‘0
, .J
.. .PIIl Al _.
IIIIIIIIIIvIIU -
....I.... I I.

_ I I
.. I II . . ... I
....4.(p\.ur..V.J ....
\ . . .IfIa I I
.5? i I \
fi IVCQJVW‘KO5..I I.
I I.
O

I I
. . . . c
. I I. . II.

. . uIv. ....~. . QII

. I ... .I .I. Ia\Is..
I ... .. n I I.
I . a I ... I. . .I .
. . I .
.I

s . I

. , .... . v.[
. . . IXIIIIT
.. .I.. . I. . .I I II III. II .I «a 50‘1"} I. .w r
. . . .u . .L I u ; _. . . I I I .I .. . I I . .. 4. I .... ..l\n . \I I o
. .I . a . II . . . . I . . ... . I . .I
.. . . . I . .. . I , . .. . . . . . . . . ,. . I . Ids “WNW!”
... . , .n .. .I . . I II. I I . .I. I.. .. III. I. I. )I

I . . . . I. . I I LMJIH'H I I .v.. I .I, r I . . I II. I I. II I II I .. p

I I . . . I .. , . n . I. II ... I . . I I .v

h H... . ...u. . .. -. .. .31., . .. . . (fl- , -.. . I

I
I I
I L I I A. ~ I ..
I I . .. I ... I . ... . .. I. 7*
. _ I .- II a. K . . . . I
I .. . I. I 4' I n I . ~I I.
.I I..- , .. . .... I. .. . I . . .. . .. I, I
. I I ,u . . . . I . ~ .. . . |
. I a ._ v . . . I . I . u I. I _ I .
a . I .. I _ . . . . ., 4. . I I .n 4' .
_ . .. . . . . . . ...I . A .. I. \ I l .... .I
I . .0 . I I . I I. I. . I I u .I . . I. I I I
. .. , .. . I I . I . I . a . ... I
I . . I ~ .I I I ... b . I .II . ti. I I I
I I _ , .. ~31! .. I .... I .... .. . ..I . I

I .. . . . . . ‘I . I . . . . . . - . .I . .

I I I . I . . . v . .
. . I .I.I . < I . .
D a t t , I O
a . . .. ... II. I I. ...I. I . . . I .
u I , l I I
I I . I. .4 . .o. . I . I
.I I _ .w .. . . . . .v
. . .I . . .. . .. , . . I. ..

II
.1II

fl
skI .1 . a II
’WI‘fif
IL. ..I

| U. . I V I
Q I u
I I 4.. .... {III I
I I .
’

... . ..Nr? I I
. . .. . .. ...-.. . II...) I
.I I..III..~.... .. . . . .... . -. , . .r Agrki
‘ lily I. 7. v~uv v II V TI tv
.. ......)w. .- .. .. . ... II- .. -. H . I
. .m.§w....... . If”... .
. I.)
.. 4 ...I

. .I I I .
..Y . . ...}. 9
v . . I . . .ll? V‘kvbleIIQé w
.. . I I. . I. I. I .. s. . ... .ov ( . II JniwhflfiJ I.
I I l I I I I. I . I r
I“ . Iv .... VII. I {an . . I.» v.— . Ik.~ t8 ‘3: ‘.l. I I
In . u. l I. I . V I a ...”... 7' I I I <I
. .I .. . If! I

r
.
V

I_I.. 236.1
I‘.. Q
1L,“ II.“ V

It»

. . I. .
O r
.A. ..I.r. . ... ..I.

. . Iv. . .--

. I «O...» .I
g“. . II .II. . a. o
.l’ I I I . ~Is ...

. .

Mm c-L.

"a

...r‘:

i

...,» a...

a I
.
a

} . fl
. p.
hWfihn .
. I x i III
r XV...

V...

I41

! .1
A

IIr.. .
..‘
ov

 

.1

. . ... . ..
I ’| D I I .
. .. .J .. . 4.... I, .1“
. .38.-- -. .I-
. I III. 0‘“. VII I I , i: (M.
..I I. .I I: so). . . ‘. I ”I v .7 It I. .
. . .. . .... .w. I .I I E -éa .I \ hI “fill \‘ .9. 11.11.: IIVI
. . I... . .I 7. . ..I. ,. .. . I I. .. .1 Il.. ... IN: 1'. I .’ 0.,6 ..I 9-H. . 1:). v VII.
. . ...I .v u ... a V... I ... I. ... . . I I I. .. I. L'. .I. ob .... . ... I .0 o. I . I' .
I I .I.I I . I. I I . _ ..I. . . .. I. 0. Ir... .va .Il I u I
1.. I» . 1 IND. I I I.L v .,..I . . II. . I II. . .. u r . II . . . ..Iu. . .. I . I
I . . I II I ..I L . I I. II .0. I ~\ . I o I ..
I f ...“...I , . . . .I . I...I . .... I... .. ...... ”I: . .I . .. . ..

. . -..? MI»I.I..,...$..I.H..I. _ I-. . ._ .. _ . ..

...“...IIJ. .....EINIII. .70.!

. t I .. ...... A-I~<. . :II .h

I o
(I

I .I. . .. . I) . 10.”. , ..r. .l 0....
.. .,. .... v. .. f...” In. . -......~.H....«I«.I.I.m&. . . .
. : ..Iywfifi ...»... ”III... I
I . .9 ...r A a .qul ‘ ....I .
. . I ... ... . ... I vr: I: J .7. ... ..Mhfl’ {..Iflv» %

.¢ KI”... .

