UC-NRLF WNW W NW”) 1) WWW“! C 3 [:37 :12”: I I IN!" UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY GRADUATE DIVISION Berkeley, California 94720-5900 Graduate Degrees LIBRARY PERMISSION FORM NAME: €194»le MGM Mia/Midi GEM/Q CONFERRALDATE: W1 [2 I it” i Last First Middle DEGREE SOUGHT: Mikgifi't 0i W FIELD OF STUDY: W W MW‘CW SW (M93 TITLE: Betweet/L Se? Emmi/u mot ”Mailman: Th1 Avocado QCFW in (ain‘fimrm W Maxim), (fill ~ am The dissertation or thesis is by intent and tradition a published work announcing the result of the candidate's research to the scholarly community. The University Library holds to the tradition that the candidate has an obligation to make his or her research available to other scholars. Authors frequently inquire as to their rights after submitting their dissertation or thesis. The author of a manuscript holds common law copyright to it. When the manuscript is published, the author loses common law copyright; the author may, however, acquire statutory copyright. Legal opinion is divided on whether common law copyright is lost only upon actual printing of a manuscript or upon making it publicly available, e. g., by shelving it in a library. The Attorney for the Regents has advised that shelving the dissertation or thesis voids the common law copyright. We therefore ask that authors of dissertations or theses specifically select ONE of the following three options, without conditions, so that the University Library may treat their dissertation or thesis according to their wishes. I) I do NOT wish to copyright my dissertation or thesis and I GRANT the Library of the University of California at Berkeley permission to furnish reproductions of it in whole or in part to those who may request them. WWW 6M)” / (Signature) (Dhte) L 2) I have applied for copyright of my dissertation or thesis and I GRVANT the library of the University of California at Berkeley permission to furnish reproductions of it in whole or in part to those who may require them. (Signature) (Date) 3) I have applied for copyright of my dissertation or thesis and I REFUSE the Library of the University of California at Berkeley permission to furnish reproductions of it in whole or in part for a period of five (5) years*. (Signature) (Date) *If you select Option 3, the Library will automatically bind, catalog, and shelve the dissertation or thesis but will reject all requests for a reproduction for the prescribed period. At the end of that time, if the work is not available in commercially published form, the Library will, to the extent permitted by law, make copies upon request for research purposes. If, at the end of the withholding period, you wish to extend it because a patent is pending or publication is imminent, you may do so by submitting a NOTARIZED letter to the Library explaining the circumstances. By NOTARIZED letter to the Library, you may also (I) override Option 3 for the purpose of filing a specific request you have received, (2) change Option 3 to Option 2, or (3) change Option 2 to Option 3. IIhpcrIlLduc7/9K Between Separation and Integration: The Avocado Sector in California and Mexico, 1911—201 1 By Maria Michaela Burke Gould A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Latin American Studies in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Alex Saragoza, Chair Professor David Collier Professor Mark Healey Spring 2011 30st 20%) W M o The thesis of Maria Michaela Burke Gould, titled Between Separation and Integration: The Avocado Sector in California and Mexico, 1911—2011, is approved: Chair Mix]! fl a g Date 522611241/ Date mm %{ 27/ Date S/H 20/] University of California, Berkeley Abstract Between Separation and Integration: The Avocado Sector in California and Mexico, 191 1—201 1 by Maria Michaela Burke Gould Master of Arts in Latin American Studies University ofCalifornia, Berkeley Professor Alex Saragoza, Chair The history of the avocado sector in California and Mexico has been defined by both separation and integration. Mexico’s ambiguous place in the California avocado industry is reflected in the politics of the US. quarantine against Mexican avocados, debates over ideal avocado varieties and the search for new varieties in Mexico, and the development of new marketing strategies. After the USDA banned the import of fresh Mexican avocados in 1914, plant explorers traveled extensively in Mexico to collect specimens for introduction in the US. During the years of the quarantine, the growth of the California avocado industry depended crucially both on this ban on imports and on finding new varieties of avocados in Mexico. The growth of the industry in California ultimately changed the industry in Mexico as the two regions came to depend on the same commercial variety. These shifts in production in the second half of the twentieth century, along with a gradual move toward market integration, facilitated the reversal of the Mexican avocado quarantine in the late 19905 and generated a new era of collaboration between the two sectors. , y!“ 3,: .fi “J x; . , ,w 2 , «a ‘ i . x mm w. 1 fl. . * ‘ .1; 9;. 1 i .2 “.43 a. 3. i. _ w,“ 4. iv“ 43 by .3 , ‘7‘ . <3} ,. m; = m Contents Introduction Part I: Introducing the Avocado to California, 1891—1914 Part II: From Ahuaeate to Avocado: Building an Industry in California, 1915—l924 Part III: Inventing the Fuerte, 1991—1938 Part IV: “The Son Returnsz” Exploration and Experimentation in the Age of Variety Decline, 1938—1978 Part V: The Hass Era: Making an Authentic Avocado for the Global Marketplace, 1970s—prescnt Conclusion Bibliography Appendix I: Notes on Sources Appendix II: Avocado Production and Trade Data, US. and Mexico 11 26 47 77 93 96 101 104 3; . . 1.. _ mu m1 \ 3, .1». .1. f. u .x 3. £5 . 2!. ”a 3 tau r...“ N. . MM r4 gun {a . g ) 1... ._ mg 1, , .3. .q . , if “a .. i A 7 353' If? hem; ; 1 309%” Acknowledgments I am grateful to my faculty advisors for the time, consideration, and support they have given to this project. This research began as a seminar paper for Alex Saragoza in my first semester at Berkeley. lts expansion and evolution into a thesis owes everything to Alex’s ongoing guidance. David Collier pushed me intellectually, constantly tested my avocado knowledge, and coached me to build the fortitude to carry on. His steadfast confidence in me has made all the difference. Mark llealcy’s graduate seminar in Latin American history was the source of inspiration for investigating the avocado’s relationship to histories of science and agriculture in Latin America. I wish there were an adequate way to express my gratitude for the quality of his dedication in the thankless role of graduate advisor to the Latin American Studies prog‘am. He went above and beyond this obligation, and made it possible for us to finish the degree. I am also grateful to Professor Michael Dear, in whose U.S.—Mcxico borderlands class 1 had an opportunity to develop my thinking about the cultural implications of eating Mexican food, especially avocados. My fellow students in the Latin American Studies program have been witness to this project at various stages: Lola Bernal, Agustina Calatayud, Joshua Eubank, Yuko Matsumoto, and Meredith Van Natta. I am also grateful to the graduate students in the Latin American politics research workshop for welcoming an outsider into their group and for offering many helpful comments. I have been fortunate to pursue this research with the use of the extensive collections of the University of California library system. Special assistance in digging iii through various avocado archives came from the librarians at the Bioscicncc and Natural Resources Library at UC Berkeley, and from Octavio Olvera and the staff at the Charles E. Young Library Department ofSpecial Collections, UCLA. My family members near and far have been sources of constant support: Sasha, Margot and David, Karen and Bill, my brother Willie, and most of all, my parents, who are responsible for my interest in Latin America in the first place. A special acknowledgment goes to my father for helping me to understand the principles of fruit tree grafting I am also thankful to the many friends who supported (or, at important moments, distracted) me in my studies in numerous ways: Asiya, Annie, Josh and Lara, Kate, Max, Colleen, and especially Elana for so generously offering food, shelter, and transportation on my Los Angclcs visit. The linal acknowledgment goes to Joe, for inspiring me every day to keep working, and for always giving me a good reason to stop. Introduction In 1993, a shipment of Mexican avocados legally entered the United States for the first time in seventy-nine years. The avocados had been shipped to Alaska, the only state permitted to receive exports at the time. Although confined to a remote corner of the country, the fruit’s arrival marked the beginning of the end ofa ban on the Mexican fruits that the United States Department of Agriculture had upheld since 1914. Following this important, though certainly limited, decision to open entry to Alaska, the ensuing process to reverse the ban was gradual but significant: In 1997, legal shipments began arriving to nineteen northeastern states, as well as to Washington, DC, between November and February. In 2001, shipments were permitted to twelve additional states between mid— October and mid—April. By 2004, they were permitted year—round in forty—seven states, and three years later, in all fifty. Thus, after ninety—three years marked by complicated bilateral negotiations, the quarantine on Mexican avocado exports was effectively undone. During the seventy—nine years of the full quarantine, in which exports of fresh Mexican avocados were prohibited on the grounds of pest control} avocado production in the United States and Mexico developed as much in conjunction with one another as in isolation from each other. Understanding this tension between separation and integration is crucial to understanding the history and present state ofproduetion in both areas. While scholars in the plant sciences and in agricultural economies have studied the debates over I The original reason for the quarantine was evidence of infestation by the avocado seed weevil. See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Quarantine 56 (7 CFR § 319.56), United States Department of Agriculture (1914). emu» 13131-7212» ,, a???" Lama 2243;: ix 2% {52:31 the ban, the role of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in shaping these debates, and the subsequent impact of the ban’s reversal, these issues have not been as thoroughly addressed in other disciplines. Furthermore, the time period of the ban itself remains under—studied. This study attempts to account for a portion of that story. Focusing on the efforts by California avocado producers and by university and government horticulturalists and plant explorers to establish and support the growing California industry through the introduction of Mexican plant specimens, especially in the period between 191 l and the 1970s, the study argues that the domestic avocado sector depended heavily both on collecting plant materials from Mexico and on excluding Mexican fruit. In the end, this study attempts to show how ongoing expeditions conducted by individual travelers as well as by officials representing the USDA, the University of California, and the California Avocado Association reflect the linkages and tensions between plant discoveiji and plant introduction. This perspective is useful insofar as it clarifies the processes by which notions of “native” and “origin” have been used to drive agricultural investigations, structure specimen collection, andjustify transplantation. In the case ofthe avocado’s introduction to the United States, the fruit’s Mexican origin was at once an impetus behind variety selection as well as a circumstance to be overcome or even erased. Mexico, in other words, presented a problem for California: while it made the industry possible in the first place, and was consistently seen as the source of ideal varieties for California growing conditions, its fruits were shut out of the market by the USDA’s quarantine, and its seedlings, once introduced, became “Californian.” The expeditions to Mexico, as they took place throughout the century, $2?» as. t.“ 333% 11?. M1 .. r ( A: .1111 11317" (H a}; ‘ s reflected the shifting priorities of the California industry as it sought to both capitalize on its ties to the country and to sever them. At the most general level, this study interprets the time period of the avocado quarantine as one defined as much by dynamic collaboration between growers in the two countries as by separation. By focusing on the interactions between Californian and Mexican growers that took place throughout and in spite of the quarantine, we gain a more complete perspective on avocado production as it evolved in a binational context over the course ofthe twentieth century. This view foregrounds an important distinction between fruit trees and harvested fruit. It also brings into focus the changing concerns of agricultural producers, from their initial focus on variety selection to later efforts at disease management. The picture that emerges reveals that the lines drawn by quarantine and the barriers removed by trade are not as straightforward as they may seem. In the end, this study uses this particular story of the avocado to depict one antecedent to today’s policies and practices of food production and food trade. The avocado does not lit neatly into scholarly frameworks of the history of commodity production in Latin America. In the first place, neither in Mexico nor in California has it been a primary export crop. The industries’ growth in both places, however, has been shaped by contestations over the terms of export trade, as well as by the quality or types of products traded. Nevertheless, the robust domestic markets in both places makes this commodity case distinct from that of other crops that have primarily emerged as extractive industries or niche export commodities such as sugar, chocolate, or coffee. While scholarship on the history and political economy of commodities is thus instructive for framing the context of agricultural development and international trade especially in Latin America,2 this study attempts to tell a story that is both essentially local and undeniably transnational. Relatedly, the strong domestic industry in California also sets the avocado apart as a unique commodity case study. Unlike other major Latin American commodities such as bananas, sugar, and coffee, the avocado also has a strong industry in the United States. My analysis takes into account this specificity, and highlights the specific ways in which the parallel developments of both industries resulted in a unique outcome. To elaborate on these local dimensions of this story, the study draws on Stephen Stoll’s analysis of the transformation of the California countryside in the first half of the twentieth century. Although Stoll’s focus is on citrus, his discussion of this sector’s emergence and organization shows how closely it paralleled that of the avocado, no less because of the significant overlap between the two industries’ personnel, resources, strategies, and challenges. As Stoll argues, the “natural” advantages of the California countryside were far from natural, but rather the product of unique arrangements of knowledge and capital that converged in a particular place at a particular moment in the state’s history.3 The avocado, too, is part of this moment. 2 A general overview of this scholarship is the volume edited by Steven Topik, et al., From Silver to Cocaine.“ Latin American Commodity Chains and the Building ofthe World Eamomy, 1500—2000 (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2006). My reading ofthe literature has focused on food commodities in particular. See, for example, Sidney Mintz, Sweetness and Power: The Place o/‘Sugar in Modern History (New York: Viking Penguin, 1985); William Roseberry, et al., eds, Coffee, Society, and Power in Latin America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995); John Soluri, Banana Cultures: Agriculture, Consumption, and Environmental Change in Honduras and the United States (Austin: University ofTexas Press, 1995). 3 Steven Stoll, The Fruits ofNatural Advantage: Making the Industrial C ountryside in California (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998). ”’2' *3? A: ”mm: J arm 4‘. > w,» ” ”figs mugfi mm" 33%;? my 24;}: 13%} ;z&:.i'*xt:§i§‘w’..} Moreover, the avocado was initially, and still remains, a staple crop in Mexico. This stands in contrast to scholarship on agro-export crops that argues that neoliberal economic policies, free trade agreements, and globalization have caused shifts in Mexican agriculture that emphasize “nontraditional” commodity production.4 Finally, commercial avocado production in Mexico as well as in California is a relatively recent development in the economic and agricultural history of both places. The product was not part of the projects of colonial or imperial expansion. In this light, the thesis attempts to adapt a commodity study perspective to a more contemporary case of transnational agricultural production and trade. Research on the specific case of Mexican and Californian avocados is scant. This thesis thus attempts to add to existing scholarship. Jeffrey Charles has analyzed the promotional strategies and marketing challenges faced by the nascent California avocado industry in the early twentieth century, efforts that ultimately resulted in incorporating the new fruit into “post—World War ll California cuisine.”5 In Charles’s discussion, the avocado’s introduction to the United States is vividly described as an aggressive, one— sided power grab: ln plucking the avocado from the peasants of Mexico and Latin America to develop it in the United States, California growers exploited the power . and reach of their nation’s colonial enterprises. Through the twentieth century they have used government assistance to prevent the emergence 4 Donna L. Chollett, “From Sugar to Blackberries: Restructuring Agro—export Production in Mexico.” Latin American Perspectives 36 (2009): 79—92. 3 Jeffrey Charles, “Searching for Gold in Guacamole: California Growers Market the Avocado, 1910—1994,” in Food Nations: Selling Taste in Consumer Societies, eds. Warren Belaseo and Philip Scranton (New York and London: Routledge, 2002), 150. «w, w ”wwww “V m «7., 4-u,«~~.w.., «m .kir'izfiéém 132%}; . (j; ii: ‘5??wa fimifii Hawaii; of south-of—the—border competition, even as their sales benefit from Latino immigrant influence.6 While the present study does not deny the asymmetrical relationship between the US. and Mexico in regards to plant introduction, it is concerned more with how and why this relationship developed, as well as with the question of how Mexico may have benefited as well as struggled in this exchange. Charles only mentions this possibility in passing. The marketing of avocados in the United States, as Charles argues, depended greatly on downplaying the fruit’s association with Mexico. This study takes his argument a step further, demonstrating that the identification of the fruit was constantly in flux, and at various times capitalized on the fruit’s connection to Mexico. By focusing on debates over variety selection and on industry trips to Mexico, the study broadens Charles’s focus on marketing to explain how the question of Mexico was reconciled through ongoing developments in production techniques and foreign exploration. Lois Stanford has contributed significantly to explaining the Mexican side of this story, although many gaps in this story remain to be filled. Stanford argues that domestic production in Mcxicowespecially in Michoacanflwas fundamentally altered by the USDA’S ruling to lift the quarantine in the late 1990s. In this way, bi-national standards for export—quality avocados affected consumption and production patterns even at the local level.7 “Quality” is thus a contestable and mutable characteristic, and a category that has real implications for the political economy of food and food production. 6 Jeffrey Charles, “Searching for Gold in Guacamole: California Growers Market the Avocado, 1910—1994,” in Food Nations: Selling Taste in Consumer Societies, eds. Warren Belasco and Philip Scranton (New York and London: Routledge, 2002), 132. 7 See especially “Constructing ‘Quality:’ The Political Economy of Standards in Mexico’s Avocado Industry,” Agriculture and Human Values 19 (2002): 293—310; and , 1m? We; a " ¥ ,1 m £253”: :2: .. , ,M “AWN/”w", ~ wwwul-..‘ ,H 'i if: Less evident in Stanford’s studies, however, are discussions of how the earlier moments in Mexico and California’s history contributed to the debates and outcomes of the quarantine reversal. The California aspect is notably absent. In examining the early history of the two regions’ avocado sectors, and in adopting a transnational perspective on their development, this thesis argues that the two shaped each other in multiple ways. Finally, the role and the meaning of scientific research in agriculture is an important thread throughout this history. As various scholars have explained, science has shaped agricultural development in Latin America in multiple ways from the colonial era to the present. Stuart McCook analyzes the function ofthe natural sciences as an essential component of state—building during the liberal era’s export boom in the Spanish Caribbean. As governance shifted from foreign to local elites, newly—formed governments established research centers and sponsored research projects in the name of national interest. McCook argues that these initiatives “nationalized nature.” In this way, foreign knowledge and expertise were adapted to specific local circumstances in the creation of “creole science,” which he describes as “at once transnational or hybrid in its form and practice and distinctively local in its goals.”8 We might possibly understand the United State’s initiatives in foreign plant introduction as an example of this process. The expansion of scientific methods in nature, McCook explains, whichiadapted so well to the project of modernizing agriculture, ultimately made planters (in his case, other articles including “Designing Organizations for a Globalized World: Calavo’s Transition from Cooperative to Corporation” (with Julie A. Hogeland), American Journal angricu/tural Economics 86 (2004): 1269—1275; and “Mexico’s Empresaria in Export Agriculture: Examining the Avocado Industry ofMichoacan,” paper presented at the annual meeting for the Latin American Studies Association (Chicago, 24—26 September 1998). 8 Stuart McCook, States QfNature.‘ Science, Agriculture, and Environment in the Spanish Caribbean, 1760—1940 (Austin: University ofTexas Press, 2002), 5. w .v m."«rrl“ ., sugar cane growers) heavily dependent on both monocultural production and constant scientific innovation. Rationalization required monoculture, which left crops vulnerable to disease, which required further scientific intervention, resulting in what McCook calls an “endless environmental treadmill.” John Soluri and Steve Marquardt discuss similar patterns of cyclical dependence on agricultural inputs and monocultural expansion in efforts to control diseases in Central American banana plantations”) In the case of avocado production in California, the growing problem of root rot—possibly one consequence of the dependence on a single variety—pushed growers further into Mexico in search of resistant species, and shifted horticultural research toward studies of the disease. The ultimate decline of the original Fuerte variety underscores the consequences ofdependence. As the following study traces the history of the Mexican avocado’s introduction to California beginning in 1911, it illuminates surprising and complex aspects of the relationship between Mexico and the United States. After the USDA banned the import of fresh Mexican avocados in 1914, officials from the Department as well as individual growers and businessmen traveled frequently to Mexico to source specimens for introduction. The growth of the California industry thus depended on both restricting exports and extracting botanical specimens. In this way, the ban on fresh fruit defined the terms of this incorporation of Mexican plants and plant knowledge. The role of scientific “experts” on both sides of the border was essential in managing the two sectors” () Stuart McCook, States o/Nature: Science, Agriculture, and Environment in the Spanish Caribbean, 1760—1940 (Austin: University ofTexas Press, 2002), 102. 10 John Soluri, Banana Cultures: Agriculture, Consumption, and Environmental Change in Honduras (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2005); Steve Marquardt, “‘Grecn Havocz’ Panama Disease, Environmental Change and Labor Process in the Central American Banana Industry,” American Historical Review 106, no. 1 (2001): 49—80. 