-. Division of Agricultural Science* UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA TRENDS AND PROSPECTS: DECIDUOUS FRESH FRUITS Sidney Hoos and Varden Fuller (-UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA" DAVIS CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION GIANNINI FOUNDATION OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS Mimeographed Report No. 176 April 1955 University of California Division of Agricultural Sciences Agricultural Experiment Station Berkeley, California TRENDS AND PROSPECTS: DECIDUOUS FRESH FRUITS Sidney Hoos and Varden Fuller Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics Mimeographed Report No. 1?6 April 19£5 LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CAUFOflMU ■AVIS FOREWORD This report was prepared at the request of the California Grape and Tree Fruit League which is concerned primarily with fresh deciduous fruits. For that reason, the report is oriented in considerable part to developments as they bear upon deciduous fruits, particularly the trends in fresh disappearance in relation to population and income trends. In view of the marked growth in national population and income during the past two decades, with prospects for further expansion, the deciduous fresh shipping industries are concerned with the changing situation as it affects their operations and their prospects. The materials presented here, rather than being forecasts, should be viewed as benchmarks and background against which the fresh deciduous fruit industries may set projections. Whether the current trends in per-capita disappearance of fresh deciduous fruit will con- tinue or reverse their direction is highly significant to these fruit industries. In the preparation of the report, the authors were aided with general as- sistance from George Viles and Mrs. Eleanor Birch; the charts were prepared by Mrs. Kathryn C. Eardley, and the manuscript was prepared for processing under the direction of Mrs. Viola Jank. ■Pi . -■ ■ •'. •• ■ ■ . ■ ' ' ' "... " ' " . 89. ■. ■ Tf "* Of 1 ii TRENDS AND PROSPECTS: DECIDUOUS FRESH FRUITS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Foreword ^ Introduction and Summary i Trends in Deciduous Fruits 3 Production g Acreage ^2 Yield 13 Grower Prices # ^.6 Grower Gross Returns Per Bearing Acre . . 20 Fresh Sales 21 Fresh as Per Cent of Total Sales 2U Per-Capita Disappearance, Total and Fresh ... 27 Various Deciduous Fruits ... 32 Apples 22 Apricots Cherries ^7 Grapes q Freestone Peaches £7 Pears 65 Plums 72 Long-Range Demand Prospects for California Fresh Fruits 79 The Population — How Many Consumers? 70 Regional Population Changes 8U Income and Purchasing Power . 8I4. Elements in Consumer Response to Fresh Deciduous Fruits 91 iii Page List of Tables Table I United States Production, Bearing Acreage, and Yield Per Bearing Acre for Various Deciduous Fruits 95 II California Production, Bearing Acreage, and Yield Per Bearing Acre for Various Deciduous Fruits 98 III California Nonbearing Acreage of Various Deciduous Fruits 101 IV Total Amounts Sold and Fresh Sales of Various Deciduous Fruits, United States and California 103 V Estimated Total and Fresh Disappearance, Selected Fruits . 106 VI United States and California Average Prices Received by Growers of Various Deciduous Fruits 108 VII United States Exports and Imports of Various Deciduous Fruits 110 VIII United States Production Having Value for Various Deciduous Fruits and Population of United States 116 IX Marriage Rate 1953 Versus 19^0 and Number of Children Ever Born Per 1,000 Women 1952 Versus 19h0. By Age- Specific Groups 118 X Births and Birth Rate in the National Population 119 XI Total Population of the United States and Female Popula- lation Aged 20-39, from 1900 to 1950 and Projections to 1975 120 XII Growth of Population in the United States, by Regions, Divisions, and States, 19^0 to 1950 and 1950 to 195U . . . 121 List of Figures Figure 1 Production of Various Deciduous Fruits, United States and California . 9 2 Bearing and Nonbearing Acreage of Various Deciduous Fruits in California lU 3 Yield Per Bearing Acre of Various Deciduous Fruits in California 15 .Maris* fits* t ss&s*icA sa^rwe^ »f»J!»wrt)0'rt esiotS ktitflaii . . . ' v. . ■ ■ .. . • . . • . • - SfftW&ioeG 3o Q&£b3 rial's brrs bloS eJniroicA. ItttcT f • » : as* Y * * r * *. fl&*i£ 3 lo *io i5o:/hMq grubs?! arii pi BimdlUfiO tsrti tttioitA Xls»w sj rti jBtiv dosl srto yd b^tadxbnx 8i 9>tsia KiJ - 10 tfolit'ioq tfrtx/ixmob t5"ig ,2s,his/lD ( 3iteoHqs t a©lqq! • Mfef nx nsdJ Taisirtg rsov'9 e.t >von aixxrcl 9eMi tii tioitizoq svii&let a ' i sd& 'in &neo isq Oi! Jxrods ifll: b'jdrwooos sxatoixlfiO {B^l-'jiC?! nx |#S6< 9ftocta§ffiI'j t tlxrrl fifes': -fti ixiri^ tfiWrt 8i/oi;bxo9b en\t t gmoonx ^snom bne ^i.'OxJ-ubnq lls-'jgvd ^ndirfMyqdq t noiizul&ve riotfB idl axBsd a 9bivoiq oT < adrfe^r-o Js>v9b Isftoi<*J5rt ^fl^ll 21B -.tToqntl lo se^ncdo totem saroa g&&taa£tat ^bo^i emivvt brtfe a*n*>39'*g' £rsaqS*i aifW -auiJra snrsii^!:} erfo bA .a^xutl Btfoi/biseb 10 BfWwdi xtsib bne ii'sot'bbiq oi Bid^xX i%lA itiBsfi Ingie 9rac3 t airtolilfi3 ft! Btfnsffirqclgvab yd bdioellB-t £2 c*6itf 9ida4 9rf4 nx 81S9Y i0**aoq inftoet brie iB*9-tq Id aaftBlfBqmclJ) ri£©riw "'OfiH i'on ob Y?rfd' brts ^esJ'fi'! ritf'ixd od" cfosqa©"! rtjiw nixooo XXxw [ *i9ii"cK9 ad"i od" sb-^o&'i io eifnijnoo XXxw ejfii rtjixo fujni W ub-si t n-t t ei ©2B6ioni oi bsJosqxo ©d nso noid-GXirqoq Saiot iadi toB r i &rlt ^ubxoeb r i.o aiomuano© XsiinoJoq lo Tsdaum mi lo aaited" nl f9mu8rt03 xb tjrtatfoq edi •X9dd"9/1»7 .9lcfsiovBi ed oi sissqqs e . .-, ■ ■ .fjgoneisxsia ©3if bns ?.sizai 'tiesii bns t a©i,txbotffiaoo i©d*o neJioq saoxiq ev.&-a'bTtxd alritf nl .toe v£d oriw ©aoriT .noism bosvrqu' craydoi liecii en bns mxisJ'nx iuo olvi ion aaob t eam;oo "io t eJ >n sd i ,w9xv legrrol end moil ixrP .law ©rfJ «- ibxbi jxoaax/a o^ an oa rt^xd YX©vxj£X©i ad ocf • ■lO VS I 1£1B70C cixd leddsj ©*r as t .tsY .9bsm ad nso t ©axifOO to t ias; ■ : ■ - noo bn -noo ai ayonsislsiq ©exr bns 8©d"3Bj- ismaanoo 10I jtooltfuo ttnai-^a fioO .8©iu^o©tnoo Xenotiai eisXunrxol oi tfluoxllxb eiom nev© a©a .quoig bpsins^ionu ns as b«6 sgbiO nx <3"t©»nysnoo tfsdcf Si rnroroi si 3©xdx 7. Recent technological changes, or the absence thereof, may very well have had considerable influence on consumer preferences. In the processed field, important changes are occurring which bear upon the demand for fresh fruits. It is not an exaggeration to note that cold pasteurization and sterilization of foods by irradiation on a commercially feasible basis may be near at hand. Reports indxcate that mild doses of irradiation adequate to pasteurize will in- crease the keeping qualities of various foods, including fruits, without affect- ing quality, taste, or flavor. If, or more likely when, a commercially feasible irradiation process for foods is developed, there could well be the effects of a revolution in the food canning and processing industry. The Committee on Foods of the National Research Council, of the Academy of Sciences, reports its view in the following terms: "no other method of preservation of foods is so far ad- vanced, appears to offer greater possibilities, or is as economically feasible as is the radiological sterilization method in its present state of development." It appears clear that the fresh-use fruit industries can expect more inten- sive competition from the processed fruit industries with such competition being in terms of product characteristics as well as price. Yet, it may well be that the fresh-use industries can also take advantage of technological developments as cold pasteurization and radiological sterilization. Rationalization of pack- ing house locations and layout with cost-reducing methods of operation, the har- vesting of tree-ripened fruits at their optimum flavor and eating stages, and with those fruits being irradiated at the peak of their flavor could result in fresh shipping fruits having reduced perishability yet with optimum quality and attractiveness to the potential consumers. The essential point is that fresh- use fruit industries can also take advantage of technological advances so as to improve or at least maintain their competitive position. The following sections of the report set forth the statistical and inter- pretative materials underlying the preceding summary. The next section reviews the comparative trends in the seven deciduous fruits surveyed, and the third section considers the developments in each fruit separately. The fourth and final section is concerned with factors affecting long-term demand prospects as population, income, and consumer behavior. The statistical tables in the appendix include the basic data on which are based the text tables, charts, and discussion. 3JX CJiaqei t 390fI9X0C 10 eldt'siJSi Ylleoiatonoos sc ex i gnx?d noxix^qnco riotfs ri;h&W.8*| einx bus iBolfzii&Sz ;*rii i Mid* wto bete t i>9V9V"n/e e; fine rfjFxt/ol srlT ,x-£s*eT:Bq! erftf nx aelcfe* £*0$N£#Bft tttfisrio ^eeidsi cheat srto 8. TRENDS IN DECIDUOUS FRUITS The facts that both national income and population of the country have ex- panded at a substantial rate during the past two decades are set forth and dis- cussed in another section of this report. There also are discussed the outlook and prospects for further growth in national income and population. In view of such prospects, there arise questions concerning the changing position of de- ciduous fruit production and marketings. Questions of interest include what have been the trends in production, acreage, and yield? What have been the trends in grower prices and in grower sales for the fresh market in contrast with total sales? What have been the trends in per-capita "consumption," total and fresh use? To what extent have the per-capita consumption rates of the various major deciduous fruits conti- nued to expand with the nation's population and consumer income? It is with these broad questions that this section of the report is concerned. Rather than being concerned with details of particular years, here we are interested in taking a broad over-all look at production and marketing develop- ments in deciduous fruits. For that purpose, we use the trends of five-year averages. Such averages cancel out the peculiarities of individual years and clearly set forth the basic underlying trends in which we are interested. Yet, it always should be borne in mind that behind the five-year averages and their trends are the facts of the individual years and seasons which growers and ship- pers experience in their operations. For those who are interested, the statis- tical data of the individual years are included in tables at the end of this report. Before beginning a review of particular trends, it may be noted that the major interest of this report is oriented in the direction of setting forth developments in the marketings of deciduous fruits for fresh consumption. The materials on production, acreage, yield, and farm sales are presented as back- ground to supplement review of developments in fresh marketings and particularly per-capita consumption of fresh deciduous fruits. Production . — The levels and trends of deciduous fruit production are pic- tured in Figure 1, with one panel for national production and the other panel for California production (note the different vertical production scales in the two panels). By reference to the figure or the data below, one may obtain a comparative view of the differing production trends in the various deciduous fruits . ti3 one o ■ 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,400 | 1,200 "S f 1,000 o 10 3 O H 800 600 400 FIG. 1 PRODUCTION OF VARIOUS DECIDUOUS FRUITS UNITED STATES PRODUCTION CALIFORNIA PRODUCTION 3,000 1 1 2,000 - ^*»*— • Grapes ** Apples * Freestone Peaches Pears 200 1 Apricots Cherries Plums Grapes - 320 280 (0 o 240 (0 c 200 a in 3 o 160 - 120 — 80 - 40 Pears V Freestone Peaches Apricots Apples Plums Cherries 1924- 1929- 1934- 1939- 1944- 1949- 1954- 1959- 1928 1933 1938 1943 1948 1953 1958 1963 Annual averages tor 5 -year periods 1924- 1929- 1934- 1939- 1944- 1949- 1954" 1959" 1928 1933 1938 1943 1948 1953 1958 1963 Annual averages tor 5-year periods 10. Production of Various Deciduous Fruits Fruit 1 192U-1928 | 1929-1933 193U-1938 1939-191*3 1 I9l*l*-19l*8 I 191*9-1953 Apples U.S. Cal. annual averages for five-year periods j thousands of tons 3,278.7 197.1 3,108.2 201.7 2,895.9 188. 1* 2,817.2 176.7 2,1*1*3.6 198. k 2,661.7 19l*.l Apricots U.S. Cal. 168.6 167.U 21*8.6 21*2.8 229.6 216.0 201.0 179. h 265.9 235. 1* 202.9 187.6 Cherries U.S. Cal. 83.1 1U.8 125.6 19.8 139.7 21.3 166.3 23.6 191.2 30.1 231.1 32.3 Grapes U.S. Cal. 2,320.5 2.085.2 2,072. 1* 1,782.8 2,31*6.0 2,118.6 2,600.2 2.391*. 8 2,936.2 2,772.1; 2,912.2 2,716.6 Freestone U.S. peaches Cal. 1,039.1* 200.0 933.2 213.8 95U.1 177.0 1,106.9 21*1.0 1,305.6 287.1* 962.0 260.8 Pears U.S. Cal. 509.5 185.0 588.9 229.6 682.9 230.2 683.9 2ii7.li 71*9.1 300. 1* 736.5 353. h Plums U.S. Cal. 6U.7 59.0 68. 1* 62. 1* 65.1 60.6 76.1* 71.8 87.2 80.8 87.6 80.6 During the past three decades, the national production of apples trended downward until the latter half of the 19lt0's. Since then, some recovery has de- veloped, although the production level prior to the 191*0 » s has not been regained. In terms of commercial tonnage, apples rather than retaining their lead position of long standing have, in recent years, been second to grapes. While national apple production has receded over the years, apple production in California has recovered sufficiently during the past decade so that the cur- rent average level is only slightly under that prevailing during the 192U-1933 decade. Thus, in terms of long-term trend, apple production in California has fared better than in the country at large to the extent that no significant down- ward trend is characteristic of California apple production. In California, how- ever, apple production is not as relatively important (in terms of tonnage) as for the country at large as is seen in Figure 1. asrf 11 When apricot production is considered, attention may be confined to Cali- fornia where practically all of the commercial production is grown. As is well known, apricot production fluctuates widely, and even the use of five-year aver- ages results in a sharply broken trend line as pictured in Figure 1. Visualiz- ing a smooth trend for apricot production, one notes that the imaginary long-term trend is just about horizontal. Thus, the so-called average level of apricot production has been maintained over the years. Apricots, hence, may be grouped with California apples in that both display, in broad terms, long-term production trends which have neither risen nor declined significantly. There are differences between sweet and sour cherries and those grown pri- marily for fresh shipping in contrast with processing. But it is of interest that in both California and the nation at large, including a mixture of sweet ?nd sour cherries, the production trends have been consistently upward. Yet, it should be noted that the rate of gro\vth has been less in California than for the nation. Whereas national production of cherries almost tripled between 192U-1928 and 19h9-l°£3, the California production during the same period slightly more than doubled. Because of California's leading position in grape growing, the production trend of this state dominates that of the country. From Figure 1 may be seen the extent to which the grape tonnage in California surpasses that of the other fruits. Also, it may be noted that during the past decade the national produc- tion of grapes has surpassed that of apples. Grape production, for all uses combined, trended upward after the decline from 192U-1928 to 19lUi-19U8 and, since then, the trend has been almost level with only a slight decrease. These broad generalizations apply to California grapes and those for the country at large. Next we consider the production trend in freestone peaches as summarized in Figure 1 . Differences are apparent in California compared with national pro- duction of freestones. In California, the production trend increased and then decreased between the 192l;-1928 and 193U-1938 decade. Then a sharp upward trend occurred during the next decade. But production in 19U9-19S3 averaged under that of the previous five years. National average production of freestone peaches declined from 192U-1928 to 1929-1933, then rose somewhat during the next decade with a sharp rise from 1939-19U3 to 19UHL9U8 when the peak also occurred in California's production. And, also, as occurred in California, national freestone production dropped be- tween 1939-19143 and 19UU-19U8, with the national decline being much more sharp -iisO oi banilnoa ed x r(<{ -ao-i&neits t fco-i9bisnco ajt noj llsw si qA .nvroig ei Roitojjboiq isioiemmoa arii lo Ilf ■idVB ib«tj»-9vx1 lo sat; oifi n.'>vs« bnn ,Yf.9Wrw aschBtf^oxril ■ailiu/ai? iiv. ©it.'gl'u ni; bs'OJ^oi j aa onxl bnei.t- «9jtcrrd Btf-gnol \,*icais smi adt Jsrftf aechm. s>m A jnoxtq )o.r>i". ■ SzeieSni lo ajt .ti . kgniaaecx-ri'T -nVirsr tfSBfiJtfoo ni .tsgvra lo emjxfrn b gnibulani ..e^isT S& noMzn aritf br itsT .btswqi/ yl^nGjsisnoa need everi- eon 9*xi npii-Dtrbc i ■ nox^oifboiCi srfd- t gnxwo*.i3 aastg ni nqlj isoq grixbsal 3' e -oifbotq Jenorisn arit sbso9b -j-saq sriJ §niTyxb t&fo beion »89lqqB.lo tfBilj bt c snxioab srij t9.Jlfl Jcas^ren; babneict .fjsnicfraoo 39BU II r i )9b ?.SJ moix 93X" 12. than what occurred in California. From an over-all view during the past quarter century, California production of freestone peaches has trended upward, whereas national freestone production displays no such over-all upward trend. With pears, also, the California production trend has differed from the national trend, both shown in Figure 1. The national trend increased first moderately then at a slower rate, with no increase occurring during the past five years. In contrast, California production of pears first trended upward sharply during the 192l*-1928 to 1929-1933 period and then only moderately during the next decade. But within the past decade, production of California pears rose sharply and in 191*9-1953 averaged at a record-high level. California pear production more than doubled during the past quarter of a century, whereas na- tional production increased some 50 per cent. As we turn to the production trend of plums pictured in Figure 1, we note a level trend during the 192i*-1928 to 193l*-1938 decade followed by an upward trend during the next decade. And during the past five years, the average pro- duction trend has been about level with no apparent significant change. Recent production has been about one third higher than in 192l*-1928. Acreage. — To review the determinants of production trends surveyed above, we now turn to acreage and yield trends. First, we call attention to the sum- mary data in the following tabulation. Bearing Acreage of Various Deciduous Fruits Fruit 192li-1928 1929-1933 1 193U-1938 | 1939-191*3 19UU-19U8 191*9-1953 annual averages for five-year periods; thousands of bearing acres Apples U.S. 2,300.3 2,093.9 1,821.2 1,500.3 Cal. 51.6 IOi.9 38.1* 33.1* 31.0 25.6 Apricots U.S. 7U.1 81*. 7 80.2 7U.5 Cal. 71*. 1 81.3 75.7 69.3 66.1 1*5^9 Cherries U.S. 73.0 89.3 106.1 105.8 Cal. 10.2 13.1 Ui.5 13.3 12.1 9.5 Grapes U.S. 731.6 730.9 657.8 627.1 Cal. 51*3.6 530. 1* 1*81.3 U86.6 1*95.0 1*71.6 Freestone U.S. 677. h 621.7 572.7 576.5 peaches Cal. 56.9 52.2 1*1.1 37.5 39.7 32.3 Pears U.S. 229.5 236.8 212.1 181.6 Cal. 52.8 65.8 55.1* 1*5.2 U3-7 39.6 Plums U.S. 33.1 3)4.1 29.1i 2i*.9 Cal. 28.3 30.2 25.7 22.0 23.5 23.1* i - j " ' . L. i L - i" ! • - 13. As to national bearing acreage, only a few words are in order since reliable data for the last decade are not available. For all the fruits, except apricots and cherries, national bearing acreage declined, more sharply for apples, grapes, and freestone peaches than for plums, during the period ending 1939-19U3. When we consider California bearing acreage, however, a more complete picture may be shown as in Figure 2 • The long-term trends in bearing acreage of California deciduous fruits, re- flecting developments during the past quarter of a century, are set forth in Figure 2 . In many respects, nothing further may be said since in none of the fruits considered has bearing acreage trended upward over those years as a whole. The greatest acreage decline was in grapes, followed by apricots, then apples, freestone peaches, pears, and plums. Yet, from these reduced bearing acreages has come the generally increased production noted earlier. The reason is higher yields, but before reviewing yield trends, we pause to consider developments in nonbearing acreage. The trends in California nonbearing acreage are pictured in Figure 2 . It may seem that the trends for the various fruits differ in various ways. But there appears one common feature. In none of the fruits is the nonbearing acre- age as high as 25 years ago. And in none of the fruits has there been a marked upward surge in nonbearing acreage in recent years, although some increase has occurred in California apples and cherries. In consequence, there is little basis for expecting a marked increase in bearing acreage during the next few years. From the longer view, however, nonbearing acreage could expand and fore- shadow an increase in bearing acreage. Yield . — The various deciduous fruits during the past three decades have had much in common experience with respect to yield per bearing acre, although cer- tain differences are noticeable. The historical record for the period under re- view is summarized in the tabulation below with the California yield trends pictured in Figure 3. For all of the deciduous fruits, average yields have trended upward. Par- ticularly outstanding have been the rise in yields for pears, freestone peaches, apples, and cherries. From 19Uk-19U8 to 19U9-1953, some increase occurred in grapes but none in plums. It is clear that increased yields per bearing acre have been the underlying cause of the increased production trends noted earlier. Why yields have risen over the years, and very strongly for most of the deciduous fruits, encompasses a complex set of influences. Some of these, undoubtedly, are changing age dis- tribution of the trees with a shift toward mature bearing capacity, technological l«#|ffg$ e.