Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station ; 217
Title: A study of the cost of transportation of Florida citrus fruits with comparative costs from other producing areas
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00026395/00001
 Material Information
Title: A study of the cost of transportation of Florida citrus fruits with comparative costs from other producing areas
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 128 p. : charts, map ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Brooker, Marvin A ( Marvin Adel ), 1903-1997
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1930
 Subjects
Subject: Citrus fruits -- Transportation -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Citrus fruits -- Transportation -- United States   ( lcsh )
Freight and freightage -- Rates -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Freight and freightage -- Rates -- United States   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility: by Marvin A. Brooker.
General Note: Cover title.
General Note: Originally presented as: Thesis (Ph.D.)--Cornell University, 1931.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00026395
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000923525
oclc - 18175802
notis - AEN4076
 Related Items
Other version: Alternate version (PALMM)
PALMM Version

Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE


The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida







Bulletin 217


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
Wilmon Newell, Director



A STUDY
OF THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION

OF FLORIDA CITRUS FRUITS

WITH COMPARATIVE COSTS

FROM OTHER PRODUCING

AREAS
By MARVIN A. BROKER













Bulletins will be sent free upon application to
The Agricultural Experiment Station,
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA


June, 1930










BOARD OF CONTROL

P. K. YONGE, Chairman, Pensacola RAYMER F. MAGUIRE, Orlando
A. H. BLENDING, Leesburg FRANK J. WIDEMAN, West Palm Beach
W. B. DAVIS, Perry J. T. DIAMOND, Secretary, Tallahassee

STATION EXECUTIVE STAFF

JOHN J. TIGERT, M.A., LL.D., President IDA KEELING CRESAP, Librarian
WILMON NEWELL, D. Sc., Director RUBY NEWHALL, Secretary**
S. T. FLEMING, A.B., Asst. Director K. H. GRAHAM, Business Manager
J. FRANCIS COOPER, M.S.A., Editor RACHEL McQUARRIE, Accountant
R. M. FULGHUM, B.S.A., Asst. Editor

MAIN STATION-DEPARTMENTS AND INVESTIGATORS


AGRONOMY
W. E. STOKES, M.S., Agronomist
W. A. LEUKEL, Ph.D., Associate
G. E. RITCHEY, M.S.A., Assistant*
FRED H. HULL, M.S., Assistant
J. D. WARNER, M.S., Assistant
JOHN P. CAMP, M.S.A., Assistant
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY
A. L. SHEALY, D.V.M., Veterinarian in
Charge
E. F. THOMAS, D.V.M., Asst. Veterinarian
R. B. BECKER, Ph.D., Associate in Dairy
Husbandry
W. M. NEAL, Ph.D., Assistant in Animal
Nutrition
C. R. DAWSON, B.S.A., Assistant Dairy
Investigations
CHEMISTRY
R. W. RUPRECHT, Ph.D., Chemist
R. M. BARNETTE, Ph.D., Associate
C. E. BELL, M.S., Assistant
J. M. COLEMAN, B.S., Assistant
J. B. HESTER, M.S., Assistant
H. W. WINSOR, B.S.A., Assistant
COTTON INVESTIGATIONS
W. A. CARVER, Ph.D., Assistant
E. F. GROSSMAN, M.A., Assistant
PAUL W. CALHOUN, B.S., Assistant.
RAYMOND CROWN, B.S.A., Field Assistant


ECONOMICS, AGRICULUTRAL

C. V. NOBLE, Ph.D., Agricultural Economist
BRUCE McKINLEY, A.B., B.S.A., Associate
M. A. BROOKER, M.S.A., Assistant
JOHN L. WANN, B.S.A., Assistant

ECONOMICS, HOME
OUIDA DAVIS ABBOTT, Ph.D., Head
L. W. GADDUM, Ph.D., Biochemist
C. F. AHMANN, Ph.D., Physiologist
ENTOMOLOGY
J. R. WATSON, A.M., Entomologist
A. N. TISSOT, M.S., Assistant
H. E. BRATLEY, M.S.A., Assistant
L. W. ZIEGLER, B.S., Assistant

HORTICULTURE
A. F. CAMP, Ph.D., Horticulturist
M. R. ENSIGN, M.S., Assistant
HAROLD MOWRY, B.S.A., Assistant
A. L. STAHL, Ph.D., Assistant
G. H. BLACKMON, M.S.A., Pecan Culturist
PLANT PATHOLOGY
W. B. TISDALE, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
G. F. WEBER, Ph.D., Associate
A. H. EDDINS, Ph.D., Assistant
K. W. LOUCKS, M.S., Assistant
ERDMAN WEST, B.S., Mycologist


BRANCH STATION AND FIELD WORKERS

L. O. GRATZ, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Pathologist in charge, Tobacco Exp. Sta. (Quincy)
R. R. KINCAID, M.S., Assistant Plant Pathologist (Quincy)
JESSE REEVES, Foreman, Tobacco Experiment Station (Quincy)
J. H. JEFFERIES, Superintendent, Citrus Experiment Station (Lake Alfred)
W. A. KUNTZ, A.M., Assistant Plant Pathologist (Lake Alfred)**
B. R. FUDGE, Ph.D., Assistant Chemist (Lake Alfred)
W. L. THOMPSON, B.S., Assistant Entomologist (Lake Alfred)
R. V. ALLISON, Ph.D., Soils Specialist in charge Everglades Experiment Station (Belle Glade)
GEO. E. TEDDER, Foreman, Everglades Experiment Station (Belle Glade)
R. N. LOBDELL, M.S., Assistant Entomologist (Belle Glade)
F. D. STEVENS, B.S., Sugarcane Agronomist (Belle Glade)
H. H. WEDGWORTH, M.S., Associate Plant Pathologist (Belle Glade)
FRED YOUNT, Office Assistant (Belle Glade)
E. R. PURVIS, M.S., Assistant Chemist (Belle Glade)
A. N. BROOKS, Ph.D., Associate Plant Pathologist (Plant City)
A. S. RHOADS, Ph.D., Associate Plant Pathologist (Cocoa)
C. M. TUCKER, Ph.D., Associate Plant Pathologist (Hastings)
STACY 0. HAWKINS, M.A., Field Assistant in Plant Pathology (Homestead)
L. R. TOY, B.S.A., Assistant Horticulturist (Homestead)
D. G. A. KELBERT, Field Assistant in Plant Pathology (Bradenton)
R. E. NOLEN, M.S.A., Field Assistant in Plant Pathology (Monticello)
FRED W. WALKER, Assistant Entomologist (Monticello)
D. A. SANDERS, D.V.M., Associate Veterinarian (West Palm Beach)
M. N. WALKER, Ph.D., Associate Plant Pathologist (Leesburg)
W. B. SHIPPY, Ph.D., Assistant Plant Pathologist (Leesburg)
C. C. GOFF, M.S., Assistant Entomologist (Leesburg)
J. W. WILSON, Ph.D., Assistant Entomologist (Pierson)
*In cooperation with U. S. Department of Agriculture.
**On leave of absence.









CONTENTS
Page

THE WORLD PRODUCTION OF CITRUS FRUITS .............................. 6
S p ain ......................................................... 7
Italy ......................................................... 10
J ap an ........................................................ 12
A ustralia ..................................................... 13
Palestine ..................................................... 13
A lgeria ....................................................... 15
Tunis ................ ............ ....... ............ ........ 15
P orto R ico .................................................... 16
Isle of P ines ................................................... 17
Union of South Africa ......................................... 18
B razil ........................................................ 18
F rance ....................................................... 20
N ew Zealand .................................................. 20
C hin a .............................. .......................... 21
OCEAN TRANSPORTATION COSTS ..................................... 22
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITRUS INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES ..... 23
E exports .................................................... 31
SOURCES OF SUPPLIES OF CITRUS FRUITS ON THE MARKETS OF THE UNITED
STATES ........................ ............... .............. 33
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF FLORIDA ORANGES AND GRAPEFRUIT........ 36
CITRUS FRUIT TRANSPORTATION COSTS FROM FLORIDA POINTS TO THE LARGEST
CITRUS MARKETS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1924 TO 1927 ............. 39
COMPARATIVE FREIGHT RATES ON CITRUS FRUITS FROM ALL PRODUCING
STATES TO THE 36 LARGEST CITRUS MARKETS IN THE UNITED STATES
DURING THE PERIOD 1924 TO 1927 ................................ 44
Diversion privileges ........................................... 48
CHANGES IN THE FREIGHT RATE SITUATION DURING 1928 AND 1929....... 50
FREIGHT RATES PER TON-MILE ON CITRUS FRUITS, 1930 .................. 53
HISTORY OF FREIGHT RATES ON CITRUS FRUITS OTHER THAN LEMONS FROM
FLORIDA AND FROM CALIFORNIA SINCE 1900 ....................... 59
METHODS OF SHIPPING CITRUS FRUITS ................................ 72
Standard refrigeration ......................................... 73
Re-icing shipments at intermediate, stop, or hold points, at reconsign-
ing points, and at final destination ............................. 74
Pre-cooling and pre-icing ...................................... 75
Handling pre-cooled citrus fruit and/or vegetables from Florida in
refrigerator cars without ice ................................. 76
Pre-cooling and pre-icing citrus fruits from California ............. 77
Shipments under ice without re-icing in transit ................... 78
Comparative costs of different protective services ................. 79
Protective service against cold .................................. 79
Carriers' protective service .................................. 79
Shippers' protective service .................................. 81
Factors affecting method of shipment ........................... 83
MISCELLANEOUS TRANSPORTATION CHARGES ............................... 85
Diversion and reconsignment ................................... 86
D em urrage rates .............................................. 87
WATER TRANSPORTATION COSTS FROM FLORIDA .......................... 87
THE RELATION OF FARM PRICES OF FLORIDA ORANGES AND GRAPEFRUIT TO
THE GENERAL PRICE LEVEL AND TO FREIGHT RATES, 1910-11 TO 1928-29 90
SUM MARY ............. .......................................... 96
A PPENDIX ............................................ ......... 99











A STUDY

OF THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION

OF FLORIDA CITRUS FRUITS

WITH COMPARATIVE COSTS

FROM OTHER PRODUCING

AREAS'

By MARVIN A. BROKER





Since the production of citrus fruits is confined to small areas
relatively distant from the principal markets, transportation
costs represent a large proportion of the ultimate selling price.
Citrus producers are, therefore, interested in the trends of these
transportation costs, and in the relative costs of transportation
from competing producing areas to the principal markets.
An increasing proportion of Florida citrus fruits is being mar-
keted abroad, so a study of ocean transportation rates, trends of
production in the leading foreign producing countries, and inter-
national trade in citrus fruits has been included.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was made under the direction of Professors W. I. Myers and
Leland Spencer, Department of Agricultural Economics and Farm Manage-
ment, Cornell University, and Professor C. V. Noble, Department of Agricul-
tural Economics, University of Florida.
The writer wishes to express his thanks to all who have, in any way,
assisted in the preparation of this work. Special acknowledgment is due
Mr. J. Curtis Robinson, Executive Vice-President of the Growers' and
Shippers' League of Florida, for valuable assistance in outlining the project;
and to the Governmental agencies to whom specific reference is given in the
manuscript.
Grateful acknowledgment is also made to the Social Science Research
Council for financial assistance given the writer during his residence at
Cornell University.
'Also presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell Univer-
sity, June, 1931, as a major thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of doctor of philosophy.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


THE WORLD PRODUCTION OF CITRUS FRUITS
The world's average annual production of citrus fruits is in
excess of 100,000,000 boxes of equivalent American size. The
United States is outstandingly the largest single producing coun-
try, but Spain, Italy, China, Japan, and numerous other countries
contribute varying volumes to the world's supply. While in vari-
ous parts of the world citrus fruits have been produced to some
extent for a considerable period of time, it is only in relatively
recent years that the commercial development of this industry
has become of great importance.
The present status of the industry in 14 leading citrus pro-
ducing countries of the world for which data are available is
shown in Table I. These 14 countries are arranged in the order
of their volumes of production and not in order of their im-
portance in international trade. Volumes of production in all of
the foreign countries have been adjusted to the basis of boxes of
80 pounds for oranges and grapefruit, and 74 pounds for lemons.
The United States is the only country which produces oranges,
grapefruit, and lemons in commercial quantities. It leads in the
production of oranges and grapefruit, and is second only to Italy
in the production of lemons.
TABLE I.-AVERAGE ANNUAL PRODUCTION OF CITRUS FRUITS IN 14 LEADING
CITRUS PRODUCING COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD FOR WHICH
DATA ARE AVAILABLE.*
No. Oranges Grapefruit Lemons Total
Country of Period Lemons Total
Country f Period Boxes of Boxes
Years Boxes of 80 Pounds 74 Lbs.

United States 5 1925-1929 38,463,000 9,483,200 6,929,600 54,875,800
Spain ......... 5 1923-1929 29,148,083 ........ 1,370,473 30,518,556
Italy .......... 14 1914-1928 7,413,9732 ... ..... 11,368,400 18,782,373
Japan ......... 6 1922-1927 8,333,281 .... ... 8,333,281
Australia ...... 9 1919-1928 1,826,428 .......... 313,071 2,139,499
Palestine1 ..... 9 1920-1929 1,354,442 ....... ... 1,354,442
Algeria ........ 7 1921-1928 943,178 ...... 217,7671 1,160,945
Porto Rico ... 8 1922-1929 ........ 584,862 ............ 584,862
Union of 5
South Africal 9 11921-1929 554,525 20,132 ...... ... 574,657
Brazill ........ 4 1923-1926 394,500 ........ ........ .. 394,500
Isle of Pines' 7 1922-1929 .... .... 181,875 .......... 181,875
Tunis ........ 7 1916-1922 38,186 .... ..... 35,112 73,298
France ........ 15 1914-1928 18,637 ......... 32,839 51,476
New Zealand 9 1919-1928 2,417 ......... 9,917 12,334
Total ........ .... ......... 188,490,650 110,270,069120,277,179|119,037,898
*Division of Statistical and Historical Research, U. S. Bureau of Agri-
cultural Economics.
'Exports only. Total production data not available.
2Excludes mandarins.
3Includes mandarins and both sweet and bitter oranges.







Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 7

SPAIN
Spain is second only to the United States in the production of
citrus fruits. For the five years for which production data are
available from 1923-24 to 1928-29, Spain produced a yearly aver-
age of 29,146,600 boxes of oranges and 1,370,000 boxes of lemons.
Data are not available for the year 1924-25. During this period
production of oranges increased an average of 1,570,000 boxes
per year (Fig. 1).1
Millions
of
Boxes


1923-34 1924-25 1925-26 1926-27 1927-28 1928-29
Figure 1.-Production of oranges in Spain from 1923-24 to 1928-29
increased at the rate of 1,570,000 boxes per year.

The most important producing areas of Spain are in the vicini-
ties of Valencia and Castellon. More than three-fourths of the
entire Spanish production of oranges is in these sections. In
1925-26 there were 131,885 acres of oranges in Spain, while in
1926-27 there were 133,073 acres, and in 1927-28, 145,957 acres.
With this increase in acreage it is to be expected that the Spanish
production of oranges will continue to increase in the next few
years.
Spain leads the world in international trade in citrus fruits.
Exports of oranges from Spain from 1921-22 to 1926-27 averaged
12,783,585 boxes per year, about 50 percent of the total inter-
national trade in oranges. The United Kingdom is the principal

'For original data see Appendix Table I.

















TABLE II.-PRINCIPAL DESTINATIONS OF SPANISH ORANGE EXPORTS.*
(Equivalent boxes of 80 pounds)


1921-22 1922-23


1923-24 1924-25


1925-26 1 Average
1925-26 1921 to 1926


United Kingdom ................... 7,722,470 8,012,907
Germany .......................... 323,862 186,407
Holland ........................... 1,253,174 957,736
Belgium .......................... 943,782 979,534
Ireland ........................... 239,414 276,840
Norway ........................... 197,770 237,211
Denmark ......................... 149,999 166,191
Sweden ........................... 71,973 67,144
France ........................... 53,602 68,750
Other Countries ................... 7,191 3,046
Total ............................. 10,963,237 10,955,766


7,279,887
1,748,220
1,754,387
1,321,928
214,967
179,575
226,850
69,592
88,740
64,611
12,948,757


8,440,079
3,082,507
1,708,183
1,322,534
196,026
267,316
146,483
90,812
43,102
44,275
15,341,317


7,779,568
2,428,081
1,429,482
1,346,975
146,325
185,716
144,159
89,270
22,000
137,276
13,708,852


7,846,982 61.4
1,553,815 12.2
1,420,592 11.1
1,182,951 9.2
214,714 1.7
213,518 1.7
166,736 1.3
77,758 .6
55,239 .4
51,280 .4
12,783,585 100.0


*Arranged from quotations in Foreign Crops and Markets, Vol. 14, No. 8.


Destination


Percent
to each
country








Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits


Thousands
of
Boxes
2700,--


750


450


150


Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. lay June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

Figure 2.-Oranges: Exports from Valencia, Spain, to all countries, by sea.
(Three-year average, 1924 to 1926.)







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


destination of these exports, but Germany, Holland, and Belgium
are also important markets (Table II).
The monthly distribution of exports of oranges from Spain
corresponds very closely to the seasonal production of oranges in
Florida (Fig. 2). (Appendix Table II.)

ITALY
Italian orange and lemon production data are available for a
period of 14 years. During this period the production of oranges
averaged 7,413,973 boxes per year, and lemons 11,368,400 boxes
per year. Italy is exceeded by both the United States and Spain
in the production of oranges, but produces more lemons than all
the rest of the world combined. Approximately 90 percent of
the Italian lemons and more than half of the Italian oranges are
produced in Sicily. The total acreage of citrus fruits in Italy has
been almost stationary, being 267,900 acres in 1920, and 267,100
acres in 1925. From 1914 to 1928, production of oranges de-
creased an average of 155,170 boxes per year and lemons 124,880
boxes per year (Fig. 3). (Appendix Table III.)


1illiona
of
Boxes


1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 19il 19;L2 1923 19A4 1925 1926 1927 1928

Figure 3.-Production of oranges and lemons in Italy from 1914 to 1928 de-
creased at the rate of 155,170 and 124,880 boxes per year, respectively.
Note: In comparing charts attention is directed to differences in both vertical
and horizontal scales.




TABLE III.-PRINCIPAL DESTINATIONS OF ITALIAN ORANGE EXPORTS.*
(Equivalent boxes of 80 pounds.)


Average 1923 1924 192
1909 to 1913 1923 1924 1925


Average
1923 to 1925


Germ any ..................................... 581,922 464,552
A ustria ..................................... 1,718,1781 265,018
France ...................................... 26,074 690,437
Switzerland ................................... 95,142 323,207
Czechoslovakia ................................ .......... 114,827
H ungary ..................................... .. .. 1,322
Yugoslavia .................................. 79,382
Great Britain ................................ 180,002 68,359
United States ................................. 37,150 8,151
Other Countries .............................. 662,962 221,395
Total ....................................... I 3,301,430 ) 2,236,650 |
*Arranged from quotations in Foreign Crops and Markets, Vol. 14, No. 8.
1Austria-Hungary.


1,668,788
441,892
191,301
326,152
148,390
57,079
86,832
64,735
7,117
408,252
3,400,538


1,963,894 1,365,745 42.6
650,725 452,545 14.1
104,744 328,827 10.3
286,504 311,954 9.7
194,581 152,599 4.8
236,924 98,442 3.1
96,904 87,706 2.7
57,642 63,579 2.0
5,113 6,794 .2
378,475 336,040 10.5
3,975,5061 3,204,231 100.0


TABLE IV.-PRINCIPAL DESTINATIONS OF ITALIAN LEMON EXPORTS.*
(Equivalent boxes of 74 pounds.)


Destination


Germany ....................................
U united States ................................
Great Britain .................................
France .......................................
A ustria ......................................
Czechoslovakia ...............................
Sw itzerland ..................................
Turkey in Europe .............................
H ungary ....................................
Y ugoslavia ...................................
Russia ......................................
Other Countries ...............................
T otal ..................... ..................


Average
1909 to 1913


1,010,353
2,481,395
1,443,699
90,887
1,400,8321
. ..... ... .
87,596
184,568


623,323
613,758


640,547
1,280,747
693,416
304,783
177,133
168,494
148,280
163,813
39,812
83,309
5,203
484,018


7,936,411 i 4,189,555


1924


1,188,295
626,843
1,200,798
351,063
246,903
280,001
210,418
133,025
110,719
86,091
46,768
756,022


5,236,946


1925 Average
1923 to 1925


1,657,613
1,485,928
1,340,309
266,214
332,216
253,621
217,538
171,029
132,553
109,429
73,941
1,019,784


S7,060,175


Percent to
each
country


1,162,152 21.1
1,131,173 20.6
1,078,174 19.6
307,353 5.6
252,084 4.6
234,039 4.3
192,079 3.5
155,956 2.8
94,361 1.7
92,943 1.7
41,971 .8
753,274 13.7
5,495,559 100.0


Destination


Percent
to each
country


*Arranged from quotations in Foreign Crops and Markets, Vol. 14, No. 8.
1Austria-Hungary.


--------


i


,


.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


Italy ranks next to Spain in importance in international trade
in citrus fruits. Approximately 30 percent of the citrus exports
of the world are from Italy, and more than 95 percent of the total
lemon exports are from that source. Germany is the principal
market for Italian orange exports, while Germany, the United
States, and Great Britain are important markets for Italian
lemons (Tables III and IV).
The orange season in Italy opens just a little later than in Spain,
the heaviest exporting months being February and March. Ex-
ports of lemons are distributed throughout the year (Fig. 4).
(Appendix Tables IV and V.)

Thousands
of
Boxes



yi :1' Lemona
60C


7-/ 7


,7



Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Figure 4.-Monthly distribution of exports of oranges and lemons from
Italy. (Three-year average, 1924 to 1926.)

JAPAN
Mandarins are the principal type of citrus fruits produced in
Japan, while bitter oranges are next in importance. Navel
oranges are also being produced in considerable volume. During
the six years, from 1922 to 1927, Japan produced an average of
8,333,281 boxes of citrus fruits, of which 5,954,822 boxes were
mandarins, 1,415,415 boxes bitter oranges, 358,015 boxes Navel
oranges, and 605,029 boxes other types of oranges. During this
period production of mandarins increased at the rate of 73,000
boxes per year and total citrus at the rate of 117,700 boxes per
year (Fig. 5). (Appendix Table VI.)








Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 13

Japan is on an export basis, having exported an average of
404,000 boxes per year for the four years from 1924 to 1927.1
There were no imports.
Millions
of
Boxes





10

Total Citrus -
Mandarins






6- -





1922 1923 19"4 1925 1926 1927
Figure 5.-Japan's production of mandarins and of total citrus from 1922 to
1927 increased at the rate of 73,000 boxes and 117,700 boxes per year,
respectively.

AUSTRALIA
Australia produces considerable quantities of oranges and
lemons, but is not important in international trade. During the
nine-year period from 1919-20 to 1927-28, an average of 1,826,428
boxes of oranges and 313,071 boxes of lemons were produced
annually. During that period, production of oranges increased
at the rate of 73,970 boxes per year (Fig. 6). (Appendix Table
VII.)
PALESTINE
Statistics of citrus production of Palestine are not available
since 1926. Since statistics of exports closely approximate the
production from 1920-21 to 1925-26, and are available for the
nine-year period, 1920-21 to 1928-29, these figures have been used
to show the status of the industry in Palestine. During this

1Agricultural Yearbook, 1928.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


period exports amounted to an average of 1,354,442 boxes per
year. Only oranges are exported, and these are said to be of good
quality. Palestine is exceeded only by Spain, Italy, and the
United States in total exports of citrus fruits. During the nine-
year period exports increased at the rate of 164,960 boxes per
Hundreds
of
Thousands
of
Boxes


0 1 OM M M 0 m Ch M M
-4 r-4 ,-4 M-I ,-I ,- ,-4 -4 r-4
Figure 6.-Production of oranges in Australia from 1919-20 to 1927-28
increased at the rate of 73,970 boxes per year.

year (Fig. 7). (Appendix Table VIII.) Acreage is being in-
creased steadily, and it is expected that exports will continue to
increase during the next few years. Great Britain is the principal
market.'

1Foreign Crops and Markets, Vol. 14, No. 8.








Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 15

ALGERIA
During the seven-year period from 1921-22 to 1927-28, Algeria
produced an average of 943,178 boxes of oranges and 217,767
boxes of lemons per year. During that period, production of
Rundred.s
of
Thousands
of
Boxes


-4 rl r4 l l .- f 4rl r4
Figure 7.-Exports of oranges from Palestine from 1920-21 to 1928-29
increased at the rate of 164,960 boxes per year.

oranges decreased on the average at the rate of 18,735 boxes per
year (Fig. 8). (Appendix Table IX.) Lemons showed even a
greater decrease.
TUNIS
No production data for Tunis are available since 1922. During
the seven-year period from 1916 to 1922, however, Tunis produced
an average of 38,186 boxes of oranges and 35,112 boxes of lemons
per year. (Appendix Table XII.) The annual production was
rather uniform during that period.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


PORTO RICO
Approximately 50 percent of the international trade in grape-
fruit is from Porto Rico. During the eight years from 1921-22
to 1928-29, a yearly average of 584,862 boxes of grapefruit were
exported. There are no statistics of total production available,
Hundreds
of
Thousands
of
Boxes

14


12






8










r_ H rH rq r r r4
Figure 8.-Production of oranges in Algeria from 1921-22 to 1927-28
decreased at the rate of 18,735 boxes per year.

but it is probable that exports represent a high percentage of the
total commercial production of the island. During the seven
years from 1921-22 to 1927-28, exports increased at the rate of
78,451 boxes per year (Fig. 9). (Appendix Table X.) In Sep-
tember, 1928, however, a severe hurricane blew the entire un-
harvested part of the crop from the trees, so that in 1928-29 only
215,337 boxes were exported. This is viewed as an abnormal
situation and it is expected that in the future there will continue








Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 17

to be large quantities of grapefruit exported. Normally the
largest shipments are made during August, September, and Oc-
tober. The greater part of the crop goes to New York City.
Recently there have been direct shipments from Porto Rico to
Great Britain.
Hundreds
of
Thousands
of
Boxes




8-- ------ -













1921-22 1922-23 1923-24 1924-25 1925-26 1926-27 1927-28
Figure 9.-Exports of grapefruit from Porto Rico from 1921-22 to 1927-28
increased at the rate of 78,451 boxes per year.


ISLE OF PINES
The situation in the Isle of Pines is similar to that of Porto
Rico, except that the volume is not so large. During the seven-
year period, 1922-23 to 1928-29, the Isle of Pines exported a yearly
average of 181,875 boxes of grapefruit. The average volume
under normal conditions is somewhat larger than that, since two
seasons of low production were included. The Isle of Pines was
affected by the hurricane of September, 1926, so that the exports
the following year were less than 100,000 boxes. In 1928-29 the
volume had risen to 140,000 boxes, so it may be assumed that
exports from that source will continue to increase. New York
City is the principal market. During the five-year period from
1922-23 to 1926-27, exports increased at the average rate of 3,492
boxes per year (Fig. 10). (Appendix Table X.)







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA
The Union of South Africa is potentially one of the most im-
portant areas of the world in the production and export of citrus
fruits. Within the few years for which data are available, the
export trade in oranges and grapefruit has grown phenomenally.
Great Britain takes practically all of the exports and that market
Hundreds
of
Thousands
of
Boxes

3-











1922-23 1923-24 1924-25 1925-26 1926-27
Figure 10.-Exports of grapefruit from the Isle of Pines from 1922-23
to 1926-27 increased at the rate of 3,492 boxes per year.

may be expected to accept citrus fruits from the Union of South
Africa in preference to those from the United States. During
the nine years, 1921 to 1929, the Union of South Africa exported
a yearly average of 554,525 boxes of oranges and 20,132 boxes of
grapefruit. During that period exports of oranges increased at
the rate of 97,000 boxes per year (Fig. 11), and grapefruit at the
rate of 4,678 boxes per year (Fig. 12). (Appendix Table XI.)
It is probable that exports of oranges and grapefruit from the
Union of South Africa will continue to increase at a rapid rate.
In Table V it will be noted that a large percentage of the orange
and grapefruit trees are of non-bearing age.

BRAZIL
Brazil has an immense area adapted to the production of citrus
fruits. Data of the total yearly production are not available, but
Brazil is now on an export basis. During the four years from








Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 19

1923 to 1926, a yearly average of 394,500 boxes of oranges were
exported.' There is reported to be a growing interest in the
citrus industry in Brazil and a tendency to adopt methods used
Hundreds
of
Thousands
of
Boxes


1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929
Figure 11.-Exports of oranges from the Union of South Africa from
1921 to 1929 increased at the rate of 97,000 boxes per year.

in the United States. It is not probable, however, that exports
will greatly increase within the next few years.

'Agricultural Yearbook, 1928.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


FRANCE
France is not of great importance in the production of citrus
fruits. From 1914 to 1928 a yearly average of 18,637 boxes of
oranges and 32,839 boxes of lemons were produced. During that

Thousands
of
Boxes


1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929
Figure 12.-Exports of grapefruit from the Union of South Africa from
1921 to 1929 increased at the rate of 4,678 boxes per year.

period the production of oranges increased at the rate of 390
boxes per year, and lemons at the rate of 3,340 boxes per year
(Fig. 13). (Appendix Table XIII.)

NEW ZEALAND
New Zealand is not a citrus exporting country as yet, but it is
rapidly coming to supply its own needs. From 1919-20 to
1927-28, there was an average yearly production of 2,417 boxes
of oranges and 9,917 boxes of lemons. The number of orange
trees increased from 3,312 in 1923-24 to 6,660 in 1927-28, and








Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 21

the lemon trees from 19,971 in 1923-24 to 25,403 in 1927-28. Dur-
ing the nine-year period, 1919-20 to 1927-28, orange production
increased at the rate of 274 boxes per year (Fig. 14). (Appendix
Table XIV.)

TABLE V.-CITRUS FRUIT: ORCHARDS IN THE UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA, THE
FRUIT OF WHICH IS GROWN FOR EXPORT, CENSUS OF 1925.*


Age




1-3 years .............
4-6 years.......... ...
7 years or over........
Total ..... ............


Oranges


Trees

1,502,454
545,253
510,606
2,558,313


Naartjes1


Trees

14,681
5,481
19,629
39,791


Grapefruit


Trees

34,145
8,551
9,629
52,325


*Division of Statistical and Historical Research, U. S. Bureau of Agri-
cultural Economics.
'South African Mandarins.
CHINA
Little is known of the actual volume of production of citrus
fruits in China. Officials of the United States Department of
Commerce estimate the annual production to be about 9,000,000
boxes.1 However, China is on an import basis, having imported
an average of 400,000 boxes of oranges per year from 1924 to
Thomuands
of
Boxes


1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928
Figure 13.-Production of oranges and lemons in France from 1914 to 1928
increased at the rate of 390 and 3,340 boxes per year, respectively.

1U. S. D. C. Trade Promotion Series, No. 77.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


1927, and exported an average of 280,000 boxes per year during
the same period.' China is doubtless a potential market for
larger quantities of citrus fruits rather than a source of supply
for the rest of the world. Because of the lack of data on produc-
tion, China has not been included in the list of leading citrus pro-
ducing countries, Table I.

Thousands
of
Boxes

4




















Figure 14.--Production of oranges in New Zealand increased from
1919-20 to 1927-28 at the ate of 274 boxes per year.
3 C2 02 ( .V 0
I II
markets in the world for citrus fruits. No producing area can



profitably compete on these markets or in the countries of west-
.-4 r-4 ..4 4 -' 14 1-4 -4
Figure 14.-Production of oranges in New Zealand increased from
1919-20 to 1927-28 at the rate of 274 boxes per year.

OCEAN TRANSPORTATION COSTS

The United States and Great Britain are the most important
markets in the world for citrus fruits. No producing area can
build up an important export trade in citrus fruits unless it can
profitably compete on these markets or in the countries of west-
ern Europe. The cities of New York and Liverpool have been
selected as representative of these two vast consuming centers
and comparative transportation costs from the most important
exporting areas to these cities have been collected. These com-

LAgricultural Yearbook, 1928.







Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 23

parative costs are shown in Table VI. The charges are named in
cents per 100 pounds because of the differences in the sizes of
boxes used in the different areas. Spain has a very favorable
rate, both to Liverpool and to New York. Refrigeration is almost
essential for shipments to New York, however, so the entire cost
is considerably more than is shown in the table. Palestine and
South Africa, also, have favorable rates to Liverpool and other
English ports. It is apparent that Spain and the West Indian
Islands have the best chance to compete with Florida on the New
York market. Italy, Palestine, and Brazil are practically barred
from shipping oranges to New York because of high ocean trans-
portation costs.

TABLE VI.--COMPARATIVE OCEAN FREIGHT RATES ON ORANGES AND GRAPE-
FRUIT FROM THE MOST IMPORTANT CITRUS PRODUCING AREAS
OF THE WORLD TO NEW YORK AND LIVERPOOL.

Origin New York Liverpool

Cents per 100 Lbs. Cents per 100 Lbs.
Valencia, Spain ..................... 452 251
Naples, Italy ....................... 963 781
Jaffa, Palestine .................... 1432 644
Los Angeles, California.............. 125*6 128*3
Jacksonville, Florida ............... 582 111*1
Havana, Cuba ......................, 110*2 150*1
San Juan, Porto Rico.. ................ 82*2 156*1
Nueva Gerona, Isle of Pines.......... 882 188*4
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. ................ 1256 911
Capetown, Union of South Africa..... No Movement 801
New York City ..................... .. 111*1

*Includes Refrigeration.
'Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, United States Department
of Commerce.
"Rates Furnished by Mr. W. P. Levis, Vice-President, Clyde Steamship
Company, New York.
"Italia-America Shipping Corporation, New York.
4Norton, Lily and Company, Steamship Agents and Brokers, New York.
'California Fruit Growers' Exchange, Los Angeles.
GRates Furnished by Mr. Earl R. French, Executive Secretary, New York
Food Marketing Research Council, New York.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITRUS INDUSTRY IN THE
UNITED STATES

Most investigators agree that the orange probably originated
in India or China. The French botanist, Gallesio,' writing in
1811, concluded that the Arabs transplanted it from one of these

'See translation appearing in appendix to "Orange Culture in Florida," by
Rev. T. W. Moore, 1881.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


points to Arabia, Persia, Syria and Palestine, early in the ninth
century. The Crusaders found it growing luxuriantly in Palestine
and transplanted it to various parts of Europe where it was
found to be especially adapted to the climate of France, Spain,
Italy, and certain of the islands of the Mediterranean. Risso and
Poiteau,1 about 1870, concluded, after examining a vast array of
evidence, that only the sour orange came to Europe through the
channels described by Gallesio. They arrived at the conclusion
that the sweet orange was taken to Europe by the early Portu-
guese explorers in their travels around the Cape of Good Hope.
This theory is confirmed by R. A. Davis2, late Chief Horticulturist
to the Government of the Union of South Africa, who states that
"the sweet orange was brought first to Europe by the
Portuguese in 1547." According to either of these theories, the
orange has been in Europe but a few centuries.
The introduction of the leading types of citrus fruits into the
Americas is usually credited to the Spaniards3. It is thought
that by the year 1600, the orange was fairly well established on
the Florida peninsula4. Other plantings were made by the Span-
iards in the West Indies and South America. The first planting
in California was made by the Jesuit Missionaries at San Gabriel
Mission in 1804s. The Washington Navel orange was introduced
into California from Bahia, Brazil, by representatives of the
United States Department of Agriculture about 1879, and is now
the leading variety produced in that state6.
Although citrus fruits have been produced in America for a
considerable period of time, it is only in recent years that they
have become of great economic importance. Since they belong
to the classification of perishables, proper methods of handling
and adequate transportation facilities are essential to the develop-
ment of this industry. Largely because of the lack of transporta-
tion facilities the early plantings were confined to small areas in
the vicinity of seaports. No standard containers were used or
proper methods of handling adopted prior to about 1875. The
fruits were packed on the farm in soap boxes, barrels, or what-
ever containers came to hand, sometimes with Spanish moss
between the layers, and hauled in ox carts over rough roads to

1"Histoire Et Culture Des Oranges," par A. Risso et A. Poiteau.
2"Citrus Growing in South Africa," by R. A. Davis.
3Standard Cyclopedia of Horticulture, page 783, by L. H. Bailey.
4Standard Cyclopedia of Horticulture, page 2369, by H. Harold Hume.
5Standard Cyclopedia of Horticulture, page 2376, by J. Eliot Colt.
6Standard Cyclopedia of Horticulture, page 2376, by J. Eliot Coit.







Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 25

the seaports. There they were loaded on slow-moving vessels
and rarely ever reached markets other than seacoast towns. Due
to rough handling and the length of time required for transpor-
tation, the fruit often arrived on the markets in very poor con-
dition.' Consequently the citrus industry developed very little
until the dawn of a new transportation era.
The rapid growth of railway transportation removed this great
obstacle to the development of the citrus industry. The railway
mileage in the two leading citrus producing states-Florida and
California-for various periods from 1860 to 1925 is shown in
Table VII.

TABLE VII.-RAILWAY MILEAGE IN FLORIDA AND CALIFORNIA.*

Year Florida California
1860 ....................................... 402 23
1870 ................... ................... 446 925
1880 ....................................... 518 2,195
1890 ....................................... : 2,471 4,356
1900 ....................................... 3,299 5,751
1910 ....................................... 4,432 7,772
1915 ....................................... 5,252 8,451
1920 ....................................... 5,212 8,356
1924 ....................................... 5,373 8,334
1925 ....................................... 5,452 8,288
"Statistical Abstract of the United States for 1926, page 378.

For a long time, however, railroads were not standardized as
to gauge of track and types of cars, and such, and through sys-
tems were unknown. Prior to 1886, the lines south of Wilming-
ton, North Carolina, had tracks five feet wide, while those to the
north had standard gauge. Consequently, all freight moving to
the north by rail had to be transferred at that point. In 1886,
however, on an appointed day, the lines south of Wilmington
were changed to standard gauge. The next year (1887) through
freight service was established between Florida and New York2.
This provided an outlet for Florida products and gave a great
impetus to the citrus industry. The Southern Pacific had already
completed its through connections between California and the
East (about 1876) and the main line of the Atchison, Topeka and
Santa Fe had been completed in 1885.
With the opening of through transportation lines between the

'See article by E. Bean in the Florida Agriculturist, November 7, 1900.
2The story of the Atlantic Coast Line, by the Traffic Department, A. C. L.,
1928.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


producing areas and the large centers of population and the
building of networks of lines which enlarged the areas of pro-
duction, the citrus industry awoke from its long period of dor-
mancy and began a period of rapid development. In 40 years
the inter-state shipments increased from a few hundred thousand
boxes to about fifty million boxes annually. Whereas, formerly
there were only small, poorly kept seedling groves, there have
developed large areas of the best varieties of budded trees, kept
in the best of condition. In place of packing fruit carelessly on
the farm in any kind of container that came to hand, modern
packinghouses have come into being, where very efficient ma-
chines are employed to wash, grade, and stamp the fruits which
are then packed, without injury, into standard containers. High
type refrigerator cars are being used to transport the fruit long
distances, and pre-cooling plants have been established in many
of the up-to-date packinghouses. The citrus industry has grown
from insignificance to the leading agricultural industry of Flor-
ida and one of the leading agricultural enterprises of California.
It is fast developing into an important industry in Texas, and is
of some importance in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Ari-
zona, but the production in all of these states combined is small
when compared to either of the two leading states, California or
Florida.
The development of the citrus industry in the various producing
states, as reflected by inter-state shipments, is shown in Table
VIII. Florida maintained an early lead until the disastrous
freezes of February, 1895 and 1899. These disasters killed al-
most all of the trees in the state and effected a very complete
relocation of the citrus industry to more southern parts of the
state. Due to the length of time and the expense necessary to
bring a grove into commercial production it was not until the
season 1907-08 that shipments were again equal to those prior to
the freeze. Since that time the industry in Florida has continued
to grow.
The freeze in Florida was a great boost to the industry in Cali-
fornia. In three years California inter-state shipments had more
than doubled. California has consistently held first place since
the freeze, with the exception of the season 1912-13, when there
was a severe freeze in California that greatly reduced the crop
but did not kill the trees, and the season 1924-25 which was one
of the banner years for citrus production in Florida.








Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 27

TABLE VIII.-ANNUAL INTER-STATE CARLOT MOVEMENT OF CITRUS FRUITS
FROM ALL PRODUCING AREAS IN THE UNITED STATES.

Date Calif. Fla. Ariz. Ala. Texas La. Miss. Total

1884-85 ...... ...... 2,400 .... .... .... .. .. ... 2,400
1885-86 ...... ... 3,600i ...... ..... ...... .... .. 3,600
1886-87 ...... 2,212 5,040 .... ..... ..7,252
1887-88 ...... 2,520 6,000 ...... ...... ... ... ... 8,520
1888-89 2,808 7,800 ... ... ... ... ... 10,608
1889-90 ...... 3,5101 8,600 .... .... ... .... ..... 12,110
1890-91 ...... 4,056 9,800 ...... .. .. 13,856
1891-92 ...... 4,452 10,659 .... .. .. ..... 15,111
1892-93 ...... 5,936 13,430 .... .. ... ..... .. .. 19,366
1893-94 ...... 5,871 16,675 ... ... ... 22,546
1894-95 ...... 5,022 11,2341 .... .. ... .... 16,256
1895-96 ...... 7,575 588 ... ... .... ... .. ... 8,163
1896-97 .. .... 7,350 866 ..... .... ... ... .. .. 8,216
1897-98 .. .... 15,153 1,440 .... .... .. ... 16,593
1898-99 ...... 10,3511 800 .... I .... ... ... ... 11,151
1899-1900 17,809 3,890 ..... .... ...... ... .21,699
1900-01 ...... 24,097 5,403 .... ... .. .... ..... ... 29,500
1901-02 .. .... 20,387 3,890 ..... ...... ... .. ...... 24,277
1902-03 ...... 23,729 5,861 ..... .... .. ... 29,590
1903-04 ...... 29,466 7,803 ..... .. ... ..... 37,269
1904-05 ...... 31,616 11,845 .. .... 43,461
1905-06 ...... 27,528 15,173 .... .. ... 42,701
1906-07 ...... 29,826 15,401 ..... ... .. ... ... 45,227
1907-08 .. .. 32,647 21,000 ..... ..... .... .... .. 53,647
1908-09 .. ....40,572 18,538 ... ... 59,110
1909-10 ....... 33,143 20,4381 ....... .. .. 53,581
1910-11 ...... 46,399 14,535 .... 60,934
1911-12 ...... 40,673 15,694.. ... .. .... 56,367
1912-13 ...... 18,3311 27,085 .. ...... .. 45,416
1913-14 ...... 48,338 25,505 .... ...... .... .73,843
1914-15 ...... 46,812 31,901 ..... .... 78,713
1915-16 ...... 45,083 27,3511 .... ... .. ....... ..... 72,434
1916-17 .. .... 54,506 25,497 ........ .. ....... .. ..... 80,003
1917-18 .. .... 23,456 18,604 ..... .. ... ..... ..... 42,060
1918-19 ...... 43,894 21,359 90 6 ..... ....... ....... 65,349
1919-20 ..... .43,551 24,785 121 5 .... .... ....... 68,462
1920-21 ...... 59,066 31,974 97 87 .... .. ... 91,224
1921-22 ..... 39,5601 29,135] 1471 145 12 ............ 68,999
1922-23 ...... 58,3771 42,606 177 476 66 ..... 9 101,711
1923-24 ...... 60,115! 56,640' 251 600 104 3 131117,726
1924-25 ......I 47,6371 49,404| 212! 21 544 2 .... 97,801
1925-26 ...... 63,6021 37,050! 316' 3381 304 1 8 101,619
1926-27 ...... 69,105 45,056 293 178 7781 2 4 115,416
1927-28 ...... 57,194 36,742 254 311 1,0541 170 17 95,742
1928-29 ...... 86,8021 62,786! 338 971 1,6501 264 51151,942
Note: California figures for the seasons 1886-87 to 1917-18, inclusive,
are from the California State Board of Agricultural Annual Reports, 1912,
page 149; and 1919, page 161.
Florida figures for the seasons 1884-85 to 1917-18, inclusive, were com-
puted from statistics kept by the railroads-the number of boxes moved
annually from 1884-85 to 1908-09, inclusive, being divided by 250 and 1909-10
to 1917-18, inclusive, by 300 to arrive at equivalent carloads.
Statistics for all areas beginning with season 1918-19 kept by market
statistics section, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. D. A., compiled
from daily and monthly reports received by the bureau from officials and
local agents of common carriers throughout the country. Shipments as shown
in carlots include those by boat reduced to carlot basis.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


The relative importance of the citrus industry in the various
states is further shown in Tables IX and X.
Oranges are produced both in Florida and in California, but
grapefruit have proved to be peculiarly adapted to Florida condi-
tions. In fact, Florida produces annually more grapefruit than
are produced in all of the rest of the world. In the same way,
practically the whole of the American lemon crop is produced in.
California. The relative importance of oranges, grapefruit, and
lemons in the various states is shown in Table XI.

TABLE XI.-RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF ORANGES. GRAPEFRUIT, AND LEMONS IN
CITRUS PRODUCTION IN THE VARIOUS STATES FOR THE FOUR-YEAR
PERIOD, 1922 TO 1925.

State Oranges Grapefruit Lemons Total

Percent Percent Percent Percent
California ..... ......... 78.0 1.6 20.4 100
Florida .................. 57.9 42.1 .. 100
Texas ................... 5.9 94.1 .. 100
Alabama ................. 100.0 ... ... 100
Arizona .................. 54.1 45.9 .... 100
Louisiana ................ 100.0 ... ... 100
Mississippi ............... 97.7 2.3 ... 100
Total .................... 70.0 17.9 12.1 100

California oranges, grapefruit, and lemons are on the market
to some extent every month of the year, the heaviest shipments
being made from March to June, inclusive. Florida does not ship
lemons in carload lots, and the shipments of oranges and grape-
fruit, though heavy, are of a seasonal nature. The normal season
is September to June, inclusive, with the heaviest shipments being
made from November to March. In few years, however, Florida
has shipped citrus fruits in carload lots every month of the year.
Shipments from all of the other states are seasonal in nature, the
heaviest movements being made from November to February,
and as yet, are very small when compared to shipments from
California or Florida (Figs. 15 and 16, and Appendix Tables XV,
XVI, and XVII).
A study of Table XII will throw some light on the possible
future of citrus production in Florida, California, and Texas. The
planting of young trees has been going on at a rapid rate, espe-
cially in Florida and Texas. If plantings can be considered as any
indication of future production, then Florida, as a producer of
citrus fruits, will undoubtedly, within a few years, assume first






TABLE IX.-NUMBER OF CITRUS TREES OF BEARING AGE BY STATES, 1889, 1899, 1909, 1919-26.*
(Thousand Trees, i. e., 000 omitted.)


State 18892 18992 19092 19192 1920: 19213 19223 19233 1924
ORANGES1
Florida .............................. 2,725 2,553 2,790 3,684 4,025 4,525 5,125 6,025 7,30(
California .............................. 1,154 5,649 6,619 10,8003 13,224 16,152 16,456 16,785 17,11
Arizona ......................49 33 47 50 53 60 68 7
Alabama ..................................... ** 3 260 605 660 1,500 1,700 27
Louisiaa .............................. 6 141 267 104 111 119 128 138 15
4:4: 4 10 30 32 34 50 60 2
Mississippi............................. 4 1 30 32 4 50 60
Texas ...................... 1............ 42 14 145 16
GRAPEFRUIT I
Florida ................................ 3 117 656 1,681 2,044 2,344 2,544 2,644 2,97(
California ................ ** 81 43 231 280 328 385 383 38:
A rizona ................................ ...... 3 1 19 22 25 ..... ... 3
Lousiana .............. .. .1 3 .* .. ..
:1 1 -i*' i :: .... 2 *
M ississippi ............................. 5 5. 1,262 1,43
Texas ................................. ...... 5 51 ...... ...... .... i 1,262 1,43
LEMONS I I
Florida ................................ 85 23 12 34 ..... ...... 8
Calfoni 83 1,493 941 2,885 3,275 3,665 3,748 3,819 3,89
California .............................. I 83 1,493 941 2,885 3,275 3,665 3,748 3,819 3,89
A rizona .......................... .....2 2 1 ... .. ...... ..... .....
Louisiana ............................. .... 1 1 **
Texas ................................. ** 1 .1 43 4


S1925:1 19263


62 7,601 8,546
4 16,2314 16,4754
7 ...... .....
5 300 ....
12 153 163
5 40 53
5 190 ......

02 2,841 3,084
1 3944 4484
72 ... .
"* 1i 1
6 1,653. ...

42 ...... .......
0 3,5424 3,5054
12 2 2

9 57


*U. S. D. A. Yearbook, 1926, page 905, with supplements.
The figures shown are approximate only. They are intended to represent the numbers of citrus trees on farms and old
enough to produce fruit in the year shown. The figures no doubt include some small trees producing a negligible quantity of
fruit. The enumerators of the 1910 and 1920 censuses asked for orange trees and also for other subtropical fruits. In this
table tangerine trees have been included with other trees. The enumerators of the 1925 census asked only for the number of
orange trees, and the figures may include only part of the tangerine trees. In addition to the numbers shown there are in some
sections a considerable number of trees on properties that were not listed as farms by the Census Bureau.
**Less than 500 trees.
'Including tangerine trees.
2Data from census reports.
3From records of the Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates.
4From mimeograph report of Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates, July 19, 1927.









