They averaged 7 and 15 per cent less for midseason and late varieties. Relative sales also changed. Between 1920-39 and 1950-58, sales of mid- season varieties declined substantially— from 38 to 27 per cent. They increased from 34 to 40 per cent for early plums and from 28 to 33 per cent for late plums. Differences by Varieties Varietal differences in New York auc- tion sales and prices are shown in figure I 1 for alternate five-year averages since 1925. These are expressed as percentages so that changes in relative prices can be compared with variations in relative sales. Patterns of price changes relative to shifts in sales volume are very dissimilar for the different varieties. For some varieties, relative prices and sales show the same trends (either upward or down- ward) ; in other cases they change in opposite directions. These differing pat- terns are the net results of several factors which may reinforce or offset each other. Different plum varieties are marketed at successively later marketing periods during the summer months. This pro- gression is shown by figure 12. The four major varieties, representing CO per cent of total sales are in heavy supply at New York from early June to late September. Their usual marketing periods (for the middle 80 per cent of varietal sales) are: June 7-26 for Beauty, June 22-July 22 for Santa Rosa, July 22-August 14 for Duarte, and August 13-September 16 for President. The different varieties reach maximum sales in a series of peaks, generally sepa- rated one from another by a week or so. Two-thirds of the season sales of most varieties are made within a period of two or three weeks. An even greater concen- tration of heavy movement is revealed when each producing area is considered separately. Sales of early varieties, confined largely to June and early July, are prac- tically completed before other plums i Egazaa i otw Eori w J& I Tragedy & Burbank 1 V '.' ' \\\\ | Wickson LT '///A 1 Eldorado IY//A 1 0th " Mid ////A NOTE: Each bar includes the middle 80 per cent of sales; its center portion covers the middle 50 per cent. ' r. j ~1 Late &anta Rosa ■ i v. '.V.V.I Hk« Y////////A V//MA JUNE AUGUST SEPTEMBER Figure 12. Varietal Marketing Periods at New York, 1955-58 Average. [30] arrive in substantial quantity. About two- thirds of the volume of midseason varie- ties are sold between mid-July and mid- August. By the end of this period, late plums are beginning to arrive in large volume. They are in plentiful supply until the close of the plum marketing season in late October. Thus, there is a. distinct separation in marketing seasons for these three varietal groups. Patterns of Weekly Marketings Substantial changes in the relative pro- duction of different growing areas and in the relative volume of different varieties sold have not served to alter very sub- stantially the seasonal distribution of plum sales. There has been a slight tend- ency for sales to be made somewhat more uniformly during the season and for the season to be extended by a week or two. Most of these changes occurred during earlier years. The pattern of weekly mar- ketings has remained essentially con- stant for the past twenty or thirty years. Thus, the distribution shown in figure 13 for 1955-58 is substantially that for the 1940's and 1930's. After the eighth week of the season, sales of early varieties are negligible. About 90 per cent of midseason varieties are marketed during weeks 7-11. Sales of late plums are not sub3tantial until week 10. Thus, during two periods of only two weeks' duration, sales consist of substantial quantities from different varietal groups. Sales are almost equally divided between early and midseason plums during weeks 7-8 and between midseason and late varieties during weeks 10-11. Factors Affecting Prices A study made ten years ago indicates the principal factors responsible for vari- ations in auction prices (see Foytik, Jerry, "Characteristics of Demand for California Plums," Hilgardia, University of California, April 1951, pp. 407-527). Although this statistical analysis relates to the period 1922-48, its results prob- ably still are applicable. The major find- ings were: If Auction prices increase substantially (other factors remaining constant) when consumer purchasing power rises. 