35:! (:3 m Ef :»W 3"; iii gamfli 1.:5' fiflflmi gamma may relationship. In other words, the inclusion of the Mexican crop was deemed at various times essential, threatening, or unnecessary. California growers relied on Mexico when it was convenient to do so, and eschewed it when specimens and knowledge were not needed. Following the initial introduction of Mexican plant material, the California industry’s efforts to cultivate an ideal commercial avocado variety continued to rely on Mexican avocado specimens and Mexican agricultural knowledge. Here, the same tension between restriction and integration shaped foreign exploration and agricultural experimentation. This “variety question” was crucial to the industry’s commercial success, as well as to its attempts to establish itself as a purveyor of distinctly “Californian” (rather than foreign) avocados. The Fuerte variety, a hybrid type first introduced in 1911, became the standard—bearer of the industry by the 19205. Explorations to Mexico during this time were driven by the search for Fuerte-like varieties that could both replicate and enhance the crop’s success in California. Special expeditions were made to the Fucrte’s source in Atlixco, in the Mexican state of Puebla, to commemorate the tree’s contribution to the California industry and to forge relationships with local growers and government officials that would facilitate continued extraction. The California Avocado Association’s expeditions to Mexico around the middle ofthc twentieth century underscore the pitfalls of the industry’s concentration on a single variety. A root rot fungus discovered in 1940 threatened to devastate the industry, and only Mexico appeared to possess specimens with the potential for rot tolerance. As expeditions to Mexico continued, explorers and researchers stopped searching for ideal -‘ 'F 5:?! V? ‘1 ; mmx; 10 varieties and began seeking new types of rootstock as well as specimens of wild avocado that might offset the spread of the disease. Nearly three decades after the fungus first appeared, no definitive fix had been determined. By the 1970s, avocado production in both California and Mexico had been profoundly changed by these developments in propagation, cultivation, variety selection, and disease maintenance. Research priorities were fully absorbed by disease control. The Fuerte variety was eclipsed by the rise of the llass avocado, a chance hybrid seedling that had first appeared in the 1930s. In Mexico, the center of commercial production had shifted from Puebla in the east to Michoaean in the west, where the Hass variety thrived. At this time, Mexican growers began vying to overturn the quarantine, which generated great controversy in California until the late 1990s, when the USDA finally began permitting limited entry. Today, the sectors collaborate through the Hass Avocado Board, a federally—mandated joint marketing venture involving producers’ associations in California, Mexico, and Chile. Ultimately, this study presents one strand of a much larger analysis that would necessarily take into account questions of labor, environmental change, economic development, the global avocado market, and food consumption, among other factors. By focusing on the earlier history of Mexico and California’s avocado sectors, however, this research offers a model for further studies in the history of food and agriculture. "Ti": wait; . . ”‘1. 11 Part 1: Introducing the Avocado to California, 1891—1914 Introduction The avocado was introduced to California in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Agricultural explorers working for the United States Department of Agriculture, for private enterprise, and for personal satisfaction all collected specimens for cultivation in the state. These plant explorers and plant researchers played central roles in producing and disseminating information about the avocado’s nutritional value, optimal growing conditions, and transport and preservation. In conjunction with the discovery of new varieties and different propagation techniques, avocado production spread from home backyards to nurseries and orchards. Shaping the growth of this sector was the changing mission of the USDA vis-a-vis international agriculture, the rise of plant science in US. universities and agricultural extension programs. and the development ofthe California countryside into a viable commercial agriculture region. Although initial international avocado research encompassed a range of countries and regions, from northern South America to the Caribbean, Mexico stood out as a key source of plant material and propagation techniques. This section focuses on the .ways in which the California avocado sector was built with Mexican varieties. The importance of these varieties to the California industry is even more significant given the USDA’s decision to quarantine fresh Mexican avocados in 1914, an embargo that remained in place for the next eighty—three years. Together, the quarantine and the ongoing exploration of Mexican varieties illustrate a tension between separation and integration , 32"»? :; 51333331; 33;: 33333333333 :1! ”_ 21;: 1333333333: :3 3333133331313; 33: 3 in “.333 "93,39 1) 33%? 3:33:33 {233333131323 a.» 4 3,3,,“ i 3. if} 12'343333 ,é’if'jfl‘; 12 that would shape the relationship between the two countries over the course of the twentieth century. Introducing Mexican avocados to California thus depended on both the availability of Mexican specimens and the restriction of Mexican fruits. These contradictions between the use and the isolation of Mexican avocados also played out in the new industry’s attempts to brand and market its crop. While growers were eager to differentiate their fruits from those grown in Mexico, they were also committed to glcaning as much material and information as possible from Mexico. The fruits” Mexican origin, then, presented both opportunities and challenges for the California industry. The Avocado Arrives While no definitive evidence exists for the true origin of the avocado, scholars and avocado enthusiasts alike agree that the fruit was first cultivated in Mesoamerica. The earliest written account has been attributed to Spanish explorer Gonzalo Hernandez de Oviedo’s report from Colombia in 1526. Other explorers recounted sightings from Colombia to Mexico City around the mid—16lh century. The story of how the avocado eventually reached California is similarly patchy. An early mention of the avocado in California has been found in a California State Agricultural Society report in 1856, which described an introduction from Nicaragua. More significant introductions occurred in 1871 by Judge RB. 0rd of Santa Barbara, who planted three trees that had been taken from Mexico. An alternative explanation vi}? "31$?“ 'ii M: v 1 13 suggested the contribution of Franciscan padres from Mexico, who also planted oranges, olives, and grapevines.ll Local horticulturalists quickly became interested in the new crop.12 Enthusiasm for the plant increased over the next couple of decades. In 1891, Los Angeles County sheriff Juan Murrieta was given a Mexican tree seedling in 1891 by JG Harvey——“a gentleman who has traveled much,” in Murrieta’s words. Wells Fargo connected Murrieta to an “agent” in Atlixco, Puebla, and beginning in 1893 Murrieta arranged for paguas (thick— skinned avocados) and later aguacates (thin—skinned) to be shipped to him through the Express Company. Murrieta distributed seeds and saplings to friends, many of whom were starting their own nurseries and orchards.'3 As we shall see, Murrieta’s work would become significant for two reasons: it contributed to the identification of Puebla as an important source region for avocado varieties, and it disseminated avocado specimens to the men who would eventually establish California’s commercial avocado sector. To these first growers, avocados were an attractive prospect for two key reasons: their food value and their economic potential. In the context of growing concerns about overpopulation and food supply, the avocado’s high protein and fat content made it a H Wilson Popenoe, Manual of Tropical and Subtropical Fruits: Excluding the Banana, Coconut, Pineapple, Citrus Fruits, Olive, and F ig(New York: Macmillan, 1974; originally published 1920), l9. ‘2 Knowles A. Ryerson, “Avocado Culture in California Part 1: History, Culture, Varieties, and Marketing,” California Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 365 (1923): 575. '3 Juan Murrieta, “Early Introduction ofthe Avocado into California,” California Avocado Association Annual Report 4 (l918~l 919): 83—84. See also the industry’s tribute to Murrieta after his death: Ernest Braunton, “Juan Murrieta (1844—1936),” California Avocado Association Yearbook 21 (1936): 45. mafia—r: gamma $5,; 5'? mi: hr:- . Am Tiéffini‘r‘ 2‘2 mam: "s93": S mm {1? mm; mammmmmm ; ‘ fi-iw’i’} 14 possible meat substitute.l4 For Californians interested in the fruit, the success of the emerging avocado industry in Florida offered a model to build on.‘5 For intrepid consumers of haute cuisine, the avocado was an exotic delicacy: USDA botanist G.N. Collins noted in 1905 that “An early impetus was received when the fruit was served on the tables of the rich and fashionable, its intrinsic merit being aided, without doubt, by the - - . ”u desrre to inaugurate a novelty at once rare and expensrvc. ’ Government-Sponsored Avocado Introduction The United States Department of Agriculture also saw great value in avocado production. The agency played a central role in promoting introductions of Mexican avocado species (as well as those from a few other countries) to the United States. This interest reflected an important aspect of the Department’s work at the turn of the century: beginning in 1897, Agriculture Secretary James Wilson sought to establish units of seed and plant introduction to support the goal of integrating a wide range of new crops into the nation’s agricultural output. Eventually, these units were combined under the Bureau of Plant Industry in 1901.17 14 The nutritional similarity to meet was key to the avocado’s appeal. The following quote appeared in the back ofthe report from the California Avocado Association’s first meeting: “The avocado is the most valuable fruit food known. (It takes the place of meat—consider all that this means.” Advertisement for West India Gardens, printed in Report ofthe F irs't Semi-Annual Meeting ofthe California A vocau’o Association (23 October 1915). '3 Florida avocados were first introduced from the Caribbean region, especially Cuba. For further information on the Florida industry, see Part 11. '6 G.N. Collins, “The Avocado, A Salad Fruit from the Tropics,” Bureau ofP/unt Industry Bulletin 77, United States Department of Agriculture (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1905): 10. '7 For further reading on the USDA’s involvement in plant introduction, sec Knowles A. Ryerson, “History and Significance ofthe Foreign Plant Introduction Work of the United 3131 £51 3111 a .9: MW ~. 11%? “£631 15 A central task assumed by the Bureau of Plant Industry was collecting foreign specimens for introduction. The Bureau began sponsoring exploratory missions to Mexico and other countries throughout Central and South America to source new plants for domestic cultivation. The avocado was one of such initiatives. An additional project carried out under the Department’s new approach was establishing experiment nurseries around the United States, in Florida and elsewhere. These nurseries and other experiment stations brought researchers and students into the service of producing knowledge about foreign plants for the government’s domestic purposes. As early as 191 1, this work was already contributing to the development of the California avocado industry. Varieties collected from Florida, the Bahamas, Mexico, Guatemala, Cuba, California, Canary Islands, Florida, and llawaii had been propagated at the Department’s Subtropical Laboratory in Miami and distributed to growers in various areas to test their adaptability to California microclimates.18 Supporting the fledgling avocado industry in the United States was a key motive behind such missions. As University ofCalifornia horticulture expert Robert W. Hodgson noted, USDA officials “realized that private endeavor could hardly be expected to explore the avocado districts of foreign countries thoroughly, and that it was desirable to provide the young industry with the advantage of the best varieties available as a States Department of Agriculture,” Agricultural History 7, no. 3 (July 1933): 1 10—128; and Vivian Wiser, “Public Policy and USDA Science, 18974912,” Agricultural Histo/y 64, No. 2 (Spring 1990): 24—30. 18 F.W. Popenoe, “The Development ofthe Avocado Industry,” Pomona College Journal of'Economic Botany 1, No. 3 (September 191 1): 144. ‘, ,, fl , l6 foundation.‘“9 In Hodgson’s estimation, the work of the USDA and of individual explorers brought important new varieties to the industry’s attention. He wrote, “As a result, the avocado growers of California and Florida early had the best that the world affords in the way ofvarieties upon which to build a commercial industry.”30 The USDA’s early avocado exploration was led by G.N. Collins, Assistant Botanist in Investigations in Tropical Agriculture. Collins published findings from his research in his 1905 report “The Avocado, A Salad Fruit from the Tropics.” The information he relayed would serve the needs of subsequent researchers and explorers. For the future California avocado industry, three strands of Collins’ analysis would be especially relevant. In the first place, Collins addressed the avocado’s use as so—callcd “salad fruit.” The association of the avocado with both fruit and with salad resulted in a somewhat confusing identity. Collins, however, argued that this unique aspect of the food might be the key to its marketability, and it would also minimize competition with other fruit crops.” Second, Collins indicated that collecting further specimens from Guatemala and Central America would be an important step for the emerging California industry. As the varieties grown in the Caribbean region and in Florida had thinner skins, they were deemed too fragile to support the shipping needs of a commercial industry. Investigations '9 Robert W. I’lodgson, “The California Avocado Industry,” Circular 43, California Agricultural Extension Service, University of California, Berkeley College ongriculture (Revised April 1947): 6. 20 Robert W. Hodgson, “The California Avocado Industry,” Circular 43, California Agricultural Extension Service, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley College ongriculture (Revised April 1947): 6. 2] G.N. Collins, “The Avocado, A Salad Fruit from the Tropics,” Bureau ofP/cmt Industry Bulletin 77, United States Department of Agriculture (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1905): 48—49. “1% imzm W3??? gr: fiim‘?%§fifi3 7 ' mm Wifififi £3; MW??? ? ”£3312: é“? 45% 3' m? 17 in Guatemala had already turned up thicker-skinned varieties that appeared to have greater handling potential. Lastly, Collins suggested that importing avocados from different countries would make it possible to achieve a year-round supply of the fruit, which would help increase the sector’s visibility and importance. 22 This triple focus on identity and branding, on variety selection, and on foreign exploration would continue to guide the California industry’s growth as it sought to simultaneously take advantage of foreign specimens and distinguish itself from them. Private Exploration and Enterprise In addition to the USDA’s efforts to discover suitable foreign varieties for introduction, individual growers initiated their own expeditions abroad in search of quality avocado specimens. Government—sponsored research by the USDA intersected with ongoing private expeditions in the story of one family in particular. In 1906, a Kansas entrepreneur named Frederick O. Popenoe brought his family to Altadena, California. After losing nearly all of his money in a failed mining investment in Costa Rica, Popenoe had decided to start a tropical fruit business, which he opened under the name West India Gardens in 1908 with two avocado seedlings purchased from a nearby flower shop. Fred Popenoe managed the business, and his son Wilson was employed as the lead propagator. The elder Popenoe had become interested in tropical horticulture while running the mining operation in 22 G.N. Collins, “The Avocado, A Salad Fruit from the Tropics,” Bureau QfP/cmt Industry Bulletin 77, United States Department of Agriculture (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1905): 49. {agizéxfl gifixwfiflif fii . with! Si? 18 Costa Rica. His wife and children had lived with him in the country for one year, during which time Wilson developed a lifelong fascination with fruits. When their business opened, the Popenoes’ nursery began receiving avocado samples from the Office of Foreign Seed and Plant Introduction. These samples were the “West Indian” types, which had flourished in Florida but did not prove well—suited for California conditions, a realization that prompted further exploration and study of non- West Indian varieties. For California growers, Florida presented a model example of fruit propagation techniques, but it could not supply the appropriate varieties for commercial cultivation. These ideal types would have to come from abroad. Having learned budding and propagation from hobby orchardists in the area, Wilson Popenoe later began taking classes at Pomona College under Charles Baker, who had expertise in tropical horticulture. Popenoe began writing articles about avocado propagation, publishing his first piece in llie Pomona College Journal of Economic Botany in l911 at the age of nineteen. In his free time, Popenoe traversed the Los Angeles area with friends Knowles Ryerson and Ralph Cornell to discover new trees. He wrote: “A simple-minded lot of visionaries, we not only wrote, but actually believed, that the avocado industry would outstrip the citrus industry within a quarter of a century.”23 However, it became clear to the Popenoes that the nascent commercial avocado industry in California might require a jumpstart with foreign stock. Fred Popenoe enlisted his contacts in Mexico for further information. As his son recalled, “Mexico, with its 23 Wilson Popenoe, “Looking Back,” California Avocado Association Yearbook 21 (1936): 57. :3 ammgxgmq 15am mmazm afiéwfi ’ 3 x39 mmfiw gfiggmmq _ _ ‘ , , , , , Mm? ,wmwfii filgéf‘ififl b5: -, 9 g : ‘ , ’ “7?: risfiifi} 19 wide range of varieties growing in the highlands—which meant hardiness to us—seemcd the logical place to seek for our ideal.”24 Just as Mexico was the “logical place” to collect avocados, Carl B. Schmidt was the ideal explorer and collector. Raised in Mexico until the fall of the Porfirio Diaz regime prompted his family to relocate, Schmidt was the son of a Kansas friend of Fred Popcnoe. Highlighting Schmidt’s knowledge of Mexico, in addition to his degree in agriculture from Cornell University, Wilson Popenoc later remarked that “Carl seemed the logical man for the Mexican jobvfor by that time my father had decided we must go after those Mexican avocados. He went, with instructions to visit all the best avocado- growing regions which lay at high elevations, hunt out the best seedlings, and send up budwood accompanied by specimens of fruit.”25 Between August and December of 1911, Schmidt sent back forty—one different specimens to Popcnoe’s nursery, sourced from Santa Maria dcl Rio (in the state of San Luis Potosi), Guanajuato, Qucretaro, and Atlixco (in the state of Puebla). Wilson Popcnoe, who propagated the specimens upon their arrival in West lndia Gardens, recalled that Number 15 (later named Fuerte) and Number 13 (later named Puebla), both taken from Atlixco, were the most successful introductions. The Fucrte in particular took strongly to the nursery stock, and when a terrible frost hit in January 1913, it was the only 7926 one to survive intact. Fred Popcnoe decided to name it “Fuerte,” for “vigorous one. 24 Wilson Popenoe, “Looking Back,” California Avocado Associatirm Yearbook 21 (1936): 57—58. 35 Wilson Popenoe, “Looking Back,” California Avocado Association Yearbook 21 (1936): 58. 26 Wilson Popenoe, “Looking Back,” California Avocado Association Yearbook 21 (1936): 58. v -- W351": wiwéffiffi um‘msr; imwimfl «crfifi mm 31%;“ 3431;; :2; xi} (‘2‘; ”Hi xii-Ema; €2.12 20 Just as Juan Murricta’s specimens from Puebla were widely distributed to area orehardists, Fred Popenoe’s Fuerte soon became widely known in southern California. A pig farmer-turned aspiring orehardist named J.T. Whedon purchased forty trees from West India Gardens in the fall of 1912, and had the starts set aside for pickup in the spring. When this initial selection was destroyed by the frost, Popcnoe offered the Fuerte samplings to Whedon in exchange. The variety thrived, earned high prices at local hotels, and yielded large harvests:7 As we will see in the sections that follow, this variety would become the cornerstone of the California industry for the next several decades. It would also be a significant object of ongoing exchange and tension between the two countries. Although demand for the Fucrte grew rapidly, and production expanded throughout southern California, West India Gardens did not profit from this important find. In fact, funding the Fuerte’s introduction to California cost the nursery more money than it gained from sales. Seeking to broaden the scope of his business venture, Fred Popcnoe struck a deal with the USDA and agricultural businessmen in California to import date palms from the Middle East and North Africa. In 1912, he sent Wilson and his other son Paul on a year—long expedition to select specimens to bring back to the emerging industry in California’s so-called “American Sahara.”38 While the elder Popcnoe eventually sold West India Gardens in 1919, his contributions to both the avocado and date industries left an enduring legacy. Ile remained for many years involved with the California Avocado Association. 27 Dwight and Mildred Poole, “From Pigs to Riches,” California Avocado Society Yearbook 51 (I967): 27. 28 Frederic Rosengarten, Jr., Wilson Poperioe: Agricultural Explorer, Educator, and Friend ofLatin America (Lawai, Kauai, Hawaii: National Tropical Botanical Garden, 1991), 13—19. itmdgmxfi L2 £23? 52% hm“? (51%!” .. vii-f. 7:}??? mmvrm gfimémw :zgag‘wzfgugfi m7: amt; $25223 fitfi’ifififfik‘li: M Emfiaiii‘aé m iriggmf} \‘ m: @1513???) {23. km: .235” 3%. ,mmgawvfi mi“: im’s‘i f 21 Upon returning from his trip to the Middle East in 1913, Wilson Popenoe turned down a full scholarship at Cornell University to take a job as an agricultural explorer for the USDA’s new Bureau of Plant Industry in the Office of Foreign Seed and Plant Introduction. As Popenoe recalled in unpublished autobiographical notes, plant exploration had always called to him: I began to feel that plant hunting was just about the most romantic occupation imaginable. Not only did a chap get to travel in out—of—the way corners of the world, but he stood a good chance ofbringing home some new fruit, or food plant, which would add materially to his country’s wealth and happiness. After all, the march of empire had gone hand in hand with the transplantation of crop plants from one part of the world to another.” As an agricultural explorer for the USDA, Popenoe spent seven years touring Central and South America, where he identified, tasted, and collected specimens of fruits that he deemed of potential interest for growers and consumers in the United States.30 At the culmination of these travels in 1920, Popenoe published Manual of" Tropical and Subtropical Fruits: Excluding the Banana, Coconut, Pineapple, Citrus Fruits, Olive, and Fig, which included an extensive chapter on the avocado. He was optimistic about the 29 Wilson Popenoe, unpublished autobiographical notes, reprinted in Frederic Rosengarten, Jr., Wilson Popenoe: Agricultural Explorer, Educator, and Friend ofLat/n America (Lawai, Kauai, Hawaii: National Tropical Botanical Garden, 1991), 10. 30 While the fruits’ exotieism was certainly of interest to Popenoe, the type of exploration he carried out did not bring him into “undiscovered” or otherwise isolated regions. In fact, he wrote that much of the investigations took place in habited areas. He wrote: “An agricultural explorer, it seems to me, can, as a general rule, obtain more material ofvaluc in a cultivated region than he can by penetrating into the wilds. Agricultural crops accompany man, and are not found in the untracked wilderness. Considering most of the important food crops introduced into the United States, I believe they will be found as a rule to have come from a region where their value was realized and their culture carried on extensively.” Unpublished autobiographical notes, reprinted in Frederic Rosengarten, Jr., Wilson Popenoe: Agricultural Explorer, Educator, and Friend ofLalin America (Lawai, Kauai, Hawaii: National Tropical Botanical Garden, I991), 28. dz; {fig , , :‘i a irzfii-i A $355515 R, .2‘éSWfi .. .5: ’33:;3’i7i 22 avocado’s future in the United States.31 Its central role in people’s diets was a signal of its potential: “North Americans view the avocado as a possibility, but to the aboriginal inhabitants of tropical American it is a realized possibility,” he wrote.32 Popenoe explored for the USDA until 1925, when he took a job with the United Fruit Company. He maintained correspondence with contacts in California, many of whom became part of the California Avocado Association, whose formation is discussed in the following section. The Association’s newsletters and annual reports benefited from Popenoe’s dispatches and articles based on his experiences abroad. He remained an active correspondent for the Association until his death in 1975. As a result of Popenoe’s on—the—ground investigation, as well as his published research, the California sector gained new varietals and valuable information. In the span of his life, the avocado went from an exotic curiosity to a major crop for both California and Mexico’s agricultural industries. During this period, agriculture both in the US. and abroad experienced profound shifts in the areas of plant introduction and scientific innovation. 3' For the nascent avocado sector in California, the fact that the avocado in fact was not grown as a major commercial crop in tropical America provided an initial spark for the emerging industry. As Wilson Popenoe reported to the new California Avocado Association in I915, there were two reasons for this absence of commercial development abroad: “In the first place there are very few fruits that have ever been cultivated in the tropics on a commercial scale, as we understand that term, and secondly, there is the difficulty of propagating the avocado asexually and thus obtaining in quantity trees of known, desirable varieties which would fulfill in a reasonable degree the demands ofthe market. We cannot, ofcourse, assume that had some easy means of vegetative propagation been known to the Mexicans, they would have been flooding our markets years ago with splendid avocados; this would probably not have been the case, but if the avocado had been propagated like the banana and the pineapple I believe its culture would have been much more extensive in the tropics than it is at the present time.” Quoted in Report ofthe First Semi—Annual Meeting oft/1e California Avocado Association (23 October 1915): 30—31. 