• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Table of Contents
 Celery
 Sweet corn
 Potatoes
 Reference














Group Title: Economic Information Report - University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences ; 171
Title: A review of the current pricing systems of celery, sweet corn and potatoes
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00026468/00001
 Material Information
Title: A review of the current pricing systems of celery, sweet corn and potatoes
Series Title: Economic information report
Physical Description: iii, 35 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Kilmer, Richard L
Publisher: Food & Resource Economics Dept., Agricultural Experiment Stations, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1982
 Subjects
Subject: Celery -- Prices   ( lcsh )
Sweet corn -- Prices   ( lcsh )
Potatoes -- Prices   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: Richard L. Kilmer.
General Note: Cover title.
General Note: "November 1982."
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00026468
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 001548242
oclc - 22599508
notis - AHG1795

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Table of Contents
        Page i
        Page ii
        Page iii
    Celery
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
    Sweet corn
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
    Potatoes
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
    Reference
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
Full Text

'Richard L. Kilmer


Economic Information


Report 171




A Review of the Current Pricing
Systems of Celery, Sweet Corn,
and Potatoes


HUME LIBRARY
[A,,Y 10 1983
I.F.A.S. -Univ. of Floridal
- U" r' "lu ~-.. ii--iM,,


Food and Resource Economics Department
Agricultural Experiment Stations
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville 32611


November


1982









TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . .. i

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . ii

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . ii

CELERY . . . . . . .. 1

Summary . . . . . . 10

SWEET CORN . . . . . . . 10

Summary . . . . . . 20

POTATOES . . . . . . 20

Summary . . . . . . 30

CONCLUSION . . . .. . . 32

REFERENCES . . . . .. . . 33









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure # Page

1 Florida celery revenue and total cost per crate,
1947-81 . . . .. . 4

2 Distribution of crates shipped by organizations handling
Florida sweet corn .. . . . . 19


LIST OF TABLES
Table # page

1 Characteristics of Florida celery farms by census
years, 1945-78 . . . .. 5

2 Florida celery for fresh market and processing: acreage
planted and harvested, percent harvested and total pro-
duction, 1950-51 through 1980-81 . .... 6

3 Celery costs and revenue per crate in the Belle Glade
area, 1946-47 through 1980-81 season ... . 8

4 Celery: production for fresh market and processing,
selected states and United states, 1963-80, all seasons. 9

5 Sweet corn: production sold, monthly, Florida, crop
years 1973-74 through 1980-81 . . . 11

6 Winter and Spring sweet corn production for fresh mar-
ket: United States and Florida, 1964 to 1980 . 12

7 Sweet corn returns per crate in the lower east coast
area of Florida, 1962-63 through 1980-81 .. 13

8 Sweet corn returns per crate in the Central Florida
area, 1962-63 through 1980-81 . . . 14

9 Sweet corn returns per crate in the Everglades area
of Florida, 1962-63 through 1980-81. . . 15

10 Florida potato acreage, yield per acre, production,
and prices received by Florida farmers, 1962-81 . 21

11 Estimated costs and returns per acre for potatoes in
the Hastings area of Florida, 1960-61 through 1980-81 23

12 Estimated costs and returns per acre for potatoes in
Dade county, Florida, 1960-61 through 1980-81 . 24

13 Potatoes: average value per cwt. for fresh market
sales, monthly, Florida, crop years 1974-75 through
1980-81 .. . . . . . 25
ii









List of Tables (cont.)

Table #

14 Fall potatoes: production and total stocks held by
growers and local dealers, 15 states, 1972-80 ..

15 Distribution of the Hastings, Florida area chip
potato production, by seasons, 1970-79 . . .


iii


Page









A REVIEW OF THE CURRENT PRICING SYSTEMS
OF CELERY, SWEET CORN, AND POTATOES

By Richard L. Kilmer*

Returns to farmers have always been a policy issue in the United

States. Market orders, cooperatives, set aside programs, and support

prices are a few of the attempts to improve the plight of the farmer.

This publication looks at three commodities in Florida that either have

or have tried market orders and cooperatives in an attempt to improve

the position of the farmer.

CELERY

The celery industry is coordinated at the producer-first handler

level by the Florida Fresh Produce Exchange and a Federal Marketing Order.

A three person committee sets the F.O.B. prices farmers receive for celery.

Each morning, the committee contacts its fieldmen to determine the quan-

tity harvested the previous day, the expected harvest for the current day

and the amount on hand that has not been sold. This committee then con-

tacts salesmen that are under contract to the Exchange to determine the

demand conditions and any trends that appear to be developing. On Monday

and Wednesday mornings, the Exchange sets prices with the aid of the sup-

ply and demand information gathered. When necessary, the prices are

changed on other days of the week [Brooke and Jung, 1966, p. 6].

The Exchange is a sales cooperative whose members are celery growers

and celery sales firms (shippers). Cooperative membership is voluntary.

Members sign a contract with the Exchange which gives the Exchange title

to growers celery production and complete control over marketing. The

Exchange also signs contracts with celery shippers who are authorized



*Richard L. Kilmer is an assistant professor of the Food and Resource
Economics Department at the University of Florida, Gainesville.









sales agents for the Exchange. The shippers are required to follow all

rules and regulations set by the Exchange. Currently, 95 percent of all

Florida celery marketed is handled by the Exchange [Shonkwiler and

Pagoulatos, 1980, p. 113].

The effectiveness of the Exchange was enhanced with the establishment

of a State Marketing Order in 1961 and then a Federal Market Order in 1965.

The Federal Market Order replaced the State Order after it was ruled uncon-

stitutional [Brooke, 1979, p. 20]. The Federal Market Order forced all

producers in a marketing area to adhere to the rules and regulations stip-

ulated by the Order. These rules include regulations of quantity marketed,

quality, pack and container regulations, prohibition of unfair trade prac-

tices, research and advertising. Although the exchange is voluntary, the

marketing order provides the supply control mechanism necessary for a

voluntary sales cooperative to be effective. The Exchange and Market

Order operate with committees and directors that coordinate activities.

Cutting holidays can be decreed by the Market Order if the celery market

is experiencing an over supply. In the longer run, the amount that the

industry intends to market in the coming year is established after an eco-

nomic and marketing survey is conducted. Each firm is given an allotment

based on past production. With supply control and supply information

obtained through the Federal Marketing Order plus sales firms that are in

continuous contact with buyers, the Exchange is able to determine both

the supply and demand situation in order to set price.

