• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Title Page
 Board of control
 Branch stations
 Table of Contents
 Summary and conclusions
 Introduction
 Purpose of study
 Procedure
 Methods of transportation employed...
 Factors and interrelationship of...
 Type of container
 Transportation costs
 Acknowledgement
 Appendix






Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station - no. 549
Title: Factors influencing the method of transportation used in marketing fresh Florida citrus
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00026896/00001
 Material Information
Title: Factors influencing the method of transportation used in marketing fresh Florida citrus
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Stations
Physical Description: 80 p. : ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Brooker, Marvin A ( Marvin Adel ), 1903-1997
Gilbraith, Kenneth Marshburn, 1923-
Publisher: Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1954
 Subjects
Subject: Citrus fruits -- Transportation -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Citrus fruits -- Marketing -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: by Marvin A. Brooker and Kenneth M. Gilbraith.
Funding: Bulletin (University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station) ;
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00026896
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Marston Science Library, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Holding Location: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station; Institute for Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS), University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000879564
oclc - 12332313
notis - AEH7344

Table of Contents
    Copyright
        Copyright
    Title Page
        Page 1
    Board of control
        Page 2
    Branch stations
        Page 3
    Table of Contents
        Page 4
    Summary and conclusions
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Introduction
        Page 9
        Page 10
    Purpose of study
        Page 11
    Procedure
        Page 12
        Page 13
    Methods of transportation employed in moving fresh Florida citrus to market
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
    Factors and interrelationship of factors other than cost as affecting the mode of transportation
        Page 17
    Type of container
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Origin areas of shipments
            Page 24
            Page 25
            Page 26
            Page 27
        Destination region
            Page 28
            Page 29
            Page 30
            Page 31
            Page 32
            Page 33
            Page 34
            Page 35
            Page 36
        Type of sale
            Page 37
            Page 38
            Page 39
            Page 40
            Page 41
            Page 42
            Page 43
        Size of city
            Page 44
            Page 45
        Movement according to day and month
            Page 46
            Page 47
            Page 48
            Page 49
            Page 50
            Page 51
            Page 52
            Page 53
            Page 54
    Transportation costs
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
    Acknowledgement
        Page 63
    Appendix
        Page 64
        Explanation of sampling procedure
            Page 64
            Page 65
            Page 66
            Page 67
        Evaluation of procedure
            Page 68
        Comparison with other available statistics
            Page 69
            Page 70
            Page 71
            Page 72
            Page 73
        Additional tabulations
            Page 74
            Page 75
            Page 76
            Page 77
            Page 78
            Page 79
            Page 80
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






September 1954


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS
WILLARD M. FIFIELD, Director
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA
(Under Contract with the United States Department of Agriculture)










Factors Influencing the Method of

Transportation

Used in Marketing Fresh Florida Citrus



MARVIN A. BROKER and KENNETH M. GILBRAITH














Single copies free to Florida residents upon request to
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA


Bulletin 549








BOARD OF CONTROL

J. Lee Ballard, Chairman, St. Petersburg
Hollis Rinehart, Miami
Fred H. Kent, Jacksonville
Wm. H. Dial, Orlando
Mrs. Alfred I. duPont, Jacksonville
George W. English, Jr., Ft. Lauderdale
W. Glenn Miller, Monticello
J. B. Culpepper, Secretary, Tallahassee
EXECUTIVE STAFF
John S. Allen, Acting Presidents
J. Wayne Reitz, Ph.D., Provost for Agr.3
Willard M. Fifield, M.S., Director
J. R. Beckenbach, Ph.D., Asso. Director
R. W. Bledsoe, Ph.D., Assistant Director
Rogers L. Bartley, B.S., Admin. Mgr.3
Geo. R. Freeman, B.S., Farm Superintendent
W. H. Jones, Jr., M.Agr., Asst. Supt.

MAIN STATION, GAINESVILLE
AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
H. G. Hamilon, Ph.D., Agr. Economist 3
R. E. L. Greene, Ph.D., Agr. Economist
M. A. Brooker, Ph.D., Agr. Economist3
Zach Savage, M.S.A., Economist
A. H. Spurlock, M.S.A., Agr. Economist
D. E. Alleger, M.S., Associate
I. L. Brooke, Ph.D., Associate
M. R. Godwin, Ph.D., Associate 3
W. K. McPherson, M.S., Agr. Economist3
Eric Thor, M.S., Asso. Agr. Economist
Cecil N. Smith, M.A., Asso. Agr. Economist
Levi A. Powell, Sr., M.S.A., Assistant
E. D. Smith, Ph.D., Asst. Agr. Economist
N. K. Roberts, M.A., Asst. Agr. Economist
Orlando, Florida (Cooperative USDA)
G. Norman Rose, B.S., Asso. Agr. Economist
J. C. Townsend, Jr., B.S.A., Agr. Statistician s
J. B. Owens, B.S.A., Agr. Statistician 2
F. T. Galloway, M.S., Agr. Statistician
C. L. Crenshaw, M.S., Asst. Agr. Economist
B. W. Kelly, M.S., Asst. Agr. Economist
AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING
Frazier Rogers, M.S.A., Agr. Engineer 3
J. M. Myers, M.S.A., Asso. Agr. Engineer
J. S. Norton, M.S., Asst. Agr. Engineer
AGRONOMY
Fred H. Hull, Ph.D., Agronomist 1
G. B. Killinger, Ph.D., Agronomist
H. C. Harris, Ph.D., Agronomist
W. A Carver, Ph.D., Agronomist
Fred A. Clark, M.S., Associate
E. S. Horner, Ph.D., Assistant
A. T. Wallace, Ph.D., Assistant
D. E. McCloud, Ph.D., Associate8
G. C. Nutter, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
I. M. Wofford, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
E. 0. Burt, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
J. R. Edwardson, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist s
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND NUTRITION
T. J. Cunha, Ph.D., Animal Husbandman1s
G. K. Davis, Ph.D., Animal I\utritionist3
R. L. Shirley, Ph.D., Biochemist
A. M. Pearson, Ph.D., Asso. An. Husb.3
John P. Feas:er, Ph.D., Asst. An. Nutri.
H. D. Wallace, Ph.D., Asso. An. Husb.3
M. Koger, Ph.D., An. Husbandman "
J. F. Hentges, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. An. Husb.'
L. R. Arrington, Ph.D., Asst. An. Hush.
A. C. Warnick, Ph.D., Asst. Physiologist
DAIRY SCIENCE
E. L. Fouts, Ph.D., Dairy Technologist a
R. B. Becker, Ph.D., Dairy Husbandman
S. P. Marshall, Ph.D., Asso. Dairy Husb.3
W. A. Krienke, M.S., Asso. Dairy Tech.0
P. T. Dix Arnold, M.S.A., Asso. Dairy Husb.8
Leon Mull, Ph.D., Asso. Dairy Terh.0
H. H. Wilkowske, Ph.D., Asso. Dairy Tech.8
James M. Wing, Ph.D., Asst. Dairy Husb.


EDITORIAL
J. Francis Cooper, M.S.A., Editor 3
Clyde Beale, A.B.J., Editor 3
William G. Mitchell, A.B.J.,Assistant Editor
H. L. Moreland, Jr., B.S.A., Asst. Editors
ENTOMOLOGY
A. N. Tissot, Ph.D., Entomologist1
L. C. Kuitert, Ph.D., Associate
H. E. Bratley, M.S.A., Assistant
F. A. Robinson, M.S., Asst. ADiculturist
R. E. Waites, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
S. H. Kerr, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
J. R. Christie; Ph.D., Nematologist
HOME ECONOMICS
Ouida D. Abbott, Ph.D., Home Econ.1
R. B. French, Ph.D., Biochemist
HORTICULTURE
G. H. Blackmon, M.S.A., Horticulturist1'
R. A. Dennison, Ph.D., Hort. & Interim Head
F. S Jamison, Ph.D., Horticulturist 3
Albert P. Lorz, Ph.D., Horticulturist
R. K. Showalter, M.S., Asso. Hort.
R. H. Sharpe, M.S., Asso. Horticulturist
V. F. Nettles, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
F. S. Lagasse, Ph.D., Horticulturist 2
R. D. Dickey, M.S.A., Asso. Hort.
L. H. Halsey, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
C. B. Hall, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
Austin Griffiths, Jr., B.S., Asst. Hort.
S. E. McFadden, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
C. H. VanMiddelem, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
B. D. Thompson, M.S.A., Interim Asst. Hort.
M. W. Hoover, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
LIBRARY
Ida Keeling Cresap, Librarian
PLANT PATHOLOGY
W. B. Tisdale, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist'3
Phares Decker, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Erdman West, M.S., Botanist & Mycologist'
Robert W. Earhart, Ph.D., Plant Path.2
Howard N. Miller, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
Lillian E. Arnold, M.S., Asso. Botanist
C. W. Anderson, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.
POULTRY HUSBANDRY
N. R. Mehrhof, M.Agr., Poultry Husb.13
J. C. Driggers, Ph.D., Asso. Poultry Husb.3

SOILS
F. B. Smith, Ph.D., Microbiologist 1s
Gaylord M. Volk, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
J. R. Neller, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Nathan Gammon, Jr., Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Ralph G. Leighty, B.S., Asst. Soil Surveyor 2
G. D. Thornton, Ph.D., Microbiologist 3
C. F. Eno, Ph.D., Asst. Soils Microbiologist
H. W. Winsor, B.S.A., Assistant Chemist
R. E. Caldwell, M.S.A., Asst. Chemist s
V. W. Carlisle, M.S., Asst. Soil Surveyor
J. H. Walker, M.S.A., Asst. Soil Surveyor
William K. Robertson, Ph.D., Asat. Chemist
0. E. Cruz, B.S.A., Asst. Soil Surveyor
W. G. Blue, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
J. G. A. Fiskel, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
L. C. Hammond, Ph.D., Asst. Soil Physicist
H. L. Breland, Ph.D., Asst. Soils Chem.
W. L. Pritchett, Ph.D., Soil Technologist

VETERINARY SCIENCE
D. A. Sanders, D.V.M., Veterinarian l
M. W. Emmel, D.V.M., Veterinarian 3
C. F. Simpson, I.V.M., Asso. Veterinarian '
L. E. Swanson, D.V.M., Parasitologist
W. R. Dennis, D.V.M., Asst. Parasitologist
E. W. Swarthout, D.V.M., Asso. Poultry
Pathologist (Dade City)
M. Ristic, D.V.M., Associate Pathologist
J. G. Wadsworth, D.V.M., Asst. Poul. Path.









BRANCH STATIONS


NORTH FLORIDA STATION, QUINCY

W. C. Rhoades, M.S., Entomologist in Charge
R. R. Kincaid, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
L. G. Thompson, Jr., Ph.D., Soils Chemist
W. H. Chapman, M.S., Agronomist
Frank S. Baker, Jr., B.S., Asst. An. Husb.
T. E. Webb, M.S.A., Asst. Agronomist
Mobile Unit, Monticello
R. W. Wallace, B.S., Associate Agronomist
Mobile Unit, Marianna
R. W. Lipscomb, M.S., Associate Agronomist
Mobile Unit, Pensacola
R. L. Smith, M.S., Associate Agronomist
Mobile Unit, Chipley
J. B. White, B.S.A., Associate Agronomist


CITRUS STATION, LAKE ALFRED

A. F. Camp, Ph.D., Vice-Diredtor in Charge
W. L. Thompson, B.S., Entomologist
R. F. Suit, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
E. P. Ducharme, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
J. W. Sites, Ph.D., Horticulturist
H. O. Sterling, B.S., Asst. Horticulturist
H. J. Reitz, Ph.D., Horticulturist
Francine Fisher, M.S., Asst. Plant Path.
I. W. Wander, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
J. W. Kesterson, M.S., Asso. Chemist
R. Hendrickson, B.S., Asst. Chemist
Ivan S'ewart, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
D. S. Prosser, Jr., B.S., Asst. Engineer
R. W. Olsen, B.S., Biochemist
F. W. Wenzel, Jr., Ph.D., Chemist
Alvin H. Rouse, M.S., Asso. Chemist
H. W. Ford, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
L. C. Knorr, Ph.D., Asso. Histoloaist
R. M. Pratt, Ph.D., Asso. Ent.-Pathologist
W. A. Simanton, Ph.D., Entomologist
E. J. Deszyck, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
C. ID. Leonard, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
W. T. Long, M.S., Asst. Horticulturist
M. H. Muma, Ph.D., Asso. Entomologist
F. J. Reynolds, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
R. B. Johnson, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
W. F. Newhall, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
W. F. Grierson-Jackson, Ph.D., Asst. Chem.
Roger Patrick, Ph.D., Bacteriologist
M. F. Oberbacher, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Physiol.
R. C. J. Koo, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
J. R. Kuykendall, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
W. C. Price, Ph.D., Virologist
J. J. McBride, Jr., Ph.D., Assistant Chemist


EVERGLADES STATION, BELLE GLADE

W. T. Forsee, Jr., Ph.D., Chemist in Charge
R. V. Allison, Ph.D., Fiber Technologist
Thomas Bregger, Ph.D., Physiologist
J. W. Randolph, M.S., Agricultural Engr.
R. W. Kidder, M.S., Asso. Animal Husb.
C. C. Seale, Associate Agronomist
N. C. Hayslip, B.S.A., Asso. Entomologist
E. A. Wolf, M.S., Asst. Horticulturist
W. H. Thames, M.S., Asst. Entomologist
W. G. Genung, M.S., Asst. Entomologist
Robert J. Allen, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
V. E. Green, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
V. L. Guzman, Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
J. C. Stephens, B.S., Drainage Engineer2
A. E. Kretschmer, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. Soils
Chemist
Charles T. Ozaki, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist
D. S. Harrison, M.S., Asst. Agri. Engr.
F. T. Boyd, Ph.D., Asso. Agronomist
J. N. Simons, Ph.D., Asst. Virologist
D. W. Beardsley, M.S., Asst. Animal Hush.
R. S. Cox, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Pathologist
Donald M. Coe, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Pathologist


SUB-TROPICAL STATION, HOMESTEAD
Geo. D. Ruehle, Ph.D., Vice-Dir. in Charge
D. O. Wolfenbarger, Ph.D., Entomolo dist
Francis B. Lincoln, Ph.D., Horticulturist
Robert A. Conover, Ph.D., Plant Path.
John L. Malcolm, Ph.D., Asso. Soils Chemist
R. W. Harkness, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist
R. Bruce Ledin, Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
J. C. Noonan, M.S., Asst. Hort.
M. H. Gallatin, B.S., Soil Conservationist 2
T. W. Young, Ph.I., Asso. Horticulturist

WEST CENTER. FLA. STA., BROOKSVILLE
Marian W. Hazen, M.S., Animal Husband-
man in Charge 2

RANGE CATTLE STATION, ONA
W. G. Kirk, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
E. M. Hodges, Ph.D., Agronomist
D. W. Jones, M.S., Asst. Soil Technologist
F. M. Peacock, M.S., Asst. An. Husbandman

CENTRAL FLORIDA STATION, SANFORD
R. Wr. Ruprecht, Ph.D., Vice-Dir. in Charge
J. W. Wilson, ScD., Entomologist
P. J. Westgate, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
Ben F. Whitner, Jr., B.S.A., Asst. Hort.
J. F. Darby, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.

WEST FLORIDA STATION, JAY
C. E. Hutton, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
H. W. Lundy, B.S.A., Associate Agronomist
R. L. Jeffers, Ph.D., Asso. Agronomist

SUWANNEE VALLEY STA., LIVE OAK
G. E. Ritchey, M.S., Agronomist in Charge

GULF COAST STATION, BRADENTON
E. L. Spencer, Ph.D., Soils Chemist in Charge
E. G. Kelsheimer, Ph.D., Entomologist
David G. A. Kelbert, Asso. Horticulturist
Robert O. Magie, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
J. M. Walter, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
S. S. Woltz, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
Donald S. Burgis, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
C. M. Geraldson, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
G. Sowell, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. Plant Pathologist


FIELD LABORATORIES

Watermelon, Grape, Pasture-Leesburg
J. M. Crall, Ph.D., Plant Path. in Charge
C. C. Helms, Jr., B.S., Asst. Agronomist
L. H. Stover, Assistant in Horticulture
Strawberry-Plant City
A. N. Brooks, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist

Vegetables-Hastings
A. H. Eddins, Ph.D., Plant Path. in Charge
E. N. McCubbin, Ph.D., Horticulturist
T. M. Dobrovsky, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
D. L. Myhre, Ph.D., Asst. Soils Chemist

Pecans--Monticello
A. M. Phillips, B.S., Asso. Entomologist 2
John R. Large, M.S., Asso. Plant Path.

Frost Forecasting-Lakeland
Warren O. Johnson, B.S., Meteorologist in
Charge


1 Head of Department
In cooperation with U. S.
3Cooperative, other divisions, U. of F.
4On leave














CONTENTS
PAGE

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .....- --................-............-- ..--. 5

INTRODUCTION .....- ...----...- -- ............. .. .....- ..... ..... 9

PURPOSE OF STUDY ...... .......................... .......------ 11

PROCEDURE .... ....------------..........------------------- -..- .- -..................-- 12

METHODS OF TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYED IN MOVING FLORIDA FRESH

CITRUS TO MARKET .......-.......... ....... .............. ------- ...... 14

FACTORS AND INTERRELATIONSHIP OF FACTORS OTHER THAN COST AS

AFFECTING THE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION ..--...............-- ..-- .....-- ...... 17

Type of Container .............. ...-...----- --.-- .... -. -- ..- .... ..-- .. 17

Origin Area of Shipments .........----- ----...-..-..........- ..----......--- .. 24

Destination Region ............ ......---------- ....--------.--- 28

Type of Sale ............--- ......--....-- .. -------- .... .....---- 37

Size of City ...........-- ...-------- -------...------- ..........-- ..-- 44

Movement According to Day and Month ....-..--.~.--...... ..--...-............ 46

TRANSPORTATION COSTS -...---................... ......---- ----........-- 55

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS -.......----...-..............-----..--.----..------....-- 63

APPENDIX --.....--. -- ----------....... ---.... -.....--------------- ...............-- 64

Explanation of Sampling Procedure .................-- ..---- --............--- 64

Evaluation of Procedure .............--....--.....---....... --.-..---68

Comparison with other Available Statistics .....-----........--...--.....---.......... 69

Additional Tabulations ..................----...--.--....------......... 74








SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Unlike many other problems that face the Florida citrus in-
dustry, problems of transporting fresh citrus to market have
been caused more by changes in geographic distribution of the
fresh fruit and by methods used in selling than by increased
production. Although production of citrus has increased sig-
nificantly over the last several years, the quantity sold in
fresh form has not increased correspondingly; however, its
geographic distribution has changed considerably. Interstate
shipments of fresh citrus from Florida to the Northeast have
decreased while those to the North Central and Southern regions
have increased. In addition, use of the auction method of
selling has declined steadily while the f.o.b. method has assumed
more importance.
Along with these shifts in distribution and method of selling,
methods used to transport this fresh citrus to market have
changed markedly. The use of rail and water facilities has
declined while the use of motor trucks has increased.
During the two seasons covered by this study all three
methods of transportation were available, with the exception
of water facilities during the second season. Apparently, boats
were unable to obtain return hauls from the Northeast to ports
in Florida and were forced to discontinue service.
Many factors can influence the method of transportation used
in moving fresh citrus to market. Among them are quality of
service, type of container used, origin area of the shipment,
region of destination, size of the destination city, method of
sale, seasonality of movement, type of purchaser and costs of
transportation.
The type of container in which the fruit is shipped appar-
ently influences the method of transportation used very little.
Although the relative importance of the various carriers used
during the second season shifted significantly, little change
occurred in the relative use of the various containers.
The origin area of a shipment undoubtedly influences the
method of transportation used. Those origin areas that are
located in the interior and along the west coast of Florida made
little use of water transportation, while the east coast area
used water and rail but no trucks. In addition to geographic
location, other factors, such as quality of fruit and method of
selling, are partly responsible for this distribution of volume
among carriers, especially when the east coast area is com-







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


pared to the remainder of the state. The largest percentage
of the volume produced in the interior and west coast areas
is sold through f.o.b. channels. Many small shipments enter
into this volume and they can be handled easily in trucks. By
contrast, for all practical purposes, the entire volume shipped
from the east coast area is sold on auction. The fact that New
York and Philadelphia, the largest two auction markets, are
readily accessible by water added to the feasibility of using
water transportation by this area.
The importance of the various carriers in transporting citrus
fruit to the different regions of destination of the country was
as follows: In the Atlantic Coast region trucks handled a larger
percentage of the volume than did railroads up to a distance of
800 miles, while above that distance railroads became the most
important carrier. This was true also in the central region
except that trucks again became more important than railroads
above a distance of 1,200 miles. In the Western region trucks
were the most important carrier up to 1,800 miles. Above that
distance they declined rapidly in importance.
Several factors are responsible for this pattern of distribu-
tion among carriers. Among them are location of the auction
markets, size of the city and density of population, protective
services offered by the carriers, interstate barriers, availability
of return hauls and the need for split deliveries.
The type of sale apparently influences somewhat the method
of transportation used. Under private sales with brokers, rail-
roads handled a larger percentage of the volume shipped than
did trucks in more cities than was the case under private direct
sales. This may have been primarily because brokers pooled
shipments for a number of receivers and bought in carload lots.
In private direct sales where brokers are not used, many of the
receivers are not large enough and do not have the facilities
to buy in large quantities. In the case of auction sales, railroads
handle approximately 93 percent of the volume shipped and ap-
proximately two-thirds of the volume sold through commission
houses. The railroads have definite advantages so far as volume
sold through these two channels is concerned. The auction
markets, in the main, are located at rail terminals and on rail-
road property. In the case of commission-house sales, a large
percentage of the shipments leave points of origin as rollers
(shipped unsold, final destination determined while fruit is


6







Methods of Transportation for Florida Citrus


moving toward market) and are more easily controlled when
shipped by rail.
Trucks tend to become relatively more important as the size
of city decreases. This is especially true for the volume sold by
private direct sale, which is the chief method of sale used. Many
of the smaller cities are somewhat out of the line of haul for
the railroads. In small cities the receivers are not large enough,
generally speaking, and they do not have the proper facilities
for handling carload lots. Thus, the need for split deliveries
is probably greater in small cities than in large cities. All of
these factors favor transportation by truck.
Trucks are the most important carriers during the early
months of the season. They decline in importance relative to
railroads from December through June, but regain their posi-
tion of relative importance during July and August. Among
those factors considered to be responsible for the heavier use
of trucks relative to rail during the early and latter parts of the
season are availability of truck facilities during these periods,
overall volume shipped, minimum weight requirements of rail
shipments, the declining market at the beginning of the season
which makes speed an important factor, and the relative im-
portance of the various methods of sale during the different
months of the season.
There was an increase of some 16 percent in the use of rail,
relative to other methods of transportation, between the 1949-50
and 1950-51 seasons. Two of the factors listed-the availability
of the various methods of transportation and, to a lesser extent,
the method of sale-account for a significant part of this increase
in the use of rail. But it is evident that some factor or factors
other than those discussed was responsible for the rest of this
increase. Herein lies the importance of transportation costs in
deciding the method of transportation used.
Rail freight rates decreased on November 1, 1950, to nine
of the major markets under study. Percentage of total volume
of citrus shipped by rail to this group of cities showed an in-
crease of 16 percent during November 1950 over November
1949, and the percentage shipped by rail remained at a con-
sistently higher level throughout the remainder of the second
season. This was not the case when the volume shipped by
rail was checked to 16 other major markets where no decrease
in rail rates occurred. The percentage moving by rail into
this group of cities was higher during only three months of


7







8 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

the second season and in only one of these months was the
increase more than 6 percent.
Although, as mentioned above, a significant part of this in-
crease in use of railroads was due to the unavailability of
water facilities during the second season rather than to a
decrease in rail rates, this does not detract from the importance
of transportation costs in deciding the method of transporta-
tion to be used. Water transportation was used when it was
available primarily because it was the cheapest method of
transportation. Apparently the relative transportation cost is
the most important single factor in deciding the method of
transportation to be used in moving fresh citrus to market.










