Hä 'MWUCEH CMIUE
WJa¤:6Bailey BellH}
Thesis submitted to the Gradxate Faculty auf the
Virginia Polytachmic Institute
in candidacy fw the www of
in
Awi¢ultur¤l_Eeonmc¤
AFRUJED:
äirector E? nnteA
}· j) - /1
iculture easm
1.9*57
Eleckßbzwg, Virginia
A\‘
Tw author amnwsas his watitucta to Dr, Jassyh M. Johnson
www whose dinsstim this study was p¤¤•ta¤.·sad„ His smstions,
assistancs, and amstmnctlva witisims havs rnavidsd inlmtabls am
awingaupkmsssotthisatxwyn Fwass1atma1nttnssa¤nd¤:g9·
athen ways, tha autbnn is lnnmly gz·at¤tul„
Tina autlnun also azmassas his gnatitxws ta wu @1 @5. Allan,
3>s.•.PatwL. Hsndm·son,•mdü·,M. C. Canna-. Thaingnidmanzi
constnuctiva witiciam am apymsxatsdn
Appraalatinn iaa1sc>as:ta»z¤3n&toothsnsmm·assth¤A;;z•icultn¤•al
Sanaomcs staff,vhshavahslpndp1ana¤da¤nrymxtth1sna¤¤u•ah
grogsct. Fon wusulhtim M axlvisa nasnivad ttm minus ot the
Statistics ßapnmt, tw a*uttn¤s· in yatafuln
T}£&¤$h¤fBXU$Iħhißl@„'¤¢‘1I$i¤¤D‘U0tllB1ßÖ~i88d‘t116Ü¢ßI$•
want fw twin typing, clnwiaal, and salculating vsnm Spaaial
appasiation 1aa¤:ta:¤1w.t¤nywits1‘¤nh¤·lmhn¤¤·¤¤ftvpd.n5and
salsulating vwl:.
Tha soowsaticn as' tha Vinmnla mhh gwann and ahimus
vwmdnthainnasomäsavallablatsnzmmthlaswwymappnaahtadn
„ 3 „.
TABLE GF CDSTEHTS?•$
I, Introduction,,,•,•,,,,•,•••,,,,,•,,,,,,,,,,,,,„,•,,,,,,•,„ ll
Frohüee,,•,,,,•,,•,,,,,„,•,,,,•,,,.,,•,,,•,••,•,,,„,, 12
0h3eetivee of the Stumy,•,•,,,,•,,,•,,,,•,,,•,,•,,•,, 15
Review of Litereture,,•,•,,,,,,•„,,,,,,,••,,,,,,,•,,, 15
II. Design ot the Stody,,,•,,,,,,•,,,,•,,,,•,,,,,•,„,,,,,,,••, 20
Selection ot n¤rhete.............................,... 20
Selection of Crope,,•,,•,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,•,,,,•,,,,,, 21
Scope of the Study,„,,•,,•,„,•,•,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 23
Source er Data.......Ä............................... etProcedure er Ane1ysis••,,,,,,•,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 25
III. Comparison er Daily Mhrhet Reort Prices end PricesRceived hy·V1rginie.Shippera„,,,,,,,„,,,,,,,,•,,,,•,,,,,, 35
IV, Analysen ot Mhrket Prices end Their Re1at1onship·withother reetere...............................„....,..„.... hoSnap Beens,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,•,•,,,,,,,•,,,,,•,,,,,,,• h3Cabb¤ge,,,,•,••••••,••,•,,,•••,,••••,,•••••••••,•••,• hö
Sweet Corn,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,•„,,,,,,•,,,,,,,,,•,,,•,,,•, 53
Cueu¤bers,,,•,•,,,,•,,,,,,,,,,,••,,,,,,,,,•,,,•,,,,•, 58¤epper¤.........,.,.................,..,.,,..,,..,,,. 63T¤meto•s,,,,,,,,,•,,,,•,,,,,,,•,„,,•,,•,,,,,,,,,••,,, 67
V, Comparison Betuen the Virglnia Shipping Pattern end theCumputed Phttcru of Higheut Het Pri¤¤••,•,••,,•••,•,,,••,• 73
Snap Beenn,,,,,,,,•,•,,•,,,,,,,,,,,•,•,•,,•,,,,,,,,•• 73
cehteee,...,.,.,,.,.,...,..,,..,,...,.,,,.,..,.,,.,,, 76C¤cuehere,,,,•,,,,•••,,,,,,,,,„••,,,•,,,•,,,,,,,•,„,, 78Tomatoes,,••,,•,•,,,,,,,,,•,•,•,,,,,••,,,,,•,,,,,•,,• 78
al 1; C
PhsvVE. Iutcrrclationship Prior am Carlct Arrival; w the
of the
97
XuXII. m
LIST Am FIG\1R@Table Pgg:• of *:1*0178 in v£l‘@-¤1ß••••••••••••••••••• ä
II. Emleo£theI§1*fectofEm0bserv•tio¤so¤Averegemc¢¤•ll•l••Q••••••O•OCI•lI•••I•!I••llOOOOIOOOOOIIII.
Gommrison ot How York and Iäaltinure weekly läsulinn Priceswith the weekly weimted Avm Prices Reoeived in theseßhrkßtß üümüßg 1-974-•55·56•••.... 37
IV. Calculntod Chi-Sqxsro Values for Bsrtlottw Test forEomomity of Prioe Varianeea of SixVemh1e hope inErw York City, Baltimwe, and Atlanm dzring 195*6-55-56.. *62
V. Analysiso¢’VarisnoeforSnapBmnPrioesfzu¤tl1eC¤m—pletaly Esndomized hloek Design with Sub-ewpling andGrthom Contrast for Nav York City, Baltim, and
kk
VI. Amlyoie or Verianoo tor Cnhbage Prices fromthelyüandomisadBlookßeeignwithContrast
for Saw York City, Baltimore, and Atlwu duringl95!"'55“56•I•l•••llOOOQUOOOIO!••O|l•Q¢•••t0•I|l•I••••••••·VII.
Ana1yaieo£VerisaeatorSweetCorn?rioee£!·omtheCw·pxetely Rwdoaxineä Block Design with Su1>··mling andOxttxml Convert for Bew York City, ältim, und
l9‘?+—55°°56••O••••••••••••••••••6••OI·••••d¢VIII.
Analysis er varianee for Cuem Prieen Erw the Couuplete-ly&nd¤miz„edBloakDes1gaw1th&.zb·mlingma¤10rtlaomContraet for How York City, Baltimn, and Atlanta duringl95l"55'56••I¢Ollt!•••••••OO!CIO••I••l•••••|•O•••I•I|!l•• 59
IX. Analyais er Vwianee fer Pepper Prioan from theBlock Dmim with Suhmling aw. htm
Contrast for Rev York City, Baltimore, end Atlanta during1•95l*‘*S5"56•tlOIOO••0OllltOIGOOOIOOOOOIOOIOIOOIl•|OI••••••X.
Analysis of Varianee for Tomte Prices from the Cmletalyäm1mizedBlochDeaimw1thSuab•¤¤u91.i¤ge¤d(h·thomContrast for New York City, Zbltimoro, and Atlanta during
19‘5I*'55‘96O•IlOOQOUCOl!••I••0•••OIOOOOUQOOGOOGQOOOOOOOIOOXI.
hm ort Simifioaut Correlation Codfieients BemKrise and Carlot Arrivale for Six Vemhles in Heu York
XII. ou? Sigzuifieaut Correlation Coewticients BmmPrion und Carlot Arrivala with Periode ot Low}. Production
for Six in Re-w Ymsk City, Baltimore,l95h‘§S'%Q•|•§lO•••••OOOOOOOOIOOOUOII
G Q
LED W AMB FIS1§i2·l^S(c“‘^b°)Table Page
XIII. BAM of Signifieant Ccrrelatien Coaficieute BewPriee aß Cnrlot Arrivale Th2.‘01.@ Une ot the Link RelativeIndex lwthod fer Six Vwtahlee in ww York City, Zhlti-wßg Ülwißß 19%*‘55'56••••••••••••••••••••••• %
XIV. °i‘w··‘£ear Cminatien Correlation Ceeffieiente aß Ga-Mficiente of Determinatiou of Priea aß Carlot Arrivalsfer Six Vmtablee in Saw Yerk City, Baltimore, M
87
XV. ‘Z;‘kn•ee•Ye¤1· CMinetio¤ Link Relative Indem Cnrrelaticn Co-wficiente und Cwciente of waination www PriceM Carlot Axrivnle for Six Vwblee in New Ywk City,mtiwg1-95!¥'55*56••••••••••••••••••XVI.
Point Elastieity of wö. for New Ycrk am Atlanta at theLevel of the '11¤~ee··Ye¤1• Average Carlut Arrivale in Sachlmrlat er Six Vwtable Craps dating 195l+··‘§5·56........... 91
Pigxe Page
l. SMP ww: weekly Carlot Arrivels äüagreesecl ee e Pereentof the 3-Year Averm Weekly Arrivela in Heu Yerk,mtmßyÄ‘b]BZ2‘t8••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••2.
MAPBEAIB: 2‘h1'}¤}'€•Ak‘¤9r8¤iP82°iQü£Hiw8^üB¥Et?!i08fer Virmnia Grewere After Arijuating the 3-Yu? Avvmawmßü fwÜ06‘Y••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••3.
SNAP Averw 3··‘ieaz· Seasonal Priee in Bew Yurk,mltmj und
Au&¤m•••••••••••••••••••••••II••••••I••••la.
MAP ww: Seawl Volme er United States Productionwaae·1esaPa—eentoi‘the3-Yearavmageweeml.
Ptüdllßüiüu.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••«•••••••5.
émwükz weeklyCe1·l¤t!u•rivaleE:peasedaeaPerea¤te£the 3-Year Avmw weekly Arrival: in Bew York, Beltimere,Bw- 50
6. CAMAGE: m¢•ketAz•man¢lPm•iod¤£Hig1aeethIetPrieaforVirginia warme etw Adjuating the 3·Yean· Avmage Priee
cwtiäiwOOOODO•••O•••I••IIIlO••lI•••$• So
7. CAwAGE: Avuage 3•·Year I-ärieea in Hav Yerk,mtm)8.
CABBAM: Seasonal Velwe er thited States PeoeluetionE}@.‘¤8M&88Pü@3ü$¤fÜB 3•YearAvm·a@wlmwtimlitIOOIOOOOOGOOD!IOCC!CIOOOIOIOOUQOOOOOOOOIOIIIO 52
9. weeklyCnrlo¤tAx·rivaleMeee«1aaeE·*a•emtot the 3-Year Average weekly Arrivele in Hav Yerk, witt-
516
N 7 G
LET N 'EABIES Am Flßlw (Cent.)
FigwcPam
10. ¤§rke·‘.;Ax~wa¤dPm·ieüe£IiiwHetPrice for Viryaie wmrers attw Adäurßing the 3··YarAverage Price for Traeapcrtaticu 0cet...................... 5*+
11. cw: Average 3··Yem:· www Priey in Heu Yerk,^tmm•QI|I••l•l•O•••O••••••••••••••••l••I•12.
S:mu.‘1‘ Gm: Sewcml Volume cf United State: weexacticeäepswaaecee aPerem*c.ei'the 3·-Ycu·Avm·¤geSw¤¤:a1
13. mßwwßz weekly üerlet Arrivele Eaqmesaea ae 6 Percentet the 3-·Ye•1· Averay wekly Arrivale in Heu Ywk,mtmj am^wwI•••¢•¢••••••••l••Il•Q•l••••••••QO••• ä
lk. . %hrw¢:.A:•a¤auäPm·ie¤1c£‘i!iwetHet Priceter Virginia www after Adguatiug the 3··Y¤•r AwayPrice €ÖG'Ü••••••••••••••¢••••••••••••••• &
1.5. 3-Year wem}. Prices in New York,mtémj AtmutttlOOOOIOOOOQQOOOIJO•I•IO§OO••IlO«I•• &
1.6. ütümwz Saneml. Vclxmes ci? United States PczzshxctioeEag:reamd•saP•m·wt¤tthe 3-YeerAverayw.!.
mmm••••§O•OOil!IOIIOOOOOIl|•I••0|hO•••|•!•••••••Il••17.