&t lis «Ktf[. »9jLa>Ii£ve ton ©is ab&ooh iz^L ed$ inS tal Y.t(4t fi rf.« s^Pin .&9n.fIo9fa j$*Siq %$& e3.fie.T3?. §ox*ifi-3«JnQn 'irxoixIeO tfl abr u/oirisy: Esf rt&'i'tib &tif]i%. Buciisv arid - iox zhn&ii efi>i 0 ! ©dtf 31 Bsf ^U:!^ 9fkj" "lo. 9fK>n - {fl • 9'llf i£9l noCf.iilQt} 9ftO I e'ieri.t, ?e/t a^J-iitftfi. g»rftf xQ ; 9tion rt£ bnA -ogc eiE?^; <£5 ax tsxirj- t 9on^(fp99fios- nl . aaxxtnito bns eslqqs ^xniolxIsC £t Die r gn-X/Sub 9g.fi9 ! xoiS- S^^f^S^ ^9- ; bit/op. ^ni^as^c > &e%l& dteaq sri?- gnx'xub .9rr0.fi sftxa-ffscf' leq. bl'9±y, I arte. brtoiMT. Isoinq.: i9V9wori t w?xv lagnol >3E£»toB gxii'jBed nx 9fe ij, ayoubxos.b atfoxiEy jsqasi xttlw. MMtra j' nx bosx^xsnciys •Itf-I , bie-'^qu bebne^rJ-- ?>v,Bfi: sblsx^r; ■r-aeisvc t B^iu'il e«oirbio9b &tit 10 II b to 'I :9fj9A9q enoJaaail t .a i69q. abl9-lY ( nx. seiieiW- srjBfl anibnelad-iro ^J>isl ql £9**1/000 PCHa^affl- 9tWfr ^2^1-Q^X od • ^ii?I-iUQI otoiT .asiiierfa bne ( es ipnq ssfiJ' flsed svflrf' tn»£/. sit^wjcf *i9q/ -a t 9Y6rf 8{?l9i^ .jpIIib.9 b9tan abf >nfi09l t^XOSqeO grtXiIft9£f' ET/tfjSrfST blfr'-F'v C ©5 36 9*10 n£ teiLi; fE9l.O d&aoDa, bas ta?rs< HQS .^9an9ullnl. 10 tet FIG. 2 BEARING AND NONBEARING ACREAGE OF VARIOUS DECIDUOUS FRUITS IN CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA BEARING ACREAGE CALIFORNIA NONBEARING ACREAGE ■ 1 1 1 1 1 ■ ■ u | ' i ■ — — ■ '•* — i I I 1924- 1929- 1934- 1939- 1944- 1949- 1954- 1959- 1924- 1929- 1934- 1939- 1944- 1949- 1954- 1959- 1928 1933 1938 1943 1948 1953 1958 1963 1928 1933 1938 1943 1948 1953 1958 1963 Annual averages for 5-year periods Annual averages for 5-year periods FIG. 3 YIELD PER BEARING ACRE OF VARIOUS DECIDUOUS FRUITS IN CALIFORNIA 1924" 1929- 1934- 1939" 1944" 1949" 1954" 1959" 1928 1933 1938 1943 1948 1953 1958 1963 Annual averages for 5-year periods 16. advances, including more effective spray materials, and these in combination with improved management and cultural practices. Future yields obviously cannot be predicted with certainty, but one finds it difficult to doubt that further yield increases can and will be experienced. Yield Per Bearing Acre of Various Deciduous Fruits Fruit 192l*-1928 | 1929-1933 193U-1938 1939-191*3 19UU-l9l*8 191*9-1953 annual averages for five-year periods ; tons per bearing acre Apples U.S. 1. oO Pal 3.81* i*.5i 1*.93 5.31 6.37 7.57 Apricots U.S. O 07 '•'1 0 Oli t.OO Pa ~l 2.25 2.99 2.86 2.57 3.56 1*.13 Cherries U.S. x • ±14 1 Ifpl X.l*U Pal 1.1*6 1.51 1.1*6 1.77 2.1*7 3.38 Grapes U.S. 3.16 2.83 3.58 1*.15 Cal. 3.82 3.36 1*.1*0 1*.92 5.60 5.76 Freestone U.S. 1.51* i.5o 1.67 1.93 peaches Cal. 3.52 3.98 1*.61* 6.1*2 7.22 8.07 Pears U.S. 2.22 2.1*9 3.25 3.77 Cal. 3.1*9 3.1*9 1*.21 5.1*8 6.86 8.91 Plums U.S. 1.95 2.01 2.22 3.08 Cal. 2.07 2.07 2.37 3.27 3.1*7 3.5 Grower Prices . — The average prices received by growers tell only part of a larger story. Yet, it may be of some interest to summarize the broad develop- ments in the grower prices of deciduous fruits. That grower prices generally trend along with general business conditions is valid in only a very broad sense as suggested by the following over-all averages and as pictured for California deciduous fruits in Figure 1*. Grower price declines from the middle 1920's to the depression years of the 1930' s occurred in all of the deciduous fruits, nationally and in California. By the latter half of the 1930 's, price rises commenced and continued on to the c« x-T's-cs couaaGue^q suq i ■ ■ - - i § OA .to?, a DoCTqm .1 ilj^p .xsucGq« »ja r,:ruq3 x 17. FIG. 4 GROWER PRICES OF VARIOUS DECIDUOUS FRUITS IN CALIFORNIA 300 270 240 210 fx / / / • Cherries 180 c o a. w o o a 150 120 90 60 Plums Apricots Freestone Peaches Grapes 30 — " _ ^* . . ""vv J L 1924- 1929- 1934- 1939- 1944- 1949- 1954- 1928 1933 1938 1943 1948 1953 1958 Annual averages for 5-year periods 1959- 1963 18. war and immediate postwar years. Significant differences in the price behavior of the various fruits emerged in more recent years. While the average grower prices of apricots and plums trended upward between 19l*l*-19l*8 and 1°U Q -1 Q 53, those of the other deciduous fruits trended downward in various degrees apparent from Figure k • Grower Prices of Various Deciduous Fruits Fruit 192U-1928 1929-1933 193U-1938 1939-191*3 19UU-19U8 191*9-1953 annual averages for five-year periods; dollars per ton Apples U.S. Cal. 1*9. 50 30.67 37.17 21*. 67 31*. 17 19.50 51.33 38.33 93.33 66.92 83.OO 58.25 Apricots U.S. Cal. 58.16 37.02 36.76 1*2.90 1*2.76 66.58 61*. 80 98.60 97.32 10U.56 10U.18 Cherries U.S. Cal. 11*6.78 162.00 90.01 111.1*0 75.23 111*. 20 115.58 153.06 2li2.60 290.60 181.00 267.00 Grapes U.S. Cal. 28.90 21*. 98 20.16 17.62 18.20 16.26 31.00 29.11* 61.56 59.16 1*6.38 1*2.82 Freestone peaches U.S. Cal. 51.83 30.33 37.1*2 23.50 38.08 2l*.33 55.92 1*5.00 81*. 75 76.83 78.1*2 75.75 Pears U.S. Cal. 57.08. 52.92 37.1*2 32.92 30.50 26.33 53.50 1*7.00 96.08 90.17 79.1*2 61*. 83 Plums U.S. Cal. 68.38 71.91* 52.1*0 51*.1*2 1*6.12 1*7.12 83.72 8U.92 138.20 139.80 163.1*0 163.20 These generalizations are in terms of trend tendencies for the state and nation at large. Although the price behavior noted here characterizes the ex- perience of most growers of the respective fruits, there undoubtedly have been many exceptions depending upon particular circumstances, local production areas, and various utilizations of the fruits. But in the main, only the grower prices of apricots and plums have averaged higher in recent years, while the other de- ciduous fruits have experienced declines from the highs of the war and immediate postwar years. ot srfcj^cckfr; vat biatea piu& aaec&aflteg pjSper, ftt i&cGiif Xeaxs' £'pe cfpc?* oc btfj.f 5 oayet. crhGttospwteZi* yoc«| htcqnc^oj* sx.ass l bex^ouce oj, tsoaf &.oMsi,a oi &0ebae#?,M twrrfa* fpei.« /wqc npf ecfjX psa© p«ow ;.-5X?ou Jfct&e* vrfponS;; fP© biurCe peysrAjoi. uor-eq cpsfcetifci.jsea fp* ei£- • ■ ■ TV* -'5 ; ■ 1 *> ! *rrc 1 . ... . .... - • ■ ■ . .. . m m ■ ?i?8 rjeoxqiro ■- ppoae 0£, frtfG oft/st qeo3,q.r>^n& •ii./r^^a r-i«uqt>q qc*xjj.v3tq Jtr AtftTwia (jeSia^s sbbg •jx,^Coq 01 ©ti ?cofa suq bymms £&i?i.?q6j jrbfcpijq pe^ue^u Fifti^Tilita ^3 J ^i*S** T c523 l or pys At"5-y;tia ttrrifis eciej/Saq je tsrct* T^ot^uf ajgsI/b* MPTi* fpc «&£x.9$fr §loai© 19. Since the grower prices referred to above are averages for all utilizations, it is of interest to contrast the grower prices received from the fresh and proc- essed markets. Such prices are shown, for the 193l*-1938 and 191*9-1953 periods, in the following tabulation. Prewar (193U-1938) to Postwar (191*9-1953) Changes in California Grower Prices for Various Fresh and Processed Deciduous Fruits V tp s h 193U-1938 19U9-1953 Per cent change from 193U-1938 to 191*9-1953 fruit Fresh Processed Fresh Processed Fresh Processed annual averages for five-year periods; dollars per ton per cent Apples 27.83 8.UU 81*. 92 35.83 +205 +325 Apricots 1*9.1*0 1*2.27 152.16 98.33 +208 +133 Cherries 111*. 30 111*. 70 315.20 223.1*0 +275 + 91* Grapes 21.9k 11*. 58 55.1*8 39-67 +153 +172 Freestone peaches 32.75 20.61 102.13 53.1*3 +212 +159 Pears 28.58 23.93 71.92 61.1*6 +152 +157 Plums 1*7.82 27.00 170.80 1*7-80 +257 + 77 With the general level of prices, the grower prices for the fresh and proc- essed outlets have increased since the immediate prewar years. But the degrees of increase have varied among the various fruits; for some, the fresh-use price increased relatively more than the processed-use price, while for others the re- verse has been true. When the seven fruits are grouped, we find that in over-all terms, between 193U-1938 and 19h9-19$3, the weighted average fresh-use price received by California growers increased about 190 per cent compared with an in- crease of about 157 per cent in the processed-use weighted average price. Ex- cluding grapes, because of their wine and raisin outlets, the weighted average prices increased from 193l*-1938 to 191*9-1953 by about 213 per cent for the fresh use and about 139 per cent for the processed-use outlet. The data, thus, indicate that, in comparison with the situation during prewar years of 193U-1938, the prices received by California growers from the fresh market have in recent years, on the average, increased more than the prices received from the processed prod- ucts market. This relative lowering in the price of deciduous processed fruits probably enters into the explanation of the increase in the per-capita disappear- ance of processed deciduous fruits noted in the following pages. ■ - : ■ ■ .1' •-.*--* j.«AJ' to* ^. T5)pT^59 'wq 1ST btrfces "J^g^t jusq ^y.oaj .pj 20. Another index of the relative gross returns from deciduous fruits is a meas- ure which reflects the combined influence of prices and yield. Such measures, gross returns per bearing acre, are summarized as follows for California decidu- ous fruits. Grower Gross Returns Per Bearing Acre . — The trends resulting from the com- bined influences of yields and growers' prices, each sketched previously, may now be reviewed. By multiplying yield per bearing acre and grower prices, one obtains growers' gross returns per acre. Such computations were made for eaoh of the deciduous fruits considered here with the following five-year averages resulting. California Grower Gross Returns Per Bearing Acre for Various Deciduous Fruits Fruit 19214-1928 1929-1933 193^-1938 1939-191*3 19l*l*-19l*8 191*9-1953 annual averages for f] .ve-year periods j dollars per bearing acre Apples 117.77 111.26 96.11* 203.53 1*26.28 1*1*0.95 Apricots 130.86 109.91 122.29 166.51* 31*6.1*6 1*30.26 Cherries 236.52 168.21 166.73 270.92 717.78 902.1*6 Grapes 95.1*2 59.20 71.51; 11*3.37 331.30 21*6.61; Freestone peaches 106.76 93.53 112.89 288.90 551*. 71 611.30 Pears 181*. 69 111*. 89 110.85 257.56 618.57 577.61* Plums H*i.55 108. 1*7 109.30 273.76 h79^S 563.73 In line with the cyclical movement of prices in general, California grower gross returns per bearing acre of deciduous fruits declined during the depres- sion of the 1930's. By the latter half of the 1930's, gross returns per acre began an upward march which reflected the upward trends in both prices and yields. The upward march has continued on for most of the deciduous fruits but not for others. The two fruits for which California growers received lower average gross re- turns per bearing acre in 191*9-1953, compared with 19l*l*-19l*8, are grapes and pears, Although the average yield of grapes increased very slightly during the two peri- ods, the average grower prices decreased sufficiently so that the gross returns per bearing acre of grapes fell sharply from about $331 per acre as the average . ■ ■ ■ 21. for 19UU-19U8 to about $21*7 per acre for 191*9-1953. The average gross returns per acre of California pears declined from about $619 in 19i*l|-19l*8 to about $578 in 191*9-1953. In the case of pears, the average yield increased considerably between the two periods, but the grower prices declined sufficiently so that gross returns per bearing acre of California pears decreased. The other five deciduous fruits considered here experienced increases, by varying degrees, in the average grower gross returns per bearing acre between the 19iiU-19U8 and 19li9-1953 periods. The largest increase was that for Califor- nia cherries which had a higher average yield but a lower grower price per ton. The yield increase, however, was substantially more than sufficient to offset the price decrease. California apricots is the only one of the deciduous fruits which experi- enced an increase in both yield and grower price between 19l*l*-19l*8 and 191*9-1953. A considerable increase in the average yield in conjunction with a small increase in the average grower price resulted in the increase of grower gross returns per bearing acre of California apricots. Although growers' prices for California freestone peaches and apples aver- aged less in 191*9-1953 than in 19i*l*-19l|8, their yield had improved so that the resulting gross returns per bearing acre increased for those two fruits between the two periods. The increase in gross returns per acre of California plums came about for still a different season; there, yield decreased slightly, but it was more than offset by the increase of the average grower price between 19l*l*-19l*8 and 191*9-1953. It should be noted, although it should not require emphasis, that the grower gross returns per bearing acre referred to above are not net returns or profits received by growers. The figures are gross and, before inferences about grower net returns can be made, it is necessary to consider fixed and operating expenses incurred by growers. Thus, the period comparisons sketched here are more useful as indicators of the combined influences of yield and grower prices rather than being suggestive of grower net earnings. Fresh Sales .— With interest oriented toward developments in the fresh fruit markets, we now turn to trends in the volume of farm sales destined for fresh use. The relevant five-year averages are summarized in the following tabulation. These data are shown in Figure 5 for convenient comparisons. There may be noted the national sales of apples for fresh use exceed by a substantial amount the national level of fresh use in the other deciduous fruits. But of the Cali- fornia fruits, grapes lead in fresh use. £I,Sijqg:TJJ £ ji6 -A0JHP6 . Ot JOT*' afFJWJ q^-PJUSq tci ■ t fya Taeiesres-.o; .- : d : 1O0 orp; A 520 ?JJ3i' oi. sCLti or A be;. 1,800 - 1,400 — 1,000 600 40 20 FIG. 5 FRESH SALES OF VARIOUS DECIDUOUS FRUITS UNITED STATES FRESH SALES T •*•.„ A PPles Freestone Peaches Grapes Cherries Apricots 1,000 800 600 — 400 40 20 CALIFORNIA FRESH SALES T *\, _.—.«— •—••Grapes Freestone f~~ ~"~ Peaches Pears Apricots Cherries 1924- 1929- 1928 1933 1934- 1939- 1938 1943 1944- 1948 1949- 1953 1954- 1958 Annual averages for 5-year periods 1959- 1963 1924- 1929- 1934- 1939" 1944- 1949" 1928 1933 1938 1943 1948 1953 Annual averages for 5-year periods 1954- 1958 1959- 1963 23. Fresh Sales of Various Deciduous Fruits Fruit 192l*-1928 1929-1933 193l*-1938 ! 1939-191*3 ! 19l*l*-19i*8 191*9-1953 Ann! ps U.S. Cal. annual averages for five-year periods; thousands of tons — — 1,957. 1* 96.3 1,812.6 8U.9 l,61i5.6 88.2 1,699.1 87.8 AriT^i f*r>"hs TT.fi . Cal. Ill 2U.2 19.3 25.1 16.2 30.8 16.8 U5.9 25.2 30.9 20.2 Cherries U.S. Cal. 877 10.5 1*6.6 10.7 U6.7 12.0 1*6.5 13.6 1*7.1 11*. 7 Grace s U.S. Cal. 958.0 668.0 623.1 1*92.7 575.5 505.2 5U5.9 515.8 563.3 5i*o.o Freestone U.S. peaches Cal. 1*2.9 61*. 1 665.0 55.8 775.1 93.7 935.3 122.7 678.1* 122.0 Pears U.S. Cal. 108.6 121.9 395.9 123.3 352.3 99.9 387.0 113.3 333.2 118.1 Plums U.S. Cal. 56.1 55~U 62.1 58.5 68.li 6h.h 78.2 71*. 7 78.7 72.1* In terms of general trend, the national sale of fresh apples and fresh pears has been down during most of the past decade and a half. But between 19l*l*-19l*8 and 191*9-1953, fresh apple sales turned up slightly while fresh pear sales trended downward. The national sale of grapes for fresh use has changed little over the past 15 years, with a slight downward trend apparent. Freestone peaches increased substantially between 193U-1938 and 19l*l*-19l*8 but lost most the gain in the next five-year period. Fresh plum sales have gone up but at a reduced rate in the more recent years, and fresh cherries have hardly changed in terms of trend. Apri- cots, as freestone peaches, first trended upward in their national fresh sales then declined sharply. When California fresh sales are examined, certain differences are noticeable. Fresh cherries maintained a consistently rising trend during the three decades and, although the fresh apricot trend has also been upward, a decrease occurred in the most recent five-year period. California fresh plum sales increased sub- stantially until 19t*i*-19l*8 after which a small decline appeared. Fresh apples ■■tftm .j ' \ — • »■ _. ... - 'i O .-Oil 1 f eedsosb asxi j--. sritf golSv&ljtgagigF /pis -AjWaetf ftxertos a- ben ri&Ji eelqq* rfasptf- . ba-wJsqqjB. 6i^$b9> JX*^;; s>rrtoJcrfV.'l3s«*S£ fyieiwjitffc 21*. in California declined sharply from 193U-1938 to 1939-191*3, but then increased and, during the past decade, have just about held their own in average terms. The phenomenal increase in the fresh sales of California freestone peaches is apparent from Figure 5 , but the upward trend peaked in 19iiU— 19U8 and in the next five-year period no gain was registered. California fresh sales of pears went up then down to a low in 1939-191*3, after which an upward trend occurred, although fresh sales of pears remain under those of freestone peaches which is the reverse of the situation in the earlier years. After the sharp decline in California fresh grape sales during the 192l*-1928 to 1929-1933 period, a rising trend has declined. These so-called fresh sales, prior to 193k, must be viewed with care since, although they were sold and shipped as fresh sales, their utilization during the prohibition years was unlikely to be the same as after those years. When the recent developments in California fresh sales are reviewed for, say, between 19UU— 19U8 and 191*9-1953, v © find that grapes, pears, and cherries have increased, apples and freestone peaches remained about the same, while apri- cots and plums fell off. Since the fresh sales are not wholly independent of total sales, we next consider their interrelation in percentage terms. Fresh as Per Cent of Total Sales . — One measure of the changing position in the deciduous fresh fruit markets is the relative magnitudes of fresh sales com- pared with the total sales. When such measures are computed, the results are as tabulated on the following page. These data are shown in Figure 6 , with one panel for the national percent- ages and the second panel for California percentages. Comparison of the two panels permits noting how the national and California trends are similar in some aspects and different in others. The fresh market proportion of the plum crop has been just about level at a long-term average near 95 per cent. This is the largest fresh-use proportion of any of the deciduous fruits. When freestone peaches are reviewed, we find that nationally the percentage going into fresh sales has been slowly declining. But for California freestone peaches, the opposite has occurred the long-term trend has been upward, with the rate of increase tapering off in recent years. Fresh market sales of apples, as a per cent of total apple sales, have trended downward for the nation as a whole and also for California, mth the rate of decline being stronger in California than nationally. The national figure de- clined from near 75 to 70 per cent between 193l*-1938 and 191*9-1953, while the California figure declined from 55 to 1*5 per cent during the same period. liSSBQ'IDnX flSnj JXJy t Cl ro itedt bled tuod& ci-oufc evsjrf ,5»bso$fc cfssq :oxKbO lo 89l*8 tfesii erf.1 nl eaeeioni: Isne< ti bejjBoq bnoi* trtfiwqu prfi dx/i t 5 erugi^ im simollisO .bexftfex^s? esw nleg on borieq •33©H seort\J rebcui nxsirot etseq xc 39ls3 *XQ 3£li j^CXTXTO jTI 391B8 iiOSIX BXiVIC I ifsdi bnj cti/ocfs bonxfiirsi as [odw ion sib asls* tnso^q nJr noxiBXs < 5 CO o 60 o c 50 a> o 01 a. in 30 20 10 Plums Cherries \ 'V / - — \— ✓ Free stone Jt . Peaches Apples Pears ma00 . . Grapes — »*—"—* *— — Apricots 1 1924- 1929- 1934- 1939- 1944- 1949- 1954- 1959- 1928 1933 1938 1943 1948 1953 1958 1963 Annual averages for 5-year periods 1924- 1929- 1934- 1939" 1944- 1949- 1954- 1959" 1928 1933 1938 1943 1948 1953 1958 1963 Annual averages for 5- year periods K> vn 26. Fresh as Per Cent of Total Sales of Various Deciduous Fruits Fruit 192U-1928 1929-1933 193U-1938 ' 1939-191*3 19itU-19U8 19U9-1953 annual averages for five-year periods j percentages Apples U.S. — — 76.0 72.0 72.3 70.0 Cal. 52.5 50.7 ii6.ii Apricots U.S. 10.1 11.7 18.5 18.7 16.1 Cal. 7.1 8.2 8.0 11.5 **** ■ s 11.5 11.1 Cherries U.S. 35.2 32.5 26.8 21.8 Cal. 61.U 56.2 53.5 58.0 U5.6 U6.7 Grapes U.S. 27.7 22.8 18.7 19.6 Cal. U8.5 38.7 23.8 21.5 18.6 20.0 Freestone U.S. 82.0 80.5 80.7 78.8 peaches Cal. 22.6 30.9 29.7 39.0 U3-8 U7.3 Pears U.S. 67.5 58.6 56.5 U9.U Cal. 59.6 61.0 55.8 hi. 2 37.5 33.9 Plums U.S. 96.7 96.3 93.5 95.7 Cal. 95T5 96.6 96.9 96.5 93.7 95.h The proportion of fresh to total sales of pears also declined, both nation- ally and in California. The decline in this state's percentage began after the 1929-1933 peak and has continued at varying rates during the succeeding five-year periods with the percentage declines between 1939-19ii3 to 19hU-19i*8 and 19Uii-19lj8 to 19U9-1953 being about equivalent. The proportion of cherries marketed fresh has trended downward during the past decade and a half when the national situation is considered. For California the long-term downward trend was interrupted by the rise in 19kh-19hQ only to re- sume in the next five-year period. But between 19Uh-19h8 and 19U9-1953* the Cali- fornia fresh percentage for cherries recovered and rose slightly. It should be noted that the California experience is heavily weighted by fresh cherries which is also reflected by the considerably higher proportion of California cher- ries going to fresh market than is characteristic of the national crop of cherries. California fresh sales of grapes, as per cent of total grape sales, followed a declining trend until the 19Uh-l?U8 period. During the most recent five-year nssod ri s tans s=»f 27. period considered, there was recorded an increase in the fresh grapes percentage. But the fresh grape percentage has not recovered to the level prevailing imme- diately before the war. The national proportion of fresh sales has trended up. Apricots, both nationally and in California, generally have a smaller pro- portion of their crop sold for fresh use than any of the other deciduous fruits. The fresh proportion for apricots trended up until 1939-19^3, changed somewhat during the next period, and then receded very slightly in California, but more so for the national crop sales. When recent experience is reviewed, we find that nationally only in plums and grapes had there been an increase in the volume of fresh sales as a percentage of total sales; the national percentages declined for freestone peaches, apples, pears, cherries, and apricots. The recent California experience by comparison has been as follows: the fresh percentages for freestone peaches increased as well as those for plums and grapes; the fresh percentages for apples and pears declined; and apricots declined but only very slightly, while cherries rose slightly. vJe now turn to review of developments in the per-capita disappearance of de- ciduous fruits. All uses combined and fresh use will be considered separately. Per-Capita Disappearance, Total and Fresh .