100 g 40 - $ 20 Lota Varieties □ "' SS4 d sea son Varieties Early Varieties E£3Ea 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 WEEK OF SEASON Figure 13. Weekly New York Auction Sales, by Varietal Groups, 1955-58 Average. [31] Table 1 1 . Grower Returns and Yield for California Plums Year Per ton Per acre Yield Dollars Dollars Tons 1951 109 437 4.1 1952 208 491 2.4 1953 123 140 135 432 428 538 3.8 1954 3.2 1955 4.1 1956 107 477 4.6 1957 164 573 3.6 1958 163 467 2.9 1959 116 480 4.3 This influence becomes weaker as the season advances. If Auction prices increase (other factors remaining constant) when supply of plums decreases. U Current prices are affected by sales made earlier in the season as well by current marketings. II Plum prices are influenced, though not greatly, by supplies of other fruits, es- pecially those marketed about the same time. For example, an increase of early peaches (from the southern states) will depress auction prices for midseason plums. U Plum size does not materially affect the price. One size may be substituted for another without much influence on price. Tf Price is considerably more responsive to changes in sales during the peak of the season than earlier or later. FARM PRICES— EXPLORATION OF PAST MOVEMENTS Farm prices may be quoted for fruit sold at the orchard, for fruit delivered by the grower to a packing house or processing plant, for fruit sold at auction by the grower, etc. Such prices are pay- ments for fruit plus a varying amount of "added service." They need to be reduced to equivalents at a single point of the distribution route. Then prices can be compared for the farmer's job of pro- ducing fruit during different years and for different outlets. The term "farm prices" as used throughout this circular refers to price equivalents for "naked fruit at the first delivery point." Such prices have been collected annually since 1909 for plums sold in each utilization outlet and for "all uses. Equivalent per-acre returns to growers may give a better indication of how changes in yield affect the farmer's in- come, from which production and har- vest costs must be paid. Generally, price fluctuations are inversely related to changes in yield and, hence, annual vari- ations in per-acre returns are consider- ably less than price changes. For ex- ample, during 1951-58, a typical period, prices varied proportionately twice as much as per-acre returns (see table 11). General Level Fluctuations in prices received by Cali- fornia plum producers are due primarily to changes in consumer purchasing power and in production. Both factors have varied widely over the past several decades. Prices ranged from a low of $19 32] per ton received in 1932 at the depth of the depression to a record high of $208 for a small crop in 1952 when purchas- ing power was high. The cyclical movement in average prices results chiefly from corresponding changes in consumer purchasing power. Prior to about 1930, consumer demand for fruits and vegetables generally was rising and extremely low farm prices pre- vailed only when bumper crops were pro- duced and marketed. The situation was changed drastically by 1930, when a serious divergence arose between the sup- ply of and the demand for most agricul- tural products. In the case of plums, the farm price dropped steeply from $72 per ton in 1927-29 to an average of $25 for 1931-33. Prices increased, but only grad- ually, during the next decade, to $50 per ton in 1941, and then rose sharply to an average of $140 maintained since 1950. Price changes on a year-to-year basis arise from annual variations in produc- tion, i.e., yield. Such changes have been substantial. For example, during the past sixteen years (when the price averaged $123 per ton) the price changed, from one season to the next, by $70 to $99 in four years, by $38 to $57 in four other years, and by $1 to $28 in eight. When production goes up, prices decline; when production goes down, prices rise. For these sixteen years about half the annual fluctuation in farm prices can be ex- plained by yearly variations in produc- tion. In statistical terms this inverse re- lationship is expressed by the coefficient of determination, r 2 = 0.49. Farm Prices by Varieties Farm prices of plums are not compiled on a varietal basis. A good indication of relative farm prices for different varie- ties can be secured by subtracting mar- keting changes from auction prices and by making adjustments for variations in the net contents of the crate container. This information is not presented here since the general relationships are ap- parent from the discussion of auction marketings given above. Farm Prices by Outlets Farm prices are substantially higher for plums shipped to fresh markets than for those sold to processors. Relative prices for sales in different outlets have changed significantly over the years. The ID O UJ u a Interstate Fresh - - Intrastate Fresh /^^^S X^-- ^ " - .