TABLE X.-CITRUS FRUIT PRODUCTION, BY STATES, 1889, 1899, 1909, 1919-1928.*
(Thousand Boxes, i. e., 000 omitted.)


State


18892 18992


ORANGES
California ................. 1,245
Florida ................... 3,147
A rizona ................... .... .
Alabam a5 ................ .. ...
Louisiana ................. ......
M ississippi ................ .....
T exas .................... ......
GRAPEFRUIT

Florida .................. 20
Florida .....................20

M ississippi ................ ......
A rizona .................. ......
Louisiana .................
Texas .................... :::
LEMONS
California ................ 306
Florida ................... 253
A rizona .................. ......


5,882
273
11
**
1


18
12

1



874
2
**


19092 1919 1920


14,440
4,888
33
1
152
5
11

123
1,062
1
1
2
**

2,756
12
1


15,265 21,296
7,0004 8,1004
80 60
41 165
37 42
31 25
9 .. .

263 304
5,5004 5,1004
** 1
29 34
**


3,499 4,955
32 .
2 ......


1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926


12,640 120,106 24,137
7,3004 10,200 12,900
80 81 86
165 350 450
50 60 75
30 45 55
..... 4 6

360 394 363
6,0004 7,600 8,400
1 1 1
35 44 65

... .. 35 65

4,050 3,400 6,732


1927 19283


18,1UU Z4,2UU 2z,1IU 23,UU 31,00UUU
11,600 9,100 10,700 8,200 13,000
60 86 75 54 54 -s
1 200 150 220 76 S
75 100 150 200 220
0 27 42 .... ......
12 10 20 30 70 0
''
387 600 650 720 800
8,600 7,300 7,800 7,200 9,000
0 1 1 .... ....
67 90 75 176 186

211 200 340 490 750

5,125 7,136 7,712 6,000 7,100
------------------------------------------


*U. S. D. A. Yearbook, 1928, page 769, and Florida Citrus Deal, November, 1924, page 1.
The figures in this table of production include fruit consumed on farms, sold locally, and used for manufacturing purposes,
as well as that shipped. The figures do not include fruit which ripened on the trees but which was destroyed by freezing or
storms prior to picking. For California the figures relate to the crop produced from the bloom of the year shown fruiting
through the winter and through the spring and summer of the following year, being picked from November 1 of the year
shown to October 31 of the following year. Fruit not picked until after the latter date is included with the crop of the follow-
ing year. For all states except California the estimates include all fruit picked after about September 1 of the year shown.
**Less than 500 boxes.
1Including tangerines.
2Data from census reports.
3As estimated from prospects on December 1, except Florida revised to February 1, 1929.
4From Florida Citrus Deal, November, 1924, page 1.
5"Half-Straps."


ri2

0


_~__~_.___I,,.,_


.







Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 31

place, which was lost to California in 1894-95. Texas, also, is
becoming more important as a producer of citrus fruits.

TABLE XII.-ANNUAL PLANTINGS OF CITRUS TREES FROM THE NURSERY TO
THE GROVE IN FLORIDA, CALIFORNIA, AND TEXAS.

1921-22 1922-23 1923-24 1924-25 1925-26 1926-27

Florida .... 1,590,896 2,884,213 2,662,514 1,664,903 1,519,0391 1,426,422
Texas2 ...... 200,000 244,000 440,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,500,000
California' .. 403,950 477,730 378,150 364,920 571,780 456,560
'Data from State Plant Board of Florida.
2Data furnished by E. W. Halstead, Citrus Inspector, Texas State Depart-
ment of Agriculture.
3Data furnished by E. E. Kaufman, Agricultural Statistician, U. S. D. A.,
Sacramento, and Lee A. Strong, California State Department of Agriculture,
Sacramento. Data are for the calendar years 1922 to 1927, inclusive.

EXPORTS
The United States is exceeded by both Spain and Italy in the
exportation of citrus fruits, the greater part of the American
crop being marketed domestically. However, from 1922 to 1929
the volume of exports of oranges and grapefruit increased at a
rapid rate. In Table XIII are shown exports of oranges and
Thouaands
of
Carloads


Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. mar. p. ay June July Aug.
Figure 15.-Monthly distribution of carlot shipments of oranges.
(Ten-year averages, ending August 31, 1929.)







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


grapefruit from the United States to the principal foreign mar-
kets for the seven years, 1922 to 1928-29. The outstanding fea-
tures of the table are the increase in exports of both oranges and
grapefruit to the United Kingdom, and the total increase in
Thousands
of
Boxes


Other States -.








Se"pt. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Ar. "y June July Aug.
Figure 16.-Monthly distribution of carlot shipments of grapefruit.
(Ten-year averages, ending August 31, 1929.)
1Average for Texas based on five years, ending August 31, 1929.

exports to all countries. There is considerable re-export trade
from Great Britain to the continent, however, so the data given
are not an exact measure of the consumption in the British
markets.

TABLE XIII.--EPORTS OF ORANGES AND GRAPEFRUIT FROM THE UNITED
STATES TO PRINCIPAL MARKETS, 1922 TO 1928-29.*

Year Ca a United Other Total
Year Cana Kingdom Countries

Oranges: Boxes Boxes Boxes Boxes

1922 ............. 1,302,000 6,000 74,000 1,382,000
1923 ............ 2,122,000 46,000 126,000 2,294,000
1924 ............. 2,267,000 115,000 182,000 2,564,000
1925 ............ 1,830,000 31,000 120,000 1,981,000
1926 ............ 2,273,000 234,000 185,000 2,692,000
1927-28 .......... 2,200,316 184,447 218,327 2,603,090
1928-29 .......... 3,588,178 1,266,660 453,018 5,307,856

Grapefruit:

1922 ............. 207,000 10,000 7,000 224,000
1923 ............. 255,000 15,000 11,000 281,000
1924 ............. 249,000 48,000 16,000 313,000
1925 ............. 283,000 141,000 23,000 447,000
1926 ............ 228,000 158,000 25,000 411,000
1927-28 .......... 269,553 393,382 37,103 700,038
1928-29 .......... 341,730 578,540 49,186 969,456
*Arranged from quotations in Foreign Crops and Markets, Vol. 14, No. 8,
and Foreign Service Citrus Fruit Release No. 67.







Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 33

It is expected that exports will continue to show an increase.
Steamship lines are equipping their ships with modern refrig-
erating systems, and they are making regular trips from the pro-
ducing areas to Great Britain. An appropriation of 815,000 was
made available July 1, 1929, to the Department of Commerce for
the purpose of stimulating the foreign demand for American
citrus fruits.
"American grapefruit is now available on the British market
during practically every month of the year. Most of the large
hotels serve grapefruit as a cocktail course, using glass dishes
which will not hold a grapefruit larger than a 96. These con-
tainers will readily accommodate size 112, but 64's are out of the
question. The 112 size has become very popular and brings about
the same price as that paid for 96's or 80's and considerably more
than that paid for 64's. Such sizes as 28's to 64's should not be
exported to the British markets. Imports of American oranges
into the British markets have been increasing since the war.
During the five years, 1909 to 1913, the imports of American
oranges into the United Kingdom averaged 60,000 boxes annu-
ally'." Imports of oranges into the United Kingdom in 1928-29
amounted to 1,266,660 boxes.

SOURCES OF SUPPLIES OF CITRUS FRUITS ON THE
MARKETS OF THE UNITED STATES
The United States depends upon imports for a very small per-
centage of its supplies of citrus fruits, other than lemons. Al-
most all of the oranges and grapefruit that are consumed in the
large markets of this country are produced in the states of Flor-
ida, California, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and Ari-
zona. California, however, is the only state which produces
lemons in commercial quantities. Considerable quantities of this
fruit are therefore imported, mostly from Italy and Sicily. Some
grapefruit, also, are imported, the most important source being
Porto Rico and the Isle of Pines. The greater part of the grape-
fruit imports come in during the months of August, September,
and October, thus competing to some extent with early shipments
from Florida.
The relative importance of Florida, California, and all other
areas in supplying the 66 largest citrus markets in the United
'Willson, H. F., Marketing Florida Citrus, Summary of 1928-29 Season,
mimeographed report of the U. S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics.






Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


States with oranges during 1927 and 1928 is shown in Table XIV.
In this table, the 66 markets are listed in the order of their rela-
tive dependence upon Florida as their source of supply. Only
Jacksonville and Tampa were supplied entirely by Florida, where-
as eight of these markets received no oranges from Florida during
1927 and 1928. All these eight cities are located west of the
Mississippi River. Two of these cities, Los Angeles and San
Francisco, were closed to Florida citrus fruits, due to embargo.
Fourteen of the 66 largest markets received more than 50 percent
of their oranges from Florida. All these 14 markets are located
on or south of the Ohio River, or along the Atlantic Seaboard.
Only Salt Lake City, San Francisco, and Seattle were supplied
entirely by California. However, 50 of the 66 largest markets
received more than 50 percent of their oranges from California.
These markets are scattered throughout the country, except in
the southeast. However, it must be remembered that California
supplied 65.6 percent of the oranges used by these 66 markets,
while Florida supplied only 31.6 percent. Considering this differ-
ence in total unloads, Florida is relatively more important in a
majority of the Eastern cities. Notable exceptions are the cities
in the region of the Great Lakes. It is apparent, however, that
Florida is not able to compete successfully with California in the
West and mid-West.
"Other Areas" (Table XIV) includes Texas, Arizona, Alabama,
and Mississippi, and imports from all sources. These sources
were important in only a few of the markets. New Orleans was
relatively the most important receiver from these sources, since
a considerable part of its total supply came from Louisiana. El
Paso was next, drawing some oranges from Arizona. New York
received 7.6 percent of its total supply from other sources than
California or Florida, most of which were imports.
Similar information for grapefruit is shown in Table XV.
Florida supplied 81 percent of the total unloads of grapefruit in
the 66 largest markets for citrus fruits in the United States,
while California supplied 3.3 percent and all other sources, 15.7
percent. Sixteen of these markets received all of their grapefruit
from Florida, and all but seven received more than 50 percent of
their supplies from that source. California led only in Los An-
geles and San Francisco. New York received more than one-
third of its supply from other sources, most of which were im-
ports from Porto Rico and the Isle of Pines. The cities of the
far West and Southwest, were of least importance to Florida,







Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 35

since they received considerable quantities of grapefruit from
Texas. San Antonio was the only Texas city to receive most of
its grapefruit from Florida.
New York, Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia are, in order, by
far the largest markets for citrus fruits in the United States.
In addition to unloading oranges and grapefruit to supply their

TABLE XIV.-ORANGES: PERCENTAGE OF UNLOADS AT EACH OF 66 MARKETS
REPRESENTED BY SHIPMENTS FROM FLORIDA, CALIFORNIA, AND
OTHER AREAS, 1927 AND 1928.*


Markets Fla. Calif. Ore
Total ............. 31.61 65.61 2.8
Jacksonville....... 100.0 ..... ....
Tampa ... ..... 100.0 ........
Norfolk ........... 85.0 15.0. .
Atlanta .......... 83.0 16.9 i .1
Nashville ........ 79.7 19.9 .4
Richmond ......... 78.6 21.4 ...
Birmingham ........ 76.4 23.31 .3
Lexington ......... 70.0 29.5 .5
Baltimore ......... 65.71 33.71 .6
Memphis .......... 64.5 34.2 1.3
Washington .... 57.4 42.4 .2
Philadelphia .. ..... 55.1 44.11 .8
Evansville ......... 54.7 45.0 .3
Cincinnati ......... 53.9 44.9 1.2
Providence ........ 50.2 49.6 .2
New Haven ....... 46.5| 53.5 ...
Dayton ........... 45.41 51.5! 3.1
Louisville .. 44.6 55.21 .2
New Orleans ...... 41.71 27.3' 31.0
Hartford .......... 41.4 58.6 ....
Boston ............ 37.8' 61.7' .5
Pittsburgh ........ 137.4 62.3! .3
New York ........ 35.7| 56.7 7.6
Bridgeport ........ 35.5 64.2 .3
Indianapolis ....... 34.5 64.9! .6
Columbus........ .. 29.3 69.9 .8
Cleveland ........ 29.2 68.9 1.9
Shreveport ........ 28.9 70.3 .8
Newark ........... 28.61 70.51 .9
Springfield, Mass.... 25.51 73.61 .9
St. Louis .......... 25.3 72.81 1.9
Buffalo ........... 24.2 75.5 .3
Syracuse .......... 22.7' 76.8: .5


Markets Fla. Calif. Area


Portland, Maine ... 21.8 76.1 2.1
Chicago .......... 20.7 77.5 1.8
Rochester ......... 19.1 80.9 ...
Detroit ........... 11.6 87.1 1.3
Albany ........... 11.3 88.7 ....
Terre Haute ....... 10.9 88.21 .9
Toledo ............ 8.7 91.1 .2
Houston .......... 8.2 88.4 3.4
Grand Rapids ..... 7.8 92.2.....
Akron ............ 7.71 92.3 .
Peoria ........... 7.1 92.4 .5
W orcester ......... 6.6 93.4 ....
Youngstown ....... 6.3 93.5 .2
Milwaukee ........ 6.1 93.8 .1
Dallas ............ 5.6 92.0 2.4
Kansas City ....... 2.4 96.4 1.2
Fort Worth ....... 2.0 95.8 2.2
Duluth ............ 1.6 98.41 ..
Minneapolis ....... i 1.41 98.6.....
Oklahoma City .... .7 98.7 .6
San Antonio ..... .6 96.2 3.2
St. Paul .......... .5 99.5 ....
Denver ......... .. .21 99.4 .4
Omaha ............ .2 99.3 .5
Portland, Ore...... .2 98.3 1.5
Des Moines ....... ..... 99.3 .7
El Paso ......... ....... 92.0 8.0
Los Angeles .......... 98.8 1.2
Salt Lake City......... 100.0 .
San Francisco .......... 100.0
Seattle ............ ... 100.01 .
Sioux City ....... ..... 99.3 .7
Spokane ....... ..... 99.71 .3


*Original data given in Appendix table XVIII.

own populations, these cities are important jobbing centers and
supply large areas of the thickly populated sections in which they
are located. Several of the other cities, also, are important
jobbing centers. For this reason it is impossible to arrive at a
reliable figure as to the per capital consumption of oranges and
grapefruit in any particular city.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF FLORIDA ORANGES
AND GRAPEFRUIT

The geographical distribution by states of carlot shipments of
oranges and grapefruit from Florida for an average of the four
seasons, 1923-24 to 1926-271, is shown in Figs, 17 and 18. Al-

TABLE XV.-GRAPEFRUIT: PERCENTAGE OF UNLOADS AT EACH OF 66 MARKETS
REPRESENTED BY SHIPMENTS FROM FLORIDA, CALIFORNIA, AND
OTHER AREAS, 1927 AND 1928.*

Markets Fla. Calif. Or Markets Fla. Calif. Oer
Total ............. 81.0 3.3 15.7
Birmingham ....... 100.0..... ... Toledo ........... 97.1 2.9
Bridgeport ........ 100.0..... ..... Baltimore ........ 97.0 ... 3.0
Dayton ........... 100.0..... ..... Buffalo .......... 96.4 1.6 2.0
Evansville ........ 100.0 ..... ..... Detroit .......... 96.4 .1 3.5
Hartford .......... 100.0 ..... ..... Albany ........... 96.3 3.7 ....
Jacksonville ....... 100.0 ..... ..... Akron ............ 96.1 .... 3.9
Lexington ......... 100.0 ... ... Chicago ........... 95.7 .9 3.4
Louisville ......... 100.0 ..... Memphis ......... 95.2. .... 4.8
Newark ........... 100. ..... .. Milwaukee ....... 94.3. .... 5.7
New Haven ....... 100.0 ..... St. Louis .......... 93.2..... 6.8
Norfolk ........... 100.0 ... .. Philadelphia ..... 91.9 .3 7.8
Providence ........ 100.0 ..... Boston ............ 90.8 3.3 5.9
Richmond ........ 100.0..... St. Paul ........... 88.3..... 11.7
Tampa ............ 100.0 ... Spokane .......... 87.7 2.5 9.8
Terre Haute ....... 100.0 .. .... Shreveport ...... 85.1..... 14.9
Worcester ......... 100.0 .... ... Portland, Ore ..... 84.3 9.5 6.2
Pittsburgh ........ 99.5 .... .5 Minneapolis ...... 81.5 .. 18.5
Nashville ......... 99.4 ..... .6 Kansas City .... 81.1 .4 18.5
Springfield, Mass.. 99.4 .61 ... Duluth .. ..... 79.8 ..... 20.2
Syracuse .......... 99.3 ... .7 Omaha ...... ...... 78.3 .4 21.3
Columbus ......... 99.2 .... .8 Sioux City ........ 77.4 .8 21.8
Cincinnati ....... .. 99.0 .... 1.0 Seattle ............ 76.3 20.4 3.3
Salt Lake City...... 99.0 ..... 1.0 Denver ...... ...... 66.6 .. 33.4
Washington ....... 99.0... 1.0 New York ....... 62.9 .5 36.6
Youngstown ....... 99.0 ... 1.0 Oklahoma City .... 53.2 5.0 41.8
Atlanta ........... 98.8 .2 1.0 San Antonio ....... 52.9..... 47.1
New Orleans ...... 98.8 ... 1.2 Des Moines ........ 43.9 3.9 52.2
Peoria ............ 98.8 ... 1.2 El Paso ........... 36.4 7.3 56.4
Rochester ......... 98.6 1.4. ... Dallas ............ 35.8 3.7 60.5
Indianapolis ...... 98.2 ..... 1.8 Houston ........ 34.2 4.4 61.4
Portland, Maine .. 98.1 ... 1.9 Fort Worth ........ 28.4 7.1 64.5
Cleveland ......... 97.8 .... 2.2 Los Angeles .. .... .... 62.9 37.1
Grand Rapids ..... 97.3 ..... 2.7 San Francisco ..... ...84.7 15.3
*Original data given in Appendix Table XIX.

though more oranges than grapefruit were shipped from Florida,
the grapefruit shipments were more widely distributed over the
United States, due to the limited amount of this fruit produced in
other states. During the four seasons under consideration only

'Computed from statistics in the U. S. D. A. mimeographed reports
"Marketing Florida Citrus" for corresponding years.







Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 37

two states, California and Arizona, did not receive any Florida
grapefruit. California has an embargo on all Florida citrus fruits
and Arizona was no doubt supplied with fruit produced within
its own borders. Shipments of oranges from Florida, however,
are confined more closely to the Eastern states.
The distribution of carlot shipments of Florida oranges and
grapefruit to sections of the United States, 1923-24 to 1926-27',


Figure 17.-Distribution of carlot shipments of Florida oranges by States.
(Four-year average, 1923-24 to 1926-27.)


Figure 18.-Distribution of carlot shipments of Florida grapefruit by states.
(Four-year average, 1923-24 to 1926-27.)
'Opp. Cit.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


is shown in Table XVI. This tabulation is based upon an average
of 17,821 carloads of oranges and 11,870 carloads of grapefruit
distributed annually in the United States from Florida during
this period.

TABLE XVI.-GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF CARLOT SHIPMENTS OF FLORIDA
ORANGES AND GRAPEFRUIT TO SECTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES.
(Four-year Average, 1923-24 to 1926-27.)

Number of Percent of Percent of Total Carlot Shipments
Sections States population
1925 census Oranges Grapefruit Combined

New England ....... 6 7.0 11.5 9.2 10.5
Middle Atlantic ..... 5* 23.1 44.9 35.4 41.1
Middle Western .....1 5 20.5 14.6 26.6 19.4
Southeastern ....... 11 21.0 26.5 14.3 21.7
Western ............ 21 28.4 2.5 14.5 7.3
Total ................ 48 100.0 | 100.0 ] 100.0 100.0
*And the District of Columbia.

The United States was divided into five sections, four of which
were nearly equal in population at the 1925 census. The New
England section was the smallest, containing only 7 percent of
the population of the United States and two of the 36 largest
markets for citrus fruits, while the Western section was largest,
containing 28.4 percent of the population and 14 of the 36 largest
markets for citrus fruits. The New England section- received
11.5 percent of the carlot shipments of Florida oranges during
this period and 9.2 percent of the grapefruit, while the Western
section received 2.5 percent and 14.5 percent, respectively. The
27 states east of the Mississippi River, including Louisiana, con-
taining 71.6 percent of the population of the United States and
22 of the 36 largest markets for citrus fruits, received 97.5 per-
cent of the carlot shipments of oranges and 85.5 percent of the
grapefruit from Florida during this period, while the 21 states
west of the Mississippi, containing 28.4 percent of the population
and 14 of the 36 largest markets for citrus fruits received 2.5
percent, and 14.5 percent, respectively.
The consumption of Florida oranges and grapefruit per thou-
sand population in different sections of the United States, based
upon carlot shipments, is shown in Table XVII. The highest
consumption was in the Middle Atlantic section, with the New
England, Southeastern, Middle Western and Western sections
following in order. Based upon an estimated average of 200
oranges per box, the average per capital consumption of Florida







Bulletin 217, Ti ,,I,, .' I ttl,, of Florida Citrus Fruits 39

oranges during this period was as follows: for the Middle Atlantic
section, 22; the New England section, 19.8; the Southeastern
section, 14.2; the Middle Western section, 8, and the Western
section, 1. Based upon an estimated average of 64 grapefruit per
box, the average per capital consumption of Florida grapefruit
during this period was as follows: for the Middle Atlantic section,
3.7; the New England section, 3.2; the Southeastern section, 1.7;
the Middle Western section, 3.2, and the Western section, 1.2.

TABLE XVII.-AVERAGE ANNUAL CONSUMPTION OF FLORIDA ORANGES AND
GRAPEFRUIT IN DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES.
(Four-year Average, 1923-24 to 1926-27.)
pu Oranges Grapefruit Combined
tion 1925 Boxes Boxes Boxes
Sections census Number Number per e Number per
000 of 1000 of 1000 of 1000
omitted boxes Popula- boxes Popula- boxes Popula-
tion tion tion

Middle Atlantic. 26,196 2,880,360 110 1,511,640 58 4,392,000 168
New England... 7,941 732,960 92 392,400 49 1,125,360 141
Southeastern ... 23,9511,703,520 71 611,640 26 2,315,160 97
Middle Western. 23,303' 940,680 40 1,137,240 49 2,077,920 89
Western ....... 1 32,227| 158,040 5 620,280 19 778,320 24
Total ......... I 113,61816,415,560| 56 14,273,2001 38 110,688,7601 94
Note: The number of boxes received in each section was obtained by
multiplying the number of carloads used in the preceding table by 360, the
usual number of boxes loaded per car.


CITRUS FRUIT TRANSPORTATION COSTS FROM FLORIDA
POINTS TO THE LARGEST CITRUS MARKETS
IN THE UNITED STATES, 1924 to 1927

With possibly minor exceptions, the freight rates on citrus
fruits from Florida which were effective during the four-year
period, 1924 to 1927, were the same as those in effect during the
entire period from January 1, 1922, to November 8, 1928. These
rates were based primarily upon distance to market, as will be
seen by reference to Table XVIII. The freight rates on citrus
fruits were quoted in cents per standard box or crate, while the
refrigeration rates were quoted in dollars per car. The minimum
carload requirement was 300 boxes, but since, during this entire
period, Florida shippers loaded an average of about 360 boxes'
per car, the latter figure was used in calculating the refrigeration
rates per box shown in the table.