,- ' . ' ' 4-1." 7".
‘ H - ~ 45,} {c1 3“?) ‘ 2-“ »'.l_.'¥
_' 1 90"“- . :' "‘, “Lu " '
. -',.o 7" x .Q $31.“! :2» ~4‘IE’QQ.
. , ififllfi . , -_ 1r '
~;-"-..‘-- 5"“

‘

A
\

V

(/321ij J '..-

a
‘r. '. r.
iv 73"“ 15‘ :

I“; J \V\ .:
_ 1 314 ‘ ,3 5.;

3“)

| A.“ ‘. ' . ‘_ .
‘2’ ’1 SF 7 -. v.
‘kub {- *. ‘Eégr _‘

§

- ’1" - -. , r ‘ -
ygfi‘. ‘ .3“ '. . , , -

:. .' km w. - ~-
N‘E“ ' ‘ 9.7.3?” ; , - ' — ‘ '

.
I

, .
n,

.4“. i
.r . -.

{é “
{' pv “it
.I. . ‘1,

.17”;
, ‘4‘,
1 l
u u.
.. $.21! , ‘.
.’: '1'

I
b-

 

2,"

. f
a“;
3
XL-

mitt-v-..
’\

‘

. f”

,.

W‘ "“‘r‘
. ~l‘v“'-x ‘.
- ‘0" v ~ .‘

.

_$
. A
‘
I ‘-

‘ ' :'. ~ (Mew—i»
.' 3: ‘ ‘t I?”
. ~ ( 5’)

5'
"f

. I ' ~ - ‘ . . . " ‘J ‘
v P -'V f . I. ..;-.‘ .7 1'". £ *
P t'v i. ‘ .. . II J . .
6.. H - .1 , NM‘L" . . A
I .‘ A-\ ‘ " ~r‘:, J " v
.. .‘ ’7' 0,"! J ..., 1~ ' .
V. «I. .' ‘
I . 1 - ”‘5’ . , ,
AP; ." . _ I. ' ‘ 3's;
v ‘ .

 

‘ 45‘?“
. <

 

A STUDY OF MUSKMELON PRICES

Thesis

Submitted to the Faculty of the Michigan State
College of Agriculture and Applied Sci-
ence in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree
of Master of Science.

by

Alfred Benjamin Strand

 

June 1928

TH ESIS

 

 

’INTRODUCTION

 

The raising of muskmelons is an important
horticultural industry in Michigan. According to
the United States Department of Agriculture Year-
book for 1925 Michigan ranks fourteenth in
commercial muskmelon production. In 1925 a total
of 3778 acres were given over to the production
of this crop (U.S.Census of Agriculture Michigan
Statistics by Counties).

1(1338‘51323

HISTORY

The first’production on a commercial scale m4,

I ..-
* *fl :- . Q ‘33- (A... _

~
I

in Southwesternjhichigan:was}in 1880. Roland Merrill,
commonly known as the "Father of the Muskmelon
Industry in Michigan," who, with I.R.Pearl, originated
the "Hearts of Cold," and J.W.Rose and murdock Randall,
are considered to be the pioneers.

Miller's Cream, Osage, and Netted Gem.were the
first varieties,grotnfinuthis stateion a commercial
scale} According to Mr.A. Randall these varieties
were distinct in type and plant characteristics.

The Osage, originally obtained from Osage
County, Kissouri, by J.W;Rose was early, inferior
in quality and productive.

The Miller's Cream was higher in quality and
preferred on the market to the Osage. Both varieties
were usually shipped under the name Osage.

About 1885 the Hearts of Gold variety, supposed-
ly a cross between Osage and Netted Gem, and Heedoo,

a muskmelon similar in type and presumably a strain
of the Hearts of Gold, were developed. These two

varieties are now the most pepular and constitute

the majority of the plantings in Berrien County.

In the early days of the industry little
attention was given to methods of handling and
shipping. Muskmelons were usually packed in boxes
or barrels. The independent shipping of growers
led to frequent gluts on the market. Later the
severe competition of Western fruits compelled
growers to pay more attention to systematic market-

év' ”ng "hLé".L:_ (‘ in I IN

ing and standardized grading. As a result a great

. ' are, (Mutt

i majority of the muskmelons grown in this district
are packed and shipped under the cooperative plan.
Packing and shipping stations now exist at Millburg,
Benton Center and Pearl Grange.

As the industry has gradually developed various
problems have forced their attention on the grower.
Some of these are production problems; others have
to do with marketing and price. Sometime;one seems
to be most acute, sometimg;another. One of the most
common complaints of the growers is gradual, or
somewhat rapid, decline in price as the shipping season
progresses. Sc important has this question become in
the minds of a large percentage of those engaged in
the industry that it seems desirable to make a some-

what detailed study of the situation.

é 44 KE 5 095mm

 

CHIPPEWA

dnfimfir“L4

3:" j_

v. . _ . ._.
""“’ ’ {JVTMRM

\0 mam 17:15:60 um|

BENZ '
1+._.

3 1.2
W— 1[.
3

-‘F—"—°

.mnm
’ u

_.q|

Mica/c4”

 

 

 

sumac» _]

...,I' — _ _ o
I- -I I-39 4"“ m.
I IONIA lumoulm.

lam
zl/‘l—l

48:“

OTTAWA

ALLEGAN
217

LAKE

 

VMBUREN
1 Ii? 40

I——+-—-i—
m5 iS'JOSU'H
umm' 8” L46 j

( L48 _._J

I
Must wuroeo mince-M ocww
a! I 6 . I l

. ...—L..

7F T 'L—Iméum
MASON! LAKE 03‘0“ CLARE PUD?“

3

r.......!._..r- '3‘" euros

_1_,_

 

MICOSTA

._. 7.41.1;

. l
I? came [kn—mugcamom oscooA! ALCONA

 

"W“‘I.._]I_.__. 4- _.