^^/'Canned " - J i i 1 1 - Annual, 1950-58 J I L 100 Interstate Fresh s Intrastate Fresh 1910-14 1920-24 1930-34 1940-44 1950-54 1950 1952 1954 1956 Figure 14. Grower Prices by Type of Utilization. [33 general relationships among the several prices for the period since 1910 are shown in figure 14. Prices for fresh intrastate sales aver- aged 25 to 30 per cent below farm prices realized from plums shipped to out-of- state markets during 1910-29 and about 1 to 15 per cent lower for 1930-49. This price differential has been small (2 per cent) since 1950. Apparently the issu- ance of similar regulations under federal and state marketing orders served to eliminate substantial differences in the grade-size composition of plums sold locally and shipped from the state. Processors pay considerably lower prices. The cannery price usually aver- aged 50 to 75 per cent of the fresh price until the late 1940's. During the past decade it was at a level of only 30 per cent. Still lower prices prevail for plums otherwise processed. During the war period (1943-46) prices for plums frozen and crushed were 80 and 30 per cent, respectively, of the cannery price. Since 1953, the farm price for plums frozen averaged half the canning price — i.e., only 15 per cent of the price received on plums sold fresh. Future Returns If production expands in the pattern indicated, the volume of plums available for interstate shipment will increase and will have a depressing effect upon prices at terminal markets. The future course of consumer purchasing power, the other principal determinant of price, cannot be forecast, even in terms of a rough esti- mate, with any degree of confidence. In the event that it continues to climb at or near the recent rate, plum prices at con- sumer markets may be maintained or even raised above their present level. Costs incurred for marketing services must also be considered when discussing returns to growers. These charges are substantial and fairly rigid. For example, during the past decade about half of the wholesale price at terminal markets was required to cover marketing charges and half was returned to growers — to pay for their expenses of producing and harvest- ing plums. When terminal market prices decrease for a given season, returns to farmers are depressed at a more rapid rate because marketing charges decline very little, if at all. On balance, therefore, it appears that farm prices will not be depressed unduly provided the economy continues its pres- ent growth. During occasional years of bumper crops, however, returns to grow- ers will decline to relatively low levels, as they have done during the past few decades. The tables and figures used in this circular are summaries of more detailed information appearing in "Mimeographed Report No. 222," published in October 1959. This report gives sources in detail and may be obtained by writing to the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California at Berkeley or at Davis. i;,'.m i -j. •(•(»( i; 1 1'.»7 uk 34 I I . we can't 6U; DA VlS.-"3° bs stoty every t hafs our graduation V" says ^»» en P ' , „f pomol- yeaI ' f the Department of V m an of *e ^ campuS ot ogy on tn of California. University of <■> , pers0 n- •The demand for S, ottCOtl . nelisootsurp^ ptodoc es aboUt °"ts are • ^e fruit ,n*£ lh e United States tant in * will always be fav0table climate aud soils p£op ie variety of croP-; he{ruit and ing and shipping epart ment of ^^"C^StnS ««~ Pomology .^ * nel, «'* ** to, promising P« so ma ke P-mise of -^omUded st»- openings for tec dv ex ,st. d"ms il no openly ^ ^ ^ Pomology today A knowledge of fruits and fruit-growing offers many fine careers. And the best positions go to those who have mastered the subject through a balanced program of training. At Davis the course in pomology is bal- anced between practice and theory — the "how" and the "why" — using the finest facilities . . . taught by one of the largest and best-trained horticultural staffs in the world. The Department of Pomology main- tains about 300 acres of orchards, con- taining nearly all the important varieties of deciduous tree fruits, nuts, olives, and berries (strawberries, boysenberries, etc.). The student has an opportunity to become acquainted with most of the fruit-grower's techniques of production and marketing. He becomes familiar with the best and most modern orchard equipment. For study and research, facilities also include a packing house, complete sun- drying and dehydration equipment, a cold-storage plant, lath-houses and green- houses, and laboratories equipped with apparatus for fundamental studies. The staff of the department includes specialists in fruit breeding, pruning, pol- lination, spraying, irrigation, fertilization and plant nutrition, soil management, physiological plant diseases, propagation, varieties, harvesting, handling, and storage of fruits and nuts. Trained people are in demand for . . . PRODUCTION Orchard management Orchard operation PROCESSING Packaging • Canning Freezing • Drying DISTRIBUTION Purchasing • Selling Marketing • Shipping SERVICE Fertilizers • Sprays Equipment • Nursery OTHER Agricultural Extension U. S. Dept. of Agriculture State Dept. of Agriculture Teaching— School and College Research— Industry, University