1144 I. C. C. 614, i. e., Vol. 144, Interstate Commerce Commission Reports,
page 614.




TABLE XVIII.-CITRUS FRUIT TRANSPORTATION COSTS FROM LAKELAND, FLORIDA, TO THE 36* LARGEST CITRUS
MARKETS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1924 TO 1927.
Arithmetic
Number of Refrigeration Calculated Total Average trans-
Markets markets in Freight rate rate refrigeration transportation portation cost
each section (Cents per box) (Dollars per car) rate cost to markets
(Cents per box) (Cents per box) in each section

New England Section .......... 2
Boston .................... .. 102 76.50 21.2 123.2
Providence ................. 102 76.50 21.2 123.2 123.2
Middle Atlantic Section ....... 7
New York ... ............ 95 70.00 19.4 114.4
Philadelphia ............... 92 70.00 19.4 111.4
Pittsburgh ................. .. 104 76.50 21.2 125.2
Baltimore .................. .. 90 70.00 19.4 109.4
Buffalo .................... 105 76.50 21.2 126.2
W ashington ............... 90 70.00 19.4 109.4
Newark ................... 95 70.00 19.4 114.4 115.8
Middle Western Section......... 8 3.
Chicago .................... .. 105 76.50 21.2 126.2
Detroit .................... .. 105 81.00 22.5 127.5
Cleveland .................. 105 76.50 21.2 126.2
Cincinnati .................. 89 70.00 19.4 108.4
Milwaukee ................. .. 108 81.00 22.5 130.5
Indianapolis .............. 101 76.50 21.2 122.2
Columbus ................ 101 76.50 21.2 122.2
Toledo ..................... 104 76.50 21.2 125.2 123.6
Southeastern Section .......... 5
Atlanta .................... .. 66.5 54.00 15.0 81.5
Memphis ................... 83.5 70.00 19.4 102.9
Louisville ................. .. 89.0 70.00 19.4 108.4
Birmingham ............... .. 75.0 58.50 16.2 91.2
New Orleans ............. 83.5 67.50 18.8 102.3 97.3
W western Section ............... 12
St. Louis ................... 101.0 74.50 20.7 121.7
Minneapolis ................. .. 124.5 85.50 23.8 148.3
Kansas City ................ .. 119.0 81.00 22.5 141.5
Seattle .................... .. 173.5 103.50 28.8 202.3
Portland .................... 173.5 103.50 28.8 202.3
Denver .................... 175.5 90.00 25.0 200.5
St. Paul .................... .124.5 85.50 23.8 148.3
Omaha .................... .. | 124.5 81.00 22.5 147.0
Dallas .................... .. 132.0 76.50 21.2 153.2
Salt Lake City.............. .. 175.5 94.50 26.2 201.7
Spokane ................... I 173.5 103.50 28.8 202.3
Fort Worth ................ 132.0 76.50 21.2 153.2 168.5
*Nd cornmo(.ty4rateR on Atris fruits from'lo idao points t iLos Aigeles andSan.Francico.







Bulletin 217, T',. i, 111, ration of Florida Citrus Fruits 41

The markets shown in Table XVIII are grouped according to
their location in the different sections of the United States. The
six New England states contained two of the 36 largest citrus
markets in the United States; the Middle Atlantic section, seven
of the largest markets, and so on. The last column in the table
shows the arithmetic average of transportation costs to the
largest citrus markets located in each section during this period.
Due to actual and potential water competition, rates to destina-
tions along the Atlantic seaboard were somewhat lower than to
destinations farther inland. The transportation cost to New
York City was 114.4 cents per box, while the cost to Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, was 125.2 cents per box. The cost to Boston was
123.2 cents per box. The effect of potential water competition is
further seen by comparing the freight rate of 173.5 cents per
box to the Pacific Coast markets of Seattle, Portland, and Spo-
kane with the rate of 175.5 cents to Denver and Salt Lake City.
Since refrigeration has not been practiced by water transporta-
tion lines until recently, there was no actual or potential water
competition, so refrigeration rates correspond more closely to
distance, making the total transportation cost to the Pacific Coast
markets 202.3 cents per box, while to Denver and Salt Lake City
it was 200.5 cents and 201.7 cents, respectively.
By comparing Tables XVIII, XVII and XVI, it will be noted
that there was a high negative correlation between freight rates
and distribution. It could not be said, however, that this heavy
consumption of citrus fruits in the South and East was attribu-
table wholly to lower freight rates to these sections, since the
difference in demand and price in favor of the Eastern markets
might easily exert a greater influence than freight rates. There
seems to be little doubt, however, that low transportation costs
influenced distribution to the East to some extent, and exerted a
very considerable influence upon distribution in the South. The
high ratio of country to city dwellers in the Southern states, and
the relatively dense Negro population, are offered as the most
logical explanations of why the consumption of Florida citrus
fruits was higher in the East than in the South (Table XIX).
The freight rates from Lakeland, Florida, to destinations, how-
ever, could not be said to typify "average" Florida rates during
this period, since there were 63 origin groups in Florida, based
upon distance from Jacksonville. Through rates were quoted
from each of these origin groups in Florida to various destina-
tions in the United States and Canada, except that when ship-







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


ments were consigned to the Pacific Northwest, the rates were a
combination consisting of a proportional rate to Jacksonville
named in cents per box with a minimum of 300 boxes per car and
a proportional rate beyond Jacksonville named in cents per 100

TABLE XIX.-PROPORTION OF COUNTRY AND CITY DWELLERS IN SECTIONS OF
THE UNITED STATES, CENSUS OF 1920.
Per cent of popula- Per cent of popula-
Sections tion living in all tion living in open
cities and towns country

New England ........................ 85.5 14.5
Middle Atlantic ...................... 79.1 20.9
Middle W western .....................I 70.1 29.9
Southeastern ........................I 32.6 67.4
W western ............................I 52.1 47.9


pounds. The rate beyond Jacksonville varied with the size of the
carload. There was one rate of $1.55 per hundredweight for a
minimum of 36,000 pounds, and another of $1.85, minimum
30,000 pounds. The rates from producing points to Jacksonville
were quoted in cents per standard box or crate of an estimated
weight of 80 pounds. The rates beyond Jacksonville carried an
estimated weight of 95 pounds per box for oranges and 85 pounds
per box for grapefruit. The boxes were not weighed in either
case, so we find that the same box was charged for on a basis of
80 pounds up to Jacksonville, and 85 pounds or 95 pounds beyond
Jacksonville, depending on whether the box contained oranges or
grapefruit.
In Table XX are shown the variations in rates from the dif-
ferent origin groups in Florida to seven large citrus markets dur-
ing this period. The origin groups, 1 to 63, are given in the first
column, and horizontally the rates from each origin group to New
York, Chicago, Boston, and other points. The rates from Florida
points to New York varied from 69 cents per box from group 1
to 121.5 cents from group 63, and to Chicago from 79.5 cents to
132 cents per box, and so on. Group 1 was composed of Jackson-
ville, West Jacksonville, Florida Transfer, High Springs, and
Gainesville, when shipments come from beyond these points, and
group 63 of 9 points on the Southern Florida Keys, including
Key West'. The points shown above as composing group 1 with
reference to "from beyond" movements, were not in this group


'Glenn's I. C. C. A-548.








Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 43

TABLE XX.-FREIGHT RATES FROM DIFFERENT ORIGIN GROUPS IN FLORIDA TO
7 DESTINATIONS.
Cents Per Standard Crate.

Origin New Philadel-I Minneap-
Grs Yrk Chicago Boston Ph el- Memphis Atlanta ap-


1 69 79.5 77 66 59 42.5 99
2 74 84 81 70.5 63.5 47 104
3 83 93 90 79.5 72 55.5 113
4 84 95 92 81 73.5 56.5 114
5 86 96 93 83 74.5 58 115.5
6 87 97.5 95 84 76 59 117
7 88.5 99 96 86 78 61 119
8 90 101 97.5 87 79 62 120
9 92 102 99 88.5 80.5 63.5 122
10 93 104 101 90 81.5 65 123
11 95 105 102 92 83.5 66.5 124.5
12 96 106.5 104 93 84.5 67.5 126
13 97.5 108 105 95 86 69.5 128
14 99 110 106.5 96 87.5 70 129
15 101 111 108 97.5 89 72 131
16 102 113 110 99 90 73.5 132
17 104 114 111 101 92 74.5 133.5
18 84 94.5 92 81 73 56.5 114
19 101 111.5 109 98 88.5 72 131
20 103.5 114 111.5 100.5 92 75.5 133.5
21 117 127.5 125 114 104 87.5 147
22 116 126.5 124 113 103 86.5 146
23 132.5 143 140.5 129.5 119 102.5 162.5
24 99 109.5 107 96 87.5 71 129
25 102 112.5 110 99 90 73.5 132
26 103.5 114 111.5 100.5 92 75.5 133.5
27 96 106.5 104 93 84 67.5 126
28 74 84.5 82 71 63.5 47 104
29 81 91.5 89 78 70.5 54 111
30 83 93.5 91 80 72 55.5 113
31 84 94.5 92 81 73 56.5 114
32 84 94.5 92 81 73 56.5 114
33 84 94.5 92 81 73 56.5 114
34 84 94.5 92 81 73 56.5 114
35 85.5 96 93.5 82.5 75 58.5 115.5
36 87 97.5 95 84 76 59.5 117
37 89 99.5 97 86 77.5 61 119
38 90 100.5 98 87 79 62.5 120
39 92 102.5 100 89 80.5 64 122
40 92 102.5 100 89 80.5 64 122
41 92 102.5 100 89 80.5 64 122
42 93 103.5 101 90 81.5 65 123
43 94.5 105 102.5 91.5 83.5 67 124.5
44 96 106.5 104 93 84 67.5 126
45 96 106.5 104 93 84 67.5 126
46 98 108.5 106 95 86 69.5 128
47 99 109.5 107 96 87.5 71 129
48 99 109.5 107 96 87.5 71 129
49 101 111.5 109 98 88.5 72 131
50 102 112.5 110 99 90 73.5 132
51 103.5 114 111.5 100.5 92 74.5 133.5
52 105 115.5 113 102 93 75.5 135
53 107 117.5 115 104 94.5 77 137
54 108 118.5 116 105 95.5 78 138







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


TABLE XX.-FREIGHT RATES FROM DIFFERENT ORIGIN GROUPS IN FLORIDA TO
7 DESTINATIONS-Continued.
Cents Per Standard Crate.

Origin New Philadel- Mephis Atlanta Minneap-
Groups r Chicago Boston Mmphis Atlanta "
Groups York phia olis
55 110 120.5 118 107 97.5 80 140
56 111 121.5 119 108 98.5 81 141
57 111 121.5 119 108 98.5 81 141
58 112.5 123 120.5 109.5 100 82.5 142.5
59 114 124.5 122 111 101.5 84 144
60 116 126.5 124 113 103 85.5 146
61 117 127.5 125 114 104 86.5 147
62 119 129.5 127 116 106 88.5 149
63 121.5 132 129.5 118.5 108.5 91 151.5
Arithmetic
Average.... 97.3 107.8 105.2 94.3 85.6 68.8 127.3

as points of origin. Since Lakeland was in origin group 11, there
were 27 groups in Florida which took lower rates to New York
and Philadelphia and 35 which took higher rates than those from
Lakeland. It will be seen in the table that rates from Lakeland
to all points were lower than the arithmetic average of all rates.


COMPARATIVE FREIGHT RATES ON CITRUS FRUITS
FROM ALL PRODUCING STATES TO THE 36
LARGEST CITRUS MARKETS IN THE
UNITED STATES DURING THE
PERIOD 1924 TO 1927

In Table XXI are shown the comparative freight rates on citrus
fruits from a representative shipping point in each producing
state to the 36 largest citrus markets in the United States, during
the period 1924 to 1927. Although the State of Louisiana has
been shown to be a producer of considerable quantities of citrus
fruits, it has not been included in this table because almost all
of its production is consumed within the state, principally in
New Orleans. Consequently, inter-state commodity rates are in
effect to very few outside markets. Where commodity rates are
not in effect, class rates apply and are not comparable to the
commodity rates shown in this table.
Freight rates on citrus fruits from all points shown in the
table, except Florida, were named in cents per 100 pounds. Flor-
ida rates were named in cents per box of an estimated weight of
80 pounds. All of the rates have been reduced to a box basis for
comparison, since the box is the most common unit used in mar-








Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 45


keting citrus fruits. The orange box used by California and
Arizona shippers carries an estimated weight of 78 pounds; the
Texas box, 80 pounds, and the "full strap" of Alabama and Mis-
sissippi, 80 pounds.
The freight rates from Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi were
very similar to those from Florida, inasmuch as they were based
upon distance. Rates from Foley, Alabama, and Gulfport, Mis-
sissippi, were lower to all points shown than rates from Lakeland,
Florida. Rates from Harlingen, Texas, were lower to 15 of the

TABLE XXI. COMPARATIVE FREIGHT RATES ON CITRUS FRUITS FROM A
REPRESENTATIVE SHIPPING POINT IN EACH PRODUCING STATE TO THE
36 LARGEST CITRUS MARKETS IN THE UNITED STATES 1924 TO 1927.


Markets


Lakeland, Los Harlingen, Foley, Gulfport,
Florida Angeles, Texas Alabama Miss.
S Calif. I


Cents
per box


New York .....
Chicago ........
Boston .........
Philadelphia ...
Detroit ........
Cleveland ......
Pittsburgh .....
Baltimore ......
St. Louis ....
San Francisco ..
Cincinnati ....
Buffalo ........
Minneapolis ....
Washington ....
Milwaukee .....
Atlanta ... .... .
Indianapolis .. .
Kansas City ....
Columbus ......
Seattle .........
Portland, Oregon
Providence .... .
Toledo ..........
Memphis .......
Denver ........
Louisville ......
Birmingham ....
St. Paul........
Omaha .........
Dallas .........
New Orleans ...
Salt Lake City..
Los Angeles ...
Spokane .......
Fort Worth .. i
Newark .......


95.0
105.0
102.0
92.0
105.0
105.0
104.0
90.0
101.0

89.0
105.0
124.5
90.0
108.0
66.5
101.0
119.0
101.0
173.5
173.5
102.0
104.0
83.5
175.5
89.0
75.0
124.5
124.5
132.0
83.5
175.5

173.5
132.0
95.0


Cents
per box


123.24
120.90
123.24
120.90
120.901
120.90
120.901
120.90
120.90
120.90
120.90
120.90'
120.901
120.90'
120.90'
120.90'
120.90
120.90;
120.90i
79.17
65.911
123.24'
120.90
120.90
120.90
120.90
120.90
120.90
120.90'
120.90'
120.90i
99.06'
... I
120.121
120.901
120.90K


Cents
per box


128.0
104.4
128.0
128.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
128.0
97.2

104.4
128.0
118.8
128.0
106.4
119.2
104.4
97.2
120.0
150.0
150.0
128.0
120.0
84.4
124.0
125.6
119.6
118.8
104.4
79.6
79.2
159.2

150.0
79.6
128.0


Cents per Cents per
"Full "Full
Strap" Strap"

84.0 84.0
57.6 57.6
90.4 90.4
81.6 1 81.6
60.0 60.0
60.0 60.0
66.4 66.4
80.8 80.8
52.0 52.0

49.6 49.6
66.4 66.4
84.8 84.8
Q8 8 an a


60.0
47.2
57.6
79.2
60.0
150.0
150.0
90.4
60.0
65.2
171.2
46.4
41.6
84.8
84.4
126.4 1
31.2
181.2

150.0
126.4
84.0


60.0
53.2
57.6
79.2
60.0
150.0
150.0
90.4
60.0
34.0
140.0
46.4
41.6
84.8
84.4
112.8
11.2
150.0

150.0
112.8
84.0


Phoenix,
Arizona

Cents
per box


123.24
120.90
123.24
120.90
120.90
120.90
120.90
120.90
120.90
71.76
120.90
120.90
120.90
120.90
120.90
120.90
120.90
120.90
120.90
140.01
129.48
123.24
120.90
120.90
120.90
120.90
120.90
120.90
120.90
120.90
120.90
120.90
60.84
139.23
120.90
120.90







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


markets than from Lakeland, Florida, while the rates from Lake-
land were lower to 19 of the markets shown than from Harlingen.
There were no commodity rates in effect from any of these four
points to Los Angeles and San Francisco. From California and
Arizona, however, we find a freight rate structure which is radi-
cally different from the Florida rate structure, inasmuch as dis-
tance is not a factor in the structure of rates on citrus fruits to
the East.
California is geographically situated with its side toward the
Eastern markets, so that the distance from producing districts to
the state border is shorter than from the citrus producing dis-
tricts in Florida to the state line. This is not true, however, in
the way that the traffic sometimes moves.
Generally the citrus traffic from the northern district of the
state of California moves east through Sacramento over the West-
ern Pacific, or the Southern Pacific in connection with the Union
Pacific. The traffic from the southern district generally moves
east over the Southern Pacific, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa
Fe, or the Los Angeles and Salt Lake in connection with the
Union Pacific. The traffic from the central district may move
south and east through Barstow over the Atchison, Topeka and
Santa Fe, or north and east through Sacramento over the South-
ern Pacific or Western Pacific.
The nearness of the California producing districts to the state
border has been considered sufficient justification for including
the entire state in a single origin group, while Florida has been
divided into a large number of origin groups taking varying rates
because of the varying distances of the producing points from
the state line. However, the traffic does not always move over
the routes previously described. Shipments originating at Paler-
mo in the northern district of California may move south over
the Southern Pacific through Los Angeles and east through El
Paso, Texas, or they may move south over the Southern Pacific
to Bakersfield and east over the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
through Albuquerque, New Mexico1. A shipment following one
of these routes would travel approximately 650 miles before leav-
ing the state, almost 300 miles greater than the distance from
Miami to Jacksonville, yet if it were headed for the Eastern mar-
kets, the freight rate would be no greater than if it had originated
on the state line.


'Routes taken from H. G. Toll's I. C. C. No. 1199, page 65.







Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 47

Also, when shipments of citrus fruits from California to the
East cross what is known as the transcontinental line, they enter
a great "blanket" territory extending to the Atlantic Seaboard,
within which the rates are the same to all points. However,
during the period 1924 to 1927, when shipments crossed the Hud-
son River, there was an extra terminal fee of 3 cents per 100
pounds except to points on the Grand Trunk Railway System in
Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont1.
The transcontinental line runs southward from the Canadian
border approximately along the Montana-North Dakota, Mon-
tana-South Dakota, Wyoming-South Dakota, and Wyoming-Ne-
braska state lines to a point immediately north of the main line
of the Union Pacific Railroad from Omaha to Ogden, Utah;
thence via an air line westward immediately north of said line of
the Union Pacific Railroad to a point immediately north and west
of Cheyenne, Wyoming; thence via an air line southward imme-
diately west of Greeley, Denver, Pueblo, Trinidad, and other so-
called Colorado common points, and thence via an air line across
the state of New Mexico to El Paso2.




















Figure 19.-Location of the 36 Largest Markets for Citrus Fruits in the
United States, 1924 to 1927.
A Markets in which California Oranges and Grapefruit Led.
'Markets in which Florida Oranges and Grapefruit Led.
'H. G. Toll's I. C. C. 1199, page 457.
"144 I. C. C. 629.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


During the period 1924 to 1927, the rates from points in Cali-
fornia were higher than those from Lakeland, Florida, to 24 of
the 36 largest citrus markets in the United States, while the
rates from Lakeland were higher than those from California
points to 10 of these markets and Florida citrus fruits were em-
bargoed from two others. In spite of this fact, Florida shippers
were able to dominate only 17 of the 34 markets which were open
to them, although the average volume of oranges and grapefruit
combined, shipped by Florida and California to those largest mar-
kets, was approximately equal.
In Fig. 19 are shown the locations of the markets dominated by
Florida and by California, respectively, 1924 to 1927. The freight
rate from Lakeland, Florida, was lower than the rate from Cali-
fornia points to every market which was dominated by Florida
citrus fruits. Florida citrus did not lead in a single market shown
to which California had a lower freight rate than the rate from
Lakeland. However, California had a higher freight rate to De-
troit, Buffalo, Cleveland, Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis, and Kan-
sas City than the rate from Lakeland, yet California placed more
carloads of oranges and grapefruit combined in these cities than
did Florida. The relative privileges of diversion were probably a
strong contributing factor to this situation.


DIVERSION PRIVILEGES
The practice of diverting carlot shipments of citrus fruits from
one market to another has developed coincidentally with improve-
ments in transportation and communication, and has had an ap-
preciable effect upon the development of the citrus industry.
Cars are often loaded and consigned to some central market
whether the shipper has a buyer in prospect in that market or not.
He then keeps in close touch with receipts, unloads, and prices
in the various markets and may issue orders changing the desti-
nation of the shipment as often as he desires, so long as he con-
forms to certain rules regarding diversions and re-consignments.
There are three principal factors which the shipper considers
before he diverts or reconsigns a shipment to more distant mar-
kets: the probabilities of a better price; deterioration, and the ad-
ditional cost of putting the shipment on the more distant market.
The first two factors have to be considered both by California and
by Florida shippers, but the third factor is a consideration for
the Florida shipper only.







Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 49

A shipment of citrus fruits, starting out from a California
point, say Los Angeles, and consigned to Denver over the Los
Angeles and Salt Lake, and the Union Pacific Railroads, could be
diverted to Omaha, then to Chicago, then to Cleveland, Pitts-
burgh, Buffalo, Philadelphia, or any of a large number of mar-
kets without the shipper paying any more freight than would
have been paid to Denver, and only 3 cents per 100 pounds more
to New York, Boston, or even to Portland, Maine. The shipment
could just as well have been routed over the Atchison, Topeka
and Santa Fe to Kansas City and diverted to Chicago or St. Louis,
or it could have been consigned to Houston, Texas, over the South-
ern Pacific and diverted to New Orleans, then to Atlanta, then to
Washington, Baltimore, and Philadelphia.
Florida through rates to northern points, however, were in
reality based upon distance of the point of origin and of destina-
tion from Jacksonville. There were lower rates named from
Crescent City to northern destinations than from Sanford, lower
rates from Sanford than from Orlando, lower rates from Orlando
than from Lakeland, and so on. Likewise the rate was lower to
Washington than to Philadelphia, lower to Philadelphia than to
New York, and lower to New York than to Boston. This structure
amounted to a graduated rate scale based upon the distance of
the point of origin in Florida south of Jacksonville, and the dis-
tance of the destination north of Jacksonville. Therefore, when
a shipment of citrus fruit from Florida arrived at a market such
as Cincinnati and the price on that market was not satisfactory,
the shipper in addition to considering whether his fruit was in
physical condition to move on to Chicago and risk receiving a
better price, had to figure on the probability of obtaining a price
enough better than that on the Cincinnati market to pay the
additional cost of sending the shipment on to Chicago. There is
no doubt that this situation created a sales resistance which dis-
couraged the movement of Florida citrus into the border markets
where there was not much difference between the rates from
Florida and from California.
Shipments from California were not subject to this sales re-
sistance. When a shipment arrived on the Omaha market, the
California shipper had to consider only whether his fruit would
stand shipment the additional distance, and whether there was
a probability of a better price on the Chicago market. He could
afford to move it on to Chicago for a very small margin over the







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


Omaha market price, since he was subject to no additional freight
charge.
Another point which might have worked to the disadvantage
of Florida shippers of citrus fruits was the problem of routing so
as not to cross an imaginary line running through the cities of
Buffalo and Pittsburgh. Shipments of citrus fruits from Florida
to the Middle West usually move through Atlanta or Birming-
ham or certain other "gateways" to Ohio River cities, from which
points they may be diverted to a number of markets, while ship-
ments to the East most commonly move through Potomac Yards,
Virginia, and are reconsigned or diverted to the desired markets.
However, when shipments move up through either of these chan-
nels to Pittsburgh or Buffalo, they cannot be reconsigned or di-
verted from these points in either direction. The only way to
move a shipment from one of these points is to pay the local
freight rate to the desired point. This situation has the effect
of discouraging diversions and causing Florida shippers to hold a
large proportion of their shipments to the regular trade channels.


CHANGES IN THE FREIGHT RATE SITUATION DURING
1928 AND 1929

With two important exceptions, the freight rates and trans-
portation conditions during 1929 were the same as those in effect
during the period 1924 to 1927. The first change was the elimi-
nation of the terminal fee of 3 cents per 100 pounds on shipments
of citrus fruits from California to points east of the Hudson
River, effective June 7, 19281. The second change dealt with
freight rates on citrus fruits from Florida.
On April 1, 1925, at the request of the Growers' and Shippers'
League of Florida, the Railroad Commissioners of the State of
Florida brought complaint before the Interstate Commerce Com-
mission2, alleging "that the rates on citrus fruits in car-
loads, from all producing points in Florida to all markets and
destinations in the United States and Canada are unjust and un-
reasonable, per se, and comparatively, in violation of section 1
of the Interstate Commerce Act:."

'H. G. Toll's I. C. C. 1199, Supplement No. 8.
2144 I. C. C. 603; Railroad Commissioners of the State of Florida vs.
Aberdeen and Rockfish Railroad Company et al.
"Brief on Behalf of Complainant and Intervener, Docket No. 16939, pp. 5-6.









Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 51

Upon the evidence submitted in this case the Commission
found:'
"1. That the assailed interstate rates on oranges and grapefruit, in car-
loads, to destinations in Central, Illinois, and Southern territories are, and
for the future will be, unreasonable to the extent that they exceed the con-
temporaneous sixth-class rates.
"2. That the assailed interstate rates on oranges and grapefruit, in car-
loads, to destinations in trunk-line territory, including the Buffalo-Pittsburgh
zone, and in New England territory are, and for the future will be, unreason-
able to the extent that they exceed 40 percent, resolving fraction to the near-
est whole cent, of corresponding first-class rates constructed in accordance
with findings 17b, 17d, and 17f in the third supplemental report in 'Southern
Class Rate Investigation,' 128 I. C. C. 567, 599.
"3. That the assailed interstate rates on oranges and grapefruit, in car-
loads, to destinations in Kansas-Missouri territory, in the Southwest and in
Texas and Oklahoma differential territories, are, and for the future
will be, unreasonable to the extent that they exceed rates constructed by
adding to 40 percent of the contemporaneous first-class rates from Jackson-
ville prescribed in 'Consolidated Southwestern Cases,' 123 I.C.C. 203, 139
I.C.C. 515, 144 I.C.C.- -, the difference between the contemporaneous
sixth-class rates to Vicksburg from points of origin and from Jacksonville.
"4. That the assailed interstate rates on oranges and grapefruit, in car-
loads, to destinations in Western trunk-line territory points in Wisconsin
north of Illinois territory, in Minnesota on, east, and south of the line of the
Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway, Minneapolis to Worthing-
ton, and thence to the South Dakota State line immediately east of Sioux
Falls, S. Dak., in Iowa, in Missouri on, north, and east of the Missouri River,
in Nebraska and Kansas on the Missouri River, also Sioux Falls, S. Dak., are,
and for the future will be unreasonable to the extent that they exceed 40 per-
cent, resolving fractions to the nearest whole cent, of the corresponding first-
class rates constructed in accordance with findings 17b, 17d, and 17f in the
third supplemental report in 'Southern Class Rate Investigation,' 128 I.C.C.
567, 599, points west of the Mississippi River and North of Illinois territory
to be considered as within official territory for the purpose of applying the
differentials in appendix q-1 therein referred to.
"5. That the assailed interstate rates on oranges and grapefruit, in car-
loads, to destinations in transcontinental territory are, and for the
future will be, unreasonable to the extent that they exceed $1.80 per 100
pounds.
"6. That the rates prescribed in paragraphs 1 to 5 inclusive above shall,
in each instance, be subject to a minimum weight of 32,400 pounds and an
estimated weight of 90 pounds per standard package."

In accordance with these findings, the Commission issued an
order that suitable rates be filed to become effective October 10,
1928. This date was subsequently postponed to November 9,
1928.
The decision of the Interstate Commerce Commission in this
case had the effect of placing the Florida rates almost entirely
upon a distance basis. Instead of 63 origin groups based upon
distance from Jacksonville, as formerly, this order gave almost
every shipping point in the state a separate rate basis.
The decision of the Commission relative to sizes of containers
and minimum carloads was not entirely consistent with the facts.

1144 I. C. C. 603, 625.









52 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

The weights of oranges and of grapefruit vary from time to time
during the season, depending upon degree of maturity, size of
fruit, type of soil, and upon weather conditions. Evidence was
submitted in this hearing to the effect that the average weight
per packed box of Florida oranges is about 95 pounds, while the
average weight of grapefruit is about 85 pounds. The placing of


TABLE XXII.-COMPARISON OF FREIGHT RATES ON CITRUS FRUITS FROM
LAKELAND, FLORIDA, TO 34 MARKETS IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE AND
AFTER THE FREIGHT RATE CHANGE EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 9, 1928.

Freight rates before Freight rates after change
change
Average Average Amount
Markets Cents rates to Cents rates to of
markets in markets in change
per each section er each section (Cents
box (Cents per ox Cents per p box)
box) box)

New England Section:
Boston ................. 102 104.4 + 2.4
Providence ............. 102 102 104.4 104.4 + 2.4
Middle Atlantic Section:
New York ............. 95 94.5 .5
Philadelphia ............... 92 90.9 1.1
Pittsburgh ............. 104 97.2 6.8
Baltimore .............. 90 87.3 2.7
Buffalo ................ 105 103.5 1.5
Washington ............ 90 84.6 5.4
Newark ................ 95 95.9 94.5 93.2 .5
Middle Western Section:
Chicago ................ 105 98.1 6.9
Detroit .............. 105 98.1 6.9
Cleveland .............. 105 97.2 7.8
Cincinnati .............. 89 84.6 4.4
Milwaukee ............. 108 101.7 6.3
Indianapolis ............ 101 90.0 -11.0
Columbus .............. 101 91.8 9.2
Toledo ................. 104 102.2 95.4 94.6 8.6
Southeastern Section:
Atlanta ................ 66.5 61.2 5.3
Memphis ............... 83.5 78.3 5.2
Louisville .............. 89.0 83.7 5.3
Birmingham ............ 75.0 65.7 9.3
New Orleans ........... 83.5 79.5 72.9 72.4 -10.6
Western Section:
St. Louis ............... 101.0 90.9 10.1
Minneapolis ............ 124.5 113.4 -11.1
Kansas City .......... 119.0 102.6 -16.4
Seattle ................ 173.5 162.0 11.5
Portland, Ore. .......... 173.5 162.0 -11.5
Denver ................ 175.5 162.0 -13.5
St. Paul ................ 124.5 113.4 11.1
Omaha ................ 124.5 108.9 15.6
Dallas ................. 132.0 106.2 25.8
Salt Lake City.......... 175.5 162.0 -13.5
Spokane ............... 173.5 162.0 -11.5
Fort Worth ............ 132.0 144.1 106.2 129.3 -25.8







Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 53

an arbitrary estimate of 90 pounds per box on both oranges and
grapefruit, charges grapefruit with part of the expense of mar-
keting oranges.
Although this decision changed almost all of the rates on citrus
fruits from Florida points to destinations, it did not reduce them
in all cases. The rates to Western and mid-Western markets
were in many cases materially reduced, while rates to the Eastern
markets were in some cases actually increased and to many others
were subject to only slight reductions. The rates from Lakeland,
Florida, to 34 destinations in the United States, effective before
and after the rate change of November 9, 1928, are shown in
Table XXII. These rates are still in effect in January, 1930, ex-
cept the rate to St. Louis, Missouri, which has been increased
from 90.9 cents to 91.8 cents per box1. Rates from other Florida
points to St. Louis have been increased in proportion.
There were a number of changes in the freight rates from
Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi during this period, but they
were simply adjustments of individual rates. There were no
general changes such as have been noted from California and
from Florida. Of the 34 rates previously studied, 18 from Har-
lingen, Texas, 8 from Foley, Alabama, and 8 from Gulfport, Mis-
sissippi, were changed during this period (Table XXIII).

FREIGHT RATES PER TON-MILE ON CITRUS FRUITS, 1930
The relation of freight rates to distance cannot be accepted as
an absolute measure of the reasonableness of a freight rate.
There is often ample justification for charging more for a short
haul than for a long haul for the same commodity, depending up-
on the direction of the haul, volume of movement, density of
traffic, and other transportation conditions. However, other con-
ditions being equal, it is almost axiomatic that the great distance
will take the higher freight rate. Section four, or the long and
short haul clause, of the Interstate Commerce Act (1887), made
it unlawful for a carrier to charge more "in the aggregate for
the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property, under
substantially similar circumstances and conditions, for a shorter
than for a longer distance over the same line, in the same direc-
tion, the shorter being included within the longer distance." The
Mann-Elkins Act of 1910 amended the long and short haul clause
to eliminate the words "under substantially similar circumstances
IGlenn's I. C. C. A-727.












TABLE XXIII.-RATES FROM TEXAS, ALABAMA, AND MISSISSIPPI, IN EFFECT JANUARY, 1930, WITH
AMOUNT OF CHANGE SINCE 1927.*


Markets




Chicago ...................
Pittsburgh .................
St. Louis ..................
M inneapolis ................
W ashington ................
M ilwaukee .......... .......
A tlanta .................. .
Kansas City ................
Seattle ....................
Portland, Oregon ...........
M em phis ..................
Denver ....................
Louisville ..................
Birmingham ...............
St. Paul ...................
Om aha ....................
D allas .................. ..
New Orleans ...............
Salt Lake City .............
Spokane ................. I
Fort W orth ................


(Cen


Harlingei

1930
Its per box)

92.0
128.0
88.0
96.0
139.2
96.0


n, Texas Foley, Alabama

Change since 1927 1930 Change since 1927
(Cents per box) (Cents per box) (Cents per box)

-12.4 57.6 0.0
+ 8.0 66.4 0.0
9.2 54.4 +2.4
-22.8 84.8 0.0
+11.2 80.8 0.0
-10.4 60.0 0.0


120.4 + 1.2
88.0 9.2
144.0 6.0
144.0 6.0
84.0 0.4
124.0 0.0
113.6 -12.0
108.8 -10.8
96.0 -22.8
91.2 -13.2
79.6 0.0
67.2 -12.0
144.0 -15.2
144.0 6.0
79.6 0.0


47.2
79.2
144.0
144.0
65.2
144.0
46.4
41.6
84.8
84.4
82.8
31.2
144.0
144.0
82.8


0.0
0.0
-6.0
-6.0
0.0
-27.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-43.6
0.0
-37.2
- 6.0
-43.6


Gulfport, Mississippi

1930 Change since 1927
(Cents per box) (Cents per box)


57.6
66.4
60.0
84.8
72.0
60.0
53.2
79.2
144.0
144.0
34.0
140.0
46.4
41.6
84.8
84.4
62.8
11.2
144.0
144.0
62.8


*Bureau of Traffic, Interstate Commerce Commission.


0.0
0.0
+8.0
0.0
-8.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
-6.0
-6.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-50.0
0.0
- 6.0
- 6.0
-50.0







Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 55

and conditions." The Fourth Section Board of the Interstate
Commerce Commission may grant permission to violate this long
and short haul clause in certain specific cases.
The citrus fruit haul from the Southern states of Florida, Ala-
bama, and Mississippi is, in general, at right angles to the haul
from California and Arizona. Shipments from Texas may move
over the same lines with movements from either of these sections.
The movements from Florida and from California are continuous
over a large part of the year, and are of sufficient volume to move
in solid trainloads from many individual shipping points in each
state. The line of haul from Florida is mostly along level routes,
while from California very severe grades must be crossed and all
shipments east must pass through certain gateways.
The average distances and freight rates from 18 citrus shipping
points in Florida and a like number in California to destinations
have been taken as typifying "average" distances and rates from
each of these two states, Tables XXV and XXVI.
Since the producing areas in the other states are smaller and
less important, the rates and distances from a single shipping
point were considered as being typical of average conditions in
each of those states. The distances shown in Table XXIV are
via the short lines from all shipping points and thus may not
accurately represent distances actually traveled by shipments of
citrus fruits. However, the relative distances from the different
states are probably very near those of actual routes.
In Table XXVII are shown the comparative distances, freight
rates, and rates per ton-mile on citrus fruits from each producing
state to nine common destinations. Florida is nearer to three of
the four largest citrus markets in the United States-New York,
Boston, and Philadelphia-than any of the other citrus producing
areas. Only the producing areas of Alabama and Mississippi are
nearer to Chicago, the second largest citrus market in the United
States, than is Florida. The freight rate per ton-mile is higher
from Florida to New York, Boston, and Philadelphia than from
any of the other producing areas. To Chicago, it is exceeded
only by the rate from Alabama. The rate per ton-mile from
California is lower to all of the markets shown than from any of
the other producing areas, except to Denver, where the rate per
ton-mile from Florida is lowest.
For each average increase of 100 miles in the distance from 18
Florida shipping points to the nine destinations under considera-
tion, the freight rate increases 6.5 cents per 100 pounds. For






TABLE XXIV.-SHORT-LINE DISTANCES FROM 6 PRODUCING AREAS TO 9 DESTINATIONS.*
(Miles)


To


From


Foley, Ala. ....................... .
Gulfport, Miss. ........................
Phoenix, Ariz. .........................
Harlingen, Tex .........................
Average 18 Florida shipping points.......
Average 18 California shipping points ... .


New New Minneap-
orke Chicago Boston Philadel- Memphis Atlanta Orleans olap- Denver
York phi MemphisAtlanta Orleans i


1242 731 1477 1151 443 366 152 1107 1550
1304 863 1539 1213 457 428 67 1239 1417
2732 1952 2896 2640 1588 2118 1625 1883 1104
2216 1447 2286 1962 962 1202 709 1596 1421
1208.9 1314.9 1440.9 1116.9 975.9 557.9 838.9 1722.9 2095.9
3127.5 2232.8 3266.1 3044.1 2203.2 2556.2 2090.5 2216.3 1428


*Data furnished by the Section of Tariffs, Interstate Commerce Commission.

TABLE XXV.-SHORT-LINE DISTANCES FROM 18 FLORIDA CITRUS SHIPPING POINTS TO 9 DESTINATIONS.*
(Miles)
DESTINATION


Shipping Point


C ocoa .................................
Cocoanut Grove .................... .
H om estead ............................
A rcadia ..............................
C itra .................................
Plant City ............................
Palm etto .............................
Orlando ..............................
Clearw ater ...........................
A uburndale ............................
Frost Proof ...........................
H aines City ...........................
Lakeland ..............................
Lake W ales ...........................
W inter Haven .........................
Fort Pierce ..................... ......
W auchula .............................
Leesburg .............................
Average .............................


S*Itfn furniehA h1v. thSPrtinn nf T-riffQ Tntpr


New Chicago
York


1155
1352
1375
1246
1097
1204
1258
1135
1218
1185
1202
1174
1194
1190
1186
1224
1222
1143
1208.9


1261
1458
1481
1352
1203
1310
1364
1241
1324
1291
1308
1280
1300
1296
1292
1330
1328
1249


Boston Philadel- Memphis Atlanta ONew Minneap-
phia rMemphisleans olis


1387
1584
1607
1478
1329
1436
1490
1367
1450
1417
1434
1406
1426
1422
1418
1456
1454
1375


1063
1260
1283
1154
1005
1112
1166
1043
1126
1093
1110
1082
1102
1098
1094
1132
1130
1051


1314.9 1440.9 1116.9


922
1119
1142
1013
864
971
1025
902
985
952
969
941
961
957
953
991
989
910
975.9


557.9


785
982
1005
876
727
834
888
765
848
815
832
804
824
820
816
854
852
773
838.9


Denver

2042
2239
2262
2133
1984
2091
2145
2022
2105
2072
2089
2061
2081
2077
2073
2111
2109
2030
2095.9


1669
1866
1889
1760
1611
1718
1772
1649
1732
1699
1716
1688
1708
1704
1700
1738
1736
1657
1722.9


C.nmn prop Cnnrnminn


-----


I


i










TABLE XXVI.-SHORT-LINE DISTANCES FROM 18 CALIFORNIA CITRUS SHIPPING POINTS TO 9 DESTINATIONS.*
(Miles)


DESTINATION


Shipping Point


Santa Barbara, California ..............
Glendora .............................
Los A ngeles ...........................
P om ona ..............................
Palerm o ...............................
L incoln ...............................
F ullerton ..............................
O range ..............................
San D iego ............................
Fair O aks ............................
R riverside .............................
La V erne ................... ..........
R edland ..............................
U pland ..............................
L indsay ..............................
Porterville ............................
C orona ................................
San Bernardino ........................
A average ..............................


New
York

3181
3085
3111
3079
3036
3063
3138
3148
3238
3174
3048
3082
3043
3075
3344
3334
3063
3053
3127.5


Chicago

2296
2200
2226
2194
2127
2154
2253
2263
2351
2165
2163
2197
2158
2190
2459
2449
2178
2168
2232.8


Boston


3334
3238
3264
3232
3160
3187
3291
3301
3319
3198
3201
3235
3196
3228
3497
3487
3216
3206
3266.1


Philadel-
phia


3089
2993
3019
2987
2944
2971
3046
3056
3146
2982
3083
2990
2951
2983
3252
3242
3098
2961


Memphis


2036
1940
1966
1934
2297
2324
3293
3303
2093
2335
2030
1937
1898
1930
2199
2189
2045
1908


3044.1 2203.2


At New Minneap- Denver
Atlanta Orleans olis

2566 2073 2272 1494
2470 1977 2176 1396
2496 2003 2202 1422
2464 1971 2170 1392
2664 2302 2020 1230
2791 2331 2047 1257
2423 2030 2229 1449
2433 2040 2239 1459
2623 2130 2329 1549
2702 2340 2058 1268
2560 2067 2266 1486
2467 1974 2173 1395
2428 1935 2198 1354
2464 1967 2166 1388
2729 2236 2435 1655
2719 2226 2425 1645
2575 2082 2281 1501
2438 1945 2208 1364
2556.2 2090.5 2216.3 | 1428


*Data furnished by the Section of Tariffs, Interstate Commerce Commission.




TABLE XXVII.-COMPARATIVE DISTANCES, FREIGHT RATES, AND RATES PER TON-MILE ON CITRUS FRUITS FROM REPRESENTATIVE
CITRUS SHIPPING POINTS IN EACH OF THE PRODUCING STATES TO 9 COMMON DESTINATIONS.


Destination


New York ..............


Chicago ................


Boston ..................


Philadelphia ............



Minneapolis .............


Atlanta .................


Memphis ................



New Orleans ............


Denver .................


Item


f Distance ..............
SFreight rate ...........
Cents per ton mile......

Distance ..............
Freight rate ...........
Cents per ton mile......

SDistance ..............
Freight rate ...........
Cents per ton mile......

SDistance ..............
Freight rate ...........
Cents per ton mile......

SDistance ..............
Freight rate ...........
Cents per ton mile......

Distance .......... .
Freight rate ...........
Cents per ton mile......

[ Distance ..............
Freight rate ...........
F Cents per ton mile......

Distance ..............
Freight rate ...........
Cents per ton mile......

SDistance ..............
SFreight rate .. ........
I Cents per ton mile......


SHIPPING POINTS


Florida


1208.9
107.1
1.77

1314.9
111.2
1.69

1440.9
117.8
1.64

1116.9
102.7
1.84

1722.9
128.2
1.49

557.9
70.3
2.52

975.9
89.6
1.84

838.9
84.8
2.02

2095.9
180
1.72


California

3127.5
155.0
.99

2232.8
155
1.39

3266.1
155
.95

3044.1
155
1.02

2216.3
155
1.40

2556.2
155
1.21

2203.2
155
1.41

2090.5
155
1.48

1428
155
2.17


Alabama


1242
105
1.69

731
72
1.97

1477
113
1.53

1151
102
1.77

1107
106
1.92

366
59
3.22

443
81.5
3.68

152
39
5.13

1550
180
2.32


Mississippi

1304
105
1.61

863
72
1.67

1539
113
1.47

1213
102
1.68

1239
106
1.71

428
66.5
3.11

457
42.5
1.86

67
14
4.18

1417
175
2.47


Texas Arizona


2216
160
1.44

1447
115.0
1.59

2286
160
1.40

1962
160
1.63

1596
120.0
1.50

1202
150.5
2.50

962
105
2.18

709
84
2.37


1421
155
2.18


2732
155
1.13

1952
155
1.59

2896
155
1.07

2640
155
1.17

1883
155
1.65

2118
155
1.46

1588
155
1.95

1625
155
1.91

1104
155
2.81


Note: Freight rates are quoted in cents per 100 pounds. The Florida and California rates, distances, and rates per ton-
mile are for an average of 18 shipping points within each state. Only one shipping point was considered in each of the other
states.


.


.








Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 59

each average increase of 100 miles in the distance from Har-
lingen, Texas, to these nine destinations, the freight rate increases
4.15 cents per 100 pounds. There is no increase in the freight
rate from California to correspond with increases in distance
east of the transcontinental line (Figs. 20, 21 and 22).


HISTORY OF FREIGHT RATES ON CITRUS FRUITS OTHER
THAN LEMONS FROM FLORIDA AND FROM
CALIFORNIA SINCE 1900

There have been a number of changes in the freight rates on
citrus fruits from Florida and from California since 1900. Prior
to the entrance of the United States into the World War, rates
did not change according to any systematic scheme, but there
were minor changes and adjustments of individual rates; in
many cases a single rate changing several times during the course
of a year. Due to the structure of the rates on citrus fruits from
Rate in Cents
per 100 Pounds
200






"*
160 -










40---



0 -------------------------------------
4 8 12 16 20 24
(Miles; 00 Omitted)
Figure 20.-For Each Average Increase of 100 Miles in the Distance from
18 Florida Shipping Points to 9 Destinations, the Freight Rate on Citrus
Fruits Increases 6.5 cents per 100 Pounds.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


Florida there have been more minor changes in these rates than
in the rates from California. In addition to the adjustments of
individual rates, the system of percentage changes was in-
troduced during the period of government operation of the rail-
roads and this system has been found useful since the reversion
of the roads to private control.
The changes in freight rates can be very accurately shown by
the use of freight-rate relatives or index numbers. A freight-
rate relative is simply the percentage which a single freight rate
at any time is of the average rate for the base period. A number
of freight-rate relatives may be averaged to construct index num-
bers. A change in any of the rates used is reflected in the rela-
tives and in the index numbers. If a large enough number of
rates is used, there is little danger of overlooking any material


Eate in Cents
per 100 Pounds


4 8 12 16 20 24
(Miles; 00 Omittea)
Figure 21.-For each average increase of 100 miles in the distance from
Harlingen, Texas, to 9 destinations, the freight rate on citrus fruits in-
creases 4.15 cents per 100 pounds. (January, 1930.)








Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 61

increases or reductions in rates, even though they are not in-
cluded in general percentage variations'.
In tracing the history of freight rates on citrus fruits from
Florida and from California, 18 actual citrus shipping points in
each state were considered. These shipping points were not
necessarily the largest, but were of considerable importance and
Rate in Cents
per 100 Pounds


1? 16 20 24 28 32
(Miles; 00 Omitted)
Figure 22.-After shipments of citrus fruits from California to the East
have crossed the transcontinental line described in the text, there is no in-
crease in the freight rate for an increase in distance.

were geographically distributed throughout the citrus belts of the
two states. From these shipping points the freight rates were
obtained to nine important citrus markets distributed in various
sections of the United States. The complete rate histories were
obtained between each shipping point and each destination back
to 1900, except that in a few instances rates had not been in effect
from certain shipping points over the entire period. These his-
tories were obtained from the Official Files of the Interstate Com-

'For a discussion of the value of index numbers in measuring freight-rate
changes, see Cornell Station Bulletin 446-"Index Numbers of Freight Rates
and Their Relation to Agricultural Prices and Production."-H. S. Gabriel,








62 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

merce Commission, with the aid and cooperation of the rate of-
ficials of that body.
Using these histories of actual rates, freight-rate relatives
from Florida and from California to each of the nine common
destinations for each month since January, 1901, were con-
structed with the five-year average rates, January 1, 1910, to
December 31, 1914, as base. These relatives were constructed of
the weighted average of the rates from the 18 shipping points.
The rates from Florida were weighted by the quantity of oranges
and grapefruit, combined, shipped from each of the 18 shipping
points during the six-year period, 1920 to 1925' (Table XXVIII).
TABLE XXVIII.-CARLOADS OF ORANGES AND GRAPEFRUIT SHIPPED FROM 18
FLORIDA CITRUS SHIPPING POINTS DURING SIX-YEAR PERIOD, 1920 TO
1925, AND PERCENT OF TOTAL SHIPPED FROM EACH POINT.