Celery marketing was not always as organized. Starting as early as

1910, celery farmers in different counties organized cooperatives but the

cooperatives had little or no power to set price or quantities for market-

ing. This lack of organization among celery producers resulted in some









years when the average cost of production was above the celery revenue

and some years when a profit was made (Figure 1). In 1959, 1960, and 1961

the F.O.B. price was below the estimated average cost of production [Brooke

and Jung, 1966, p. 3]. Many growers were struggling to maintain an econom-

ically solvent business. To improve the profit picture and to reduce

price instability, a voluntary Exchange and a Market Order were established

to improve prices received by farmers. The combination of an industry bor-

dering on financial collapse and the fact that the number of celery farms

in Florida in 1959 was 54, down from 320 in 1945 (Table 1), provided the

environment for institution of an organized marketing approach for the

celery industry.

Other factors contributing to a favorable environment for cooperation

include the concentrated geographical location of celery producers. In

the 1962-63 season, 74 percent of the acres planted (78 percent of produc-

tion) was in the Belle Glade area of South Florida with the remaining 26

percent of the planted acres in three locations: Sarasota County,

Alachua County, and the last of the three location in a group of three

counties Lake, Orange, and Seminole [Brooke and Jung, 1966, p. 10].

Today 86 percent of the planted celery acreage is located in the Belle

Glade area [Florida Agricultural Statistics, 1981, p. 20].

The total acres planted and harvested has trended downward since

1966-67, one year after the Federal Market Order was established and five

years after the Exchange was organized. The percentage of acres harvested

decreased from an average of 97 percent during the 1950-51 through 1965-66

seasons to 90 percent from 1966-67 to 1973-74 (Table 2). Then the percen-

tage harvested increased to an average of 94 percent.

The per crate net revenue effects of the coordinated marketing








Figure 1. Florida celery revenue and total cost per crate, 1947-81.


*Total Cost



Revenues


19!7 9!9 19 19!3 l s 19t 1959 N S19 1
Years


Source: [3]





Table 1. Characteristics of Florida celery farms by census years, 1945-78.


Crop and Item 1945 1950 1954 1959 1964 19691 19741 1978


Celery
Number of Farms 320 589 77 54 32 22 23 18

Acres 10,474 9,589 7,604 13,419 12,361 10,696 10,948 11,557

Acres per Farm 33 58 99 248 386 486 478 642


.Source: [19]


Farms with sales of $2,500 or more.







Table 2.--Florida celery for fresh market and processing: acreage planted
and harvested, percent harvested and total production, 1950-51
through 1980-81.


Crop Year Acreage Planted Harvested Percent Total Production
Harvested (Crates @ 60 ibs)
(1000)


Acres Percent (000)


1950-51
1951-52
1952-53
1953-54
1954-55
1955-56
1956-57
1957-58
1958-59
1959-60
1960-61
1961-62
1962-63
1963-64
1964-65
1965-66
(Average
1966-67
1967-68
1968-69
1969-70
1970-71
1971-72
1972-73
1973-74
(Average
1974-75
1975-76
1976-77
1977-78
1978-79
1979-80
1980-81
(Average


10,900 10,400
10,550 10,400
10,200 10,000
10,900 10,600
9,200 9,100
10,400 10,100
11,200 10,300
12,100 11,400
13,800 13,300
11,900 11,300
10,400 10,200
10,800 10,600
11,300 11,100
11,200 11,100
11,700 11,600
12,400 12,200
1950-51 through 1965-66)
13,000 11,400
12,400 11,100
12,800 11,800
12,900 11,300
12,800 11,600
12,600 11,600
12,700 11,500
12,200 10,400
1966-67 through 1973-74)
11,500 10,600
10,400 9,700
10,700 10,100
11,300 10,900
12,300 11,700
12,700 12,200
11,700 10,400
1974-75 through 1980-81)


95
99
98
97
99
97
92
94
96
95
98
98
98
99
99
98
(97)
88
90
92
88
91
92
91
85
(90)
92
93
94
96
95
96
89
(94)


6,886
7,255
6,476
7,316
6,985
6,675
6,518
5,421
7,635
6,950
7,296
7,123
7,507
7,672
7,805
8,255

8,717
7,835
7,783
6,688
7,940
7,670
8,102
6,665

6,940
6,665
5,833
6,410
8, 135
8,210
6,291


Source: [9]








arrangement in celery have been positive. When the 1961-62 through the

1980-81 seasons are compared with the 1946-47 through 1960-61 seasons, net

revenue per crate as a percent of total revenue is 13.3 and 10.5 percent,

respectively, with coefficient of variations of 1.30 and 1.9 (Table 3).

Land rent, depreciation, licenses and insurance and interest on invested

capital were not deducted before the net return to producers was calculated.

If the period from 1961-62 through 1972-73 (pre-energy price increase) is

compared to the post celery exchange era, the results are 18.0 and 10.5

with coefficients of variation of .8 and 1.9.

The net revenue per crate is not an adequate measure of industry pro-

fits. The return on investment and producer supervision could be used to

directly compare the industry's return with alternative investments into

which the invested capital from celery might flow. The profit per crate is

also inadequate because it does not consider the volume of production that

one grower produces. A large grower can operate on a low profit margin and

still demonstrate an adequate return because of high volume. Since 1954,

farm size has increased from 33 acres per farm to 642 acres in 1978

(Table 1) which indicates an increase in the volume produced by any grower

but-an unknown indication of industry profitability.

The national celery market restricts the pricing policies followed by

the Exchange. California produces celery throughout the year. From 1963

to 1980, California's. market share of United States celery increased from

53.7 percent to 71.4 percent (Table 4) and then decreased to 64 percent.

Florida's market share trended downward and stabilized at approximately

25 percent starting in 1974. Over the same period, Florida-California

production as a percentage of the total United States production

increased 4.8 percentage points. California is perceived as being

the quality leader while the quality of Florida's celery has












Table 3. Celery costs and revenue per crate
1946-47 through 1980-81 season.


in the Belle Glade area,


a Operating Fixed Harvesting and Total Net Percent
Season Revenue Cost Cost Marketing Cost Cost Revenue of Revenue


1946-47 3.800 1.092 0.162 1.228 2.482 1.480 38.947
1947-48 1.929 0.960 0.099 1.225 2.284 -0.256 -13.271
1948-49 3.149 0.764 0.072 1.190 2.026 1.195 37.949
1949-50 1.946 0.810 0.065 1.119 1.994 0.017 0.874
1950-51 2.220 0.823 0.081 1.126 2.030 0.271 0.122
1951-52 2.143 0.697 0.062 1.233 1.992 0.213 9.939
1952-53 1.997 0.761 0.068 1.083 1.912 0.153 7.661
1953-54 1.952 0.711 0.073 1.101 1.885 0.140 7.172
1954-55 2.292 0.626 0.070 1.025 1.721 0.641 27.967
1955-56 1.830 0.737 0.067 1.003 1.807 0.090 4.918
1956-57 2.338b 0.875 0.092 1.1023 2.069 0.361 15.441
1957-58 3.180b 0.7663 1.0673 1.9223 1.347 42.358
1958-59 1.420b 0.7663 1.0673 1.9223 -0.413 -29.085
1959-60 1.690 0.7663 1.067- 1.9223 -0.413 -8.462
1960-61 1.743 0.657 0.087 1.031 1.775 0.055 3.155
1961-62 3.324 0.799 0.102 1.092 1.993 1.433 43.111
1962-63 2.376 0.802 0.116 1.111 2.029 0.463 19.487
1963-64 2.853 0.817 0.109 1.179 2.105 0.857 30.039
1964-65 2.497 0.944 0.119 1.248 2.311 0.305 0.122
1965-66 2.851 0.863 0.123 1.466 2.452 0.522 18.309
1966-67 2.402 0.968 0.127 1.495 2.590 -0.061 -2.540
1967-68 3.706 1.036 0.129 1.625 2.790 0.415 13.492
1968-69 3.234 0.995 0.130 1.748 2.873 0.491 15.182
1969-70 3.925 1.216 0.181 1.928 3.325 0.781 19.898
1970-71 2.645 1.035 0.144 1.825 3.004 -0.215 -8.129
1971-72 4.962 1.143 0.147 1.944 3.234 1.875 37.787
1972-73 3.881 1.123 0.158 2.104 3.385 0.654 16.851
1973-74 3.041 1.489 0.196 2.243 3.928 -0.691 -22.723
1974-75 3.644 1.901 0.219 2.480 4.600 -0.737 -20.225
1975-76 5.905 1.835 0.255 2.374 4.464 1.696 28.721
1976-77 6.465 2.657 0.328 2.533 5.518 1.275 19.722
1977-78 6.716 2.737 0.455 2.787 5.979 1.192 17.749
1978-79 6.514 2.015 0.367 3.103 5.485 1.396 21.431
1979-80 5.687 2.478 0.441 2.919 5.838 0.290 5.099
1980-81 6.250 2.780 0.470 3.489 6.739 -0.019 -0.304


Source: [a.


3; b. 9, 1963, p. 28]


Fixed cost includes land rent,
and interest on investment.


depreciation, licenses and insurance,


2Net revenue equals revenue minus operating cost minus harvesting and
marketing cost.


3Data not available. The number represents the average of 1956-57 and
1960-61.





Table 4.--Celery: production for fresh market and processing, selected states and United States,
1963-80, all seasons


Year United States Florida California California and Florida as
Percent of U.S. Production


1,000 cwt. 1,000 cwt % 1,000 cwt % %


1963 14,280 4,503 31.5 7,671 53.7 85.2
1964 13,856 4,419 31.9 7,419 53.5 85.4
1965 13,949 4,548 32.6 7,491 53.7 86.3
1966 14,650 4,873 33.3 8,087 55.2 88.5
1967 14,662 4,621 31.5 8,201 55.9 87.4
1968 15,447 4,349 28.2 9,195 59.5 87.7
1969 15,649 4,541 29.0 9,404 60.1 89.1
1970 15,332 4,012 26.2 9,690 63.2 89.4
1971 15,909 4,553 28.6 9,166 57.6 86.2
1972 16,021 4,772 29.8 9,886 61.7 91.5
1973 16,784 4,561 27.2 10,576 63.0 90.2
1974 16,476 4,037 24.5 10,783 65.4 89.9
1975 15,826 3,901 24.6 10,542 66.6 91.2
1976b 16,904 4,249 25.1 11,110 65.7 90.8
1977b 16,561 3,223 20.3 11,828 71.4 90.9
1978 17,201 4,275 24.9 11,524 67.0 91.9
1979, 17,603 4,524 25.7 11,488 65.3 91.0
1980b 18,655 4,856 26.0 11,938 64.0 90.0


Source: [a. 6, p. 25; b. 18]








improved over the past several years and is now considered comparable to

California quality [Mathis and Degner, 1976, p. 52].

The competition between Florida and California occurs from October to

July, the harvesting dates for Florida celery. Shonkwiler and Pagoulatos

found that prices and quantities shipped from California significantly

affect the producer-shipper level of demand for Florida celery. A ten

percent increase in previous week's shipment from California reduces the

demand for Florida celery by 2.1 percent. If the previous week's produ-

cer-shipper price in California increased 10 percent, the demand for

Florida celery increases by 3.4 percent. During the time that the Florida

Celery Exchange and Federal Market Order have been in effect, California

has proceeded to increase its market share by 8.1 percentage points.

Summary

Florida has only 25 percent of the market with California having in

excess of 60 percent of the national celery market. The celery producers

have an organized marketing effort composed of a Celery Exchange and a

market order. The celery producers are small in number (18 in 1978) and

large in size (642 acres in 1978). After the Celery Exchange and mar-

keting order were in effect, per crate net revenue increased and vari-

ability decreased.

SWEET CORN

The majority of Florida's fresh sweet corn production occurs in the

winter and spring quarters (81 percent during the 1980-81 season (Table 5)).

Florida's market share of the United States market during these months has

been approximately 85 percent (Table 6). Even with this advantage, the

Florida sweet corn industry has experienced unstable prices and low to

negative returns per crate (Table 7, 8, 9). Some of the variability in















Table 5. Sweet Corn: Production sold, monthly, Florida, crop years 1973-74 through


Crop Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April May June July Total
Year
-------------- 1,000 crates ------------------
1973-74 619 831 683 729 552 1,229 1,512 3,457 2,088 145 11,845
1974-75 857 1,052 538 993 586 969 1,957 2,726 2,238 72 11,988
1975-76 1,000 652 388 834 726 1,131 1,957 3,660 2,724 171 13,243
1976-77 1,064 953 783 616 62 ---- 1,788 3,660 2,638 426 11,990
1977-78 1,001 1,002 857 657 402 767 1,038 3,355 3,195 400 12,674
1978-79 888 867 412 495 457 1,031 1,990 3,186 2,388 398 12,112
1979-80 424 664 755 598 557 909 1,376 3,045 2,248 581 11,157
1530-81a/ 640 962 536 364 90 274 1,460 3,283 3,376 274 11,259
----------------- Percent -----------------
1973-74 5.2 7.0 5.8 6.2 4.7 .10.3 12.8 29.2 17.6 1.2 100.0
1974-75 7.1 8.8 4.5 8.3 4.9 8.1 16.3 22.7 18.7 .6 100.0
1975-76 7.6 4.9 2.9 6.3 5.5 8.5 14.8 27.6 20.6 1.3 100.0
1976-77 8.9 7.9 6.5 5.2 .5 --- 14.9 30.5 22.0 3.6 100.0
1977-78 7.9 7.9 6.8 5.2 3.2 6.0 8.2 26.5 25.2 3.1 100.0
1978-79 7.3 7.2 3.4 4.1 3.8 8.5 16.4 26.3 19.7 3.3 100.0
1979-80 3.8 5.9 6.8 5.4 5.0 8.1 12.3 27.3 20.2 5.2 100.0
1980-81 5.7 8.5 4.8 3.2 .8 2.4 13.0 29.2 30.0 2.4 100.0
Source: [9]
a/ September included with October.











Table 6. Winter and Spring sweet corn production for fresh market:
United States and Florida, 1964 to 1980O


Florida Other States United States
Year 1000 cwt % of United States 1,000 cwt. 1,000 cwt.

1964 2,763 73% 1,025 3,788
1965 3,217 77 968 4,185
1966 3,490 80 859 4,349
1967 3,921 83 784 4,705
1968 3,282 80 839 4,121
1969 3,895 87 574 4,469
1970 3,345 80 822 4,167
1971 3,498 85 613 4,111
1972 3,858 82 852 4,710
1973 4,370 86 704 5,074
1974 4,079 88 578 4,657
1975 4,007 85 720 4,727
b
1976 4,705 85 842 5,547
1977b 3,860 81 922 4,782
b
1978 4,122 81 949 5,071
1979b 4,177 86 709 4,886
1980b 3,912 85 692 4,604


Source: [a. 6, p. 47; b. 18]











Table 7. Sweet corn returns per crate in the lower east coast area of Florida, 1962-63
through 1980-81.

Picking,
Packing, container
Revenue Growing Cost and Hauling Cost Selling and other Cost Net Revenue
Season Dollar Dollar % of Revenue Dollar % of Revenue Dollar X of Revenue Dollar % of Revenue

1962-63 2.567 1.098 43.8 .713 27.8 .220 8.6 .536 20.8
1963-64 3.349 1.662 49.6 .790 23.6 .249 7.4 .648 19.4
1964-65 3.288 1.911 58.1 .744 22.6 .265 8.1 .368 11.2
1965-661/ 2.731 1.712 62.7 .812 29.7 .331 12.1 -.124 -4.5
1966-67 2.993 1.527 51.0 .824 27.5 .346 11.6 .296. 9.9
1967-68 3.083 1.607 52.1 .917 29.8 .379 12.3 .179 5.8
1968-69 3.640 1.386 38.0 1.032 28.4 .429 11.8 .793 21.8
1969-70 3.606 3.142 87.1 1.004 27.8 .460 12.8 -1.00 -27.7
1970-71 4.025 2.342 58.2 1.106 27.5 .353 8.8 .224 5.5
1971-72 N/A -------
1972-73 3.420 1.633 47.7 1.127 33.0 .441 12.9 .219 6.4
1973-74 3.524 2.086 59.2 1.217 34.5 .429 12.2 -.208 -5.9
1974-75 3.95 2.04 51.6 1.377 34.8 .496 12.5 .037 .01
1975-76 4.771 2.091 43.8 1.345 28.2 .529 11.1 .806 16.9
1976-77 4.555 4.067 89.2 1.392 30.6 .599 13.2 -1.503 -33.0
1977-78 5.307 2.452 46.2 1.453 27.4 .634 11.9 .768 14.5
1978-79 5.445 2.830 52.0 1.593 29.3 .735 13.5 .287 5.2
1979-80 Not Published this year
1980-81 5.125 3.513 68.5 1.738 33.9 .823 16.1 -.949 -18.5

Source: [a. 3; b. 17]














Table 8. Sweet corn returns per crate in the Central Florida area, 1962-63 through
1980-81.


1962-63
1963-64
1964-65
1965-66
1966-67
1967-68
1968-69
1969-70
1970-71
1971-72
1972-73
1973-74
1974-75
1975-76
1976-77
1977-78
1978-79
1979-80


2.078
2.309
1.936
2.082
2.462
2.403
2.148
2.505
2.398
2.617
2.804
3.322
4.246
2.898
3.199
3.452
3.442


.933
.809
.753
.991
.829
1.526
.898
.893
1.035
1.183
.993
1.433
1.418
1.642
1.324
1.321
1.696


44.9
35.0
38.9
47.6
33.7
63.5
41.8
35.6
43.2
45.2
35.4
43.1
33.4
56.7
41.4
38.3
49.3


.696
.685
.763
.832
.808
.974
.915
1.023
1.021
1.06
1.08
1.029
1.294
1.233
1.392
1.448
1.653


Not Published this year


1980-81 4.374 2.089


47.8 1-.74


33.5
29.7
39.4
40.0
32.8
40.5
42.6
40.8
42.6
40.5
38.5
31.0
30.5
42.5
43.5
41.9
48.0


39.8


.274
.295
.297
.340
.357
.460
.393
.464
.481
.453
.510
.461
.455
.483
.501
.545
.540


13.2
12.8
15.3
16.3
14.5
19.2
18.3
18.5
20.0
17.3
18.2
13.9
10.7
16.7
15.7
15.8
15.7


.175
.520
.123
-.081
.468
-.557
-.058
.125
-.139
-.079
.221
.399
1.079
-.460
-.018
.137
-.447


12.6 -.008


Source: [a. 3; b. 17]


8.4
22.5
6.4
-3.9
19.0
-23.2
-2.7
5.0
-5.8
-3.0
7.9
12.0
25.4
-15.9
-.6
4.0
-13.0














Table 9. Sweet corn returns per crate in the Everglades area of Florida, 1962-63 through
1980r81.

Picking,
Packing, container
Revenue Growing Cost and Hauling Cost Selling and other Cost Net Revenue
Season Dollar Dollar % of Revenue Dollar % of Revenue Dollar I of Revenue Dollar % of Revenue

1962-63 2.100 1.140 54.3 .681 32.4 .277 13.3 .001 0.0
1963-64 2.386 1.419 59.5 .718 30.1 .260 10.9 -.011 -.5
1964-65 2.556 1.325 51.8 .762 29.8 .277 10.8 .192 7.5
1965-66 2.197 1.262 57.4 .816 37.2 .312 14.2 -.193 -8.8
1966-67 2.329 1.220 52.4 .870 37.4 .331 14.2 -.092 -4.0
1967-68 2.468 1.288 52.2 .871 35.3 .400 16.2 -.091 -3.7
1968-69 2.544 1.271 50.0 .916 36.0 .426 16.7 -.069 -2.7
1969-70 3.010 1.427 47.4 ..002 33.3 .459 15.2 .122 4.1
1970-71 2.753 1.420 51.6 1.061 38.5 .461 16.8 -.189 -6.9
1971-72 2.618 1.330 50.8 1.053 40.2 .424 16.2 -.189 -7.2
1972-73 2.692 1.052 39.7 .614 22.8 .438 16.3 .020 .7
1973-74 3.332 1.196 35.9 1.281 38.4 .485 14.6 .370 11.1
1974-75 3.786 1.372 36.2 1.452 38.4 .518 13.7 .426 11.3
1975-76 3.313 1.690 51.1 1.373 41.4 .577 17.4 -.327 -9.9
1976-77 3.565 1.929 54.1 1.505 42.2 .583 16.4 -.452 -12.7
1977-78 3.614 2.355 65.2 1.605 44.4 .661 18.3 -1.007 -27.9
1978-79 3.720 2.560 68.8 2.018 54.2 .657 17.7 -1.515 -40.7
1979-80 Not Published this year
1980-81 4.507 2.306 51.2 2.204 48.9 .735 16.3 -.738 -16.4


Source: [a. 3; b. 17]









returns to the industry can be attributed to production risks. Production

risks include extreme temperatures (the most important), excessive rain-

fall, high winds, insect damage, and plant diseases (Brooke and Bell, 1965,

p. 13).

In the past 19 years, Central Florida and the Everglades have

experienced unprofitable years 9 and 12 of the past 19 years (Table 8,

9). In 1980-81, 79.8 percent of the sweet corn was produced in those two

regions. The lower east coast has been somewhat more fortunate by exper-

inencing only five unprofitable years in the last 19 (Table 7). Starting

in January, the percentage marketed increases and drops abruptly to

1-2 percent in July. Production then ceases until September (Table

5).

Florida experiences very little competition from other areas of the

country during the winter and spring quarters when Florida produces

approximately 85 percent of the fresh sweet corn marketed nationally

(Table 6). During the fall quarter, however, Florida is not a dominant

force. In 1980 California's market share of the fall national market

was 88.3 percent with Florida having 11.7 percent [USDA, 1981, p.

170].

The most active harvesting dates for Florida sweet corn are November

15 July 15 [Florida Agricultural Statistics, 1981, p. iii]. California's

most active period ends about November 20 [Brooke and Bell, 1965, p. 16].

From then until May 1, Florida has virtually no competition in the national

fresh sweet corn market until approximately May 1 when the spring crop

from Texas enters the market. California re-enters the market during the

middle of May followed by Alabama. However, during the spring quarter,

Florida still had 81 percent of the market in 1980 [USDA, 1981, p. 170].










During the same time period that the Celery Exchange and Marketing

Order was established, a Sweet Corn Exchange was organized. The Sweet Corn

Exchange was a voluntary sales cooperative. Its members gave title of their

sweet corn to the exchange as well as exclusive marketing rights. The

exchange authorized sales agencies to market the sweet corn of members. The

price was set by the Sweet Corn Exchange. In conjunction with the exchange,

a Federal Marketing Order controlled all producers in a given geographic

area. The federal order was established after approval by at least 65 per-

cent of the effected growers who produced at least 78 percent of the sweet

corn volume in the relevant area plus handlers who controlled at least 65

percent of the corn volume [Brooke and Bell, 1965, p. 76]. The federal

order was to [Taken from Brooke and Bell, 1965, pp. 77-78].

1. Limit the total quantity of sweet corn, or that of any grade

size or quality, which may be distributed by handlers.

2. Limit grade, size or quality which may be distributed during

a particular period of the marketing year.

3. Allot equitably among handlers the total quantity or the

quantity of grade, size or quality that may be placed in the

primary channels of trade. This allotment is based on sales

in a prior period which the commissioner finds representative.

The first active year of the Market Order and Exchange was 1962-63.

The market order covered 83 percent of the total fresh sweet corn volume

in Florida which was composed of the Everglades and South Florida produc-

tion areas. The remaining 17 percent was produced by Central Florida.

The Sweet Corn Exchange, however, was responsible for marketing only 64

percent of Florida's crop [Brooke and Bell, 1965, p. 85]. Thus, the price

set by the exchange could be under cut by non-members.








The market channel organization in 1962-63 (Figure 2) has not changed

over the years except for the abandonment of the Federal Marketing Order

and the reduction of the Sweet Corn Exchange to a price recommending

institution whose role is price information. Salesmen representing one or

more growers plus brokers at shipping points sell sweet corn to buyers via

the telephone. The sales are generally made on an F.O.B. or delivered

basis to grocery chains, large independent grocers and wholesalers.

A survey was taken by Brooke and Bell to obtain reaction by sales

firms to the operation of the marketing order and Exchange in its first

year of operation. They found that (1) selling firms had to make more phone

calls to locate buyers when prices were.fixed, and (2) that buyers were not

happy with the new arrangements. The buyers indicated (1) that the prices

set by the exchange did not reflect the true value of the fresh sweet corn

and (2) that forward pricing of corn for large volumes that could be used

in pre-planned promotional programs was not possible [Brooke and Bell,

1965, p. 84]. Because of the lack of cooperation among growers, the mar-

keting order was discontinued after the 1967-68 marketing season. The

Florida Sweet Corn Exchange continued to operate only in the capacity of

a price recommending agent to the sweet corn industry. Brooke [1979, p. 15]

indicates that "perhaps when grower members reach 50 or fewer as in the case

of celery, effective production and marketing cooperation can be achieved".

The number of producers in 1978 was 344 [19].

The Sweet Corn Exchange plays an important role by providing supply

and demand information to sweet corn growers and shippers. Buyers and

sellers negotiate over the telephone. With sellers located in Florida and

selling in the national market, information must be collected from a vari-

ety of sources in order for sellers to be knowledgeable in negotiations














































Figure 2.. Growers and Organizations involved in producing and marketing

Florida sweetcorn.