Factors Influencing the Method of

Transportation

Used in Marketing Fresh Florida Citrus

MARVIN A. BROKER and KENNETH M. GILBRAITH 1

INTRODUCTION
Although total production of Florida citrus has increased
considerably during the last 15 years, the quantity of fresh
citrus fruit shipped annually during this period has not in-
creased significantly (Fig. 1). Marked changes in methods of
selling, geographic distribution and other factors, however,
have served to complicate the problems involved in transport-
ing this quantity of citrus fruit to market.

xllion. at Bomes
15 a-I


20



5
0


-v


,-t H
Season


'I


o~ o


Fig. 1.-Volume of fresh citrus shipped annually from 1937-38 through
1950-51. Source: Annual reports of Citrus and Vegetable Inspection Di-
vision. Florida Department of Agriculture.
SGilbraith, formerly Field Assistant, Florida Agricultural Experiment
Station, and Graduate Student, College of Agriculture, University of Florida.


-&aaru


tOae


co % 3







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


During the 1930's the auction market was the most important
single outlet for Florida citrus. This is evidenced by a recent
study of the marketing pattern for fresh oranges, which showed
that prior to the 1941-42 marketing season from 30 to 43 per-
cent of the Florida orange crop sold for fresh consumption
moved through auction markets each season. From 1942
through 1947-48, less than 25 percent of the annual crop was
marketed through this channel, and from 1948-49 through
1950-51, less than 22 percent was sold on auction.2 As the use
of auctions declined, the f.o.b. method of selling increased in
importance and has continued to grow.
The geographic distribution of fresh citrus from Florida also
has changed considerably during this period. Between the
prewar (1936-37 through 1941-42) and postwar (1945-46 through
1950-51) years, interstate shipments of Florida oranges to the
North Central and Southern regions of the United States in-
creased by 39 and 14 percent, respectively, while shipments
to the Northeastern region decreased by approximately 8 per-
cent.3
Along with these shifts in method of selling and in geographic
distribution of Florida citrus, there has been a significant
change in method of transportation used in marketing the
annual crop (Fig. 2). Historically, rail transportation has
been the chief method used by Florida shippers. Use of auction
markets which, in the main, are located at rail terminals, and
the quality of rail facilities between Florida and the Northeast,
have contributed to this heavy use of rail in the past.
Since World War II use of motor trucks has increased steadily.
During the 1949-50 season trucks handled larger quantities of
fresh citrus than did the railroads. Motor trucks gained promi-
nence during the late 1930's and had it not been for the short-
age of tires, gasoline and the like during the war years, it is
possible that this method would have been used even more ex-
tensively.
Use of water transportation has varied considerably over the
last 15 seasons. During the 1940-41 season 7,000,000 boxes,
or approximately 20 percent, of the fresh citrus was transported
in this way. Water transportation was not available during
the war years and since 1945 the use of this method has been
SHoofnagle, W. S., Changes in the Marketing Pattern of Florida
Fresh Oranges Between Prewar and Postwar Periods, Bur. of Agr. Econ.,
Washington 25, D. C.
3 Ibid.


10







Methods of Transportation for Florida, Citrus


quite erratic. Water connections between Florida and the
Northeast and between Florida and areas along the Gulf Coast
have been excellent, and as soon as conditions permit, transpor-
tation by water could once again gain importance.
Costs of transportation for fresh Florida citrus total in excess
of 30 million dollars annually. The quality and cost of trans-
portation services influence returns to shippers and these
services represent an important source of revenue to the trans-
portation industry. For all these reasons, the importance of a
study of transportation of citrus fruit can readily be seen.

million of Boxes
15 .


30


20

25

0o


0


Season
Fig. 2.-All citrus: Distribution of annual shipments among carriers
1939-40 through 1950-51. Source: Annual reports of the Citrus and Vege-
table Inspection Division, Florida Department of Agriculture.

PURPOSE OF STUDY

The overall objective of this study was to obtain information
and develop analyses that would provide a basis for improving
the efficiency and reducing the cost in the marketing and trans-
portation of fresh citrus fruit.


Water


11


I







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


Knowledge of the economic aspects of the transportation of
Florida citrus, as presented herein, is expected to: (1) Help iso-
late factors that underlie choice of carrier by shippers or
receivers and help to determine the extent to which such factors
as costs of transportation, type and size of shipment, and other
considerations influence this choice of carrier; (2) help to indi-
cate probable future trends in diversion from one type of carrier
to another; (3) furnish carriers with a basis for improving their
services; and, (4) provide information that would be helpful
in developing public policies with respect to transportation.
It is expected that the methodology used and the experience
gained in carrying forward this study will prove helpful as guides
in the event that other projects of this type are undertaken in
the future.
PROCEDURE
The data used in this study were obtained primarily from the
shipping documents of fresh citrus packinghouses. Records of
approximately 19,000 individual shipments from 45 packing-
houses were examined and the data transferred directly from
the shipping documents to an information schedule by trained
enumerators. The study covered the two seasons 1949-50 and
1950-51. The field work was carried on during July, August and
September 1951.
In selecting the houses to be studied, differences in such
factors as the quality, kind and variety of fruit produced by
various areas of the state, selling practices followed by firms
located in these areas, and size of the individual firms from the
standpoint of volume handled were taken into consideration.
This led to the use of a stratified sampling technique.
The state was divided into two primary strata on the basis
of quality of fruit produced and selling practices used. These
two primary strata were: (1) Indian River counties (corre-
sponding to Origin Area 1, Fig. 3) and (2) all other counties
shipping fresh citrus fruit. The packinghouses in each of
these two strata were then divided into six substrata on the
basis of volume of fruit shipped. Within these size groups,
houses were chosen at random. The data were then obtained
from shipping documents such as the order confirmation, mani-
fest, bill of lading, inspection certificate, account of sale, and
others which the packinghouses usually kept in a jacket file for
each shipment.


12







Methods of Transportation for Florida Citrus


Fig. 3.-Boundaries of the five
origin areas and location of the 45
firms used in the study.


In case of the smallest packinghouses, records of all ship-
ments were used, but only 10 percent of the houses were included.
All of the largest packinghouses were included but only 10
percent of the shipments made by each house were used. Inter-
mediate-sized houses were sampled proportionately in such a
way that the 45 houses would yield approximately a one-twelfth
sample of all fruit shipped during the 1949-50 season.
Comparisons were made between data obtained in the survey
and available statistics in the Market News Service Report on
Fruits and Vegetables, published jointly by the United States


13







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


Department of Agriculture and the Florida State Marketing
Bureau; the annual report of the Citrus and Vegetable Inspec-
tion Division of the Florida Department of Agriculture; and,
the 1 percent sample of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
Two of these comparisons (Appendix Tables 2 and 5) give an
indication of the extent of the sampling error. In Appendix
Table 2 the Market News Service report of rail unloads in the
various markets is the result of an actual count, and data in
Appendix Table 5 are an actual count of total volume leaving
the state by the various modes of transportation as reported
by the Citrus and Vegetable Inspection Division. Results of
these comparisons lend considerable support to the accuracy
of the survey. A detailed discussion of the method of pro-
cedure and the comparisons with other available statistics is
given in the Appendix.
Results of the survey are being published in two sections:
(1) An initial mimeographed report of the detailed statistical
findings 4 and (2) this interpretive report, which is primarily
a discussion of these major findings of fact.

METHODS OF TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYED IN
MOVING FRESH FLORIDA CITRUS TO MARKET
The absolute and percentage breakdowns of the volume of
each kind of fruit shipped by rail, truck, water and combina-
tions of these methods for the two seasons under study are
shown in Tables 1 and 2. Truck movement was further broken
down to show the volume shipped by privately owned trucks
and whether the shipper or the receiver owned or hired the
trucks.
During the 1949-50 season, 6 percent of the fresh citrus leav-
ing the state was shipped by a combination of two or more types
of carriers. Of these combination shipments, the use of truck
and water was the most important. For all practical purposes
this was water transportation, since trucks were used, in the
main, only to move the fruit to ports in Florida and were not
used extensively on the terminal end. The combination of
all three modes of transportation involved shipments using
trucks to move the fruit to ports in Florida, water from Florida

SBrooker, Marvin A., Donald E. Church, and Kenneth M. Gilbraith,
"Transportation of Fresh Citrus from Florida," Statistical Findings,
Special Report, Agricultural Economics, Series 52-6, University of Florida
Agricultural Experiment Station, Gainesville, Florida, August, 1952.


14








Methods of Transportation for Florida Citrus


to New York, and rail from New York into the New England
States. This combination was used extensively by only one
firm appearing in the study.

TABLE 1.-NUMBER OF BOXES OF CITRUS SHIPPED FROM FLORIDA BY TYPE
OF CARRIER, 1949-50 AND 1950-51.

Type of Oranges Grapefruit Tangerines Total
Carrier I
I Boxes I Boxes Boxes I Boxes
1949-50 Season

Rail .......... ...... 8,560,926 4,611,452 1,472,298 14,644,676
Shipper's truck ....- 155,986 64,502 25,931 246,419
Truck hired by
shipper ............ 2,994,823 1,287,861 522,376 4,805,060
Buyer's truck ......... 1,617,866 518,992 240,816 2,377,674
Truck hired by
buyer .............. 4,834,926 1,689,457 I 421,543 6,945,926
Water ...................... 795,667 206,946 21,910 1,024,523
Truck and water .... 974,270 684,121 100,720 1,759,111
Truck and rail ........ 12,594 658 13,252
Truck, water and
rail ..................... 106,669 10,543 5,612 122,824

All carriers 20,053,727 9,074,532 2,811,206 31,939,465

1950-51 Season

Rail ......-..-....... 12,732,593 8,655,802 1,507,540 22,895,935
Shipper's truck ...... 170,876 143,136 26,078 340,090
Truck hired by
shipper ........... 2,138,702 1,937,645 503,206 4,579,553
Buyer's truck ......... 1,591,364 744,398 219,890 2,555,652
Truck hired by
buyer ........... 4,374,062 2,294,330 380,946 7,049,338
Water ....................- -
Truck and water .... 5,487 5,874 11,361
Truck and rail ........ 66,766 11,513 6,829 85,108
Truck, water and
rail .. -

All carriers .. 21,079,850 13,792,698 2,644,489 37,517,037


All types of transportation were available during the 1949-50
season. Water transportation was not generally available during
the 1950-51 season, primarily, it is believed, because boats were
unable to obtain south-bound hauls to ports in Florida. This con-
dition evidently still exists, as there has been little or no move-
ment by water since the field work for this study was completed.


15







16 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

Apparently, boats formerly used in this traffic are being used
mainly in trade with South America, where return hauls are
more readily available.5

TABLE 2.-PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF CITRUS SHIPPED FROM FLORIDA
BY TYPE OF CARRIER, 1949-50 AND 1950-51.

Type of Oranges Grapefruit Tangerines Total
Carrier I
Percent Percent Percent Percent
1949-50 Season

Rail ...................... ..... 42.6 50.8 52.4 45.9
Shipper's truck ......... .8 .7 .9 .8
Truck hired by
shipper .--.-------.. 14.9 14.2 18.6 15.0
Buyer's truck .... .....-- 8.1 5.7 8.5 7.4
Truck hired by
buyer .....-........-.....- 24.1 18.6 15.0 21.7
W ater ..---.......--....-....-.... 4.0 2.3 .8 3.2
Truck and water ........ 4.9 7.6 3.6 5.5
Truck and rail ........... .5 .1
Truck, water and
rail ....-.................... .5 .1 .2 4


All carriers .. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1950-51 Season
------------------ -------------
Rail ............................ 60.4 62.8 57.0 61.0
Shipper's truck .......... .8 1.0 1.0 .9
Truck hired by
shipper ..... .........- .. 10.2 14.1 19.0 12.2
Buyer's truck ........... 7.5 5.4 8.3 6.8
Truck hired by
buyer ....................- 20.8 16.6 14.4 18.8
W ater ...... ..............
Truck and water ..-.... .1
Truck and rail ........... .3 .1 .3 .2
Truck, water and rail -

All carriers ...... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Less than .05 percent.

It was believed when this study was begun that many factors
influence the distribution of shipments of fresh fruit among the
various modes of transportation. To test the possible signifi-
cance of certain of these factors as they influence this distribu-
tion, tabulations were run involving (1) type of container, (2)

SThis opinion was expressed by Gordon Stedman, Secretary-Manager,
Growers and Shippers League of Florida, and others.







Methods of Transportation for Florida Citrus


origin area of the shipment, (3) region of destination, (4) size
of destination city, (5) method of sale, (6) seasonality of move-
ment, (7) type of purchaser, and (8) cost of transportation.
These factors and their relationships to transportation are
discussed in the following sections.

FACTORS AND INTERRELATIONSHIP OF FACTORS
OTHER THAN COST AS AFFECTING THE MODE
OF TRANSPORTATION

TYPE OF CONTAINER
To determine whether or not a relationship exists between the
type of container and the mode of transportation used, tabula-
tions were made involving the average distance traveled by each
type of container, types of containers used by various origin
areas and by various purchasers, and types handled by the
various modes of transportation.
The average length of haul traveled by each type of con-
tainer from each origin area is given in Table 3. The data
presented in this table bring out several significant points as
follows: (1) Small bags traveled farther on the average than
did boxes or the combination of boxes and small bags; (2) ship-
ments from Origin Areas 1 and 5 in all types of containers
traveled farther than did shipments from the rest of the state;
and (3) the combination of boxes and small bags packed in
Area 4 traveled a much shorter average distance than similar
shipments from other areas.
The main reason for small bags traveling a longer distance
than boxes was probably due to the fact that most of the very
short hauls, such as those to gift houses, fruit stands and pro-
cessors in and around a particular house, consisted almost
entirely of boxes. These shipments were included in the calcu-
lations, hence, would tend to bring down the average distance
traveled by boxes. Had only out-of-state shipments been in-
cluded, this difference probably would not have appeared.
The longer distance traveled by shipments from Origin Area
1 was due to the type of fruit and the method by which it
was sold. This area, which consists of the Indian River counties,
markets very nearly 100 percent of its citrus fruit through auc-
tions. The location of auction markets in the northeast, north
central, or midwestern regions accounts for the longer distance
traveled.


17







Methods of Transportation for Florida Citrus


origin area of the shipment, (3) region of destination, (4) size
of destination city, (5) method of sale, (6) seasonality of move-
ment, (7) type of purchaser, and (8) cost of transportation.
These factors and their relationships to transportation are
discussed in the following sections.

FACTORS AND INTERRELATIONSHIP OF FACTORS
OTHER THAN COST AS AFFECTING THE MODE
OF TRANSPORTATION

TYPE OF CONTAINER
To determine whether or not a relationship exists between the
type of container and the mode of transportation used, tabula-
tions were made involving the average distance traveled by each
type of container, types of containers used by various origin
areas and by various purchasers, and types handled by the
various modes of transportation.
The average length of haul traveled by each type of con-
tainer from each origin area is given in Table 3. The data
presented in this table bring out several significant points as
follows: (1) Small bags traveled farther on the average than
did boxes or the combination of boxes and small bags; (2) ship-
ments from Origin Areas 1 and 5 in all types of containers
traveled farther than did shipments from the rest of the state;
and (3) the combination of boxes and small bags packed in
Area 4 traveled a much shorter average distance than similar
shipments from other areas.
The main reason for small bags traveling a longer distance
than boxes was probably due to the fact that most of the very
short hauls, such as those to gift houses, fruit stands and pro-
cessors in and around a particular house, consisted almost
entirely of boxes. These shipments were included in the calcu-
lations, hence, would tend to bring down the average distance
traveled by boxes. Had only out-of-state shipments been in-
cluded, this difference probably would not have appeared.
The longer distance traveled by shipments from Origin Area
1 was due to the type of fruit and the method by which it
was sold. This area, which consists of the Indian River counties,
markets very nearly 100 percent of its citrus fruit through auc-
tions. The location of auction markets in the northeast, north
central, or midwestern regions accounts for the longer distance
traveled.


17








18


Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


TABLE 3.-ALL CITRUS: AVERAGE LENGTH OF HAUL BY TYPE OF CONTAINER
FROM ORIGIN AREAS iir FLORIDA, 1949-50 AND 1950-51.

] Miles Shipped by Origin Areas
Type of
Container 1 2 3 4 5 All
SAreas
1949-50 Season

Boxes ........--..... 1,178 875 896 1,061 1,217 953
Small bags ..... 947 1,058 909 1,208 1,012
Boxes and small
bags .............. 838 910 490 1,114 848

1950-51 Season

Boxes ............... 1,201 816 883 924 1,270 925
Small bags ...... 885 1,053 842 1,227 1,003
Boxes and small
bags ..-- 823 906 614 1,076 849


TABLE 4.-ORANGES: SHIPMENTS BY TYPE OF CONTAINER FROM FLORIDA
ORIGIN AREAS, 1949-50 AND 1950-51.

Thousands of Boxes, or Box Equivalents,
Type of Shipped by Origin Area
Container
1 2 3 4 5 All
S__Areas
1949-50 Season

Boxes .2,095 7,063 3,492 1,893 224 14,767
Small bags .. 461 881 103 8 1,453
Boxes and small
bags.............. 1,573 1,660 231 23 3,487
Other ----....... 185 139 23 347

All types .... 2,095 9,282 6,172 2,250 255 20,054

1950-51 Season

Boxes ....-........... 3,178 7,284 4,601 997 198 16,258
Small bags .... 286 589 46 921
Boxes and small
bags ............ 1,305 1,768 296 18 3,387
Other* ............ 136 295 84 515
_____________________I._________

All types -- 3,178 9,011 7,253 1,423 216 21,081

Consisted of shipments containing combinations other than boxes and small bags
(boxes and half boxes, small bags and half-box bags) plus a small quantity of bulk.







Methods of Transportation for Florida Citrus


The longer distance traveled by all types of containers from
Origin Area 5 and the shorter distance traveled by the combina-
tion of boxes and small bags from Origin Area 4 was probably
due primarily to vagaries of sampling. Only two houses ap-
peared in the sample in Area 5 and one of them was owned by
a firm in New York City. Practically all of the fruit from this
house was shipped to New York, a distance of more than 1,200
miles. In Area 4 one firm maintained its own terminal outlet
in Atlanta, Georgia. A large percentage of the volume from
this house was sent to Atlanta in mixed shipments of boxes and
small bags. This would account for the distance traveled by the
combination, boxes and small bags, being somewhat below the
average traveled by straight shipments of boxes or small bags.

TABLE 5.-ORANGES: PERCENTAGE SHIPPED BY TYPE OF CONTAINER FROM
FLORIDA ORIGIN AREAS, 1949-50 AND 1950-51.


Type of Container




Boxes .....................
Small bags ..................
Boxes and small bags
Other ................ ..-


Percent by Origin Area

1 2 3 4 5 6

1949-50 Season

100.0 76.1 56.6 84.1 87.8 73.6
5.0 14.3 4.6 3.0 7.2
16.9 26.9 10.3 9.2 17.4
2.0 2.2 1.0 1.8


All types ......... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1950-51 Season

Boxes .................... 100.0 80.8 63.4 70.1 91.6 77.1
Small bags ...-........- .. -- 3.2 8.1 3.2 4.4
Boxes and small bags 14.5 24.4 20.8 8.4 16.1
Other* ....................... 1.5 4.1 5.9 2.4

All types -... ...... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Consisted of shipments containing combinations other than boxes and small bags
(boxes and half-box bags, small bags and half-box bags) plus a small quantity of bulk.

The quantity of oranges shipped by type of container and by
origin area is given in Tables 4 and 5. The entire volume from
Indian River counties (Origin Area 1) was shipped in standard
nailed boxes. Origin Areas 2 and 3 accounted for approxi-
mately 95 percent of the oranges shipped in small bags, with


19.








20 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

Area 3 handling about twice the volume of Area 2. Similar
tabulations were made involving grapefruit and tangerines. For
grapefruit, Origin Area 1 used only boxes and Origin Area 3
accounted for most of the shipments of small bags which was
essentially the same picture as that given by oranges. For
tangerines, the use of containers other than boxes was neg-
ligible.


