SOME CAUSES OF PEACH PRECE VARJATiGNS ON THE EEHTON HARSOR ‘WHOLESALE FRUiT MARKET Thai: few Ha Dagma of M. A. MICH‘GAN STATE COLLEGE {Dale fimosf Hafhaway 39d3 This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Some Causes of Peach Price Variations on the Benton Barbour Wholesale Fruit Market" presented by we r. Hathaway has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for degree in Master of Arts in Economics alor ”professor // #1W_ Date Agggst 26. 19138 __ M3796 '- ‘mm- was?“ SOME CAUSES OF PEACH PRICE VARIATIONS ON THE BENTON HARBOR WHOLESALE FRUIT MARKET By DALE ERNEST HATHAWAY A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Economics l9h8 THFSIS MOMENTS The author wishes to express his gratitude to all who aided in the preparation of this manuscript. The assistance and.guid- ance of Professor H. I. Cravens of the Economics Department was especially appreciated. Suggestions from other members of the Economics Department were helpful. the cooperation.received from the many farmers and.huyers whose transactions furnished the data.for this study is gratefully acknowledged. Hr. Stanley Lee. Market Master and Mr. J. E. Selby. federal-State Market lows Service reporter were mainly'responsible for the cosperation received on the market. The aid of‘Professor L. Eats of the Mathematics Department in developing the statistical analysis was also appreciated. The author also wishes to express his thanks to Mr. 1. Martha and other personnel of the tabulating room who aided in the analyeis of the data. finally) the author is indebted to his wife for her encourage- ment throughout the entire study and for her typing of the final manuscript. DALE IRRES! EAIHEHKI CHAPTER II III IV 3 ”m o-a—J- TABLE CF CONTENTS “ackcround Infernation . . . . . . Purpose of Study . . . . . . . . . SCOII‘e . O O C O O O O O O O O O O 0 Character of the 19h? Crop IICDS e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e Kethods of Gathering Data . . . . . Kethods of Analysis . . . . . . . . :.i+ips FaCtOrS e e e e e e e e e "T“T‘“. “"T"“‘-‘k’-'FT‘ fl“ Y‘T‘ AVE?" 5"” '5‘?" UdlitllAL A: rainiiuiluulb :illD it‘lJLnlial-lJ FILL/fell») 0 FI . Effect of General Appearance on Price. . . . Effect of Shredded Paper on Price . Effect of Brushing on Price . . . . Effect of Percent of Red on Price . Effect of color of Red on Price . . ”ffect of color of Green on Price . Tru'rrc‘t‘ at. in“: m “441‘qu JilD DHIL‘J'CLS e e e e e e e e e e . \ 21; En e e . . O O . . O O . O O . O O H e H \O \O (I) 03 K) W w H H F3 :4 er F’ O O O . . . . . . . . . FJ :4 F4 C\ \R Us Effect of Firnness on Ripeness on Price . . . 17 to it *‘t ‘ect of Defects on Price. . . . . .‘lzfivpvlT FifliCTCPS e e e e e e e e e e e e e 5.... Effect of Position on the Lirket on Price . . 25 e e e e e 30 on Trice. 32 CHAPTER VI VII TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D) PAGE C'TIiER I:C bl-QLEAIOITY FACTC‘F.S e e e e e e e e e e e 36 Effect of Number of Packages on load on Price . . . 36 Effect of Type of Container on Price . . . 36 Effect of Fullness of Pack on Price . . . . 36 Effect of Sex of Seller on Price . . . . . .37 Effect of the Type of Buyer on Price . . . 37 SUIIARY AND(30NCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 DEFIIITICNC-F TERI-.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-l Character of the Peaches Larketed on the Benton Harbor Market from September 1 to September 23, 19h7.h5 APPENDIX A Data Card Used in 19h? Peach Price Studv on the Benton Harbor Wholesale Fruit karket . . h? APTENDIX B APPENDIX C : I.B.K. Code for Peach Price Study . . . . . . . . . . . h8 The Use of ihe F Test of Significance . . . . . . . . . . .Sh APPENDIX D L11 The Use of the 1‘ Test to Show Association . . . . . . . . . . . 56 AP} 7:31? If X FIGURE llfllfil 1 IO 11 12 13 1h 15 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS J '1‘) ‘ 3 S1 Peach Prices and The General Price Level, 1910-19147 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 3 Seasonal Variation in thefrice of Elberta Peaches on the Benton Harbor Karket, l938-l9h2 and \ 1914.3“l9h7 o e e e e e o e e e e e e e e e e e e e e )4 Range in Daily Prices of 2-inch and Up Halehaven Peaches, Benton Harbor Harket, 19h? . . . .'. . . . 6 Range in Daily Prices of 2—inch and Up Elberta Peaches, Benton Harbor harket, l9h7. . . . . . . . . 6 Effect of General Appearance on the Price of Halehaven and Elberta Peaches. . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Effect of General Appearance on the Price of Halehaven andElbezta Peaches with Varying Market Actiflty O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O 12 Effect of Fitmness on the Price of Halehaven and Elerta Peaches O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O 18 "ffect of Firmness on the Price of Halehaven Peaches with Varving Appearance . . . . . . . . . . 18 Effect of Firnness on the Price of Elberta Peaches with Varying Appearance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Effect of Defects on the Price of Halehaven and Elberta Peaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Effect of Defects on the Price of Halehaven Peaches with Varying Appearance . . . . . . . . . . 23 Effect of Defects on the Price of Elberta Peaches with Varying Appearance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Diagram of the Selling Section of the Benton Harbor Wholesale Fruit Earket Showing Position and Lane Numbers Used in Peach Price Study . . . . . 26 Effect of the Position of the Seller on the harket on the Price of Elberta Peaches . . . . . . . . . . .2? Effect of Position of the Seller on the Market on the Price of Halehaven and Blberta Peaches with Varving Market Price hovenent . . . . . . . . . . . 29 iii FIGLTLE N WAKE. 16 17 LIST OF ILLUSTIATIOIB (CON Effect of Position of the Seller on the harket on the Price of Halehaven and Elberta Peaches with Varying Larket Activity . Effect of Time of Sale on the Price of Halehaven and Elberta Peaches with Var~ing 1.;0 veIILe D L! o o o o o o o o o o 0 Effect of Tirze of Sale on the Price of Halehaven and Blberta Per cIies with Varying Larket Activity P.elationship Between ‘ Larket Price he Spent in I :{illg Sade ”1].. I]. and Price with Verjir g Larket Activutv . . . . Pelctiorchir Between Tire Sp a.r e en nt and Irice with Vzrvir 3 Ir t Pr ic \u LE." 0 \L) L.— mu) .7; i 41...‘ WEBER {3.13 I Average Gains Over Early Offers Due to Holding of Peaches for a Higher Price . . . . . . . 