Shipping Point Oranges Grapefruit Total Percent
Cocoa ................ 3,890 1,688 5,578 6.1
Coconut Grove ........ 90 2,145 2,235 2.4
Homestead ......... 1,878 1,878 2.1
Arcadia .............. 5,720 2,260 7,980 9.9
Citra ................ 450 ... 450 .1
Plant City ............ 4,113 433 4,546 5.0
Palmetto ............. 1,585 4,092 5,677 6.2
Orlando ............. 8,827 4,305 13,132 14.5
Clearwater ............ 1,784 3,985 5,769 6.3
Auburndale ........... I 2,048 2,163 4,211 4.6
Frost Proof ........... 1,791 3,788 5,579 6.1
Haines City ........... 1,470 2,711 4,181 4.6
Lakeland .............. 3,727 2,254 5,981 6.6
Lake Wales ........... 769 1,673 2,442 2.7
Winter Haven ......... 4,049 6,131 10,180 11.2
Fort Pierce ........... 890 2,099 2,989 3.3
Wauchula ............. 2,853 532 3,385 3.7
Leesburg ............. 3,406 830 4,236 4.6
Total ........... ..... 47,462 42,967 90,429 100.0

It was not necessary to weight the rates from the 18 Califor-
nia shipping points, since the rates from all points were the same.
When the rates changed during the month, the number of days
during which each rate was in effect was considered in calculating
the average monthly rate. The sum of the products of the rates
and the number of days they were in effect, was divided by the
total number of days in the month. The average monthly rate
was divided by the average rate for the years 1910 to 1914, in-
clusive, to get the rate relative. The average rate for the base
period was obtained in the same manner as the average monthly

Sum P1 QI
1These relatives are of the type Sum P Q
Sum Po Q1







Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 63

rates; that is, the number of days during which each rate was in
effect was considered.
Having constructed freight-rate relatives on citrus fruits from
Florida and from California to nine common destinations, a
weighted average of these relatives from each state to all of the
nine destinations was desired. In order to avoid confusion with
the relatives already described, the weighted averages of these
relatives will be termed "Index Numbers of Freight Rates on
Citrus Fruits from 18 Florida Shipping Points to Nine Destina-
tions," and "Index Numbers of Freight Rates on Citrus Fruits
from 18 California Shipping Points to Nine Destinations."
In constructing these index numbers, the freight-rate relatives
were weighted by the relative importance of the nine destinations
as markets for Florida, or for California, oranges and grapefruit.
Using the three-year period, 1924 to 1926, it was found that 43.4
percent of the total of 53,702 carloads of oranges and grapefruit,
combined, that were shipped from Florida to these nine destina-
tions went to New York; 14.5 percent, to Chicago; 14.9 percent,
to Boston; 17.5 percent, to Philadelphia; 1.4 percent, to Minne-
apolis; 4.0 percent, to Atlanta; 2.1 percent, to Memphis; 1.0 per-
cent, to Denver, and 1.2 percent, to New Orleans. The rate rela-
tives to each destination for all of the different months were then
multiplied by the percent of oranges and grapefruit combined,
going to that market. The nine products for each month were
then added and divided by 100 to make the freight-rate index
numbers from Florida.
The same method of weighting was employed in arriving at
the freight-rate index numbers from California. During the
three-year period, 1924 to 1926, 42,795 carloads of oranges and
grapefruit from California were unloaded in the nine markets
under consideration. Of this total, 42 percent were unloaded in
New York; 20.8 percent, in Chicago; 16.2 percent, in Boston; 10.4
percent, in Philadelphia; .3 percent, in Atlanta; 1.2 percent, in
Memphis; .7 percent, in New Orleans; 5.7 percent, in Minneapolis,
and 2.7 percent, in Denver. Thus 162 rates were used in con-
structing each of the index numbers.
Since the rates were weighted by the relative importance of
the various shipping points in forming the freight-rate relatives,
and these relatives were in turn weighted by the relative im-
portance of the nine destinations as markets for Florida or for
California oranges and grapefruit in constructing the index num-
bers, there remains only the assumption that oranges and grape-










TABLE XXIX.-INDEX NUMBERS OF FREIGHT RATES ON CITRUS FRUITS FROM 18 FLORIDA SHIPPING POINTS TO 9 DESTINATIONS.
(Average Rate January 1, 1910, to December 31, 1914=100.)


Year January February March April


1901 ...... 109.9 109.9 109.9 109.9
1902 ...... 109.9 109.9 109.9 109.9
1903 ...... 107.9 107.9 107.9 107.7
1904 ...... 107.6 107.6 107.6 107.6
1905 ...... 108.3 108.3 108.3 108.3
1906 ...... 108.3 108.3 108.3 108.3
1907 ...... 109.2 109.2 109.2 109.2
1908 ...... 109.0 109.0 109.0 109.0
1909 ...... 103.5 103.5 103.5 103.5
1910 ...... 103.5 103.5 103.5 103.4
1911 ...... 102.2 101.5 100.9 100.9
1912 ...... 101.2 101.2 101.2 101.2
1913 ...... 97.4 97.4 97.4 97.4
1914 ...... 97.4 97.4 97.4 97.4
1915 ..... 98.5 98.5 98.5 98.5
1916 ...... 98.5 98.5 98.5 98.5
1917 ...... 98.5 98.5 98.5 98.5
1918 ...... 98.9 98.9 98.9 98.9
1919 ...... 123.9 123.9 123.9 123.9
1920 ...... 124.0 124.0 124.0 124.0
1921 ...... 164.5 164.5 164.5 164.5
1922 ...... 148.1 148.1 148.1 148.1
1923 ...... 148.1 148.1 148.1 148.1
1924 ...... 148.1 148.1 148.1 148.1
1925 ...... 148.1 148.1 148.1 148.1
1926 ....... 148.1 148.1 148.1 148.1
1927 ...... 148.1 148.1 148.1 148.1
1928 ...... 148.1 148.1 148.1 148.1
1929 ...... 144.6 144.6 144.6 144.6


May June July August Septem- October Nvem- Decem- Average
I er her her vrg


109.9 109.9 109.9 109.9
109.9 109.9 109.9 109.9
107.6 107.6 107.6 107.6
108.3 108.3 108.3 108.3
108.3 108.3 108.3 108.3
108.3 108.3 108.3 108.3
109.2 109.2 109.2 109.2
109.0 109.0 109.0 109.0
103.5 103.5 103.5 103.5
103.2 103.2 102.6 102.2
100.9 100.9 100.9 100.9
101.2 101.2 101.2 101.2
97.4 97.4 97.4 97.4
97.4 97.4 97.4 98.3
98.5 98.5 98.5 98.5
98.5 98.5 98.5 98.5
98.6 98.7 98.7 98.7
98.9 103.9 123.9 123.9
123.9 123.9 123.9 123.9
124.0 124.0 124.2 132.8
164.5 164.5 164.5 164.5
148.1 148.1 148.1 148.1
148.1 148.1 148.1 148.1
148.1 148.1 148.1 148.1
148.1 148.1 148.1 148.1
148.1 148.1 148.1 148.1
148.1 148.1 148.1 148.1
148.1 148.1 148.1 148.1
144.6 144.6 144.6 144.6


109.9
109.9
107.6
108.3
108.3
108.3
109.2
108.5
103.5
102.2
100.9
101.2
97.4
98.5
98.5
98.5
98.9
123.9
123.9
164.5
164.5
148.1
148.1
148.1
148.1
148.1
148.1
148.1
144.6


109.9 109.9
109.9 107.9
107.6 107.6
108.3 108.3
108.3 108.3
108.3 108.6
109.2 109.2
108.1 108.1
103.5 103.5
102.2 102.2
100.9 101.1
101.2 99.7
97.4 97.4
98.5 98.5
98.5 98.5
98.5 98.5
98.9 98.9
123.9 123.9
123.9 123.9
164.5 164.5
164.5 164.5
148.1 148.1
148.1 148.1
148.1 148.1
148.1 148.1
148.1 148.1
148.1 148.1
148.1 145.6
144.6 144.6


109.9 109.9
107.9 109.6
107.6 107.7
108.3 108.1
108.3 108.3
109.2 108.4
109.1 109.2
105.6 108.5
103.5 103.5
102.2 102.8
101.2 101.1
97.6 100.8
97.4 97.4
98.5 97.8
98.5 98.5
98.5 98.5
98.9 98.7
123.9 111.8
123.9 123.9
164.5 138.2
164.5 164.5
148.1 148.1
148.1 148.1
148.1 148.1
148.1 148.1
148.1 148.1
148.1 148.1
144.6 147.6
144.6 144.6






TABLE XXX.-INDEX NUMBERS OF FREIGHT RATES ON CITRUS FRUITS FROM 18 CALIFORNIA SHIPPING POINTS TO 9 DESTINATIONS.
(Average Rate January 1, 1910, to December 31, 1914=100.)
Year January February March April May June July August Setem- October Nvm- Deem- Average

1900 ...... 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109
1901 ......109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109
1902 ......109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109
1903 ...... 10 109 9 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109
1904 ...... 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109
1905 ..... 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109
1906 ......109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109
1907 ..... 109 109 103 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 102
1908 ...... 10 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
1909 ..... 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
1910 ...... 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
1911 ..... 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
1912 ..... 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
1913 ..... 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
1914 ...... 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 -
1915 ..... 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
1916 ...... 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
1917 ...... 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 3
1918 ...... 100 100 100 100 100 105 125 125 125 125 125 125 113
1919 ...... 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 12 15 125 125 125 125
1920 ...... 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 128 167 167 167 167 139
1921 ..... 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167
1922 ..... 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
1923 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 137 149
1924 ..... 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136
1925..... 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136
1926 ..... 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136
1927 ..... 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136
1928 ...... 136 136 136 136 136 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135
1929 ...... 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 35 135 135 135 135







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


fruit were shipped from the state as a whole to these nine desti-
nations in the same ratio as from the 18 shipping points under
consideration. This is a very logical assumption, since the ship-
ping points selected are representative in every way of conditions
in the states as a whole. A slight change in the weights used
would not materially change the trends of the relatives or the
index numbers.
In 1900 the freight rates on citrus fruits from Florida were
about 110 percent of the average rates from 1910 to 1914. The
California rates were about 109 percent of the 1910 to 1914 av-
erage rates from that state. The rates from California did not.
change and the Florida rates experienced only minor adjustments
prior to 1907. Early in 1907, however, the California rates were
reduced about 9 percent, or from $1.25 to $1.15 per 100 pounds.
This reduction was allowed in consideration of increased size of
carloads from 20,000 to 26,000 pounds; increased volume of traf-
fic, and the discontinuance of rebates which had amounted to $15
to $25 per car'. As a result of this reduction in the rates from
California, the index numbers from the two states to nine com-
mon destinations were separated by nine points.
The Florida citrus interests then brought these rates before
the Interstate Commerce Commission in Docket No. 1168, Florida
Fruit and Vegetable Shippers' Protective Association vs. Atlantic
Coast Line Railroad Company, et al., 14 I. C. C. 476. In the in-
vestigation in this case it was shown that rates from Florida
were constructed by naming a rate from certain points in the
north of Florida, known as base points, to Northern markets, and
adding to this rate the local any-quantity rate from the point of
production up to the base point. The so-called base points were
Jacksonville, Gainesville, High Springs, and Yulee. Rates from
all these points to destination were the same and were always
given in cents per box.
The Commission held that the local rates up to the base points
were as low as should be established under the circumstances,
since the cars were not being loaded to capacity and this service
up to the base points was of the nature of a gathering service.
The rates to Ohio River crossings and beyond, west of the Buffalo
and Pittsburgh line, were based on a carload minimum of 250
boxes and were found to be higher than they should have been,
but since these rates had not been attacked there was no order

110 I. C. C. 590, 596.
































191 1902 1903 1906 190 1905 190 190 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1919 1916 1917 1916 1919 1920 1921 199 1923 199 1925 19M 1927 193 1989

Figure 23.-Index numbers of freight rates on citrus fruits from Florida and from California to 9 destinations, 1901 to 1929.
(January 1, 1910, to December 31, 1914=100.)







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


made for a reduction. The rates from base points to destinations
east of the Buffalo and Pittsburgh line, however, were found to
be based on any-quantity and to be excessively high. The Com-
mission accordingly ordered a reduction to this territory and es-
tablished a carload minimum of 300 boxes. This finding accounts
largely for a reduction of about six percent in the Florida index
numbers late in 1908.
The rates from Florida were again reviewed by the Interstate
Commerce Commission and Opinion No. 1153, 17 I. C. C. 552,
handed'down February 8, 1910. As a result of this investigation,
rates to points north of the Ohio River were decreased and a
carload minimum of 300 boxes established, thus contributing to
another decrease of about 3 percent in the Florida index numbers
in 1910 and early in 1911.
Docket No. 1168 was finally reviewed by the Commission and
Opinion No. 1687, 22 I. C. C. 11, handed down November 6, 1911.
In this final review it was decided that whereas the local rates up
to base points had been established on an any-quantity basis, car-
lot rates with a minimum of 300 boxes per car, and less than car-
lot rates should be established. It was suggested that henceforth
carlot rates be stated as through rates from origin to destination
rather than proportionals over the basing points. The carlot
rates thus applied are reflected in another decrease of about 4
percent in the Florida index numbers.
It should be noted that these decisions were handed down and
rate adjustments made during the time designated as the base
period. In 22 I. C. C. 20, the Commission said of the carlot rates
introduced on Florida citrus fruits by decision November 6, 1911:
"i rates from points in Florida up to Jacksonville,
when for beyond, would be just and reasonable, that they ought
not to be exceeded for the future, and that the present rates .
are unjust and unreasonable to the extent that they exceed such
rates." Reasonable rates north of Jacksonville had been intro-
duced the previous year.
When the California rates were before the Interstate Commerce
Commission in 1905, the rate of $1.25 per 100 pounds to Eastern
markets was found to be unreasonable. At that time, Commis-
sioner Prouty dissented, saying:
"The orange rate as originally established was a competitive
rate intended to enable the California growers to meet first the
competition of Florida; second, the competition of the foreign
producer. It has apparently accomplished both those purposes.







Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 69

The producer in California is certainly upon a level with the Flor-
ida producer in the matter of freight rates, and the foreign
orange no longer comes into serious competition with the Cali-
fornia product'."
Nevertheless, the California rate to Eastern markets was re-
duced from $1.25 to $1.15 per 100 pounds, and this rate was in
effect throughout the base period. It would appear, then, that
the Interstate Commerce Commission considered the California
and Florida rates to be reasonably adjusted to each other during
this period.
On June 25, 1918, all freight rates in the United States were
increased 25 percent. This increase was, of course, applicable
equally to the rates on citrus fruits from California and from
Florida. The second big increase became effective August 26,
1920, when the Interstate Commerce Commission granted the
following increases in charges: (1) 40 percent upon freight traf-
fic in the Eastern group; 25 percent, in the Southern; 35 percent,
in the Western, and 25 percent, in the Mountain-Pacific; (2) 33'2
percent on inter-group traffic.
The Eastern group is roughly east of Chicago and the Mis-
sissippi River, and north of the Ohio and Potomac Rivers. The
Southern group is east of the Mississippi River and south of the
Eastern group. The Western group is between the Mississippi
River and the transcontinental line formerly described. The
Mountain-Pacific group lies west of the Western group2.
The Interstate Commerce Commission began revising freight
rates downward by ordering a 10 percent decrease on all agricul-
tural products effective January 1, 1922. A similar 10 percent
reduction was granted on non-agricultural products July 1, 1922.
There were no major adjustments in the rates from Florida
between the base period and November 9, 1928, except the gen-
eral percentage increases and the 10 percent decrease January 1,
1922. The rates from California were subject to the same per-
centage increases and decreases, but in addition underwent a
further 10 percent decrease, effective December 3, 1923. This
additional decrease was the result of an agreement between the
California growers and shippers and the carriers.
This agreement was to the effect that car loadings would be
increased to a minimum of 36,000 pounds, in consideration of

110 I. C. C. 590, 620.
2For exact boundaries see 58 I. C. C. 225.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


which a rate of $1.55 per 100 pounds would be made effective.
As an alternative, the rate of $1.73 per 100 pounds would be re-
tained, but with carload minimum of 32,300 pounds rather than
the minimum of 26,700 pounds then in effect. The average load-
ing of oranges at that time was 30,888 pounds. Following are
the reasons advanced by the Transcontinental Lines for this re-
duction:1
"1. Economies affecting operation by reason of the heavier loading,
resulting in practically the same net revenue to the carriers under the
proposed rate as they receive under the present rate.
"2. The importance of orange tonnage which is the backbone of the
California perishable traffic, warrants such reduction as may be made with-
out sacrifice of net revenue to the carriers.
"3. To forestall movement by Panama Canal.
"4. To establish a basis of rates which would be satisfactory to the
shippers and what the traffic could reasonably bear as a permanent adjust-
ment, and secure the withdrawal of complaints now pending before the Inter-
state Commerce Commission, I. C. C. Docket 11465, et al."
This decrease in the freight rates on citrus fruits from Califor-
nia, December 3, 1923, caused the first material separation of the
index numbers from Florida and from California since 1907 and
1908. The spread between the index numbers was increased
another point by the elimination of the terminal fee of 3 cents
per 100 pounds on citrus fruits from California to points east
of the Hudson River on June 7, 19282.
On April 1, 1925, these rates were brought before the Inter-
state Commerce Commission3, as has been pointed out. The com-
plainants held in this case that since the Florida shippers had
voluntarily increased their loadings from 300 boxes to 360 boxes
per car, they should be given the benefit of economies resulting
from this heavier loading comparable to the decreases granted
the California shippers as a result of having increased their mini-
mum loading from 26,700 pounds to 36,000 pounds per car.
As a result of the decision in this case the Florida index num
bers were decreased about 31/2 points effective November 9, 1928.
Rates to the West were made considerably lower, while rates to
New England were actually increased.
Relatives of the freight rates from 18 Florida shipping points
to New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago are shown in
Fig. 244. These relatives were closely parallel until November,
1928. At that point, however, there was a sharp divergence.

1Defendant's Brief in I. C. C. Docket No. 16939, page 130.
2Toll's I. C. C. 1199, Supplement 8.
3144 I. C.-C. 603.
4Appendix tables XX to XXXI.








Percent

170


160

New York
150 Boston
Philadelphia- x-- ... ...
Chicago .-
140


130


120


110


100


90


1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929
Figure 24.-Relatives of freight rates on citrus fruits from Florida points to New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Chicago.
(Average rates, January 1, 1910, to December 31, 1914=100.)
Note: When other symbols are not shown, they follow the New York line.


.i.






Co


Cc



Cc.


Cc.

Co


sc.
Co







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


The relatives to Chicago were reduced about 10 points, while
to Boston they were increased about two points. The New York
and Philadelphia relatives were reduced only slightly.


METHODS OF SHIPPING CITRUS FRUITS

The freight rates which have been shown do not include pro-
tective service against deterioration in transit, except that pro-
tection which is afforded by ventilation of the cars. Refrigerator
cars may be shipped under the following options, stated in writing
on the shipping order, without additional cost to the freight
charge:1
1. "Standard Ventilation," under which instructions the plugs
are put in and all vents closed when outside temperature falls to
32 degrees above zero and plugs are taken out and vents opened
when outside temperature rises above 32 degrees above zero.
2. "Keep all vents closed and plugs in to final destination, re-
gardless of weather."
3. "Keep all vents open and plugs out to final destination, re-
gardless of weather."
4. "Keep plugs in and vents closed to...... station......
standard ventilation beyond."
5. "Standard ventilation to...... station...... keep plugs in
and vents closed beyond."
Ventilator type box cars may be shipped under the following
options, stated in writing on the shipping order, without addi-
tional cost to the freight charge:
1. "Standard Ventilation" which will be handled as (1) above.
In addition solid side doors will be opened and closed under the
same conditions as for manipulating plugs and vents.
2. "Keep solid side doors closed to destination, regardless of
weather. Standard ventilation other openings."
3. "Keep solid side doors closed to destination, regardless of
weather. Keep all other openings open to destination, regardless
of weather."
4. "Keep solid side doors and other openings closed to destina-
tion, regardless of weather."
5. "Keep solid side doors and other openings open to destina-
tion, regardless of weather."
In any case of "Standard Ventilation," cars arriving at division

1Rule 85, Dearborn's Perishable Protective Tariff No. 4, Supplement No. 6.







Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 73

or terminal points with vents open and hatch plugs out at a mini-
mum outside temperature of 28 degrees, or with ventilators closed
and hatch plugs in at a maximum outside temperature of 34 de-
grees, will be considered as having been safely and properly
handled in transit, but ventilators and plugs must be properly
adjusted upon arrival and readjusted before leaving (if neces-
sary) in accordance with these instructions.
When citrus fruits are shipped under any form of refrigera-
tion, however, there is a charge for this protective service which
is independent of, and in addition to, the freight charge. The
kind of protective service desired must be stated in writing on
the shipping order at loading station.

STANDARD REFRIGERATION1

The term "Standard Refrigeration" means protective service
against heat by the use of ice placed in the tanks or bunkers of
refrigerator cars. These bunkers are located at each end of the
cars and together hold approximately 9,600 pounds of ice. They
are filled with ice at the loading station or nearest icing station
before the cars are loaded and are refilled at all regular icing
stations en route to destination.
In Table XXXI are shown the standard refrigeration rates for
citrus fruits from each of the six most important citrus shipping
states to 36 citrus markets in the United States. These rates
are stated in dollars per car, the Florida cars containing about
360 boxes and the cars from California and Arizona about 460
boxes. Cars from Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi are shipped
under a carload minimum requirement of 24,000 pounds, but may
include more than 300 equivalent boxes of 80 pounds.
Refrigeration rates are based largely upon distance between
origin and destination groups. Each state in the United States
contains from one to eight groups of origin and from one to eight
destination groups. The entire citrus producing area of Florida
east 6f the Apalachicola River is included in one origin group.
The most important citrus producing areas of each of the other
states are likewise included in the same origin groups. There is,
therefore, in reality only one standard refrigeration rate on citrus
fruits from each state. These rates are applicable to the destina-

1Rules 200 and 201, Dearborn's Perishable Protective Tariff No. 4; Supple-
ment No. 6. For a discussion of the method of constructing present refrig-
eration rates see 151 I. C. C. 649.








Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


tion group in which the market to which fruits are being shipped
is located.

*TABLE XXXI.-COMPARATIVE STANDARD REFRIGERATION RATES ON CITRUS
FRUITS IN DOLLARS PER CAR TO 36 MARKETS, EFFECTIVE JANUARY, 1930.*

Markets Lakeland, An eles, Harlingen, Foley, Gulfport, Phoenix,
Florida Teas Alabama Mississippi Arizona**

New York...... $ 60.00 $ 95.00 $105.00 $ 85.00 $ 90.00 $ 95.00
Chicago ........ 76.50 80.00 90.00 75.00 70.00 80.00
Boston ......... 65.50 100.00 110.00 92.50 97.50 100.00
Philadelphia ... 60.00 95.00 105.00 85.00 90.00 95.00
Detroit ........ 81.00 90.00 100.00 80.00 85.00 90.00
Cleveland ...... 76.50 90.00 100.00 75.00 80.00 90.00
Pittsburgh ..... 76.50 90.00 100.00 80.00 85.00 90.00
Baltimore ...... 60.00 95.00 105.00 85.00 90.00 95.00
St. Louis ...... 74.50 80.00 80.00 75.00 70.00 80.00
San Francisco ..... .. ... .... ..... 60.00
Cincinnati ...... 70.00 90.00 90.00 67.50 72.50 90.00
Buffalo ........ 76.50 90.00 100.00 80.00 85.00 90.00
Minneapolis .... 85.50 80.00 90.00 85.00 80.00 80.00
Washington .... 60.00 95.00 105.00 85.00 90.00 95.00
Milwaukee ..... 81.00 80.00 90.00 80.00 75.00 80.00
Atlanta ........ 54.00 95.00 85.00 57.50 62.50 95.00
Indianapolis ... 76.50 85.00 90.00 75.00 72.50 85.00
Kansas City.... 81.00 75.00 80.00 82.50 75.00 75.00
Columbus ...... 76.50 90.00 95.00 75.00 80.00 90.00
Seattle ........ 103.50 55.00 105.00 110.00 105.00 70.00
Portland, Oregon 103.50 50.00 105.00 110.00 105.00 70.00
Providence ..... 65.50 100.00 110.00 92.50 97.50 100.00
Toledo ......... 76.50 90.00 95.00 75.00 80.00 90.00
Memphis ....... 70.00 80.00 75.00 62.50 55.00 80.00
Denver ........ 90.00 65.00 80.00 95.00 85.00 65.00
Louisville ...... 70.00 85.00 90.00 67.50 67.50 85.00
Birmingham .. .. 58.50 90.00 80.00 49.50 55.00 90.00
St. Paul ........ 85.50 80.00 90.00 85.00 80.00 80.00
Omaha ......... 81.00 75.00 85.00 82.50 75.00 75.00
Dallas ......... 76.50 75.00 60.00 70.00 62.50 75.00
New Orleans ... 67.50 85.00 65.00 57.50 49.50 85.00
Salt Lake City. 94.50 55.00 90.00 100.00 90.00 65.00
Los Angeles .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 55.00
Spokane ....... 103.50 55.00 105.00 110.00 105.00 70.00
Fort Worth ... 76.50 75.00 60.00 70.00 62.50 75.00
Newark ........ 60.00 95.00 105.00 85.00 90.00 95.00
*Dearborn's I. C. C. No. 3, Supplement No. 14.
**Cars iced by carrier prior to loading, charge will be $5.00 greater.


RE-ICING SHIPMENTS AT INTERMEDIATE, STOP, OR HOLD POINTS,
AT RECONSIGNING POINTS, AND AT FINAL DESTINATION.'
When a car is stopped on orders from shipper, owner, or con-
signee, at any intermediate point between point of origin and
final destination and later forwarded, carrier will re-ice when
required but will make extra charge for all additional ice con-

1Rule 225, Dearborn's Perishable Protective Tariff No. 4; Supplement
No. 6.







Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 75

sumed because of the delay, at rates provided in Section No. 4 of
the tariff. These charges range approximately from $3.50 to
$5.00 per ton, but a minimum charge per car for each icing is
based on 1,000 pounds at the tariff rate per ton applicable at the
station where furnished. When diversion or disposition order
has been received by the carrier's agent at stop, hold, or recon-
signing point prior to, or within six hours after, arrival of car
in the terminal train yard serving such point, car will not be con-
sidered as having been held.
Cars placed on hold, inspection, or delivery tracks, at inter-
mediate stop points, hold points, or at final destination with bunk-
ers less than three-fourths full of ice will be re-iced to capacity
at the expense of the carrier. Any additional ice required at
destination will be charged to the shipment at rates provided in
Section No. 4 and collected from the consignee in addition to all
other charges.

