DIVISION OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA World Trade and the Implications of Tariff Reductions for the United States Walnut Industry KENNETH R. FARRELL iJAVlK ^- > ■ B y ^CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION GIANNINI FOUNDATION OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS Giannini Foundation Research Report No. 274 ^ April 1964 Division of Agricultural Sciences UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA WORLD TRADE AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF TARIFF REDUCTIONS FOR TEDS UNITED STATES WALNUT INDUSTRY Kenneth R. Farrell CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION GIANNINI FOUNDATION OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS Giannini Foundation Research Report No. 27^ April 196k WORLD TRADE AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF TARIFF REDUCTIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES WALNUT INDUSTRY Kenneth R. Farrell^ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SUMMARY ^ PART I: INTRODUCTION 11 PART II: WORLD PRODUCTION, CONSUMPTION, AND TRADE: TRENDS AND PROSPECTS 1^ Production 1^ Consumption and Trade 17 Tariffs and Other Trade Barriers 31 Foreign Production Consumption and Trade Prospects 55 PART III: THE UNITED STATES WALNUT INDUSTRY: TRENDS, PROSPECTS, AND ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIPS 39 Production Trends and Prospects 39 Marketing and Utilization ^ Economic-Statistical Analyses of Demand and Imports ^9 Economic Considerations , 51 Empirical Results • 5^ PART IV: THE ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF TARIFF REDUCTIONS 63 Estimated Economic Effects of Tariff Reductions 63 Some Further Implications of Tariff Reductions 70 1/ Extension Economist, California Agricult\iral Extension Service, and Associate on the Giannini Foxandation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, Berkeley. The author is indebted to Mr. William W. Wood, Jr., Postgraduate Research Agricultural Economist, for valuable assistance in the preparation of this report. LIST OF TABLES Table ESii 1 Connnerclal Production of Walnuts in Specified Countries and Areas of the World, Annual Average in Selected Periods and Annual, I962 ^5 United States Exports and Imports of Walnuts, Annual Average in Selected Periods and Annual, 1958-I961 . 11 ■ Projected Acreage of Walnuts Attaining Bearing Age, Cali- fornia, 19614-1970 12 Shelled Tree Nuts: Estimated Distribution of Sales Among Major Outlets, United States, Annual Average in Selected Periods 18 3 United States Imports of Shelled Walnuts, by Country of Origin, Annual Average in Selected Periods and Annual, 1958-1961 22 k Balance of International Trade in Walnuts, Specified Coun- tries, 1953-1962 24 5 Walnuts: Exports Relative to Production in Specified Coun- tries and Imports Relative to Total Consumption in the United States, Annual Average in Selected Years and Annual, 1958-1962 27 6 Exports of Walnuts from Communist China to Non-Communist Countries, I9 51-1960 28 7 Imports of Shelled Walnuts in Specified Countries, Annual Average in Selected Periods and Annual, 1958-I961 30 8 Imports of In-Shell Walnuts in Specified Countries, Annual Average in Selected Periods and Annual, 1958-I961 30 9 IMited States Tariffs on Walnuts 31 10 United States Tariffs for Walnuts, Ad Valorem Eqiaivalents, Annual Average in Selected Periods and Annual, 1958-I96I . . 32 liO 50 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Commercial Production of Walnuts in Selected Countries, 1924-1962 2 United States Imports of Walnuts for Consumption, I92O-I96I 5 Apparent Acquisition of Shelled Walnuts for Consumption in the United States, 192i«-196l k Bearing and Nonbearing Acreage of Walnuts, California, I92O- 1965 5 Yield of Walnuts Per Acre, California, I92O-I962 6 Sales of Walnuts by Handlers, Pacific Coast, 192U-I961 . . . 7 Hypothetical International Walnut Trade Model SUMMARY Shelled walnuts are one of a comparatively small number of agricultural products for which United States tariff reductions may be sought in the multi- lateral trade negotiations to be conducted in 1964 under the auspices of GATT. France, Italy, Turkey, Yugoslavia, and India, all members of GATT, accoimt for 50 percent of the world conmercial production of walnuts. United States im- ports of shelled walnuts from these covintries totaled 6.1+ million pounds and were valued at $5.1 million in I962. ( World production of walnuts has increased moderately during the past I5 years to a record high of 183,000 tons in I962. Production of walnuts in the United States, after undergoing a pronounced increase in the period 192^-19^^ has leveled off within a general range of 70,000 to 8o,000 tons per year since the end of World War II. About 95 percent of United States walnut production is in Califomiaj the remainder is produced in the states of Oregon and Wash- ington. As production in other countries increased, the relative importance of IfiQited States production has declined from an average of nearly 5^ percent of world production in I9U8-I952 to an average of U7 percent in I958-1961 and kk percent on the basis of preliminary production data for I962. From a long-nm viewpoint, Iftiited States imports of in-shell and shelled walnuts have declined sharply. Imports of in-shell walnuts, which averaged nearly 25 million pounds per year in the early 1920 's and 2.5 million pounds in the mid-1930 's, have totaled less than 100,000 pounds in most years since the end of World War II. Imports of shelled walnuts averaged 17 million pounds in the early 1920*3 and 8.1)- million povmds in the mid-1930 's and during the past few years have ranged between 3-3 and 7.0 million pounds per year. The secular decline in walnut imports is inversely correlated with commercial development of the United States walnut industry. In the 1920' s and early 1930 's, the domestic industry was in its commercial infancy. Although domestic production was Increasing, average annual production in the early 1950 's was only slightly more than 50 percent of the average production in I958-I96I. Then, as United States production continued to increase through World War II, as commercial shelling of walnuts increased, and as the industry ad-opted standards insuring uniformity of product characteristics and developed adver- tised brands for in-shell walnuts, imported walnuts, particularly in-shell, were gradually displaced in the Aiaerican market. However, displacenent of in5>orts has "been much more complete in the case of in-shell valnuts than for shelled walnuts. Throughout the postwar period, Imports of in-shell walnuts have constituted only a minute proportion of United States in-shell walnut production. But, imports of shelled walnuts, though variable in volume from year to year, have continued in substantial absolute volume and relative to total United States consuajption of shelled walnuts. Since 19^1, the smallest volume of shelled walnuts imported was 2.7 million povuids in l^hQ-hSi the greatest volume was 11.9 million pounds in 1955-56. During the past four marketing seasons, consumption of imported shelled walnuts has ranged from 9 to 19 percent of the apparent total annual consumption of all shelled walnuts in the United States. United States exports of walnuts, consisting principally of in-shell nuts, has declined from an average annual voliome of 3«6 million and 4,7 mil- lion pounds (shelled equivalent basis) in 1950-195^ and 1955-1959* respec- tively, to l,k million pounds in 19^-1952. Apart from the marketing season of 1958-59* when a large quantity of in-shell walnuts was exported under the operation of the federal walnut marketing order, exports in recent years have ranged from 1.0 million to I.5 million pounds (shelled equivalent basis). Total exports of walnuts now represent only 2 to 5 percent of aTinuf^i United States walnut production; exports of shelled walnuts represent only a minute proportion of annual United States production of that product. Clearly, the domestic industry has become highly dependent upon the American market for disposition of supplies. In contrast with the indigenous market dependency of the United States walnut industry, most of the other commercial walnut -producing nations of the world for which data are available have been consistently highly dependent upon export markets for disposition of supplies. France, Italy, Turkey, and India have exported annually a volume of walnuts equivalent to two-thirds or more of their annual production of walnuts during the 1950*s. Interseasonal carry-over of walnuts in those countries has been very small throughout the decade of the 1950's. Thus, annual production of walnuts appears to be an important determinant of the total export volume of foreign nations. In addition to changes in the aggregate volume of shelled walnuts im- ported annually into the United States, marked changes have occurred in the relative importance of various nations in supplying shelled walnuts to this country. In prewar years, France and China supplied most of the shelled wal- nuts imported into the United States. As a result of the United States em- bargo of trade with China, that country has no longer been a source of supply for the United States. The French have concentrated apparently in marketing in-shell walnuts in the expanding markets of western Europe. During the period 19148-1952, Turkey, Iran, and India supplied an average of only 28 per- cent of United States annual shelled walnut imports; in the I96O and I96I mar- keting seasons, they supplied nearly 75 percent of the total. With one temporsiry exception. United States tariffs on in-shell and shelled walnuts have remained at the levels prescribed in the Tariff Act of I93O--5 cents per pound in shell and 15 cents per shelled pound. However, in relation to the value of imported walnuts. United States tariffs have de- creased appreciably since the early 1950's. As the average value of imports rose, the United States tariff as a percentage of that value declined from an average of 72 and 82 percent, respectively, for in-shell and shelled walnuts in 1951-1935, to 21 and 5I percent, respectively, during the past two market- ing seasons. In addition to restraints on imports which may be provided by United States walnut tariffs, two sections of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1957, as amsnded, eu:e of relevance to the walnut industry. Section 22 provides for imposition of quotas and/or fees on imports when such imports render ineffective or materially interfere with any program initiated under the Act by the U. S. Department of Agriculture, which in this case is the fed- eral marketing order for walnuts. To date, no action has been taken under that statute to regulate or restrict importation of walnuts. Section 8(e) of the Act requires imported walnuts to meet prevailing standards with respect to grade, size, quality, or maturity when such standards are in effect for the domestic industry under the federal marketing order. Thus far, the effects of that section on the volume of walnuts imported appear to have been minimal. Data by which foreign production and consumption of walnuts might be pro- jected qiiantitatively are either inadequate or wholly lacking. However, the longevity of bearing walnut trees; the tendency to continue harvesting of wal- nuts as long as prices exceed per xmit variable harvesting costs, which in some developing countries may be extremely low because of low opportunity costs for the principal input, labor; and the possibilities of increasing yield through technical improvements in production methods seem to sxoggest -5- that production might be maintained, if not Increased, in the remainder of this decade. Total demand for tree nuts in the major industrialized countries and eireas of the world, such as Canada, AustreuLia, and western Europe, can also be expected to increase principally as a result of projected increases in population. Demand for walnuts in those countries will of course be dependent, in part, upon the price and availability of other tree nuts. Although the United States walnut industry has little directly at stake in the external tariff for walnuts adopted by the European Economic Community, there ha« been interest in this country in those tariffs because of the pos- sible trade diversion effects which they might generate in the exports of other walnut -producing countries. The common external tariff of 8 jjercent, eui valo- rem, adopted by the Community and to become effective not later than Janu- ary 1, 1967^ will result in an increase in the current tariff in some member countries and a reduction in the tariff of some other of the six member nations. France and Italy, as member countries, and Turkey, as an associate member of the Commxjnity, will be placed at an advantage in the market of the "Six" rela- tive to other suppliers such as India, Iran, and Syria. Yet, it appears that there is little likelihood of Community tariffs resulting in any substantial redirection of trade £ind thus indirectly affecting the volume of walnuts im- ported into the United States. On balance, it appears that a reasonably well-balanced growth in foreign, non-Communist production of and demand for walnuts will occur during the re- mainder of this decade. If so, and barring the reentreince of China as a major walnut supplier of the non-Communist world (and a succession of large walnut crops in other countries), foreign walnut supplies available for export to the United States would probably average about the same in the next seven or eight years as in the past decade. However, based upon past performance, it is probable that there will be years of abnormally large and small production volume in particular countries. Coincidence in the direction of such ann\)al changes among several countries could eilter greatly the supplies of walnuts entering world trade and imported into the United States between successive years. It seems probable that economic problems associated with short-term instability in production, rather than the emergence of a basic imbalance in longer term rates of growth of production smd demand, will be the principal ones in international trade in walnuts during the remainder of this decade. Assuming that average yield per bearing acre equals that of the past seven years, projected increases in hearing acreage of walnuts in California indicate that production in the state by I970 might average 10 to 11 percent higher than during the past seven years. If production in Oregon continues to average close to the levels of recent years, Pacific Coast walnut production might approach an annual average of 79,000 to 8o,000 tons by I97O. That pro- jected increase in production is approximately equal to the projected increase in demand for shelled walnuts in the United States resulting from projected increases in national population and real per capita income. Of the many important changes which have occurred in the marketing and utilization of walnuts, two are of particular significance in this report. First, the volume of domestic shelled walnuts sold by Pacific Coast handlers has Increased from an annual average of less than 5 million pounds in the mid- dle and late 1920's to an average of approximately 52 million pounds during the past five marketing seasons. In 1957, the sales volume of shelled walnuts exceeded that of in-shell walnuts (shelled equivalent basis) for the first time. During the past five years, sales of the shelled product have consti- tuted 55 to 58 percent of the total sales volume in shelled equivalent terms and have accounted for 50 to 55 percent of the annusil gross income of Pacific Coast walnut handlers. A second significant change is the Increased propor- tion of shelled walnuts being distributed by Pacific Coast handlers for direct consumption in households— 15 percent in 1935-1957, 59 percent in I950-I952, and perhaps as much as 50 percent currently. The proportion shipped to bakers, but particularly to confectioners, has declined accordingly. In each outlet, shelled walnuts compete with other domestically produced shelled tree nuts, particularly pecans. The major competition from shelled walnut imports is probably centered in the baking and confectionery trsides. Statistical analyses of demand for shelled walnuts in the United States during the period I926-I96I, excluding the years 191*5-1946, have revealed that changes in United States annual per capita acquisition of all shelled walnuts have been associated with changes in the following variables: (l) the average annual deflated f .o.b. price of Pacific Coast shelled walnuts, (2) United States annual per capita acquisition of eill in-shell walnuts, (5) United States annual per capita supply of other tree nuts, {k) United States annual per capita real disposable personal income, and (5) "trend" and "shift" vari- ables. Combined, those variables explain about 86 percent of the annual -5- variation in United States per capita acquisition of all shelled weiLnuts. All, with the exception of per capita real disposable personal income, are corre- lated negatively vith changes in annual per capita acquisitions of shelled walnuts. Statistical analyses of United States imports of shelled walnuts during 1931-1961 (excluding the years 19^1-19^7) for the years 19^-19^1 only, have indicated that changes in United States annual per capita in?>orts of shelled walnuts from countries other than China have been associated with changes in four variables: (l) the ann\ial average f.o.b. price of Pacific Coast shelled walnuts, (2) annual total foreign commercial production of wal- nuts in countries other than China, (3) United States annual per capita im- ports of shelled walnuts from China, and (k) a trend variable. Combined, these four variables explain about fS percent of the annual variation in United States per capita imports of shelled walnuts since 19kQ, The first two of these variables are positively correlated with changes in per capita imports; an increase in f.o.b. price or foreign commercial production is associated with an increase in per capita imports from countries other than China. The remaining two variables are negatively correlated with per capita imports from countries other than China. The negative trend variable indicates that, apart from the influence of the other three variables. United States per capita im- ports of shelled walnuts from countries other than China have been decreasing over time. The foregoing analyses were employed to estimate the price and income ef- fects of a reduction in the United States tariff for shelled walnuts of the magnitude and in the manner authorized in the Trade Expansion Act of I962. The Act authorizes a maximum tariff reduction of 50 percent to be applied in equal installments over five successive years. Applied to shelled walnuts, the maximum total reduction would be 7.5 cents per pound or I.5 cents per pound in each year of the five successive years. The direct independent effects of a 1.5-cent6-per-pound tariff reduction coijld be to increase United States imports of shelled walnuts by 222,000 pounds, lower the f.o.b. price for Pacific Coast shelled walnuts by 3.2 cents per pound, and decrease handlers gross income by about $1 million in the first year following the tariff reduction. Those estimates of impact assume that the entire tariff reduction is reflected to foreign suppliers and that the domestic industry continues to market the same supply as it would have without -6- tariff reduction. The estimated price aad income effects are those which could ensvie solely as the result of the tariff reduction under the assump- tions Just stated. Of course, other variables which affect price of domestic shelled walnuts and the volume of shelled walnuts imported into the United States would also be operative during the time of the tariff reduction, e.g., changes in per capita income in the United States, changes in the supply of other tree nuts in the United States, and changes in the volume of foreign walnut production. The actual price and income attained by the industry and the actual volume of shelled walnuts Imported into the United States in the year of tariff reduction woiild be determined by the net total effects of all those simultaneously operating variables of which the tariff reduction is but one variable. It is possible that the independent price- and income -depressing effects of the tariff reduction in the first year might be less than Indicated above. If the domestic industry lowered price to meet the competition of increased imports, that, according to the statistical evidence uncovered in this report, would tend to suppress Imports. Whether this would occur would depend, in part, upon how quickly adjustments were made by both domestic and foreign sup- pliers. Although it might be difficult to make such adjustments in a period of a year or less, it seems quite probable that over the five-year period in which tariff reductions were occurring many of the types of adjustments Just described would be anticipated and would occur even if in a lagged manner. Thus, it seems improbable that the total income loss to the domestic industry over the five years would total $5 million (the first year loss multiplied by five). There is no means by which the total Income losses attributable inde- pendently to the sequence of tariff reductions over five years can be esti- mated with any empirical precision. Subjectively, it seems possible that they might range between $U million and $5 million to the shelled walnut sector of the industry. In the short run, it seems likely that the Impacts of a tariff reduction on shelled walnuts would fall principally upon the shelled walnut sector of the industry. Because of dissimilarities in seasonal marketing patterns, the fact that not more than 50 percent of the shelled walnuts marketed are for direct use in households and because the two product forms may have substan- tially different use in the household, there seems little likelihood that a reduction of 5.2 cents per pound in the f .o.b. price of shelled walnuts would -7- generate any substantial substitution betveen the two product forms. Statis- tical analyses have also indicated the possibility of a very low substitution ratio betireen shelled and in-shell walnuts (1:12). Thus, a small price reduc- tion in shelled walnuts is not likely to result in any appreciable reduction in movement and prices of in-shell walnuts in the short run. Until additional economic research is available, nothing can be said de- finitively concerning long-run demand interrelationships for the two product forms. Utius, it is not possible at this time to offer any quantitative evi- dence of the efficacy of attempts which the industry might make to offset losses from tariff reduction on shelled walnuts by reallocating available wal- nut supplies between the two product markets. The very character of use upon which in-shell walnuts are so dependent (holiday trade) suggests that demand for that product form might be more inelastic with respect to price than in the shelled form. And recent trends in per capita and total consvunption of the in-shell product offer little encouragement that a substantial realloca- tion of supplies could be made to that outlet without substantial decreases in price. Although statistical analyses of demand contained in this report relate to the handler or f .o.b. level of the msirketing system, it seems quite prob- able, in view of the structure of the Industry and suggestive statistical evidence, that price and income losses reflected initially at the handler level would be passed backwards to walnut producers. The single leirgest mar- keting organization In the industry is a grower-owned cooperative. Price changes experienced by the cooperative could only be passed back to Its pro- ducer members, at least In the short run. Thus, it Is probable that losses stemming from tariff reduction on shelled walnuts would be passed back, in large part, to walnut producers. One of the possible "side effects" of a sequence of tariff reductions might be to Induce additional variation in the volume of United States Imports of shelled walnuts and, consequently, in the price of shelled walnuts at the handler level of the walnut marketing system. A tariff reduction would likely induce a series of adjustments in quantities supplied by domestic and foreign suppliers of walnuts. A sequence of reductions might Induce a series of price -quantity oscillations. Such variations or the failure to anticipate correctly the timing and magnitude of sequential adjustments might compound the already appreciable Inventory management problems in several parts of the -8- valnut marketing system. Conceivably, industry efforts to reduce intersea- sonal supply variations through operation of the federal marketing order could be m ade less effective or the objectives of such a program made more difficvilt and costly to attain if vstri ability of imports was increased. Although the short-run, independent effects of a tariff reduction of the m a gn itude and in the manner authorized in the Trade Expansion Act might be moderate, it is important to consider the full economic circumstances which might prevail in the industry at the time of tariff reduction. Under certain circumstances, the net total effect of all variables affecting price and in- come on the walnut industry could be large even while the independent effect of a tartff reduction was small. A tariff reduction, for example, at a time when imports are decreasing because of a secular decline in foreign production or when domestic demand is expanding rapidly might be more acceptable than under circumstances where imports were likely to increase even without tariff reduction or when domestic demand expansion is likely to be stultified by, for example, large supplies and low prices of competing tree nuts. Although there is little evidence to suggest that United States imports of shelled walnuts will increase persistently during the remainder of this decade, this does not deny that in particxilar years shelled walnut imports will be large. Increased imports might be expected to occur in particular years when foreign production of walnuts increases and in years when the price of domestic shelled walnuts is increased. Tariff reduction of any magnitude wo\ald tend to supplement the import -increasing effects of those variables under such circumstances. Thus, the major question surroundLng reduction in the tariff on shelled walnuts may not be the magnitude of its "independent" effect on the domestic industry but the possibility that the reduction might supplement the effects of other variables and thus assist in generating large net total effects upon the domestic industry. The other major concern may be that a tariff reduction might even accentuate short-term instability in im- ports and thus in domestic prices and income for walnuts. Obviously, the domestic walnut industry will not gain from unilateral re- duction in the United States tariff on shelled walnuts. To the individuals so affected, any uncompensated reduction in price and income may seem "unjust" or "ineqxiitable . " Questions of equity and compensatory income transfers have not been engaged in this report. This is not to deny, however, that such questions are relevant to adversely affected industries or to officials charged -9- ■with conducting trade negotiations; obviously, they are or should he of rele- vance to both parties. Hovever, in the long run, variables other than tariffs axe likely to prove to be more important determinants of valnut production, consumption, and trade. Much vill depend upon the nature of marketing and price policies pvirsued by indlvidtial firms in the domestic industry and by those firms acting Jointly through industry-wide marketing programs. Those policies and, particularly, the price levels sought by the industry may con- tribute more to the determination of the futxore volume of shelled walnut im- ports and economic conditions in the entire walnut industry than would a reduction in the United States tariff for shelled walnuts. -10- PART I: INTRODUCTION On May 21, I965, delegates to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Ministerial Conference at Geneva unanimously adopted a resolution set- ting forth principles and general procedures pertaining to multilateral trade negotiations to be conducted in 196k under the auspices of GATT. Among the principles agreed upon were the following:^ (1) "Ttxat the trade negotiations shall cover all classes of prod- ucts, industrial and nonindustrial, including agricultural and primary products . " (2) '"Hiat the trade negotiations shall deal not only with tariffs but also with nontariff barriers." (5) "That ... the tariff negotiations . . . shall be based upon a plan of substantial linear tariff reductions with a bare minimum of exceptions which shall be subject to confrontation and justification. " The views of the Executive Branch of the United States government regard- ing the negotiating plan were expressed during the Ministerial Conference by Christian A. Herter, Special United States Representative for Trade Negotia- tions:^ ". . .we are convinced that the fundamental objective of the con- ference must be to bring about the greatest possible reduction in tariffs and other barriers to trade. Any plan that does not achieve such an objective is less than adequate in our view. "It is, of course, the firm position of my government that negotiations must include agricultural products. IHiis means that my government will not be prepared to conclude negotiations until equitable tariff and trade arrangements have been developed for agricultural products. This is necessary for the United States as a major agricultural exporting eind importing nation. " Although attention has been focused upon the possible nature of negotia- tions between the United States and the European Economic Community (EEC), the negotiations will involve all of the member countries of GATT. Subject to certain constraints of GATT and in United States trade negotiating authority. 1/ As reported in European Commionity Information Service, European Com - munity , No. 63 (Washington, D. C, I963), P- 2. 2/ As reported in U. S. Foreign Agricultural Service, Foreign Agriculture , Vol. I, No. 25 (June 2k, 1963), P- 5- -11- tariff reductions effected between the United States and any other country or group of countries will be extended to all member countries of GATT. Many important procedural details concerning the negotiations are as yet unspecified. Vital questions remain concerning the extent to which the EEC will be able and willing to negotiate on agricultural products. Yet, as indi- catedj a general agreement on principles which will guide the negotiations has been reached by the contracting parties. A general commitment to a reduction in tariffs emd other trade barriers has been made. Statements of United States officials have indicated clearly that negotiations on agricultural products should constitute ein important part of the total negotiations. It seems probable that the EEC and several other nations will seek United States tariff reductions in nonagricultureil products in return for any tariff concessions which they may grant. Many of these countries' exports to the United States are weighted heavily in favor of nonagri cultural products. Yet, in the case of particular agricultural products, the United States constitutes an important export outlet for EEC and several other GATT member nations. United States tariff reductions may be sought for such products. Walnuts is one such product. Frajice, Italy, Turkey, Yugoslavia, and India, all of which are members of GATT, account for 50 percent of the world commercial production of walnuts. United States imports of shelled walnuts from those countries totaled 6.h million pounds and were valued at $5'i niil- lion in I962. The primary objective of this analysis is to assess the potential eco- nomic impacts which United States tariff reductions would have on the United States walnut industry. In particular, the analysis will be directed toward determining quantitatively the effects of tariff reductions upon the volume of United States shelled walnut imports, the volume of United States shelled wal- nuts consumed, domestic walnut prices, and gross income of the U. S. walnut industry. Because of its dominant national position, particular attention will be directed toward the California walnut industry. Related and important objectives of the einalysis include: (1) A review of trends and prospects in world production, consump- tion, and trade in walnuts. (2) A review of recent changes in and the current structure of United States tariffs for walnuts. (5) A review of economic trends and prospects in the United States w€LLnut industry. -12- Relatively little of a q^uantitive analytical nature has been done con- cerning the impact of tariff adjustments on the United States walnut industry. In part, this must be attributed to the lack of relevant and accurate data, particularly with respect to foreign walnut industries. This same constraint has been encountered in this analysis. Yet, decisions are to be made on the basis of information, data, and im- perfect analyses which are available. It is to be hoped that data and analy- ses contained in this report will facilitate the making of more informed, well-advised decisions thsm might otherwise occur. The report would serve an equally important function if it indicates some types of data which need to be collected and made available on a systematic, continuing basis. -13- PART II: WORLD PRODUCTION, CONSUMPTION, AND TRADE: TRENDS AND PROSPECTS Production English walnuts axe produced in large commercial volume in four widely- separated areas of the world— the Mediterranean Basin, the Balkans, South- east Asia, and the United States. France and Italy are by fax the largest producers in the tfediterranean Basin with production in each averaging about 25,000 tons in the past five years. Combined commercial production in Turkey, Iran, and Syria averaged 18,000 tons in the seune period. Those five Mediterranean countries have, in total, accounted for kl to ^7 percent of the non-Coramunlst world annual pro- duction since 1957 • The Balkan countries of Rumania, Bulgaria, and Hungary produced substan- tial qxxantities of walnuts prior to World War II. Production averaged ^4-2, 000 tons per year, about I3 percent of the average world production, during 19^3- 1959.^ Although postwar production data are not available. United States im- ports of shelled walnuts from Rumania have been maintained at a volume not greatly different than in 19^5-1959, suggesting that production has been main- tained near prewar levels at least in that country. Average annual commercial production in India during the past five years has been estimated at 12,000 tons. Those estimates are undoubtedly subject to considerable error and may, in fact, be a better approximation of exportable walnut supplies than of commercial production. Production data for Communist China, the other major producer of Southeast Asia, are almost wholly lacking for either pre- or postwar years. One admittedly crude estimate placed Chi- 2/ nese production at an average of 2i»-,000 tons annually during 1935-1959*-' Thu L&iited States is by far the largest single commercial walnut -producing nation in the world. Production, of which about 95 percent is in California, has averaged 75^000 tons per year since 1957« That constituted ¥i- to 51 per- cent of annun.1 comosrcial production in the non-Communist world. 1/ U. S. Tariff Commission, Edible Tree Nuts, War Changes in Industry Ser- ies, Report No. I8, 19^6, p. Ik, 2/ Ibid . World production has increased moderately since 19^0. By I958-I96I, pro- duction had more than regained the immediate prewar level and averaged about 19 percent higher than in I95O-1954 (Table l). During the postwar years, I9W-I962, production has trended gradually but persistently upward to a rec- ord high of 185,000 tons in I962. Characteristic of perennial fruits, there have been wide annual variations in production in each of the three nations of major production and in the non-Communist world total of production (Figure l). TABLE 1 Commercial Production of Walnuts in Specified Countries and Areas of the World, Annual Average in Selected Periods and Annual, I962 Period or / ye ax-' Country or area France Italy Other Mediter- ranean . BasinV India United States World United States as per- cent of world thouseuid in-shell tons 1950-195^ 59 16 17 1955-1959 58 16 16 191*8-1952 21 22 20 1955-1957 25 20 19 1958-19^1 2k 25 22 19626/ 51 56 25 10 12 12 59 129 3C ).2 57 11*8 J. 5 77 IH 31 J. 5 70 114-2 ki 75 15»* 81 185 1+4.5 a/ Crop year in respective countries, b/ Yugoslavia, Turkey, Syria, and Iran. c/ Sum of production in specified non-Communist countries. d/ No data available. ej Preliminary. Source : Appendix Table 1 . United States walnut production has almost doubled since the early 1950's. The period 1950-191*6, in particular, was one of rapid expansion for the Ameri- can industry. In the postwar period, however, production has leveled off within a general range of 70,000 to 80,000 tons per year, but with continued and -15- 1924 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 I960 Figtire 1. Conmerclal Production of Walnuts in Selected Countries, 192k~V^62 Sources: Table 1 and Appendix Table 1. -16- substantial year-to-year variation. In relation to world production, United States output rose from 50 percent in l^^O-lS^k to a five-year average of 55 percent in 19^18-1952. Thereafter, its relative importance has declined slightly to kj percent in 1955-1957 and kk percent on the basis of preliminary production data for I962. In contrast to the compsurative stability of production in the United States since 19^, walnut production in some other parts of the world has been increasing. French production, although still well below prewar levels, has increased ik percent between I9U8-I952 and I958-I961. Italian production in- creased 5 percent during the same period and in I958-I961 averaged kk percent higher than I95O-I95U. Aggregate production in Yugoslavia, Turkey, Syria, and Iran has followed the same general trend. Indian production avereiged 2,000 tons per year higher in I958-I96I than in the mid-1950 's. Consumption and Trade Several changes of importajice to the United States walnut industry have occurred in world trade during the past hO years : (1) The volume of United States imports of walnuts, both in-shell and shelled, has declined sharply. (2) There has been a marked change in the composition of United States walnut imports. Virtually all imports since the end of World War II have entered in shelled form. (5) The relative importance of various nations supplying walnuts to the United States has changed appreciably. Imports from China, which constituted a large part of the total prior to World War II and as late as 195O-5I, have been prohibited by a United States embargo of trade with China. India has be- come axi important supplier of shelled walnuts only since 19^7 but particularly in the past three years. {h) The United States walnut industry has become increasingly de- pendent upon domestic markets for disposition of supplies. United States exports of in-shell walnuts have declined sharply in volume since 1952. Exports of shelled walnuts, always very small in volume, now represent a minute part of United States total commercial shelled walnut production. United States imports of walnuts in the 1920's averaged 26 million pounds per year in shelled equivalent terms (Table 2) . That was a period of commer- cial infancy for the domestic industry. Hae comparatively small volume of walnuts produced in this country was marketed almost exclusively as in-shell -17- nuts. Shelling was confined principally to culls and blows, by-products of the process of preparing walnuts for in-shell markets. Accordingly, virtually the entire supply of shelled walnuts and a relatively large part of the supply of in-shell walnuts available for consumption in the United States was com- posed of imports. TABLE 2 United States Exports and Imports of Walnuts, Annual Average in Selected Periods and Annueil, I958-I96I Exports Imports Period or / a/ year-^ In-shell Shelled Total shelled equiva- lentk/ In-shell Shelled Total shelled equiva- lentc/ thousand pounds 1920-192!^ 1925-1929 1950-1954 1955-1959 1948-1952 1955-1957 1958 1959 i960 1961 8,644^/ 11,252 5,078 4,644 10,257 5,211 2,227 1,924 152 117 1,074 185 164 252 5,650 4,717 1,425 2,067 5,574 1,552 1,099 l,o4o 24,902 16,915 2,286 160 60 14 57 102 72 45 17,112 19,055 8,554 4,4l6 5,860 6,900 5,501 5,584 6,926 5,722 26,824 25,651 9,246 4,478 5,885 6,905 5,525 5,424 6,954 5,740 a/ Year beginning August 1. b/ In-shell converted at shelling rate of 42 percent plus shelled, c/ In-shell converted at shelling rate of 59 percent plus shelled, d/ Blanks indicate no data available. e/ Average, 1952-1954. Exports prior to 1952 were negligible. Sources: Appendix Tables 2-4. -18- 1 By 1959^ domestic production had increased substantially. Although the volume of walnuts shelled was small in relation to that of today, the output had increased rapidly between 1950 and 1959.^ As a result of these develop- ments and because of a severe decline in economic activity, the United States imports of walnuts declined to an average of 4.5 million pounds, shelled equivalent, in 1955-1939. That was 85 percent less than the annual average imports in 1920-1924. Imports of in-shell walnuts, which averaged 25 million pounds and constituted 26 percent (shelled equivalent) of all weuLnuts im- ported in I92O-I924, dropped precipitously to an average of l60,000 pounds and represented only 1 percent of total imports in 1955-1959. The volume of shelled imports declined relatively less (74 percent) but, nevertheless, sub- stantially during these two decades. During the years 1942-19^7, few or no walnuts were imported as a result of World War II and its aftermath. However, by I949, large quantities of shelled walnuts were again being imported. In the five years 1948-1952, imports, almost exclusively shelled, had attained em average annual level of 5.9 million pounds, almost one -third greater than in the years just prior to the war. Having attained that level, there has been no distinct trend in the volume of imports over the l4 years I948-I96I (Figure 2) . The most apparent aspect of shelled walnut imports since 19^3 is the wide variation in volume--from a low of 2.7 million in 19^ to a high of 11. 9 mil- lion pounds in 1955- United States exportation of walnuts, consisting principally of in-shell nuts, has trended downward sharply from an average annual volume of ^.6 axid 4.7 million pounds (shelled equivalent) in I95O-1954 and 1955-1959, respec- tively (Table 2). By 1948-1952, export volume had declined to I.5 million pounds on a Icemel-weight basis. In the ensuing years, in-shell export volume has followed no particular trend but has been characterized by substantial year-to-year variation. Exports of shelled material have trended modestly upward in volume but even now represent an extremely small part of domestic 2/ production.-' 1/ Production and marketing aspects of the domestic industry are discussed in greater detail in Part III. 2/ Appendix Table 2. -19- 25 20 - T3 5 15 w c o _ o- 10 •Shelled In-shell (Sh. equiv.) \ I I I I I I I I I I t I \l II I II ll l\l I I ll 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 Year beginning August 1 1950 1955 I960 Figure 2. United States Imports of Walnuts for Consumption 1920-1961 Sources: Appendix Tatles 3 and k. -20- Following the inception of a federal marketing program in 1955 and a fed- eral marketing order and agreement in 19^6, substantial amounts of in-shell walnuts have on occasion been designated as "surplus" axid diverted into export outlets. Such exports have been included in the data reported above. The relatively large exports of I958 (Table 2) were, in major part, exported as "surplus" under the marketing order as amended in 1957.^ Canada has been the principal, recipient of the limited volume of walnuts exported from the United States. Exports to western Europe have totaled as much as 6.7 million poiands in shell but in general have been small and highly- variable from year to year during the postwar era. Virtually no shelled wal- nuts have been exported to Europe. Small amounts of both shelled and in-shell walnuts have been exported to Central and South American countries.^ In recent years, six nations (France, Italy, Turkey, Rumania, Iran, and India) have supplied more than 90 percent of United States imports of shelled walnuts. Even during the postwar period, there has been a substsuitial change in the proportion of total imports supplied by each. Two of the countries, Iran and India, have become increasingly importeuat suppliers since the end of World War II. (See Table 3.) The secular decline in United States imports of shelled walnuts from France is attributable to three major factors. First, there has been a secu- lar decline in French production of walnuts (Figure l). In addition, the French have apparently found it profitable to concentrate on marketing of in- shell walnuts in western Europe. In 195I-I955, 62 percent of French exports were in the in-shell form.^ From that, it may be surmised that production of shelled walnuts is, to a large extent, a by-product of the preparation of in-shell walnuts. Thus, the long-term decline in production, coupled with 1/ For fvirther information, see Kenneth R. Farrell and William W. Wood, Jr., "Federal Marketing Orders euad Agreements for California Fruits, Vegetables and Tree Nuts" (Berkeley: California Agricultural Extension Service, I965), h'J-p., and annual statistical reports of the Walnut Control Board, 20Uo Pioneer Court, San Mateo, California. 2/ Appendix Table 2. 5/ Exports by country or area of destination are reported in Appendix Table 2. kj U. S. Foreign Agricultural Service, op. cit ., p. I9. -21- TABLE 5 United States Imports of Shelled Walnuts, by Country of Origin Annual Average in Selected Periods and Annual, I958-I96I Period All or / Covmtry of origin coun- a/ year—' France Italy Turkey Rumania Iran India China tries thousand pounds 1920 -192!*^ 597 £/ 189 2,507 26,82i^ 1925-1929 11, 570 555 252 605 25,651 19^0 -19^k 2,891 198 615 552 5,95^^ 9,246 1955-1959 590 22 265 272 4,478 19^48-1952 1,5^+5 1,259 1,126 125 550 208 5,885 1955-1957 2,755 1,06k 681 151 1,291 865 6,905 1958 681 452 988 176 526 U67 5,525 1959 185 526 2,092 158 1,155 9^6 5,424 i960 589 800 2,615 127 56U 2,157 6,954 1961 271 107 1,25^^ 2^5 550 l,2kO 5,740 a/ Year beginning August 1. b/ Average of three years, 1922-1924, for specified countries. Total imports axe average of five years, 1920-1924. c/ Blanks indicate imports, if any, included in total, d/ Average of three years, 1948-1950. Source : Appendix Table 4. continued emphasis on the in-shell product, has left a declining volume of kernels available for export. Furthermore, export prices of French shelled walnuts have been high during recent years relative to those of countries such as India and Iran.-^ Althoiigh Italian production has trended slightly upward, in-shell market- ing of walnuts predominates even more in that country (70 percent) than in 2/ France.-^ However, prices of Italian shelled walnuts imported into the United States have been consistently lower than for those imported from France and have corresponded closely with those imported from other countries listed in Table 5. It appears that the Italians, like the French, have continued to concentrate on the traditional in-shell markets of western Europe. For the reasons just mentioned and because of the growing demand for shelled walnuts in the United States and the increasing production in the Mid- dle East and India, a substantially larger part of United States shelled im- ports has been secured from Turkey, Iran, and India. In 19^48-1952, those three countries supplied only 28 percent of average annual imports; in i960 and 1961, they supplied about 75 percent of the total. In these countries, where labor is abundantly available for hand shelling, it appeeu-s that it may be comparatively advantageous for them to export shelled walnuts while France and Italy exploit in-shell export demand in western Europe. In the prewar years during which in-shell walnuts were imported in large volume into the United States, three countries --France, Italy, and China--were 3/ dominant.-' China, for reasons stated previously, is no longer a direct sup- plier of walnuts to the United States. Imports from France and Italy have been very small in volume since 19^*8 despite their specialization in ex- portation of the in-shell product. The declining volume of in-shell walnuts imported into the United States is probably attributable in large part to aggressive development and exploitation of domestic in-shell demand by the California walnut industry. Establishment of steuidards insuring uniformity I 1/ As indicated by examination of average declared value of United States imports from those countries. 2/ U. S. Foreign Agricultural Service, op. cit ., p. 25. ^ Appendix Table 3. -23- of product characteristics and the development of advertised brands have madi importation of in-shell walnuts into the United States a generally unattrac- tive undertaking. And, as stated previously, France and Italy have found it profitable to continue to supply expanding European markets. International trade data for countries other than the United States are either incomplete or unavailable. Accordingly, only a partial description o trade flows is possible even for postwar years. (See Table k.) TABLE k Balance of International Trade in Walnuts, Specified Countries 1955-19625/ Covintry Year^ France Italy Turkey Iran India United States — c/ thousand pounds, shelled equivalent-' 1955 195^ 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 i960 1902-^ 17, 551 12,894 l8,l406 7,552 2,808 15,650 7,098 Ik, 450 9,282 16,770 6,905 15,152 17,160 11,622 11, 95^^ 15,990 12,558 19,500 2,184 2,652 5,978 4,446 5,900 4,290 4,524 4,290 780 780 468 7,885 5,544 6,761 8,758 8,502 6,006 11,466 7,722 7,800 - 5,807 - 5,786 -10,554 - 2,774 - 1,517 2,051 - 5,892 - 5,855 - 2,700 a/ Exports less imports. b/ Crop year in respective countries. cy' For all countries except United States, converted from in-shell to shelled equivalent at 59 percent shelling rate. For United States conversion rates, see Table 2. d/ Blanks indicate no data available. ej Preliminary. Sources: Appendix Tables I-7. -24- All of the major producing countries listed in Table k, with the excep- tion of the United States, import few or no walnuts.-' Thus, all, with the exception of the United States, have had a consistently large, favorable bal- ance of trade in walnuts since 1955. Conversely, the United States position in international trade has been consistently that of a net importer, with the exception of 1958 when large supplies were exported as "surplus" under opera- tion of the federal marketing order and agreement for walnuts. Because very small supplies of walnuts are carried over from year to year in foreign na- tions, changes in export volume, and thus in the balance of trade, correspond 2/ closely with changes in production in those covintries.-' Those changes and trends have been discussed in preceding parsigraphs. The United States deficit in balance of treuie declined between 1955 and 1958; thereafter, it has increased. However, the deficit has been so unstable from year to year that probably no significance can be attached to those short-term changes. The predominant characteristic has been high year-to-year variability resulting primarily from fluctuations in import volume. The dependency of the major walnut-producing nations on export outlets is indicated clearly in Table 5* All countries, with exception of Irsm and the United States, export the equivalent of %) percent or more of annual produc- tion. United States exports of walnuts (shelled equivalent) relative to pro- duction have declined persistently since 1950-195^ to the equivalent of 2 per- cent in recent years. The annual absolute volume of exports from each country varies directly with annual changes in production. Consumption of imported walnuts as a percentage of total walnut consump- tion in the United States has undergone a long-term decline. Imports of in- shell walnuts have represented an inconsequential portion of total consumption during the postwar era. However, imports of shelled walnuts, though much smaller in relation to total consumption of shelled walnuts in years prior to 19^0, have continued to represent a significant part of total consumption in the country since 19kQ. As indicated above and even more clearly by examina- tion of yearly data in Figure 5, the absolute, as well as the relative voliome of imports, has varied considerably in a short-run, year-to-year context. 1/ Appendix Tables 5-7. 2/ Carry-over is reported for some countries in Appendix Tables 5 aiid 6. -25- 60 50 40 From domestic production "^""^^^^^ 30 20 • From imports • • •• \ 10 m • X • M % ^^^^ • 0 IVl i?T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 't. 1 w •** *. 1 i.i.Li/i 1 1 1 1 1 1 rvv'i 1 1924 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 I960 Year beginning August 1 Figure 3 . Apparent Acquisition of Shelled Walnuts for Consuntption in the United States, V^h-V^\ Source: Appendix Table 11. -26- TABLE 5 Walnuts: Exports Relative to Production in Specified Countries and Imports Relative to Total Consumption in the United States Annual Average in Selected Years and Annual, I958-I962 Period or / yea.r-' Exports as percent of production (shelled equivalent) France Italy Turkey Iran India United States Imports as percent of consumption in the United States In shell Shelled 1925-1929 1930-1954 1935-1959 I9I48-I952 1953-1957 1958 1959 i960 63,h 60.7 51.1 66.1 59.5 69.3 59.6 69.5 77.1+ 81.5 69.4 46.7 1*6,6 55.4 52.8 58.8 65.9 6I+.7 22.2 23.8 16.7 94.8 85.6 94.8 94.5 83.5 11.1 9.9 2.2 5.5 7.2 2.9 1.8 1.8 23.9 4.0 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 84.2 60.5 25.4 25.2 22.2 9.2 13.7 19.4 11.3 a/ Marketing year in respective countries, b/ Blanks indicate no data available. cj Average of four years, 1954-1957 . d/ Preliminary. Sovirces: Appendix Tables 1-7 and 11. In addition to walnuts entering world trade from the soxirces indicated previously, it is known that exports of Communist China have been increasing in volume. (See Table 6.) Those exports, predominantly in the form of ker- nels, have been directed principally to Canada, the United Kingdom, West Ger- .any, and Swit^rland. Canada has b.en the principal receiver.!/' 1/ California Federal-State Market News Service, Foreign Fruit and Nut Report No. 82 (Sacramento, February 15, I965)) 5p« -21- TABLE 6 Exports of Walnuts from Communist China to Non-Communist Countries, I95I-I960 Calendar year Volume exported a/ thousand pounds, shelled equivalent--^ 1952 261 1955 264 19 5^^ 569 1955 459 1956 763 1957 758 1958 426 1959 523 i960 790 a/' Converted from in-shell to shelled equivalent at shelling rate of 39 percent. Source: CsJ-ifomia Federal-State Market News Service, Foreign Dried Fruit and Nut Report No. 20 (Sacra- mento, December 4, I96I), p. 3. Although small in relation to those of other major producing nations, the volume of exports from Communist China to non-Communist countries more than doubled between I95I and I96O. Even at the comparatively high level of i960, total exports to the non-Communist world were 29 percent less than the volume exported to the United States alone in 1950. It is not known whether this large apparent decline in exports to the non-Communist world resulted from a decline in production in China, an increase in total consumption in China, development of trade outlets in Communist countries, or some combination of the three. There is also the possibility that exports to some non-Communist countries have not been included in the data reported above- However, if those data are indicative of the actual volume of Chinese trade with the non- Communist world, that country can scarcely be considered as a major supplier, even at the comparatively high level of exports in I96O. -28- In addition to the countries in which walnuts are produced in large com- mercial volume, substantial quantities of walnuts are consumed in such indus- trialized countries or areas as Canada, the United Kingdom, West Germany, and Scandinavia. (See Tables 7 and 8.) Unfortunately, data are not available to permit derivation of detailed trade flows between the major walnut -producing nations and the principal walnut -importing nations other than the United States. Yet, data contained in Tables 7 and 8 indicate several relationships of indirect significance to the United States walnut industry. First, total walnut consumption, as indicated by the total volume of im- ports, increased appreciably between 191*8 and I961 in most of the cotmtries for which data are available. Increased population and per capita incomes, as well as increased availability of walnuts for importation, probably have con- tributed to rising consumption in the countries specified. Canadian imports in 1961 were nearly one -third greater in volume than the annual average of 191*8-1952; West German imports increased by 22 percent between 1953-1957 and 1961. Total imports into the United Kingdom, omitting the year 19^9 when an abnormally large volume of in-shell walnuts were imported, have increased slightly. Increased imports and apparent consumption in the countries of western Europe may account, in part, for the decline in the importance of France and Italy as suppliers of walnuts to the United States.^ The proba- bility of further increases in population and per capita real income in west European countries suggests that a large part of French and Italian exportable walnut supplies, even if increased moderately, will continue to be disposed of 2/ in western Europe rather than in the United States.-' Concomitant with the expansion in total imports of walnuts, there has been an increase in the voliune of shelled walnuts imported into coiintries listed in Tables 7 and 8. Shelled walnut imports exceed in-shell imports in volume in Australia and Canada; they are approximately equal in the United Kingdom and Denmark. West Germany is still primarily an importer of the 1/ See page 21. 2/ Data contained in California Federal -State Market News Service Foreign Fruit and Hut Report No. 82 indicate that 90 percent of in-shell and 80 per- cent of shelled walnuts exported from France were directed to other west European countries in 1961. -29- TABLE 7 Imports of Shelled Walnuts in Specified Countries, Annual Aversige in Selected Periods and Annual, 1958-I961 a/ Period or year-' Average, Average, 1953- Country- 1952 1957 1958 1959 i960 1961 thousand pounds Australia 9I1I 900 l,o64 1,077 1,057 Canada 8,6o4 7,791 ll,4o8 9,253 7,659 Denmark 34 69 85 92 112 128 West Germany 629 692 661 737 822 United Kingdom 1,779 4,290 4,496 5, 250 4,688 5,002 a/' Calendar year. b/ No data available. Source: Gill & Duffus, Ltd., Edible Nut Statistics (London, I963), p. 10. TABLE 8 Imports of In-Shell Walnuts in Specified Countries, Annual Average in Selected Periods and Annual, I958-1961 a/ " Period or year—' Country Average, 1948- 1952 Average, 1953- 1957 1958 i960 1961 thousand pounds Australia BelgiumV Canada Denmark West Germany , Netherlands^^ New Zeaiandb/ Norvayb/ Swede nb/ ^ , Switzerland-' United Kingdom 394 2,901 2,092 81 £/ 715 220 7 813 2,395 20,216 374 2,536 2,560 291 22,326 1,725 500 1,154 1,165 2,282 11,635 560 2,312 2,654 645 33,049 1,794 385 1,187 1,546 2,282 12,871 618 2,829 2,552 428 25,605 1,850 500 965 1,225 2,710 9,616 721 5,445 2,181 706 55,266 2,545 515 992 1,445 2,464 14,520 627 2,180 2,548 647 27,299 1,826 515 970 1,452 2,114 9,552 a/ Calendar year. b/ Combined shelled and in-shell. c/' No data available. Source: Gill & Duffus, Ltd., Edible Nut Statistics (London, I965), p. 10. -30- in-shell product, even though importation of kernels increased 50 percent be- tween 1953-1957 and 1961. The developmsnt of shelled walnut markets in Canada and in Europe, as in the United States, may be reflecting rising per capita income of consumers and a consequent increase in demand for prepackaged "convenience" items. If such a demand is, in fact, emerging in those and other countries in western Europe, it could mean a growing demand for shelled walnuts from countries such as Turkey, Iran, and India, particularly if per 2.1 capita incomes rise at projected rates.-' Ihe United States industry might gain indirectly through those developments to the extent that the major ex- porters of shelled walnuts become less dependent upon the United States market for disposition of exportable supplies. Tariffs and Other Trade Barriers For reasons developed in previous sections, the interests of the United States walnut industry in the forthcoming GATT negotiations have been directed, in major part, toward questions concerning the economic effects on the domes- tic Industry of lower United States tariffs on shelled walnuts. It is perti- nent, therefore, to trace the evolution of United States tariffs for weilnuts and to examine the structure and level of prevailing tariffs. Although walnuts have a tariff history dating from the earliest tariff acts, there were no important changes in the rates of duty before the Tariff Act of 1922. In that legislation, relatively large Increases in rates were provided, particularly for shelled walnuts. The Tariff Act of I93O provided further increases (Table 9). TABLE 9 United States Tariffs on Walnuts Tariff act Tariff In shell Shelled cents per pound 1913 2 1^ 1922 12 1930 5 15 Source: U. S. Tariff Commission, Edible Tree Kuts , War Changes in Industry Series, Report No. I8, 19^^, p. ^2. 1/ Comparisons are on a kernel-weight basis. 2/ Income and consumption projections for western Europe are discussed on page 57 • -31- With one temporary exception, tariffs for In-shell and shelled walnuts have remained at the levels prescribed in the Tariff Act of 1950. In May, 19kQ. the duty was reduced to 7-5 cents per potind for the first 5 million pounds of shelled or prepared walnuts to enter in any calendar year. The con- cession on shelled walnuts, initially negotiated with China and included in GATT, was withdrawn in December, 1950, after China ceased to be a party to GATT.^ The concession on prepared walnuts was retained and is effective cur- rently as are the rates for shelled and in-shell walnuts prescribed in I950 and specified above. A better neasure of the level of tariffs can be obtained by transforming the foregoing specific duties into their ad valorem equivalents (Table 10). TABLE 10 United States Tariffs for Walnuts, Ad Valorem Equivalents Annual Average in Selected Periods and Annvial, 1958-19615/ Period or year In-shell Shelled percent of declared value of inserts 1927-1929 55 ko 1951-1955 72 87 1958-19^ 69 lli^ 19*48-1952 28 58 1955-1957 25 51 1958 22 3k 1-^59 2k 52 iytoo 21 51 1961 21 51 a/ Averages for selected periods are ad valorem equivalents for each year weighted by volume of imports for each year. Sources: 1927-1929, 1951-1955, and I958-I9I4O: U. S. Tariff Commission, Edible Tree Nuts , War Changes in Industry Series, Report No. 18, 19*46, p. 5*+. All other periods and years: Calciilated from specific duties listed in Table 9 and aver- age declared value of imported walnuts for years beginning August 1 as compiled from U. S. Bureau of the Census, United States Imports of Merchandise for Consumption; Com - modity by Country of Origin, Report FT 110, monthly issues. 1/ U. S. Tariff Commission, Tree Nuts; Report to the President Under Sec - tion 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act as Amended, and Proclaoiation by the President, 1951, p. 5. -32- r There have been substantial reductions in walnut tariffs expressed in ad valorem equivalent terms. As the declared value of imports rose after I958- 19^0, specific tariffs as a percentage of declared value dropped sharply to 21 and 51 percent in the past two years for in-shell and shelled walnuts, respec- tively. This suggests that United States tariffs have, by themselves, become a less effective restraint on the volxaue of walnuts imported than in yeaxs prior to World War II. It is also evident that tariffs on kernels have been consistently higher than for in-shell walnuts. In addition to tariffs, two sections of the Agricultural Marketing Agree- ment Act of 1957^ as amended, are of relevemce to any discussion concerning importation of walnuts. Section 22 provides that whenever the Secretary of Agriculture has reason to believe that any article or articles are either being or practically certain to be imported into the United States in such quantity as to tend to render ineffective or materially interfere with any program initiated under the Act by the U. S. Department of Agriculture, he shall notify the President. If the President concurs, he shall request an immediate investigation of the U. S. Tariff Commission. The Tariff Commission, acting in its advisory capacity, shall recommend a course of action to the President. The President is authorized to impose quotas and/or fees on im- ports if he deems necessary. Although the walnut industry has petitioned sev- eral times for a hearing before the Tariff Commission, and on one occasion in recent years was granted a hearing, no action has been taken under this stat- ute to regulate or restrict importation of walnuts. It remains, however, as a potential meajis of regulating imports when such imports render ineffective or materially interfere with the implementation of marketing policies promulgated under the federal marketing order smd agreement for walnuts. Section 8(e) provides that whenever any regulation of grade, size, qviality, or maturity is in effect under a federal marketing order for speci- fied commodities, including walnuts, imports of such commodities are pro- hibited unless they meet those specified standards prevailing for the domestic industries. Should the Secretary of Agriculture find that effective order regulations are not directly applicable to the Imported commodity, he shall designate appropriate standards for such imported commodity. Walnuts were 1/ Only very small amounts of blanched, roasted, or otherwise prepared, walnuts are imported into the United States and for that reason tariffs for that classification have not been considered in this report. -53- first included in this section in I96I. The effects of the legislation on the volume of walnuts imported appear to have been minor thus far. Tariffs of other nations have not been of great direct importance to the United States walnut industry because of the relatively small volume of ex- ports in recent years. However, adjustments in tariffs in major consuming nations which lead to alterations in the international flow of trade could have indirect effects on the domestic industry by increasing or decreasing supplies exported to the United States. For this reason, the recently an- nounced common external tariff of the European Economic Community was of inter- est to the domestic walnut industry. The common external tariff, applicable to the six member countries, will be 8 percent ad valorem (shelled and in-shell) and will become effective, according to present plans, not later than January 1, 1967.^ At that time, there will be no tariff on intra-Community movement of walnuts. The common or single external tariff will apply to all walnuts imported into each of the six member nations except those imported from Turkey. That nation became an asso- ciate member of the Community in September, 19^3^ and will have, presumably, duty-free access to the walnut markets of the six member nations. Prior to the inception of the Common external tariff, each member country will adjust its prevailing tariff toward the specified 8 percent. The net effect of these adjustments will be to raise tariffs in West Germany, a large importer uf walnuts, and 1 1^ wer duties in France and Benelux. However, in no instance are the announced tariffs greatly different from those prevailing in the individual countries in early I965. West German tariffs, for example, will rise from 1^.5 percent; Benelux tariffs will decrease from 9.k percent. Thus, the possibility of any substantial redirection of trade as a result of the Community's tariff action seems rather remote. France, Italy, and Turkey, in having duty-free access to markets of member countries, will be placed in an advantageous position in the large West German market relative to other suppliers such as Iran and Syria. Yet, because most West German imports are probably now derived in large part from Freuice and Italy and because non-EEC European markets will continue to be accessible to all suppliers of walnuts. 1/ The member countries are France, Italy, West Germany, Belgium, the Netherlajids, and Luxembourg. it would appear that there is little possihility of the Community's actions generating any substantial indirect effect on the volume of walnuts imported into the United States. There are a few nontariff barriers restricting world treuie in walnuts. In late I962, Freuice and Japan were still prohibiting importation, Mexico was limiting imports by certain irregular or arbitrary proceduree^ and Venezuela was subjecting imports to licensing and foreign exchange control restric- tions.^ Presumably, other countries, like the United States, require im- ported walnuts to meet specified standards with respect to purity. Otherwise, walnuts were free to flow into major markets throughout the world subject only to tariffs. Foreign Production, Consumption, and Trade Prospects The paucity of relevant data precludes anything but the crudest appraisal of foreign walnut production, consumption, and trade. Data indicating age distribution of bearing or nonbesjring walnut trees or even total acreage or nvmiber of trees in foreign countries are not available. Observers of foreign walnut industries report that production of walnuts in cultivated, commercial orchards is virtually nonexistent in some walnut-producing nations. In most countries of the Mediterranean Basin ". . . the industry consists largely of trees scattered on grain or other field crop land, along road.s or property lines, in the hills, or in little groves or clusters, which can hardly be 2/ called orchards . "— ' Under these circumstances, virtually nothing of a quantitative nature can be said concerning the future production of walnuts in foreign countries. Be- cause of the wide variation in production between successive years, projection of production from data for the years 19148-1961 has little meaning from the 1/ U. S. Foreign Agricultural Service, Prospects for Foreign Trade in Fruits, Vegetables, Tree Nuts , I965, 26p. 2/ U. S. Foreign Agricultural Service, The Walnut and Filbert Industries of the Mediterranean Basin , by William C. Tesche, Foreign Agriculture Report No. 95, 1956, p. 7. -55- standpoint of objectives to which this study is directed.-' Notwithsteuading the inability to formulate quantitative estimates of future foreign walnut production, several factors suggest a greuiual increase in foreign production could occur during the remainder of the 1960's. The longevity of the walnut tree suggests that a part (unfortunately an unknown part) of current bearing acreage in foreign countries will remain fixed in production for many years. Many trees continue to produce for five or more decades. The tendency is to continue harvesting of walnuts as long as prices exceed variable costs of harvesting. And, in developing countries such as India, Turkey, and Iran, where opportvinity costs for family labor may be extremely low or zero, the principal determinant of production may not be eco- nomic but physical in nature; whatever the tree produces is harvested at any price greater than zero. This characteristic, coupled with possibilities of increased yield through more effective control of plant diseases, better prun- ing, and fertilization, suggests the possibilities of a growing, or at least not diminishing, production potential. But the lengthy period of seven or eight years required to bring a walnut tree into production, once planted, also imposes axi important constraint on the possibilities of increasing short-run production by eidditional planting of trees. Although some increase in yields from existing bearing acreage is pos- sible, the short-term (seven to eight years) production response is likely to be highly inelastic with rrr.pert to changes in walnut ju-ices. In sum, slowly rising foreign production might be anticipated. Without information on age distribution of trees, there is no way by which the rate of increase can be projected quantitatively. On balance, however, foreign walnut production in the remainder of the 1960's is more likely to be characterized by continued high year-to-year instability rather than by euiy pronounced trend in average level. 1/ A linear trend fitted to production data for the years 19^*8-1961 indi- cated that total walnut production in foreign, non-Communist countries in- creased at eui average annual rate of IO6 tons. However, because of wide annual variations in production, the standard error of estimate was so high as to render the equation virtually useless for purposes of projection or forecasting of future production. -56. The empirical basis for deriving projections of valnut consumption In foreign countries is scarcely more eidequate than that Just described for wal- nut production. The author has been able to locate only one study containing projections of tree nut consumption.^ And, assumptions and procedures em- ployed in that study raise questions concerning the usefulness of the results. Projections contained in the EEC report just referred to have been based upon the assumption of constant per capita consumption of tree nuts in total. Whether the use of an income elasticity of zero implied by the foregoing as- sumptions was a matter of expediency or was based upon statistical analyses of demand is not known. But assuming aggregate per capita consumption of tree nuts in western Europe does remain constant, population projections for that 2/ area suggest an annual growth of 0.7 percent through 1970- the income elasticity of demand for tree nuts is, in fact, positive, the foregoing pro- jections understate the possible increase in total consumption which might occur by 1970* In the absence of information pertaining to current composi- tion of tree nut consumption in Europe and production and price prospects for nuts other than walnuts, there is no way of projecting the manner in which walnuts might share in the projected expansion of total consumption. Trends in the volume of walnuts imported into Canada, Australia, and west European countries specified in Tables 7 and 8 seem to indicate that walnut consumption expanded at a more rapid rate than population in the period I9W-I96I. Yet, that was a period characterized by substantial increases in production of wal- nuts in western Europe euid very large increases in per capita real incomes. Whether consumption will continue to expand at such rates would seem doubtful in view of the somewhat slower increase in per capita incomes in Canada, Aus- tralia, and western Europe during very recent years. In consideration of the likelihood of a gradual increase in both foreign production and total foreign demand for walnuts, it would seem improbable that walnut supplies available for export to the United States will undergo any 1/ Commuaaute Economique Europeenne, Tendances de la Production et de la Consommatioa en Denrees Alimentaires dans la C.E.E ., Etude: Serie Agriculture, Nr 2 (Bruxelles, I96O), pp. 24-27- 2/ Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Agricultural Commodities— Projections for 197Q (E/CN.lVWcCP.62/5) (Rome, 1962), p. iii. (Special Supplement to Commodity^Revie w, I962 . ) -57- large short-term change from the average levels of the past several years. Barring a succession of favorable crops in the major areas of production, a large increase in the supply of competitive nuts, or the reentrance of China as a major supplier of the non-Communist world, foreign production is likely to increase at about the same rate as total demand in countries other than the United States. For reasons developed previously, it is probable that United States imports during the next several years vill continue to be composed principally of shelled walnuts principally from India and the coxintries of the Middle East. France, Italy, and perhaps Turkey, because of her association with the EEC, will likely continue to dispose of much of their exportable sup- plies in western Europe. Although a reasonably balanced growth in foreign production and demand for walnuts seems likely over the remainder of the 1960's, it is also probable that there will be years of abnormally large and small production volvmie in particular countries. Coincidence in the direction of changes among several covintries could alter greatly the supplies of walnuts entering world trade and imported into the United States.^ Thus, it seems that the economic problems associated with short-term instability in production rather than the develop- ment of a basic imbalance in longer-term rates of growth of production and demand will be the principal problem in international treide in walnuts, at least during the remainder of the 1960's. 1/ See statisticeQ. analyses in Part III. -58- PART III: THE UNITED STATES WALNUT INDUSTRY: TRENDS, PROSPECTS, AND ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIPS Long-term changes in United States walnut production and the position of the American walnut industry in international trade have been discussed in Part II. In this part, attention will be directed towards a more detailed description of recent trends in the production, marketing, and consvimption of walnuts in the United States for the purpose of making short-term projections and as a means of developing the economic context within which United States tariff reductions might take place. Finally, this part contains the results of statistical analyses of factors affecting the United States demand for and imports of shelled walnuts. Production Trends and Prospects Approximately 95 percent of the commercial production of English walnuts in the United States is from California. Most of the remaining 5 percent is from Oregon; a very small volume is produced in Washington. The farm value of United States production has rsinged from $50 million to $59 million annually during the past five years; the value of California production has ranged from $28 million to $58 million in the same five years. Long-term changes in United States production have been described in Part 11.^ They need not be restated at this point beyond noting that post- World War II production has been characterized by substantial year-to-year variation rather than any pronounced trend. However, in order to make projec- tions of future production, it is necessary to examine trends in acreage and yield during the past few years. Because of the dominant position which it occupies nationally in production of walnuts and the availability of data, the discussion will be confined principally to developments in California. 2/ California bearing walnut acreage in 1965 is estimated at 126,200.-^ This is only slightly below the record -high bearing acreage of 150,000 in 1959 1/ See pages li^-lT. 2/ Acresige, yield, production, price, and income data are contained in Appendix Table 8. -39- and approximately equal to the post -World War II high of 126, 299 acres at- tained in 19^7. The near re cord- high level of current bearing acreage follovs the upturn in bearing acreage beginning in 1957 after a period during the first half of the 1950's in which bearing acresige was comparatively stable at 115,000 to 115,000 (Figure k) . The recent upturn in bearing acreage reflects the compeiratively large plantings made during the early and mid-parts of the 1950's. As indicated in Figure k, nonbearing acreage in the state rose appreciably in the early 1950 'Sj trended doraward to 2^,000 acres in I95U, and has since increased to iH,000 in 1961 and 59,000 in I962. Current nonbearing acreage is greater than at siny time since the early part of the 1950's. Allowing eight years for newly planted trees to attain bearing age and assuming that trees planted during the past eight years will not be removed prior to bearing, the current distribution of trees by age indicates that acreage coming into bearing during the next seven years would be as shown in Table 11. TABLE 11 Projected Acreeige of Walnuts Attaining Bearing Age, California, 19614-1970 Year-' Projected acreage attaining beetring ageli./ 1964 5,^55 1965 8,1407 1966 8,1+10 1967 6,5^1 1968 1969 2,885 1970 1,767 a/' Crop year basis. b/ Reported plantings in eighth preceding year. Source: California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, California Fruit and Nut Acreage ( Sac rame nt o , euinual i s sue s ) . -I4O- Figure k. Bearing and Nonlaearing Acreage of Walnuts California, 1920-1963 Source: Appendix Table 8. -Ul- The total bearing acreage of walnuts during the remainder of the decade will, of course, be influenced not only by acreage attaining bearing age but also by removal of current bearing acreage. Some trees will be removed because of old age; hO percent of the current walnut acreage consists of trees 25 years old and older. Some trees possibly will be removed because of more prof- itable cropping alternatives. Perhaps most important, a large nvimber of trees will be removed to make way for industrial and urban expansion. Acreage in the counties of Ventura, Santa Clara, and Contra Costa would seem to be par- ticularly vulnerable in this respect. Currently, there is a total of 27,^00 bearing acres in those three counties. There is, of course, no means by which removal of bearing acreage of walnuts during the next seven years can be fore- cast reliably. Throughout much of the decade of the 1950's, an average of about k,000 acres were removed from bearing each year.^ It appears that re- moval of acrefiige in recent years has continued at about that level. Assuming that removals continue to occur at the apparent rate of the past few years, a gradual increase in California's bearing acreage can be expected throughout most of the remainder of the 1960's. Conceivably, bearing acreage might total 150,000 to 132,000 by 1970. Walnut yield per acre has increased markedly during the past four decades (Figure 5). In the five years 1958-1962, yield averaged 0.57 tons per acre (in shell); in I92O-I92U and 1955-1959, the comparable average was O.52 and 0.k2 tons per acre, respectively. The period of most rapid increase in yield was that of I95O through the late 19^*0 's. During the past 15 years, there has been no distinct trend in yields. The most noticeable characteristic of per acre yield in those 15 years has been rather wide annual variations which, in part, may be the result of changes in varietal composition of bearing acreage.^ Per acre yield during the remainder of the decade may be expected to ex- hibit the same relative annual variation as during the past 15 years. Random variation in climatic conditions during the maturation of the crop will con- tinue to result in variations in yield. In addition, some varieties of wal- nuts, particiilarly the Franquette variety which is of major importance in 1/ Kenneth R. Farrell and Ralph G. Rush, "Walnut Acreage and Yield," Dia - mond Walnut News , Vol. XXXXII, No. 5 (September, I96O), p. 21. 2/ Ibid ., p. 22. I 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 I960 Figure 5. Yield of Walnuts Per Acre, California, 192O-I962 Source: Appendix Table 8. northern California, have a tendency toward alternate beauring. Several fac- tors, including closer planting of trees, improved irrigation and insect control, more extensive or improved pruning practices, and an increased pro- portion of heavier producing varieties, suggest the probabilities of some increase in average annual yield during the next decade. On the other hsind, the expected higher proportion of younger trees in bearing during that period may exert the opposite influence on average yield in the state. Assuming that bearing acreage atteiins the projected level of 1^0,000 to 132,000 acres and that yield per acre in the next seven years equals that of the past seven years, walnut production in California might approach an annual average of 7^,000 to 75,000 tons by 1970. Such production would be 10 to 11 percent higher than during the past seven years. Assuming that production in Oregon continues to average close to the levels of recent years. Pacific Coast production of walnuts could approach an euinual average of 79^000 to 80,000 tons by 1970. If, in fact, yield per acre averages higher by 1970 than during the past seven years, total production would accordingly exceed the projec- tions just cited. Marketing and Utilization Production of walnuts in California is a highly specialized, commercial- Iz-^ri business activity. Very little of the crop is used on farms where it is pruduced; very little is sold directly by producers to retailers or final con- sumers. The bulk of the crop, after hulling and drying, is delivered to local buyers or local cooperative packing plants. The local private or independent buyer and the local unaffiliated cooperative then grade and blend the nuts for in-shell distribution and usually will shell, grade, and blend a part of his receipts for distribution in shelled form. The local cooperative packing plant, if part of the large Diamond Walnut Growers Association, may also per- form limited grading activities, particularly the removal of culls and blows, before the nuts are shipped to the centralized cooperative plant for final grading, blending, shelling, and distribution throughout the country or other parts of the world. More than 50 percent of California's annual production of walnuts is dis- tributed through the Diamond Walnut Growers Association at Stockton. Although -kk- there has been a decline in the proportion of the crop handled by the Associa- tion, it remains by far the largest single marketing organization in the wal- nut industry. In occupying this position, the Association is able, apparently, to exert considerable lesuiership in the pricing of walnuts at the grower level as well as in distribution channels. Unlike the situation which prevails for many agricultural products produced in the United States, in which many thou- sands of producers dispersed across wide geographic areas market their product through a myriad of local receiving, subterminal, and terminal marketing facili- ties, walnuts produced by a comparatively small number of growers are marketed by a "few" organizations. In that sense, the process by which walnut prices are determined deviates clearly from the classical economic concept of price determination under pure or perfect competition and its attendant condition of "many" bi;iyers and sellers.-'^ In part, because of this industry structure, there is less relative variation in walnut prices at the grower and handler level, at least intraseasonally, than for agricultural products produced na- tionally by many growers and handled by meuiy marketing agencies. The exist- ence of substantial storage facilities at the handler level, coupled with the economic structure of the industry, makes it possible for individual hsindlers to exercise appreciable intraseasonal control over the timing of distribution 2.1 of walnuts.-^ Significantly for the analysis at hand in this report, walnut prices axe not arrived at through the processes of a "perfect" market; price offers made by the industry "leader" at the beginning of the marketing season become a basis for pricing throughout the industry. Usually "opening" prices are not adjusted frequently or by large increments within a given marketing 3/ season.— 1/ The terms "many" and "few" in this context refer to the inability (or ability) of a buyer or seller to exert individually some effect upon market price of the product. "Many" buyers or sellers refer to a market sitiiation where a single buying or selling agency cannot influence market price by vary- ing the quantities pxirchased or supplied, respectively, in the market; "few" buyers or sellers exist when the converse situation prevails. 2/ In this report, handlers are considered as those who prepare (grade, blend, and shell) and distribute walnuts received from growers. 5/ Based upon observation of data supplied by industry orgsinizations. In addition to the economic control of the marketing of walnuts which may- be exercised by individual handlers in the industry, walnut growers and han- dlers may jointly regulate the total volvmie of walnuts marketed, the allocation of that volume between in-shell smd shelled outlets, and the grade and size of walnuts through operation of the federal marketing order for walnuts. In contrast with the situation which prevails for many types of perishable farm products, annual consumption of walnuts is not completely predetermined by annual production. Part of current production may be withheld from the market by handlers acting individixally; part may be withheld from primary markets and diverted to secondary or by-product outlets such as oil manufacturing under operation of the federal marketing order. "In a year of heavier than normal production, . . . the volume control provisions of the program y^rketing order/ can be used to cut down the supply available in the market, ... so 2/ that prices paid . . . will reflect favorable prices to growers."-^ In years of relatively small production of walnuts, carry-over from the preceding year may be used to supplement supplies from current production. In fact, the price of walnuts at both the f.o.b. and grower levels of the marketing system varies considerably between successive years. ^ Although the relative variation between successive years is appreciably less for annual available supplies of shelled walnuts than for total production of walnuts, it nevertheless appears that current production of walnuts is the principal de- terminant of current available supplies of shelled walnuts.^ Thus, just as annual production of walnuts would seem logically to be largely predetermined in a given year with respect to price in that year, it appears that the avail- able supply of shelled walnuts has been highly, though less than perfectly, 1/ For a discussion of the federal marketing order for walnuts, see A. J. Tarlock and Ralph Rush, "Walnut Marketing Control Program: Objectives and Theories," Diamond Walnut News , Vol. XXXXI, No. 5 (May, 1959), pp. 14-15 and 22; also, Farrell and Wood, op. cit . 2/ Tarlock and Rush, op. cit ., p. ik. V See Appendix Tables 8 and 13. k/ The relative variation (sign ignored) in production between successive years diiring the years 19148-1961 ranged from 2.7 to 35.2 percent and averaged (simple) 18.5 percent, "ttie comparable variation in available supply of shelled walnuts was within a range of O.h to 28.0 percent and averaged 12.5 percent. -lt6- inelastic in the ssune year vith respect to the range of prices experienced in recent years in the industry, notwithstanding the use of supply-regiilating devices referred to above. ^ , Many important changes have occurred in the marketing and utilization of walnuts dvirlng the past three decades. Some of the changes were discussed in Part II — the increased dependency of the industry upon markets in the United States, particularly for disposition of in-shell walnuts, and the marked change in composition of imports in favor of shelled walnuts. In addition, there have been pronounced changes in various technical aspects of marketing, including new and more efficient methods of handling, improved methods of sorting and grading, and the development and widespread acceptance of a va- riety of "packs" for direct distribution to consumers through retail outlets. The most significant change from the standpoint of this report has been the pronounced Increase in the volume of walnuts sold in shelled form (Figure 6). Prior to the late 1950's, the commercial shelling of walnuts on the Pacific Coast was confined largely to culls and blows --by-products of the preparation of walnuts for in-shell markets. As total production of walnuts increased, so did sales of shelled walnuts. Yet, by the mld-1950's, sales volume of the shelled product totaled only 10 to 15 million pounds per year or about 50 to 60 percent of the anniml sales of in-shell walnuts on a shelled equivalent basis. After World War II, production and sales of kernels in- creased sharply as new consumer packs were developed and as the level of eco- nomic activity in the country rose. In 1957, sales volume of the shelled product exceeded that of in-shell walnuts (shelled equivalant) for the first time. During the past five years, sales of shelled walnuts have represented 55 to 58 percent of the sales volume of all walnuts expressed In shelled equivalent terms. Thus, in a period of three decades, the shelling of walnuts has progressed from a small by-product operation to a large and vital economic activity of the walnut Industry, accounting currently for 50 to 55 percent of 2/ handlers' annual gross Incone received from sales of walnuts.—' ' 1/ One of the limitations to interseasonal supply stabilization programs for walnuts is the limited storage "life" of the product, particularly in its shelled form. 2/ Derived by multiplying average f .o.b. California prices of shelled and in-shell walnuts by respective sales volume (buyer acquisitions from handlers) of each. See Appendix Tables 10 and 15. .47- 1924 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 I960 Year beginning August 1 Figure 6. Sales of Walnuts by Handlers, Pacific Coast, 192l^-196l Source: Appendix Table 10, with in-shell trade acquisition con- verted to shelled at 1^2 percent. In addition to the changes just described with respect to total produc- tion and sales, there have been some significant long-run changes in the distribution of shelled walnuts among various outlets. In 1935-1957^ about 80 percent of the shelled walnuts were utilized in two outlets — the baking and confectionery industries (Table 12). In the early 1950 's, those two outlets were absorbing approximately 50 percent of shelled walnut sales. Sales to the confectionery trade alone fell from 55 percent of all sales in 1955-1957 to 11 percent in I95O-I952. In contrast, the proportion of total sales to house- holds (assumed to be the major component of "other" uses in 1955-1957) in- creased from 15 percent in 1955-1957 to 59 percent in 1950-1952. Although data pertaining to sales distribution in very recent years are not available, some individuals in the walnut industry believe that shipments of shelled wal- nuts for direct consumption in households may constitute nearly 50 percent of the total volume of kernels shipped by Pacific Coast walnut handlers. On the basis of data contained in Table 12 for the years 1950-I952, it appears that shelled walnuts may compete with seversil other types of shelled tree nuts in bakery outlets. Considering both the distribution and total available supplies of shelled nuts in recent years, pecans appear to be the most important potential competition of shelled walnuts in bakery outlets. Almonds and pecans appear as the principal potential competitors with walnuts in the confectionery outlets. Shelled pecans and possibly walnuts or other tree nuts in-shell may compete with shelled walnuts which are prepared for direct consumption in households. The nature of relationships between shelled walnuts and other tree nuts is analyzed statistically in the section which follows . Economic-Statistical Analyses of Demand and Imports Data presented in foregoing sections of this report have indicated that United States imports of walnuts during the past 50 years have been predomi- nantly shelled walnuts. For reasons also developed previously, future imports of walnuts are also likely to consist almost exclusively of kernels.^ Thus, the questions concerning the economic impacts of United States tariff reductions y Pages -if9- TABLE 12 Shelled Tree Nuts: Estimated Distriljution of Sales Among Major Outlets United States, Annual Average in Selected Periods Nut Bakers Average, 1935-1937 Confec- tioners Salters Ice cream Other Bakers Average, 1950-19^2 Confec- tioners Salters Ice cream House- holds Other Walnuts Pecans Almonds Filberts Cashews Brazils Pignolias Pistachios 1^5 35 -a/ 5 15 39 11 1*0 27 5 17 11 kk 20 10 70 5 15 8 6k 50 20 25 5 28 28 5 5 85 5 k 6 15 50 25 10 17 33 5 75 5 15 £/ 80 15 5 percent of sales 7 13 1^3 90 50 1^ 39 7 12 12 5 5 10 _^ a/ Dashes indicate distribution, if any, insignificant and not represented in arriving at total utilization of 100 percent. b/ Less than 1 percent, c/ Blanks indicate no data available. Sources : 1935-1937: U. S. Tariff Commission, Edible Tree Nuts . War Changes in Industry Series, Report No. l8. 1946. p. 65. ~ ' > y * 1950-1952: U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service, Marketing Tree Nuts: Trends and Prospects. Marketing Research Report No. 139, 1956, p. 12. ~* are relevant principally and directly with respect to shelled valnuts. Indi- rectly, tariff reductions on shelled valnuts might affect prices and income from sale of in-shell walnuts if the two product forms are, in fact, related in demand or supply. The remainder of this section is devoted to development and discussion of an economic -statistical model by means of which the impacts of tariff reductions can he assessed and the reporting of empirical results of analyses of factors affecting United States demand for and imports of shelled walnuts. Economic Considerations The simplest conceivable international trade model is one involving only two countries (say, the United States and the "rest of the world") producing a single, homogeneous product under conditions of perfect competition and where costs of transferring the product between countries are given. Given a supply emd demand function for the product in each of the two countries, the volume of international trade emd the consumption and price of the product in each county could be determined. Under these abstract conditions, the "equi- librium" price of the product in the importing country will exceed the price in the exporting country by an amount equal to the cost of transferring the product between countries. Tbe volume of international trade — that is, the amount of the product imported by one country and exported by another— depends upon the characteristics (level and elasticity) of the supply and demand func- tion in the two countries and costs of transferring the product between the two countries. The real world situation is, of course, much more complicated. For vari- ous reasons, the "equilibrium conditions" referred to above may never be at- tained fully; knowledge is less than perfect, production and trade takes place not luider static and certain conditions but under dynamic and uncertain con- ditions, and there are a host of institutional factors impinging upon trade. From the standpoint of empirical analysis, some of the functional relation- ships necessary for determination of the equilibrium conditions specified above are usually unavailable and frequently cajinot be estimated because of data limitations. This situation prevails to some degree in the case of walnuts. Despite such limitations, useful empirical analyses can sometimes be con- ducted within the constraints imposed by available data. In the particular -51- case of international trade in walnuts, it is impossiljle to estimate walnut demand and supply functions for foreign walnut -producing nations. Much of the data which would be required axe unavailable. Yet, on the basis of the model diagrammed in Figixre 7 and described below, economic relationships useful in the estimation of the effects of tariff reductions may be quantified. Figure 7 represents hypothetically the demand for and supply of a homo- geneous commodity in the United States and in another area, say, the rest of the world. Demand and supply fxmctions in the United States are depicted by lines D D and S' S, respectively; in the other area, by and S^ S^^, re- spectively. For the purposes at hand, the demand and supply functions for the rest of the world have been placed back -to-back with those in the United States. Quantities demsinded or supplied in the United States are read from left to right; in the other area, from right to left. In addition, the demand and supply functions for the rest of the world are offset vertically in rela- tion to those in the United States by an amount 0 A which represents the per unit costs of transferring (tariffs, transportation, etc.) the product between the two areas. In the absence of trade between the two areas, price and the quantity consvmed in each country would be determined by the intersection of the in- ternal supply and demand function in each area. At any price less than the internal equilibrium price 0 P in the United States, demand exceeds supply in the amount represented by the "excess demand" function P E^. At any price above the "no trade, " internal equilibrium price A P-j^ in the other area, sup- ply will exceed demand in the amount represented by the excess supply function Pl^s- In the presence of trade imder conditions of a perfect market and profit maximization, the equilibrium price will differ between the two areas by an amount equal to per unit transfer costs. In Figxxre 7, equilibrium in the presence of trade will be determined by the intersection of the excess supply and demand functions. The equilibrium price will be 0 P ' in the United States and A P' in the other area, the difference being equal to 0 A, the per unit costs of transfer. At this equilibrium, the United States would import a quantity, Q,^ Q,^, consvune a total quantity, 0 Q^* prices to domestic pro- ducers would decrease from the no-trade equilibrium price of 0 P to 0 P'. In the other area, exports would total Q, Qj^ (equal to United States imports), -52- other" Area United States Price per unit Quantity Figure T. Hypothetical International Walnut Trade Model internal consumption would total A and price to domestic producers would rise from the no-trade eq.uilibrium price of A P^^ to A P'. Under the conditions depicted in Figiire 7j the price and gross income re- ceived by domestic producers in the United States are dependent upon the United States demand for and the total supply of the product in the United States. The total supply function in the United States is the sum of the domestic supply function, S ' S, and the "excess supply" function, P^ E^, which indicates the voliane of the product which would he imported into the United States at vajrious prices in the United States, ceteris paribus . The total supply function is depicted by S' S" S" ' in Figure 7. With the foregoing as the basic economic model, the remainder of this part is devoted to the reporting and discussion of the results of statistical analyses. Empirical Results The demand relationships for shelled walnuts in the United States, based upon data for I926-I961 but excluding the years 19k^-19k6, are: (1) = -1.32080 - 0.00038X2 - o.o8ot6x^ - o.oji^iXj^ + 0.53758 log X^ (o.ooooU) (0.06644) (0.01436) (0.10178) - 0.00286Xg - 0.03025X^ (0.00152) (0.01793) = 0.86065 where = estimated annual per capita acquisitions of shelled walnuts in the United States from Pacific Coast handlers and from imports, in pounds. X^ = season aArerage price (deflated) of shelled walnuts, f .o.b. Pacific Coast, in cents per pound. X, = euinual per capita acquisition of in-shell weilnuts in the United States from Pacific Coast handlers axid from imports, in pounds. Xj^ = annual per capita supply (weighted) of other domestic and im- ported tree nuts in the United States, in pounds. Xc- = annual per capita real disposable personal income in the United States, in dollars. Xg = a trend variable (time) with years in the time series numbered ■ consecutively, beginning with I926. -54- X„ = a demand "shifter" with the years 1926-1914-2 assuming a value of zero and the years 19^7-1961 a value of one. (The figures in parentheses are standard errors of the regression coeffi- cients. Data employed in the analyses are contained in Appendix Table 22. Demand as measured in the foregoing statistical analyses is intermediate to that at the producer and final consumer levels of the shelled walnut mar- keting system. It reflects, in large part, the demand faced by Pacific Coast handlers of shelled walnuts. As posited in the hypothetical trade model of the preceding section, it was assumed in the statistical analyses that domestic and imported shelled walnuts are a perfectly homogeneous product and that the f.o.b. price of shelled walnuts at the Pacific Coast handler level was repre- sentative of the price at which imported shelled walnuts moved into consump- tion in the United States. It was further assumed that the United States short -run (a single year) supply function for shelled walnuts was sufficiently inelastic to warrant its treatment in this analysis as predetermined with respect to price in a single year. For reasons discussed previously, this assumption may not be, in re- ality, fulfilled completely. However, preliminary efforts at deriving a short-run supply relation using combinations of several variables which were thought might influence short-term supply failed to indicate the existence of any statistically significant relationship between the supply of shelled wal- 2/ nuts in a given year and price in the same year.- Price, rather than acquisition of shelled walnuts, was treated as an in- dependent variable in the multiple regression analysis on the basis of consid- erations concerning the structure and marketing procedures of the industry .- Of the remaining variables treated as predetermined with respect to consump- tion of shelled walnuts, all would seem to accord with that treatment with the possible exception of the variable pertaining to per capita consumption of in- shell walnuts (X^). Because of possible interdependence in demand between shelled and in-shell walnuts, derivation of simultaneous demand equations for 1/ See page k6. j 2/ The lack of a statistically significant relationship between these vari- ables does not disprove the existence of a positively sloped supply function; it may indicate simply that such a relationship cannot be measured from the date employed in the analysis. ^ See pages kk and 1^5. -55- the two product forms might have been warranted. However, because of data and other limitations attending such an analysis and the fact that preliminary analyses conducted previously by the author failed to uncover statistical evidence of such interdependence, it was decided to treat per capita acquisi- tion of the in-shell product as predetermined for the purposes of this report. The foregoing demajid equation was also derived independent of the import response function reported subsequently. Preliminary efforts at simultaneous solution of the two equations yielded coefficients which in terms of magnitude and sign seemed implausible on logical and theoretical grounds. For the predictive purposes of this report, equation (l) seems satisfac- tory despite the econometric reservations which attend it. Used carefully and with cognizance of its shortcomings, it can be useful for short-run purposes of prediction, if not for derivation of longer run structural demand coefficients. The effects of changes in the independent variables upon per capita ac- quisition of shelled walnuts as indicated in equation (l) are: 1. A change of 1 cent per pound in the season average f.o.b. price of Pacific Coast shelled walnuts is associated with, on the average and by itself, a change in the opposite direction in United States per capita acquisitions of all shelled walnuts of O.OOO38 pounds per year. Considered over the current United States population of about 185 million, a 1-cent change in f.o.b. wal- nut prices might change total acquisitions of all shelled walnuts by 70,^00 pounds . 2. A change of l/lO pound in United States per capita acquisitions of all in-shell walnuts is associated with, on the average and by itself, a change in the opposite direction in United States per capita acquisitions of shelled walnuts of O.OO808 pounds per year. This indicates that in-shell and shelled walnuts substitute for each other in the ratio of about 12:1. Consid- ering that the principal competitive use of the two product forms axe in direct use in households, that substitution ratio may be reasonable. Consump- tion of in-shell walnuts is highly seasonal --Thanksgiving and Christmas. For that particular use, shelled walnuts may compete very little. The principal household use of shelled walnuts may be in baking--a use for which in-shell walnuts may compete very little because of the "convenience" aspects of the shelled product. 3. A change of l/lO pound in the United States per capita supply of other tree nuts is associated with, on the average and by itself, a change in -56- the opposite direction in United States per capita acquisitions of shelled walnuts from Pacific Coast handlers of 0.00514 pounds per year. This coeffi- cient indicates that "other" tree nuts in the aggregate compete less closely with shelled walnuts than do in-shell walnuts. There is no basis by which the rate of substitution of a particular tree nut, say, shelled pecans, with shelled walnuts can be estimated from this analysis. The coefficient for this variable is not significant statistically at the .05 probability level. That condition, combined with the fact that in construction of the aggregate weighted supply for other tree nuts it was impossible to obtain data pertain- ing to shelled supply of some of these nuts in several of the years included in the analysis, precludes drawing conclusive statements concerning substi- tution ratios of those nuts with shelled walnuts.^ k. A change of 10 percent in United States per capita annual real dis- posable personal income is associated with, on the average and by itself, a change in the same direction in United States per capita acquisitions of all shelled walnuts of 0.022^4-7 pounds per year. ' 5. The variable indicates the trend or average annual change in per capita acquisitions of all shelled walnuts in the United States in the period 1926-1961 apart from the influence of other independent variables included in the regression analysis. On the avereige, per capita acquisitions have been declining at the rate of about O.OO5 pounds per year- -a relatively small de- cline in relation to the absolute level of per capita consumption during the years I926-I96I. The apparent slight downward trend in per capita acquisi- tions may have resulted from the comparatively high level of consumption in the forepart of the time series. As discussed previously and as is readily apparent from examination of the time series, decreased per capita consumption of imported shelled walnuts has been almost completely offset by increased 2/ per capita consumption of domestically produced shelled walnuts.-' 6. Examination of the time series data indicated the possibility of a relatively abrupt change in the level of per capita acquisition between the 1/ See Appendix Tables 14-21. 2/ See Figure 3 and Appendix Table 11. -57- prewar and postwar period of 19^+5-19^. In order to provide for that possi- bility as opposed to the longer run, continuous trend in the per capita con- sumption data which were reflected in X^, a discrete demand shifter (X^) was incorporated in the analysis. The negative sign of the coefficient of this variable indicates the possibility of a downward shift in average annual per capita acquisitions in the years 19i«-7-196l. However, the coefficient is not significant statistically at the O.05 probability level. In order to derive an "excess supply" function as suggested in Figure 7, it would be necessary to first derive internal supply and demand functions for each of the foreign countries engaged in trade in shelled walnuts. The absence of relevaxit data precluded quantification of those relationships. However, a function in which United States aggregate imports of shelled wal- nuts were regarded as dependent upon the price of walnuts in the United States and other specified variables was derived by the least -squares multiple re- gression technique. Within the strict definition of the term as used in Figure 7, the derived function cannot be termed an "excess supply" function. Supply and demand functions in the foreign countries included in the analysis may have been shifting during the years included in the analysis — shifts which could only be imperfectly accounted for in the empirical analysis. For this reason the derived function may be described more properly as an "import- . response" function — a "mongrel" reflecting reactions of foreign suppliers of shelled walnuts to changes in United States shelled walnut prices. The import -response equation for the period I93I-I96I, excluding the years 19iH-1947, is: (2) = -0.05854 + 0.00078X2 - 1.20'+67X^ + 0.0OO32Xj^ - 0.00071X^ (0.00031) (O.5I+92I) (0.00020) (0.00061) = O.626I4O where Ic^ = estimated United States annioal per capita imports of shelled walnuts for consumption from countries other than China, in pounds . Xg = season average price of shelled walnut^ f.o.b. Pacific Coast, in cents per pound. X, = United States annual per capita imports of shelled walnuts for consumption from China, in pounds. Xj^ = annual total foreign commercial production of walnuts in coun- tries other thaji China, in thousands of tons, in-shell. -58- Xj- = trend variable (time) with years in the time series niimbered consecutively, beginning with I926. The figures in parentheses are standard errors of the regression coeffi- cients. Data employed in the analysis are contained in Appendix Table 22. Because production data for China are unavailable for those years in- cluded in the analysis, certain adjustments and modifications of variables were necessary. The dependent variable (X-^^) was so prepared for regression analysis as to exclude United States imports from China. This made it pos- sible to regress foreign production of walnuts (Xj,^) against United States imports of shelled walnuts from countries for which production data were available. United States imports of shelled walnuts from China were treated as an independent variable regressed against United States imports from other countries. Because of the relatively low explanatory value of equation (2) and the dominant position of China as a supplier of shelled walnuts prior to World War II and its demise as a supplier to the United States after I96I, an addi- tional equation was derived for the years 19^48-1961 only. (5) Itj^ = -0,06021 + 0.00080X2 - 1.0720TX^ + 0.00067X|^ - 0.002l6X^ (0.00052) {0.kk9kQ) (0.00028) (O.OOO9I4) = 0.76166 where X^, Xy and X^ are defined as above but relate to the years 19I48- 1961 and X^ is a trend variable (time), beginning I9I48. The continuance of China as a supplier of shelled walnuts in 19i«8-1950 necessitated the definition of X^, Xy and X|^ in the same manner described above for equation (2). However, in contrast to the time series employed in deriving equation (2), China appears as an exporter of shelled walnuts to the United States in only two years and as a substantial exporter in only one year of the postwar time series. Thus, equation (3) comes much closer to estimat- ing United States imports from all foreign nations than does equation (l). Statistically, the coefficient of determination is moderately higher in (2) than in (l); each of the regression coefficients in (2) is significant statistically at the 0.05 percent probability level, and the magnitude of the variable X- seems more reasonable in (2) than in (l). In addition to the two equations reported above, several alternative formulations, including other variables in various combinations with those above were derived for each of the two time series. Other variables utilized -59- included the price of foreign shelled valnuts as represented by the declared value of imports into the United States, the ratio of foreign to United States price for shelled walnuts, United States per capita acqiiisitions of shelled walnuts from Pacific Coast handlers, and, in the case of the I926-I96I time series, a "pre-i/ar -postwar shifter." None of the alternative regressions pro- vided a better "fit" to the time -series data than the two specified above; several were less acceptable for statistical or economic reasons. The estimated effects of changes in the independent variables specified in equations (2) and (3) upon United States imports of shelled walnuts are: 1. A change of 1 cent per pound in the average annueil f.o.b. price of Pacific Coast shelled walnuts is associated with, on the average eind by it- self, a change in the opposite direction in annual United States per capita imports of shelled walnuts^ from countries other than China, of O.OOO8 pounds. The regression coefficient for the price variable (Xg) is approximately equal in the two import -response equations. At the current United States population of 185 million, a 1-cent change in the f.o.b. price of Pacific Coast shelled walnuts might result in an opposite change in United States shelled wsLLnut imports of 150,000 pounds per year apart from changes in imports induced by changes in other variables. It is important to note that a given change in the f.o.b. price of Pacific Coast shelled weilnuts is associated with a larger change in the volume of imports than in the volume of shelled walnuts acquired in the United States from Pacific Coast handlers; the respective regression coefficients are O.OOO8 and 0.000l<-. Expressed differently, it appears that the price elasticity of import response is higher than the price elasticity of demand for Pacific Coast shelled walnuts. 2. A change of l/lO poxind in United States per capita imports of shelled walnuts from China is associated with, on the average and by itself, a chajige in the opposite direction in euinual United States per capita imports of shelled walnuts, from countries other than China, of approximately l/lO pound Equation (3)/. As would be expected, imports of shelled walnuts from the two areas substitute approximately 1:1. In using the import -response function to predict imports in a future year, assumes a value of zero because of the United States prohibition of trade with China. 3. A change of 1,000 tons, in shell, in the annual total commercial pro- duction of walnuts (in-shell basis), in countries other than China, is associ- ated with, on the average and by itself, a change in the same direction in -60- annual United States per capita imports of shelled walnuts, from countries other than Qiina, of O.OOO32 pounds. Considering the fact that annual varia- tion in foreign production has been as much as 20,000 tons and that totfij. foreign production averaged 75,000 tons in 19^-1961, this variable appears to have affected importantly both the general level of and aaanual variations in the annual volume of shelled walnuts imported into the United States. k. As indicated by the regression coefficient for the trend variable United States annual per capita imports of shelled walnuts have trended downward in the period I9U8-I961 and in the longer run period, I926-I96I. The average annual rate of decline during the latter period was O.OOO7I pounds per capita. As discussed in Part I, the first half of that period was one in which the shelling of walnuts in the United States was small in volume. Even in the late 1950's, the shelled sector of the walnut industry was in its com- mercial infancy. The postwar period I958-I96I was, however, one marked by rapid expansion in production of shelled walnuts in California. As this ex- pansion occurred. United States per capita imports of shelled walnuts have declined at a more rapid rate (O.OO216 pounds per year) than during the I926- 1961 period as a i^ole. However, population increase in the United States has largely offset declining per capita consxxmption since 19^> althovigh it has not been sufficient to prevent a secular decline in total imports since 1926^ Although the import- response functions presented in this report have accounted for a substantial part of the year-to-year variation in United States per capita imports of shelled walnuts, it seems evident that variables other than those available for the empirical analysis may a?.6o affect United States imports. A larger proportion of the annvial variations in imports might have been explained had a time series of foreign prices of shelled walnuts been available. Possibly, some measure of demand for shelled walnuts in for- eign countries also would have proved helpful had it been ava.-'.lable for inclu- sion in the regression analysis. In adaition, there may be substantial errors of neasureiiBnt in some variables, particularly foreign walnut production, which have precluded measurement of the "true" effect of those variables which are included in the analysis. ' For reasons already mentioned explicitly, both the demand- and import- response functions must be used cautiously for purposes of prediction. The 1/ See Figure 5 and discussion. -61- vetrioiis coefficients derived by regression analyses apply "on the average" over the range of data included in the analysis; they shoid.d be used judi- ciously for purposes of prediction in a single year and when applied to data outside the range included in the analysis. Because economic relationships are subject to structural changes over time, the results of this analysis are applicable principally vithin a short-run context. -62- PART IV: THE ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF TARIFF REDUCTIONS The basic authority by which the President may modify the United States tariffs is contained in Public Law 87-79U (Trade Expansion Act of I962). Title II, Chapter I, Section 201(b)(1), of that Act specifies: "Except as otherwise provided in this title, no proclamation pursuant to subsection (a) shall be made . . . (l) decreasing any rate of duty to a rate below 50 percent of the rate existing on July 1, I962." Section 255, Title II, requires that tariff reductions granted by the President shall, in effect, be applied in five equal annual installments. If the mcLxifflum reduction of 50 percent were to be applied to the July 1, 1962, United States tariff on shelled walnuts, the duty would decline by 7.5 cents per pound. ^ Applied equally over five years, that would mean an ftnrmn.1 reduction of 1.5 cents per pound. The economic effects of such teiriff reductions upon the United States walnut industry are assessed in the sections which follow. Estimated Economic Effects of Tariff Reductions From an economic viewpoint, a reduction in tariff may be considered as a decrease in exporters* costs of supplying walnuts to the United States; reciprocally, it may be considered as an increase in the "effective" selling price of foreign walnuts in the United States. The nature of economic adjust- nents which might be generated by a tairiff reduction can be visualized by reference to the economic model diagrammed as Figure 7. A reduction in a specific tariff (a constant charge per unit of the prod- uct imported) such as that which applies to shelled walnuts and as assumed in Figure 7 would have the effect, ceteris paribus , of reducing by an equal amovint the vertical displacement of the supply a nd demand functions contained in the left side of Figure 7. Such displacement woxild in turn have the effect of causing the excess supply function P^^ Eg to intercept the Y axis at a price lower than P^ by the amount of the tariff reduction. Similarly, the segment 311 s««' of the aggregate United States supply function would be shifted downwaxd by the amount of the tariff reduction, causing imports to increase. 1/ See Table 9. -63- domestic supply to decrease, and price of the product in the United States to decrease. It should be noted that the extent of the price decline in the United States would be dependent directly upon the slope of the United States demand function in its relevant section. Under the conditions visualized in Figure 7, there would necessarily be a decline in the gross Income received by United States producers of the product; a reduction occurs in both the price received and in the quantity of the product supplied by domestic indus- try. For any given decline in price, the loss of gross revenue to United States producers would be inversely related to the slope of the domestic sup- ply function. Given a perfectly inelastic domestic supply function, the loss in gross revenue would be entirely dependent upon the price elasticity of United States demand in the relevant part of the demand function. It is also apparent from Figure 7 that shifts in the demand for or supply of walnuts in either the United States or in nations exporting the product would modify the price effects of the tariff reduction as discussed above within a static context. Thus, in considering the price which might prevail for shelled walnuts during the five yeeurs in which such reductions would be effectuated under provisions of the Tradfi Expansion Act, it is also necessary to consider the probability and magnitude of potential shifts in the relevant demand and supply function. Among such considerations is the extent to which the domestic industry might be able to dampen the possible initial adverse income effects of a tariff reduction on shelled walnuts by allocation of the total domestic supply of walnuts among shelled and in-shell markets. In reality, the adjustments of both domestic and foreign suppliers of walnuts to a reduction in United States tariffs on shelled walnuts are not likely to occur in the regular, systematic, and instantaneous manner implied in the model depicted in Figure 7* Knowledge is less than perfect: uncer- tainty rather than certainty prevails; adjustments in the production plant may be difficult and slow to be accomplished. A reduction in tariffs in one yeajT, followed by the adjustments visualized in Figure 7 which lead to de facto changes in the price of shelled walnuts in the United States, may tend to reduce imports in the succeeding year. Thus, the effect of a tariff reduc- tion in a single year may induce a series of short-run adjustments and read- justments in the price and in quantities supplied by both domestic and foreign producers. The empirical analyses of demand for and imports of shelled valnuts pre- sented in the foregoing section provide a basis for estimating a part of the short-run effects of United States tariff reductions. Equations (2) and (3) indicate that a tariff reduction of 1.5 cents per pound might increase United States imports by 0.00120 pounds per capita or, with a United States popula- tion of 185 million, about 222,000 pounds in total in the yeas following the tariff reduction. Such an increase represents the independent effect of the tariff reduction. Changes in other variables included in the eqxiations (for- eign production, de facto changes in f .o.b. price, a continuation of the trend in per capita acquisitions) may be affecting simultaneously the volume of im- ports, and, depending upon the direction and magnitude of those changes, the tendency to increase imports as a result of the tariff reduction may be offset or supplemented. However, it is the partial or independent effect of the tar- iff reduction which is of prime concern at this point. Although the absolute increase in imports generated by the taj:i.ff reduc- tion seems small /equation (1}/, the short-run price and income effects on the domestic industry might be appreciable. Given an increase of 222,000 pounds in the first yeeu" following the tar- iff reduction, the domestic industry might have to reduce price on its entire sales volume by 5*2 cents per pound in order to market the same quantity of shelled walnuts as without a tariff reduction. This assumes no change in the level of United States demand from changes in per capita income, population, or other independent variables contained in eq\iation (l). Under those assump- tions and at the average movement of ^2 million pounds of domestic shelled walnuts during the past five years, the income loss attributable directly to the tariff reduction would toteil slightly more than $1 million in the first year after the reduction. With a sales volume at the 3 5*8 million pounds of the 1962-63 marketing year, the income loss to the domestic industry might total $1,132 million. Of course, as suggested above, in the theoretical terms, a price reduction on the part of the domestic industry might then sup- press imports and lead to the sequential types of adjustments discussed pre- viously. There is no way of knowing whether and, if so, how rapidly or completely those kinds of adjustments would occur in the course of, say, a single year. To whatever extent the sequential adjustments referred to above take place in the course of the first year, income loss resulting from tariff reductions for the domestic industry probably would be less than $1 million. -65- How much less cannot be determined quantitatively, although it seems reason- able to expect that losses would not be reduced greatly from those estimated above . The maximixm authorized annual tariff reduction of I.5 cents per pound is not large relative to f .o.b. prices of shelled walnuts which have prevailed in recent years. ^ Even the annual variation in f.o.b. prices of recent years exceeds substantially the possible annual reduction of I.5 cents. It is not unexpected that this relatively small reduction in tariffs would result in comparatively moderate adjustments in the volume of imports and domestic prices and income in the short run. However, this does not deny that a series of five reductions of I.5 cents each would not result in very substantial price and income effects upon the domestic walnut industry. If changes in- duced directly by tariff reductions were the only changes occurring during the five years in which reductions were to be applied, a maximum loss of about $5 million in terms of foregone income might accrue to the shelled walnut sec- tor of the domestic industry. To some extent, losses might be reduced below $5 million. During five years, it seems reasonable to expect that many of the sequential adjustments referred to above could take place. Increased imports and lower domestic prices in one year might tend to offset to some extent the tendency for increased imports resulting from tariff reduction in the immedi- ately succeeding year. For reasons similar to those stated above, one cannot be sure that such adjustments will occur and, if so, to what extent. In addi- tion, total demand for shelled walnuts in the United States may be expected to increase if popiilation and real per capita income continue to rise at the rate of recent years. Compeared to current total consumption, the combined effect of these two variables could be to increase demand for shelled walnuts by approximately 9 percent in the next five years. ^ Based upon the projections specified in Part II, projected increases in demand for shelled walnuts would be about equal to projected increases in United States total production of 1/ See Appendix Table I3, 2/ Assuming an annual increase in United States population of 1.2 percent per year from the current population of nearly I85 million and a 5 percent in- crease in real per capita income. The income effect was derived from the estimated income coefficient contained in equation (l). It was assumed that there would be no change in the relative price of walnuts and other tree nuts and no change in consumer tastes and preferences for tree nuts dviring the next five years. -66- walnuts. Considering all these matters, it is conceivable that total income loss to the shelled walnut sector of the industry solely as a result of tariff reductions of the magnitude and nature authorized in the Trade Expansion Act might range between $4 million and $5 million over the five years of tariff reductions. HDiwever, for reasons enunciated above, it must be admitted that such an estimate of loss is, in part, subjective. The foregoing estimates of short-term losses to the domestic walnut in- dustry from tariff reductions on shelled walnuts have involved the assumption of a highly inelastic supply of domestic shelled walnuts for sale in their primary market outlets. In a short-run context, that seems to be a reasonable assumption; once shelled, there is little that can be done with walnuts other than selling at whatever price they will bring in the usual commercial markets or diverting to other, usvially lower price markets such as the export market or to crushing outlets for the manufacture of oil or storing for sale at a later time. In the longer run, however, a decline in shelled walnut prices could lead to reallocation of the walnut crop between In-shell and shelled product markets. TSale might be accomplished through operation of the federal marketing order or by handlers acting individually to maximize their profits from sale of walnuts. Thus, there are two questions at issue with respect to the indirect effects of a reduction in the shelled walnut tariff: (l) in the short run where the supply of domestic shelled walnuts is fixed, would a price decline for the shelled product in turn induce users of walnuts to substitute shelled for in-shell w€LLnuts, thereby inducing a price decline for the latter product? and (2) in the longer run where walnuts may be allocated between the two markets in accordance with their relative prices, what would be the net total effect on the domestic industry of a tariff reduction on shelled wal- nuts? The first question hinges primarily on the cross-elasticity of demand for the two product forms; the second question involves consideration of the relative magnitude of each product's "own" price elasticity, as well as cross- elasticities of demand. Definitive, empirical answers to those questions cannot be provided at this time; the best that can be done is to present cer- tain suggestive evidence bearing upon the questions. 1/ See pages k2-kk for production projections. -67- With respect to the first question, it should be recalled that perhaps less than 50 percent of domestic shelled walnuts is marketed in outlets where they might compete conceivably with in-shell walnuts. Of that 50 percent, only some portion thereof may actually compete with the in-shell product be- cause of differences in seasonal marketing patterns, differences in use in the households, product convenience, etc.^/ Thus, one might expect that small relative changes in the price of shelled walnuts at the retail level would not induce consumers (households) to make any substantial substitution between the two product forms. If that be true, buyers intermediate to the retailer and the handler at the f .o.b. level seem no more likely to substitute between the two product forms on the basis of small changes in relative prices. There is the possibility that confectioners and bakers who acquire most of the shelled walnuts not sold for direct use in households would purchase In-shell walnuts for shelling themselves if the price differential between the two product forms is very wide. However, with the range of quality of shelled walnuts available and with the economies of scale which logically may attend shelling operations, this seems an unlikely possibility, at least in any significant volume. Statistical evidence from equation (l) suggests a very low substitution 2/ rate between in-shell and shelled product forms --12:1.-' Thus, on both the grounds of logic and suggestive statistical evidence, it seems that the cross- elasticity of demand for the two product forms at the handler level may be very low. If this is, in fact, correct, one might expect a short-term, small decline in prices of shelled walnuts to generate— by itself— only very small changes in quantities of in-shell walnuts acquired from Pacific Coast handlers. Thus, the impacts of a tariff reduction on shelled walnuts would be confined principally to the shelled walnut sector of the industry. It must be ad- mitted, however, that fixrther research is necessary before that hypothesis can be tested. In the absence of a demand analysis for in-shell walnuts, nothing csui be said definitively concerning the economic efficacy of attempts which the in- dustry might make to eillocate weuLnut supplies between in-shell and shelled 1/ See pages 1^7-^9 • 2/ Page 5^. -68- products if tariff reductions induced a persistent increase in imports and decrease in domestic prices of shelled walnuts. Depending upon the relative price elasticities of demand, the industry might be able by managenent of supplies entering the two markets to offset losses which would otherwise be incurred. Yet, the very character of use upon which in-shell walnuts depends so heavily (holiday trade) suggests that demand for that product form might be more inelastic with respect to price than in the shelled form. And recent trends in per capita and total consumption of the in-shell product offer little encouragement that total demand will expand substantially at least during the remainder of this decade.^ Until further research is conducted, one can only surmise that the possibilities of offsetting any substantieil part of economic losses which might initially accrue in the shelled sector as a result of tariff reduction are very limited. Because of the availability of appropriate and more complete data, the foregoing analyses and estimates of the economic impacts of tariff reductions for shelled walnuts have been focused upon the handler or f .o.b. price level of the marketing system. There remains the question of what extent prices and income received by walnut producers would be affected by the changes in price and income just estimated for handlers. Given the particular structure of the walnut industry, it seems reason- able to expect that a large part of the reduction in f .o.b. price would be reflected backwards to walnut producers. The single largest marketing orgeini- 2/ zation in the industry is a grower-owned cooperative.—' Price changes experi- enced by the cooperative in marketing walnuts could only be passed back to its producer members. There is suggestive statistical evidence that changes in the annual average f.o.b. price for shelled walnuts have, in fact, been reflected backwards to prices at the producer level. In the period I926-I96I, excluding the years 19*4-5-1946, the simple correlation between annual average f.o.b. price for shelled walnuts and annual average price received by growers for walnuts (in-shell basis) at first delivery points, is 0.86; for the years 19^8-1961, the correlation coefficient is O.Q^.-^ Although those correlated 1/ See Appendix Tables 11 and 12. 2/ See page kh, 5/ Price data from which the correlation coefficients were derived are contained in Appendix Table 15- -69- movements in the two price series do not indicate necessarily the existence of a "cause and effect" relationship between the two variables, they do lend support to the hypothesis that a tariff reduction which would lead to reduc- tion in f .o.b. prices of Pacific Coast shelled walnuts would be passed ulti- mately back, in large peurt, to the producers of walnuts. Some Further Implications of Tariff Reductions Estimates of the independent effects of tariff reductions upon the volume of shelled walnuts imported into the United States, the f.o.b. price of domes- tically produced shelled walnuts, and the income received by the shelled walnut sector of the Pacific Coast have been presented and discussed in foregoing sections of this report. In brief, it was concluded that teiriff reductions of the magnitude euid in the manner authorized under the Trade Expeuasion Act of 1962 might, by themselves, result in a moderate increase in the volune of United States imports and moderate decreases in prices and income in the domestic industry during the five-yesur period in which the tariff was being reduced. In addition to the direct economic effects of tariff reduction, there are possibilities of certain "side effects" which should not be over- looked. And, because future economic conditions in the walnut industry will be influenced not only by the level of United States teiriff s but also, and likely more importantly, by other economic determinants such as the level of walnut production and demand, there is need to sximoarize and recapitulate the highlights of the possible or probable economic context within which tar- iff reductions might be granted. The substantial annual variations which have occurred in world production of walnuts have been discussed previously .^^ In addition, it has been demon- strated that the volume of Ifiaited States imports of shelled walnuts is posi- tively correlated with cheuages in the volume of foreign walnut production.^ It is possible that United States tariff reductions could Increase the already substantial variation in U. S. import volume generated by the production variations just referred to. Increased variation in imports might occur 1/ Pages 15-17. 2/ Equations (2) and (5). -70- because of the sequence of adjustments which might be expected to follow tar- iff reduction.^ Such variations or the failure to anticipate correctly the timing and magnitude of sequential adjustments induced by the tariff reduction might compound the already appreciable inventory management problems in sev- eral parts of the walnut marketing system. Such variations might even lead to errors in production planning in both the United States and abroad. Con- ceivably, industry efforts to reduce interseasoneil supply variations through operation of the federal marketing order could be made less effective or the objectives of such a program made more difficult and costly to attain if variability of imports was increased. Thus, even if underlying price and income effects of a tariff reduction were small, the increased variability and uncertainty which might accompemy the reduction could have important con- sequences for the domestic industry. The future economic conditions in the walnut industry will be determined by a large number of factors which influence the supply of and demsind for walnuts. Whether the United States tariff on shelled walnuts remains at 15 cents or i^^ reduced to 7.5 cents per pound is but one of many questions of importance to the walnut industry. Even if the independent-of -incremental effects of a tariff reduction were small, it is the combined effects of all releveuit variables which determine the economic circumstances prevailing in the industry at any given time. It would be little consolation to individuals in the industry to know, for example, that the independent effects of a tariff reduction would be small if at the same time, but for other reasons, prices and incomes were being depressed. Similarly, there might be less unfavorable inclination toward a tariff reduction if it was apparent that foreign produc- tion and available foreign exportable supplies were decreasing significantly. It is proper and important, therefore, that the effects of tariff reductions be considered in conjunction with other matters of relevance in the determina- tion of economic conditions of the walnut industry. It is, of course, impos- sible to forecast with certainty the future course of all variables which appear to bear upon economic conditions in the walnut industry. Given certain assumptions, it is possible to make useful projections of a few critical variable s . 1/ Pages 65-66. -71- Projections of demand for and production of valnuts in the United States have already been made cuid need not be restated beyond noting that the pro- jected increase in demand is about equal to the projected increase in total walnut production in the next five years. ^ Whether prices of other tree nuts produced domestically will remain stable on the avereige is impossible to know. There is some indication of a potentieil increase in average production of pecans and almonds; filbert production may continue at or near the current 2/ level. The foreign production potential for walnuts also seems likely to increase or at least not diminish during the next several years. ^ However, foreign consumption of walnuts may also increase appreciably during the same period, leaving supplies avedlable for export to the United States at levels hi about equal to the average of recent years .-^ On the basis of these vajrious projections, a reasonably balanced growth in world production and demand for walnuts seems possible dviring the remainder of this decade. But, it is also possible and, on the basis of the past, even probable that there will be years of abnormally large and small production in the major walnut -producing countries of the world. These fluctuations, uncor- related with market demand for walnuts, can induce large variations in price and income in the country of production and, by inducing changes in the volume of walnuts available for export, induce price and income variation in other countries. Kiese unstable conditions in production and trade rather than the emergence of a basic longer run imbalance between production and demand are likely to be the source of the major economic problems in international mar- keting of walnuts during the remainder of the 1960's. Certainly, unilateral tariff reductions on the part of the United States will not ameliorate appre- ciably those kinds of economic problems; as discussed previously, tariff re- duction might accentuate such instability and attendant uncertainty.-^ 1/ See pages kh and 66. 2/ See Appendix Tables I6-I8 and Farrell and Rush, op. cit ., p. 20. ^ See page 56. kj Pages 37-58. ^ Page 71. -72- Given the inelastic nature of domestic demand and the positive correla- tion between foreign production of valnuts and the volume of shelled walnuts imported into the United States, short-term changes in foreign production could induce disproportionately large changes in domestic prices and income.^ Tariff reductions, depending upon the direction of change in foreign produc- tion, could supplement or offset partially the domestic price and income effects of the change in foreign production. Although there is no means by which the time of occurrence or the magnitude of such production variations can be forecast reliably, the possibilities of tariff reductions reinforcing unfavorable economic effects of such variations should be recognized. Statistical analyses reported previously indicate that, apart from the influence of other variables, there has been a downtrend in United States ver 2.1 capita imports of shelled walnuts.-' Whether this is indicative of a change in buyer preferences in favor of domestic shelled walnuts, and, if so, whether such a trend will persist into the futiire, cannot be determined on the basis of this analysis. The trend variable included in the regression analyses of imports may be reflecting merely the net result of a number of other variables which could not be quantified and included in the axialyses. Certainly, the domestic industry has made a nimber of important changes in the marketing and distribution of shelled walnuts to assure more uniformity in quality charac- teristics of the domestic product. A variety of household packs have been introduced and have been accompanied by substantial expenditures for private brand promotion and advertising. Yet, it seems probable that in those outlets where shelled walnuts are a single ingredient in the manufacture of a consumer product (bakery goods and confectionery products) imported shelled walnuts continue to compete strongly with the domestic product.-''' In summary and conclusion, it is apparent that future economic conditions in the Pacific Coast walnut industry will be determined by a large number of 1/ See equations (l), (2), and (3) and discussion concerning interpretation of those equations. 2/ Page 61. 5/ U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service, Marketing Tree Nuts; Trends and Prospects , Marketing Research Report No. 159, 1956, p. 9. -73- variables. It is also apparent that the volume of United States shelled valnut imports, which itself is influenced by a number of variables, some of which are external to the United States, is but one of those determinants of economic conditions in the domestic industry. The level of the United States tariff on shelled walnuts does apparently influence the volume of im- ports and thereby prices emd income received by hemdlers and producers of the domestic product. Tariff reduction of the magnitude and in the manner authorized in the Trade Expansion Act of I962 would tend to increase imports suad, by itself, would tend to reduce prices and income received in the Pacific Coast walnut industry. However, such effects are likely to be moderate in magnitude and could either supplement or offset partially the effects of other variables operating simultaneously to determine prices and income in the in- dustry. There is the possibility that "side effects" of tariff reduction could accentuate the already substantial annual variation which characterizes world production and trade in walnuts and which is the source of inventory management problems both here and abroad. Obviously, the domestic walnut industry will not gain from unilateral reduction in the United States tariff for shelled walnuts; the foregoing analyses have demonstrated otherwise. To the individuals so affected, any uncompensated reduction in price and income may seem "unjust" or "inequitable." The questions of equity and compensatory income transfers have not been en- gaged in this report. This is not to deny, however, that such questions are relevant to adversely affected industries and to officials charged with con- ducting trade negotiations; obviously, they are or should be of relevance to both parties. However, in the long nan, variables other than tariffs are likely to prove to be the more important determinants of walnut production, consxamption, and trade. Much will depend upon the nature of marketing and price policies pursued by individual firms in the domestic industry and by those firms acting jointly through industry-wide marketing programs. Those policies and, parti cxilarly, price levels sought by the industry may contribute as much or more to the determination of the future volume of shelled walnut imports and economic conditions in the entire walnut industry as would a re- duction in the United States tariff for shelled walnuts. APPENDIX TABLE 1 Walnuts: Commercial Production in Specified Countries, I92U-I963 Year France Italy Turkey Yugo- slavia Rumania Hungary Bulgaria -ran Syria Total Mediter- ranean Basin India Total specified foreign countries United States Total specified foreign and United States 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 1? 13 i4 short tons, in-shell basis 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 -1-953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 i960 1961 , 1962^/ 61,950 70,900 22,000 58,300 27,450 50,270 32, 340 51,865 32,725 31,350 46,750 34,375 40,700 44,000 39,600 33,000 41,250 18,700 24,090 12, 900 22,000 12, 100 10,700 32,000 13,100 13,300 21,300 21,600 34,200 26, 700 26,500 33,500 20, 500 9,500 29,000 18,600 28,000 20,400 31,000 16,550 31,300 28, 100 27,650 24,700 17,600 14,025 15,400 14,300 17,050 17,875 21,175 14, 025 22, 550 13,750 11,000 10, 400 12,900 15,000 10,900 13,800 16,500 13,200 14,000 15,400 27,500 22,000 19,800 27,800 7,700 12,500 29,000 39,000 13,000 25,000 22,000 26,500 20,000 36,000 a/ 1,000 6,050 9,625 8,250 7,700 8,250 12,100 8,250 5,500 8,800 5,500 11,000 11,000 11,600 8,800 5,500 5,500 2,000 5,000 2,200 10,000 12,000 7,200 9,500 4,000 6,900 5,500 6,100 4,200 3,500 6,000 7,300 9,200 10,800 7,500 2,200 5,500 9,625 8.250 5,500 7,700 8,250 12,100 8,250 5,500 8,800 5,500 4,400 3,300 2 200 1^650 2,200 5,060 4,950 3,700 3,500 3,600 3,500 5,800 6,100 2,700 3,000 4,700 3,200 2,200 4,300 5,000 17,650 33,050 28,650 13,200 20,950 6,380 11,825 16,500 6,600 6,600 12,100 11,550 16,500 16, 500 13,200 13,200 6,050 2,200 4 400 3^300 1,650 1,375 1,100 9,7 11,4 13,0 2,310 4,510 4,015 1,100 1,100 3,300 1,815 3,300 3,300 1,100 1,100 3,300 3,850 '-t 1 2,200 1,925 1,100 1,100 1,485 2,640 2,750 3,300 3,300 4,125 4,400 4,950 4,675 4,950 4,620 7,370 4,675 4,125 4,400 2,200 3,025 5,800 7,400 7,100 6,800 4,400 7,400 8,800 8,500 4, 500 4,200 3,600 3,000 2,500 3,400 2,400 4,000 4,100 2,700 2,000 1,300 2,700 1,300 2,500 2,800 6,000 6,000 89,595 84, 590 107,030 81,225 75,350 104,500 93,665 93,225 105,325 86,900 79,420 83,770 57,225 62, 190 40,500 51,400 40, 400 39, 100 57,900 52,900 68, 300 57,600 76,800 79,400 56,300 60,100 8^,500 72,100 39,100 74,800 62,100 73,200 65,700 90,100 7,000 11,000 8,000 9,500 14,000 11,500 9,000 15,500 10, 500 12, 000 10,000 96,150 136,250 78,750 99,150 75,300 89,595 84,590 107,030 81,225 75,350 104,500 93,665 93,225 105,325 86,900 79,420 83,770 57,225 62,190 40,500 51, 400 40,400 39,100 57,900 52,900 68,300 57,600 76,800 79,400 63,300 71,100 91,500 79,600 53,000 86,300 71,100 88,700 76,200 102,100 24,650 36,550 16,200 52,100 27,400 43,400 30,300 34,200 49, 100 34,000 47, 100 57,400 45,800 62, 400 55,300 62, 500 50,800 70,000 55,750 63,600 71,500 70,700 71,900 64,500 70,650 87,500 64,100 77,400 83,800 59, 200 75,100 77,100 71,800 66,600 88,700 62, 700 72,800 67,500 61, 400 12»,800 172,800 94,950 151,250 102,700 132,995 114,890 141,230 130,225 109,350 151,600 151,065 139,025 167,725 142,200 141,920 134, 570 127,225 117,940 104,100 122,900 111,100 111,000 122, 400 123,550 155,800 154, 200 163,200 122, 500 146,200 168,600 151,400 119,600 175,000 137,800 161, 500 143,700 1963^ 33,000 22,000 9,000 183, 500 (Continued on next page.) APPEMDIX TABLE 1— continued. a/ Blanks indicate no data available. hj Includes Yugoslavia, Rvimania, Hungary, and Bulgaria; countries not reported separately. c/ Preliminary for all cotmtries except the United States. Sources: 192lf-19lt6: California Federal-State Market News Service, Foreign Walnut Report (Sacramento, periodic weekly and monthly issues) . I94T-I962: U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service, Foreign Crops and Markets, weekly issues. Idem, World Summaries, Crops and Livestock; Foreign Crops and Markets, Statistical Sup - plement , monthly issties. I Idem, World Agricultural Production and Trade; Statistical Report, monthly issues. APPEUDIX TABLE 2 Walnuts: United States Exports, by Country or Area of Destination, 1932-1962 In- she! Canada | Cuba | Eiirope | Other | Total Shelled]^ Cuba I Evirope | Other | Total Canada ~r thousand pounds 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 19*^5 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 i960 1961 1962 a/ or»o 7k 74 n ft 2,686 j5o 2,884 1,025 ±,vJD't 1,5" 1 00 poo P> < 2,442 JJ.*t 706 20 697 1 oft 1,721 822 322 2,029 2,348 666 1/ 353 470 2,000 291 2,944 610 5,808 649 2,018 1,868 7l4 486 612 154 352 2,242 2,438 562 671 4i9 606 6,761 432 2,569 151 130 371 1,706 13 508 1,536 388 1,452 68 460 5,628 16,527 3,778 12,057 12,403 10,371 12,539 8,790 3,737 3,541 481 2,442 3,336 6,267 5,028 3,635 i,7in 3,865 3,669 2,865 3,048 3, 111 10,011 3,218 2,986 3,894 10,237 3,211 2,227 1,924 1,980 8 4 179 178 711 289 18 4 6 16 10 23 55 8 6 960 24 61 93 54 VJx 159 1 0 0 (J 91 ^1 00 do A 1 ^, Qft o2 A / 2J A J 53 0 c. d. 50 An "5 0 10^ 39** d/ JO ?o 0 51 bl — 58 64 70 86 91 101 112 135 99 154 86 94 94 100 ll4 1,074 159 183 89 164 139 232 9 161 224 (Continued on next page.) I I APPENDIX TABLE 2— continued. a/ Beginning August 1 except for 1932 ajid 1933, for which data are reported for year "beginning October 1. b/ Exports prior to 1932 were negligible. Exports of shelled and in-shell walnuts were not separately clas- sified prior to January 1, 19^1, nor were they classified according to country of destination. It is believed, however, that exports were predominantly in-shell (U. S. Tariff Corainission, Edible Tree Nuts, War Changes in Industry Series, Report No. l8, 1^6, p. k-6) , c/ Dashes indicate that exports, if any, not reported separately but assumed to be included in "other." d/ Less than 1,000 pounds. Sources : 1932-1934: Walnut Control Board, Before the Committee for Reciprocity Information; Proposed Negotiation of Foreign Trade Agreement with France (Washington, D . C . ; Press of Byron S . Adams, 1935), I935-19IH: u. S. Tariff Commission, Edible Tree Nuts , War Changes in Industry Series, Report No. I8, 19^6, 66p. 191^2-1962: U. S. Bureau of the Census, United States Exports of Domestic and Foreign Merchandise; Com- modity by Country of Destination, Report FT 410, monthly issues. APPENDIX TABLE 3 Walnuts, In-Shell: United States Imports, by Country of Origin, I920-I: year-' Covmtry of origin c/ tal^ France Italy Bumania China other To- thousand pounds 1920 d/ — — — — 14 ,266 ,383 1921 — — — — — 4l 1922 8,253 8,1^78 108 1,591 1,235 1,261 19 ,665 1925 1^,820 10,393 11, 567 125 2,042 6,374 18 ,641 9,060 772 2,780 30 ,553 ,637 1925 8,051 3,566 9,395 1,054 2,049 2,449 1,688 22 1926 12,082 i^,558 5,936 2,250 25 ,883 1927 2,2kk 2,530 4,574 4,288 15 ,620 1928 2,720 830 4,500 3,606 156 15 ,400 1929 1^,620 l,4l8 504 7 ,024 1950 476 2,356 217 3 ,555 1951 1,272 4,141 81 103 5 ,597 1932 8 1,759 42 429 2 ,258 1933 2 6 8 193^^ — — — — — 50 1935 — — — — — 515 1936 — — — — 75 1937 — — — — 254 1938 66 54 16 156 1939 22 22 19^*0 17 17 19^1 0 19^2 0 19i^3 0 19^^^ 19^5 48 48 19i^6 250 6 256 19^7 6 1 7 19^ 66 1 67 19^9 6 f/ 6 1950 108 108 1951 15 15 1952 71 35 106 1953 0 19 5^^ 0 1955 317 48 189 554 1956 100 100 1957 49 49 1958 57 57 1959 102 102 i960 45 27 72 1961 45 45 1962 6 6 (Continued on next page.) -79- APPENDIX TABLE 3~contintied. a/ General imports xmadjusted for reexports in period I92O-I9UI; thereafter. Imports for consumption. t/ Beginning ATjgust 1 except years 191+1-191*6, for which data are reported for year beginning Septeniber 1. c/ Total may not equal stun of in?)orts from specified countries because of rounding of numbers. d/ Dashes indicate covmtry of origin not available. e/ Blanks indicate that imports, if any, not reported separately but assumed to be included in "other." fj Less than 1,000 potuids. Sources: 1920-1950 : California Federal -State Market Nevs Service, Foreign Walnut Report (Sacramento, periodic veekly and monthly issues). 1951-1962: U. S. Bureau of the Census (prior to May, 191+1, U. S. Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce), Monthly Summary of Foreign Commerce of the United States , monthly issues. U. S. Bureau of the Census, United States Imports of Merchan - dise for Consumption; Conanodity by Country of Origin , Report FT 110, monthly issties. -80- APPENDIX TABLE h Walnuts, Shelled: United States Imports, by Country of Origin, 1920 -: C ountry of origin Crop^^ year-' France Italy Turkey Yugo- slavia Riana- nia Iran Syria India China Canada Spain other Total thousand pounds 1920 — 15,555 11,895 1921 — fa 1922 14, 146 510 A 1 294 1, 520 cSXc 505 994 17,849 1925 15,426 10,054 152 71 1,770 5,051 T OX)i 1,054 xAx 505 18,862 25,025 192**^ 750 205 1 1 CI 1,151 1925 1*7 Qx li 17,054 591 COT 507 2,975 T CO 759 ODO 25,152 0, 500 520 099 0,029 1,079 coc 595 5,011 2,054 21,250 1927 11, 147 15,000 9,210 X ^1 7 1 7 AA/^ X ( ,000 1 7 nkt^ 1929 T T ATA XX , U (U tlOD 44n ppo OQQ 1950 ll ^)l 4, 004 5,194 2>4 i.,UUO 0,50 ft Ol^O X7k 1 qJl Xy^ one 295 1 1^ Ai 7 15,017 1951 270 92 520 1 77k 1 1 n dyO 1 A )ll A lU , 4-10 2, 550 -too 522 qA 90 Ak 5, 012 928 1*6 778 2,459 112 5^^ 4,557 1954 JL,i (<; 866 64 2,196 8 l4 Ji-C. ?, 1955 608 52 566 80 2 4 611 4,099 1950 656 50 168 582 5,756 6 14 4,992 1957 716 56 550 2,61*0 778 4,520 5,894 556 556 5,182 1959 616 4 210 5,562 581 ^,575 ^580 19^*0 96 10 4,564 110 1941 2 1,876 14 1,892 19^2 124 124 1945 12 12 1944 12 12 1945 478 478 1946 278 574 8 42 24 918 1947 11 201 85 1 2 1 309 (Continued on next page.) APPENDIX TABLE U— continued. Country of origin Crop^/ year-' France Italy Turkey Yugo- slavia Rxana- nla Iran Syria India CMna Canada Spain Other Total thousand pounds 19hQ 1949 1950 1951 1952 1955 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 i960 1961 1962 588 1,296 1, 550 k W\ k,206 2,935 4,770 1,815 kh 681 183 589 271 510 925 4l6 1,584 1,750 1,619 855 422 5,047 864 151 432 526 800 107 577 1,110 657 1,965 1,701 220 1,166 1,158 754 228 119 988 2,092 2,6l4 1,254 1,651 26 54 255 167 28 255 191 Uo 44 22 57 420 176 138 127 242 243 501 509 255 562 225 699 2,117 1,586 859 l,4l4 526 1,155 364 550 696 20 1 9 29 758 57 1,125 1,545 25 766 467 947 2,157 l,2l40 561 51 4,439 1,115 9 26 26 228 552 384 309 275 105 275 519 231 198 295 298 18 2,695 6,244 6,727 6,644 6,989 7,215 8,126 11,844 4,083 3,255 5,501 5,584 6,926 3,722 4,053 a/ General imports unadjusted for reexports in period 1920-1941; thereafter, imports for consumption. b/ Beginning August 1 except years 1941-191+6, for which data are reported for year beginning September 1. c/ Dashes indicate country of origin not avedlable. dJ Blanks indicate that imports, if any, not reported separately but assumed to be included in "other." e/ Less than 500 pounds. Sources: 1920-1946: California Federal -State Market News Service, Foreign Walnut Report (Sacramento, periodic weekly and monthly issues). 1947-1962: U. S. Bureau of the Census, United States Imports of Merchandise for Consumption; Commodity by Country of Origin, Report FT 110, monthly issues. APPEMDIX TABLE 5 Frsmce: Supply and Disposition of Walnuts, I95I-I962 Crop , year^ Beginning stocks Commercial production Imports Total supply Exports Domestic consumption short tons, in-shell basis 1951 10,500 1952 1953 1,000 26,700 29,^00 22,'^ {Or-' 16,531^ 1954 100 26,500 1955 100 33,500 23,598 1956 100 20,500 20,600 9,1+00 10,800 1957 1+00 9,500 700 10,600 i+,300 6,200 1958 29,000 100 29,100 17,600 11,U00 1959 100 18,600 600 19,300 9,500 9,800 i960 28,000 28,000 18,500 9,500 1961 20,400 200 20,600 12,100 8,500 1962^ 31,000 31,000 21,500 9,500 a/ Beginning October 1. b/ Blanks indicate no data available. 2/ Yeajc beginning September 1. d/ Year beginning July 1. e/ Preliminary. Source: California Federal-State Market News Service, Foreign Fruit and Nut Report (Sacramento, weekly issues) . APPENDIX TABLE 6 Italy: Supply and Disposition of Walnuts, I95I-I962 yeai^ Beginning stocks Commercial production Imports Total supply Exports Domestic consumption short tons, in-shell basis 1951 500 19,800 ■ 16, Uoo 1952 100 27,800 1953 7,700 195'* 900 12,500 8,850 1955 900 29,000 19,^00 1956 500 39,000 22,000 1957 13,000 1958 25,000 llf,900 1959 22,000 15,300 i960 26,500 26,500 20,500 5,500 1961 1962^/ 500 500 20,000 36,000 Uoo 20,900 36,500 16,300 25,000 i^,100 a/ Beginning September 1. b/ Blanks indicate no data available. c/ Preliminary. Source: California Federal-State Market News Searvice, Foreign Fruit and Nut Report (Sacramento, weekly issues). APPENDIX TABLE 7 Commercial Production and Exports of Walnuts Specified Countries, I95I-I962 Commercial production Exports Crop year Ymro- slavia Turkey India Irsui Yugo- slavia Turkey- India Iran short tons, in-shell basis 1951 3.500 9. 500 a/ 1,300 3.500 1952 \j\J\J h 000 5,800 1,500 U,000 1953 3,500 6,900 7,000 7,*K)0 1954 5,800 5,500 11,000 7,100 10,109 1955 6,100 6,100 8,000 6,800 6,851 1956 2,700 U,200 9,500 i^,Uoo 900 8,668 5,500 1957 3,000 3,500 1U,000 7,1+00 1,500 11,228 1958 U,700 6,000 11,500 8,800 2,200 2,800 10,900 5,800 1959 3,200 7,300 9,000 8, 500 1,100 3,U00 7,700 5,500 i960 2,200 9,200 15,500 U,500 UOO 5,100 lU,700 1,000 1961 U,300 10,800 10, 500 1|,200 600 5,700 9,900 1,000 1962^ 5,000 8,500 12,000 3,600 1,500 5,000 10,000 600 a/ Blanks indicate no data available, b/ Preliminary. Source: California Federal-State Market News Service, Foreign Fruit and Nut Report (Sacramento, weekly issues). -85- APPENDIX TABLE 8 Walnuts: California Acreage and Yield and California, Oregon, and the United States Production, Grover Retiims, and Value of Production, I92O-I963 California acreage and yield Non- Yield per Production of value Grower returns—'^ Value of production Year Bearing acreage bearing acreage bearing acre Cali- fornia Oregon United States Cali- fornia Oregon United States Cali- fornia Oregon United States 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 ' acres tons, in-shell basis tons. in-shell beisis dollars per ton, in-shell basis thousand dollars 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 191*0 72,813 75,411 78,341 80,779 82,120 83,654 86,091 88,987 92,629 97,588 102,888 107,687 110,326 113,914 117,474 121,109 123,929 125,909 129,434 129,876 126,224 35,239 37,476 40,4l3 44,600 48,831 52,609 54,946 55,039 54,027 52,105 47,919 45,724 lK),894 37,702 34,652 32,160 29,932 26,572 23,873 22,712 22,744 0.31 0.30 0.37 0.33 0.29 0.43 0.18 UO 1 0.28 0.43 0.29 0.29 0.42 0.29 0.37 0.44 0.36 0.47 0.38 0.44 0.37 22,700 23,000 29,000 26,500 24,200 15,300 51,000 25,900 42,000 29,1*00 31,600 45,900 32,700 44,000 53,300 44,200 59,800 49,000 57,400 46,400 250 350 4oo 450 450 550 900 1,100 1,500 1,400 900 2,600 3,200 1,300 3,100 4,100 1,600 2,600 6,300 5,100 4,400 22,950 23,350 29,400 26,950 24,650 36,550 16,200 52,100 27,400 43,400 30,300 34,200 49,100 34,000 47,100 51, koo 45,800 62,400 55,300 62,500 50,800 4oo 1*00 360 4oo 460 hUo 480 330 420 320 410 219 175 222 187 201 216 180 222 168 233 425 425 390 425 480 480 500 360 440 360 1*00 275 240 280 250 230 255 200 215 170 200 4oo 1*00 360 400 460 441 481 331 421 321 4lO 223 179 224 191 203 217 181 221 168 230 9,080 9,200 10,440 10,600 11,132 15,840 7,344 16,830 10,878 13,41*0 12,054 6,920 8,032 7,259 8,228 10,713 9,547 10,764 10,878 9,643 10,811 106 l49 156 191 216 264 450 396 660 504 360 715 768 364 775 943 4o8 520 1,354 867 880 9,186 9,349 10,596 10,791 11,348 l6,104 7,794 17,226 11,538 13,944 12,4l4 7,635 8,800 7,623 9,003 11,656 9,955 11,284 12,232 10,510 11,691 (Continued on next page.) append: (IX TABLE 8— contintied. California acreage and yield Non- Yield per Production of value Grower returns^ Value of production Year Bearing acreage bearing acreage bearing acre Cali- fornia Oregon Uhited States Cali- fornia Oregon United States Cali- fornia Oregon United States 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 acres tons, in-shell basis tons. in-shell basis dollars per ton, in-shell basis thousand dollsirs 19hl 19^2 1943 19kk 1945 19h6 19UT 191^8 191^9 1950 1951 1952 1953 1956 1957 1958 1959 i960 1961 1962 12l*,303 125,768 125,679 126,9^1 126,039 126,299 121,1*51 115,772 115,527 llU,212 111*, 228 111*, 972 113,263 111*, 215 113,922 118,7^ 120,721 121,796 123,525 122,775 123,335, 126,200ai 22,364 22,093 21,162 21,561 25,356 27,509 29,018 29,575 30,051 28,687 27,421 24,958 22,823 24,235 27,523 30,911 32,804 36,954 36,512 41,373 39,215 0.51 0.46 0.47 0.52 0.50 0.50 0.47 0.51 0.69 0.50 0.60 0.66 0.4O 0.59 0.63 0.61 0.52 0.68 0.48 0.57 0.50 0.62 63,000 52,6oo£/ 58,500 65,000 64,000 63,000 59,000 62,000 80,200 58,000 75,600 ell QaA 67,000 -^,000 69,000 61,300 82,200 58,500 70,300 61,200 77,000 7,000 , 3,150£/, 5,100£/ 6,500£/ 8,900 . 8,6502/ 7,3001/ 6, 1002/ 9,100 8,200 4,400 8,100 5,100 2,800 5,300 6,500 4,200 2,500 6,300 2,900 70,000 55,750 63,600 71,500 TO TOO 71,900 OH- f puu 70,650 87,500 64,100 77,400 83,800 59,200 75,100 77,100 71,800 66,600 88,700 62,700 72,800 67,500 79,900 253 308 483 446 570 442 363 392 440 1*00 415 360 555 442 427 377 483 535 473 469 2l*0 286 420 450 U60 440 ^ T 0 24o 220 320 34o 360 370 260 470 390 4oo 380 450 570 4lO 420 252 307 478 446 555 4l9 351 385 429 396 4l2 350 550 41*0 425 377 481 536 467 467 15,939 16,971 28,256 28,990 35,910 27,404 29,113 22,736 30,052 30,21*0 22,71*2 24,120 39,960 30,498 26,175 30,989 28,256 37,610 28,948 36,113 1,680 901 2,l42 2,925 3,916 1 70t^ 2,076 1,672 1,984 3,094 2,952 1,628 2,106 2,397 1,092 2,120 2,470 1,890 1,425 2,583 1,218 17,619 17,872 30,398 31,915 39,826 29,480 30,785 24,720 33,146 33,192 24,370 26,226 42,357 31,590 28,295 33,459 30,146 39,035 31,531 37,331 1963 (Continued on next page.) APPENDIX TABLE 8--continued. a/ Equivalent in-sheil returns at growers' first delivery points, b/ Excludes 2, 500 tons not harvested. c/ Excludes the following quantities (in tons) not harvested: 19i^2, 1^50; 19^5, 200; 19^, 300; 19^5, 200; 19^1, 100; 19148, 450 ; 1949, 300 ; and 19 50, 100. d/ Preliminary. Sources: Cols. 1-3: California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, California Fruit and Nut Crops, 1909-I955 : Acreage, Production, Utilization, and Value , Special Publication 261 (Sacramento, 1956), pp. 102-103. Idem , California Fruit and Nut Crops; Acreage, Production, Utilization and Value, 19^9-1961 ^ (Sacramento, 1962), p. ^3. ' Idem , California Fimts; I963 Annual Summary (Sacramento, 1963)> P» 3* Cols. U-12: U. S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Tree Nuts: Acreage, Production, Farm Disposition, Value, and Utilization of Sales, 1909-1»5 . 19^7> PP» 2-k and 6-7. Idem , Tree Nuts: Production, Farm Disposition, Value, and Utilization of Sales, 19^^-51 , 1952, pp. 2-3. U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service, Tree Nuts, by States, 19^9-55 ^ Statistical Bulletin No. 195, 1956, p. 3. ^ U. S. Statistical Reporting Service, Tree Nuts, by States, 195^-59 , Statistical Bulletin No. 295, 1961, p. 5. Idem , Tree Nuts, by States, i960 and I961 , I962, p. h. Idem , Tree Nuts, by States, I96I and I962 , I963, p. ^. APPENDIX. TABLE 9 Walnuts: Utilization of Sales and Production of Shelled Meats , United States, 1939-1962 Orchard Total Merchantable imshelled grades Culls and "blows run direct to Shelled meats shelled as per- cent of Crc^ year-' Total, y sales—' Sold in- shell Shelled Shelled Not used shel- . lersS/ To oil mills Local sales Total shelled pro- duced total sales tons. in-shell basis million pounds 1939 191*0 19^1 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 194? 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 i960 1961 61,720 50,020 69,210 57,485 62,800 70,630 69,900 71,150 63,650 69,800 87,050 63,450 76,600 82,900 58,450 74.250 76,300 71,100 65,800 87,900 62,000 72,220 66,800 31,190 30,640 33,580 39,520 41,170 43,400 48,l80 46,880 37,020 44,330 45,480 ofin 47,700 4o,94o 33,440 40,870 36,260 , 37,510i/ 28,290 33,850 30,450 27,800 27,800 13,560 6,710 17,020 3,960 3,330 2,4lO 3,380 3,820 9,005 4.570 15,030 8,900 17,730 8,110 9,430 15,940 12,210 20,100 18,990 150 80 4o 11,100 6,800 10,610 8,785 9,700 13,520 8,075 9,200 10,050 11,1400 2,220 9,100 6,700 7,090 7,920 9,320 8,690 6,460 10,600 2,240 180 130 0 0 1»0 105 25 20 60 325 100 100 50 100 75 50 10 10 0 50 50 10 6 30 5,590 5,590 7,660 4,835 8,275 10 7^0 9,905 6,950 9,000 10,050 11,400 10,400 11,350 9,46o 15,100 13,710 11,530 . 9,000£/ 22,390 26,750 590 2,200 0 0 0 0 0 250 0 0 0 0 13,770 0 0 5,730 0 •570 800 810 1,550 1,320 2,000 l4 0 280 280 300 280 300 300 300 400 300 4oo 4oo 350 4oo 375 300 ^so 260 350 350 700 4oo 250 4oo 30,250 19,100 35,290 17,580 21,305 26,660 21,360 23,670 26,005 24,970 27,300 24,970 28,4oo 35,780 24,660 4^0 38,970 32,430 35,410 51,980 29,l40 44,150|/ 38,5701/ 20,026 13,719 26,857 ll,8l4 14,270 17,070 15,695 16,892 18,958 16,138 20,983 18, 104 20,648 26,ll4 17,400 PP TIP 29,885 24,591 27,174 38,377 22,670 32,8l0i/ 28,6275/ 49.0 38.2 51.0 30.2 33.9 37.7 30.6 33.3 40.9 35.8 31.4 39.4 37.1 43.2 42.2 • f 51.1 45.6 53.8 59.1 47.0 61.1 57.7 1962 79,300 28,900 ^1 220 50,180 37,202 63.3 (Continued on next page.) APPKHDIX TABLE 9— continued. a/ Data not available prior to 1939* b/ Total sales equals production in Oregon and California less home use by producer and includes the follow- ing quantities (in tons) of Washington walnuts shipped into Oregon which are not included in Appendix Table 8. 1939—60 I9kk— 30 1948—100 19IK)— 50 19^*5—100 1911-9—150 1941— TO 191^6—150 1950— 50 19lt2_- 5 1947— 50 1951—100 19^3—50 c/ In Oregon, includes some quantities shelled on the farm and sold. d/ niicludes some quantities shelled. e/ Includes some quantities disposed of in-shell. fj Total does not equal sum of sources for shelling because data not separated for California, g/ Includes only merchantable kernels for California. h/ Blanks indicate separate estimates not available; included in "total shelled." Sotirces: U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service, Tree Nuts, by States, 191^9-55, Statistical Bulletin No. 195, 1956, p. h. U. S. Statistical Reporting Service, Tree Nuts, by States, 195^-59^ Statistical Bulletin No. 295, I961, p. 6. California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Tree Nut Production (Sacramento, August 9, 19^3 )^ ?• 2. APPENDIX TABLE 10 Walnuts: Pacific Coast Merchantable In -Shell and Shelled Supply and Trade Acquisition, I92U-I963 In-shell Diverted Avail- Shelled-kemel weight Crop^/ year-' Produc- tion Handler carry-in Total supply under regula- tion able for in-shell sale Trade acqui- sition Produc- tion Handler carry-in Total supply Trade acqui - sition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 thousand poimds 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 19I+2 19*^3 19kk 1945 19^*6 1947 1948 1949 43,491 58,599 24,841 85,201 44,332 67,490 50,359 4o,8oi 78,740 51,082 71,932 90,381 57,734 92,600 87,600 89,100 73,900 101,000 87,000 90,800 95,300 106,200 103,200 92,291 97,131 125,954 0 0 500 0 6,600 1,750 7,200 3,700 0 20,719 5,301 4 9,200 1,264 1,600 7,100 4,200 2,400 5,200 3,600 2,200 1,600 3,000 5,634 2,611 7,294 43,491 58,599 25,341 85,201 50,932 69,240 57,559 44,501 78,740 71,801 77,233 90,385 77,000 93,864 89,200 96,200 78,100 103,400 92,200 94,400 97,500 107,800 106,200 97,925 99,742 133,248 0 4l£/ 648£/ 3512/ 1,5372/ 722/ 5302/ 21,545 22, 417 25,372 32,100d/ 23,500d/ 31,100 16,200^ 35,200d/ 8,100d/ 9,100d/ ll,500d/ 15,000d/ 14,0002/ 20,794d/ 10,038d/ 36,07Cfi/ 43,491 58,599 25,300 84,553 50,581 67,703 57,487 44, 501 78,210 50,256 54,816 65,013 61,764 65,700 65,100 61,900 68,200 84,100 85,300 86,000 92,800 92,200 77,131 89,704 97,178 43,491 58,099 25,300 77,953 48,831 60,503 53,787 44,501 57,491 44,955 54,812 55,747 6o,l64 58,600 60,900 59,500 63,000 80, 500 83,100 84,400 89,800 86,566 74,520 82,410 79,784 1,357 4,122 1,868 5,066 2,798 3,965 2,333 6,458 4,967 6,800 9,700 9, 500 XJ., vAAJ 15,800 12,400 20,000 13,700 26,900 11,800 l4, 300 17,100 15,700 16,900 18,958 16,137 20,954 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° / 2,000£/ 2,448e/ 3,4922/ 3,9602/ 5,688^/ 3,973 8,102 4,104 9,115 221 314 1,836 399 2,892 2,727 2,992 1,357 4,122 1,868 5,066 2,798 3,965 2,333 6,458 4,967 8,800 12,148 12,992 19,760 18,038 23,973 21,802 31,004 20,915 14,521 17,4l4 17,536 17,299 21,850 18,865 23, 9^^ 6,352 8,656 9, 572 no UftCi 14,072 14,065 15,871 17,698 21,889 20,694 14,207 15,578 17,137 14,407 17,383 15,873 17,686 (Continued on next page.) APPENDIX TABLE 10— continued. In- shell Diverted Avail- Shelled-kemel weight Crop . ye8ir-' Produc- tion Hsmdler carry -in Total supply under regula- tion able for in-shell sale Trade acqui- sition Produc - tion Handler carry-in Total supply Trade acqui- sition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 thovisand pounds 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 i960 1961 1962 1963 86,290 112,979 122, 115 83,302 99,568 104,402 99,440 96,300 95,711 58,600 60,076 55,968 60, 410 17,394 7,841 12,927 14,322 10,656 7,328 11,694 19,524 18,085 15,212 10,000 8,777 7,607 12,474 103,684 120,820 135,042 97,624 110,224 111,730 111, 134 115,824 113,856 73,812 70,076 64,745 68,017 11,543^. 19,403d/ 43,630d/ 19,788 27,866 . 28,557^. 23,440d/ 43,825 41,306 0 0 1,835 92,l4l 101,417 91,412 77,836 82,358 83,173 87,649 71,999 72,550 73,812 70,076 64,745 66,182 84,300 88,490 77,090 67,180 75,030 71,479 68,125 53,914 57,338 63,812 61,299 57,138 53,708 18, 104 20,648 26,114 17,400 23,289 28,999 23,057 26,981 38,036 23,598 32,865 28,590 37,784 6,260 1,946 2,797 7,747 4,164 1,729 8,446 8,109 6,778 12,102 1,868 5,988 5,476 7,252 24,364 22,594 28,911 25,147 27,453 30,728 31,503 35,090 44,8l4 35,700 34,733 34,578 43,260 22,4l8 19,797 21, l64 20,983 25,724 22, 282 24,884 26,822 32,712 33,832 28,745 29, 102 35,865 a/ Beginning August 1. b/ Blanks indicate no data available. c/ Voluntarily shelled by packer. d/ Includes in-shell walnuts exported by packers, voliintarily diverted to shelling, oil, or other miscel- laneoxis uses as follows (expressed in thousand pounds). 1936— 4,100 1937— 100 1938— 6,100 1940— 5,100 1941— 100 191^2— 600 19^3- _ I40O 191+4—2,700 1945—5,200 19^6—1^,800 19U7--2,600 19I18— 300 1949— 6,300 1950— 1,800 1951— 2,100 1952— 18,700 1955— 28,557 1956— 23,440 e/ Estimated on basis of carry-in in 1938-1940 as a percentage of preceding year's production. (Continued on next page.) APPENDIX TABLE 10— continued. Sources : Cols. 1-6 ; I92U-I936: U. S. Agricultural Adjustment Administration, I938 (unpublished data). 1937-1963: Walnut Control Board records, San Mateo, California. Cols. 7-10 : I92U-1933: California Walnut Growers Association, Exhibits Presented by J. J. McFadden at the Hearing of the Agricultxiral Adjustment Administration, September 23, 193$ (Los Angeles, 1933). \inpaged. I93I+-I963: Walnut Control Board records, San Mateo, California. I vo i APPENDIX TABLE 11 Walnuts: Buyer Acquisitions for Ctonsumption from Domestic Production and Imports for Consumption, United States, 192^4-1962 Crop ar^* In-shell From domestic production imports-^ Total Shelled From do- mestic pro- duction^/ IJ From imports- Total 192i^ 24,725 24,990 1925 58,099 1926 25,300 26,000 1927 77,955 i«8,851 11,265 1928 14,727 1929 60, 505 55,787 7,957 1950 5,270 1951 kk, 501 57,491 4,907 2,096 1932 1955 44,955 518 1954 54,812 50 1935 55,747 315 1936 55,556 73 1937 6o,l64 58,600 255 1938 156 1939 60,900 58 19^ 59,500 0 19'4-1 65,000 0 19^2 80, 500 85,100 0 19^3 0 84,1*00 0 19^5 89,800 1.0 48 19*^6 86,566 256 19^7 74,520 7 19^*8 82,410 79,784 67 191^9 6 1950 84,500 108 1951 88,490 15 1952 77,090 106 1953 67,180 0 1954 75,050 71,479 0 1955 554 1956 68,125 55,914 100 1957 49 1958 57,558 57 1959 65,812 102 i960 61,299 57,158 72 1961 45 1962 55,708 6 thousand pounds 68,214 85,089 51,500 89,216 65, 558 68,460 57,057 49,li08 59,587 45,273 54,842 56,062 55,409 60,417 58,736 60,958 59, 500 65,000 80,500 85,100 84,1400 89,800 86,566 74, 527 82,477 79,790 84,l408 88,505 77,196 67,180 75,050 72,055 68,225 55,965 57,595 65,914 61,571 57,185 55,714 1,557 4,122 1,868 5,066 2,798 5,965 2,555 6,458 4,967 6,552 8,656 9,572 10,460 14,072 14,065 15,871 17,698 21,889 20,694 14,207 15, 578 17,157 14, 1407 17,585 15,875 17,686 22,4l8 19,797 21,164 20,985 25,724 22,282 24,884 26,822 52,712 55,852 28,745 29,102 55,865 25,365 25,156 20,879 15,871 17,956 16,850 16,526 10,956 5,560 5,548 5,i408 5,650 5,412 4,016 4,4o4 4,5146 4,6l40 1,892 124 12 12 478 918 509 2,695 6,244 6,727 6,644 6,989 7,215 8,126 11,844 4,085 5,255 5,501 5,584 6,926 5,722 4,055 24,722 27,258 22,747 20,957 20,754 20,815 18,659 17,4l4 10, 527 11,900 14,064 15,222 15,872 18,088 18,1469 20,217 22,558 25,781 20,818 14,219 15,590 17,615 15,325 17,692 18,565 25,950 29,145 26,441 28,155 28,198 53,850 54,126 28,967 50,055 56,015 59,216 55,707 52,824 59,918 (Continued on next page.) -94. APPENDIX TABLE 11— continued. a/ Beginning August 1 for domestic production data. Year beginning September 1 for import data in period 19214-19^6; thereafter, import data reported for year beginning August 1, b/ General imports less reexports in period 1924-19lH; thereafter, imports for consumption. Data for most years duriiag 192li-19to do not correspond with those reported in Appendix Tables 3 and k because of adjustments for re- exports. c/ Acquisitions for years 192^-1952 assumed to equal production in those years. Sources: Cols. 1 and k: Appendix Table 10, Cols. 2 and 5: California Federal -State Market News Service, Foreign Walnut Report (Sacramento, periodic weekly and monthly issues). California Walnut Growers Association, Exhibits Presented by J. J. McFadden at the Hearing of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, September 23, 1935 (Los Angeles, 1935) j unpaged. U. S. Bureau of the Census (prior to May, 19^*1, U. S. Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce), Ifcnthly Stmimary of Foreign Commerce of the United States, monthly issues. U. S. Bxireau of the Census, United States Imports of Merchan- dise for Consumption; Commodity by Coimtry of Origin, Report FT 110, monthly issues. -95- APPENDIX TABLE 12 Walnuts: Per Capita Acquisitions for Consumption from Domestic Production and Imports for Consumption, United States, 1924-1962 In- shell SheUed From From Year-^ domestic From domestic From production imports Total production imports Total pounds per capita I92I+ .381 .217 .598 .012 .205 .217 1925 .502 .216 .718 .036 .200 .236 1926 .216 .222 .438 .016 .178 .194 1927 .655 .095 .750 .043 .133 .176 1928 .1405 .122 .527 .023 .149 .172 1929 .1+97 .065 .562 .033 .138 .171 1930 .i*37 .027 .464 .019 .133 .152 1931 .359 .040 .399 .052 .088 .141 1932 .lt6l .017 .478 .OI4O .045 .085 1933 .358 .003 .561 .051 .044 .095 193^^ .454 .069 .045 .112 1935 .lj-38 .003 .441 .075 .029 .104 1936 .1*32 .001 .453 .082 .042 .124 1937 .1*67 .002 .ii69 .109 .031 .1^40 1938 .451 .001 .452 .108 .054 .142 1939 .465 .465 .121 .033 .154 1940 .H9 .449 .134 .035 .169 19kl .471 .471 .164 .014 .178 19^2 .598 .598 .154 .001 .155 19^3 .615 .615 .105 .105 19M<- .630 .650 .116 .116 19^5 .673 .673 .128 .004 .132 1946 .615 .002 .617 .102 .007 .109 19*^7 .517 .517 .121 .002 .123 I9I48 .562 .001 .563 .108 .018 .126 .534 .534 .119 .042 .161 1950 .555 .001 .556 .II48 .044 .192 1951 .575 .575 .129 .045 .172 1952 .493 .001 .494 .135 .045 .180 1953 .423 .423 .132 .045 .177 195^^ .1(64 .1*64 .159 .050 .209 1955 .433 .003 .456 .135 .072 .207 1956 .001 .lt06 .lli8 .024 .172 1957 .315 .315 .157 .019 .176 1958 .529 .329 .188 .019 .207 1959 .560 .001 .361 .191 .030 .221 i960 .341 .341 .160 .039 .199 1961 .312 .512 .160 .020 .180 1962 .289 .289 .193 .022 .215 a/ Beginning Avigust 1. t/ Blanks indicate less than .000 5 pounds per capita. Sources: Acquisitions from domestic production and imports (Appendix Tahle 11) divided by United States total resident population on Jvily 1 of year indi- cated (Appendix Table 21). -96- APPENDIX TABLE 15 Walnut Prices, 1925-1961 Year^/ F.O.B. Pacific Coast In -she 11 Shelled Received by growers Average value of shelled imports ^ Ratio, column 2 to column k cents per pound 1925 22.0 1920 01 ^ sk 7 2I4..O 1927 ^ Q (-i •D k"! n 16.6 1920 oh. ^ ks S 21.0 1929 kk S 16.0 1930 o^ Q kti S 20. 5 1951 ^ A Ci kk 8 11.2 1952 J. • ^ 9.0 1955 11.2 1954 1 k Q 9.6 1955 1 k k 10.2 1955 1 k ^k.O 10.8 1957 1 -s k 9.1 1930 1 A Xp«vJ IS k 11.0 1959 X<1«0 ^k 6 8.U 19^ 1 c A 35«-L XX. ? 19^1 1 A r> 1 ?-6 1942 19* P kl 0 M-X • C. IS k xp. t 1945 29 •'i |D«3 19^i|- 29.2 76.3 19^5 76.5 25.k 36.6 83.5 27.8 19^7 26.8 66. If 19.1 19it8 29.9 71.1 21.0 19*^9 27.0 65.7 17.6 1950 26.5 70.8 19.2 1951 29.8 21. U 1952 30.6 69.0 19.8 1953 31. U 76.2 20.6 195^ 27.5 67.3 17.5 1955 37.3 99.3 27.5 1956 57.3 66.2 22.0 1957 37.0 78.1 21.2 1958 32.3 69.7 18.8 1959 55.5 79.0 2if.O i960 56.3 86.2 26.8 1961 3^.3 78.8 2^.h 29.1 23.7 32.9 26.7 29.0 22.5 16.8 ll|-.0 16.2 16.0 15.3 15.3 15.2 13.9 12. if 10.9 2/ 52.0 U7.7 32.1 to. 7 lfl.7 kl.k k2,6 43. U 56.3 56.2 1+3.3 kk.l lf7.6 1^.7 U7.7 1.92if 2.308 1.368 1.70lf 1.53^ 2.0I1O 2.667 2.386 2.173 2.09if 2.209 2.222 2.250 2.5^+7 2.790 5.220 1.277 l.if90 2.0lf7 1.759 1.568 1.667 1.789 1.551 1.76U 1.178 1.804 1.580 1.660 1.770 1.652 (Continued on next page.) -97- APPENDIX TABLE 15— continued. a/ Beginning August 1. b/ Average annual prices by grade and pack weighted by distribution of sales by pack and grade. c/ Blanks indicate no data available. Sources : Cols. 1 and 2 : 1925-1956: U. S. Agricultural Adjustment Administration, 1958 (un- published data). 1957-1961 : Walnut Control Board records, San Mateo, California. Col. 5 ; Appendix Table 8. Col, h : Total imports for consumption divided by total value of imports for consumption. California Federal -State Market News Service, Foreign Weilnut Report (Sacramento, periodic weekly and monthly issues). U. S. Bureau of the Census, United States Imports of Mer - chandise for Consumption; Commodity by Country of Origin , Report FT 110, monthly issues. -98- APPEHDIX TABLE ik Ifeited States Intports of ALmonds, Filberts, Pecans, and Brazil Huts, I92O-I961 Almonds Filberts Pecans Brazils YearS/ Shelled In- shell Total, shelled equiva- lentb/ Shelled In- shell Total, shelled equivan lent^ Shelled In- shell Total, shelled equiva- lentb/ Shelled In- / shell-' Total, shelled equiva-y lent^/ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 thousand pounds 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 13,875 26,619 22,972 23,412 21,362 18,575 15,699 18,257 18,111 18,304 13,241 8,336 4,863 3,410 2,986 9,937 11,270 3,073 1,506 1,374 1,986 6,622 4,723 4,578 2,654 3,802 3,703 638 464 1,891 5,504 78 9 144 6 4 2,731 571 2 2 2 £/ 16,082 28,193 24,498 24,297 22,629 19,810 15,885 18, 411 18,741 20,139 13,267 8,339 4,911 3,412 2,987 10,846 11,460 3,074 1,507 1,375 1,986 2,169 5,434 6,209 7,353 4,345 6,669 4,950 6,600 5,639 4,503 4,596 2,350 3,306 2,026 2,094 2,040 2,425 1,960 1,796 2,486 1,475 11,791 14,133 14,366 14,111 9,326 11,105 9,822 11,244 12,102 5,756 5,659 6,377 5,800 2,551 2,438 3,457 4,213 206 455 1,51^ 69 6,885 11,087 11,955 12,997 8,075 11,111 8,879 11,138 10,480 6,805 6,860 4,901 5,626 3,046 1,185 3,423 4,110 2,042 1,978 3,092 1,503 2,220 1,032 3,030 655 2,941 868 1,057 152 849 124 506 60 2 492 377 266 160 64 202 274 23 866 402 1,182 255 1,147 339 412 59 331 48 197 23 1 192 147 io4 62 25 79 107 9 4,090 3,174 7,518 5,296 7,020 7,993 10,149 8,736 6,521 8,933 9,810 16,179 37,098 38,870 39,806 45,241 32,701 30,017 42,867 13,439 37,922 19,079 22,730 16,486 17,462 16,793 16,920 23,385 19,690 12,697 20,585 22,852 26,653 18,549 19,435 19,803 22,621 16,351 15,009 21,434 6,720 18,948 13,630 14,539 15,761 14,027 15,417 16,453 21,842 18,581 12,870 19,226 21,236 29,506 (Continued on next page.) APPEMDIX TABLE l4— continued. Almonds Filberts Pecans Brazils Shelled In- shell Total, shelled equiva^ lentk/ Shelled In- shell Total, shelled equiva- lentb/ Shelled In- shell Total, shelled equiva^ lent^ Shelled In- / shell^ Total, shelled equiva^ lent^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 thousand pounds 1941 1942 1943 19hk 1945 19k6 1947 19kQ 19k9 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 i960 1961 3,721 1,012 11,063 22,403 18,116 8,928 11,840 10,304 1,509 12,440 3,636 6,763 6,946 1,324 436 67 4,8l4 11,840 1,494 600 354 8 878 308 501 4o4 19 6 1 282 e/ 747 162 262 109 3,724 1,012 11,355 22,506 18,283 9,063 11,846 10,306 1,509 12,534 3,636 6,763 6,946 1,324 436 67 4,814 12,089 1,548 687 390 83 59 1,051 7,262 9,588 10,487 4,202 7,772 6,463 4,942 6,978 5,207 5,363 6,947 6,035 5,407 5,134 6,857 6,685 5,368 2,596 11 22 89 3,621 14 27 93 23 184 165 932 186 138 37 44 46 83 59 1,055 7,271 9,624 11,935 4,208 7,783 6,500 4,951 7,052 5,273 5,541 6,947 6,035 5,780 5,208 6,912 6,700 5,386 2,6l4 3 357 401 38 352 643 375 217 248 421 464 247 379 382 536 467 66 13 359 358 212 158 170 1 19 33 738 132 48 122 921 442 140 l4o 83 419 467 38 352 650 375 217 248 434 752 298 398 430 895 639 66 10,667 4,384 1 6,203 6,902 6,160 5,742 8,013 6,180 6,382 5,672 6,225 5,334 9,098 8,482 10,649 9,399 7,888 9,661 12,820 17,627 9,119 4,282 23,951 26,966 26,064 22,868 10,384 21,056 19,490 19,894 15,172 23,058 20,085 17,889 19,805 17,150 20,246 15,885 19,481 8,944 1 8,344 18,878 19,643 18,774 19,447 11,372 16,910 15,417 16,172 12,920 20,627 18,525 19,594 19,302 16,463 19,784 20,763 (Continued on next page.) APPENDIX TABLE ll)--contlnued. a/ Beginning July 1. b/ In-shell converted at shelling rate of 33.3 percent for almonds, kO.O percent for filberts, 39.0 percent for pecans, and 50. 