35 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Peach growing is a major industry in Michigan. The 19h? peach crop in.Michi5an was estimated at h,526,000 bushels which was below the TECUrd crop of l9h6 but 36 percent above the 1936— l/ hS averape. Michigan was fourth in peach production in 19h? behind California, South Carolina, and Georgia. In Michigan the bulk of the peach crop was sold for fresh consumption. Peach growers, like those of other farm commodities, have been constantly troubled by the highly irregular price fluct- uations of their product. The Benton Harbor Wholesale Fruit Market was considered ideal for the study of the factors causing these wiue fluctuations in peach prices. The volume of sales of this market is so large that it is a major factur in deter- mining fresh peach prices for the entire state. The competitive selling methods used make possible a Quality-price study of this type. The gathering of the data for this study required the co- operation of a large number of persons. Mr. Stanley Lee, Market Easter and.Hr. J. H. Selby, Market News reporter, were the men wno were chiefly responsible for the fine coOpcration that wes received. Both growers and buyers were very helpful in the study by making available all; the information requested. It is hOped l Téarketing the Michigan Peach CrOp”, a brief review of the 19h? season, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Production and Marketing Administration and Michigan Department of Agricultare, Bireau of Foods and Standards. I\) that the information presented here will repay these cooperators for their help. Several factors affect peach prices. The most important of these is the general level of prices. Peach prices have nearly always followed the general price trend (Figure 1). Another factor affecting peach prices is the size of the peach crop. Prices are higher in short crop years and lower in years of large crops. The small crop was chiefly reSponsible for the ex- tremely high price in l9h3, and the larpe crop accounted for the low price in l9h7. The alternately small and large crops cause the major variations of peach prices from the general price level. There is another factor affecting peach prices which causes seasonal price variation during the peach marketing season {Figure 2). This variation is due to the voluhe of peaches marketed at any one time during the season. 'with light marketings early in the Season the price is usually high. As the volume of marketings incre se the price declines until slightly after the peak of the marketings at Benton Harbor. Then as marketings fall off again the price rises. During the latest five year period the price decline from the early season peak to the season low price was over forty percent of the average price. A different type of Variation in peach prices is the vari- ation within the standard graces due to variations in market qual- ity. Many of the factors ca sing these variations are within the control of the grower. The season average price for U. S. No. l, 2 inch and up, Halehaven peaches was $2.13 per bushel, and the Price Index- 300~ 1| — II H l I‘ ‘ I l 1‘ t I \ II I I I ! 200* Index of Peoch Pnces (19}O-l4 Averageznoo="l.26) \ V IOO a l V \ US. General Price index \ ’J y, ' (l9lO-|4=|OO) " Ollllllj11llLllliLlllLLl|lliiilliLlIJ l9|5 1920 |925 I930 I935 i940 |945 ijure 1. pcggh fricas ;nd The General lrice Level, l?lO—l?h7. Price Index (Season Average Price = IOO) IZOt Average I943—47 I \ I IOO Average I9 38 - 42 OgilLlLiJltiiiniiLilll11L111111§ -5 Peak Volume 5 I0 I5 0! Marketings Days From Peok ' I Figure 2. Seasonal Vwiation in the Price of Sl‘o-sria‘ Peaches on the Benton Harbor rarket, l933—l9h2 and l943-l9h7. averave price variation within this grace between the high and low price paid each day was 9.12 per DuShel (Figure 3). The average price fir b. S. no. 1, 2 inch and up, Elberta peaches has al.8h, and the average price vari.tion in this grade between the high and low price paid each day was $.61 per bushel (Figure h). The variations in p ach prices due to variations in the general Price level, size of the crop, and volume of marketings can be affected sliphtly or not at all by individual producers. The purpose of this study was to discover the causes of the ranges in daily prices per bushel and to determine the amounts by which producers may increase prices by varying the factors responsible. The Benton Harbor Wholesale Fruit harket was used in this study becaise of its volume of business and location. There were l,2y3,89l bushels or 28 percent of the Eichigan production of peaches 1/ sold on this market during the 19h? season. Because of this large volume and the competitive nature of the sales on this market, it was considered representative of the peaches marketed in Michigan. The scope of the study was limited to the Halehaven and Elberta varieties of peaches representing about 78 percent of the peaches 2/ brown in Michigan.— The study Was further limited to those peaches marked U. S. No. l , 2 inch and up because this size made up the bulk of the sales in l9h7. It was believed that any quality factors 1/ Summ" y of the Benton H rbor Wholesale Fruit Market for l9h7. g/ Unofficial estimate based on data furnished by the office of the Michigan State Agricultural Statistician, Lansing Michiban, placed Halehaven production at 30 percent and Elberta production at hd percent of the total peach crop harvested in l9h7. Dollars per 8 h l 0'0 - .0 0.0, O. O Q C .. 000 . . 3: D:::0.:. 0. .‘ 0 . ‘ 2‘: 0°.'0;:‘:‘ 0% to -—-l 2 so . .. .. . .,.. 0 0.00‘... O ‘0‘ . 0 000, o 0. 00 -0.0.0 0 0 500 .0 00.. 0.000 000. Q. 00 000 00 ~000 .0 0000000 0. 0000 O .0. . . ..... -0 00‘ 0 \0. ”.°°° 9 '0’0’0‘ .0 0‘. .0.0.0.0 0 -0 0'0 .0 .... .' .0 Ck“. . '0:0:0‘ 0.. 3J0.- $.0 “0:0 “1 0 1 000‘. . ..:. .§ ' .0. ' 0.000 0" '0 '3'. 00 :.I,:.:.\. 0“. .'.0.0.0000 {£50 are So?’ 2:35. - . \ . . ‘0‘: ‘\0.\ V:.O 0 0 0 0.0.0.0.0‘ a». '5: stag...°;:;:;:;:o:;:;:;:~:-:~ O “#:o'a 44‘. . . ‘ 0.000000‘0 0 , 00. 2°. 33"“ " W. ‘3' "$20 v?»3:03.}4353550’03’ O '3 .33, ., .. -..:. .... .. . .. - _ _ 30.. {:7“..:$?: Jlllillll L 24 28 5 l0 l5 l8 ' we ’7’_ ° n. 77 ’ '4 r: tha rear 5'28 . ' J- 3011 ‘1- ‘1 L’l‘ .0(_. v1 (J. v p _. v , rigu. e 9f r n 11 h n h 0 l T- '0 3 . Prn*e in Daily iTlCCS ""2) “ Th ‘1' n benton halnor : Dollars per Bushel .0" C O 0 4 u 30 O b ... '. 0- O 0.0. ‘0‘ ' .0 00 ngh '0’0’ '0'0 000 00 0.0.0‘ 5.0.- 000 00 ':.:::.. 0 p\:.; '0’0 .0 9 '5 ~ L- 0.0. \.. 3 00 '° I ..9 O. .3: s“. ..r' .. O .00. 0':°0 .’0 0 v0 0 .00. P. 00' 0 2 60 L »:o:~ us .M - ’ 000 ...... ' ":4, 9.. Dally Average Price . -. ;.;. ow . ‘o' 0 000‘ '0 \0 00 0S \ - 000000 0’00 0 0 000000. 000 0. 0 .0. O.0.00 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 r ..0.0.0 . . . . ' 0'0 0 ‘0' 0°0‘ .0 .‘00000 2 '0' 0.0.0.0‘. ‘0’." ° ’ ' S‘ t‘0’0’0’0’0’0 ' 0 000 .u 0” 0 000000 » . '.... . Q... . 00...... ~ '00000‘ ' ’ -000000 0 ~~ '0 0."”' 00000000 .\ ‘ .0.0.0. .0.0.00 .1 0 0 0 00 0‘ 000 00000‘0‘ 00 00’000’0 000 0000'00000 0.0 .0000.00.00.0.0 “0.0.0.0.0000 0 .0.. ,‘0 0 0.0 0% 0 0‘ ’0' " . 0000 00. 000 0: 000 000 000‘00 ... 0. 00000 0 0000000 0 O 0 / . 0... ’0.0.0. 9. 0.0% 0.0 0...... \ .0... .0. . .0 .‘ ... ‘ .0.0.0.0... . . ......‘0.0.0.0. 0.0.0.0.0. . 0.00 ... . 00000 00000 0 ‘ 0.000000- 0000000 :.00 00, 0000 0 0 ‘0 00000.00. l- 00°0‘ ‘0‘0‘0 0 0 00.0 0'0 0%... 0. 0 0.0. .0. .0. .0. .0‘ 000 0.00’0000‘0 0'0 '00 ~‘00 .000000Q. 0. 0 0.0000I00 00 0.0000 5.000000 J .0000 0 00 0.0.0000 000... 000- 0 000000.. 00000.0 000 .. .0. 00000 . 0 0 00,0 00 .. 00°0‘0‘ ’ .0 ‘0’0’ .0 0’0. ‘0’0’0:0. 0 ‘0‘ ’0 . v - ‘ "20?... I '. 000000.0'0’g’0'0 .0‘0‘0‘0’..’0‘0'0‘0°0' ‘0’ 00°0° ‘30’. .° ’0‘0'0’0 0‘0‘00.0.0 0. .0.:.0.0.0 0 .0 0.:.0.0. 0. .0.0.0 0:0.\ 0. .0 3.0.0.0. :0.f0 00.. .a‘o. ’0 0.0 0‘0’0‘0 0:0‘o ‘\ 0’0’0‘0 0' 0%.. 0 ’0‘ ‘0 0‘0 0 ....0 0.0000000 \000 ‘ 0 '° 00 000. '0 .0..00000 000000050 ~.... «0000... 5.... 00 I 4 0 p 3}? 4.3.0... .~ We. ;.'-:-:-:~’.:o:o°§o‘- um .;.:., ' O00 ‘ 0' . 00 000000 0.0 000.. 0.50. .0 0 0‘. 0 n . .‘.03.....:.0‘. ‘0’. " ‘0.... $0 0‘0. O. -'0’0.0 .0 . 0 ~ 0 00 0 .‘0 0 0.0.0 o .000 0. 00 . %%‘0.. 0 00000000 0. .0 .‘g. . ...’.0000 0 ., , 0.0 00 0 0.0 0 ‘0 0.0.6.0.0.0 0 ‘~ ' ‘0‘0 ’0’0‘0‘0 30' ’0 ~0 0 ‘ - 00. 