Source: [4, p. 86]









with buyers. The importance of the Sweet Corn Exchange could be increased

if all growers and shippers were members of the Exchange and achieved supply

control through the rules and regulations of a Federal Market Order. Research

to establish the economic effect of such an organization would be beneficial

to the industry.

One of the key problems that any organization must help the sweet corn

growers solve is to provide a continuous supply over the marketing season.

Currently, approximately 50 percent of Florida's production is marketed in May

and June (Table 5). Fresh sweet corn has limited storage capability (2-3

weeks) and must be marketed shortly after harvest. Smoothing production

over the entire marketing year in order to smooth the marketing flow is

important, but will be difficult to accomplish because of weather.

Summary

The sweet corn producers are large in number (344 in 1978) and have

tried an arrangement similar to the celery producers. The marketing order

was abandoned and the Sweet Corn Exchange provides information concerning

supply and demand but has little or no control over supply or sales.

Unlike celery, Florida has 85 percent of the fresh sweet corn market during

Florida's marketing season; however, returns are low and variable.

POTATOES

The value of Florida's potato production has been highly variable

over the years (Table 10). The highest value ever received was in the 1981

season, when 6,565,000 cwts. of potatoes were marketed at a statewide

average price of 11.10 per cwt (F.O.B. shipping point) for a total value

of $72.9 million (Table 10). Over the past five year period (1977-81),

the average value per cwt for the winter crop area has been $10.80 and for

the spring crop, (Hastings) is has been $5.78. For the state as a whole











Table O. Florida potato acreage, yield per
1962-1981.


acre, production, and prices received by Florida farmers,


Acreage Percentage Total
Year Planted Harvested Harvested Yield/acre Production Value Price

--------acres --------- --Percent-- ---cwts--- -1000 cwts-- -1000-

1962 30,600 30,500 99.7 152 4,633 $14,396 $3.11
1963 35,200 35,100 99.7 179 6,268 15,611 2.50
1964 33,100 32,700 98.8 158 5,180 19,128 3.69
1965 41,800 41,200 98.6 148 6,082 28,604 4.70
1966 44,800 43,500 97.1 134 6,294 22,162 3.52
1967 45,000 36,100 80.2 132 4,778 16,709 3.50
1968 43,300 41,900 96.8 162 6,767 22,992 3.40
1969 41,900 40,400 96.4 180 7,264 22,487 3.10
1970. 37,700 36,700 97.3 162 5,936 23,055 3.88
1971 36,400 36,300 99.7 134 4,862 19,438 4.00
1972 33,700 32,600 96.7 141 4,606 15,933 3.46
1973 30,200 30,200 100.0 182 5,510 30,275 5.49
1974 31,300 30,900 98.7 179 5,533 42,715 7.72
1975 27,600 27,500 99.6 194 5,344 24,813 4.64
1976 31,900 31,000 97.2 203 6,293 41,931 6.66
1977 30,500 30,100 98.7 206 6,207 41,670 6.71
1978 32,800 32,300 98.5 175 5,658 35,171 6.21
1979 30,700 28,000 94.6 215 6,008 30,435 5.06
1980 29,600 27,300 92.2 194 5,304 36,217 6.80
1981 30,500 29,900 98.0 220 6.565 72,872 11.10

Source: [9]









the average value F.O.B. has been $7.27 [Florida Agricultural Statistics,

1981, p. 34].

The range of net returns per acre and the net returns per cwt have

generally been low and variable in both regions of major production. Over

the past five year period (1977-81) the net returns per acre in the Hastings

area (spring crop) have varied from-$143.13 to 779.80, with an average of

$103.19 (Table 11). The Dade county area (winter crop) showed an even

greater variance in net returns per acre: from-$279.96 to $1,227.87 with

an average of $181.19 (Table 12).

During the 1970's, the Hastings area produced potatoes mainly for

processing by the chipping industry. In 1981, the Dade county area pro-

duced mainly red potatoes for table use. Because of their early harvest

and marketing the Dade county potatoes (winter area) receive a higher

price than those of the Hastings area (spring crop See Table 13). This

should have a favorable impact on Dade county net returns, but it is not

the case.

The average net returns for the past five years (1976-80) were signi-

ficantly lower in the Dade county area ($16.17 versus $90.40 per acre for

the spring area Table 11, 12). This is due to at least two factors:

First production costs are higher in Dade county than in the Hastings

area. For the 1976-80 seasons, production costs per acre were 31 percent

higher (Tables 11, 12). Second, yield per acre is slightly lower in the

winter crop area than in the spring crop area: 161 cwts/acre versus 213

cwts/acre [Taylor, 1982].

SThe remaining portion of this paper will deal with potatoes grown in

the Hastings area of Florida (spring crop) which planted 68.9 percent of

the Florida potato acreage in 1981 and harvested 76.5 percent of the








Table 11. Estimated costs and
Hastings area of


returns per acre for potatoes in the
Florida, 1960-61 through 1980-81.


Season a/ Crop Sales Total Costs Net Returns


1960-61
1961-62
1962-63
1963-64
1964-65
1965-66
1966-67
1967-68
1968-69
1969-70
1970-71
1971-72
1972-73
1973-74
1974-75
1975-76
1976-77
1977-78
1978-79
1979-80 I
1980-81 ci


--$/acre--

$ 454.20
498.77
509.81
575.21
745.80
456.04
228.51
468.56
534.94
530.28
484.08
412.77
889.27
930.23
834.10
995.10
1,012.90
933.31
931.47
1,109.11
2,057.83


Source: Ea. 3; b. 1; c. 17]


439.00
410.57
456.09
428.38
444.79
449.72
371.64
451.45
509.26
495.22
265.91
473.02
545.02
655.28
769.63
836.4.6
851.42
853.77
926.73
1,061.49
1,278.03


15.20
88.20
53.72
146.83
301.01
6.32
-143.13
17.11
25.68
35.06
18.17
-60.25
344.25
274.95
64.47
158.64
161.48
79.54
4.74
47.62
779.80.









Tablel2. Estimated costs and returns per acre for potatoes in Dade
county,-' Florida, 1960-61 thorugh1980-81.



Season/ Crop Sales Total Cost Net Returns

--$/acre-- --$/acre-- --$/acre--

1960-61 404.98 491.38 -86.40
1961-62 648.84 540.07 108.77
1962-63 509.36 503.95 5.41
1963-64 746.57 507.38 239.19
1964-65 861.50 532.72 328.78
1965-66 653.54 523.87 129.67
1966-67 702.84 609.24 93.60
1967-68 708.12 576.95 131.17
1968-69 611.31 595.67 15.64
1969-70 780.63 616.98 163.65
1970-71 679.46 662.75 16.71
1971-72 492.13 683.69 -191.56
1972-73 1,305.88 777.57 528.31
1973-74 2,156.22 1,002.64 1153.58
1974-75 907.28 1,047.46 -140.18
1975-76 1,593.43 1,140.65 452.78
1976-77 981.72 952.24 29.48
1977-78 1,122.97 1,052.01 70.76
1978-79 1,095.52 1,285.73 -192.21
1979-80c/ 1,228.31 1,508.26 -279.96
1980-81d/ 2,745.90 1,518.03 1.227.87

Source: [b. 3; c. 1; d. 17]

a/The Dade county area provided 79.4 percent of the winter
crop acreage harvested in Florida in 1980.











Table U. Potatoes: Average value per cwt. for Fresh Market Sales,
Monthly, Florida, Crop Years 1974-75 through1980-81.



Crop Jan. Feb. March April May June Average
Year

Dollars

1974-75 9.50 7.00 5.00 4.55 4.21 7.02 4.64

1975-76 12.50 11.00 10.00 8.31 5.31 4.61 6.66

1976-77 10.50 11.50 10.40 10.42 5.42 5.53 6.84

1977-78 11.70 10.10 6.75 6.43 5.17 5.85 6.21

1978-79 11.70 8.20 6.50 6.94 4.61 3.77 5.06

1979-80 12.00 11.20 10.20 9.82 5.71 4.94 6.85
1980-81 --- 22.20 25.40 16.80 8.69 7.80 11.10


S winter crop / /


spring crop


Source: [9]









potatoes produced [Florida Agricultural Statistics, 1981, p. 34]. Florida

has variable monthly and annual prices which result in variable returns per

acre (Table 11, 13).

The variable prices result from three main sources. First, the 120

Hastings producers harvest the potato crop in a six to eight week period

starting in late April and ending the first part of June, with May being

the heaviest month. Second, Hastings production represented 20.6 percent

of the United States spring production and 1.2 percent of annual United

States production in 1980 [USDA, 1981, p. 181]. Third, improved storage

technology has allowed the fall and winter crop of potatoes to be stored

for a long period of time, thus, decreasing the reliance on the spring

crop to provide potatoes during the spring and summer months.

The first factor, dealing with the short period of harvest, seems to

be unavoidable. Farms must consider weather conditions (frost and cold

weather) when deciding the planting dates for their crop.

Hastings produces a small proportion of the United States produc-

tion of potatoes (1.2 percent in 1980). Buyers of Hastings potatoes

are processors that manufacture potato chips for regional and national

distribution. The processors has access to production from many parts

of the nation. Thus, the price paid to Hastings farmers is influenced

by the national market. This influence has been increased in recent

years with improved storage technology that allows the fall potato

crop to be stored for use throughout the year rather than immediate

use.

The importance of the Hastings area crop has diminished over time,

due to improvements in storage technology. In modern storage facilities,









temperature, humidity and ventilation are controlled so as to minimize weight

losses and quality deterioration. In addition, chemical sprout inhibitors

are applied to potatoes which are to be stored for longer than four months.

These improvements make it less risky and more profitable for fall potato

producers to market their product throughout the year (Fall production re-

presented 87.9 percent of the total United States production in 1980

[USDA, 1981, p. 181]).

Thus, since 1972, there has been a general increase in the percentage

of the fall crop in storage as of April first of each year (Table 14). The

1981 Hastings potato crop of 5,023,000 cwts represented 6.9 percent of fall

potatoes in storage on April first 1981, 72,460,000 cwts (Table 14). Levins

found that a nine percent change in the fall production level changed the

short-run and long-run prices for the Hastings crop by 20 percent and 26

percent. As storage technology continues to improve, increasing the per-

centage of the fall crop in storage on April first, Hastings potato prices

will become increasingly influenced by the national potato market.

Mr. Rose 1976 indicates that the earliest documented potatoes grown

in the area were in the 1889-90 season, amounted to 8 acres. Potatoes

increased rapidly in production during the period of 1910 through 1920,

and it was during this period that the Florida Potato Growers' Association

was formed (September 1918). In 1922, the Hastings Potato Growers' Asso-

ciation (HPGA) was formed, with a charter membership of 100. Both associa-

tions were attempts to help farmers secure necessary inputs. The Florida

Potato Growers' Association operated only one season but the HPGA has been

in continuous operation.

Financing was critical factor in the early 1900's, as it is today,

and the growers' association attempted to alleviate this problem.








Table 14. Fall potatoes: production and total stocks held by
growers and local dealers, 15 states, 1972-80.



Production Total Stocks of following
Crop Year (Fall) year as of April 1st.

-1000 cwt.- -1000 cwt.- % of Production

1972 242,390 57,860 23.9

1973 247,686 55,465 22.4

1974 278,679 75,217 27.0

1975 266,422 70,970 26.6

1976 294,978 81,130 27.5

1977 295,421 88,680 30.0

1978 311,981 99,250 31.8

1979 285,060 92,550 32.5

1980 255,691 72,460 28.3



Source: [18]








In 1922, the Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service (FCLRS) conducted

a survey of financing arrangements in the Hastings area. It was estimated

that about 19,000 acres were in production (which is roughly the area today)

in the three counties making up the Hastings area. Survey results indicated

that about 90 percent of the growers owned their own farms, around 30 per-

cent of the potato acreage was gorwn under total grower financing and about

70 percent was under a form of contract. These contracts were not of the

type observed in the area today, but primarily a means of grower financing

for their crop. According to Rose [1976, p. 42], "The dealer writing the

contract made cash advances or endorsed the grower's note at a bank. In

both cases, 8 percent interest was generally charged. The cash advance

averaged about $20.00 per acre. The dealer furnished seed, barrels, and

sometimes fertilizer". The grower was apparently free to sell his potatoes

either to the contractor or under another arrangement, and he would then

reimburse the contractor in cash payment. Thus, the contracts were in

reality a means of grower financing, rather than an attempt to facilitate

coordination between grower and processor.

During the 1950's, contracts for potatoes were again introduced, but

this time the contracts were from processors, and did not center around

grower financing. Rose [1976, p. 59] summarizes: "Contracts for the 1957-

1958 season specified quality and size from U.S. No. 1, size A to unspeci-

fied; price per cwt. was usually on a sliding scale (79 percent), mostly

$2.50-$3.50, that season; the flat rate type made up the other 21 percent,

mostly at $3.00. Of the 24 contracting farmers surveyed, 14 agreed

to furnish federal-state inspection; 18 agreed to put their potatoes

in new bags; and 22 said they were required to supply the bags. An inter-

esting observation was that these contracts were not designed to furnish

any credit extension; neither were specific types of transportation









required".

Finally, in terms of the actual vertical exchange mechanisms, there

is no actual auction-type of spot market in Hastings, Florida. The main

street houses offices where brokers from throughout the northeast congre-

gate each spring to buy and sell potatoes while the season is in progress.

Contracting is also negotiated without benefit of any official organization

to oversee operations. Buyers most frequently contract growers by mailing

them a contract to sign. Growers wishing to change parties with whom they

contract seem to have some freedom of movement; however, many growers

expressed satisfaction with the buyer they presently deal with.

During the 1960's, studies were conducted to determine if a Federal

or State Marketing Agreement and Order should be established. Such a mar-

keting order would have allowed regulation of quality, quantity, diversion

of surpluses, and packing regulation, A public hearing.was conducted by

the USDA on November 3-6, 1959, and a referendum was conducted to deter-

mine if the marketing order would be established. It failed. During the

1967-68 crop year, however, the North Florida Growers Exchange was orga-

nized to facilitate marketing of potatoes in the Hastings area. During

its first year, 202 growers representing 73 percent of the area output

participated in the Exchange's marketing service. The Exchange still

exists, but membership and acreage have both declined [Rose, 1976]. Con-

tracting with processors (or brokers who supply processors) has remained

a significant influence in the Hastings market, however (Table 15).

Summary

The'foregoing discussion suggests that price variability in the

Hastings potato market is due to the national potato market and is beyond

the control of the Hastings farmers. Even and rightly so, attempts have













Table 15. Distribution of the Hastings, Florida area chip
potato production, by seasons, 1970-79.



Year Percent spot market Percent contract

1970 60 40

1971 51 49

1972 30 70

1973 63 37

1974 66 34

1975 71 29

1976 77 23

1977 68 32

1978 38 62

1979 41 59


Source: [IQ]








been made to improve the price performance of the market by improving the

bargaining position of the farmer. The potato producers have tried to

establish a marketing order and an exchange. The marketing order was not

approved and the Exchange provides information and markets some potatoes.

The 120 producers are in competition with a national market of which they

provide 1.2 percent of the supply.

CONCLUSION

National competition in celery and potatoes limits the pricing alter-

natives of Florida producers. The large number of producers in sweet corn

and potatoes have limited the extent of an organized marketing approach.

The organized market approach used in celery has influenced the net returns

per crate realized by the industry. Finally, the perishability of fresh

vegetables limits the marketing alternatives of Florida producers.








REFERENCES

[1] Bean, D. Steven, Costs and Returns from Vegetable Crops in Florida,

Season 1979-80 with Comparisons, Food and Resource Economics Depart-

ment, Economic Information Report 143, Gainesville: University of

Florida, May 1981.

[2] Brooke, Donald L., Changes In The Structure of Florida Vegetable

Farms 1945-74, Food and Resource Economics Department, Staff Paper

138, Gainesville: University of Florida, October, 1979.

[3] Brooke, Donald L., Costs and Returns from Vegetable Crops in Florida,

Food and Resource Economics Department, Economic Information Report,

Gainesville: University of Florida, Various Issues.

[4] Brooke, Donald L. and J. B. Bell, Market Structure and Economic Ana-

lysis of the Florida Sweet Corn Industry, University of Florida

Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 696, Gainesville: Univer-

sity of Florida, October 1965.

[5] Brooke, Donald L. and G. H. Jung, Market Organization and Operation

of the Florida Celery Industry, University of Florida Agricultural

Experiment Station Bulletin 709, Gainesville: University of Florida,

April 1966.

[6] Burns, Alfred J. and Joseph C. Rodany, Prices and Spreads for

Selected Fresh Vegetables Sold in Major Markets, 1967/68-1974/75,

USDA Economic Research Service Report AGERS 27, May 1977.

[7] Edman, Victor G., Prices and Spreads for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables

Sold in Selected Markets, 1956-62, USDA Economic Research Service

Statistical Bulletin No. 340, February 1964.

[8] Edman, Victor G. and Alfred J. Burns, Prices and Spreads for Pota-

toes, Sweet Potatoes, and Other Selected Vegetables Sold in Fresh








Markets, 1962/63-1966/67, USDA Economic Research Service, Marketing

Research Report No. 901, September 1970.

[9] Florida Agricultural Statistics, Vegetable Summary, Orlando: Florida

Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Various Issues.

[10] Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Hastings Potato

Report, Orlando, Florida, Various Issues.



[11] Greene, R.E.L., Changes in Market Organization and Practices of the

Potato Industry Hastings Area, Florida, 1958-68, USDA Farmer

Cooperative Service Research Report No. 15, August 1970.

[12] Mathis, Kary and Robert L. Degner, Marketing Florida Celery: A

Wholesale and Retail Analysis, Food and Resource Economics Depart-

ment, Agricultural Market Research Center, Unpublished Report,

Gainesville: University of Florida, August 1976.

[13] Rose, G. Norman, Celery Production in Florida -- A Historic Data

Series, Food and Resource Economics Department, Economic Report 69,

Gainesville: University of Florida, May 1975.

[14] Rose, G. Norman, Irish Potato Production in Florida -- A Historic

Data Series, Food and Resource Economics Department, Economic

Report 81, Gainesville: University of Florida, November 1976.

[15] Rose, G. Norman, Florida Vegetables, Melons, Irish Potatoes and

Strawberries -- A Historic Data Series, Food and Resource Economics

Department, Economic Report 85, Gainesville: University of Florida,

May 1977.

[16] Shonkwiler, J. Scott and Emilio Pagoulatos, "A Model of Weekly Price

Discovery for Florida Celery", Southern Journal of Agricultural

Economics, 12(July 1980), pp. 113-118.








[17] Taylor, Timothy G., Cost and Returns from Vegetable Crops in Florida,

Season 1980-81 with Comparisons, Food and Resource Economics Depart-

ment, Economic Information Report 159, Gainesville: University of

Florida, June 1982.

[18] United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics,

Washington: United States Government Printing Office, Various

Issues.

[19] United StatesDepartment of Commerce, Bureau of Census, U.S. Census

of Agriculture, Florida, Washington: United States Government

Office, Various Issues.




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