0 percent for Brazils. cj InrportB of shelled and in-shell Brazil nuts were not separately classified prior to I929. d/ Blanks indicate no imports reported. e/ Less than 500 pounds. Sources : U. S. Bureau of the Census (prior to May, 19^1, U. S. Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce), Monthly Summary of Foreign Commerce of the United States , monthly issues. H U. S. Bureau of the Census, United States Iinports of tferchandlse for Consmgptlon; Commodity by Country of Origin , Report FT 110, monthly issues. U. S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Foreign Trade of the United States, Annual, IT9O-I929; Nuts, Domestic Exports, Imports, Reexports and Net Balance, Quantity and Value , by Caroline G. Gries, Report F. S. 51. 1930. 35P. Reports of the Almond Control Board, Sacramento, California; Filbert Control Board, Tigard, Oregon; and Walnut Control Board, San Mateo, California. APPENDIX TABLE 15 United States Imports of Cashew, Pignolia, and Pistachio Huts, 1922-I96I Pignolias Pistachios Total, Total, shelled shelled 8.1 Year-' Cashevs, eq.vtLva- equiva- shelledi/ Shelled In -she 11 lent£/ Shelled In- she 11 lentc/ 1 2 5 4 5 6 7 thousand pounds 1922 587 587 1,11+5 575 1925 192 192 1,207 604 1921*- 691 691 842 421 1925 557 557 701 551 1926 674 674 1,218 609 1927 715 715 1,859 920 1928 610 610 1,266 1,568 655 1929 555 555 684 1930 7,^37 I400 I400 1,157 1,904 569 1931 13,166 443 445 952 1932 7,151 11^,069 525 325 2,1407 1,204 1933 283 285 1,510 755 I 193^ 17,9^5 347 547 2,209 1^,766 1,105 2,585 1935 21,166 499 499 1936 25,721 388 388 5,207 l,6o4 1,628 1957 26,117 365 565 5,255 2,556 1938 29,350 25,i^Ol^• 357 557 1,168 1,617 1939 305 505 5,254 19^ 33,595 51,5^48 181 181 1^,517 2,159 19^1 e/ e/ 1,2148 624 19^2 8,898 66 55 19i^3 7,550 18,845 316 516 l/^'76 658 19M^ 262 262 1,260 650 19i^5 29,721 211 211 2,4l4 6,796 1,207 5,598 I9ik5 50,684 515 515 19^7 -.Q 1.00 28,1400 58,258 255 4 257 1,160 6,199 4,260 2,451 212 8 217 227 4,448 7,189 19^9 59,^72 263 1 264 286 5,881 1950 54,858 317 8 522 424 7,611 4,250 1951 42,273 45,050 259 25 254 811 7,272 4,447 1952 282 25 297 311 5,866 5,892 5,244 1953 148,312 66,7^4^ 545 66 585 236 2,182 5,956 1954 598 9 I405 273 7,565 1955 65,510 508 2 509 262 5,578 5,051 4,675 1956 49,228 552 1 555 358 8,655 1957 69,662 859 5 862 420 8,552 9,849 4,686 1958 62,571 458 6 442 895 5,820 1959 65,088 506 10 512 444 12,915 6,901 1^,619 i960 63, 537 1462 2 465 564 8,510 15,1*67 1961 58,558 430 155 493 285 7,019 (Continued on next page.) -102- APPENDIX TABLE 15— continued. a/ Beginning July 1. t/ Inrported in shelled form only. c/ In-shell converted at shelling rate of 60 percent for pignolias and 50 per- cent for pistachios. d/ Blanks indicate no imports reported. e/ Less than 500 pounds. Sources : U. S. Bureau of the Census (prior to May, 19U1, U. S. Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce), Monthly Summary of Foreign Commerce of the United States , monthly issues. U. S. Bureau of the Census, United States Imgports of Merchandise for Con- sumption; Commodity "by Country of Origin , Report PT 110, monthly issues. U. S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Foreign Trade of the United States , Annual, I79O-I929; Ruts, Domestic Exports, Iniports, Reexports and Net Balance, Qiiantity and Value , by Caroline G. Gries, Report F. S. 51, 1930, 35P. Reports of the Almond Control Board, Sacramento, California; Filhert Control Board, Tigard, Oregon; and Walnut Control Board, San Mateo, California. -103- APPENDIX TABLE l6 Filberts: Production, Farm Sales, Utilization, and Total Available Supply- United States, 1927-1961 Available supply- Year^ Produc- Farm Utilization of sales Shelled meats In-shell Total, shelled equiva- tion sales Total In-shell Shelled produced carry-in In- she 11 Shelled lent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 tons, in- she 11 basis thousand pounds tons thousand pounds 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 193U 1935 1956 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 19^2 1943 19hh 1945 19I46 1947 60 200 200 300 420 490 1,070 1,210 l,24o 2,100 2,570 2,440 3,890 3,210 5,750 4,270 7,030 6,520 5,320 8,450 8,800 50 180 180 280 380 450 1,010 1,150 1,155 2,000 2,450 2,300 3,730 3,050 5,570 3,980 6,660 6,200 5,070 8,170 8,470 3,730 3,050 5,570 3,980 6,660 6,200 5,070 8,170 8,470 3,130 2,490 4,520 2,875 5,070 4,990 4,080 6,190 4,220 135 320 575 l,l4o 690 370 1,190 3,64o 106 99 24o 415 774 513 267 932 2,945 7,774 5,049 9,040 5,750 10,151 10,002 8,249 16,001 8,454 2,592 1,574 323 474 1,825 7,775 9,855 11,419 7,147 11,186 10,640 6,965 7,100 5,237 6,018 3,902 2,153 4,415 5,790 4,098 3,930 5,702 3,59^+ 3,939 2,774 5,885 11,776 13,155 17,819 14,500 (Continued on next page.) APPENDIX TABLE l6— continued. Produc- tion Farm sales Utilization of sales Shelled meats produced In- shell c£irry-in Available sup ply In- Shell Shelled Total, shelled equiva- lent Total In- shell Shelled l9hQ 19^9 1950 1951 1952 1953 19 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 i960 1961 1 2 3 1* 5 6 7 8 9 10 tons, in- she 11 basis thousand pounds tons thousand pounds 6,580 10,800 6,570 6,71+0 11,790 4,900 8,620 7,710 5,01*0 12, 510 7,51*0 10,100 8,950 11,760 5,700 10,21*0 5,1*50 6,105 11,195 1*,510 8,150 7,385 2,910 11,980 7,250 9,81*5 8,735 11,515 5,700 10,21*0 5,1+50 6,105 11,195 1*,510 8,130 7,385 2,910 11,980 7,250 9,81*5 8,735 11, 515 1*,320 5, 550 l*,265 5,135 7,005 5,1*70 5,990 5,621 2,507 7,558 5,01*0 5,850 5,391 5,1*66 865 3,990 81*0 600 3,730 555 1,610 1,356 207 3,888 1,653 3,51*5 2,895 5,1*98 601* 3,01+5 619 1+26 2,91*3 358 1,181 907 IOI+ 3,010 1,501+ 2,791+ 2,307 l+,322 i,oi+o 305 397 1,329 51*6 1,015 1,1*1*0 11+5 1,938 998 89I+ 810 8,667 11,193 10,655 11,061+ ll+,969 10,01+5 15,076 15,272 8,826 15, 592 li+,09l* 13,695 12,611+ 12,598 8,576 9, 508 5, 561 7,^1+ 8,150 5,721 8,128 6,91+2 5, 511 8,11+1+ 8,161 9,1+79 7,675 6,918 16,765 15,985 8,982 11, 586 15,820 8,675 12,890 11,1+59 7,890 lU,26l+ 12,21*8 ll+,158 12,006 11,509 ( Continued on next peige . ) APPENDIX TABLE l6 --continued . a/ Beginning JxxLy 1. Data not available prior to 1927 • b/ Blanks indicate no data available. Sources: Cols. 1-6: Col. 7: Col. 8: Col. 9- Col. 10 U. S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Tree Nuts: Acreage, Production, Farm Disposition , Value, and Utilization of Sales, 1909-4^ , 19^7, PP. 9-10» U. S. Agricultural .Marketing Service, Tree Nuts, by States, 19^9-^^ , Statistical Bulletin No. 195, 1956, pp. 5-6. U. S. Statistical Reporting Service, Tree Nuts, by States, 195^-59 , Statistical Bulletin No. 295, 1961, pp. 7-8. Idem , Tree Nuts, by States, I960 and I96I , I962, p. 5* Filbert Control Board, Tigard, Oregon (annual statistical reports). Column k plus column 7 plus in-shell imports from Appendix Table ih. Column 6 plus shelled imports from Appendix Table ih. I927-I958: Column 1 multiplied by 0.8 plus Imports, shelled equiva].ent, from Appendix Table 1^+. 1939-1961 : Column 9 plus coltimn k multiplied by 0.8 plus imports, shelled equivalent, from Appendix Table 1^1-. APPENDIX TABLE 17 Almonds: Production, Farm Sales, Utilization, and Total Available Supply, United States, I92O-I962 Year^ Produc- tion Farm sales In-shell Shelled Total available supply, shelled equiva- lent Carry-in ProdiK 1 tionS/ Total domestic supply Total available supply Carry-in Produc - tion^ Total domestic supply Total available supply 1920 1921 1922 1923 1921* 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 I93I* 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 191*0 191*1 191*2 191*3 191*1* 191*5 191*6 191*7 191*8 191*9 1950 1951 1952 1953 1951* 1955 1956 1957 1958 1 2 3 k 5 7 8 9 10 11 tons, in-shell basis tons, in-shell basis thousand pounds thousand pounds thousand pounds 6,000 6,200 9,000 11,000 8,000 7,500 16,000 12,000 ll*,000 U,700 13,500 ll*,8O0 11*, 000 12,900 12,000 12,700 10,700 21*, 600 18,1*00 28,700 15,000 9,500 31,500 20,500 31,700 32,000 1*7,200 35,700 36,500 1*3,300 37,700 1*2,700 36,1*00 38,600 1*3,200 38, 300 58,600 37,500 19,800 5,700 5,900 8,700 10,800 7,800 7,300 15,800 11,800 13,800 l*,500 13,300 ii*,6oo 13,800 12,700 11,800 12,500 10,500 21*, 1*00 18,200 28,500 lit, 800 9,300 31, 300 20, 300 31,500 31,800 1*7,000 35,500 36,300 1*3,100 37, 500 1*2, 500 36, 200 38, 1*00 1*3,000 38, 100 58, 1*00 37,300 19,600 d 1,600 2,655 1,862 1,166 198 697 268 8,323 i*,350 2,755 9,135 1*,100 6,31*0 6,1*00 9,1*1*0 3,570 3,650 i*,330 3,770 1*,270 3,61*0 1*,003 i*,563 3,1*17 5,561* l*,39i* 2,1*66 8,323 1*,350 2,755 9,135 1*,100 6,31*0 6,1*00 9,i*Uo 3,570 3,650 i*,330 3,770 1*,270 5,21*0 6,658 6,1*25 i*,583 5,762 5,091 2,731* 16,61*8 8,700 5,518 18,270 9,078 12,988 13,301 19,281* 7,159 7,306 8,661 7,822 8,51*0 10,1*80 13,316 12,850 9,166 11,521* 10, 182 6,215 1,551 6,283 6,967 7,138 1*,1*51 16,517 10, 1*65 20, 377 10,650 6,71*5 22,365 l6,U00 25,360 25,600 37,760 32,130 32,850 38,970 33,930 38, 1*30 32,760 29,1*31* 31*, 071 35,1*75 55,597 21*, 017 17, 170 20,377 10,650 6,71*5 22,365 16,1*00 25,360 25,600 37,760 32,130 32,850 38,970 33,930 38,1*30 31*, 111 35,717 1*1,038 1*2,613 60,01*8 1*0,531* 27,635 21,751 12,636 10,1*66 23,377 27,1*63 1*7,763 1*3,716 1*6,688 1*3,970 1*3,151* 1*0, 1*79 1*6,370 1*2,066 1*0,871* 1*2,663 1*2,362 1*3, 0U9 60,115 1*5,31*8 39,1*75 22,082 31*, 393 33,1*98 35,297 30,629 27,310 31,885 30,1*11 32,71*1 21*, 839 26,767 23,139 18,911 16,312 ll*,987 23,51*6 22, 160 27,671* 19,907 30,075 16,986 13,221* 32,512 31,855 51*, 206 50,283 56,263 1*7,51*6 M-D J CXaj 1*1*, 809 50,231* 1*6,336 1*6,111* 1*9,321 1*8,787 1*7,632 65,877 50,1*39 1*2,1*58 1959 i960 1961 1962 82,800 53,000 66,1*00 1+8, oool/ 82,600 52,800 66,200 82 1,360 98 7,568 3,991* 5,506 7,650 5,351* 5,601* 15,1*62 10,970 11,317 5,998 20,693 11*. 11*6 56,266 1*2,1*11* 53,219 62,261* 63,107 67, 365 63,758 63,707 67,719 71,1*62 69, 11*8 73,359 (Continued on next page.) r APPENDIX TABLE 1?-- continued. I s 00 I a/ Beginning July 1. b/ For years I9U9-I961, gross production less surplus disposal under federal marketing order and Sec- tion 32 programs. c/ Blanks indicate no data available. d/ Preliminary. Sotirces: Cols. 1 and 2: Cols. 3 and $-7 : Cols, k and 8 ; 1939-1952: I953-I96I: Col. 6 ; Col. 10 ; Col. 11 ; 1920-1938; I939-I96I: Production , Farm Pis - U. S. Bureau of Agric\iltural Economics, Tree Nuts; Acreage, position. Value, and Utilization of Sales, 1909-U^, 19^7, pp. 3 and 11. U. S. Agricultiiral Marketing Service, Tree Nuts, by States, 19^9-3^, Statistical Bulletin No. 195, 195^, p. 2. U. S. Statistical Reporting Service, Tree Nuts, by States, 195^-59, Statistical Bulletin No. 295, 196l, p. k. Idem, Tree Nuts, by States, I960 and I961, I962, p. 3. Idem, Tree Nuts, by States, I96I and I962, I963, p. 3. Almond Control Board, Sacramento, California (annual reports). Estimated by the author on the basis of information on percentage of crop shelled contained in U. S. Tariff Commission, Edible Tree Nuts, War Changes in Industry Series, Report No. I8, I9U6, 66p.; also U. S. Agricultxiral Marketing Service, Mar- keting Tree Nuts; Trends and Prospects, Marketing Research Report No. 139, 1956, pp. 12-13. Almond Control Board, Sacramento, California (annual reports). Colimrn 5 converted to pounds plus in-shell imports from Appendix Table ik. Colimin 9 plus shelled imports from Appendix Table ih. Colimin 1 converted to shelled equivalent at rate of 50 percent plus imports, shelled equivalent, from Appendix Table ik. Colxmin 9 plus column 5 converted to shelled equivalent at rate of 50 percent plus imports, shelled equivalent, from Appendix Table ik. APPENDIX TABLE l8 Pecans: Production, Farm Sales, Utilization, and Total Available Supply, United States, I92O-I96I Crop^/ year- Production Farm sales Utilization Available sup ply Marketed in -shell Shelled connner- cially Estimated shelled meats produced In-shell Shelled Total, shelled equiva- lent Total Improved varieties Wild or seedling Total Improved varieties Wild or seedling 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1931* 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 191*0 191*1 191*2 1943 1944 191*5 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 195"* 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 i960 1961 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 tons, in-shell basis tons, in-shell basis thousand pounds thousand pounds 5,188 24,078 5,678 29,015 18,999 26,232 47,931 18,252 31*, 275 26,670 28, 568 44, 232 34,117 39,1*06 28,086 62,242 29, 894 53,595 1*8,530 61, 442 60, 891 38,687 66,521 71,052 69,427 38, 113 59,801 88,022 62,845 62,315 78,368 75,718 107,085 47,300 73,1*30 86,850 70,675 85,725 1,11*9 3,882 1,724 5,257 3,575 6,158 8,768 l*,770 9,003 4,420 6,938 11,001 5,907 11,471 9,731* 14,732 16, 129 20,013 17 646 20' 472 21,063 25,726 22,692 28,587 30,594 29,618 16,746 22, 597 38,766 25,053 31,391* 44, 300 39,785 53,108 21,900 21,200 53,155 17,055 52,150 1*,039 20,196 3,951* 23,758 15,424 20, 074 39,163 13,482 25,273 22,251 21,630 33,231 28,211 27,936 18,352 47,511 13,765 33,582 28,058 40,379 35,165 15,996 37,935 40,458 39,809 21,367 37,205 49,256 37,793 30,921 34,068 35,933 53,978 25,400 52,230 33,695 53,620 33,575 3,133 19,586 3,189 24,016 14,625 21,184 42,069 13,816 28,095 22,025 23,603 38,642 29,305 33,906 23,231* 56,478 25,009 1*7,950 43,400 56,040 55,304 33,762 60,731 65,266 63,931* 34,180 54,651 82,077 58,065 57,454 72,888 70,938 101,310 43,430 69,940 82,080 66,840 81,275 16,899 14 790 17,610 18,033 22,517 19,749 25,301 27,369 26,436 14,588 19,767 35,319 22,363 28,513 41, 060 36,995 49,935 19,980 19,700 50,525 15,203 49,780 31,051 17 . 172 25,790 38,007 32,787 li*,0l3 35,1*30 37,897 37,1+99 19,593 34,885 1*6,758 35,703 28,941 31,828 33,91*3 51,375 23,1*50 50,240 31,555 51,637 31,1*95 12,280 12,790 15,305 13,655 17,000 16,421 15,861 8,752 11,859 14,827 7,890 10,584 15,1*93 11,728 16,085 6,320 9,240 11,680 8,340 13,763 31,120 1*3,250 39,999 20, 107 43,731 48,845 48,073 25,428 42,792 67,250 50,175 46,870 57,395 59,210 85,225 37,110 60,700 70,400 58,500 67,513 24,896 34,600 31,999 16,086 31*, 985 39,076 38,458 20, 342 31*, 234 53,800 4o, l40 37,496 45,916 47,368 68,180 29,688 48,560 56,320 46,800 54,010 24,834 25,603 30,610 27,323 3!*, 359 33,200 31,934 17,662 23,888 29,654 15,873 21,191 31,170 23,621 32,615 12,640 18, 480 24,292 16,866 27,664 24,896 34,600 31,999 16,089 34,985 39,076 38,458 20,699 34,635 53,838 40, 492 38,139 46,291 1*7,585 68,428 30,109 49,024 56,567 47,179 51*, 392 5,016 19,664 5,724 23,467 16,346 21,325 38,757 14, 661 27,751 21,384 23,051 35,409 27,295 31,717 22,616 49,898 23,977 42,901 29,809 34,827 44,841 44,243 27,018 48,725 52,353 51,230 27,763 44,188 65,700 46,8o4 46,613 58,685 56,967 81,296 35,178 56,704 65,962 53,870 65,450 72,500 93,750 123,375 35,100 40,110 71,175 37,400 53,640 52,200 68,060 88,225 117,820 32,668 37,305 68,053 35,392 50,920 49,767 10, 136 14,723 20, 589 57,925 73,503 97,232 46,340 58,802 77,786 20, 309 29, 490 41,224 46,876 59,269 77,852 55,31*'* 71,219 94,323 (Continued on next page.) I s I APPENDIX TABLE I8-- continued. a/ Beginning July 1. b/ Blanks indicate no data available. So\irces: Cols. 1-6 ; U. S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Tree Nuts; Acreage, Production, Farm Dis - position, Value, and Utilization of Sales, 19^7> P« 12» U. S. Agriciiltural Marketing Service, Tree Nuts, by States, 19^9-5^, Statistical Bulletin No. 195, 1956, pp. 12-13- U. S. Statistical Reporting Service, Tree Nuts, by States, 195^-59, Statistical Bul- letin No. 295, 1961, p. lU. Idem, Tree Nuts, by States, I96O and I96I, 1962, pp. 6-7. Cols. 7 and 8 ; 1939-19^3: I944.I9I+7: 19^+8-1961; Col. 10: Col. 11: Col. 12: U. S. Tariff Commission, Edible Tree Nuts, War Changes in Industry Series, Report No. 18, 191+6, 66p. Estimated by the author using procedures specified in ibid. U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service, op. cit ., p. 6. U. S. Statistical Reporting Service, Tree Nuts, by States, 1951*^-59, p. 8. Idem, Tree Nuts, by States, I960 and I96I, p. 8. Column 7 plus in-shell imports from Appendix Table lU. Column 8 plus shelled imports from Appendix Table ik. I92O-I938: Column 1 multiplied by 0.8 plus imports, shelled equivalent, from Appendix Table Ik. 1939-I96I: Column 9 plus column 7 multiplied by 0.8 plus imports, shelled equivalent, from Appendix Table ik. APPENDIX TABLE 19 Competitive Weights of Specified Shelled Tree Huts with Shelled Walnuts - — a/ Competitive weight-' Use Walnuts Pecans | Almonds Filberts Cashews Brazils percent adjusted percentage Prewar Baking .180 .045 .225 .022 .068 Confectionery 35 .09^* .2^5 .070 .018 .175 Salting Ice cream 5 .001 Other 15 .016 .022 .008 .008 .015 Total 100 .291 .312 .303 .048 .258 Gross conpetl- .164 tive weificht^ 1.000 1.072 l.OUl .887 Postwar Baking 39 .172 .031 .111 .016 .066 Confectionery 11 .022 .070 .031 .007 .036 Salting Ice cream h .005 .002 Households 39 .01^9 .039 Other 7 .001^ Total 100 .250 .11^2 .ll>2 .023 .102 Gross competi- .568 tive weights/ 1.000 .568 .092 .408 a/ Calculated by multiplying distribution of conipeting nuts by corresponding distribution of walnuts as given in Table 12 of the text. b/ Blanks indicate data not pertinent to walnut uses. c/ Calculated by assigning a total competitive weight of 1.000 to pecans and converting total weights of other nuts to a comparable value. Source: Table 12 of the text. -Ill- APPEiroiX TABLE 20 Total and Per Capita Supply of Tree Nuts Other Than Walnuts Shelled Equivalent, Itoited States, I92O-I96I Per capita total weighted shelled equivalent supply Total weighted shelled equivalent supply Year- a/ Excluding pecans Including pecans Pecans Other specified tree nuts 5 All specified tree nuts 1920 1921 1922 1923 192i+ 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 193^ 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 19^ 19'^1 19^2 191^3 19H 19^5 19h6 19U7 19i^8 19^9 1950 1951 1952 1953 195^ 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 i960 1961 thousand pounds U0,125 5^^,108 3h,Ok6 58,1^70 U7,823 1^2,991 53,84U 51,1^ 63,642 k6,666 50,772 1^7,313 in,27i^ 38,276 36,881 5^^,878 51,969 51,136 1^8,392 62,662 lH,283 !+7,l62 1*2,095 7*^,061 80,978 103,707 i*7,528 U8,305 1*6,567 1*5,078 1*5,525 1*5,829 1*1*, 910 1*8,096 49,103 55,925 53,1^5 1*7,102 61*, 200 61,942 611,81*1 45,l4l 73,772 59,770 81,937 64,169 64,316 92,601 65,801 91,393 68,050 73,823 82,722 68,569 69,993 59,497 104,776 75,946 94,037 78,201 97,489 100,385 85,526 74,180 90,820 126, 4l4 132,208 131,470 91,716 114,005 93,371 91,691 104,210 102,796 126,206 83,274 105,807 121,887 107,015 112,552 119,544 133,161 159,164 pounds per capita .143 .419 .562 .184 .371 .555 .330 • 459 .709 .123 .430 .553 .230 • 520 .750 -1 rr/l .176 .383 .559 .187 .413 .oOO .285 .301 ,00 1 .219 .331 .549 .253 .305 .557 .179 .292 .471 .392 .431 .023 .lo7 .Wo • 593 .333 .397 • 730 ,230 .373 .266 .479 .745 .339 .419 • 750 .331 .309 .04U .201 .350 .551 .361 .312 .o"2 .391 .553 .944 .384 .607 .991 .197 .737 • 934 .307 .330 .637 .448 .329 • 777 .313 .312 .625 .307 .297 .604 .381 .296 .677 .364 .293 .657 .511 .283 .794 .217 .297 .514 .344 .297 .641 .392 .333 • 725 .315 .310 .625 .376 .270 .646 .312 .362 .675 .396 .344 .740 .515 .354 .869 -112- (Continued on next page.) APPENDIX TABLE 20— continued. a/ Beginning July 1. "b/ Blanks indicate no data available. Sources: Cols. 1 and 2: Total supply, shelled equivalent, of each nut is from the following appendix tables. Appendix table Column Filberts l6 10 Almonds 17 H Pecans l8 12 Brazils ik 12 Cashews 15 1 Pignolias . 15 ^ Pistachios 15 7 The total shelled equivalent of each nut was then weighted as follows for the periods 1920-19l«-6 and 191^7-1961. 1920-191^6 I9U7-I961 Filberts l.OlU O.568 Almonds 1.072 O.568 Pecans 1.000 1.000 Brazils O.887 O.koS Cashews 0.l61^ O.O92 Pignolias 0.l61^ 0.092 Pistachios O.887 O.U08 The weighted supply of each nut was added to obtain the total weighted shelled equivalent supply. Cols. 3-5: Total weighted shelled equivalent supply divided by United States total resident population from Appendix Table 21. -113- APPENDIX TABLE 21 United States Population, Income, and Price Indices, 192^-1962 Per capita Index of Disposable disposable Resident Disposable consumer personal personal Wholesale popula- ■ • n / personal prices income income price Year tion£/ income (all items) (deflated) (deflated) index 1 2 3 4 5 6 billion 1947-1949 billion 1957-1959 thousands dollars = 100 dollars dollars = 100 1924 114,115 71.4 73.1 97.7 856 H . s/ 1925 115,832 75.0 75.0 97.5 840 1926 117,399 119,038 77.4 75.6 102.4 872 54.8 1927 77.4 74.2 104.5 876 52.5 1928 120, 501 77-5 73.5 105.7 877 55.0 1929 121,770 85.1 73.5 115.4 951 52.1 1930 123,077 t-w\ \ 74.4 71.4 104.2 846 47.5 1931 124,043 65.8 65.0 98.2 791 39.9 1932 124, 84o 48.7 58.4 85.4 667 55.6 1933 125, 579 45.7 55.5 82.6 657 56.1 1934 126,374 52.0 57.2 90.9 719 4l.o 1935 127,250 58.5 58.7 99.5 780 45.8 1936 128,053 66.2 59.5 111.6 871 44.2 1937 128,825 71.0 61.4 115.6 896 47.2 1938 129,825 65.7 60.5 109.0 859 45.0 1939 130,880 70.4 59.4 118.5 904 42.2 194d 132,457 76.1 59.9 127.0 958 45.0 1941 133, 669 93.0 62.9 147.9 1,105 47.8 1942 134,617 117.5 69.7 168.6 1,246 1,514 54.0 1943 135,107 135.5 74.0 180.4 56.5 1944 133,915 1^46.8 75.2 195.2 1,405 56.9 1945 133,434 150.7 76.9 195.6 1,592 57.9 1946 ito,686 160.6 85.4 192.6 1,557 66.1 1947 144,083 170.1 95.5 178.1 1,251 81.2 1940 146,730 189.5 102.8 184.1 1,251 87.9 1949 149,504 189.7 101.8 186.5 1,244 85.5 1950 151,868 153,982 207.7 102.8 202.0 1,527 1,524 86.8 1951 227.5 111.0 205.0 96.7 1952 156,595 258.7 115.5 210.5 1,555 1,578 94.0 1953 158,956 252.5 114.4 220.7 92.7 1954 161,884 256.9 114.8 225.8 1,373 92.9 259. b 1, 444 95.2 1956 168,088 292.9 116.2 252.1 1,493 96.2 1957 171,187 508.8 120.2 256.9 1,494 99.0 1958 174,149 517.9 125.5 257.4 1,472 100.4 1959 177,155 337.5 124.6 270.7 1,522 100.6 i960 179,985 549.4 126.5 276.2 1,529 100.7 1961 185,045 565.6 127.8 284.5 1,548 100.5 1962 185,822 382.9 129.5 296.1 1,587 100.6 (Continued on next page.) APPENDIX TABLE 21— contin\jed. a/ As of July 1. t/ No data available. Sources: Col. 1: U. S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports; Popula- tion Estimates, Series P-25, No. 250, July 5, 19^2, p. 6. Ibid ., No. 26I+, April 12, I965, p. 2. Col. 2: Idem. Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 195T, I960, 7a9p. Idem. Statistical Abstract of the United States, I962, I962, p. 518. U. S. Office of Business Economics, Survey of Current Business, Vol. XLIII, No. 5 (March, I965), p. S-2. Col, 5: U. S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics. . . . Idem, Statistical Abstract . . . , p. ^h8, U. S. Office of Business Economics, Survey of Current Business, Vol. XLI, No. 10 (October, I96I), p. S-7. Ibid ., Vol. XLII, No. 2 (February, I962), p. S-7. Ibid ., Vol. XLIII, No. 2 (February, I963), P. S-T- Col. h: Column 2 deflated vith index of consumer prices (coluima 5). Col. 5: Column h divided by column 1. Col. 6: U. S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics. . . . Idem, Statistical Abstract . . ♦ , p. ^43. U. S. Office of Business Economics, Survey of Current Business, Vol. XLII, No. 7 (July, I962), p. S-^. Ibid., Vol. XLIII, No. 3 (March, I965), P- S-8. I -115- APPENDIX TABLE 22 Data Employed in Analysis of Demand for and Imports of Shelled Walnuts, I926-I9U2 and 1947-I96I oeason per capii^a a V e rage acg,ul si - -P (-\ Vi X • 0 . D . u. s. per capita imports u. s. tions of pn ce 01 of shelled walnuts from: per capita u. s. jraciiic iraCJLX IC bpeciiiecL acquisi- weighted u. s. Coast Coast countries^ tions of supply CULUiUCX ^XCVJL jjcrx v^cipx uci> snejixecL suexj.ecL / excxucLxrig in-shell of other waxnuiis waxnu 0 B— ' Cillna,!;:/ China iotaj.— ' walnuts tree nuts 0 5 1, c 5 6 7 8 q cents per uxx w u 0 CLim pUUIIU.0 pouncL pounds pounds 'tons dollars i-ycsj QQ ft .1 (O .1*38 .789 ._£/ 872 .155 .750 .555 876 8s 8 .ll*Q .527 .758 877 W ^ • *T .158 .562 .559 Q51 yj^ 1930 .019 96.2 .155 .1*61* .600 81*6 1931 .052 112.5 .01*7 .055 .088 .399 .667 107.0 791 1952 .OllO 95.8 .027 .Oil* .01*5 .1*78 .51*9 81.2 667 1955 .051 97.5 .oil* .019 .01*1* .361 .557 75.^ 657 1934 .069 81.7 .017 .021* .01*3 .1*31* .1+71 ioi*.5 719 1955 .075 77.2 .010 .017 .029 .1*1*1 .825 95.7 780 1956 .082 76.9 .010 .029 .01*2 .i+35 .595 93.2 871 1957 .109 72.5 .008 .020 .051 .1*69 .750 105.5 896 1958 .108 82.5 .005 .021* .031* .1*52 .602 86.9 859 1959 .121 82.0 .006 .026 .055 .1*65 .7^5 79.^ 90 1* 19140 .151* 81.6 .001 .055 .035 .1*1*9 .758 83.8 958 191*1 .161* 85.7 .oil* .1*71 .61*0 1,105 I9U2 .15i^ 76.5 .001 .598 .551 l,2lt6 (Continued on next page.) APPENDIX TABLE 22--contlnued. u. s. Season per capita acquisi- tions of average f .o.b. price of U. S. per capita imports of shelled walnuts from: u. s. per capita u. s. Foreign commercial production of walnuts U. S. per capita disposable income©/ Pacific Coast shelled walnuts Pacific Coast shelled, / walnuts-' Specified countries, excluding China£/ China Total^ acquisi- tions of in-shell walnuts weighted supply of other tree nuts 1 2 3 k 5 6 . 7 • . ,8 9 pomds cents per pound pounds .-f povuads thousand tons dollars 19h7 19hQ 19k9 1950 1951 1952 1955 199^ 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 i960 1961 .121 .108 .119 .ikQ .129 .155 .152 .159 .155 .11*8 .157 .188 .191 .160 .160 81.8 80.9 78.7 81.6 67.6 75A Ao 0 72.1+ 106.6 68.8 78.9 69.1+ 78.5 85.6 78.6 .018 .012 .035 .Ol+l .01+2 .01*3 .01+8 .071 .023 .017 .018 .029 .037 .019 0 .029 .007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .002 ;oi8 .0I+2 .01+1+ .01+3 .01+5 .01+5 .050 .072 .021+ .019 .019 .030 .039 .020 .517 .563 .531+ .556 .575 .1+91+ .1+23 .1*61+ .1+36 .1*06 .315 .329 .361 .31+1 .312 .637 .777 .625 .601* .677 .657 .791+ .511+ .61+1 .725 .625 .61*6 .675 .71*0 .869 52.9 68.3 57.6 76.8 79.1+ 63.3 71.1 91.5 79.6 53.0 86.3 71.1 88.7 76.2 1,231 1,251 1,21+1+ 1,327 1,321+ 1,335 1,378 1,373 1,1+1+1+ 1,1+93 1,1+91+ 1,1+72 1,522 1,529 1,51+8 (Continued on next page.) -'■4. I APFEMDIX TABLE 22--continxaed. a/ Beginning Avigust 1 except as noted in sources for coltunns 3, k, and 7. b/ Deflated with wholesale price index, 1957-1959 = 100. cj Sum of imports from covmtries specified in Appendix Table k except China, Canada, Spain, and "other." d/ Not equal to the sum of columns 5 and h in several years because of exclusion of certain countries in data reported in column 3 and different construction of time series. See Appendix Tables 5 and 11, e/ Deflated with consumer price index (all items), 19k'J-19k9 = 100, f/ Blanks indicate data excluded from analysis, g/ Dashes indicate data either unavailable or incomplete. Sources: Cols. 1, 5, and 6: Appendix Table 12, Appendix Tables 15 euid 21, Calculated from data in Appendix Tables k and 21. AppencLix Table 20. Appendix Table 1. Appendix Table 21. Col, 2: Cols, 5 and h: Col, 7: Col, 8: Col, 9: ^9 00 00