Weekly Cerl.otArriva1e Eanpreeeed es a Pcreeuecf the 3·~YéI¤° Averey weekly Arrivale in New Yerk,
Ü}
lß. EEPPEBSS ltrhee Arm mai Period er Hiwet Hei:. Price ferVirginia ww dter Adjmtiug the 3·-Ym· Away Price
®$t•••••••I••¢•l•l•••OI•••IlIl•••|••l•• &
1.9. Pkw: Averm 3··Year Saw!. Prices in Her Ycrk,AtJ‘¤u•••••I•••lI••••I•••••••4QO••••9•O•$•• ä
20. Seaecnel. Velune ot united Stetee ProductionP.weea.aeePae·cews—k¤Pt!>e 3-YeerhvuwäeewlP!‘m•l$t~iX••••aae••••••~ae·••••••••••••••••••·•••••••••••••••• ß
21. www: week1y·3ari.¤&;A¤·iva1sw.·.seea.eePe1•ce¤¤e£the 3··Yea:· Average weekly Arrivale in Rev York, ültimre,
22. : i·§rwA:.·w•xäP¤.·iodiu%4hiehHiwläetPrice for Virynia wuwe after Adgustiug ehe 3·-YearÄV@'l@ PYÄGE £&‘ ÖÜ8’Ü•••••••••••••••••••••• $
Q 8 Q
LET W (ßwt.)
Fmw üv23. Tmüewws Avuum 3··¥•¤ Sauounl Puma in Inv 'Iark,
mum) QÄt1I!l‘1ZI•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 11
214. 'i’Q&TOE$¤ Susann}. Vcluul M Ibituvl Bttüu Pfudiwßiuuwwnuctiwm••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••¢•I••• 71
23. wPEAw:Daat.5.mt1¤¤¤¤f5p.·1¤3&11¤•¤t¤£rws¤uTB
26. D«‘bi.¤tb1¤¤¤!¥•11&11x:l¤t•¤!i•w$w&s§¤¤Virmnil &·¤•¤*¤ éxzrim 1.9%. 1955; tu! 1956 Ewluuä“ ‘
d27.
ws DaatizntimafäiwtsftcußmaästunV1-Pßwäl
Q Q
klmlfäkß
MEAgxperdixA
Figure Page
1, S&@•P‘19el¢,wz week1yMw.:I¤PrieesioKevYork, Baltluwo,19%l|OIIOIOIIIIIQOIQIOIQOO lü
2, %P}ZzE‘AHS·.: w¤¤k1yC¤·1¤*:+Az•ri*ral¤ 1¤HuY¤rk, hltilnßo,$Ü• Atlanta dwißß 19%; Hä
1,956••••••••••••••••••••••• im
3, weekly Ewan Hier: in Be¤·York, Rltimre, und195lß, 1•9%••IOOOCIOQIIIIOIUOQIOOOOOOO
im
weekly Carlee Arrivels in Rev Ycrk, hltimwe, ou!.Ätlßßtß dcurim 195;*; lx- l956,,,,,,,,,,,,,,•,,,,,,,,,,•, 1-Ü5
5, Price; in Heu York, Kolumne,GJ-1*1% Hä-1955,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,6,
Cmrleäs Arrival! in Ew York,195:+, 1956oee•••••••••••••••••••• IW
7, v Weekly hhdzum Prieu in New Ywk, hltämwe,ESGOQOOIOßltlllliölbbllbtl
lg
8, Weekly @.*1,01: A¤•1v•1¤ in Ho! Ywk, Boltiurc,1~9%IQI¢O••lIOI•0•••O|llll!9,
%P@B:Wc•k1y!b1i•¤Pri0•t1¤HovYm'k, ßlumore, eu!19%) l9%l|•I•••IIIIOCIOIOIQCOOIOOOO 110
1.0, Püläs Weekly ßnrlot Arrival: in Nav York, Beltimxxe, aut195,*,19%OQOOIOIOICOOOOQCIOOIOOOOOO1.1,
’l'0ß*1‘&B2 Wukly Ihdisn Prioeo im Nov Yrxk, älsbinms, aß1951*]]•9%•OIOIIIOQOOOOCOQOIOOOIOOOIO12,
Yüllkßz Weekly 121:.*1,01; Arrivult in HN York, h„11:iu•, mdAtlwtu ÖLTÄX 195:*}
1.9‘56,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 1,},3
Appendix 0
Table Pop
I, Gwrelaeico coutieieuts und oeettieimes ut BeoseuiaetiouBetve¤¤!•hrk¤tPr1ee•¤¤1®·1otAzr1ve1•£¤rH•vYc¤•k¤1ty ,,, lm
¢ 1Q G
APPMH Fßlß AE (Gmb)
”2•b1a Page
II. Ccsmlsticu Cuafficzmts und Codticiwts of DutwmimtimBctvaw Ihrkat- Priac ad Gsrlct Azwivals fw At1|¤‘¤••••••••••• 1.23
IIL Cc¤.·¤1.•t„1¤¤ Ccstticimts und ¢¤d'£1¤1w·b• at DstwuuttmPlflßä Hä
- gl -
WGETABLE PRICE IMFROVEMENT THROIEH CHOICE OF M\RKE.‘IS
INTRODUCTION
The vegetable industry is an important segment of V:Lrgin1a's
agriculture. The latest census indicates there are seventy·two
thousand aeres of commercial vegetables in Virginia with an annual goes
return of over ten million dollars. Farms gowing these crops are
concentrated mostly in Eastern Virginia and are relatively close to
large vegetable consumption areas. The cliunte and types of soil in
these areas of Eastern Virginia are also very suitable for vegetable
production. Since World War II, these vegetabla farms, through modern
technolog, have increased their per acre output of most all vegetable
crops. larger financial returns per acre to the vegetable industry
might be expected to have resulted frcm these increased yields; however,
this has not proven true in Virginia. Prices received for some of the
most important vegetables produced in Virginia between 1952 and 1957+
were k0% less than those received for vegetables produced in other
areas during the same seasonal period.]-‘/
Vegetable acreage in Virginia, during the 20 years from 1935
through 1951+, has declined an average of 1,263 acres a year. During
world War II, the acreage did increase over some of the pre-·war years,
y U. S. Department of Agiculture, Agicultural Statistics, 1955,pp. 199—2u9.
- 12 .
but even then the total acreage did not regain the 1935 level.}!
Why has Virginia, with its improved production technolog, favorable
climte and solls, and its relative nearness to large consumption areas,
been forced to withdraw over twelve hundred acres of its commercial
vegetables each year? A possible answer lies in the fact that Virginia
vegetable gowers received lower average prices for their produce than
did growers from other areas. The explanation of these lower prices
my he either that Virginia growers produced poorer quality produce, or
that improvements in marketing methods and techniques in Virginia have
not kept pace with those M other arms.
Problem
Since Virginia vegetable gowers are close to the traditional large
Northern consumption areas relative to other vegetable producing areas,
they have shipped and still do ship most M their produce to these
markets. The large Northern mrkets receive the bulk of their produce
from the various vegetable areas along the const from Florida to New
York as the marketing season for each crop moves from South to North.
Normally, each of these areas has a definite period in which to
market the various vegetables in the Northern markets. However,
variations in the weather, which may cause either early or late planting
1./ U. S. Department M Commerce, U. S. Census M ääicultwe, 195}+,Volume l, Counties and State Economic Areas; 15, ginia andWest Virginia, p. 51.
- 13 ..
or fast or slow mturing of the crops, change the seasonal production
pattern of an usa and often cause its lxoduction to arrive on the
market at abnorml times. This Variation sometimes results in produce
from areas, which are normslly either earlier or later, arriving on the
market at the same tim as V1rginia's production. An oversupply in
the Northern mrkets is likely to result from this overlapping of the
production areas.
During recent years, transportation luve made it
possible for some more western regions to ship vegetables into these
markets. When vegetables from these areas arrive at the same time as
those poduced in Virginia, an oversupply is also likely to result.
The latest census figuren show that there has been a decrease of
21.*+ percent in the number of vegetable growers in the South between
19kO and 1950.;*/ Even with this decrease in the number of vegetable
g;:.—wers, there has been an increase of Mh percent in vegetable acreage.
However, this increase in acreage when compared with an aareage :Lncreasa’
of 21.8 percent for the United States is mm1.l.g/ This would indicate
the supply of fresh vegetables in the South is relatively less than in
other parts of the country.
lf States includes in the South for this comparison are North Carolina,South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabaua, Mlssissippi, Arkansas,and Louisiana.
g/ U. S. Department of Commerce, U. S. Census of iculture 1950,wgoagg*11:, General Report, cnegeteb1e¤,
. lh ..
Industrielizatzlon of the South ha progessed rapidly duringrecent years and is a factor which has likely increased the demand forvegetables in that area. This industrialisation has caused a yadmlshift in populaticn from the farm to industrialized towns or cities.As a result, the South's urban dwellers lmve increased by *+.8 percentbetween 19*+0 and 1950. The number of urban dwellers in the North hasdecreased 1.7 percent during the same ten years. The total populationof the South has increased by 1*+.2 percent while the total populationin the North has increased only 9.7 percent over the 19*+0 populaticnlevel.!·'/ These population shifts and ywths should. logcally increasethe relative demand for vegetables in the South.
During the fifteen years htm 19*+0 through 195*+, there las beenan increase in personal income of 312 perwnt in the South, whileduring the same fifteen years in the Northeaat, there was a rise inpersonal income of only 202 percent.g/ This additional disposable incomein the South, which gives more buying power tc the conswner, willlogicslly increase the demand for vegetables relatively more in thatarea.
Considering these factors that may effect supply and dernnd orfvegetables in each area and the fact that Virginia with its coolereummers can produce some vegetables more economically than they can be
U. S. Department of Comnerce, Statistical Abstract of the United2/
p19ggé•pp. 22-23. """""""""'”""“"""""'”"""""""""
- 15 ..
1n·oduced in the deeper South with its higher temperatures, it 1sappropriate to ask the following question: "Can Virginia shift itsmarketing pattern from the traditional Northern uarkets to theincreasingly industrialined Southand increase the net return toVirginia vegetable g·owers?' A further extension of this question isto determine when during the season shipments to each of theseareas could be most profitable.
Objectives of the Study
The objectives of this study are to determine: (l) if adifference exists in the price levels of the Northern and Southern
mrketing areas, (2) the mrket in which the highest net price isavailable to Virginia vegetable gowers after transportation cost isconsidered, (3) if a relationship exists between price and the quantityof produce arriving on the market or between price and total production,(ln) the effect on the market price of additional carlot arrivals ineach uarket, (5) if the prices quoted in the terminal uarkets arerepresentative of the prices received by Virginia vegetable growers,and (6) the primary seasonal variation in both price and the quantityarriving on the terminal mrkets.
Review of Literature
Very few price studies concerning termiml mrkets for vegetableshave been published. A search of available publications on the subject
mrhcts.and King at Bmw wnlina Smm C
- 17 ..
peceding day in dollars per bushel. These same three factors
accounted for 91: percent of the variance in pics of green peppars.
The pics elasticity of demand for sliclng cucumbers over the 27-day
period cantered around -1.5 in the New York mrket„ The pics
elasticity oc? demnd for yeen peppers was found to be very elastic,
centering around -10.0.