TABLE 6.-ALL CITRUS SOLD THROUGH PRIVATE CHANNELS: DISTRIBUTION
AMONG PURCHASERS BY TYPE OF CONTAINER, 1949-50 AND 1950-51.


Boxes Sm. Bags Boxes &
Type of Sm. Bags
Purchaser 1,000 1,000 1,000
i Boxes Boxes Boxes


Other


Total


1,000 1,000
Boxes Boxes


1949-50 Season


Wholesaler ....
Chain .............
Independent ..
Government ..
Other packing
houses ..--.....
Truckers ......
Processors ......
Fruit stores ..
Unknown .-....


Total


Wholesaler ....
Chain .............
Independent ..
Government
Other packing
houses ........
Truckers .
Processors ....
Fruit stores .
Unknown ......


Total ....


9,372
4,061
34
98

386
159
13
13
800


14,936




10,765
5,362
19
93

718
124
3
27
835


17,946


72
1,447


16

1
15


1,189
3,014
16


27
24
1

132


1,551 4,403


1950-51 Seas

51
982
*


14
*


8


1,055


173
54
4

*
7
4
91
106


439


10,806
8,576
54
98

429
190
19
104
1,053


21,329


on

1,479 381 12,676
3,021 181 9,546
26 45
-93

18 11 761
44 7 175
I 4 7
58 95
158 118 1,119


4,746 770 24,517


Less than 500 boxes.

Shippers in Origin Area 1 use nothing but boxes, since the
fruit from this area is sold on auction. The reason that Areas
2 and 3 handle such large percentages of the small-bag ship-








Methods of Transportation for Florida Citrus


21


ments can be more easily explained after discussing the rela-
tionship between the type of container and type of purchaser
(Tables 6 and 7). Of the eight types of purchasers shown in
these tables, wholesalers and chain stores purchased more than
90 percent of the fresh citrus sold during the two seasons under
study. Chain stores purchased 17 percent and 10 percent of
their volume in small bags for the seasons 1949-50 and 1950-51,

TABLE 7.-ALL CITRUS SOLD THROUGH PRIVATE CHANNELS: PERCENTAGE
DISTRIBUTION AMONG PURCHASERS BY TYPE OF CONTAINER, 1949-50 AND
1950-51.


Type of
Purchaser


Boxes I Sm. Bags Boxes &
I I Sm. Bags
Percent I Percent I Percent I


Other

Percent


Total

Percent


Wholesaler .........
Chain .................
Independent .......
Government .......
Other packing
houses ........
Truckers ............
Processors ........
Fruit stores .. ..
Unknown ....-......


Total ........




Wholesaler ........
Chain .... ..........
Independent ......
Government ......
Other packing
houses .......
Truckers .....-
Processors ...........
Fruit stores .
Unknown .........


Total ........


1949-50 Season

86.7 .7
47.4 16.9
62.8 .3
100.0

90.0 3.7
83.7
66.9 5.2
12.2
76.0 1.4


70.0 7.3

1950-51 Season

84.9 .4
56.2 10.3
41.8 .7
100.0

94.4 1.8
70.8 .2
43.9 -
28.5
74.7 .7


73.2 4 3


11.0
35.1
30.2

6.2
12.6
5.3

12.5


20.6


11.7
31.6
57.4

2.3
25.0


14.1


19.4


1.6 100.0
.6 100.0
6.7 100.0
\100.0

.1 100.0
3.7 100.0
22.6 100.0
87.8 100.0
10.1 100.0


2.1 100.0


3.0
1.9
.1

1.5
4.0
56.1
71.5
10.5


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0


3.1 1 100.0


respectively, which accounted for 95 percent of the total
quantity shipped in small bags. Approximately 75 percent of
the total volume leaving the state is shipped from Origin Areas
2 and 3 and for this reason chain stores would be inclined to







22 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

concentrate their buying in these areas. Where volume is
heaviest chain stores can make the best buy and be assured
of a supply of uniform size and quality. For these reasons the
bulk of the small bag shipments originated in Origin Areas 2
and 3. Receivers other than wholesalers and chain stores made
very little use of bags. For types of sale other than private
sales, that is, auction and commission houses, the volume ship-
ped in bags was insignificant.

TABLE 8.-ALL CITRUS: SHIPMENTS BY TYPE OF CONTAINER AND TYPE OF
TRANSPORTATION, 1949-50 AND 1950-51.

Thousands of Boxes, or Box Equivalents,
Type of Shipped by Type of Carrier
Container Trucks Trucks Water All
Rail Private Hired by Hired by and Corn- Car-
Trucks* Shipper Buyer bination riers
1949-50 Season

Boxes ...... 12,107 2,065 3,567 4,943 2,846 25,528
Small bags 870 26 250 348 66 1,560
Boxes and small
bags .......... 1,489 393 956 1,567 8 4,413
Bulk ............... 91 53 23 20 187
Other ** .-...-..... 89 86 9 68 252

Total .. 14,646 2,623 4,805 6,946 2,920 31,940

1950-51 Season

Boxes .......... 19,887 2,112 3,880 4,872 30,846
Small bags ... 849 25 93 146 1 1,114
Boxes and small
bags ............ 1,905 523 580 1,770 4,778
Bulk ......... 68 154 17 110 349
Other** ......... 187 82 9 152 430

Total..... 22,896 2,896 4,579 7,050 96 37,517

Trucks owned by either shipper or buyer.
** Consists of shipments containing combinations other than boxes and small bags
(boxes and half-box bags, small bags and half-box bags).

The quantities of all citrus 6 shipped by type of container and
by type of carrier are given in Tables 8, 9 and 10. Between

STabulations involving the individual fruits, oranges, grapefruit, and
tangerines, are available in "Transportation of Fresh Citrus from Florida,
Seasons 1949-50 and 1950-51," Statistical Findings, Special Report, Agri-
cultural Economics, Series 52-6, Univ-r-itv -'l ` r;- agricultural Experi-
ment Station, Gainesville, Florida, August 1952, pp. 36-44.







Methods of Transportation for Florida Citrus


1949-50 and 1950-51 the use of boxes by all carriers increased
by slightly more than 2 percent (Table 9) and the use of small
bags decreased a corresponding amount. The combination of
boxes and small bags (believed to be predominantly boxes)
shows a decrease of 1 percent by all carriers. The increase in
the use of boxes can be accounted for mainly by the fact that
more fruit was sold on auction during the second season because
of heavier production.

TABLE 9.-ALL CITRUS: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF TYPES OF CONTAINER
USED BY EACH TYPE OF CARRIER, 1949-50 AND 1950-51.

Percent by Type of Carrier
Type of Tr s Trucks Trucks Water
Container Rail Private d by Hby ired by and Com- All
Trucks* I Shipper Buyer bination Carriers
1949-50 Season

Boxes -............ .82.7 78.7 74.2 71.2 97.5 79.9
Small bags ..... 5.9 1.0 5.2 5.0 2.3 4.9
Boxes and small
bags ............ 10.2 15.0 19.9 22.6 .2 1.3.8
Bulk .................. .6 2.0 .5 .3 .6
Other** -.......-. .6 3.3 .2 .9 .8

Total .-. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1950-51 Season

Boxes .............. 86.8 72.9 84.7 69.1 99.0 82.2
Small bags ...... 3.7 .9 2.0 2.1 -1.0 3.0
Boxes and small
bags ........... 8.3 18.0 12.7 25.1 12.7
Bulk .......-......- .3 5.3 .4 1.6 .9
Other** ....... .9 2.8 .2 2.2 1.2

Total ....... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Trucks owned by either shipper or buyer.
** Half-box bags, and various combinations with half-box bags.

Although the shift in the use of various containers between
the 1949-50 and 1950-51 seasons was only slight, Table 10 shows
an increase in the use of rail of 17, 20 and 6 percent for shipment
involving boxes, small bags, and the combination of boxes and
small bags, respectively. On the basis of this considerable in-
crease in the use of rail transportation, with the use of various
containers remaining relatively the same, it appears that factors


23







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


other than type of container were the principal factors which
influeficed the change in method of transportation used. -Had
the container influenced the method of transportation, the shift
in the relative importance of the various containers doubtless
would have been much more pronounced.

TABLE 10.-ALL CITRUS: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION AMONG CARRIERS BY
TYPE OF CONTAINER, 1949-50 AND 1950-51.


Percent by Type of Carrier
Type of T rucks Trucks Water
Container Rail Private Hired by Hired by and Com- All
_Trucks* Shipper Buyer bination Carriers
1949-50 Season

Boxes ..-.........-... 47.4 8.1 14.0 19.4 11.1 100.0
Small bags ...... 55.8 1.7 16.0 22.3 4.2 100.0
Boxes and small I
. bags .............. 33.7 8.9 21.7 35.5 .2 100.0
Bulk .................... 48.7 28.3 12.3 10.7 100.0
Other** .....-....-- 35.3 34.1 3.6 27.0 100.0
/


All types


4.8 98.2 1 1S.0
1950-51 Season


21.7


9.3 100.0
-- L


* Trucks owned by either shipper or buyer.
** Half-box bags, and various combinations with half-box bags.


ORIGIN AREA OF SHIPMENTS
In an effort to determine what influence, if any, the origin
area of the shipment had on the mode of transportation used,
tabulations were run on the average length of haul by type of
carrier from the various origin areas and the volume of fruit
shipped by each carrier from the different areas. The average
length of haul for both seasons combined (the picture was
essentially the same for each season) is given in Table 11. The
distance traveled by each carrier from each origin area held
relatively close to the average for all areas with the exception


24








Methods of Transportation for Florida Citrus


25


TABLE 11.-ALL CITRUS: AVERAGE LENGTH OF HAUL BY TYPE OF CARRIER
FROM ORIGIN AREAS IN FLORIDA, 1949-50 AND 1950-51 SEASONS COM-
BINED.


Origin Area


Type of
Carrier


9 21la


I All
S I A rea


SMiles Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles

Rail .................. 1,187 1,106 1,116 1,151 1,388 1,144
Privately owned
trucks .......... 393 414 370 606 402
Trucks hired by
shipper .......... 1,150 1,104 1,078 909 1,152 1,075
Trucks hired by I
buyer ............ 732 790 718 1,074 762
Water and
combinations 1,223 1,163 1,254 1,264 1,208 1,223

All carriers 1,193 838 844 923 1,240 916



TABLE 12.-ALL CITRUS: SHIPMENT BY TYPE OF CARRIER AND BY ORIGIN
AREA IN FLORIDA, 1949-50 AND 1950-51.

Thousands of Boxes, or Box Equivalents,
Type of Shipped by Origin Area
Carrier All
1 2 3 4 5 Areas
1949-50 Season

Rail .......-...... 2,183 5,957 3,821 1,809 875 14,645
Private trucks.. 1,098 1,054 438 34 2,624
Trucks hired by
shipper ........ 15 1,869 2,096 577 | 247 4,804
Trucks hired by
buyer ....... 2 3,511 3,064 276 93 6,946
Water and
combinations 1,477 549 104 558 232 2,920

All carriers 3,677 12,984 10,139 3,658 1,481 31,939

1950-51 Season

Rail ................ 5,916 7,687 6,673 1,201 1,419 22,896
Private trucks. 2 1,311 1,310 227 45 2,895
Trucks hired by
shipper .......... 65 1,578 1,998 298 642 4,581
Trucks hired by
buyer .......... 2,890 3,594 419 147 7,050
Water and
combinations 63 7 20 6 96


1


All carriers


13,529 13,582


2,165


2,259


37,518


5,983







26


Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


of Area 5. As mentioned above, only two houses appeared in
the sample from this area and one of them was owned by a
firm in New York City. The bulk of their volume was sent to
New York, which tended to make the average distance traveled
somewhat larger than from other areas.

TABLE 13.-ALL CITRUS: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION BY TYPE OF CARRIER
AND BY ORIGIN AREA IN FLORIDA, 1949-50 AND 1950-51.

Percent by Origin Area
Type of |
Carrier 1 2 3 4 5 All
Areas
1949-50 Season

Rail .................. 59.4 45.9 37.7 49.5 59.1 45.9
Private trucks.. 8.5 10.4 12.0 2.3 8.2
Trucks hired by
shipper ........ .4 14.4 20.7 15.8 16.7 15.0
Trucks hired by
buyer ............ .1 27.0 30.2 7.5 6.3 21.7
Water and
combinations 40.1 4.2 1.0 15.2 15.6 9.2


All carriers 100.0 1000 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1950-51 Season


Rail ................. 98.9 56.8 49.1 55.5 62.8 61.0
Private trucks.. 9.7 9.6 10.5 2.0 7.7
Trucks hired by
shipper ........ 1.1 11.7 14.7 13.7 28.4 12.2
Trucks hired by
buyer ........... 21.3 26.5 19.4 6.5 18.8
Water and
combinations .5 .1 .9 .3 .3

All carriers 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0



The volume of all citrus shipped from the various origin
areas by type of carrier is given in Tables 12 and 13. There
was a 15 percent increase in the use of rail for the state as a
whole during the second season. A breakdown of the individual
fruits shows the use of rail increasing 18 percent for orange
shipments, 12 percent for grapefruit shipments and 5 percent in
the case of tangerines.7 Origin Area 1 shows the largest rela-

bid., pp. 22-27.







Methods of Transportation for Florida Citrus


tive increase in the use of rail, which is accounted for by the
fact that water transportation was unavailable during the sec-
ond season. For all practical purposes the entire volume from
this area is sold on auction and, generally speaking, auction
shipments are not suited to movement by truck. During the
1949-50 season, railroads handled almost 60 percent of the
volume shipped from this area. The remaining 40 percent was
shipped by water to auction markets in the northeast. When
water facilities became unavailable, for reasons previously dis-
cussed, this volume shifted to rail.
Areas 4 and 5 shipped 15 percent of their volume by water
during the first season. One packinghouse appearing in the
sample in each of these areas, owned by firms in New York
City, accounted for the bulk of water movement from these two
areas. During the second season railroads handled 6 percent
more of the entire volume in Area 4 and 4 percent more in
Area 5.
Origin Areas 2 and 3, which shipped approximately 75 per-
cent of the fruit leaving the state, each showed an increase of
11 percent in the use of rail during the second season. This
was not due to the discontinuance of water transportation, as
was the case for the other areas, as these two areas shipped
relatively little by water when it was available. This increase
in the use of rail was primarily at the expense of hired trucks
and for reasons which are discussed in a later section.
While the geographic location of the packinghouse (other
things being equal) is undoubtedly a factor influencing the mode
of transportation used, it appears that other factors, such as
type and quality of fruit, method by which it is sold, availa-
bility of return hauls, and freight rate differentials, also play
important parts, and in many cases outweigh the advantages
due to geographic location.
This can readily be seen when the volume shipped from
Origin Area 1 (Indian River counties) is compared with volume
shipped from the remainder of the state. When water trans-
portation was available during the 1949-50 season 40 percent
of the volume shipped from this area was shipped by boat
and, for all practical purposes, the balance was shipped by
rail. During the 1950-51 season when water transportation
was not available, 99 percent of the volume moved by rail.
Volume moving by truck from this area was insignificant dur-
ing both seasons under study although, so far as geographic


27







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


location is concerned, truck transportation could be used by
firms in this area as readily as by firms in any other area of
the state. The quality of fruit shipped and the method of sale
are the primary reasons for this distribution of volume among
carriers from Origin Area 1.
This area produces fruit of high quality and, as previously
mentioned, all of it is sold through auctions. Although the
geographic location of this area undoubtedly played its part
in the heavy use of water transportation when it was available,
the fact that New York and Philadelphia, the two largest auc-
tion markets, are accessible by water added to the feasibility
of using this method of transportation. Because railroads have
an advantage over trucks so far as auction sales are concerned,
the fruit that formerly moved by water shifted to rail when
water transportation became unavailable.

DESTINATION REGION
The average length of haul by type of carrier from Florida to
the three destination regions (Fig. 4) is given in Table 14. The
important changes that occurred between the two seasons were
(1) the decrease in the distance traveled by truck shipments into
the Atlantic Coast region, and (2) the decrease in the distance
traveled by rail shipments into the Western region.


Fig. 4.-Boundaries of the three destination regions and locations of the
30 principal markets used in the study.


28








Methods of Transportation for Florida Citrus


29


TABLE 14.-ALL CITRUS: AVERAGE LENGTH OF HAUL FROM FLORIDA TO
DESTINATION REGION BY TYPE OF CARRIER, 1949-50 AND 1950-51.


Type of Carrier


Destination Region
Atlantic Central Western
Miles Miles I Miles


1949-50 Season

Rail ....... ................... ....... 1,098 1,081 2,115
Private trucks ..................-...... .. 1 315 821 1,199
Hired trucks .......................... 776 1,032 941
Water ....-................-.... .. 1,223 -
Combinations ................ ... 1,218 -

All carriers ........................... 855 1,028 1,195
1950-51 Season

Rail .......................... ..... ...1,127 1,083 1,905
Private trucks ............................ 285 864 1,190
Hired trucks ................................. 693 1,047 974
Water ........................... ..........- -
Combinations ..................... ...... 1,183 -


All carriers ...........- ...... .


800


1.036 1.156


TABLE 15.-ALL CITRUS SHIPPED BY TRUCK TO THE ATLANTIC COAST
REGION: DISTRIBUTION BY LENGTH OF HAUL, 1949-50 AND 1950-51
SEASONS.


1949-50 Season


Percent- Cumula- Number
age of tive Per- of
Total centage Boxes


6.2
2.0
.8
3.0
2.0
2.4
1.5
1.0
1.5
6.7
9.3
5.1
3.9
7.6
10.1
4.7
17.4
6.8
7.0
1.0


6.2
8.2
9.0
12.0
14.0
16.4
17.9
18.9
20.4
27.1
36.4
41.5
45.4
53.0
63.1
67.8
85.2
92.0
99.0
100.0


726,171
217,383
116,235
241,512
148,449
321,423
81,617
92,054
149,794
302,637
622,326
500,714
407,765
425.305
734,058
372,430
968,885
639,077
475,854
159,379


1950-51 Season


Percent-
age of
Total


9.4
2.8
1.5
3.1
1.9
4.2
1.1
1.2
1.9
4.0
8.1
6.5
5.3
5.5
9.5
4.8
12.6
8.3
6.2
2.1


Mileage code used as follows: 1 = less than 50 miles; 50 = 50 99 miles;: 100 = 100 149
miles, and so forth.


Length
of
Haul*
(Miles)


Number
of
Boxes


Cumula-
tive Per-
centage


1
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
1,100
1,200
1,300
1,400


449,123
143,617
57,598
212,746
135,677
177,845
112,090
73,148
109,115
485,317
671,540
371,714
282,847
552,463
731,566
339,768
1,263,736
491,964
510,574
69,947


9.4
12.2
13.7
16.8
18.7
22.9
24.0
25.2
27.1
21.1
39.2
45.7
51.0
56.5
66.0
70.8
83.4
91.7
97.9
100.0


Total 7,242,395 1 100.0 100.0 7,703,068 100.0 100.0


,


1905 Sao








30 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stattons

While the volume shipped by truck decreased by approxi-
mately one-half million boxes to all areas in 1950-51 as com-
pared with 1949-50, truck shipments into the Atlantic Coast
region increased over 400,000 boxes, as shown in Table 15.
Furthermore, a larger percentage of the movement into this
region was made up of shorter hauls in 1950-51. This would
cause the average distance traveled to be less during the second
season.
Pesrent
200

80

60 Atlantic Coast Region

ho

20


100

80

60

0 \ / Central Region

20

20 I I
100

80

60

/ Western Region


A0 /
20 \" .


500 00 0 1500 2000 2500 300C
Miles
Fig. 5.-All citrus: Percentage of volume moving by rail to the three
destination regions as distance increased.










Methods of Transportation for Florida Citrus


The decrease in the average distance traveled by rail ship-
ments into the western region during the 1950-51 season was
probably due primarily to the effects of the freeze in Texas in
January of 1950. A heavier volume of Florida citrus moved
into the territory ordinarily served by Texas following this
freeze, and as a result a larger percentage of rail movement
into the western region traveled shorter distances than was
the case in 1949-50.
Shipments of all citrus carried by the various carriers by
destination region and by length of haul are shown in Tables
16 and 17. Similar tabulations for each individual fruit are
available in the publication mentioned in Footnote 6. In addi-
tion, Figure 5 shows the percentage of all citrus shipped by
rail to each region of destination as distance increases. The
relative importance of the various methods of transportation
to the various destination regions, as shown by these tabula-
tions, is as follows:

ATLANTIC COAST REGION
Up to a distance of 800 miles, trucks handled a far larger
percentage of the volume shipped into the Atlantic Coast re-
gion than did railroads. Privately owned trucks hauled a larger
volume than did hired trucks up to 350 miles, but this situation
reversed itself between 350 and 800 miles and hired trucks
became the most important carrier. Above a distance of 800
miles, railroads handled from 57 to 86 percent of the quantities
shipped.
Several factors, though not necessarily in order of importance,
which undoubtedly played significant parts in influencing this
distribution of volume among the various carriers are given
below.
(1) Location of Auction Markets.-Generally speaking, the
auction markets in this area are located more than 800 miles
from points of origin in Florida. Considering the large per-
centage of the annual crop that is marketed through this chan-
nel, and the fact that the bulk of this volume moves by rail,
the tendency for volume shipped by rail to become heavy
relative to volume moving by truck above a distance of 700 to
800 miles can readily be understood.
(2) Size of City and Density of Population.-In the large
cities of the densely populated northern section of the Atlantic


31







TABLE 16.-ALL CITRUS: DISTRIBUTION AMONG CARRIERS OF SHIPMENTS TO DESTINATION REGIONS BY LENGTH OF HAUL
(AVERAGE 1949-50 AND 1950-51 SEASONS).