32 Wilson Popenoe, Manual of Tropical and Subtropical Fruits: Excluding the Banana, Coconut, Pineapple, Citrus Fruits, Olive, and Fig (New York: Macmillan, 1974; originally published 1920), 9. Mwi fiwfiszwa ssé'm wine: wazgmfifim "Rfiii hfmmg £133: mimm m; {3037? .fi". :5”??? 3443:; my! mum!“ % 23 The Foundation for Commercial Avocado Production in California The explorations abroad sponsored by the USDA and by individual entrepreneurs in the first decade of the twentieth century laid the foundation for a commercial avocado industry in California. Besides the knowledge and information yielded on these expeditions, the nascent industry in California also counted on the example set by other fruit sectors, namely Florida avocados and California citrus. By 1911, Florida’s commercial production had been established for nearly a decade. Wilson Popenoe cited the Florida industry as a model for California, particularly in regards to the timing of harvests: Florida emphasized winter—bearing varieties so as not to compete with summer- bearing varieties from the Caribbean sold at lower prices, as well as to provide fruits for US. consumers during months when most others were scarce. Popenoe suggested that California follow this lead.33 Indeed, meeting consumer needs was a key factor driving the development of avocado production in California as well as in Florida. Decisions about which varieties to plant, and how to cultivate them, were determined by market potential. As Popenoe and Collins both suggested, certain standards should guide variety selection in California. First, in order to achieve greater uniformity, the recommended propagation technique was budding, or grafting a bud onto an existing rootstock. Letting a tree grow from seed was unpredictable. Secondly, growers were urged not to assume that a larger avocado was a better avocado. Citing Florida as an example, Popenoc claimed that smaller avocados (fifteen to twenty ounces) were more useful for commercial distribution. Third, a rounder shape was better than a necked (pear-shaped) fruit, because it was easier to pack in 33 F.W. Popenoe, “The Development ofthe Avocado Industry,” Pomona College Journal ofEconomic Botany 1, No. 3 (September 1911): 145. r m; 3%? my gmmw 24 shipping boxes. Likewise, the skin needed to be strong enough to survive shipment, just as the seed cavity needed to be tight enough to prevent bruising in transit.34 These early investigations into avocado production both in Florida and abroad would influence the decisions made by California producers. The exigencies of the mass market required attention to variety selection, which also encouraged further exploration in other countries. The existing varieties in Florida were too fragile for California’s climate; those varieties best—suited to the state’s landscape would be found in Mexico and Central America. This emerging pattern of foreign exploration intersected with the USDA’s ruling in 1914 to enact a quarantine on fresh Mexican avocados, due to the presence of seed weevils found in the imported fruits.35 The ban, which will be discussed in further detail in Part IV of this thesis, remained in full effect until 1993, when legislation began permitting limited entry to certain areas of the United States. Subsequent rulings resulted in a complete reversal of the ban in the year 2007. Thus, at the same time that it was sponsoring extensive exploration and importation of Mexican avocado plants, the USDA was restricting the entry of avocado fruits. This dynamic between importation and restriction would continue to define the relationship between California and Mexico as avocado production developed in both places. The USDA’s quarantine was not the only factor changing the state of avocado production in California in the second decade of the twentieth century. Exploration in 34 F.W. Popenoe, “The Development of the Avocado Industry,” Pomona College Journal of'Economic Botany 1, No. 3 (September 1911): 147—148. 35 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Quarantine 56 (7 CFR § 319.56), United States Department of Agriculture (1914). ,1, 313 w? m, M 1i?! .&_ % i ,3: ,1? it 3 $ 1.; vi r a; 3 a {‘3 .1": R “fir EA .IA. 3' 31 V m mm ‘5 ,3 at. "vi-:2 max: 3 3: 1V: , m 'ki-égfigm 7; (,i , ,9} ' ii 4.“ 4‘ t, ,1: \ fifi‘iifi 25 Mexico was also changing due to the Mexican Revolution and World War I, which hindered access to certain areas and reduced activity around production and experimentation, as people were pulled into battle or other types of war efforts. As a result of the chaos and competing activities, the USDA discontinued its explorations in Mexico. By this time, however, the foundation had been established for a unified industry in California. Thanks to the plant materials collected by the USDA, as well as the findings of individual explorers, avocado growers in California had acquired several new varieties. With these specimens from abroad, as well as the protective measures against pest and disease (and, by extension, competition through exports) established by the quarantine, the conditions were primed for the sector’s emergence. The community of hobbyist growers, entrepreneurs, and interested scientists forming around avocado production generated valuable discussions and insights about propagation and cultivation. The early seedlings planted in the 1890s were beginning to bear fruit. These results were indicators of great promise for the future of the industry? indeed, for the basic existence ofany industry at all. In his 191 1 article, Wilson Popenoe had likened the development of California’s avocado industry to a predetermined fate: “The feeling has now become general among well-informed orchardists and nurserymen that this fruit is destined to play an important role in the economic horticulture of Southern California.”36 As had already become apparent by this time, such a destiny was inextricably linked to the avocados of Mexico. 36 F.W. Popenoe, “The Development ofthe Avocado Industry,” Pomona College Journal ofEconomic Botany 1, No. 3 (September 1911): 135. mmxéfi mi; 37833:; 5'??? gaaims'm g3 mmmm WT '3 26 Part II: From Ahuacate t0 Avocado: Building an Industry in California, 1915~1924 Brie/iv stated, the objects ofthis association are to collect in/ormation on the culture, care, harvesting, marketing and serving ofthe Ahuacate; to secure the best information possible on the different varieties — their hardiness, productivity, ‘ food value, etc. and send out to its members. — California Ahuacate Association mission statement, May 1915 Introduction On 23 October 1915, a group of avocado growers, scientists, and businessmen gathered at the Alexandria Hotel in Los Angeles for the first official meeting of the newly-formed California Ahuaeate37 Association, a session that followed a convocation held earlier that year in May, when founding members organized themselves to launch the Association. The October meeting had been advertised publicly to attract interested individual growers, many of whom had already begun their own avocado businesses in southern California counties. An umbrella organization would serve to circulate knowledge about cultivating the new fruit, as well as to streamline marketing efforts to the general public. In addition to building on the existing experience and knowledge of individual growers and nursery owners, including men such as Fred Popenoe, the new Association also sought—and counted on—support and information from the California citrus industry, the University ofCalifornia, and the United States Department ongriculture. 37 As discussed later in this section, “Ahuacate” was soon changed to “Avocado.” For the purposes of consistency, the organization will be referred to by the revised name. 3% ‘3. 32:22:53 23.}; 2335532139333 3333333223 ”332:2 53233 23.22 2222332222225 ‘23 ’2 22:22:22; 223222232232; 22:32.2 2:; 2222 L 3.3 333 32.21.2233 333333. 5.22 :2 mm 3233232233. 3222223222.: 2:22 mm. “mum... «M n. -- » , 6.222233 22% 332222 2.: @333 » 237543123522 ’ 2252;222:272 27 The avocado sector formed out of a context of major changes in the California agricultural and economic landscape at the beginning of the twentieth century.38 Within this context, the industry saw much to emulate and much to do differently. As these producers, nurserymcn, and scientists discussed how to build a successful avocado business in southern California they debated over where to seek plant specimens, how to grow them, and what to name them for the best consumer appeal. These questions were intricately bound up in the industry’s ambivalent connection to Mexico, which influenced the ways in which the Association discovered, developed, and marketed the new fruit. As argued earlier, Mexico offered both opportunities and challenges for the new industry in California. During the first decade of the Association’s founding, foreign exploration constituted an important strategy for expansion and information. In this period, expeditions abroad were guided by a diligent search for ideal varieties. The Fuerte variety discovered by Carl Schmidt became the exemplar on which subsequent exploration and propagation was based for several decades. While Mexico’s abundant avocado specimens#espccially the Fuerte—werc desired and needed by the industry, the country’s fruit was also seen as infested with pests or generally inferior in quality, a perception that the USDA’s quarantine would serve to reinforce for several decades. For avocado marketers, while the exotic locale of Mexico made for racy advertising campaigns and compelling sales pitches, it also possibly undermined efforts to establish the avocado as a distinctively Californian crop. 38 For an overview of this period in California’s agricultural history, see Steven Stoll, The Fruits QfNatural Advantage.“ Making the Industrial Cozmtryside in California (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998). Wmma mima’idm WW? ,ismxfia ;. £3433? 7335;” ,tmfim’ _} w} . gr} ammwii; {mm um»: .4» $5) fi'é §3G§W¢i3 615:2 243; #ifi‘f’ifivg égjfi 344‘; ‘ imfl , j: I iwfimiwmmm‘ié""232: ’c§mt“93‘i 28 These tensions between capitalizing on and differentiating from the avocado’s connection to Mexico were evident in initial meetings of the California Avocado Association. Such shifting concerns emerged in debates over plant introduction, avocado nomenclature, and variety selection. The Association and its Allies The work of the California Avocado Association was closely linked to existing fruit industries in the state, as well as with academic and government initiatives around fruit production. The formation of the Association took a cue from previously established fruit industries in the region, particularly the citrus sector, which provided a useful model for the avocado. In his opening remarks at the October meeting, President Edwin G. Hart compared the Association’s situation to that of southern California’s other agricultural industries, claiming that the avocado sector would “avoid the mistakes and profit by the experience” of citrus growers, and that he hoped for “the sane advancement of the most promising young agricultural industry started since the introduction of the walnut, orange, and lemon?” The incorporation of avocado research into the work of the Citrus Experiment Station underscored the important role that the University ofCalifornia would play in the avocado industry for decades to come. At the Association’s first meeting, many 39 Edwin G. Hart, “The Association and its Purposes,” reprinted in Report oft/7e First Semi—Annual Meeting oft/7e California Avocado Association (23 October 1915): 9. The date industry, also emerging at this time following recent expeditions to the Middle East by none other than Wilson Popenoe and his brother Paul, was similarly seen by the avocado sector as both model and rival. mam am mi? gmimaéa mmwruw: ‘ ‘ m 1mm?“ «s ‘rf. ww‘xéwwu sixsfimwn m mam mm if; M 29 researchers and professors from the University were in attendance, including ME. Jaffa (head of division of Nutrition), Ira J. Condit, J. Eliot Coit, and H.J. Webber (Director of Citrus Experiment Station). These men and others would continue to be closely involved in the Association’s activities. For the next several decades, avocado research on behalf of the Association was conducted at the University’s Riverside campus Citrus Experiment Station. This work included nursery propagation, orchard cultivation, and disease research, depending on the industry’s needs. Station members contributed greatly to shaping avocado production over the course ofthe century. Just as Fred Popenoe had extended his legacy through his son Wilson, University members achieved continuity to their careers by training undergraduate and graduate students to carry out and carry on their avocado research. This was especially significant in the ease ofJ. Eliot Coit, who taught at UC Berkeley before becoming a Los Angeles County Farm Advisor. Coit’s students at Berkeley included Robert W. I’lodgson (who accompanied Coit on the Farm Advisor job, taught at Berkeley, and ultimately became Dean of the College of Agriculture at UCLA); Knowles A. Ryerson (who eventually served as Dean ofthe College ongriculture at Berkeley); and Ira J. Condit. Both the Association and the University saw a great opportunity to support the growth of the industry with their partnership, not only through laboratory and field research but also through education, Training high school students and adult farmers was Viewed as essential as educating undergraduate and graduate students. The Association became interested in supporting high school vocational programs as well as :1 22255221212232 gfiqflr 2:2: f:2: , £334,252 2,12 30 correspondence courses developed by University faculty such as J. Eliot Coit, who developed the curriculum for a popular course on avocado culture.40 At an Association meeting in 1918, President Thomas Shedden reflected on the importance of the organization’s ongoing relationship with the University of California and the United States Department of Agriculture: Both ofthese great institutions of science have treated the California Avocado Association as a co—ordinate interest, in matters pertaining to the avocado. Signal examples oftheir favor have been shown us. Recently, and most notably, on the part ofthe Department at Washington, this Association has been permitted to publish in its year book just offthe press, a condensation ol Explorer Wilson Popenoes report to the govern— ment on his sixteen months successful study of the avocado 111 Guatemala As Shedden’s statement implies, the Association’s ties to the USDA and the Univc1sity of Calitomia system we1e c1ucial to the industrys formation, its success, and its longevity. Wilson Popenoe and other representatives from the USDA such as A.D. Shamel who traveled extensively in Mexico and Central America reported lindings and shipped plant samples back to the Association. The Association early on built a strong network of ties that extended far beyond the community of private agricultural entrepreneurs. Not only do these relationships illustrate the intricate (and perhaps somewhat exclusive) community of avocado producers, they also underscore the close 40 F.L. Griffin, representing the University at the Association’s 1920 meeting, declared in his speech “The University and the Avocado Association” that such courses had so far been a great success: “We have hopes of making these courses of the greatest possible service to the people of the state. I know that this work has already helped to get a large number ofcity people 011 the land. The courses have also helped many farmers and farmers’ wives to increase their income.” Semi-Annual Meeting ofthe California Avocado Association (Pasadena, 9 October 1920), reprinted in California Avocado Association Annual Report 6 (1920—1921): 16. 4] Thos. H. Shedden, “This Association,” Annual Meeting of the California Avocado Association (Los Angeles, 18 and 19 May 1918), reprinted in California Avocado Association Annual Report 4 (1918—1919): 37—38. W431 325122 2’3wa 239323223532; Hawk 2 $332} "I? i“ Ragga 21ml; BF) 2223293222 322:}? mi; ~W3j mi‘agiifik €32? 222M 223222.231.WWW“; 31 and long-standing ties between the Association, the USDA, and the University of California. The Association and Foreign Exploration Along with expanding cultivation and establishing research facilities in California, continuing the foreign exploration begun by the USDA and individual travelers was crucial to the California Avocado Association’s early development. Avocado production abroad, especially in Mexico, represented to the Association the dual possibilities of imitation and improvement. While there was great interest in introducing foreign specimens, equal attempts were made to develop strong local products. Although the industry was eager to differentiate itself from Mexico, it still relied on heavily on the country to supply buds and seedlings. Indeed, in spite ofthc quarantine against fresh avocado fruits, Mexico was seen as a source of quality avocado stock. This notion of quality was even invoked in eugenie terms: at the first Association meeting in May 1915, member .l..l. Grafton suggested a link between avocados and genetic superiority.42 “Some of the brainiest men of Mexico were either born in the ahuacate country, in Southeastern Mexico, or their ancestors were,” he noted, citing the presidencies of Benito Juarez and Porfirio Diaz to prove his point. 42 This connection between avocados and eugenics was not limited to Grafton’s proclamation. Not only did avocado classification define the fruits in terms ofdifferent “races,” but ideas about plant species and principles ofplant breeding were sometimes applied to social engineering. After his stint exploring for dates in the Middle East, Wilson Popenoe’s brother Paul eventually became a leading member of California’s eugenics movement. I‘dfiggfi'f ' ‘:' {gmmw Wfifi MN mmfim (Wm? wamwm §§~¢§$ mafia mm! ‘i'zizguhfl fiffiiflrfit “~' '% ~n .1 4‘. ..._.....UW....‘-..;w, ”Wyn.“ Mafia; :‘ _ «gnawm . fl “£2331? 3 1 32 Grafton went on to claim that “the man who will re-unite Mexico will probably come from the same section of country.”43 Interest in introducing new varieties to California was the impetus behind the Association’s resolution to establish international agricultural exploration as an official part of its work. Professor Ira I. Condit, from UC Berkeley’s College of Agriculture, urged the Association to take advantage ofthe US. Department of Agriculture’s ongoing explorations in the Americas. Condit prepared a resolution to be submitted to the Secretary of Agriculture on the Association’s behalf, requesting support to obtain all possible avocado varieties from Mexico, Central America, and South America.“14 11.}. Webber, director of the Citrus Experiment Station, echoed the call for a thorough exploration of avocado growing areas in other countries: “every effort should be made to import and test out every promising variety that can be found, and we should urge the Bureau of Plant Industry, through its division of Seed and Plant Introduction, to 43 Quoted in “Report ofOrganization ofthe California Ahuacate Association [abridged], 15 May 1915,” Robert W. Hodgson Papers, box 8 f. 14, Charles E. Young Library Department ofSpecial Collections, University ofCalifornia at Los Angelcs. 44 “General Discussion,” Report off/1e Firs! Semi-Annual Meeting oflhe California Avocado Association (23 October I9l5): 86. The full resolution read as follows: “Whereas, the possibility of developing in California a successful avocado-growing industry has in ourjudgment been amply demonstrated; and, Whereas, we have reason to believe that many valuable varieties, particularly cold resistant sorts, exist in Central America, Mexico, and South America that have not been introduced into the United States, and which would probably be of great value in the further development ofthe industry in California and help to insure its permanent success. Therefore, be it resolved: (I) That we urge upon the Secretary ongrieulture and his associates in the Seed and Plant Introduction work ofthe Department ongriculture the great importance of sending a special agricultural explorer to these countries at the earliest possible date to secure and import into the United States all varieties of the avocado that can be obtained; (2) That in recognition of the value of the importations of avocado varieties already made by the Department of Agriculture, we also express to the Secretary ongrieulturc our keen appreciation ofthe value to the industry ofthe service his department has already rendered; (3) That copies of these resolutions be forwarded to the Honorable Secretary of Agriculture and to the Chief of the Bureau of Plant Industry.” 'ixexgmé :3; Wm Ii‘ ;. , 4&5}; 7m @3138; mi?! 333:; 33 send explorers to promising regions to get such varieties for us.”45 For Webber, such foreign varieties represented the source of a domestic industry. As he saw it, that which was imported eventually became native: “imported varieties usually give way to native varieties; select seedlings, hybrids, and the like; of superior quality and better adapted to local conditions. This will probably be the history of the avocado industry, and it is gratifying to notice the large number of native seedlings that already are playing an important part in the development ofthe California industry.“46 In these debates over foreign exploration, Mexico was treated as an ideal source of material, especially because of the range of avocado species available there. ES. Thacher in particular was enthusiastic about the possibilities in the country: “Mexico, which is our chief source for both types, the so—called Guatemalan as well as the Mexican, has, in a wholly accidental way, produced all sorts of fruits, and our named varieties are simply selections from the product of their seeds. We mustn’t begin just yet to be too wise on the subject, for we have hardly done more than look over the fence upon a field that has not been measured?“ While the Association was eager to settle on a small number of specimens suitable for production in California, it was also enthralled by the infinite potential ofMexico’s natural bounty. An initial Mexican investigation by Wilson Popenoe on behalf of the University of California’s College of Agriculture made significant headway into understanding the 45 11.]. Webber, “Station Work for the Avocado,” reprinted in Report ofthe First Semi— Annzia/ Meeting oft/7e California Avocado Association (23 October 1915): 70. 46 H}. Webber, “Station Work for the Avocado,” reprinted in Report ofthe First Semi- Annual Meeting ofthe California Avocado Association (23 October 1915): 70—71. 47 ES. Thacher, “Has the Mexican Avocado a Permanent Place in the Industry?” Semi— annual meeting ofthe California Avocado Association (San Diego, 30 and 31 October 1916), reprinted in California Avocado Association Annual Report 2 (1916): 75. 353333333 3:? 33313332333 if ' 313333 :3 :5 x m; 7333133 3393.! 333333333. if Wswia 333313 E? , '53 333323114 34 wealth of varieties for investigation, as well as the ideal regions for exploration. Mexico was a good source of material and information because of the wide range of avocado types (in contrast to Guatemala, which cultivated fewer varieties), as well as knowledge about propagation and cultivation. This foundational research would ultimately locate Atlixco as the source of desirable plant material, a discovery that guided future expeditions by the Association. Although at the time of this study, Popenoe and others were uncertain as to which type of avocado might do best in California, further exploration in Mexico appeared to be the first step toward answering this question.48 While during these early years of the Association, members and other growers were still uncertain about which varieties to source from Mexico or elsewhere, the group had already established that Mexican rootstock would be the best for California production. Existing research provided sufficient endorsement for the health, hardiness, and vigor of Mexican rootstock.” These proceedings from early Association meetings have revealed how understanding as well as collecting foreign specimens became crucial to the industry’s success in the United States. This commitment to foreign exploration expressed a commitment to better knowledge. The California industry sought to distinguish itself from competitors at the same time that it relied on competitors’ specimens and information. 48 Wilson Popenoe, “The Avocados of Mexico: A Preliminary Report,” Annual Meeting ofthe California Avocado Association (Pasadena, 9 and 10 May 1919), reprinted in C alifbrnia A vocado Association Annual Report 4 (1918—1919). 49 See, for example, “General Discussion,” Semi-Annual Meeting ofthe California Avocado Association (Los Angeles, 29 April 1916), reprinted in California Avocado Association Annual Report 2 (1916): 45. , @5- wfixfiifl 33%, mis'mam‘a W :f v» aniflifi“ 3%;ng flaw *3 {Hz-MM in 7%? 5. ,3“? Mm ;: 1% £3ngme «‘25 assimtmiap " flay,“ wk Mia-13;?‘2xézwix ' 35 Naming California’s Avocados A crucial first task for the California Avocado Association was deciding how to refer to the new fruit. During the May and October meetings in 1915, members debated over the appropriate nomenclature. While the organization at the time was operating under its 7 original moniker “California Ahuacate Association,’ in recognition of the terminology used in Mexico, members were in disagreement over the marketability and prominence of this name relative to such alternatives as “alligator pear” (commonly used for the West Indian—type avocados grown in the southeastern United States) and “avocado” (the official name that had been entered into USDA records). The debates over what to name the fruit reveal the ways in which the new California industry was attempting to distinguish itself from other growing regions, including Florida. Association Director Edwin G. llart said, “1 think our product far superior to the varieties grown in Florida and the West Indies; therefore a difference in name would be to our advantage, rather than disadvantage. We can just as well start in with an entirely new name."50 Some members, however, insisted on adopting a name that recognized the fruit’s origin. As an anonymous member claimed, “AllUACATE is the name that dates back to the origin of this fruit. It is the correct name as has been determined scientifically. The Department of Agriculture admits that the name AVOCADO is a misnomer?