— Trend estimates of per-capita disappearance, as indicators of consumption, reflect the interactions of produc- tion, supplies marketed, demand, price, income, population, and consumer prefer- ences and tastes. Such influences and their interactions do not remain constant over time, with resulting effects on the per-capita figures. Thus, in a general way, per-capita disappearance figures are symptoms of basic underlying develop- ments of the type discussed in other sections of this report. The computed average per-capita disappearance rates for deciduous fruits are as tabulated in the following page. The changing relative positions in the per-capita disappearance of deciduous fruits are shown in Figure 7, with one panel for per-capita total disappearance and the other panel for per-capita fresh disappearance. These per-capita aver- ages, based on the indicated periods, trace the trend developments during the past three decades during which time various changes have emerged. In review of the per-capita total disappearance trends, we find that by the latter half of the 1930' s, grapes (in all uses combined) about equaled and then exceeded apples. This came about through a declining trend in apples and a rising trend in grapes, although the per-capita trends in total disappearance of apples and grapes have reversed in recent years. Between 191^-191*8 and 19k9-19$3, the per-capita rate for grapes declined while that for apples increased slightly. ; i: n". ~ < ft 5 bt tot • ' n&i . ••• r ■'■ ■ ' • •.. •• y to : ■." i.f ' • " ' . ana b avsrl ^iXsmasg tstrraoltlsO ftc fans vllfinoxcfert ASod ^eiooisqA [3 ..." Cj " I ' ' ' ■ ' ... : : IcQ .'- . :I ' . ■ . ts • •' ■ . .: bn , ; iBOJ :■ ■ 1 -. - ■ • y fir,: " • .' . j . • ei.rs to"] ' ' ! " > • * ■" ..... j ' .■ -/. ;ol srii sJ a ■.. . : " rd •• . . : • • '■- , - - ± ■ .. • -■ ■, . . . • . ' . i tJ j gfii^Irsbnu oxescf "io arao^qnr^e bib sQU/gi'i eoftsieoqqBBlb actiqeo-ieq «*CBV .. i ■ - > ' XI '. ■' ' , . ■-■ , - ■ ' - - • tot BSC ! ■ Rj ' . ■ ' : ■ ' ' • ! : ' - . •' . •• • ' «93fiq gart'fOHo.t ©cio fti .oajsivciej »ss riub aJrraaxqoIov&b fcr.aii StlJ aosti t aboi'f9a bsdsoibrti edi £io baaed t 39S,r balfii/pa #uocfe (baitWmon aoau II t ". .tx) asqexg t 3 f 0C^I 6iH Hsrf i&ftsl eoncssaqqeexb Isiot rrl sbftsii siMqsO-isq arfi rfsirorfctls t eeqs?3 iri hasvd £-^?I bar. Si^I-jU&C BO j W i tlfl .STss-c cfrrdoo'r ni bsatevsi svsrf asqst^ bm cXr ba339T9fl± B^Iqqs icA .terfJ- eltrfvr b^fsxI&gL Bsrqsri^ tori &is'X s^iqs?J-i&: FIG. 7 PER CAPITA DISAPPEARANCE, TOTAL AND FRESH, OF VARIOUS DECIDUOUS FRUITS TOTAL DISAPPEARANCE PER CAPITA 55.0 45.0 35.0 c a» 5 25.0 % 15.0 i tn _ _ « 5.0 \ »• Grapes ... Apples Freestone * Peaches Pears a. o u w T5 c 3 o a. 4.0 — 3.0 — 2.0 1.0 ^« Cherries \ Apricots Plums 1 FRESH DISAPPEARANCE PER CAPITA 60.0 52.0 44.0 36.0 2 28.0 a. a u — * 20.0 in X> c I 16.0 — 12.0 — 8.0 — 4.0 T - Apples Apricots 1924- 1929- 1934- 1939- 1944- 1949- 1954- I959~ 1928 1933 1938 1943 1948 1953 1958 1963 Annual averages for 5-year periods 1924- 1928 1939- 1944- 1943 1948 1929- 1934 1933 1938 Annual averages for 5-year periods 1949- 1954- 1953 1958 Grapes — Plums ■ — Cherries 1959- 1963 29. United States Per-Capita Disappearance Estimates for Various Deciduous Fruits Fruit 1 0?)i_T o?fi 1929-1933 193U-1938 1939-19U3 1 19liU-19U8 19ii9-1953 annual averages for five-year periods; pounds per capita per year, fresh weight equivalents Apples Total 51.7 31.8 31.8 j- 28. h 29.2 Fresh 1*9.1 U. 9 29.1 28.6 2U.3 22.8 Apricots Total 1.7 2.U 2.2 2.3 3.3 2.h Fresh 0.2 o.U O.U o.5 0.7 o.U Cherries Total 2.0 2.U 2.7 3.0 Fresh 1.8 l.U 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.8 Grapes Total 32.5 28.5 32.2 35.5 37.8 35.7 Fresh 9.3 8.1 6.7 6.0 5.7 $.u Freestone Total 16.9 1U.2 lii.l 15.9 18.1 12.1 peaches Fresh 12.U 12. h 13.6 15.U 9.8 Pears Total 7.7 7.2 8.U 10.0 10.6 9.U Fresh 6.U 5.9 6.3 6.3 6.2 5.0 Plums Total 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.6 1 2.1 Fresh 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.1* 2.U 2.0 The per-capita disappearance of freestone peaches in all uses first declined and then trended upward through the middle and latter 19U0's. But a considerable decline developed within recent years. Thus, from the long-term view, the per- capita disappearance rate for freestone peaches changed little, perhaps declin- ing very slightly. Pears, in terms of per-capita total disappearance, trended up slowly until 19Uii-19l*8, then receded slightly. The over-all per-capita rate for apricots, with its ups and downs, trended upward also until the 19UU-19U8 period, then dropped substantially between 19UU-19U8 and 19ii9-1953. Plums, as measured by their per-capita total disappear- ance, trended down with a considerable decline developing also between 19kh-^-9hQ and 19U9-1953. Thus, although plums and apricots have opposite long-term trends, for both fruits these have been significant per-capita recessions during the last five-year period. In contrast, the per-capita total disappearance rate for cherries has fol- lowed a consistent upward trend which continued through their 19U9-1953 average. Only for cherries is there evident a significant per-capita increase between 19ilU-19U8 and 19^9-1953. The only other deciduous fruit registering an increase 30. in the per-capita total disappearance during that period was apples, with its increase being only a very slight one. It appears that 19l*U-19l*8 was a significant period in that it marked a turning point in the trend behavior of per-capita total disappearance of the various deciduous fruits, excepting cherries. After 19l*l*-19l*8, and reflecting the average experience during recent years, the per-capita total disappearance turned down significantly for plums, apricots, freestone peaches, grapes, and also down for pears but not so strongly; the rate of cherries increased, as noted earlier, while that for apples increased only slightly. Thus, it is clear, when the deciduous fruits are considered as a group, an index of their total per-capita disappearance declined between the 19l*l*-19l*8 and 191*9-1953 periods. In view of the findings presented above for per-capita total disappearance, there remains the question as to what have been the trend developments in the per-capita disappearance of fresh deciduous fruits. The summary average data were shown in the preceding tabulation and also are pictured in Figure 7 . We now survey the trends shown there. It does not require close study of Figure 7 to see the marked downward trend in the per-capita fresh disappearance of apples. Although the rate of decline has not been as strong during 19l*l*-19l*8 to 191*9-1953 as in some earlier periods, the downward trend persisted. This contrasts with the disappearance per-capita rate of apples in all uses which rose slightly between 19l*l*-1953 decade. The changing situation in per-capita disappearance of fresh apples may be emphasized by noting that the average rate for 191*9-1953 was less than half of what it was 25 years earlier. After a downward trend from 192l*-1928 to 1929-1933, the fresh freestone per-capita disappearance rate began an accelerated rise which peaked with the average for 19UU— 19U8 . During the next five years, however, the fresh freestone rate fell sharply to a level lower than at any period considered here. As a result, the average per-capita disappearance rate for 191*9-1953 was about 61* per cent of the average rate in 19l*l*-19l*8 , 5 years earlier, and 68 per cent of the average rate in 192l*-1928, 25 years earlier. The general conformation of the per-capita disappearance trend for fresh freestone peaches was much like that for the trend of per-capita disappearance of all freestone peaches. Fresh pears maintained a fairly stable per-capita disappearance from 1921* -1928 to 19l*l*-19l*8 which was reflected by a horizontal long-term trend. Yet, from 19l*l*-19l*8 to 191*9-1953, the trend turned downward. As a result, the fresh per- capita average rate for 191*9-1953 was about 85 per cent of the average for pre- vious quarter of a century. -91 31. Grapes shipped for fresh use display a persistent downward per-capita dis- appearance rate. The trend decline during the past decade, however, has slowed so that the decrease in recent years was smaller than in previous periods. Yet, the record still shows a trend pointing downward. Fresh plums and fresh cherries have roughly parallel per-capita disappear- ance trends, each characterized by a slight downward slope. The change from one period to the next has been small. But when we compare the averages for re- cent years with those of the middle 1920 's, we find that fresh plums decreased about 30 per cent and fresh cherries decreased about 55 per cent which are mean- ingful changes. The long-term trend in the per-capita disappearance of fresh apricots has been upwards, with a historical peak in 19hk-19h&, followed by a decline in 19U9-1953. As a result, the average per-capita disappearance of fresh apricots in recent years has been about equivalent to the average rate during the 1929-1938 decade. It need not be concluded that the declines in the average per-capita dis- appearance of fresh deciduous fruits experienced during the past five or so re- cent years are forerunners of further declines. Such may occur, but it certainly is not inevitable. Historical trends of per-capita disappearance, as trends for other economic time series, record what has occurred, not what will occur. Trends often have a characteristic of reversing their direction and such can well occur in the per-capita disappearance of fresh deciduous fruits. That such a possi- bility merits the interest of the fresh deciduous fruit industries need not here be stressed. 32. VARIOUS DECIDUOUS FRUITS The preceding review of selected major deciduous fruits was presented in comparative terms. Particular economic aspects as production, acreage, yield, total and fresh sales, and per-capita disappearance trends were considered in turn, with attention directed to comparisons among the various fruits. Certain similarities and differences were noted. This section of the report reconsiders the materials discussed earlier. But now we turn to a review of each of the respective fruits. The related trends for each fruit separately will be examined. The materials on production, acre- age, yield, and utilization are set forth as background for consideration of the per-capita disappearance in fresh outlets. Although this section duplicates in part the preceding materials, there is the advantage of having an integrated account of significant and related developments as they pertain to a particular fruit. Those readers who are in the main concerned with one of the specific deciduous fruits, thus, may find in this section an over-all account of that specific fruit. Apples Production . — Apple production fluctuates from year to year, with sharp changes often occurring from one year to the next. This is characteristic of the crop in the country at large as well as in California. For the country at large, there has been a declining trend in production during most of the past 30 years, but it appears the bottom of the decline may have occurred around ~L9h5> Since then, there has been a rising trend, although the level is still under that of the 1930 's. California apple production, in contrast with the national trend, has generally varied around a level trend. The average production in recent years has not been much different from that of 25-30 years earlier. Through years of national prosperity, depression, active and "cold" war s> apple production in California has continued to maintain a fairly stable average level over the years. Apples; Production 33. Period United States California annual averages periods; 1, for five-year 000 tons 192U-1928 3,278.7 197.1 1929-1933 3,108.2 201.7 193li-1938 2,895.2 I880U 1939-19U3 2,817.2 176.7 19hh-i9hQ 2,Wi3.6 198. k 19U9-1953 2,661.7 Bearing Acreage . — Since the determinants of apple production are bearing acreage and yield, they are next considered. The pertinent trend data on bear- ing acreage of apples are as follows: Apples: Bearing Acreage Period United States California annual averages periods; 1, for five-year 000 acres 192^-1928 2,300.3 51.6 1929-1933 2,093.9 hh.9 193U-1938 1,821.2 38.li 1939-19U3 1,500.3 33.1+ 19UU-19U8 31.0 • 19U9-1953 25.6 a/ Dashes indicate data not available. A declining trend in apple-bearing acreage is characteristic of both Cali- fornia and the country at large. For the nation, reliable bearing acreage data are not available for recent years, yet the inference may be made that bearing noj I 3k* acreage in apples continued to recede somewhat. The situation in California is more clear, however, since more adequate data are available. In California, recent acreage producing apples tfrs about one half of the bearing acreage of a quarter century earlier. Figure 8 also shows the trend in California nonbearing acreage of apples. There occurred a sharp decline during the latter half of the 1920' s, with a moderate decline continuing until the middle of the 19lt0«s. Thereafter, for several years, nonbearing acreage trended up but, by 1950, turned down again. Now, nonbearing apple acreage in California is approaching the level of ten years earlier and is insufficient, by itself, to suggest an upward surge in pro- duction during the next few years. Yield .— Volume of production of apples per'bearing acre and yield has fol- lowed a different course in California compared with the country as a whole. The differences are suggested by the following summary averages: Apples: Yield Per Bearing Acre Period United States California annual averages for five-year periods; tons per bearing acre 192U-1928 1.1*3 3.8U 1929-1933 Uk9 k*$L 193ii-1938 1.60 h.93 1939-19U3 1.87 5.31 19hh-19hZ ~*/ 6.37 19^9-19*3 7.57 a/ Dashes indicate data not available. Aside from the higher average yield in California compared with the nation, another distinguishing feature merits comment. Yield per bearing acre of apples in California has followed a persistent and strong upward trend during the past three decades. The state yield has varied from year to year, characteristic of deciduous tree fruits, yet the upward trend is sharp and clear. I 35. FIG. 8 APPLES; PRODUCTION, ACREAGE AND YIELD 36. For the country as a whole, apple yield trended up from the middle 1920' s to the early 19U0's; thereafter, the trend ceased rising and, although national yield data are not available for the years after 19^6, the inferences to be made from national production suggest that yield is unlikely to have risen, at least substantially. It is reasonably clear that the downward trend in national apple production first resulted from the overpowering influence of declining acreage conpared with a rising yield; later, declining yield operated in combination with the receding bearing acreage. But in California, stable average production of ap- ples during the past three decades has resulted from a rising yield trend inter- acting with a declining bearing acreage trend. The interactions among the apple production, acreage, and yield trends are pictured in Figure 8, where index numbers are shown by years. The details submerged in the five-year averages referred to above can be noted, and the indexes permit examination of the re- spective trends in comparable terms. Sales, Total and Fresh .— Apple production, dealt with above, is in part used on the farm but, in most part, sold for distribution through commercial channels. These channels include fresh-use outlets and processed products as canned apples, canned applesauce, and apple juices (including cider) which have received increasing attention in recent years. An over-all picture of the trends in fresh versus processed utilization of apples is summarized by the following five-year averages: Apples: Total and Fresh Sales United States California Period | Total sales Fresh sales Total sales Fresh sales annual averages for five-year periods; 1,000 tons, fresh weight basis 193U-1938 ! 2,582.3 l,9S7.h 183.U 96.3 1939-19U3 2,£L8.U 1,812.6 168.0 81;. 9 19l0i-19U8 j 2,293.U 1,61^.6 190.2 88.2 19U9-19S3 1 2,Ii35.0 1,699.1 191. k 87.8 37. For the country at large, total farm sales of apples trended down until near the end of the 19^0* s and, during the past several years, recovered some- what, although total sales now average under the volume of a decade ago. Since the middle 1930' s, fresh sales have tended to account for a shrinking proportion of total sales for all uses. Whereas, national fresh sales accounted for 75 per cent of the total in 193U-1938, the figure was 70 per cent for 191*9-1953. How- ever, there has been only a very slight change in the national average percent- age in the past decade. When we look at the above figures for California, a somewhat different picture emerges. Total farm sales of California apples, in recent years, ex- ceeded the earlier sales volume, although fresh sales behaved differently. In the middle 1930' s, and thereabouts, fresh sales were slightly over one half of the total but now are near 1*5 per cent of the total. Thus, for California-pro- duced apples, as well as for the national production, the fresh market has shrunk — by about the same relative amounts. California apples consistently have been utilized in products to a relatively larger extent than national production, from 25 to 30 per cent nationally' and from 1*8 to 1*1* per cent for California. Further, during the past decade practically no trend change has developed, either nation- ally or in California, with respect to the proportion of total sales accounted for by fresh sales of apples. These are broad generalizations from which there have been departures in particular years but, as an over-all picture, the situa- tion has been as indicated here. Grower Prices . — In terms of broad swings, the average grower prices for California apples are correlated with the national average prices. Yet, impor- tant differences prevail as suggested by the following five-year average prices: Apples: Grower Prices Period United States California annual averages for five-year periods; dollars per ton 192l*-1928 U9.58 30.67 1929-1933 37.08 2U.67 193U-1938 3U.17 19.50 1939-191*3 51.25 38.33 19l*l*-19U8 93.33 66.92 19U9-1953 82,92 58.25 38. That grower prices for California apples average under those for the country at large is a well-known fact illustrated by the foregoing data. This disparity fluctuates from year to year but a substantial difference prevails. Reasons for the difference are many, including the fact mentioned earlier that a larger proportion of California apples go into products (a lower value use outlet) as well as product characteristics from the view of consumers. In the postwar years, grower prices for apples exceeded the prewar averages and, in the past couple of years, approached wartime high records. Inflationary price trends account in part for these developments in apple prices. But of im- portance also is the relatively small apple supply as against incomes of con- summers and the growth in population. Per-Capita Disappearance, Total and Fresh : — Elsewhere in this report are general review comments on population and income trends. Thus, they need not be surveyed in detail here. Yet, it is necessary to indicate the broad develop- ments in per-capita consumption of apples resulting from the combined effects of consumer preferences, income, prices, and numbers of potential consumers. Some per-capita "consumption" (in fact, disappearance) figures are summarized as follows: Apples: United States Per-Capita Disappearance, Total and Fresh Period Total (all uses) Fresh use Products annual averages for five-year periodsj pounds per capita, fresh weight basis 192U-1928 51.7 U9.1 2.6 1929-1933 hh.h U1.9 2.5 193ii-1938 31.8 29.1 2.7 1939-19U3 31.8 28.6 3.2 19UU-19U8 28.U 2li.3 l.l 19U9-1953 29.2 22.8 6.U The production and utilization trends in apples take on more significance when viewed in terms of population and market groxirth as measured by the above erfj iol &5CUJ teams $%&t$\'Q esixfcp? sifftotrx : ( 39. per-capita figures. Definite downward trends prevail in the per-capita use of apples, all uses combined, or fresh use separately. The per-capita use of ap- ple products has increased during the past years, but such increase has not been sufficient to offset the significant per-capita decline in use of fresh apples. The per-capita total disappearance during the past ten years has tended to sta- bilize somewhat but at lower average levels than in earlier years, although the per-capita fresh disappearance still trends down. It is reasonably clear that the fresh market apple industry is currently faced with a situation where it is not keeping pace with the long-term economic and population growth of the country. Fresh Apple Exports . — Since in some years exports of fresh apples account for an important part of the market, the position of the apple export market is considered. Some data bearing on this question are summarized in the following five-year averages. Apples: United States Fresh Exports Period Fresh exports Fresh exports as per cent of total fresh sales 1,000 tons per cent 192U-1928 3U7.U 1929-1933 358.U 193U-1938 2I1O.U 12.3 1939-19H3 1.6 19Uii-19U8 57.6 3.U 19U9-1953 57.2 3.3 a/ Dashes indicate data not available. These data indicate the extent to which the tonnage of fresh apple exports have shrunk compared with the prewar years. In the postiirar years, exports have fluctuated between $5,000 and 65,000 tons and have averaged 2 to 5 per cent of total fresh disappearance. These are sharp contrasts with prewar export busi- ness. It is summary data as these xfhich account for the interest of the fresh apple industry in the expansion of foreign trade and the regaining of export markets. -taq ao-'roq 9aT .TEX-s^s'tsqse b&u rlcait ig tiHirticfooi? a^ci' XXb <39lq~s ■ttwni ^oiiH cl^cf - 3 iKB^ 5"BtsfT erit gnimb !>93seioflx erH attoubo'iq eXq .^an ni sniloeb sdixjso-'s&q •j'nesilii'gia 9. r ii ?3allo oi unsxoxl'h/v' sjd fVes^ nsd- *ssq orii gni*iob eofiinssqqsaib Ifi^ocf atfrqso-iaq 9ifF S0$J T&XJ/'BS ili nsxi'7 EX9VSJ. 93&'XSV::" TCOWC'—. *^ olid Jfifl no^-sri ?i: .51 »rtwob sbrraii XXitfs 9onn'i£9c'q.:?2b dast 1 anises *> r»^j.ur bsosx TXd'fis'styo zi "•^r^sx/bni oXqqs jsjrr bssi^ifiirssni otfi noxcl-aaup exrii ao gnxisscf afosb smS » 3? jjS1£ ■ ■" d-seisini 9ri.1 to- itmrorai Apricots UO. Production . -"Apricots are another deciduous fruit used fresh, for canning, and for drying. At the outset, it may be noted that, by far, the preponderance of apricot production is located in California. Thus, this state dominates the national situation in apricots. This is clearly indicated by the following five- year averages: Apricots: Production Period United States California annual averages periods; 1, for five-year 000 tons 192U-1928 168.6 167. h 1929-1933 2U8.6 2U2.8 193U-1938 229.6 216.0 1939-19U3 201.0 179.U 19liU-19U8 265.9 23U.U 19U9-1953 202.9 187.6 The annual production of apricots fluctuates widely but over periods of years, production tends to run in cycles rather than follow a consistent trend. Reaching a peak in the early 1930' s, production then receded only to advance to new highs during the middle 19l|0»s, Since then, production has declined again and in recent years has averaged around 200,000 tons annually. Bearing Acreage . — The widely variable production of apricots has come from a bearing acreage which has trended slowly but generally downward. The over-all bearing acreage trend is embodied in the next tabulation. Apricot bearing acreage reached a peak at the end of the 1920' s. Since then, a persistent downward trend prevailed, with a leveling off in the middle 19U0's but only to be followed by a steep fall during 19U7-1950. Since 1950, apricot bearing acreage has receded but only very slightly. Nonbearing followed a downward course rapidly declining during the latter half of the 1930' s and less rapidly but persistently since then. ©.tier 8©afln..Ltu0jj 9j"Sij3 riXrtu jg&HJXi * ^jsjirrox-tJ Apricots: Bearing Acreage Period annual averages for five-year periods; 1,000 acres 192U-1928 1929-1933 193h-1938 1939-19U3 19UU-19U8 19U9-1953 United States | California 7U.1 Bh.7 80.2 7U.5 7U.1 83.I 75.7 69.3 66.1 h$.9 a/ Dashes indicate data not available. Yield ; — The highly variable annual yields are not fully submerged by even the five-year averages. In very broad terms t the yield trend has followed an upward course, being particularly pronounced in recent years. In 19U9-1953* the yield averaged U.13 tons conpared with 2.99 in 1929-1933 and 2.25 in 192li-1928. Apricots: Yield Per Bearing Acre Period United States California annual averages for five-year periods; tons per bearing acre 192U-1928 2.27 2.25 1929-1933 2.9U 2.99 193U-1938 2.87 2.86 1939-19U3 2.68 2.57 19U*-19U8 3.56 19U9-1953 RM U.13 a/ Dashes indicate data not available. hz. The comparative trends in production, acreage, and yield of California apricots are pictured in Figure 9 • There may be seen that the annual fluctua- tions in production have been heavily dominated by varying yields. The indexes indicate that the generally declining trend in bearing acreage has in large part been offset by the upward trend in yield. Sales, Total and Fresh , — To indicate the shifting relative proportion of the apricot crop going to the fresh market, the following five-year averages are presented: Apricots: Sales, Total and Fresh United States California Period Total sales Fresh sales Total sales Fresh sales annual averages for five-year periods; 1,000 tons, fresh weight basis 192^-1928 165.8 11.5 1929-1933 2ia.o 2tt*2 235.6 19.3 193U-1938 226.0 25.1 21U.3 16.2 1939-19U3 195.3 30.8 175.1 16.8 19U+-19U8 256.5 1*5.9 228.5 25.2 191*9-1953 197.6 30.9 181*. 9 20.2 a/ Dashes indicate data not available. Total sales of apricots moved along with production noted above. The sale of fresh apricots has tended to be slightly more stable from year to year than total sales, with variability in the crop being absorbed more in the dried and canned apricot markets. In the postwar years, the proportion of the apricot crop going to the fresh market (10-11 per cent) is larger than in the prewar years (7-8 per cent). The fresh outlet has tended to absorb a slightly increas- ing proportion of the crop over the years in terms of a percentage trend. A complete account of this development entails a detailed examination of develop- ments in the dried and canned outlets, with the former being influenced by the export situation and the latter being influenced by other canned fruits. p&£»&£ ni biwit bisvrqy ©rid 1, ^jcf cteBllo rrgecf jniwoXIol- arfi t ^9^isf(i rfaon'i- sdl of §citog epic ^ooi'xqs arid- m m rnsC'19! add" ftf bf i von s jj ! ex (d"n90 leq to yp a *3. FIG. 9 APRICOTS; PRODUCTION, ACREAGE AND YIELD AND PER CAPITA DISAPPEARANCE CALIFORNIA PRODUCTION, ACREAGE AND YIELD UNITED STATES PER CAPITA DISAPPEARANCE 1924 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 Grower Prices .— To indicate the general course of prices received by farmers for apricots, the following five-year averages are presented: Apricots: California Grower Prices Period California annual averages for five-year periods; dollars per ton 192U-1928 58.16 1929-1933 36.76 193U-1938 1*2.76 1939-19U3 68.80 19UU-19U8 97.32 19U9-1953 10U.18 The broad movements in farm prices are reflected in the above averages. Of particular interest is the relatively high average for the more recent post- war years. Although by 19 I4.8 there was a substantial decline from the wartime high (19li3), after 1950 relatively high prices were attained again. Here again demand for eanning apricots was in large part responsible. Per-Capita Disappearance, Total and Fresh .— Now, we consider the situation in per-capita disappearance of apricots. Again, total per capita is contrasted with fresh per capita. For this purpose, the following five-year averages were computed? Apricots: United States Per-Capita Disappearance, Total and Fresh Period Total (all uses) Fresh use Products (canned and dried) annual averages for five-year periods; 1 pounds per capita, fresh weight basis | 192ii-1928 1.7 0.2 1.5 1929-1933 2.U o.U 2.0 193U-1938 2.2 o.U 1.8 1939-191*3 2.3 0.5 1.8 19U+-19U8 3.3 0.7 2.6 19U9-1953 2.1; o.U 2.0 Up to the middle 19lt0's, the per-capita disappearance of apricots in all uses combined followed a slight upward trend. After the highs in I9I4I4. and 19lj6, the level receded to about 2.U pounds per capita which is near the average fig- ure for the 1930's. Thus, as a broad generalization, for the period as a whole since the middle 1920' s, the over-all per-capita disappearance of apricots has just about kept pace with population growth. The per-capita disappearance of fresh apricots followed a slight upward trend until about 19U9. Since then, per-capita fresh level has averaged some- what lower, approaching the level prevailing during the 1930' s. As a general statement, one might say that the per-capita disappearance of fresh apricots in recent years has not maintained its previous expansion and during the past sev- eral years has been near the level prevailing during most of the 1930' s. Fresh Apricot Exports . — Although exports of fresh apricots do not make up a significant proportion of the total crop, they do in some years comprise a meaningful percentage of total fresh disappearance. Recognizing variation in fresh apricot exports, with some years having hardly any export market, other years have experienced a relatively substantial export market. In 19^0, about 10 per cent of total fresh disappearance went to export outlets. The export market for fresh apricots, moreover, has over the years maintained its relative position in the disposition of the supply going to fresh use. Apricots: United States Fresh Exports Period Fresh exports Fresh exports as per cent of total fresh sales annual averages for five-year periods 1,000 tons per cent 1939-19U3 1.7 19UU-19U8 1*6 M 3.5 19U9-1953 2.3 7.U Cherries Cherries are processed as well as shipped fresh, the particular utiliza- tion depending upon location of production, variety, and whether "sweet" or 1*6. "sour" cherries are involved. In this sketch, all such distinguishing features are submerged, with attention directed to the situation in California compared with the country at large and developments in the fresh contrasted with the processed markets. Production . — At the outset, as for the other deciduous fruits, we consider the broad trends in cherry production. Period averages are as follows: Cherries: Production Period United States California annual averages periods; L for five-year ,000 tons 192U-1928 83.I Hu8 1929-1933 125.6 19.8 193U-1938 139.7 21.3 1939-19U3 166.3 23.6 19UU-19U8 191.2 30.1 19U9-1953 231.1 32.3 With wide year-to-year swings, particularly in California, cherry produc- tion has over the years increased very substantially. When the averages for 192U-1928 and ±9k9-19$3 are compared, we find that national cherry production increased 180 per cent and that California cherry production increased 120 per cent. Thus, although distributed unevenly among the producing areas, over-all production has increased at a marked rate. Therefore, it is helpful to review the determinants of production. Acreage . — National bearing acreage of cherries rose slowly and then mod- erately during the latter half of the 1920' s. And in the early 1930's, there was a sharp rise but only to be followed by a leveling off until the middle 19U0»s. In California, cherry bearing acreage increased at a substantial rate from 192U-1938. Beginning the next year and continuing on to 1950, California bearing acreage fell off. After 19!?0, the decline was arrested and some slight increase was reflected. Cherries: Bearing Acreage Period United States California annual averages for five-year periods; 1,000 bearing acres 192U-1928 73.0 10.2 1929-1933 89.3 13.1 193U-1938 106.1 1U.5 105.8 13.3 19Ui-19ii8 12.1 19U9-1953 9.5 a/ Dashes indicate data not available. California nonbearing acreage of cherry trees was at a high peak in 1926 and 1927. From then until 191^ a sharp decline occurred first precipitously and then slowly. Some recovery developed during 19U7-1950 and during the past several years has been stable at a level of about 70 per cent of that in I92lj. During much of the period, the trends in California bearing and nonbearing acre- age were in opposite directions, although both have been relatively stable since 1950. Yield . — Differences have existed in the yield experience of California cherries compared with the country at large. The major differences are re- flected in the following five-year averages: Cherries: Yield Per Bearing Acre Period United States California annual averages for five-year periods; tons per bearing acre 192^-1928 Lilt 1.U6 1929-1933 1.U0 1.51 193U-1938 1.32 l.h6 1939-19U3 1.57 1.77 19l^-19U8 2.JU7 19U9-1953 3.38 a/ Dashes indicate data not available. 1*8. The upward trend in cherry yield, particularly since the middle of the 1930' s, is evident from the above averages. In fact, increased yield was suf- ficiently strong so that it offset the decline in number of bearing acres and thus resulted in the rising trend in production. With the recovery in nonbear- ing acreage in California in recent years and, if the level of yield is main- tained, there is likelihood of further increase in cherry production. This, of course, presumes that withdrawal of acreage will not more than offset the tonnage becoming available through newly bearing cherry trees. The statistical basis for such developments are summarized in Figure 10, which shows the com- parative trends in production, acreage, and yield. Sales, Total and Fresh . — We now consider total farm sales of cherries and the volume moved into fresh- use channels. The pertinent five-year averages are as folloitfs: Cherries: Sales, Total and Fresh United States California Period Total sales Fresh sales Total sales 1 Fresh sales annual averages for five-year periods; 1,000 tons, fresh weight basis 192U-1928 72.9 1U.U 8.7 1929-1933 101.5 18.8 10.5 193^-1938 121.9 1*6.6 20.1 10.7 1939-1913 1U7.8 li6.7 21.5 12.0 i$hk-i$W 179.1 U6.5 29.8 13.6 19U9-1953 215.7 U7.1 32.0 llw? a/ Dashes indicate data not available. The above data reflect the fact California-produced cherries enter into fresh-use channels in a greater proportion than do cherries in the country at large. Yet, for both California and the nation, fresh cherry sales in the post- war years make up a smaller proportion of the respective total sales than was usual in the prewar sales. In the prewar years, the California fresh sales pro- portion averaged about 55 per cent and the national fresh sales proportion FIG. 10 CHERRIES; PRODUCTION, ACREAGE UNITED STATES PRODUCTION, ACREAGE AND YIELD 340, : FRESH SALES AS PERCENT OF TOTAL SALES 80, 1924 28 32 36 40 44 48 YIELD, SALES AND PER CAPITA DISAPPEARANCE CALIFORNIA PRODUCTION, ACREAGE AND YIELD 340, ■ _ UNITED STATES PER CAPITA DISAPPEARANCE S 4 | a So. averaged about 35 per centj for the postwar years, in contrast, the California figure is about h$ per cent, and the national figure is near 25 per cent. Thus, although fresh cherry sales have folloxfed an upward trend, its rate of rise is less than that for total sales of cherries. It should be noted, however, that California fresh cherry sales in the postwar years have well maintained their proportion of all sales of California cherries and, moreover, there has been a slight increase in the proportion trend. This has not been the case for United States cherries; their proportion going to fresh market has tended to follow a declining trend in the postwar years* Grower Prices .— The differential grower prices for cherries in California and for the national situation are summarized as follows by five-year averages: Cherries; Grower Prices Period United States | California annual averages for five-year periods; dollars per ton 192li-1928 11*6.78 162.00 1929-1933 90.00 lii.Uo 193U-1938 75.23 llli. 20 1939-19U3 115.58 153.06 19UU-19U8 2it2.60 290.66 19U9-1953 181.00 267,00 Not only have California farm prices for cherries over the years been above the national average farm price, but the spread has tended to widen. The dif- ference has varied from year to year, but when the experience is averaged, a widening differential emerges. Further may be noted that during the postwar years, the California grower prices for cherries tended to hold up while the national prices declined more sharply from their wartime high, Per-Capita Disappearance, Total and Fresh , — In view of the increased pro- duction of cherries, it is pertinent to note how growth in production and its utilization compared with population increase. The following five-year per- capita averages indicate what has occurred; 51. Cherries: United States Per-Capita Disappearance, Total and Fresh Period Total (all uses) Fresh use Products annual averages for five-year periods; pounds per capita, fresh weight basis 192U-1928 a/ 1.8 1929-1933 1.1* 193U-1938 2.0 1.1 0.9 1939-191*3 2.1* 1.0 l.U 19UU-19U8 2.7 1.0 1.7 19U9-1953 3.0 0.8 2.2 a/ Dashes indicate data not available. These per-capita averages clearly indicate that over-all per-capita disap- pearance of cherries has followed an upward trend, at least since the middle 1930' s. But during the period surveyed, per-capita disappearance of cherries in fresh form has been declining. The decline was arrested during the 19U0's but set in again in recent years. And while per-capita disappearance of fresh cher- ries has trended down, there has been an increase in the per capita used of proc- essed cherries, canned and brined. Thus, in cherries as in some other deciduous fruits, per-capita disappearance in the fresh market is losing ground. Exports . — Although exports of fresh cherries have not been a large item, it may be noted that the foreign market outlet is of significance and has increased during the past decade and a half. Exports averaged about 500 tons during 1939-191*3, about 600 tens during 19l*l*-19l*8, and rose to 900 tons in 191*9-1953 or about 2 per cent of United States total fresh annual disappearance during that period. Most of those exports were to Canada and other near areas which comprise a significant part of our export market for fruits. Grapes In terms of tons produced, grapes in California are the leading noncitrus fruit and, in recent years for the country at large, their tonnage has exceeded ♦J- 52. apples (commercial basis). But not only in terms of volume are grapes a domi- nant fruit. They enter commercial outlets in large volume through drying into raisins, through crushing into wines, and as fresh shipments. A mixture of varieties, some oriented primarily to a particular outlet but many varieties used in two or three outlets, presents a complicated picture of utilization. Since here we are mainly concerned with sketching background for consideration of fresh versus other outlets, the trends in production, acreage, and yield are reviewed for grapes in the aggregate. Production . — The trend of grape production during the past three decades is revealed by the following five-year averages which indicate California's dominant position: Grapes: Production Period United States California annual averages periods; 1, for five-year 000 tons 192U-1928 2,320.5 2,085.2 1929-1933 2,072.1; 1,782.8 193U-1938 2,31*6.0 2,118.6 1939-191*3 2,600.2 2,39^.8 19UU-19U8 2,936.2 2,772.1; 191*9-1953 2,912.2 2,716.6 After a rise and then decline during the latter half of the 1920' s, over- all grape production followed an upward trend. Although production during 191*9-1953 averaged about the same (slightly under) as of 19kl*~19l*8 which sug- gests a leveling out of the long-term trend, there may well be further growth in production. Bearing acreage and yield may both increase. Acreage . — Aside from a hump in the 192l*-193l* period, grape bearing acreage in California has been remarkably stable, in a trend sense, for such a hetero- geneous industry. Although bearing acreage has fallen off slightly during the past several years, the change is not a strong one. The major characteristics of the bearing acreage trend are shown by five-year averages as follows: -i«oo s ssqsig sis wiulov lo earrstf nx y;£no -ton ninx gnir^jfe risifotriJ- erci/Iov ©giel ax eJelvifo" Isid lo s-utfxJ-m A .E-tn^mqirla nasil as bus t eoniw o notJertsbtzcteo to"i bmf&tg&&&d grrirtoJ'e^s rttiw boms aabeosJb us'iriJ iaxsq ori^ gni'ixib ffojtfocGoiq aqsi^ 1 mxcroifJx Grapes: Bearing Acreage 53. re r icq United States California annual averages for five-year periods; 1,000 bearing acres 731.6 5U3.6 1 QO Q TOOT 730.9 530.ii 193U-1938 657.8 1*81.3 1939-19h3 627.1 h86.6 19hh-19hB 1*95.0 19u9-1953 a/ Dashes indicate data not available. Since it is clear that the expanded production noted earlier is from an acreage that has not increased, yield must have played a significant role. Yield , — The major features of the grape yield experience are included in the five-year period averages: Grapes: Yield Per Bearing Acre Period United States California annual averages for five-year periods; tons per bearing acre 192U-1928 3.16 3.82 1929-1933 2.83 3.36 193U-1938 3.58 1939-191*3 li.92 19W4-W 5.6o 191*9-1953 5.76 a/ Dashes indicate data not available. The very substantial growth in yield since the early 1930' s, it is clear, accounts for the significant growth in grape production. As may be seen from • v. v. Ik! Mtf 9 9101 1 5k. Figure 11, the indexes of annual production move along with the indexes of annual yield while the indexes of bearing acreage vary only slightly since the middle 1930»s. Nonbearing grape acreage in California has changed considerably over the years. After falling at first sharply and then slowly during 192U-1932, an upward trend developed with its peak reached in 19h7', since then, there has been a downward phase in nonbearing grape acreage. And in the past year or two, the level of nonbearing acreage may not have been sufficient to offset natural loss of bearing acreage or maintain bearing acreage currently. Sales, Total and Fresh ,— A basic indication of the relative position of fresh grape marketings is a comparison of farm sales in total and fresh. Such indicators are the following five-year averages: Grapes: Sales, Total and Fresh United States California Period Total sales Fresh sales Total sales Fresh sales annual averages for five-year periods; 000 tons, fresh weight basis 192)4-1928 2,181.1* 1,989.2 958.0 1929-1933 1, 963.it 1,720.9 668.0 193M-938 2,301.2 623.1 2,115.1 ii92.7 1939-19li3 2,563.8 2,391.6 505.2 19iili-19li8 2,909.0 5U5.? 2,767.3 515.8 19U9-1953 2,889.5 563.3 2,713.9 5ko.o a/ Dashes indicate data not available. In the middle 1920' s, California fresh grape sales were nearly half of total sales of California grapes. In the late 1920's, a decline began in the fresh proportion, and by the end of the 1930»s it averaged less than 25 per cent. In the postwar years, the fresh proportion has varied about 20 per cent of total sales of California grapes. The trend in tons, or absolute terms j reflects a downward phase from 192U-1928 to 193U-1938 and then an upward phase from 1939-19li3 to 19U9-1953. It may well be that the high level of fresh 3ales during the earlier ti»o laq OS ii/oda be* 3B6. 55. FIG. II GRAPES; PRODUCTION, ACREAGE AND YIELD AND PER CAPITA DISAPPEARANCE CALIFORNIA PRODUCTION, ACREAGE AND YIELD UNITED STATES PER CAPITA DISAPPEARANCE 56. years, say 192U-1932, reflected fresh sales destined for other than fresh con- sumption. Of significance is that, in recent years, the fresh outlet of Cali- fornia grapes has maintained its relative volume compared with the over-all growth in grape production and total sales. Per-Capita Disappearance, Total and Fresh . — We now look at the developments in per-capita disappearance of grapes and grape products. Recognizing here the differing nature of various grape products, they are all grouped together to distinguish them from grapes consumed fresh. The relevant five-year averages are as follows: Grapes: United States Per-Capita Disappearance, Total and Fresh Total Fresh Period (all uses) use Products annual averages for five-year periods: pounds per c apita, fres 1 weight basis 192U-1928 32.5 9.3 23.2 1929-1933 28.5 8.1 20. k 193U-1938 32.2 6.7 21.5 1939-19U3 35.5 6,0 29.5 37.8 5.7 32.1 19U9-19S3 35.7 5.U 30.3 The irregularly rising course of per-capita disappearance of grapes (all uses combined) is reflected in the above averages. But the upward course is due to the expanded per-capita disappearance of grape products. The per-capita dis- appearance of fresh grapes has persistently followed a downward trend. The per- capita measures for 19Uit-19U8 and 19U9-1953 are only slightly different, yet, the difference is one of a decline. But the per-capita disappearance of all uses combined, and grape products as well, also declined between the two most recent five-year averages. It is reasonably clear, however, that, as a generalization, the grape products outlets have trended up with population growth while the fresh grape outlet has failed to follow the pace of population growth. Xla-isvo and ragoc>9; '1b) esqsis Ip oc • £JxcT30-i9q erfT 57. Exports , — The export market for fresh grapes has accounted for only a minor proportion of fresh disappearance of grapes. Yet, since the export market has grown over the years, and since its potential for fresh grapes may not be fully appreciated, the relevant data are summarized in the form of five-year averages: Grapes: United States Fresh Exports Period Fresh exports Fresh exports as per cent of total fresh sales annual averages for five-year periods 1,000 tons per cent l?2li-1928 16.8 1929-1933 18.0 193U-1938 27.0 o,h 1939-19U3 27.8 0.5 19l»U-19U8 3U.U 0.6 19U9-1953 50.2 0.9 a/ Dashes indicate data not available. The above averages indicate the upward trend in fresh grape exports. Also may be noted that the exports have increasingly become a larger proportion of fresh sales. Freestone Peaches Freestone peaches, another important deciduous fruit, are produced in a number of areas. Dominant producing areas include Colorado, Arkansas, Michigan, Georgia, the Carolinas, and Washington, as well as California. But only in Cali- fornia do freestone peaches go to the drying outlet in any significant amount, and California is also the leading state for canning freestones although signi- ficant amounts are at times canned in other states. Since the fresh market outlet is by far the major destination for freestones in all states other than California, the utilization (fresh versus processed) ottw I \Zno -to* ib9*nxfooo* .&}d -.eaqaxs daeaft •sol tfajfcrsn ••drroqxe otPf— asri -da^am too-qxa exit aofjLa t tfay ..eaqsrig 1c sartsrtRsqqnexb Ancrt^ c i< ■^LSmI ad ton x&x rteetfl sol .lefcctasitocf -adl eonra fans . t E7--:■■•.;-. :./f r: ;;; • ' : ■■: : r ■ 0 # O-i ■ ! . • ■ . 1 xti x-^* 0 - ^3 •fiiaioHl'.'s) as Haw as. t xw*3«i:rtei6< ,• fan* t e^iLo~rai^ $rli .^ci^'jeo^.- mores toi&al'ixnsxE vfy> fl£ ttaCA&O SfiX.Yib citd oJ" 03- asiiossq asio^'aeS'jl ofe ailmol. 58. trends are of interest for all producing areas including California. In this sketch, clingstone peaches are largely disregarded since they are primarily used in canning and our interest in this report is oriented in the main to develop- ments in the fresh deciduous fruit markets. Production . — To indicate briefly the extent and volume trend in freestone peach production, the following five-year averages are presented for the country as a whole and for California. Freestone Peaches: Production Period United States California annual averages periods j '. s for five-year ,000 tons 192U-1928 1,039.U 200.0 1929-1933 933.2 213.8 193U-1938 95U.1 177.0 1939-19U3 1,106.9 21+1.0 19UU-19U8 1,305.6 287.0 19U9-19S3 962.0 260.8 These data indicate that for the country at large there has been a general tendency for freestone peach production to follow an upward trend, although in the recent postwar years production average receded to the level prevailing at the end of the 1930' s. In California, freestone peach production has also generally trended up, but irregularly. During the middle 1930' s, California production declined giv- ing a relatively low average for 193U-1938. But, thereafter, freestone produc- tion in California advanced fairly sharply to a record peak in 19it6. After that, production declined for two years and then recovered in part. During the past several years, however, California freestone production has maintained higher levels than in preceding periods excepting the wartime peak years. Acreage .— As one of the determinants of production, bearing acreage has fol- lowed a varying trend during the past three decades. To compare acreage trend developments in the country and in California, the following five-year averages are presented; ...... ■ ■•. .. •• ■ • • , . ,. : - .-• att • ' - ' i3f 1J" bCii 59. Freestone Peaches: Bearing Acreage Period United States 1 California annual averages for five-year periods; 1,000 bearing acres 677.lt 56.9 621.7 52.2 193U-1938 572.7 iiia 1939-19U3 576.5 37.5 19hk-W --*/ 39.7 19U9-19S3 32.3 a/ Dashes indicate data not available. For the country at large, bearing acreage of freestone peach trees trended downward from I92U until 1939. Beginning with 19U0 until I9U6, the last year for which reliable national acreage figures are available, acreage trended upward, although the inference can be made that the forward surge did not continue in view of what is known about production. In California, for which more conplete bearing acreage data are available, the situation is as follows: bearing acreage declined rapidly during 1930-1936 and then slowly until about 19U0. Thereafter, a slight increase developed but continued only until 19U6-U7 after which a decline set in for several years. During the past 5 or 6 years, California freestone bearing acreage has been sta- ble at about 55 per cent of the I92U level. The long-term downward trend in California bearing acreage of freestone peach trees did not, however, pull pro- duction fully in the same direction due to partial effects of yield. Yield .— The trend developments in freestone peach yield per bearing acre ere summarized, by five-year averages, in the next tabulation. First may be noted the substantial extent to which California freestone yield experience exceeds that of the country at large. National yield trended upward during the period for which data are available and likely increased there- after somewhat. California freestone yield, it is clear, has increased substan- tially in a trend sense. Freestone Peaches: Yield per Bearing Acre 60. Period United States California annual averages for five-year periods; tons per bearing acre ■J~y<- 14— xyc o 3.52 1929-19^ 1.50 3.98 193U-1938 1.67 U.6U 1939-19U3 1,93 6.U2 19hk-l9k8 -Jt/ 7.22 19149-1953 8.07 a/ Dashes indicate data not available. Notwithstanding year-to-year fluctuations, California freestone peach yield has followed a strong upward trend. This was particularly so through the period ending in the middle lJ^O's; since then, the trend continued upward but not as sharply as earlier. It is of significance that the increased yield trend was sufficiently strong so as to more than offset the declining trend in bearing acreage. The lower level of production in the later postwar years was due to receded acreage since yields were maintained. The trend of nonbearing acreage of freestone peaches in California has var- ied around a long-term decline trend. Yet during the past 10 years, nonbearing acreage has approached a level short-term trend at about \\S per cent of the non- bearing acreage in 192lu The relative movements of production, acreage, and yield of freestone peaches are shown by the indexes in Figure 12. There may be noted the inter- actions of acreage and yield with the resultant effects on the production trend. Sales, Total and Fresh . — To indicate the relative position and trend in farm sales of fresh peaches compared with total sales, five-year averages are considered in the next tabulation. The following data clearly emphasize that sales for fresh use comprise a larger proportion of the national freestone crop than is the case for California freestone peaches. The drying and canning markets are important for California J" (tdio y n v <** *~j > ■'• FIG. 12 FREESTONE PEACHES, PRODUCTION, ACREAGE AND YIELD, SALES AND PER CAPITA DISAPPEARANCE UNITED STATES PRODUCTION, ACREAGE AND YIELD CALIFORNIA PRODUCTION, ACREAGE AND YIELD 1 240 i — . 62. freestones. For the country at large, fresh sales move along with total sales; they both trended upward until the end of 19M3, then receded. But for California, fresh freestone sales trended upward through I9I48, and thereafter maintained about the level of 19lUi-19l|8. Freestone Peaches: Sales, Total and Fresh Period United States California Total salps I Fresh sales Total sales Fresh sales annual 1, averages 000 tons, for five-year periods] fresh weight basis 192^-1928 828.3 ._£/ 196.0 1*2.9 1929-1933 756.7 205.2 61*.l 193U-1938 809. h 665.0 187.0 55.8 1939-19U3 9$7.6 775.1 238.0 93.7 19W4-19U8 1,161.9 935.3 283.U 122.7 191*9-1953 860. k 678.1i 258.8 122.0 a/ Dashes indicate data not available. Another way of looking at the relative trends is to consider the proportion which fresh sales are of total sales. For the country at large, that proportion has fluctuated near 80 per cent since I93h> with no discernible trend in the pro- portion. For California freestone peaches, the fresh proportion averaged 20 per cent in the middle 1920 «s and rose to an average of about 50 per cent in 19l;8-195Q. In the past several years, about 1*5 per cent of California freestone peach sales went to the fresh market. The growth in California freestone peach canning has, in the past several years, absorbed volume at the expense of the relative amount going to the fresh market. Grower Prices . — To compare the trends in prices received by growers of freestone peaches in the country at large and in California, five-year averages are presented in the next tabulation. Grower prices for freestone peaches broadly followed the general price swings for fruits, with decline during the 1930' s depression, recovery to wartime highs, then short-term declines, followed by recent advances. Generally, grower prices ;0 io'I dx/fi #bsbso3':'. rcsi rsiaism te41s3't9ri.f bns , day. Junoxc -» — j. ixIsO nx bets sgisl -+s ^ 39S>X*XC 63. for freestones in California followed the same general course, yet two distin- guishing features may be noted. Prices received by California freestone growers have been below the national average. This is related in part to the earlier noted fact that a smaller proportion of California freestones moves to the fresh market. Another feature is that the price spread between California and national average grower prices has narrowed over the years. Whereas, the average spread was over $21.00 per ton in 192li-1928 and $UuQ0 per ton in 1929-1933* the average spread had narrowed to $7. 71? per ton in 19hk-19kQ and about 02. 50 per ton in 19U9-1953- Freestone Peaches: Grower Prices Period United Statesa/ l California annual averages for five-year periods; dollars per ton 192U-1928 51.67 30.33 1929-1933 37.50 23.50 193U-1938 37.92 2iu33 1939-19U3 55.83 U5.00 l9hh-19hB 8ii.58 76,83 19U9-1953 78.33 75.75 a/ Grower prices for United States include all peaches. Per-Capita Disappearance, Total and Fresh . — In view of the production and sales trends noted above, we now consider the trend developments in per-capita disappearance of freestone peaches. The relevant five-year averages which sug- gest the per-capita trends are considered in the next tabulation. A consistent trend in the per-capita disappearance of freestone peaches has not prevailed. Total (all uses combined) per-capita disappearance declined after the 192U-1928 period but then advanced to a high of 18.1 pounds for 19liii-19U8. But the per-capita figure (all uses) fell sharply during 19^9-1953 > reflecting reduced production level of those years in the face of an increased population. •.nxtfaxb qwJ e 93iuoo laisnag antea eitt bewollol sinTolxij •tevoia encieoatl sx/nolilsO ^ baviaoas seaii 5 ! .baton ad isxliee axlcf o* jisq nr. baislet ex exrfT ,a§s*xavs IfinoxJ-£n ..ail erfJ oi aavoiH aeao^asa'ii Gxcpiol'rlsQ lo fioxd'ioqoiq -tails/ dsn bits sinnoltl.-iO naowtod" bd-asqe aoiiq ad* crertf ai ew* nqa e^siav/? ©rlJ ,aG3iarfW .Btfia^ art* novo bawonisfi esrf a vs ad* t £C^X-^^I nr. no J isq OO.jilg bns 8S<2I-ilSSI «i no* or noJ isq O^.SO toode brie o^M-iii&I ax nod- isq £?.Y$ oj 890X1 C -g«e doxriw a©?s*rav3 xss^-avil crnsvalaT sd p.arfosaq onctfaas'xl lo aoncTsaqqaexb £ tin baniloab eonr-rsooqasib £ • ■ ■ • 65. Freestone Peaches: United States Fresh Exports rtSI -LOU Fresh exports ! Fresh exports as per cent of total fresh sales annual averages for five-year periods 1,000 tons per cent 8.6 5.0 193U-1938 0.7 1939-19U3 U.o 0.6 19U*-19U8 8.0 0.8 19ii9-1953 6.7 1.0 a/ Dashes indicate data not available. Pears Commercial production of pears is heavily concentrated on the West Coast. California, Washington, and Oregon each have certain distinguishing character- istics. Oregon's production includes a substantial proportion of "late" pears primarily destined for fresh market, Washington has primarily Bartletts used in canning as well as fresh shipments, California has some "late" pears but more Bartletts of which substantial quantities are shipped fresh, although a larger volume is canned. Production , — To outline the longer term trends in production on an aggre- gate basis, five-year averages are considered in the next tabulation. National production of pears has followed an upward trend during most of the past three decades. Yet, during the past five or six years, the trend has leveled out, with production during the 1950' s so far being under that of the late logo's. IfJhen we look at California production of pears, we also find an upward trend, but it rose even more sharply in recent years. As a general tend- ency, California production has grown more rapidly than that of the country at large. National production of pears recently has averaged about 60 per cent above the 1921* output while California's production of pears, during the past several years, averaged about 170 per cent above its 1921+ level. D.S rrf'- ; iadooi as. -^Xcfiari; rsritf ylbtqpv an om 1 9 030*1 a aoiiovbo'. noktouboi ioo 'xoq Pears: Production 66 Period United States i California annual averages periods; 1^ for five-year 000 tons 192U-1928 509.5 185.0 1929-1933 588.9 229.0 193U-1938 682.9 230.2 1939-191*3 683.9 2U7.A4. 19i*l*-19l*8 71*9.1 300. u 191*9-1953 736.5 Acreage .— To review the number of bearing acres of pears from which the production has been derived, the following five-year averages are noted: Pears: Bearing Acreage Period United States California annual averages for five-year periods; 1,000 bearing acres 192U-1928 229.5 52.8 1929-1933 236.8 65.8 193U-1938 212.1 55.1i 1939-191*3 181.6 1*5.2 19l*l*-19l*8 1*3.7 191*9-1953 39.6 a/ Dashes indicate data not available. California bearing acreage increased during the latter half of the 1920>s and into the early years of the 1930' s. After a peak in 1932, California bearing acreage followed a downward course so that, in the past several years, the state has had about 85 per cent of the 192 k bearing acreage. 67. National bearing acreage of pears increased only slightly from 1921* until the early 1930' s, after which a downward trend set in and continued through the period for which data are available. The inference is made that national bear- ing acreage, as that in California, continued to decrease. Thus, in California, as well as the country at large, there are substantially fewer bearing acres pro- ducing pears than in former years. The same applies to nonbearing acreage, al- though, in California, there has developed a slight recovery during the past decade. Yield . — The production capacity of pear trees, as measured by yield, has grown phenomenonly during the past three decades. The record is summarized by the five-year averages: Pears: Yield per Bearing Acre Period United States California 192U-1928 1929-1933 193U-1938 1939-19U3 I9hk-19h8 19U9-19S3 annual averages for five-year periods; tons per bearing acre 2.22 2.U9 3.25 3.77 a/ 3.U9 3.U9 U.21 6.86 8.91 a/ Dashes indicate data not available. Aside from the fact that California 1 s yield has averaged higher than the nation's, the yield in California appears to have risen at a more rapid rate. It is the growth in yield which has accounted for the upward trend in production noted earlier. As may be seen from Figure 13, yield expansion has been suffi- cient to more than offset the declining bearing acreage. For recent years, the California yield averages nearly three times that of 192iu Sales, Total and Fresh . — To trace the outline of developments in the farm sales of pears for fresh market compared with products primarily canning, the following five-year averages are presented: e.'I* ilst'oirfd basrtrttfRQO bOB cii *03 briei.} bfS'.OT-rob a rloiriw.i TB$d Xsaoi'iBfi' Serfi abam ax soaatelnx erlT ,eIdaXi.cvs ana* jLfit^cftiXeO nir •;.3arfT- • aaaa'xoeb.od' bai/nitfnoo - t sxrrjoxiXsO .fli •Xs'-i9S«wtos gnilssdnoft -o* a»iXq.q* eraca 9riT «a'rsax -lanrcc/.i -Jasq siit 3fil'xj^> X c£rjroo9 ' :i tfrfgxla a beqoXcv9b esrf eiodd - t ■ art* ~tcad* larigix! baacifiva asii. bXojhf e'ehnvolxXsO darii tfofil. axW" merit .obi 9 A Wart fciqpT eioM a ia a.$&:% ever! od- e'xsaqqs siirxoliXsO iix bXaix oa't la'-floiian lo'Maifbdi?* •oi-'fcaa's* -btewqB exit tol badxoroaoa aerl •xfoiriw.bXaiit ai xttwcwtg arii al .-4X -i'i'i&a -flaod 'eaxi 'nolactgqxa bXei^.^CX 9wgiT'mo , rx\-rteo3 stf .vp.ft a/i .laiXiae baton arl* «,3*rso\* fcteoex lot' .os^snoe gxttiaetf grtxraiXosb arii ta&'ixo -nsrtt ototi oi toaio .4ISSX *to- cJaxtt. saati aoitxtf ^i-waxi. segsiavs bXaiic ai^ttltXsD. arisl erfr nr eixie.TfqcXsveb lo axtfcXtoo etit eosid: oT — « ri=&^ bnxi ^J??' teoXsS axl* t gnxnrteo -<£Xi*8satii FIG. 13 PEARS; PRODUCTION, ACREAGE AND YIELD, SALES AND PER CAPITA DISAPPEARANCE UNITED STATES PRODUCTION, ACREAGE AND YIELD CALIFORNIA PRODUCTION, ACREAGE AND YIELD s 69. Pears: Sales, Total and Fresh United States California Period Total sales Fresh sales Total sales 1 Fresh sales annual 1- averages for five-year periods; 000 tons, fresh weight basis 192U-1928 U29.7 181.8 108.6 1929-1933 U79.8 198.0 121.9 193U-1938 586.0 395.9 221.1 123.3 1939-191*3 601.2 352.3 21*1,9 99.9 680.9 387.0 296.9 113.3 19U9-1953 673.2 333.2 3U6.5 118.1 a/ Dashes indicate data not available. From the national view, total farm sales of pears has trended up along with production, with a leveling out occurring in recent years. Still considering the country at large, farm sales of pears for fresh use have fluctuated over the pe- riods considered, but in the past several years, total fresh sales have been under those of the previous years. When national fresh sales are related to the na- tional total, we find a long-term tendency for the fresh outlet to comprise a decreasing proportion of the total. When the California sales experience is examined, we find that total farm sales of pears have trended up sharply. But California sales of fresh pears have been irregular from period to period. Although under the average level experi- enced during the 1930' s, California fresh sales since the beginning of the 191*0' s have trended up. Yet, when California sales of fresh pears are related to the state's total sales, there appears that for this state, as for the country, there has occurred a long-term downward trend of fresh sales as a proportion of the total pear market. Grower Prices . — In view of the trends in production of pears and the dif- fering roles of canning compared with fresh sales in the several major producing areas, grower prices are considered. For this purpose, California experience is compared with the national average by the following five-year averages: >xii bass T50Y~3vil $OiWQ Hot 8JiI* Pears: Grower Prices 70 Period United States California annual averages for five-year periods; dollars per ton 192ii-1928 57.08 52.92 1929-1933 37.50 33.00 193U-1938 3C.U2 26.33 1939-191*3 53.33 1*7.00 19Uli-19U8 96.25 90.17 19^9-1953 79.58 6U.83 Grower prices of pears followed in part the general price swings experienced by most other deciduous fruits. Wide year-to-year changes were superimposed upon a sharp decline after 1929, with grower prices making no really substantial re- covery until the 19lj.0«s and war years during which period the prices rose to un- precedented levels. But in 19u8, even the wartime highs were exceeded, only to drop very sharply in the next year and then to recover and continue to vary. In terms of cyclical and year-to-year movement, grower prices of pears in California have been very similar to national average grower prices for pears. The average prices for both the nation at large and California reflect a mixture of prices for fresh pears and pear products. But in California, as in Washington, the influence of the price for canning pears plays a significant role, Per-Capita Disappearance, Total and Fresh . — Now, we turn to the trend devel- opments in per-capita disappearance reflecting the interactions of growth in sales and population. The five-year averages computed for this purpose are given in the next tabulation. After a fairly stable level of total per-capita disappearance of pears until 1933-3U, there then developed an upward trend. This rise in total per-capita disappearance continued through most of the lS^O's, then, because of the pro- duction recession in face of continued population growth, the per-capita total disappearance declined. It still averages above the experience prior to the 19U0' s, but the upward trend has broken at least temporarily. .tOCJi.' -91 : ~oiq eriJ Is 71. Pears: United States Per-Capita Disappearance, Total and Fresh Period Total (all uses) Fresh use Products annual averages for five-year periods; pounds per capita, fresh weight basis 192U-1928 7.7 6.JU 1.3 1929-1933 7.2 5.9 1.3 193U-1938 M 6.3 2.1 1939-19U3 10.0 6.3 3.7 19UU-19W 10.6 6.2 h.h 19U9-1953 9.k 5.0 h.h When we look at the trend development in per-capita disappearance of fresh pears, we find the interesting case of a fairly stable per-capita rate through most of the 19U0's. There were, of course, year-to-year variations, but they occurred around a level trend. Beginning with the late 19U0»s, the rate of per- capita disappearance of fresh pears recededj instead of fluctuating around an average level of somewhat in excess of six pounds, in recent years the per-capita rate has averaged about five pounds for fresh pears. The per-capita disappearance of pear products, primarily canned pears, has trended up over the years so that, during the past decade, it has averaged about 3»h times the rate of 20 years earlier. Even when the average experience of 19U9-1953 is compared with that of 19UU-19U8, an interval during which the per- capita total and fresh disappearance rates declined, the per-capita rate for pear products held its level. It is clear that the drop in the per-capita disappear- ance of fresh pears is a recent development rather than reflecting a long-term one. Exports , — In closing these paragraphs on pears, we turn to the situation in exports of fresh pears. The relevant five-year averages, to depict the general trend, are shown in the next tabulation. Exports of fresh pears have fluctuated over the years. There was an upward trend from the middle 1920«s through the late 1930»s. But the war interrupted exports, and they have since failed to recover to their earlier levels. In terms 72. of tons, exports of fresh pears during the past five years have averaged only slightly in excess of half of the average level experienced 25 years ago. Another way of looking at the changed situation is to note that, during the latter half of the 1930»s, fresh pear exports averaged near 15 per cent of to- tal fresh disappearance compared with an average of about 5 per cent for recent years. Pears: United States Fresh Exports Period Fresh exports Fresh exports as per cent of total fresh sales annual averages for five-year periods 1,000 tons per cent 192U-1928 32.0 _V 1929-1933 51.8 193U-1938 66.2 16.0 1939-19U3 15.6 U.i 19UU-19U8 25.U 6.0 19U9-1953 16.8 5.0 a/ Dashes indicate data not available. Plums Plums are mainly used fresh, although some are canned. The large bulk of commercially produced plums are grown in California. In terms of volume, plums rank after apples, apricots, grapes, freestone peaches, and pears when the na- tional production of these fruits is considered. But when California production is examined, it is found that the tonnage of plums exceeds that of cherries, although plums rank after the other deciduous fruits mentioned here. The trend in plum production since 192U-1928 is outlined by five-year averages in the next tabulation. Plum production generally followed a rising trend that reached its high in the middle 19l|0's. Since then, although annual fluctuations have been wide, production has averaged about the same as the first half of the 19U0's. To ac- count for the trend in production, we first look at bearing acreage and then yield. • • nariJ bnr. Plums : Production 73 Period Unit°d Statp«! oaxii ornia annual averages Deri nH 9 • T for five-year 192k-1928 6k 7 1929-1 9^ 68 )i AO li oc»(f 193U-1938 65.1 60.6 1939-191+3 76.U 71.8 19kk-l9k8 87.2 80.8 19k9-1953 87.6 80.6 Bearing Acre age . --Plum bearing acreage trended upward from 192k until near the end of the 1930' s when a declining trend began. The reduction in bearing acreage continued until the early 19k0's and then began to recover. But par- tial recovery ceased by 19k8 and since then, the trend again has been down. As a result, the average levels of bearing acreage in 19kk-19k8 and 19k9-19?3 have been about equivalent, and each only slightly above the low of 1939-19k3. Plums: Bearing Acreage Period United States California annual averages for five-year periods; 1,000 bearing acres 192k-1928 33.1 28.3 1929-1933 3k. 1 30.2 193k- 1938 29.k 25.7 1939-19k3 2k. 9 22.0 19kk-19U8 23.5 19k9-19S3 23 .1* a/ Dashes indicate data not available. Nonbearing acreage of plum trees has also followed an irregular trend, de- clining until the late 1930 's, then rising and declining again. During the 7lu past five or six years, nonbearins acreage has been fairly stable at a level of about per cent of that standing in 192U» Yield .— To account for the production trend, in view of the bearing acreage of plums, we must look at the average yield experience. Plums: Yield per Bearing Acre Period United States California annual averages for five-year periods; tons per bearing acre 192U-1928 1.95 2.07 1929-1933 2.01 2.07 193U-1938 2.22 2.37 1939-19U3 3.08 3.27 19UU-19U8 -J/ 3.U7 19U9-1953 3.U5 a/ Dashes indicate data not available. The data clearly emphasize that the upward trend in production reflects yield experience. After a fairly stable yield trend for the 192U-1933 period, an upward trend developed. The rising trend continued through most of the I9l;0 l s Recognizing the wide year-to-year swings in recent years, yield has averaged about the equivalent of that during 19kh-19hS • Thus, although the upward trend did not continue, average yield has just about been maintained in the sense that in recent years there has been a level trend around which the annual figures fluctuated. The interaction of bearing acreage and yield, with the resulting production, are pictured in Figure lU. There may be noted how influence of yield has more than compensated for the acreage trend. Sales, Total and Fresh .— To compare the trends in the farm sales of plums destined for the fresh market and total sales, five-year averages are used in the next tabulation. The extent to which fresh sales of plums dominate total sales is reflected by the above data. Both have trended up through the middle 19U0's and in ■ ■ 75. FIG. 14 PLUMS; PRODUCTION, ACREAGE AND YIELD AND PER CAPITA DISAPPEARANCE CALIFORNIA PRODUCTION, ACREAGE AND YIELD 260 220 180 O O it «■ 140 CM 0> (A Q> X 0) 100 60 20 1924 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 UNITED STATES PER CAPITA DISAPPEARANCE T 1924 76. recent years, national fresh sales have held up better than national total sales. In California, the total sales of plums also trended up until recent years and then receded as during 19U9-1953. California fresh sales of plums behaved about the same as total sales. Plums: Sales, Total and Fresh Period United States California iuodx saxes Fresh sales Total sales Fresh sales annua! 1 L averages for five-year periods; ,000 tons, fresh weight basis 192h-1928 63.2 J*/ 58.8 56.1 1929-1933 62.1 57.3 55.U 193U-1938 6U.2 62.1 60.3 58.5 1939-19U3 71.1 68.U 66.9 6h.k 19UU-19U8 83.9 78.2 79.9 7lu7 191*9-1953 82.1 78.7 75.9 72. h a/ Dashes indicate data not available. Another way of considering developments in the sale of fresh plums is to review the proportion of total sales accounted for by fresh sales. Aside from year-to-year variations and wartime developments, the fresh proportion in Cali- fornia has averaged somewhat in excess of 95 per cent. And that proportion has been maintained well, except for 1953 when fresh sales dropped to slightly less than 80 per cent of total sales of California plums. Grower Prices .— Prices received by growers for plums have experienced ups and downs as in other fruits. A high in 1929 was followed by a decline with a low reached in 1932. Then the price trended up, £lre% slowly and then rapidly to a peak in 19U3. After a decline the next year, an upward trend again developed and accelerated during the 1950' s, although individual years show very strong upward and downward swings. The five-year average prices smooth out the wide year-to-year swings and display the general trend. It may be noted that, compared with the other de- ciduous fruits, the grower prices of plums during the past several years have been considerably more favorable in a relative sense, that is, in relation to experience of earlier years. Plums: Grower Prices 77 lox 1UU United States California annual averages for five-year periods; dollars per ton Cl4"J~y CO 68.38 71.91* 52.1*0 51*.1*2 193U-1938 1*6.12 1*7.12 1939-191*3 83.72 81*. 92 19l*l*-19l*8 138.20 139.80 19U9-1953 163.1*0 I63.20 Per-Capita Disappearance, Total and Fresh . —To examine the general trends in the per-capita disappearance of plums, the following five-year averages are indicated. Plums: United States Per-Capita Disappearance, Total and Fresh Period Total (all uses) Fresh use£/ Products annual averages for five-year periodsj pounds per capita, fresh weight basis 192U-1928 2.9 2.8 0.1 1929-1933 2.9 2.8 0.1 193l*-1938 2.7 2.6 0.1 1939-191*3 2.5 2.1* 0.1 19UU-19U8 2.6 2.1* 0.2 191*9-1953 2.1 2.0 0.1 a/ Includes plums and prunes used fresh. The trend of per-capita total disappearance of plums has generally trended down, with the decline being more marked during the past five years than OA . FOX 8,< 78. earlier. The per-capita disappearance of fresh plums (including prunes consumed fresh) has also trended down, the declining rate being just about equivalent to that for all plums. Thus, the per-capita disappearance of plums in products primarily canned has remained approximately level, the only major departure be- ing the rise in the latter 191*0' s. From an over-all view, per-capita consump- tion rates of total plums or fresh plums have not kept pace with the nation's population and money income expansion. Exports.— During the past decade and a half, exports of fresh plums have varied around 5,000 tons, with U,500 tons in 1939-19U3, 6,300 tons in I9I4U-I9U8, and I;, 600 tons in 19l;3. In these more recent years, fresh plums exports have averaged about h per cent of total fresh sales, compared with a comparable aver- age figure of about 10 to 12 per cent during the prewar years, 193U-1938. 79. LONG-RANGE DEMAND PROSPECTS FOR CALIFORNIA FRESH FRUITS Population growth, levels of income and purchasing power, and consumer habits or tastes are the main forces in the long-range market outlook. In think- ing about economic affairs, we have in the past tended to regard incomes as a factor subject to rather quick change, while population and consumer tastes, in contrast, were usually thought of as slow-moving variables. But in recent years, population growth is becoming almost as rapidly moving a variable as income and consumer tastes. Within the past two decades, we have alternatively experienced the smallest and then the largest additions to our population that have been known in the modern history of this country, and this has been accompanied by a consid- erable shifting about regionally. Within the same period, consumer behavior with respect to selection of foods has also undergone substantial change. The combination of these forces has produced a far more favorable market for California fresh fruit than would have been estimated from the perspective of twenty years ago. From the perspective of 19#, long-range demand for California fruits, in total though perhaps not equally so for each and every one, looks fa- vorable. Yet, it must be acknowledged that we cannot conclusively say that we are in better position today to know the future than we were twenty years ago. Nevertheless, our economy has grown larger, we have had more experience in trying to stabilize and control it, and we have more knowledge about how it has per- formed than ever before. Consequently, even though no certain predictions can be made, it should be worth while to discuss some of the important influences and forces that will be prominent in the years to come. Three subjects—population, consumer income, and consumer behavior with respect to fresh fruits— will be the basis of such a discussion in the following pages. The Popul ation— How Many Consumers?— Most everyone now shares a population outlook that is entirely different from that prevailing in the latter 1920 's and the 1930' s. Then, with birth rates falling as they had for two centuries at least, it was generally believed that a peak in our national population would be reached at around 1975 or 1980. At this expected peak, it appeared that we would have 165 to 170 million people and that thereafter, the total would level off or possibly decline. With this in prospect, the business outlook tended generally toward pessimism; agricultural producers were apprehensive that food supplies would regularly exceed demand and that glutted markets had come to stay. But 80. quite unexpectedly, the long downward trend in birth rates was reversed; shortly- after 191+0, a marked upward turn in births set in. In the emergency atmosphere of war and postwar adjustment, this new development was little noticed until to- ward the end of the decade. In recent years, when this upward trend was sus- tained, many have come to the view that a new and radically different population prospect is emerging. Concurrently, many have come to the conclusion that the needs of a constantly and rapidly expanding population can be counted upon to provide a firm foundation of high-level prosperity. Is this optimism any better justified than the earlier pessimism? Are we in a new population epoch that will be sustained? Let us examine the evidence. In earlier stages of civilization, the size of any national population, aside from mass migrations, was controlled by the death rate. Birth rates were apparently high and fairly stable, and whether the numbers of people waxed or waned depended on deaths , with the irregular occurrences of plagues and pesti- lences causing the many abrupt changes that are known to have occurred. In mod- ern civilizations, these population forces have been reversed. Death rates are remarkably stable and, save for minor temporary exceptions, have followed a grad- ual downward trend. In our own national history, immigration was, of course, the major force behind population change until recent decades. And, although our recent birth rate experience with its resulting population effect is widely known and may not accordingly seem to justify comment, we must examine further into the circumstances before reaching any judgment as to whether it is a temporary or permanent situation. The abrupt upward turn in the number of births and in the birth rate after 191*0 as depicted in the accompanying chart (Figure 17) resulted from two factors: (1) a higher marriage rate, particularly at earlier ages, and (2) earlier bear- ing of children within the marriage span (see Figures 1$ and 16). The combined effect of these two forces was the yield of a large crop of babies. Women in the age group 15-19 years in 1952 had produced kh per cent more children than had their counterpart age group in 191+0. Similarly, the contrast for the age group 20—21+ years was 63 per cent more children and for the age group 2^-29, 1+0 per cent more. Women of the age group 30-3^ in 19^2, most of whom had begun their child-bearing around 191+0, had borne 20 per cent more children. In the older age categories, the bases of the birth comparisons begin to shift back into the 1930' s as against the 1920' s; hence, even though these generations of 19^2 had borne fewer children than had their counterparts of 191+0, all that this indicates is that the birth rate was lower in the 1930' s than in the 1920' s. svsrl 10 '•} 1*i 3l;T 101 J3!? , XJfIOO 9ij7 »\ r l"XPi.XSttC; »wj sd Oil ..SS-c'S cwoiy a3c ©rid" io*i bms nsibliri: erii Oo 81. FIG. 15 MARRIAGE RATE IN 1953 COMPARED TO 1940 Age group 14- 19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75 and over lllillll r'940^ , ^-1953^ 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Percent of women, married 80 90 100 FIG. 16 BIRTHS PER 1000 WOMEN IN 1952 COMPARED TO 1940, BY AGE GROUPS Age group 15- 19 40-44 50 and over 80 90 100 20 10 0 0 10 20 Percent decrease Percent increase Percent change from 1940 to 1952 in the number of children ever born per 1000 women 82. 