VS H TI HLSSKEOPE SSHfiflH SOME ASPECTS OF CRAB APPLE PRODUCTION IN MICHIGAN Thesis for the Degree of M. S. MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE E. H. Bjornseth 193t5 thy v SOME ASPECTS OF CRAB APPLE PRODUCTION IN MICHIGAN T H E S I S Submitted to the Faculty' of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the re- quirements for the degree of Master of Science by E. H. Bjornseth M\ MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE 1958 aébéitéb4, 2‘2://?7:Pé:’ [6,r’///'_,’b%<:d61fétut€#: x THESIS TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . . Acknowledgments . Method of Making Study Presentation of Data Discussion . . . Summary . . . 11- L" O O O O O O O O O O C O f. I) (I 5 12 13 A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S I wish to extend thanks to Mr. E. Payne and to Mr. N. Hutchinson, of Fennville, Mich- igan, for the assistance they gave in the se- curing of data; to Mr. V. R. Gardner for sug- gestions on organization of the manuscript and for helpful suggestions from time to time. INTRODUCTION The crab apple was well known in the early days of Michigan's fruit industry. Its merits are recorded in the records of the Michigan Pomological Society of 1877. Mr. H. D. Adams, in a Tiscourse on the crab apple mentioned its hardiness and productivity. The records of this same society for 1874 mentions the interest of the fruit growers of that time in the different varieties of crab apples, including Hewes Virginia Crab, Red Crab, Waugh Crab, Siberian Crab, and the improved Siberian Crabs such as the Hyslop, Red Siberian Crab, Large Red Siberian Crab, Large Yellew Siberian Crab, Harengo, Montreal Beauty, Oblonga, and Trans- cendent. In the 1881 Transactions of the Michigan Horticul- tural Society, a report of a discussion on the varieties of crab apples for the Chicago Market mentions Hyslop as being the best variety, stating that Transcendent was too early in season. Of all these the Hyslop is recognized today as the principal variety. The other varieties are not grown com- mercially. The 1908 Report of the Michigan State Horticultural Society contains a discussion on the domestic uses for crab apples. However, little information is available on the economic status of this fruit. It is the opinion of some fruit growers today that crab apple orchards are unprofitable and should be replaced by other crops. Furthermore the officials of the commercial canners know that the production - 2 - of crab apple jelly and preserves has been on the decline. however, according to Mr. M. C. Hutchinson of Fennville, Michigan, "This decline in production should not be attri- buted to a lessening of the consumer demand for these pro- ducts but rather to the high mortality of the firms engaged in this business". The canneries of Michigan are interested in the maintenance of the crab apple industry principally be- cause of the demand for pickled crab apples. A review of the literature pertai*:ng to Michigan hor- ticulture shows that very little information is available on the subject of crab apple production, prices and marketing. Though of very limited interest compared with other fruits, the crab apple is grown on many farms and is a source of 3(nsiderable income. It was therefore decided to study the marketing and production of crab apples in one fairly rep- resentative producing area. METHOD OF MAKING STUDY This study was made in Allegan County through the co- operation of the Fennville Fruit Exchange. This Exchange is the principal fruit marketing agency for the producers of that area who grow principally apples, pears, pills, peaches, cherries and crab apples. In this diversity of fruit pro- duction the section is typical of the Western Michigan fruit area. Most of the data were secured from the records of the Exchange which contained the following marketing records for each grower: (al