JIosco

0L

mun 'NI ' no
I L?”L

 

_._.L‘1-‘1 Tuscou iWILAc
29 mm ‘ml mm 5 J'ML
1

7i4~

lwusu

 

7 (a 12. I H
.4. w.J 4_:
magmi LATON rINGHAM [UVINBSTOII OAKLAND
1_r —I..T-.—
CALHOUN I JACKSON IWASHTLNAWI mm:
’7 U19|93 I674-

—To Tch—[u—ul-c

 

iWO‘ imam] umawu memo:

i75“

Fig. l.- Distribution of muskmelons in Michigan.

Number of acres in each county given over to the

production of the crop.

Michigan Statistics by Counties, 1925).

..JL3 ...]...

5'

STMI.
1/6

i60

(U.S.Census of Agriculture,

 

 

YEARLY PRICE TRENDS (1920 to 1927 Inclusive).

The detailed information, upon which this
study is based was secured from the daily sales
record of the Benton Center Fruit Association,
Benton Center, Michigan, and Millburg Fruit Associa-
tion, Millburg, Michigan. In a good year the two
exchanges ship in the neighborhood of 50,000 crates
of Hoodoo muskmelons, which constitute approximately
one half of the total Hoodoo variety marketed from
Berrien County, Michigan. The prices are gross
returns per crate as sold by the Associations on the
Chicago Market.

Figure 2 shows that though prices slumped
during the period August 29 to September 1, 1920
and again from September 10 to 15, though the
general seasonal price trend was upward. Michigan
fruits were high in quality and brought high prices
that year, while Western fruits were low in quality
and brought low prices.

The graph in Figure 3 shows a downward price
trend for 1921. Heavy shipments from the west, 1995
cars as compared to 885 for the same period of the
previous season, and early appearance and increasing

shipments from Berrien County, Michigan, offer an

  

x ”at: v.3 um
IJHWIIIIAMWI. INF

bfidmdwd N.

 

 

2.09%.

‘or 1920

L

I,

OMSdFuerfiuhxnp

‘Pn’ct

 

 

Figure 2.- Price Trend

A

 

 

 

    

N.

3.

.DQ

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.- Price Trend for 1921.

 

 

 

 

 

explanation of the rapid drop in price from July 27
to August 2 and again from August 11 to 15. The
peak of the western shipments occurred on August 51
followed by a rapid decline.After that date prices
of Michigan muskmelons increased.

The graph in Figure 4 clearly shows that the
price trend was sharply downward, with no wide
fluctuation in 1922. Low prices throughout that
season doubtless can be attributed to over produc-
tion. Yields were especially high and quality good.

The graph in Figure 5 shows a downward price

trend similar to that for 1922 (the preceeding year).

Extremely low prices were realized on August 31 and
September 1. Though shipments from Michigan were
normal, shipments from the west were light, only
2073 cars originating in Colorado, as compared to
4420 for 1922. This condition is in sharp contrast
to that of 1922 when receipts were heavy and quality
good.

A gradual downward trend is observed for 1924
(Figure 6). Shipments from the west throughout this
season were heavy and quality was good. Shipments
from Michigan began simultaneously with the highest
peak of those from Colorado (August 17 to 28). This

severe competition from the west, occurring at the

igure 4.- Price Trend for 1922.

“v

T1

..

5 xwmfiytvm pm: as d
madam 2 m g 3.. mm Iodlb 2

 

 
 

cm

60.x
0g

2%

k 63

 

09W

)0

mm: «EFSIR . Home

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

foR v.1 ww

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

m
9.
o o o 0C3.
O p “I!
c _. v.03
am
2
W... ads
r
O
f s
d
n
m 2
6 o
emu. o 0 3.—
m o o
o
.. com.
5
.1 WNr» CFPbKPuvU.;n—.
F . gm
0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11

Figure 6.- Price Trend For 1924.

 

 

rm up?» w: ww

lam: «FIquCA

.9 9 m

.om_

 

‘Pvict

0&4

ow;

. ova

 

 

 

 

 

 

12

same time as shipments from Indiana, held prices
at a low level. During the latter part of the
season shipments from the west gradually decreased
and prices for miohigan muskmelons increased.

Figure 7 shows that a comparatively slow
decline in price occurred in 1925. Heavy crops of
poor quality reported from Rocky Ford, Colorado,and
many other western states, shipped simultaneously
with heavy shipments from Indiana, lowered prices
considerably and demoralized the market. After
August 29 prices for Kichigan muskmelons recovered
somewhat.

The graph in Figure 8 shows a very marked
downward price trend in 1926. The average seasonal
returns'that year were the lowest, and the shipping
season the shortest of the eight years studied. The
quality of melons from all sections was relatively
poor. Market demands were exceedingly light.

In 1927 prices of muskmelons from Rocky Ford,
Colorado, and Berrien County began at a fair level,
however, despite increased shipments from all sec-
tions averaging 113 cars daily or 41 more per day
than in 1926, prices for Michigan muskmelons steadily
increased as the season advanced (Figures 9 and 10)

(Tabla 2 ) e

13

Figure 7.- Price Trend for 1925.

‘

xvaozvm . Kind
3 .9 Q I}? «3 E

 

 
 

 

 

mm: epefruQZn— a...

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

14

Figure 8.- Price Trend for 1926.

 

 

... avafivtvm :m amzmzfi
MPQDH an ma m fiA mm (Jfl

 

mm: dFohkuoCa

 

 

  

11
mm.

o2

em.

 

 

 

 

 

  

  

 

 

 

15

Ford, Colorado.

ichigan.

O
h

e 9.-Price Trend for 1926.
l

igur

“-99- ROOky

T

 

@5322 Ho whoop

FonEqu.
0v 6 >06 ufiaotxuom.--‘ -
mm: a; 3:73.:an

 

.. Ohm

 

 

 

 

 

16

Figure lO.-Price Trend for 1927.
-—-—- Rocky Ford, Colorado.