“ Other 50 Quoted in “Report ofOrganization of the California Ahuacate Association [abridged], 15 May 1915, Robert W. Hodgson Papers, box 8 f. 14, Charles E. Young Library Department ofSpeeial Collections, University ofCalifornia at Los Angeles. 5' Quoted in “Report of Organization ofthe California Ahuacate Association [abridged], 15 May 1915, Robert W. l-lodgson Papers, box 8 f. 14, Charles E. Young Library Department of Special Collections, University ofCalifornia at Los Angeles. Emphasis in the original. ”ix -, Mam m» $11!} “m5; WE} KEEH’SEJC amt ' mm; mu m .2545“??? ; «Em-z; 2mm 41ij 36 members argued in favor of adopting the Spanish name on the basis of its sound and appearance: “It [ahuacate] leaves a pleasant taste in the mouth,” one said. He continued: “I think when one sees that name on a menu in a hotel, it will be more conducive to one’s wanting to eat it than the name AVOCADO would be.” Another concurred, adding that ahuacate was “most euphonious and is an Indian name.”52 Another group of members was similarly ambivalent about calling the fruit “avocado,” but for different reasons, particularly to downplay the name’s semantic resemblance to the words “advocate” and “lawyer.”53 Member Charles Adams of Upland was against both “alligator pear” and “ahuaeate.” In opposition to the first option, he said, “1 am sure most of us don’t desire to have our fruit masquerade, under anything that has relation to either alligators or pears.” Regarding the second, he argued, “The word ahuacate is impossible to pronounce by English—speaking people according to the way it is spelled. You have to know something about Spanish when you try to pronounce it. That is not true of the word avocado. It can be pronounced the way it is spelled, by English—speaking people, and it is easy to acquire. It is a word that has been identified with the fruit.”S4 Aside from disagreement over which name was easier to pronounce, Edwin llart proposed adopting “avocado” for a logistical reason, reminding the Association that it might be wise to use terminology consistent with USDA records. He said, “The 52 Quoted in “Report ofOrganization of the California Ahuaeate Association [abridged], 15 May 1915, Robert W. Hodgson Papers, box 8 l". 14, Charles E. Young Library Department of Special Collections, University ot‘California at Los Angelcs. Emphasis in the original. :3 This was in reference to the foreign words avocat (French) and obogaa’o (Spanish). 34 “General Discussion,” Report ofthe First Semi—Ammo] Meeting ofthe California Avocado Association (23 October 1915): 84. W hag? ifizf‘xafim gm?“ M: a}; 15%, mm my ”31%;! x-i‘tggéfiw ”xxxax ,5» fl .fifiiflzm kmm x3 ”xiii-fag??? . , .. .. f _ g:}3*'5332€fif§,8 *x ‘ _, 3+ ' ' . . am u rgb‘mw figiwfi mgééfiwffi WW; ‘fiSfiz ’s a{-;x%%5; ”Jimmy xé‘. _, {fig-$136 ‘wiémfgw 5:5} mm;f;['.sanl“if 37 Department has a great deal of power and when it comes to a show down [sic] they can stop our shipping avocados under the name ahuacatcs.” At the end ofmultiplc debates, the Association agreed to officially adopt the name “avocado.”55 The nomenclature debate was put to rest until nearly a decade later, when the Association founded a cooperative marketing unit that subsequently re-branded the avocado. Established as the Growers’ Exchange in 1924, the name of this unit was officially changed to Calavo Growers of California in 1927, in an attempt to distinguish it from citrus growers’ associations.56 The Exchange decided that re-branding the California—grown avocado with a unique name would set it apart from avocados grown in other areas. The avocado marketers” attempts to re—name the fruit illustrate one way in which the industry continued to negotiate the origin question. All avocados marketed by the Exchange were called “Calavos” (an clision of “California” and “‘avocado”), not “avocados,” which implied that those fruits grown in California were a distinct variety. Calavos were held to strict quality standards and each individual fruit carried a brand stamp as well as variety identifier on its skin. In advertising campaigns, the Calavo slogan was “the Aristocrat of Salad Fruits.” Other marketing language relying heavily on words such as “delicacy” and “distinguished” presented the fruit as a brand—new, ’ ' u ‘ '59 ‘ cc ‘ ' 33 st. 957 sophisticated creation found only among food connmsscurs and at the best hotels.’ 55 “General Discussion,” Report oft/7e First Semi-Annual Meeting of'lhe California Avocado Association (23 October 1915): 86. 36 J. Eliot Coit, “Some Recollections ofCalifornia Agriculture” (Office ofOral History, University ofCalifornia at Los Angeles, 1962), 41—42. Held at the Charles E. Young Library Department of Special Collections, University of California at Los Angeles. ”7 “Calavo, the Aristocrat of Salad Fruits,” Charles E. Young Library Department of Special Collections, University of California at Los Angeles, n.d., n.p. .9! i. ' E5! - f i; 39 if} 15:13; w a», D :22: fit”) is? {3 E... “#323 k; ;' 3! '3 mm; I» m ‘ 939A» , as} A. , I u a h... , u 9L“ a m in x) 1,: x ,9 u h E n. a w a x. t i av. J $3 A W: 55 "1 38 Early on, members of the Exchange realized that associating the avocado with Mexico was not good for business. As an article in the organization’s third annual report describes, “During the Mexican season it was decided to make Calavos ofthe extra fancy large—sized Mexicans. When this was first done, it had very little effect on the salability of the Mexicans. By changing the name of Mexican to ‘Thin Skin,’ the salability of this ”58 type of fruit was immediately improved. The idea of California appeared to have more selling power than the idea ofMexico. The Varietal Question As explained earlier, even prior to the formation of the California Avocado Association, initial headway had already been made by the Popenoes and by other fruit explorers and fruit growers in understanding the range and performance of different avocado varieties. By the 1920s, horticulturists had more or less settled on a common classification system for the avocado. This system relied primarily on a three-type classification—West Indian, Guatemalan, and Mexican—that was established on the basis of“race” rather than region. West Indian and Guatemalan races were considered to be two variations of the species Persea americana, and Mexican types were given a different species designation, Persea dn’mifolia. Wilson Popenoe, who summarized and explained these categories in his 1920 Manual of Tropical and Subtropical Fruits, suggested that the system may have been established as early as the mid—seventeenth century by Spanish priest Bernabe Coho.” f8 California Avocado Growers" Exchange Annual Report 3 (1 January 1927): 41. 39 F .W. Popenoe, Manual ofTropical and Subtropical Fruits: Excluding the Banana, Coconut, Pineapple, Citrus Fruits, and Fig (New York: Macmillan, 1974; originally published 1920), 16. F~§§xwmmfl fifi's *5: 22M :15; a wwng mm Mai miwfimimw yzrimfifl mi: @955 341%: mi": “in? 3? mm 3: flight" V; mi} ":::is:3,;r::uz"} ign'm mam; Emil“ may 3"? Mg 5 W "U ._ «a w- “ if E‘.‘ 2;“ )1 39 Given their greater tolerance for temperate growing conditions, the Mexican and Guatemalan types were the only ones recommended for cultivation in California. West Indian avocados, on the other hand, were well—suited for Florida. Determining which varieties within the Mexican and Guatemalan types might be optimal for southern Californian growing conditions was foremost on the Association’s agenda at the time of its creation, and it remained a central project for the first several decades of the agency’s work. In fact, the varietal question quickly eclipsed other concerns regarding the avocado’s food value and marketing potential. Counting on a reliable variety was obviously related to these other two concerns, but it soon emerged as a major issue in its own right. In his address to the Association in 1915, Frederick O. Popenoe, representing the West India Gardens nursery, opened with the following statement: “I believe it can safely be said that the most important problem which we avocado growers of California are facing at the present time is the question of varieties.”0 With more than eighty varieties under cultivation at that early stage in the industry’s trajectory, it was clear to many that controlling this aspect of avocado culture would be key to the sector’s success. According to Popenoe, an urgent task facing the California industry would be to whittlc down this massive list of varieties to a more manageable size, and to establish a sufficient base of common terminology that would be used to identify different types. Association discussions over appropriate varietals established what would become an ongoing relationship between constant exploration and refinement. While some 60 F0. Popenoe, “Varieties of the Avocado,” Report ofthe First Semi-Annual Meeting of the California Avocado Association (23 October 1915): 44. W 2:76 .3“ i W mi 2.: £3? i Ii“) 35$ 222%: 4“ 22d? 7‘31 2 .2 222$ 222% $22 :2 ' 2/ a??? L I" $2 2 i, £er Inv‘vi F 32 3212223222293 4%? 2 a»). ‘w. 2' ’h M». f" , 4’ f $22» 22:22:22, 22261» ’ '2 $222 2222 40 members, like Frederick Popenoe, urged the group to settle on a small number of choice varieties, others argued that further investigation was necessary. Member E.S. Thacher cautioned against consolidating varieties too quickly, fearing that this might stifle innovation and experimentation. Under the impression that cultivation and varietal selection were not being undertaken in any systematic way in other countries, Thacher saw an opportunity for California producers to take the lead in developing the finest varieties.“I lra J. Condit, on the other hand, expressed concern about “needless multiplication of varieties,” arguing that the development of a new variety should not be pursued “unless either the fruit or the tree has characters as good or as better than some other variety already existing.”2 For this reason, at the Association’s lirst official meeting in October 1915, acting chair Eliot J. Coit proposed the creation of a committee that would lead the way in generating knowledge about varieties. As Coit put it, this knowledge would encourage useful nomenclature: “with the large number of seedlings coming into fruiting, we are going to have a confusion of names, unless some definite action is taken.”63 In Condit’s view, the practice of growers naming varieties after themselves had become unproductive for the industry, as it resulted in a proliferation of varieties with unscientific names that m ES. Thacher, “Has the Mexican Avocado a Permanent Place in the Industry?" Semi— Annual Meeting of the California Avocado Association (San Diego, 30 and 31 October 1916), reprinted in California Avocado Association Annual Report 2 (1916): 75. 62 Ira Condit, “New Items of Interest,“ Report oft/1e First Semi-Annual Meeting oftlte Cali/Ornia Avocado Association (23 October 1915): 19. (’3 “General Discussion,” Report ofthe First Semi—Annual Meeting oft/7e California Avocado Association (23 October 1915): 82. 32333 33% 33313333333”! 3’13? 3:333: , , ,33313 .3 33.3333 “1313533 :3; 33333933.»! 3533,; 33* 1117:3333?)th v 3133’; , 41 inhibited logical ordering. The focus from then on would be to establish more official and functional terminologies and categories. The Variety Committee, established in February 1916 at the behest of then- President Edwin G. Hart, was tasked with generating a short list of recommended varieties for commercial cultivation. Following a year and a half of investigation and observation around southern California orchards, in collaboration with the variety Registration and Classification Committee and with pomologist LB. Scott from the USDA, the Committee presented a list of recommended varieties to the Association’s Board of Directors in August of 1917. These recommendations were subsequently printed in Circular No. l of the California Avocado Association, issued 25 October 1917. Eight varietiesiall thick—skinned Guatemalan types64~made the cut. The Committee included information about maturity seasons and fat content, data generated by nutritionist M.E. Jaffa from the University of California, along with E.M. Chace from the USDA. The circular also recommended that only Mexican rootstock be used for budding and grafting, as it was stronger and hardier. The importance of defining varieties, however, evolved into a project that went beyond resolving the mere “confusion of names” or generating official lists of recommended varieties. Decisions over variety selection would influence the nature of the Association’s international research expeditions, especially to Mexico. The task of selection itself was dependent upon how much the Association knew (or didn’t know) about a variety’s origin. This information was framed by the extent of the Association’s involvement in Mexico. Not only were propagation and cultivation practiced differently (’4 The Fuerte was included in this category, although a few years later Wilson Popenoe would confirm that this variety was a genetic hybrid of Mexican and Guatemalan types. .r i: i a?! t; ‘5 i Q13 immm’m aw; i “s 2:- :’;«‘.}73’ y; /, ' mi :2:- 1 k‘ 4i} 7: v V: , w. W: um 39% x; " 135' f3 53:? ”“513 {my {iii-W Wi’flfi {is his e» 4 '3 €- mmé; "2313213 . .A3 {a 31% Mi! fir: V ’ .5 v“ a £3 wmfi 1i ”3 mam LV 4 1.4 ., Us ,3 w fir .. ‘ .1 ,., x 1.2., w it v . r: w ‘ 6H» V a“; H ,uwwwvdu.“ u.“ ., 51:"; am via “3 42 in Mexico, but the classification system was established on entirely different criteria. 3 “The distinction between races is not clearly made by the people of Atlixeo,’ wrote Wilson Popenoe in 1919.65 A major debate centered around whether thin- or thick-skinned avocados should constitute the bulk of production. As noted above, thin-skinned avocados were generally grouped into the Guatemalan type, and those with thick skin fell into the Mexican category. This category schematic, while useful, was also confusing, for the type name did not necessarily correlate to country of origin. The Mexican—grown Fucrte and Puebla avocados so popular in California, for example, had characteristics that placed them in the Guatemalan type category. While the Mexican types were well-regarded overall for flavor and oil content, growers were reluctant to adopt them for commercial production due to the fruits’ smaller sizes, which made them less ideal for marketing and shipping. However, as Thacher noted, fruits with thinner skin such as the Bartlett pear were easily transported all over the United States.“ Thacher argued for taking the Mexican type seriously, and for making quick decisions so as to capitalize on the variety’s potential, which offered a “commercial reward to intelligent perseverance.” lle noted that this need not require growers to neglect (’5 Wilson Popenoe, “Atlixco,” California Avocado Association Annual Report 5 (1919# 1920):35. (’6 E.S. Thacher, “Has the Mexican Avocado a Permanent Place in the Industry?” Semi- Annual Meeting ofthe California Avocado Association (San Diego, 30 and 31 October 1916), reprinted in California Avocado Association Annual Report 2 (1916): 74. giraszam g 41 . 3573ix§§s c .{r 3"! 43 the other type. “any more than we should abandon the pear because we approve of the ”()7 apple. Not all involved in the variety debates at this time saw Mexico as the source of the industry’s every need. LB. Scott, a Special Pomological Investigator with the USDA who was present at the October 1916 semi-annual meeting, argued that while foreign varieties had potential, it would be equally important to further refine existing varieties in Californiaf‘8 Scott’s emphasis on the process of turning the avocado into a “typical California product” exemplifies the broader process by which Mexican avocados were incorporated into the California industry. Producing and exercising knowledge about Mexican production was essential for the sourcing of important Mexican varieties, but once introduced into the United States, these varieties were modified and re-brandcd so as to become “Californian.” In addition to foreign exploration, variety selection was also central to the task of creating “Californian” avocados. The identification and observation of avocado varieties was the only way to determine which ones were suitable for the official “California” label. This point serves not to insinuate any malicious intent on the part of the California (’7 ES. Thacher, “Has the Mexican Avocado a Permanent Place in the Industry?” Semi— Annual Meeting of the California Avocado Association (San Diego, 30 and 31 October 1916), reprinted in California Avocado Association Annual Report 2 (1916): 75. 68 LB. Scott, “Avocado Performance Records,” Semi—Annual Meeting ofthe California Avocado Association (San Diego, 30 and 31 October 1916), reprinted in California Avocado Association Annual Report 2 (1916): 82. Scott acknowledged the presence of strong varieties in Latin America, but suggested they only be introduced “provided they are superior to existing standard ones, under state and federal supervision. At the present time Mr. Wilson Popenoe, of the Office ofForeign Seed and Plant Introduction, of the United States Department ongriculture, is in Guatemala searching for superior avocado varieties. However, even if no new varieties are found superior to those which you now have, I believe you already have in this state a sufficient number from which a few good ones can be chosen and developed as typical California products.” ififi$W' Wu; 1min: {:35 Whimwlm "“75! M :"r i; .Wiwf Whig: mg} Weifliin" '22! j?‘ e%;5:::w :5, ,jjfj : _‘ _ - ‘th -‘W ‘_ ;'*;, 3§;;*a1 kimfi fig” ‘ 1‘3»? mg .33." fin E329: ””0 “dag? -’ -~w‘~5‘}m«}fll“§ {$21291 ‘ ' j - . ._ iimwami; magi smumm My“: mszmwm . v , ' . » ‘ j I' , j j 339% V 33115 3W3fififif W 3013‘“,fm‘f;__‘}‘;¥w§g¢ I I ‘ ' fifiifi’w " $3M 3%? m Mm? jigs”? ' ‘ @iki} Win" 3% MW: 3%” S a ‘fi figuwifl f: 521% :3}: ; 317m 44 industry, but rather to illustrate how Mexican avocados were essential—both through introduction and through eliminationw—to the creation of California avocados. As Scott said to the Association in 1916, “I believe your big problem is not a search for new varieties but an elimination of many of those which you are now growing and the choosing and developing ofa few which can be known as strictly California products.”(’9 Scott urged the Association to keep more organized records of variety selection and tree performance, recommending a “performance record” approach to variety research. Registering and recording the growth and yield of individual trees would generate sufficient data overtime to single out appropriate varieties and techniques.” Standardization of varieties was one area in which the California Avocado Association gained much by observing the experience of the citrus industry. A representative from the California Fruit Growers Exchange, a unit of citrus producers, offered recommendations to the Association at a 1916 meeting. Not only was standardization important, but finding a standardized variety that would also have consumer appeal. The appearance of a fruit, the consultant cautioned, did not always correlate to flavor quality. “It would seem desirable to me,” she said, “if you standardize your product, that you should adopt something in the nature of a brand, which would (’9 L.B. Scott, “Avocado Performance Records,” Semi—Annual Meeting ol‘the California Avocado Association (San Diego, 30 and 31 October 1916), reprinted in California Avocado Association Annual Report 2 (1916): 82. Emphasis added. 70 LB. Scott, “Avocado Performance Records,” Semi—Annual Meeting ofthe California Avocado Association (San Diego, 30 and 31 October 1916), reprinted in California Avocado Association Annual Report 2 (1916): 83—85. :11111111111211 “1 11111111111111 11111, 1111111 11111111111111.1113 1? (‘11 1.1111 111111131 1 1111 11 1111111111111 117. $111.11 Iii-"1111.11 1111 11111111! 11111 $111.11 11 11.1 «- .' 1 1.1,, ,. “5 3.1%, .‘1' =11 11 111 11.111111 1111311111111, . 1. - . ' 1 * ._. ' 1 ~ : 11111 111 13111113111111111 11-1111 J 11'}; ' 25" ”1’33? 3} E ‘WY’W‘EW‘IQ 11,! 1711111?» 1111311 35; {£151.}. .' ’ .; g 1'1‘“;“-‘;"""3’\J'w 45 stand for your Avocado Association, and which would mean a certain thing to the M l COHSUIDCI‘. 7 Beyond the Dooryard: Avocados as Business At an Association meeting in 1920, Robert W. Hodgson declared that avocados had finally been transformed from a “dooryard tree” into a viable enterprise. Not only had production and acreage increased, but individuals were choosing to settle in California to begin their own avocado businesses. Consumer interest was growing, both for the avocado’s novelty as well as nutritional value. These developments led llodgson to proclaim that “the avocado industry has reached the stage when the pioneering is largely over. In other words, the commercial stage has been reached.”72 Hodgson was quick to note that the industry still faced a number ofchallenges. In particular, he highlighted variety maintenance and product marketing. However, with the creation of the Growers” Exchange in 1923, it appeared that the industry was making headway in defining the fruit for US. consumers. New advertising campaigns capitalized on the avocado’s “tropical” roots, but also distinguished the California—grown avocado as a fruit that was remarkably elegant and uniquely American. These developments in the industry had established important links to the public sector, defined the science of variety selection, re—branded the avocado as a new product, and, most importantly, centralized all of these efforts through the work of the California 7' Dana C. King, “Marketing Obstacles and Problems,” Semi-Annual Meeting of the California Avocado Association (Los Angeles, 29 April 1916), reprinted in California Avocado Association Annual Report 2 (1916): 34. 72 Robert W. llodgson, “Avocados as a Commercial Industry,” Semi—Annual Meeting of the California Avocado Association (Pasadena, 9 October 1920), reprinted in California Avocado Association Annual Report 6 (1920—1921): 22. ; 5: MW Wmfigmgi flwéfigwi 33$ .“igskmsimq am mfrm fiflm 33% m» Em: ‘h’afi‘afiémfi 3m! wwfim 23m - ‘ t. , g," .j‘ 511313.11; Brig}; : 35/5; (3 § 9 i 3 3: inéfg‘s‘gi ”33%. A 39:}?4513? ' 5:!me 13 29'; mfim‘m 5 ;~ “ ' ail”? fifmimm‘i} mm .’ F5; {X‘fitlvfifliigé m as; 3% mm 46 Avocado Association and the Avocado Growers’ Exchange. As we will see in the following chapter, this new commercial stage that Hodgson referred to would be marked by the ascendancy of the Fuerte, whose early success allowed the industry to expand and grow. The Fuerte would become a symbol of how the California industry attempted to distance itself from production in Mexico at the same time that it became increasingly more reliant on the country for more and better plant materials. 47 Part III: Inventing the Fuerte, 1911—1938 We have recognized that F uerte was an unusual variety, and its hardiness, its vigorous growth, its tendency to. fruit while vetyyoung, its season of ripening, and the excellent quality of its. fruits have combined to make us realize that it possessed exceptional value. But always we havefelt that perhaps in the region from which it came there were even better varieties which we could and should obtain; that F uerte, in other words, might be representative ofa group or race occurring in southern Mexico, and that by a brie/search we might obtain other and more valuable varieties ofthc same race. A visit to Atlixco has served to clear away these doubts, and make me realize that in F uerte we have secured a unique avocado. - 7: — Wilson Popenoe ’ Introduction Discovering the ideal avocado variety for California conditions had shaped the goals of exploration, propagation, and research since trees and other specimens were first introduced to the state in the late nineteenth century. Although by the early 1900s, many avocado varieties were already being successfully cultivated in southern California, growers and plant explorers were still interested in identifying a single variety that could adapt equally well to all of the region’s microclimates. Wilson Popcnoe reflected on this early period of the industry’s history: “You will say, of course, that we should have recognized, in the first place, that no one variety would be found suitable to the diverse conditions ofclimate and soil which are represented in California. But we did not realize any such thing. We thought ofthc Washington Navel orange, and more particularly ofthc Trapp74 avocado of Florida. We wanted a California Trapp; an avocado of good 73 Wilson Popenoe, “Atlixco,” California Avocado Association Annual Report 5 (1919— 1920): 42413. 74 Originally introduced to Florida from Cuba, the Trapp was the dominant commercial variety in Florida’s avocado industry. am fitififiiiflfixa ‘ iii aiisi Mi iii $313363 5M: 0: hwy-imam? WWW ' ”i aim? fibii’ ms; ”Mm iiiii? éiaiw as ta “:3- it} ”21% i'iifii iifi 1(in iii? E2, azi'émutiii‘i ‘1‘” iii“ iii'iifiii'i 1) r .631; I " ‘ , me mgm“§”Mi Mimi} :i’iisili iihiiii. fix? ‘ ‘ x Agiiwisfli viii, 48 . . . . t . ”75 commercral characteristics which could be grown from San Dlego to Santa Barbara. When a chance seedling taken from a garden in Puebla survived the journey to California, thrived in the West India Gardens nursery, and weathered multiple frosts, it appeared that a prayer had been answered. The Fuerte satisfied much of the industry’s needs and goals. By the late 19308, according to various estimates, the variety represented approximately seventy—five percent of total California avocado production. Besides becoming the foundation of the California industry by the late 19305, California—bred Fucrte rootstock was being re—introduced to Mexico. This interaction between Californian and Mexican growers would eventually play a key role in shifting the Mexican industry from multi—varietal cultivation in eastern Mexico to mono—varietal production in the west, circumstances that remain in effect today. The discovery and the rise of the Fuerte, then, set in motion a pattern that would continue for the next several decades. This chapter describes the trajectory of the Fuerte, beginning with its introduction to California in 1911, up to the year 1938, when it had clearly become the dominant variety in production. This period marked important phases not only in the development of the variety, but also in the growth of the industry as a whole. In particular, the discovery and subsequent cultivation of the Fuerte serves as a useful lens through 'which to examine the industry’s changing relationship to Mexico: while the initial discovery of the variety is an example of the type of expedition common at the time of the industry’s formation, expeditions to Mexico around 1938 were motivated by other agendas besides specimen collection. 