83. Thus, the evidence available at present clearly indicates that there has been an extraordinarily early and thorough exploitation of the reproductive ca- pacity of the population during the past 15 years. This, by itself, accounts for the sharp upward turn in births. But, by itself, this is not evidence that there has been an upward revision in the prevailing concept of desirable size of family. It is quite true that the women in the age group 30-39 in 1952, who have had most of their children since 19h0, had by 1952 borne almost enough chil- dren to replace their generation. If, in the remainder of the normal childbear- ing age range, this age group continues to bear additional children in accordance with the pattern of the past, then the total reproduction will greatly exceed replacement needs and will at the same time gire evidence of at least a temporary upward revision in size of completed families. But, on the other hand, it is quite possible that having borne their children at an early age and early within their marriages, this generation of mothers may not follow out the full span of childbearing years as was characteristic of preceding generations. If the latter were to become the fact, the sharp upward thrust in births may eventually prove to be only a temporary acceleration due to a forward exploitation of reproductive potential and not a really abrupt break with past fertility trends. Even though the evidence now available suggests at least a slight upward revision in family size, it is not conclusive, and the evidence will not be at all final until the generation of mothers who began childbearing about 19U0 have completed the normal childbearing span of years — that is, not until i960. In the meanwhile, barring catastrophic events more likely to be of man's making than of God's, we can anticipate a good deal about the national population between now and 197£. Most of those who will be parents between now and then are already born. In fact, from now until around 1965, most children will be born to parents whose birth occurred in the depression years. Since this was a decade of low birth rates, it follows that the limited childbearing population between now and 1965 will impose limits on the number of births even if family size does rise and remain high. The number of women in the 20-39 age group will remain approxi- mately constant until after 1965, at which time the numerous births of 1$hS-6S will commence to enter that age category. There will be the potential for a really explosive population upward surge after 1965 should early marriage and large families be popular at that time. Meanwhile, the projections of the national population in coming decades may be at different degrees of high, depending upon whether one assumes the continuance i-i/p ai 3ve old 81i. of recent birth rates or a gradual return to the prewar level, or an even more extreme assumption — that births might drop low enough to fit the long-time prewar trend line (refer to Figure 17). Since there is little to govern one in which assumption to choose, we have selected one that seems to be "reasonable," that is, that the birth rate will gradually decline from its present high level to about the 19k0 level betx^een now and 1975. On this assumption, the Census Bureau has prepared the projections of births and of total population that are depicted in Figures 17 and 18. Even under this intermediate (and perhaps conservative) assumption, the number of births will be high and the population growth will be rapid. In the first half of the century, this nation's population doubled, which was a rapid rate in percentage terms, but it meant 75 million additional people in a rela- tively unoccupied country. In comparison, the projection above described would mean a 37 per cent growth between 1950 and 1975> but the projected increase in numbers within the quarter century is 56 million, and these to be absorbed in a now much more occupied country. Regional Population Changes . — Calif ornians, more than anyone else, have cause to be conscious of the shifting about of people within the national bounda- ries. World War II was the initiating force for much of the change that occurred during 19U0-50 (see Figure 19). But it is equally significant that since 1950, regional shifting of population has continued, following much the same pattern and at much the same rate as in the prior decade. In the West, Oregon and Wash- ington have declined in rate of growth, California has slacked off some in per- centage terms although not in real numbers, while in percentage terms, Nevada and Arizona have emerged as the fastest growing states in the region (see Figure 20). The centers of population that are the foundation of California's fresh fruit markets will undoubtedly continue for some years to be in the Northeastern and Great Lakes states. Nonetheless, the sustained and rapid growth of the Southwestern and Intermountain states — and indeed of California too— represent expanding market opportunities. Income and Purchasing Power .— The expanding demand for consumer goods of the past quarter century has been more than proportionate to population growth. Along with the growing numbers of consumers, the capacity to consume has also greatly risen. This is because our economy has grown more productive, thus gen- erating the higher levels of incomes in the hands of consumers. Greater invest- ment in capital goods, progress in technology, and a more highly skilled labor 85. FIG. 19 PERCENT CHANGE IN TOTAL CIVILIAN POPULATION BY STATES : APR. I, 1940 TO APR. I, 1950 □ 0.0- 9.9 FIG. 20 PERCENT CHANGE IN TOTAL CIVILIAN POPULATION BY STATES : APR. I, 1950 TO JULY I, 1954 0.0 " 4.9 86 force are all important factors which, combined with relatively full employment in recent years, have had their influence in our enhanced ability to produce and consume. Moreover, the prospects are favorable to a continuation of this expansion in the next two decades. From 1929 to the present, our economy has withstood a major depression and a major war as well as minor recessions and the Korean conflict. These jolts undoubtedly seemed severe when they were experienced, but a look back over the record reveals that they were temporary deviations from a relatively steady up- ward trend. The gross national product, that is, all the goods and services produced by the United States economy, increased from $10U billion in 1929 to $365 billion in 1953 or by 3§ times. The physical output of the nation has not really expanded to such a large extent, however. The 1953 figure of $365 billion contains a substantial element of inflation because 1953 prices were about 65 per cent higher than those of 1929. When gross national product is expressed in terms of constant dollars, using the 19U7 price level as a standard, the com- parison becomes $lli9.3 billion for 1929 and $306.6 billion for 1953 or an increase over the period of 105 per cent. This addition to the nation's production is not merely a reflection of the larger population either. Even in per-capita terms, the real output of the United States has increased by almost three fifths frcm 1929 to 1953. As might be expected from this expansion of production, the real income of United States residents also rose during the period. The increase in per-capita real income before taxes was about 60 per cent, but higher taxes have whittled the increase down to kh per cent (Figure 21), Not only has the magnitude of the nation's output and income changed in the last 25 years, but the various elements that are combined in these totals have shifted in importance. For example, the distribution of income among the various regions of the country has altered. The West and Southeast have tended to im- prove their income positions relative to those of the more settled, industrial regions of the Northeast, For the most part, the ranking of the various regions with respect to their share in total income payments and also in per-capita income has not appreciably changed from 1929 to 1953. What did occur was a narrowing of the gap between the percentage shares of the lowest and highest ranking regions, and in this movement toward the national average some regions gained faster than others. The result is that shares of income, whether on a total or per-capita basis, are now distributed a little more evenly among the regions of the United States than they were in 1929* sit o-& b c -i no I 87. One of the profound changes in our national economy over the past 2$ years has been the increased role of government in economic affairs. We shall examine this change by viewing government activities in a number of ways. First, the government is a purchaser of goods and services produced by the economy. For example, it buys office supplies for its civilian departments and guns and uni- forms for the military. Military purchases and other national defense needs are all made on behalf of national security as are all purchases for foreign aid, whether military or economic. These national security purchases have ex- panded greatly in recent years. In 1929, government purchases for all uses amounted to about 8 per cent of the total goods and services produced in the United States. Only one eighth of these purchases were for national security purposes. By 1953> total government purchases had risen to 23 per cent of the gross national product, but three fifths of this total was earmarked for national security needs (Figure 22). In other words, with government purchases considered as a proportion of all available goods and services, regular, civilian, nonse- curity purchases were 7 per cent in 1929 as against 9 per cent in 19J?3. Thus, purchases incurred in expansion of the civilian services of the government have not been greatly burdensome; the rapidly growing burden has been in relation to national defense. The government is also a payer of income. It makes direct income payments to its own employees, both civilian and military, and it makes transfer payments by redistributing income from one sector of the economy to another. In the latter capacity, for example, it collects social security taxes and pays out old-age pensions. As a direct payer of its own employees, government contributed about 6 per cent of the national income in 1929, and about U§ per cent, or al- most twice as much, in 1953* During this same period, government transfer pay- ments including veterans benefits and pensions rose from 2 to 5 per cent of personal income. So, whether one considers the government in its role of pur- chaser or payer, its increased influence in our present-day economy is unmistaka- bly clear. The term "fringe benefits" scarcely heard in 1929 is now an important part of our national vocabulary. The 195U edition of National Income states it this way: "An additional element stands out in the change in the employee share of national income. This was the internal shift to a somewhat lower proportion of wages and salaries and a higher proportion in the form of supplements to wages and salaries. The latter were an inconse- quential element in 1929, consisting chiefly of compensation for injuries. 88. 1,600 i- 1,400 - 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 FIG. 21 PER CAPITA DISPOSABLE PERSONAL INCOME 1929-1953 In 1947 constant dollars- In current dollars 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 FIG. 22 GOVERNMENT PURCHASES amounted to 23% of the Gross National Product in 1953 as con- trasted with 8% in 1929 400 r with the bulk of the increase in the government proportion going for defense purposes. 300 200 100 Government Private- feNl m 25 20 15 a. Z 6 o m t! 10 m a. 1929 1953 Other Federal, State and Local's^ National Security 1929 1953 89. Their growth to significant proportions — Jj§ per cent of national income in 1953 — stems from the creation and expansion of the various social insurance programs, and from the marked growth in recent years of private pension, health and welfare funds Government benefits of this type have also greatly increased in the last 25 years. In 1929, veterans' pensions and retirement payments to government employees were almost the only important government contributions in this field. By 1953 , not only were these two categories much larger, but new ones were added such as veterans* benefits, old age and survivors' insurance, and unemployment compensation payments. What significance do these changes have for the future? It can be argued that a trend toward a more equitable distribution of income among the various regions of the United States is a healthy thing for the economy. Certainly the enlarged influence of government and the increased importance of social insurance and similar benefits have the effect of placing props under the flow of purchas- ing power to consumers. In times of recession or readjustment, these influences tend to help stabilize the economy and put a break on the disastrous downward spiral reminiscent of the early thirties. There is no indication that the Ameri- can people will desire less of these social benefits in the future. On the con- trary, they are likely to demand more— witness the groirth of private health in- surance plans in very recent years. In a similar vein, it is difficult to visualize the federal government shrinking back to anything resembling its 1929 importance. It is mainly through the national defense establishment that it is now affecting the economy, and defense needs are not expected to decrease in the foreseeable future. Thus, it seems reasonable to anticipate high government expenditures for at least the next few decades. Several public and private agencies have made long-range estimates of the development of the American economy. These estimates, though different in par- ticulars, agree that the future poses a great potential for growth (Figure 23), The President's Materials Policy Commission, for example, forecast a 100- per cent rise in production from 1950 to 1975 in these terms: "If we assume for the moment a favorable set of materials supply conditions, the size of our national output by 1975 will depend mainly upon the size of total population and working force, the number of hours worked per week, the accumulation of capital that has by then occurred, 1/ U. S. Office of Business Economics, National Income, 195Ii Edition (Washington: Govt. Print. Off., 195U). ■ ■■ . . FIG. 23 GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT - LONG RUN TREND 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 I960 1970 91. and upon the rise in man-hour productivity. Taking these various factors into account, this Commission believes it is reasonable to anticipate a rate of grox-rth for the United States economy in the future roughly equal to the past rate of growth, or about 3 per cent a year. This means that by 197$ total national output (the total of all cur goods and services, known as gross national product) would be approximately double that of 1950. . . . "Depressions and recessions, historically viewed, become smaller episodes in a longer and more heroic tale. There is no reason to assume that a world which has been growing by leaps and bounds for many genera- tions will suddenly become static in this generation."!/ With the prospect of more than 200 million persons in the United States by 1975 s 'this forecast implies a gross national product of about §2,650 per capita, which is 52 per cent higher than the 1950 figure. This can be considered an indication of the nation's increasing economic strength, but it does not provide an estimate of consumer-purchasing power. To obtain this, we must examine an- other measure, namely, per-capita disposable income. During the past 30 years, per-capita disposable income has averaged about 75 per cent of per-capita gross national product. However, this figure is affected by the relatively lower tax rates of the 1930's, which we are unlikely to experience again in the foreseeable future. In view of the high defense ex- penditures now incurred by the federal government and their probable continuance for the next few decades, it seems reasonable to expect a corresponding mainten- ance of present high taxes. Thus, the 75 per cent of gross national product left in the hands of consumers for their disposal seems a little too generous. In fact, during the last five years, this proportion has averaged only 71 per cent, due to the higher taxes necessary to support the defense establishment. Assuming no tax increases but only a maintenance of the present structure in 1975 j per- capita disposable income should be about 1$ per cent higher in 1975 than it was in 1950, or Ul per cent higher than the level of 1953. Elements in Consumer Response to Fresh Deciduous Fruits . — A growing popula- tion with rising incomes strongly implies the prospect of vigorous markets for consumer goods in the years to come. How much significance is there in such prospects for food demand, and particularly for fresh deciduous fruits? We know generally that when people in low-income categories obtain an in- crease in income, they may spend as much as one half of their additional income 1/ U. S. President's Materials Policy Commission, Resources for Freed om, Chapter 2 (Washington: Govt. Print. Off.), vol. 1, pp, 6-7, tTT riif; S flsrfj 92. on food. But in the higher income categories, an increase in income has much less effect on food demand— perhaps no more than 10 per cent of increased incomes in these categories is spent for food. It is generally accepted in the United States— all food commodities and all income groups combined— that the additional outlays for food which accompany increases in income are in the vicinity of 20 to 25 per cent of the income increase. That is to say, in other words, that for each dollar of additional disposable income in the hands of consumers, 20 to 25 cents will be spent for more food. The income reaction is not the same for all food corrmodities— some will increase more than the over-all average, some less, and some may not increase at all. Moreover, as is logical to expect, when the general income position of the economy becomes ever more favorable, the proportion of additional income dollars spent on food will decline. With the potentials of population growth and income rise that are now in prospect, it is expected that the demand for food by 1975 may very well be 50 per cent higher than in 1950. This results from an estimated population growth of 36 per cent between 1950 and 1975, accompanied by a 10-per cent increase in per-capita food demand, which is based on the expectation of higher incomes. How much of this increase in total food demand can we expect to be channeled into fresh fruit consumption? This question is almost impossible to answer pre- cisely, Demand for individual items tends to fluctuate much more from year to year than that of broad classes of items. Thus, though total food consumption— or possibly even total fruit consumption— may exhibit a fairly steady trend, there is much interchange within the group such as a substitution of margarine for butter, peaches for apples, etc. It may be helpful, nevertheless, to see how consumers have behaved in regard to fresh and processed fruits in the recent past. From this, we may be able to draw some indications about how they are likely to spend incomes in future years. In the spring of 19U8, the U. S. Department of Agriculture made a nationwide survey of the food consumption of urban families,^ It was found that fruit took 8 cents of the consumer's food dollar and 5 of these 8 cents were spent on non- citrus fruits. Of the total expenditure for fruits other than citrus, about 62 1/ The discussion in this section is based on the results of this survey. These are contained in two publications of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Information Bulletin No. 132, Food Consumption of Urban Families in the United States , and Commodity Summary No. 9, Fruit Selections of City Families. too lo whiz ei 93. per cent was spent on fresh fruit, 26 per cent on canned fruit, $ per cent on canned juices, and the remainder on frozen and dried products. There were pronounced seasonal differences in the consumption of fruit. Fresh and processed fruit move in directly opposite seasonal patterns. The consumption of fresh fruit is at its seasonal peak in the summer when processed fruit is at its lowest point. Within the fresh fruit group, there are substan- tially different seasonal patterns, too. The use of citrus fruits—a winter crop in Florida and partly so in California— is heavily concentrated in winter and spring and is sharply curtailed in the summer and fall when noncitrus fruits are purchased in greater quantities. There are differences in food consumption from one part of the country