the grading record for each kind of fruit, (b) the washing, grading, package and packing costs, and (c) the prices for which the fruit was sold and the amounts returned to the grower for each grade. These data from the Exchange's record of each grower were transferred to special record sheets and assembled to show: For Apples: bushels produced, prices and returns for U.S. Fancy, U.S. No 1, U.S. No 2, orchard run, commercial and culls. For Pears: bushels produced, prices and returns for U.S. No l, U.S. No 2, and culls. For Peaches: bushels produced, prices and returns for U.S. No 1, U.S. No 1 soft, U.S. No 2, U.S. No 2 soft, orchard run and culls. For Crab appleszbushels produced, prices and returns for U.S. No 1, U.S. No 2, and culls. For Cherries: pounds produced, prices and returns. For Plums: bushels produced, prices and returns. For Ouinces: bushels produced, prices and returns for U.S. no 1, U.S. No 2 and culls. A sample of one of these individual grower's records is included in this report. Data on the age and number of trees were secured from the growers. The individual grower's records were then summarized and transferred to a complete record for the Exchange mem- bership. These assembled records were then summarized to show the total gross income from all fruits sold through the Exchange for the years 1951 to 19J5 inclusive, and for the principal crab apple growers for the years 1904, 1965 w oo.ooa n.L s. 3 cm. 03 .HIOI Doom .mp0 Npummw HIbw amlbwmwnnmmm. .HnmI .. a ‘ m a W . no.0n w o m 030 c c N 02 I a nocaam aaoaapasom no .oconw 4.:nmfinoasfluo fl oz .mJD unmade ow uneven A on ouaaw one I oooz onm snap New Ewan w. gasp ooh noun noun 0¢Hd .86 34 «I ODOHG Oowhm «moo 8.3 mm 8.8 NE ._ . on." on. _ a na.em no.a. am on.o~ on. on om.oH no.ah ca oa.nm on. no oo.n oo.a n os.sa .on. on mm. ‘ A Joe.» on. «a oo.a om. m nacho.ooanm hmp cacao counm uoaoom nacho oounm naaao u-ouc ooaam a oz nacho ,’.‘ : IHHfiO : N 02 om.D H8.8 Wow. woo.» .oo.a ,om. woo.m .nm. len.o« on. ”ma. WO¢ovH ”ma. ”as.s .mH. _ns.mm . .00.» .oa. na. .na. .09. woo. Ho«.oma. oo. oo. lea. ”as.” am. Mo«.mn woe. .os.aw ma. ca.» ,oH. _oo.«v Mom. __ . v om m m ssF m vo.o M so. How m l no.s me. men no.m m om av awn. on H . a mom. W on. o wn¢.m N no. nan “no.mnn H M _ a mo¢.n , on. s W8.0 , as. no .092.h as. an» _no.sm. on. an ”no.¢Hl no. mom .oo.nofl oo. W36$ no. 00H ov.mmm oo.oaamoo.a oo.m om.a ea _oo.oHH_oo.H and “ ea som.moaloa.a Hm 4.4.3 I... _om. om. n«.om .ns. mm mm as. on.v ens. om.OH Woo. H no.e no. m8. _ ma om.n~ am. «oh as. medal om.d ca. 0 oo.mH .oa. o mmo.od was. on “mm.ocd.nm.a HfiN No.00 Uon nu ,oo.n§ noaoa an_nv.b mm no. How onoooe on. H oouum «.02 and noaumm Hem e exam cacao a: guano: ununaen med use apuonam and H mam .z on “13502 an nonpudon o magnooao H m 8 ma savanna a sedan pause a monounpq< mm anemone «mad m Hoxoom om Haosom Hm anomanuao and onom ova _ nouuaom on a unmade Hbm a nun aaoapnam ovaa m can _ honouoauqoa one w uncanowm my BHDmh slug: ,‘C' ".‘D1 - can-Dig and 1936. The gross returns obtained from the sale of apples, pears, crab apples, cherries, grapes, plums and quince for the same years were then de+ermined. These returns were then figured in terms of percentage to show the relative importance of each fruit as a source of income. These figures are pre- sented in Table 1. The records and the orchards of the principal crab apple growers were then selected for a more intensive study. These were orchards whose production averaged 125 or more bushels of crab apples per year. Each of the growers was interviewed to obtain information on the age and number of crab apple trees in their orchards. In some cases the writer counted the trees. The age and number of trees of each grower were tabulated along with the annual yield for the orchard. From these figures the average yields per tree for the years 1951 to 1956, inclusive, were determined. These