75 Wilson Popenoe, “Looking Back,” California Avocado Association Yearbook 21 (1936): 57. 1.3:??? amfivmfi: 'mzqizxirg "3:33"? d 39% M m if: ‘4?" ‘13"? if??? m manaiéé‘hii') m r \ gm; fixwfifim Misha-Q mi 3? {ain‘uwimwr imfimfi “ii? Era éi‘wmg mi} :1; Myéfi we} aim; f? 23:31! 2'. L 3"} Ni ééiéflfi Max:322; kammé‘é g _ )3 49 In the same year that an industrydelegation traveled to Puebla to hold a ceremony in honor of the Fuerte’s contribution, the California Avocado Association was both shifting its focus to domestic propagation and deepening its search in Mexico for more Fuerte—like varieties. The efforts of individual growers and institutional experts converged around continuing the exploration for Fuertc—like varieties, as well as around deepening horticultural research. The status of the Fucrte in 1938 became a symbol——in more ways than one—of the California industry’s ambivalent relationship to Mexico, as well as of the role of plant science and of foreign plant exploration in mediating this relationship. Fuerte Avocados and the Mexico Question The success of the Fuertc led Wilson Popcnoe to state in 1919, “In the development of the avocado industry in California the greatest factor up to date has been Mexico.”76 Popenoe’s comment reflected how the formation of the California industry was at once dependent on Mexico and separate from it. Sales of avocado plant seedlings, like sales of avocados themselves, reconciled the variety question with the question of Mexico in different ways. Whereas advertisements commonly downplayed the fruit’s Mexican—ness, nursery circulars used the plant’s Mexican identity as a marketing strategy. Advertisements in the back of the Association’s annual yearbooks demonstrate the varietal debates as well as variety marketing strategies in circulation at the time. 76 Wilson Popenoc, “The Avocados of Mexico: A Preliminary Report,” Annual Meeting ofthe California Avocado Association (Pasadena, 9 and 10 May 1919), reprinted in California Avocado Association Annual Report 4 (1918—1919): 58. 333353595; a M $22M ”72:3 i ‘55? ‘ f ‘5» j“. WM 2’? A i was 50 The West India Gardens, in a full-page ad from 1917, heavily promoted the Fuerte, extolling the fruit’s quality, remarking on its history, and claiming ownership over its discovery. The banner of the ad contained a testimonial from Willett L. Hardin (“Ph.D., Consulting Chemist, Mount Washington, Los Angeles,—for two years a resident of Mexico, Student of Avocado Culture, and a Director of the California Avocado Association”): “The Fuerte is one of the richest and best Avocados I ever ate.” Other testimonials from satisfied customers follow below. The advertisement further explains the remarkable story behind the Fuerte’s journey to America: “a West India Gardens explorer in 1911 sent us budwood of several varieties, which represented the cream of this region [Atlixeo], long famous for its superior Avocados.”77 The company thus advertised the Fuerte as an exclusive variety from an elite area in Mexico. While the West India Gardens ad capitalized on the Fuerte’s history, an ad for IT. Whedon’s Fuerte budwood in Yorba Linda emphasized the variety’s performance, especially its adaptability to both hot and cold climates. The Fuerte was “The only California avocado on the market this winter,” the ad claimed. As this advertisement indicates, the Fuerte’s bearing and hardiness were key elements to its appeal. Both of these examples show how the industry’s early needs and interests in different varieties ultimately converged around the Fuerte as the ideal avocado for California. The variety’s Mexican origin, as well as its good taste and consistent performance, were at once emphasized and modified by the industry as it adapted the variety to California conditions and Californian palates. However Mexico was depicted by the California industry, it was not easy to 77 “West India Gardens” [advertisement], California Avocado Society Annual Report 2 (1917): hp. in: mm am 13m a: gammy}; 33$ ’3, gm U ram mi; @35me shimzximzf} r. akmfi? fixed: fiifiiiiilihm a&%€;€i‘;.xs it; 33:32:: 3 ‘zcgé‘E-I{MammyLima 3 ._ mffiigflf}? "‘1‘?! an; haw 49-12 magma {25:32am 1,} é'jyi.:§¥.iii§‘v§ "i‘§"'f‘1§5’r‘¥()§*$ “at a w. M“ ‘2» a» 5., ‘w 9. b 33* W 7.1; 95' W ‘ W k.» (.3 "7' («n ‘ A“, M L3 a} ‘ , , , , msfiaffizf} fiéfiafii av; ’ ' ' - .‘Q‘ra :{Yf'iifé ,, 51 escape the fact that the state owed much to the country’s varieties, especially those from Puebla. As Wilson Popenoe wrote to variety committee member Carter Barrett in 1936, ‘when all is said and done, California hasn’t had very many really good avocados which haven’t come directly or indirectly from Atlixco. That is an interesting fact to ponder 3‘78 OVCI‘. Inventing the Fuertc Seven years after its formation, the California avocado industry was fairly well— cstablished as a viable commercial sector. The particular needs of the industry at this time centered around the standardization of varieties, of which the Fuerte appeared to be the most promising, combining the best elements from both the Guatemalan and Mexican typesw The Fuerte satisfied the requirements for commercial production previously established by fruit explorers, orchardists, and the Association’s Variety Committee. It was a vigorous bearer, tolerant of extreme cold, strong enough to be shipped, and rich in oil content and flavor. It was especially crucial that the tree bore fruit in the winter, between December and February. The industry already counted on several varieties that produced at other times of the year, so the Fuerte thus extended the seasonal breadth of the harvest, bringing the sector closer to its goal of achieving a year—round supply. 78 Wilson Popenoe, letter to Carter Barrett, 17 December 1936, published in California Avocado Association Yearbook 21(1936): Sl. 79 “Report ofthc Committee on Registration and Classification of Varieties,” California Avocado Association Annual Report 5 (1919—1920): 81. The language of racial mixture was important to avocado classification in general, and to classifying the Fucrte in particular: “while predominantly Guatemalan, [the Fuerte] shows evidence of some Mexico blood.” Site 3:: }‘ «xi; {MY W}! '- 53? ' ' 3 #3. m 'saim at? :3“ £3; am- £25.qu 3; W .. $2 9m i :3 gag - xi» £2: 3: x . x r it. 4) mm «imamn 3M 1 3453 him 21% fl ~ I? {3%} , hr 1 «3-3 if ‘EL‘ 1} i, m ‘ we .3"? wig ’1 3.1%. I, £3 1% “x, 52 Oricnting the industry around Fuerte production depended on two key tasks: improving scientific research and investigating Fuertc orchards in Mexico. Association President W.L. Hardin’s address at the group’s 1921—1922 annual meeting underscored the growing importance of science and research to support the industry’s work. “The time has arrived,“ he said, “when this industry should be operated on a strictly scientific and “80 1 business basis. Improvement of varieties was seen as a cornerstone of these efforts.8 An important discovery for both avocado science and the California avocado industry came from Wilson Popenoe after he traveled to Atlixco in 1918 and 1919 on expeditions sponsored by the University of California’s College of Agriculture. Popenoe had decided that it was important to visit the site of the original Fuerte sample collected by Carl Schmidt in order to support ongoing propagation and research in California. Determining the Fuerte’s true variety would help guide planting decisions in California: “if [the Fuertc] was representative ofa race or group cultivated in Atlixco, and there were better varieties of the same general character to be obtained, then we should not plant it 8” W.L. Hardin, “President’s Address,” Annual Meeting ofthe California Avocado , Association (Pasadena, 12 and 13 May 1922), reprinted in California Avocado Association Annual Report 7 (1921-1922): 28. 8' W.L. Hardin, “President’s Address,” Annual Meeting ofthe California Avocado Association (Pasadena, 12 and 13 May 1922), reprinted in California Avocado Association Annual Report 7 (19214922): 28. Hardin was emphatic about the importance of variety work. He argued: “No field offers greater opportunity for scientific research and no field has yielded more interesting and valuable results. An immense amount of work has been done to improve other fruits and vegetables, and remarkable results have been obtained. In the case ofthe avocado, however, one of the most important foods in the world, practically no effort has been made to improve the existing varieties. This work will be undertaken some time, and it seems to me that our association should inaugurate the movement now. It is in line with the progressive policy of this association.” f‘ai «Q'ii w k u 53 too extensively; if on the other hand it proved to be unique, and superior to the other avocados of its region, we could enlarge our plantings with greater confidence.”82 Following his observations of the Atlixco garden, Popcnoc was able to conclusively determine that the variety was indeed a true hybrid of Mexican and Guatemalan types. Moreover, the tree was unique to the area. These findings justified the California industry’s existing attention to the Fucrtc, and they reinforced ongoing efforts to harness and improve the variety‘s potential. Avocado Diplomacy: Strengthening the Bond with Mexico The Fuertc had become symbolic of the bond between California and Mexico. California growers were eager to maximize the Fuertc’s potential and to reproduce its success. To that end, they initiated a series ofexpeditions to Mexico to locate similar stock that might flourish in a longer growing season. Such expeditions functioned as diplomatic visits as well as ongoing searches for varieties similar to the Fuertc. California-grown Fuertes were also rc—introduced to Mexico on these trips, which further linked growers, scientists, and government officials in the two countries. The manner in which the Fuerte was “invented,” then, underscores the California industry’s reliance on Mexico as a fountain ofplant material, source of agricultural knowledge, and partner in cultivation. Such reliance was important in different ways at different times, depending on the California sector’s shifting priorities. As these priorities shifted, the industry’s dependence on Mexico was countered by its continuing efforts to distance itself from competitors and attain commercial viability in its own right. The story of the Fuertc also 82 Wilson Popenoc, “Atlixco,” California Avocado Association Annual Report 5 (1919' 1920): 40. / V wagm?‘ E 531% ézi‘umi; ,§:v’za::fiea fgzgmjgm as Raw 1!» 5*: ' I w mi ‘T (I; “‘ am: 1‘1“; fi-‘i‘fimifi J 13'? >55: if: firmfifim mi’?‘ hi} flax-ii artyserauevwbai 3‘5 v 'wi‘mfiw 4‘: ‘ wiammi 54 highlights this tension between dependence and distance. By the 1930s, the Fuerte’s success in California had divided avocado producers on the topic of foreign exploration. Some believed that the success of the variety obviated the need for further exploration abroad. Others viewed it as a reason to explore more. This question came up for debate at a 1931 meeting of southern California growers. Harold Wahlberg, Orange County Farm Advisor, called for a resolution in favor of more research in Mexico. As the USDA’s expeditions had been discontinued on account of the Mexican Revolution, Wahlberg’s speech aimed to drum up support for resuming agricultural exploration in the country to find suitable varieties that might complement the Fuerte. One member expressed reluctance to support such a resolution: “We have innumerable varieties in California. 1 have seen some very fine ones. Why do we have to run away to some other country?” Wahlberg responded that domestic experimentation would continue, but he noted, “At the same time there is a general feeling that there is a large territory that has not been explored in Mexico, the native habit of the Mexican avocado, which ought to be searched thoroughly so that we know a thorough and exhaustive search has been complete.”83 Fred Popenoe concurred, acknowledging the merits of California varieties but at the same time reminding fellow members of the fact that “in Mexico there are thousands and thousands of seedling trees to the one we have here. That is really our great hunting— ground after all. It has practically not been touched. A good explorer going down there 83 Harold Wahlberg, “Mexican Exploration,” speech at Growers Institute, 9 June 1931, reprinted in California Avocado Association Yearbook 16 (1931): 33—34. I; .Jlflfi: 2? aiéfimmzmx‘ié 'famm m "flaw; mm i ,.‘V:=-U!?§im'}iis Maxijw 35$ $3M “:s-w 211-er W63 :3 m «8 rmcgig m . . um i {38%1 is 3*wfig'i EV , 55 and spending parts of two seasons would run down undoubtedly some very valuable material and possibly and probably would find this variety needed for summer use.”84 When expeditions to Mexico did resume in the late 1930s, investigations centered around the search for Fucrte—like varieties that might be more tolerant of cold and also bear fruit in a longer season. Plant physiologist A.D. Shamel of the USDA’s Riverside office traveled to Atlixco in 1936 to visit the site of the parent Fuerte tree at the garden of Alejandro LeBlanc. In the report he submitted to the California Avocado Association, Shamel wrote that he observed the tree and compared its growth to that of California Fuertes. Shame] was also shown another tree on the same property that bore summer fruit but resembled the Fuerte, which to Shamel suggested the possibility of introducing summer-bearing Fuerte trees in California. A sample of twenty-five budsticks was taken for further study“)- Shamel’s account of the visit motivated Association members to formally recognize the LeBlanc family for its contribution to the avocado industry. Two years later, the California Avocado Association organized an official expedition to Atlixeo to visit the parent tree. This delegation of thirty—eight, wrote trip organizer Carter Barrett, made “one of the remarkable pilgrimages of history:” This gesture of appreciation is remarkable, because for the first time agriculturists ofone nation acknowledged a debt of gratitude to the generosity of those of another nation, who had made an important economic contribution to their welfare. It is outstanding in an age of dictators and military leaders, in that the tribute was paid, not to a successful general, a religious saint or great statesman, but to a tree and a humble farmer, whose contribution, generously given, founded X4 llarold Wahlberg, “Mexican Exploration,” speech at Growers Institute, 9 June 1931, reprinted in Califbrnia Avocado Association Yearbook 16 (1931): 34. 85 AD. Shamel, “The Parent Fuerte Avocado Tree,” California Avocado Association Yearbook 21 (1936): 86—92. W3 , mi: 3.333336332333333 333.33 333133333 333333333333333333333 jiyizsfiz 3331331113 3353' a: ‘” 3933333333?! .i. .3 3333333" :33333233 373‘ .3333 3:123 3 3",- ' M33 313333333333 :33 333733333 ' 3333333333) .3333; 3 3333: 3:333; {3333: 3 333 333333333333 33333st 33; 333333333 ‘) "g3 «3:1 56 a new horticultural industry and provided a new source of food for a great people.86 The significance of the visit, according to Citrus Experiment Station director H.J. Webber, was not material acquisition but rather personal connection, through what he referred to as “wholesome international influence” evident in, among other instances, “the lesson of the selection and propagation of superior specimens and its value to agriculture; the commingling and fraternizing together in honoring one oflVlexico’s great productions, the Fuerte Avocado, and our desire to give honor where honor was deserved; the recognition by thousands, of our very evident admiration for their national monuments, national treasures, and national civilization.” As Webber insisted, this visit would have a lasting impact (both direct and indirect) on the relationship between the two countries. He concluded: “This Association made a great contribution of inestimable value toward the peace and goodwill of nations.87 At the ceremony in which the Association presented a medal to LeBlanc for his work in growing the illustrious tree, William T. Horne (another plant pathologist from the Citrus Experiment Station) also referenced the relations between the two countries, using the Fuerte as a metaphor for a renewed spirit of collaboration, a “bond of understanding between distant peoples.” l'lorne said that the Association owed Mexico much i‘or its contribution of the Fuerte, and the ongoing relationship between both places would be 86 Carter Barrett, “The Pilgrimage to Atlixco,” California Avocado Association Yearbook 23 (1938): 42. 87 H]. Webber, “Honoring the Parent Tree ofthe Fuerte Avocado,” speech delivered at California Avocado Association annual dinner (San Diego, 21 May 1938), reprinted in California Avocado Association Yearbook 23 (1938): 53. , €33 i§2i§2i‘l Mag {2% “gm. Inf} km; gamma-m? 23;}: m 73 W N5" ,‘Wl: k523€3§§”3?74§3§§§ am gut-mag; m it: ‘ imam Win: #:5328311 17:23:: mam- 3’ i:ze:;~iv:=5i:m;g«:3£ '3 ,z-sm‘m a 12‘ a”? wu‘érjzgmm iv; 22'; * higierz‘h mam, AWQWE ”it; gm?" 3mm? mi: 3;? ' '1 ‘7 “WW-i 1mg; twfl’fls ififififla 7’ {ééfiég 151$. imyfiwm 32%. 2; 57 equally beneficial, “so that in the future more and more we may be neighbors and friends.”88 Mexican officials similarly treated the mission as a milestone event in the two countries’ relationship. In a proclamation posted throughout the city prior to the California delegation’s arrival, Atlixco mayor Gabriel Cuevas called the visit “without precedent in our national history.” Calling upon residents to prepare to welcome the Californians by taking care of such tasks as painting their homes, repairing sidewalks, and hoisting the two nations’ flags, mayor Cuevas expressed the wish that “this extraordinary excursion may arouse us from our usual indifference and inertia, and may enable us to profit from the eloquent teachings which are to be derived from it, impelling us, for our own convenience, to imitate them.”80 Indeed, the event appeared to signify something more than a tree dedication. During the ceremony unveiling a plaque marking the parent Fuerte tree, Mexican Foreign Minister Ernesto Hidalgo remarked that the Californians’ visit was “evidence of the cordial relations)” which exist between the United States and Mexico, relations which . . . e . . ()1 daily are becoming closer and which are benefiting both nations.” xx William T. Home, “Address Given at the Presentation ofMedal to Senor LeBlanc at Atlixco, 17 April 1938,” reprinted in California Avocado Association Yearbook 23 (1938): 55. 89 Gabriel Cuevas, “Official Proclamation by Mayor ofAtlixco, Mexico, Posted Throughout That City, on March 14, 1938,” trans. Albert Grego (23 March 1938), reprinted in California Avocado Association Yearbook 23 (1938): 40. 90 The repeated references in this quote and in others to U.S.-Mexico relations were likely influenced by the context of Mexican President Lazaro Cardenas’s decision to expropriate the country’s oil companies in March 1938. The tension between the two countries at this time, especially regarding questions of natural resources and foreign intervention and investment, was certainly on the minds of both US. and Mexican officials during the avocado growers’ visit to Atlixco. For an account of how oil expropriation was linked to questions of agriculture and land tenure, see Myrna L. W222 22mm 2222:? 2: MW} 221:??? 25222232222222 wwwk’gfg ‘ msémfiw 222%? '2: firmigfi 222222222 22:22 2222222222222 {2222222222223 2222: 322222222 2222:} 2222 . “2222 Jane: 2222221222 :22‘2 22222 222 22-22222.) 2...: 2.22522;222232222 222.222.22.22 "£12 222 232 * 2:22 . 2U (:22 2222222322 .222, 22:22; :23: 2 232225222 22:: *2 22:23:22? 225* 2;; .2 1221;) 58 Home posed the question of whether presenting a medal to LcBlanc might be considered an extreme way to honor a simple transaction ofplant specimens. He insisted, however, that the ceremony did mark an important type of international cooperation: “it should be remembered that the oriental flavor is not wanting in Spanish—American culture, and the story is told of persons in oriental countries who refused to permit the propagation of a fruit tree so that they might be owners of the best fruit while that tree should live.”2 Horne’s logic implied that exchanges of plant specimens was no small matter, and should be duly acknowledged as an important element of both agriculture and diplomacyl’3 The expedition to Mexico left a lasting mark on the Association. President Dean Palmer called the trip “probably the first attempt on the part of any agricultural group to pay a moral obligation to a foreign country.”4 Furthermore, the exchange was seen to enhance the marketability of avocados in the United States—media attention to the event Santiago, The Ecologv ofO/l.‘ Environment, Labor, and the Mexican Revolution, 1900— 1938 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006). 9] “Address Delivered by the Honorable Ernesto llidalgo,” unveiling ceremony at parent Fuerte Avocado Tree, Atlixco, Puebla, Mexico (17 April 1938), trans. Wilson Popenoe, reprinted in California Avocado Association Yearbook 23 (193 8): 61. 92 William T. Home, “Report on Trip to Mexico,” California Avocado A.s'.s'()ciation Yearbook 23 (1938): 58. . 93 Given its close ties to the avocado industry, the University of California also saw the Atlixco event as a significant step toward furthering its own goals of scientific research in agriculture. In a letter to Home after the expedition, acting University President ER. Hedrick applauded the mission to Mexico, claiming that such initiatives would “have a salutary effect on the rather strained relations that exist between Mexico and this country.” Moreover, this type of exchange would “further the cooperative spirit which the University ofCalifornia is so desirous ofdeveloping between the educational and scientific institutions ofthis country and those of Latin American republics.” Letter from ER. Hedrick to William T. Horne, University of California Berkeley Office of the President, 16 July 1938, reprinted in California Avocado Association Yearbook 23 (1938): 60. 94 Dean Palmer, “President’s Annual Report,” California Avocado Association Yearbook 23 (1938): 151. $999: 93%} 9 999993.: , w.‘ J97 ';.;*:I‘;€:fg u. 'i gym fiv‘xiié re iii}: if"; 2 Lffg' :' : fl.) ’1 3i” 64 knowledge gleaned from such introductions. The Committee’s investigations covered not only the lands around Atlixco, but also areas in the western part of the country near Quere’taro and Michoacan. The discovery of important varieties in this region would ultimately shift the center of Mexican commercial avocado production from east to west. While the discovery of the Fuerte in Mexico had been essential to the growth of the California industry, it also made the industry more vulnerable, and possibly increased its reliance on Mexican source material. In this sense, the 1948 ceremony in Atlixeo marked not only the Fuerte’s return home, but also the beginning of its end. The Variety Crisis In May 1938, shortly after the expedition to Mexico to honor the parent Fuerte tree in Atlixco, the Variety Committee made an announcement that would alter the subsequent bent of the Association’s work: California, not Mexico, held the solution to the variety problem. As in previous decades, the Variety Committee was involved in an ongoing search for Fuerte—like varieties demonstrating improved bearing ability and a longer growing season. Following a severe freeze the previous year, special attention was devoted to selecting cold—hardy varietiesm The Fuerte’s survival after the freeze cemented its status as the ideal variety for the industry’s continued expansion and innovation. 104 “Report ofthe Variety Committee,” Annual Meeting of the California Avocado Association (San Diego, 21 May 1938), reprinted in California Avocado Association Yearbook 23 (1938): 28. ,1. 153 333223 mmimmg mam mi: 4:313:12: 5: Ti 33%» fmifirmi;mm mi: it: ism: , . {1:32:qu ’} 533%? mi: mm: immmm: graiimmmmimi: M: ii: . i I m miiimm ,/ "",3m:i1w mi ' 5, i; g ,‘f 65 Atthis juncture in the Variety Committee’s work, the limits and potential of both Mexican and Californian plant sources had become clear to many members. While sourcing varieties from Mexico remained a popular strategy, California appeared to present greater possibilities for successful breeding. Focusing on California was an appealing approach for several reasons. Some committee members were frustrated by conditions abroad (“In most such countries, the trees are so poorly cared for that an investigator finds it almost impossible to determine what such a variety might do under California conditions,” noted one). Moreover, growers in California had posted recent success with chance seedlings. Concentrating on domestic propagation, then, made it unnecessary to rely both on unpredictable circumstances abroad and on complicated hybridization experiments locally. In particular, some thriving accidental crosses of Fuerte and Puebla seedlings in California were seen as proof that the region had the ideal conditions for promoting successful mixtures that possessed the desired harvest season, oil content, taste, and cold—hardiness. In light of such circumstances, the report proclaimed, “Thus, while the committee welcomes any attempts to bring new varieties of valuable character into the picture from the other two indicated sources—namely, introduction from abroad and artificial hybridization, its efforts will be mainly concentrated on a study of and a search for chance seedlings in California.”m5 To that end, registration of seedlings and maintenance of updated records were deemed crucial. The Variety Committee took on the task of performing this liaison role ”)5 “Report of the Variety Committee,” Annual Meeting of the California Avocado Association (San Diego, 21 May 193 8), reprinted in California Avocado Association Yearbook 23 (1938): 30. fl .Eflf’mfl 3m}? afii #3331“: my wits; 1mm: 355 mm 5‘9” La 1;: i3 £32m W7; ”an,“ \ 9:43;!“st 1.» mm ":0 W “E mm; aim; i';§i‘i~f‘):« 32; m m 3’ ”5:5! E‘ifé-‘fgmfi" $33 WM mama; mm «imam , . -, ' z, {w as“: . “ WWW" , Vat“ mix?” gm“) iii? ‘rm ‘ ‘ N 66 between growers, researchers, and government officials. These projects supported the region’s continued prominence: California, the Committee noted, was “looked upon as the fountain head of avocado information by all avocado growing countries.”106 It also must be noted here that this 1938 session included discussions about a new variety that would play a key role in the industry’s future. Listed in the Committee’s report under the category “Experimental Varieties that Should Have Further Trial,” the Hass avocado was marked as showing potential after initial trials in select regions. The report noted its small size, high oil content. and resistance to 22—degree conditions in 1937.”)7 The llass variety would soon replace Fuertc to become the industry standard in both California and Mexico. Indeed, the Fucrte’s mark of distinction and superiorin appeared to be fading as early as the 19405. Despite the variety’s many valuable qualities, it was not without flaws and limitations. The tree’s irregular bearing behavior, its somewhat limited cold tolerance, and its growing vulnerability to disease began to raise concerns within the California industry. The discoveries of these shortcomings illustrate the broader context of avocado exploration and cultivation at this time, in which both the use of Mexican plant materials and the improvement of scientific methods continued to be key elements of the California sector’s work. The Fucrte’s bearing pattern was the primary concern up to the 1940s. Although the tree had the potential to be a prolific bearer. it tended to alternate a heavy load of fruit ”)6 “Report of the Variety Committee,” Annual Meeting of the California Avocado Association (San Diego, 21 May 1938), reprinted in California Avocado Association Yearbook 23 (1938): 28. 107 “Report ofthe Variety Committee,” Annual Meeting of the California Avocado Association (San Diego, 21 May 1938), reprinted in California Avocado Association Yearbook 23 (1938): 33. glfd ma ~‘ it???” j ,mfim :gaéwrsg zéi firm Ewan-31326; V “I'm whim g T "ff’i'gasfigitié “$35311 fifi‘fi 3{‘-1§?sfi§7§‘1€3w 9 viii ‘fzfm‘ifi'i’é ”aux? _ m’lil; j§{}§“!1_3‘}”€ , 67 with a lighter one the following year. This behavior perplexed growers, challenging their control over cultivation and generating financial worries about unpredictable harvests. The Fuertc’s bearing ability, however, was not the only issue of concern for growers and scientists. The trees were also showing evidence of a mysterious rot and sudden decline. In 1940, South African plant pathologist Vincent Wager completed an eight-month study of avocado plants at the UC Riverside Citrus Experiment Station that resulted in the identification of the cause of avocado tree decline that had been plaguing growers and orchards for the last few years, affecting some 500 acres at the time of the study. Wager pinpointed the culprit as the fungus Pliytophlhora cinnamomi, which attacked avocado roots in excessively damp soils and sufficiently weakened the trees so that they died back and failed to produce fruit. '08 The rot problem ultimately consumed the two major branches of the avocado industry: research at the Citrus Experiment Station—which devoted a bulk of its work to investigating the disease—and foreign exploration in Mexico. The changing scope of these efforts indicated how far the industry had come since its beginning, and how far it still had to go. Mexican Exploration and the Variety Crisis The Association’s renewed commitment to California-cultivated varieties did not bring an end to expeditions to Mexico. Over the next several decades, growers continued to ”)8 Vincent Wager, “The Dying Back ofAvocado Trees in Southern California,” California Avocado Society Yearbook 25 (1940): 40—43. 3 kiwi? mi? é“: simmm gygmyimé 3%}??? *{fiefimfi mi; km mm: éfiwwfimwéi I} m“ magnum; '2 in; gash ‘ifiw-‘wm 3:511! 33,. ‘ .) f' ' . WW fifiéfifi’ Wig 1%; fimfii 33% ~ .fifiwfifi $§M?i } 3‘3: iizmémaszi‘i 68 travel to Mexico in hopes of learning as much as possible about varieties that might be able to resist root rotlog This new phase of exploration was initiated by AC. Adams, who made a solo, privately—financed trip in November of 1941. After establishing necessary contacts with officials in Mexico City, Adams began his tour in Atlixco, in hopes of acquiring more knowledge about the Mexican/Guatemalan hybrids that had originated there, and which had generated the Fuerte. Adams maintained that the “ideal” avocado would probably remain such a hybrid, and would likely come from the Puebla region, whose growing conditions were so similar to much of southern California. In addition to the Le Blane garden, which had produced the original Fuerte, a new orchard referred to as the Rodiles grovc~one of the only commercial sites in the area—was singled out for further study. The search for useful new specimens was complicated by lack of access to official information. Adams expressed a frustration common to observers of cultivation practices in both Mexico and California: lack of comprehensive record—keeping. He wrote, “This grove is an excellent place to observe the variation in seedlings, but with no tree production records, appraisal of the trees in a planting of this size involves considerable As discussed 1n prev10us sections, exploration in Mexrco had been an integral component of the California industry’s initial growth and ongoing success. During these publicly and privately—financed expeditions, anecdotal evidence intersected with scientific research on Mexican specimens as growers, explorers, and scientists sought to improve existing varieties, discover better varieties, and protect successful varieties from disease, crop failure, and extreme weather. The first explorations in Mexico were carried out to discover varieties suitable for cultivation in California, which resulted in the discovery of the Fuerte and its introduction to California in 1911. Subsequent missions sought varieties that were similar to the Fuerte and able to bear fruit in different seasons. Association reports show that as expeditions continued, the research agenda became driven by the search for disease-resistant varietals. From the late 19303 until the late 19705, Association members traveled to both familiar and previously unexamined areas of Mexico to gather information about disease-resistant varieties. 5555555524555 555 55555555555555 ngm 55555; {5555555555 L5 ‘ ’ 5 555-5 .5 55515555555555 55.555255 5.55:5 5:25 5553225355555 55 ai- .55 555255 5 543555555355: 55155555555.- ,5 25:15} 55; 5552mm” ax; 1 55 5555555 5555555113955“ 2‘55555522555-‘5515555555: 515555; 55522-5553- ~ -:'5 555535-555. ‘5; 5555 5555:5555 4555515 2 55:55-51:55" 55-55 {"5595}: 132555555 25: . .,;55555;555;r5 55.5555er 5555555655255} 5555335553"; 55552 :5 55, 29535555 #5555555 535555 «‘55 if? €125; 39215533112 5 , ,1.- 595.33. 55555; $353,154 , 5.5555525 5:55 555555 5355555- ', " 55555 5515555255“ 5555555555555 255:: 555,555 5555:5555: W @5555 55555515 55555555555 55155522555 5555-2555:.- 5 . . , » f 53535; 155555 55555555555515 5:535:55- 555 539155555552 55554555525555 555.555 . ‘ WWW 55535595,. WWW 555555555 555“"‘55351‘555‘55525 515.55-355;g:_555 25:15:55, 5” M V 5 69 guesswork.””0 While Mexico had consistently supplied important specimens for the California industry, it could not offer the information that became increasingly more valuable to the sector as it expanded its research on breeding and disease.1 1' Furthermore, Mexico appeared to have different styles of growing and consuming avocados that were possibly incompatible with those of California. Adams’s report drew heavily on subjective criteria of“excellence” and quality. Although the Atlixco plantings appeared to have potential, Adams did not see this promise as sufficient. “There are a great number of odd and interesting avocado seedlings in Mexico, but it was felt that little would be gained by importing bud wood from trees that did not meet our exacting requirements,” he wrotem The search would continue for specimens that met the Association’s “present standard of excellence.” Moreover, Adams noted, definitions of quality in Mexico were established on a different set of standards. The conclusion implicit in the report was one of irreconcilable differences between growers in the two countries, particularly in regards to Mexican systems of classification. Adams was ”0 A.C. Adams, “Mexican Avocado Exploration—Scarching for an Ideal Avocado/7 Cali/arnia Avocado Society Yearbook 27 (1942): 100. I” The avocado appears to have played a lesser role in national agricultural and food policy in Mexico during this time. For background on the transformations during this period, see, among others, Joseph C otter’s Troubled Harvest: Agronomy and Revolution in Mexico, 1880—2002 (Westport: Pracger Publishers, 2003) and his “Cultural Wars and New Technologies: The Discourse of Plant Breeding and the Professionalization of Mexican Agronomy, 18804994,” Science, Technology, and Society 5, No. 2 (2000): 141—168; Deborah Fitzgerald, “Exporting Mexican Agriculture: The Rockefeller Foundation in Mexico, 1943—53,” Social Studies o/‘Science 16 (1986): 4574183; and Enrique Ochoa, Feeding Mexico: The Political Uses ofFood Since 1910 (Wilmington, Delaware: Scholarly Resources, Inc., 2000). ”2 A.C. Adams, “Mexican Avocado Exploration—Searching for an ldeal Avocado," Califbrnia Avocado Society Yearbook 27 (1942): 101. ask as mam; .s was «mamas “fissiaéssssaaasas flaw ”saws . mags“; .- is? «sari ‘uw m . \ as). 531%" ssfl is; as. an ass” ‘5 as : 70 especially perplexed that higher—quality avocados referred to as “Chinos,” for example, were not cultivated as extensively as the smaller, inconsistent “Corrientcs.”l 13 Following Adams’s report, Association members continued to explore possibilities in the area around the Rodilcs grove. On the land of nearby cattle farmer Henri Gilly, Association members—including Carl Schmidt, famous for introducing the original Fuertevworked to start a large—scale orchard of propagated Fuertes. The thirty— five—acre Xahucntla orchard was established beginning in 1944. The idea was to start an orchard of grafted Fucrtes using Mexican—type rootstock. According to Association reports, some members were concerned that the new orchard might become large enough to compete with the California industry. Members familiar with the area insisted that this would be unlikely, given the abundance of local demand, as well as the cmbargo.‘ '4 The brief mention in this report ofgrowers’ concerns about competition is perhaps indicative of the industry’s ongoing tension with Mexico. While Mexico was seen as the source of specimens that might be able to save the California crop from tree decline, the potential success of such sourcing and experimentation was also seen as a threat to the industry. Committee on Foreign Exploration Individual initiatives such as the one by AC. Adams were formalized into the Association’s strategy in 1947, when, in response to growing concerns about variety 113 AC. Adams, “Mexican Avocado Exploration—Searching for an Idea] Avocado,” California Avocado Sociely Yearbook 27 (1942): 102. ”4 J. Eliot Coit, “Mexican Explorations of 1948,” California Avocado Society Yearbook 33 (1948): 61. See Part V for further discussion about domestic production and consumption in Mexico and its connection to the export ban. f3; fimflflém} ‘mm mwrgrga: :Mtéimrgmm mafia 5:23:23:- fizfifl-flfi mm: 51m waist-ft: i: :9 m3? mmmw E1? I“ imam: 3:5: 33:; 33%: Milk ,5 3m: mfifi ; .gfzsiauimi m3 :3: fawn :4 as; r :4: (35% is :2. w :::;%::72;w 15:: ' ,5; I ‘ “i‘ ‘ ,‘i’ii‘i ::‘: : flvm'fim ‘ win mg! fiji {$3895 : ‘53: §:&w*‘“m * ix, :mafim ‘3 ’ 3W: "1:: Mafia-5:33:31: g 71 quality and avocado tree decline, President Harlan Griswold created a Committee on Foreign Exploration. Wilson Popenoe and Louis 0. Williams, in their discussion of the new committee, acknowledged that this decision reflected the industry’s continued reliance on Mexico and on other countries: despite the Association’s new emphasis on local varieties, “the fact remains that the industry has been based, for more than a quarter ”1 15 In the authors” eyes, the work of ofa century, upon varieties in the American tropics. this new committee would be crucial, especially in the task of identifying new rootstock. Popenoe and Williams’s recommendations to the Committee advocated for serious investigation of wild avocados as a possible source of resistant rootstock.116 This represented a clear shift in objective for the Association’s traveling delegations. While prior expeditions had concentrated on identifying and collecting large fruits showing potential for commercial cultivation, the Committee on Foreign Exploration’s search for new varieties revisited trees that had previously been disregarded for their fruits, but unobserved for their roots. Wild avocado varieties were seen to solve many of the Association’s problems but also create new ones. As a member who traveled to Mexico in 1947 wrote, “Now we have come to a point in the development of the industry where knowledge about the small and wild avocado forms may be helpful to the solution of such industry problems as rootstocks, the creation of new varieties by breeding, and disease resistance of various ”5 Wilson Popenoe and Louis 0. Williams, “The Expedition to Mexico of October 1947,” California Avocado Society Yearbook 32 (1947): 22. ”6 Wilson Popenoe and Louis 0. Williams, “The Expedition to Mexico of October 1947,” Cali/Omia Avocado Society Yearbook 32 (1947): 22. III WWI-m 8 memr £2531 mmmm mm; {mm “3‘53. 33:325.:113305; mat; {W ' mi: fiffififi ‘43,; '3‘: mm 2:315:33 ‘ 33*. 3M? :.-3 3;: 133231432; 3 ‘ 3‘“ ‘ 3 _..a ,4 ‘2." M n 3"}, ~ ,1 ‘ I g ’ r fimmrmm "-23" £54»: , 1. 72 types."”7 These wild varieties did not conform as neatly to the standard three—type classification of West Indian/Guatemalan/Mexican, although some observed specimens exhibited characteristics of known types. Given the prior success of the Fuerte, other hybrid trees remained a major interest of the Committee. In particular, the abundance and consistent growth of Fuerte-like trees in the Rodiles orchard were seen as evidence of the Fuerte’s viability as a variety in its own right. Popenoe and Williams wrote, “the group is now stabilized to a considerable degree at least, so much so that it must be recognized as a group, perhaps a race—a hybrid race."' 18 Following three expeditions to Mexico between May 1947 and August l948, the Committee reported that there was potential, both in the wild specimens collected for further study and in the hybrid orchard in Rodilcs, to avert the root rot epidemic and support the continued growth of the California industry. The outcomes of such expeditions remained somewhat inconclusive, however, as specimens identified for potential cultivation required several years of propagation and observation before growers and horticulturalists could determine their actual value to the industry’s goals and needs. By the 1950s, the wild specimens of Persea l/loeeosa selected for possible rootstock were showing positive results for rot—resistance by University of California ”7 C.A. Schroeder, “The Expedition to Mexico of May 1947,” California Avoeaa’o Society Yearbook 32 (1947): 29. ”8 Wilson Popenoe and Louis 0. Williams, “The Expedition to Mexico of October 1947,” California Avocado Society Yearbook 32 (1947): 41]] to last paragraph, lines 6—8. 'u; x : .1321 imjfi fiffijflf’ f; i‘fi'fflifiéu 35 3% _:§ 13333 r3313”. 73 researchers. Wild trees planted several years earlier were bearing fruit, and the Committee was testing the seeds for immunity.1 '9 These ongoing experiments for rot-resistant rootstock led to new knowledge about rootstock in general. In 1953, Foreign Exploration Committee Chairman Harlan Griswold reported that research by UCLA’s Carl Schroeder and himself was beginning to indicate that variation among Fuerte trees in California was possibly attributed to the use of rootstock, even following several cycles of propagation, and even on the same tree. “In contrast,” he wrote, “these wild avocados as we have observed them come true to the seed, one seedling looking like the next in the forest. llere then is an avenue to approach . . . . . 120 umtormity of root stocks. ’ The End ofthe Fuerte? In the end, the Fuerte proved to be an unreliable variety for the industry’s ongoing efforts in the 1960s and 19705 to control disease and maintain variety standardization. The variety’s inconsistency, moreover, undermined postwar marketing efforts to offer consumers a uniform product. “As marketing became more sophisticated in the post war era,” explained avocado grower and Association Board member Ted Todd, “it was realized that steps must be taken to standardize—that is, reduce the number of cat and ”121 dog varieties that were being grown. “9 “Report of the Committee on Foreign Exploration,” California Avocado Society Yearbook 37 (1952): 25. '20 Harlan Griswold, “Report ofthe Foreign Exploration Committee — June 6, 1953,” reprinted in California Avocado Society Yearbook 38 (1953—1954): 36. 121 Ted Todd, “The Avocado Variety Situation Today,” talk presented at the Avocado Growers’ Institute (Fallbrook, CA, 26 March 1966), reprinted in California Avocado Society Yearbook 50 (1966): 24. 331%"! M51 ”k 1:45:53 arm" w rm 9d atawwsqsmfl 22d; .im am a: $5 an m 383% §3§§£$ a‘ikfifl mi; m: WWW-3g fwméas #wa .wxfmmm ,tqgmzaé M; flaw: 3mg; 9: mm: “my: 2%” Jwian ma: 3‘2 Ema ('36:: a :22 V ,. . .y , ' , , ' 4 . giffigmey dis: {1%}? m? , . , 74 While the Fuerte had earlier been the prime breed of the California industry, it was now relegated to mongrel status. Its initial success was perhaps the reason for its downfall, as one plant scientist suggested: Certainl , the hiUh esteem in which Fuerte is held b resent markets is a D valuable asset to the California avocado industry. But, from another point ofview, the very virtues which have made the Fuerte so outstanding have perhaps caused too much emphasis to be placed on such an irregular- bearing variety. This may have resulted in too high a proportion of Fuerte plantings in the past. It may also result in too much circumscription of . . . e 7 variety nnprovement in the luture.'2” By the early 1970s, the Fuerte clearly appeared to be on the decline. J. Eliot Coit . 77' . lamented that new lanths had nearl come to halt."" Had the roduction dro ed due :3 y to poor performance? Or had the Fuerte been eclipsed by better varieties? It appears that these two explanations were part of the same calculus of change. On the one hand, cultivation techniques that had once worked for growers began to reveal unfortunate flaws. As Coit explained, the traditional practice of budding trees from Mexican rootstock rather than from seed resulted in variable growths that brought inconsistent yields and incomplete resistance to extreme weather conditions. Given the increase in variation over time, as well as the improvement in propagation techniques, Coit called for .x. ,- V... ‘ . . ,. 124 greater attention to the selection of quality rootstoeks and seions. On the other hand, the rise in Hass production distracted attention away from Fuerte cultivation. Acreage statistics from the 19705 demonstrate how quickly llass 122 8.0. Bergh, “Some lrlerctical Thoughts Concerning the Ideal Commercial Avocado," C alifbrnia Avocado Soeiely Yearbook 52 (1968): 47. 123 J. Eliot Coit, “Preservation ofthe Fuerte Variety," California Avocado Society Yearbook 55 (19714972): 70. ‘24 J. Eliot Coit, “Preservation ofthe Fuerte Variety,” California Avocado Society Yearbook 55 (1971—1972): 70. mimiq wm m: Manama! " 8%! {if Wm; mam miié/iasiisiqm wwi mad,- fipiati: 3:5. mm (in: Mgr; - “if? #315 mi}, bmw mm; imi maxi: m uiiflm $45; (fliigsifiii mi; ,ééimzimiigxzi await . ,3 - 5 ' "flit“: ' gnawing: : 3,,5 fiiiflfi’mriw ii ii‘giissmi wmfi‘miimu 03 ,3 mm! mm imam" ' ' lé ”flab mm mi! maii aiflfi:éi¢,z:¢ ,-,r7:,v;zi ‘ :31: {fiféiiwil’k’iiiii— 75 production surpassed that of the Fucrte. Data from 1973 show acreage of the two varieties to be nearly even, at 11,000 for Hass and 10,224 for Fuerte. Projections for 1977, however, listed Hass at 17,886 bearing acres and Fuerte at 9,383. Production for Hass was estimated to increase by 87 percent between 1973 and 1977, while Fuerte production was projected to decrease by 9 percent.‘25 Coit expressed concern that neglecting the Fuerte and its problems would result in a gap in supply during the variety’s harvest season. With the quarantine still preventing Mexican—grown avocados from entering the US. market, Coit’s question about maintaining a consistent supply was crucial. The End of the California Avocado Association? The decline of the Fuerte appeared to parallel the unraveling of the California Avocado Association. In 1967, President Jack Shepherd lamented the fact that only one in ten California avocado growers was a member of the Society.126 Dwindling membership would continue to be a problem into the 1970s. In order to broaden the reach of the organization, the Association’s by—laws were amended at the 1967 meeting to expand the composition of the Board of Directors by including three members from outside of California. That year, three Directors at'large were appointed: Takashi Turu (an avocado grower from Veracruz), Enrique Costes (an ‘25 Based on data from California Crop and Reporting Service, presented by economist Robert C. Rock from UC Riverside Cooperative Extension Service. Reprinted in Robert C. Rock, “Expansion in the California Avocado Industry,” California Avocado Society Yearbook 58 (1974—1975): 40. '26 Jack Shepherd, “Report ofthe Acting President,” Annual Meeting ofthe California Avocado Society (Ojai, 7 October 1967, reprinted in California Avocado Society 1 96 7 Yearbook 51 (1967): 12. 5:53» '52:; 3% £137,125; (32:23?) 2322:3233, 25223 I: {130232 3:22:33 139,} {27:6 " 32:23 :22 may £23 {WW «Mam 3323222233 ”3323333333332 5332 2:2 M22332 3:35;: ‘ 3222*:21223 23 2433;, ~53“: $223335 39333231221} F 2243,32 22:32; 2~<2 2333:? Lam 76 avocado grower from Puebla), and John Gordon (a former California grower who moved to Australia). 127 Just as the original avocado growers in California realized that they would have to seek ideal varieties beyond their borders, so also did the Association attempt to strengthen California’s industry with foreign “blood.” The functions of the Association itself also changed at this juncture, as the organization was split into different groups with different responsibilities. In 1978, the task of avocado marketing became the project of a separate association, the California Avocado Commission (CAC), which grew out of the existing California Avocado Advisory Board, which had been formed in 1961. Following this reorganization, the California Avocado Association was relegated to a largely ceremonial role providing general support and performing archival functions, while the CAC handled marketing and Calavo Growers’ Inc. (founded in 1924 as the California Avocado Growers” Exchange) managed distribution and packing. The reconfiguration of the California industry and the decline of the Fuerte occurred at the same time that avocado production was shifting in Mexico. The following section will discuss these changes and explain how together, these broader transformations set the stage for the state ofavocado production today. '27 “Report of the President,” Annual Meeting of the California Avocado Society (Fallbrook, 19 October 1968, reprinted in California Avocado Society Yearbook 52 (1968): 11. ‘ 31 m! §2t§'¥fijfi"} swam“? %"m%mim£§§13a§ Ififififli‘: ~ . m} M, {T2321 5:113:11 H i: . {144% £32.49" 239$! :29 gs;i?:.-:fiif= 35.14% 31211133373431} W 77 Part V: The Hass Era: Making an Authentic Avocado for the Global Marketplace, 197OS—present Introduction The ascension of the llass avocado underscores three significant shifts in California and Mexico’s avocado industries in the second half of the twentieth century. First, it marks a new phase of the ongoing varietal question: the llass provides another telling example of how avocado production in California and Mexico has ultimately come to focus and to depend on a single variety. Like the industries’ prior reliance on the Fucrte, the shift to near—exclusive llass production has brought both more success and greater vulnerability, which scientific interventions continue to address. Second, in the case of Mexico, the rise of the llass marks the formation of a strong commercial industry in the state of Michoacan, rather than in Puebla. This commercial industry emerged in conjunction with the California industry’s efforts to first engage with producers in the state and later to obstruct their efforts to challenge the USDA quarantine. During these debates over the quarantine reversal, producers on both sides leveraged scientific information about pest control to sway governmental authority. Third, the development of llass production has brought the two growing regions closer together. Hass expansion ultimately facilitated the quarantine reversal and is now part of a joint marketing program operated by the llass Avocado Board (llAB). The production, marketing, and consumption of llass avocados today marks a new stage in the relationship between California and Mexico, but one that continues to be shaped by an underlying tension between separation and collaboration. i ~ SHE. ’2 rm iii“; my s ffl’ig 3‘15}? it: 3' f H4531”; i ‘3} g . ,3“ ,3“? f 3 3%? Y ‘ 3 §~ i‘: Em” M S R a; 72': , 11%}?! § £5? a 5,, $23: 3' ‘nf'fifii 3. 7%; 3% %__ 35 xi a ' 5 gm :3} I; .M r» t; ’23? '32:": m. s 3' «fit 2.: a &. SW! 3‘?“ “2i 52333355 *3? i532”: if} '2‘ '33s! . P». 1.. A r'v if; «5: '{s #3531 '£ ml J3? 78 Hass and the Varietal Question in California In contrast to its ubiquity and significance today, the Hass avocado had an unremarkable beginning. A chance seedling that originated in a postman’s home garden in La Habra, California, after a failed graft was left to grow on its own, the Hass was not immediately popular among California consumers. The postman, Rudolf Hass, who had purchased the original seedlings from a local nurseryman and ordered the thriving offshoot propagated upon recognizing its potential, patented the mystery variety in 1935, and held on to the license until its expiration in 1952. In spite of l‘lass’s efforts to promote the new avocado, it was slow to gain acceptance, in part because consumers were accustomed to the green skin of the Fuerte, and unfamiliar with the llass’s pebbly black shell. The variety only began to be planted more widely in the mid—1960s, when, in the name of ongoing variety improvements to compensate for the Fucrte’s shortcomings, it was “top-worked,” or grafted, onto other trees, particularly onto Fucrtcs.128 The llass ultimately displaced the Fuerte by 1972. In 1973, nearly forty years after the llass first appeared, the California Avocado Society officially recognized the variety. Just as Society members earlier had traveled to Mexico to pay homage to the parent Fuerte tree in Atlixco, so too did this ceremony honor the legacy of a prodigious seedling, in this case the “l lass Mother Tree.”129 By the 19908, it was clear that the nurseryman’s “mistake” had turned out to be anything but a disappointment: at this time, the llass represented approximately 90 '28 Ted Todd, “The Avocado Variety Situation Today,” talk presented at the Avocado Growers’ Institute (Fallbrook, CA, 26 March 1966), reprinted in California Avocado Society Yearbook 50 (I966): 24. 129 “The Hass Mother Tree: Report on the Dedication ofa Memorial Plaque,” California Avocado Society Yearbook 57 (1973—1974): 16. a gaitmfi 3%? 1b} fikwéaqmm m Emmawmmé 35%?! “mix: aim ,bfifizzm m, asfifi is??? fiffiifl; fi‘i‘ “ghigwffla saw" a Hwy 1% 23%in 9w» fifi'riflh M}? fi ., a m, a.» “1"? ‘5 $343M nmmw m; 535'“ mi; my?) xgw :‘x mm; 79 percent of California production.I30 Today, Hass avocados continue to represent nearly all ofCalifornia’s commercial production. During the state’s 2009,2010 growing season, Hass avocados were grown on an estimated 54,700 of the state’s 58,268 total producing acres, or nearly 94 percent.‘31 As California is the top avocado producer in the United States by a wide margin, and l‘lass is the dominant variety grown in the state, California l‘lass production thus accounts for the majority of the national avocado crop: in the 2009—2010 season, Hass avocados were grown on 82.5 percent of the national bearing acreage (all varieties), estimated at 66,270 for 2009—2010. Avocado production in Florida, by contrast, was listed at 7,400 bearing acres.132 Due to the tree’s specific climatic requirements, the Hass is not grown anywhere else in the United States. In a sense, the Hass can be seen as the culmination of the industry’s original goal: to develop a distinctly “Californian” avocado variety. Though it may have been grafted onto originally foreign stock, the variety is considered by the California industry to be native to the state’s soil. This claim to a California origin, we shall see, has influenced subsequent debates over avocado production and trade, and has colored the discourses of today’s marketing campaigns. 1m ~ , - ~ ~ - ~ ‘ Av1 Crane, ‘Technical and Economic Aspects of the Harvesting, Packing, and Transporting of Avocados in the United States ofAmerica,” California Avocado Society Yearbook 80 (1996): 45. 131 “Avocado Acreage Summary,” California Avocado Commission (2009). '32 “Fruit Bearing Acreage: Yield, Production, Utilization, Price, and Value by Crop — States and United States: 2008—2010,” Nonciirus Fruits and Nuts 2010 Prc/iminc'lrv Summary, United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (January 2011): 26. Hum J at: 80 Introduction in Reverse: The Hass Comes to Mexico By giving the California industry its native son, the Hass also presented an opportunity to turn the practice ofplant introduction on its head. In contrast to earlier efforts to promote avocado production through extraction of foreign specimens, the Hass was introduced to Mexico. Although concrete data on the specifics of this introduction is scant, evidence dates back to the 1950s. At this time, not only was Mexico shifting in favor of the Hass variety, but the center of avocado production was also shifting to the state of Michoacan. The llass’s expansion in Michoacan was the beginning of a new commercial phase for Mexican avocados. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations began keeping records of Mexican avocado production in 1961. By this time, production in Mexico was already double that of the United States (108,057 versus 51,342 metric tons); this margin has only widened in the intervening decades.'33 In the 19603, Mexican avocado production had more than quadrupled in thirty years: according to one source, production increased from 31,221 tons in 1935 to 132,048 tons in 1965.134 Mexico has led the world in avocado production since the FAO began keeping international records in 1961. The sheer volume of Mexico’s supply explains how the country has alternately been seen as a boon and a threat to the California industry. In the 19605, at least, Mexico remained a source of interest for growers and breeders of California avocados. During a California dclegation’s trip to Mexico in November of 1967, Fucrte and llass orchards in the Mexico City area and in Michoacan were observed for soil quality, irrigation techniques, and pest issues. Citing soil quality and water ”3 “Top Production: Avocados,” FAOSTAT, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (1961—2008). 134 Source: Takashi Turu, “The Aguacate in Mexico,” California Avocado Society Yearbook 52 (1968): 170. ,; mammfimq mg: mmmam WWW; EM; 3mm Wilma $13551er yfiffi W in. mm: , S fififii affix-'23 hm; Mi; fiifiififiéflfiq 033, ‘ ’ _;§_§&:3£&, M 7m mafia" A x533 ELM}: mm»; i , wit ~91 ifimfié x; mm: my; , W N w? .LMw-ms "m fifnmim L 32% £133? fi'fiuflfifiggifizié emu ‘3 £351, ham firm; J: x; s a?! ‘LimM m atamugfi M7“ .3151." k / Ali-i '. ' «2.. MM 9 fia‘éfi? 22?: 81 supply, the report identified Uruapan in Michoacan as an ideal location for avocado production as well as industry development: “it could be one ofthe better producing areas of Mexico," the report noted.135 Root rot was a problem of lesser concern due to the greater availability of land: “because of so much land from which to choose, the new grower in Mexico is learning to select good soil and taking every precaution so root rot is not introduced into the new land through nursery stock.”I36 Based on the observations of variety selection and growing conditions, as well as on informational meetings with growers and with government officials, the delegation concluded that Mexico, especially Michoacan, was on the cusp ofbceoming a key player in the world avocado market. Growers in Michoacan were taking advntagc of low production costs, relying on strong Californian and Mexican varieties, organizing themselves into cooperatives, and seeking more opportunities to participate in the international market. “The people are intelligent, competent, and eager to develop their industry,” declared the linal report.”7 This eagerness on the part of Mexican avocado producers was also described by the Assocation’s board member at—large Takashi Turu, in his invited talk for the annual meeting in 1969. “The enthusiasm of growers to improve their groves and obtain better products has grown in recent times and it is possible to state that there is a fever running among many persons in different spheres and activities of the economy who are engaged '35 CD. Gustafson, “Summary of Our Trip to Mexico,” California Avocado Society Yearbook 52 (1968): 174. '36 CD. Gustafson, “Summary of Our Trip to Mexico,” California Avocado Society Yearbook 52 (I968): 174. '37 C.D. Gustafson, “Summary of Our Trip to Mexico,” California Avocado Society Yearbook 52 (1968): 176. 5: MW 133$? 32% 333’) W 3333;331:357 333w; 3393,3335?qu «3&3 33399:: 33:23 3333362511333; 333133333 3333332353133”; "gmxafga’i mm 3&3 {333233323333 “,“gffiaiiiflgi «a» % 13:. .‘ifi'éfi'w.:£sfifi§?i~§ ma , W723} 333;; r; j k ééamfsfi 5333-333 mm mm a’xzmg:ms.;¢sti 533%: 313i ' :33 , 3m 3 3W wfiififiggfié 35:3; . ‘ ‘Wfif 33>: 333533342: "am—m3 "r; my; thrfim 335235, "ii; :3: w. 331121.335; 3:11-3:33 “,3. ,, 3. . ,, .,.r,,~ .,. V, H,,-~., _<_ . wwflww, 3353‘; 3:33:33 am?) “ti: 3213:3333; EfiM {33 333-31” "1335.3 341‘s ‘51 3 « 82 in growing avocados,” he stated.138 Turu reported that the coffee sector had recently become involved in avocado production: the Institute of Coffee was promoting avocado cultivation as a diversifying strategy for coffee producers. The Secretary of Agriculture was also initiating campaigns to increase avocado cultivation among small farmers. Not only was production increasing, but also yields, which indicated ncw adoption of growing techniquesm Turu concluded his speech with a call to unity: “I believe that one of the necessities than international society like ours imposes on us is that of knowing each other better and of having a more intense exchange of ideas. There are many things that we have to do in the coming years. I sincerely ask each one of you for your cooperation toward these goals. Let all of us Avocado Growers of the world unite in the benefit of a - - ”140 dynamic socuety. Unity or Division? Hass Avocados and the Quarantine Reversal Turu’s call for unity and collaboration might have ushered in a new era for the relationship between California and Mexico’s avocado industries. The defining theme in this period was the gradual unraveling of the USDA’s quarantine on fresh avocado imports from Mexico. The specific terms of this dispute over the quarantine have been ‘38 Takashi Turu, “Avocados South of the Border,” Cali/ornia Avocado Society Yearbook 53 (1969): 31. 139 Takashi Turu, “The Aguacate in Mexico,” California Avocado Society Yearbook 52 (1968): 171. I40 Takashi Turu, “Avocados South of the Border,” California Avocado Socie/y Yearbook 53 (1969): 37. I» ' ‘. ,' I .v _ . {WM-r/ '» , , r / ~ ,mawammm‘gi} 4,, mmfim W Wwfi gar-Mi ifmfiamfl m- mg? 6;: $3!- {m “2%)? iim a’ma; 353'} 213341,?‘3d sgésizm‘Jimits‘; «H.235 ”‘ ~ U riflmz) g; Q? mm; Ruby” 51%} 2.”; mm iii with? g‘i‘wfi éfi‘tmg‘n‘: u mfimm~*w~wsfimw-’-~«V~ MW "Mp—ow.» r. ». 83 extensively chronicled elsewhere. [41 The intention in this section has been to discuss how the prior history of production in each place influenced the debate and its outcome. As we have seen, examining the relationship between California and Mexico in terms of discourses about avocado quality and variety standards reveals the ways in which the two industries were formed by both separation and integration. In this case, the question of science and standards was a key mediator and an important source of leverage for both opponents and proponents of the quarantine. While the 1914 quarantine had prevented the entry into the United States of fresh avocados from Mexico, it had not kept out Mexico’s avocado plant specimens, nor had it prevented the reintroduction of U.S.—grown varieties. Prior to the 19703, the ban had gone unquestioned. The industries had expanded in both places, and domestic demand was satisfied by domestic production. For Mexico, there was little need or reason to look beyond the domestic market until several factors converged to make reaching the US. market both necessary and possible. The 1970s saw the rapid expansion of avocado production in Michoaean. By the late 1970s, the state was producing approximately 230,000 of Mexico’s total annual avocado production of 295,000 tons, and nearly 98 percent of the state’s avocado output 14' See, for example, David Orden and Everett Peterson. “Science, Opportunity, Traceability, Persistence, and Political Will: Necessary Elements ofOpening the US. Market to Avocados from Mexico,” in New Frontiers in Environmental and Social Labeling, eds. U. Grote, A.K. Basu, and N. Chau (New York: Springer, 2006), 133—150; David Orden and Eduardo Romano, “The Avocado Dispute and Other Technical Barriers to Agricultural Trade Under NAFTA,” paper presented at the conference on NAFTA and Agriculture: Is the Experiment Working? (San Antonio, TX, November 1996); Everett B. Peterson and David Orden, “Avocado Pests and Avocado Trade,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90 (2008): 321—335; and Donna Roberts and David Orden. “Determinants of Technical Barriers to Trade: The Case of US Phytosanitary Restrictions on Mexican Avocados, 1972-1995,” paper prepared for the International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium (January 1997). Mammy? NE}. and: :3» mm min gmmM fig mfimfl: $6“! .hmzzémwww $51ng fiizfifimwés @553 ,mn.‘ :2 iéréfimab am im, m”? ‘4 “Mi: ”$117: {aim film-Ia} i ”3 fimfim iim; ww 84 142 . . - was Hass. Today, the state continues to lead the nation and the world in avocado ‘ - 143 production. Despite these major increases in the 19705, avocado production on both the state and national level in Mexico continued to be oriented toward domestic consumption. . . . 144 Prior to the late 1980s, Mex1can avocado exports hovered far below 1,000 metric tons. “The greatest hindrance to the development of Mexican avocado exports is the strength of the domestic market,” observed one member of Miehoacan’s avocado growers . i4: . . union. 3 However, when the booming supply began to outpace domestic demand as well - 14o - - . 147 as consumer spending, increasmg exports was seen as the best solution. The standardization of production in Michoaean also established the appropriate conditions for addressing the export ban. Producers began to form local associations and cooperatives, which gave them greater leverage, and also helped them to forge alliances with Mexican officials as well as the USDA. The first permit request to gain access to the 4 . , - . . 143 US. market for Michoacan was tiled by the Mex1can government in 1970. I42 Rafael Gallegos Espinosa, A [gt/nos aspeclos de/ aguaeate y su proa’ueeion en Miehoaean (Mexico: Universidad Autéiioma Chapingo, 1983), 19—20. 143 For an overview of the avocado sector in Michoacan, see the report by Mexico’s Secretary ongriculture, Secretaria dc Agricultura, Ganaderia, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentacién (SAGARPA), Plan Rector Sistema Nacional A giiaeare, governance plan presented by the Avocado Committee (Uruapan, Michoacan, 20 June, 2005). '44 “Top Exports: Avocados,” FAOSTAT, Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations (1961—2008). '45 Ramon Pal-Vega, “Mexican Avocados: Threat or Opportunity for California?” California Avocado Society Yearbook 73 (1989): 94. '46 For an analysis of these changes in domestic consumption, see, for example, the report by the Association’s Mexican representative Salvador Sanchez Colin, “Current Status of Avocado Growing in Mexico,” California Avocado Society Yearbook 71 (1987): 162. 147 Although avocado consumption in Mexico today still exceeds its export production, the disparity is not as dramatic as it used to be. '48 Donna Roberts and David Orden. “Determinants ofTechnical Barriers to Trade: The Case of US Phytosanitary Restrictions on Mexican Avocados, 1972—1995,” paper p; K .3 »- a- m1 w. in fimmgm} gmmémmfix a?) 2;.- w‘ r “If _A.PVJA Lii-J-s'l’prJEW m I W {*me 53;: Wémmcfiafiu; 1 ' ' "Mm; ms mgmmi: a :: “ ' ‘ i5“ mugs? a,» 85 As far as pest control was concerned, the development of modem pesticides and advanced growing practices facilitated phytosanitary management and product standardization. Such methods had not existed at the time the original quarantine was enacted. Moreover, during the negotiations, officials from the USDA’s Animal Health and Plant Inspection Service (APHIS) found no evidence of severe infestation. The Hass was apparently not a host for threatening insects. During the negotiation process, APHIS worked with Mexican producers to develop a comprehensive work plan that addressed concerns of plant safety. The scientific methods and findings of this joint initiative were repeatedly contested by the California Avocado Commission. To quote one ofjust many vehement protests against the possible quarantine reversal: “WHY is the USDA ignoring sound science and practicing political science?” the CAC askedm Indeed, science was not the only thing at stake in this context: as the signing ofNAFTA was gradually integrating North American markets, the CAC resisted the turning of the tide. In its response to the CAC’s concerns, APIIIS countered with its own explanation based on its commitment to sound science, on the importance of keeping prices low for the growing consumer market in the US, and on the current status of California production, which had been suffering of late. With regards to this last point, the APIIIS report notes that the decision to permit exports from Mexico came during a time when production appeared to be declining in California. “Revenue declines because of the rule are expected to be large compared to losses that small—entity producers may have prepared for the International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium (January 1997): 129. '4" California Avocado Greensheet 13, no. 6 (21 January 1997), n.p. ‘ '3 1.. EV iii: ifif A m mg 3* va ms .v té’v-t‘n “w; .1. ’5 EA? EA. w a; .m».m.f~'wwnvl<é‘rvtuh‘ ...,_. 86 experienced because of the industry’s contraction and growing concentration,” it stated.150 As a result of the ruling, consumers in the United States gained access to a steady year—round supply of relatively affordable avocados, which both satisfied and further encouraged existing demand. The ruling gave the government the power to declare which Mexican avocados were fit for exportm In this way, Mexican avocados were effectively equated to Californian avocados, bearing the USDA’s ol‘ficial stamp of approval as they began to be marketed throughout the United States. SAGARPA Minister of Agriculture Javier Usabiaga Arroyo, speaking on the occasion of the quarantine decision in October 2004, stated that the quality and health of l52 the Michoacan crop proved that there would no longer have to be barriers to trade. It is important to acknowledge, though, that the ruling opened the US. market to an extremely small portion of Mexican production by limiting the variety, producer, and origin of any exported avocado only to certified individuals or organizations. Bi—national standards of trade have trickled down to domestic production, however, indicating a shift toward Hass dominance and international “quality” standards on the national level as well. The expanded role of government and scientific research in '50 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, “Economic Analysis: Final Rule,” Allow Fresh Hass Avocados Grown in Approved Orchards in Approved Municipalities in Mic/«mean, Mexico, to Be Imported in to All States Year-Round, United States Department ongriculture docket no. 03-022—5 (5 November 2004): 35. '5‘ For the Mexican government’s outline of the new production standards, see NMX— FF—Ol6—SCFI~2006, “Productos alimenticios no industrializados para uso humano — fruta fresca — aguacate (Persea americana Mill) — especificaciones,” Secretaria de Economia, Estados Unidos Mexicanos (2006). ‘52 Javier Usabiaga Arroyo, speech transcript (Ario de Rosales, Michoacan, 15 October 2004). Full original quote: “Cuando hay calidad, cuando hay un estricto cuidado en la inocuidad agroalimentaria, no hay ni barreras ni frontera no arancclaria que se resista.” My translation. 1 33333333313313? {3333 333 33333333331333 $333333 MMmqqamflfmmmaé 33:33 " _. M3 333333 4333333333 3333333333 3373133333333 333: 3333333333331: 33?; 33.33: :14; 33333 333-3333333333 333 33333333333333; 333333333333 '33; 3333 A 33333333333333 51333333" 3 3333333333- 3333.333 ":33; 3::- 333. 33333: 33333333" 333333 3 ' , .1_ ‘ ‘3 " 3-,} 6333333133 W 1.23:3}! 87 Mexican production has led to a new set of standards and a greater degree of stratification. Thus, while the asymmetrical relationship between California and Mexico was somewhat leveled by the USDA’s ruling, it appears to have resulted in a different type of asymmetry. in this case on the domestic level. Postscript: Creation of the Hass Avocado Board lfthe initial phase ofthe llass’s popularity in California could be seen as an achievement of the “California" brand quality, the current status of the Hass in the United States highlights its appeal as an international or global brand. This shift in identity has resulted in part from the creation of the llass Avocado Board, a marketing program that markets to US. consumers Hass avocados grown around the world. Established in 2002 under the purview of the USDA, the Hass Avocado Board represents approximately 20,000 avocado producers and 100 avocado importers from California, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, and New Zealand. The core members are the California Avocado Commission (CAC), the Mexican Hass Avocados Importers Association (MHAIA), and the Chilean Avocados Importers Association (CAIA). The Board administers the Hass Avocado Promotion, Research, and Information Order, which was established by referendum following the Hass Avocado Promotion, Research, and Information Act, which was signed into law in 2000 and followed in the wake ofthe negotiations over the quarantine reversal. This order allows for the collection of a 2.5 cents per pound assessment on fresh domestic or fresh imported Hass avocados t9 1 .11., 115.. ha 111; 1... 1 ft a”; 1m} 1 m1; 1. r31 31" _ 1 ..r a! 1 f 1 fit 1.14.: x1. I. . 1 3: 15 l A i I 3 £3.13 £120.; (1 .3 *1: 2% If!) wig? $393 if. Q 2. if? 3‘: '_ iii 3 f, 541 . W i s i ii If [w A}, ~ .1 1 . _ > It . 1 {OJ 5... a! is J an A 1.4:” ., 1.1 1 a X} 3! as}. , H, ,. ,, Q 1.1.1:“ .112 1a 1., 1.. H , V1 . , . 5 1 i r. .. . .1111 11.11 mu .1... .1, w...“ 1 z... A: .111”. 1 L .41.” 1 (1' 1w mm 1 11 9;: 1‘ ,4. g 3’ ”W1; f1? , €152;me ,1 33 if! 11‘ Wm . 1! :x 11 .1 :fimwmp $351131; £1111 - 88 consumed in the United States. The assessment is used to fund initiatives that encompass research, marketing, public information, and administration]53 The Hass Avocado Board rebates 85 percent of the assessments to the individual member associations for their own promotions; 15 percent supports the Board’s operations and other programs.154 Riverside Congressman Ken Calvert, who authored the bill, called it a “win—win” arrangement for the parties involved. As exports from Mexico and from Chile increased, and as California marketing expanded, the exporting countries benefited at California’s expense, he claimed. “Without an expanded national avocado promotion program, imports would continue to supply a larger share of the US. avocado market and undermine U.S. production.”55 The work of the Hass Avocado Board thus marks a new phase in avocado production and promotion in the United States. In terms of the relationship between California and Mexico—the focus of this thesis—the dynamic between integration and exclusion is both upheld and changed. This is evident in the Board’s approach to avocado provenance and to the question of varieties. In its 2003 annual report——the first since the organization’s founding—the Hass Avocado Board laid out the key challenges it faced in its new role. A couple of aspects of its strategic plan make clear the implications of this new era of avocado marketing. First, the HAB set its sights on a comprehensive year—round marketing program that would '53 “llass Avocado Promotion, Research, and Information Order,” Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 7 CFR § 1219, effective 9 September 2002. '54 lon F. Carman, Lan Li, and Richard J. Sexton, “An Economic Evaluation of the Hass Avocado Promotion Order’s First Five Years: A Report Prepared for the Bass Avocado Board” (30 March 2009): 2—3. 155 Ken Calvert, “Hass Avocado Promotion, Research and Information Act of2000,” California Avocado Society Yearbook 84 (2000): 62. {a 1% $151? bagm: mm 5?ng rimfi’ " $172?me 71:} fiaémwfi arid: m hm: 89 “eschew ‘seasonal campaigns’ supporting individual suppliers and instead embrace a seamless, coordinated 12-month program that accounts for each supplier’s volume and ' ' $5l56 timing. Second, the Board prepared to consolidate the provenance of each member country’s crop into a single Hass brand. The challenge in this case was “to create a clear strategy that allows an evolution from competing brands to multiple brands coexisting ,157 - . ’ These two ObjCCthCS under a generic llass rubric with consistent and uniform quality. underscore the ways in which the Board has negotiated the origin question. Avocados no longer belong to a particular place, or even to many at once, but rather have no place of origin or belonging. In the effort to drive sales and promote product uniformity, a quality avocado is defined as a generic avocado. The origin question cannot be easily disentanglcd from the variety question. The elision of national identity into a single global brand has depended upon control over botanical variation. The expansion of Hass production from California throughout Latin America and the Caribbean region has made it possible to market a single type of avocado that comes to represent all avocados. Just as national (or regional) specificity is glossed over in promotional campaigns, so too are varietal differences. Such techniques are not unlike the earlier marketing campaigns for the Calavo, which aimed to promote a singular type of avocado as the industry standard—bearer. The essential distinction in this case, however, is that the Calavo campaign was firmly based in a fixed location—that is, California. Avocados from California were thus seen to be distinct from those of other regions, if other regions were at all acknowledged. In the case '56 Hass Avocado Board Annual Report (2003): 10. 157 Hass Avocado Board Annual Report (2003): 10. m am a? ; gm mic 352d 1:} yaw 5% mm ‘_ am 3 d i3 3'5} ‘3 b 8% aim '3 :3??? fl '1; =2. 