._.... Michigan.

   

  

 

 

I.“

5:2; ho when. a.

 

552E...
ova—0,00 Eofikoox. --.
mm: x: 2&3..an

hx

x v2 E
Q

wame
In.

>\

  

 

 

TDYYCC

 

0?

0m\

0%

Oxm

0mm

9am

 

 

 

 

 

 

17

.“"Al

Effect of Western Shipments on.Prioe Trend.

 

Though high quality muskmelons generally demand
highest prices this is not always the case. Frequently
the quality of the fruit in any one season markedly
affects the trend of sales during the succeeding season.
For instance, though the quality of Colorado muskmelons
in 192% was relatively high, the low quality of the
1954 product no doubt was responsible for the low prices
received for the initial shipments. Later, however,
higher prices were realized as the consuming public
demand for the quality fruit increased.

A similar condition existed in Berrien County
during 1926 and 1927. The low quality of fruit marketed
during 1926 brought low returns and poor market demands.
The high quality of the fruits the following year failed
to bring fancy prices at the beginning of the season
but did so at the close of the marketing period.

.Table 2 and Figures 9 and 10 indicate that the prices
obtained for quality fruits are not necessarily decreased
by western shipments.

The prevalence of muskmelon diseases in 1926, favored
by adverse weather conditions during the growing season,
resulted in the production of poor quality fruits and
very light market demands. The data in Table 2 show that

the average carlot receipts at Chicago of 72 cars remained

18

 

 

 

 

 

0.3 p 5H
mm 4H. 0H
.1 9 mm. nH
0N0 AN 0 . H
p WW.H WM. NH
0.- o .H m. «H
moms om.H mo.H HH
ms nM.H MH.H 0H

9 am mm.H mH.H m

p meuw ON #mH Omnw #H.H b

mHoHN om.“ MM Mn ow.m WW.H M

6H. 5 . o . .H
.N m H 50 N a w
o w. s 00. v .

mm. wo.m we m oH aw om.H om.H a
as“ oo.m ceum 0% we om.“ NM. m
&H CO. flfiom fl m OmoN 0 ed 9
as” oo.m so.” as as oo.m ma.a an
nnH OO.N Ho. NH on 00.N mNoH ON
neH om.H om.H HH on oo.m nH. mm
mHH om.H as H 0H a co «m. m

o 0H. QM 0H G h“
. so H m m. m cm. m .

.t am WH.N we H m an om.H om. mm
1.” OHM 0H.“ em.w a mm om.m mm.H MN
8 P NH HO HO. Q 00 0

e H o .m .H as .m ¢.H mm

R 2 oo an; a o as.N m .H m...
u.“ m on H.H n ow H N «m H
0k m OOoN N. 0H m H0 0 ON 00H ON
1.r mm 0H pH m .pmo n nm.m H .H H
ra HH .N HoH H n on Om a
Mum & H OH.“ 5 o 9 hm 0N MoH w."

mm 0H mm H on. m .H

v. . .H m m
.M u 3% OHM eH.H om Mm cm. a swam 4

3 HM OH nH.H m m o .N o pmmWMI
unu 00H oo.N mm mm ¢ on. & km
a . a: 8.“... tum .... a? a. ... .3st figs
mm mm“ nmnm om; WM. mm 825 at: 8...

o . m on mH an

r OH O .m H N am OH on .m»

mam MHH MN.“ MW.” Mm exam oeemsoom 33
0N 0N H0 Orm uOWd

m s HRH co 00 mm mmmn Hana Hen H
o a nHH 95...... moms no new nHHH
ram . oOH n.m vo.m m 4. Ha an, «mHo
ft 6 fim OnoN . m a. OmeLHNmH
a...“ 6m m 0 «mm OOHH anofi NHIQ
mm... mm on “Eons s 2..

M
”nu 0% ..Smo a. «Sun ass
8 o i OH r~..(
nemnai om oesmxoom
”mm. 3 Homes each
n m ...rlnlfisowpoa
mm. sweet

8
oHps
tom
aHHsn

Q

HnH

WOO

no

an

and

can

son:

a

0 20$: 6

0H

mops

MO

was

OHM

QQOH

ad

on 6

Ha»

Hdc

uOH

.saom

19

about constant throughout the season and that the carlot
receipts in 1927 were very heavy, averaging 113 cars
daily or 41 more than in 1926. Shipments also materially
increased as the season advanced.

In 1926 a marked parallelism existed in the down-
ward price trend of Michigan and Colorado muskmelons.
The quality of the fruit was poor from both sections.
In 1927, though the price of Colorado fruits progressive-
ly decreased, the increased shipments from all sections
failed to lower the prices for the Michigan product,
prices steadily increasing as the season advanced. During
that season the quality of Michigan muskmelons was

exceptionally high.