The following statement which should be considered in the inter-
pretation ocf the above results was mda in their study:
In spite of the fact that a high proportion of the Variationin New York price is accounted for in this model, the reader.=:hcu.L1 be cautioned aginst placing complete faith in theresults until other models and longer tim periods have beenexamined.
Shuffett included cabbage and tountoes in an analysis of several
vegetab1es.}-/ This study was conducted over the 21 years between 1921
and 19l+l for cabbage„ Per capita production of cabbaga and per capita
personal income were the independent variables used to explain the
variatlons in pices and to establish a deunnd curve. Shuffett found
the demand for cabbage to be inelastic with an increase of l percent in
per capita production associated with a decrease in price of 2J+ percent.
He also found that a 1 percent increase in per capita disposable income
was associated with a 1.2 percent increase in price. These two factors
explained 73 percent of the variance in the price of cabbage over the
21 years.
1/ D. Milton Shuffett, The Demnd for Price Structure for SelectedVecgälgrlesg,
...3,3-
aassoum Duriagthesn@,vh£¤:hi6*ub¤pez.·1¤dofp·u¤ry£¤ta·¤st1¤tha;¤amtstxa¤ur,
mf«m¤1d¢¤:bb¤ga·ä·.¤bei¤¤1¤st1c¤1¤¤„·;“/ Hefomd.*¤l¤¤·aaaz3.¤¤¤•¤a•¤•¤‘
2•J.p¤¤·¤mtd¤ei¤p.·i¤as• B¤wvm·,¤¤1„Y69ߤ£thav¤1m¤¤w¤s¤odö.x¤**mtl1i::p¤z·*L
.. 19 ..
The studies reviewed in this section are concerned primrily with
determining the elastieity for the vegetable indicated. Shuffett used
yearly prices and Lindstron and King used daily prices to calculate
the elesticity values. Ho study could be found which used an inter-
mediate time period, such as a week. In their studies, no attempt was
made to establish price levels and to compare the difference between the
price levels of mrkets.
. QQ ..(
DESIGN OF THE STUDY
This study is desigzed to: (1) compare the net returns from
vegetables mrketed in the Northern and Southern marketing areas,(2) determine the relationship between price and carlot arrivals, and(3) determine the effect of additional quantities arriving on the
nnrket.
Selection of Markets
The primary considerations in selecting the markets to be used inthis study were: (1) defining the mrketing areas to be studied, and(2) finding the mrket that is most representative of the areas. Forthepurposesofthis study, thedividinglinebetweentheßorthernand
Southern areas was established along the southern state line of Virginiaand Kentucky. The Southern area includes the states south of this lineand extending west to the Mississippi Riva. The Northern area consistsof the states which lie north of the southern boundaries of the Virginiaand Kentucky state lines and east of the western state lines of Indianaand Kentucky.
The selection of the representative narket within each area wasrestricted to the larger mrkets, because complete market report datawere not available for the smller markets. In the south the largercities are: Atlanta, Georgia; Birmingham, Alabama; and Memphis,
.. 21 ..
Tennessee.y Atlanta, which is the largest of these three cities, was
selected to represent the Southern area. Memphis is too far north
and is probably influanced somewhat by Northern markets. Atlanta was
selected over Birmingham because of its more suitable location with
respect to Virginia and its central location with respect to other
Southern markets.
New York was selected as the representative mrkat for the
Northern area. It is the largest market in the Northern area and is
genarally considered the price leader. New York is also centrally
located in relation to other Northeast and New England mrkets.
_ When the representative market was selected for each area, the
assumption was mda that other mrkets within the area follow the
pattern of the representative mrket. The Baltimore zmrket was compared
to the New York mrket to determine if the markets within an area conform
to each other. This comparison gve an indication of the applicahility oc?
the results from the repesentative market to other markets in the l1‘Q8•
Selection of Craps
The crops to be used in this study were selected primrily on
the basis of their importance in Virginia. Irish and sweet potatoes
were not considered in this study. Based on the warm davoted to
lf Harry Hansen, The World Almnac and Book of Facts New York WorldNm.1967.(Thepopulation of the cities is more than 300,000.)
- 22 ..
to each, the eight most important green vegetables in Virginia aretomtoes, snap beans, yeen lima beans, sweet corn, cabbage, cucumbers,
peppers, and watermelons.y Two ot these, green lim beans and water-
melons, have been excluded from the study. The largest part of the
geen lima bean crop is used by processors in Virginia and so would
likely contribute little to this analysimy Watermelons accounted. tor
the smallest percent of the acreage of any ot the sight vegetables in
Virginia. Since they account for auch a smll Ndpvrtion of the total -·
acreage, they were dropped from this study also. The six ranaining
crops account for 66 percent of the geen vegetables grown in Virginia.
The acreage and percent of the total production of each vegetable are
shown in Table I.
Table I. Acreage of Vegetable Crops in Virg:lnia*
Crop Acreage Percent of TotalAcreage
Tomatoes 17,792 2l».5&1ap beans 15,lI»30 21.2
Sweet corn l-+,722 6.5¤¤bb¤s¢ 3.931 5•*+Cucumbers 2,931+ !+,0Peppers 2,861 3.9¥ U. S. Department of Üonmerce, Q2 Cansus of Eiculture; Summry
Sheet, State of Virginia, November 1955.
1/ U. S. Department of Comerce, 192 Census of ggiculture, SumnrySheet, State of Virginia, November 19 .
2/ U. S. Department or Agiculture, ggicultural Statistics, 1955, p. 206.
.. gg ..
Scope of the Study
The vegetable industry has experienced many changes during the
last twenty years, both in technologr and. in mrketing methods. In
considering the tim period to be covered in this analysis, it appeared
that the inclusion of years before many of the current changes took
place would make the findings less applicable to the problems facing
the vegetable gower today. Since the industry is changing so rapidly,
the most recent three years, 195*+, 1955, and 1956, were selected to
be included in this study. This period should be long enough to
establish relationships without encountering the effects of pronounced
industry changes.
The length of the tim period selected for each of the observations
was a week. The monthly period was not considered satisfactory because
variations that take place within the month are not revealed. It was
expected that the weekly period would smooth over some of the effects
of large day-to-day variations due to local factors that say effect
an individual market.
Eighteen weeks during which the bulk of Virginia vegetables are
harvested were chosen for study rather than the entire year. This
period begn with the lbnday nearest to the first day of June and
continued for 18 consecutive weeks to the last of Septmber er the
first of October depending on the year. It was not feasible to
include the entire marketing period of all the crops because of
limited time and funds. This eighteen·week period does account for
.. gl; ..
the vegetables marketing from 70 percent of the acreage of the six
leading yeen vegetable crops in Virginia.l’·/
Source of Data
Weekly average prices, the price data desired for this analysis,
were not available in published sources. Since weekly data were not
available, weekly averages for both price and quantity were computed
from the daily market reports of the three cities included in the
am.1.yais.g/ Because of the variations in container size and the absence
of uniform terms to establish quality, it was difficult to obtain a
common weekly price throughout all uarkets and years. Ratber tlrnn attempt
to adjust the variety of container used to a standard weight, only the
price quotations of one container were extracted for use.3/
1] U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agicultural Statistics, 1955,pp. 199-2*+6.
gf U. 8. Department of A9·icu1.ture, Fresh Fruit and Ve ble MarketNews New York Daily Reg, 195*+, 1955, E56; U. S. ofÄgiculture, Daily Fruit and Veggtable Reg, Atlanta, Georgia,195*+, 1955, 1 3 . S. Department of Agriculture and Btryland StateDepartment of Agriculture, Daily Fruit and Veggtable Re€g_t, FederalState bhrket News Service, Baltimore, lhryland, 1 , 19 5, 1956.
3/Inordertoavoiderrorsinthepricesduetothenat1n·eofthecontainer, rather than the produce itself, one stancürd containerwas chosen for each crop and the price of that container of producewas used in each market throughout all weeks. One exception tothis is in Atlanta for tmatoes. The 60-·pound box ses not quotedin that mrket, so the prices had to be converted from the *+0-poundbox. A1.1p¤•icesquoted1.nth1s studywillbe in termsofthefollowing containers: Snap beans, bushel3 Gabbage, 50-pound sack;Sweet corn, 5 dozen BGPB; Cucumbers, bushel; Peppers, bushe13 andToamtoea, 60-pound box.
- 25 ..
Additional data were collected from Virginia vegetable shippers
in order to determine wlmt prices they actually received for their
produce in the mrkets being studied.l‘/ Data on the destination of
the vegetables from these Virginia shippers were also collected.
Produce included in these shipuents was often purchased from local
vegetahle gowers by the local produce firm and then shipped to the
terminal mrkets by the produce firm. Data on transportation costs
were obtained from Virginia Truck Brokers recommended rates and the
Inter•8tate Commerce Commission rail rates.g/
Procedure of Analysis
Several methods of computing the most representative weekly
price from the prices quoted in the daily market reports were tried.
A weighted average price, which would be the most desirable, could
not be calculsted because the quantities sold at each of the quoted
prices were not given.
Ibny difficulties were encountered by using the price of a
standard quality product as quoted in the daily market reports. InI
mw instances, the terms used to describe the quality were not
lf Data include informtion from five produce firma in Eastern Virginiaon size of each shipment, destination of each shipment, and pricereceived for each shipment in the terminal mrket.
gf Unpublished transportation rates for fresh vegetables recommended bythe Virginia Truck Brokers Association from Eastern Virginia toprimry mrkets.U. 8. Department of Commerce,
äéeggBoin's Tariff No. •• ICC 339;
Agggt Boin°s Tariff No. s Tariff Ho. äICC 518; Agent Jamison's Perishable Protective Tariff No. ¢ , ICC 31.
- 26 -
uniform in all mrkets or during different periods of the year. It
was also found that there were many weekJ.y periods when the nice of aparticular quality product was not quoted in the reports.
The weakness in the use of an arithmetic average of all the prices
quoted for the week was that if one or two very high price observations
occurred, even though only a small quantity my have been sold at that
price, the weekly av price was inflated above the general level
of prices during that week. The example shown in Table II will
best illustrate this weakness. The arithmetic average nice is $2.71
in the example, yet over 70 percent of the observw prices fell below
this price.}! It does not seem correct to say auch a price was rene-
sentative of the prices in the mrket that week.
Table II. Emmple of the Effect of Extreme Observation: on AverageWeekly Prices.
Number of Price x NumberPrice Obeervations of Observations
$ 1.00 1+ $ 1+.002.00 6 12.003.00 2 6.008.00 ____2_ 1.6.00
11+ $ 38.00
2 2921}-92 = $2·71+ 10/11+ - 71%
.. 27 ..
If the medien nice of all the weekly observations is used,
rather than the erithmetic average, the influence of extreme cheer-
vations is avoided,2-J The medien price in the example shown in Table II
is $2,00, This price seems to be more representative of the prices at
which most transactions took place,
When the medien price is used to renesent the weekly mrket
price, the essuurption is made that equal quantities of produce were
sold at each of the quoted prices during the week, This assumption
must be kept in mind while interpreting the results of this analysis,
The weekly medien prices from the daily market reports were plotted in
order to establish any wende in prices tlmt may Inve existed, These
prices were also used in establishing neliminary relationships withi
other factors,
The quantity of each crop that arrived in the markets during each
week was calculated by single addition of the daily arrivals by truck and
rail,
The data collected from the Eastern Virginia vegetable nowers
were used to calculate the weighted weekly average prices for shipments
of each crop to the uarkets being studied, The weekly quautity of each
crop shipped from Virginia to each market was calculated by addition
of the daily carlot shipment to each mrket during each week,
;_./ The mm peee 18 the price srtheobservationwhen the price are arrayed from the lowest to thehighest price,
.. 38 ..
The weekly wcighted average wies ta Virginia yewsre was ccmared
to·ä·.heweekJ.y¤¤di.a¤1I.•1ces¤f thedailysarhet reports incrderto
determine if the prices free the market raperts were an accurete
msesure M the prices which Virginia yawers actually received.