average yields are shown in Table 5. This table is supplemented with graphs, 1 - 5, showing the yield of some crab apple orchards. For the purpose of determining how crab apples grade out as compared with other fruits, all the grading records for all fruits were brought together and are summarized in Table 2. A comparison of U.S. No 1 crab apple prices to the price of other early competing fruits was made by recording the pool price on U. S. No l crab apples, U. S. No 1 Bartlett pears and U. S. No l Wealthy Apples, along with the average pool price on the various varieties of U. S. No l peaches. These prices were recorded for the years 1931 to 1966, in- clusive, and are shown in Table 4 and Figure 4. A comparison of pool prices and production is shovn in Table 5. This table was made by taking the pool prices of U.S. No l peaches, and U.S. No l wealthy Apples and recording the respective total amounts of crab apples, pears, peaches, and apples produced for the years 1961 to 1906, inclusive. This was done to compare the prices of fruits with the local supply of these fruits. Figures 5, 6 and 7 mere made to supplement the tables on production and prices and are in- tended to show the effect of national and Michigan production of the various fruits such as apples, pears and peaches on the price of crab apples. Figure 5 pertains to the United States and Michigan production of apples and their effect on crab apple prices. Figure 6 pertains to the United States and Michigan production of apples, pears, peaches and the effect of these productions on crab apple prices. Figure 7 shows the relationship between the production of the orchards of the members of the Fennville Fruit Exchange and the price of crab apples. The last three years recorded on the graph represent the production of the orchards of the principal crab apple growers and not the entire membership of the Exchange. The costs per bushel for washing, handling, grading and package for crab apples were secured from the Fennville Fruit Exchange accounts. The cost per bushel for picking was de- termined from the daily wage rate and the average amount picked by one man per day. These charges are shown ip Table 6. The marketing costs recorded ir Tzllo 6 were transferred to Table 7, along with the price received per bushel of crab apoles, and the average annual yield per tree. This was done to secure information on the return per tree and per acre of crab apple orchard. The return per tree and the return per acre are figured as the difference between gross income for these units and the marketing costs. Production costs such as for pruning, spraying, cultivating and thinning have not been accounted for in these returns. PRESENTATION OF DATA Total Returns and Relative Importance.- The relative commercial importance of the crab apple, as determined from data collected from the records of the Fennville Fruit Ex- change, was fifth among the kinds of fruit handled by this Exchange. The gross income from crab apples was 4.4 percent of the total gross income from the sale of all kinds of fruit by this marketing organization (Tables 1, parts A and B). The figures in part A of this table show the gross returns from the various kinds of fruits sold by the entire member- ship of the Exchange for the years 1951 to 1955, inclusive, when the mbmbers numbered 79, 75 and 61, respectively. Part B of Table 1 shows the returns of the principal crab apple growers of the Exchange from the various fruits which they produced. These leading crab apple growers were also the largest growers of other fruits, having received 36.6 percent of the gross returns of the Exchange for the period of 1931 to 1953 and 61 percent of the gross returns from crab apple sales for this same period. This same group A _. "' :5. l -. '~_ 7'; ! ”ll Find of Fruit Apples Pears Peaches Crab Apples Cherries Grapes Plums Quince