2:: c' m I}: a 43f g. fifi oé 3 § 31, 95, m: 5 38 i} g , 313") i {ii-i mm fi is war; 1?? my ti; 3.» {33' m u L 0‘ am: a 31.: I'm/a 519% Wfi' 90 of today’s llass, the avocado derives its allure from its pan-Americanness. The crop is framed in such a way as to deny a fixed location, rather than rely on it. It would not be entirely correct to claim that current avocado marketing only promotes avocados as a generic product unassociated with place. At the same time that the Hass Avocado Board promotes a uniform brand by erasing regional specificity, many of its marketing strategies capitalize on regionality. The “Avocados from Mexico” campaign, for example, which operates under the auspices of the HAB, but is directed by the sub—member Mexican llass Avocado lmporters’ Association (MHAlA), uses the idea of “Mexico" to market the fruit to US. consumers. At the same time, the sub—member California Avocado Commission (CAC) markets state—grown avocados with slogans and images that emphasize the fruit’s connection to California. Ed Buckley, a long-time marketing consultant for the California avocado industry, emphasized the long—standing significance ofthc “California” brand: The California Avocado has long been recognized and appreciated as an elegant food with good associations —— in short, a good part ofthc good life. The word 'California’ is a key component in the stable, long— term program that has brought the avocado to the tables of more than 40 million households in the US. and millions more around the world. The established quality and confidence that the word 'California' brings _ to consumers everywhere are part and parcel of the California Avocado.” In both cases, notions of authenticity that draw on stereotypes and assumptions about place and origin are used to bolster the avocado’s appeal and credibility. Recipe suggestions that accompany avocado advertisements make claims to authenticity that offer an opportunity to experience a distant land without leaving home. ‘58 Ed Buckley, “A Steady Hand, a Long Term View: Development of the California Avocado Marketing Profile,” Cali/brnia Avocado Society Yearbook 83 (1999): 48—49. m2 1%{3 is? s 1%, mm mm Ema? g if 1.2%: mi fi‘ :1 5E m :5: "3 ix ? Mfiigg i i 3M3, 9m; 33>" Fifi; w; W .. I 1% m mi: MM?! w m a _ V Vii? J 3 {gr _ . rs, . H. {pr . .. . T V v... H M _.. / .A ,. u; 4 5 . A , . .fié 1" - 234 ,. 3‘ it}! {3133” 1; $ ‘2 my 91 A recent rccipc tip on the California Avocado Commission’s website entices consumers to make “Guacamole Autcntico,” a dish that is illustrated with an image of a stone mo/cqjete nestled into a colorful woven blanket. The molcq/ete is overflowing with chunky guacamole; a slice of lime, bright red chile pepper, and half of a fresh avocado rest at the mortar’s base. The description of the recipe reads, “Here’s the real deal: a guacamole recipe so authentic, you can almost hear the Mariachis singing.”159 The implication is thus that to make and to consume this guacamole is to experience what it means to be Mexican, or to be in Mexico. In this case, “Mexico” is depicted as a colorful place, full oflivcly music, and characterized by fresh and spicy foods. Not only does this advertisement advance a limited definition of “authentic” Mexico, it muddlcs the notion of authenticity itself. As the recipe appears on the website of the California Avocado Commission, the cooking instructions consequently call explicitly for the use of “California Avocados,” This “authentic” Mexican guacamole, then, is best made with ingredients from California. The lasting message reflects an impulse to consume Mexico’s gastronomic tastes (guacamole) and cultural output (Mariachi music), without actually going to Mexico or incorporating Mexican ingredients. A second guacamole recipe on the same website is described as “south—of- the—border” versionm Aimed at so-ealled “purists,” this recipe appeals even more to the idea of an authentic Mexico. The use ofthc border in the dish’s name defines the realm of authenticity in terms ofa specific location‘south ofthe United States. However, it is not '59 “Guacamole Autentico,” California Avocado Commission website, http://www.avocado.org/recipes/view/2196I/guacamole-autémico (accessed April 29, 201 l). ”’0 “South-of-the-Border Guacamole,” California Avocado Commission website, http://www. a vocado. ()rg/recipes/view/2 6902/s0ut/7—(3fithe-[)0rder— guacamole (accessed April 29, 2011). ' $3??? “if; 3M? .wiaiq i mm11xgim 39;»: 35% " ‘ gammy i: 33g;- 4);; W my»: £313} £23223 3.! «31* "£3; 2w: “m mam;«mama? a! ” 1 m} €5,13wa A Ww‘gm 7W$§§mm Wm. ? hi?“ 45' ytfi‘étéffiii‘kfagq 3 "(saiflmgzuwié 1:132 Ema wigs; 0‘. 1g» ‘ wigs“?'figfigagg Lida-.313; 9;; 1-491" _; ’ “.H m: ‘ 92 clear here—nor in the other so-called “authentic” recipes, for that matter—what in fact marks these dishes as authentic. Moreover, additional guacamole recipes incorporate ingredients and culinary traditions from places around the world. In this way, an “authentic” and “Mexican” dish is adapted to any other culture. These recipes raise the question of what national cuisines 161 mean in increasingly internationalized contexts of production, trade, and consumption. Guacamole has gone global. 1(1 ‘ . , . . . . . , ’ Jeffrey Pileher 5 work on the construct1on and cultural sngmficance ot Mex1can food provides useful background for these questions. See his [Que vivan los tamales/ Food and the Making ofMexican Identity (Albuquerque: University ofNew Mexico Press, 1998); “Taco Bell, Maseca, and Slow Food: A Postmodern Apocalypse for Mexico’s Peasant Cuisine?” in Fast F ood/Slow Food: The Cultural Economy oft/7e Mexican Food System, ed. Richard R. Wilk (Lanham, MD: Rowman Altamira, 2006); and “The Globalization of Mexican Cuisine,” History Compass 6, no. 2 (2008): 529—551. a v ' ‘ " aficfiifié ;w% 93 CONCLUSION In the one hundred years since 191 1, when avocado seeds from Puebla started an avocado industry in California, avocado production in both the United States and Mexico has seen four major shifts. The first shift is geographic: the center of avocado production in both the United States and in Mexico has changed. California has replaced Florida as the U.S.’s major producer. In Mexico, Michoaca'n has begun producing the majority of the country’s avocado crop. The second concerns the commercialization of production: in each place, informal cultivation of a range of avocado varieties has grown into formalized commercial production ofa select few varieties, most importantly the Fuerte and the llass. These two varieties, casual discoveries by everyday people, came to form the backbone of large— U) ‘ale commercial production. Third, the varieties themselves have changed: whereas the Fuerte once dominated production in California, and to a lesser degree, in Mexico, the Hass has been the standard variety in both places since the 1970s. Lastly, the avocado industries have been shaped by recent developments initrade liberalization and market globalization. Once confined to local or regional producers’ associations and university research centers, as well as to private businesses and even backyards, the avocado has become a commodity traded and marketed around the world. The end of the fruit quarantine and the beginning of NAFTA ushered in a new era , , ”haw £312: Aims-mama ‘_ Mm gfifiamv W1 2mm: 3 1A; mama) {Q WWW {c3 mhmmfirh'i 3%»? AHAB’AMXA’H; Sim: fimz‘zma :sisargi‘i Mfr“! 155%: £31311" A x mm m V MA ‘Wfié AMEAA mi MW 'Wmfi a {22‘ km; ,m‘z"1§+:3'iiisa; as? 991936? 51‘4‘,i:s‘1 i wait! mimemmzé l gar; wflm; Ami“) mmmzftmgé i‘Ny. Ami; 511$: we AA: 15km 94 defined by bi—national cooperation in the areas of production, processing, trade, and marketing that has brought California and Mexico’s industries closer together. This thesis has attempted to map the course and outcomes of these shifts by examining the discourses and debates that shaped the California avocado growers’ understandings of avocado varieties. This knowledge was framed by the significance of Mexico, variably seen as a bounty of exotic specimens, a threat of pest infestation, a source of quality varieties, a possible cure for plant disease, a market competitor, and finally, a marketing collaborator. It would be unreasonable to claim that this story is wholly unique; indeed, the avocado is far from the only agricultural crop that has crossed geopolitical boundaries, become a subject of scientific research, occupied a dietary role of both commodity and specialty food, and shaped new directions in consumer tastes. Rather, the intent here has been to demonstrate the ways in which the history of the avocado illuminates a number of intriguing and important aspects of the relationship between Mexico and the United States, especially in terms of agricultural development and trade. Writing in 1933, University of California and USDA agricultural expert Knowles Ryerson referred to the introduction of foreign plant specimens to the United States, and the corresponding transfer of domestic specimens to other countries, as “one of the M2 ’ l The avocado was not important civilizing influences at work throughout our history. the only foreign product brought to the United States under such circumstances, but the story of its arrival on US. soil is a compelling example of Ryerson’s statement. ”’2 Knowles A. Ryerson, “History and Significance of Foreign Plant Introduction Work of the United States Department of Agriculture,” Agricultural Histoiy 7, No. 3 (July 1933): 128. W; 363 mmfiammufi m Maui? 1 mafimfifi m a Wfifiw 23513 is} mxzqass mmmg-z‘m 2mm: 3mm '22:; mm; may .~ waging; ‘ 1?: é’*3v3£13.;:‘§‘n§vi "YMMV 13TH: 5‘ _ a , £31.? . 7; 4., .. . ' ,, '3; . ’“5 ,iwstagy f" Tiniimmézzsgfisi;f 5:12 95 A closer examination of this history, however, challenges or perhaps broadens Ryerson’s notion of “civilizing influence.” The avocado’s introduction to California has been part of larger transformations in agriculture, trade, and eating. An examination of the fruit’s history demonstrates the ways in which food Options and preferences do not merely reflect individual or cultural taste, but, more broadly, result from particular political—economic arrangements and interventions that determine what and how we eat. 3 In this light, the process of“civilizing’ is perhaps best understood as a process of change. The status of the avocado in the year 201 l, a century after the Fuerte’s introduction launched California’s commercial enterprise, may in fact offer some insights into both the past and the future of the international production, trade, and consumption of food. 96 Bibliography Archival Sources University ofCalifornia at Los Angeles, Charles E. Young Library Department ofSpccial Collections “Calavo, the Aristocrat of Salad Fruits” [pamphlet], n.d. J. Eliot Coit, “Some Recollections of California Agriculture.” Office of Oral History, University ofCalifornia at Los Angclcs, 1962. Robert W. llodgson Papers, Boxes 4, 5, and 8. Ryerson, Knowles A. “Avocado Culture in California, Part I: History, Culture, Varieties, and Marketing." California Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 365, 1923. Primary Sources California Avocado Association California Avocado Association Annual Report (1915, 1916, 1917, 1918—1919, 1919—1920, 1920—21. 1921—1922). California Avocado Society Yearbook (1931, 1936, 1938, 1940, 1942, 1947, 1948, 1952, 1953—1954, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1971—1972, 1973—1974, 1974—1975, 1987, 1989, 1999,2000). California Avocado Commission Avocado Acreage Summary, 2009 California Avocado Greensheet 13, no. 6 (21 January 1997) “Guacamole Recipes” www. avocado. org/ re cipes/R ec i peS ea rcliF orm ? featured : F eatured G uacamo l e California Avocado Growers’ Exchange Annual Report 3 (January 1927) Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations WK skim: WEWE swam nwmm 97 FAOSTAT: Charts of World Avocado Production and Trade (1961—2008) Hass Avocado Board Hass Avoeado Board Annual Report 1 I'Iodgson, Robert W. The California Avocado Industry. California Agricultural Extension Service Circular 43, College of Agriculture, University of California, Berkeley, 1947. Secretaria de Agricultura, Ganaderia, Dcsarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentacion (SAGARPA), Mexico Plan Rector Sistema Naeional A guaeate. Governance plan presented by the Avocado Committee, Uruapan, Michoacan, 20 June, 2005. Secretaria de Economia, Mexico NMX-FF—016ASCFI—2006, “Productos alimenticios no industrializados para uso humano — fruta fresca — aguacate (Persea amerieana Mill) — especificaciones” (2006) United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APIIIS), Quarantine 56, 7 CFR § 319.56 (1914) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, “Economic Analysis: Final Rule,” Allow F res/1 [lass A voeados Grown in Approved Orchards in Approved Municipalities in lWie/ioaecin, liter/co, to Be Imported in to All States Year—Round, docket no. 03-022—5 (5 November 2004). Collins, ON. “The Avocado, A Salad Fruit from the Tropics.” Bureau ofPlant Industrv Bulletin 77. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1905. “llass Avocado Promotion, Research, and Information Order,” Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR § 1219, effective 9 September 2002. National Agricultural Statistics Service, “California Historic Commodity Data” (revised February 201 1). National Agricultural Statistics Service, “Fruit Bearing Acreage: Yield, Production, Utilization, Price, and Value by Crop 4 States and United States: 2008—2010,” Noneitrus Fruits and Nuts 2010 Preliminary Summary (January 201 1). i disimfi sz‘i him Mnmfia WW; ;} é’ffifl‘f #31, Six} fim’im 3mg 1Wmmfi a} firm mm- min 3%th 2.2:: 98 West India Gardens The Avocado As Grown in California [pamphlet]. Altadena, CA: West India Gardens, 1920. “West India Gardens” [advertisement]. California Avocado Society Annual Report 2 (1917): n.p. Secondary Sources Carman, Ion F., Lan Li, and Richard J. Sexton. “An Economic Evaluation ofthe I'Iass Avocado Promotion Order’s First Five Years.” Report prepared for the Ilass Avocado Board (March 30, 2009). Charles, Jeffrey. “Searching for Gold in Guacamole: California Growers Market the Avocado, 1910—1994," in Food Nations: Selling Taste in Consumer Societies, ed. Warren Belaseo and Philip Scranton. New York and London: Routledge, 2002. Chollett, Donna L. 2009. “From Sugar to Blackberries: Restructuring Agro—export Production in Mexico.” Latin American Perspectives 36: 79—92. Cotter, Joseph. Troubled Hawest: Agronomy and Revolution in Mexico, 1880—2002. Westport, CT: Praegcr Publishers, 2003. Cotter, Joseph. “Cultural Wars and New Technologies: The Discourse of Plant Breeding and the Professionalisation of Mexican Agronomy, 1880—1994.” Science, Technology and Society 5, No. 2 (2000): l4l~168. Fitzgerald, Deborah. “Exporting American Agriculture: The Rockefeller Foundation in Mexico, 1943—53.” Social Studies of'Science I6 (1986): 457—483. Gallegos Espinosa, Rafael. Algunos aspectos del aguacatey su produccion en Michoacan. Mexico: Universidad Auténoma Chapingo, 1983. Marquardt, Steve. “‘Green Havoe:’ Panama Disease, Environmental Change and Labor Process in the Central American Banana Industry.” American Historical Review 106, no. I (2001): 49780. MeCook, Stuart. States ofNature.‘ Science, Agriculture, and Environment in the Spanish Caribbean, 17604940. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002. Mintz, Sidney. Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History New York: Viking Penguin, 1985. wwfimwmfl mam 193ml.) gwéwmi’i wwfl :i" L? AW Mew; with“? 2ng m: »,€ _.“£ 7}€;{5;§ /. , 99 Ochoa, Enrique C. Feeding Mexico: The Political Uses ofFood Since 1910. Wilmington, Delaware: Scholarly Resources, lnc., 2000. Orden, David, and Everett Peterson. “Science, Opportunity, Traceability, Persistence, and Political Will: Necessary Elements of Opening the US. Market to Avocados from Mexico,” in New Frontiers in Environmental and Social Labeling, eds. U. Grote, A.K. Basu, and N. Chau. New York: Springer, 2006: 133—150. Orden, David, and Eduardo Romano. “The Avocado Dispute and Other Technical Barriers to Agricultural Trade Under NAFTA.” Paper presented at the conference on NAFTA and Agriculture: Is the Experiment Working?, San Antonio, TX, November 1996. Peterson, Everett B., and David Orden. “Avocado Pests and Avocado Trade.” American Journal ongricu/tural Economics 90 (2008): 321—335. Pilcher, Jeffrey M. “The Globalization of Mexican Cuisine.” Histoijt Compass 6, no. 2 (2008): 529—551. Pilcher, Jeffrey M. “Taco Bell, Maseca, and Slow Food: A Postmodern Apocalypse for Mexico’s Peasant Cuisine?” ln Fast Food/Slow Food: The Cultural Economy oft/1e Mexican Food Svstem, ed. Richard R. Wilk. Lanham, MD: Rowman Altamira, 2006. Pileher, Jeffrey M. ,‘ Que vivan los tamales.’ Food and the Making ofMexican Identity. Albuquerque: University ofNew Mexico Press, 1998. Popcnoe, F.W. “The Development ofthe Avocado Industry.” Pomona College Journal of Economic Botany 1, No. 3 (September 191 1): 1357148. Popcnoe, Wilson. Manual of'Tropical and Subtropical Fruits: Excluding the Banana, Coconut, Pineapple, Citrus Fruits, ()live, and Fig. New York: Macmillan, 1974; originally published 1920. Roberts, Donna, and David Orden. “Determinants of Technical Barriers to Trade: The Case of US Phytosanitary Restrictions on Mexican Avocados, 1972—l 995.” Paper prepared for the lnternational Agricultural Trade Research Consortium (January 1997). Roscbcrry, William, Lowell Gudmundson, and Mario Samper Kutschbach eds. Coffee, Society. and Power in Latin America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995. Rosengarten, Frederic, Jr. Wilson Popenoe.’ Agricultural Explorer, Educator, and Friend ofLatin America. Lawai, Kauai, Hawaii: National Tropical Botanical Garden, 1991. Ryerson, Knowles A. “History and Significance of the Foreign Plant Introduction Work ofthe United States Department of Agriculture.” Agricultural History 7, no. 3 (July 1933): 110428. 11:11:11: 1111111: 1411-2111221, gggmg} £11111 fib‘mfitfil 1%?) 311%”: 11111111111111.1111 111111111111 1113: 11121111: 111.21g; .M 11"”1111 11:11:21.1:‘1 W1 3%11‘1 11:11ng 111% 1:1 111311111113 1111:1311” A WVA 31111111 1111:1131: 1 311%”1 21119? 11111111111111.1111 1; (1’11 : :1‘: - T 11.1 11% ‘1'"... 3131.121} :15: 1111111111111 111131111111111: 1:11 1111111 11111111111311: 1 / 10 41 11°31 11'11'111122 <12,- 11:1:1‘121: 1111:1411 100 Santiago, Myrna L. The Ecologv ofOil.‘ Environment, Labor, and the Mexican Revolution. 1900—1938. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Soluri, John. Banana Cultures: Agriculture, Consumption, and Environmental Change in Honduras. Austin: University ofTexas Press, 2005. Stanford, Lois. “Constructing ‘Quality’: The Political Economy of Standards in Mexico’s Avocado Industry,” Agriculture and Human Values 19 (2002): 293—3 10. Stanford, Lois. “Mexico’s Empresario in Export Agriculture: Examining the Avocado Industry ofMichoacan.” Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Latin American Studies Association, Chicago, 24~26 September 1998. Stanford, Lois, and Julie A. I'logeland. 2004. “Designing Organizations for a Globalized World: Calavo’s Transition from Cooperative to Corporation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86: 1269—1275. Stoll, Steven. The Fruits ofNatural A dvantage: Making the Industrial Countryside in California. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Topik, Steven, Carlos Marichal, and Zephyr Frank, eds. From Silver to Cocaine: Latin American Commodity Chains and the Building oft/7e World Economy, MOO—2000. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2006. Wiser, Vivian. “Public Policy and USDA Science, 1897—1912.” Agricultural Histoiy 64, No. 2 (Spring 1990): 24~30. 1'3 101 Appendix 1: Notes on Sources Given its earlier orientation toward commercial production, the California avocado industry is more extensively documented than its counterpart in Mexico. The California Avocado Association began keeping industry records with the organization’s founding in 1915. These archives constitute the bulk of this study’s primary sources, which include annual reports and association yearbooks collected in both print and digital volumes dating back to 1915. The Association’s records present a comprehensive overview of the industry’s creation and expansion from 1915 to the present, through meeting notes, speeches, scientific reports, marketing analyses, and travelogues. Additional industry records come from two organizations that branched out from the Association: Calavo Growers, Inc, and the California Avocado Commission (CAC). The California Avocado Association archives also contain useful material from outside experts representing the USDA, the University of California, and the Mexican avocado sector, among others. The documents thus present a broad array of voices, at the same time that they underscore the ways in which a large part of this private association’s work entailed forging alliances with government officers, university researchers, and other elements of the public sector, including officials and avocado producers in Mexico. Archives at the University ofCalifornia have also been consulted to illuminate the role of this institution in the development of the industry. The university’s extensive collections, especially in southern California, underscore the close ties between the industry and the academy. Indeed, these relationships are nearly impossible to disentangle, as many horticulturalists and botanists affiliated with the university were . ,.., V K; @3563 fiwgm mmgw w ma“? 3mm am m ”cm? ,wwmfi'} gajmafi {Mm rA fim‘wfififiiy 3d”? {3:- fi: {mm m» wit» 3d?” 3wa gfiams; 32:13:39" :‘gQ‘Lsié ,«1 i; “kw gflfgmm a“. m *1. r, zéfidi bi)? éxg‘tm é, >~ m; 102 either avocado growers themselves, members ofthe Association, or involved in the citrus industry, which shared research facilities with the avocado at University laboratories and test orchards. Another useful source of material is trade data from avocado associations involved in production, processing, trade, and marketing. The foremost association is the Hass Avocado Board (HAB), a consortium of producers’ organizations from California, Chile, and Mexico (and several smaller groups in a more limited capacity) that jointly fund marketing and promotional campaigns for Hass avocados in the United States. The HAB’s members are distinct entities, but the Board itselfhas been funding and publishing research for its own use as well as for industry affiliates. These documents provide a glimpse into the relationships between the individual member associations, as well as the overall marketing strategies for the Hass avocado. Finally, the study benefits from agricultural data collected and published by the following national and international agencies: the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its various branches including the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Economic Research Service (ERS), and Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS); the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); and Mexico’s Secretaria de Agricultura, Ganaderia, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca, y Alimentacion (SAGARPA). The findings presented here represent a substantial, albeit incomplete, attempt to make sense of the long and complicated history of avocados in the United States, especially in terms of the relationship between Californian and Mexican production. Subsequent research would necessarily incorporate more primary sources from Mexico, j him gmmm bad: -, um 2235mm exams; ‘ {figméafig gaégazimm ,géfgiimfiusm £3131 twin; may ‘ mmwv a a, 933 $151}: Emflésé‘: "aw? may Wmmwfi ,4?" ‘ii‘iwmgfia Mm , _, , ‘ L . in 4&3 ‘1 ‘ ’ ! f {3'3 ' ’ ”ma :3”?ng , , . 5 l 1,. /fi(‘ 4‘4 n :*mm:mag/mammé— w‘fé‘i’? 7m,f.aI-§a<3 ~ 103 especially information about early industry development, the collaborations between Mexican and Californian growers, and the role of the state and the US. government in shaping agricultural policy in Michoacz’m. Given the dispersal of these materials throughout different sites in Mexico, as well as logistical and financial constraints, it was not feasible to access the available sources in that country for the present study. Appendix II: Avocado Production and Trade in the United States and Mexico Avocado Production, Mexico, 19350—1965" YEAR PRODUCTION 1930 30,278 1935 31,221 1940 51,607 1945 62,235 1950 62,915 1955 80,527 1960 101,138 1965 132,048 *Amount in tons. Source: Tukushi Turu, “The Aguacute in Mexico,” California Avocado Society Yearbook 52 (I968): 170. Avocado Production, Mexico, l970—2005* YEAR PRODUCTION 1970 226,034 1975 279,470 1980 441,768 1985 566,451 1990 686.301 1995 790,097 2000 907,439 2005 1,021,515 * Amount in metric tons. Source: FAOSTAT, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Total Avocado Production vs. Exports, Mexico, 1972-2007* YEAR EXPORTS PRODUCTION 1972 6 234,270 1977 43 333,112 1982 337 486,056 1987 4,860 520,837 1992 15,676 724,523 1997 49,824 762,336 2002 94,243 901,075 2007 310,260 1,142,892 *Amount in metric tons. Source: FAOSTA'I‘, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 104 _ 11%“ mm 9% mmmfli ' ' mnTifiufinT nmaéi UH wflafi? Wm? ix mwfim‘é f tm ¢W3fihfi1q fihfimfi‘ifi 3m: 5' g; _, 2‘ mama 5H 3 $ “MM... m... WM . W. m Q W 3 WW.” H. VT 105 Avocado Production, California vs. Mexico, 19654005" YEAR CALIFORNIA MEXICO 1965 24.000 178,473 1970 31,700 222,376 1975 105,500 308,059 1980 75,000 403,394 1985 200.000 624,398 1990 105,000 521,559 1995 155,000 870,923 2000 161,000 969,013 2005 151,000 1,126fi015 * Amount in tons. Sourccs: USDA Unitcd Statcs Dcpartmcnt ol‘Agriculturc California Field Office‘ “California Historic Commodity Data,“ National Agricultural Statistics Scrvicc (rcviscd February 201 1); FAOSTAT, Food and Agriculturc Organization of thc Unitcd Nations. EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE BBBBBBBBBB . , 3?; :.. .:.uu.‘...u. : .. . 1.1.11 ,p/A 52.?olullli». y..¢:2 ....~.:.P. V i . ‘n...§ f ,4??? . . ., 3,. < . ”in. V . : unwflnfl 4.??2 xrmw . £54 a 3i .. ., :2.,.:.,,, . ,. 53.32.“...11” . ; : 31:12:11.. iv”... 2 : .2. .3. i v 3J1} .. I at»;