€”&V'0¢kl}'¤BdJ.8!21I'i¢88W8P¤8V§8@d—¤V&‘ thethrwyearsfar
the erope in each m;=·E;e„. The eurve of these prices ehawe the average
xrice that existed in the mrhets dmming weh M the eighteen weeks
erw the three years.
AnanalysisMv¤·ianeeteetwasp¤·£¤rxsedant;hemed.ian;¤·ices
tree the three mehets te if there was a eimificant
d1ttermcebetwes¤the;:·icelevelsoftheH¤rt„hmt·nendSauthernmrhets
ans tc twthw determine if the pics levels cf the markets within the
Ncrthernereawm·etheaame. A9$1¤‘¤¤¤tccnfidenee1¤evclwasused
fer this analysis. The analysis at veriance model used te eetahlish
thesedifferences in theprice levelswae the cmletelyrandnmuized
black deeiw with svh-sam1.1ng.l·./ The specific application M this
mas}. to the medien price data is discuseecl in a later scenes.?]
ehemrhet ev¤esMsqx¤reei‘ra¤·the•na1ysisMvaria¤cew¤.·e
mxhdivided by an erthogsnal contract to detumins which mrkets account
ter sipifieant diffm-enees in the pics 1.eveleÄ/ In crdar ta detm
1ftherewaea«u!ferwceinthe;1·icelevelsMtheHer*ch¤·na:xd
Q.] Bwnard Oetle, Statistics in Research, The Iowa State Saum Press,
3] Qp_i_g1_., pp. 267»272.
.. 29 -
Southern mrkets, one contrast used was Hew York and Baltimore versusAtlanta. A second contrast where New York versus Baltimore was used
to determine if there was a difference between the price levels within
the Northern area.
The transportation cost for the crops from Virginia to each
narket was deducted from the three-year average weekly nice of each
market to determine the net nice that Virginia vegetable shippns could
have received in each mrket. The weekly net prices of each drop in
the markets were plotted and a curve was drawn through the highest
point for each week. This curve was coded according to the market
that was orgnic to the highest net nice for that week. This curve
for the individml crops then shows the week and the mrket in which
Virginia growers could have received the highest net nice for each crop.
Other costs, such as ccmissions and unloading charges, were
considered; howevn, these costs seemxed to vary more within each
mrket than they did between the different markets. The normal commission
charge was 7 to 10 percent on most comnodities with an unloading charge
of l to 3 cents a unit depending on the container size.}-! Since no
significant difference in this cost could be established between the
markets, they were not used in this study.
In order to determine neliminary relationships that existedbetween price and quantity arriving on the narket, the quantities
1/ Unpublished data from Virginia Truck Brokers Association.
..39..
ofeechca·op1¤e¤·lotequiv¤1s¤te$/tl¤tsrr1vsdeechwe¤k1¤tk1e
mrutsvweplotted. Ihecurvesfrcmtheaedntanlsoshosrthesuulueudsisurimlsiuuchmrhet.
Th8‘Uh¥8£·YBl!lVü'%£l0tl‘!PiWlB!N'¥5}lB¢l'0]JBi¤Q¢h
mrutwerscalculatedbyemathodsudlwwtmtusedtoauwauthe·t1¤·ee·yearsv¤.·¤@1z·ice. I¤o¤·d.e¤.·toobtsi¤aedsm¤mi¤atoe
twthecpnstiwofcarlotuwiulsmthemmllamlwgemrheta
eschveek'ssr1·1v¤l¤w¤sc:q¤•assedas•p¤¤~ee¤tot‘the·t1¤·ee·ys•rweek1;rsv urrivals forthereupeetive mrket. wpletting
thesei¤üexv¤1ues£¤¤·snchc¤·opon¤c¤¤¤¤¤ey·¤ph,pex·iodso£
¤hovea¤dbelc~avm·smerz·1v¤ls£oreschez·¤pi¤¤¤ymrh¤tsould
6•s:l1ybemeeoga1ss:1,@dJ.ess¤t‘tlm¤size¤!t11¤mrkst.
'£?hetotalprodhet1c¤¤t‘each¤£t11ecx•¤ps!.¤theLka1tedSt¤tes
relationship betvsm these wo thctors. Up to dateweekly data outhetstn1;¤·oductiomvore¤¤twvail•hlefc¤·thisp1¤·pose,so¤e•so¤a1
pro1luct1cndsteone•ch¤ropw¤z·e1xsed.quorted
m
tze‘·*I;;„":.?°‘;§§¢*‘°,},Z"$f3§?‘:„.„.°°1955 ;Z’.: ‘ ·gf lg. é‘.’Dsp¤r¤:¤¤¤t'¤¤t Ag·isultuz•e, Üggals · Fresh gut lggja¤d1QäA.¤¤u1.§_, pp. 18419.
.. 31 ..
in a long season my appear largm in relation to the production or
e ehnrter season than it actually was. To remedy this, the data were
eaqressed as a pereent of the three-yu: evwage production of each
season end these values were used to establish relaticnships with
mrket price.
In order to establish any lnterrelatlcnship between the weekly
market prices and carlot errlvals, a simple correlatlen betvm these
two factors was wfemed for each crep during each year. The depart-
ent varlahlswastheweeklymedlan priceandthe lndqxnrdwtveriable
was the weekly carlot arrivals on the market. The statlstical procedure
es ontlined by Freund was cerrled mrt te ohtsln the oorrelation
eeefficients (r) and the eoefflcients of determlnation(x•2)•-y T7! P
values were tented for simzlflcsnce by the 5% and 1% tables for the
Simple Produet-Mmncnt and mltiple Correlation Ccefflclmtsßf
A smple correlation between the link relative indenas cf prim
end the link relative indems ef arrivals on the market for each year
wssusedtorenovethe‘e£feetoftlxe seesomltrendwhlehmyhave
dlsterted some er the results.}! By this method, e ehew in quantity
whichmyhave inducedachangelnprleeeanbemzaexred, regrdlese
ct tm price level during different parts ef the season.
y John E. Freund, Modern Statistics, Prentice lhll, Inc.,
gf Statistical , bth ed., The Iowa StateCollege Press, 195ia,”K”§§l.
}/ The link relative index le eomputed by divlding each waelvs picser quantlty of arrivals into the following week's price er srrivals.The reeultlng lndex gives the percent change from the mevlousweek'e price er queutlty cf arrivals.
.. gg ,.
A simle cerrelatism between price and quautity ef e„x·rivaJ.e es
themrketvaspertcc·medwitht!xepw·ioani*localm·oduetinewar
meh mrkat This analysis was used because during psrina:od? local mcauctien nm each marhet zmny of the vemtables uwe sold
directly tc local stores er hendled hy huckstwa. Queatities of
vegetehles sold in this mnner could ant he www einen they did
not man through the temieel sweet; however, it eppwrs that these
quautitiaa did effect the total supply within the area.
In order to see if the quazztity arriving during the previews
week erfected the mine ef the present week tm quentity of weekly
earlot errivals was l aus week behind the weekly mice in a
trial analysis.
The possihi lity nf using, a evmltiple cezweletien whwe several
factors were ineluaed in me analysis was investimted by tw maphie
appzmximtios The dependant variable in this multiple
ccrrelatioeasalysiswasthemdiwwaeklymiwoftlwwepmtlw
rerket and the three independent variables were: (l) arrivals dzming
the present vwl, (2) arrivals during the previous week, and (3) total
errivals an the mrhet nf all six cropa included in the study.
A three·year enrrclatien eoefficieat between mine ana carlnt
arrivals in each ¤·a1•i·.et usa mlculated by using the data from all
l/ U. S. Bspartment of Agiculture, »» nial hlcafer Fresh‘äg/gähwitlgärher, sätatiwblcßl ieclnai uns in Rewch let ed. ,Hcfßzeu nem ssn
.. 33 ..
sh weeks tn one analyst:. The ceerelstien eeafftetents from this
analysis ande tt pesstble to demwnine the overall three-year relation-
ehtp between prtee and earlet arrtvals for each erep. These three-year
enrrelatton coeffietents were alee ealeulatad by an altwnate method
ustng the three-war link relative p·teee and carlet arrivals.
The elasttctty of demand for the creps tn each nerhet was enl-
eulated te determine the effect oe pdee, when the qmnttty arrtving
wan veried. To ealeulate the point elastietty equattee, it was neeauary
to first ebtatn the reg.-ession equatien free the grtee and earlet
ar·rtvals data by the method shown by Fremd.}! The rmeeaton equattons
from the three-·yeax· link relative indems of prtee und earlet srrivala
were ehtatned by the ume method. the reyesston eqyuatine from either
the unadgueted data or the link relative index data was und to eeleulate
the elastietty, depmxding cm which af twee equattone explemed more ef
the tnveree relationship between yriee and eaelot arrivals an the
market. The point elasttetty eqmttens were ealeulated from the
ayproqgrtate reyeesion eqnation hy nee ef ealeulus es wtltned hy
C§Z':Lntner.g/The effect of an addittonal earlet ef xroduee arrtvlng ea the
mrhet may be detweined hy first ealeulating the point elastietty at
lf Freund, Q. g:_g_l__t_., pp. 2¥#6·25'5.eerhard Ttntnez-, MatQt1eg and ätistlee for Eeneemtes, Rinehartand Company, Inc., 1953: PP- ll9·~l20.
G 3h. Q
the appz·opr:Late level for the change. Since the elasticity has been
calculated. end the percent ckmnge in quantity can be established, the
percent change in price in each market my be calculated for each
CI°OP•
.„ Percent in mntiQ_./ Percent change in price e Bt c y
. 35 -
COM*ARISONOFDAII„YM\Rl·u*E¥TREP®i‘PRlcESA1lI>PR@RECEIVED BY VIRGINIA SHIPPEBS
lu determining the relationship between the reported mrhat piece
end prices received by Virginia vegetable gwws, a complete ceveraga
ot all. markets and crcps was not i'easib1.e„ Only Nav York and Baltimore
wma used in this comparison because insuzttieient shipmeote were mda
tree Virginia to Atlanta during the three years studied to permlt
ealculation et a weekly weimted average price. I*\a·the¤sore, euttieient
obswvations were not available to include sweet cum sul peppers in
this phase ot the analysis. The ditticulties in ebteining reliable
detafcr sweetcorn arisesfromthetacttlnt thelocalgreduce
dcalers inlksternvirginia fromwhoastluedatawere obtained shied
army treu handling it beuum ot its perishabil.;I.ty• Peppers vue not
included because sutticient sbservations were sort available during the
eighteen weeks er this study. The arm- portion ot Virgi¤ia's peppers
is xzarloeted in the late fall.
Sm criterion ter an aceeptable range ot agmt between the
lO¢BlV¢igh@$ßV¤.‘I@§i®B8@$l3%¢!-1l¤‘UäBli„$l@kQ‘$?1GBV&8
neededbeeausesomvariatienbewaentlutwoprieeswculdbceuqected
due to variatims in quality ct the produce, size ot load, and other
factors which effect the price et any particular lot ov! pwaduee. The
criterion established tor this purpose us ter the two prices to fall.
within e 25 percent range ot each other. Fer example, ii" the terminal
market price was $2.00, the lewest Virginia price would be $1.50 and the
himest price would be $2.50. I! the eriterion tar the agremt of
..35..
pdees ms widehed mare ot the weekly priees www eyee with each
othmu Ittherengeeteeeeptebilityweaurrww, theepposite
ww1d.bet:.·ue. Theäöpereeetrmgedpieeemsemsidmvdmß
suitable tor the purposes ot this ccsqaerimn.
'1'hee•hhege¤·ieeemthete:·miue1¤¤rket•uitheV1rgi¤5n.g,1·aner
pe1eeseg·eedvitheeehothe1-hettem·tI1•¤the1e·ieea¢e¤ye£th¤
ethererops('I‘ab1eIII). Thetwop·1ee¤eg,reed92paree¤t
• '
+
•
•
• +
-• • +
•
+
•
-• +
•
- .
• • • • • ., • + •
• •
• •
•
-• • • .. - • • • • • • • + • • •
• • • , . - • + • -
•·
•
- 33 -
tountodatawereccllected stetedttutheusedültimweesa
"dxming market". y This marketing wactice may cxplain the com-
plate dimg~e@t ef prices in Baltimore einen the asaunwtion was
ende that the qualityof the prodnee fromvirginiewas the um ae
th¢BV$•'lgGQ\Bli‘bY¢€d\1¢00¤”€•lE‘!1&I§i&l&‘l§¢‘B•
when plotted, the shipmcnta et the crcpe tromvirgnie form
cnrvee which approach a bell shape. This bel}. shape is caused by
the large volume of shipuents that tahc plaw during the middle ot
the Virginia mrhstixzg period. In Table III most er the negtive
eigen, which indicate the wo prices do not ayee, oecur during
the first and Last weeks of the Virginia müneting period. The
d1.tef;a·ieeeinthefirstandLestot'themrI«¤eting
pwiod may be due to inaature, o~·ermeture, er other subwtandard
quality produee. Peer quality produee would bc eaqaccted to bring
lm: prices whw in c@titio¤ with Mgher quality produee from
other areas. Since mellw qmotities were urheted during the
firstandlnstweeksetthemrketizgeeascn, thenam¤ee·ctship—
m¤tsthattnokplacevhmathewopr1eesag·eedwas1n.·¤bab1ylers¤•
than the mnmer of weeks when yriees ageed indieated (Table III).
Sev~enty··four pereent er the weekly grieea received hy VirginiaA groversweret‘ozmdtoag~eewitht1wmtro¤thedai1y:¤rhrtrcp¤rta
lf The "dumping mrhet" is the market to which much or the lowquality produce was chipped.
.. 39 ..
cx? cities wm the tm··ee—ymx· perioci few amp bams,
ushbege, svmct cum, ami umtms. The 9 weeks er tsmto ebservatima
1:: were exclxxled. i‘1~¤¤: this oveanll awm·eg;e einen that xzntlut
we used es a "dump1¤g :ae.x·ke's:"•
.. hg
W MAR!
.. Ing,
analysis; cf variante test uns used te determine lf there
was 6 sigxiiicaut diffenence between the ywüy yam levels an thes;n1n•ee mrsets and to de·t in vhich ct these mvhets the himest
yice level eadsfxcd, It was necessary to pwrws a ststistical test
ofthismtma Bil3&0¤1Y§¤§11B0bB¢1"U‘8tiü3B0f'€h¤E1¢@i388¢h
mrhet uwe quota in the daily weißt
remts,randsmisedblock desig with s”ub~&lisg vss und te estate the
values for the analysis af verlasse, The mthmtical mdel
st this design is shows below,ygmk-=p+ :41 +
YaWhereß z·eyesentsatx•uema¤o¢‘ths1n.·1ces
Mreyeseats tlaedfeet si'them··hets¤¤p·ice
‘!rsp¤·ese¤tstheei*t‘eetoi'·thsyearso¤pvice
EE reyesmts the effect sf ist/waeticu between mxlmteand ymrs
veyemsts the Mfect et iutwaetion sf the weeks esthe expesrinesntsl mit
The mathmtiml yccedma umd ts ehteis the analysis uf vsriaucs
with the m·1 cosuast fra: this model is shows in Appeudix B,
prima are hmnwozns was tested by B¤t1ett°s test}! The
Q.] Geonnggs w. Snsdecse, Statistical Msthsds 5th ed,, The Iowa StateGollesß Hass, l956,
.. hg ..
oalculated chi-square values obtained from this test in all markets
are shown under "tota1" in Table IV. When these values were tested1
with the chi·square tabular value, all were found to be sign1ficant."/
Table IV. Calculated Ch1—Square Values from Bartlett's Test forH@ene1ty ot Price Variances of Six Vegetable Crops inNew Yerk City, Baltimore, end Atlanta Durlng 1951+ 55-56.
Vegetable Total Neu York City Baltimore Atlanta
Snap beans 27.11+5-1+ 5.708 5.21+1+ 11.1105*Cabbage 28.122* 6.221 15.1111* .895
cerr 6 21+.301+11 2.1+13 3.587 7.200Cucumbers 22.119* 5.71+2 8.661 1+.656Peppers 69.07311 18.8781+ 19.1+51+11 16.61+11+Tomatoes 65.861+* 10.57211 15.0381+ 28.573*11 Denotes signifioance at the l percent confidence level.
The primary purpose of this analysis is to determine lf there was
a significant difference between price levels in the mrkets. Differences
in the price levels of the years was of minor interest. Therefore,
rather than test the price verlances of both markets and years, only
the mrket price variances were tested for homogeniety. The number ot
variences tested in each individual Bartlett's test was then reduced
from 9 to 3. The chi-square values from these Bartlett's tests are
shown in Table IV for each mrket.
1/ A. Held & S. A. Sinkbaek, "A Table of Percentage Points of Chi-SquareDistribution} Skandinavisk Aktuarletidskrift, 1950, pp. 170-175.
„ h3 -
'lhsseelysis the miese ofeschcrepvesesrried
out even though all ereps die not eempletely emxfere te the essursptise
er hemsgseous variauess. 'Ehe geeusst dungen- in purermmg etstistiesl
tests ot this seture when the v•x·ie¤ees ers mt equsl is tut results
will be ohteisenl which "vsuld. lead to sure then 5 pemwb rsjeetious
(the desired Level et cosfidmuee is 5 psreset in the «useuss1¤¤)ir
the zmll hypethesis is tr¤e.”£/ Tbsretere, in iuatuautß where the
verzwzees ers sigitieeut F values my be eeeepted;
hwevu, When the F values are not sigistieant, the possibility still
remsiss tlznt they ers sigitiesst. Isstsuees wwe the results are
questi¤¤ehlebecsuseetthsheta·veria¤sese1·eee¤sid¤·e¤.i¤
the intenretsticm et the results.
wp Beseey
'fhswesklygriees otssspbems £¤!IewYorksudI3slti¤:x·e
tezxiedteremisuesrthessmslswlthzvugxeutthesesseu. The
tresdstwiees i.uAt1•.¤t¤w¤ssi¤1lsrtotknt ixxtheßäwthanurkets,
elthm>ghthep;·iselsvelwssh1g1¤s·. Thsrsslsoseemtelnveheens
Q§¤!§B!Il‘GB!ħI1¤YfC&"©h¤B$§„0f}!°i¢BB&"ßVl8B‘$l!@E¢
uadücetluruurhetstohsgutestmthehtwprtcttheseasm, l
1·w1ytr¤•¤themd.sdleez£'AugxmtthreughSspuw.
Cewglé. Ssedeeer, Statistical lhthsds Sth ed., The Ieue StateCelleg Press, 19$6,“§;'¤»T‘55’·tZ""""""""'Q] See Appehdix A fm ssldltieml illustretioss relstlm te this
discussion.
- 1+.14. -
Over the three years the carlot arrivals o snap beans in the
Atlanta market were well above the three·year average arrivals duing
June (Figue 1). This charaeteristie may be accounted for by the
liklihood that most of the early local production was shipped to the
nearby markets. The arrivals in Baltimore were ebeve average during
th later part of June ad July and this period also eoincides with the
peak period of local production in that area. No relationship between
arrivals and local production was evident in the New York market.
Table V. Anlysis of Variance for Snap Bean Prices trm the CopletelyRandomzed Block Design with Sub·sampling and OrthognnalContrast for New Yok City, Baltimore, and Atlanta during1951+-55-66.
Souce Degrees of Sums of Ehen Sqnares FFreedom Squares
Years 2 80,631 1+0, 316 2.625Lhrkets 2 2*46,130 123,065 8.011+Atlanta vs. New
York City andBaltimore 1 239,828 239,828 15.613+
New York City vs.Baltimore 1 6,302 6,302 .1+10
Experimental Error M 6l,MM2 15,361Sampling Error 153 536,M89 3,506 hTotal ss 161 921+,692
* Denotes significance at the 5 percent cöäfidence level.
The analysis of variance test for snap bean prices lndicates tere
was a significant difference between the pice levels of the markets
(Table V). Th F value for years indicates that there was no significant
J • #5 ·1Indexof carlots 0 41 vo 1 Q1 60 1 50 -1 50 ' 0 0 .
j 1 4 4F21 30 Is\ , ·1 20 ¢ ‘~\ ,•• [ . 0 4 1 ’A 1 10 .• °6 1 0 •°. · - 0 11 OO 1 °• NYC 0¢ l • I ° • , ‘ ¢ ·lgd • •
· '•* \ ‘•‘°90 ••\
:
_
~2• s ,,• 1 4 _ '0 80 °°•° 1Atla70
0 4 4 0 ‘ 1. 60 4 ° -1 2 3 5 • 7 3 9 10 11 12 13 1 15 1 17 Weeks — 4Figure 1 · SNAP BEANS: Weekly carlot arrivals exprasaed as apercentofthe 3—year average weekly arrivals in New York,Baltimore,1and Atlanta. “
Cents per bushel ’ 44
300 1 1 4 104
260 4 S4150
l 0 .0 1 _1 ..... Southern area50 1 4....„Northernarea1 -
123!+667ß91011 12131u16161718Weeks-Figure 2 — SNAP BLANS: Market area and period of highest net price _ 0
_4‘for Virginia Growers a1‘ter adjusting the 3—year average vprice for transportation cost. '
- N6 -
difference in the yearly level of prices between the three years.y
Since all of the varianoes of the prices were not equal, this value
my possibly be s1gnificant and the F value not indicate it.
When the mrket sums of sqvares were sub-divided by an orthogonal
contrast, a significant difference in the price levels was found
between Atlanta and the Northern mrkets. The F value frau the
analysis of variance for New York versus Baltimore indicates that
there was no significant difference in price levels within the Northern
area.
Although one mrket my uve a higher price level than another,
the question renains: "Would it be profitable to ship produce to that
market after deducting transpxtation costs?” After the three-year
average weekly snap bean prices were adjusted for transportation cost
from Virginia;/the highest net price was found to be in Atlanta during
nost of the season, encept for the first week in June and the first two
weeks in August (Figure 2).
There seems to have been little gross relationship between price and
production in 195*+ during the Late Spring (Figure 1 and *+).3/
1/ Tabular required F value is:Degreesoffreedom 2&*+ 18;*+cssrmence level 5% 1% 5% 1%Critical F value 6.9*+ 18.00 7.71 21.20
‘
2/ Transportation cost per hushel: Atlanta - $.50; New York ·- $.303Baltimore ·· $.25.
3/ The term price will be used throughout this section to refer to theweekly median price as calculated from the daily mrket reports foreach erop in each mrket and production will refer to the totalproduction of the respective erop in the United States. The sequenceof the figures referred to in these comparisons is the appendixr1gm·s russ (1) ana nnen uns um (h).
Cents perbushel‘
1+00350300
250'X· ·. NYC
\\
150 5 A
1 2 3 1+ 5 6 7 8 91oY11121311+‘15161718w+;ekS 5Figue 3 — SNAP BEANS: Average 3 year seasonal prices in· New York, Baltimore and Atlanta.
5 Index ofpoduction V ·
1 06 ‘1
5 5· 1 01+
1 O2 55 1 00 ' 5° 98 5196
591+
592
5 88 5.86 ’81+682 _L
Sp Sum, L Sp Sum V_L Sp Sum5 19311 1955 Y 1956 5Figure M - SNAP BEANS: Seasonal volume of United States5 5 ~ -5poduct1on*expressed as a percent of the 3 year_ 55 average seasonal production. 3 - Y
- L8 -
Production was high and the price level was near average in 195h.
An Lnverse relationship between price and production was more apparent
in 1955 when the price was below average and the production above
average.-]-J In 1956, an inverse relationship also occurred when the
nice was well above average and production was below average.
Little relationship between price and production was distinguish-
able during tha summer period. There was a relatively eonstant nice
level over all three years while production varied considerably both
above and below the three··year average.
Cabhagegj
The weekly prices of cabhage in the three markets remlned
relatively close together throughout the season during 1.95*+ and 1955.
In 1956, the prices in Atlanta were general!-Y hißhßf than in New York
and Baltimore.
The index of earlot arrivals as shown in Figure 5 form three
roughly "U" shaped curves. New York earlot arrivals were well above
average during the first few weeks, while the arrivals in the
Southern market were about average. During nidseason, the earlot
1/ The term average for price and production used in these eomparisonsrefer to the three-year average price in uch mrluet and the three-year average production in the United States.
g/ See Appendix A for additional paphs relating to this discussion.
.. 1+9 -
arrivals in all the mrkcts decreased below average and in the late
suumer the Atlanta carlot arrivala rose above the average. „
Table VI. Analysis of Variance for Cabbage Prices from the ComletelyRamdomized Block Design with Sub-sampling and OrbhogonalContrast for New York City, Baltimore, and Atlanta during195ü·55·56•
Source Degrees of Sms of Mean Squares Fa Freedom Squares
Years 2 6,1+59 3,230 .1+03Phrkets 2 27.559 13.780 1.719Atlanta vs. New
York City andBaltimore 1 20,307 20,307 2.531+*
New York City vs.Baltimore 1 7,252 7,252 .905
Experimental Error 1+ 32,060 8,015Sampling Error 153 180,721 1,181·:¤era1 ss 161 21+6,799
Denotes significanoc at the 20 pucent confidence level.
None of the F values from the analysis of variance for cabbage
prices are signiflcant at the desired confidence level. Since Baltimore,
which has heterogeneous price variances, was included in all the contrasts,
there is a possibility that some of the means are actually sipifioant,
but are not shown by the F values. Even though none of the F values are
significant, the relative ratio of these values as shown in Table VI my
indicate the nature of the difference in the means.
The F values from orthogonal contrast indicates there was no
difference in the yearly wine levels of the Northern markets. The
between area comparison of Atlanta versus New York and Baltimore gave
Index of earlots5 _ _ .
1 60 ·1
=.
1 50 • .„ ‘•· 1 no {
•‘• ’ _lg. •
1 30 •_„ _
1 , le Atla-. 7 _
1 10 5 \‘ I‘‘
7 I x "
1 OO Ä 4‘~\‘._ . xbalt _. —< „
0 ,,,1 s I_•" ‘••1rYc —-
QO•‘• \ •
‘ .
BO . —• °•e•‘ °,· :• 4 4
l
60 12 7
50 ‘ .514
1+0_30·20 . _
1 2 3 L1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1h 15 16 1711% 1,;,,61,5
Figure 5 - CABBAGE: weeklycarlot arrivala expreesed ae a pereont
’ of the 3•year average weekly arrivals in New York, Baltimore,1,1· —and Atlanta. ’
Cents per 4_sack. 44 4
-
125‘4./
575
’
50 °‘ . „
-—-Southern area _
25” ” =
_ ..••Northernarea.
O ” ,U „
l 2 3 1+ 5 7 B 9 10 ll 12 13 l 15 1 1 Ü Weeks 41 °
Figure 6 · CABBAGE: rhrketarea and period of higheet net price ·
for Virginia Growera after adjusting the 3•yea.r average _price for tranaportation cost.
._ A -
.. 5; -
the highest F value in the table. Since there was only one degree of
freedom associated with this F value, it was converted to a T value
to determine the confidence level. By this method, lt was found that
a difference in the Northern and Southern market prices existed at the
20 percent confidence level.
Even though the three-year price level for cabbage in the South
was not statistically higher than in the North at the desired confidence
level, the net mrket price to Virginia 9·owers was found to be higher
in the South sixteen of the eighteen weeks. The curve in Figure 6
indicates the mrket area where the highest net return to Virginia
growers could have been received after adjusting for transportation
costs.y
An inverse relationship between production and mrket price of
cabbage existed for the three years during the Late Spring (Figure 3
and 8). The production was above average in 195*+ and the price was
below average. In 1955, the 3n·oduct1on was below average and the price
was high. In 1956, the production was slightly above average while the
price fell between the price levels of the other two ywrs.
During the Early Sxmer period of 195*+, an lnverse relationship
also existed between production and price. The production was well
below average and price was high. The production was above average
aaa tna prices ware neuw average in natn 1955 and 1966.
lf Transportation cost per 50-pound sack or crate. Atlanta · $.66,New York - $.35, and Baltimore— $.30.
• 52 • 6 ··—
I Cex1·1,s per7 _
6 sack7
*75ÄQ
sf A 7
I x•„
,• I
I1-29
II X ;~B6.l;; 7
O,/ ~, 7sc _, •• 0 ·. ·••·• 4 4 4 7Y'. z' .° · ,· ° ° °
7I I
75 · 7 E 71 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 -3 10 ll 12 13 11 15
16 17 15
weeksFigureT ·· CA IMAGE: Average fl-year seasoualprices in Ifew York, 7 _ —
I·
6;.al·‘ imore ami Atlan a.
Index of _· produc sion _
· _ 7 7I
1 12I 7
1 10·7 6 j J
108106
6 7 ’
1 Oh .6 * 7I
O26
~m .••: II
1 00 7 5• . - 7 7
98;.;7·°§‘, $*.2 •'{ % 2-; 3
‘·}• ;>
.~·
• • •' ßv;.
gä 7
7!·q~•&•, .„_,§ •"° 7 ‘·
92I
I I·• 6I
O *-6**:*,‘•
fcérr88
°;4*-. 7
86 ·.< 1: •·
6}·· fi
. '••‘ '• · 6‘•• 7 4 4x .44
8. ",,*.1;2 T-EBPZÜä z' ·
6 L Sp ei Sun L L Sp E Sum L Sum L Sp372 Sum L Sum
I I ‘
· Ä 195*1 1955 1956.7 66.
Figure 8 — GABZSAGE: Seasonal volume of Uni ed S·8aä;7espcroducicm7
€x'§;1!‘CSSC
.. 53 -
Durlng the Late Smmer period there was no indication of an
inverse relationship between price and production. The price was highest
and production was largest in 1955. There was virtually no difference
in price levels during 1.951+ and. l956 while production was slightly helm!
average in 195l+ and about average in 1956.
sweet Cora}!The weekly prices of sweet corn in the three mrkets ranained near
the same level throughout the season until around the first of August
during each year. The prices in the Northern markets then declined,
while the prices in Atlanta remnined well above ·the three-·yes.r average
price of all mrkets. The difference in prices ranges from $0.50 in
1.956 to as big: as $2.00 during one week in 1.95h.
The trend in carlot arrivals over the three years for the Southern
market declined throughout the season as shown in Figure 9. The larger
volume on the Atlanta market during the first weeks my have been caused
by the large local production in that area. The peak of carlot arrivals
in the Baltimore market occurred a little earlier than the New York peak.
These weeks of hlghest arrivals in the Northern markets also occurred
when local production in each area was at the highest level. The
effect of local production on the quantity arriving in nearby markets
canbeseenmoreclearlyinthe caseofsweetcornthanwiththeother
See Appendix A for additional paphs relating to this discussion.
Index of oarlots _
1 60 1_ 0 1 50 Z Z
1 *+0 _„:•«°‘•._° 01 20 ^ / °
‘ •° Z‘ \ 1·- J 0 _' \ • 11 10 v ,„ °• •• °
••\ •
l OO _ \ ••'• :·
”90
Q. •Ö •
·' ¢ " Z J xi80 ,• ‘• : 1. I70 •• I •·:IO60am
*+0
123l|··5p67891Ü].l].2l3lh15l6l7l8wggk5 Z1 Figure 9 - SWEET CORN: Weekly earlot arrivals ezcpreased as a percent ‘of the 3··year average weekly arrivals in New York, Baltimore. Zand Atlanta. · _ - Ä · ~ l
Cents per 5 dosW U Z
3000;5g‘
ga ·—• Southern area 1
— • y•• Northern area
123h56789101.112131l+15161713wee1;¤ E ·Figure 10 ·- SWEET CORN: I-hrket area and period of highest net
price for Virginia Growers after adjusting the 3·ye¤r 0' average price for transportation cost. 1 0 · ·
- 55 -
crops atudied. Because of the perishahle nature of sweet corn, it
cannot be transported as easily as most other crops and is therefore
often shipped to the nearby markets.
As with cabbage, none of the F values obtained from the analysis
of variance for sweet corn prices are significant at the 95 percent
eonfldence level (Table VII). The ratio of the F values is also
similar to those obtained for oabbage.
Table VII. Analysis of Variance for Meet Corn Prices from the CoupletelyRandomized Block Design with Sub-·sampl1ng and OrthogonalContrast for New York City, Baltimore, and Atlanta during1951+-5s·56.
Source Degrecs of Sxm of Mean Squares FFreedom Squares
Years 2 17.395 8,698 .202lhrkets 2 153.219 76.619 1.780Atlanta vs. Bew
York City andBaltimore 1 137.353 137.353 3.191*Bew York City vs. YBaltimore 1 Y 15,866 15,866 .369Experimental Error 11 172,180 ,+3,01+5Sampling Ems- 153 328,1+91+ 2,17+7Total ss 161 671,288
* Denotes significant at the 20 percent eomfidenee level.
When the market sums of squares were sub·d1.v1ded by an orthogomleontrast, the F value ohtained from the Northern and Southern areacontrast was auch large- than that from the within area contrast ofNew York City versus Baltimore. By converting the F value with onedegree s£t‘reedmteaTva1ue£ortheNorthernandSouthernmrketarea
- 56 ..
comparison, a difference in the price levels was found at the 20 percent
confidence level.
Even though the price level was not sigz1f1cantlY hißbßf at the
desired confidence level in the Southern market, it was found that the
highest hat price to Virginia grovers occurred in the South from the
middle of July tlnroughout the rexminder of the season. The curve in
Figure 12 shows the market tlmt would have yiclded. the highest net
price to Virginia vegetable gowers for each week after the three-year
average weekly market prices were ad3usted for transportation cost.}!
The effect of total production of sweet corn on market price is
difficult to determine (Figures 5 and 12). The wices during the
Late Swing varied. only slightly; however, in 195*+ when production
was highest, the wices vue lowest. In 1956, production was lowest
and prices were slightly higher than during the other two years. The
inverse relationship that apparently existcd was slight.
During the Early Summer puiod, there was only szmll changes
in production over the years. In 195k when production was highest,
the price was also high. In 1955, the production was the lowest
end the price was lowest. In 1956, the production and wice were both
roughly average.
1;/ Transportation cost for 5 dozen cars of corn, Atlanta ·· $.55,New York ·- $.35, and Baltimore · $.30.
Cenüe per _ 57 _y dez.
350
300 ” .V ‘„ Atla250 \ ‘_
\* f s
x ‘_\ .200 * \ //~\ ,»t\\ _gl \/ " ·
„·
,·\ ·
.’·
\ .l O x * „5 X ·. rc
100 V frsrdf. V‘
1 2 3 1+ 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 11+ 15 16 17 10 Weeks
Figure ll - CORE: Average 3 year Seasonal prices in New York,Baltimore and Atlan;a. V
Index ofproduccion
1 in1 121 101 001 061 0111 02l OO
‘· —"j— _- [I- ‘}..‘;¤„t{_'
9hxi", \ · Ä A.
'} 4_92·Y’;·-*..Ä·/_ ~i5*.·*,1;.‘.j¢_ fg —'_ _·· ·.'~
•·"‘1,Ü ;•_,_.}.
90 l·7:__‘ j; t_;_"„_; ‘_‘ __ ·‘ .
88 1- Ä·'86
•‘
81 -“;;«„ ‘ -.;·~? ««.q;”f__'-,.,."
°"’_ .4., _:;";r} • .
“" ·l'L
Sp E Sur; L Sum L Sp B Sum L Sur; L Sp E Sum L Sum·— · rf195*+ 1955 1950Figure 12 — CORII: Seasonal volume of United States production expressed
SS a percen Z of the 3··year average Seasonal px.°oduc*:.ion„
...53..
Dx¤•1ugtheLateS@pse•1¤d.,th¤·ewasv1rtzxa11yaodi1‘£e:.·ease
hetweesthew¤duet1s¤¤rthewieelsve1¤¤tth¤*;1¤·eeyaars,s¤m
z·e1at:L¤¤sh:!.p ceulß; he estahusmd fee- this perisd.
The11•iess£m·¤uc1¤®ws1¤the1$ss*tlm¤a¤dBouth¤•¤¤ar·kets
d.16.mtrmai¤as¤e¤rwch¤thm·tk¤·ot@¤¤tthes¤a@asthe;s·isß
csftheewpsdiscusseaprevästzsly. Thep.•ieesce‘tha·&¤mI
Q ß Q
aeaaon. '1’helI¤rth¤:.·¤:m·l¤¤ts
reaeh¤atheirp¤aksMarr1va1¤1a—t¤ri¤·t1xeauee¤a¤at1:¤¤anel1¤¤d
t1a·ou@w:rbth¤x·¤¤m¤i¤a¤rMtheee•¤eu. 'ihueepeauraz.-rivalnouthe
unrket eeiueidea with the mat active uarkatiag prima ter the ¤·ticu.~
lr xzrket 1:: beth the Kurth ana Beuth. 'I‘b¤•efore, it amera tut
muy¤a‘the¢uew1br¤wereehippeai¤‘to¤e¤·hy:·m•1mteeswasth¤ease
wih svßßt era.
'2‘a'o1eVIII. Aml.ye1eMVariaaeetor CmuxaarhrieeefromtheComp1ete1y Ranaauxizea Black Desig with amwumana Crthegmal Cmtrset ter Bew Yrk City, Baltimae,ana Atlanta Bring 1.95Z+-55·-56.
Sowee Deyaee M Suse M Mum Squree Fxü.-aeaem 8:;::::26
Yere 2 122,55*+ 61,277 8.655*wma 2 ·s*r¤.S8'r 265.293 *+0.296**Atlanta ve. Bew
Yrk City unde•m.¤¤.·¤ 1 566,67%: 566,67+8o.o39••
New York City vs.Baltimore 1 9 3 913 .553
Pbülßd äü157temes 1.61 1-.89**.753Demtee simitieanee at the 5 preent aeutiöeeee level.
** s1g11£1 atthe 1. pareant eeatiaenae level.
g_./ emma ,, la-(Kfm) + 153 (Vw)157
I¤thaa¤s1y¤is¤t'var1a¤m·test.t¤z·et¤e:.¤:h¤·;¤.·1eee, theaampltag
errmanaqamevmelrmtmutlwrlmutuurwmweqvuem
Q 3V _
Index of carlote1 50 4 0’ 11 M0 /11
20 ·° E/\0 M /& .1 _’‘.L
_ II
•!IQ••0
V l• . ·-1 .99 \ ·. 1 0 0 .80 1 1 ·. 1‘
79 ° Q_ &••§50
‘\·.mc _ ’
1 3 · ° ° °‘ P ° ° weeks ·
Figure 13 - CUCUMBERS: Weekly carlot arrival expreseed as a percentof the 3·year average weekly arrivale in New York, Baltimore,and Atlanta.
Cents per buehel_ I .0 M50350
. 0
300 0 0—°._ '·—Southern area I
250 ‘°I °'‘°Northern area
123 5 91011121311511. weeks _. Figure 11+ — CUCUMBERS: Varket area and period of highest net price for 0
Virginia Growere after adjueting the 3-year average pricefor0tranepoxrtation cost. _ -f
.. 6; ..
vsrlatim within the call the asus mwst be mlainsd
withthedataatlxuxl. Bmuvw, since squnu
mmm, txxstvaomsansqmxsrwvrssuposlsdteshtaanavalxdtsst.
used.analysis st varlaace test tw mmsww www l¤d.is¤tss that
them uns n signiticant dittemsnss in bsth ths yuaarly www levels am
the wiss levels st the alrtwwt mrhsts (Tabu VIII).
äähsnthsmswet
smsoxsmwsst,no simxtiwxzt. däxrweuw was tour! zu price 1s·ssJ.s within
thsäsvthwnmrlsstlngww. ähadittwwsswtwwiw llsvslsstths
mmzhwn aua Southern Hwlwts was simiticant at the dwlrsd ssnudsnw
lsvsl.The hlghsst net weekly wws to tur sucxwars
ossm·rsd1nthsSsuthss·¤m:·hst1rsmtl¤ust«J&ms~21¤a1@mztths
rmmwdwdtlumsm.t:„21ssaasma£t¤·thett¤·se~ye•rava·ag¤p•i¤s1ms•d3xmt¤¤dt¤r
2:x·ansp¤¤·t•t1s¤ cost is mmm in Figure
ä.hall,unsAnalysis st V¤z·1a¤ss" , Auml: st gtmtxssl Ststistg, HI,
gj psr tunnel; Atlanta - $.55, usw xxx - $.35,ms. mtmm — $.36.
Cents perbushel
1+50
[,00 Atlü
\\350\
\ .\
300 \x,.. . . ._ _. IHCg . .
x ·_ _ -250 \ " j _s
\ '. .·\ ,
.‘ s\x .' /
‘ Halt\— / \ \ „-•••r °\ . ·~.~.°
•· •-• ~·-/
1 2 3 Ä 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 1 15 lo 17 18 Weeks
Figure 15 - CUCUMBERS: Average 3-year seasonal prices inNew York, Baltimore and Atlanta„
Index ofproduction
l 10188= J1 .-;·t1·i—£1 88
f:1 ‘Äi’.»f .‘ { _=Oh
11 .1 OO981
-- - Ä, ,„·_,:961 ‘~·;;·.‘;>.1
-[ *1 ,'1_ ‘.
9290·,"'• ”',': /' Ü. · 1
_‘ x, -"
86 1·’# ‘€eÜÖ*. 1 .2f ~Z*tI·—-· •_ ·:·i-·‘_ · _; ·.¢,
_:8Ä. . _. ~"’ ’
·• ‘· ‘ _
' (_1{1;:j, ( e Q}-• +.‘„‘.·_ **2
891E 5 ·} ;1§i;1L €.
.. 63 ..
During the Late Swing pwiod, vne an invwse relationship
between the wieso in all merhets and total production ot eummhwe
(Flgm-es 7 ana 16). In 1951+, the wien was below www and
production uns sligztly above avwage. In 1955, the wies was below
svww end woduetim was well above average. In 1.956, the price was
above evwsgc and wodectrzon was below average.
An inverse relationship between wies and production eacisted
during the Farly Summer period also. The 1951+ price was the hiwest ot
the three years and production was lowest dznring this yur. In 1955,
the production was hlweet end the level of wlses was lowest. In 1.956,
both price and production tell bctwem the 1951+ end 3.955 levels.
Boeing the Late Sw period, the production was loves in 1951+
und hinhost in 1955• Because ot e:ctx·c:.o vsriehility ot the prices,
no relationship between the wies level und woduction could he
deterninod.
P¤1¤o¤=·¤y‘Ehewieesot‘wsin—2hetla·ecnax·ketor¤¤n»in¤dneertl¤a
same lcvel.tl¤.•oug!1o1¤tthe seawnduringall three yews. 'ähwewesa
tendmey tor the wieso in the Southern narhet to rise during the math
oc? September, while the wlees in the Horthwn markets deeline throu¢x·
out the antun mwhetxxg season.
In analysis ot verlasse test tor the peppw prices, the wling
wrormansqmrewaslwgerthaothee¤¤pu·is¤¤+*talmn·ormsansq1ureas
y See Appeudix A for additional gmpbo relating to this discussion.
. I ~ • 64•.··V
Index of carlote 7 7 ·1 70 7 ,1601
50 ‘ . ·1 ho , Ä 6 ’
1 ,°Ü s I'
30I ‘ 12
7I \ 11 20 _' •_ I-.;
1 10 °~i ‘• /\ \ 1B°1t ‘_· x , ‘ _ 77 1 s I gfL. O ·
'•••· Igg 1 " , I „ °, I,
°• ._ , ’ ‘. \ l ° ,
‘J‘NYC
80‘ ‘ I — Oo ,V . 1.70 ‘ °
„ 6¤ ‘ 7 ‘7
123h56789101112l1!+1516l718W¢¢k8Figure 17 - PEPPERS: Weekly carlot arrivals exnesaed as a percentof the 3—yea1· average weekly arrivale in Bew York,
Baltimore, end At1anta• r
Cents per buehel77 _'
7
350 · ~ 7 I300 _ Tl Southern area
7
‘25° °°" Northernarea L
100 7 ‘••, 7 7Ä 123lI·»·56"(89lO1112131I+l5l6‘l718 wggkg 1Figure 18 - PEPPERS: ßhrket area and period of highest net nice
‘ 7 —far Virginia Grouere after adjueting the 3•year averagenice for transportation cost. 7
waatheeaaevitheumebars. Tharetcva, thepooledurovuansquare
·wa¤¢m1.¤u1ataü., 'rheanalyeiautvarxaneetentiedieatastharewaaa
si@1£iea¤td1t£¤z·eneei¤theyearlyp¤*i¤e1nval¤¤tp•pgz¤·•be·1=•r•a¤
b¤thyea:·sani¤1·l¤•tsattl1elpaz•ea¤t Th•I·‘waluaa
¤btai¤•d£1·o¤theleo¤t1·•¤t1e•lieat¤thatth¤1·e¤v•e•a1¤1£i-
¤antd.i:te¤••¤c•hs¤ree¤the;a•ieelevel¤¤tthaIcrth¤·¤a¤i8¤n·th¤•¤
mrlnetsandthatncdittueuceaxistadhehumtksxrieeuveuwithin
theßwthuruaraa, 81ue•thepe·ie•vaz·1a¤ee•waz·e11ete¤·ege¤eoxz¤, the
aemsigzitieaut F value tec New Yerk City vuaua Baltiuwa may pesaihly
beeimiticantauiectbeshuwnhythaaealyaia.
Table IX, Analysis ¤tVu·1a¤e¤£nx•Pepp¤1·¤ Fx·1eeai'1·¤mtbeC¤¤1;;1.e·t•1„yRaaawiaesl Block Denim with 8ub··•awlim sad. tkthegunalContrast tc: Raw Ywk City, Baltint, end. Atlanta dwiug
Scuree Degraes et Sms er! Mean Sqmres FFreedom Sqxnrea
Years 2 239,038 lä,51.9 9,31**www 2 137,959 ,979 S- 7**Atlanta va. Bew
Yevk City amBaltimeu 1. 1.03,291 1.03,291 1.851**New Ycxk City vs,mtxmu 1. 3*1,668 3¤+,668 2.637
Ewerimental &·1•a· ls 2,151. 538Sampling &·r¤¤· 1.53 25162,000 1.3,|•T{Pooled E*z•z·¤¤· 157 ··· 1.3,1*17wm 161 2,ld+1,11•8
**De¤¤tes signitieaueeatthalpueent eoefielenealeval,
Thehigheetuetwiea toV1.z•gin1av•a¤·tabl•g•care2·¤•1xa·iqeae11w•ek
audthe¤u·hetarea1nwhichth1¤;¤·ieeocc¤¤·¤•derceh¤rninFig¤¤•l8,
Cents per - 66 ·bushelli_£IJO
·’\’ suoo /\
/360 ‘ J ¤\// \1.\30Q
•. ,• \•‘ °•f •• \•·\ _250 x Atlü• \
•|‘•\;_ ..200 ._·~ _•‘
\2 \150 "‘1_ ‘~/\ ‘~— — — —Bal*t
100 ~u°' 1*HYC
1231556789101112131u15161718weeksFigure 19 — PEPPERS: Average 3—year Seasonal prices in New York,Baltimore and Atlanta.
Index ofproduction
1 1h _.110l
O2 ;' „ 6 J. ,.•“'C98;,
_,_-._
,7,;;-*'· g 1 ~;·1°·* _ =’:'.~·;'*;'9h 5J _°,f:,' } { Ä «_' ;_‘;_¥°‘•:•QO6 - _' j.__‘Z-• P' _; { -.; °,« Y-.1•I-3 :‘:,*_,.‘ ‘_ •r_ ,.:·' t• \‘\_'ff- -1·‘825* r Ä.? — 1*· ·· ;—_; j-_ _>; 5 cg j¢_".;_; _J__ , ·‘t.1 ·„T8 ;'·3·;?·-S': **1% . . ·' '\Ü‘” -1*.*_ J 5Z7};h_‘;_-_‘_ jr
· { - 5 6; -· 2;;·•,)„_ -‘_‘,
L Sp E Sum L Sum L Sp E Sum L Sum L Sp E Sum L Sum195ü 1955 1956Figure 20 - PBPPLRS: Seasonal Veluic of United States Productionexpressed as a pereenä of ehe 3-year averageSeasonal produccien.
-67..
Yähnhimstsstricctccpuppcrsvasauimuamthcümxtunmrut
'ibarcmtiouszupbvwcantotalroaucumotpuppsmcandthamrhut
'rhc 195** Pßüuctztou uns below svuam mi tus rica us aughtly above
swap.Tharica1¤va1wasth¤1mrast¤¢tbatm•aayc•rs• Turelatiaushipwcs
wwamghusc.Duringthaäarly Swann, the mlstimnhipbewacaricc and
'iharoductiou
'L‘hm·awa¤virbx¤11;r¤cch¤¤mi¤th¤y¤arlqr¤duct1¤¤dzn·i¤3th¤
rica
•¤dr¤6.u6ti¤¤aov1x1baastab1ishaa•
‘i‘c¤¤‘·:o¤sg/
'1‘hcr1ca1ava1¤€tomtoas1¤BawYwk¤¤aHs1t1¤r¤rm¤1md
tauwclautcuchcthwtkwoughmxttuuasmdwinguchdtm
costparbushalz AtJ.s¤tn··$•50, Baltimore ··$•2$,a¤dl§¤wY¤¤·k-·$•30•
g/ Sea Appanaix A tor additiaai raphs ralatisg to this d.:Lscussi¤¤•
.66..
twwms. 'l‘h6p·i¤s1zve11¤At.1¤¤t¤av¤.•¤a¤üLt'x~m@„00*¤oa*>3„00
hi£§§’Y§Wth0©‘@'€I•}l‘i¤¢1$V8l
I ° • 69 • I I _
Index ofcarlots 1. 1 60
I1
ho J^ ,1I1
10 \ I °• \ ,I I
I ••‘• \ er .• vr AIZLB F
90ß,
. ••80
••·;).(••·••¢NYC -1
70 Q\\/r \\ Q
60 \‘Ba1t
12gu567891o1112131u1s161718w¢ek¤QI
Figure 21 - TOMATOES: Weekly carlot arrivals expressed as eII I,
percent ct the 3-year average weekly arrivals in 1 Q· New York, Baltimore and Atlanta. Q «·
Cents per boxI I ’ I
700 . _
500I ___ Southern area
·123¤+567891011121311+1s161718week¤I
Figure 22 · TOMQTOES: 1*/hrket area and period in which highest net Q_ price far Virginia Growers after adjusting the 3-year °average price for transportation cost. ·
- 74;
area was highly oigifioant. The analysio of varlanee also
izäioatas thun was no G.:Lfi‘er$ in the nice levels within the x¤os·thern
arm. Bewuseofthehetuogenemzewrlanwsthedittmencemnlm
levels within the Northern mrutlag era my pessibm be slmltlwntg
h·nweve•.·,·th1saenao amukelywiththe 1.owca1.eu1.ates1Fwa1ne.
Table X. Analysis ot Vszdw for Tomte Prieea trau the CoqaletelyRaxalaulzed with sub··Mlin3andContrasttor M York City, Baltimore, and Atlanta during
Somreo Douwe ot Sum ot Mean Square F
Years 2 323.&7 161,63*+ 2.*1%2»h:·kat·s 2 581+0.387 2,l>20,l9*+ 36.591.**Atlanta vs. New
York City andBalt1M l *+,839.7*-6 *+,830,716 73.¤36**
York City vs.&1.t:Ln¤re J. 9.671 £,67l .1.*16Expwimwtal Ü.'1'¤I‘ *6 $5567 ,1.*42Sampling wear 1.53 8.1***+.1-ll 53.229Total SS löl 13,572,332
H henotes eigaizloanee et the 1. parent oontidw level.
Tiththewldadltreraneebetxem thenioe levelsafthekrthun
and Southern urkete, the hlwast net nice attw adjustlag the three-year
averanerrioester tranwortntloa awt eoaldhavebewreoelvediatlxe
Atlanta zxerhet throughout the season}! The exerva in Figure Q inueates
y Tre.¤ep•:a·tatlon eoet per 60-pound. bm: to: Atlanta · $.80, Ealtimme ··$.36, und oa: York - $.4.6.
- · Cents per ° 71 °box · . · _'900 . Ä
Atla Ä —
6% •_•; ’\ Uj.
Oo 1 6S •' \ / Ä \ .Y Z\ l 1
‘\ .”\{’ ‘\ ,
·“·•
¢*3
X IX__ gr 9. • •*•“!“
123*156789101112131h151617.18u¢ex¤ _Figure 23 · TOMATOES: Average 3—year seassnal prices in New York,Baltimore and Atlanta. °-
Index of · Ä AÄ
production _ _— „
1 29'116 6 Ä112108 -é£i?:?s. —
1 01:.°.*··’—}.··_ ‘ Ä1 OO ·Z°.°?:..·. G96>.·;‘=.:1=.966
6**5.LSpESumLSumLSpESumLSum LSpESum LSum- 1195*+ 1955 1956 ‘
ÄFigure 21+ · TOIMTGES: Seasonal volume of United Statesproduction·eaqmessed as a percent of the 3—year average seasonal _ Ä ’ G
production. .
...72..
thaavu·oa¤¤¤‘¤re·b=m¤to\ürp.uiash1pp¤•af¤¤•60p¤a:ms¤£t¤¤*¤o¢•
1¤!60-pmmdimralatiunahip ha· prima md auml prcrlucticu at tzuntnaa
1zm:m¥I¤iuad&ts~h¤a¤mai¤v¤.·mdx¤·i¤gth¤1atcsp··1¤gp¤·1¤d(Fiuwzzu).
Proauctimmslpuxnlsööudauuiu1av¤1wash1g1xc¤‘o•
A1¢hou@¤ora1¤t„1w1p1¤sv¤•yappn:¤¤td•a•i¤g~¤h¤¤¤:·1ymm¤·
pm•i¤d,th¤m¤1m¤s¤mtm¤;@£¤r;¤~1¤¤sxd.prodax¤t&¤¤t¤o¤¤v¤i¤th¤
amediractim. Ihl95l+,pm¤u¤·bi¤¤1wpx·im1:a¤·¤b¤b:¤a*¤t1a¤£r1m•rest
mmm. I¤19'56;N¢Ü¤Q‘bi®§„ß'1¤BVü'G§6‘Bha8$$$$!B1@$I$l8V¢l•Tbwaxmßwuaimimtiuactmimmumhtzmahipmtmhw
Thavwaspvmtimßsmaiffwmuamtmwimkmlsw
19$*+«¤¤61956;u¤«m·,;¤¤au¤¤1¤¤¤¤¤•¤¤v¤¤m1¤19$*»¤m¤uw¤uyba1¤¤¤v¤·m£.¤1.956.
..73..
V- MIPPE
Fowcrcps,aunpbamm,zzmdwecwswumsmppdagpztmsawvuguuwuhuywws
viththacawxatadpamwncßuwstmtuim. ämatwmnuud
pappwsmnßßmbbawadfwtmrmsmsümwaaämtmwtu
ünpßuans
*§mm¤pb¤m¤¤¤p£r¤m%s¤a·¤V1rv¤•¤¤·i¤¤·!:.¤daxa•1¤gt¤•o
p¤·1ods,·bh¤¤¥¤'1¤3¤¤dfa11.g*/ D•.¤·i¤gt;hay¤¤z·s195¥6‘¤k¤·o¤¤6§zl956,
thB8§'i¤$&‘@iB¤l!ß8¢18¤§VB2'§•@d°%•B@„*@¤‘B0ft~l£Bhi‘B6
fi"®Vi&‘8¤Y—‘¤%}£63•7Üd‘ÜB\7¢9
müeeäzmmgthctuusaum.
Ausv¤·ag¤¤d'¤¤x1.y2.3.*6¤£th6·'c¤¤a1¤hi@bscmf¤p•1m
m:¤pba¤¤a¤mamd¤·h¤Smtzh¤·¤m¤·1¤¤ts¤va·%;h¤tl¤•¤¤·g¤¤2pm.·1¤d.
&Blld°'¥'•®¤§'i¤g§PU@B¤!1iU8\&!‘ö‘ܤ¤$€I3‘ä¤
m·L¤¤m&a.¤·im195!•a:¤dl9‘55.¤¤¤¤1¤¤¤¤i¤1956¤¤:¤¤rb¢¤ami¤F%
25. ’.?ha;xics¤1mral6&‘m¤pb@i¤t1¤S¤¤sth¤·¤¤rlmtd»¤¤°1¤@J¤¤¤
$l956i$8VU-'fl€Wi¤!6l8‘ßi¢¤T·O?.MH@'B]ß‘2!@¥Ü‘BBlÜ-@83,§]llh
$&8¥J$B¤%¤'ÜG§’iBߢi!‘Y·Bt0‘$ÜlY•%•
tl¤.·¤u@5a¤d.th¢fs.1l¤z·¤p1¤¤l@va¤k¤15·b2¤•0n1@»1B.
6 -614Indexof · 1bushels 1 9 „
'°604
L L
10 N NÄ ÄI Ä s|Ä0L Ä Ä I L Ä Q LS5 · SSS S5 · S · ·°·SS · SS · 0¤.¥.c. mt. cum; 1=m.1•. o.¤. mt. s6¤11+•1·¤Figwe 25 - SNAP BEANS:
4Destination of Spring ehipants from son
4
1¤%•xh·¤¤£ Eagtm Virginia 01·6«61·1—„ during 199+, 1955. ua 1956' 7o“° B expressed as a percent of the year}; seesonel shipnents 1
60 A I
L W ·so §~§10Ä N LÄ Ä Ä | Ä I Ä I0 L L L L L .,.W 5 -4 5 , -4+ 5 * Ö 5 4* -4 4* 4 -4* __‘ N.I.C. _ hlt. Gunda Phil;. 0.N. Mkt. SouthernFigure 26 · SMP BEANB: Destination of Fall.
shipnnts from someEaetam Virginia Grovexs 0+1:-111;, 1951+, 1955. und 19564 expreeaed as a peroent of the yenrly aeasotnl shipnents.
’
..75..
Evamtbvwhiwwuctpriaasmasbadmtbzßouthum
vssäimadßcmh.
E