Kind of Fruit Apples Pears Peaches Crab Apples Cherries Grapes Plums Quince Kind of Fruit Apples Pears Crab Apples Peaches Cherries Grapes Plums Quince The principal crab apple growers' gross income - $35,148.09 or 32.4% in 1931, Table 1. Part A. Fruit Exchange's Gross Incomes from Different Fruits Year 1931 1931 1931 1931 1931 1931 1931 1931 1932 1932 1932 1932 1932 1932 1932 1902 Year 1933 1933 1933 1933 1933 1933 1933 1933 for the Years 1931 - 1933 Gross Income 540,014.06 26,655.55 15,708.99 5,550.50 15,606.77 1,786.45 5,025.46 205.80 Gross Income 559,501.51 51, 028.05 24,288.19 5,124.20 1,545.90 1,597.54 6,260.00 140.75 Gross Income 548,094.77 22,727.07 4,100.50 1,882.25 5,586.15 1,000.25 8,522.52 8.25 Percentage Total Gross Income p: razuca \Jh‘e~>»a»acn O O O O PLQCDLPCOCnCfiiO Percentage $108,331.36 Total Gross Income Percentage $129,235.92 Total Gross Income 5 2 0 O O <3:c:>C>O»e—qca (OHObmrp-fim o 5 91,921.56 share of the Exchanges in 1952 and 554,505.68 or 57.5% in 1955. 552,096.25 or 40.25 The percent of gross income of the Exchange from crab apples contributed by the principal crab apple groxers - 55,152.10 or 58. 5% in 1951, 52, 655. 58 or 51. 8/ in 1952 and $2,992. 00 or 72. 97 in 1933. Tflflel. Part B. Gross Incomes from Different Fruits of the Principal Kind of Fruit Apples Pears Crab Apples Cherries Grapes Plums Quince Kind of Fruit Apples Pears Peaches Crab Apples Cherries Grapes Plums Quince Kind of Fruit Apples Pears Peaches Crab Apples Cherries Grapes Plums Quince Years 1934 to 1936 Year 1934 1934 1934 1934 1934 1934 1934 Year 1935 1935 1935 1935 1935 1935 1935 1935 Year 1936 1936 1936 1936 1936 1936 1936 1936 for the Gross Income 545,685.25 17,598.97 5,450.50 1,916.40 658.05 2,476.55 5.50 Gross Income 515,554.85 20,985.18 4,911.07 5,408.50 1,165.87 1,484.94 8.40 Gross Income _ 559,952.16 16,478.65 2,667.80 5,617.50 2,020.52 186.00 2,001.62 4.85 Crab Apple Growers of the Exchange No Data Total Percentage Gross Income 63.6 24.5 4.80 2.6 .8 3.4 .01 $71,769.00 Total Percentage Gross Income 29.9 46.3 10.8 7.5 2.5 3.2 .0 $45,314.79 Total Percentage Gross Income 57.9 23.9 3.8 8.1 2.9 .2 2.9 .07 568,908.90 FIGURE I. CRAP/{J SHOWING THE ANNUAL YIELDJ a: CEQTAIN HVD/V/DUAL OPCHAQDJ 25 7035 YEAPJ 01.0 I9J/ ro I956 //VCZl/5/VE. [000 900 T/ 300 I L 6&- \ / .5. I/ // \\ I] /// \‘ \y/ 500 an. I \\¥/// \ 400 , 0.x? BUJHELJ 3 00 NUMBER OF \ \ K ‘ \ -‘x — -- I A"- d ‘s l 200 o . ‘.>’ 76 I00 203/ ’93.? I933 I93? I.9 35 I736 FIGURE 3. 60/4ij 5HOW/IVG THE ANNUAL YIELDJ a; CfQTA/N INDIVIDUAL ORCHAQDJ I5 7'0 20 VEAPJ 0L 0. /93/ To [936 INCLUJIVE. J.C. / o E o 2 / \ ‘3 / 5 NJ Hg //\\ / § Q \ / o u M. 7 ‘r/ :2 5 EL. EL, / g \ \_ 8 \ - § \ 74/ \ / "’ P \ , 4L ,1, MK \ I ‘54 «.4!!! § flRw-x——-*—" , , “K ~ P‘BflL "4" V. K ~11»- I ’f ‘9- a -p~_v, 4 8 g 3 L", 52 3: R ‘ \ 2‘ 3 1‘ Q § of growers, 16.9 percent of the Exchange membership, with the larger incomes received 6.8 percent of their total gross revenue trom their orchards for the years 1954 to 1956 from the sale of crab apples. One of them with a gross income varying from 8 10,000 to $12,000 annually received 12 percent of this total gross income from the sale of crab apples. Table No 1 shows that none of the other fruit crops raised in the Fennville area yielded as regular an income year after year as crab apples. Peaches, cherries, grapes and plums, in the order named, were the least stable as sources of income. This fluctuation in annual returns from these dif- ferent fruits may be attributed to severe winters and atten- dant winter injury to trees or their flower buds, to spring frosts, to a marked tendency toward biennial bearing, and to low prices during the years of heaviest production. Crab apples are hardy and may be depended upon more than any of the other fruits to produce more even sized crops year after year, a factor which tends greatly to stabilize the yearly income. Grading Records.- One of the advantages of crab apples as a fruit crop is their relatively high grading percentage. A comparison of the grading percentages for crab apples, apcles, pears, and peaches, as given in Table 2, shows that crab apples grade out the best of these four fruits. The per- centage of U.S. No l crab apples was 72.5 for the entire mem- bership of the Exchange for the years 1951 to 1955 inclusive, while for the principal crab apple growers of the Exchange for the years 1954 to 1956, inclusive, it was 86.7. The average grading percentage for pears was 55.9, peaches, 52 - 8 - Grading Records.- One of the advantages of crab apples as a fruit crop is their relatively high grading percentage. A comparison of the grading percentages for crab apples, apples, pears, and peaches, as given in Table 2, shows that crab apples grade out the best of these four fruits. The percentage of U.S. No l crab apples was 72.5 for the entire membership of the Exchange for the years 1951 to 1955, in- clusive, while for the principal crab apple growers of the Exchange for the years 1954 to 1956, inclusive, it was 86.7. The average grading percentage for pears was 55.9, for peaches, 52, and for apples, 40 during this same period. The high grading percentage for crab apples may be at- tributed in considerable part to the rather uniform size of the fruit. It was observed that very few crab apples were culled for lack of size. The variety is also known for its good color. Furthermore, it is the writer's opin- ion that it is easier to produce crab apples free from scab and vorm injury than other tree fruits becarse of the slower rate at which the fruit grows, thereby increasing the effect- iveness of fungicides and insecticides. The amount of spray residue on crab apples is probably greater than the amount of spray residue on other fruits. This supposition is supported somewhat by the concern of some growers as to whether their crab apples will pass the tolerance test for arsenic and lead for marketable fruit. Some growers make a rough estimate of the amount of spray residue on their other varieties of apples by the amounts of lead and arsenic Table 2. Comparison of Grading Percentages for Various Fruits. Fennville Fruit Exchange Total All 1951 U.S. No 1 Grades U.S. No 1 (bushels; (Bushelsi (percents Crab Apples 5,221 6,551 79.9 Apples 24,752 99,087 24.9 Peaches 17,955 56,204 49.5 Pears 17,199 55,857 50.7 1952 Crab Apples 5,874 7,475 75.9 Apples 44,098 119,062 57.0 Peaches 17,004 41,599 41.0 Pears 56,569 64,205 56.9 1955 Crab Apples 5,554 5,746 61.7 Apples - U.S.F. 17,757 95,840 57.0 Apples - U.S. No1 17,757 95,840 57.0 Peaches 807 1,525 60.9 Pears 15,455 27,922 55.3 1954 Crab Apples 2,709 5,217 84.2 Apples 28,245 55,559 52.7 Peaches Pears l0,404 18,146 57.5 Table 2. (continued) Comparison of Grading Percentages for Various Fruits. Fennville Fruit Exchange * Total All 1955 U.S. No 1 Grades U.S. No 1 {bushels} (bushels) (percent; Crab Apples 4,550 5,165 88.0 Apples 16,582 28,405 57.2 Peaches 5,654 7,711 47.5 Pears 15,574 19,894 68.2 *1936 Crab Apples 6,669 7,569 88.1 Apples - U.S. No 1 22,657 44,282 51.4 Peaches 1,454 2,271 64.0 Pears 8,582 18,054 47.5 t These figures are based on the yields secured by the principal crab apple grow-.s who are members of the Exchange. FIGURE J GRAPHJ JHOWIIVG THE ANNUAL YI£LDJ a: CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL ORCHADDS I5 70 25 YEAQJ 040 I937 70 I936 INCLUJI V5 600 EL. 500 400 E L. 3'00 In 200 NUMBER or 50. loo .3! 32 3.7 .76 F’GURE 4' GRAPH or ANNUAL PRICES roe VAR/005 F 20/ 7.5. A’otp - 7716.59 f/yarw were Jet-cred from the YEAR 8001? of ACIlflllTl/RE. ‘ 8 g \ \’ I 4' .\ i // q. a I . \ ‘ V. L 4, PEAR ‘ 4" \ IV I \ ’ l e I, \ i PEACH N ' 1 I d V , ' /|\ “ I o ' I g 1 x? / Q / IF / \ \ 4' g ’ / , \ I ‘8 CRAB APPLE PRICE an. 30 "L _ ‘§-~§‘.L \‘ é/ \\ \\ Aug . \\ / l f L .szer’ 5'0 .7] 3'2 «3'! J4 .75 .75 - 9 - which are found on crab apples. Growers are of the opinion that if their crab apples are below the tolerance limit for these spray materials their other varieties of apples will also be below this tolerance limit. Yields.- Yields of crab apples produced in these or- chards included in this study are shown on Table 5. As would be expected there is much variation. The crab apple trees in the orchard of H. P. W. consistently out-yielded the trees belonging to G. M. This difference in yield may be attributed to the difference in the methods practiced by these two growers. The annual yields of crab apples for the orchards of the principal growers showed a gradual in- crease as the trees became older. Some of this increase in yield probably was due to the growth of the tree, some to climatic and other factors. The year 1956, the last for which yields were recorded, was the exception in which most growers secured a relatively large yield. The average yield for this year was 4.1 bushels per tree, while the lowest yield was obtained in 1951 with an average of 1.8 bushels per tree. One grower obtained as large a yield of fruit from trees 7 years old as a number of other growers secured from trees ranging in age from 10 to 50 years. A yield of 25 bushels was secured on one 55-year-old tree in the orchard of a grower who was not a member of the Exchange. 5 Some idea of the yielding ability of crab apple trees I can be obtained from the data in Table 5. Individual crab apple trees often show more or less of a biennial habit of FIGUQE 5. 69/1 PH 07/0 WING U. :5. APPLE PRODUC T/O/V, MICHIGAN APPLE PRODUC T/ON, L OCAL JUPPLY AND CPA 5 APPLE PQ/ C 55 /9.3'/ 70 I936 INCL U.Sl VE . JCALES 0550 F02 GRApHs (MI/TED .5 TA TES / = 20. 000. 000 81/5/4515 MICHIGAN I = 800, 000 ausflELs PRICE I 3 IO ¢ NOTE- THESE FIGURES WERE JECURED FRO/‘1 THE YEAR BOOK OF AGRICULTURE. \ I? I \ \ \ 4{ MICHIGAN O f1 ” \\ ’I ‘\ \ \ k :\ [,1 f . CRAB APPLE PRICE ‘ I %A\4L .7; as x / ¥ \ \ 0 UNITED 574765 3/ 3'4! .73 34 .75 3'6 .3335 0...... u 930» o no... 3.: H353 omouovd 9m iv a.» 9m 3 o.m o; .3: n6 n6 coo n.» 08 a; Re 9.... 5.... n5 new a. n3 mm «2 .o .9 1... o.» 3... ad 2a 9a 3» n4 o3 a; 3» m4 H3 on one :H .u o.» in no 0.... o3 nA d. n.» 3 Q... and on on A .p .m o. n. 3 a; «3 3 8 .m .n o.m use can 2m a: o...“ and in «me Q... an and no on 8 .A .m 04 a.» ad. «4. an «J 8» 9m no“ «J «8 3. on» on .8 .a .m .m 94 a; com 04 8a 2 05 .3 .m o.» in a3 04 one 3 8m .3 .u m6. 0.0 8n o.m and m.» 5... a.» 3m L..." d2 «é. can an E. .m .o 9.” mA 0.3 «A 03 n4 «3 m4 3.. «A a? «A 3:. on Sn .2 .e e4 m.« 33 m4 mom n. 03 o.« 3o 04 non o4 can 0... 3a .A .m .u o.m «3. can Rm oon nth «3 a.» one e. no 94 03 S 0.3 .u .> o.» 0.0 «an» «.9 road o.m Hana a.« «sea a.» coca o.a noo on con .0 .e L . - camp! on 3 an 3.5. cone 3.8. .25. 8b. 3.8. 3 33» 2m H38. 8m H33. «om Hopes uom H38. 8m .33. 8m .33 and .92 23.5 33» 83 c 3» 33 33» 33 . 3» 33 33» a 3 a 3» Sad :89 . 3.6.6 venom use» 0 a you eons non 3.394 no.8 «0 3.7g 3.3398 ~335an n 0.3.9 -10... of fruiting and this may extend to entire orchards. This is shown in the slight alternation of somewhat larger and somewhat smaller yields of the orchards for which records are presented in Table 3 and Figures 1 - 3. Prices.- A study of the prices of crab apples and other fruits going on the market at about the same time shovs that crab apple prices are more or less independent of the prices received for other fruits (see Table 4 and Figure 4). It is evident that crab apple prices follow somewhat those of the other fruits, but not at all closely. Perhaps the most noticeable feature about them is that they Show less extreme variation from year to year. The price of crab apples in any one year shows some relation both to the annual production of apples in the United States and in Michigan. Figure 5 shows that this was more evident during the period 1933 to 1936, inclusive, than during the period 1931 to 1953. Figure 6, showing the production of apples, pears, and peaches for Michigan and the United States, along with crab apple prices, indicates very little relationship between crab apple prices and the production of pears and peaches in the United States or Michigan, while the price of crab apples shows a tendency to very inversely with the total apple production in the United States. Local production of crab apples apparently has very little effect on their price (see Figure 7). The first three years recorded on the graph is for the production of Table No 4 Year Average Crab Average Pears Average Peaches Average Apples Crab Apple Bartlett Produced Peach Produced Apple Produced Apple Produced Prices Prices Prices Prices Bushels Bushels Bushels Bushels 1951 6 .85 6,551 3 .68 55,857 8 .80 56,204 8 .85 99,087 1952 1.00 7,475 1.40 64,205 .70 41,599 .70 119,062 1955 1.00 5,746 1.50 27,922 1.80 1,525 .60 95,840 '1954 1,50 5,217 1.60 18,146 no crop no crop 1.15 55,559 ‘1955 .70 5,165 1.50 19,894 1.00 7,711’ .60 28,405 *1956 .80 7,569 1.50 18,054 1.55 2,271 1.00 44,282 * Note - These figures are for the principal crab apple growers in the Exchange and not for the entire membership. o l I I I l to ‘ mass #636... \e Mesh at»; 2?. 39.x % m n u 2 I 34:38.9 0.x»): 9&3»va texuuefloxk 0.... ask l UMO§ totueeeofl 3.6.x «.3 lil . ...l.|. \ i- in!" 8 fix n \ wustfi QCQU \\ a. a use? nx abttu a 1:. .23 kph mane Q0. :0st e .5 TL... . . 2 QQQ W“ h \ ”C(WQ q A, : s3 .eeN . s nututuq r z 000 8§§ n \ 9U 4Q... v. ~ ’ tweetui L L e $8.868»... \ ”(tut m : «3° .SOGN .... \ hfltuvfin‘ >\O\k UDQQ QQ UQQQ v‘ .n. 3 . . x — 7 {o seesaw?“ \ 3.3.3. - F a ~ J 2:93 512.3 29L SEOQQ 3.6.x ztesxuxtill L / ’ h.” Q‘Dna . . 20k .2533 m «at c. 323 a (904 I11! / L \ ./ V Q b 36er 333. Q .36 x ) L .. 4 . I 2 OsngQQQ U QQQ V‘ \< ‘Q\\\U\z / N K o I / i . a i. \ ‘5 ~ ‘ a L It \ \ \4 X ‘ — ’ >6st80§§ 5332s ZQQF‘QZ lulll . : 953 e r . 635a 33.... Exam 2,... ewruxmq .333 nm $0. v. no 20R weep Q0. zxexxbea 9.... Ga vR n St SS messes“. eta was . 0 tkfimxb. A - 11 - the entire membership of the Exchange, while the last three years are for that of the principal crab apple grower. How- ever, the principal crab apple growers produced 61 percent of the crab apples sold by the Exchange and for this reason the production of crab apples for the entire membership would be considerably greater than that recorded for the last three years. 1936 was the year of the greatest local production, yet the price was 10 cents per bushel higher than the year before. The annual local production of crab apples will vary between the 5,000 and 8,000 bushels per year and apparently that amount is too small to have any considerable influence on the price of crab apples in the various Midwest markets. Marketing Costs.- The marketing and production costs for crab apples vary from year to year. The charge for washing varied from 1 - 2} cents per bushel. During 1956 early apples were washed for the minimum rate of 2 cents per bushel, while late varieties of apples, including crab apples, were washed for the maximum rate of 2% cents per bushel. The handling and grading charge varied from 6 cents per bushel in 1933 to 8 cents per bushel in 1951. The price of the package varied from 15 cents in 1952 to 19 cents per bushel in 1934. These charges were determined by the manage- ment of the Exchange for each year. The cost of picking ranged from 6 cents per bushel in 1962 to 12 cents per bushel in 1936. The higher cost of picking in 1956 was Table 60 Annual Packing and Handling Costs per Bushel Fennville Fruit Exchange 1951 1952 19o5 1954 1955 1936 (cents) (cents) (cents) (cents) (cents) (cents) Washing .01 .01 .01§ .01% .02 .02% Handling and Grading .08 .07 .06 .06% .06% .07 Package .17 .15 015% 019 017 .17 Picking .07; .06 .10 .10 .12 .12 Total Charge .33% .29 .33 .37 .37% .58% .copoonpnsn noon pom open .0». maunsnn .nodeapuoaao .maahoann an acne canoe qoaaoncoum .nuuoo mnavoxaaa one assoc“ unoaw nausea: oouonouuac on» no can:Mwu one con» man can anon non nunsuon arena one u .902 00.no um.a ma. «m. b. mo.H m.m mom. «0. new. .uor4 oo.m> on.a mm. mm. H.H ow.a 0.9 we. om. own. onoa on.¢« om. om. mm. m. 00. How an. 05. nun. onoa oo.HHH mm.m on. me. m. om.a o.m no. on.a an. enoa on.nn so.H om. nm. m. 50. n.H no. oo.d an. mama om.n¢ no. so. on. m. em. m.H on. mm. om. «nod 00.0w w oo. a «o. m on. a e. no. m #.H moo. w oo.a» man. a Hand Liana: Lnaofiua mloz O mOD Cap undue Hoz .mAD .oz .mJD «an ounce noon» on can» you coup non adage cause ooh» non Hoz .m.D fl oz .m.o .59 non mnauoxnca one. hog uneven «Haven .59 mom can» you unseen ooh» non .an non o.oon can wndnu 35% ~38 38.: 82m 33» 885 3o; 33 f5 .33 Lam H38. tow .uono cadapqaoh on» an nachos» canmu none flange ,uaanm can go nononono on» now on. name sauna .onoa o» anon gnu-h on» no“ .onoo non unseen on» can .oon» non caoah .auoa vqaoau .copaooou noofiun .opnoo weapounna Hopes u OHnCB FIGUQE 7. GRAPH Juan/wa- ('04: APPL E PRICEJ and toe/u. JaPPLY of €046 APPLES Jazz/9 l: 4000 Ems/rel: / = I€?¢. No 7“ - u Almanac 7104/ a}. the AwnvcnmmL CflwdrAflnuE onowens Of tile EXCHAAVGE. I; I l ” '\ \" \ / i\ AP LE ’ l /’ —J— —V \ on \L \ z’ \ \ I I (o \ /’ A < V q; p? ‘Q ‘\ r’ L ’f Y 19.71 1 9.12 I933 I934 19.1: I936 due principally to an increase in the wages of the pickers. The total marketing cost was the lowest in 1902 with a charge of 29 cents per bushel for these various services while in 1956 it was the highest with a charge of 38% cents per bushel of crab apples. These marketing costs are given for each year in Table 6. Returns.- The average yields of U.S. No 1 crab apples and culls produced per tree, together with the various packing and handling costs and prices per bushel for these grades, were used in determining the income per tree and per acre of fifty trees. It will be noted (Table 7) that the net income per acre, before subtracting overhead and current orchard maintenance costs, of crab apples varied from $44.50 in 1955 to $111.00 in 1936. The average return for the six year period was $65.66 per acre. DISCUSSION The raising of orchard fruits in Michigan involves much financial risk. The grower who depends upon only one or two kinds as the principal source of income is accepting more risk than the grower who raises a greater diversity. The production of crab apples on the average fruit farm provides a means of spreading and minimizing this financial risk. The demand for crab apples is about the same year after year; for this reason it is not advisable greatly to increase the acreage. New plantings siould be limited for the most part to replacements of those trees taken out of production. -13.. éaaaaaz Though crab apples would be classed as one of the minor fruit cr0ps, they are a popular supple- mentary fruit crop in the Fennville district of Michigan, 70 percent of the growers raising them for income. The production of crab apples is holding about stationary. In comparison with other fruits crab apples are easily grown, as shown by their high grading percentage. Crab apples sell for prices comparable to those paid for apples, but their prices are subject to less fluctuation than those of most other fruits. The trees yield reasonably well 11d more regularly than those of most apple varieties. The fruits grade out considerably better than those of the apple, seldom shoving size or color deficiency. Prices are usually within the price range being paid for other fruits of the season, and average net re- turns per tree or per acre are reasonably satis- factory. w... N o E S u M w R J A: n... m . m I A. 1 O ‘1 . .,. s. «a 9...... a m mo. ., I... r .t f. . NC a. 1 ., ea 1 C A w 3 03058 088 llIWI“HIMI‘ll“IIHHNIHWIMHIHMIIIHMIII