PRE-COOLING AND PRE-ICING1
Another type of protective service is that of pre-cooling and
pre-icing. Upon reasonable notice, the carriers will furnish
refrigerator cars for this service, but will not perform any service
in connection with the pre-cooling and pre-icing. Shippers are
required to load the pre-cooled citrus fruits in cars which must
be pre-iced before delivery to the carriers for transportation.
Shippers will not be allowed to ice cars containing such shipments
after delivery to the carriers.
When citrus fruits have been pre-cooled in the regular pre-
cooling plants of the shipper and loaded into refrigerator cars
pre-iced by the shipper at station where the pre-cooling plant is
located, and such shipments are forwarded in carload lots under
instructions, "Do Not Re-Ice," a charge will be made of $5.00
per car if the journey is confined within the limit- of a single
origin group; $7.50 if it is confined within the limits of two con-
tiguous origin groups; and in all other cases 20 percent of the
standard refrigeration service charge applicable to citrus fruits
from the point of origin to final destination. In addition to these
charges, however, the shipper has to pay the expense of pre-
cooling and of filling the bunkers of the cars with approximately
9,600 pounds of ice which costs about $5.00 per ton, in 1930.

1Rule 250, Dearborn's Perishable Protective Tariff, No. 4, Supplement
No. 6.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


Paragraph "C" of this rule is quoted in full: "When carrier is
called upon to switch a loaded car from the loading track at any
initial points of shipment to a pre-cooling plant at same point of
shipment, and within the switching limits of the point of ship-
ment, a switching charge of $2.00 per car will be made. No ship-
ments will be stopped in transit for pre-cooling, and where pre-
cooling plants are located beyond the switching limits of the
initial point of shipment, shipments must be consigned first to
the pre-cooling plant and then consigned from the pre-cooling
plant to final destination." This charge does not often affect the
larger shippers who have their own pre-cooling plants, but some
of the smaller shippers who desire to have their fruit pre-cooled
at a pre-cooling plant at some other point than the loading station
must pay the switching charge. An additional charge of $1.00
is assessed for each day's detention at the pre-cooling plant, in-
cluding the day of placement. This charge is in addition to reg-
ular demurrage charges.
If, on instructions from shipper, owner, or consignee, any car
handled under the provisions of the rule governing pre-cooled and
pre-iced shipments is iced or re-iced before arrival in the train
yard serving the final destination, such car will be handled under
standard refrigeration service from point of icing or re-icing. The
charge for this service will be that applicable from point of origin
to point at which shipment is iced or re-iced, plus the standard
refrigeration service charge applicable from that point to final
destination, but the aggregate of these charges will in no case
exceed the charge for standard refrigeration service from point
where car was initially iced.
Under the provisions of this rule shipments will, on written
request of shipper, owner, or consignee, be placed under "Stand-
ard Ventilation." In such cases the charge will be that applicable
from point of origin to final destination; but this provision in no
case nullifies the previous provisions in the event that shipment
is subsequently iced or re-iced.

HANDLING PRE-COOLED CITRUS FRUIT AND/OR VEGETABLES
FROM FLORIDA IN REFRIGERATOR CARS WITHOUT ICE.'
When shipments are pre-cooled by shipper as provided in the
preceding rule and loaded into dry refrigerator cars at the point
where the pre-cooling plant is located and forwarded in carload
'Rule 251, Dearborn's Perishable Protective Tariff No. 4; Supplement
No. 6. Under suspension I. and S. Docket 3315.








Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 77

lots under instructions, "Do not ice or re-ice," the following
charges per carload will be made:

From points in Florida to points in


Alabama ................... $ 9.00
A lberta .................... 15.50
Arizona .................... 15.00
Arkansas ................... 11.50
British Columbia ........... 16.00
California .................. 13.50
Colorado .................... 13.50
Connecticut ................. 11.50
Delaware ................... 10.50
District of Columbia ......... 10.50
Florida ..................... 5.00
Georgia .................... 7.50
Idaho ................ ..... 15.50
Illinois ..................... 11.50
Indiana .................... 11.50
Iow a ....................... 12.00
Kansas ..................... 13.00
Kentucky ................... 10.50
Louisiana ................... 11.00
M aine ...................... 11.50
M anitoba ................... 14.50
M aryland ................... 11.00
Massachusetts .............. 11.50
M ichigan ................... 13.50
M innesota .................. 13.50
M ississippi .................. 10.00
M issouri .................... 12.00
M ontana .................... 15.00


Nebraska ...................$13.50
Nevada .................... 15.00
New Hampshire ............. 11.50
New Jersey ................. 10.50
New Mexico ................ 14.00
New York .................. 11.50
North Carolina .............. 9.00
North Dakota ............... 14.00
Nova Scotia ................ 13.00
Ohio ....................... 11.50
Oklahoma .................. 13.00
Oregon ... ................. 15.50
Pennsylvania .......... .... 11.50
Quebec ..................... 12.00
Rhode Island ................ 11.50
Saskatchewan ............... 15.00
South Carolina .............. 8.00
South Dakota ............... 14.00
Tennessee .................. 10.50
Texas ...................... 13.50
U tah ....................... 14.00
Verm ont ................... 11.50
Virginia .................... 9.50
W ashington ................ 15.50
West Virginia ............... 11.00
W isconsin .................. 13.50
W yoming ................... 14.00


When carrier is called upon to switch a loaded car from a load-
ing track to a pre-cooling plant at the same point, a switching
charge of $2.25 will be made. When cars are so handled, a car
charge of $1.00 will be made for each 24 hour detention or portion
thereof, including day of placement at the pre-cooling plant.

PRE-COOLING AND PRE-ICING CITRUS FRUITS FROM CALIFORNIA'
Citrus fruits may be shipped from California under the fol-
lowing regulations governing pre-cooling and pre-icing:
1. When, on request of shipper, carload shipments of citrus
fruits (after cars are completely loaded) are pre-cooled by carrier
and forwarded (without ice) through to destination under in-
structions from shipper, "Do Not Ice," a charge of $25.00 per
carload will be made.
2. When carload shipments of citrus fruits which have been
pre-cooled by shipper in a regularly established pre-cooling plant
and loaded into a car pre-iced by shipper at station where pre-

'Rule 245, Dearborn's Perishable Protective Tariff No. 4.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


cooling plant is located, and are forwarded in carload lots under
instructions, "Do Not Re-Ice," a charge will be made of $5.00
per car if the journey is confined within the limits of a single
origin group; $7.50 if it is confined within the limits of two contig-
uous origin groups; and in all other cases 20 percent of the stand-
ard refrigeration service charge applicable to citrus fruits from
point of origin to final destination.
3. When carloads of citrus fruits are pre-cooled by carrier
and afterward initially iced by carrier at station where pre-cool-
ing plant is located and are forwarded through to destination
under instruction from shipper, "Do Not Re-Ice," charges per
carload will range from $27.50 on cars destined to points in the
state of California to $52.50 on cars destined to the far east.
4. If on instructions from shipper, owner, or consignee, any
car handled under the provisions of this rule is iced or re-iced
before arrival in the terminal train yard serving the final destina-
tion, it will be handled under standard refrigeration service from
point of icing or re-icing. The charges for such services will be
the charge applicable as provided under the preceding paragraphs
of this rule, as the case may be, from point of origin to point at
which shipment is iced or re-iced plus the standard refrigeration
service charge applicable from such point to final destination. In
no case, however, shall the aggregate of these charges exceed the
charge for standard refrigeration service from the point where
the car was initially iced.
5. Under the provisions of the second and third paragraphs
of this rule shipments will, on written request of shipper, owner,
or consignee be placed under "Standard Ventilation." In such
cases the charge will be that applicable from point of origin as
provided in these paragraphs, as they apply, to the final destina-
tion of shipment, but under no circumstances shall the provisions
of this paragraph be construed as nullifying the fourth paragraph
in the event that shipment is subsequently iced or re-iced.

SHIPMENTS UNDER ICE WITHOUT RE-ICING IN TRANSIT'
Citrus fruits may be shipped from any of the producing states
in refrigerator cars initially iced by the shipper, or by the carrier
at the shipper's expense, under instructions, "Do Not Re-Ice,"
stated in writing on the shipping order. When the carrier per-
forms the icing service, the ice is charged to the shipper at the
'Rule 240, Dearborn's Perishable Protective Tariff, No. 4, Supplement
No. 6.







Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 79

rate shown in Section No. 4 of the tariff, which on shipments
from Florida, in 1930, is $5.00 per ton. In either case an addi-
tional charge will be made of $5.00 per car if the journey from
the point of such icing is confined within the limits of a single
origin group; $7.50 if it is confined within the limits of two con-
tiguous origin groups; and in all other cases 20 percent of the
standard refrigeration service charge which would otherwise be
applicable.
If, on instructions from shipper, owner, or consignee, any car
handled under the above provisions is re-iced before arrival in the
terminal train yard serving final destination, cars will be handled
under standard refrigeration service from point of re-icing. The
charges for such service will be the charge applicable from point
of origin to point of re-icing plus the standard refrigeration
service charge from point of re-icing to final destination, but in
no case shall the aggregate of these charges exceed the charge
for standard refrigeration from the point where car was initially
iced to final destination.

COMPARATIVE COSTS OF DIFFERENT PROTECTIVE SERVICES
In Table XXXII are shown the comparative costs of protective
services on citrus fruits from Florida to 36 markets in the United
States. These costs are independent of, and in addition to, the
freight rates. When shipments are made under standard refrig-
eration, the carrier furnishes ice for the initial icing when the car
is presented to be loaded and re-fills the bunkers to capacity at all
regular re-icing stations en route to destination. However, when
citrus fruits are pre-cooled and/or pre-iced the shipper has to
undergo the cost of pre-cooling and/or of filling the bunkers with
ice in addition to the charges shown. The charges shown for pre-
cooling and/or pre-icing are to cover rental on the equipment, and
pay the costs of transporting the ice in the bunkers.

PROTECTIVE SERVICE AGAINST COLD'
CARRIERS' PROTECTIVE SERVICE
An additional protective service available to citrus shippers
from October 15 to April 15, inclusive, is that for protection of
shipments against cold. Citrus fruits in transit are sometimes
subjected to very low temperatures with consequent danger of
freezing. As a protection against freezing, carriers will furnish
1Rule 75 and Section 5, Dearborn's Perishable Protective Tariff No. 4.









Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


artificial heat, and will guard against over-heating, when ship-
ments are within the "Heater Territory."
"Heater Territory" in the United States is comprised of the
states of Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, Wy-

TABLE XXXII.-COST OF PROTECTIVE SERVICE ON CITRUS FRUITS FROM
FLORIDA TO 34 MARKETS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1930.*


Markets


New York ........
Chicago ..........
Boston ..........
Philadelphia .....
Detroit ..........
Cleveland ........
Pittsburgh .......
Baltimore ........
St. Louis .........
Cincinnati ........
Buffalo ..........
Minneapolis ......
Washington ......
Milwaukee .......
Atlanta ..........
Indianapolis ......
Kansas City ......
Columbus ........
Seattle ..........
Portland, Oregon. .
Providence .......
Toledo ...........
Memphis .........
Denver ..........
Louisville ........
Birmingham .....
St. Paul ..........
Omaha ..........
Dallas ...........
New Orleans .....
Salt Lake City ....
Spokane .........
Fort Worth ......
Newark ..........


Dollars per car
Standard Pre-cool and/or
refrigeration pre-ice'2


60.00
76.50
65.50
60.00
81.00
76.50
76.50
60.00
74.50
70.00
76.50
85.50
60.00
81.00
54.00
76.50
81.00
76.50
103.50
103.50
65.50
76.50
70.00
90.00
70.00
58.50
85.50
81.00
76.50
67.50
94.50
103.50
76.50
60.00


*R. C. Dearborn's I. C. C. No. 3,
1Based on 360 boxes per car.
2Does not include cost of ice.


12.00
15.30
13.10
12.00
16.20
15.30
15.30
12.00
14.90
14.00
15.30
17.10
12.00
16.20
10.80
15.30
16.20
15.30
20.70
20.70
13.10
15.30
14.00
18.00
14.00
11.70
17.10
16.20
15.30
13.50
18.90
20.70
15.30
12.00


Cents per boxi
Standard Pre-cool and/or
refrigeration pre-iee2

16.7 3.3
21.2 4.2
18.2 3.6
16.6 3.3
22.5 4.5
21.2 4.2
21.2 4.2
16.7 3.3
20.7 4.1
19.4 3.9
21.2 4.2
23.8 4.8
16.7 3.3
22.5 4.5
15.0 3.0
21.2 4.2
22.5 4.5
21.2 4.2
28.8 5.8
28.8 5.8
18.2 3.6
21.2 4.2
19.4 3.9
25.0 5.0
19.4 3.9
16.2 3.2
23.8 4.8
22.5 4.5
21.2 4.2
18.8 3.8
26.2 5.2
28.8 5.8
21.2 4.2
16.7 3.3


Supplement No. 14.


oming, Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, a few stations in
Northern New Mexico and Northern California, the Northern
Peninsula of Michigan, and a few stations in Western Indiana.
Carriers do not offer protective service against cold outside of this
territory.







Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 81

Carriers will upon reasonable notice from shipper, owner, or
consignee, place cars under protective service against cold at the
first point where heaters are available in the heater territory, or
at such point in heater territory as may be designated in the in-
structions. If shipments are moving under standard refrigera-
tion prior to being put under carriers' protective service against
cold, a charge of $7.50 per car will be made for removing the
ice from the bunkers. Portable heaters will then be placed in
the bunkers and the temperature of the cars kept up by the circu-
lation of warm air, or by such other protective measures as may
be necessary. The charge in such case will be the rate for stand-
ard refrigeration to point where change in protective service is
made plus a rate of 4 cents to 9 cents per 100 pounds for protec-
tive service against cold as it may apply. Similarly, shipments
moving under other than standard refrigeration will pay the
charge for the protective service against cold in addition to the
proper charge for other protective service. Carriers' protective
service against cold, however, applies only to shipments moving
in refrigerator or insulated cars. Charges in cents per 100 pounds
for carriers' protective service against cold are shown in Table
XXXIII. Reference to the tariff is necessary to ascertain specific
rates.
When shipments of citrus fruits under carriers' protective
service against cold are held, on order of shipper, owner, or con-
signee, at intermediate or reconsigning point or at destination, a
charge of $2.00 per car per 24 hours or fraction thereof will be
made.
SHIPPERS' PROTECTIVE SERVICE
Shippers may, if they prefer, provide their own protective
service against cold, within the heater territory and/or, if in
their judgment protective service against cold is necessary, out-
side of the heater territory, by lining the cars or providing false
floors, or both, or by the use of heaters which must be of suitable
design as to safety and securely fitted and braced.
When shippers elect to provide their own protective service
against cold by the use of heaters within the the heater territory,
or find it necessary to supply this protection outside the heater
territory, caretakers must be sent from point at which heaters are
installed to look after fires at all points, including destination.
In such case one man will be carried free in charge of a consign-
ment of one or more carloads. Caretakers may return free over









TABLE XXXIII.-CHARGES IN CENTS PER 100 POUNDS FOR CARRIERS' PROTECTIVE SERVICE AGAINST COLD.* 00
C CS
o o C
0 0
C >> a 4- C + o
From Points in- C C rI
4-1



To Points in:
California ................... .. 6 .. .. .. .. .. 6 -61... 6
Colorado ....................4 6-7 5 5-6 5 5 5 7 6 56-7 5 7 6-7 6 5 7 6 5
Idaho ....................... 6-7 4-5 7-8 7-9 7 7-8 9 7 7-8 5-66-7 7 4-5 7 5-6 5 8 5-6
Illinois ...................... 5 7-8 4-5 4-5 5 5 4-5 5-6 6 5 7-8 5 7-8 6 6 8 5-6 6
Indiana ...................... 5-6 7-9 4-5 4-5 5-6 5-6 4-5 5-6 6-7 5-6 7-9 5-6 7-8 7-9 6-7 6-7 8-9 5-6 6-7
Iowa ........................ 5 7-8 5 5-6 4 5 5 5 5 5 7-8 5 6 7-8 5 6 8 5 6
Kansas ...................... 5 7-8 5 5-6 5 4 5 6 6 4 7-8 5 7 7-8 6 6 8 6 6
Kentucky .................... 5 7-8 4-5 4-5 5 5 .. 6 6 5 7-8 5 77-8 6 6 8 6 6
Michigan .................... 6 9 5-6 6 5 6 6 4 5 6 7-8 6 6 -9 6 7 8 5 6
Minnesota ................... 6 7-8 6 6-7 5 6 6 5 4 6 6-7 6 5 7-8 5 7 7 5 6
Missouri .................... 5 7-8 5 5-6 5 4 5 6 6 4 7-8 5 7 7-8 6 6 8 6 6
Montana .................... 6-7 5-6 7-8 7-9 7-8 7-8 7-8 6-7 7-8 4-5 -7 5-6 5-6 5-7 6 5-6 7-8 5-6
Nebraska .................... 5 6-7 5 5-6 5 5 5 6 6 5 6-7 4 6 -7 5 6 7 6 5
NewMexico .................. 5 7-8 6 6-7 6 6 6 8 7 6 7-8 6 7 7-8 7 6 8 7 6
North Dakota ................ 7 7 7 7-8 6 7 7 6 5 7 5-6 7 4 7 5 7 7 6 6
Oregon ...................... 6-7 4-5 7-8 7-9 8 7-8 7-8- 9 77-8 5-6 6-7 7 4-5 7 5-6 5 8 5-6
South Dakota ................ 6 7 6 6-7 5 6 6 6 5 6 5-7 5 5 7 4 7 7 6 6
Utah ........................ 5 5-6 6 6-7 6 6 6 8 7 6 6 6 7 5-6 7 4 6 7 5
Washington ................. 7 5 8 8-9 8 8 8 9 7 8 5-6 7 7 5 7 6 4 8 6
Wisconsin .................. 6 8 5-6 6 5 6 6 5 5 67-8 6 6 8 6 7 8 4 6 0
Wyoming .................. 5 5-6 6 6-7 6 6 6 7 6 65-6 5 65-6 6 5 6 6 4
*Dearborn's Perishable Protective Tariff No. 4, pages 358-359.
IDouble columns show different rates in effect.
Note: California and New Mexico points are in heater territory only as points of destination. These states with Indiana
have only a few points in heater territory. Only one point, Louisville, in Kentucky, and the Northern Peninsula of Michigan
are included.







Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 83

the same route followed by the shipment between points west of
Lake Michigan, the Illinois-Indiana and Illinois-Kentucky state
lines; and the Mississippi River south of Cairo, Illinois. No free
or reduced transportation will be given for return trip of care-
takers between points east of this line.
When fuel is supplied in transit by carriers to shipments
moving under the care of shippers or their representatives, the
charge therefore will be:
For oil ................................... 15 cents per gallon
For charcoal ............................. 4 pound
For other fuel (liquid) ..................... 40 gallon
For other fuel (solid)...................... 5 pound

FACTORS AFFECTING METHOD OF SHIPMENT
The principal factors affecting the methods of shipping citrus
fruits are in order: weather, condition of fruit, condition of mar-
ket and cost of service.
When the weather is cool and dry, and the fruit is fully ma-
ture and firm, there is not much danger of deterioration in transit,
regardless of the protective service used. However, if the weather
is slightly warm and damp, or if the fruit is soft, the greatest of
care must be taken if the shipment is consigned to markets at
any great distance. Traffic managers and shippers study the
weather maps very carefully along the routes of shipments and
give orders as to the kind of service desired for protection under
different weather conditions. There are certain territories such
as the Southwest, to which it has been considered almost impos-
sible to send citrus fruits other than under full-tank, or standard
refrigeration. It is possible, however, that pre-cooling and pre-
icing could be used to as great advantage.
When other factors are equal, the price of the fruit and the
cost of the service will be the factors determining the protective
service to be used. The comparative costs of the different serv-
ices have been shown, and these costs are reflected in the kind of
service that will be used under different conditions of the market.
No shipments of citrus fruits are made under protective serv-
ice against cold from the producing states, the shipments being
placed under this service (when used) somewhere en route to
market, so no statistics are available as to the amount of citrus
being placed under this form of protection. Rather complete
data, however, are available for the last few years showing the
importance of the various methods of protection against heat.








Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


In Table XXXIV are shown the number of carloads of oranges
and grapefruit, combined, shipped from Florida under the three
principal methods of shipment, for the seven seasons, 1922 to
1929. In Table XXXV are shown the percentages of the total
shipped by each method. It is apparent that the methods of pre-

TABLE XXXIV.-CARLOT MOVEMENT OF CITRUS BY 3 PRINCIPAL METHODS.*
Stard Pre-cooled
Year r and/or Ventilation Total
refrigeraion pre-iced

1922-23 .............. 15,927 3,662 25,743 45,332
1923-24 .............. 16,025 4,926 33,568 54,519
1924-25 ............ 19,010 5,355 24,351 48,716
1925-26 ............. 17,020 5,325 16,048 38,393
1926-27 .............. 16,401 7,423 19,753 43,577
1927-28 .............. 14,157 6,411 15,939 36,507
1928-29 .............. 25,893 15,367 21,526 62,786
*Data furnished by Florida State Marketing Bureau.

cooling and/or pre-icing are increasing in popularity, the per-
centage being shipped by these methods, increasing steadily from
8.1 percent in 1922-23 to 17.6 percent in 1927-28, and 24.5 percent
in 1928-29. Shipments by refrigeration have been about the same
proportion of the total during this period, while the percentage

TABLE XXXV.-PERCENT OF CITRUS MOVED BY EACH OF 3 PRINCIPAL
METHODS.

SPre-cooled
Ye Standard and/or Ventilation Total
Yearefrigeration pre-iced


1922-23 .............. 35.1 8.1 56.8 100
1923-24 .............. 29.4 9.0 61.6 100
1924-25 .............. 39.0 11.0 50.0 100
1925-26 .............. 44.3 13.9 41.8 100
1926-27 .............. 37.6 17.0 45.4 100
1927-28 ............... 38.8 17.6 43.6 100
1928-29 .............. 41.2 24.5 34.3 100

being shipped under ventilation has been decreasing. During the
season 1923-24 there was a heavy movement of citrus fruits from
Florida, and consequently prices were low. As a result 61.6 per-
cent of the crop moved by ventilation, the cheapest method of
shipment, while only 29.4 percent of the total movement was by
standard refrigeration, the most expensive method of shipment.
The total movement during subsequent seasons was less until the
1928-29 season, resulting in better prices and a reduction in the
percentage of movement by ventilation. The season 1928-29,








Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 85


however, was a heavy shipping season with attendant low prices.
As a result there was a greatly increased percentage shipped by
pre-cooling and/or pre-icing rather than an increase in the per-
centage shipped by ventilation. There is not enough information
available to be sure, but it is generally conceded that the methods
of pre-cooling and/or pre-icing are equally as effective as, if not
superior to, standard refrigeration. It is quite likely that ship-
ments by these methods will continue to increase. In Table
XXXVI are shown in detail the number of carloads of oranges
and grapefruit shipped by refrigeration; pre-cooled and pre-iced;
pre-iced only; in ventilated refrigerator cars, and in ventilated
box cars during the five seasons, 1924 to 1929.

TABLE XXXVI.-CLASSIFICATION OF FLORIDA CARLOT SHIPMENTS OF ORANGES
AND GRAPEFRUIT ACCORDING TO METHOD OF SHIPMENT.*


Sta
Year ref]
t


1924-25
Oranges I1
Grapefruit 6
Total .... 19

1925-26
Oranges 12
Grapefruit 4
Total .... 17

1926-27
Oranges 10
Grapefruit 5
Total .... 16

1927-28
Oranges 10
Grapefruit 3
Total .... 14

1928-29
Oranges 17
Grapefruit 8
Total .... 1 25


Indard Pre-cooled
rigera- and
tion pre-iced


!,750
i,260
1,010

,071
.,949
',020


,,753
,648
,401

,655
,502
,157


,370
,523
,893


2,649
915
3,564

2,784
946
3,730


2,902
1,272
4,174

2,032
868
2,900

4,832
1,671
6,503


Pre-iced
only



912
879
1,791

858
737
1,595


1,916
1,333
3,249

2,301
1,210
3,511

5,845
3,019
8,864


Ventilated
refrigerators



7,897
12,681
20,578

5,052
9,302
14,354


7,261
11,453
18,714


3,533
11,709
15,242


7,434
13,029
20,463


*Data furnished by Florida State Marketing Bureau.