00000 0. .0‘0 ~0 00000 ~000000o 0 0.0.0.0 0.0; 0.0.0.0.0.0.0 50...... O. 0.0... a. "o o T 0.111lllljlllillllllllli1111111111111 l 5 ll l5 2| 25 I 5 IO SCD'OMDGI October Range in Daily Erices of 73-inch and Up Elberta. Benton Harbor I.Zarl«:et, 19147. .n Figure ’4 . arfecting the price of this size would have a corresponding effect on the other sizes marketed. Character of the 19h? crgp. The 19h? peach season was about two weeks late. Hot weather in late Aggast hu ried the ripening and had some effect on the quality of the Halehaven variety. (Appendix A). The result was that the Halehavens were generally more isregular in size and ripeness than the Elbertas. Cold weather daring the later part of the Elberta season was thought by many to have affected marketing adversely. Many Elbertas were marketed greener than they would have been had the weather stayed hot. The two varieties were marketed in very nearly the same way. Both received about the same treatment in packaging and display and both varieties were sold by the same type of seller.(Appendix A). There was some difference in the type of buyers in the two varieties. CHAPTER II METHODS Methods of gathering data. Sales on the Benton Harbor Market are made on an individual basis with the buyer and seller bargaining to reach a mutually agreeable price. To collect data for this study the enumerator mingled with the buyers and took records on various loads of peaches as they were sold. The peaches were rated on appearance, firmness, color, and visible defects. In addition the position of the seller on the market, the number of packages on the load, type and fullness of the package, the time of day, the price received for the peaches, and other data thought toeiffect this price were recorded. Observations Were usually confined to the particular baskets opened by the buyers, and the inspection was made in the manner used by the buyers. The data sheet used in gathering the information is shown in Appendix B. Because of arbitrary judgements involved in gathering the data, it was thought desirable to limit the work to one person. In order to obtain records of the sales it was necessary to remain near each load until the sale was completed. On some days the number of re- cords taken was small because of the slowness of the sales. Data on market price movements and market activity(whether sales were rapid or slow) were obtained through observation by the enumerates All information on volume of sales and daily average prices were taken from the Federal Market News Service reports. The data was gathered between September 1, and September 23, 19h7. This period included the peak marketings of both the major varieties. Methods of analysis. The collected data were arranged in order by time of sale and coded for analysis on International Business Machines cards (Appendix C). To remove the effect of daily price variation each individual sale was compared with the daily average price for that day. This difference was expressed as a positive or negative residual. Tabulations of this price residual were made for all of the various factors suspected of causing price variations. Where differences in price residuals appeared to be associated with the factor being studied the F test was used to determine if these differences were significant. E/ Since many of the factors studied were closely related to the factor general appearance, the effects of general appearance were removed before measuring the effect of the related factor on price. The F test of significance was run on each subsort. Limiting Factors. It was not possible to assign accurate numerical values to the quality factors being studied. With the placing of accurate values on quality factors it would be possible to correlate these quality factors with general appearance. This would determine the relative importance of these factors on general appearance and relate them directly to price. It should be the purpose of another study to determine ways to set up numerical values on factors studied in this type of quality-price analysis. The method of gathering data also limited the number of ob- servations oecause of the time involved in finishing the record of 1/ — For an eXplanation of the F.test see Appendix D. 10 some of the sales. There were 382 completed records in the study and this relatively small number limited the number of subsorts that could be made. The number was large enough to make those con- clusions drawn valid, but it limited in several ways the factors available for study. ll CHAPTLR III GLLLEAL APPaARnhCE ALD hfiLaTmD FaCToRS Effect of general appearance on price. General appearance had a highly significant effect‘upon price and was the most im- portant factor causing variations in the price paid for peaches (FigureIS). There was a much wider range of quality in the Halehaven variety than in the Elbertas. This extreme range in quality in the Halehaven variety resulted in a greater price differential between fair general appearance and good general appearance in the Halehaven variety then in the hiberta variety. Not only did the halehavens have a wider range of quality but the; also had somewhat poorer _eneral appearance on the avprage. In the leerca variety 57 percent of the peaches examined had excellent gentral appearance while only ho percent of the Hale- havens were in this classification. This difference was made up with h? percent of the Halehavens in the general appearance good classification as Compared with 36 percent of the Elbertas (Appendix A). In the general appearance fair classification the two varie- ties had about the same percentage. This indicates that halehaven producers have the greatest chance to improve price by improving general appearance. There was a twenty-four cent difference in the price between fair and good general appearance in the Halehaven and only three cents in he Elberta variety. It is in this range that Halehaven producers had the greatest chance for improvement. Cents per Busbel +20i‘ e +10 " e HALEHAVEN DoHy Average 4' Price - fl -IO * "ELBERTA -* —2CD~ « J l i Few Good Exceuent Appearance Ficure 5. Effect of General Agjcarance on the ‘rice of Halehave and lecrta Perches. Cents per Bushel +20 *‘ s +|O * a d- a’ 00in Average _ .. Pflce Market Dull _IO r- .4 /"~ Market Active -20*- ,r — a’ 1’ J 1 ii Few Good ExceHen1 Appearance Figure 6 . and Siberia Ieachcs with Varying Karket Activity. 0 I’\) Effect of General Appearance on the Trice of Halehaven It should be remembered th:t when general appearance is dis— H Lssed a perfect line of distinction cannot be drawn between class- 0 ificctions. while a producer might use methods that would move his peaches from the upper part of one classification to the lower part of the classification above it, he could not eXpect to increase his price as much as the avera e differences shown on the graphs. n__/ Several factors were related to ;eheral appearance. One of the most important was the shredded paper cov;rin; used on the facing of the baskets. This paper had a greater effect upon the appearance of blbertas than on the Hnleh vens a parently because the Haleh ven variety has more nat.ral color and did not nred the added emphasis on color. The paper also caised the peaches to appear ‘ori; htor 0 Another factor significantly associated with general appear- ance was percent of red. Ihis fact r was also more important in the leerta variety where a lack of red color was frecuently found. In both varieties the Lwneral appearance rating went up with in- creases in red color. Another factor which affected general appearance was the brishing of the peaches. This Was not as important as the other J factors mentioned, bit brushing did improve the general appearance sliéhtiy, especiauly where Color was itching. The color of red, color of brcen, or fullness of the package had no significant association with general appearance. l/ For a discussion of the method used in testing these associations see Appendix E. ‘ Because of the great effect of general appearance on price, it will usually pay the farmer to improve it. This can best be done by one or more of the practices just discussed. Practices that increase red color at picking time or bring out color after picking were especially significant in the El- berta peaches. The use of shredded paper and the brushing of peaches both apparently emphasized the general appearance and increased the price of peaches. General appearance had a different effect on price when the market was dull than when it was active (Figure 6). 1/ On days when the market was dull there was an eleven and one-half cents per bushel difference between fair and good general appearance. When the market was active there was an eighteen cents per bushel difference. On dull days there was a seven cents per bushel difference between good and excellent appear- ance, and on active days it was fifteen cents per bushel difference. This shows that the buyers pay an even greater premium for quality on the days the market is active. Effect of shreddedgpaper on price. The use of shredded paper on the face of the peaches had no direct effect upon price. Shredded paper and cellophane did show significant association with general appearance in both varieties of peaches. Thus, the use of paper or cellophane indirectly imp proved price by improving appearance. .1_/ Both varieties of peaches were groupedtogether to study the effect of market activity. Abaut hO percent of the peaches marheted had nOthing added to the face of the peaches to improve appearance. Since the cost of this colored paper and cellOphane is low it usually paid the farmer to use it to help improve the appearance of his peaches. Effect of brushing on price. Brushing had no significant effect upon the price of either variety of peaches other than as it affected their appearance. Brushed Halehaven peaches brought an average of fourteen cents per bushel more than unbrushed, and brushed Elberta peaches brought an average of twenty—one cents per bushel more than unbrushed. These differences were mostly due to differences in appearance. Within a given general appearance class the unbrushed broi ht as much as the brushed. 'Nhen the general appearance was excellent, brushing was of little value. hhere the general appearance was below excellent the brush- ing apparently improved the price through impruving appearanc . Effect of percent of red on price. The percent of red on the face of the peach had no direct effect upon price. The amount of red wcs a sociated with general appearance and thus indirectly af— fected the price. As the face of the peach became more covered with red, the general appearance improved. Since the Elberta variety lacked color and ripeness, the red color was more import— ant here. Growing, harvesting and marueting practices that increase or accentuate the red color in peaches will apparently pay the pro- ducer if the peaches might otherwise lack color. In the Hale- haven variety any increase in red over 50 percent does not seem 16 to improve appearance. In the Alberta variety appearance improved as the percent of red increased throughout the entire range of the peaches observed. Effect of color of red on price. Color of red had no signi— ficant effect upon the price of peaches. It wts also faund that the color of red had no association with general appearance. Thus, the color of red had no effect upon price either directly or through its effect upon general appearance. Effect of color of_green on price. Color of green had no significant effect upon price. In the Halehaven variety there mas no a sociation between color of green and general appearance so there was no indirect effect either. In the Elberta variety there Was some association betw en general appearance and color of green with the li.hter green or "yellow green" giving the best general appearance. This was undoubtly associated with ripeness and the fact that many Elbertas were marketed too green. The effect of color of green upon the appearance of the Elbertas was not important enough to receive producer attention. If Elbertas are marketed at the prOper ripeness, this will correct itself. 17 CHAPTER IV FIRfiNESS AND DEFECTS Effect of firmness or ripeness on price. Firmness had a highly significant effect on price. Buyers rarely, if ever, bought a load of peaches without first feeling of peaches from one or more sample baskets. This was evidence of the importance they attached to firmness or softness. It appeared from the prices paid by the buyers that the Halehaven i.eaches were often marketed too ripe or soft while Elberta peaches Were marketed too green or hard. The highest prices were paid for very hard and the lowest for very soft Halehaven peaches (Figure 7). Softness causes a signi- ficant diSCcunt in price in the fair and good quality peaches but not in the excellent peaches. For instance, soft peaches brought 26 cents per bushel less than very hard ones when their general appearance was fair, 12 cents less when appearance was good, and only 8 cents less when it was excellent (Figure 8). During l9h7, hé percent of the Halehaven peaches observed Were marketed at the very hard stage, ho percent at the firm stage, and 8 percent at the soft or very soft stages. This would indicate that about half of those peaches would have brought more had they been marketed earlier. host of these Halehaven peaches had ample size and color so that they would not have been diSCoanted on these points. The Halehaven grower with peaches of marketable size who delayed harvest during the early part of the season lost money in Cents per - Bushel t [0— 4 /~({LBERTA Daily Average 7 \ Pace - - HALEHAVEN ’ IO ~ 4 ' 20— a f I 1 . . l 2—. _ i - ‘ Very Hard Firm Soft Very Soft Firmness Figure 7. Effect of Firrness on the Trice of u‘lehtvpn ard' filberta reaches. Cents per Bushd + l0 r Wren“: Excellent't — Daily Average _ fin _ Pflce u-Appearonce Good " “IO t— _ "20 e a ’30 L « Appearance Fair '” ‘40 r— ——4 ‘50 b a L k t 1 Very Hard Firm Soft Very Soft Finnness Figure 8. Lffect of Firmness on the irice of fialehaven Peaches With Varring Appearance. 1T2' ‘ ' ' 4 L320 ' ' ' n 057' v v v1" ' ' v ' V” trot bignificent insignificant at 4M wwwoignificant at l. 19 two ways. As the season progressed peach prices fell, and his peaches became riper aha were discounted for softness (Figures 3 and 8). A consideration as yet unmeasured is the quality of these very lard peaches when they are offered to the consumer and the effect of this quality on immediate and future peach sales. The fact that this premium for hard peaches existed was an indication that the trade believed that there was more demand for them. hhether it was because they bruised less, were less subject to rats, or would carry better for these and other reasons was not determined in this study. The Elberta variety presented a different picture from the Halehavens. when the general appearance of the Elberta variety was excellent the very hard peaches did not bring as good a price as the firm ones (Fig re 9). In the two lower appearance groups of hlbertas there was no significant difference in price due to softness. Alberta producers marketed 93 percent of their excellent quality peaches at the very hard stage and 7 percent at the firm stage or softer. This indicated that many of the Elberta pro- dtcers might have gained by marketing riper peaches. then the peaches were of fair or good general appearance the early mar- ketings were apparently profitable but 57 percent of the Elbertas had excellent general appearance, and many of them would have brought higher prices had they been riper. It is possible that the appearance of many of the fair and good peaches would have Cents per h I Bus e Appearance ExceHent' + IO “ Daily Average _ _ _ P'c n e Appearance Good ”" -|Q.. ~_£( a —20~ - Appearance Fan " -—30- n _.4o._ _ L 1 1 1 Very Hard Firm Soft Very Soft Finnness Figure 9 . Effect of Firmncss on the Price of Elberta Peaches with Varying Appearance. "1 a 4 O I '1' [U .'\: .. O U h is significant so 2,.) in: Ilot oignificant become excellent if they had ripened longer. Not only would their firmness have been more favorable, but their general appearance would have improved by the added color. a producer marketing excellent quality blberta peaches would usually gain by picking at the very hard stage dLring the early part of the season when prices are nornally falling if the peaches are of sufficient size. In the latter part of the 1.:e-_r;;eti:g sea- son it Would usually pay to allow the excellent quality peaches to ripen more to take advantage of the rise in price due to both ripeness and normal seasonal variation. The prod.cer also gets an advantage of greater yields as the peaches "swell” on afchC of defects on price. Defects caused significant differences in the price of peaches (Figure 10). druising caused the gr at st price discount of any defect for path varie- (D ties of peaches. ln the halehavon variety bruising was the most si'nificant defect in good and excellent quality peaches and the second most in fair quality (Figure ll). Knots had the greatest effect on the price of those peaches with fair general appearance. A com— bination of bruise and knot when general appearance was good seemed to have little effect. Basket cuts and other small de— fects have very little effect upon the price of the Halehaven variety. It appears that it would pay Halehaven producers to pay partiCular attention to bruising. Other defects observed should Cents per Bushel + 40 +30 _. +20 - +10 .- Doily Ave rage Price 'IO _ ’20 - ‘30 ~ -40.— No Defects BruBe Bruwe 8 R0? Kn ots 01 her HALEHAVEN ELBERTA ”MU gm Figuref'o. Effect of Defects on the Price of Halehaven and Elberta feaches. Cents per . / l Bushel +lOL H / Daily Average Price No Defects ’!0 P Bruise 8i Rot —- 20 _ -« _ 30 "' —4 2’ ./ l l 1 Fair Good Excellent Appearance Figure 11. Effect of Defects on the Price of Haiehaven Peaches with Vaiying Affearance. Cents per Bushel HO e n Daily Average _ _ Price No Defects ~ Other ' IO r ' —4 '20— a ’30 _ _ '40e a J l L Fair Good Excellent Appearance Figure 12 . Effect of Defects on the Price of Elberta Peaches with Varying Appearance. 31* This defect appeared only in this appearance class. rk‘ \AJ ix) C‘ be watched closely when they or other factors caused poorer general appearance. In the Elberta variety bruise was the post costly defect (Figure 10). 'nhen the general appearance was good bruise was the most costly defect again, causin; a fifteen cent per bushel difference in price. “hen general appearance was excellent in the Elberta variety, bruised peaches had no significant effect hall defects caused an eleven cent 0) on price while cits and other difference (Figure 12). The defects that had the greatest effect on price were those affecting shipping quality. Other defects seemed to be important Mainly as they affected appearance. UhAPTnR V thKET FACTORS D Lifect of position on the market o__price. The Benton Harbor narhet is divided into ei;ht sellin; lanes each of which extend about 300 yards. 0n da_s of heavy peach movements the two out- side truckers lanes also were used for selling. This gave ten selling lanes during the rush periods. To measure the effect of the sellers position on the market on price, the market area was divided into three approximately equal areas and the position and lane in which the sale was made was recorded (Figure 13). The first half of the paved area was position number one, the second half was position number two, and the entire area beyond the flagpole'was position number three. In the marheting of the Halehaven peaches there was no signi- ficant difference in price due to position on the marnet. Many Halehaven producers Were forced to move far down on the market because they had lower duality peaches, but like quality Hale— haven peaches brought comparable prices on all parts of the mar- net. In the Elberta var ety there was a significant difference in price due to position in the fair and excellent general appear- ance classes (Figure lb). The differences in "good" peaches Were in the same direction as those in "fair" and "excellent" ones but they were not significant. There was no indication in the results of this study as to the I"? Q“. Truck Parking and Selling Area ( Position Three) -—- Drive Drive —--- I I l I . I I I Flagpolel o I I I I l I I . I g g Selling Area E 3 I (Position Two) m 5 0 I I o I g). g o '2. '2. I < 9. a < < 0 :I ‘5' o I I a «0 ° I f. 2 I I 3 g 9. “ z: a lay/KT%\\ a S‘rE’H—é’ rlzc‘ We“?! "' 2- 3 I = ° =- 3 E: S E. g 5 3'3 El: 3: Is :2 s .7, l I I Entrance Area I ( Position One) 817 IslsI I4I3I 2II Entrance Figure 13 . Diagram of the Selling Section of the Benton Harbor ”.I‘holesale Fruit Iiarket showing Position and Lane Timbers used in Peach Price Study. (Not drarm to Scale) Cents per Bushel +20 I d +l0~ Appearance Excellent ’” Daily Average 1' Price —|O _ _ Appearance Good - 20 — n _ 30 ,_ 1 A F ' ” __ 40 H ppearance an d - 50 c. - l l l Entrance Middle Area Beyond Area Area Flagpole Figure Ill. Effect of the Position of.the Seller on the harket on ihe Price of Elberta Peaches. ' * Hot Significant *% Significant at la 8 28 reasons for price differences due to position in Elberta and not in Halehaven peaches. Perhaps this difference was due to the difference in volume of loads on the market during the Halehaven and Elberta seasons. Further work is needed to discover the factors responsible for the price differences which appeared only in the Elberta variety. To study further the effect of position on the market all peaches were grouped tOgether. It was found that when the daily price movement was steady there was a significant lowering of price as the seller moved away from the gate (Figure 15). On days when the market price was rising or falling there was no significant difference in price due to position on the market. These differences may have been due to the different actions of the buyers on different days. On the days when the price was about steady most of the buyers gathered about the entrance of the market. If a load of peaches was pushed beyond this first group of buyers the seller usually had fewer buyers bidding for his load and was offered less for the same quality of peaches. On days when price was down the market was usually full, and the buyers moved away from the entrance to buy at their leisure. The position on the market caused a significant difference in price when the market was active (Figure 16). 'When the market was dull the position on the market had no significant effect upon price. As previously mentioned, when market activity wan slow the buyers spread out over the market. On active days they concentrated near the gate to catch loads as they entered. Cents per Bushel +20 " ‘ + '0 '— . * d { Price Movement Up s s . ‘ / DOIly Average ‘s‘ A ’ . r—-——— PrIce \Wv ~- Price Movement Dovvnfl — IO t" ‘ - 20 h « Price Movement ‘30 P Steady " r --40 I- " L l Entrance Middle Area Beyond Area Area Flagpole Position Figure 1S. E fect of Position of the Seller on the liarket on the Price of Halehaven and Elberta Peaches with Varying Liarket Price Iiiovement. Cents per Bushel +|O P a Market Gulf—7' Daily Average -\ ~____ ” _ Price ’ — l0 — n - MOIKBI Active - 20 ~ . l 1 l Entrance Middle Area Beyond Area . Area Flagpole Position Figure 76- . Effect of Position of the Seller on the ifarket on the Price of Halehaven and Elberta Peaches with Varving Market I‘thifltyo 34- I‘Iot Significant 22-31- Significant at 2% 30 There was no significant difference in price of either variety of peaches due to the lane in which the sale was made. Since the sellers in the outside lanes receive as good a price as those on the center it might be advantageous for sellers who are forced into less favorable positions to pull around and enter the side lanes near the entrance again. The policy of allowing this has been followed on the m rket and is helpful to those farmers who feel they were forced to sell in an un— favorable position. hany times the seller ends up at the back of the market due to a difference in his and the buyers opinion as to the quality of the peaches. If the quality was low, the fanner had more trouble selling his product because he was inclined to hold it for the average price. It must depend upon the individuals judge- ment of his product's quality as to whether he reenters the mar~ ket after he has reached a less favorable position. If quality is law he will get a lOWer price in any position, but if quality is excellent, he may gain by going around and presenting his peaches where the most buyers are concentrated. Effect of hour of sale on price. For the entire lPh? season, there was no significant difference in price during dif— ferent heirs of the day. However, on days when the market price movement was upWard, the price advantage for afternoon sales was significant (Figure 17). The greatest price increase was after four o'clock. Un ca 5 that the market price movement was Steady or downward, Cents per Bushel I +20 *- +IOr Daily Average Price Market prices Up“ I l —4 Market Prices Dowrfi’q / . \ \ - \ \ I \\‘_-_ y /‘ Market Prices Steady u “ .. [O ... — 20L a All Peaches I J l l 10AM I2 Noon 2PM 4PM Time Figure 17 . Cents per Bushei ['0 Effect of Time 0-. sale on the Price of Halehaven and Elberta Peaches with Var-ring Lari-Let Price Liovement. +10t Daily Average PI'ICe Market Dullfi—flA\ / _—————— Market Active ‘*" \ I i i Figure l 77 IOAM |2 Noon 2PM 4PM Time Effect of Time of Sale on the Price of Halehaven and Elberta Peaches with Varying Llarket Activity. * Not Significant ‘34-):- Significant at 133 H’i-‘k Significant at 275 32 there was no significant difference in price d ring different hours of sale. It appears, hoWevcr, that there was some downward trend in prices after four P.L. on these days. There was no significant difference in price die to the hour of sale when the marict activity was dull. hhen the market was active, there was a significant difference in price with the afternoon sales prior to four o'clock showing the highest prices (Figure 18). At present Most of the producers time their marketing mostly by chance depending upon when the peaches are packed for harketiné. A produCer who Was inforied on market trends and correctly interpreted the market, received above average prices for his peaches. As soon as a large number of farmers take advan ape of these price differences, the price advantage nay be renoved. Until a greater number of farmers act upon this in- forhation, it will pay the individual grower to watch particularly on active and rising markets for the mast favoraole hour of sale. Effect of tim spent in making sale on;price. The grower who sold his peaches within the fi*st hour received a better price than those browers who held their peaches for several hours be- fore selling. In many cases the farhers who held out for higher prices wire unable to get as high a price as their earlier offers. The longer the grower stayed on the market the more likely he was to have to sell from a less favorable position on the market. (See previous section). 33 There was a significant lowering of price corresponding to the longer time spent on the market on the days the market ac ivitv was dull (Figure 19). On divs 'he market was active, there'was no significant difference in price due to time spent on the market. On days that market price movement was down there was also a discount in price to the growe who did not sell within the first hour (Figure 20). When the market price novempnt was KL Nu. . stec'r or up, there was no significant difference in price due to time spent on the market. Those farmers selling in the first hour received a price slightly better than the highest offer in the first round of bidding after they entered the gate (Table 1). As the lengt of time on the market increased, their chances of improving this offer became less. After they had been there on the market two hours or more, they took a price below their original offer. A breakdown of the sales made within the first hour indi- cated that the farmers who sold within the first five minutes got myrovenent in price over their first offer than those who H (D C) 4] Po held their peaches from five minutes to one-half hour. hose farmers who held their peaches for over a half hour received practically no increase over their first offer. Cents per 1 Bushel 5' +10 1- —« Daily Average - _ - Price . e —fi Market Active —|O ' ‘ “D Market Dull .. 3O "' —4 -40~ 4 AH Peaches l L l l L 1 l L‘ O I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Hours on Market J Price " 1 Figure 19 . Relationship between Tire Spent in making 3:163 an; With Warring Llarrcet Activity. Cents per Bushel + IO - _ .4 P' M r u " Daily Average nce . ovemen p - Price _ _ -|O r- .4 Price Mavemenf Down *' -20b Price —4 Movement , Steady - 3O — .4 -40- ‘ All Peaches l l l 1 J l l 1 Hours on Market ,. Figure 23 . Relationship Between Tine sysnt in I. akin with Varying Liarlzet Price liovenent. a Sale and Price e:- Not SignifiCF-Ln’o as Significant at 153 35 TADLE I Average Gains over Early Offers Due to Holding of Peaches for a Higher Price w—w— Time spent Highest Offer in Final Sale Cents per Bushel in making Sale ls, Round of Price that Final price Bidding was shave Cffer Up to 3 Kin. 3 2.08 t 2.15 e .07 h Lin. to 30 Kin. A 2.03 5 2.lh .ll 30 lfin. 'xo 1 Hr. 1.91; :5 1.99 .05 Over 2 Hrs. ;, 1.76 .5 1.62 - .11; Growers saved time and gained in price by selling within a reasonable period after entering the market. Each grower must depend uron his judgement to determine when the top offer has been made. The studv indicated that the highest offer will usually be received within the first one-half hour after entering the market. 36 UmlP'l‘nR VI OTHLR NUN-QUALITY FALTuRS Effect of n mber of packages on load on price. The size of the load of peaches offered by the producer had no significant effect upon the price received. hany of the smaller loads had poorer gen- eral appearance, but they brought the same price as large loads with the sare general appearance. Although some buyers will not bother with Small loads of less than twenty bushels, most buyers pay little attention to the size of the load. Effect of type of container on price. There was no signifi- cant difference in price due to the type of container in which the peaches Were Sold. The conventional wooden bushel basket with a tap and the 2200 cubic inch wooden box were observed in this study. The peaches packed in boxes had better appearance and brought better than average prices. They brought no more than peaches of like quality in bushel baskets. Since the sexes contained about five pounds less peaches and are somewhat easier to pack, the producers who used this package gained somewhat over those who packed in baskets. only about three percent of the peaches observed were packed in boxes. The market for these packages is limited, and it is possible that if more growers used this type of package their price might be forced down. Effect of fullness of pack on_price. The fullness of the pack had no significant effect upon the price of either variety of peaches. Fullness of pack was not associated with general appearance in either var ety. The Elberta variety had more uniformity in fullness be- 37 cause they were usually mxre uniform in size. However, the lack of uniformity in fullness in the Halehaven variety had no effect upon the price. ’1 r E_fect of sex of seller on price. The sex of the seller had no effect upon the price paid for the peaches. In both varieties of peaches about 90 percent of the sales were made by men. The quality of the peaches sold by men and women were about the same in both varieties. Effect of the type of buyer upon the price. The Benton Harbor market has buyers who buy on a day to day fee basis and season buyers who rent a stall on a season basis and buy throughout the marketing season. There was no significant difference in the prices paid for a given quality of peaches by these two types of buyers. During the Halehaven season the day buyers studied, paid lower prices for the peaches they bought. These peaches were of poorer general appearance and lower average quality peaches than those purchased by the season buyers. In the Elberta variety the day and season buyers bought about the same quality of peaches and there was no significant difference in the prices paid. The distance that the buyers carried or shipped the peaches had no effect upon the prices paid for a given quality of peaches. The buyers who shipped the peaches long distances bought somewhat better quality peaches. CHAPTER VII SUhMARY AND CONCLUSIONS There are many causes for variations in peach prices. This study deals with an analysis of those differences in peach prices caused by the variations in the peaches and in the market. The sample included only those peaches marked U. S. No. l, 2-inch and up in size and sold on the Benton Harbor Market during l9h7. This grade and size classification included most of the peaches sold on this market. The most important cause of price variations in the peaches studied was the general appearance. Buyers paid an average of. 37 cents more for excellent than fair appearance in Halehaven peaches, and 16 cents more for excellent than fair appearance in Elberta peaches. The use of shredded paper on the facing, brushing and methods of accentuating the red on the face of the peach im- proved appearance. About hO percent of the peaches observed had no shredded paper or cellophane on the facing and about 9 percent of the peaches were not brushed. Another important factor causing variations in peach prices was the firmness of the peaches. Uver one-half of the Halehaven peaches were marketed softer or ripor than those that brought top prices. In the Elberta variety the situation was reversed. Here the buyers paid a premium for the riper peaches and less for the iery hard ones. Since 93 percent of the Elberta peaches studied were marketed at the very hard state, there was wide room for improvement. Defects caused price differences in both varieties of peaches. Bruises seemed to be the defect that caused the greatest discount in both varieties. Knots also caused lower prices. Buyers seemed to discount the defects which affected shipping quality most. Defects were not common in the Elberta variety as 95 per- cent of the peaches marketed showed no defects. Only 2 percent showed bruises. Only 81 percent of the Halehavens were free of defects, and 9 percent of the Halehavens marketed contained bruises, the most costly defect. This indicates a need for more careful grading, especially in the Halehaven variety. Other quality factors studied had no direct effect upon price. Brushing of the peaches and an increase in percent of red on the face of the peaches improved appearance and thus indirectly im- proved price. Color of red and color of green had little effect upon either appearance or price. The position upon the market had some effect upon price. There was no noticeable effect upon the Halehaven variety, but the fair and excellent quality Elbertas brought a lower price as the seller moved away from the entrance of the market. This same effect was noticeable on all peaches when the market price movement was about steady and'when the market was active. These price differences are probably due to the different actions of the buyers on dif- ferent days. The lane in which the peaches were sold had little effect upon price. Over the 19h? season as a whole there was no significant difference in price due to time of sale. It was found that on days when the market price movement was up, the farmers who sold in the afternoon received significantly higher prices. When the marnet price movement was steady or down there was no difference in price due to time of sale. Those farmers who held their peaches on the market for long periods hoping for a higher price usually were forced to take less than their original offers. Any holding of the peaches over one—half hoir brought little increase in price. The length of time that the farmer waited to sell was most import- ant on da,s then the market price movement was down. ether nonquality factors such as type of buyer, type of package, size of load, and sex of seller were studied and found to have no effect upon price. The results of this study indicate that the majority of the factors ca sing price variations within standard grades of peaches La; be controlled by the farmer. It is up to the individual producer tocietermine if the expected price increases will compen- sate him for his added work. LfiFlhITION OF TERLS General Appearance : The overall appearance of the package of peaches when viewed with the top off. Excellent - Those peaches with above average appearance, good size, bright color, and attractive facing and package. Good - Peaches which look to be of average size and color with no Special attempt to hake pack neat and attractive. Fair - Poor color and quality readily apparent with peaches appearing small or irregular. Usually contained defects and no effort had been made to make pack attractive. Color of Green : The shade of green that appeared on the peach. Light - Very light green bordering on yellow over most of the area covered. (Ripest peaches) hedium - Nornal green color with little or no yellow shading apparent. Dark - Heavy grass color usually very dull. (Greenest peaches) Color of Red : The shade of red that appeared on the face of the peaches on the tOp of the basket. Light - Slight tinge of red bordering on yellow shading. h? Medium.- Normal brick red shade with little yellow shading. Dark - HeaVy red bordering on purple, usually dull in color. Firmness : Ripeness of the peaches as judged by feeling of them. Very hard - No denting under medium thumb pressure. Firm.- Firm to grasp but would dent under thumb pressure. Soft - Skin of peach felt somewhat loose. Dents appeared under normal hand pressure. Flesh of peach felt loose and movable. Type of Paper Used on Facing_: Type, if any, of loose shredded paper, used on the face of the peaches in the bushel baskets to improve appearance. Cellophane - Small strips of cellophane about one-eighth inch in width and six inches long. Usually was white, red, or green in color. Colored Paper - Strips of colored paper about one-fourth inch wide and four inches long. The colors used most were red, green, and dark purple. None- Nothing added to basket facing. Typ§_of Package : Bushel Basket - Conventional bushel basket with tOp. Box - 2200 cubic inch wooden box. The boxes held about 5 pounds less peaches than a bushel basket. 1:3 Significance : Results of statistical tests to show effect of various factors. Significant at 1 percent - Observed action was caused by factors other than chance at least 99% of the time. Significant at 2 percent - Observed action was caused by factors other than chance at least 98% of the time. Not Significant - Any observed differences may be due to chance. Market Price Movement : General movement of average prices during the day. Up - When the daily average price is above that of the previous day by ten cents per bushel or more. Steady - When the\10\UIC'\UNH I Brushed (Line 33) 1 - Yes 2 - No Number of Packages on Load (Lines 3h, 35, 36) Actual number. Type of Package (Line 37) 1 - Bushel basket All boxes were 2200 cubic inches and 2 - Bushel box held about 5 pounds less peaches than a bushel basket. Eype of Paper on Face of Bushel (Line 38) l - Cellophane All U. S. No. 1 peaches in bushel 2 - Colored baskets were ring faced to some 3 - None degree. All bushel boxes were faced in rows. Fullness of Pack (Line 39) inch All measurements from top edge of " box or basket. I! 5’11) N H I I HNll-‘ONIF‘ Type of Buyer (Line hO) 1 - Season buyer 2 - Day buyer [ype of load carried by_Buyer (Line bl) 1 - Straight load of peaches 2 - Mixed load of fruit 3 - Mixed load of fruit and vegetables ”I (. Distance carried by Buyer (Line h2) - Up to 100 miles - 100-200 miles 0 - 500-600 miles 1 2 - 200-300 miles 3 h - 600-700 miles 700-800 miles - 800-900 miles - 900 miles and over - BOO-boo mile! - h00—500 miles \OCD-QOU‘L I Market Activity (Line h6) 1 - Dull (As observed) 2 - Active General Market Price Movement (Line h?) 1 - Up (As observed) 2 - Steady 3 - Down Number of Day Buyers (Lines h8, h9, 50) Actual number as listed in Federal State Market News Service Report. Volume of Sales (Lines 51 & 52) To nearest 1000 bushels. As takenfrom Federal State Market News Service Report. Temperature (Line 53 & 5h) Actual temperature to the nearest degree from the noon reading at the market clerk's office. Average Price of 2” and up Halehaven Peaches (Lines 55, 56, 57) As takenfrom the Federal State Market News Service Report. Average Price of 2" and up Elberta Peaches (Line 58, 59, 60) As taken from the Federal State Market News Service Report. Date (Lines 62 & 63) 02 Monday, September 1 03 Tuesday 2 0h wednesday 3 05 Thursday h 06 Friday 5 11 Sunday 7 12 Monday 8 13 Tuesday 9 1h Wednesday 10 15 Thursday 11 16 Friday 12 22 Monday 15 23 Tuesday 16 2h Wednesday 17 25 Thursday 18 26 Friday 19 31 Sunday 21 32 Monday n22 33 Tuesday 23 Variation from Daily Average Price (Lines 6h, 65, 66) Difference between price received and daily average price. Sh APPENDIX D The Use of the F Test of Significance The F test of significance is used to determine whether the differences appearing in a series are due to causes other than chance. This is done by a comparison of the variance (:0) be- tween groups and the variance (t‘) within groups. In the following example these symbols are used: Total number of cases. Number in each group. Number of groups. Cents per bushel variation from daily average price. d.f. 3 Degrees of freedom. Naif-32 The formula for F is as follows: 1. Total variation or sum 2 of the squared deviations = 2x - (9:)2 Total d.f. = N - 1 N 2. Between variation groups or sum of the squared =£(_;x)2 - (£302 Between groups d.f. deviations , n N = g - l Subtract equation 2 from equation 1 to find within groups variations. It's degrees of freedom is N - g. The variance (.3) between groups is equal to the between groups variation divided by its degrees of freedom. The variance (cfii‘within groups is equal to the within groups variation divided by its degrees of freedom. F 3 Larger Variance Smaller Variance F Test Applied to General Appearance of Elberta Peaches General Appearance Fair Good Excellent n I number of cases 13 65 “4102 {x 3 Sum of price vari- .n 2ations from average -l62 -56h 320 (ax) .-. 2018.76 h970.2s 1003.92 n 55 2 Total number of cases - 179 N N {x 3 Sum of squares of each individual price variation ’ from daily average price 3 95,956. (£&)2 = Sum of the total price variation for entire ' group squared 3 l6h,836. Source Variation Degrees of Variance Freedom Total 9h,035.13 178 Between Groups 7,071.13 2 3535.57 Within Groups 86, 9611 .00 1.76 ’49h .11 F = I3535.S7 (B.G.) _ 119mm (11.0.) 7'16 Consulting the F table we find the figure for 2:and 176 degrees of freedom to be 3.09 at the one percent level. Since 7.16 is above this figure the differences observed are due to causes other than chance more than 99 percent of the time. 56 APPENDIX E Use of the‘x? Test to Show Association The“;2 test is used to show association between two factors by comparing their theoretical frequencies with the frequencies actually observed. To illustrate the'x? test we shall use the association be- tween brushing and general appearance in the Halehaven variety. BRUSHBD Observed Expected General Appearance Yes N2. Total 123 N2 Total Excellent 69 h 73 65.7 7.3 73 Good 58 7 65 58.5 6.5 65 Fair 8 h 12 10.8 1.2 12 Total 135.0 15.0 135.0 15.0 The expected theoretical frequency is found by applying the same ratio or proportion to each grouping as is found in the entire group. In this case the ratio is nine to one. The formula 1512 = 25f - fizz i f = actual frequency P a number_of rows f1: theoretical frequency Q = number of cells in row “x? = (69-65.?)2 . (1.0.7.3)? . (58.0-58.5)2 . (7.0-6.5)2 . 65.7 7.3 58.5 6.5 10.8 1.2 The degrees of freedom 3 (P—l) (Q-l) or in this case the degrees of freedom 3 (2-1) (3-1) = 2 Entering the table with values of 2 we find that with two degrees of freedom the value of 5.86 would fall between the .05 and .10 level. This means that such a divergence from the theo- retical could occur between 5% and 10% of the time. This means that brushing is not significantly associated with general ap- pearance in the Halehaven variety. 00M I ’I y I Q I I \ I - I :y I$ I I I‘. l ‘9 ' . , 1 ‘ID I l l I I I I ' {I s I I | I I . ' . I, ‘ I II ‘ I I I use. 0““- ” n . .__.._.L¢- .r' .1. - 44-. .~ - '9 I 14(17):). ROOM 0.»: I . .V I \I I I 'v ' I o t I I I. ’ I I ‘ O I. . A ' I l \ I I . I _l I I I l b I . . 1 I \ I I .. ‘I 7‘ I o I I I I l I , I a J \ I t I " I I I I \ ' ' 1 I . I ‘ u . I I V ‘ ‘ I' I I \ \ \_ I I I I -- .. ¢ .“4 . 5‘- - _-_.- o ~...— MICHIGAN STATIE UNIVERSIT7 LIBRARIES III III I I III 0850 39