Early Production and Profits

4 'vv—vv VvV—v

 

Variations in price, however, are not limited
to the differences that exist from week to week or
season to season. There are differences in the average
prices obtained by different growers, differences due
to size of melons and many other factors. It was
thought desirable to obtain data on some of these
questions and with this idea in mind a determination
of the direct causes of variations-in price returns
for different growers was made by carefully listing

the number of large, small, and early melons on a

20

(b’f’ L (’1 (If I? 'l'} ('} (*(hr’ >Ir1rr(( (’1’

 

Io.a o.s n. «H a. as a. He 0.0m o.maI In. as n. mm o. 0H o.mm In.nm peas

 

 

 

 

 

 

r I? I II} I}? It} IIIIIIL rII tribrkirb I (It? ”BI
mm 09¢ bflm NDNH nbfiH ammo hfimfl ann can mam wn¢H NmmH [HdHOB
o I I e I an I m t I s: I as. 24 I wwwIIIII me .22 H2 HS 23
o we Hm fima HHH Gab mom pea 9H om oHH fiHH onH
#N an QOH mHH fimH n00 mmn NH¢ an mm Hm QOH nNmH
pH pH 0N wnH ¢¢N ran wmfl 0mm fid NOH hm HmH vaH
Q on OH man mm @00H “50 vomH 0H Hp mam 0nd nmmH
b& no 00H HNN awn Ono bHa Hmm new chm me mm¢ NNmH
o No NOH #H mHn onm fifli #vH NbH mfiH QHN me HNmH
IIII 0 mp OH tltl N5 HnH mo III! an nmm ¢¢ ONOH
a n m {H e I [m EIIwII I HII e n m IH Macaw
nogssnInosouo hopsdz Antone II II papaya nosonw II III
wagon—#183 HHuamIl {II IBSHoa ofluWHImeII IILImIanHom. HHIuIEm mm IIII
use omndH Ho mousse msHsHspsoo mopsno msHsHspsoo census

" ’(t’ I, '- ’tl’|((( ' I}, '}'

 

I'"I’L r £$ 'b’bi’l’r},

HopHmsHosHI smmH opI ommHV .mnosoanopHpcpsomommwh 9569
hp dopuophdn asOHosMuss thso and oMAcH .HHssm Ho pace Mon and nopssz n.» oHpae

 

21

crate basis and determining the per cent of each produced.
The period covered was from 1920 to 1927 inclusive. The
records of the number of crates produced by the four
representative growers were secured from the Benton
Center Fruit Association. The per cent "large" refers

to the melons packed in 11 x 11, 10 x 10 and 9 x 9 crates.
Each crate contained 16 large melons 4.5 to 5.5 inches

in diameter. The per cent "small" refers to the total
number of small melons packed in 12 x 12 standard crates,
containing 36 fruits measuring not less than 3.5 inches
and not more than 4.25 inches in diameter. The per cent
"early" refers to the total number of large and small
fruits packed the first week of the shipping seasons.

The average date of the last killing frost in the spring
is on May 6 and the first in the fall October 24 provid-
ing a frost free season of approximately 150 days.
Muskmelons are seldom set out in the field earlier than
the last week in May, as a very light frost will destroy
the plants.

Tables 3 and 4 show the per cent of large, small,
and early melons produced by each of four representative
growers and the average prices per crate they received
during the eight years for which records were available.

Data in Tables 3 and 4 show that grower No. 1
produced the greatest number of early fruits or about

four and one half times as many as grower No. 4, and

22

Table 4.- Average gross price returns per crate for four
growers, (1920-1927 inclusivel

vv‘vv— _~ fi ~

 

 

- Grower Grower Grower Grower Average for
Tsar Number 1 Fumberfi2fimgumber 3* dumber 4~fimggyni +v__
1920 $2.06 $1.79 $2.19 ----- $2.01

1921 1.79 1.70 1.55 $1.32 1.59

1922 1.60 1.70 1.40 1.31 1.50

1923 1.23 .89 1.03 .83 .99

1924 1.11 1.07 .97 1.08 1.05

1925 .86 .94 1.00 .83 .90

1926 1.18 .92 .97 .86 .98

1927 1.16 1.29 1.12 1.26 1.20
Average

for

grower 1.37 1.28 1.27 1.07 1.27

 

vvfiv~fiv - v v#~~ _fiv w

received 30 cents a crate more. The figures showing

average gross returns per crate indicate that the

grower producing a relatively large number of early

fruits receives the greatest average returns, however,
grower No. 3 produced a relatively small percentage of
early fruits but a large percentage of large fruits and
received only one cent less per crate than grower No. 2

who produced a relatively large percentage of early melons.
In a word the production of both early and large melons is
desirable. This can be done by the use of sandy loams with
southeasterly exposure, protection from cold winds and coupl-
ing these natural advantages of location and soil with good

soil management and cultural methods.

23

Influence of Climate on Quality

 

Growers of muskmelons in Berrien County, Michigan,
generally realize the marked influence of weather condi-
tions on quality. In seasons characterized by long periods
of heavy rainfall quality of the fruit is usually poor.
Conversely light rainfall during the ripening period
favors the production of high quality fruit. Periods of
heavy rainfall accompanied by high temperatures are con-
ducive to the spread of muskmelon diseases.

Data in Table 5 show that precipitation was excessive
and high temperatures prevailed during the months of July
and August in 1924 to 1926 inclusive. During this period
diseases were prevalent and fruits were of poor quality.
0n the other hand, the season of 1927, when exceptionally
high quality melons were produced, was characterized by
a low July, August and early September rainfall and by

relative freedom from diseases.

The Advantages of Cooperativefimarketing

 

Approximately 50 per cent of the muskmelons pro-
duced in Berrien County, Michigan, are marketed through
cooperative packing and shipping associations. This
situation offered excellent opportunity to determine
which class of growers were realizing the greatest gross

returns.

24

.dospos hoHoom as» on wsHusoeod dochscHdo one: mpHss psom
.adnoomn ssonsm unsung-.m.b..sdesoH2 .smomOH .pm as» Sony condemn one: o oHnme new dawn

 

(1L

mmno om.HH onHm mn.HH #pmo NO.NH mwwm 0m.m mnpn oH.oH oHHo oawNH omno NN.OH boom 0H.¢H mmmm mo.w
. Hspo

use
If I I I . I I use
mHmH no.¢ mmNH Ho.m ONOH mm.» mmmH pm.m mum «m.m abOH mm.» mNNH om.n nHmH 9H.p man om.H.ANM

mmnH an.m NpNH Nb. #ndH HH.n #HnH Hm.n omnH mm.& moNH mo.H mmnH nnoH NonH on.¢ nmNH omoH .md
omeH vw.m mowH mm.H pomH Mm.n onH mm.m mndH hm.m mde nm.¢ nnnH nn.n wosH om. ommH No.H hHfi
mnNH mm.m fimHH nH.N QOHH mm.H oo¢H bnoH mvHH pm.m pmmH Om.H ummH «n.m HmnH bm.H mmNH om.n osfl

 

 

 

 

snOH -- 0mm -- «omH -- omen -- mom -- moOH -- oomH -- mmOH -- «moH -- he
I, a, aI n. is n I I mas as . H .
m. m mm m mm m mm m mm m mm m m” m mm m mm m
an m a m n m as m a w a n m- m as m u: n
B
u I u m m mI m I m n
finess— stH 33 £3 «NmHI 33 33 SS 32
emsnmmu - I II I I
when» osnscwI

(l r E

IaopIHusHesH smIoH a» 3me asonsoo
wsHsomHn use msHhosm osu manse wannsooo apHss peas use HHsHsHuA no nososH we Mensch -.n oHpsa

25

(I ’ (I

 

 

 

 

OfimH NH.H waH bHom anH $0.9 NO$H Nfioa omwnmbd
NANH ms. emeH HH.» eamH Hm.» emaH mm.n “memes
meeH an.H sonH mm.» eHnH mm.m .wmeH sm.m aHsa
I. mpstIII memmmwr. mmwss IImcsemH wwwsdII nmsosw mpHss mcsosH spsofi
Pdom HHdMGHdm vdom HHd%fiHdm udom HHdwfiHdm pdom HHdMflHdm
II I sums IWNmH I mmmH emmH II
mosswwsomauw 30H NHc>HpmHms I IIIfumcndpmsumaop smHsIII I

Ibss HHmmmmms soHImmIMbmscm IbszHHmmsHms omemcoNoIMo msomsmm

Ac>HmsHoanpmmH op emmH. msommom msHscmHs dsm
msHsosm soapsH msHHsd msHsssooo msoHpHesoo oHpmsHHo mo oHpmp cpHpmnmmsoo 0.0 odea

26

The data presented in Table 7 show the average
daily prices received by a non-association and an
association respectively, and Figures 11 and 12 give
their seasonal price trend.

An average mean price for the eight years for
each group was determined by the method of Least
Squares. The data presents the following results:

Mean pricefinon-associaticn member

$1.27 i .021

432.50 - .476

235 -‘1.613 ’

Pan : 0476 X 006745 : i 0021
1'573'3’

Mean price association member
$1e44 “ 0020
3:: - 200736 : 0537

PQE. : .537
m. x 0.6745 3 a: 0.20

$le44 - $1027 a $0.17

2 2
P’E‘j (0.21) q, (0.20) - .029 0.17 s 5.86

A study of the data in Table 7 shows that,
although the non-association member started to market
his crop from four to nine days earlier than the

association member, a fact that gave him a distinct

wm.H
Hm.H
mo.N
no.m
no.N
oo.N
oo.m
oo.N

 

HH- “Hun ”nun
... m a.
«mm 0 min
.EH 0 one

I. ....U
"u. s s .
1. 0+ «q
r: m. mm

1;
a»

----
----
----
----
----
----
----
fill his.
----
----
----
----
----
----
- It...
0' '.
----
----
----
----
----
----

Potastoossv

30149100887.
~uon

Hm.H
mH.m
mm.“

Foruvtooeev

on.H
on.m
on.m

Voravtoossv
~uon

----
----
----
----
--..
----
----
----

---i
- ---
----
' ---
-'--
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----

potastoossv

mo.H

¢o.H_

oo.H
oo.H
oo.H
nN.H
n&.H
r9.H
om.H

sotqetooesv

~uou

pm.H
Ho.

mm.m
Hmom
NH.N

hotqszoossv

an.H
nnoH
on.H
nnoH
mnoH
mnoH
nfioH
n&.H
nmoH
nmoH
mm.H
nN.H
omoH

horastooeev
~uou

potqstocssv

oo.H
oo.H
so.H
nN.H
mmoH
on.H
o¢.H
99.H
mHoH
oo.H
oo.H
oo.H
oo.H
mm.H
on.H
on.H

 

~IIOfl

notqsroossv

sm.H
oo.m
no.N
oo.N
oo.N

‘- --

----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----

----

----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----

----

 

some; oossv F

3012919039?

Hanenosmm

cuss:
rhfird

o
Skflzttttfiflfl'gflfiSB'flBBBSBS

 

 

smmH

NmH

.nmmH

vmmH

whopsos

ammH

NNmH

HNmH

(tr-Ir)

omWH

some; 00881:»

t)

---..-eowswwaonae-eoe an» soapssoomn<.~o>«ueaoss stH o» emmH. seasons son oosun aHHme emanate -.s oHpsa

I III
III
III I
0. l-II
! ‘I
II-
‘l!
0
v- I.
.0. .