Length Atlantic Coast Central _Western
of Private 1Private H Private
Haul* Rail** Owned Hired Total Rail** Owned Hired Total Rail** Owned Hired Total
Trucks Trucks I Trucks Trucks ] Trucks Trucks
Miles 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,UUU 1,uu0 1,000 1.000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Boxes Boxes Boxes Boxes Boxes Boxes Boxes Boxes Boxes Boxes Boxes Boxes

1 255 334 589
50 94 86 180
100 60 28 88
150 172 55 227
200 3 70 72 145
250 31 95 155 281
300 6 51 46 103 2 1 3
350 24 75 6 105 2 8 19 29
400 43 52 78 173 2 8 64 74
450 147 175 220 542 5 11 55 71
500 130 333 314 777 94 107 419 620 4 1 185 190
600 250 189 296 685 116 38 334 488 43 1 139 183
700 131 54 291 476 295 54 176 525 39 2 52 93
800 175 161 328 664 288 26 231 545 6 6 33 45
900 925 65 633 1,623 684 60 414 1,158 4 5 108 117
1,000 1,685 34 321 2,040 586 100 843 2,529 5 70 75
1,100 3,884 76 1,040 5,000 1,634 42 748 2,424 12 13 45 70
1,200 3,576 17 547 4,140 1,586 35 1,198 2,819 21 37 171 229
1,300 1,579 6 488 2,073 104 2 135 241 22 26 48
1,400 630 161 791 77 8 182 267 6 6 12
1,600 12 2 14 121 12 124 257
1,800 13 13 104 5 71 180
2,000 28 16 44
2,500 30 11 41
3,000 I 146 2 148


Total 13,231


1,984


5,501


20,716


5,596


512


4,955


11,063


437


103


935


* Mileage code used as follows: I represents less than 50 miles; 50 represents 50-99 miles; 100 represents 100-149 miles, and so forth.
** Tncludes a small volume shipped by water and various combinations.


1,475


CO






o





c:-

I


1




TABLE 17.-ALL CITRUS: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION AMONG CARRIERS OF SHIPMENTS TO DESTINATION REGIONS BY LENGTH
OF HAUL (AVERAGE 1949-50 AND 1950-51 SEASONS).


Length Atlanti
of Private
Haul* Rail** Owned
Trucks


Miles Percent Percent

1 43.3
50 52.2
100 68.2
150 75.8
200 2.1 48.3
250 11.0 33.8
300 5.8 49.5
350 22.9 71.4
400 24.9 30.0
450 27.1 32.3
500 16.7 42.9
600 36.5 20.3
700 27.5 11.4
800 26.4 24.2
900 57.0 4.0
1,000 82.6 1.7
1,100 77.7 1.5
1,200 86.4 .4
1,300 76.2 .3
1,400 79.6
1,600 85.7
1,800
2,000
2,500
3,000


Total 63.9 9.6
Total 3.9 9.


c Coast


Hired
Trucks


Percent

56.7
47.8
31.8
24.2
49.6
55.2
44.7
5.7
45.1
40.6
40.4
43.2
61.1
49.4
39.0
15.7
20.8
13.2
23.5
20.4
14.3


26.5


Central


SPrivaLe
Total Rail** Owned Hired
Trucks Trucks


Percent Percent Percent Percent

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0 66.7 33 3
100.0 6.9 27.6 65.5
100.0 2.7 lu.8 86.5
100.0 7.0 15.5 77.5
100.0 15.2 17.2 67.6
100.0 23.8 7.8 68.4
100.0 56.2 10.3 33.5
100.0 52.8 4.8 42.4
100.0 59.1 5.2 35.7
100.0 38.3 6.6 55.1
100.0 67.4 1.7 30.9
100.0 56.3 1.2 42.5
100.0 43.2 .8 56.0
100.0 28.8 3.0 68.2
100.0 47.1 4.7 48.2
100.0




100.0 50.6 4.6 44.8


Total


Percent


100.0
100.0
10U.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0


Rail**


Percent


Western


Private
Owned Hired
Trucks Trucks


Percent i Percent Percent


2.1 .5
23.5 .5
41.9 2.2
13.3 13.3
3.4 4.3
6.7
17.1 18.6
9.2 16.1
45.8
50.0

57.8 2.8
63.6
73.2
98.6


100.0 29.6


7.0


* Mileage code used as follows: 1 represents less than 50 miles; 60 represents 50-99 miles; 100 represents 100-149 miles; and so forth.
** Includes a small volume shipped by water and various combinations.


Total


S-
0









-
0









0
Cs
*i


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0


97.4
76.0
55.9
73.4
92.3
93.3
64.3
74.7
54.2
50.0

39.4
3r.4
26.8
1.4


63.4


100.0


' -------L


, L


--------;







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


Coast region, many wholesalers, chain stores, commission men
and independent retailers buy in large enough quantities and
have the proper facilities to handle carload lots. For those
buyers who are not large enough to handle carload lots, brokers
are readily available to pool shipments for them, giving the
smaller buyers those advantages that accompany buying in
larger quantities. In addition, rail connections between Flor-
ida and markets in the northeast are generally superior to those
in other areas and offer both shippers and receivers excellent
service.
(3) Protective Service.-Many shippers and receivers believe
that railroads offer better protective services than do trucks.
The need for adequate protective service is greater for ship-
ments traveling more than 700 to 800 miles than for shipments
that travel shorter distances. Consequently, this would tend
to cause the volume moving by rail to become heavier as dis-
tance increased.
(4) Interstate Barriers.-It is well known that different
states have different regulations governing such things as size
of trucks and weight of the load they carry. It is also known
that the states differ in the degree to which these laws are
enforced. The extent to which truck movement is influenced by
these laws and the intensity of their enforcement cannot be
measured accurately. It is reasonable to assume that the longer
the distance traveled the harder it is for truckers to fulfill all
the requirements of the various states. These barriers un-
doubtedly play a part in influencing movement by truck.
(5) Return Hauls.-Although availability of return hauls is
a factor in both truck and rail transportation, it probably in-
fluences truck movement to various regions of destination to a
larger extent than movement by rail. If a railroad is to haul
into a particular area, it must return its cars over its es-
tablished roadbed even though return hauls are not readily
available. Truckers, on the other hand, do not have specific
schedules to meet and may elect to haul between various points,
depending on the availability of return hauls at the particular
time. To the extent that during the citrus season return
hauls are more readily available from Georgia, North and South
Carolina and Virginia, than from Pennsylvania, New York and
New England, trucks are in a better position to compete with
the railroads for volume shipped less than 700 to 800 miles.


34







Methods of Transportation for Florida Citrus


(6) Split Deliveries.-The southern part of the Atlantic Coast
region is much less densely populated and has on the average
smaller cities and smaller buyers than the northeast. The need
for split deliveries is probably greater in this area and trucks
are better suited to handle these deliveries than are railroads.
The relative importance of the two methods of transportation
insofar as split deliveries are concerned is given in Table 18.
Note that the relative importance of the railroads was signifi-
cant in only three of the categories during the two seasons
under study. These three categories were, for each shipment,
one receiver in one city, one receiver in two cities, and two
receivers in one city. For all other combinations of receivers
and cities the volume handled by the railroads was insignificant.

TABLE 18.-ALL FRESH FLORIDA CITRUS: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF
VOLUME BETWEEN RAIL AND TRUCK, BASED ON NUMBER OF RECEIVERS
AND NUMBER OF CITIES PER SHIPMENT.


Number of Receivers I 1949-50
and [
Number of CitiesI Rail Truck I Total
Percent Percent I Percent
1 Receiver 1 city ........ 51.6 48.4 I 100.0
1 Receiver 2 cities .... 24.4 75.6 100.0
1 Receiver more than
2 cities .................... 100.0 100.0
2 Receivers 1 city .... 31.8 68.2 100.0
2 Receivers 2 cities .. 100.0 100.0
2 Receivers 3 cities ..
More than 2 receivers 100.0 100.0


1950-51


Rail I Total
Rail | Truck I Total


Percent Percent Percent
62.4 37.6 100.0
20.2 I 79.8 100.0
100.0 100.0
18.0 82.0 100.0
4.6 95.4 100.0
100.0 100.0
7.6 92.4 100.0
I I


CENTRAL REGION

Trucks handled a larger percentage of the quantities of
fresh citrus shipped into the Central region than did the rail-
roads up to a distance of 700 miles, and hired trucks handled
more fruit than those privately owned. From 700 to 1,200 miles
the railroads were the most important type of carrier, but they
did not handle as large a percentage of the volume as they did
in the Atlantic Coast region. Above 1,200 miles hired trucks
again became the most important type of carrier in the Central
region.
The same factors listed under the Atlantic Coast region were
responsible for the distribution of volume among carriers in
the Central region as follows: The auction markets are, gen-
erally speaking, located above 700 miles and under 1,300 miles,


35







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


which would tend to make rail more important in this mileage
class; more of the large cities are located within this distance
range and this also would tend to make rail more important;
the need for adequate protective service becomes greater above
a distance of 700 miles in this region; and, to the extent that
interstate barriers affect truck movement, this factor has its
effect in the Central region.
Those shipments that travel farther than 1,300 miles in the
Central region, in the main, move into the less densely popu-
lated areas of North and South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas.
This area is somewhat out of the line of haul for the railroads.
Also, the need for split deliveries is probably greater in this
area than east of the Mississippi River. Probably for these
reasons, trucks handled a larger volume above a distance of
1,300 miles than did the railroads.

WESTERN REGION
In the Western region trucks handled much larger quantities
of fresh citrus than did railroads up to a distance of 1,800 miles.
Above 1,800 miles railroads were the chief carriers, although
trucks handled as much as 26 percent up to a distance of 2,500
miles. Above 2,500 miles railroads, for all practical purposes,
handled 100 percent of the volume.
Trucks are used more for longer distances in the Western
region primarily because more of the region is out of the line
of haul for railroads. There are many small cities and small
receivers in this region which tends to make split deliveries
more important here than in other regions. The freeze in Texas
in early 1950 was probably an added reason for the heavy use
of trucks to certain areas in the Western region. After this
freeze many Texas truckers who were equipped to handle citrus
started moving Florida citrus into areas formerly supplied by
Texas.
Citrus fruit moving more than 2,500 miles apparently goes
to the larger cities of the Far West. The major cities in this
area are supplied by main trunk lines and rail service is good.
From these large cities the fruit is probably distributed to
surrounding areas by truck.

ALL REGIONS
For the reasons discussed above, volume tended to shift to
rail as distance increased (see Figure 6). The sharp upward


36








Methods of Transportation for Florida Citrus


trend to 1,100 miles was due to the heavy use of railroads in
the Atlantic Coast region. The downward trend from 1,200 to
1,600 miles was caused by large volumes moving by truck into
the farthermost states in the Central region and the heavy
volume moving by truck up to 1,800 miles in the Western region.
Above 2,000 miles railroads handled from 66 to approximately
100 percent of the volume.

ur~cant
100

90 -

80 -

70 -

60 -

so -


30

20

10

0


Nile"


Fig. 6.-All citrus: Percentage of volume moving by rail to all regions
combined as distance increased.

TYPE OF SALE

Tabulations were run on shipments to 30 principal markets
(Fig. 4) throughout the country by type of sale and type of
carrier. This was done to ascertain the effect, if any, of the
method of sale on the mode of transportation used. The volume
of all citrus shipped to these selected cities by type of sale is
given in Tables 19 and 20. Approximately 45 percent of the
total volume shipped to these cities was sold on auction. Pri-
vate direct sales were next in importance, followed by private
sales with brokers, which were followed by commission-house
sales. While auction markets are located in only 10 of these
cities, the large quantities of citrus moving through this chan-


37








38


Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


nel in New York and Philadelphia made auctions the most im-
portant overall outlet to the 30 cities. In addition to New York
and Philadelphia, auction sales led in Cincinnati and Cleveland.

TABLE 19.-ALL CITRUS: VOLUME SHIPPED TO SELECTED CITIES BY TYPE OF
SALE (AVERAGE VOLUME FOR 1949-50 AND 1950-51).

Type of Sale
City Private Com-
with Private Auction mission All
_Broker Direct House Types
Boxes Boxes Boxes Boxes Boxes
Boston, Mass. .... 46,236 581,792 399,953 247,118 1,275,099
New York, N. Y. 201,388 743,568 5,141,620 394,399 6,480,975
Buffalo, N. Y .... 169.206 72.488 14.973 256,667
Philadelphia, Pa. 115,321 421,490 2,045,883 92,076 2,674,770
Pittsburgh, Pa. .. 57,261 330,915 146,760 245,590 780,526
Cincinnati, Ohio 41,316 202,046 493,174 19,303 755,839
Cleveland, Ohio 56,144 193,188 463,838 43,737 756,907
Chicago, Ill. ........ 377,089 556,060 456,386 436.r25 1,82P,160
Detroit, Mich. .... 40,844 1,028,466 361,636 97,570 1,528,516
Milwaakee, Wis. 89,044 51,740 140,184
Minneapolis, Minn. 111,368 57,356 3,414 172,138
St. Paul, Minn. .. 3,624 12,776 16,400
St. Louis, Mo .... 41,367 246,470 114,038 40,146 442,021
Kansas City, Mo. 66,134 97,396 I 16 '"0
Omaha, Nebraska 29,158 19,538 48,696
Baltimore, Md. .. 133,727 293,560 75,247 75,604 578,138
Charlotte, N. C. .. 45,216 139,663 184,879
Atlanta, Ga. ........ 135,654 519,814 65,989 721,457
Washington, D. C. 252,219 294,700 94,542 641,461
Louisville, Ky .... 132,208 220,827 11,753 364,788
Memphis, Tenn... 195,073 115,996 311,069
Nashville, Tenn. 174,672 162,819 337,491
Birmingham, Ala. 65,254 242,366 307,620
New Orleans, La. 102,403 320,772 7,639 430,814
Houston, Tex. .... 47,425 12,024 59,449
Denver, Colorado 104,654 39,844 144,498
Salt Lake City,
Utah .............. 21,443 16,346 37,789
Seattle, Wash. .-.. 67,232 40,344 101,5 i6
Portland, Oregon 9,492 23,940 33,432
Los Angeles,
Calif ...............- 2,484 12,421 14,905

Total 30 Cities 2,934,656 7,070,725 9,698,535 1,890,478 21,594,394


Percentage distribution by type of sale varied somewhat
from these figures in the case of individual fruits (Table 21).
Smaller percentages of grapefruit and tangerines were sold by
private sales and larger percentages by auction and commission
sales than was the case for oranges. For grapefruit, this
heavier use of auction and commission-house sales was pri-








Methods of Transportation for Florida Citrus


TABLE 20.-ALL CITRUS: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF VOLUME SHIPPED TO
SELECTED CITIES BY TYPE OF SALE (AVERAGE VOLUME FOR 1949-50 AND
1950-51).


City




Boston, Mass. ..........
New York, N. Y..
Buffalo, N. Y ..........
Philadelphia, Pa. ....
Pittsburgh, Pa. ......
Cincinnati, Ohio ......
Cleveland, Ohio ...-..
Chicago, Illinois ....
Detroit, Michigan ..
Milwaukee, Wis ....
Minneapolis, Minn.
St. Paul, Minn. ....
St. Louis, Mo. ........
Kansas City, Mo ....
Omaha, Nebraska ..
Baltimore, Md. ......
Charlotte, N. C. .....
Atlanta, Ga. ..........
Washington, D. C. ..
Louisville, Ky ...-....
Memphis, Tenn. ....
Nashville, Tenn ....
Birmingham, Ala. ..
New Orleans, La ....
Houston, Texas ......
Denver, Colorado ..
Salt Lake City, Utah
Seattle, Wash .......
Portland, Oregon ..
Los Angeles, Calif.


Total 30 Cities .... I


Private
with
Broker


Percent

3.6
3.1
65.9
4.3
7.3
5.5
7.4
20.6
2.7
63.2
64.7
22.1
9.3
40.4
59.9
23.1
24.5
18.8
39.3
36.3
62.7
51.8
21.2
23.8
79.8
72.4
56.7
62.5
28.4
16.7


13.6


Type of Sale


Corn-
Private Auction mission 1 All
Direct House j Types


Percent Percent Percent Percent

45.6 31.4 19.4 100.0
11.5 79.3 6.1 100.0
28.3 5.8 1 100.0
15.8 76.3 3.4 100.0
42.4 18.8 31.5 100.0
26.7 65.2 2.6 100.0
25.5 61.3 5.8 100.0
30.5 25.0 23.9 100.0
67.3 23.6 6.4 100.0
36.8 100.0
33.3 2.0 100.0
77.9 100.0
55.8 25.8 9.1 100.0
59.6 100.0
40.1 100.0
50.8 13.0 13.1 100.0
75.5 100.0
72.1 9.1 100.0
46.0 14.7 100.0
60.5 3.2 100.0
37.3 100.0
48.2 100.0
78.8 100.0
74.4 1.6 100.0
20.2 100.0
27.6 100.0
43.3 100.0
37.5 100.0
71.6 i 100.0
83.3 100.0


32.7
32.7 1


44.9


8.8


100.0


TABLE 21.-DISTRIBUTION OF CITRUS FRUITS BY TYPE OF SALE: PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL VOLUME SHIPPED TO 30 PRINCIPAL MARKETS (AVERAGE FOR
1949-50 AND 1950-51).


Type of Fruit



Oranges ........
Grapefruit ..
Tangerines .........


Type of Sale


Private Corn-
with Private Auction mission All
Broker Direct i House Types
I Percent Percent Percent Percent I Percent

14.4 38.1 41.5 6.0 100.0
13.4 1 26.9 48.4 11.3 100.0
9.5 20.9 53.2 16.4 100.0


S13.6 32.7 | 44.9 8.8 100.0


All Citrus ... .


39







40


Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


marily due to an increase of almost 5,000,000 boxes in grape-
fruit shipments during the second season, which tended to push
more fruit through these two channels. The fact that a larger
percentage of tangerines were sold through auction and com-
mission houses is not unusual. Tangerines are more highly
perishable, have a shorter season and are considered to be
more of a luxury product than either oranges or grapefruit.
For these reasons more than two-thirds of the crop moved
through auction and commission houses during the two sea-
sons under study.

TABLE 22.-ALL CITRUS SOLD THROUGH PRIVATE SALES WITH BROKERS:
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION AMONG CARRIERS OF VOLUME SHIPPED TO
SELECTED CITIES (AVERAGE VOLUME FOR 1949-50 AND 1950-51).

Type of Carrier
City Privately
Rail* Owned Hired All
Trucks Trucks Types
Percent Percent Percent Percent
Boston, Mass ........................... 87.1 1.1 11.8 100.0
New York, New York ............... 67.4 9.1 23.5 100.0
Buffalo, New York ........-......... 61.7 .4 37.9 100.0
Philadelphia, Pa .................... 69.4 1.1 29.5 100.0
Pittsburgh, Pa. .....................--... 56.9 43.1 100.0
Cincinnati, Ohio .....-................. 68.3 4.2 27.5 100.0
Cleveland, Ohio ....-..........-- ......-.. 63.3 36.7 100.0
Chicago, Illinois ....................... 77.2 .6 22.2 100.0
Detroit, Michigan .................. 58.5 41.5 100.0
Milwaukee, Wis. .................-..... 72.7 27.3 100.0
Minneapolis, Minn. ................. 57.5 4.5 38.0 100.0
St. Paul, Minn. ..................------- 100.0 100.0
St. Louis, Mo. ...............---............ 81.3 18.7 100.0
Kanasas City, Mo .................. 36.9 63.1 100.0
Omaha, Nebraska ....-...............- 9.2 11.9 78.9 100.0
Baltimore, Md. ...............-..-- ..... 64.9 35.1 100.0
Charlotte, N. C. .....--................ 48.0 26.6 25.4 100.0
Atlanta, Ga. .............................. 32.1 20.1 47.8 100.0
Washington, D. C .................... 10.1 4.9 85.0 100.0
Louisville, Ky ....................---- .... 32.7 2.4 64.9 100.0
Memphis, Tenn. .....................-- ... 57.8 4.7 37.5 100.0
Nashville, Tenn .............-.....-- ... 73.8 .3 25.9 100.0
Birmingham, Ala ..................... 55.4 .1 44.5 100.0
New Orleans, La. ................... 40.8 2.0 57.2 100.0
Houston, Texas ........................ 2.7 P9' 1 '1 0O
Denver, Colorado ...................... 54.9 2.3 42.8 100.0
Salt Lake City, Utah ............... 89.0 11.0 loJ.0
Seattle, Wash. ............-............... 100.0 100.0
Portland, Oregon ...........-...... .... 100.0 100.0
Los Angeles, Calif. .................. 100.0 100.0


All 30 Cities ...-.......-....... ...... 56.6 3.5 39.9 100.0


* Includes a small volume shipped by water and various combinations.







Methods of Transportation for Florida Citrus


41


The percentage distribution among carriers of the volume
sold through private sales with brokers is given in Table 22.
Railroads were the most important carrier to 22 of the 30 se-
lected cities. It is significant that seven of the eight cities in
which trucks handled a larger volume than did railroads are
located in the Southern, South Central, and Western regions.
This is in accord with the pattern of distribution among carriers
to the various destination regions as discussed in the preceding
section.

TABLE 23.-ALL CITRUS SOLD THROUGH PRIVATE DIRECT SALES: PERCENT-
AGE DISTRIBUTION AMONG CARRIERS OF VOLUME SHIPPED TO SELECTED
CITIES (AVERAGE VOLUME FOR 1949-50 AND 1950-51).

Type of Carrier
City Privately i
Rail* Owned Hired All
Trucks Trucks Types
Percent Percent Percent I Percent

Boston, Mass. .............................. 83.2 16.8 100.0
Nhe, LurK, New York .............. I .6 .9 | 2<.6 lj.)
Buffalo, New York ............... 25.8 2.0 72.2 100.0
Philadelphia, Pa. ................... 717 .5 27.8 100.0
Pittsburgh, Pa. .......................-- 45 2 1.2 53.6 100.0
Cincinnati, Ohio ..................... 68.5 .2 31.3 100.0
Cleveland, Ohio ...................- 62.0 2.7 30.3 10J.0
Chicago, Illinois ......-......... .. 59.0 .1 40.9 100.0
Detroit, Michigan .................. 61.9 38.1 100.0
Milwaukee, Wis. ................... 56.1 43.9 100.0
Minneapolis, Minn. -... ..... ... 57.2 42.8 100.0
St. Paul, Minn. .................. ........ 15.6 7.7 76.7 100.0
St. Louis, Mo ....-....... .....-- .. 66.7 .7 32.6 100.0
Kanasas City, Mo ............... 57.8 .5 41.7 100.0
Omaha, Nebraska ............. ... 8.4 4.6 87.0 100.0
Baltimore, Md. ......... ............. 62.2 2.6 35.2 100.0
Charlotte, N. C. ........................ 33.1 26.6 40 3 100.0
Atlanta, Ga. ........-.... -.....--- 18.7 39.7 41.6 100.0
Washington, D. C .................... 47.5 1.8 50.7 100.0
Louisville, Ky. .-...........~---......-- 36.5 .1 63.4 100.0
Memphis, Tenn ..... ...............---- 75.6 7.7 16.7 100.0
Nashville, Tenn. .......................... 55.5 4.2 40.3 100.0
Birmingham, Ala. .........-.......-- .. 16.0 3.7 80.3 100.0
New Orleans, La. ................... 6.9 .4 92.7 100.0
Houston, Texas ......................... 100.0 100.0
Denver, Colorado ...................... 95.6 4.4 100.0
Salt Lake City, Utah .....-....... 35.1 64.9 100.0
Seattle, W ash. ...................-.....--- 100.0 100.0
Portland, Oregon ...................- 101.0 1 0
Los Angeles, Calif. .................... 57.4 1 42.6 100.0


All 30 Cities ....................... 55.6 4.4 40.0 100.0


* Includes a small volume shipped by water and various combinations.






Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


Under private direct sales (Table 23), trucks handled a larger
volume than did railroads in 12 of the 30 cities. Of these 12
cities, only three were located outside the Southern, South Cen-
tral, and Western regions.
In the 10 auction markets the quantities of citrus fruit ship-
ped by truck were relatively unimportant, as shown in Table
24. Approximately 93 percent of all citrus sold on auction was
transported by railroads. Chicago was the only market where
the volume shipped by truck closely approached that handled
by railroads.
As mentioned previously, auction markets, generally speak-
ing, are located at rail terminals and on railroad property. The
markets at St. Louis, Cleveland and Detroit do not auction
commodities transported by truck. The Cincinnati market
handles truck shipments occasionally, but this is against its
policy. The remainder of the auction markets cater to truck
shipments, although auction charges differ significantly as be-
tween truck and rail shipments.8 The Chicago market has the
smallest spread between rail and truck charges-2 percent of
the gross receipts for volume shipped by rail and 21/2 percent
of gross receipts, plus a $10.00 unloading charge, for volume
shipped by truck. In addition, the Chicago market encourages
truck movement more than do the other auction markets.
Commission-house sales were used in 16 of the 30 cities
under study and approximately two-thirds of the volume of citrus
sold through this channel was transported by rail (Table 25).
Trucks handled more fruit sold by commission houses than
did railroads in only three of the 16 cities-Chicago, Atlanta
and Washington, D. C. In addition to the fact that these 16
cities are all in the line of haul for the railroads, a considerable
quantity of the fruit sold through commission houses leaves
points of origin in Florida as rollers (shipped unsold, final des-
tination determined while fruit is moving toward market). By
using rail transportation, these shipments can be controlled and
diverted more readily than when trucks are used. This factor is
also important in shipping fruit to auction.
The method of selling the fruit apparently influences some-
what the mode of transportation used. Under private sales
with brokers, railroads handled a larger percentage of the
volume than did trucks in more cities than was the case in

8 Information supplied by Market News Service representatives located
in auction-market cities.


42








Methods of Transportation for Florida Citrus


TABLE 24.-ALL CITRUS SOLD THROUGH AUCTION SALES: PERCENTAGE
DISTRIBUTION AMONG CARRIERS OF VOLUME SHIPPED TO SELECTED CITIES
(AVERAGE FOR 1949-50 AND 1950-51).


City


Boston, Mass ....... -- ..
New York, N. Y. ..--.............
Philadelphia, Pa ..................
Pittsburgh, Pa. ..............-.......
Cincinnati, Ohio .................-.....
Cleveland, Ohio .....................
Chicago, Ill. ................................
Detroit, Mich ..-.................
St. Louis, Mo. ........................
Baltimore, Md ........ --......


All Cities .


Type of Carrier


Privately
Rail* Owned Hired j All
Trucks Trucks Types
I Percent Percent Percent I Percent

87.5 12.5 | 100.0
94.4 .2 5.4 | 100.0
96.1 .2 3.7 I 100.0
83.7 16.3 100.0
96.0 4.0 100.0
99.9 .1 100.0
S51.9 48.1 100.0
I 99.9 .1 100.0
100.0 100.0
92.0 8.0 100.0


92.9


.1


7.0


103.0


I-cludes a small volume shipped by water and various combinations.


TABLE 25.-ALL CITRUS SOLD THROUGH COMMISSION HOUSES: PERCENTAGE
DiSTRIBUTION AMONG CARRIEhS OF VOLUME SHIPPED TO SELECTED CITIES
(AVERAGE FOR 1949-50 AND 1950-51).


City



Boston, Mass. ...................
New York, N. Y .-..........
Buffalo, N. Y. ............................
Philadelphia, Pa. ...-........-.........
Pittsburgh, Pa. ......................
Cincinnati, Ohio .....................
Cleveland, Ohio ....................
Chicago, Ill. ...............-............
Detroit, Mich. ..........................
Minneapolis, Minn. ....................
St. Louis, Mo ............................
Baltimore, Md. .......-............. ...
Atlanta, Ga ........................
Washington, D. C ....................
Louisville. Ky. ........................
New Orleans, La. .................


All Cities ...............


Type of Carrier


Privately
Rail* Owned
ITrucks


Percent Percent
82.8
77.2 .8
100.0
76.6 5.9
63.8 3.7
64.4 10.5
82.8
41.7 1.4
100.0
100.0
69.6
95.6
3.3 2.2
30.1
100.0
100.0


65.2


1.5


* Includes a small volume shipped by water and various combinations.


Hired
Trucks


Percent

17.2
22.0

17.5
32.5
25.1
17.2
56.9

30.4
4.4
94.5
69.9


33.3


All
Types


Percent
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0


100.0


... ....


43


--.--------------







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


private direct sales. In the main, this was probably because
brokers pooled shipments for a number of receivers and bought
in carload lots. In private direct sales where brokers are not
used, many receivers are not large enough and do not have the
facilities to buy in larger quantities. In the case of auction
and commission-house sales, definite advantages favor the use
of rail, as explained above.

SIZE OF CITY
In an effort to determine the relationship, if any, between
the size of the destination city and the mode of transportation
used, and to further check the influence exerted by method of
sale, tabulations were run involving the volume shipped to the
various states by method of sale, type of carrier and size of city.
Those cities with populations of 100,000 or more were classi-
fied as large cities and those with less than 100,000 population
as small cities. In large cities private direct sale was the most
important method of selling, followed by auction markets, pri-
vate sales through brokers and then commission houses. In
small cities approximately 53 percent of the fruit was sold by
direct private sale and 47 percent by private sales involving
brokers (see Table 6, Appendix). There were no auction sales
in cities of less than 100,000 population and less than one-half
of 1 percent of the volume shipped to the small cities was
sold through commission houses.
Tabulations were run showing the distribution among car-
riers of all citrus sold by private sale with brokers and private
direct sales, by size of city and by state (Tables 7 and 8, Ap-
pendix). Tabulations of this type were not necessary for fruit
sold through auction and by commission houses, as all auctions
are located in cities of more than 100,000 population, and the
volume sold through commission houses in cities of less than
100,000 was insignificant. The effect of size of destination city
and type of sale on the mode of transportation used, as brought
out in these two tables, is summarized in Table 26.
There was very little difference in the relative importance
of the various carriers between large and small cities when a
broker was involved. Railroads handled 47 percent of the total
volume shipped to large cities and approximately 43 percent of
the total volume shipped to small cities, a difference, relatively
speaking, of less than 5 percent. Under private direct sales
this was not the case. Railroads handled approximately the


44







Methods of Transportation for Florida Citrus


same percentage of the total volume shipped to large cities
under both types of sale. They handled a smaller percentage
of the total volume shipped to small cities when a broker was
not involved.

TABLE 26.-ALL CITRUS SOLD THROUGH PRIVATE CHANNELS: PERCENTAGE
DISTRIBUTION AMONG CARRIERS OF VOLUME SHIPPED TO LARGE AND
SMALL CITIES BY TYPE OF SALE (AVERAGE FOR 1949-50 AND 1950-51).

Type of Sale and Size of City
Type of
Carrier Private Sales with Brokers Private Direct Sales
Large Cities | Small Cities Large Cities Small Cities
Percent 1 Percent Percent Percent
Rail ............... 47.1 42.5 47.9 26.6
Privately
owned
trucks ........ 7.5 11.2 7.7 28.6
Hired trucks 45.4 46.3 44.4 44.8

All carriers 100.0 100.0 1100.0 100.0


The percentage of the total volume shipped to large cities in
privately owned trucks remained the same under both types of
sale. In small cities privately owned trucks handled 11 percent
of the total volume when a broker was used and approximately
29 percent of the total volume when the fruit was sold direct.
This increase in relative importance of privately owned trucks
was entirely at the expense of railroads. The percentage of
total volume shipped in hired trucks remained essentially the
same in both large and small cities and under both types of sale.
The size of the city apparently influences to some extent the
mode of transportation used. Trucks tend to become more im-
portant, relatively speaking, as the size of city decreases. This
is especially true for volume sold by private direct sale, the most
important method of sale used. Some of the factors that are
responsible for this distribution among carriers, so far as
shipments to small cities are concerned, follow:
(1) Line of Haul.-Many small cities are somewhat out of
the line of haul for railroads, and trucks are better suited to
handle this volume.
(2) Size of Receiver.-In smaller cities many receivers are
not large enough and do not have the proper facilities to handle
carload lots.


45






Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


(3) Split Deliveries.-When fruit is shipped to small receivers
in small cities, the need for split deliveries is probably greater
than when shipped to large cities. To the extent that this is
true, trucks have an advantage over railroads.
As mentioned above, the sharp increase in the relative im-
portance of privately owned trucks under private direct sales
was entirely at the expense of rail. As shown in Table 16, the
greater part of the citrus shipped in privately owned trucks
moves into the Atlantic Coast region and within a distance of
500 miles from points of origin in Florida. In the smallest
outlying cities of this region, which are out of the line of haul
for railroads and where brokers are not available to pool ship-
ments and buy straight truck loads of citrus, many small re-
ceivers apparently must maintain their own trucks. For ex-
ample, a small receiver in Georgia or Alabama who needs a
mixed load of fruits and vegetables will pull into Florida and
pick up the vegetables at various points, then fill out his load
with citrus. This service is difficult to obtain when using hired
trucks. In addition, a part of this increased volume moving in
privately owned trucks as the size of city decreases is made up
of shipments to gift houses, processing plants, and other pack-
inghouses located in the small cities of Florida.

MOVEMENT ACCORDING TO DAY AND MONTH
To test the extent that movement by day of week or month
of the season influenced the method of transportation used in
moving fruit to market, tabulations were run involving the
quantity of all citrus fruit shipped by (1) day of week and
method of sale, (2) day of week and type of purchaser, (3) day
of week and type of carrier, and (4) month of year and type
of carrier. Both seasons were combined in all of these tabula-
tions, as the distribution was essentially the same for both.
The volume of all citrus shipped by day of week and method
of sale is given in Table 27. On the average, Fridays and
Saturday were the heaviest shipping days for all methods of
sale combined. The volume shipped from Monday through
Thursday remained relatively constant, holding close to 15 per-
cent of the total volume each day. Sunday shipments were
insignificant. This pattern of distribution varied somewhat
under the different methods of sale, although in all cases ship-
ments were heavier the latter part of the week. For volume
sold through brokers, Tuesday was a relatively heavy ship-


46








Methods of Transportation for Florida Citrus


47


ping day, along with Friday and Saturday. Under private
direct sales Fridays and Saturdays were the heaviest shipping
days. Thursday and Fridays were the chief days for auction
shipments, and Fridays and Saturdays were heaviest shipping
days for volume sold through commission houses.

TABLE 27.-ALL CITRUS: VOLUME AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF
SHIPMENTS BY DAY OF WEEK AND BY TYPE OF SALE (AVERAGE FOR
1949-50 AND 1950-51).


Type of Sale


Day of
Week



Sunday ................
Monday ...............
Tuesday .........--
Wednesday .......
Thursday .......
Friday ....... ....
Saturday ...


Private
with Private Auction
Broker Direct


Boxes

92,316
1,235,130
1,524,854
1,353,354
1,292,134
1,564,158
1,701,880


Boxes I Boxes

174,970 211,791
2,276,184 1,516,98;
2,392,848 1,103,13
2,074,235 1,458,05'


2,036,559
2,614,714
2,616,070


6
2
4
4


1,888,076
1,889,892
1,649,451


Com-
mission
House


Boxes

63,060
296,790
281,136
269,765
281,953
452,093
416,662


Total


Boxes

542,142
5,325,086
5,301,972
5,155,408
5,498,722
6,520,857
6,384,063


Total ........ 8,763,826 14,185,580 9,717,385 2,061,459 34,728,250

Percentage of Fruit Moved Each Day
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent

Sunday ........... 1.05 1.23 2.18 3.06 1.56
Monday .........-....- 14.09 16.04 15.61 14.40 15.33
Tuesday ..-........ 17.58 16.87 11.35 13.64 15.27
Wednesday ...... 15.44 14.r2 15.00 13.09 14 84
Thursday .......... 14.74 14.36 19.43 13.68 15.83
Friday ................. 17.85 18.43 19.45 21.93 18.78
Saturday .............. 19.25 18.45 16.98 20.20 18.39
________________________ 1_______________


Total


100.0


100.0


100.0


100.0 100.0


Percentage Distribution by Type of Sale


Sunday .
Monday ..
Tuesday
Wednesday;
Thursday
Friday .....
Saturday.


Total _..


Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
.......... 17.03 32.27 39.07 11.63 100.0
...-.... ... 23.19 42.74 28.49 5.58 100.0
...... .... 28.76 45.13 20.81 5.30 100.0
y ......- 26.25 40.23 28.28 5.24 100.0
...-....... 23.50 37.04 34.34 5.12 100.0
.......-.... 23.99 40.10 28.98 6.93 100.0
...... 26.66 40.98 25.84 6,52 100.0


5.93 1 100.0


...


27.98


25.24


40.85








48


Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


A comparison was also made in this table between the over-
all percentage of total volume sold by each method of sale and
the percentage of volume sold by each method of sale on the
various days of the week. For the two seasons under study,
an average of 66 percent of the total volume was marketed

TABLE 28.-ALL CITRUS SOLD THROUGH PRIVATE CHANNELS: VOLUME AND
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SHIPMENTS BY DAY OF WEEK AND BY
TYPE OF PURCHASER (AVERAGE FOR 1949-50 AND 1950-51).


Day of
Week


Sunday ...............
Monday ............
Tuesday ............
Wednesday ........
Thursday ............
Friday .............
Saturday ...........


137,559
1,704,418
2,041,354
1,858.85,8
1,728,922
2,097,562
2,172,577


86,972
1,458,843
1,478,291
1.274.372
1,341,674
1,670,182
1,750,838


of Purchaser


Inde-
lendent


36
6,751
13,969
10.814
5.897
6,702
5,532


Other


42,651
335,960
382,404
278.9F9
249,237
394,951
386,603


267,218
3,505,972
3,916,018

3,325,730
4,169,397
4,315,550


Total ............ 111,741,250 9,061,172 49,701 2,070,764 22,922,887

Percentage of Fruit Moved Each Day
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
Sunday ............. 1.17 .96 .07 2.06 1.16
Monday ............. 14.52 16.10 13.58 16.22 15.29
Tuesday ............ 1739 16.31 2o.11 18.47 17.08
Wednesday .......... 15.83 14.06 21.76 13.47 14.93
Thursday ............ 14.72 14.81 11.86 12.04 14.51
Friday ................. 17.86 18.43 13.48 19.07 18 19
Saturday ............ 18.51 19.33 11.13 18.67 18.84


Total


100.0


100.0


100.0


100.0


100.0


Percentage Distribution by Type of Purchaser
IPercent Percent Percent Percent Percent
Sunday ............ 51.48 32.55 .01 15.96 100.0
Monday ............... 48.61 41.61 .19 9.59 100.0
Tuesday .......... .. 52.13 37.75 .36 9.76 100.0
Wednesday .....- 54.30 37.23 .32 8.15 100.0
Thursday ............ 51.99 40.34 .18 7.49 100 0
Friday ............... 50.31 40.06 .16 9.47 100.0
Saturday ............ 50.34 40.57 .13 8.96 100.0


Toa..... 512 395 22 90 I 10.


I


j


I


39.53


.22


Total ................


51.22


9.03 i 100.0







Methods of Transportation for Florida Citrus


through private channels and 34 percent was sold through auc-
tion and commission houses. The volumes shipped on Mondays,
Wednesday and Saturdays were distributed among the various
outlets in approximately the same percentages. On Tuesdays
some 74 percent of the volume shipped was sold through pri-
vate channels, and on Thursdays and Fridays larger percentages
of the volumes shipped were marketed through auctions and
commission houses.
The volume shipped through private channels was further
broken down to give shipments by day of week and by type of
purchaser, as shown in Table 28. As previously mentioned,
wholesalers and chain stores purchased approximately 90 per-
cent of the total volume marketed through private channels.
Significantly, the volume shipped to wholesalers was distributed
by days of the week in approximately the same percentages
as the volume sold through brokers by days of the week, as
shown in Table 27. This is true also for purchases by chain
stores and private direct sales. This may be due to the fact
that, generally speaking, chain stores maintain their own
buying subsidiaries or representatives while wholesalers use
brokers to a much larger extent.
While wholesalers and chain stores received 51.2 percent and
39.5 percent of the total volume, respectively, these percentages
varied somewhat on different days. Wholesalers received a
small percentage of the volume shipped on Mondays and a
larger percentage of the volume shipped on Tuesdays and Wed-
nesdays. The opposite was true for chain stores.
Although a larger percentage of fruit was shipped the latter
part of the week under all types of sale, it was for different
reasons under private sales as compared with auction and com-
mission-house sales. Under private sales the receiver controlled
the day on which shipments left points of origin and he was
influenced by his location, merchandising practices and other
factors. Under auction and commission-house sales the shipper
controls the day of departure. Toward the latter part of the
week, shippers have a larger volume of various sizes and varie-
ties which have not been sold. Also, the packinghouses must
be cleared for orders to be filled the following week. For these rea-
sons a larger percentage of the volume is sent to auction and com-
mission-houses on Thursdays and Fridays. This is particularly
true of shipments from houses in the interior of the state, since
the Indian River territory markets its entire volume by auction.


49








Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


TABLE 29.-ALL CITRUS: VOLUME AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SHIP-
MENTS BY DAY OF WEEK AND BY TYPE OF TRANSPORT (AVERAGE FOR
1949-50 AND 1950-51).


Type of Transport


Day of Week


Sunday --
Monday ...
Tuesday ....
Wednesday
Thursday ..
Friday ......
Saturday ..


Total


Rail Truck


Boxes

238,826
2,603.273
S2,414,732
2,934,974
3,332,202
3,771,161
3,475,137


Boxes

193,994
2.55f.R'5
2,775,696
2,021,314
1,759,188
2,447,382
2,695,446


18,770,305 14,449,855


Water and
Combinations


Boxes

109,322
164.978
111,543
190,120
407,332
302,314
213,480


1,508,089


Percentage of Fruit Moved Each Day


Sunday ......
Monday ....
Tuesday .....
Wednesday
Thursday ..
Friday ......
Saturday .


Percent

1.27
13.87
12.86
15.64
17.75
20.09
18.52


Percent

1.34
17.69
19.21
13.99
12.17
16.94
18.66


Percent

7.25
10.94
7.40
13.20
27.01
20.01
14.19


Percent

1.56
15.33
15.27
14.84
15.83
18.78
18.39


Total ........................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Percentage Distribution by Type of Transport
Percent Percent Percent Percent

Sunday ....................... 44.05 35.78 20.17 100.0
Monday .......-.........- 48.89 48.01 3.10 100.0
Tuesday ......................... 45.54 52.35 2.11 100.0
Wednesday ....................... 56.93 39.21 3.86 100.0
Thursday ............................ 60.60 31.99 7.41 100.0
Friday ......-............... ...... 57.83 37.53 4.64 100.0
Saturday .-........................- 54.43 42.22 3.35 100.0


Total ..


54.05


41.61


4.34


100.0


The volume shipped
is given in Table 29.
the heaviest shipping


by day of week and by type of carrier
Thursday, Fridays and Saturdays are
days for rail. Monday, Tuesdays and


Saturday are the heaviest shipping days for truck shipments.
While there was no movement by water during the 1950-51


50


Total


Boxes

542,142
5.325,086
5,301,971
5,155,408
5,498,722
6,520,857
6,384,063


34,728,249


I







Methods of Transportation for Florida Citrus


season, Thursdays and Fridays were by far the heaviest days
for water when it was available. While railroads handled an
average of 54 percent and trucks an average of 41.6 percent of
the total volume shipped during the two seasons under study,
these percentages varied significantly on different days of the
week. Railroads handled a large proportion of the volume on
Wednesday, Thursdays and Fridays. Trucks were more im-
portant on Mondays and Tuesdays. Volume shipped on Satur-
days held fairly close to the overall average for both types of
transportation.
This distribution among carriers by day of the week is pri-
marily due to method of sale. For reasons previously stated,
railroads are better suited to handle citrus sold through auction
and commission houses. As shipments moving into these two
channels become heavier in the latter part of the week, the use
of rail would tend to increase. Also, as shown in Table 26,
trucks are somewhat more important than rail under private
sales. With a larger percentage of the volume shipped the
earlier part of the week sold in this manner, truck shipments
would tend to be heavier on Mondays and Tuesdays.

TABLE 30.-ALL CITRUS: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL SHIPMENTS
BY MONTH OF YEAR, 1949-50 AND 1950-51.

Month Season


September ......-...... ... ..................
October .......... ..................... ......
N ovem ber ............... ........ .....
December .......... ......- -
January .................................. ..-
February ...... ................----... .
M arch ...- .... ....-----..-
A pril ............. .. ........ ...- ....... ...... ... .....-
May ....-- ... ------.
June ..... ------. .................-- -- .. ........
July ....... ......... ............ ...... ... ......... ....
August ................ .... ... ---.......... ----

Total ......... .-....... --- ....---


1949-50 1950-51
Percent Percent
.1 1.7
3.8 5.8
10.7 10.6
15.4 13.9
12.8 12.2
12.4 13.0
15.5 13.2
12.2 11.6
11.3 10.5
5.3 6.5
.5 .9
.1

100.0 100.0


The relative importance of the various months from the stand-
point of volume shipped should be noted (Table 30). This table
shows that volume tends to be light during September and Octo-
ber, increases sharply during November, and reaches a peak in


51


f







52


Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


December. Shipments level off somewhat during January and
February and increase again in March, which is the peak of the
Valencia season. From April through the remainder of the
season shipments decrease steadily. Little citrus moves during
July and August.


TABLE 31.-ALL


Month


September .......
October ..--
November .....
December ..--
January .........-
February .....-...
March ....... ....
April ....-....
M ay .................
June ................
July ......- ..
August ............


Total


CITRUS: MONTHLY SHIPMENTS BY TYPE OF CARRIER,
1949-50 AND 1950-51.

Type of Carrier
Water
Rail Truck and Com- All
binations Carriers
Boxes Boxes I Boxes I Boxes
1949-50 Season


....... 29,063
-..- 421,982
.-.--. 1,483,355
... 2,360,343
....... 1,948,106
1,738,454
S2,211,949
..- 1,712,870
1,828,683
-.-. 833,960
-..-. 75,911
:I


....-..-..-.- 14,644,676


1,570
798,193
1,873,726
2,236,015
1,753,339
1,708,969
2,144,975
1,707,420
1,421,787
654,606
74,479


14,375,079


62,296
306,165
397,732
513,721
603,981
468,085
370,487
196,372
871



2,919,710


30,633
1,220,175
3,419,377
4,902,523
4,099,177
3,961,144
4,960,905
3,888,375
3,620,957
1,684,938
151,261



31,939,465


September -........ ..
October ........... ...... .-
November ......................
Decem ber ...... ........ ..-
January .........................
February ........ ....
M arch ............................
April ...........-. .......

June .-..... -- .... .........
July ....... .. -.. .....-
August ............ -- ..-- ....


Total .......... ... ....


2,
3,
2,
2,
3.
2,
2,
I,


1950-51 Season

242,467 405,925
704,923 1,462.763
063,643 1,925,347
042,597 2,144,366
800,521 1,790,801
977,722 1,873,421
219,056 1,604.114
983,384 1,364,606
761,437 1,165,657
840,609 589,768
246,643 93,139


12,933


22,895,935 ]


14,726


14,524,633


Volumes shipped by month and by type
two seasons are given in Tables 31 and 32.


of carrier for the
Trucks apparently


1,096

3,260
18,157

21,902
28,924

4,453
9,869
8,808



96,469


649,488
2,167,686
3,992,250
5,205,120
4,591,322
4,873,045
4.942,094
4,347,990
3,931,547
2,440,246
348,590
27,659


37,517,037


'








Methods of Transportation for Florida Citrus 53

are the most important carrier during the early months of the
season, decline in importance relative to railroads from Decem-
ber through June, and regain their position during July and
August. This was true for both seasons with the exception
of September 1949. Damage inflicted by a severe hurricane
resulted in only 30,000 boxes being shipped during that month,
so this cannot be considered as representative of September
shipments.

TABLE 32.-ALL CITRUS: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF MONTHLY
SHIPMENTS BY TYPE OF CARRIER, 1949-50 AND 1950-51.


Month


Type of Carrier
Water
Rail I Truck and Com- All
| binations Carriers


Percent I Percent Percent I Percent
1949-50 Season

September ................ 94.9 5.1 100.0
October ....-................. 34.6 65.4 100.0
November .................... 43.4 54.8 1.8 100.0
December ................... 48.1 45.6 6.3 100.0
January --.................... 47.5 42.8 9.7 100.0
February -................... 43.9 43.1 13.0 100.0
March ....-.................... 44.6 43.2 12.2 100.0
April ....................--. 44.1 43.9 12.0 100.0
May .............. ....... 50.5 39.3 10.2 100.0
June .........-...........-.... 49.5 38.9 11.6 100.0
July ....-.............-..... 50.2 49.2 .6 100.0
August .......................


Total .................. 45.9 44.9 9.2 100.0

1950-51 Season

September .................. 37.3 62.5 .2 100.0
October .................... 32.5 67.5 100.0
November ................... 51.7 48.2 .1 100.0
December .................. 58.5 41.2 .3 100.0
January ...-............... 61.0 39.0 100.0
February ..................-.. 61.1 38.4 .5 100.0
March ......................... 65.1 34.3 .6 100.0
April ...................-.... ..- 68.6 31.4 100.0
May ... .........- 70.2 29.7 .1 100.0
June ...................... 75.4 24.2 .4 100.0
July ........................ | 70.8 26.7 2.5 100.0
August .................. 46.8 53.2 100.0


Total ............-......


.3


100.0


61.0


38.7







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


Factors considered responsible for this heavier use of trucks
relative to rail during early and latter parts of the season are 9:
(1) Availability of Truck Facilities.-During the early part
of the season, and especially during October and November, com-
modities which compete with citrus fruit for trucks are rela-
tively unimportant. Consequently, trucks are readily available
for shippers and receivers of fresh citrus.
(2) Light Volume.-The volume of shipments is relatively
light during the early and latter months as compared to mid-
season. In addition, shippers have a number of regular re-
ceivers who must be satisfied, and to a certain extent this
smaller volume must be rationed among these receivers. This
makes for smaller shipments which are better suited to truck
movement.
(3) Minimum Weight Requirements.-Along these same lines,
rail rates are so constructed that certain minimum weight re-
quirements must be met if the minimum rate is to be obtained.
Where volume is light and shipments tend to be smaller during
the early and latter months of the season, these weight require-
ments are more difficult to meet.
(4) Declining Market.-During the early months of the sea-
son prices tend to be higher because of the small volume of
citrus marketed. As the season progresses and the volume in-
creases prices tend to decline. From the standpoint of speed,
shippers use trucks in preference to rail in order to reach cer-
tain markets in a minimum of time. In addition, receivers are
cautious during a period of declining prices; they do not buy
as much fruit in carload lots as they do when prices level off.
(5) Sizes and Varieties.-Shippers have more trouble filling
orders for certain sizes and varieties during the early and the
latter months of the season as compared to midseason. In
many instances, shippers must obtain fruit from two or more
houses to fill orders. When this is the case, trucks have an
advantage over railroads.
For these reasons trucks are relatively more important than
railroads as carriers during the early and latter months of the
season. In midseason, the opposite is true; railroads then
assume increased importance relative to trucks. An additional
factor that favors rail movement during midseason is the heavier

Summary of opinions advanced or concurred in by various members
of the trade in Florida.


54







Methods of Transportation for Florida Citrus


volume sold through auction and commission houses. As the
season progresses, a larger percentage of the volume moves
through these two channels, and for reasons previously stated,
93 percent of this volume is transported by rail.

TRANSPORTATION COSTS
It has been noted at several points in the discussion thus far
that an increase of some 16 percent in the use of railroads, rela-
tive to other modes of transportation, occurred between the
1949-50 and 1950-51 seasons. It is felt that two of the factors
thus far discussed, namely, the availability of the various modes
of transportation and the method of sale, were responsible for a
significant part of this increase in the use of rail. Water facili-
ties became unavailable during the latter season and the volume
formerly handled in this way shifted to rail. In addition, the
use of auction markets increased, partially because of heavier
production during the second season, which gave the railroads
an advantage over other methods of transportation.
However, it is evident that these two factors were responsi-
ble for only a part of this relative increase in the use of rail-
roads. Furthermore, the analysis thus far indicates that the
balance of this increase was not due to the other factors that
have been discussed. It is believed that the rest of this increase
in the use of railroads was primarily due to costs.
Total transportation charges per 100 pounds by rail and truck
to certain selected cities for the two seasons under study are
given in Table 33. Generally speaking, there was a decrease
between the two seasons in transportation charges by rail and
a slight increase by truck. The data on costs obtained in the
survey serve to show the total cost per 100 pounds incurred in
moving the fruit to market during the two seasons under study.
These data could not be relied upon completely to show the rela-
tionship between transportation charges and volume moving by
the various modes of transportation for several reasons:
(1) Information as to transportation charges was available
for only a small percentage of the shipments under study. The
bulk of the fruit was sold f.o.b. and no cost data were available
for these shipments.
(2) Of those shipments for which cost data were available,
data for rail shipments were obtained, in the main, from records
of auction and commission-house sales. These shipments should
not be used in relating volume to transportation cost because of


55







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


TABLE 33.-ALL CITRUS: TRANSPORTATION CHARGES PER 100 LBS. BY RAIL
AND TRUCK TO SELECTED CITIES, 1949-50 AND 1950-51 SEASONS.


Season and Type of Carrier
1949-50 Season 1950-51 Season
Selected City Truck F Truck
Rail Hired by Rail Hired by
_Shipper I___ Shipper


Boston, Mass. ...--..----.. $1.38 $1.36 $1.26 $1.38
New York, N. Y. ........ 1.09 1.20 1.06 1.22
Buffalo, N. Y. .............. 1.60 1.33 1.43 1.39
Philadelphia, Pa. ........ 1.03 1.16 1.01 1.16
Pittsburgh, Pa. .......... 1.49 1.22 1.26 1.22
Cincinnati, Ohio .......... 1.17 1.16 1.13 1.18
Cleveland, Ohio ......... 1.51 1.33 1.40 1.38
Chicago, Illinois .......... 1.30 1.17 1.28 1.19
Milwaukee, Wis. .......... 1.36 1.53 1.51
Minneapolis, Minn. .... 1.52 2.01 1.70
St. Louis, Mo. ............. 1.18 1.16 1.22 1.18
Baltimore, Md. ........ ... 1.28 .99 1.19 1.00
Charlotte, N. C. ........ .70 .74
Atlanta, Ga. ................ .46 .78 .51
Washington, D. C. .... 1.11 .96 .95 .98
Louisville, Ky. .........-.. 1.13 1.23 1.15
Memphis, Tenn .......... 1.15 .90 .93
New Orleans ............... .72 .88 .77


the characteristics of these two outlets. Railroads have ad-
vantages over other modes of transportation where fruit is sold
through these channels and it is felt that rate changes, within
limits, will have little effect on the mode of transportation
used.
(3) Transportation charges on many of the shipments could
not be separated into the component parts and total charges had
to be used. The data in Table 33 include refrigeration, tax,
drayage, demurrage and any other costs connected with trans-
portation. For example, the survey shows that rail and truck
charges per 100 pounds to Pittsburgh were $1.49 and $1.22,
respectively, while the effective freight rates were $1.29 for
rail and $1.15 for truck. Consequently, a change in freight
rates may have been obscured by the incidence of any of these
other charges.
(4) Many shipments showing only total transportation
charges were mixed shipments. In converting total charges to
a cost per 100 pounds basis there were no accurate means of
allocating costs to the different types of fruit, although to cer-
tain of the principal markets included in the study the effec-
tive rate for the different fruits varied by several cents per
100 pounds.


56





TABLE 34.-RAIL FREIGHT RATES ON ORANGES FROM LAKELAND, FLORIDA TO SELECTED CITIES IN EFFECT DURING SEASONS
1949-50 AND 1950-51. CAR-LOT RATES PER 100 POUNDS.


Selected City


Baltimore .........
Buffalo ....-... ..................
Chicago ......... .. ... .........
Cincinnati ..............
Cleveland ..... ...... ...
Detroit ............. ..... ......
Louisville ....... .. .. .. ..........
Pittsburgh .......... ......
St. Louis ...............................
New York .......... ... .............
Philadelphia ................ .....
Washington, D. C ......... .......-
M ilwaukee ................... .....
Boston ................................ .....
Minneapolis ................
St. Paul .............................
Kanasas City, Mo ...................
Om aha ....................-......-..- ........
Charlotte .................... ......... ..
Atlanta .................................. .....
Memphis ............................. ..
Birmingham ..............-...- ....
New Orleans .............. --.....
H ouston .................. ... ....-... ........
D enver ........................... ..........
Salt Lake City .....................
Seattle .............. ........ .. .......... ....
Portland ...................- .........
Los Angeles ................. ...........


July 1,
I 1949


$1.03
1.34
1.27
.99
1.26
1.27
1.09
1.26
1.21
1.04
1.04
.97*
1.28
1.16
1.49
1.49
1.37
1.43
.60*
.51*
.84*
.60*
.61*.
1.40
1.88
1.88
1.88
1.88
1.88


September 1,
1949


$1.06
1.37
1.30
1.02
1.29
1.30
1.12
1.29
1.24
1.07
1.07
1.08
1.31
1.19
1.52
1.52
1.40
1.46
.66
.56
.92
.66
.67
1.43
1.91
1.91
1.91
1.91
1.91


Effective Rate


November 15,
1949


$


.85


* In addition to the rate shown, add 6% of total freight charges.


April 4,
1951


November 1,
1950


$ .80
1.17
.95
.89
1.11
1.11
.89
.96
.95


.74
1.11


March 21,
1951


$ .85








.89


194


$ .87
1.19
.97
.91
1.13
1.13
.91
.98
.97
1.09
.91
.76
1.13
1.21
1.54
1.54
1.42
1.48
.67
.57
.94
.67
.68
1.45
1.93
1.93
1.93
1.93
1.93


Ce
M-




o



0
q~







;5

nc








TABLE 35.-RAIL FREIGHT RATES ON GRAPEFRUIT FROM LAKELAND, FLORIDA TO SELECTED CITIES IN EFFECT DURING SEASONS
1949-50 AND 1950-51. CAR-LOT RATES PER 100 POUNDS.

Effective Rate
Selected City July 1, I September 1, November 15, November 1, March 21, April 4,
S1949 1949 1949 1950 1951 1951

Baltimore ....-... ................ .... $1.11 $1.14 $ $ .89 $ .95 $ .97
Buffalo ................- ... ........ 1.34 1.37 1.32 1.34
Chicago .............. .....-......... 1.27 1.30 1.06 1.08
Cincinnati ................................. 1.09 1.12 1.00 1.02
Cleveland ......-...- ...- .....-....... 1.26 1.29 1.25 1.27
Detroit ........ ..-- ......- ... ......... 1.27 1.30 1.25 1.27
Louisville ............... -... .......- 1.09 1.12 1.00 1.02
Pittsburgh ................ ........... 1.26 1.29 1.07 1.09
St. Louis ....... ............. ........ 1.21 1.24 1.06 1.08
New York ........ ..... ... ....... 1.11 1.14 1.16
Philadelphia ..-........... ......... 1.11 1.14 1.00 1.02
Washington, D. C. .................... 1.11 1.14 .95 .83 .85
Milwaukee .................... ........ 1.28 1.32 1.25 1.27 t
Boston ..................-- ...-....... 1.25 1.28 1.30
Minneapolis ........... -........ 1.49 1.52 1.54
St. Paul ............ ........ ... ...... .. 1.49 1.52 1.54
Kansas City, Mo .................... 1.37 1.40 1.42
Omaha ............................ ..... 1.43 1.46 1.48
Charlotte .............. .........- .60* .66 .67
Atlanta ......... ... .. ... .. 51* .56 .57
Memphis ..............- ... ............ .84* .92 .94
Birmingham ................... ......... .60* .66 .67
New Orleans ....................... .61* .67 .68
Houston ............. .... ............ 1.40 1.43 1.45
Denver .................. .. ... ... 1.88 1.91 1.93
Salt Lake City ........................ 1.88 1.91 1.93
Seattle ........... ........................ 1.88 1.91 1.93
Portland ....... ......................... 1.88 1.91 1.93
Los Angeles ..................... ..... 1.88 1.91 1.93


* In addition to the rate shown, add 6% of total freight charges.






TABLE 36.-RAIL FREIGHT RATES ON TANGERINES FROM LAKELAND, FLORIDA TO SELECTED CITIES IN EFFECT DURING SEASONS
1949-50 AND 1950-51. CAR-LOT RATES PER 100 POUNDS.

Effective Rate
Selected City July 1, September 1, November 15, November 1, I March 21, April 4,
1949 1949 1949 1950 1951 1951

Baltimore ................................. $1.09 $1.12 $$ .83 $ .88 $ .90
Buffalo .............. .............. 1.34 1.37 1.21 1.23 0
Chicago .................... ............... 1.27 1.30 .98 1.00
Cincinnati ...... ................ 1.09 1.12 .92 .94 o
Cleveland ...........-..... ............. 1.26 1.29 1.15 1.17 _4
Detroit ................................ 1.27 1.30 1.15 1.17
Louisville .............. ............... 1.09 1.12 .92 .94
Pittsburgh ................................... 1.26 1.29 .99 1.01
St. Louis .............. ......... ......... 1.21 1.24 .98 1.00
New York ................................ 1.09 1.12 1.14
Philadelphia ......................... 1.09 1.12 .92 .94
Washington, D. C ..................... 1.09 1.12 .88 .77 .79
Milwaukee ...................... ..... 1.28 1.31 1.15 1.17
Boston ........-...........................- 1.23 1.26 1.28
Minneapolis .......................... 1.49 1.52 1.54
St. Paul ................. .................... 1.49 1.52 1.54 o
Kansas City, Mo. ........ .......... 1.37 1.40 1.42
Omaha ................-....... ............ 1.43 1.46 1.48
Charlotte ..................................... .60* .66 .67
Atlanta ............................. ........ .51* .56 .57
Memphis .................................. .84* .92 .94
Birmingham ......................... I .60* .66 .67
New Orleans ............................ .61* .67 .68
Houston ................................. 1.40 1.43 1.45
Denver ................ ....................... 1.88 1.91 1.93
Salt Lake City ........................ 1.88 1.91 1.93
Seattle ...................................... 1.88 1.91 1.93
Portland ..................................... 1.88 1.91 1.93
Los Angeles ................................. 1.88 1.91 1.93

In addition to the rate shown, add 6% of total freight charges.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


With these factors in mind it was concluded that considera-
tion of the influence of changes in freight rates on volume should
include information concerning changes in rates obtained from
sources other than the survey. For this purpose the Bureau
of Agricultural Economics supplied information concerning rail
freight rates, as given in Tables 34, 35 and 36. During the
period under study rail freight rates to 13 of the cities shown
decreased, while to the remaining 16 cities they increased. The
effective dates of the increases or decreases in rail rates were
the same for all three types of fruit. Truck rates from Winter
Haven, Florida, to these same cities did not change during the
period until March 19, 1951.10 (See Appendix Table 9.)


percent
100 s


90

80

70

60


ho

30

20

10

0


4
i


i


Manth


Fig. 7.-All citrus sold through private channels and transported by
rail or hired truck: Percentage of total volume moving by rail, by month,
seasons 1949-50 and 1950-51, to nine selected cities where a reduction in
rail freight rates occurred November 1, 1950, with no other changes subse-
quent to September 1, 1949, as shown in Tables 34, 35 and 36.
Data on truck rates supplied by Gordon Stedman, Secretary-Manager,
Growers and Shippers League, Orlando, Florida.


60







Methods of Transportation for Florida, Citrus


In showing the relationship of transportation costs to volume
of fruit handled, volume sold through auctions and commission
houses and volume sold through private channels that was ship-
ped in privately owned trucks was omitted. Because almost
all volume transported by water was sold through auctions
and commission houses, shipments moving by water were auto-
matically eliminated. The remaining volume was sold through
private channels and was transported by either rail or hired
trucks. It was felt that shippers and receivers of this volume
could readily shift from rail to truck in the event of rate
changes.

Percent
KM1001*


90

80

70

60


o0

30


10


eonth


Fig. 8.-All citrus sold through private channels and transported by rail
or hired truck: Percentage of total volume moving by rail, by months,
seasons 1949-50 and 1950-51, to 16 selected cities where no reduction in rail
freight rates occurred during the period under study, as shown in Tables
34, 35 and 36.

In nine of the 13 cities where a decrease in rail rates occurred
the effective date of the decrease was November 1, 1950, and


61







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


no other change had occurred subsequently to September 1,
1949. Of the total volume sold through private channels and
transported by rail or hired truck, the percentage moving by
rail into these nine cities by months for the two seasons under
study is shown graphically in Figure 7. During November of
the second season the percentage moving by rail into these
cities increased by some 16 percent over November of the first
season, and remained consistently higher throughout the re-
mainder of the 1950-51 season.
The same tabulations were made for total volume shipped to
those 16 cities where no decrease in rail rates occurred during
the study. Results of these tabulations are shown graphically
in Figure 8. In only three months during the 1950-51 season
did percentage moving by rail exceed the level of rail movement
during the 1949-50 season, and in only one of these months did
the increase exceed 6 percent.
While factors such as weather and market conditions might
affect movement by rail or truck during any given period, the
fact that the percentage moving by rail was consistently higher
during the second season to points where a decrease in rail
freight rates occurred lends considerable support to the im-
portance of freight rates in deciding the method of transporta-
tion used.
It has been maintained on occasions that the services ren-
dered by railroads and trucks were so very different that a
change in rate levels for one, relative to the other, would have
no influence on the distribution of business between them. It
would be concluded at least tentatively on the basis of this sur-
vey that, given satisfactory service and competitive rates, both
rail and trucks have a part to play in moving fresh Florida
citrus to market. When a commodity is produced in so large
a volume over so long a season, moving to market through dif-
ferent channels, and is distributed to markets of varying sizes
over a wide geographic area, it is probable that some ship-
ments can be economically made by rail, others by truck. Under
these conditions, vigorous competition between the carriers will
assure each a share of the business and will be beneficial to the
citrus industry.


62







Methods of Transportation for Florida Citrus


ACNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was conducted by the University of Florida Agricultural
Experiment Station, under contract with the United States Department of
Agriculture. Research for the study was carried on under authority of
the Agricultural Marketing Act (RMA, Title II).
The authors wish to express their appreciation to all those who aided
in the preparation of this work. Among those who should receive specific
mention are Theo H. Ellis, R. W. Bonney, and George C. James, for their
aid in collecting the field data; W. F. Callander and H. A. Meyer for
their assistance in drawing the sample and for frequent consultations
throughout the course of the study; Louis Dooner of the Statistical Labora-
tory, for aiding with the compilation of most of the basic tabulations;
and H. G. Hamilton, Head, Department of Agricultural Economics, for
helping to outline and initiate the project and for frequent consultations
and general direction throughout the course of the study.
Donald E. Church, formerly Transportation Economist, Bureau of Agri-
cultural Economics, United States Department of Agriculture, took a
leading role in planning and initiating this study, and outlined many of the
major tabulations. Bennett S. White, Jr., Head of the Division of Market-
ing and Transportation Research of that bureau, together with W. S.
Hoofnagle, offered many helpful suggestions during the period of the
study. With Ezekiel Limmer, they read the final manuscript and offered
additional suggestions. To these and others in the Bureau who made
helpful suggestions, the authors are grateful.
Especial acknowledgment is due the marketing firms who so kindly
made their records available and to various members of the trade who were
consulted on numerous points. Without their cooperation and assistance,
this work would not have been possible.


63









APPENDIX


EXPLANATION OF SAMPLING PROCEDURE

In drawing the sample of firms to be used in the study several
problems were encountered: No previous study of this type
had been made from which to obtain information regarding
type and size of sample required; various regions in the state
had different types and qualities of fruit and followed certain
practices in marketing that differed from other regions; and
the size of the firms, based on the volume of citrus handled dur-
ing the 1949-50 season, varied from more than 700,000 boxes
to less than 5,000 boxes.
Using the 1949-50 season annual report published by the
Citrus and Vegetable Inspection Division of the Florida Depart-
ment of Agriculture, which gives by county the names of all
shippers of fresh fruit and the volume of each kind of fruit
shipped, the state was divided into two principal strata. Pack-
inghouses in each were divided into six substrata on the basis
of volume of fruit handled. The two principal strata were (1)
Indian River counties (corresponding to Origin Area 1, Fig. 3)
and (2) all other counties shipping fresh citrus fruit. Shippers
of less than 20,000 boxes were omitted from the universe, leav-
ing a total of 199 firms from which to sample.
The number of records of shipments to be drawn from each
firm for each season was the number that it was thought one
enumerator could handle on the average in one day, which was
estimated at 150 records. On the assumption that each ship-
ment contained on the average of from 275 to 375 boxes (an
assumption which seemed justified on the basis of a preliminary
spot survey), one enumerator would cover shipments containing
from 45,000 to 55,000 boxes each day. A self-weighting pro-
portional sample was then designed with an overall sampling
rate of one-twelfth, which yielded approximately 8,500 ship-
ments for the 1949-50 season and about 10,500 for the 1950-51
season. The sampling rate within firms and the number of
firms to be sampled in each size group was so proportioned that
the product of the percentage of houses sampled and the sampling
rate within houses would yield the overall one-twelfth sample
desired. The data for the sample, together with the theoretical
and actual sampling ratios, are given in Appendix Table 1. The
sample included 45 houses and approximately 19,000 individual
shipments.









APPENDIX


EXPLANATION OF SAMPLING PROCEDURE

In drawing the sample of firms to be used in the study several
problems were encountered: No previous study of this type
had been made from which to obtain information regarding
type and size of sample required; various regions in the state
had different types and qualities of fruit and followed certain
practices in marketing that differed from other regions; and
the size of the firms, based on the volume of citrus handled dur-
ing the 1949-50 season, varied from more than 700,000 boxes
to less than 5,000 boxes.
Using the 1949-50 season annual report published by the
Citrus and Vegetable Inspection Division of the Florida Depart-
ment of Agriculture, which gives by county the names of all
shippers of fresh fruit and the volume of each kind of fruit
shipped, the state was divided into two principal strata. Pack-
inghouses in each were divided into six substrata on the basis
of volume of fruit handled. The two principal strata were (1)
Indian River counties (corresponding to Origin Area 1, Fig. 3)
and (2) all other counties shipping fresh citrus fruit. Shippers
of less than 20,000 boxes were omitted from the universe, leav-
ing a total of 199 firms from which to sample.
The number of records of shipments to be drawn from each
firm for each season was the number that it was thought one
enumerator could handle on the average in one day, which was
estimated at 150 records. On the assumption that each ship-
ment contained on the average of from 275 to 375 boxes (an
assumption which seemed justified on the basis of a preliminary
spot survey), one enumerator would cover shipments containing
from 45,000 to 55,000 boxes each day. A self-weighting pro-
portional sample was then designed with an overall sampling
rate of one-twelfth, which yielded approximately 8,500 ship-
ments for the 1949-50 season and about 10,500 for the 1950-51
season. The sampling rate within firms and the number of
firms to be sampled in each size group was so proportioned that
the product of the percentage of houses sampled and the sampling
rate within houses would yield the overall one-twelfth sample
desired. The data for the sample, together with the theoretical
and actual sampling ratios, are given in Appendix Table 1. The
sample included 45 houses and approximately 19,000 individual
shipments.













APPENDIX TABLE 1.-METHOD USED IN ARRIVING AT THE NUMBER OF HOUSES TO SAMPLE AND THE SAMPLING RATE
WITHIN HOUSES.

Substrata Overall Total Average Theoretical Sampling Ratio Actual Sampling Ratios Used
Sample of Number of Volume Number of Sampling Number of Sampling
(Range in Volume 1/12 Shippers per Houses in Rate within Houses in Rate within
per Shipper) in Group Shipper Samrle H Huses Sample Houses

1,000 1,000 1,000
Boxes Boxes Boxes Percent Percent

20-100 .............. 413 90 55 8 100 9 100
100-200 ............ 722 58 150 15 33 11 50
200-300 ............... 413 20 248 8 21 7 25
300-400 .............. 389 14 334 7 15 6 20
400-500 ............ 251 7 430 5 11 4 16% Y
500 over ............ 512 10 614 10 8 8* 10


Total ................. 2,700 199 163 53 45

Although 10 houses were in this group, records were unavailable in two of them.


Oij
01







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


In the actual work the two components, namely, the number
of firms in the sample and the sampling rate within firms, were
adjusted somewhat in order to keep the sampling rate in frac-
tions that were easy to handle, as shown by the table. These
adjustments should have made no significant difference in the
results so long as the overall sampling rate was approximately
maintained.
The packinghouses usually kept a jacket-file on each shipment,
which included the following documents: (1) The order con-
firmation, (2) the bill of lading, (3) the inspection certificate,
(4) the account of sale, (5) the manifest, and (6) miscellaneous
documents showing diversion directions and other pertinent in-
formation concerning the shipment. These jacket-files were in
numerical order and were sampled systematically in each house,
using a random start with the interval based on the sampling
rate within houses. These documents were used in filling out
the information schedules discussed below.

THE INFORMATION SCHEDULE
A proposed form (Schedule 1, Appendix Fig. 1) was designed
and a preliminary study was conducted in several houses. This
form proved inadequate in both content and organization. Sched-
ules 2 and 3 (differing from each other only slightly in form
and content) were then constructed and while they were ade-
quate from the standpoint of content, they were discarded be-
cause of arrangement. In the revision of these two forms,
Schedule 4 was the result. All unnecessary writing was elimi-
nated, and spaces for filling in data were grouped in such
manner that errors were kept to a minimum while speed was
increased. This arrangement also made possible the punching
of IBM cards directly from the schedule.

EXPANDING THE SAMPLE
While the sample yielded approximately one-twelfth of the
fruit for the 1949-50 season, this factor could not be used in
expanding the sample to the universe. This was due to a con-
siderable increase in volume during the 1950-51 season, causing
many of the houses appearing in the sample to fall in larger
size groups. In using the same sampling rate within firms for
both seasons, a larger percentage of fruit was obtained during
the second season. Therefore, it was decided to base the ex-
pansion factor on the ratio of the volume of fruit obtained in


66










SCHEDULE 2


i mroa iT sc nsiuu ro il oR TA m O*T I f m nm lP, Ma
y opD m M Tl IC KO 1. OsoDAt EMuI T_____E_____ --s_ __D


dYo M'l0 .. t -k__


L. Qwrputnit, _bo | ors..,...__ I -eu-ri.., -bo--s.
1. Commaty ------------- 1 st point--

2. TIP eot oi Ml ..j tok r tn. I o Ok t. W T of ir ( ) 00 1 ( ) 5 '. t )k T (3) Trk h by Ot _
-M"a.tial tr (I) n-y-. to ck 1i (5) Tr1k 0l0a 17 .oaClr0 I (6) Vt.-_

3. Tpottlo t. at d n ton (U owd d 1 o mlt chIeG_- r1m.r (ni M t d ir n oIo IId
n0 ot( n0M0 In tfri ot oh.* I --s 0 t chI )-S)9I oth9 r I6- 1 tot -

5.. -_ __0 ot 0i10 os ;a __ mU a bag o a Ijt 119__- ll ..1__ ---


(9) iQa o n. re or ne8 for pooi8ble fur 0.0to.o to o t t ___ __________________

atl. Toul ta ti ht itn Mnd o p ____ bld


(b) -of Io B- ; --------- 9. .0. o p.-f_-----

ea rbrr k - (b) bat on ( ti I L
(b)ty) I--.. )
6. po o0 Ma r.0.0. p PaPtb__0_i on -onig. ei o nrgooro 11l fm thisw_ prinst-
u _4 I OUM I don't or. ( l 8brs oPen (1) tllr i_______ (e) oaln nl.r

7. 4id swmoi or 00a qtb pl00 07p of crrn T. ; 0 o._. (3) i9nd.ben nolT.r ; (9) edoiion houO

If 08 did ht0 pslUbeOo.n opp0 to only bhi 8op90 0orl (5) ohb ______ ; ()_ dom't L, 0'
.p0t. tP .lb_ 3.) s0. c.0n0.0t)di (11 0ret 0_______ ( 2) booo____M__

11. Ti, of sl.; (1) (.O.s. noionog moint_ (2) eooipnoo (9) d*Utmrd bis_

() -oll ; (s) oth.r____ ( dt o__
-1. oas 4o nl di0ertt (1) e___; (2) No_; (3) not no_

13. 0. a8 rode of truNorto n to t --his sh r dtem-n ?

(1) on eronl ) cr0otanlno frerloor'; ss rT)
(d) Plt ), o 'or 91)


Ooto 00OO92 oOo~:ooA


SCHEDULE 4


I-W-ATI. S-H .LI R o0 Aimm0 90 T 0 T- i.0 P 0 PI- IX050


mTIO CLE rF omG DAT* FRTt SH fTElT; Do Ua

1. JDket MIuar
2. D00 of S0hpnt Ho.__Dta7 3- Db of 880
L. Iqalolont 1.6 0h. bo.,s ored by bill of aing Gr-arIt _____
on0.i,0 ib;T o ,0 I _- Totl_
Toh. 0l 190 f.it f roo oSm.r o U, I Te ___o ___
5. sh0pl09 Point_________________ lppr______
6. Typ of 9u ln (1) (R2L; () SMhoip' tck ; (3) T-rck Nrd o
ulplr (l) i'a tnkI_ (5) -uk hirb by reiv~r
(6) 0atr_; (7) T0k0-0lr_;i (B) Tok-r0l-9.
7. T-rlomrtion o0l frmight at... mfrtngtioon (9I Uod o0
tod. In (rhtat ah0oeY)s l ou) r e0orgo. ; totl______


B. 1E9 of t 80 011 0 .-boa -1o.; Pms 8.1
b8a48i boo t-4-- bo__; III. d -2m boofo
bao, m b-, -d i- ._; -uk__.
9. ToUl orton -lit -d oandt of bou


10. RKIT




(C) A- I. hipln Wnt
0r (b) C- 3- _





We -rIt .wB
900t00 .aI (1) _jrok78 ._8) 0 3
(() Tp. of )ur(0u0(r; (a) .rOolo0r_8 (b) C(99n S tort(.
(c) Indtpendent ,toOl.l. other_ Don't 0no
(3) TyP ofr a1 (9) 7rO.B._ (b) 0F..0. oIllr-
() ll_______________________________________________
nation (.) Bllld di4t_ () Roor _____
(4Mulon SM (9) B11.d dinrt I (b) oll.r_
2. .o 0l0at do0T (1) fTtJ (2) to; (3) 0ot o n_
l], 5.0 of 1 0truuportto0 t o 4 9ti dn'nT
( o) 110 botilot frm0 r0l0m (1)
(b) a fT. iadr(.0ndl0 of nPIr'. 0 ()_______________
(e) on M Jalwont of 8000r. ())
(4) don't kbow (l)
1k. ogu 9w0crd ot4*e*.a


1. vSImW ___

2. 7M0 mOFo cIOT


3. sIerro O_____

3. 09C0 MERRI090



*) TmruckM by reiDl r _"


1) -1 _____



0) 0re r -
a) otna
Tom. _

4) Or.s. Hss TH___N
7. fIOOFD 0(0 n
.) BomO_
0) 3MSll bog.

o) BO/9 Pno Mi _______
0) Boms aod I/9 9go8

I) B.0, 82/U P. ---

b) -1
6. ToaSlOlRTATO CoT,

0) 0.090g. (if ot i0oeo.0dr____
d) -


9. Trso0mO-TIO- 0IROl

a) coot yr 0 _









2) .0Iva ll

a)b .- p
)) 0 1





c) T =at i
b) Lour..






1h. ft B dM _
1) 00001 .5___



Iip~nt Storo S~

a ) O 0..
0) 70.08.4ROU -h

0) 0080 o ooLU
9) tod) I o Id to.
b) 0oll0 -



2) (00.lo 8 Rol, -





u. MT3 fw oA
1 ). bu.OO -r I a





*. DnoAToEn)W 8 I.0.05


Appendix Fig. 1.-Evolution of the information schedule used in the survey.


SCHEDULE I


SCHEDULE 3


'1l







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


each size group in the sample to the volume of fruit in this
same size group as shown by the annual report of the Citrus
and Vegetable Inspection Division of the Florida Department
of Agriculture. This report had by now been published for the
1950-51 season, making it possible to ascertain the size group
of each house during the second season and the total volume of
fruit shipped by the houses in each group.
In following this procedure a separate expansion factor was
obtained for each season and for each size group. After the
data were placed on IBM cards each shipment was expanded by
its appropriate expansion factor in preparation for tabulation.

EVALUATION OF PROCEDURE
Originally this survey was to have included the transportation
of certain vegetables and processed citrus products as well as
fresh citrus. Inasmuch as it was reduced to include only fresh
citrus, with the possibility that the other phases would be under-
taken in the future, this survey might be looked upon as a pilot
study. With this in mind, it is believed that an appraisal of
the method of procedure used in this study will be of value.
Prior to drawing the sample a relationship was thought to
exist between the size of the firm and the mode of transportation
used. Therefore, a stratified sample was employed. With the
exception of very small houses, it is now apparent that such a
relationship does not exist. Consequently, a straight random
sample would perhaps have served equally as well, while elimi-
nating the difficulties involved in using a stratified technique.
Had a stratified design not been used, the problems encountered
in expanding the sample would have been greatly reduced. As
previously mentioned, due to increased volume during 1950-51
many houses appeared in different size groups the second season.
This upset the procedure somewhat and involved considerable
time and effort in expanding the sample. This problem might
also have been eliminated or greatly reduced, even though a
stratified technique was used, had the sample been based on a
season or seasons other than 1949-50. Production declined
sharply during that season because of a severe hurricane in the
fall of 1949. Perhaps an average of three or four seasons would
have been more representative.
A more thorough spot check of the records in houses of vari-
ous sizes and locations prior to drawing the sample might have
yielded information that would have led to the use of a different


68







Methods of Transportation for Florida Citrus


method of procedure. In addition, this check of records would
have facilitated the designing of an information schedule in the
beginning, saving considerable time later on.
Although a different method of procedure would probably
not have yielded more accurate information than that obtained
by the method used, it might have afforded information of equal
value at the expense of less time and effort.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER AVAILABLE STATISTICS
To test the reliability of the data obtained in the survey, cer-
tain comparisons were made with other available statistics.
From the "100 cities" group in the Market News Service report
on Fruit and Vegetables, published by the United States De-
partment of Agriculture and the Florida State Marketing Bureau,
those cities receiving 100,000 boxes or more annually were
chosen (as given in Appendix Tables 2 and 3). Unloads by rail
and water in the principal markets as reported by the Market
News Service were then converted to boxes on the basis of 500
boxes per unload. This volume was compared with the volume
shipped to these markets as shown by the sample expanded to
the universe. These results are given in Appendix Table 2.
Although the overall total of citrus fruit shipped by rail and
water varied little as between the Market News Service and the
Survey, there were rather large discrepancies in certain cities.
These discrepancies were probably due to one of two reasons
and in some cases perhaps to both. First, there was a substantial
part of the citrus shipped f.o.b. over which the buyer exercised
control with respect to final destination. The shipper's file did
not include information relating to this control. Second, ship-
pers in general use more or less selective methods for market-
ing their products. For example, one shipper might sell most
of his fruit through the auction market, another might sell large
quantities to smaller cities in the East, and still another might
sell in volume to smaller cities in the Central and North Central
regions. Certain shippers also sell heavy on joint account with
very few receivers who are located, in general, in a few cities.
For these reasons, in the event of future studies of this type,
it is recommended that a larger number of shippers be included
in the sample, even at the expense of taking fewer samples in
each house.
A similar comparison was made of fruit shipped to the prin-
cipal markets by truck (Appendix Table 3). Although the total


69








70


Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


APPENDIX TABLE 2.-ALL CITRUS: COMPARISON OF VOLUME SHIPPED TO
PRINCIPAL MARKETS BY RAIL AND WATER AS SHOWN BY TRANSPORTATION
SURVEY AND AS REPORTED BY MARKET NEWS SERVICE (AVERAGE FOR
1949-50 AND 1950-51).

Transportation Market News Ratio
City Survey Service I
Boxes Boxes

Baltimore, Md. ......................... 408,540 608,000 1 .67
Boston, Mass. ........................... 1,075,890 1,389,250 .77
Buffalo, N. Y ........................... 138,010 190.000 | .73
Chicago, Ill .............................. 1,037.987 1,114,500 .93
Cincinnati, Ohio .....-............. 652,710 562,250 1.16
Cleveland, Ohio --.... -............ 657.810 605,250 1.01
Detroit, Mich. ..................... ... 1,119,559 900,500 1.24
Milwaukee, Wis ...-...............- 93,809 133.500 .70
New York. N. Y ....................- 5,861.607 5,857,500 1.00
Philadelphia, Pa. ..................... 2,419.998 1,888,250 1.28
Pittsburgh, Pa. ....-............ ..... 464,084 423.750 1.10
St. Louis, Mo. ......-...............-..... 339.979 382.500 .89
Washington, D. C ........... .... .193,958 I 186.000 1.04
Atlanta, Ga. ...........................- 142.676 155,250 .92
Memphis, Tenn. -................- ... 202,636 225.250 .90
Nashville, Tenn. .............-..-.. 214.894 199,000 1.08
Louisville, Ky. .............---..... 135,559 111,750 1.21


Total ...................................... 15,164,244 14,952,050 1.01


APPENDIX TABLE 3.-ALL CITRUS: COMPARISON OF VOLUME SHIPPED TO
PRINCIPAL MARKETS BY TRUCK AS SHOWN BY TRANSPORTATION SURVEY
AND AS REPORTED BY MARKET NEWS SERVICE (AVERAGE FOR 1949-50 AND
1950-51).
Transportation Market News Ratio
City Survey Service
Boxes Boxes

Baltimore, Md. ......................... 169,500 304,000 .56
Boston, Mass. ......................... 199,500 200,500 1.00
Buffalo, N. Y. ............................ 119,500 171,000 .70
Chicago, Ill ................---............. 788,500 838.500 .94
Cincinnati, Ohio .-.....------------. 103,000 113,500 .91
Cleveland. Ohio .------------.. 99.000 100,000 .99
Detroit, Mich ...........- ........ 409.000 122,500 3.34
Houston, Texas ..................... 59,000 119.000 .50
Minn. & St. Paul, Minn ....... 80,000 116,000 .69
New Orleans, La. .....--............ 359.000 160,000 2.24
New York, N. Y .....................--- 619,000 1,069.000 .58
Philadelphia, Pa. .................... 255.000 406,000 .63
Pittsburgh, Pa .....---------- 316,500 419,000 .76
St. Louis, Mo. --------.................... 102.000 127,000 .80
Washington, D. C. ...........-...... 447,500 296,000 1.51
Atlanta, Ga .---..-----...................... 579.000 648,000 .89
Birmingham, Ala. ----..........-. 233,000 320.000 .73
Louisville, Ky --...........--.........- 229,000 186,000 1.23


Total ....--. ....... .... ................ 5,166,000 5,716,000 .90







Methods of Transportation for Florida Citrus


volume shipped by truck does not compare as favorably as that
shipped by rail and water, it is suspected that those houses
shipping less than 20,000 boxes ship a larger proportion by truck
than by rail. In omitting these houses from the sample this
volume did not appear.
In comparing truck shipments between the two sources of
information, the discrepancies noted could be due to several
reasons. Unlike the unloads by rail and water, which are re-
ported by the carriers at point of destination, information con-
cerning truck shipments as reported by the Market News Service
is obtained from the truckers as they pass the Florida road
guard stations. From a documentary standpoint, this informa-
tion probably is not as reliable as railroad waybills. On the
other hand, information concerning truck distribution in the
Survey was obtained from bills of lading, order confirmations
and inspection reports. Hence, it is believed to be more reliable
than data obtained at the road guard stations.
Also, in the case of truck shipments, differences might appear
between the Market News Service Report and the Survey be-
cause of converting boxes to unloads on the basis of 500 boxes
per unload.
In the case of pool shipments (those shipments with fruit for
several receivers on one truck), the Survey showed the number
and location of receivers and volume of fruit going to each,
whereas road guard stations might not obtain this breakdown.
A third comparison was made, on the basis of distance traveled
per car, transportation cost per car and transportation costs per
cwt. between the data in the Survey and that reported in the
1 percent sample, published by the Interstate Commerce Com-
mission (Appendix Table 4). While not shown in the table,
distance comparisons between the two sources were much closer
in general than were the cost comparisons. This was partly due
to the fact that all shipments in the Survey entered into the
mileage comparison, while only those shipments on which freight
charges were prepaid entered into the cost comparisons. In
those states receiving a heavy volume of fruit the cost ratios
between the two sources also were very close, but this was not
necessarily the case in states receiving very little volume. In
North Carolina, for example, (Ratio 2.14) only two cars appeared
in the I.C.C. sample, while 88 shipments appeared in the Survey.
A further comparison was made between the Survey and data
on transportation appearing in the annual reports of the Fruit


71








72


Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


APPENDIX TABLE 4.-ALL CITRUS: COMPARISON OF TRANSPORTATION COST
PER CAR AND TRANSPORTATION COST PER CWT. AS SHOWN BY TRANSPORTA-
TION SURVEY AND AS REPORTED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
ONE PERCENT SAMPLE (CALENDAR YEAR 1950).

State of Cost per Car Cost per Cwt.
Destination 1 [ ]
I Survey I.C.C. I Ratio Survey I I.C.C. Ratio

Massachusetts ........... $594 $562 1.06 $1.34 $1.26 1.06
Rhode Island ..... 565 567 1.00 1.30 1.28 1.02
Connecticut ................ 564 560 1.01 1.35 1.27 1.06
New York ................... 501 496 1.01 1.08 1.07 1.01
New Jersey .................. 492 479 1.03 1.11 1.07 1.04
Pennsylvania ............. 498 486 1.03 1.05 1.05 1.00
Ohio ............................... 595 496 1.20 1.29 1.09 1.18
Illinois ....................... 544 497 1.10 1.25 1.08 1.16
Michigan .-.................. 654 583 1.12 1.47 1.27 1.16
Missouri ........ ............. 564 478 1.18 1.23 1.14 1.08
Maryland ...-............ 533 451 1.18 1.24 .97 1.28
North Carolina ............ 329 154 2.14 .85 I .48 1.77
Georgia ...- .............. 181 144 1.26 .49 .41 1.20

Tennessee ...................... 424 230 1.84 .92 .63 1.46
Louisiana ..............- 290 234 1.24 .67 .59 1.14


APPENDIX TABLE 5.-ALL CITRUS: COMPARISON OF VOLUME SHIPPED BY
TYPE OF CARRIER AS SHOWN BY THE TRANSPORTATION SURVEY AND AS
REPORTED BY THE FRUIT AND VEGETABLE INSPECTION DIVISION OF THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1949-50 AND 1950-51 SEASONS.

Oranges Grapefruit Tangerines
IInspec-1 Inspec-1 i Inspec-
Sur- tion Sur- tion Sur- i Sur- tion
Type of vey Re- Ratio vey Re- Ratio vey Re- Ratio
Carrier I port I port port
1,000 1,000 1,000 1,00 1,000 1,000 1,000
Boxes Boxes Boxes Boxes_ Boxes Boxes
1949-50 Season

Rail ........ 8,613 8,295 1.04 4,617 4,653 .99 1,475 1,269 1.16
Truck ... 9,661 10,637 .91 3,565 3,735 .95 1,213 1,411 .86
Boat ..... 1,780 1,517 1.17 892 827 1.08 122 201 .61


Total ...... 20,04 20,449 .98 9,074 9215 .98 2,810 2,881 .98
1950-51 Season

Rail .....- 12,773 12,289 1.04 8,663 8,665 1.00 1,511 1,512 1.00
Truck -... 8,301 9,185 .90 5,124 5,074 1.00 1,133 1,181 .96
Boat ... 5 6 12 .50


Total ...... 21,079 21,474 .98 13,793 13,751 1.00 2,644 2,693 .98







Methods of Transportation for Florida Citrus


and Vegetable Inspection Division of the Florida Department
of Agriculture (Appendix Table 5). While, by virtue of the
method used in expanding the sample, total shipments by all
methods of transportation, as shown by these two sources, were
equal (the Survey was approximately 2 percent short due to
omission of houses under 20,000 boxes), it is significant that the
percentage breakdown by type of carrier also was very close.
Although comparing the Survey with other sources of informa-
tion produced variations for individual cities, the closeness of
the data in the Survey and that in the I.C.C. sample lend con-
siderable support to the accuracy of the Survey. Also, the fact
that the overall percentage distributed by the various modes of
transportation was approximately the same as that shown by
other official reports lends further support to the accuracy of
the Survey.
Results of the Survey have been'issued in two sections. The
first consisted of the detailed statistical findings published in
mimeographed form.1 The initial report contains 108 separate
tabulations which, in most cases, involved the entire 19,000 in-
dividual shipments. This mimeographed report may be obtained
by writing the Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Uni-
versity of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
The present bulletin, which is the second report issued covering
the Survey, is an interpretive report based mostly on the initial
publication. Wherever possible individual tables have been
eliminated or condensed, and in several instances two or more
tables have been summarized and incorporated into one. A few
additional tabulations have been added in this interpretive report
where it was felt they were needed to explain the results more
fully.

Brooker, Marvin A., Donald E. Church, and Kenneth M. Gilbraith,
"Transportation of Fresh Citrus from Florida," Statistical Findings, Special
Report, Agricultural Economics, Series 52-6, University of Florida Agri-
cultural Experiment Station, Gainesville, Florida, August, 1952.


73








APPENDIX TABLE 6.-ALL CITRUS: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF VOLUME SHIPPED BY TYPE OF SALE AND SIZE OF CITY,*
BY STATE (AVERAGE FOR 1949-50 AND 1950-51 SEASONS).


Private with Broker
Large Small
Cities Cities


Percent

M aine .................. ......
New Hampshire ..........
Vermont ..............
Massachusetts ............ 7.7
Rhode Island .........-... 18.7
Connecticut ....-...- 46.4
New York ......-............. 8.1
New Jersey ............ 52.1
Pennsylvania .............. 6.0
Ohio .............................. 11.2
Indiana ..........-............... 19.8
Illinois ........................- 20.7
Michigan ................... 9.1
Wisconsin ................. 63.2
Minnesota .................... 59.0
Iowa ........................... 93.8
Missouri .............. .17.8
North Dakota ...........
South Dakota .............
Nebraska ..................... 59.9
Kansas ...-....................-- 20.1
Delaware ...........-.......
Maryland ................. 23.1
Virginia ........................ 67.1
West Virginia ............
North Carolina .......... 24.5
South Carolina ..........
Georgia ...............- 17.8


t Percent

42.7

100.0
6.7
1.7
84.7
59.9
15.9
15.2
37.9
43.2
48.6
94.2
76.6
39.7
45.2
55.1
64.1
31.0
37.3
65.3

22.3
53.7
41.0
48.9
51.8
15.3


Type of Sales and Size of City
SCommission
Private Direct Auction** House** To
Large Small Large Large Large
Cities Cities Cities Cities I Cities
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent


47.8
35.7
43.7
13.0
47.9
25.3
39.2
78.4
32.0
64.8
36.8
38.2
6.2
56.8


40.1
79.9
100.0
50.8
32.9

75.5

74.4


57.3


93.3
98.3
15.3
40.1
84.1
82.6
59.8
56.8
51.4
5.8
23.4
60.3
54.8
44.9
35.9
69.0
62.7
34.7
100.0
77.7
46.3
59.0
51.0
48.2
84.7


27.4
6.9

72.8

59.5
46.0

24.2
20.6

1.2


18.8




13.0


17.1
38.7
9.9
6.1

9.2
3.6
1.8
23.1
5.5

1.6

6.6




13.1



7.8


100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

100
100
100
100
100

100

100


Continued.


State


tal


-1


rf^
0










't3






a
I
TO


Small
Cities
Percent

100

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100





APPENDIX TABLE 6.-ALL CITRUS: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF VOLUME SHIPPED BY TYPE OF SALE AND SIZE OF CITY,*
BY STATE (AVERAGE FOR 1949-50 AND 1950-51 SEASONS)-CONCLUDED.


State




Florida ........................
Washington, D. C ....
Kentucky ..................
Tennessee .................
Alabama .................
Mississippi ........--
Arkansas .....................
Louisiana ..................
Oklahoma ..................
Texas .......................
M ontana ......................
Idaho .......................
Wyoming .... .........
Colorado ................
Nevada ...................
A rizona ...................
Utah ............................
New Mexico ..........-
Washington ...........
Oregon ........................
California ............

Canada ...................
Unknown ....................


All States ...................


Private with Broker
Large Small
Cities Cities


Percent

7.4
39.3
36.3
65.4
35.2

31.3
30.0
29.7
72.1


72.4


56.7


28.4
16.7


19.0


Percent

26.8

74.7
57.7
31.0
48.4
62.3
63.1
63.9
92.8
61.5
44.9

89.2


75.6
64.6


47.2


Type of Sales and Size of City
Commission
Private Direct Auction** House** Total
Large Small Large Large Large Small
Cities Cities Cities Cities Cities Cities


Percent

90.9
46.0
60.5
34.4
64.8

68.7
68.4
68.8
27.9


27.6

100.0
43.3

39.4
71.6
83.3


37.5


Percent

73.1

25.3
42.3
69.0
51.6
37.7
36.9
36.1
7.2
38.5
55.1
100.0
10.8


Percent

.4


Percent

1.3
14.7
3.2
.2


1.6
1.5


100.0

24.2
35.4


52.6


35.9
]


7.8


Percent

100
100
100
100
100

100
100
100
100


100

100
100

100
100
100


100
1_


Percent

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100


100

100
100


100


* Large cities: 100,000 population or over; small cities, less than 100,000 population.
** No sales by auction, and only insignificant sales through Commission Houses in small cities.


0
*0


0

0

0


0



v-4.


I ~


1 I I









APPENDIX TABLE 7.-ALL CITRUS: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION AMONG CARRIERS OF FRUIT SOLD BY PRIVATE SALE WITH
BROKERS, BY SIZE OF CITY AND BY STATE. (AVERAGE FOR 1949-50 AND 1950-51 SEASONS.)

Type of Carrier and Size of City
Privately Trucks Hired Trucks Hired
State Rail** Owned Trucks by Shipper by Buyer All Carriers
Large Small Large Small Large Small Large Small Large Small
Cities Cities Cities Cities Cities Cities Cities Cities Cities Cities
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent -.

Maine ...................... 67.0 20.9 12.1 100
New Hampshire ...
Vermont ................. 94.0 6.0 100
Massachusetts ...... 91.5 100.0 .5 5.5 2.5 100 100
Rhode Island -...... 91.5 5.1 3.4 100.0 100 100
Connecticut .......... 86.1 70.7 12.1 29.3 1.8 100 100
New York ............ 56.7 45.8 3.4 25.9 36.8 14.0 17.4 100 100
New Jersey ......... 61.2 48.3 2.2 32.7 51.7 3.9 100 100
Pennsylvania ..... 62.6 8.1 1.2 5.1 11.1 48.2 25.1 38.6 100 100
Ohio ...----.......--. 35.5 12.0 2.5 .6 29.9 60.3 32.1 27.1 100 100
Indiana .............. 12.9 28.8 37.4 13.6 8.9 23.1 40.8 34.5 100 100
Illinois ....... 74.7 16.8 3.0 3.2 15.9 27.8 6.4 52.2 100 100
Michigan ............ 35.3 41.3 5.1 4.4 5.0 37.4 54.6 16.9 100 100
Wisconsin ...... 72.7 79.0 1.8 22.5 18.9 4.8 .3 100 100'
Minnesota ........... 61.1 4.1 30.2 55.6 4.6 44.4 100 100
Iowa ...................... 31.5 79.9 63.8 20.1 4.7 100 100
Missouri ........-- ..-.... 54.0 51.1 40.7 19.8 5.3 29.1 100 100
North Dakota ...... i93.4 6.6 100
South Dakota .... 100.0 100
Nebraska ................ 9.2 35.0 11.9 45.4 23.7 33.5 41.3 100 100
Kansas .............. .... 64.8 100.0 35.2 100 100
Delaware ..............
Maryland .............. 64.9 10.8 44.1 24.3 55.9 100 100
Virginia .................. 26.6 18.3 37.0 13.1 5.6 6.9 30.8 61.7 100 100
West Virginia ....... 53.5 9.8 21.6 15.1 100
North Carolina ..- 48.0 29.9 26.6 21.7 10.7 2.4 14.7 46.0 100 100


Continued.


I




APPENDIX TABLE 7.-ALL CITRUS: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION AMONG CARRIERS OF FRUIT SOLD BY PRIVATE SALE WITH
BROKERS, BY SIZE OF CITY* AND BY STATE. (AVERAGE FOR 1949-50 AND 1950-51 SEASONS.)-CONCLUDED.

Type of Carrier and Size of City


State




South Carolina .....-
Georgia ..............
Florida ..................
Washington, D. C...
Kentucky .............
Tennessee .........-..
Alabama .............
Mississippi ..........
Arkansas ...............
Louisiana .........-....
Oklahoma ............
Texas ................ ...
Montana .............
Idaho ....................
Wyoming ......--...
Colorado ...............
Nevada ................
Arizona .............
Utah ......................
New Mexico .........
Washington ..........
Oregon ....................
California ..........

Canada ...................
Unknown ..............


All States ............


Privately Trucks Hired Trucks Hired
Rail** Owned Trucks by Shipper by Buyer All Carriers


Large Small Large I Small Large Small Laige Small Large Small
Cities Cities Cities Cities Cities Cit es Cities Cities Cities Cities
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent

16.4 41.5 4.9 37.2 100 0
36.6 50.5 20.7 8.1 16.7 3.2 26.0 38.2 100 100
17.9 4.7 22.6 57.8 .2 37.5 59.3 100 100
10.1 4.9 72.9 12.1 100
32.7 27.3 2.4 3.7 19.6 34.0 45.3 35.0 100 100
47.6 59.1 5.6 7.5 11.6 3.8 35.8 29.6 100 100
24.3 6.9 12.3 14.3 3.2 60.2 78.8 100 100
21.4 24.9 10.4 43.3 100
22.5 11.8 39.3 27.1 60.7 38.6 100 100
39.3 2.0 23.7 66.3 35.0 33.7 100 100
17.1 16.6 92.2 10.8 55.5 7.8 100 100
.8 10.3 6.2 64.9 48.5 24.0 45.3 100 100 .
50.8 49.2 100
100.0 100

54.9 39.7 2.3 2.2 40.6 60.3 100 100


89.0 11.0 100

100.0 100
100.0 100
100.0 100

90.9 1.2 2.1 5.8 100
39.0 2.5 2.8 55.7 100


47.1 42.5 7.5 11.2 21.5 15.8 23.9 30.5 100 100


* Large cities: 100,000 population or over; small cities, less than 100,000 population.
** Includes a small volume shipped by water and various combinations.


I








APPENDIX TABLE 8.-ALL CITRUS: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION AMONG CARRIERS OF FRUIT SOLD BY DIRECT PRIVATE SALE,
BY SIZE OF CITY* AND BY STATE (AVERAGE FOR 1949-50 AND 1950-51 SEASONS).


State


Rail**
Large Small
Cities Cities
Percent Percent


Maine .................
New Hampshire ....
Vermont ..................
Massachusetts ...... 84.4
Rhode Island .......... 64.0
Connecticut ........... 81.7
New York ............ 67.0
New Jersey ........... 69.5
Pennsylvania ...... 59.4
Ohio ...................... 51.7
Indiana ............... 14.8
Illinois ................ 54.9
Michigan .......-.... 59.8
Wisconsin -............ 56.1
Minnesota ...-.......... 41.5
Iow a .....................
Missouri ............... 64.2
North Dakota ........
South Dakota ........
Nebraska ........... 8.4
Kansas ...........-- ...
Delaware .........
Maryland .............. 62.1
Virginia ............ 20.3
West Virginia .......
North Carolina -.... 33.1
South Carolina ...-..
Georgia ....... ......... 16.5


86.6


96.5
68.5

43.9
66.8
18.9
7.5
5.8
30.3

35.5
15.1
11.9
15.3



40.8
4.7
31,2
28.5
40.8
28.8
9.3


Type of C
Privately
Owned Trucks
Large Small I
Cities Cities
Percent Percent P


1.1
.9

1.1
1.8
8.4
.3
.8

1.5

.6


4.6

100.0
2.6
7.0

26.6

34.2


3.5

31.8
11.6
.8
14.1
17.8
43.5
2.0
37.2

18.8
.2
27.0
37.0
2.7
11.1

29.6
55.7
21.6
17.9
28.0
38.3
71.1


carrier and Size of City


Trucks Hired Trucks Hired
by Shipper by Buyer All Ca:
Large Small Large Small Large
Cities Cities Cities Cities Cities
percent Percent Percent Percent Percent

12.8 .6


13.7 1.9 100
23.9 16.7 12.1 14.8 100
10.7 6.5 68.2 100
8.3 11.4 23.8 33.1 100
22.3 3.4 8.2 29.0 100
12.6 16.2 26.9 50.8 100
23.5 45.7 23.0 29.0 100
11.6 3.6 65.2 47.1 100
20.5 40.7 24.3 27.0 100
1.0 26.5 38.4 36.3 100
43.5 43.9 21.0 100
3.2 53.8 66.1 100
100.0 70.3 17.6 100
18.9 5.7 16.3 52.0 100
63.0
97.3
8.8 87.0 80.1 100
28.0 55.5 72.0 44.5 100
29.6 100
18.1 17.2 39.6 100
10.6 5.2 62.1 42.0 100
5.1 48.5
1.0 1.3 39.3 29.9 100
12.3 20.6
5.1 3.5 44.2 16.1 100

Continued.


rriers
Small
Cities
Percent

100


100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100


-.





003.
















$"




APPENDIX TABLE 8.-ALL CITRUS: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION AMONG CARRIERS OF FRUIT SOLD BY DIRECT PRIVATE SALE,
BY SIZE OF CITY AND BY STATE (AVERAGE FOR 1949-50 AND 1950-51 SEASONS)-CONCLUDED.


Type of Carrier and Size of City
Privately Trucks Hired Trucks Hired
State Rail** Owned Trucks by Shipper by Buyer All Carriers
Large Small Large Small Large Small Large Small Large Small
Cities Cities Cities Cities Cities Cities Cities Cities Cities Cities


Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
Florida ................... .5 6.5 63.0 47.0 16.5 .9 20.0 45.6 100 100
Washington, D. C... 47.5 1.8 30.3 20.4 100
Kentucky ........... 36.5 26.1 .1 51.8 45.9 6.1 17.5 16.0 100 100
Tennessee ............... 53.7 20.4 15.0 55.1 5.4 25.9 24.5 100 100
Alabama ................ 12.0 3.6 11.2 22.6 1.3 6.9 75.5 66.9 100 100
Mississippi ............ 12.7 1.9 2.6 82.8 100
Arkansas ....-....... 9.3 5.5 82.1 62.3 22.9 17.9 100 100
Louisiana .......... 6.7 .9 6.2 4.8 68.7 87.6 25.1 100 100
Oklahoma .............. 21.8 40.5 24.0 13.7 100.0 100 100
Texas .................... 15.6 7.9 78.9 18.7 57.8 21.1 100 100
Montana .................. 100.0 100
Idaho ..................... 92.8 7.2 100
Wyoming ...... ......... 38.9 5.1 56.0 100
Colorado ................. 995.6 100.0 4.4 100 100
Nevada ....................
Arizona .................. 100.0 100
Utah .................. 35.1 19.1 45.8 100
New Mexico ..........
Washington ........... 96.4 3.6 100
Oregon ..........-..... 100.0 100
California ..... ... 57.4 42.6 100.0 100 100

Canada ................ 67.7 13.7 3.6 15.0 100
Unknown ............. 33.9 31.2 9.7 25.2 100


All States -....... 47.9 26.6 7.7 28.6 12.8 9.4 31.6 35.4 100 100


* Large cities: 100,000 population or over; small cities, less than 100.000 population.
** Rail, water and combinations.


0
0


0
is





0
gS







0
0

e~-.







80 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

APPENDIX TABLE 9.-ALL TYPES OF CITRUS: TRUCK RATES FROM WIN-
TER HAVEN, FLORIDA TO SOME PRINCIPAL MARKETS IN EFFECT DURING
THE 1949-50 AND 1950-51 SEASONS.


Destination City


Atlanta, Ga. ...................... ......
Baltimore, Md. .................... ....
Birmingham, Ala. ................
Boston, Mass. ..............................
Buffalo, New York ...................
Charlotte, N. C. .....................
Chicago, Ill ........-........................
Cincinnati, Ohio .......-...............
Cleveland, Ohio ...................
Denver, Colo. .........................
Detroit, Mich. ........................-..-
Houston, Texas ..............-.........
Kansas City, Mo. -.......--.....--...
Louisville, Ky. .....-....................
Memphis, Tenn ...........--.........
Milwaukee, Wis. .....................
Minneapolis, Minn ...............
New Orleans, La ..................-...
New York, N. Y. ....................-
Omaha, Neb. ......... .-...............-
Philadelphia, Pa ..................
Pittsburgh, Pa. ...........-.....-....
St. Paul, Minn. ....... -- .........-....
St. Louis, Mo. .................-..-...
Washington, D. C. -........ .........-


Rate per 100 Pounds
Prior to March 19, I
1951 I March 19, 1951


$ .50
.85
.65
1.25
1.20
.65
1.00
1.00
1.20
1.75
1.20
1.05
1.25
1.00
.75
1.15
1.35
.70
1.05
1.35
1.00
1.15
1.35
1.00
.80


$ .60
1.00
.75
1.35
1.30
.75
1.15
1.10
1.30
1.85
1.30
1.20
1.35
1.10
.85
1.25
1.45
.80
1.15
1.45
1.10
1.20
1.45
1.10
.95




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