to another, but most of these are in foods other than fruit. There is, however, some indication that southern families consume less frozen and canned fruits and juices than those of other regions. To some extent, this is a reflection of the lower income level of the South, Income has a very important influence in determining consumer choices among various foods. Obviously, persons with higher incomes can afford to buy more food than low- income groups. For example, the group of urban families in the nationwide survey with incomes between $1,000 and $2,000 spent C>17 a week for food in the spring of 191*8 compared with $31 by the group with incomes between 15,000 and $7,£00. The increase in food outlays by higher income groups tends to be in the form of higher quality, higher priced items, more processed foods, and more eating away from home in restaurants. All of this indicates that the food purchases of high-income groups differ from those in low- income groups not so much by an in- crease in quantity but rather by a different selection of foods. Among the food commodities to which consumers respond most readily, if they have the incomes, are frozen and fresh fruits. The 19U8 survey indicated that the quantity of these items consumed in the home can increase as much as 3 pep cent with 10 per cent higher incomes. Dried fruits, on the other hand, tend to be less important to the higher income families and canned fruit consumption increases with income up to about $3>000 per year (19U8 price level), beyond which point it tends to level off, American families do not have rigid and fixed consumption habits and patterns. This lack of rigidity is perhaps one of the most outstanding and significant fea- tures of our economy. The great changes that have occurred in our manner of no ittoo -icq 5 n*&rrit fcaofiso .ao inaa ?aq dS t ixtrcl riss .aj-ouboiq baxtb bns nosoil no iabnlr.ois tofalv at bsisiJoaonco vXh fieri el— sirtioxirle? nl oa vj oil no. ■ ■ ■ •Toct £ doum as aesaionl nso ©mad adi nx b< noliqstusnoo .tluil banns a bus eoilifnr.l seek bnovas #,(l9V3X aoli f tMCX) icsv ian OOQ»fi; afi'ia^isq bns siidsd aoWcpioanoa baxxl bns blali lo 'taaasin 'ivo nx baiTorooQ 9vsd tad* eaansj 9h. living within recent decades have had their impact on every phase of economic life. The changes in food needs and preferences are certainly not the least important of these impacts. Where formerly our working force in many industries and occupations was engaged in energy- consuming physical labor, we now use machines that consume other forms of energy than food. In consequence, an increasingly large propor- tion of our occupations are sedentary. Centrally heated offices, factories, and homes have meant that less energy is needed to maintain body temperatures. At the same time, people are apparently becoming more weight- conscious. All of these developments mean a decrease in the need for energy-rich foods. Yet the capacity of the human stomach and the physiological appetite level remain much the same. We continue to consume about the same total poundage of food stuffs per capita as we did half a century ago. The adjustment that has taken place is to substitute foods that have appetite appeal and nutritional components other than carbohydrates for part of our previous energy-rich diets. This shifting in the composition of the average diet is a gradual process likely to continue for many years to come. In addition to the factors that were mentioned above, a further influence in the same direction is the growing numbers and proportions of people in the older age categories. In coming years, it is expected that the number of persons aged 6f> and over will increase almost twice as rapidly as the total population. This, of course, is in consequence of im- provements in medical science that have increased survivals into the older age categories. Decreased need of energy-rich diets by older people and by a population that has less arduous physical work to do is a matter that should have far-reaching significance for the fruit industries. Fruits are a very satisfactory substitute for foods that are high in carbohydrate. But the evidence considered earlier in this report does not indicate that deciduous fruits, particularly in fresh use, have fulfilled the role in this replacement process that might be expected. Perhaps this role is yet to come. we xto Joscpii lirsrii bad 9ved -ssbeosfc 160 sic. 8eoo9islaiQ brte sbe^rt bool gB PMPV ;:T.a3v - arii TABLE I United States Production, Bearing Acreage, and Yield Per Bearing Acre for Various Deciduous Fruits Apples aj b/ Apricots Cherries rapes Commercial Bearing j Bearing ■ Bearing Bearing production acres Held | Production acres | Yield Production acres Yield Production acres Yield 1 2 rr 3 4 5 6 F3 f 8 9 ... „ . 1U 11 12 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 tons acres tons 1,000 tons acres tons 1,000 tons acres — tons 1,000 tons acres tons 3,1*6.2 2,409.5 1.51 ! 136.0 65.2 2.09 79.3 71.9 1.10 1,774.2 643.6 2.76 2,968.7 2,358.9 1.27 149.0 68.3 2.18 73.8 71.9 1.03 2,199.7 708.8 3.10 4,505.1 2,301.9 1.96 173.0 74.0 2.34 107.5 72.4 1.49 2,383.7 753.8 3.16 2,268.8 , 2,243.2 1.01 207.7 80.1 2.59 61.4 73.6 .83 2,591.7 774.4 3.35 3,486.6 2,187.9 1.59 177.3 83. 02/ 2.14 93.7 75.0 1.25 2,635.0 777.4 3.41 2,649.1 2,137.8 1.24 220.4 85.8 2.57 98.3 76.8 1.28 2,086.1 768.9 2.71 3,071.1 2,113.7 1.45 198.4 85.4 2.32 122.4 82.8 1.48 2,457.5 748.1 3.28 4,027.6 2,093.1 1.92 281.0 84.8 3.31 126.4 89.7 1.41 1,647.3 727.8 2.26 2,878.6 2,071.8 1.39 272.0 84.8 3.21 144.6 95.8 1.51 2,232.6 713.9 3.13 2,914.5 2,053.2 1.42 271.1 82.6 3.28 136.1 101.4 1.34 1,938.6 695.8 2.79 2,544.1 2,025.0 1.26 153.7 81.9 1.88 137.5 105.5 1.30 1,957.6 684.8 2.86 3,369.6 1,921.9 1.75 227.5 80.9 2.81 145.7 106.4 1.37 2,477.4 668.8 3.70 2,352.6 1,815.7 1.30 257.0 79.8 3.22 123.5 106.7 1.16 1,897.4 650.9 2.92 3,676.1 1,715.6 2.14 324.4 79.9 4.06 147.6 106.1 1.39 2,726.2 645.4 4.22 2,537.2 1,627.9 1.56 185.4 78.6 2.36 144.2 105.8 1.36 2,671.2 638.9 4.18 3,341.9 1,553.5 2.15 331.5 77.7 4.27 184.5 105.7 1.75 2,449.0 628.8 3.89 2,674.5 1,532.4 1.75 127.1 75.5 1.68 172.8 105.5 1.64 2,466.4 624.5 3.95 2,933.2 1,495.7 1.96 213.9 73.8 2.90 161.7 105.8 1.53 2,724.9 627.6 4.34 3,041.0 1,470.9 2.07 228.1 72.7 3.14 196.5 105.6 1.86 2,395.5 627.7 3.82 2,095.4 1,448.9 1.45 104.4 72.9 1.43 116.2 106.6 1.09 2,965.2 626.7 4.73 2,910.4 1,436.1 2.03 351.8 72.7 4.84 195.5 106.9 1.83 2,695.8 625.4 4.31 1,600.5 1,421.7 1.13 191.5 72.9 2.63 148.3 108.0 1.37 2,766.8 627.2 4.41 2,853.6 1,409.0 2.03 338.7 73.4 4.61 228.4 108.8 2.10 3,137.3 627.3 5.00 2,709.4 201.2 171.2 3,020.0 2,143.9 246.1 212.6 3,061.0 3,216.0 196.7 245.1 2,622.7 2,987.7 215.0 238.7 2,687.9 2,655.8 183.2 230.0 3,389.8 2,219.7 176.8 217.9 3,164.4 2,229.0 243.0 224.0 2,696.0 1 2,472.3 1 .. 191.8 2,692.0 Year ] e, : ! Table I continued. Freestone peaches g/ Year Production^/ Bearing acres Pears 1924 I 1925 ! 1926 | 1927 1 1928 ; 1929 ! 1930 j 1931 ! 1932 | 1933 : 1934 ! 1935 j 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 19544/ 13 1,C00 tons 1,123.1 874.4 1,283.4 730.4 1,185.5 908.6 811.4 1,471.3 718.6 756.4 842.4 1,042.5 833.1 1,071.1 981.1 1,169.3 1,034.9 1,476.7 1,177.2 676.2 1,382.1 1,435.5 1,434.5 1,321.2 954.7 1,082.1 743.0 938.0 1,042.4 1,004.4 1,007.0 14 JCLelsL 15 JEr^&ietifin£Z_ 16 1.000 acres tons 711.2 694.0 675.2 659.7 647.0 633.0 626.5 619.7 617.5 611.8 599.2 587.2 571.2 556.5 549.2 544.0 557.0 576.4 595.4 609.8 620.2 629.6 635.2 1.58 1.26 1.90 1.11 1.83 1.44 1.30 2.37 1.16 1.24 1.41 1.78 1.46 1.92 1.79 2.15 1.86 2.56 1.98 1.11 2.23 2.28 2.26 1,00 0 tons 449.4 484.1 587.6 438.4 587.8 521.4 652.0 606.7 588.3 576.2 674.3 622.6 655.8 701.1 760.9 702.7 710.2 699,1 725.9 581.7 745.7 780.5 802.5 817.2 599.6 817.6 703.5 720.7 742.7 697.9 718.9 Bearing acres Plums Yield 1 Production 17 Bearing acres 18 Yield 19 20 1,000 acres | tons 1,000 tons 21 1,0 00 acres tons 230.2 230.7 229.0 227.9 229.6 233.9 235.1 236.5 239.3 239.2 235.1 220.5 218.6 201.5 194.6 188.1 184.0 180.6 178.5 176.6 175.2 174.4 174.1 1.95 47.8 29.4 1.63 2.10 57.7 32.2 1.79 2.57 82.4 34.0 2.42 1.92 61.9 34.6 \ 1.79 2.56 73.9 35.2 2.10 2.23 44.4 35.5 1.25 2.77 89.5 34.3 2.61 2.57 72.1 33.8 2.13 2.46 74.3 34.0 2.19 2.41 61.5 32.9 1.87 2.87 67.5 31.7 2.13 2.82 53.7 30.2 1.78 3.14 67.9 • 28.9 3.48 71.1 28.5 2 49 3.91 65.5 27.8 3.74 76.6 26.8 2 86 3.86 74.0 24.8 2.98 3.87 76.9 24.3 3-16 4.07 76.2 24.0 3.18 3.29 78.5 24.5 3.20 4.26 96.5 25.1 3.84 4.48 72.7 26.3 2.76 4.61 116.0 26.9 4.31 79.2 71.8 98.7 84.1 101.8 60.8 i 92.4 73.0 (Continued on next page.) Table I continued. a/ Commercial production of apples for years prior to 1934 was determined by multiplying total production figures by .817. b/ Bushels were converted to tons by multiplying by .024. One bushel 3 48 pounds. c/ Prior to 1929 bearing acreage of California apricots was assumed to be the same as that for the United States, d/ 1954 figures are preliminary. e/ Production of freestone peaches equals production of all peaches minus production of California clingstone peaches Bearing acreage of freestone peaches equals bearing acreage of all peaches minus bearing acreage of California clingstone peaches. Sources: Cols. 1, 4, 7, 10, U. S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Fruit s (Non-C it rus ) Production, Farm Dispos ition, 13, 16, and 19: Value, and Utilization of Sales , 1924-1 95 3 0 " Cols. 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, and 20: U. S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Fruits and Nuts Bearing Acreage, 1924-1946. Cols. 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, and 21: Derived by dividing production columns by their respective bearing acreage columns. TABLE II California Production, Bearing Acreage^ and Yield Per Bearing Acre for Various Deciduous Fruits Apple sa/b/ Apricots Cherries Grapes Commercial Bearing Total Bearing Total 1 Bearing Total Bearing ICaX production acres Yield production acres Yield production acres Yield production acres Yield 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 tons acres tons 1,000 tons aores tons 1,000 tons acres tons 1,000 tons acres tons 1924 191.4 51.1 -LO. O Q 9 1 ATI J-,OOO.U a. tit 1925 129.4 52.3 2.47 149 0 68 3 2 18 12 0 9 A 1 9R oft x ft 97 ft 1 A A 5Cft o oO.c n a XX. % 1927 7 ft lit) X / .U K ft o.o An 7 To n ox.o O.X 1928 ft fl o.o JUS*? D.U »cy. / R R OO R (cy.o 4.0 1929 o, y in ^ XU.O TO O XO. iC R /I oc o (CO.iC 4.£ 1930 o ,u y . o A ft 11 R XX. 0 *7 7 1,1 Ol £ 2 R o.o 1931 K 7 O. 1 o.o 7 7 I.I o.O x/.o o.o 1932 A O o. / D.U / o 4.y i<£.4 3.3 1953 1934 1935 1936 2 7 9R ft (Co . o r n O 0 U 7 o. ' o.U 1937 2 7 9D T R Q o . y A R *x. 0 Cm a 1938 2 5 5 4 T 7 99 ft Q A 2 7 O. / 7 1 R R O-L.O y. d l onfl l i,yuo.i T £JQ£? A 1, byo.4 633.1 4S9.0 1935 2,937.7 211.4 2.192.8 101,4 223.7 214 ^ 22 0 It'- 8 1 OO) 0 J- i i .o Q y.o A 1 V .X in c: 0 .2-± / 14.7 72.9 Of .0 38.5 1936 1 »CO 1 X02 .1 1*1.1 AP k 2pO .0 0.9 9-2 13.3 78.3 91.8 35-7 1937 263.0 H.9 i fin 7 XUU . ( 375-6 0.1 7 A 2.6 l4.o 88.1 104.7 32.3 1938 209. f 15 .0 1 P7 A )i on c 432.5 1 .1 Ik k 1.5 17.5 OO .7 99.7 53.8 1939 77.2 12.9 63.6 153.7 2.6 4.0 0.1 1.5 17.9 87.0 106.4 32.1 1940 20.8 0.7 13.2 34.7 14.1 1.3 0.5 1.3 0.6 8.6 10.5 8.3 19^1 41.5 1.8 55.9 99.2 0.3 3-^ — 1.3 2.8 38.5 42.6 19.9 1942 10.4 0.6 39.2 50.2 13.0 1-7 0.4 2.1 5.0 28.2 35.3 15.5 7.6 3.8 59.2 70.6 j 4.3 3.4 0.2 2.1 5.0 31.0 38.1 36.5 1 Qkk 30.9 0.5 39-9 71.3 57-5 2.4 2.0 1.2 9.3 40.6 51.1 14.5 1945 31.2 1.1 15.8 48.1 6.6 2.8 0.4 1,2 14.4 8.3 23.9 12.5 1 Ok£ 124.3 2.7 44.7 171.7 24.1 5-7 0.8 3.6 16.4 24.1 44.1 13.0 1947 69.1 2.1 86.2 30.1./ 55.9i/ 49. ii/ 1.1 2.0 6.8 12 'I 21.3 10.5 1948 32.7 1.2 38.2 1.8 2.6 0.0 6.5 17.8 24.3 9.9 1949 70.5 1.0 11.2 82.7 2.6 1.5 2.7 10.9 18.8 9.4 1950 69.9 1.0 8.8 79.7 51.7 2.8 1.8 3.0 1% 11.8 19.7 9-1 1951 81.7 1.1 28.9 111.7 49.8 4.2 1.9 2.6 I- 9 8.1 16.6 2- 1 1952 29.7 1.1 13.0 43.8 25.4 2.0 1.1 1.3 6.2 6.8 14.3 8.1 1953 3^.4 0.8 7.0 42.2 43.8 1.9 2.0 1.8 8.2 16.3 26.3 10.8 Table VII continued. Cherries Grapes Exports ; Imports Exports Imports Year beginning duly ± as per as per as per as per Exports cent oi produc- tion ' cent oi produc- tion Exports cent of produc- tion cent of produc- tion FresbJ^ Canned^/ Dried . Tota] . Imports Fresh Canned Driedjy Total£/ m/ o/p/ Inports 15 16 i 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2k 25 26 27 28 1,000 short tons 1 J, ,000 short tons 1924 0.8 0.8 25.4 1.0 32.0 10 168 178 46 10.0 2.6 1925 0.8 0.8 29.3 1.1 39-7 12 250 262 12 11.9 0.5 v • y 1926 1.1 1.1 42.8 1.0 39.8 15 282 297 9 y 12.5 0.4 1927 0.9 0.9 10.0 1.4 16.3 19 358 377 6 14.5 0.2 1928 1.3 1.3 7.6 1.6 8.1 28 411 439 8 16.5 0 3 1929 1.4 1.4 13.3 1-7 13.6 23 238 261 7 12.5 0.3 1930 1.1 1.1 7.2 1.1 5.9 25 232 257 9 10.5 0.4 1931 0.8 0.8 3.3 0.9 2.6 14 226 240 8 14.6 0.5 1932 0.7 0.7 1.1 0.7 0.8 15 208 223 7 10.0 0."^ 1933 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 0.7 13 174 187 9 9.6 0 5 1934 0.4 1.2 1.2 0.8 1.1 0.6 18 174 192 14 9 8 0 7 1935 1.4 1.8 0.8 1.5 0.6 19 202 221 10 8.9 0 4 1936 0.3 1.5 1.8 0.5 1.8 0.4 23 208 231 9 y 12.2 0.5 1937 0.7 1.8 2.5 1.1 2.0 0.7 35 262 297 9 10.9 0.3 1938 1.0 3.6 4.6 0.6 3.5 0.4 40 284 324 9 12.1 0.3 1939 0.4 2.0 2.4 1.2 1.5 0.6 30 235 265 7 10.8 0.3 1940 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.6 — 31 160 191 6 7-7 0.2 l$kl 0.5 0.6 1.1 0.7 32 188 220 6 8.1 0.2 1942 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.4 22 273 295 2 12.3 0.1 19^3 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.1 24 440 264 1 15.6 1944 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.4 22 347 369 5 13.6 0.2 19^5 0.4 0.8 1.2 0.1 0.9 29 205 234 6 8.4 0.2 1946 1.0 1.8 2.8 2.3 1.4 1.0 36 113 149 16 4.7 0.5 1947 0.8 0.9 1.7 5-3 l 1 1 1 47 526 573 8 18 Q 0 "\ 1948 0.8 0.8 2.1 0.5 1.0 38 247 285 9 9.3 0.3 1949 0.6 0.6 1.2 2.5 0.6 1.0 46 321 367 9 13.8 0.3 1950 0.6 0.8 1.4 4.8 0.6 2.0 45 142 187 21 6.9 0.8 1951 1.2 0.9 2.1 7.4 0.9 3.2 53 296 349 16 10.3 0.5 1952 1.0 l.l 2.1 8.2 1.0 3-8 58 393 451 20 14.3 0.6 1953 1.1 0.9 2.0 6.9 0.9 3.1 49 220 269 20 10.0 0.7 Table VII continued. Peaches a/ Pears a/ Exports Imports Exports Imports as per as per as per as per Year cent of cent of Exports cent of cent of ueginning Till if 1 .exports h/ Imports produc- tion produc- tionh/ produc- tion produc- tion Fresh Canned-' 1 Driedf/ Total Fresh CannedV u / Dried^/^ Total Imports on 30 31 32 33 j4 35 36 37 38 39 40 — >, 1 §1 " ).'A "*"'-* 42 1 ,000 tons 1.000 tons 1924 8.1 28.7 12.0 48.8 3.9 20.7 31.5 — 52.2 11.2 1925 7-9 41.6 8.6 58.1 5-3 35-6 44.4 — 80.0 15.9 1926 7.2 40.9 17.9 66.0 4.1 37-0 38.6 — 75-6 12.4 1927 9.0 43.3 16.8 69.1 6.6 25.5 30.8 — 56.3 12.3 1928 11.0 54.0 32.0 97-0 6.1 41.4 51.7 7-2 3.00.3 16.4 1929 10.0 43.2 12.6 65.8 6.0 31.0 38.2 10.7 79.9 14.7 1930 6.4 44.2 35.0 85.6 6.3 67.3 50.0 28.8 L46.1 21.5 1931 5.4 39.6 35.7 80.7 4.3 45.4 48.4 23.8 117.6 18.6 1932 1-7 42.9 32.2 76.8 7-3 60.0 41.0 23.7 124.7 20.3 1933 1.7 48.8 30.6 81.1 7-3 55.5 54.1 28.6 138.2 23.0 1934 2.4 31.4 26.6 60.4 5.2 50.3 48.1 20.8 119.2 0.1 17.0 1935 5.0 59.6 27.7 92.3 6.9 62.1 56.4 27.4 145.9 0.4 22.5 0.1 1936 8.0 37-0 J 27.1 72.9 6.2 65.6 47.0 24.4 137.0 1.6 20.0 0.2 1937 4.1 34.7 1 27.6 66.4 4.6 67.4 41.2 21.3 12319 1.0 17.8 0.1 1938 5-2 57.0 38.3 100.5 7.8 85.5 54.0 33-6 >173.1 2.1 21.8 0.3 1939 4.4 52.5 25.6 82.5 5.4 46.5 45.7 20.7 112.9 5-5 15.4 0.8 19^0 3-9 2.7 7.2 13.8 1.0 11.8 2.1 3.8 • 17.7 7.7 2.4 1.0 19^1 3.0 9.0 23.0 35.8 2.0 11.7 10.6 19.0 4l.3 3-3 5.7 0.4 1942 3.0 0.3 33-3 42.6 2.7 5.0 3.6 5.6 14.2 2.3 1.9 0.3 1943 5-5 17.2 44.6 67.3 6.6 3.0 16.0 10.2 29.2 7-1 4.9 1.2 1944 5.1 18.7 78.3 102.1 5.4 5.9 8.4 16.4 30.7 5-9 3.9 0.7 1945 10.9 16.9 15.2 43.0 2.2 24.4 10.6 5.2 40.2 7.5 4.6 0.9 1946 10.2 31.9 90.1 132.2 6.4 53.8 16.5 12.7 83.0 4.5 9.6 0.5 1947 13-3 19.4 8.8 41.5 2.1 35-2 10.2 2.4 47.8 1.1 0 l 0.3 14.0 16.2 30.5 1.9 7.6 7-7 2.2 17.5 7-7 2.6 1.2 1949 0.3 15.2 4.9 20.4 l.l 11.6 8.4 5-2 25.2 4.7 2.8 0.5 1950 7-9 15.8 11.0 34.7 2.9 19.9 8.8 3.6 32.3 4.8 4.1 0.6 1951 7-7 16.6 3-9 28.2 1.8 17.0 9-9 3.2 30.1 8.6 4.0 1.1 1952 8.9 18.7 8.1 35.7 2.4 17.O 12.6 6.6 36.2 6.4 4.7 0.8 1953 8.7 29.2 6.4 44.3 2.9 18.6 ll.l 6.0 35-7 3.4 4.9 0.5 ■ Table VII continued. Year beginning July 1 Plums Prunes, other than dried Total sales, plums and prunes (other than dried) Export s : , prunes and plums Amount sold Fresh sales Canned sales Frozen sales Other sales Freshi^/ Canned-y/ _ / Total—' ^3 44 45 46 4b 49 50 51 1,000 tons 1924 46.2 1-3 1925 56.6 1.2 1926 8O.3 1-3 1927 60.8 0.9 1928 72.1 1.0 1929 43.3 66.7 14.0 124.0 0.7 1930 87.8 55.2 11.2 154.2 0.6 1931 63.3 41.4 11.6 116.3 0.4 1932 62.7 45.2 8.1 116.0 0.4 1933 53.4 35-8 12.7 101.9 0.3 1934 66.4 46.9 16.9 .1 130.3 / 0.3 1935 52.4 47.7 26.2 .1 126.4 2>5 aa/ 0.3 2.8 1936 67.1 43-3 28.9 .1 139.4 6.2 0.2 6.4 1937 70.1 33-7 26.7 .1 130.6 6.0 0.5 6.5 1938 64.9 45.7 13-9 .2 124.7 7.9 0.6 8.5 1939 68.8 53.5 34.5 .3 157.1 6.8 2.9 9-7 1940 68.2 44.7 18.8 .3 132.0 4.6 0.2 4.8 1941 71.2 42.0 36.5 .1 .4 150.2 3-7 4.8 8.5 1942 69.5 50.8 19.2 1.9 .4 141.8 5-5 0.6 6.1 1943 77.9 37-2 35.4 13.0 1.2 164.7 2.0 1.5 3.5 1944 93.7 55-7 20.8 8.4 2.3 180.9 5.2 0.2 5.4 1945 71.1 63.8 26.7 10.1 3.7 175.4 9-2 0.7 9.9 1946 105.2 49.5 57-9 6.2 2.8 221.6 11.1 2.9 14.0 1947 78.4 57-1 26.2 1.2 .6 163.5 5.2 0.8 6.0 1948 71.1 50.4 14.4 1.0 .2 137.1 0.9 0.3 1.2 1949 86.9 52.1 26.6 3.6 .6 169.8 2.4 0.1 2.5 1950 81.3 23.O 14.4 2.7 121.4 4.0 0.1 4.1 1951 98.1 38.3 33-6 2.9 .1 173.0 5.4 0.2 5.6 1952 59.6 44.8 25.5 .8 130.7 5.1 0.2 5-3 1953 84.6 45.6 21.7 2.6 154.5 6.4 0.2 6.6 Table VII continued. a/ Apples and pears converted to tons by multiplying by .021+. One bushel = k8 pounds, b/ One pound canned = 2 pounds fresh. c/ Through 19^2, 1 pound dried = 7 pounds fresh; after 19k2, 1 pound dried = 8 pounds fresh. Includes apples in dried fruit for salad (7 per cent), beginning January, 1930. d/ Not separately reported prior to January, 1937. e/ The period 192^-1938 converted to fresh on basis that 55 cases (4j pounds each) - 1 ton fresh. Subsequent data converted on basis that 60 cases = 1 ton fresh. f/ Exports of dried fruit converted to unprocessed dry weight by dividing by I.07. Unprocessed dry weight converted to fresh fruit equivalent by multiplying by 5.5. ^/ Includes apricots in dried fruit for salad (12-1/3 per cent) beginning January, I93O. h/ Imports are negligible. i/ January to June. j/ Includes dried and preserved separately reported in year beginning July, 1948. k/ Not available prior to 1935. 1/ Canned, natural, sulfured or brined converted to fresh on basis that 1 ton processed = 1 ton fresh. m/ Includes raisins and currants converted to sweatbox basis at ratio of 1 to 1.08. One ton = k tons fresh. n/ Beginning January, 19*H, includes small amounts of canned converted to fresh at ratio of 1 pound canned =0.74 pounds fresh. 0/ Beginning 1933> imports for consumption. p/ Fresh imports converted from cubic feet to pounds at rate of kQ pounds per cubic foot. Table VII continued. 3/ Pears converted to tons by multiplying by .025. One bushel m 50 pounds. r/ One pound canned = 1 pound fresh. Beginning January, 1929, includes canned peaches in fruit salad (35 per cent) . s/ Converted to unprocessed dry weight by dividing by I.07. Unprocessed dry weight converted to fresh equivalent by multiplying by 6.5 since 1929 and by 5.0 and 6.0 for earlier years. t/ Canned converted to fresh on these bases: 1 924-1942, O.855 pounds canned = 1 pound fresh; for subsequent years, 1 pound canned ■ 1.2 pounds fresh. u/ Beginning January, 1929, includes pears in canned fruit for salad (35 per cent) . v/ Dried pears converted to fresh on basis that 1 pound dried =5-5 pounds fresh; not separately reported prior to 1929. w/ Beginning January, I93O, includes pears in dried fruit for salad (16-2/3 per cent) . x/ Not separately reported prior to January, 1936. v/ Canned prunes converted to fresh fruit equivalent on basis that 1 pound canned = O.729 pounds fresh. z/ Dried prunes excluded from exports. aa / January- June, not separately reported prior to this time. Sources: For years prior to 1951--U. S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, U. S. Farm Products in Foreign Trade ; for subsequent years--U. S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, Foreign Agricultural Trade. United TABLE VIII States Production Having Value for Various Deciduous Fruits and Population of United States Year 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1958 1939 1940 1941 1S42 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 Apple sg/ 1 2,514.2 5,164.2 2,335.1 3,384.8 2,444.4 2,993.5 2,563.5 2,871.4 2,840.8 2,095.4 2,861.4 1,600.5 2,841.5 2,602.1 2,123.9 2,929.8 2,894.6 2,425.1 2,219.7 2,229.0 Apricots 2 Cherries Grapes Freestone peachesg/ 136.0 149.0 173.0 206.0 173.0b/ 220.4 189.4 277.0 259.6 271.0 153.5 226.3 257.0 324.4 183.2 325.2 126.6 213.9 223.1 104.4 351.8 191.0 338.7 199.2 217.7 183.7 215.0 183.2 176.4 243.0 thousands of tons Pears b / Plums 79.3 1,774.2 1 123 1 J- , -L.f^O . JL AAQ A fiftf. ft ah R ft / . o 73.8 2 061 7 ft "7 A A ftOft.X Of . 1 107.5 2 368 7 1 2AQ ft DO / . O DO A 61.4 2 4.AQ 7 i OvJ. ft 400.4 oi.y 93.7 2 500 o ~\ i fin ^ J. , J-OU . o i^Rf^ R