I:
1'.
cl"

I...
‘l I?
'0

.. lb '1

I I I'll-

28

 

I

eméscmoe, Essa

.anom

o
§£83t22833322322323

 

canes

 

no. «H.H -- oo.H -- Ho.H -- no. -- mm. -- mm.H -- on.H as. mm. H
mm. mm. -- Ho.H -- om. -- mm. -- am. -- em.H -- em. H as. as. H
«o. no. -- Hm. -- so. -- mm.H -- Hm. -- we.H -- mH. H ms. am. H
mm. mm. -- em. -- em. -- em.H no.H Hm. -- an.H -- mH. H ms. «H.m
no. mo. -- Ho.H -- Hm. -- mm.H no.H on. -- o«.H cua- mH.H as. «0.x
00. Ho. o-cn mm. 3-03 Hm. c-- mm.H no.H mm. c--- em. -- Hn.H mp. mm.H
9». no. es. om. cctc as. con: on.H no.H mm. u-cn «H.H tuna so.H no. mm. H
em. mo.H cw. mm. -o- o». s-nt an.H mo.H no. tutu Ho.H tats ma.H mm. mm. H
on. mm.H es. Hm. cuc- o». -- mn.H no.H mm. :tct Ho. H -- nN.H mp. Hs.H
am. en.H on. mm. -- em. Ho.H em.H napH mo.H -c- an. H -- mm.H n5. sm.H
pm. mn.H mm. mm. -- so. Ho.H mn.H no.H mo.H ---u on. H -- om.H as. no. N
HH.H me.H mm. sm.H --o so.H NH.H sm.H mo.H en.H co. m ma.H noun mm. H on. me. n
mo.H os.H mm. om.H -- 9H.H NH.H pH.H no. H en.H on. m oe.H -- ¢¢.H mm. om.m
mH.H H¢.H Hr. mn.H mm. meH NH.H sH.H 00. H Hn.H nH.m n¢.H c-as n¢.H em. m¢.m
no.H mo.m mm. mn.H ms. om.H 0H.H mn.H mo.H NH.H us.H on.H ms. m¢.H pm. ov.m
¢O.H pH.m em. an.H as. on.H so.H mo.m mo.H no.H ov.H Hn.H ms. oe.H 5H.H mm.m
Ho.H mo.m mm. me.H mo. o¢.H om. nm.m no.H mo.H sn.H om.H as. ov.H pH.H on.m
oo.H no.m ma. 0H.H mm. mv.H o¢.H ¢¢.u no.H oH.H on.H ms.H mp. mm.H sH.H mn.m
om.H mm.H Ho.H nn.H NH.H ov.H Ho.H 90-: mo.H mm.H n¢.H os.H as. nN.H mH.H nv.m
on.H mo.m 0H.H sm.H mN.H ms.H mm.H c-nt mo.H mo.H ma.H ms.H mp. on.H m«.H HH.N
oo.H nH.m on.H Hm.H «n.H no.H mm.H tat: mo.H ~5.H on.H mm.H ms. mH.H om.H mv.m
Hs.H Hv.m mu.H on.H >9.H ss.H sm.H 3-:- no.H mm.H om. mm.H as. po.H on.H cun-
o¢.H H¢.m mH.H nm.H mn.H ss.H oo.H tutu no.H sm.H on.H mm.H oo.H Ho.H on. H tun-
nw.H H¢.m o¢.H mm.H mm.H vo.H «o.H nun- no.H Hm.H oo.H on.H oo.H mo.H on. H nus-
mm.H -- vc.H as.H. Hm.H ss.H vc.H n-c- NH.H em.H an.H om.H oo.H mH.H mm.H ann-
o.m o o_m M m_u W mwnh m M_u m ”in M u s s s
.uo o 0.0 O o.u 0 o.u nu ago 0 0.0 o n.w. W WWW W
.....n .... ....n t. .....u .... ....u .... .....u t. ....u I. ....u .... In ....
B. B B. t t. t 9. i B. B 9. 8 9. B 9. 9
d. d. a. n+ a» i. a. n9 n+ 1. a. ne n+ d. d. n+
a ...... m. M... a u M... .... ... .... n m. m. .... .. .-
IV 3 U n u u U m. In 0 O
stH onH ommH IIeNMH nmmH MMmH - . mme aumi I

..-

mw.H

uctqetoossv
‘UOI‘I

m¢.H
HO.H
NO.H
Ho.H
No.H
mo.H
0H.H
Hm.H
oo.H
hw.H
Hm.H
mm.H
ms.H
db.H
o>.H

norqetoos

ENG H

ON.H

-'-'
----
' ---
-‘-‘
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----

----

notqsroossv,
-uou

nH.H

I"
I
I?"

notqetoossv

'6'-

'0'-

noxqstoossv
~uom

('I'

----

I
I
If?"

notqstcossv
~uou

' ’tII'I

mm.
mm.
mm.
Hm.
mm.
um.
mm.
mm.
mm.
mm.
mo.H
no.
mm.
mm.
mm.
Hm.

I
:9
I
I

----
----
‘l-'
-‘-‘
----
----
----
---,
----
---‘
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----

I,

uotqexoossv
~uom

$0.
an.
an.
an.
aw.
mm.
mm.
ms.
Hm.
bH.H
¢N.H

[00
mm
o 0

cm.

uotqstcossv 6'3.

I
I
I
I
I33-
I
I
I
I

----

----

I

uotqstoossv
-uon

he

uqustoosva

newH

-"-

I,

I...

"I"

bm.H

----

I
I
I
89-

I

notqetoossv
~uou

HNmH .--

mn.H

,uotqstoossv

’

HH.HII

---,
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----

mp.

IOlOLOlO
Ebb-1‘
e e o e

actuatoossv
~nom

.-ommH

uotqetoossv

I
I

- .. . .. . sessEsowI. sIoHnea

omdsobs

omI

mm
mm
mm
mm

BtttttCZE:

.-
~

Efltttttttttt

'I'I 'I'

e...

I a! II.
In I I
D l‘ I.
a II
.I ,I
10 II.
n 1|.
1
1
II 0|. 0'.
I. .\
'6
I ‘0]
'I '.|
v ' I
III ‘3 0.

28

Figure 11.-Association Seasonal Price Trends.

 

 

   

 

(n

d -.

g

Q.)

a.
:2)“
.° v
:53 '
'o- W
0& O 74
3... 9’ c
«as 23 a.
C3 5: 'N

O

:0

c

U

U) °

 

 

 

 

 

     

29

Trends-

Seasonal Price

iigure 12
Non-association Members

“'1‘
A

 

 

 

 

, . I. I 8. »m mw mm mm m.
was _

xvncrvrn. Fowrowooaoa FoF
menus-rue...» H2330

‘P-rice

 

.\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advantage over the association member, he averaged

17 cents less per crate during the eight-year period.
In this instance, at least, the non-association
member penalized himself by marketing independently.
marketing through a cooperative organization.wou1d

seem to be the more profitable practice.

Relation of Q93112Z_t° Price

 

The quality of Michigan muskmelons in 1927 was
exceptionally high and very inferior in 1926.

The data of Edmond and mcmall (1) (Table 8)
shows striking differences in quality, as measured by
total sugars, betwgen melons of the Hoodoo variety
produced in 1926 and 1927.

Table 8.- Total per cent sugar of Hoodoo muskmelons
‘fiin 1926 and 1927

 

 

 

‘ I Per cent; Per cent
total sugars differences
F‘ IV Years
variety Number Samples I926 I927
Ecodoo 6 7.54 10.02 2.48

 

The differences in price of these two years
are shown in Table 2. Obviously a high positive
correlation existed in 1926 and 1927 between quality
and price. When fruits of high quality are available

prices are likely to be correspondingly high.

31

EISCUSSION

 

A significant fact brought out in this study is
that high quality muskmelons tend to produce an upward
price trend and yield greater net returns to the grower.
Conversely inferior fruits to a large extent have a very
depressing effect on the market demand and results in
low price returns and severe losses to the grower.

Since high quality fruits bring correspondingly
high prices growers should endeavor to keep the foliage
in a green and vigorous condition at all times. On the
culture and treatments of muskmelons (Edmond and McNall)
(1) gives the following: The wide climatic variations
of growing seasons explains why Michigan growers produce
surprisingly fine melons one year and, concomitant with
an unfavorable season, disappointingly poor fruits
another. Apparently conditions prevailing in Berrien
County makes spraying a valuable insurance against low
quality in any year but more particularly during an
unfavorable year. To the extent that fertilizers
develop foliage and that fungicides keep it function~
ing they are effective in developing quality as measured
by total sugars.

There‘is some indication that severe competition
from the west can be met by production of high quality
fruit.

32

The placing of muskmelons on the market extremely
early has always been an important factor in determining
the profitableness of melon culture in Berrien County,
Michigan, since early fruits have usually brought the
greatest returns. The use of sandy loams with south
easterly exposure, protection from cold winds and sand-
storms, good soil management and cultural methods will
combine to hasten the maturity of the crop.

The value of cooperative marketing should be
emphasized. The non-association.growers in Michigan can
profitably follow the example of members of cooperative

marketing associations.

SUEMARY

1. Michigan, with a total of 3778 acres given
over to the production of muskmelons ranks fourteenth

of all states in acreage.

2. The commercial industry is centralized in
Berrien County with producing centers at Hillburg,

Bainbridge, Coloma and Benton Harbor.

3. With the exception of the year 1920, which
was marked by a high and upward trend of prices
throughout the season, the general price trend (1921

to 1926 inclusive) has been consistently downward.

53

The low level was reached in 1926 when the low quality
f the fruit and poor market demand made returns poor
throughout the season. In 1927, however, there was a
marked return to normality in prices. The general trend
throughout this season was slightly downward; however,
a high and markedly upward trend prevailed during the
peak of the shipping season. The quality of the fruit

was exceptionally good and market demand heavy.

4. The result of this study shows that seasons
of below normal precipitation, particularly during the
ripening period, are more favorable for production of
high quality muskmelons, resulting in greater net returns
to the grower than seasons of excessive rainfall. Further~
more the presence of high quality muskmelons from
Michigan on the market makes competition of western

melons a 1633 vital factor.

5. Producing early muskmelons and marketing
through shipping associations will doubtless bring

greater net returns.

0

1.

2.

LIETERATURE CITED

 

Edmond, J.B. and F.J.McNa11, Influence of Certain
Varietal and Cultural Treatments on the Sugar
Content of Cantaloupes. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hert. Sci.

1927.

Market News Service, United.States Department of
Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics,
Daily market Report. Carlot Shipment Receipts
and Prices on Chicago Harket (1926-1927).

55

xcmomapelmrrs

The writer wishes to express his appreciation
to those who have aided in assembling the material
for this manuscript; Benton Center Fruit Association,
Millburg Fruit Association, and Carl Lindemann for
statistics with reference to price returns for Berrien
County, Michigan, muskmelons; The Chicago Office of
the market News Service U.S.Bureau of Agricultural
Economics for data relative to Western melon prices and
carlot receipts on Chicago market; D.A.Seeley, meteoraligist
of U.S.Weather Bureau Station, East Lansing, for use of
necessary Weather Bureau records.

Acknowledgment is also made to messrs. 7.R.Gardner,
J.B.Edmond, J.W.Crist and F.C.Bradford of the Department
of Horticulture for many valuable suggestions and

criticisms and aid in organizing this manuscript.

 

I ’ i
t
. . . l
.f‘ V . I
, ' ‘ .
.4 ‘
~ . '. i
u ‘ .
.... l‘
,
e] .' h ‘
.
‘ .
. 'o
.
I
I . V
‘ .
-
J
‘
.
-
.-

 

 

 

 

 

I.
\
n
-
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
I
n
o
v
1
.
I
-
. .
.
o
.
.
a.
.
O
»
u
-
. .-