MISCELLANEOUS TRANSPORTATION CHARGES

In addition to the transportation costs which have been pointed
out there are certain other charges incidental to the marketing
of citrus fruits which must be included in the total transportation
costs, provided these charges are incurred.


Ventilated
box cars



1,620
2,153
3,773

690
1,004
1,694

688
351
1,039

428
269
697

533
530
1,063


Total



25,828
22,888
48,716

21,455
16,938
38,393

23,520
20,057
43,577

18,949
17,558
36,507

36,014
26,772
62,786







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


DIVERSION AND RECONSIGNMENT
Diversion and reconsignment have become valuable services in
connection with marketing citrus fruits. Many cars are billed to
central markets but are diverted to more promising points while
en route. Reconsignment, in the narrowest sense in which the
term is used, is the changing of the consignee, consignor, route,
or destination of a car of freight after it has been actually placed
to be delivered. Diversion, on the other hand, is the term used
in connection with such changes in transit before the car has been
received at its original destination. Diversion involves no addi-
tional transportation service, while reconsignment does. In ac-
tual practice, however, no such distinction is recognized and the
terms are commonly used interchangeably.
-All carload traffic may be diverted or reconsigned, subject to
certain rules:'
1. Shipments must not have broken bulk.
2. Shipments cannot be diverted to points where embargoes
are in effect.
3. Original bills of lading must be surrendered.
4. Requests for diversion or reconsignment must be in writing.
5. No diversions or reconsignments involving back-hauls are
permitted unless expressly provided for in the tariffs.
6. All charges against the shipments must either have been
paid or guaranteed to be paid to the satisfaction of the car-
riers before the cars are either diverted, reconsigned, or re-
forwarded.
No charges will be made for diversion or reconsignment of
citrus fruits at points in southern territory, on and south of the
Ohio and Potomac rivers and east of the Mississippi River, except
that cars detained at any point for more than 48 hours under
shipper's orders or awaiting instructions for forwarding or de-
livery will be subject after 48 hours to a hold charge of $5.00 per
car per day or fraction thereof, which hold charge is in addition
to demurrage charges. In computing free time, Sundays and
legal holidays will be excluded, but after the expiration of 48
hours from the first 7:00 A. M. after arrival of car at reconsign-
ing point, the hold charge of $5.00 per car per day will be made
for each day, or fraction of a day, without regard to Sundays and
holidays.2
1Wilson, G. Lloyd, Diversion and Reconsignment, the Traffic Service Cor-
poration, Chicago.
2J. H. Glenn's I. C. C. No. A-727, Item No. 115.







Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 87

Diversion and reconsignment privileges on shipments of citrus
fruits from California are quite similar to those from Florida.
Reconsignment or diversion will be permitted "at the rate from
point of origin to final destination without additional charge."2
When reconsignment involves an out of line haul, combination
rates to and from the point of reconsignment will be applied.
Requests for reconsignment or change of destination should be
made to the proper representative of the originating lines, unless
the shipment has passed to a connecting line. In this case the
request may be made to a representative of the originating line
or to the connecting lines participating in the movement of the
traffic.

DEMURRAGE RATES'
A free-time period of 48 hours is allowed for loading a car and
furnishing shipping instructions, or for completely unloading a
car.
In all cases, free-time on cars held for loading begins to run
from the first 7:00 a. m. after the car is placed for loading, and
without notice of placement.
Likewise, free-time on cars to be unloaded on public delivery
tracks begins to run from the first 7:00 A. M. after the car is
placed for unloading, provided notice of arrival has been fur-
nished to consignee on the day prior to such first 7:00 A. M.
After the free-time period has expired, there is a charge of
$2.00 per car per day or fraction of a day for each of the first 4
days beyond the free-time. For each additional day, or fraction
of a day, after this period, a charge of $5.00 per car will be made.
Sunday and holidays are excluded in the calculation of demur-
rage.
Demurrage may not be collected if weather actually interferes
with loading or unloading cars.


WATER TRANSPORTATION COSTS FROM FLORIDA

In the early days of the citrus industry in the United States,
water transportation lines were the most important means for
marketing the citrus crop. These carriers, however, failed to
recognize the potential sources of wealth to themselves from the

iWilson, G. Lloyd, Demurrage Tariffs, the Traffic Service Corporation,
Chicago.
2C. & N. W. R'y. I. C. C. No. 9985, Supplement No. 2.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


citrus tonnage and from other perishables produced within the
citrus areas and so failed to make adequate provisions for
handling this traffic. They insisted upon handling all cargo alike,
treating shipments of fruits and vegetables as if they were lum-
ber or turpentine. The boxes were often smashed and the con-
tents greatly injured during the process of loading so that ship-
ments were in poor condition to begin the long, slow trip to mar-
ket. As a result of such treatment the shippers of fruits and
vegetables were ready to give the rail carriers a trial when their
lines were extended into the producing areas.
The shippers found the rail carriers to be more convenient and
quicker, and the operators to be much more cooperative than
those of the water transportation lines. Consequently the per-
ishable tonnage of the rail carriers rapidly increased, while that
of the water carriers decreased. This situation did not have the
effect of greatly alarming the water transportation companies,
however, since they were especially equipped to haul "dead"
freight and they could see no possibility of these resources be-
coming exhausted. They refused to make any special bid for the
perishable tonnage, so in the course of time a very small part of
the citrus crop was marketed via water lines.
With the decrease of supplies of "dead" freight available to
the water carriers, however, these companies began looking about
for other sources of revenue. The great possibilities of the per-
ishable fruit and vegetable industries were at last recognized and
steps were taken to meet the exacting demands of this traffic.
Improved methods of handling were employed, schedules were
speeded up, and the utmost done to insure shipments of perish-
ables against deterioration in transit.
Forced ventilation has been the most widely used method of
protecting shipments against deterioration in transit. Perish-
able fruits and vegetables are carefully loaded between decks on
passenger vessels and a current of air is pumped in near the lower
deck. This air is then forced through the shipment and sucked
out at the top. In this way the air is completely changed in each
compartment every three minutes. Shipments under these con-
ditions have been very successful and most of the coast-wise
liners operating out of the State of Florida continue to use this
method of protection. There are, however, at the present time
regular sailings of refrigerated steamers from Tampa and Miami
to New York.
A comparison of the transportation costs for citrus fruits un-








Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 89

der ventilation via all-rail, and combined rail-and-water from cer-
tain Florida shipping points to New York and Boston is shown in
Table XXXVII. Such shipments are transported from the ship-
ping point to Savannah or Jacksonville and there transferred to
TABLE XXXVII.-CARLOT FREIGHT RATES ON CITRUS FRUITS UNDER VENTILA-
TION, IN CENTS PER Box, VIA ALL-RAIL, AND COMBINED RAIL-AND-
WATER LINES FROM FLORIDA POINTS TO NEW YORK AND BOSTON, 1930.*
All-Rail Rail-and-Water
Shipping Point
New York Boston New York Boston

Orlando .............. 93.6 102.6 77.4 86.4
Lakeland ............ 94.5 104.4 78.3 88.2
Arcadia .............. 99.0 107.1 82.8 90.9
*Glenn's I. C. C. A-727.

the water lines. Fruit that is in good condition for shipment,
when properly packed, can be transferred at these points without
injury, under present methods of handling. The all-water rate
from Jacksonville to New York is 46 cents per box, and to Boston,
54 cents per box, when a minimum of 300 boxes is in the con-
signment. The 1. c. 1. rates are 53 cents, and 60 cents, respec-
tively.1
The schedules maintained by the rail carriers call for fifth
morning delivery in New York from the Florida citrus area2. The
present schedule of 65 hours from Jacksonville to New York via
water enables shippers to place their shipments on the auction
piers in New York City almost as quickly by using combined
water-and-rail as by all-rail. Citrus fruits handled by the Clyde
Steamship Company are listed on both the Erie and the Pennsyl-
vania Railroad Auctions. They are, however, at some disad-
vantage since the buyers must send their trucks to the steamship
pier several blocks distant to pick up their purchases.
Shipments by water from Tampa and Miami are usually trucked
to the steamers from the surrounding country. The preliminary
movement by rail is not necessary as is usually the case for move-
ments through Jacksonville. The present (1930) water rate on
citrus fruits from Miami to New York is 65 cents per box for
shipments of any quantity, and includes pre-cooling by the car-
rier and refrigeration, if necessary. The present (1930) water

1G. W. Bartlett, General Agent, Clyde and Mallory Steamship Companies,
Jacksonville.
2Fourth morning delivery has been announced recently by the carriers
to become effective October 1, 1930.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


rate from Tampa to New York is 55 cents per box under re-
frigeration.
A factor which has worked to the disadvantage of the water
lines has been the development of the diversion and reconsign-
ment privileges offered by the rail lines. Under this arrange-
ment, shippers via rail lines are able to divert shipments from one
destination to another, seeking for a suitable market, and pay
the through rate from origin to final destination instead of the
combination of local rates, provided there are no out-of-line hauls
or lay-overs not specifically allowed under the published through-
rate. The water lines, of course, cannot grant such privileges,
since the sailings are usually direct from loading point to desti-
nation. In spite of this handicap, however, it seems very likely
that the coast-wise liners will carry considerably greater quanti-
ties of fruits and vegetables to the cities along the Atlantic Sea-
board within the next few years.
In Table XXXVIII are shown complete histories since 1900 of
the combined water-and-rail rates from representative citrus
shipping points in Florida to New York and Boston, via Jackson-
ville and Savannah. Rates via Jacksonville were not formally
published until May 30, 1907. Subsequently there were two re-
ductions, the first effective November 15, 1912, and the second,
April 14, 1916. Since that time the trend has been generally up-
ward. Direct water movements from Tampa and Miami have
not been of consequence until recently, so historical rate-data are
not available.

THE RELATION OF FARM PRICES OF FLORIDA ORANGES
AND GRAPEFRUIT TO THE GENERAL PRICE LEVEL
AND TO FREIGHT RATES, 1910-11 TO 1928-29
The trends of farm prices of Florida oranges and grapefruit
were downward from 1910-11 to 1914-15. With the general in-
crease in prices of all commodities at the beginning of the World
War, orange and grapefruit prices advanced, but orange prices
advanced more rapidly and went considerably higher than grape-
fruit prices. The lowest prices on record were received during
1923-24, when Florida farm prices of oranges averaged $1.31 per
box, and grapefruit prices averaged $1.02 per box. The volume
of production that year was the greatest in the history of the
citrus industry until that time, and has been exceeded only once
since, when all previous production records were broken in 1928-











TABLE XXXVIII.-COMBINED RAIL AND WATER RATES ON CITRUS FRUITS PER BOX, CARLOAD QUANTITIES, FROM FLORIDA POINTS
TO NEW YORK AND BOSTON SINCE 1900.*

11/9/28 10/1/24 1/1/22 8/26/20 6/25/18 4/14/16 11/15/12 5/30/07 11/1/02 10/26/99
Origin Points to to to to to to to to to to
1/1/30 11/8/28 9/30/24 12/31/21 8/25/20 6/24/18 4/13/16 11/14/12 5/29/07 10/31/02

Via Jacksonville to New York:
Orlando .................... 77.4 68.5 68.5 76 57 45.5 50 52
Lakeland ................. 78.3 71.5 71.5 79.5 59.5 47.5 52 52
Arcadia ................... 82.8 75.5 75.5 84 63 50.5 55 60

Via Savannah to New York:
Orlando ................... 77.4 68.5 75 83.5 62.5 50 50 52 52 53
Lakeland .................. 78.3 71.5 78 86.5 65 52 52 52 52 53
Arcadia ................... 82.8 75.5 88 92 69 55 55 60 60 63
Via Jacksonville to Boston:
Orlando ................... 86.4 75.5 75.5 84 63 50.5 55 57
Lakeland .................. 88.2 79 79 87.5 65.5 52.5 57 57
Arcadia ................... 90.9 83.5 83.5 92.5 69.5 55.5 60 65

Via Savannah to Boston:
Orlando ................... 86.4 75.5 83 92 69 55 55 57 57 58
Lakeland .................. 88.2 79 86 95.5 71.5 57 57 57 57 58
Arcadia ................... 90.9 83.5 90 100 75 60 60 65 65 68


*Section of Tariffs, Interstate Commerce Commission.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


29. The relatives of farm prices of Florida oranges and grape-
fruit are shown in Fig. 25.1 The average prices from 1910-11 to
1914-15 were divided into the average farm price for each year.


( a f p ices, 0 t oa
a a a a a a a,
Figure 25.-Relatives of farm prices of Florida oranges and grapefruit.
(Average farm prices, 1910-11 to 1914-15=100.)

In arriving at the purchasing power of Florida oranges and
grapefruit shown in Fig. 26, the index number of wholesale prices
of "all commodities" prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
was taken as a measure of the general price level.2 This index
number of wholesale prices of all commodities was divided into
the relatives of farm prices of Florida oranges and grapefruit.
This gives the purchasing power, or the relatives of the farm
prices of Florida oranges and grapefruit, in terms of the general
price level.
During the greater part of the time since the base period, farm
prices of Florida oranges and grapefruit have been lower than
the general price level. This means that oranges and grapefruit

1Appendix tables XXXII and XXXIII.
2Appendix table XXXIV.







Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 93

would not buy as much of other commodities as they would have
bought during the base period. Grapefruit prices have been
lower than have those of oranges.
In 1919-20 the general price level was 235 as compared with the
five-year average, 1910 to 1914. The general average of all com-
modities, including farm products, was therefore 135 percent








,/
10
so0 _- ---

GOr-.- __pr /



a o a a a a a
Figure 26.-Purchasing power of Florida oranges and grapefruit.

above the average for the base period. In 1919-20 the prices of
oranges and grapefruit were 153 percent and 96 percent, respec-
tively, of the average prices for the base period. Since the gen-
eral price level was 235 percent of the average price for the base
period the relation of oranges and grapefruit to the general price
level was 65 percent and 41 percent, respectively. If a standard
box of oranges or of grapefruit had been sold in 1919-20 at the
average prices paid to Florida producers and the money used to
buy commodities at the wholesale prices of 1919-20, the quanti-
ties purchased would have been 65 percent and 41 percent, respec-
tively, of the average amounts that could have been purchased as
an average from 1910 to 1914. Manifestly the sellers of oranges
and grapefruit could not buy the usual quantities of other things.
During the 1928-29 season the purchasing power of oranges and
grapefruit were 77 percent and 58 percent, respectively.
During the period from 1910-11 to 1928-29 the purchasing
power of oranges reached the highest point, 130 percent, in 1927-








Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


28, and the lowest point, 49 percent, in 1923-24. The purchasing
power of grapefruit during this period reached the high point of
132 percent in 1911-12, and the low point of 32 percent in 1923-24.
The seasons of 1925-26 and 1927-28 were seasons of unusually
low citrus production in Florida. The production in California,
also, during the 1927-28 season was much lower than the usual
production in that state. These factors resulted in high prices to
citrus fruit producers and an increased purchasing power of Flor-
ida oranges and grapefruit. During that year the purchasing
power of oranges and grapefruit was 130 percent and 82 percent,
respectively, of the average for the base period. During 1928-29,
however, the low prices of that season greatly reduced the pur-
chasing power of oranges and grapefruit.
Price Per
BoX


Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May
Figure 27.-Normal monthly farm prices of Florida oranges and grapefruit.
(Five-year averages, 1924-25 to 1928-29.)

In Fig. 27 are shown the normal monthly farm prices of Flor-
ida oranges and grapefruit, based on the five-year period from
1924-25 to 1928-29. The heaviest shipments of oranges are in
December, while grapefruit are shipped in greatest quantities in








Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 95

March. Orange prices are higher than grapefruit prices
throughout the season. The relation of relatives of farm prices
of Florida oranges and grapefruit to index numbers of freight
rates on citrus fruits from 18 Florida shipping points to nine
destinations is shown in Fig. 28. In arriving at these relatives,
the average index number of freight rates on citrus fruits for
each season from 1910-11 to 1928-29 was divided into the relative
of the farm price of Florida oranges and of grapefruit for the
corresponding seasons.
Percent
O ------------------------
Oranges
Grapefruit
140





60 -- -- -- ----





Figure 28.-Relatives of farm prices of Florida oranges and grapefruit
compared to index numbers of freight rates on Florida citrus fruits, 1910-11
to 1928-29.
Note: 100=Average level of freight rates.

When prices suddenly rise or fall, freight rates lag. A study
of Fig. 28 reveals that orange prices rose relatively higher than
freight rates prior to the 25 percent increase in freight rates in
June, 1918. This increase caused a sharp decline in orange prices
in relation to freight rates. The 331/ percent increase in rates in
August, 1920, caused another sharp decline in relative orange
prices, while the 10 percent decrease, January 1, 1922, caused an
increase in the price of oranges in relation to freight rates. Dur-
ing the greater part of the time since 1920, Florida orange prices
have been relatively lower than freight rates.
Grapefruit prices have been relatively lower than freight rates
almost constantly since the 25 percent increase in freight rates
in June, 1918. The failure of grapefruit prices to advance along
with orange prices during the period of high cost of living indi-
cates that grapefruit have been considered more of a luxury than








Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


have oranges. However, since relatives of grapefruit prices have
failed to regain their parity with orange prices since 1921, it is
probable that grapefruit prices were abnorma 1 igh during the
base period.

TABLE XXXIX.-RELATION OF FARM PRICES OF FLORIDA ORANGES AND
GRAPEFRUIT TO THE GENERAL PRICE LEVEL AND TO FREIGHT RATES,
1910-11 TO 1928-29.*
(Average 1910-11 to 1914-15=100.)
Index Relation of Relatives
Number Relatives of Farm Purchasing Power to Index Numbers of
Season of all prices Freight Rates
Commodi-
ties Oranges Grapefruit Oranges Grapefruit Oranges Grapefruit

1910-11 98 99 101 101 103 97 99
1911-12 98 106 129 108 132 105 127
1912-13 102 113 90 111 88 115 91
1913-14 101 99 112 98 111 102 115
1914-15 100 84 68 84 68 85 69
1915-16 115 103 88 90 77 105 89
1916-17 161 126 108 78 67 128 110
1917-18 190 171 107 90 56 174 109
1918-19 204 166 106 81 52 134 86
1919-20 235 153 96 65 41 73 77
1920-21 174 156 119 90 68 )5 72
1921-22 145 166 90 114 62 108 58
1922-23 160 159 96 99 60 107 65
1923-24 154 76 49 49 32 51 33
1924-25 160 149 59 93 37 101 40
1925-26 158 162 106 103 67 109 72
1926-27 149 127 88 85 59 86 5'
1927-28 150 193 123 129 82 130 83
1928-29 150 116 87 77 58 80 60
*The index numbers of wholesale prices of all commodities shown above
were constructed by taking the simple averages of the monthly index number
for the eight-month periods, October to May. The relatives of orange and
grapefruit prices were constructed by taking the simple averages of orange
and grapefruit farm prices for the eight-month periods, October to May.
Original data given in appendix tables XXXII, XXXIII and XXXIV.

SUMMARY
The world's production of citrus fruits has been increasing at
a rapid rate during recent years. The United States is outstand-
ingly the largest producer, and is the only country which pro-
duces all three of the principal types of citrus fruits in commer-
cial quantities. Of the total production in 14 leading countries
over a period of years, the United States produced approximately
44 percent of the oranges, 92 percent of the grapefruit, 34 percent
of the lemons and 46 percent of all citrus fruits.
The production of oranges in Spain has been increasing rapidly
and that country is far in the lead as an exporter of this fruit.







Bulletin 217, Transportation of Florida Citrus Fruits 97

Approximately two-thirds of the total exports of oranges come
from Spain, and approximately 61 percent of the Spanish orange
exports go to the United Kingdom (Table II). Other foreign
countries where orange production is on the increase are Pales-
tine, Japan, Union of South Africa, and Australia. Orange pro-
duction is practically stationary in France, Tunis, and New Zea-
land, while there has been a material decrease in Italy and
Algeria.
The present competitors of the United States in the production
of grapefruit are Porto Rico, Union of South Africa, and the Isle
of Pines (Table I), and this competition is increasing rapidly,
both on our domestic markets and on the markets of Great
Britain.
The most important lemon producing areas are Italy and Cali-
fornia. Florida does not produce lemons in commercial quantities.
For the 10-year period ending with the 1928-29 season, Florida
produced an average of approximately 9,810,000 boxes of oranges
and tangerines, which represented 30.7 percent of the total pro-
duction for the United States (Appendix Table XV). The trend
of production has been upward for both states, but appreciably
more rapid for California than for Florida.
The production of grapefruit in Florida averaged approximate-
ly 7,250,000 boxes for the 10-year period ending with the 1928-29
season (Appendix Table XVI). This represented 90.4 percent of
the total United States production for the period. Although
Florida has had but little competition in grapefruit in the past,
this competition is rapidly increasing, especially from Texas.
New York, Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia are, in order, the
four most important markets for Florida oranges and grapefruit,
taking approximately one-half of the total shipments from Flor-
ida. Florida citrus fruits lead in the markets along the Atlantic
Seaboard and in the territory south of the Ohio and Potomac
rivers and east of the Mississippi River, while California fruits
lead in the great Western and mid-Western sections (Tables XIV
and XV).
It is difficult to state specifically which has the better freight
rate per box on citrus fruits, Florida or California, since the rate
structures are entirely different. There can be no question, how-
ever, as to which state has the lower rate per ton-mile to the prin-
cipal markets of the country. California's freight rate for citrus
fruits does not increase with the increased distance from ship-
ping points to destinations east of the so-called transcontinental






Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


line, which is approximately a straight line running north and
south through Denver, Colorado. Florida does not have such a
rate, but when the distance from shipping point is increased the
freight is increased. On the average, for each 100 miles increase
in distance from Florida shipping points there is an increase in
freight cost of about $21 per car (Fig. 20). For each 100 miles
increase in distance from Harlingen, Texas, there is an increase
in freight cost of about $14 per car (Fig. 21). The rate from
California does not increase after the shipment passes Denver,
regardless of distance (Fig. 22). California's fine geographical
distribution of citrus fruits is doubtless due largely to this blan-
ket rate structure.
The Florida and California rate increases and decreases fol-
lowed each other closely from 1900 to 1923. On December 3,
1923, however, rates from California to the East were reduced 10
percent. This reduction was only partially met by a decrease of
about 3 percent in the rates from Florida, effective November 9,
1928. Rates from Florida points to the West were at that time
materially reduced, but rates to the Atlantic Seaboard were in
some cases actually increased (Figs. 23 and 24).
The index numbers are now separated by about 9 points in
favor of California. When marketing costs for competing pro-
ducing areas are thrown out of equilibrium, production is ren-
dered relatively more profitable in one area and relatively less
profitable in the other area. The zone of marginality is extended
in the one area but restricted in the other. That is what has
happened in the case of citrus fruits. Prior to December, 1923,
the index numbers of freight rates from Florida and from Cali-
fornia, based on a pre-war level, were about equal. The present
differential of 9 points in favor of California is sufficient to cause
readjustments and to render citrus production in Florida rela-
tively less profitable.







Appendix 99


APPENDIX

TABLE I.-PRODUCTION OF ORANGES AND LEMONS IN SPAIN, 1923-24 TO
1927-28.*
(Reduced to boxes of 80 pounds for oranges and 74 pounds for lemons.)


Year Oranges Lemons Total


1923-24 ...................... 22,523,050 838,365 23,361,415

1925-26 ...................... 32,286,500 1,413,932 33,700,432
1926-27 ...................... 28,773,238 1,403,068 30,176,306
1927-28 ...................... 31,285,625 1,630,000 32,915,625
1928-29 ........... ........... 30,872,000 1,565,000 32,437,000
Average ...... ..............I 29,148,083 1,370,473 | 30,518,556

*Division of Statistical and Historical Research, U. S. Bureau of Agri-
cultural Economics.




TABLE II.-ORANGES: EXPORTS FROM VALENCIA, SPAIN, TO ALL COUNTRIES, BY
SEA, DURING THE YEARS, 1924, 1925 AND 1926.*
(Reduced to boxes of 80 pounds.)


Month 1924 1925 1926 Average


January ....... 1,879,395 3,279,463 1,560,828 2,239,895
February ..... 1,852,837 2,467,920 2,361,766 2,227,508
March ......... 2,763,791 2,289,178 1,841,566 2,298,178
April ......... 1,567,566 1,704,271 1,740,673 1,670,837
May .......... 1,420,710 1,031,200 1,008,796 1,153,569
June .......... 243,408 204,544 903,584 450,512
July ........... 27,504 63,492 150,315 80,437
August ....... 780 1,474 751
September .... .
October .... .. 6,579 7,609 4,729
November ...... 1,931,909 306,160 1,222,546 1,153,538
December ...... 1,892,650 3,473,991 2,526,838 2,631,160
Total .......... .13,587,129 14,820,219 13,325,995 13,911,114

*Data furnished by American Consul Clement S. Edwards, Valencia,
Spain.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs