Trends in the Cost of Production and Purchasing Power of Fruits Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by George N* Motts 1931 ProQuest Number: 10008393 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest, ProQuest 10008393 Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 481 06- 1346 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction -------------------------------------2 Purpose ------------------------------------------ 3 M a t e r i a l s ----------------- 3 Methods ------------------------------------------ 5 Collection of data ------------------------- 5 Grades ------------------------------------ 5 Units of s a l e ------------------------------ 9 Season of price d a t a -----------------------9 Treatment of data -------------------- 10 — Presentation of d a t a ---------------------------- 13 A p p l e s ------------------------------------ 14 Y i e l d s --------------------------------- 14 Cost of p r o d u c t i o n Purchasing power Pears — — *-------------- 15 --------------------- 16 -------------------------------- 19 Purchasing power --------------------- 19 P e a c h e s ----------------------------------- 20 Y i e l d s --------------------------------- 20 Cost of production — -------------- 21 Purchasing power --------------------- 22 Plums — ----------------------------------- 23 Purchasing power — ---------------------23 C h e r r i e s ---------------------------------- 24 Purchasing power ---------------------- 24 G r a p e s -------------------------- — 24 Y i e l d s --------------------------------- 24 Purchasing power ---------------------- 24 Page O r a n g e s ----------------------------------26 Purchasing power -------------------- 26 G r a p e f r u i t ------ 26 Purchasing power ------------------- 26 Four agricultural commodities ------ — 27 Purchasing power -------------------- 27 Changes in cost of p r o d u c t i o n ---------------- 28 Fixed expenses ------------------------- 28 Variable expenses ■-----------------------31 Changes in purchasing p o w e r -------------- 35 Changes in fruit supply --------------- 35 Changes in fruit d e m a n d 41 ------ Purchasing power cycles ---------------------- 42 Diversification ------------------------------ 49 Purchasing power trends ---------------------- 50 Unit margin of p r o f i t ------------------------- 55 Di s c u s s i o n ------------------------------------ 58 Summary -Acknowledgments 60 ------------------- — 62 Literature cited ----------------------------- 63 A p p e n d i x -------------------------------------- 69 Trends in the Cost of production and Purchasing Power of Fruits* by George N. Motts INTRODUCTION The orchard or vineyard owner faces the possibility of changes in the margin of unit profits as surely as any other producer, but, unlike most industrial and some types of agricultural producers, he is not able to make quick adjustments in either the volume or the kind of production in which he is engaged. It is all the more necessary, then, that those now engaged in this form of production, as well as those who may contemplate such an enterprise, have available information that may aid them to adjust their plans to the conditions of the present or the future, in so far as the future may be anticipated. An attempt to record the changes that have occurred in the margin of profit per unit requires that two factors be studied: (1 ) the cost in terms of goods and services consumed or employed in its production during the period of years studied and (2 ) the quantity of goods and services that can be obtained in exchange for a unit of the commodity from time to time. In order to record the changes in the prosperity of the grower more fully the changes in the number of units produced and sold must also be considered, * Also submitted to the faculty of Michigan State College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, as the net income of the producer is the product of his unit margin of profit and the number of units sold. PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to record the changes that have occurred in the cost of production and purchas­ ing power of some of the fruits of major importance in the United States. This purpose includes more specifically - 1. Assembling data on costs of production of different important fruits and noting changes in their trends from decade to decade. 2. Assembling data on prices of these several fruits and deriving their changes in purchasing power. 3. Comparing the changes in the purchasing pov/er of the selected fruits with one another and with those of four agricultural commodities; butter, beef cattle, hogs, and wheat, and noting changes in trends. 4. Presenting some of the factors involved in the changes in costs of production and purchasing power of the fruits. 5. Sketching broadly the changes in the profitablenes of growing some of the more important fruits. MATERIALS The fruits included in this study are apples, pears, peaches, plums, cherries, grapes, oranges, and grapefruit. No attempt has been made to trace changes in the cost of production of the four agricultural staples and some of the fruits, in the former case because it lay outside the field of the study, and in the latter ease because of insufficient data. Most of the general material and specific fruit and agricultural commodity prices were drawn from files of the agricultural magazines, especially prior to 1914, as follows: American Agriculturist Vols. I-XCVII 1843-1897 tt I-XII it x x x i x -x l i i tt LVIII-LX 1819-1830 1857-1861 1876-1878 Country Gentleman IT I-XCIX 1853-1929 Genessee Farmer ft III V-IX I 3 1833 1838-1839 1840 1842 1849-1850 1857-1859 1864-1865 American Farmer It (New Genessee Farmer) New Series It It ft It It Michigan Farmer ft If 2 n I-II VII-CLXXII X-XIII XVIII-XXII IX-XV 1831-1834 1840-1842 1857-1863 it New England Farmer 18-20 25-26 1845-1846 1849-1858 1863 1870-1871 1876-1929 ft Second Series Third Series 10 ft it ft III vii-rvr New Jersey Farmer n II I-VI 1857-1861 Ohio Cultivator it x i i i -x v t 1857-1861 tt xrv-xxi 39-58 1854-1868 1868-1886 Prairie Farmer, New series ft Rural New Yorker ft II-LXXXVIII 1851-1929 Valley Farmer it X-XIII 1857-1861 Wisconsin Farmer ft IX-XVIII 1857-1866 The publications of the United States Department of Agriculture, such as the Yearbooks, departmental bulletins, market reports and similar source materials supplied additional data. A number of experiment station bulletins furnished further material. General horticultural books served as sources of information and aided in the inter­ pretation of results. methods' Collection of Data - Because most of the prices quoted in the periodicals and other publications were wholesale, they have been used as the basis of the purchasing power, studies, th-ough in some instances prices paid to the pro­ ducer have been used because the former were not available. Since the purchasing power is computed from price indices, the discrepancy between the two is for the most part negligible. The prices of the four agricultural staples have been widely recorded for considerable periods of years, but it was possible to extend some of these price series by the use of the same "Market" sections of the magazine files as were used for the fruit prices. Grades - It was necessary to decide arbitrarily which of the particular grades of the respective commodities were to be used* Not only are more grades employed today for most of the commodities than in the pa&t, but different names have been applied to the same grade at different times and in different markets. Grades are now more accurately defined and consequently great care was necessary in compiling the prices that the same or equivalent grade be used throughout each price series. To illustrate the problem presented in varying degrees by each of the commodities, some of the classifications encountered in apple grades are mentioned. Apples were quoted as "Apples, $ - to | - per barrel or per bushel," "Dessert and Cooking," Common," "Best and Inferior,” "Good and Common," "Sour, Sweet, and Common," Common," "Table and "Choice, Fall, and Common," "Choice, Good, Shipping, and "Extra Dessert, Prime, Medium, and Common," and finally, either "Extra Fancy, Fancy, A, B, and Commercial" or "Fancy, tJ. S. No. 1, and U. S. No. 2." As time went on, individual varieties were named and the range of prices indicated several grades. If an average of all varieties could not be made from the price reports, or even of the few most important varieties, a grade was selected for the graded fruit and the price of that grade was used. An effort was made to select a grade that would represent the bulk of the sales of each commodity. Specific grades were quoted for each of the four agricultural commodities throughout the study, and a few grades were generally mentioned for apples, pears, and peaches by 1880. Thus, for the last 50 years these commodities have usually been recorded by comparable grades. The other fruits were not generally as well graded. It was possible, whenever a change in grade nomenclature occurred, to compare the prices of each of the grades in both classifications and thus to establish the particular grades in the new nomenclature comparable to those of the old. The background of information supplied by the source materials themselves aided considerably in making these evaluations or adjustments between grade classifications. Finally, while recognizing the limitations of the material and the methods employed in its collection, it seems that the price series are compiled with an accuracy comparable to the all- commodity index, especially prior to 1890. The particular grade or grades used for each of the commodities are as follows: Apples, Pears, and Peaches: The purpose was to secure the prices paid for good, first grade fruit. Such fruit would probably be graded today as U. s. No! or as A grade in New York and Michigan or as Choice to Fancy in the box apple states. It is not a fancy or extra fancy grade as those grades are defined in the box apple states or in the New England states or Michigan. It is, however, distinctly better than the B grade or U. S. No. 2, which is essentially a cooking grade. Sour cherries: As specific grades were rarely mentioned, the prices were averaged when only a single range was quoted. When two or three qualities were indicated, the better of the two or the middle one of the three was selected. Plums: The prices of the domestica varieties were used and were collected in the same manner as the cherry prices. Grapes: The prices are for Concords, except in the case of California data, and were compiled in the same way as the cherry prices. Oranges and grapefruit: The prices were compiled by the Bureau of Statistical and Historical Research of the TJ. S. D. A. and are the average prices of all sales on the markets used in the study. Butter: "Tub," The quality called at various times "Table," "Choice," Beef cattle: or "Creamery lsts" was used. The prices are for live weight per hundred pounds at the stockyards for "Good-Choice" or "Good-Prime" cattle. At times only the average of all sales was available and in these cases a slight amount was added to make them comparable to the rest of the series. Hogs: The prices are for live weight per hundred pounds at the stockyards for "Good-Prime" at New York and "Heavy" at Chicago. Wheat: The average for all kinds of wheat in New York and Virginia, and for "No. 1 Northern Spring" at Chicago from 1866 to 1893 and for "No. B Red Winter" from 1894 to 1929 was used. Units of Sale - During the years covered by the magazine files from which the bulk of the fruit prices were obtained, the fruits were handled in different sizes and types of containers. Apples have been quoted by the barrel, bushel, and box; pears by the barrel, bushel, and box; peaches by the bushel, carrier, and basket; plums by the bushel and basket; cherries by the bushel, crate, basket, quart, and pound; grapes by the ton, bushel, basket, and pound; oranges and grapefruit by the 1 0 0 0 , barrel, half barrel, large box, small box, and box. Notes in the price quotations or in articles in other parts of the magazines permitted the conversion of all these various units to the standard units now used, viz.: apples, pears, peaches, and plums by the bushel, cherries and grapes by the pound, and oranges and grapefruit by the box, using the legal or usual weights of the particular fruits in the respective containers. Season of Price Data - The season or period of time over which the prices were averaged to secure a figure for each particular year was so far as possible the "home­ grown" season in which the bulk of the crop of that region moved to market. The purpose was to eliminate as much as possible the shipments from considerable distances. The seasons used for the particular fruits on the New York and Detroit markets are as follows: The apple prices on both markets are for October and November; the peach prices for September in New York and for August and September in Detroit; the pear prices on both markets are for September and October; the plum prices are for the last half of August and the first half of September, varying somewhat with the years, on both markets; the July cherry prices are used on both markets; the grape prices are for October on both markets. The orange and grapefruit seasons in both California and Florida start in the fall and continue into the spring and the price of the 1890-1891 crop, for example, is listed in this study as the 1891 price. Since the seasonal trends in the prices of the agricultural staples were rather uniform from year to year the prices for the first of January, April, July, and October were averaged to secure the year's price. Treatment of Data - The period 1910-1914, inclusive, has been selected as a ba®e for comparison of prices, because most of the agricultural production and price indices have been made with this base. The all-commodity wholesale price index of the Bureau of Labor Statistics is used in this study in calculating the purchasing power of the commodities. Because the weighted index of wholesale prices has not been computed prior to 1890, the unweighted series furnished by the IT. S. Bureau of Labor Statisticsbeginning with the year 1801 is included in the Appendix.Although 1926 is the base of the index at present, it is here converted to the 1910-1914 base, and is so given in the Appendix. A part of the letter of Mr. Charles S. Baldwin, Acting Commissioner of Labor Statistics, is quoted to show the computation of the index; it also indicates that the price series of the commodities compiled in this study are prob­ ably as accurate as the index itself, especially prior to 1890: "The regular weighted series of index numbers of the Bureau of Labor Statistics begins with 1890. "The index numbers from 1801 to 1840 are arithmetic averages of unweighted relative prices of commodities, as published in Appendix F, of Bulletin Mo. 367 of this bureau. They were originally compiled by Alvin H* Hansen of the University of Minnesota with 1825 as the base year, but are here converted to the 1926 base. "The index numbers from 1841 to 1889 are from "Wholesale Prices, Wages, and Transportation" (Senate Report Mo. 1394, Finance Committee, 2nd Session, 52nd Congress, Part 1, page 91). Originally these figures were computed with 1860 as 100, but are also converted to the 1926 base for the purpose of comparison. "In using these index numbers it should be borne in mind that the figures here shown are not strictly comparable since they are based on different lists of commodities in different markets and are, moreover, unweighted for the years prior to 1890. It is believed, however, that they reflect with fair degree of accuracy wholesale price changes in general over the whole period." A retail index would have been preferable, as the growers buy most of their goods at retail prices, but the retail all-commodity index of the Bureau of Labor Statistics only goes back to 1890. It seemed more accurate to use the wholesale index than a hypothetical one based upon the difference between the wholesale and retail price indices since 1890. Although there is a spread between the wholesale and retail prices, the wholesale and retail indices are series of percentages rather than of absolute values. For this reason it appears that the wholesale price index series permits a purchasing power series which closely approximates the actual purchasing power conditions that have prevailed. When the purchasing power series had been calculated, they were plotted on the semi-logarithmic scale and the trend lines were fitted by the method of least squares. The semi-logarithmic scale shows the absolute changes as well as the changes in the rate of change and thus is more likely to imply that the future direction of the trend line is as likely to change as to remain as it is, and that if it does change its direction, the degree and duration of the change cannot be exactly predicted. In the series of charts that comprise the most essential part of the purchasing power study, there appears once 15 for each commodity a "broken line that indicates the purchasing power from year to year accompanied by the trend line of that series* Other charts compare the trends of purchasing power of two or more of the fruits. Because the formula used in fitting the trend line re­ quires an unbroken sequence of numbers, the graphs extend back only to the years beginning an unbroken sequence. In a number of cases data were available for scattered years prior to the year in which the graph was started* Those price indices and purchasing power numbers are included in the tables in the Appendix from which the graphs are constructed. The tables are intended also to afford a convenient reference to the index numbers for any one year, as the values can be read only approximately from the graphs. PRESENTATION OF DATA A presentation of all the detailed data, even in tabular form, that were collected and computed on yields, grades, production costs, prices and purchasing power would make the text proper too bulky. Some of the more important and representative figures are in­ cluded in the Appendix, and some are presented in the text in graphic form. What appears here in the main part of the text is more in the nature of a brief discussion or interpretation of the records in terms of present day conditions♦ APPLES Yields - A number of recent experiment station studies (4, 9, 30, 40, 41, 58, 82, 83) report yields which, when compared with the references on yields in the old magazines, indicate that there has been little or no change in yields per tree in orchards with comparable care. The increase in the percentage of trees in commercial orchards has made possible approximately the same size crop with a smaller total number of apple trees. In some of these studies a slight decline appears, probably due to increased age combined with close planting. There has not been a noticeable upward trend in the yield per tree in commercial orchards for the country as a whole. Grades - Extremely little information is available on the percentages of apple crops sold in different grades in the earlier years of the study. Less attention was paid to grading and the specifications of a grade were more likely to change from season to season than the per­ centage sold in each grade. A number of recent studies (7, 9, 30, 34, 37, 40, 58, 59, 74, 82, 117) show that the portion of the crop sold above Grade B or U. S. No. 2 generally constitutes about 50 per cent of the crop. In the case of the better growers or better varieties or both this portion of the crop may rise some years to about 75 per cent. The proportion of cider apples, windfalls, and culls is usually given as from 10 to 20 per cent. The percentage of culls has been markedly reduced since the advent of spraying, but there are so few earlier references on this point that the exact change cannot be well determined. The B grade or U. S. No. 2 might be called a buffer grade, frequently combined with the A grade or U. S. No. 1 in years of small crops and with the culls in years of large crops. Cost of Production - Any attempt to estimate the cost of production for the country at large must necessarily be in general terms. The costs of picking, grading, packing, and selling apples have increased in their pro­ portion to the selling price and, taken together, they now constitute from one-third to one-half of the f.o.b. price (6 , 9, 54, 42). The costs of production have also been markedly increased by larger fixed expenses, spray programs, fertilizer and cover crop treatments, higher prices and larger amounts of labor and materials, and the increasing necessity of offering a more carefully graded product in better packages. Many fragmentary accounts, when pieced together and evaluated, indicate that the costs of production for the country at large have been substantially as follows: from 1850-1875, about $1.00 per barrel; from 1875-1900, from $1.00 to $1.25 per barrel; from 1900-1914, increasing to a range of from $1.25 to $1.50 per barrel; and from 1914-1930, increasing to a range of from $ 2.00 to over $3.00 per barrel, although somewhat less now (1930) than in 1919-1920. In the 1914-1930 period the larger part of the supply was produced at a cost of from §2.50 to §2.75. As the amount of goods secured in exchange for a sales unit of a fruit in the base period of 1910-1914 is used in this study to measure the purchasing power of similar units in other years, so the 1910-1914 dollar must be used to express the com­ parable costs of production. When reduced to this basis, the above costs become as follows: from 1850 to 1875, about $ .85 per barrel; from 1875 to 1900, from §1.06 to $1.33 per barrel; from 1900 to 1914, increasing to between §1.33 and $1.61 per barrel; from 1914 to 1930 between $1.27 and §1,91, with the larger part of the supply produced at a cost of $1.50 to $1.75. In terms of goods the cost of apples is at present from one and a half to two times as great as in the period from 1850 to 1875. Purchasing Power - A record of the purchasing power of apples on several city markets and in Virginia is presented in Figures 1 to 5, inclusive. They are based on price data for New York (2, 35, 43, 77, 106, 109), Detroit (60, 94), Boston (67, 75, 8 8 ), Jonesboro, southern Illinois (69), and Virginia (71). The trend of apple Fig. 1 . Purchasing power of apples in New York. 1 855-1929* St.E. ±25.40. See Table 1 6 . Fig. 2. Purchasing power of apples in Detroit 1875-1 925. St.E. ±53*84. See Table 1 6 . Fig. 3.. Purchasihg power of apples in Boston, 1879-1925. St.E. ± 2 8 .5 1 . See Table 1 6 . I Fig. 4. Purchasing power of apples in Jonesboro, 1866-1890, T 902-1928 . St.E*,±1 5 .7 , ±16.9. See Table 16. i Fig. 3 , Purchasing power of apples in Virginia, 1867-1927* St.E. ^ 3 4 .9 4 . See Table 1 6 . purchasing power has been downward in Boston, horizontal in Virginia, very slightly upward in New York and Jones­ boro, and slightly upward in Detroit. The degree of slope of the trend lines of the graphs included in this study is described according to the scale of measurement in­ dicated in the footnote below .*1 An inspection of the graphs shows that there are two cyclical trends, although no effort was made to fit dueh curves. There is a short cycle of about 4 years and a longer cycle of about 14 years. There may be deviations of a year or so one way or another from the lengths stated, but in the majority of cases the peaks or troughs of the cycles occur with considerable regularity. Similar records of the changes in the purchasing power of apples since 1910 have been computed for six * The value of "b", in the standard straight line trend formula, y r a + bx, is a measure of the slope of the trend line. If the trend is downward, nb" is negative, if the trend is upward, TTbtr is positive. As described in this study: If nbw equals 0, the trend is considered horizontal " tf '* 0 to .5, the trend is considered very slight Tl * '* 1 , the trend is considered slight i* t» n 2, * n T* n moderate tf n " 3, n n tf n decided n » tf 4 ^ r» n « tt very decided Trends with values of Ttbn between these points are considered the type to which their nbn value is closest. Parabolic trends are considered as that one of the above types to which they are most closely comparable. of the more important or representative apple states as follows: New York (47, 89), Michigan (46, 94), and Virginia (48, 97) in Figure 6 and Colorado (45, 101), Missouri (96), and Washington (49, 102) in Figure 7. In these charts for recent trends the prices received by the growers, and not the wholesale prices, were used. The trend since 1910 has been slightly downward in Colorado, slightly upward in Michigan, moderately upward in Missouri and Washington and decidedly upward in New York and Virginia. The change from month to month in the price of apples and consequently in their purchasing power is of interest, as it reflects the influence of apple storage. A comparison of the October and April price indices has been made by Scoville (82), beginning with 1889, but in order to show the monthly changes and to include a few years prior to the Civil War, Table 1 is presented. This table is computed from the wholesale prices per barrel of Rhode Island Greenings on the New York market (82). The index numbers are based on the five year average prices for the respective months. The five year averages of the all-commodity index numbers are included in the table to indicate the general price levels of the selected periods. Fig. 6. Recent trends of apple purchasing power in New York, Michigan, and Virginia. St.E. ±3$. 9$, ±32.40, ±32.40. See Table 17* Fig._7. Recent trends of apple purchasing power in Colorado, Missouri, and Washington. St.E, ±18.16, ±47-23, ± 26 .33 . See Table 17* Table 1.- The average monthly price indices of Rhode Island Greening apples in Hew York for selected years* Month *53-*58 *94-*99 *09-f14 *16-*21 *25-*30 Sent. 67 65 69 80 85 Oct, 74 63 73 72 84 tfov. 80 77 86 93 94 Dec. 100 94 95 96 101 Jan. 101 103 99 106 106 Feb-. 108 112 101 114 109 Tar. 126 122 107 114 111 Apr. 118 141 118 113 94 day 111 124 128 131 115 June 114 123 81 ave. 98.7 70.2 100.1 191.5 151.1 The data in Table 1 show that, relatively, the fall price has been rising toward the average season price and that the spring price has been declining slightly toward the average season price. This is what might be expected from an increase in storage facilities. PEARS Purchasing Power - The changes in the purchasing power of pears on the New York (2,77) and Detroit (60) markets are shown in Figures 8 and 9, respectively. The trend of purchasing power on the New York market might be Fig. 8* Purchasing power of pears in New York, 1 868-1 929* St.E. + 34 •S1 • Se® Table 1 8 • Fig* §_. Purchasing power of pears in Detroit, 1880-1 929* St.E. 18.95, 15-0- See Table 18* Fig, 10. Recent trends of pear purchasing power in New York, Michigan, and California. St.E.58-53» --14.42, -22.82. See Table 19* considered to be more strongly downward than the trend line indicates until 1900 and slightly upward since then. The trend from 1919 to 1929 has been dotted as in some of the other charts. The short cycle of purchasing power has been from 4 to 5 years on the New York market and from 3 to 4 years at Detroit. The longer cycles on these two markets have been about 13 and 10 years, respectively. Figures 8 and 9 show that there downward trend in purchasing power in decidedly downward trend in Detroit. has been a slight New York and a Since 1914 the trend has been very decidedly upward in Detroit and since 1919 moderately upward in New York. Although the value of T,b" in the New York trend places it in the "slightly down" class, the trend appears steeper than it really is, due to the fact that most of trend line lies within the zone of widely spaced lines on the scale, emphasizing the slope. The recent changes in purchasing power of pears in three states are shown in Figure 10. The prices used are those received by the growers in New York Michigan (50, 95), and California (102). (51,90), In New York the purchasing power has decidedly increased since 1910, while declining slightly in Michigan, and remaining practically unchanged in California. PEACHES Yields - The accounts of peach yields have varied as widely as those of apple yields and it is equally difficult difficult to say just what the averages have been. The evidence indicates, however, that between 1850 and the end of the century 200 to 250 bushels per acre was con­ sidered a "very good" yield, 125 to 150 bushels a "good" yield, and 90 to 100 bushels an "average" yield for com­ mercial plantings. Since 1900, yields have been somewhat higher with "very good" yields of 250 to 300 bushels per acre, "good" yields of 175 to 200 bushels, and "average" yields of 125 to 150 bushels. The increase of 35 to 50 bushels per acre has been ascribed, among other factors, to more effective cultivation practices, lighter pruning, and the use of "P.D.B." (5), but considerable increases are doubtless due to the more efficient management of larger orchards and the shift in locations with a larger number of trees in the better locations. The latter two factors apply particularly to commercial orchards. Since the life of a peach orchard is much shorter than that of an apple orchard, there can be a more rapid shift in plantings as the less favorable sites are discovered and then abandoned. Cost of Production - The average costs of peach pro­ duction per bushel for the various periods considered in this study lay for the most part within the following ranges: 1850-1875, from $ .35 to $ .40; 1875-1900, from $ .40 to $ .50; 1900-1914, from $ *65 to § .75; 1914-1929, from $ .85 to $1.40, with the larger part of the crops produced within a range of from $ .95 to $1.05. When these costs are expressed in terms of the 1910-1914 dollar they become as follows: 1850-1875, from $ .30 to $ .34; 1875-1900, from $ .42 to $ .53; 1900-1914, from $ .69 to $ .80; 1914-1929, from $ .54 to $ .89, with a narrower range of from § .60 to $ .67 for the larger part of the crops. The cost of peach production at present is apparently twice or a little more than twice the cost from 1850 to 1875 when expressed in terms of goods. The increase in the cost per bushel would have continued after 1914, as in the case of apples, had there not been an apparent increase in the general average yield per acre. Purchasing Power - The changes in the purchasing power of peaches on the New York (2, 77) and Detroit (60) markets are shown in Figures 11 and 12, respectively. Because an inspection of the New York graph suggests that the purchas­ ing power has been rising since 1915, the trend line since that date is added to Figure 11. The long time trend on the New York market has been decidedly downward, with a moderate rise since 1915, and the trend in Detroit has been moderately downward. The short cycle appears to be from 4 to 5 years on the New York market and about 4 years in Detroit. The longer cycle is about 9 years long on both markets. Fig. 11 . Purchasing power of peaches in New York, 1 857-1929. St.E. ±G C .02. See Tahle 20. Fig. 12. Purchasing power of peaches in Detroit, 1880-192 9. St.E. ±51*98. See Table 20. The trends of peach purchasing power since 1910 in some of the leading peach states, based on the prices to producers, are presented in Figures 13, 14, and 15. Figure 13 shows the trends in Georgia (52, 99) and North Carolina (54, 98); Figure 14, the trends in Arkansas (100), Illinois (93), and California (103), and Figure 15, those In Michigan (53, 94), and New York (55, 89)* The recent trend of purchasing power has been moderately downward in California, slightly downward, in New York, Michigan, and Georgia, very slightly upward in Arkansas and North Carolina, and moderately upward in Illinois. PLUMS Purchasing Power - The changes in the purchasing power of the Domestica varieties of plums (with some Japanese types probably included) on the New York (2, 77) and Detroit (60) markets are presented in Figures 16 and 17, respectively. The short cycle of purchasing power is about 5 years on both markets and the long cycle appears to be 12 and 11 years long on the New York and Detroit markets, respectively. The purchasing power of plums has declined moderately in Ne w York and very decidedly in Detroit, but since 1910 in Detroit and 1915 in New York the trend has been upward until in 1929 the level of 1895 was reached in New York and the level of 1890 was reached in Detroit. Fig. 1 3 . Recent trends of peach purchasing power in Georgia and Uorth Carolina. St.E. ± 27*48# ±26*30. See Table 21. Fig. 14. Recent trends of peach purchasing power in Arkansas, Illinois, and California. St.E. ± 1 7 .2 9 , ±31 *62, ±20.93. See Table 2 t . Fig.^1 3 . Recent trends of peach purchasing power in New York and Michigan, St.E. ±19*70, '21.10. See Table 21. Fig. 16. Purchasing power of plums in Hew York, 1872-1929. St.E. ± 42 .63.1 37.66. See Table 2 2 . ] Fig, 1 7 . Purchasing power of plums in Detroit, 1880-1 92 9. St.E. ±48.34. ^ee Table 22., CHERRIES Purchasing Power - Until about 1900 most of the sour cherries were sold as fresh fruit, but since that time an increasing proportion of the crops has been sold to canneries, and the cannery prices do not parallel very closely the fresh fruit prices on the New York and Detroit markets. Nevertheless, the changes in the purchasing power of fresh sour cherries on the New York (2, 77) and Detroit (60) markets are presented in Figures 18 and 19 for what they may be worth. In general they indicate a slight but continued downward trend in purchasing power. The short cycle of purchasing power is about 4 years on both markets and the long cycle is apparently about 10 years long in New York and 9 years in Detroit. GRAPES Yields- The available information when summarized indicates that there has been no material change in the yields per acre of the Eastern or Labrusca grapes. Only the Concord or similar Eastern varieties are used in this study with one exception, the recent trend of purchasing pov;er of California grapes. Purchasing Power - The changes in the purchasing power of Concord grapes in New York (2, 77, 107) and Detroit (60) are presented in Figures 20 and 21, respectively. The decline in the purchasing power of the Concord Fig. t 8 ._JPurchasi ng power of cherries In Hew York, %875-^ 92.9. S t .2.S 29-31• See Table 23. i Fig. 19. Purchasing power of cherries in Detroit, 1885-1 929. St *H. 23*02. See Table 23* Fig. 2D. Purchasing power of grapes in New York, 1868-1929* St.E.+ 54.41. See Table 24. Fig. 21 1 2 5 .5 7 , ± 2 7 *2 6 . See Table 2 5 . Fig. 2 5 . Recent trends of grape purchasing power in New York and Michigan. St.E.+ 25-55» ± 29* 8 8 . See Tahle 2 5 . ORAN ass Purchasing Power - The changes in the purchasing power of Florida oranges (84) on the New York market are shown in Figure 24 and that of California oranges (84) on the same market is shown in Figure 25. The trend of the pur­ chasing power of Florida oranges in New York declined moderately from the years of the freezes in the late '90s until 1920 and has "been horizontal since that time, as shown by the dotted trend line. Although the California trend since 1910 has been decidedly upward, its trend since 1920 has been similar to that of the Florida oranges in the same period. The short cyule of purchasing power of oranges from both states has been about 4 years, and the longer cycle about 10 years in the ease of Florida. GRAPEFRUIT Purchasing Power - The changes in the purchasing power of Florida grapefruit in New York (84) are presented in Figure 26 and those for California grapefruit, based on f.o.b. prices, (84) in Figure 27. As in the case of oranges, if the Florida data only extended back to 1910, the trend in both states would be fairly comparable. The effect of the freezes between 1895 and 1900 was more pronounced on the purchasing power of the Florida grape­ fruit than on that of Florida oranges, as there were fewer acres of grapefruit in proportion to oranges at that time than at present. I Fig. 24. Purchasing power of Florida oranges in New York, 1 8 8 9 1 92 9T St.E. 4 3 0 .0 8 . See Table 26. Fig, 2 5 . Furchasing power of California oranges in New York 1 9 1 0 - 1 9 2 8 . St.E. ± 1 3 .8 0 . See Table 2 6 . Fig. 26. Purchasing power of Florida grapefruit in New York, 1 891 -1 929. St.E. ±66.09. See Table 27. CALIFORNIA !9t5 1920 Fig. 27* Purchasing power of California grapefruit, f.o.t>., 1911-1926. St.E. ±20.05. See Table 27. About the only short cycle that can be noted in the purchasing power of Florida grapefruit is a tendency to fluctuate from one year to the next between relatively higher and lower purchasing power. Neither of the graphs covers a sufficient number of "normal" years to show a long cycle of purchasing power. FOUR AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES In order to compare the trends of purchasing power of the several fruits studied with those of certain other staple agricultural products, similar data were obtained for butter, beef cattle, hogs, and wheat. The markets used are largely those employed in the study of the purcha ing power of the fruits, though in some instances the Chicago prices are substituted for those in Detroit, as some of the prices in Detroit were not readily available. Purchasing Power - The changes in the purchasing power of butter on the New York and Detroit markets and in Virginia are shown in Figure 28; those for beef cattle on the New York, Chicago, and Detroit markets and in Virginia in Figure 29; those for hogs on the New York and Chicago markets (combined in Table 2) and in Virginia in Figure 30; and those for wheat on the New York and Chicago markets and in Virginia in Figure 31. A summary of the changes in the purchasing power of these commoditie on the selected markets appears in Table 2. ----' ■ - . — _ : - : : . ~ _____ ~ VfKGtN/A 66 /.870 /& V \ /Si 0 /Si s IS 90 IQ TS /? Fig* 2 8 . Purchasing power of butter in New York, Detroit and Virginia. St.E. ±1 0 .82 , :J 6 .40, ± 7 •93 . See Table 28. ?8lfO Fig. 29. Purchasing power of beef cattle in New York, Chicago, ~ Detroit and Virginia. St.E. i1 0 . 1 0 , -10.77, - 1 3 . 4 2 , ± 1 0 . 1 3 . See Table 2 9 . 2 Fig. 3 0 . Purchasing power of hogs in New York* Chic ago and Virginia. St •£• ± 8-34, ;V12.04. See Table 30. VtftOtNtA ta7o Fig. 51 . Purchasing power of wheat in New York, Chicago, and Virginia. St.E. ±15 .5 6 , 17-23, 5T3 .04. See Table 3T . Table 2.- The purchasing power trends of butter, beef cattle, Trend St.E. 1846-1929 V .s .up *10.82 (60) 1876-1929 V.s.down £ 6.4C Virginia (72) 1866-1927 V.s .up £ 7.94 New York (113) 1840-1891 n £l0.10 Chicago (60,73, 110,113) 1866-1929 t» £10.77 (60) 1876-1929 n 1867-1927 tt £10.15 (60,111, 113) 1840-1929 Tt £ 8.54 Virginia (71) 1867-1927 s.up £ 12.04 New York Chicago (2,3,91, 105) 104,108) 1840-1929 1866-1929 S.down V .s .up £ 15.55 *17.23 Virginia (70) 1867-1927 S.down *13.04 Commodity Market Source Butter New York (2,77,60) Detroit Beef cattle Detroit Virginia . (711... .. Ho«s Wheat N.Y.-Chi. Years £l3.42 CHANGES- IN COST ON PRODUCTION Fixed Expenses - A summary of reports in the source materials relating to the selling prices of improved farm land and bearing orchard and vineyard land appears in Table 3. The references in­ cluded land in the more important fruit growing states, although no data on California or Florida citrus groves are included. The limits of the values represent the range within which the majority of the sales seem to have been made. As the relationship between the two types of land is the important consideration, rather than the actual prices, the data in the table are not reduced to the 1910-1914 base. The values for the fruit lands are for orchards and vineyards in full bearing. Table 3.- Selling prices of improved farm land and 1— " Tears ----- ----- -------------Impr. farm land Orch.& vine. Value of trees $150 - $300 $120 - $250 1850-1876 $10 - $150 (30-50)* 1875-1900 25 - 175 (50-75) 150 - 400 100 - 325 1900-1914 50 - 200 (75-12:5) 200 - 400 125 - 275 1914-date 75 - 250 (100-150) 250 - 500 150 - 350 * A narrower range, closer to the "average" of most sales* Assuming a constant rate of interest, which can be done for all practical purposes here, the data in Table 3 confirm the well known fact that the interest on the in­ vestment constitutes a larger fixed expense today than in 1850. The rate of increase in the value of improved farm land has been greater than that of bearing orchards and vineyards. The present selling price of improved farm land, using the narrower ranges, is about 300 per cent of the 1850 price, while that of the orchards and vineyards is about 166 per cent of the 1850 price. If the capital invested' in the trees is to be conserved, an amount equal to their depreciation must be set aside from year to year. This amount would probably vary from two to eight per cent of the value of the trees, according to the kind of fruit and the length of profitable life assumed for each particular region under the varying cultivation and growing con­ ditions. Using the difference between the value of improved farm land and the value of bearing orchards or vineyards as a measure of the value of the trees or vines, Table 3 indicates that the value of the trees and vines today is from 125 to 140 per cent of their 1850 value. The depreciation item has thus increased corres­ pondingly for this second part of the investment. With the increase in the size or number of build­ ings used for orchard or vineyard purposes, such as packing sheds, tool and equipment shelters, and storage houses this third part of the investment has increased. The investment in equipment has been increased by the addition of sprayers, some spray mixing equipment, dust­ ing machines, graders, sizers, and other packing house machinery, and such other tools and equipment as the greater mechanization of fruit growing has demanded. The interest charges on these two parts of the investment have likewise increased considerably. A charge of perhaps three per cent on the buildings and ten per cent on the equipment must be made to cover the depreciation, another fixed charge that has increased in proportion to the investment in both. Taxes paid by the fruit grower, like those of other people, have increased several fold since 1850, but because of the wide variation among the levies of different states, it is difficult to determine the extent of the increase in this item of the fixed expenses. In so far as the buildings and equipment are insured against various forms of loss or damage, this item has also increased. The insurance of crops from year to year has been growing in popularity in some fruit areas, and though it might be considered a fluctuating cost, it can be mentioned here. Water fees, rents, or taxes must be added to the fixed costs of fruit growers in many of the western areas. Variable Expenses - Labor, materials, and marketing expenses constitute the bulk of the variable expenses requiring a cash outlay each year. The changes in the labor item include an increase in both the cost of man and team (or tractor) labor per hour and the number of hours of labor employed per acre in production. The changes in the cost of team (or tractor) labor per hour during the years inoludedhere are difficult to determine, but the cost is probably more than in 1850. The changes in the level of farm wages since 1866, as shown in Table 4, are perhaps as close a measure as is available of the changes in the cost of orchard and vineyard labor, especially as it is in terms of price indices, rather than money. It appears from Table 4 that the level of farm wages is now approximately 300 per cent of the 1866 level in terms of money, although in terms of goods the increase is slightly less than 100 per cent* Table 4.- Index numbers of farm wages, 1866-1929. (112). __________ 1910-1914 equals 1 0 0 _________________________ Year Index Year Index 1866 55 1902 76 1869 54 1906 92 1874-1875 59 1877-1879 1879-1880 1880-1881 1881-1882 56 59 62 65 1884-1885 65 1887-1888 66 1889-1890 66 1891-1892 67 1893 1894 1895 67 61 62 1898 1899 65 68 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 96 97 97 101 104 101 102 112 140 176 206 239 150 146 166 166 168 171 170 169 169 Because production methods vary considerably in different regions, it is only possible to say that the number of man hours used in production has increased appreciably since 1850 and that this increase when multiplied by the increases in wages per hour makes a considerable increase in the variable costs of pro­ duction. The material item of the variable expenses in­ cludes such items as fertilizer, spray materials, barrels or other containers, and miscellaneous supplies. When reported fertilizer prices are summarized and re­ duced to the basis of the 1910-1914 dollar, it appears that in terms of goods fertilizer prices have declined from about $45 per ton in eastern markets in 1850 to $30 in 1925. The increase in the amount of fertilizer used per acre would at least partially offset the decline in the cost per unit. The cost changes of the spray materials, containers, and supplies are rather hard to determine. About as satisfactory a method as any, perhaps, is to consider that their changes have been comparable to those of the general price level, and thus in terms of goods to assume that they have been rather stable in value per unit. The quantity of materials and labor now used in spraying has increased until, together, they now constitute the largest single item of the variable expenses, probably increasing those costs by 30 to 50 per cent over the time before spraying was practiced* The tendency of the spraying program to increase in cost has continued to the present time* Changes in marketing costs since 1850 have been of various kinds. The greater distances fruit is now shipped, the more complex channels through which it reaches the consumer, the more exacting requirements of size and grade, and other factors are involved. In spite of increased efficiency in the marketing process there seems to be more evidence that the cost of market­ ing, at least in proportion to the price received by the grower, has increased during the past several decades than there is to the contrary* Briefly then, there has been an increase in the cost of production of the fruits included in this study, when considered as a group. The cost of apples has in­ creased, on the basis of this study, from 50 to 100 per cent since the years from 1850 to 1875, and the cost of peaches has increased about 100 per cent. Sufficient data were not obtained in this study to permit a satisfactory estimate of the changes in the costs of production of the other selected fruits, although it is reasonable to conclude from the definite increases that have occurred in the size of a number of the cost items that the total pro­ duction costs of these fruits have also appreciably in­ creased since 1850* CHANGES IN PURCHASING PONER Changes in Fruit Supply - The purchasing power of a fruit depends upon its selling price and the prices of the goods for which it is exchanged. The causes of the changes in the general price level are manifold and do not lie within the province of this study. Some of the changes that have occurred in the two underlying factors which determine the selling prices of the fruits, the other side of the purchasing power equation,may be mentioned. The changes in the per capita production of apples, pears, peaches, oranges, strawberries, cantaloupes, water melons, and imports of bananas for a varying number of years are presented graphically in Figure 32 a, b, c. The data for all of these fruits are for the commercial production, with the exception of apples, pears, and peaches, which are for total production. The sources of the data are shown in the footnote to Table 15 in the Appendix. The total production of nine important fruits, taken from the Census Reports, are presented in Table 5. It must be noted that single years are frequently not representative of usual crops, as for example, the peach crop of 1900, but Table 5 will show in a general way the increase in production that has occurred and the decline in the per capita production of the nine fruits as a group. 70 SO VC SO 00 eo 60 50 7 0 a IQ 2 0 <726 /O JO b BANANAS 9 / JO /9/5 C Fig, 32 a,b,c. Per capita production of apples, pears, peaches, strawberries, cantaloupes, watermelons, and oranges and imports of bananas, St,E, 25 -5® * - 10 ,1 4 , ! 13 * 27 . - 1 . 90 , ^ 5.47. ; 8,62. ' 4.84, 234. See Table 13* Table 5,- The total production of nine fruits in the United States for certai n years , expressed in terms of ______50 pound bushels._______________________ _ ____ ______ Xear Apples t890 143,105,689 36,367,747 3,064,375 20,955,480 1900 175,397,600 15,432,603 6,625,417 26,019,880 1910 145,412,318 35,470,276 8,840,733 45,301,320 L920 136,560,997 50,686,082 14,204,265 70,336,800 1930 139,754,000 20,903,000 80,896,680 ....... Apricots Oranges 45,990,000 i ______________________________ Plums Pears Peaches _.. Cherries . Grapes 189 0 2,554,392 1,476,719 1,001,482 6,588,000 L900 8,764,032 2,873,499 2,643,128 9,250,500 1910 15,480,170 4,126,099 4,150,263 33,795,000 L920 19,983,942 3,945,749 6,130,086 35,085,000 2,470,760 7,800,000 50,608,500 L930 G-rape fruit Total Total lbs. per capita of the nine fruits 1890 15,000 216,128,884 172 1900 46,500 247,052,659 162 1910 1,783,500 294,359,679 160 1920 8,692,500 344,725,421 164 1930 13,978,500 381,493,382 155 A comparison of the changes in the per capita production of the fruits included in Figure 32 a,b,o with those in the purchasing power of the same fruits on the New York market confirms the fact that their prices are lower in the years of larger yields, and that the purchasing power is likely to be lower in those years. As crops vary somewhat in the extent to which changes in production in one area affect prices in another region, there is not always an exact relationship between the production and the price of a single fruit for a particular area in any given year. Not only are the prices per sales unit generally lower in a year of a heavy crop, but Warren, Pearson, and others (115, 116) have found that the spread between the price received by the grower and the price paid by the consumer is wider in years of greater production and lower prices. This increase in the share of the consumer’s dollar absorbed in the marketing process means a correspondingly lower price for the producer. The same authors also found that "The spread between the Georgia and New York prices of Georgia peaches for seven large and seven small crops were respectively 79 and 61 cents.n (114). They also found the same thing to be true of apples (115), grapes (85), and other agricultural commodities (115). They further discovered (115) that this greater proportional cost of marketing was more pro­ nounced in the surplus producing states than in the deficit states, making it of particular importance to the majority of commercial growers. The same investigators have also determined to what extent changes in the size of crop produce changes in prices for certain crops. Some of their data are presented in Table 6. Table 6.- Changes in price of three fruits due to changes _______ in production. (After barren, Pearson, et al.) Fruit Source Apples (115) tt Tt tt TT T7.R.Y. TT (114) Peaches U. 3, it (85) Grapes Production area TT. S. fo Change in production f> Change in price -SO +17 +20 -12 -40 +36 +40 -20 -20 + 7 Tt TT tt +20 - 5 n TT Ga. -20 + 9 Tt +20 - 7 Tt l TT ..... - ......... The fact that increases in the crops do not depress the price to the same degree that proportional decreases raise the price gives added weight to the statement by Hauck (35) in an Ohio study that "The number of bushels sold exerted more influence than the price in determining the gross income. to profits." Cross income was not always proportional Rogers (76) in a Michigan study emphasizes the same point. Apparently then, within rather broad limits it is more desirable to have somewhat larger yields selling at a lower price than correspondingly lower yields selling at a higher price. For example, using the previously mentioned grape data: A normal crop of 100 bushels at $2.00 » $200.00 A 40% and a increased yield 20% lowerprice, 140 bu. at 1.6® - 224.00 A 40% and a decreased yield 36% higher price, 60 bu. at 2.72 - 163.20 Scoville (81) concluded, from a study on the changes in the month to month prices of apples, that "The size of the apple crop has little or no effect on the course that apple prices take throughout the season. April’s price has averaged (for nine different U. S. crops) 43 per cent more than October’s. There may be a slightly greater risk than usual in storing apples in very short crop years when the price is high in the fall." The production of competing fruits (or their importation) as well as the production of a particular fruit also affects the price and thus the purchasing power of the fruit. Strawberries have virtually replaced fresh sour cherries in the last 100 years, and peaches have in a large degree replaced plums within more recent times. The competition is not only between the fruits during the fresh season of both, or of one another, but also between the fresh fruit of one and the canned, dried, or otherwise processed form of the other, or between processed forms of both* The exact degree of such competition is difficult to determine, and the only statement that can be made here is that a large crop of a competing fruit is likely also to affect the price of the fruit with which it competes. Peaches, early apples, cantaloupes, and watermelons may be mentioned as examples of this type of competition. Competition not only exists between fruits (in­ cluding melons in this sense as fruits) but also between fruits and certain vegetables to a lesser extent. To the extent that salad vegetables are used instead of the relatively more expensive fruits for salad purposes they add, in effect, to the supply of the fruits used for salads and so affect fruit prices. The changes in the purchasing power of fruits whose per capita production are presented in Figure 32 a , b, c correspond fairly closely to what might be expected with the changes in production shown there, with the exception of peaches. Despite the horizontal per capita trend of peach production since 1889, the purchasing power of peaches on the New York and Detroit markets has continued to decline since that time. It appears that peaches suffer keener competition during their fresh season from other fruits than do apples, pears, and oranges. The short and long cyoles in apple production, 4 and 14 years respectively, described by Davis and others (28), agree very closely with the short and long cycles of apple purchasing power shown in Figures 1 to 5 inclusive. The fact that there are both surplus and deficit production areas, and that different fruits as well as the same fruit in different areas do not respond in price changes exactly with changes in pro­ duction for the country at large, is responsible for the differences in the degree of correlation of price and production noted in a comparison of the variations in the purchasing power (price) of a fruit on different markets during the same year. Changes in Fruit Demand - The factors influencing the demand for a fruit or for fruits in any one year (27, 32, 38) are merely the status at that time of all the factors influencing demand over a longer period of time. Fith the growth of cities, the increased number of apartment dwellers, and the nearly continuous supplies of some kinds of fruits the number of pounds of fruit bought by the housewife at any time has declined considerably since 1850. Along with the smaller sized purchases has developed an increasing demand for higher and more uniform quality, both within any one purchase and from season to season, a reflection, perhaps, of the growing preference for uniform, trademarked, nationally advertised staple groceries. Then too, the percentage of home canned fruits consumed in proportion to the commercially canned fruits is declining, The longer season during which a fruit is now found on the city markets in the fresh state, due to the progress in perishable freight service, intensifies the competition between fruits. The flow of fruits from distant areas tends to hold down the price of the locally produced fruits at the start of the local season, and the latter part of the local fruit to reach the market faces the competition of another distant area then reaching the full height of its own season. The demand thus becomes more elastic for any one of the competing fruits or for the locally produced fruit, PURCHASING FOYER CYCLES Although no effort was made to fit mathematically cyclical trend lines to the purchasing power graphs of the fruits on the New York, Detroit, and other markets shown in Figures 1 to 27, inspection shows that they are in general characterized by both long and shorter cycles. Perhaps the term "cycle" has been used and abused so fre­ quently in recent years that it is not wholly satisfactory in this instance, as it connotes to some an inevitableness oT excessive determinism in itself, regardless of causes or circumstances. Such a concept is not intended here. If there are causes which, operating together and varying in their expression from year to year, produce rather regular recurrences of peaks and troughs of purchasing power, as appear in the fruit purchasing power graphs of this study; of if those recurrences are the results of the operation of the laws of chance in the range of their possibilities, the result is the same; peaks and troughs of purchasing power have occurred with fair regularity in the purchasing power of the fruits in this study as a group. This is the sense in which the term "cycle" is used in this study:only a descriptive term for these recurrences. Although changes in demand influence price, and thus purchasing power, as well as changes in supply, a comparison of the changes in the purchasing power of the fruits on the markets included in this study with recorded changes in the production of the particular fruits from year to year creates the distinct impression that changes in supply exert a greater influence upon the purchasing power of fruits from year to year than changes in demand. It seems, therefore, more reasonable to believe that cycles of purchasing power are strongly influenced by changes in production than that they are only due to the operations of chance. As there are both internal and environmental factors which influence fruitfulness from year to year (31, 87), the joint operation of these factors affects the size of the crops from year to year and thus to a considerable degree is responsible for the short cycles or recurrences of fruit purchasing power. The long cycles are generally assumed to be due to the fact that a period of good prices for several years results in increased plantings. The length of the cycle then becomes the length of time necessary for these trees to come into bearing sufficiently to cause a decline in prices to start again. The acreage pulled up or abandoned in the comparable series of years of declining prices is not usually as great as the acreage of new plantings made in a series of years of rising prices. This may be accounted for by the assumption that there may be an increase in the demand with passing years, or the more vital one that the grov/er naturally hesitates to discard the investment in time and money that a young bearing orchard or vine­ yard represents. Consequently, there is a net increase in acreage until the total production reaches a volume that depresses the price sufficiently to bring about a more vigorous culling out of the least profitable plantings. The lengths of the short and longer cycles of purchasing power of the fruits and markets included in the study are shown in Table 7. Table 7*- The short and long cycles of fruit purchasing _________ power of certain fruits on selected markets. Fruit Cycles Market Short +1 yrs. r| yrs, Few York 4- Detroit 4: Tt 14- Tt Boston 4* tt 2 TT Jonesboro Z- It Virginia 4- tt 14- tt New York 4-5 Tt 13- tt Detroit 3-4 tt 10 - ft New York 4-5 tt 9- tt Detroit 4+ - tt 9- tt New York 5± TT 12- Tt Detroit 5± Tt 11- tt New York 4± Tt i o i Tt Detroit 4- Tt New York 4-6 tt 13 Tt Detroit 5 tt 10 tt New York 4- Tt 10 tt Cal. New York 4- tt ? Grapefruit Fla. New York Alternates Cal. f« o• b« i Apples Long Pears Peaches Plums Cherries Grapes Oranges Fla. h tt it 9 i 7 tt The plus and minus marks indicate that, although a fitted cyclical trend would show a definite cycle in both instances, many of the cycles are not perfectly uniform and vary from the stated figure by a year or so one way or the other. are as stated* The majority of the cycles The question marks in the case of the citrus fruits are due to the fact that the period of years included is too short to establish the length of the long cycles; the same mark is used in the case of apples in Boston to show that there did not seem to be a more or less regular cycle* * Two questions arise from an inspection of Table 7* Do the peaks of purchasing power of a particular fruit usually occur in the same year in tne different pro­ duction areas of that fruit, and do the peaks of pur­ chasing power of the different fruits usually occur in the same year in any given area? Table 8 shows the frequency with which the purchas­ ing power peaks of some of the fruits occurred simultaneously on both the New York and Detroit markets since 1880. Table 8.- The number of* times that peaks of purchasing power of certain fruits occurred simultaneously on the New York and Detroit marke ts since 1880. Fruit No. of peaks on both markets Total No. of peaks Percentage ,. , Apples 4 16 25 Pears 5 19 15.6 Peaches 6 16 37.5 Plums 7 16 43.7 Sherries 0 10 0 Grapes 6 16 37.5 ■r The years in which the purchasing power of at least two of the fruits listed in Table 8 were at a peak at the same time on either the New York or Detroit markets since 1880 are shown in Table 9. 48. Table 9.- The years in which the purchasing power of at least two fruits was at a peak simultaneously on either the New York or Detroit markets. <3Tear New York Fruits at a peak 1881 Apples, plums, grapes 1885 Apples, peaches 1886 Pears, plums, grapes 1888 Pears, plums 1889 Apples, grapes 1890 Peaches, plums 1893 Apples, grapes 1895 Peaches, plums 1896 Pears, cherries 1899 Peaches, plums Year Detroit _________ Fruits at a peak 1881 Apples, pears, peaches, plums 1884 Pears, plums 1835 Peaches, cherries 1890 Apples, pears, grapes 189 7 Apples, grapes 1902 Pears, plums, grapes 1903 Peaches, cherries 1903 Peaches, plums 1904 Cherries, grapes 1905 Apples, pears 1905 Apples, pears 1907 Peaches, plums 1907 Peaches, plums 1909 Apples, pears 1910 Plums,grapes 1910 Apples, peaches, grapes 1912 Plums, cherries 1913 Pears, peaches, grapes 1919 Apples, pears 1915 Pears, cherries,grapes 1921 Apples, pears peaches, grapes 1921 Pears, cherries, peaches, grapes 1925 peaches, cherries, grapes. 1925 jPeaches, grapes 1927 jApples, pears, plums 1927 Apples, plums It appears from Table 9 that a grower of the six kinds of fruit mentioned in the table and located in either the middle Atlantic or the north central states would have had shorter cycles in his income than a grower of only one fruit, as there were 20 years in this period of 50 in which the purchasing power of two or more fruits was at a peak together on the New York market, and 16’ on the Detroit market. There would have been about 12 cycles in the 50 years for any one of the fruits on either market. DIVERSIFICATION An inspection of Tables 8 and 9 suggests the desirability of diversification. There are many fruit areas in the United States so preeminently adapted to only one or two fruits that such specialization is the only practical production plan, but there are other areas of the country suitable to more kinds of fruit. In those areas the possibilities of diversified fruit growing are worthy of some attention. Of course the different fruits have varying soil and climatic preferences, but as far as the soil is concerned, a block of a hundred acres or more is more likely to be variable than uniform. Such diversification also involves a more complex orchard management problem. When the kinds of fruit that will grow in a particular locality have been determined, there remain two other problems: (1) the estimation of the smallest acreage of each of the fruits that can be operated economically as a unit and (2) the relative acreage to be devoted to each of the fruits. Con­ sidering these two factors and the amount of capital available it should be possible to combine such multiples of the minimum acreages of each of the fruits as would provide the desired ratios with the amount of capital fixing the total size of the enter­ prise. Although over a sufficiently long period of years the average income of the grower of a single fruit might be the same as that of thegrower of several fruits, the more frequent recurrence of years in which the profitableness of two or more fruits were especially high would reduce the risk of crop failures for any given year and contribute considerably to a greater uniformity of income from year to year. PURCHASING PONICR TRENDS It has been mentioned that the production of a particular fruit seemed to be the most influential single factor in the determination of the selling price, and the selling price in turn is one of the two factors in the determination of the purchasing power. As the production of competing fruits and vegetables is another factor influencing the selling prices, it also influences the purchasing power, although to a lesser extent in both of these instances. As the fruits were not essential war materials, their prices rose more slowly during the war years than the general price level with the consequent fall in their purchasing power. Figures 33 and 34 show the changes in the pur­ chasing power of the non-citrus fruits on the New York market, Figures 35 and 36 show the changes in the pur­ chasing power for the same fruits on the Detroit market, and Figures 37 and 38 show the changes in the purchasing power of the Florida and California citrus fruits. In order to compare the changes in the purchasing power of apples, pears, peaches, and grapes since 1910 in some of the leading production states, a descriptive summary is presented in Table 10. N EW YORK 1900 1920 /9 / 0 33* Trends of purchasing power of apples, pears, and peaches in New York. See Tables 16, 1 8, and 20. N E W YORK 1680 16QS 1890 1900 1905 iqto t<*20 tqzo Fig. 34. Trends of purchasing power of cherries, plums, and "“ grapes in New York. See Tables 23* 22, and 24. /Q fO 33* Trends of purchasing power of apples, pears, and peaches in Detroit* See Tables 1 6 , 18 , ana 20. PLUM S /a Arkansas rt tt "lor izontal California ft ft Horizontal New York Michigan. 1910-1928 tt tt " I Decidedly up Very decidedly up Although the trend lines of the non-citrus fruits on the New York market begin prior to 1880, a comparison of the changes in fruit purchasing power on the New York and Detroit markets must be on the 1880 to 1929 basis to be more comparable. Table 11 shows the purchasing power index of the non-citrus fruits on the New York market compared with similar data on the Detroit market in 1880 and 1929. The purchasing power index of the fruits on the New York market are also given for the year in which the respective trend lines start. The purchasing power indices are read from the trend lines rather than from the tables for the three specific years. Table 11.- The purchasing power indices of certain fruits on the New York and Detroit markets in selected ___________ years.________________________ ________________ Fruit Market Year Apples New York 1855 Index 82 Detroit Pears New York 1867 187 Detroit 1880 1929 89 102 114 86 138 160 154 92 60 76 195 150 78 70 36 165 80 48 134 i on 175 123__ 89 90 116 90 77 197 75 33 304 150 88 49 198 ( f14) Peaches "“New York 1857 250 Detroit Plums New York .180 1872 148 ---- — (f15) V ■ .*-' / 285 ____________ (’10) __ 126 a Detroit Cherries New York Detroit Grapes New York Detroit 130 1875 (1885) — 1868 — * 280 1929 % of 1880 (’ID 61 71 Although the graphs of purchasing power of the four agricultural staples begin prior to 1880 on both markets (in some cases the Chicago market is substituted for the Detroit market), the data in Table 12 include only the 50 year period from 1880 to 1929 in order that the changes may be compared more exactly with the changes in the fruits listed in Table 11. The values of the indices are likewise read from the trend lines rather than from the tables from which the graphs are constructed. Table 12.- The purchasing power indices of four agricultural C(?mmodities on certain mar cets in 1880 and 1929. 1929 % 1 Market 1880 Commodity 1929 of 1880 Butter New York Detroit 87 98 108 98 113 91 ■ Beef cattle Hogs Wheat m - . Virginia 97 (N.Y.)-Chi* 70 95 136 Detroit 72 90 125 Virginia 70 98 140 N.Y.-Chi. 73 88 119 Virginia 62 102 New York 123 75 61 92 105 114 Chicago Virginia 112 100 (*27) (*2 7 ; 84 (*27 103 164 75 * The Chicago trend used, but the slope is the same as that for New York, and the percentage change on the New York market is very close to that on the Chicago market. Generally speaking, the purchasing power of apples in 1929 was about 135 per cent of the 1880 value, pears about 65 per cent of the 1880 value, peaches about 40 per cent of the 1880 value, plums and cherriesabout 75 per cent of the 1880 value, and grapes about 40 per cent of the 1880 value of purchasing power. the On the same basis purchasing power of butter in 1929 was about the same as in 1880, beef cattle about 150 per cent of the 1880 value, hogs about 140 per cent of the 1880 value, and wheat about 80 per cent of the 1880 value or purchasing power« UNIT IIARGIN OF PROFIT With the changes in the cost of production and purchasing power of the selected fruits presented to the extent that the source materials used in the study permit, attention may be directed to the changes in the margin of profit per sales unit of the fruits as a group. An increasing cost per unit in terms of goods and a decreasing purchasing power per unit means a de­ crease in the unit margin of profit. The margin of profit per unit also decreases when the cost of production in­ creases at a greater rate than the purchasing power or when the purchasing power declines at a more rapid rate than the cost of production. Conversely, the margin of profit per unit increases when the opposite relationships prevail* Because there were data available in sufficient quantity only in the case of apples and peaches to estimate the changes in the cost of production, it is possible to compare the changes in the margin of profit per unit of only these two fruits in a specific way. In so far as the New York market may be representative of the conditions of the middle Atlantic states and Detroit representative of the north central states, the comparison may be valid for those areas. Table 13 shows the changes in the cost of production and purchasing power in these areas and markets, using the tvvo period of 1850 to 1875 and 1914 to 1929 for the comparisons. Table 15.- Changes in the cost of production and purchasing _________ power of apples and peaches. ___________ _______ Cost of productjLon Fruit Area Apples U. 3. peaches U. S. 1850-1875 1914-192 9 | .85 bbl Percentage 41.27 to 41.91 .30-34 bu. .54 to .89 Index* 150-225 180-232 Purchasing Power i Fruit Market Year Index* Year Apples N. Y. C. 1855 82 1929 102 124 Detroit 1875 80 1929 138 171 N. Y. C. 1857 250 1929 70 28 Detroit 1880 165 1929 80 48 Peaches Percentage * Index value read from the trend lines in Figures 33 and 35. The margin of profit per unit of apples has declined somewhat during the years included in fable 13, as the present cost of production is now from 150 to 225 per cent of the 1850-1375 cost while its purchasing power has increased to a value from about 125 to 175 per cent of its earlier value. The unit margin of pro­ fit of peaches has declined very much more than that of apples, as the present cost of production ranges from 180 to 230 per cent of its 1850-1875 cost while its pur­ chasing power has declined to a value of about 25 to 50 per cent of its value in the earlier period. In the case of both fruits these data are to be considered as reflect­ ing general conditions and of course not applying exactly to any specific section or orchard. As far as the other fruits included in the study are concerned, only the general impression gained from looking through the source materials can be given here. There is much more evidence of a decline in the unit margin of profit of the other fruits than of an increase, though it is impossible to say here which fruit has suffered the greatest decline , and which the next greatest. This does not mean that there is now no margin of profit per unit of fruit for the fruits individually or collectively in the country at large over a period of years, but only that the margin of unit profits is not as wide as it was 50 and more years ago. DISCUSSION A discussion of* the changes that have occurred in the profitableness of growing some of the more commercially important fruits of the United States during the period of years included in this study must necessarily be in general terms. It involves some factors that can be traced with considerable accuracy and some that can only be roughly estimated, and it depends upon the source materials used. Changes in the total production of the fruits as well as of industry must be considered as well as the unit margins of profits. The selling price of an acre of fruit is calculated on the same basis as that of any other competitive enterprise its capacity to yield a profit over a period of years. The changes that have occurred in the selling prices of an acre of bearing orchard or vineyard have been presented in Table 3. It appears that while the selling price of improved farm land and bearing fruit land have increased since the period from 1850 to 1875, the price of improved farm land has increased more rapidly than that of bearing fruit land. The increase in the selling price of the fruit land shows that the enlarging demand of the country for greater amounts of fruit has been great enough to extend the production into more marginal areas, thus raising the cost of the marginal part of the supply and increasing the economic rent enjoyed by the producers in the more favored areas. The increase in the economic rent is a prime factor in the increase in the selling price of bearing fruit land. The improve­ ments in transportation have made it possible to produce the fruits at greater and greater distances from the markets and have thus extended the area of effective competition with the growers nearer the markets, thus reducing the rate of increase in the value of the plant­ ings nearer to the markets. The decline of the prices of bearing fruit land since 1914, when estimated on the basis of 1910-1914 dollars, shows that the supply of fruits has apparently caught up with the demand at the general price level prevailing since 1914. Although the margin of profit per unit has apparently declined for the fruits as a whole, the continued expansion of fruit growing is of itself evidence that a margin of profit still exists and that the margin of profit or the possibilities of making a profit are considered by the fruit growers to be equal at least to those in general farming and are probably somewhat greater. The solution of the problem of narrower margins of unit profits lies only in so limiting the number of growers and the fruit acreage in relation to the demand that the increased production of the remaining growers resulting from increased efficiency will not increase the flow of fruit to the markets beyond the quantity which permits the desired degree of profitableness. With the margins of profit per unit decreasing, because of the trends of costs of production ana purchas­ ing power, for the fruits as a group, there is no occasion for any wide-scale expansion of fruit acreage. Indeed such expansion would simply invite financial ruin. The only plantings that can be encouraged at this time are those that can be made under exceptionally favorable circumstances, i.e., where both the growing and marketing costs are sure to be low. The individual grower now possessing an orchard or vineyard will find the most feasible method of securing a wider margin of profit per unit to lie in reducing costs per unit through more skillful management. SUIMARY Cost of Production - The cost of production of apples in terms of goods has increased until it is at present from 150 to 200 per cent of the cost in the period from 1850 to 1875. The cost of production of peaches on the same basis is now approximately 2D 0 per cent of the 1850 to 1875 cost. There are not sufficient data for the other fruits included in the study to permit statements similar to those already made, but the general impression gained from the source materials is that there has been a substantial increase in the costs of production of pears, plums, cherries, grapes, oranges and grapefruit, considering the country at large. Purchasing Power - The purchasing power of apples in the middle Atlantic and north central states has increased until it is at present from about 125 to 175 per cent of its value in the period from 1850 to 1875. The purchasing power of pears in the same area is now from about 60 to 75 per cent of its 1880 value. The purchas­ ing power of peaches is at present from about 25 to 50 per cent of its value from 1850 to 1875. The purchasing power of plums is now from about 60 to 90 per cent of its 1880 value, and that of fresh sour cherries from about 70 to 80 per cent of its 1880 value, and that of grapes from about 30 to 50 per cent of its 1880 value. The present purchasing power of Florida oranges in New York is about 60 per cent of its 1889 value, and the purchasing power of Florida grapefruit on the same market Is at present about 60 per cent of its 1891 value, reading the values from the trend lines as for the other fruits. The trend in 1891 is, however, considerably above the actual value for that year. The reason is the extraordinary rise of purchasing power of grapefruit (as of oranges) in the period between 1895 ana 1900 due to the freezes within that period, and the trend line is thus pulled sharply upward, resulting in the wide margin between the actual and the trend of purchasing power in 1891. Unit Margin of Profit - The only possible result of the generally increased costs of production and the de­ creased purchasing power of the fruits as a group is a narrower unit margin of profit. Profitableness of Fruit Growing - The available evidence seems to indicate that though the margin of profit is not as wide as it formerly was In fruit growing, either absolutely or in relation to some other types of production, there-is still a margin of profit sufficiently wide to cause expansion of fruit grov/ing to some extent. Any further expansion at present, however, should be made only under exceptionally favorable circumstances, i.e., where both the growing and marketing costs are sure to be low. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many helpful suggestions and comments by the members of the staff of the department of Horticulture deserve acknowledgment here. The writer wishes to acknowledge particularly the counsel of Professors V. R. Gardner and R. E. Marshall in the general development of the work, the aid of Professor F. C. Bradford in the suggestion of a number of sources of data, and the assistance of Dr. J. T. Grist in regard to some of the statistical methods involved in the presentation of the data in graphic form. 63 LITERATURE CITED 1. Allen, F . YI.— Apple Growing in California. Exp. Sta. Bui. 425. 1927. 2. American Agriculturist. V-XXXIX. 3. IbicL. XII: 328. 4. New York. Gal. Agr. 1846-1880. 1854. Anthony, R. D. andJ. H. Taring.- The Apple Industry of Pennsylvania. Pa. Dept, of Agr. Gen. Bui. 360. 1922. 5. Auehter, E. C. and H. B. Knapp,- Orchard and Small Fruit Culture.p. 100-101, 230-231. New York. 1929. 6. Ballou, F. H.- TThat Does it Cost to Grow aBushel of Apples? Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 435. 1929. 7. Besse, R. S. and Cooper, M. R.- Oregon Apple Prices. Ore. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 244. 1929. 8. Brannen, C. 0.- Production Costs and Market Distribution of Arkansas Peaches. Ark. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 207. 1926. 9. Brodell, A. P. and C. 0. Brannen.- Economic Phases of the Arkansas Apple Industry. Ark. Agr, Exp. Sta. Bui. 236. 1929. 10. Chicago Packer, XXIX-XXXII. 11. Country Gentleman. 12. 11:154. Ibid. XI:222. 1858. 13. Ibid. XXI:158. 1863. 14. Ibid. XXIII:62. 15. Ibid. XXIII:302. 16. Ibid. XXX:238. 1864. 1867, 17. Ibid. XXXI:169. 18. Ibid. XXXII:410. 19. Ibid. XL:86• 1864. 1868. 1868. 1875. 20. Ibid. X L I :182* 1876. 21. Ibid. XLV:198. 1880. 22. Ibid. XLVII:624. 1882. Chicago. 1926-1929. 1853. 64. 23. Ibid. XLIX:696. 24. Ibid. LII:528. 25. Ibid. LTVTI:154. 26. Ibid. LXXIV:34. 1884. 1887. 1902. 1909. 27. Corbett, R. B.- Concerning Wholesale Market Preferences for Fruits and Vegetables in Providence, Rhode Island. R. I. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 203. 1926. 28. Davis, I. G., F. V. Waugh, and H. McCarthy.- The Connecticut Apple Industry. Conn. (Storrs) Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 145. 1927. 29. Eustace, H. J. and F, M. Barden.- The Financial History of a Twelve-Year Old Peach Orchard. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Spec. Bui. 94. 1919. 30. Gardner, V. R.- Varieties and Locations as Factors in Apple Production. Mich* Agr. Exp. Sta. Spec. 3ul. 161. 1927. 31. Gardner, V. R., F. C. Bradford and H. D, Hooker,Fundamentals of Fruit Production. Chaps, XXVII-XHVIII. Hew York. 19 22. 32. Gaston, H. P.- Consumer Demand for Apples in Michigan. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Spec. Bui. 209. 1931. 33. Gould, H. P.- Peach Growing, p. 346. Hew York. 1918. 34. Hampson, C. C. and E. F. Dummeier.- Washington Apple Prices and Costs of Shipping Point Marketing Services. Wash. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 242. 1930. 35. Hauck, C. W.- The Apple Industry of Ohio, Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 418. 1928. 36. Hedrick, U. P.- Twenty Years Profits from an Apple Orchard. N. Y. (Geneva) Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 510. 1924. 37. Jefferson, L. P.- The Costs of Marketing the Apple Crop of 1923. Mass. Agr. Exp. Sta, Bui. 224. 1925. 38. Jefferson, L. P.- The Consumer Demand for Apples. Agr. Exp, Sta. Bui. 250. 1929. Mass. 39. Jensen, W. C.- Economics of Producing and Marketing South Carolina Peaches. S. C, Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 239. 1927. 40. Johnson, S. E.- The McIntosh Apple Industry in Western Montana. Mont. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 218. 1929. 41. Johnson, S. E.- An Economic Analysis of Production Problems in the Bitter Root Valley. Mont. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 220. 1929. 65 42. Johnson, N. W.- Economic Aspects of Apple Production in Washington. Wash. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 239. 1930, 43. Knapp, H. B.«* Wholesale Prices of Apples and Receipts of Apples in New York City for Twenty Years. N. Y. (Cornell) Agr, Exp. Sta. Ciro. 22. 1914. 44. Maney, T. J.- Grape Production and Distribution in Western Iowa. Iowa Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 199. 1921. 45. Marketing of Colorado Apples. Summaries of the 19 26, 1927 and 1928 Seasons. U. S. D. A. Market News Service on Fruits and Vegetables. 1927, 1928, 1929. 46. Marketing Michigan Apples. Summaries of the 1926, 1927, and 1928 Seasons. U, S. D. A. Market News Service on Fruits and Vegetables. 1927, 1928, 1929. 47. Marketing Western New York Apples. Summaries of the 1926-1927, 1927-1928, and 1928-1929 Seasons. U. S. D. A. Market News Service on Fruits and Vegetables. 1928, 1930. 48. Marketing Apples in the Potomac-Shenandoah-Cumberland Valley District. Summaries of the 1926, 1927, and 1928 Seasons. U. S. D. A. Market News Service on Fruits and Vegetables. 1927, 1928, 1929. 49. Marketing Northwestern Apples. Summaries of the 19261927, 1927-1928, and 1928-1929 Seasons. U. S. D. A. Market News Service on Fruits and Vegetables. 1927, 1928, 1930. 50. Marketing Michigan Pears. Summaries of the 1926, 1927, and 1928 Seasons. U. S. D. A. Market News Service on Fruits and Vegetables. 1927, 1928, 1929. 51. Marketing V7estern New York Pears. Summaries of the 1926, 1927, and 1929 Seasons. U. S. D. A. Market News Service on Fruits and Vegetables. 1927, 1928, 1929. 52. Marketing the Georgia Peach Crop. Summaries of the 1926, 1927, and 1928 Seasons. U. S. D. A. Market News Service on Fruits and Vegetables. 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930. 53. Marketing Michigan Peaches. Summaries of the 1926, 1927, and 1928 Seasons. U. 3. D. A. Market News Service on Fruits and Vegetables. 1927, 1928, 1929. 54. Marketing North Carolina Peaches. Summaries of the 1926, 1927, 1928, and 1929 Seasons. U. S. D. A, Market News Service on Fruits and Vegetables. 1927,1928,1929,1930. 66 55. Marketing T'/estern New York Peaches. Summaries of the 1926, 1927, and 1928 Seasons. U. 3. D. A. Market News Service on Fruits and Vegetables. 1927, 1928, 1929. 56. Marketing Michigan Grapes. Summaries of the 1926, 1927, and 1928 Seasons. U. S. D. A. Market News Service on Fruits and Vegetables. 1927, 1928, 1929. 57. Marketing New York and Pennsylvania Grapes. Summaries of the 1926, 1927, and 1928 Seasons. U. S. D. A. Market News Service on Fruits and Vegetables. 1927, 1928, 1929. 58. Merchant, c. H.- An Economic Survey of the Apple Industry in Maine. Me. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 339. 1927. 59. Merchant, G. II.- An Economic Study of 93 Apple Farms in Oxford County, Maine. 1924-1927. Me. Agr. Exp. Sta. 3ul. 347. 1928. 60. Michigan Farmer. VI-LXHXVII. Detroit. 61. Ibid. XV:179. 1848-1929. 1857. 62. Mich. Pom. Soc. Trans. 1871. p.227. 63. Ibid. 1872. p.499. 64. Mich. Hort. Soc. Trans. 1890. 65. Ibid. 1893. p.160. 66. Ibid. 1907. p.147. 67. New England Farmer. VII-XVIII. Boston. 68. New Jersey Farmer. 111:143. 69. p.264. Trenton. 1829-1840. 1857. Norton, L. J.and B. B. Nilson.- Pricesof Illinois Farm Products from 1866 to 1929. 111.Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 351. 1930. 70. Peterson, A. G.- Historical Study of Prices Received by Producers of Farm Products in Virginia, 1801-1927. Va. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bui. 37. 1929. p.175. 71. Ibid. p*177. 72. Ibid. p.179. 73. Prairie Farmer. XVU-XSCXVIII, 39-58. Chicago. 1866-1886. 74. Rauchenstein, E •- Economic Aspects of the Apple Industry. Cal. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 445. 19 27. 67. 75. Rogers, F . S.- Wholesale Pricesand Receiptsof Apples in Boston for Thirty-Six Years. XT. Y. (Cornell) Agr. Exp. sta. Ext. Bui. 28. 1918. 76. Rogers, A. J. Jr.- Studies in Orchard Management, with Special Reference to Cherry Production. Mich. Agr. Exp. sta. Spec. Bui. 166. 1927. 77. Rural New Yorker. ICL-LXXXVIII. 78. Ibid. VII:319. 79. Ibid. XVIII:375. 1867. 80. Ibid. LXIII:300. 19E. 81. New York. 1881-1929. 1856. Scoville, G. P.- Apple Prices. N. Y. College of Agr., Ithaca. Farm Economics 1:59. Sept. 25, 1923. 82. Scoville, G. P. and T. E. LaMont.- Apple Varieties: Prices, Yields, and Acreages. N. Y. (Cornell) Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 495. 1929. 83. Scoville, G. P. et al.- The Apple Situation in New York. XT. Y. (Cornell) Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 172. 1928. 84. Stine, 0. C., Div. of Stat. and Hist. Res., Bur. of Agr. Eos., U. S, D. A. Data in letter dated May 3, 1930. 85. Stover, H. J.- Relation of the Production of Grapes in Western New York and in California to Prices. Farm Economics 111:1112. N. Y. College of Agr., Ithaca. June, 1929. 86. Swinson, C. R.~ Incomes from Farming and Cost of Apple Production in the Shenandoah Valley, Frederick county, Va. U. S. D. A. Bui. 1455. 1927. 87. Swinson, C. R. et al.- Factors Influencing the Yield of Apples in the Cumberland-Shenandoah Region of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. U. S. D. A. Tech, Bui. 54. 1927. 88. U. S. D. A. Stat. Bul. 14:45. 89. Ibid. p.81. 90. Ibid. p.82. 91. Ibid. p.90. 92. Ibid. p.110. 93. U. S. D, A. Stat. Bul. 15:43. 1927. 1927. 68. 94. Ibid. p.60. 95. Ibid. p.61. 96. Ibid. p.126 . 97. U. s. D. A, stat. Bul. 98. Ibid. p.67. 99. Ibid. p.97. 100. Ibid. 16:36. 1927. p.195. 101. U. S. D. A. Stat. Bul. 17:48. 102. Ibid. p.113. 103. Ibid. p.140. 1927. 104. U. S. D. A. Yearbook 1920:550. 1921. 105. U. S. D. A. Yearbooks 1926-1930. 106. u. S. D. A. Yearbook 1926:902. 107. u. s. D. A. Yearbook 1928. 108. Ibid. p.670. 109. Ibid. p.768. 110. Ibid. p.913. 111. Ibid. p. 930. 1927 1927. 1929, 112. U. S. D. A. Yearbook 1930:999. 1930. 113. Warren, 0. F.- Crop Yields and Prices, Food Supply. II. Y. (Cornell) Agr. Exp L14. Warren , 0. F. and F. A. Pearson.- Peach Economics 111:765-766. N. ^r. College of Agr., Ithaca. Sept•, 1927. 115. Warren, G-. F. and F. A. Pearson.- Apple Prices. Farm Economics 111:777-779. II. Y. College of Agr., Ithaca. Oct., 1927. 116. Warren, a. F. and F. A. Pearson.- Interrelationships of Supply and Price. F.Y. (Cornell) Agr.Exp.Sta.Bul. 466, 1928. 117. Wells, C. F.-Statistics on the Prices and Destinations of Idaho Apples. Idaho Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 162. 19 28. APPENDIX NOTES ON APPLES Yields - There is much more information in the files of the agricultural and horticultural magazines on apple yields than on the costs of production, hut due to the news nature of the yield reports the majority of them are above the general average of the commercial orchard yields of the time. It is possible, however, to discard references to single trees, small groups of trees, and the less authentic reports and to make an estimate from the remainder of the usual yields of reasonably well located and well-cared-for orchards. An average for five crops of 151 barrels per acre for a well-cared-for New Hampshire orchard in the years 18481852 has been recorded (11), though the general average for that area was estimated to be 60 barrels per acre. In 1856 a 20-acre Connecticut orchard was reported to produce approximately 30 to 40 barrels per acre per year (12). The 1859 average sales per acre in Orleans, Monroe, and Niagara counties of western New York indicate $ yield comparable to that of the Connecticut orchard for most of the growers (13) although the best orchards in Orleans county in 1863 averaged 100 barrels per acre (13). Other reports from the same area in 1864 (15) and 1867 (14) state that the average yield was from 50 to 100 barrels per acre with a few orchards attaining up to 150 and more. A six acre orchard in good soil in Genesee county, N, Y., 30 years old in 1867, produced an average of 100 barrels per acre for the six crops of 1862-1867, rang­ ing from 25 to 135 barrels per acre for those years (16,79). a report in 1867 (79) stated that the majority of western New York growers estimated the annual average at 1 barrel per tree plus culls (about 40 to 50 barrels of saleable fruit per acre) and that this yield could be doubled with good care. A three acre orchard near Stark- ville, N. Y . , 40 to 50 years old, with excellent care produced from 111 to 133 barrels per year during the period 1857-1868 (18). In 1875 the average yield of Michigan orchards was placed as low as 30 bushels per acre (19). In 1884 it was reported that the usual crop of a 275-acre orchard near Hudson, N. Y . , was slightly over 70 barrels per acre (23). An orchard survey of Niagara county, New York, in 1909 (26) showed a 10 year average of 95 barrels per acre in the better cultivated orchards and an average of 65 barrels in sod orchards. A block of fine Baldwin trees in New York, 27 years old in 1904, produced an average of 118.4 barrels per acre for the years 1904-1923 (36). In Frederick county, Virginia, it was found that the average yield per acre for orchards of less than 50 acres ranged from 31 to 57 barrels per acre and in larger orchards, from 35 to 53 barrels (86). Another study in Niagara county, N. Y., in 1926 (83) showed that the yield on Dunkirk sandy loam averaged 46 barrels per acre, and on Clyde fine sandy loam, 36 barrels per acre. The 1915-1920 average in the Bitter Root valley of Montana was 143 boxes per acre (about 45 barrels) and 119 boxes (about 40 barrels) for the period 1921-1926 (40). The 1919-1925 average per acre in the Pajaro valley of California was from 400-450 boxes (133-150 barrels) in orchards with good care and generally about 250 boxes in Sonoma county (about 30 barrels) (1). The approximate average of certain areas on a barrel basis per acre for the years 1919-1926 have been reported (83) as follows: state of Washington, 86, Niagara county, N. Y . , ,52, New York state, 35, Virginia 20, and Missouri, 19. In 1902 a record of the crops of a block of Baldwin and Russet trees in Massachusetts (number and acreage not given) for 40 years was reported (25), cover­ ing the years 1860-1901. It is of interest as a record of fluctuations In yield and is presented here: Baldwin Russet I860 173 172 1861 35 1862 225 1863 Baldwin Russet 1881 70 60 1882 151 106 167 1883 25 6 108 40 1884 125 50 1864 47 9 1885 300 70 1865 2 6 1886 100 25 1866 3 3 1887 130 80 1867 7 8 1888 250 15 1868 125 65 1889 200 125 1869 10 5 1890 1870 105 18 1891 100 278 14 1892 500 46 1871 14 (frost ) 5 1872 150 40 1893 16 147 1873 40 4 1894 600 30 1874 — _ 1895 20 30 1875 62 103 1896 500 140 1876 150 40 1897 30 60 1877 15 12 1898 500 130 1878 300 140 1899 100 _ 1879 20 25 1900 800 " 1" 90 1880 300 130 1901 50 50 Cost of Production - Complete or definite reports of the costs of apple production with clearly apparent authenticity 73. are extremely few in the source materials prior to about 1910. Cost estimates prior to that time have to he made for the most part from recorded yields per acre, operating costs, cash expense accounts, total sales, net returns, and statements of the comparative costs and profits of orcharding and general farming. Most of the reports con­ fined to the costs of production were very brief and were necessarily limited to a single orchard or neighborhood, and prior to the establishment of Horticultural columns or sections in the periodicals were generally scattered with other miscellaneous items through the publication* The general summary of these costs is presented in the Presentation of Data section, but three of the more detailed accounts of apple production costs are present­ ed here for comparison with present practices and costs. In 1857 a report, probably of Michigan conditions, was made (61) of the costs, exclusive of land, for the first seven years of a 200 tree apple orchard as follows: 200 trees on 4 acres Staking and setting Hashing trees once each year Pruning, manure, and staking Resetting of 5 trees Damage to crop in 1st 7 years Interest Returns: 4th year 25 5 th 11 50 6th " 150 7th " 30 Trees worth $5 bu. " " " each Ret $36.00 10.00 7.00 12.00 1.25 20.00 43.12 $129.37 $12.50 25.00 72.00 15.00 1000.00 $1127.50 - 129.37 $ 998.13 In 1871 another report (62) of orchard costs in the fruit belt of Michigan for the first and second 10 year periods of its life was as follows: First 10 year period 1 acre, cleared 40 trees at $ .25 Tillage per year, $10 Interest at 10$ Apple sales in 1st 10years Net cost Second 10 year period Cost at 10 years Interest on same Tillage for 10 years at $10 $250.00 10.00 100.00 260.00 $620.00 - 50.00 $570.00 $570.00 620.00 100.00 $1290.00 Apple sales in 2nd 10 years -600.00 Net cost $ '740.00 In 1872 a report of the costs of the first 10 years for one acre, again in Michigan, was made (63) as follows: Land Manure and mulch Cultivation of corn Cultivation of oats or wheat Grass cutting for 8years 40 trees Setting Pruning Borer control Mice control Codling moth control Others (controls) Straightening and staking Scraping and washing Mulching Cultivating Management Harvesting 50 bushels 10 year total Costs $125' 75 35 15 28 12 3 8 10 5 7 12 5 4 6 8 5 5 ■$360 Returns $75 (70 bu.) 25 240 (10 tons) 25 ' NOTES ON PEACHES Yields - As in the case of apples the majority of the reports of peach yields found in the magazines were there because of their news value and were thus likely to be representative of the more unusual yields, but there are, however, a number of reports which appear to describe the yields of the general average of the commercial orchards* Such reports as those of a 400-acre Maryland orchard which in the years 1854-1856, inclusive, bore an average of 62, 105, and 50 baskets per acre (68); of a 16-acre Pennsylvania orchard set in 1869 which bore in the years 1874-1878 an average of 100, 181, 268, 19, and 75 baskets per acre (31); of a 1400 tree New Jersey orchard that averaged 65, 143, 230, 107, 80, and 36 baskets per acre for its third to eighth crops (24); of a 15-acre Michigan orchard that bore in the years 1886-1893, inolusive, average crops of 18, 42, 50, 74, 6, 145, 70, and 106 bushels, respectively (65), are probably more representative of commercial pro­ duction* The yields of Elbertas at the Delaware station (33) per acre for 1912 to 1915 were 148, 189, 664, 778 baskets and the yields of Belles were 246, 1, 716, and 768 baskets. The first eight crops of a 12-acre Michigan orchard averaged 2, 181, 150, 259, 189, 251, 93, and 51 bushels per acre (29). The 1913-1925 average per acre production of peaches in Niagara county, N. Y . , on Dunkirk sandy loam was 80 bushels and only 46 on Clyde fine sandy loam (83), The yields in bushels per acre for several peach areas in the South are given as follows as the estimate of the normal crops at the present time (39): MeBee, 8. C., 140, Greenville, 3. C., 155, Sand Hills, H. C., 175, Fort Valley, G a ., 100, Flings ton, Tenn., 150, and Highland, Ark., 125. Cost or Production - As in the case of apples, references to costs of production of peaches were few and scattered widely through the source materials, but a summary of the reports representative of what was believed to be general commercial costs are presented in the Presentation of Data section. Some of the itemized cost accounts are presented here for comparison with present conditions. A record of the first eight years of a 60-acre peach orchard in Huron county, northern Ohio, is presented below (2D): 5000 trees at 3 years 60 acres of land Int. at 10%, 8 years Replant 6 acres $3000 7000 8000 600 $18600 Partcrop Full " Int. on Cost of 1871, 1874, above land net n $1600 8000 1440 7000 $18,040 This leaves a net loss of $560, though the trees are now (1876) worth $2000. A 14-acre orchard at Holt, Mo., 12 years old in 1882, averaged a little over year (22). 50 per acre (net) through the 12th The cost statement is presented below: Land, per acre Trees Plowing and planting Cultivation $50 50 7 43 *150 $ Interest at 10% plus handling costs total $1088 for the 12 years Receipts of $2150 minus the costs equals a net of §1062 in 12 yrs J. H. Hale submitted the following estimate of the cost per 100 acres of a Georgia peach orchard through the first 5 years. The date of the report was 1899 (80). He estimated the costs for a similar orchard in Connecticut to be somewhat more than the Georgia figures. The cost of the land and other fixed costs are not included First year OOPl Trees, 16,000 Plowing and planting Fertilizer Tools Cultivation finn $1000 500 500 500 250 $2750 Next four years 43* $500 Cultivation Pruning 100 Fertilizer 500 Tools and repairs 100 Per year 1200 4 Four years 4800 First year 2750 $7550 Total The Georgia Experiment Station In 1899 (80) also estimated the cost of establishing and carrying a 100 acre orchard through the first 5 years, must be added, as follows: to which the fixed costs (No cultivation was indicated in the items after the first year, though perhapsit was presumed to be the same as for the first year.). Preparation of land Planting trees Cultivation 1st year $150 300 2Q0 f65U Pruning 2nd year Tt 3rd n Tt 4th n " 5th " $25 40 100 125 1290 650 5 year total of $940 The 1907 cost of a bushel of peaches in Michigan based on the costs at that time are reported (66), though the costs 78 of the 5th year are not itemized. The costs of the next 5 years are also included. First year Land at 8100 per acre, 6fo interest Fitting 104 trees at 8.07, 20* x 20’. Setting Harrowing 5 times 1.5 bu. oats Interest Spraying Pruning Plowing and harrowing Cover crop 50 bushels ashes Totals Next b years at 840 1st 5 years 2nd yr. $6.00 1.50 1.50 4.50 .75 $14. 25 3rd. 6.00 3.00 3.00 4.50 .75 17.25 4th. 6.00 4.50 4.50 4.50 .75 2.50 22.50 86.00 3.00 7.28 3.00 1.50 .45 $21.23 5th 28.00 10 years cos t 8200.00 103.48 8303.48 The average per tree production in the whole 10 year period is 10 bushels, making the cost on the trees equal to $ .89 per bushel, or 8 .45 leaving the orchard. A balance sheet for a 15 acre, 12 year old peach orchard in Michigan has been reported as follows (29): Expenses Total cost for orchard Ave. cost per year Ave. cost per acre, per yr. $7831.37 652.61 43.50 Returns Total returns $29,094. Ave. returns yrly. 1,591. Ave. per A, per yr. 106. Ret profit per acre per year 862.57 Net profit per bushel .66 Overhead to be added to expenses equivalent of $424.30 The cost of development through the first three years in the Ozark foothills of Arkansas and in the Highland district of that state in 1925 is reported (8 ) as ';62 and respectively including interest. 71, The cost in the 1rc3ee area of South Carolina for the first three years is given as 68.10 or $128.10 with the land included, and '260 per acre in the G-reenville area of the state, including the land (39). NOTES ON CRAPES Yields - The average of the six crops of 1851-1856 of an acre of vineyard in Ontario county, N. Y . , was 5583 pounds (78). Vines on Kelley’s Island, Ohio, in 1868 in fair condition bore 2 tons per acre (17). The average yield for Michigan for the years 1873-1874 was 1.5 tons per acre, the average yield per acre of a vineyard near Paw Paw, Michigan, in the years 1882-1890 was 3990 pounds (64) and the reported yields of a number of vineyards in western Iowa in 19 20 (44) ranged from 3672 to 5916 pounds per acre. References similar to the above, when added to these samples, were the basis of the summary in the Presentation of Data section, under Crapes. Table 14# 1801 1802 180S 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 182? 1828 1829 1830 1831 1332 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1938 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 Trend of wholesale prices in the United States, 1801 -1929# Bureau of Labor Statistic* Adjusted to 1910*1914 base 163 134 137 148 152 149 140 137 144 157 153 155 180 226 177 15JL 152 149 131 112 107 110 105 104 105 104 105 100 99 96 103 104 103 96 109 122 121 116 122 104 103 96 90 1844 18451846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 I860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 91 91 95 95 90 88 91 94 91 97 100 100 100 100 90 89 89 89 105 132 169 193 170 153 143 136 126 121 123 122 118 113 105 98 90 86 95 94 96 94 88 83 82 1887 1888 1809 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1698 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1906 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 19201921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 82 84 84 82 81 76 78 70 71 68 68 71 76 82 81 86 87 87 88 90 95 92 99 103 95 101 102 100 103 129 180 198 210 230 150 152 156 152 152 154 149 151 150 Data supplied in a letter from Mr* Chas. E. Baldwin, Acting Commissioner of Labor Statistics, dated Eeb* 10, 1930* The data in the letter were based on 1926 as 100 and are here converted to the 1910-1914 base* 81. Table 15. The per capita production and importation of certain fruits. Fruits Fruits Crates Pounds Pounds Date Apples 1889 1890 1891 1398 1893 1894 1893 1398 189? 1898 1899 1900 1901 1903 1903 1904 1905 1908 190? 1908 1909 1910 1911 1918 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1980 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 116 64 155 92 Bananas Cantaloupes Grapefruit Less than 1 Oranges 12 86 99 158 164 114 30 118 136 14 87 134 121 142 81 126 63 84 80 77 114 124 76 130 116 96 32 82 64 106 46 93 92 68 76 106 52 78 58 *Ave. 1905* *1909 is * 21.2 44 * 20.4 20.7 23.9 23.5 22.0 25.0 20.7 18.3 17.0 16*7 16.9 17.4 13.9 21.1 20.0 20.0 22.1 25.2 24.2 26.8 26.2 .078 .056 .097 .099 .107 .117 .105 .122 .127 .124 .127 .129 .138 4 3 4 5 5 5 3 32 32 16 36 40 51 35 51 58 46 46 52 40 68 42 Table 15 (coxft) * The par capita production and importation of certain fruits# Pounds Pounds Date Peaches Pears 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 190? 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 10 32 30 24 13 24 22 26 13 2? 20 26 18 28 20 28 32 18 24 16 24 22 15 26 20 21 20 30 20 23 19 4#9 5#7 6.2 6.2 5.2 6.2 5.6 5.9 6.6 6.5 6*3 3*0 5*2 9.5 8.0 8.4 9.0 10*9 7*3 10.2 3*6 Quarts Melons Strawberries Watermelons 1.88 1.43 1.49 1.47 1*77 2*37 2.31 2.83 2*00 2*38 2.73 2.80 2.74 *44 ♦31 *40 *54 .58 *65 .38 •51 *49 *60 .49 *53 .56 The population figures used are from the 14th Census through 1920, the 1930 figures from the Census Bureau quoted in the Literary Digest of Aug. S3, 1930. One tenth of the difference between the figures for each ten years is added to the first, second, and following years of each decade to secure the population of those respective years# ✓ The data for the fruits are from the following Year-books of the U. S. D# A# and Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 418, p. 34-35. Mich. 1928. Apples, 1923, 1930 Bananas, 1930# Estimated on basis of 50 pounds per bunch, net* Cantaloupes, 1920, 1925, 1930# Grapefruit, Ohio. Bui. 418, Table 8, p. 34—35# 1928# Oranges, Ibid., and 1930, 1930. Peaches, 1920, 1925, 1928, 1930# Pears, 1925, 1923, 1930. Strawberries, 1920, 1922, 1930# Watermelons, 1920, 1922, 1925, 1930 All except apples, peaches, and pears are commercial production. 83 Table 16* The price and purchasing power indices of apples P. Ind. P* Pow. 1829 1030 1831 1332 1333 1334 81 78 90 90 70 90 82 81 1839 1840 90 75 74 72 Date 184? P. Ind. Detroi t Boston New York P. Pow. 55 58 P. Ind. 8? 86 68 94 100 1840 1850 1851 1852 1853 59 65 115 126 1855 1855 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 186? 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1380 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 188? 1888 6? 55 101 82 39 64 82 50 91 96 123 146 123 114 103 55 116 71 39 64 98 59 76 46 62 43 96 91 108 55 99 74 65 85 67 55 101 91 100 72 92 48 69 57 64 86 80 80 76 44 96 58 73 54 87 56 78 51 72 45 102 95 115 62 119 90 79 101 40 67 40 83 96 52 119 118 138 82 75 72 84 76 P. Pow 112 55 126 123 147 93 90 88 102 90 114 44 71 44 86 67 75 83 67 75 83 120 91 89 56 131 57 100 50 119 111 183 78 61 67 77 59 70 53 134 63 116 53 126 116 131 82 73 82 94 9^ 84. Table 16 (Conrd) The price and purchasing power indices of apples* New York Date P » Ind* P* Pow Boston. P. Ind. Detroit P. Pow P* Ind* P. Pow t 1880 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1905 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 99 96 47 78 105 30 76 46 87 105 70 77 150 69 85 69 114 87 110 105 115 115 90 91 127 78 94 us 146 187 239 169 232 148 146 192 180 138 197 161 161 118 117 58 103 135 117 107 68 128 148 92 94 185 80 98 79 130 97 116 114 116 112 95 90 124 78 91 91 81 94 U4 73 155 97 94 126 118 90 132 107 107 108 153 77 95 118 73 88 51 111 100 90 75 129 80 102 73 117 101 117 104 112 91 109 85 144 69 111 115 159 170 218 214 299 138 160 149 154 128 186 95 125 151 194 124 75 163 141 118 91 159 93 117 84 133 112 123 113 113 88 115 84 141 68 108 89 88 86 104 93 199 91 102 98 101 80 141 77 108 125 92 75 47 116 119 100 75 53 77 97 67 U6 79 128 136 97 153 92 74 113 68 106 114 194 158 306 116 290 121 155 169 148 216 300 216 211 95 172 95 142 160 131 106 69 170 168 132 91 65 90 in 77 132 88 135 148 96 148 97 73 111 68 103 88 108 80 146 50 193 80 99 111 97 140 201 143 141 85. Table 16 (con*tJ The price and purchasing power indices of apples. Virginia Date 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1878 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1389 1890 1891 1392 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 Jonesboro, 111* P. Ind. P. Pow 102 167 122 no 138 95 100 114 117 76 125 92 75 100 92 144 95 71 71 57 79 68 69 144 77 73 75 97 63 63 67 125 65 67 68 90 71 86 75 113 78 97 103 HI 86 114 82 87 67 117 90 87 114 77 82 97 104 72 128 102 87 105 98 150 101 81 86 70 96 81 82 176 95 96 96 138 89 93 99 176 36 82 84 105 82 99 85 119 85 98 100 117 85 112 82 84 P. Ind* P. Pow 125 107 105 70 83 70 74 79 61. 57 55 47 75 52 37 69 59 78 80 39 49 65 37 64 87 74 70 73 51 66 58 60 65 52 50 52 48 83 60 39 73 61 83 91 47 60 79 44 76 106 70 77 73 93 125 91 87 135 79 89 103 95 65 81 88 84 106 132 99 97 131 83 88 101 95 63 Table 16 (con't) Price and purchasing power indices of apples* Virginia Date 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1824 1925 1926 1927 1928 P. Ind* 102 148 159 216 173 286 173 165 141 154 105 186 Jonesboro, 111. P* Pow 79 82 80 103 75 191 114 106 93 101 68 125 P. Ind* 137 135 214 244 197 256 146 136 153 155 119 182 159 P. Pow 106 75 108 116 86 171 96 87 100 102 77 122 105 The prices in New York, Boston, and Detroit are wholesale prices, the prices in Virginia and Jonesboro, Illinois are based on the prices to the producer* The data are from the following sources: New York: 1847-1880 1681-1392 1893-1912 1913-1925 1926-1928 Boston: 1829-1840 1679-1914 1915-1925 Detroit: 1849-1914 1915-1925 1926-1929 Jonesboro, 111*: 1866-1890 1902-1928 Virginia: 1867-1927 American Agriculturist Rural New Yorker Cornell Circ. 22, Table 4, p* 17. 1914* Ohio Bui* 418, Table 32, p. 67. U.S.D.A. Yearbook p. 902, 1926; p. 768, 1928* New England Farmer Cornell Ext* Bui* 28, Table 4, p. 155,1918#. U*S*D*A* Stat. Bui. 14, p* 45, 1927. Michigan Farmer U.S.D.A* Stat. Bui. 15, p. 60, 1927* Michigan Farmer 111* Agr* Exp. Sta. Bui* 351, p. 520, 1930. Ibid* Va. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bui. 37, p* 177, 1929* Table 17* The price and purchasing power indices of apples, based on the price to the producer Few York Date P. Ind. 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 135 82 76 143 62 111 105 183 160 294 102 305 105 202 165 167 159 290 254 P* Pow 131 86 75 140 62 108 81 102 81 140 44 203 69 129 108 HO 103 195 168 Missouri Date P* Ind* 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 103 103 77 113 105 85 135 147 237 170 433 125 150 158 190 Virginia Michigan P. Ind. P. Pow 155 92 74 113 68 105 114 194 158 306 116 290 121 155 169 148 121 282 198 150 97 73 111 68 102 88 108 80 146 50 193 80 99 111 97 78 189 131 P. Pow. P. Ind. P. Pow. 100 124 96 120 101 101 101 111 105 82 105 82 120 115 74 289 82 96 104 125 102 103 76 103 100 117 167 183 172 189 78 139 116 137 100 170 111 100 113 87 130 72 96 102 162 185 236 170 336 142 174 157 166 192 245 236 P. Pow 97 119 86 127 72 93 79 90 93 112 74 224 93 112 103 109 125 164 156 Washington Colorado 108 76 P. Ind. P. Ind. P. Pow. 104 101 122 128 83 76 84 114 78 100 102 78 65 84 87 75 126 51 89 76 90 65 114 74 107 126 133 191 167 179 107 121 165 169 144 278 189 112 78 99 83 70 67 91 73 119 70 78 108 111 94 186 125 Data from the following sources far 1910-1925* New York: U.S.D.A. Sta* Bui* 14, p. 81, 1927. Michigan: n * n 15, p* 60, 1927* Mo*, Ibid., p* 126, 1927, Virginia: * * * 16, p. 36, 1927* Colorado: w * 9 17, p* 48, 1927. Wash., Ibid, 17, p. 113, All beyond 1925 from U* S. D. A* Mkt* News Service on F. 0. B. prices* 88 Table 18* The price and purchasing power indices of pear8* New York Detroit Date P. Ind* P. Pow. 1847 1948 105 117 110 130 1853 1854 184 93 190 93 1857 252 252 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 280 159 140 63 241 295 315 179 157 65 182 174 1866 187 HO 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1861 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 334 225 234 202 234 179 277 196 230 144 181 93 113 154 202 140 173 124 167 82 153 155 145 71 108 79 77 70 234 165 186 167 190 147 235 173 219 147 201 108 119 164 210 149 196 149 204 100 132 184 177 88 142 101 110 99 P. In » Pow* 167 186 141 261 214 209 199 113 105 96 149 91 204 94 130 119 81 85 148 278 223 222 226 136 128 117 177 108 249 116 171 152 116 120 Table 18 (conTt) The price and purchasing power indices of pears* New York Date 1396 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1020 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 P* Ind* 95 64 72 69 56 70 83 93 95 106 80 107 113 134 70 91 132 97 112 131 121 148 190 187 213 244 146 203 150 161 210 140 166 220 Detroit P* Pow* 140 94 101 91 68 86 96 107 109 120 89 113 123 135 38 96 131 95 112 127 94 82 96 89 93 163 96 130 100 106 136 94 110 147 P. Ind* P. Pow* 67 109 116 101 102 101 146 102 94 102 100 97 65 115 113 76 119 119 70 87 129 181 221 261 217 226 156 206 235 193 206 217 206 206 99 160 163 133 124 125 170 117 108 116 111 102 71 116 110 80 118 117 70 84 100 100 112 124 94 151 103 132 155 127 134 146 136 137 Data from the following sources: New York: 1847-1880 American Agriculturist 1881-1929 Bural New Yorker Detroit: 1877-1929 Michigan Farmer Table 19* The price and purchasing power indices of pears, based on the price to the producer* New York Date P. Ind* 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 19).8 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 111 108 104 91 87 89 103 150 194 222 161 239 72 227 173 173 250 235 230 P. Pow* 108 114 103 89 87 86 80 83 98 106 70 159 47 146 114 114 162 158 152 Michigan. California P. Ind* P* Pow* P* Ind. 121 84 96 108 90 96 96 160 160 202 133 170 85 140 121 134 106 144 148 111 88 95 106 90 93 74 89 81 96 60 113 56 90 80 88 69 97 98 106 105 69 100 122 86 68 132 143 173 171 219 158 115 132 193 115 108 155 P* Pow 103 110 68 98 122 83 53 73 72 82 74 146 104 74 87 127 97 72 103 Data from the following sources, 1910-1925: New York: U.S.D.A. Sta* Bui. 14, p. 82, 1927. Michigan: " " * 15, p* 61, 1927* California: * n * 17, p. 140, « Data from 1926-1928 from the Market News Service of the U.S.D.A. for the states and years concerned, using the F. 0. B. prices. 91# Table 20* The price and purchasing power indices of peaches# New York Date P* Ind* Detroit P. Pow* 1847 1848 202 242 213 269 1853 1854 141 242 145 242 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1Q74 1875 1876 1877 1378 1879 1880 1381 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1088 1889 1390 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 322 322 343 343 322 141 242 262 270 226 282 429 242 262 262 145 281 242 121 181 181 262 89 254 145 110 181 100 181 145 121 121 322 358 335 335 362 134 183 155 140 133 184 300 178 203 216 118 230 205 107 172 I®5 891 105 267 154 H4 192 H4 218 177 148 144 173 368 74 212 62 97 187 145 502 5° 151 48 68 133 P. Ind* P* Pow* 133 1AO 1*0 86 204 142 1S9 173 165 142 104 11® 168 157 107 133 9© 82 57 90 217 148 201 196 199 173 127 140 200 191 132 175 126 117 80 Table SO (Con't) The price and purchasing power indices of peaches* New York Date P* Ind* 1896 1897 1893 1899 1900 1901 1908 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1918 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1983 1984 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 107 39 105 149 81 93 81 141 89 141 113 190 125 133 125 113 97 93 72 56 181 121 185 121 181 202 144 200 168 221 102 177 165 121 P* Pew* 157 131 148 196 99 115 94 162 102 160 126 200 136 134 121 119 96 91 72 54 140 67 93 58 79 135 95 128 110 145 66 119 109 81 Detroit P. Ind. 63 90 63 118 79 47 102 106 102 94 142 189 122 82 133 82 94 110 80 110 114 204 181 150 150 228 113 162 164 185 112 161 126 133 Data from the following sources: New York: 1047-1380 .American Agriculturist 1881-1929 Rural New Yorker Detroit: 1878-1929 Michigan Farmer P* Pow 93 132 89 155 96 58 119 122 117 107 158 200 133 83 129 86 93 108 80 107 88 113 91 71 65 152 74 104 108 122 73 108 65 89 93 Table 21 The price end purchasing power indices of peaches, based on the price to the producer* Date 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 191? 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 P. Ind. 82 114 76 131 96 88 67 135 133 176 189 124 129 145 104 122 U? 140 104 205 P* Pow. P. Ind. 80 109 76 129 96 35 75 64 67 84 82 83 85 93 68 80 76 94 69 131 78 131 80 118 92 90 108 118 156 198 198 200 142 198 142 156 100 226 83 200 Bate P. Ind, 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 191? 1910 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 115 76 122 92 94 90 124 162 297 230 261 328 133 218 169 215 P. Pow. P. Ind. Pow. 112 80 121 90 94 87 96 90 150 110 113 219 08 140 111 141 P. Ind. 98 34 116 104 98 76 87 141 239 201 155 204 113 134 151 177 104 120 98 P. Pow 83 115 90 137 73 52 58 56 69 85 85 91 80 47 83 51 86 109 91 141 73 54 75 101 136 178 196 136 121 74 126 78 101 118 83 98 98 62 70 76 100 82 112 119 80 115 79 105 104 112 84 100 98 64 91 136 198 172 258 178 122 179 120 160 76 138 @4 123 92 87 84 66 79 94 86 133 93 127 93 103 65 152 55 133 P. Ind. P. Pow. Hew York Michigan Illinois California Arkansas W. Carolina Georgia P. Pow* 95 88 115 102 98 74 67 78 121 96 6? 136 74 86 99 116 68 81 65 P. Ind. 92 96 108 94 108 61 94 94 209 182 152 172 73 122 130 166 56 127 127 P. Pow 89 101 107 92 108 59 73 52 106 8? 66 115 48 78 86 109 36 85 84 Data from the following sources, 1910-1925: Georgia: U. S.D.A. Sta. Bul. 16, P* 97, 1927. *» tt it it it N. Car.: P* 67, n M m » it Arkansas: P* 186, i f tt it it Illinois: 19, P* 43, n tt it it n Michigan: 60, P. n t» it N Hew York: 14, P* 81. it It it California: it 17. P. 140, Data for 1926-1929 for the states and years concerned are from the U.S.D.A. Mkt. News Service on F. 0. B. prices. 95. Table 22. The ptrice and purchasing power indiees of plume* New York Date P. Ind. 1848 245 272 1853 1854 219 237 226 237 185? 1858 1859 I860 310 201 329 320 310 223 368 360 1862 1863 128 310 122 235 1870 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1893 1899 1800 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 169 13? 365 219 237 158 164 173 158 140 146 140 104 146 71 128 113 160 85 109 94 84 109 42 134 109 73 91 182 91 109 128 146 146 91 134 111 299 186 210 150 167 192 184 147 155 146 111 166 66 156 138 190 101 133 116 110 140 60 189 160 107 126 239 111 134 149 168 168 103 P. Pow Detroit P. Ind. 96 308 250 278 269 154 192 212 216 212 145 132 197 125 98 149 68 * 93 52 105 105 77 105 65 86 77 P. Pow 101 328 260 296 306 186 234 258 257 252 177 163 259 160 140 210 100 137 73 138 128 95 122 75 99 88 Table 22 (Conft) The price and purchasing power indices of plums# New York Detroi t Date P* Ind# P# Pow# P# Ind# 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 109 164 109 91 164 91 91 82 73 73 123 149 328 314 140 162 237 182 164 117 123 226 164 292 121 173 118 92 159 96 90 80 73 71 95 83 166 150 61 108 156 117 108 77 83 151 109 195 128 163 115 88 96 68 112 128 96 96 154 177 385 327 269 208 298 219 183 250 148 188 111 308 Data from the New York: 1840-1880 1881-1925 1926-1929 Detroit: 1880-1929 P# Pow 142 172 125 89 93 72 111 125 96 93 119 93 194 156 117 139 196 140 120 164 96 261 74 205 following sources: American Agriculturist Bural New Yorker Chicago Packer Michigan Farmer 97. Table 23* The price and purchasing power indices of cherries* NSw York Detroit Date P* Ind* P. Pow* 1047 1848 86 143 90 159 1854 100 100 1857 1858 186 143 186 159 I860 128 144 1858 1863 100 171 105 130 1869 1870 166 214 137 170 1872 1373 143 157 116 133 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1883 1889 1890 1891 1392 1893 1894 1895 1396 1897 1898 1099 1900 128 114 123 157 86 143 57 171 86 100 100 36 143 123 128 128 86 86 57 57 57 114 86 86 71 71 122 116 142 174 100 150 61 178 91 114 120 105 174 152 152 156 106 113 83 81 30 168 126 121 93 86 P* Ind* 117 100 100 150 100 117 67 67 67 83 33 67 67 50 33 83 P. Pi 141 122 122 178 119 143 83 38 86 118 117 98 98 70 109 101 98. Table 23 (oonvt.) The price and purchasing power indices of cherries. New York Date 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 190$ 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 New York: P. Ind# 43 71 86 143 71 57 128 86 114 128 100 100 114 71 128 100 36 186 171 157 171 186 143 100 171 128 171 157 157 P. Pow. 53 82 99 164 81 63 135 93 115 124 105 99 112 71 124 78 48 95 81 68 114 122 93 66 112 83 114 104 105 Detroit P. Ind. 83 83 100 67 67 67 100 117 83 100 50 133 133 83 100 100 117 135 233 217 200 200 167 150 150 133 117 150 150 1847-1880 American Agriculturist 1881-1929 Rural New Yorker Detroit: 1885-1929 Michigan Farmer P. Pow 102 96 115 77 76 74 105 127 84 97 53 132 130 83 97 78 65 67 111 94 133 132 107 99 99 86 78 99 100 99. The price and purchasing power Indices of grapes. New York Date P « Ind. Detroit P. Pow* 1848 400 ifcJL* 1855 400 412 1855 267 267 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 400 233 267 167 333 449 262 300 159 252 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1834 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1394 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 467 533 233 267 267 267 233 267 267 233 267 200 167 133 100 300 267 200 200 200 200 267 267 167 100 200 100 67 67 100 67 67 67 100 100 100 100 326 392 185 221 217 219 197 236 254 238 297 232 176 141 104 319 305 241 244 244 238 318 326 206 132 256 143 94 98 147 94 88 82 123 116 115 115 P. Ind. 250 375 167 250 208 167 208 167 125 167 167 125 125 125 83 83 83 83 83 83 42 83 125 83 83 P. Pow. 263 399 174 266 236 201 254 204 149 199 204 154 164 160 118 117 122 122 117 109 51 102 145 95 95 Table 24 (eonvtl The price and purchasing power indices of grapes* New York Date 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 P. Ind. 67 67 100 67 67 133 67 100 100 100 100 67 100 133 133 200 167 133 100 167 200 100 100 100 133 Data from New York: 1848-1880 1881-1925 1926-1928 1929 Detroit: 1880-1929 Detroit P. Pow. 76 74 103 73 68 129 70 99 98 100 97 52 56 67 63 87 111 88 64 110 132 65 67 66 87 P. Ind. 83 125 167 83 83 125 83 83 125 83 125 83 125 125 250 250 292 208 208 208 292 167 167 167 167 the following sources: American Agriculturist Rural New Yorker U.S.D.A. Yearbook, 1928. Rural New Yorker. Michigan Farmer P. Pow 94 139 176 90 84 121 87 82 122 83 121 64 69 63 119 109 195 137 133 137 192 108 112 110 111 Table 25* The price and purchasing power indices of grapes, based on the price to the producer New York Date 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1937 1928 P, Pow* P* Ind# 100 114 71 96 125 82 100 143 189 214 232 214 161 128 132 200 239 232 250 97 120 70 94 125 80 78 79 95 102 101 143 106 82 87 132 155 156 166 Arkansas Date 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 P* Ind# 92 125 90 100 88 80 100 140 175 200 250 250 162 175 100 138 Pennsylvania P# Ind* 94 97 91 128 84 100 125 134 181 188 219 156 156 119 150 222 P* Pow# 91 102 90 125 34 97 97 74 91 90 95 104 103 76 99 146 Michigan P* Ind. 132 82 73 132 82 114 123 182 186 250 182 273 182 209 250 318 136 195 173 P. Pow 128 86 72 129 82 111 95 101 94 119 79 182 120 134 164 209 121 131 114 California P. Pow# 89 152 89 98 88 78 78 78 88 95 109 167 106 112 66 91 P# Ind# 171 76 76 98 78 58 90 102 115 146 171 207 146 149 141 146 P. Pow 166 80 75 96 78 56 70 79 58 70 74 138 96 96 93 96 Data from the following sources: 1910-1925# New York: U#S#D#A# Sta# Bui* 14, p* 82, 1927# Pennsylvania: rt « t» » p # 110,1927# Michigan: * " 15, p. 61, 1927 Arkansas: * ** w 16, p#185,1927# California: w n n p.140,1927* New York and Michigan 1926—1928 from the D#S#D*A# Mkt* News Service on those years and states, F* 0* B* prices# Table 26 The price and purchasing power indices of oranges# Florida California Date P# Ind# P. Pew* 1889 108 laa 1890 1891 1892 1893 1394 1895 1896 1097 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1923 1929 105 82 94 88 88 158 130 139 143 143 106 105 124 95 90 109 100 82 93 94 83 112 117 98 92 105 122 169 194 191 175 196 173 140 194 202 151 134 188 137 128 101 124 113 126 222 191 204 201 188 129 130 144 109 103 124 111 86 106 93 80 118 116 96 92 102 94 94 98 91 76 131 114 90 127 133 98 90 124 92 P. Ind* P# Pow. 127 121 107 87 179 178 157 122 96 87 93 99 96 110 100 106 110 101 97 92 100 121 90 106 112 106 215 164 216 199 246 182 193 260 196 199 150 94 97 99 119 90 103 87 59 108 78 94 133 162 117 127 171 127 134 100 The prices used were the wholesale prices in New York for both states, as given in Mr# 0# C# Stine’s letter of May 3, 1930# As in the case of grapefruit, the prices were compiled from the New York Producers Price Current, quotations for one day a week# Mr# Stine is chief of the Division of Statistical and Historical Research, Bureau of Agr# Ecs., U.S.D.A# Table 27* The pzlee and purchasing power indices of grapefruit* Florida Date 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1399 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 P« Ind* 73 65 87 88 90 203 241 178 222 208 160 191 143 139 105 139 109 145 93 109 90 164 88 93 65 83 112 125 156 105 149 143 135 121 138 156 129 164 121 California P* Pow* 90 86 112 126 127 298 354 251 292 254 198 222 164 160 119 154 115 158 99 106 94 162 86 93 63 64 62 63 74 46 100 94 86 30 91 101 86 109 81 P. Ind* 111 108 82 70 77 30 93 116 94 100 134 97 104 136 133 129 P. Pow* 110 106 82 68 60 44 47 55 41 67 88 62 68 89 86 86 Florida grapefruit prices are the wholesale prices at New York, furnished by Mr* 0. C. Stine in charge of the Division of Statistical and Historical Research, Bureau of Agr* Ecs*, U.S.D.A* in a letter dated May 3, 1930* California priees are the weighed F* 0. B* pfices in California, from Calif. Agr. Exp* Sta* Bui* 463, p* 33, 1928* 104. Table 28* The price and purchasing power indices of butter* New York Date P. Ind* 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 69 69 69 69 69 69 72 79 76 83 79 76 59 66 55 55 59 76 131 134 138 107 128 134 HO 93 90 110 117 96 96 33 72 55 86 76 107 90 96 76 86 79 76 69 62 83 83 86 72 Virginia Detroit P* Pow* 73 73 77 78 76 73 79 81 76 83 79 76 66 74 62 62 56 58 78 69 81 70 90 98 87 77 73 90 100 85 91 85 so 64 90 81 111 96 109 92 105 96 90 82 76 102 109 110 103 P* Ind* P* Pow. 57 57 52 67 76 86 95 100 110 71 65 63 55 74 78 86 95 100 110 79 90 119 68 70 133 114 106 94 119 100 114 90 76 76 100 105 119 100 100 95 105 105 105 95 81 81 86 95 81 108 92 84 88 105 112 124 106 114 114 128 128 125 113 99 100 113 122 116 P* Ind* P* Pow 64 68 68 68 64 68 77 77 73 82 82 95 82 77 73 91 67 72 76 77 70 72 85 79 73 32 82 95 91 36 82 102 109 100 132 123 109 100 91 100 104 104 95 82 73 64 77 86 104 86 82 86 77 77 73 63 73 73 77 82 68 64 65 92 90 86 83 74 82 88 92 90 84 81 74 81 91 108 91 93 104 94 94 87 81 89 90 101 105 97 Table 28 (con*t)• The price and purchasing power indices of butter New York Date 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1918 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 P. Ind. 66 59 59 62 69 72 69 79 76 69 79 79 93 83 90 100 90 103 103 96 103 107 140 167 200 213 160 140 160 157 157 148 166 166 159 P* Pow* 93 87 87 87 91 88 85 92 87 79 90 88 98 90 91 97 95 102 101 96 100 83 78 84 95 93 107 92 102 103 103 96 111 110 106 Virginia Detroit P* Ind. P • Pow. 76 67 71 71 71 81 75 86 86 71 86 81 100 100 114 110 86 105 105 100 100 108 142 169 204 219 158 138 165 165 165 154 169 169 173 107 98 104 100 93 99 94 100 99 82 98 90 105 109 115 107 90 104 103 100 97 34 79 85 97 95 105 91 106 108 108 100 113 112 115 P. Ind. P. Pow 73 64 54 59 64 73 68 32 82 82 82 36 86 91 91 104 95 100 104 104 114 118 150 182 209 227 164 136 159 150 145 145 150 Data from the following sources: New York: 1846-1880 American Agriculturist 1881-1926 Rural New Yorker 1927-1929 Michigan Farmer Detroit: 1848-1929 Michigan Farmer Virginia: 1846-1927 Va* Agr. Exp. Sta* Tech* Bui* 37, Table 85e, p* 179-180, 1929* 103 94 79 83 90 89 84 95 94 94 93 96 90 99 92 101 100 99 102 104 in 91 83 92 100 99 109 89 102 99 95 94 100 106 The price and purchasing power indices of beef cattle 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 I860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 P* Ind* 53 55 46 47 46 49 52 59 59 68 63 64 70 78 78 88 85 90 72 83 78 73 73 84 US 143 132 130 135 128 131 no 99 95 94 98 83 87 75 73 70 89 103 94 95 83 83 74 P. Pow* 51 53 48 52 50 54 55 62 66 77 69 68 77 80 78 88 85 90 SO 93 88 82 70 64 70 74 78 85 94 94 104 91 00 78 80 87 79 89 83 85 74 95 107 100 108 100 101 90 P* Ind* 92 92 96 98 80 75 75 79 75 70 63 66 60 49 60 64 84 76 81 75 72 72 P* Pow* 54 60 67 72 63 62 61 65 64 62 60 67 67 57 63 68 88 81 92 90 88 88 H Date Detroit Chicago New York ♦ Table 29* * Pow* 73 73 55 43 120 62 99 84 78 69 79 67 64 58 60 43 46 67 75 67 73 78 70 69 61 59 67 50 48 71 78 71 63 94 85 84 107 Table 29 (oonft) The price and purchasing power indices of beef cattle. New York Detroit Chicago Bate P; Ind. P. Pow* 1888 1889 1890 1891 1898 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1801 1908 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1918 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 81 67 71 80 96 80 86 99 P. Ind* 74 68 59 67 58 62 58 63 55 61 62 69 69 72 84 65 66 67 69 74 77 82 90 36 108 106 111 108 122 148 188 198 170 105 111 120 118 130 121 145 178 156 P. Pow. 88 81 72 83 76 79 83 89 81 90 87 91 84 89 98 75 75 76 77 78 84 83 87 90 107 104 111 105 94 82 95 94 74 70 73 77 78 36 78 97 118 104 P. Ind. 75 70 60 69 62 67 62 61 45 51 63 56 56 58 72 72 66 69 68 71 72 75 88 78 100 117 118 115 116 144 166 178 164 in 105 110 107 116 119 150 177 176 P. Pow 89 83 73 85 82 86 88 36 66 75 89 74 68 72 84 83 76 78 76 75 78 76 85 82 99 115 118 112 90 80 84 85 71 74 69 70 70 76 77 100 117 117 108. Table 29 (con*t.) The price and purchasing power Indices of beef cattle* Virginia Date 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 I860 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1906 1909 P. Ind. 94 94 88 92 64 75 64 62 75 64 70 59 61 65 66 80 79 81 62 62 59 60 51 52 52 58 61 55 58 59 59 64 67 67 69 72 78 70 72 72 75 81 83 P. Pow 61 66 65 73 53 61 52 52 66 61 71 66 71 68 70 83 84 92 75 76 72 71 61 63 64 76 78 78 82 87 87 90 88 82 85 84, 90 80 82 80 79 88 84 Table 29 (con't). The price and purchasing power indices of beef cattle. Virginia Date 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 P. Ind. 87 86 102 110 114 119 121 156 199 201 188 108 120 135 116 139 127 144 P. Pow 84 90 101 108 114 116 94 87 100 96 82 72 79 86 76 91 84 97 Data from the following sources: New York: 1840*1891 Cornell Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 341, Table 8, p. 196-197, 1914. Chicago: 1866-1886 Prairie Parmer 1887-1891 Michigan Parmer 1892-1899 Cornell Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 341, Table 8, p. 196-197, 1914. 1900-1928 TJ.S.D.A. Yearbook 1928, p. 913. 1929 Michigan Parmer Detroit: 1863-1929 Michigan Farmer Virginia:1867-1927 Va. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bui. 37, Table 85b, p. 177-178. 1929. Prices are for live weight at the yards per hundred, except for Virginia which are the weighted prices to the producer. 110, Table 30, The price and purchasing power indices of hogs* New York-Chic a go Date 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1345 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 P, Ind* 54 58 51 53 55 49 55 65 63 60 50 59 66 73 65 69 80 84 64 68 77 57 49 63 117 155 129 56 46 64 78 78 56 51 55 67 83 79 67 44 62 65 83 94 77 70 p, Pow, 52 56 52 59 60 54 58 68 70 68 55 63 72 75 65 69 80 84 71 76 86 64 47 48 69 30 76 37 32 47 62 64 46 42 47 59 79 81 74 51 65 69 86 100 88 84 Virginia P. Ir 70 64 70 78 65 52 51 54 61 64 60 48 44 53 61 71 68 61 56 P. Pow, 46 45 51 62 54 42 42 46 54 61 61 53 51 56 65 74 72 69 67 111. Table 30 (con’t)* The price and purchasing power of hoge* New York-* Chicago Date 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1892 1394 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1902 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1918 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 P* Ind. 59 62 69 80 68 58 64 89 83 69 60 57 61 61 76 86 97 108 85 83 86 106 84 91 112 88 92 103 104 91 113 187 220 223 179 108 111 99 104 151 163 134 119 Virginia P. Pow* P. Ind. P. Pow, 72 76 82 95 83 72 84 114 118 97 86 84 86 80 93 106 113 124 98 94 96 112 91 92 109 93 91 101 104 88 88 104 111 106 78 72 73 63 68 99 106 90 79 55 60 60 55 51 51 55 61 61 66 63 52 53 54 68 76 87 83 68 70 86 78 73 94 110 90 88 104 108 97 111 174 219 217 186 121 121 113 113 150 162 147 67 73 71 65 62 62 72 78 87 93 93 76 75 71 83 94 101 95 78 80 96 82 79 95 107 95 87 102 108 94 86 97 HI 103 81 81 80 72 74 99 105 99 Date from the following sources: New York-Chieago: New York: 1840-1870 Cornell A.E.S. Bui* 341, Table 8, p* 196-197. 1914. Chicago : 1871-1909 Ibid* 1910-1928 U.S*D*A* Yearbook 1928, p. 930* 1929 Michigan Farmer Virginia: 1867-1927 Va* A. E. S. Tech. Bui. 37, Table 85b, p. 177-178* 1929. 112 * Table 31* The price and purchasing power indices of wheat New York Date P* Ind. P. Pow. 1840 1841 1848 1843 1644 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1858 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1868 1863 1864 1865 1866 186? 1868 1869 1870 1871 1878 1873 1374 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1380 1831 1888 1883 1884 1885 117 102 138 184 204 96 117 117 138 117 11? 117 102 117 184 184 194 173 112 138 148 130 147 153 163 255 190 190 158 111 130 139 149 149 116 116 122 122 104 143 119 140 112 112 87 98 112 99 144 204 224 105 123 123 153 133 128 124 112 121 184 184 194 173 124 155 166 146 140 116 99 132 112 124 no 32 103 U5 121 122 98 103 H6 124 ns 166 125 149 117 119 99 118 Chicago P. Ind. 128 129 82 68 91 106 99 98 77 83 107 103 79 124 99 123 90 94 71 82 Virginia P. Pow* 75 84 57 50 72 88 80 80 65 73 102 105 88 144 104 131 94 100 81 99 P. Ind. 284 220 151 127 143 162 158 133 123 114 133 97 no 109 H8 109 103 88 87 P. Pow, 146 154 in 100 118 132 130 113 109 108 136 108 128 115 126 114 110 100 105 113. Table 31 (eon't), » The price and purchasing power indices of wheat. New York Date 1866 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1898 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1908 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1918 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1980 1981 1988 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1983 1989 P. Ind. 87 84 118 98 108 108 87 78 63 69 90 98 73 88 78 34 81 83 111 88 34 101 101 113 93 97 101 95 111 103 171 814 819 219 178 110 120 118 147 155 133 123 115 104 P. Pow. 106 108 133 110 184 126 114 100 90 97 132 135 103 108 95 104 94 95 128 100 93 106 110 114 95 102 100 93 111 100 132 119 111 104 77 73 80 72 97 102 86 82 76 69 Chi cago P. Ind. 75 75 98 75 87 83 69 60 58 63 68 88 98 83 77 73 76 85 108 90 78 92 98 ua 104 92 105 90 110 115 171 230 227 229 228 128 116 104 161 167 141 143 133 127 Virginia P. Pow. 91 91 117 89 106 109 91 77 83 89 100 129 130 96 94 90 83 98 117 102 87 97 106 113 101 97 106 97 110 112 132 128 115 109 99 85 76 67 106 110 92 96 88 85 P. Ind. 81 74 87 81 89 95 79 61 52 60 64 81 78 65 68 68 76 79 99 90 77 86 94 112 103 91 100 95 98 116 129 210 211 216 233 133 114 110 126 160 143 131 P. Pow 99 90 104 96 108 117 104 78 74 84 94 119 101 86 83 83 88 91 114 102 86 90 102 113 100 96 99 93 98 113 100 117 106 103 101 89 75 70 83 105 93 88 Data from the following sources: New York: 1840-1854 Prices to the producer at Albany, N. Y . , from the American Agriculturist of August, 1854. 1855-1865 Prices of white wheat at N. Y. C., almost exactly the same as at Albany. American Agriculturist* 1840— 1865 prices on Jan. 1st. 1866-1929' » " Dec. 1st. 1866-1925 Farm price of wheat in IT. Y. state from U. S. D. A. Stat. Bui. 14, TABLE 44, p.90-91, 1927. 1926—1929 Farm price of wheat from the respective U. S. D. A. Yearbooks for N. Y. state. Chicago: 1866-1893 No. 1 1ST. Spring wheat. TJ. S. D. A. Yearbook 1920, p.550. 1894-1928 No. 2 Red Winter wheat. U. S. D. A. Yearbook 1928, p.670. All Chicago prices are the Dec. averages. 1867-1927 Va. Agr.Exp. Sta. Tech. Bui. 57, TABLE 85a, Virginia: p. 175-176, 1929.